A Double Standard for Morality?

This started out as a response to a commenter but I thought it was important enough to use as a post for an article. I noticed in the recent Loftus-Wood ‘cross-fire’ debate on the infidelguy show, that Wood seemed to be using the argument that God has a different standard for morality than us. I seem to see this argument a lot. In fact, a recent commenter seemed to be using it against John, and then when I countered it, a different commenter defended it. I wonder how can it be justified that the Abrahamic God should not be expected to adhere to the same rules that we are expected to adhere to with respect to morality.

A father that smokes and tells his son not to smoke creates a problem in his credibility. While it is true that smoking is not healthy and the son is not justified in disregarding that advice, the fact that it can be shown empirically that smoking is unhealthy supports the fathers claim and weakens the effect of the charge of inconsistency. I don't see how anyone can support the claim that God should not be expected to adhere to the same rules that we are expected to adhere to with respect to morality. I don't see how anyone can support a double standard for morality. My argument is an argument from ignorance intended to show that it is more plausible that there should not be a double standard for morality.

The only way that I can see for the believer to refute it is to say something like God is a mystery and that we can not expect to dictate what God can do. This would be a mischaracterization and an appeal to the supernatural, specifically God, but the presumption of God and the supernatural is controversial. In the case that the believer says that God is a special case, for whatever reason, would be a case of special pleading, and they would have to show why morality rules for us don't apply to God. In the end, their presumption is still that God exists and as I said before this is a weak premise in that it is controversial on two, maybe three, points.
1. that there is a god
2. that it is the Abrahamic god
3. Possibly irrelevant, but that he had anything to do with scripture.

In the case that they choose that strategy, it would be an argument from ignorance as well, but weaker because its premises are controversial. I am not suggesting that I have authority to decide or dictate what God can or cannot do, I can only say what he should or should not do using informal logic and defeasible reasoning schemes.

The exchange in the forums went as follows.

Commenter1: have you ever stopped to realize how infinitely gracious God is to not have annihilated the entire human race?

Lee: Would you say that my dogs should be infinitely grateful that I don't kill them when I get up in the morning?

Commenter2: I cant see the dog analogy as a viable one…Its an argument of proportion.

My point was that that there is a strong presumption that God shouldn't kill us therefore it doesn't follow that we should be grateful that he doesn't. For him to kill us would be immoral or criminal. There is a weaker presumption that I shouldn't kill my dog. It would be more immoral for God to kill me than it would be for me to kill my dog. I think this argument should expose the 'double standard' for morals that I see being argued by believers for humans and God. What follows is a 'dizzying' defense of that claim.

Most analogies are flawed, that is why they are a defeasible form of argument. But when analogies can be shown to be similar enough to a situation, they can be used to increase the plausibility of a position.
The dog analogy is not similar in the fact that I am not a God and my dog is not a human and I didn't create the dog.
The dog analogy works because of the relationship, not because of the proportion.

When a Christian says that we should be grateful that God lets us live, that sets up the relationship. In theory, God created us, he is more powerful than us, he has control of whether we live or die, we should thank him for our daily bread (which creates the presumption that he has some control over it), and we should thank him that he lets us live.

When I say that my dog should be grateful that I let him live, In reality, I did not create him (negative analogy), I am more powerful than him (positive), I am in control of whether he lives or dies (pos.), he should thank me for his food (pos.), and he should thank me that I let him live.

The discrepency in my analogy (that I did not create the dog), is actually a negative for the believers argument. Here's why. I should have used my son instead of my dog, because it would have been more appropriate but I didn't think about it. In a way, I created my son, or at least I was a catalyst for his existence.

Here is the rough hierarchy for that analogy, dog < son < me < God. For me to kill my dog is less criminal than for me to kill my son, therefore, I should be expected to be less likely to kill my son than my dog. Therefore, to say that my dog should be happy that I let him live has more force than to say to my son that he should be happy that I let him live, and it should have less force to say that I should be happy that God lets me live. It should be less likely that God would kill me than I would kill my son. Therefore, if God were to kill me, it would be more criminal / immoral than if I were to kill my son, or my dog.

If I injected God into the equation, it would have more force to say that I should be happy that God lets my dog live, less force to say that I should be happy that God lets my son live, less force to say that I should be happy that God lets me live. I know that in reality, my son and I should be equal in Gods eyes, but like I said, analogies are defeasible.

So for me to kill my dog would be less criminal than for God to kill me, and therefore it would be more criminal for God to kill me than for me to kill my dog, therefore there is a stronger PRESUMPTION that God shouldn't kill me therefore it can be EXPECTED that God shouldn't kill me, therefore it doesn't follow that we should be grateful that God doesn't kill us because there is a strong presumption that he shouldn't kill us because it would be criminal or immoral, more so than if I were to kill my dog.

Miracle Watch March 23 - 26, 2007

I have a google news alert for miracles. I've been doing this for years, now I want to share it with you. This is an attempt to find instances of miracles. If Christians are right, and God provides without asking and they have seen at least one prayer answered, then with information at our fingertips, in this day and age, I could conceivably find up to 2 Billion instances of miracles in my lifetime. This is based on the fact that statistics from the World Book Atlas (corroborated on some other internet demographics sites) show that there are around 2 billion Christians in the world. I am going to assume that I can only find one tenth of that, just for the benefit of the doubt. That would mean that I could find up to 1,923,077 a week over 20 years.

Man Overboard Story
Critic
He seems to be the only one that thinks it is a miracle, and a news critic faults abc news for getting the facts all messed up. ABC is in a ‘position to know’ and has an implied responsibility to get the facts correct. If ABC news, who says they put high value on credibility, and has advanced communication capabilities, can’t get the facts right, can we really trust people without such a vested interest and not it a ‘position to know’? For example, the Gospel writers?

Weeping Jesus
A couple of paintings with Jesus weeping blood, some say it
could also be red paint running because of the humidity.

Weeping Madonna
The priest said “Indeed, even after hurrying over to check out what was happening at the Heroldsbach hostel, the local priest, Rev. Dietrich von Stockhausen, still wasn't prepared to immediately believe
what he was seeing. "When heaven wants to give us a sign," he said, "then it will be one that we can understand. It won't be such a vague one, and one that is so easy to manipulate."
That’s what I keep saying! Yet every Christian I know says they have seen prayer answered or God providing without asking, but I just can’t catch one!

Boy and his slab
He spent two hours under a slab of concrete that ‘came out of nowhere to fall on him’. He was able to wriggle enough to be able to breathe.

Face of Jesus in the Ultrasound photo
To me, it looks more like a pirate.

Motorcycle Wreck
I think the glory should go to the ambulance team who worked their butt off to keep her alive.
“In the ambulance while enroute to the JCL trauma center, Graff
lost her pulse and went into cardiac arrest due to massive bleeding
from her aorta. Paramedics Dorrance and Thomas and SW Ambulance
paramedics Jennifer Hoffman and Robert Arnott continued aggressive
compressions until arriving to an awaiting trauma team.”

Paul Manata, the Resurrection, History and Logic

Paul Manata sees a problem with the way I argue against the resurrection of Jesus. In the first place I argued that, "A foreknowing and omniscient God should've easily known that history is a poor medium to reveal himself in, especially if he did so in an ancient superstitious era. If he did so, he's not too bright, for there is every reason for us to disbelieve today."

Manata: “Notice that John can't be touched by any historical argument for Christianity. Heads John wins, tails God looses. If God is all knowing he wouldn't reveal himself in history, especially ancient history, when all the morons lived. And, if we could show that God did reveal himself, then God is stupid, and hence not omniscient, and therefore not the God of Christianity.”

Loftus: My point about history is that I should not have to believe anything the ancients believed just because they believed it. I think the same goes for the beliefs of any era. Just because people believe something does not give me a good reason to believe the same thing. I must be able to test what I believe based upon good evidence and sound reasoning.

