Christopher Hitchens debates Alister McGrath
Let me start out saying that I am not a fan of Hitchens' politics. However, there is a reason why he does this for a living, while I am a mere amateur.
I would like to use this video to kick off the discussion of one of Hitchens' points. Religion is totalitarianism; it requires complete obedience to the figurehead, even to the point of outlawing certain thoughts. It utilizes a pervasive surveilance system to ensure obedience--God is always watching, always judging. It demands loyalty to the leader as the supreme in morality, over and above all other moral dictates. It has been previously argued, here and elsewhere, that religion is no worse than atheism from a moral stance, as many of the most despotic regimes of the modern world were atheist (Stalinist Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's regime). I argue that all forms of totalitarianism are morally wrong, including religion.
Totalitarianism supercedes all moral constraints with a duty to the leader, whether that leader be god (who makes his wishes know via fallible humans or fallible revelation) or man. The Bible is full of atrocities (genocide, slavery, infaticide, etc.) performed out of loyalty to a totalitarian God, and also full of punishments for those who dare revolt against the regime. Loving Jesus himself brought about the ultimate totalitarian notion of eternal punishment for thoughtcrime--you must believe or you will burn in everlasting fire.
Stand with me in condemning totalitarianism in all its forms. Be it service to the Fuhrer or to a supposed god via his prophets and priests, it is evil and an affront to your human dignity.
October 18, 2007
Religion is Totalitarianism
An Important New Christian Apologetical Book is Now Available
October 17, 2007
Apologies Not Accepted!
I once had a friend named Mickey. He was a great guy, though underappreciated at the time. Like so many friends who grow up and part ways, we don’t see each other anymore. Oh, how the ages fly by—that is one lesson you learn from life. But I learned another, a more important lesson from my friend Mickey.
Mickey was one of a kind. He would come over and lounge around the house with the rest of us kids who occupied ourselves with less-than-constructive activities all summer long. We had great fun, but more than anything, Mickey got on our nerves because he broke half the things he touched. He was like “Chunk” from The Goonies.
He once stepped on our cat while walking upstairs. Another time, he crushed two Christmas lights that lit the walkway to our house. He broke two expensive lawn chairs by leaning back too far in them—and these are just a few things. Cassette tapes, tools, and dishes also came to be demolished with the calamitous touch of this oversized, Snickers-eating chum. Mickey was a Class-A klutz.
But Mickey was funny; just after every little mishap, he would say, breathing heavily and in a nerdy, fat boy’s voice, ”Oh, uh, sorry! I’ll pay for it!” He had a few other yucky tendencies too, like sweating profusely all over everything – and farting with the force of a category-1 hurricane – but this was all harmless fun in retrospect. It was actually hysterical. Mickey was a good guy. He still is, I hear.
But the other thing I learned from Mickey was that God must also be a pale-skinned, clumsy, fat kid with an eating disorder and a gland problem. No, just kidding. What I really learned from Mickey was that sometimes saying, “I’m sorry,” is not enough! When Mickey broke an expensive piece of stereo equipment we owned, mom and dad were furious. It took more than an apology to fix what was done—it took money from Mickey’s mom, which we got.
Now an apology is only good when it is followed by a resolution not to commit the same offense again. In Mickey’s case, he improved a little, but then again, he was still Mickey and always would be (what are you going to do, right?). As was the case with Mickey’s meaningless apologies, so it is with Christians and Christianity. We infidels get lots and lots of apologies for Christian shortcomings, but these apologies are totally un-redeemable.
My inbox is filled with emails from evangelical Christians making apologies for this, that, and the other. It’s always something as they apologize that I rejected Christianity without having a chance to know the “real Jesus,” that I was “soil with little root,” that I was ruined to Christianity by the radical Church of Christ from which I came, that I was not raised in or around family or friends of religion x, that I was driven away from the church by “cruel and divisive brethren,” that I was not taught well in preaching school, that I never had anyone take me to see a “real miracle,” that I was hurt inside from a personal tragedy, etc. The list is incredibly long.
Every step of the way, Christians are apologizing for something—for everyone else’s failures and for their own, but never for their deity’s failures. The apologies don’t mean a thing because no improvements can be made. Apologies for “bad Christians” are worthless because human nature is what it is. Humans will keep making the mistakes they make. There is nothing that can be done about that. And what about apologies from God? Well, of course, we get no apologies from that mystical being. God (if he existed) would owe the human race the biggest apology of all for bringing us into such an abhorrent existence. However, because the God of the Bible is like a big chemical company who refuses to be culpable for poisoning a small community’s water supply, you’ll get no apology from him. Allowing sick babies to stay on ventilators may move you and I to tears, but it doesn’t move God. So don’t expect an apology of any kind.
And what do we get in place of apologies from God? We get from Christians the ever popular “we’re all sinners” contention. That sickening gab never ceases to weary me. I’m tired of Christians apologizing for their failures, for the church’s failures (both today and in the past), for my supposed failures, for my parent’s supposed failures, for my preaching school’s supposed failures, and for the alleged failures of the whole human race. I want accountability, damnit, not meaningless apologies! Christians, your apologies are NOT accepted! And don’t tell me that you’re sorry I feel that way!
(JH)
The Firepower of Debunking Christianity.
I just want to thank the team members and commenters who make DC what it is. There is some real firepower at DC in our common goal. Here we are in alphabetical order:
Edward T. Babinski has edited a book, written chapters for others and is somewhat of an expert in the issues pertaining to creationism and evolution. He seems to have his hands everywhere, a sort of hub for people who leave the fold. He first encouraged me, and I'll always be thankful, I think. ;-)
Dr. Hector Avalos, a Biblical scholar of the New Atheism.
Jason Long has a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and wrote two books, Biblical Nonsense, and The Religious Condition.
Joe E. Holman was a seminary trained minister who is writing a book describing his deconversion and highlighting the many problems there are for the Christian faith. I just read a rough draft of his deconversion story in his book and it's the most comprehensive and complete one I've ever read. Plus he teaches creative writing and this is reflected in his book. He maintains a website and an online forum.
John W. Loftus, me, *ahem* I have the near equivalent of a Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Religion, have taught apologetics at a Bible College, and I too wrote a book.
Lee Randolph, is my right hand man in many ways. He's a polymath and dabbles in Comparative Religions, ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean history and Mythology, Argument Analysis, Informal Logic, Cognitive Science, Philosophy, Game Theory and Information Technology. He has a great deal to share, and he helps maintain this blog.
Marlene Winell has a Ph.D. in psychology and specializes in helping people go through the process of deconverting. She wrote a book and she conducts seminars for people who leave the Christian faith.
Valerie Tarico has a Ph.D. in psychology and also wrote a book. Her specialty lies in the area of the psychology of beliefs, how we get them, and why the evangelical faith is so hard to shake.
That’s a pretty well-rounded group.
I am very pleased they have come on board and I greatly value their contributions. Of course, I wish some would contribute more often, but whenever I have a question, or whenever there is a person whom they can deal with better than me, I hook them up.
There are others who comment here, both skeptic and Christian, and I thank them all. Christians who visit here help to sharpen us, and I thank them for this. Skeptics who visit here do the same, and add to our combined knowledge.
I personally think this is a great place to discuss the ideas that separate us. I look forward every day to see what people have said. My aim is to make this a friendly place to debate, and I think that goal is being achieved. I also want DC to be a place where people who struggle with their faith can come to ask questions and learn. There are many such people in the church who dare not express themselves. At DC they can. If the church was more open to their questions they wouldn't have to visit DC to express them, and you all know the answers that we offer.
----------------
Past Contributors at DC Include:
How the Torture of Witches Revealed the Sexual Repression of Inquisitors
Austin Cline has a pretty disturbing set of images with a good discussion of the torture of witches. We've discussed it here before, but why did a loving God say, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live?" Why? Why not instead say, "thou shalt not torture or kill people who have different ideas than you," and say it as often as needed?
Stargazer's Story
Stargazer wrote a story which demands a wider audience:
I’ve spent nearly 20 years of my adult life believing what you so often state about the Spirit, being led by the spirit of God, etc. I grew up in a conservative evangelical setting, where even C.S. Lewis was considered ‘iffy,’ (he smoke, drank, and enjoyed bawdy jokes, you know!), but he was allowed. In my late teen years, I expanded my reading to other writers, and found my way eventually to where I felt most at home, with the mystics of the church. My intro to this world was through Evelyn Underhill, Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton—from there I found my way to the Theresas, John of the Cross, Julian, Hildegard, many others and eventually committed myself to a lay contemplative group connected to a Cistercian monastery. Over those same years my church experience and theological outlooks, at least to my mind at the time, broadened and deepened. Like you, the experiential became more foundational than the intellectual, and everything I read in scripture or in the writings of Christian authors and teachers was seen through the lense of my experience. After all, I had opened myself to the spirit of love, the spirit of God, and had come to trust that I would be led into the truth, since that was my deepest desire.