On the one hand, there is the historical evidence concerning the resurrection of Jesus from the grave, along with the other beliefs the resurrection commits many Christians to, i.e., a Trinitarian God, and the Incarnation. On the other hand, it seems logically incoherent that one God eternally created two others Gods, and it seems logically incoherent that one person can be 100% God and 100% man, as I previously argued.

So we have the historical evidence on one side, and logic on the other side. Which do I choose? I choose logic. This is obvious. Anyone who has done any introductory level studies in the philosophy of history will know the problems in understanding the non-miraculous events of the past. There are philosophers who claim we cannot know what happened in the past at all! That’s what they think about ordinary, non-miraculous history. So how much more does this apply to the claims of a miraculous past?

What I argue for is that logic is of a much greater value than historical evidence when it comes to testing the foundational miracle and doctrinal claims of Christianity. The role of logic is to test these resultant doctrinal claims for consistency. That’s what logic is supposed to do, test beliefs for their internal consistency, so there shouldn’t be any objection with my doing so.

I’m not saying history doesn’t provide evidence one way or the other about the resurrection of Jesus. I actually think the historical evidence for the resurrection is just not there, even if we exclude the logical problems. I think historical evidence is important, and I think I can know what happened in the past, in varying degrees of assurance, but never with certainty. However, given the fact that the evidence of history won’t convince the believer to think otherwise, I use logic to debunk what historical evidence doesn’t do.

So it’s incorrect for Manata to say, “John can't be touched by any historical argument for Christianity.” It is likewise incorrect for him to say, “Loftus is willing to listen, not to history, but to logic.” For the truth is, I “listen” to both. They are both important for assessing the truth claims of Christianity. It’s just that when believers don’t agree with where the historical evidence leads, I turn to logic. And it’s true that logic can deliver a much bigger punch here. For if the historical evidence is debatable when logic can show that the resultant doctrinal beliefs are incoherent, then taken together with how I argue for the historical evidence, it renders faith in the resurrection null and void.

Manata again: "But, in a stroke of genius, Loftus has an ace up his sleeve!"

Loftus: Thanks Paul, for noticing! *Blush* Thank you, thank you very much! ;-)

Manata: “Says Loftus, ‘I am finding that logic doesn't help us much at all in the quest for metaphysical truths.’” To read what I wrote in context see here.

Manata: “So, to avoid any historical argument, Loftus consigns it all (well, all of it that the ancient stupid people said) to the flames. But…he'll accept logical arguments for these metaphysical truths. But, and this is the great part...if ever confronted by a logical argument he can dismiss that as well since it 'doesn't help us much at all in the quest for metaphysical truths.' Hence, we can't touch Loftus."

Loftus: Since Manata quotes this phrase from me so often I should explain.

The next time he quotes this I’d also like him to quote what I said later in that same blog entry where I wrote, “My particular attack on religious faith is to consider how we gained our presuppositions in the first place.” Logic is used in the service of presuppositions, and Paul knows this. That’s why he’s a presuppositionalist. According to Robert McKim, “We seem to have a remarkable capacity to find arguments that support positions which we antecedently hold. Reason is, to a great extent, the slave of prior commitments.” Religious Ambiguity and Religious Diversity (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. ix. [To read more of the limits of logic and reason see here].

Logic does not give us our beliefs. Logic merely helps us to see the consistency of that which we believe. And it allows us to conclude still other beliefs based upon some initial beliefs (i.e., it helps us see the implications of that which we initially believe, or assume). This is all true. It's not that logic cannot help at all; it's that it doesn't help us that much when it comes to acquiring our beliefs in the first place. This is one difference that makes all of the difference.

If logic is helpful in acquiring the true religious and metaphysical beliefs, then why is it that we all disagree with each other? I don't think people who disagree with me have a lower I.Q. at all. And if logic helps us settle our disagreements, then why is Paul still a believer in the resurrection of Jesus? I’ve argued that his doctrinal beliefs in the trinity and in the incarnation are logically incoherent. So why does he continue to believe?

Besides, my main point is that we never find logic in the abstract. None of us are logic machines. Our passional nature gets in the way. We hold to mutually inconsistent propositions and don't realize it, or won't admit it. So we cannot claim that logic will help us concerning world-view beliefs, when logic never exists in the abstract “Spockian” sense. Logic is overwhelmingly used to defend prior religious commitments based upon when and where someone was born. Such an admission first led me to agnosticism, and then later to atheism. This is the same reason I've proposed the Outsider Test for faith [Someone gave me my own entry on this]!

Manata faults me with inconsistency when I say I would go with logic every time, even though I turn right around and argue we never find logic in the abstract.

I will go with what logic tells me, and that's all I can do. Anyway, I challenge him and other Christians to solve for me the problem of the incarnation, and how a being can truly eternally create an equal being if they want to continue to believe. While there is no such thing as logic in the abstract, which means we will still disagree, I don't believe Christians can sufficiently solve these problems even if logic doesn't exist in the abstract. Christians will just have to punt to mystery and to faith, and they will. But that's different than solving these two problems, correct?

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are built on a faulty premise

This may be old news to some, but maybe not to others, so here goes!
A valid conclusion is tied to the truth or plausibility of its supporting premises. The truth of the three Abrahamic religions is tied to the presumption that scripture is true.
Premise: The Bible tells us about God.
Premise: The Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, God.
Premise: The Bible must be true.
Conclusion: God Exists.
The faulty premise that I am talking about is the proposition that the various religious scriptures came from Divine Inspiration. To say that "God exists and all we know about him comes from the Bible and the Bible comes from God, therefore it is true" is circular reasoning, AKA begging the question. The argument begs us to accept the presumption that God Exists in order for the propositions to be true.

If we accept the proposition that the Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, then we must necessarily presume (already believe) that (1)God exists, and that (2)scripture came from him and Scripture must be correct because it came from God. These are two unstated premises that the argument depends on. The critical questions in this argument are "how do we know that God exists" and also "How do we know the Bible came from God". Since it doesn't follow logically to say that we believe in God because the scriptures tell us that they came from God and the Scriptures tell us about God, then we need "corroborating evidence" to support the conclusion that God exists. To support a claim such as this I presume would be an easy matter since the preponderance of evidence should overwhelmingly support the creator. I would suppose that a careful analysis of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran would reveal a preponderance of evidence supporting their validity. But in fact this is not the case.

As I understand it, in these three faiths, the scriptures are considered Divinely Inspired. To avoid linguistic confusion, we need to define what "inspired" means. To the faithful, I think we can say that they believe that "Inspired" means more or less by "Revelation from God”, but in another context, the term "inspiration" means more or less the “motivation to describe or portray" an idea. We can be motivated by Godor we can be motivated by the Idea of God.

If we stipulate that the Scripture came to us through divine inspiration/revelation, then we would expect it to have some characteristics of documents that came from one mind, assuming that God only has one mind. And we can check to see if these characteristics exist. We can check for consistency and continuity. For example if a Dan Brown novel contained inconsistencies such as exist in the gospels regarding the 'empty tomb' (only because Easter is around the corner, but you can insert your own example here), I don't expect it would be a bestseller. I expect people would not take it seriously since it would lack consistency and continuity.

And if we stipulate that the scripture came to us through ideological inspiration then we would expect other types of characteristics consistent with documents that were the result of many minds, such as the types of inconsistencies and problems of continuity that we all know exist in the Bible.

What is needed is some corroborating evidence that lends support to the idea that a God exists and he had an active part in the creation of scripture. We need something besides the Bible. Lets look at some characteristics of the Bible and think about what they may mean.

- Generally speaking, over the years churches have more and more assumed the position that the effective understanding of the Bible comes from interpreting it as metaphor. For example, I have heard devout protestant Christian ministers say that the Bible is not a "science book" or "a History Book" in response to the criticism that there are inconsistencies in these areas.

- Forgive me for dredging up a tired example, the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his belief in the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the Sun. This was later demonstrated through science to be the case as we all know. I would not have expected the creator to have been so ambiguous about this.

- The Laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are likewise minimized and rationalized away as only being applicable in a different time. Some of them were insightful, some of them common sense (Deut.23:12-14) but I expect that a God, rather than saying that excrement should be buried outside camp because it is indecent and he would turn away from them, I expect a God would have explained that there were properties of excrement that were dangerous and life threatening. Maybe an introduction to germ theory. In fact, in all cases where Christians and Muslims point to this or that as evidence that God gave advanced knowledge of this or that, It could have been done better. These days, we explain science to children better than God did to his beloved.

- Slavery was supported in large part by Jesus' advisement to slaves to obey their masters. Logically, I don’t see why slavery would be permissible in those days and not now if Jesus advocated it.

- The faithful concede that there necessarily must be copyist errors in the Bible to explain some difficulties. I would have expected that the alpha and the omega would have wanted his word as error free as possible and would have been able to make that happen, even across languages. Maybe he could have made a holy language, which was perfect that would have preserved everything perfectly.

- Archeological discoveries in the Near East and specifically in Ugarit of documents that were written about and in praise of other Gods pre-date the Bible scriptures which paraphrase or match verbatim. It seems that some of the Biblical scriptures were borrowed. It seems that the story that I grew up with, that David wrote the Psalms and Moses wrote the Pentateuch, can't be true. Is this still being taught in Sunday school?

Internal inconsistencies exist, regarding all sorts of things including the most important event in the history of mankind. The resurrection of its Savior, God incarnate. And all this from scripture that were supposedly given to us by inspiration or revelation from one mind.

The discussion above does not support the claim that scripture was the revelation from one mind, but more neatly supports the assertion that scripture was the result of many human minds through ideological inspiration. The closer you get to the original documents, the less likely it is that scripture was the product of one supernatural mind, through human beings. It was put together out of lots of little pieces written at different times and places and is similar to other writings from other times and places from other cultures. And It is clear that those authors did not write them with the intention of them being put into one volume. Scripture is, in a word, Folklore; In two words, Oral Tradition. As John W. Loftus said "the Bible debunks itself".

So, if we concede that the scriptures are not the product of God, then we really don't know anything about God, including if he exists or not.

Easter: Did Jesus Arise? The Choice is Obvious.

One week after April Fool's day Christians will celebrate Easter to remember the resurrection of Jesus. My claim is that there is nothing to celebrate because Jesus never arose from the dead. Whether Jesus arose from the grave is a historical claim, and only as strong as historial claims can be. If God chose to reveal himself in the historical past then he chose a poor medium to do so. However, the Easter "event" is not just a historical claim. It is also a miraculous claim in history. As such it can be even more easily be doubted, especially when the Bible itself tells us that ancient people were very superstitious.

I have read several books, essays, and Blogs where Christians claim that the early church believed Jesus bodily arose from the dead. I disagree that the church had a uniform testimony about this. Along with Matthew J. Green I think their belief about Jesus came about through a series of visions.

But even if I were to grant that the early church believed Jesus bodily rose from the grave, so what? Big deal. Why should I believe what they did? Why? We reject many ideas that the ancients believed. There are many ancient philosophical, theological, historical and psychological ideas which we reject today. A whole book could be written about these mistaken beliefs. Why should I believe anything an ancient person believed? I certainly shouldn't believe it simply because it can be shown that an ancient person (or persons) believed it, especially if it has to do with something miraculous, since nearly all ancient people believed in the miracles done at the hands of their gods and goddessess.

Christians stress that because the resurrection happened it means God exists, the Bible is true, and there will come a day when we will all be judged and rewarded for what we do on earth. There are intellectual difficulties with each of these beliefs, of course.

But there are two specific problematic beliefs Christians are led to accept if Jesus arose from the dead. If Jesus arose then there is a Triune God. How did we get "three" Gods? Richard Swinburne argues that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God who “proceeds” from the first God. He argues there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods, since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods,” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” ["Could There Be More Than One God?" Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 5, No. 3, July '88):225-241].

The whole reason Swinburne stops at three Gods is because he's a Trinitarian Christian. He bases his philosophical analysis upon his understanding of ancient historical documents in the Bible. If the Bible had taught there were two or four divine persons in the Godhead, then Swinburne would've stopped his analysis at two or four Gods, not three. What needs to be asked of Swinburne is how one God can eternally create "uncreated" Gods in the first place. These are just meaningless words, in my opinion. One cannot use the word create to describe an uncreated being, otherwise these words have no meaning. Swinburne must also explain how any being (man or God) can create an equal. This too makes little sense. For if the two other Gods are created by the first God, then these two other Gods are lesser in quality than the first God, and not fully God.

There is a second additional problem. If Jesus arose then there was at least one person who was 100% man and 100% God with nothing left over, which involves several serious internal problems.

So which is more likely, given that history is a poor medium for God to reveal himself in miraculous deeds, and given the superstitious nature of the ancient people? Either Christians like Swinburne are correct about the origins of the Trinity, and that the logical problems with the incarnation can be reconciled, or historical claims of miraculous deeds in the ancient superstitious past did not happen as reported. Such things were either visionary in nature, which we see in several passages in the Bible (below), or these purported miracles were as uneventful as Benny Hinn's miracles are today. The choice seems obvious to me.

----------------------------------------
A brief footnote about visions.

According to the Prophet Joel, Peter the Apostle, and the gospel writer Luke who records it, dreams, visions, and prophecies have a close connection with each other. "'In the last days,' God says, 'I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.'" (Acts 2:17). "Vision" according to the New Bible Dictionary: "The borderline between vision and dream or trance is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Visions had close connections with the dream-state (Num. 12:6; Job 4:13)."

Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father, didn’t actually see angels, he saw a vision (Luke 1:22). The women who went to the tomb of Jesus said they didn’t see angels, just a vision. (Luke 24:23). Ananias saw visions and followed them to speak to Saul/Paul (Acts 9:10, 17). At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius who received a vision (Acts 10:1-3). The Apostle Peter himself learned through a vision that “God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” (Acts 11:5-6,18). Peter received his “vision,” while “in a trance.” Paul himself received a vision while in a trance (Acts 22:17), as did the Old Testament prophet Daniel (8:18, 10:9).

Ancient people would put themselves in a trance to gain divine knowledge. How often did Peter and Paul do that? The Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon tells us that “Trance” equals “ecstasy,” “throwing of the mind out of its normal state, alienation of mind, whether such as makes a lunatic or that of a man who by some sudden emotion is transported as it were out of himself, so that in this rapt condition, although he is awake, his mind is drawn off from all surrounding objects and wholly fixed on things divine that he sees nothing but the forms and images lying within, and thinks that he perceives with his bodily eyes and ears realities shown him by God.”

Paul’s missionary journeys are said to be directed by visions, which happened in the night (Acts 16:9-10), hence dreams. In Acts 18:9 it is said that Paul was once again in a trance. Paul even equates his Damascus Road conversion experience to a vision, “So, King Agrippa, I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision.” (Acts 26:19).

---------------------------------------

Why should anyone today believe what an ancient person was led to believe because of a dream-like trance-induced vision? How does anyone know that such visions were actually from God, especially when we have logical difficulties with Christianity that we can think through? I'll go with logic over history everytime, especially a miraculous history which can be attributed to visions. A foreknowing and omniscient God should've easily known that history is a poor medium to reveal himself in, especially if he did so in an ancient superstitious era. If he did so, he's not too bright, for there is every reason for us to disbelieve today. If God just doesn't care if we disbelieve, then he doesn't care for us at all, especially if there is a hell for people who cannot believe, like me.