I became the standard by which all things were measured—my perceptions and understanding of the truth were a very subjective measure, and when my perceptions came into conflict with those of my fellow contemplatives, it began to raise more questions. We were all committed to God, we all supposedly desired truth, how did we come up with so many opposing ideas?
I was with that group for about 15 years, and then went into formal spiritual formation training with the goal of becoming a spiritual director (I blush now to think I even allowed myself to think I should do this!). While the experience was very positive in the relational aspect, I found myself beginning to wonder how on earth we could end up in such different places, using the same basic source for our beliefs.
The problem was that, essentially, we become our own ‘popes.’ Even when I would say that my relationship with God was born out by the evidence of experience, it still resulted in belief system—there were things I believed about God and things that I did not. You mentioned offering another option other than liberal and conservative views of scripture and belief—but I think what it comes down to is that it is just another system. And it again results in the cherry-picking that has been mentioned in various posts on this blog. It offers no more of an evidential support for belief in God than any other system of belief. We believe that God is love, we believe that the spirit guides us, we have felt this love and the spirit in our innermost being. Problem is…when I came to the point where I had to honestly admit I no longer believed in a personal god, I would still have that experience—but it was connected to things I would read about the cosmos, or when I would lay outside under the trees and just look at the world around me. I get the same sense of awe, the deep, heart-thrilling, take-your-breath-away sense of being overwhelmed just be the sheer beauty of life and the amazing fact that I am alive in all of this. Part of this comes, I am sure, from no longer having to feel like I have to get it “right” about god. That is done. Now, I just live and learn
I’ve been reading a recent book, Leaving Church, by Barbara Brown Taylor, an Episcopalian priest who resigned from parish work and is now teaching. She talks about how, for the first several years of her life, she remembers having tremendous joy in the natural world, experiencing a deep oneness with that world, and then says when she finally went to church for the first time at the age of seven, she “got the impression that the people who were there that morning had figured out a way of talking about their feeling (equating that with her experience). They seemed to know where it came from , who was responsible for it, what it meant, and how to respond to it.” When I read that and what followed, I felt very sad. Though for her it remained a positive experience, because it made her hungry for God, it also led her to a way of thinking and being from which she found later she needed to extricate herself. She now is at a place where God is much bigger to her than the church will normally allow, and my guess is if she continues on the path she is on, she may well find herself letting go of all the definitions.
But that is where I now find myself—I’m back in the world again, knowing that I’m a part of life. I want to know and understand as much as I can. I want to know about novas and supernovas, I want to learn some languages, I want to get back to my music, I want a telescope for Christmas, I want to know more about fractals—you name it, I want to know it. I feel like I have been in a cocoon far too long—it was often comfortable, familiar, warm, but dark. And the real me is finally allowed to be. All those spiritual experiences—they were wonderful at the time, but they kept me from asking my deeper questions.
October 16, 2007
A Psychiatrist on C.S. Lewis' Apologetic as an Answer to Why Christianity Flouishes
Hi. I’m new here, but I follow this site and have a few thoughts about this topic that I haven’t seen brought up yet. I am an atheist-leaning agnostic, a former fundamentalist, and a psychiatrist, so I hope I can bring that perspective to this discussion.
What I suggest as part of the reason for the flourishing of Christianity is apologetics – but not the “conscious”, logical sort of apologetics debated on this site, but rather a more “implicit” sort, more emotional and rhetorical (in the sense of classical rhetoric), that otherwise uncritical prospective believers come across.
I recently wrote my deconversion story and, as part of that process, went back and looked at some of the apologetics that I used to find convincing. What an interesting exercise! It is fascinating to re-examine these things, now that I am a much more critical reader, and note the assertions and bad arguments I used to accept.
Most significant for me was CS Lewis (like many people), especially his Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain. Here’s what I noticed:
It is quite noteworthy, I think, that Lewis does not begin with philosophical or evidential arguments about God or the Christian Bible. He instead argues from the basic human experience of guilt. He asks his readers to consider all of the times they have acted, or thought, selfishly, or done something they knew was wrong. This is a master rhetorical move, because it gets his readers into a state of affective arousal (we are social creatures, and all experience guilt), which makes them less critical. And then he pulls a bit of slight-of-hand, which it goes without saying I did not notice at the time.
(a) He defines “sin” extraordinarily broadly, encompassing anytime we have any bit of self interest in our actions (for example, if we take any pleasure in having done something good – i.e., the fact that *I* did something good – rather than pure egoless pleasure in the fact that *good was done*, that’s sin), as well as any “primitive” emotions, such as jealously (which implies selfishness) or irrational anger (“If you are angry with your brother…”). Since human beings cannot control what they feel, then obviously, by this definition, we are all sinners.
(b) He suggests that these experiences of shame and guilt are the truest and most accurate intuitions we have, so we should heed them. They imply what kind of creature we are. There is no irrational or misplaced guilt, for Lewis.
(c) He suggests that this is only the tip of the iceberg, that we are actually much, much worse than we realize. He does not even bother to argue this. He simply states, in Problem of Pain, that once we *feel* how bad we have acted, that something about us is really awful and unforgivable, then we will begin to see how pervasively wicked we really are.
Lewis then makes another Christian assertion, which is common (not unique to Lewis) but is almost never argued: that God cannot tolerate sin. Yet this seems curious and at least would seem to require an argument. Why not? Isn’t he God? Doesn’t he tolerate our “corruption” already, while we are alive? Why does he stop after 80 or so years? Lewis does make a somewhat oblique argument for it, when he suggests that “real” love, such as God has for us, “demands the perfection of the beloved.”
Love that does not wish its object to be perfect is disinterested, and therefore not real love, according to Lewis. Yet this, too, seems curious, and is inconsistent with human relationships: we wish those we care for to be the best they can be, yet accept their foibles nonetheless, indefinitely. We even laugh about them. Its what makes us interesting! But Lewis’ readers are not likely to notice this. Now that they are convinced how utterly corrupt they “really” are, being told they are loved fiercely by God (Lewis has a stirring passage describing this) is likely to engender even more guilt and a sense of undeservedness.
Taken together, if Lewis is effective (and his popularity suggests he is very effective) then it is likely because, it can be argued, he gets his readers into emotional arousal, taps into bad feelings they have about themselves, and then convinces them that they are much worse than they think and God will not tolerate even minor imperfections.
What out does a reader have at this point but accept the cure that Lewis offers?
I think some psychology can shed some light on this process. Most schools of thought within psychology, though they differ on the details, agree that self-esteem is a learned phenomenon. We are not born knowing how to feel okay about ourselves, and feeling that we have worth. But anything that is learned, can be learned well or it can be learned poorly. Self esteem can be spotty, uneven, even in healthy people, and can be lower during times of difficulty in our lives.
Moreover, modern psychology suggests that the emotional life of young children is much different than the emotional life of adults. Consider when you are angry, as an adult, at someone you love. You may be very, very angry, spittin’ angry in fact, but somewhere, deep down, you still know (and could say, if pressed), that this person is still the same person they were, the same person you love, and still has good qualities, despite your being so angry. This sense is what children probably lack. Their emotions have a global, totalizing quality. When they are mad, that anger is, for the moment, all they know and all they have ever known. It colors their whole experiential world.
The reason is that the ability to discriminate emotions from self is also a learned behavior. In older analytic terms, it is an ego function. It takes brain maturation and good parenting to learn that what you feel at the moment is not all of who you are; feelings are part of the self but not identical with it. Thus, the upshot is that, for a young child, there is no or little difference between *feeling bad* and *being bad.*
The point here is that we all carry within us a residual sense of “inner badness” that most of us eventually learn to master, but during periods of stress and emotional upheaval, can be reactivated. Christianity has a keen sense for human frailty, and well-honed methods for rooting out any sense of imperfection we already harbor.
Lewis taps into these feelings. This sense of inner badness and (potentially) low self-esteem is ubiquitous in our development and so Lewis, in activating these feelings, presents what is essentially an emotional argument that serves as both an amplification of bad feelings, low self worth, and a solution to them.
And if we feel overwhelmingly that we are bad, worthless, and unable to help or improve ourselves, well then what option to de have except to accept the “rescue” of a larger-than-life figure such as Jesus?