The Blast Feel Me of the Holy Spurt ("The Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" AKA "The Blasphemy Challenge")

Written by John Loftus: 

Am I taking the “Blasphemy Challenge?” (google the phrase, see what you get). I strongly suspect it’s not necessary, because, “Blasphemy Challenges” aside, isn’t it a major Protestant view that people are simply damned if they reach the age of accountability and don’t convert? No need to do anything, the damnation of everybody simply “is,” unless they convert and say they believe, and believe it too. Some Protestants and Catholics still even defend the centuries old Christian notion of “infant damnation,” i.e., if a newborn is not baptized and dies it goes straight to hell; again no need to “blaspheme” in order to be damned. And Catholics, whose church membership is about as large as that of all Protestant denominations put together (according to adherents.com), believe that even if you are baptized and confirmed (when you reach the age of accountability, though Catholics don’t call it that), you can still be damned if you die with a single “mortal sin” on your soul that hasn’t been confessed and repented. Even the Protestants who believe that you “can’t lose your salvation,” or that the righteous are “predestined” to receive saving grace and hence can’t be damned, even those folks have difficulties convincing themselves sometimes that they indeed display all the proper and convincing “signs” of being one of the “eternally chosen,” and hence even Calvinists can experience dark doubts that they might not be among the chosen since in the end it is God choice to save or damn whomever. Therefore there is plenty of damning going on according to various Christianities (or fear of not being among the righteous) without even the need to commit “blasphemy.”

But let’s look at the verses themselves, as found in the earliest Gospel, Mark (upon which the two later Gospels, Matthew and Luke were built literarily speaking):

“He [Jesus] had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him. Whenever the evil[a] spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, ‘You are the Son of God.’ But he gave them strict orders not to tell who he was. [...] the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.’ So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: ‘How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.’ He said this because they were saying, ‘He has an evil spirit.’” (Mark, chapter 3)

J.P. Holding quotes James D. G. Dunn (not an inerrantist) who points out that the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” referred to people who claimed Jesus was possessed, and that Dunn’s interpretation was this one:

“...the beneficial effect of [Jesus’] exorcisms was so self-evidently of God and wrought by his Spirit, that to attribute it to Satan was the worse kind of perversity -- deliberately to confuse the Spirit of God with the power of Satan was to turn one’s back on God and his forgiveness (Mark 3:29)” [Dunn].

It’s too bad that Jesus didn’t have the knack of expressing himself as precisely as Dunn does above, putting each of his sayings in such clear theological perspective. It also appears to me that Dunn might be going beyond what Mark 3 says by adding perhaps an overly elaborate theologically driven explanation, though note that even the author of the Markan Gospel felt that the saying about “an unforgiveable sin” needed a bit of commentary, so he followed it with his little explanation, “He [Jesus] said this because they were saying ‘He has an evil spirit.’”

Personally I prefer concentrating on the other passages of Jesus above, in which Jesus asks whether a person accused of having an evil spirit would go around casting out evil in others? I agree that doesn’t make sense, because why or how would Satan cast out Satan? It’s also self evident that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Those sorts of points are all that’s needed to be said in a case of somebody accusing somebody else of casting out Satan via Satan’s own power. It’s like pointing out, how can I be evil if I’m helping other people, and even casting away evil?

But Jesus (or whomever wrote or spoke the words above, since I doubt every word attributed to Jesus in the Gospels must necessarily have been spoken by him) went farther than just making the self evident points about why evil would cast out evil, and perhaps later the line was added about the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” being “unforgivable.”

In fact, the New Interpreter’s Bible raised a similar question:

“The ‘unpardonable sin’ saying of 12:31–32 came from Jesus in the form of an absolute and universal pronouncement of forgiveness to the ‘sons of men,’ but in subsequent modifications the exception of ‘blasphemy of the Holy Spirit’ was added and ‘sons of men’ became the Christological title ‘Son of Man.’” [See endnote #1]

Another question is based on the recognition that Luke-Acts [which were composed after both Mark and Matthew] separates the story about Jesus’ exorcisms from his declaration concerning “the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.” The author of Luke-Acts appears to have separated the exorcism story from the declaration for a theological reason, namely to broaden the notion of what “the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit “ meant, by no longer limiting it as the Gospels of Mark and Matthew did to Jesus’ miracle working ability being confused with the power of “Satan.” According to the author of Luke-Acts the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” now refers to rejecting any spirit-filled or God-filled message, and is no longer connected with blaming Jesus’ miracle-working powers on “Satan.” See Luke 12:9-12:

“And I say to you, everyone who confesses Me before men, the Son of Man shall confess him also before the angels of God; but he who denies Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him. And when they bring you before the synagogues and the rulers and the authorities, do not become anxious about how or what you should speak in your defense, or what you should say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say.” (Luke 12:9-12. See also Acts 5:1-4 in which Ananias “lies to the Holy Ghost” holds back some money from the church, and dies.)

“The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit here [in Luke] is the rejection of the Spirit-taught witnesses who confess the Son of Man before men.” (Mark Horne, “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit?” [online])

“In Mark’s context, then, the sin against the Holy Sprit involves deliberately shutting one’s eyes to the light and consequently calling good evil; [but] in Luke it is irretrievable apostasy.” (Bruce, F. F. The Hard sayings of Jesus. Illinois: InterVarsity Press; 1983, p.93).

So the author of Luke-Acts appears to have sought to broaden the definition of the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.”

Another question to ask about such a statement is whether or not it was born of ancient Near Eastern hyperbole (or exaggeration)? There is plenty of hyperbole in the O.T. and N.T. like “plucking out your eye and cutting off your hand” rather than “sinning” with them, and going to hell with both of them left intact, “because it’s better to enter heaven with one eye or one hand rather than be cast into hell.” That’s hyperbole. So are the lines about having to “hate” parents and brothers and sisters in order to be a disciple. (I won’t go into why such hyperbole sounds offensive, including the line about “letting the dead bury the dead” when one disciple asked to return home for the funeral of a relative). Psalm. 51 is hyperbole too, a psalm about the sin of adultery--In that psalm its author declares that he was “a sinner from the womb.” Note that the psalm is about personally debasing oneself before ones God [Yahweh] in order to gain forgiveness, like cringing before an ancient Near Eastern potentate or monarch, whipping yourself to show them how sorry you are, “I was bad! I’m sorry, I was so bad, um, that I was a sinner even from, the womb!” Hyperbole. Exaggeration. So if you consider that the line about a sin being “unforgivable” might be the result of the ancient Near Eastern love of hyperbole, then Jesus (or whomever came up with the “unforgivable blasphemy” line) might have been adding to points already made about how stupid a person is to believe that helping people and casting away demons comes from being possessed by evil. In other words, to assume such a thing is unforgivably stupid, and maybe not literally unforgivable, but certainly hyperbolically so. And as I said above, such a saying might also be the result of someone other than Jesus pondering the story and trying to sum up a message theologically. Or it might be the result of a misinterpretation of the phrase “son of man,” as the Interpreter’s Bible pointed out above.

Trouble is we didn’t live back then, and our “sources” cannot be proven to be inerrant recordings, certainly not tape recordings or videos. So we are left pondering questions of authenticity, change, varying interpretations over time. As for the meanings of the words we possess in the different Gospels, their interpretation raises further questions. Though we can study the language from a distance and know what the literal meaning of words were back then, we can’t be certain concerning the poetic or rhetorical or hyperbolic meanings or intentions of written words for that culture or that audience at that time and in that instance. It’s tough enough trying to understand how to take some of the sentences people send each other in emails today during a discussion.

I would also add that some scholars view the Gospel of Mark (the earliest written Gospel) as not teaching that Jesus was God, but rather an adopted “Son” of God at his baptism (with which the Markan Gospel begins, i.e., citing a psalm at Jesus’ baptism that was recited at the enthronement of Hebrew Kings that said, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you,” or adopted you to be my “son”). So what if the earliest view among the first Gospel writer’s community was that Jesus was chosen and empowered by God, but not God, and hence, “all manner of words spoken against the son of man [Jesus]” would be forgivable because he simply was not God, but God’s chosen adopted vice-regent, chosen at baptism, not birth. But in contrast to the “Son of Man,” the “Holy Spirit” was indeed God. Such an interpretation of the saying is yet another one that makes sense for scholars who argue that Mark, the earliest Gospel, was based on an “adoptionist” Christology.

Lastly, if you believe that Jesus was part of a “Trinity” and all parts of the “Trinity” were equal parts of one whole God, then why make words spoken against Jesus forgivable, but words spoken against the Holy Spirit of God “unforgivable?” Can you really get away with blaspheming some parts of the Trinity but not others? (Or was Jesus, according to the author of the earliest Gospel, not as much “God” as the “Holy Spirit?”)

Let’s just say that the verse about an “unforgivable” sin has caused even the most devout believing Christians restlessness and worry over the centuries. Some have feared quite deeply that they might have committed a sin that damns them for all eternity, especially when the “unforgivable” sin is interpreted as broadly as it is in Luke-Acts as ignoring or not listening to the “Holy Spirit of God” as spoken through even a human prophet. (See what I wrote above about the “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” according to Luke-Acts.)

Such talk of an “unforgivable sin” creates fear that some sort of sin exists out there that is not defined very clearly, or defined differently in different Gospels. A sin worse than “all the sins and blasphemies of men,” as Jesus said about it in Mark 3, and that such a sin can “never be forgiven.” All Christians would probably like to be able to read in the Bible exactly what the unforgivable sin is in order to calm their fears, but the verses in Mark 3 (not to mention the verses in Luke-Acts) are not as clear in explaining themselves as the interpretations from Dunn and J.P. Holding are. I haven’t checked the history of interpretation of those verses over the centuries by learned Christians but I bet there’s a book written by a theologian who has made such a comparison. And I bet interpretations have differed.

At any rate, if the verse means what J. P. Holding (quoting Dunn) says it does, then is it speaking about people who reject Holding’s and Dunn’s Nicean/Chalcedonian/Trinitarian Christian theology? That doesn’t sound right either, because Jesus wasn’t speaking to an audience that knew of such orthodox creedal statements, but instead was speaking to an audience that merely knew, say, “The Lord’s Prayer,” which even Jews can pray today. [See endnote #2 for J. P. Holding’s take.]

I also wonder what “sin” I am committing if I say “to hell with the whole question?” Who cares what the author of Mark wrote? I’m going to live my life based on everything I have learned during my life, and admit that there will always be things I don’t know and that I honestly don’t feel right dogmatizing so clearly about them all, especially things beyond death, in another supernatural realm, beyond touch and sight, etc. The world and ancient books no longer seem as clear to me exegetically as they once did when I was a born again Bible believing (and later, tongue-speaking) Christian.


ENDNOTES

#1 The author of the interpretation I cited is E. Boring (Brite Divinity School, Texas Christian University) who writes on Matthew from a mainline critical perspective, affirming Matthew’s use of Mark, Q and M. He believes that Matthew was written by an anonymous author around 90 CE, presumably in Antioch. (See, The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 8: General Articles on the New Testament; The Gospel of Matthew; The Gospel of Mark. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.)

#2 Below is a statement by J.P. Holding at Tektonics about the Blasphemy Challenge from his Whazzup! page: http://www.tektonics.org/newstuff.html

December 11, 2006
I’ll be improving some files in the Classics collection today, and we also have an anti-blog note. The self-alleged “Rational Response Squad” (aka Fundy Atheists on the Run) has now launched a program in which they give away 1001 copies of The God Who Wasn’t There to anyone making a video of themselves, posted on “YouTube” (the video version of Wikipedia, to the extent that it is an exercise in unrestrained anarchy), blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Of course their understanding of what that means is as primtive as Flemming’s was (they need only make a video of themselves saying they are not Christians; it is not necessary to say specifically, “I deny the Holy Spirit”), but in any event, it’s nice to see that the crew there has finally grown up a little, so that they are now in their terrible twos. May we suggest for their next feat they ask their readers to post videos of themselves crying for their blankies.

Which Team do I Cheer for?

If you look at the top of this blog, there is a blurb announcing to the world at large what one would find here, as one wanders about the internet. Specifically it says we are debunking “Evangelical Christianity.”

So all you Catholic Christians, and Fundamentalist Christians and Liberal Christians can breathe a sign of relief. We are not looking to address your beliefs here. Unless, of course, you consider yourself an Evangelical Catholic Christian or Evangelical Liberal Christian, in which case it would appear you are fair game.

But what if I don’t want to debunk Evangelical Christianity? For all I know, Evangelical Christianity is not the most correct depiction of what Christianity is—perhaps I would prefer to focus on what qualifies as the Most Correctest Christianity.

What method is available by which we determine the most correct form of Christianity?

Let me pause for a moment and mention the Burden of Proof. (Half the readers groan, and ALL the readers scratch their heads wondering how that cropped up here.)

I don’t mind having the Burden of Proof. But by its nature, atheism is a negative position, in that it asserts something does not exist. In order for me to even assume the Burden, I must first rely upon the theist to provide me an attribute of their God, or a description, by which I can then argue as to the possibility of such a creature with that attribute or description.

Probably all of us have been involved in the frustrating discussion of:

Skeptic: God can’t do ____.
Theist: But that is not the type of God I believe in.
Skeptic: O.K. Then God cannot be ____.
Theist: Strawman. Not my God, either.

While we can argue all day about who has the Burden of Proof, or what exactly is the Burden of Proof, or what Standard of Proof; in order to even get the discussion off the ground, we have to know at least something about this God.

For example, it would be completely useless for me to spend hours and days putting together a monstrous entry on how polytheism must be incorrect. Those who contribute would shrug, and most (if not all) who read here would equally shrug. That is not the type of God we seem to be discussing.

In order to narrow the field, for purposes of this blog, we focus on Evangelical Christianity. But even so, we often find ourselves discussing with Christians who vary widely regarding literalism, inerrancy, and evolution, let alone more specific doctrines such as election, atonement, age of accountability, and the salvation process. (And don’t even get started on the nature of hell, and who is going there!)

We see discussions, and even heated battles among those who call themselves true Christians as to who has the correct doctrine, who does not, and who is not even close. (I can imagine, in my mind, a set of brackets in which we pit various Christian beliefs against each other, narrowing it down to the “Sacred Sixteen” and eventually the “Final Forsooth” to end with the Champion in the Necessarily Correct and Accurate Article of Faith (NCAAF) tournament.)

Look, I am not saying that merely because we have these various beliefs, and denominational differences, we must assume that every one is wrong. Not at all! It is quite possible that some are far more likely to be true as compared to others. Even the Christians involved would tend to agree with that. The question is—how can we know? What method do we use to determine which is more accurate as compared to the other?

To understand the question, imagine I was interviewing Christians who held a variety of beliefs. I explained I was a researcher for a Hollywood Director. We are working on an upcoming film, and within this film the writers have decided to incorporate a Christian. But (being from Hollywood) we are uncertain as to what that means, so we are performing research and interviewing Christians in the hopes to accurately portray a Christian. We want the character to be as “real” of a Christian as only Hollywood can provide!

What would a Christian say, in order for us to understand and recognize, that their particular list of beliefs—THIS most accurately portrays a Christian? All too often, what we see in our discussions are mere recitals of what a particular Christian believes, and no basis (except one I will deal with in a minute) for why that particular belief is accurate.

We are told (for example) that clearly hell is merely an analogy for annihilation and there really is not an actual lake of fire. But the next Christian informs us that no…hell is an actual place of torture, but that it is not forever and a person will be provided an opportunity to repent. And that the first Christian was not the sort of Christian we should be listening to, if we want the “true” picture of Christianity.

Then a third Christian gives us their recital of their position on hell, that it is both a lake of actual fire, and that it is forever with no opportunity to repent. Further, if we want the most accurate picture of Christianity, we should not be listening to the first two Christians.

But how do I, as a researcher, utilize a method to determine which one is correct?

To emphasize the difficulty to a Christian—imagine you were the researcher. But instead of a Christian, the writers were including a Jewish character. How would you go about determining what is the most accurate depiction of Judaism? Is it Hasidic? Orthodoxy? Conservative? Reformed? Or what if you were to research for the most accurate depiction of a Muslim? What method could you use to determine the “most accurate” of the various sects?