My proposed solution to this focuses much more on emotional health than on the more cognitive arguments that many atheists gravitate toward. We should be teaching our children – perhaps in schools? – how to deal with their emotions. How do you recognize when you are upset, or hurting? How do you seek support when you need it? How do you ask for and get what you need from others, effectively? How do you make, and keep, friends? How do you make yourself feel good about yourself? What do you do when you get mad, or sad, or lonely, or upset? How do you “regulate” emotions, as psychotherapists say? These are skills that many of us learn, imperfectly, as part of growing up, from watching others and trial-and-error, but they can also be taught explicitly. I think we can make people much more resistant to Christianity or any other form of ideological indoctrination, not only by making them more adept at critical thinking, but more adept at managing their emotional lives. We can impede Christianity by getting people to need it less.
So, my basic idea is this: critical thinking is extremely important. But it goes out the window when emotional needs are not being met. We need to teach people how to take care of themselves emotionally. Psychotherapists know how to do this. I’m not saying everyone needs therapy; these are skills that could be taught in a classroom.
I apologize for the length of this post, but this material is hard to summarize quickly.
I’m interested in hearing others thoughts!
Posted from Richard M
Solomon Asch Conformity Experiments
Watch YouTube Video
This article is intended to show how people will conform to peer pressure against their own convictions and in what conditions. It is relevant to the influence exerted in the church community among its members. There is significant pressure in the church to prevent the expression of doubt or critical questioning of the properties of the religion. People would rather conform than go against the group. Since people are evolutionarily tuned to be social animals, the perceived benefit of belonging to the group should outweigh the benefit of dissension. I am grateful to Matthew, one of our readers, for submitting this and his kind sentiment. Click on the Link above to show a short video documentary on them. Click on the Link below to read a short summary from Wikipedia.From Wikipedia
Solomon Asch "became famous in the 1950s, following experiments which showed that social pressure can make a person say something that is obviously incorrect.
The way he did this was through an experiment in which participants were shown a card with a line on it, followed by another card with 3 lines on it labeled a, b, and c. The participants were then asked to say which line matched the line on the first card. At first, the subject would feel very at ease in the experiment, as he and the other participants gave the obvious answer. Shortly after, the "participants" in front of the subject would start all giving the same wrong answer. Solomon Asch thought that the majority of people would not conform to something obviously wrong, but the results showed that an alarming number of participants gave the wrong answer. See Asch Conformity Experiments"
REFERENCES
Debunking Christianity
The Role of Persuasion and Cognitive Bias In Your Church
The Role of Persuasion in the Question of The Holy Spirit
Suspension of Disbelief
All Lee's Persuasion Articles
Wikipedia
Solomon Asch
Asch Conformity Experiments
YouTube
Asch Conformity Experiments Video from YouTube
My Book is Ranked 11th on Amazon
Did Josh McDowell Lie?
Are Believers More Likely to be Hypocrites Than Atheists?
October 15, 2007
The Canon Within the Canon
Which parts of the Biblical canon are to be emphasized while others are minimized? If Christians really believed the Bible they wouldn’t let women speak in their churches (I Cor, 14:34), for the man would be the domineering patriarchal head of the house in which a wife is to “obey” her husband just like Sarah obeyed Abraham (I Peter 3: 6), even to the point of lying to save his life by having sex with another man (Genesis 12: 10-16), and by letting him sleep with another woman so he could have a child (Genesis 16). And yet in order to blunt the force of these passages, today’s Christians focus on Paul’s principle that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.” (Galatians 3:28). Which is it? What Christians stress becomes “the canon within the canon,” and this is cherry-picking plain and simple.
This problem forces Christians to specify exactly where they get their morals from. If they can stress one part of the Bible to the neglect of another part, then how do they actually decide which parts to stress and which parts to neglect? I maintain Christians get their morals from the same place I do…from the advancement of a better understanding of who we are and what makes us happy as human beings in society. Christians do not get their morals exclusively from the Bible. Christians have just learned to interpret the Bible differently down through the ages in keeping with our common sense of morality, that’s all, as our moral values change with the times.
Christians will object, without good reason, that I cannot provide an ultimate moral standard for my values. However, I just don’t think we need an “ultimate” justification for our morals, and I don’t think any of us has such thing, either. Let me just offer one analogy here. Take for instance, the scientific method. Can anyone tell me exactly what it is, and can someone also provide a complete and full justification of it? As far as I know no one has done so. Some thinkers, like Paul Feyerabend, have even argued there is no scientific method. And yet we have a general idea of what it is. In a like manner it falls on deaf ears to ask me to provide some kind of fully complete or ultimate justification for my morals before I can behave morally, in the same sense as it does to ask a scientist to provide a complete and full justification for the scientific method before he does science.
October 14, 2007
Dr. Witmer on the Design Argument v. Problem of Evil
October 12, 2007
"When Our Vices Get the Better of Us"
This article weakens the claims regarding Gods Justice, Mercy, freewill and Human Accountability.
As humans, we have limited resources to control ourselves, researchers say; all acts of control draw from one source. So when using this resource in one domain, such as dieting, we’re more likely to run out of it in another domain, like studying hard.
www.world-science.net
Inzlicht and Gutsell asked participants to suppress their emotions while watching an upsetting movie. The idea was to deplete their resources for selfcontrol. The participants reported their ability to suppress their feelings on a scale from one to nine. Then, they completed a Stroop task, which involves naming the color of printed words (i.e. saying red when reading the word “green” written in red), yet another task that requires selfcontrol.
The researchers found that those who suppressed their emotions performed worse on the task, indicating that they had used up their selfcontrol resources while holding back their tears during the film.
An electroencephalogram (EEG), a recording of electrical activity in the brain, confirmed the results, they said. Normally, when a person deviates from their goals (in this case, wanting to read the word, not the color of the font), increased activity occurs in a part of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex, which alerts the person that they are offtrack. The researchers found weaker activity in this brain region during the Stroop task in those who had suppressed their feelings. In other words, after engaging in one act of selfcontrol this brain system seems to fail during the next act, they said.
If we are expected to make moral decisions and are going to be held eternally accountable for them, we have a poor mechanism to do it with. Our brains design is such that it is more likely in any given situation that we will make an error in judgment.
October 11, 2007
Five Big Rocks (part two)
To help Christians understand why I left the Christian faith, I am writing a series of articles about the obstacles that dissuaded me from belief. I call them the Five Big Rocks:
1. The Problem of Evil & Suffering
2. The Problem of Communication.
3. The Problem of Scriptural Errancy
4. The Problem of Theological Incoherence
5. The Problem of Religious Toxicity
I dealt with the first rock here. Danger! Falling rocks ahead!
2. The Problem of Communication.
Jim Benton (aka Prup) is the first one I know of to name this argument in this way. I won’t attempt to articulate it as Jim would, because I probably won’t do it justice (he’s got some great insights to share, though, and I look forward to reading his comments a little later).
One Christian article I read recently asks, "Have you telephoned God today?" Would that it were that easy! The article continues, "Every endeavor on earth requires proper and clear lines of communication, otherwise, there would be chaos." And chaos there is. If there is a God, why does he have such a hard time communicating with his creation?
If God exists and if communication originated with him (as Genesis and John's Gospel imply), then he should be able to communicate far better than any communicator who has ever lived. According to communication experts, a good communicator:
• Knows his audience
• Knows his purpose
• Knows his topic
• Anticipates objections
• Achieves credibility with his audience through good argumentation
• Takes different learning styles into account
• Presents information in several ways, using multiple communication techniques
• Communicates as little or as much as it takes to be properly understood
• Follows through on what he says
• Develops practical, useful ways to obtain feedback
If God exists, it is imperative that he communicate with us in a way that encompasses all of these things. He should convey his will in a manner that anyone, anywhere, anytime can recognize, understand, and respond to without significant barriers. You might suppose God would have little trouble delivering a message to the human race. Yet, if Christianity is to believed, God chose one of the worst channels of communication possible: a 2,000+ year old book, full of factual & historical errors, antiquated cultural nuances, confusing & conflicting teachings, and translation difficulties. This, as it turns out, was a sure-fire way to be MISunderstood--just look at the myriads of Christian denominations today who can't agree on such basic Biblical issues as salvation, election, worship, baptism, etc.
Neither is evangelism (the one-person-at-a-time model of spreading the Word) the most efficient way of communicating God's will. Millions will die without ever hearing the Gospel; many millions more will hear the Gospel but not understand it because of cultural and intellectual problems inherent in the message itself. Christians, how often have you virtually beaten your head against the wall, frustrated because people don’t "get" the Gospel? You really shouldn't blame yourself. After all, isn’t it God's responsibility to make sure that his point of view is both apprehended and comprehended? As one Christian recently commented, "But in the end, it's really not my job to convince people of God's existence. If he can't provide proof himself, he's not much of a God." Amen to that.