Most likely, after hearing the various positions, each emphasizing their own validity, while equally debunking the other sects; you would fall on one of two swords:

1) Either pick the most innocuous, most common belief among the sects, in the hopes that by commonality, you are close; OR

2) Simply pick the most popular, since there really isn’t any method presented as to determine which is the most “real” or most “correct” form of Judaism or Islam.

Because there IS no such thing as a truly accurate depiction of a truly correct Jew or Muslim. Why is it any different when we view the various competing beliefs within Christianity?

Interestingly, the one basis most often used as to why a person’s particular belief is more likely correct as compared to another is common sense. Reasonableness. Oh, they will argue that it is based upon the Bible, but it is not just the Bible. One’s interpretation OF that Bible will cause different results. And each one is arguing that their interpretation is the most correct. Why? Because it is the most reasonable.

To some, it seems reasonable that all are doomed for hell, and God elected some out for salvation. Others find the concept of limited atonement completely unreasonable, and claim universalism. See, it is not the words of the Bible in which we see disagreement, but how those words are applied.

“Reasonableness” is interesting, because the very foundation of Christianity is based upon things that most would hold as non-reasonable. Expecting a dead person to come back to life is not what we would reasonably argue. The Trinity is not something we can reasonably grasp. A being that is 100% human and 100% God is unreasonable. God, speaking in spurts and starts for a period of 1000 years, then keeping quiet for 400 years then re-starting spurts and starts for 50 years, then quiet for 2000 years when it comes to writings does not make sense.

First we are told to take these items by faith. To, in essence, partially disengage our reasonableness. But once accepted, upon attempting to determine which doctrines are false, we are to fully engage our reasonableness. Why the change in method?

I was reading a blog elsewhere in which the writer criticized a movie for inaccurately portraying Christianity. This thought crossed my mind—if I was commissioned with the task of accurately portraying Christianity—the most correctest form of Christianity: what possible method could I use to explain to those I was answering that I had been able to determine it? Whether it was true or false—at least what I presenting was the closest thing to “true” Christianity that we can show?

For me, the clamor of voices all crying, “My doctrine; not the other person’s” is not a demonstration that they are all false. It is a demonstration that simply reciting what one believes is not a method by which we can determine which one is true. It is a demonstration that when “debunking” another person’s belief, most often the Christian uses logic, and reason and common sense. When I apply that method is when I come to the conclusion that the Abrahamic depiction of God, including Evangelical Christianity, is false.

I'm Taking a Much Needed Break

This will be my last Blog entry for a while. How long, I cannot say. Maybe it’ll be just a few days. Maybe it’ll be for a month. Maybe more. There are pressing concerns I have to take care of that I’ve let slip because I’m here Blogging. I should be doing some of those things right now, but here I am writing again.

Let me give my readers a history of what led me here, and why I’m less interested in Blogging right now.

I have always liked to write. Like any artist, I like looking at the picture I create when I craft something with words. While I have never kept a daily journal of my life, I have written articles, church newsletters, letters to the editor, and handouts to my students. What I’ve created is an intellectual history of my life.

I decided to compile what I had written into a book, and be done with it. I wanted to put the past behind me, so to speak, and move on. So I did that. I placed all of my key Christian articles, class handouts, and letters to the editor into a spiral bound book. I wrote something about why I changed my mind, and I concluded with what I believed at the time I compiled it. I sold it in a local bookstore.

But it didn’t look very professional and I kept rewriting it. So I found a self-publisher who would publish this book of mine for at $1,299. They would hand me 40 copies to send out for reviews and to sell. They would also put it on amazon.com and borders.com.

At that point I added several sections to it. It was titled From Minister to Honest Doubter: Why I Changed My Mind. I sent a few out, and got some good reviews from it. But it wasn’t my best work. I initially just wanted it to sell to people who knew me. I just wanted to explain to them why I had changed. If others liked it, then that didn’t matter too much. It was aimed at people who knew me, and most of the church people I had in mind to read it were not intellectuals. So I didn’t feel it was necessary to cover several objections to what I had written. It was a general survey, for the most part. At the time I was a “soft agnostic,” or if forced to choose, an existential Deist.

I sent out some emails about my book to people who I thought might be interested in it, and Ed Babinski responded very positively. He noticed I was a former student of William Lane Craig’s, something I had merely mentioned. I didn’t think listing the professors I had studied with was that important, but Ed jumped on that and was very interested in reading what I wrote. So we traded books and began an initial exchange of emails.

Ed encouraged me to discuss my book at Theology Web, so I did. I was so unfairly and grossly treated there that I quit in a huff. Then being the stubborn person I am, I decided to come back with a vengeance.

There I cut my teeth on my first Christian forum, and it was ugly. I had naively expected a fair discussion, but I was verbally assaulted. Until then I had not done anything on the web. I was new to it. This reaction intrigued me, and I wanted to see if I could break these barriers down. I wanted to see if I could present my arguments in ways Christians would understand.

This experience got my argumentative juices flowing again. And rather than leading me closer to Christianity, it led me to become an atheist.

After awhile I tired of this. I still wanted a reasonable discussion of the ideas. At the suggestion of Ed Babinski I started this Blog. For some reason it took off. I revised my book, and renamed it “Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains.” I geared it to people who didn’t know me, covering more territory and more arguments as an atheist. I was still curious to see what arguments would work and which ones wouldn’t. I was also testing my own arguments against what Christians might say in response, and I learned some things in the process.

I issued a challenge for someone to debate me on the problem of evil, and David Wood accepted the challenge. We debated, and since that time we have continued to debate the merits of the case. I am once again frustrated with the results, since I don’t think he’s willing to meet the problem of evil head on, and since he continues to mischaracterize what I have said.

I need time to think. I had initially written my book to end a period in my life, my former Christian life. But it seems as though it only led me into a continual waste of time in defending what I wrote against objections.

Now I want to get on with my life. I’ve got other things to do. Today I feel like my wife is right. I am wasting a great deal of time. I have said all I wanted to say. It doesn’t make me feel any better about myself to continue anymore.

The other team members here will still be blogging, so stay tuned to what they say. I’ll still be reading and moderating things. But I am taking a much needed break.

If what I've written has helped you, then it wasn't a waste of time after all. Sometimes it just feels as if it is.

But whether people agree or not, thanks for reading.

Please stay tuned and please continue reading.

Happy St. Patricks Day! Leprechauns Exist!

This is a short discussion about argument fundamentals using an example of a debate about the existence of Leprechauns inspired by the Loftus-Wood debate and St. Patricks day. Its also relevant to blog discussions.

Arguments consist of premises and conclusions. They can also be linked, where conclusions of individual arguments make up the premises of a 'global' argument. Some of the 'local' arguments that can make up a 'global' argument are arguments from Sign, Analogy and Cause just to name a few. Each of these have strategies associated with them that can be used to challenge them effectively, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. For more information on these concepts, check the references section of this document.

Step one in a critical discussion is to agree to principles of behavior before you start. I recommend something like van Eemeren and Grootendorsts "Rules for a Critical Discussion". They say things like 'remember you may be wrong', 'don't use personal attacks', 'stay relevant' etc. If the one participant uses a personal attack or tries to avoid answering the question and goes off on a tangent, a charge of lack of relevance is warranted. Stay focused to avoid being distracted by these diversionary tactics.

Step two is to agree on the premises of the discussion. If the existence of Leprechauns entails evidence, then that is one place to start. You can both begin to present your evidence. And remember, there is no shame in being wrong. It's character building.

Are Leprechauns plausible, is an easier position to argue from either viewpoint because it entails using defeasible reasoning to argue whether it is likely or not that Leprechauns exist. Arguing about the fact of their existence is more difficult from the point of view of the principle of Burden of Proof. If a proponent says that something exists, and the respondents says something like 'show me the body', the proponent can always say that not all possibilities of discoveries have been exhausted. This has the weight of presumption in its favor because of the efficacy of the scientific method in fields such as the sciences (medicine, physics etc.) law and technical maintenance (electronics, automobile etc) and others not listed. The scientific method presumably works for these fields and showing that it doesn't will be a struggle for the respondent. Proponents and respondents must always be open to new information to avoid holding untenable conclusions.