Here's what might work better: God could initiate a personal conversation with every man, woman, and child, tailored to their unique needs and situations. As a Christian, I always wondered why it was that God spoke so very long ago, but didn’t bother speaking today. And why did the miracles come to a halt? If the purpose of the signs, wonders, and healings of Jesus and the apostles was to confirm the word of God (Hebrew 2:4), then surely miracles would do the same today. Think of the wonderful PR for God! Think of the victory against skepticism! God could speak through his actions--cleaning up the evil and corruption flooding the world at large.
Speaking of the apostles, why was there no succession of apostolic authority? The early church started departing from the teachings and traditions of the apostles shortly after they died (leading to the horrible monster of a church-state that was the Roman Catholic Church).
Bottom line: if God wants us to follow him so badly--and if there is an eternity of either heaven or hell at stake--there are innumerable ways that God could make himself known to us. We could all have a vision (like Saul of Tarsus) or a dream (like Joseph of old). God could commandeer all telecommunications ("Stay tuned for a special message from the Intergalactic President of the Universe"). He could stop all traffic and machinery (like the visitor from outer space in The Day the Earth Stood Still) so that we'll stop and listen. The possibilities are almost limitless for an omnipotent God. Instead, we are left with copies of copies of copies of a very old collection of religious writings (the originals were long ago lost to antiquity), with so many variants that the science of textual criticism has developed to try to piece together the "authentic" text of the Bible.
In the end, perhaps George Benard Shaw was right: “The problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred.”
Scripture Only Is a Myth
One of the sects of Christianity that is on the rise, especially within the Evangelical branch, claims that the sole religious authority comes from Scripture, and the traditions, doctrines, and interpretations of man have no authority. Martin Luther was perhaps the most famous person to preach sola scriptura, the idea that the Bible is the sole source of religious truth. However, I argue that it is impossible to hold to the idea of scripture only with logical consistency. The reason is simple; the determination of what the sacred writings make up the Bible is wholly extra-scriptural and based on church tradition, doctrine, and politics. In order to logically hold to scripture only, one of the writings in the Bible would have to have a list of all of the books of holy writings, including itself; otherwise, one must go outside of the scriptures themselves to determine the which writings should be in the Bible, which renders the claim of "scripture only" false. Since this list does not appear in the Bible, any claim of authority based on scripture alone is facially false as the identity of scripture itself is based merely on tradition, doctrine, and church politics, which are the works of humankind. In order to support scripture, Christians must appeal to doctrine, thereby abondoning their imagined authority of God-breathed scripture.
Two Chinks In The Armor
The reference to Pascal's Wager in a previous post has incited to me address the issue of why Christians believe, and what is the basis of that belief.
Pascal's Wager is as follows: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager."
From my position, I see an impasse in the struggle between theists and atheists...neither side will ever be able to prove their basic supposition, that there is or is not a "God." Arguing from the atheist's side of the table, I don't see how our side could ever prove conclusively that there is not a God...our science will never be able to plumb the depths of reality in our universe. Certainly at this point in our evolution, there is far more that we do not know...and do not even know how to identify or measure.
So, what is our challenge, and what is the basis of our activity to "debunk" christianity? If we cannot achieve the goal of debunking by disproving the existence of God (which, I posit, we cannot), then what are we saying or doing?
I want to propose that christianity has to be debunked at two vulnerable points: (1) the legitimacy of the bible as the "source" reference for all that christians believe, and (2) the creed statements that grow out of an attempt to summarize and dogmatize the essentials for salvation contained in the bible.
In my experience as a believer and pastor for over 30 years of adult life (I became a believer as an adult, not a child) - and having spent 25 years of that life as a theologian and pastor - I observed that most christians fall back on the caveat of personal experience when threatened with logical arguments against belief or doubt in God. The statement I heard most often was - "I may not understand God, or the bible, but - I once was lost, and now I am found, was blind and now I see." In other words, they had an experience...and that experience is their fall-back position when threatened with logic or doubt.
I mention that fall-back position of experience because as I have read and participated in the commentary on this site, I have noticed that the christians fall back to a common position - "if you knew God like I know him, yada yada." That kind of fall-back (a retreat, in my opinion, and a admission of failure to prevail in the debate) is probably inevitable, and so must be expected in any debunking activity.
AND EVENTUALLY - BECAUSE MY EXPERIENCE OF GOD PROBABLY RIVALS THE BEST OF EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS ON HERE - I WILL BEGIN TO ADDRESS THAT EXPERIENTIAL POSITION.
But right now, I want to insist that christians are vulnerable at two points:
- their faith in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture (yes, two different positions that lead to the same conclusion...what the bible says is true and can be believed about the essentials of salvation), and
- their trust in the summation of the essentials, found in the creedal statements of the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed. These two documents were produced in the earliest years of christian formation, in response to perceived theological heresies and rebellion against centralized authority. They were intended to provide a common belief system that any and all groups, nations, and individuals could understand and agree with. My take on these creeds is that they are riddled with assumptions and contradict much of what the bible says about god and salvation...and so they represent - not an accurate summation of biblical essentials, but a made-up system of belief that most christians ascribe to whether they know it or not.
Remember, when challenged and debunked, most christians will fall-back to the well-worn "I may not understand, but I know what happened to me" position. There is a christian commentator on this site who admits that God does not answer prayer in the way he promises to in the bible, but that is OK with him because he has grown to believe (through his experience) that God only answers prayers that are prayed in a specific way for a specific thing. HIS EXPERIENCE has trumped biblical revelation and creed...and who can argue against that? We can only point it out.
What if We're Wrong?
What Dawkins said is the basis for my Outsider Test for Faith. If the point of such questions has to do with Pascal's Wager, well, that's ignorant and irrelevant when dealing with the number of religions making similar threats of judgment after death. Dan Barker turns the tables and asks the Christian what if you are wrong?
October 10, 2007
How Can We Best Debunk Christianity?
Since we now have a few good reasons why Christianity flourishes, I asked this question: "If we have an idea why Christianity flourishes, then understanding this can help us to debunk it. Given these reasons how is the best way to debunk it?" David Ellis was the first one to weigh in:I think the most vitally important thing for debunkers of religion to be aware of is that intellectual argument, while it may be effective for those individuals more inclined by temperment and interests toward rationality in the first place, is only part of the solution. Since most of us are deconverts because of intellectual difficulties with the claims of religion we tend to be a bit myopic in our approach.
I think we can all learn a lot by looking to the example of Julia Sweeney. She does something which is much more likely to have an effect on the thinking of a broader audience than bare intellectual argumentation----she tells the story of her deconversion in LETTING GO OF GOD in its personal and emotional aspects as much as in its intellectual content.
Just a few of the things we should focus on:
--open and personally engaging deconversion stories.
--the positive emotional and societal benefits of critical thinking (with a particular focus on specific examples rather than general and theoretical discussions of the topic).
--the promotion of openness in one's religious skepticism among the atheist/agnostic community. The more people there are who are casually open with the fact that they're skeptical of religion the easier it will be for believers to question their own articles of faith.
Any other suggestions?
Why Does Christianity Flourish?
------------
As a follow up to this post I ask another question.
October 09, 2007
You Want to Personally Attack Me? Do it Here!
October 08, 2007
What Motivates Me?
People will often ask what motivates me. This is a somewhat complicated topic that several of us have written about here. But I want to tell you what seems to motivate me the most...
I like taking on challenges…big ones. Throughout my whole life people have told me from time to time that I cannot do something, and I liked proving them wrong. I also challenge myself. I want to see how good I can get at something.
Several years ago I started writing up some lessons about 8-Ball for our pool league. The league operators begrudgingly copied them on the back of our score sheets. When pool players in our area saw them, they laughed at me…repeatedly. Whenever I missed a shot they would say, “Hey, Loftus, write that up as a lesson next week will you?” Sometimes people can be unmerciful, and they can hold you down. Apparently only the pro’s could give advice about pool, and since I wasn’t a pro, I shouldn’t presume to tell others how to play the game. Who did I think I was? It’s these naysayers who browbeat others into not even trying to do well. But they motivate me. Those pool players are no longer laughing. For three years now I have been writing monthly instructional columns for the best national billiard magazine in America, and I have a book about pool that is getting some excellent reviews. Just yesterday someone sent me a new training tool (worth $49.95) in hopes I would recommend it, and I did.
Anyway, I hate being laughed at. Being ridiculed and mocked motivates me like nothing else. It’s like pouring gasoline on the flames of my passion. I want to make these people eat their words, and I usually do. Yes, that’s right. I usually do. The reason is that I believe in myself. I know what I am capable of doing if I set my mind to it. I’ve been doing that all of my life. I even have a signature line on one Christian forum that reads: “Personally attacking me is like pouring gasoline on the flames on my passion. I get stronger. I've told you that from the beginning. You didn't believe me. Maybe someday you will.” But the Christian hyenas there like JP Holding and his ilk have ignored it.