The most tenable viewpoint is that because of the preponderance of evidence (positive or negative), Leprechauns either are likely or not likely to exist. There is a valid reason to doubt that Leprechauns exist beyond a reasonable doubt because of the preponderance of negative evidence regarding Leprechauns. The respondent, however, cannot show that they do not exist because the respondents definition of reasonable doubt will not be the same as the proponent believer. There is a popular phrase that goes "You can't prove a negative". This is counterintuitive but logically it depends on your requirement and acceptance of evidence.

When involved in a discussion about whether or not Leprechauns exist, the strongest arguments for the respondent in a discussion like this will come from the principle of "Negative Evidence" and "Negative Proof". One reason for this is because it will account for the 'moving goalpost' type of arguments typically found in this type of critical discussion. If the proponent tries to use equivocation (changing a previously stipulated definition or properties) or demand more evidence than is reasonable (impossible precision), the respondent can show that since they both agree that the existence of Leprechauns entails evidence, that there is no evidence where there should be or of the type there should be and therefore the preponderance of Negative Evidence (lack of evidence or evidence that suggests another cause) makes their existence reasonably implausible. In order to get around this the proponent must claim that evidence is not relevant (as in the case of faith), in which case there can be no discussion and they have disqualified themselves by getting caught in a contradiction or somehow try to disqualify the negative evidence, possibly by equivocation. Good luck with this argument in a community of Leprechaun believers, especially if their local economy or their well-being depends on it.

What follows is an analysis of the argument of the proponent. The argument is laid out using the Toulman argument model where the validity of the conclusion is supported by the premises and the premises are supported by the warrant of data. The warrant is like a the bridge between the data and the premise. Each of the properties of the support for the conclusion are labeled with a 'P' a 'W' and a 'D'.

The proponent says that Leprechauns exists and the respondent has doubt about this claim.

The proponent says that Leprechauns exist because there exists a valid presumption
P: There are documented cases in the past of Leprechaun sightings.
W: That the documents are reliable testimony and necessary if not sufficient to support the conclusion
D: newspaper article that John smith saw a Leprechaun on such and such day
D: newspaper article that Jill brown saw the evidence of Leprechaun visitation in her house.
Argument from Tradition, more or less.

P: There exists a cultural belief that Leprechauns exist.
W: All these people wouldn't believe if it weren't true. They can't all be wrong.
D: Collectively all these people have reasons to believe
D: A lot of people believe that fire burns, and in fact it does
Argument from Popularity.

P: We can see the effects of leprechauns in our environment
W: If Leprechauns exist, we should see their effects since we presuppose they are doing things
D: Unexplained things happen all the time, especially things that have been determined to be characteristic of Leprachauns
Argument from Cause.

P: There exists an artifact of a Leprechaun pipe
W: Leprechauns are known to smoke pipes
D: the artifact is in the museum
Argument from Sign.

P: There is independent evidence of leprechaun like beings in other cultures, even if descriptions vary.
W: Since there is independent evidence in other cultures, it creates a presumption that supports the evidence in this one.
D: In the Appalachians there beliefs in magical beings that live in the mountains
D: In Nordic cultures, there are beliefs in magical beings called Trolls.
Argument from Precedence.

P: Leprechauns are like foxes. They clever, quick and can hide easily
W: Leprechauns are clever and hard to catch.
D: Foxes are considered to be clever and hard to catch.
Argument from Analogy, inherently weak and easy to refute.

P: Leprechauns are supernatural beings making them difficult to find
W: Leprechauns would use their powers to their advantage.
D: The supernatural factors exist because no one has proved that they don't
Argument from Ignorance.

P: Leprechauns are supernatural beings making them difficult to understand
W: Because of their supernatural abilities it makes their world view impossible for us to understand because we cannot possibly share their perspective because we are not supernatural.
D: Supernatural factors exist because no one has absolutely refuted evidence suggesting that they do.
Argument from Ignorance

Laid out like this, it is easy to see where to start with the argument. In a face-to-face discussion with people that are not familiar with structured discussion, it is much harder. The warrant and the data are rarely presented without a request, but to challenge the argument effectively, they must be revealed. The concept of the "unstated premise" is similar to the warrant, and you must look for these as well. It usually constitutes figuring out what is inferred, or what factors a statement depends on but has not been addressed so far.

The respondent should challenge the conclusion by rebutting the premises of the proponent using critical questioning according the strategy most effective for the type of argument that is being refuted. In the process of rebutting the premises of the proponent, it is usually necessary to challenge the warrant and the data. Sometimes the warrant is valid but the evidence is not. The respondent should avoid making claims where possible for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that it is preferable to shift the burden of proof to the other party. Many logical fallacies do this very effectively. The second reason is that whoever asks the questions is in control of the discussion.

The respondent should try to get the proponent to commit to statements that support the respondents conclusion. In doing so, the respondent can get the proponent to make contradictory claims, it which case the proponent must retract or commit to an untenable conclusion. For example, getting the proponent to commit to the premise that in the case of four witnesses of a robbery, there will be four conflicting stories that agree to some degree. The respondent can use this to point out that testimonial evidence is weak compared to other forms and an example of this is the "telephone game" that children play. Another example is to get the proponent to admit that in cases where there was a strong presumption in favor of the supernatural, it was later proven that there were natural causes. Such is the case with schizophrenia and Germ theory.

References:
Toulman, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press

Walton, Douglas N. 1995. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum

Walton, Douglas N. 2005. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argument from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Damer, T. Edward. 2004. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. 5th ed. Wadsworth Publishing

Freeley, Austin J. 1993. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company

http://casuallogically.blogspot.com

How Mum, Hollywood and Ozzy Osbourne brought me to Christ

I've been thinking a lot about my conversion process lately and how it all fell together and brought me to a Christian faith. It is funny how we interpret and reinterpret things in light of who and where we are at the time of reflection. History is never objective but always interpreted in light of the historian's world view.

My parents were not practising Christians beyond having my brothers and myself baptised or 'christened' as infants in the Anglican Church. As an Evangelical I would share my testimony with people and always say that, "I was not raised in a Christian home..." On later reflection though I realised that my upbringing, geographical and social contexts did play a large part in my conversion.

1. I knew from a young age that our family's religion was Christian, Church of England (or Anglican) to be exact. When as a child your parents tell you things, you believe them. So I was already in a place of (at least conditional) acceptance of the Christian religion. While my parents never gave us dogmatic religious training, we were taught that Jesus was God's son, he died on a cross, rose again and the Bible was God's book. We all had our own children's Bibles and were taught the story of Adam and Eve at a young age. We never heard concepts or words like inerrancy, Trinity, incarnation or atonement. As I said, we were only nominally Christian, but we knew the stories...at least the major ones.

2. As an Australian I was told that I was part of a Christian nation. Now back in the 70s and 80s, Australians didn't use the term 'Christian nation' in quite the same way as Americans do now. It wasn't such a politically laden term. It was simply another identity marker we used. You didn't need to be a Christian to be considered truly Australian or patriotic. Nevertheless, this fed my identity as a young person.

3. Despite what the religious-right in the US want us to believe, one of the biggest influences that led to my conversion was pop music. I was very much into heavy metal music as a kid. Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne, Iron Maiden, and the like were always in my Walkman in the early 1980s. The clever marketing behind these bands was rooted in what Sharon Osbourne called 'horror-rock'. Satan, demons, witchcraft and black magic were touted as both real and somehow infused in the music. Of course I no longer believe there was ever any sinister Satanic plot to undermine young people through music, rather I think the image portrayed struck a rebellious chord with teens and sold records. And as a teen, I had no trouble believing Ozzy Osbourne worshipped a very real, literal devil. Because I believed it to a degree, the music scared me, which was part of its appeal I suppose. Nevertheless, a lot of the imagery used in the music and marketing was drawn from a Christian world view. A world view I held to be true.