So, if you want to motivate me, just mock me. Belittle me. Harass me. Christians have done this to me repeatedly here at DC and elsewhere. In my opinion they are Christianity’s worst enemies, for in doing what they do, they make me stronger. It motivates me to debunk the very faith that justifies their treatment of me. It makes me want to go for the jugular vein of their faith. I doubt very much that the sum total of JP Holding's apologetic efforts his whole life will be in the plus column after factoring in how he and his ilk motivated me to debunk his faith.
There is also a blog terrorist who visits us here at DC under so many names I can’t remember them all. He harasses me almost daily. First he tries to see if he can get by me, then he slips up and repeats (almost word for word) any number of demeaning false accusations against me. Then I ban him. Once banned from DC a person is banned forever (so don’t get banned in the first place). Then he starts another Blogger account and does it again. This process repeats itself almost daily. Then he goes around claiming that I delete any comment that I don’t like, hindering a free discussion of ideas. You’ll see him saying this on several blogs. A year ago there was a Christian named Paul Manata who started a blog claiming to be one of my followers, called the "discomfiter." While claiming to agree with me he grossly mischaracterized my arguments and made me look stupid. I think these Christians and their cronies have even poisoned the well against me with a few other skeptics who seem not to want anything to do with me.
All I can say is that this motivates me. If they are really concerned about the Christian faith against my arguments they shouldn’t do this. They should simply engage me with good arguments. They should defeat my arguments every time I post something. Why they don’t do this and resorts instead to these tactics just goes to show me they cannot adequately deal with my arguments. So come here and argue with us, reasonably. Any reasonable comment that does not harass us will not be deleted. Refer to our comment policy for details.
So let me just take a moment to thank all of those Christians who have ridiculed me in the past for motivating me. To you I owe a debt of gratitude. Your God must be very pleased with you.
October 07, 2007
What Do You Mean? Challenge
I have another challenge for the christians who dare to visit this site! (see my previous blog for the first challenge).
A basic Christianity 101 verse is John 14:14 - "Ask anything in My name, and I will do it." Verse 14 is actually a repeat of the previous verse...in other words, Jesus repeats himself...saying "if you ask anything I will do it."
That particular promise is repeated again in John 16:24 - "Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full."
So - here is the challenge: explain to me what you think is meant by "ask anything and I will do it." And further, explain to me why the promise stated so explicitly in those verses is so often and obviously broken?
One qualifier: you cannot use the old Whittinghill argument - "God says yes, no, or not now." There is no indication that Jesus gives himself wiggle room like that...he does not say "I might say yes, I might say no, I might say later, dude." The promise says "ask and it will be given to you."
I say bullshit! Prove me wrong.
Christian GroupThink Challenge
A few of the previous posts on the site question why Christian sites don't link to sites that present arguments of skepticism about Christianity. Or why Christians don't more willingly embrace skeptical humor concerning their faith.
For over 25 years, as a pastor in Christian churches, I noticed and (unfortunately and tragically) endorsed a "Christian GroupThink" within the Christian community. I can testify personally that one of the main purposes of Christian community (especially churches) is to build a "fortress" around the believer that attempts to deny them access to free thought, skepticism and atheism/agnosticism. This "fortress" is one of love, or the withholding of it - and emotional/relational punishment (isolation, avoidance, judgement) towards those who would dare "question" the doctrines of faith.
The church has a primary purpose - which has nothing to do with glorifying god or evangelism. Instead, the goal is indoctrination...forcing a group think onto individuals by means of Statements of Faith, creedal confessions, confirmation classes, and worship songs. Conformity to this group think leads to rewards - invitations to leadership, affirmation of value to the congregation or community, befriending by key leaders (maybe even the pastor) and a masonic-lodge type revelation of even deeper truths of faith or gossip about the community.
Most relational and organizational observers recognize group think as a process which seeks to hide - or deny - a fundamental lack of confidence in the group's purpose, belief system, or ethic. It is my observation that group think in the church is pervasive because of the failure of most Christians to believe their own religion. Reason is not a cruel task master, and most of the time most people know this. A Christian who would argue against reason in the name of faith would never get on a roller coaster that just had a hydraulic leak (yeh - it happened at Six Flags in Maryland this weekend). Why? Reason, of course! A logical mind would recognize the context and lead towards a decision that would protect the thinker.
That kind of thinking, however, is discouraged in the church because reason quickly leads to profound skepticism and even agnosticism or atheism. The "reason landmines" are numerous, and the only defense the church has is the "mighty fortress" - not of god - but of group think.
I would love to see a challenge where churches invite atheists, agnostics or other free thinkers to visit their congregations and began a reasonable dissertation against Christian faith. I would almost (almost being the operative word here) pay churches for the opportunity to make presentations and open up for question/answer sessions.
I believe there are more free thinkers in churches than most people would initially guess...but who would want to "come out" about their skepticism when it means that their family would be isolated, mistreated, their kids rejected, and perhaps even extended a "disinvitation" to the church because of their honesty?
Christians whine about the cost of discipleship. The cost of free and skeptical inquiry is much, much greater. Prove me wrong.
I make this challenge...if any visitor to this site reads this blog and wants to invite me to your church or group for a discussion and debate about free and skeptical inquiry, the fallacies of faith, biblical inconsistencies, etc...I will consider the challenge and make contact with you. I can't promise a visit...there are factors that I will explain if you express interest.
Come on...what do you have to lose???
Reasonable Doubt about the Problem of Evil
I challenge the whole premise of the problem of evil on the grounds that is not consistent with gods character as described in the bible. (surprise)[irony]
Personally I think this effectively refutes the Problem of Evil as a test and the assertion that it creates a greater good.
- god is all powerful,
- god is all knowing,
- god is perfectly good,
- god is perfectly merciful,
- god doesn't like to see us suffer
- the problem of evil creates a greater good
So a solution that is consistent will all the premises is that god would have breathed people into existence as they would have turned out as if they had suffered through the 'test'.
To say that it is more important to actually do the work and suffer when the same result could be achieved in another way which avoids needless suffering is logically inconsistent with several premises:
- god is all powerful
- god is perfectly good
- god is perfectly merciful
- the problem of evil creates a greater good
If god were not all powerful, then the problem of evil as a test might make sense as an argument from ignorance, but even then the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
To say that we are ignorant of gods motives means that the bible does not accurately describe god and we can't really know anything about him with certainty. Since the bible is the only authoritative descriptive evidence for god, then nothing else about god can be learned. That is to say that any conclusion about god is uncertain and nothing further can be learned. This is anoalogous to saying "I conclude this, but I am not sure, and I don't know how to know, but I deny evidence to the contrary".
Obviously my solution negates the need to create the universe, the world and us, therefore the problem of evil is refuted by our existence.
October 06, 2007
Skeptical Parody, Sarcasm and Humor
The Problem of Evil, the Canon Within the Canon, and Relativism
I'm having an interesting discussion with Dr. Reppert and others over these issues which started here, and is continuing here. I visit Reppert's Blog daily. There are some good things to learn from him and some good theology being discussed in a mutually respectful environment. He is not a fundamentalist Christian.
Stinky Piles of Rhetoric and Flawed Principles
This is a response that spans two articles and three people. I am making an article out of my responses because they are avoiding answering my questions and I'm hoping that I can get some feedback from others. Their comments are bold and italicized. I have referenced the articles at the end so anyone interested can follow the context.
In a nutshell I am challenging the principle of the original sin, the human sacrifice which depends on the principle of original sin and I am challenging the principle of the the problem of evil as a test and I am asserting that Christians have no concept about what properties an all powerful, all knowing, all good god should have. They have no concept of the infinite. Infinity has a lot of problems with paradoxes and if you look, you see that God has inherited those same problems.
david,
For you example, if you were to sacrifice your son so that others may live, I don't think anyone would call you terrible. The fact is, the sacrifice of your son cannot save anyone. The substitution of names in this case flawed.
It might be flawed, but it depends on your answer to this question (and honestly I don't think I would kill my son to save the world, or even a bus load of people).
What would you think of me if I crucified myself because I was punishing myself for a rule I made up? Sounds crazy doesn’t it?
If it sounds crazy then I would be killing son for nothing right? God could have changed the rules, he did it with the new covenant, he could have thought that human sacrifice was justifiably abhorrent and decided to handle it a different way. I would have.
Human sacrifice, killing yourself because of a rule you made, claiming to be a human, a son and a god all in one body, It is insane.
How do you know that jesus was really his son? mary's word? If jesus was an immaculate conception why didn't mark mention it?
God gave you a brain right? use it! why is it that these principles that supposedly came from a god seem so flawed? The principles don't translate into the real world. Why is that? Its what the bible tells us! Where did the bible come from, why does it say this?
Do your home work. Do some serious bible study. Look for the original texts. Study the history of the near east from the last ice age on, they call it the agricultural revolution.
get busy!
drsimrak
In regards to suffering, I would say that there is something that is to be gained in suffering. Once again, I come to my own lack of understanding, Why suffering? I don't know and the more I think about it, the more I realize that isn't the point.
You have not considered what an all powerful, all good, all knowing god should be able to do.
God should be able to do anything. In a breath, he could have spoken all christians into existence with their varying traits exactly as they would have turned out with without all the needless suffering. If he were really a loving god he should have made it so we could avoid the suffering and he could have avoided the 'pain' of having to sit on the sidelines and watch and just instilled the alleged virtues that result from suffering. This would not make us robots because the result is the same, only the process is removed. He could make them like he needs them. And I dispute that suffering makes us better than not suffering. That stands to be shown through something other than anecdotal evidence. In fact, I can show you that stress causes damage in people at the molecular level and causes the onset of depression and other harsher mental disorders. Just keep your eye out, you'll see me posting things about the brain, mind and behavior.
The point is that the world around us is collapsing and falling apart. The world around us bears witness that it is in need of a savior. All of mankind is dying and God has provided himself as our Savior in Jesus Christ. How ridiculous would it be if a drowning man to chose not to accept help from someone because he didn't like the shirt the rescuer was wearing.
This is completely subjective and as prup answered you, completely one sided and it avoids several qualifiers that make that untrue. The most you can say is that there are good things and bad things, and while we are evidenlty suffering from global warming due our screw ups, we can have a better quality of life, relatively disease free, to enjoy it with. (irony, i put that in there because some people have a hard time picking it up)
It's a question of faith and a matter of the heart. After all, it is with the heart that man believes unto salvation not with the mind. The true question is, do you need saving? If you think your fine or that you don't need or want the help of a God you view as cruel then so be it. But that doesn't change reality.
People believe with thier heart and not with their mind? What level of school did you make it through? Your self is a result of molecular electrochemical interactions in that chunk of meat in your skull and a good neurosurgeon could go in there and make you have a religious experience and think that god was in the room behind you as well making you think you had two arms on one side. You need to get a grip on reality. What is it about me that needs saving? I say that most people are good people, its just that minority percentage that ruins it for the rest of us!
What is to be known of God is made manifest in creation. But man chooses to deny that power. It's because of the hardness of men's hearts that they are given over to their own desires. If we want salvation we can have it, the choice is ours.
This is one of those piles of rhetoric that you guys leave behind every now an then. Theres no response to it because it so totally ignores reality. Once again lets all say it together, "it does not follow that because there is a world, there is a god that created it and that God is the christian God."
And there's that heart again, my heart is fine, no attacks yet. My mind is fine too, my morals and attitudes seem to be fine as I have a lot of friends that seem to like me as I'm sure is the case with most non-christians. Look, behaviour is not totally a matter of free-will, there are biological reasons for behaviour, and since that is the case your degree of free-will is limited, whether you want to belive it with your heart or not. I suggest thinking about it in your mind a little more. Thats what its best at.
Questioning what you believe and why is a good thing. Questioning to prove that you too can be like God is foolishness. The question is, who is God? Will we exalt ourselves as gods or will we humble ourselves and submit to the one true and living God even though we don't always understand?
Before you go submitting to something you better make sure it exists, because if everybody did that, that would be a lot of wasted resources with regards to labor that could go to making the world a better place. And no one is saying anything about wanting to be like god or be god, so you can just toss that stinky red herring out of here!
david,
Pain and evil are just part of the fabric, Christian or Atheist. But it is not right to say God is unjust if He Himself suffered.
rich,
People overcome great odds all the time. Why should it be easy? Why should we be handed something we didn't work for? Everyone would like it to be easier, even Christ in the gardin asked that the cup pass over him. He knew it couldn't be and he went through with it even though he asked not to, and he left it up to the Fathers will. A little less suffereing would sure be nice, making it easier to do what is right would be nice, but neither are our reality, so we accept it and do our best, that's all were asked.
With this kind of attitude there is never going to be resolution to pain and suffering because you are just giving to god, but you are not thinking that even if you do, it all happens in gods time right? So stop praying cause he already knows what you want and get off your butt and do something about the 'terrible world' you live in. Go volunteer at assisted living facilities, hospitals, homeless shelters, donate money to the organizations that handle disasters, volunteer at schools, go pick up trash on the side of the road. If you are already doing those things BRAVO, I take my hat off to you.
REFERENCES
Five Big Rocks
Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy Individuals
October 05, 2007
"Changing Morals and the Fate of Evangelicalism" by Robert M. Price
By Robert M. Price:
It used to be the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would never darken the door of movie theatres, even if Corrie ten Boom's The Hiding Place was showing (I kid you not!). Now that's moot, especially in the wake of home theatre technology. They wouldn't dance, because it was supposedly arousing, essentially mating behavior-which it obviously is! But now they've skipped the preliminaries (keep reading).This was published by Robert Price in his monthly opinion email, Zarathustra Speaks. See his home page to subscribe. The newsletter notes: Copyright © 2007 Robert M. Price. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reproduce, copy or distribute this newsletter if accompanied with this copyright notice.
More significantly, they were very much against divorce and had a low incidence of it. But that, too, has changed. Evangelical churchmen and seminary professors found they just could not thunder against divorce any more once their own grown children were getting divorced. Same with women working outside the home. Economic realities dictated theology just as sure as the Feds' threats to the Mormon Church miraculously prompted new LDS revelations to abandon, first, polygamy, then racial discrimination in the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Homosexuality is next on the list. More and more educated Evangelicals seem to feel they must find a compromise between the inherited party line and their liberal social conscience. This is especially true with seminarians and young ministers. And such theological accommodations are not hard to find. It doesn't take as much text-twisting as slave-abolition or feminism, that's for sure. And it was secular feminism challenging the church that led, more than anything else, to the great inerrancy crisis among Evangelicals in the 1970s. Prayer changes things? Things change prayer.
Recent surveys indicate that more and more Evangelicals are questioning or rejecting the doctrine of an eternal hell as well as the idea that non-Christians will not be saved in the afterlife. You can see where this is headed: they are making their way toward being one more tolerant, live-and-let-live mainstream denomination. Nor am I complaining. I doubt many of us are really that vexed by the particular beliefs any fundamentalist happens to hold. No, what we find is the pugnacious obnoxious attitudes that so often accompany their beliefs. But what if they drop that attitude? Why would they?
It was for the sake of feeling uniquely indwelt and transformed by the Holy Ghost that they have erected attitudinal walls against non-co-religionists. It was a mind game to protect their cherished in-group and their firmly-cemented membership in it. But the more you become like the mainstream, the less separates you from everybody else, well, the more difficult it becomes to feel special, uniquely connected to God and sanctified by Jesus. It's not like they ever wanted to relegate everybody else to the Lake of Fire. It just seemed necessary in order for them to rejoice in not being relegated there themselves. And now feeling so different is no longer the priority. Attitudes affect doctrines which affect attitudes.
But the thing that will sooner or later bring the Evangelical Wailing Wall down is sex. More and more, Middle School, High School, and College Evangelicals admit to having sex in the same casual way as their "unsaved" contemporaries. That is, pre-marital, recreational sex. Having been so long Apollonian, they are itching to yield to Dionysus. But the gospel teaching of Jesus happens to be far more Apollonian than Dionysian. (Give 'em time, though, to discover the Q Source Jesus of Leif Vaage, Jesus as a "first-century party animal," and they'll be boasting of their biblical fidelity again.)
From the standpoint of sect-maintenance, this shift is fatal for two reasons. First, and most obviously, if this fundamental plank of the Evangelical platform rots and snaps, you can find little of similar magnitude to point to as the signal difference between the saved and the unsaved. I admit, there are a few more that would be similarly fatal, such as a casual permissiveness re drugs and alcohol.
Again, I admit that there are matters of graver moral content. A Christian ought to be able to say, e.g., "Jesus saved me from lying, from being insensitive, from being self-centered, cowardly, evasive, materialistic," etc., and those things might be more important. I'd say they are. But you see, everybody accepts and admires those values. They don't give Evangelicals special bragging rights like the sexual and other behavioral codes used to do.
Second, relaxing the sexual code is symbolically significant. Any group's mores concerning food and sex are symbolic of their social boundaries and the shape of their self-identity. A group does not necessarily have both indices. One will do, though usually there are both. Old Testament Israelites were separated from rival cults/cultures by upholding inflexible restrictions on permissible food and on possible intermarriage partners. Sexual fidelity had a lot to do with guaranteeing that one's true heirs inherited one's land and name. Jewish Christians were alarmed at Paul being willing to abolish Jewish dietary and other ceremonial scruples to make it easier for Gentiles to join Christianity. They could see instantly that such a move would result in Jews being squeezed to the margins of the new religion-and it did. Jewish identity within Christianity was lost. Similarly, among American Jews today it is not bigotry when Orthodox rabbis discourage mixed marriages with non-Jews. Allow that, and you can say the big goodbye to Judaism in America. It will be only a matter of time before intermarriage with well-meaning and good-hearted non-Jews will completely erode American Judaism. The hybrid "Chrismika" is only a stop along the one-way track. Maybe there will be an Orthodox farm next to the Amish farm.
Well, when the sex barrier falls, the same fate is in store for Evangelical Christianity. (There never was a consistent Evangelical food boundary; even the Reformed drank alcohol.) And when the new generations are none too sure that non-believers are headed for hell, it becomes inevitable that American Evangelicalism will ease into the acid bath of American Pluralism. And it may happen sooner than you think. And then all those mega-churches will be up for sale. Unless of course they find a new product to sell. TV preacher Joel Osteen has done just that. His Evangelical belief is merely vestigial; he has converted to New Thought. It is no coincidence that he fills that stadium. Others may not be so lucky.
Negativity Is Contagious, Study Finds
This is relevant to the role of persuasion and influence in the church community as an impediment to free-will.
This study supports other studies where people are influenced by the group to change their opinion.
In this study researches found that they could predictively influence the opinions of subjects by showing them information about the opinions of their peers. It is so effective that it could be used in marketing by competitors by going online and trash talking a product to influence consumers against it.
Sciencedaily.com
REFERENCE
Sciencdaily.com: Mind and Brain
October 04, 2007
Where Does Your Faith Really Lie?
When you have a heart attack, do you go to church first or to the hospital? When your house is on fire with your family trapped inside, do you kneel and pray before or after you call the fire department? Most people, evangelicals and otherwise, answer these questions the same; those who don’t often see the ugly side of natural selection.
Here on Debunking Christianity, we spend hours and hours of our lives (cumulatively) debating and discussing the various ideas, values, and personal experiences that our faith (or lack thereof) imply. We craft our words with both art and craft, honing our arguments to fine points of logic or beautiful strokes of emotional appeal.
But talk is cheap.
When it comes to the truly important, urgent, and practical things in life, do you trust God to be your “very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46), or when you need present help in times of trouble do you go to your fellow humans?
The answer is obvious; when you need “very present help in trouble”, the number you call is 911, not the local church. Why? Is God unable to help you in your time of urgent need? Is He unwilling?
Or is it that, when the stakes are high, the matter urgent, and most importantly the consequences something you can actually see, is your faith in humankind greater than your faith in God?
I would argue that the answer is self-evident; you have faith in humankind, because you trust your experiences. Regardless of how many poetic Bible verses you read that promise God’s help in times of need, no matter how fervently you argue against atheists and heretics of all flavors, no matter how enthusiastically you knock on doors and witness to your fellow humans, when it comes to something urgent and real, you rely upon sinful, imperfect, and (in your view) downright impotent humankind.
Does this say something negative about the evangelical believer? I don’t think so; I think it says something very real about God. When it comes to manipulating anything we can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, God does not live up to His advertising, and all but the craziest theists know it deep down no matter what their cheap words may say.
(Note: I am NOT encouraging evangelicals to try faith healing, faith firefighting, or any other faith-based manipulation of emergency situations. Please don’t try to pray out a stroke. Call 911.)
Yes That is Crazy!
This is Christian band Mercy Me's song "Crazy." They don't see that the problem of evil lurks in the background with the video clips at the end. Why would they wish for heaven when God can't get it straight here on earth? And if their faith is "crazy" and not according to "wisdom," why would they ever want to believe in something stupid or unintelligible in the first place? This is wish fulfillment at its very best and one of the reasons Karl Marx called religion "the opiate of the people."
Here's another one from them; they are clearly anti-intellectual:
Thanks to Jon Curry.
Five Big Rocks (part one)
Having been a believer for the bulk of my life, the decision to cross over the other side has not come easy. Once upon a time, I was a zealous Christian apologist, not unlike many who frequently this blog. I know most of the arguments in favor of the Christian faith intimately. Please understand, if I could believe them I would, if for no other reason than it would make my life a lot less complicated. My family is a bunch of strong, dedicated believers. The vast majority of my friends believe, as well. Many times I have questioned myself—-am I doing the right thing? Just how much do I really doubt the existence of God, the veracity of Scripture, and the Gospel message?
To understand why I remain steadfast in my unbelief, I need to introduce you to some of the obstacles that stand in the way my faith. I call them, simply, the Five Big Rocks:
1. The Problem of Evil & Suffering
2. The Problem of Communication.
3. The Problem of Scriptural Errancy
4. The Problem of Theological Incoherence
5. The Problem of Religious Toxicity
I plan on dealing with each "Rock" in a separate article. I know that some of our antagonists will enjoy dissecting and minimizing each point. That’s fine—-at least they will have heard me out! That’s really all I ask. Ready?
Rock #1: The Problem of Evil & Suffering
One day I was watching Ingmar Bergman’s powerful film The Virgin Spring, in which the beautiful virgin daughter of a nobleman is savagely raped and murdered while on her way to the candle-lighting ceremony at the village church. When the father goes to search for his daughter and discovers what has happened, he is shaken with grief and turns his eyes toward heaven, seeking some kind of consolation. Suddenly it hits him: “God, you were there! You watched this happen. You could have stopped it, but you did nothing.” In one powerful scene, Bergman had encapsulated years of doubts for me; I could not contain my tears.
I am no longer a Christian because I cannot reconcile the existence of a loving God with the superfluous nature of evil in our world. There’s just too much moral and physical evil in the world today. We’re in it over our heads. We're drowning in it! As a minister, I used to tell people, “It’s not a question of if God will put a stop to evil, it’s a matter of when.” There’s a Greek word for that argument: bologna!
If God is all-knowing he can perceive evil plans while they are but a dim conception; he can predict earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes with pinpoint accuracy. Yet he does not impart this knowledge to us, and we suffer.
If God is ever-present, he is there when a child is being abused, a teenager raped, an innocent pedestrian hit by a car. Yet he does not make his presence known.
If God is all-powerful then he can prevent evil acts from happening (theoretically, he can do this and still allow for free will). This means that the tragic loss of life in recent years due to tsunamis, hurricanes, and suicide bombers could have been entirely avoided. All the pointless bloodshed of the 20th century could have also been bypassed. Yet God's power is not evident.
If God is all-wise, then he knows that his failure to act in opposition to evil leads common-sense thinkers like me into a state of unbelief. Yet he provides no rational alternative.
And (here’s the clincher) if God is all-loving, then he WILL DO SOMETHING to stop evil—not sometime in the distant future, but NOW, as any feeling, caring sentient being would. Yet he does nothing.....NOTHING.
In the end, the problem of evil is too big a rock to scale, and this is why I no longer believe.
"Thank You For Your Book John"
I received an email today about my book from Andrew Atkinson who is a well read person, and you know I cannot resist:
I was raised in a Christian Fundamentalist home my whole life. From one through 12th grade I was home schooled, and was taught everything through the Christian fundamentalist lense. After High school I attended a hyper fundamentalist place called Honor Academy. At Honor Academy I gained interest in philosophy and Christian apologetics and decided to dedicate my life to Christian apologetics. I am 23 now and since then I have read hundreds of Christian Apologetics books. I have read all of Lewis, all of Schaeffer, all of Peter Kreeft, all of Dr. Geisler's books, including his encyclopedia A-Z twice, and his Systematic Theology twice, I have read Plantinga, McDowell, Craig, Ravi, Moreland, Holding, Swinburne, N.T Wright, Paul Copan Etc. I was until recently enrolled at Dr. Geisler's school to study apologetics and philosophy.
Thank you very much. It helps me to know I've helped others. To answer your question, the Prometheus Books edition is a massive revision of this one you now recommend.
This year I decided in order to be fair and honest to read all the top skeptical books on religion. So I did some research and made a list of over 100 books. I am now at book 76 and consider myself a confident Atheist. Your book was one of the first I read. I was drawn to it since you were an apologist. Your book was the first skeptical book I read that made me seriously realize that I could be dead wrong! I strongly encourage you to keep on writing, the market is very strongly in need of literature like yours.
I think your book is the best overall refutation of Christianity written, especially at the popular level. I think your book is superior for multiple reasons.
1. Its scope and coverage is more exhaustive on issues crucial to Christianity then other books.
2. You anticipate objections from Christian philosophers and theologians that most skeptics do not, due to their lack of familiarity with the other side.
3. The book packs so much in such a little space, it has amazing brevity and at the same time brilliantly dismantles many core Christian beliefs and deals with many central issues that are left out of other works
4.Your familiarity with Christian Theology and philosophy makes you much better at drawing fine and important distinctions that other skeptics miss, due to their lack of expertise in the other side.
5. The personal Deconversion narrative woven through out the book gives it an informal and personal touch that makes it more fascinating to read than other skeptical books. Plus you are the only skeptical author that I know of that was a highly competent Christian Apologist and Philosopher, this of course is another unique feature.
6. Your non-abrasive style sets your book apart from many other skeptic books. You wrote the book in such a way as not to polarize the believer. The average believer would be much more likely to read this book than other similar books due to your respectful manner. This I congratulate you on.
There are many other noble things about your book. But basically what I am saying is that I think you have written by far the best overall refutation of Christianity in print, and that is something to be very proud of. This is the best book to give to a believer. Your book has changed my life, and for that I cannot thank you enough. Now I am going to spend my life helping to educate the public about the truth of religion, and do whatever is in my power to build bridges that would make society more conducive towards secular enlightenment.
Here is a list of books that changed me to a confident Atheist, I have not read all of them yet but will have by the end of the year. This is the list I give to many of my friends.
1. Why I Rejected Christianity; A Former Apologist Explains, by John W. Loftus (Loftus was a professor of apologetics and philosophy, he has three master degrees from conservative schools and he studied under William Lane Craig! And to top it off even Geisler recommends his book! My number one recommendation, absolute must read!) [Update: see below for the extensively revised edition of this book]
2. Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker
3. Atheism: The case Against God by Smith( This is the best selling Atheist book of All time!)
4. The Case Against Christianity by Martin( This I consider A must read, it has many interesting points.)
5. The Empty Tomb,( This book is a DEVASTATING critique of The resurrection, it Critiques all the Top Christian Apologetic Arguments in Detail concerning the Resurrection and other Historical issues, a must read.)
6. Jesus is Dead, by Robert Price( This guy has A PHD in New Testament studies, and a PHD in Systematic Theology, he used to be a conservative Pastor and Apologist and now He argues Against All the Top Apologist about historical matters. He has debated William lane Craig , and most other top defenders, here he confronts and attempts to refute all the top defenses of the historical issues. So he takes on Mcdowell, N.T Wright, FF Bruce, Montgomery, Craig, Habermas, J P Holding and other top defenders. An absolute must read. )
7. The incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert price ( a very good critique of The Gospels)
8. The Born Again Skeptics Guide to The Bible( This one is very fun to read. The writing style is witty and she makes very many good points.
9. Sense And Goodness Without God by Richard Carrier( this is the best overall defense of naturalism that I have ever read at the popular or intermediate level atleast. This book shocked me with how many good points and answers he had to Scientific Apologetics and many other issues Concerning Christian Theism. This is an absolute must read. Very important book, very brilliant.)
10. Atheism a concise introduction ( Considered by many to be the best intro to Atheism.)
11. The Jesus Puzzle
12. "Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" by Earl Doherty
13. Natural Atheism by David Eller
14. The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.
15. The Secret Origins of the Bible( Must Read)
16. C.S Lewis and The search for Rational Religion
17. The God Delusion by Dawkins
18. God is not Great by Hitchens
19. Bible Prophecy Failure or fulfillment?
20. What is Atheism?
21. God the failed Hypothesis by Stenger
22. Deconstructing Jesus by Robert Price
23. Breaking the Spell Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Danial C Dennet
24. In Gods We Trust by Atran
25. Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer
26. Has science found God? The latest results in the search for the purpose in the Universe by Stenger
27. Value and Purpose in a Godless Universe by Erik J. Wielenberg
28.How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God (second edition) by Michael Shermer
29. Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms
30.The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Neil Asher Silberman
31.Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris
32. The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy by C. Dennis McKinsey
33.Biblical Nonsense: A Review of the Bible for Doubting Christians by Jason Long
34.Atheism & Philosophy by Kai Nielsen
35.Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam by Michel Onfray
36.An Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism by Daniel Harbour
37.Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing The Honesty Of Atheism by Dianna Narciso
38.God's Defenders: What They Believe and Why They Are Wrong by S. T. Joshi
39.The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris
40. The Age of Reason Thomas Pain (MUST READ)
41.Treatise on the Gods (Maryland Paperback Bookshelf) by H. L. Mencken
42.Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness by James A. Haught
43. Kens Guide to the Bible(This one is funny)
44. The reason driven life by Robert Price
45.Russell On Religion (Brilliant)
46.Dialogs on Natural religion by hume ( absolute must read)
47. God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell
48. Why I am not a Muslim
49. The Jesus Mysteries Was the Original Jesus a Pagan God?
50. Critique of Religion and Philosophy by Waulter Kaufmann
51. Leaps of Faith: Science, Miracles, and the Search for Supernatural Consolation
52. looking for a Miracle Joe nickell
53. Doubt: A History
54. The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Non-Believers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound
55. Why Atheism? by George H. Smith
56. The Necessity of Atheism by David Marshall Brooks
57. Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook: All you wanted to know about atheism and why
58. The Faith Healers
59. The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself
60. The faith of a Heretic
61.The Atheist Debaters Handbook
63.God The Devil And Darwin by Niall Shanks
64.Critiques of God; making the case against God
65. The Dark side; How evangelical teachings corrupt love and truth
66. Walking away from faith; unraveling the mystery of belief and unbelief
67. Dictionary of Atheism
68. Philosophers without Gods
69.The essence of Christianity Ludwig Feuerbach
70. Believing in Magic; The psychology of superstition
71. The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God
72. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
73. The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule
74.Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
75. Putting away Childish things
76. Transcendental temptation by Paul Kurtz(Good overall defense of skepticism towards religion and the paranormal)
Here is a list of the best advanced skeptic books.
1. The Wisdom to Doubt; A justification of Religious Skepticism. (This book is very profound. It lays the foundations for complete religious skepticism better then I thought possible. An absolute must read. A unique book. By The way this one is not that hard to read.)
2. Arguing About The Gods (Considered by Many to be the best and most sophisticated discussion on arguments for and against God so far!)
3.Atheism: A Philosophical Justification By Martin (Was The most Comprehensive Atheist book before Oppys came out.)
4.The Impossibility of God by Martin (Important Top Notch collection of Articles discussing the apparent logical Incoherence of the Concept of God)
5. The Improbability of God by Martin by Martin(Another important collection of articles on God)
6. The Miracle Of Theism by Mackie (was considered the top defense of Atheism ever, until oppys book, but this book is shorter and easier to read.)
7. Nonbelief and Evil (Argues powerfully against the Existence of God as Traditionally conceived.
8. Logic and Theism by Sobel (Hear Is what A professor from Calvin College said about this book)
"A time-line of the currently relevant skeptical books on the philosophy of religion that, at the time of their publication, became the skeptical book most fruitful to study would begin in 1975 with William Rowe's THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, if the time-line included both specialized books and comprehensive books. In the interests of brevity and relevance to Sobel's book, a time-line only of the comprehensive books can be described. In 1982, John Mackie's book, THE MIRACLE OF THEISM, became the comprehensive, skeptical book most fruitful to study. In 1990 Michael Martin's comprehensive book, ATHEISM, took prime of place, followed almost immediately in 1991 by Richard Gale's ON THE EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF GOD. In 2004 a new, comprehensive book became the most important of the current skeptical treatises, Howard Sobel's LOGIC AND THEISM. A reader of this book may justifiably finish it with the belief there is a high probability Sobel's book will retain this position for many years to come."
9. The Non-existence of God by Nicholas Everitt ( Very Good book, a must read)
10. The Nature and Existence of God by Richard M Gale
11. God and The Burden Of Proof by Keith Parsons
12. The Cambridge Companion To Atheism
13. Atheism, Meaning and Morality by Martin
14. Suffering Belief: Evil and the Anglo-American Defense of Theism
15.Can God be Free? By William Rowe
16. Arguing for Atheism by Robin Le Poidevin (Intermediate)
17. The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief edited by Tom Flynn ( What Geislers Encyclopedia is too Apologists this is to skeptics. This is an absolute Must have.)
18. The Evidential Argument from Evil (Indiana Series in the Philosophy of Religion) by Daniel Howard-Snyder
Please do not stop writing, the world needs to hear your thoughts. Thank you for all the effort you have made on behalf of the truth.