4. Perhaps more influential, were the movies I saw. Horror films like The Exorcist, said to have been based on a true story, filled me with such a fear of being demon-possessed at ten years old that I refused to sleep in my own bed for months. The Omen, which I was told was based on Biblical predictions about the coming anti-Christ, also terrified me. Only the true followers of Christ could resist Damian's control, Regan flailed at the name of Jesus and the heroes in these movies were either priests or used Christianity is some way to defeat the devil. Though the Christian imagery has been toned down in more recent incarnations, the vampire films of my youth showed holy water, churches and crucifixes were among the weapons of choice when fighting the undead. Hollywood taught me that the only defence against the devil was Jesus or Christian icons.

The philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce called this way of knowing something, knowing by tenacity. These basic assumptions are are often untested and seen as 'ordinary' or 'usual'. These can be fairly innocuous beliefs like, 'swimming less than one half hour after eating gives you a cramp' or 'carrots are good for your eyesight.' They can also be more serious life effecting beliefs such as superstition and racism. The thing about these kinds of beliefs is that once they are accepted, they are accepted tenaciously. People who hold these tenacious beliefs can be shown evidence contrary to their belief but the evidence is then either ignored or all too easily dismissed. The odd thing is that knowing by tenacity is perhaps the least reliable method of knowing something, and yet it is the most difficult form of knowing to challenge in people. People simply won't, or don't want to, abandon these kinds of beliefs.

Once I began to take a critical approach toward Christianity, I realised how much of my faith was based on these tenacious assumptions. The very existence of God, Heaven and Hell, Jesus, Satan and even the Bible were all bred into me and then fed by the world I lived in and the culture I was immersed in. When the Christian evangelists eventually crossed my path and told me I could have the Holy Spirit live inside me, I was thrilled. Not only was I free from my long carried fear of demon-possession or Satanic control, but now I was one of the good guys. I never stopped for a second to weigh up the truthfulness of their claims. Besides being only 13 years old I was already primed, "white unto harvest." I had NEVER tested the assumptions that my conversion and later faith was based upon.

I wonder how different my story would have been had I been born in China, India or Saudi Arabia...

David Wood Is No Longer Worth My Time

This Blog Entry has been reposted because some people still think it's a mutual misunderstanding that Mr. Wood and I have with each other. Some of that is undoubtedly true, but I have just responded to this in comments 58-61 (beware, harsh language at one point).

I still want to stress that I like David Wood very much, and apart from our disputes I would consider him a friend of mine. What I am strictly dealing with are his arguments. Nothing personal is implied, even if I have been frustrated with him at times. He's a good man.

I do commend him for dealing with the problem of evil. My claim is that he is not dealing with this problem head on. I think he ought to take the advice of Adam in the comments below and just say he believes in the goodness of God despite the suffering in this world as a sort of Kierkegaardian leap of faith, and leave it at that. For as long as he wants to figure this out, he won't be able to do so.

Dr. Weisberger told me I'm wasting my time with David Wood of Answering Infidels and The Problem of Evil Blog. Like many others before her, I think she's right. She also advised me to argue with him on my blog, so I am now. I want people to see how he argues. So here we go...

Mr Wood claims that the argument from the problem of evil is an atheist argument. I responded that the problem of evil would have to be dealt with by him even if no atheist argued for it, since it flows out of that which he believes about an omni-God. He responded by distinguishing between the "problem of evil" and the "argument from evil," and the "argument from evil" is indeed an atheist argument. If successful as an atheist, he argues I'm trying to show that "God doesn't exist." But that is High School level thinking. A process theologian could press the argument, as could a pantheist. The conclusion of the argument isn't that God doesn't exist, only that if God exists he either isn't omnibenelovent, omniscient, or omnipotent. So why is it an atheist argument when it may not lead to atheism? A Deist could use it. I think it does show the Christian God doesn't exist, but it most emphatically doesn't lead to atheism. The amazing thing to me is that David does not back down, so far, and I don't expect him to here either.

After disagreeing with Dr. Weisberger's discussion of the burdern of proof , which I in turn agreed with her, Mr. Wood claims something wildly fanciful about that "method" (which isn't a method at all). He wrote:

"So the question arises, "Why would John cling to such an absurd method?" The answer: "Because he can't handle having to support his arguments with evidence." I see no other explanation.

Really now? Is it really true he can see no other explanation? Come on now David, think a little more deeply than that. What other explanations are there for why we argue you have the burden of proof here? Could it be that we think you do, irrespective of anything else? The burden of proof is not on the person who is disputing a claim, especially an extraordinary claim about an omni-God (or that there are invisible gremlins), but on the claimant. The person who makes a claim always has the burden of proof. Furthermore, if what he says is true, that I cannot support my arguments with evidence, then why is it that I am stressing the evidence, and arguing that that evidence is overwhelmingly against him? It's obvious that's what I've argued.

Besides Dr. Weisberger, Dr. Jeffry's also has commented on our debate. After reading both of their comments here's what David Wood said:

I've noticed something interesting, however. Both atheist reviewers (Weisberger and Jeffrys) seem to imply that John's arguments didn't work. That is, Jeffrys's response was "It would have been good to bring X up, and you shouldn't have let him get away with Y." Weisberger, apart from outlining [John's]arguments, responded by showing what she would have said in response to my claims. That is, at no point does either reviewer say "David said so and so, but John proved that wrong when he said such and such." Instead, both reviewers try to explain to readers what John should have said.

David claims that what they both wrote seems to imply my arguments "didn't work." Really? That is so slipshod by way of evaluating what their intent was, that I didn't think it needed mentioning that this is a completely ignorant thing to say. [The reason I mention this now, is because I'm seeing quite a pattern here coming from Mr. Wood and I want to lay a few examples on the table]. They were entering the debate. They were offering their own take on the arguments in the debate. There is no way anyone should ever conclude that because they had their own arguments on the issue that this implies they thought my arguments were ineffective at all! This is a non-sequitur.

But there is more. There was a post at Triablogue about a book called, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar, where the author discusses whether or not parents should bring children into existence given the harms that life might bring upon them, and that parents should give it serious thought before bringing another child into this world. According to the editorial review, "David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. He argues for the 'anti-natal' view---that it is always wrong to have children. Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct. Although counter-intuitive for many, that implication is defended, not least by showing that it solves many conundrums of moral theory about population." You can see the book and the reviews for yourselves here

Okay so far?

Now in comes David Wood, who wrote:

This guy sounds like John Loftus with a PhD.

Really? Is that what I am saying? We'll get to that later.

Then Jim Pemberton wrote:

Let's see a show of hands: who is glad they were born - despite any discomfort? I'm raising mine.

Then David Wood wrote:

THIS JUST IN FROM JOHN LOFTUS:

Jim,

You said that you're raising your hand because you'd rather live. But what about all the people who can't raise their hands because their hands have been chopped off in an accident? What about them? Huh?!! What about people who were born without hands! It must be easy for you to raise your hand, since you've got one. But other people don't have them, and they all understand that it would be better to die. Yeah, they understand. They can't play Nintendo like you. Cause they don't have hands. So think about that, Mr. Handman. Think about people with no hands. And you'll see that we'd all be better off not existing. That's why I don't like God, you know. Cause he made me exist and all. And he doesn't give me everything I want. That's just not right.

Now check out my response:

John W. Loftus said (with corrected typos)...

Okay, funny guys.

Have you ever heard of the phrase, "you'll wish you were never born?" That usually refers to someone who is about to be beaten or tortured to a bloody pulp. There have been such people you know. There have been people born who never had a pleasurable day, due to sickness, starvation, and torture. There are teenagers who have merely spoken their minds only to spend the rest of their lives in a gulag and to die, never seeing their parents again. I could go on and on and on, of course.

This is what I'm referring to, and all you can do is to joke about it. But I understand why you must do so. Because you can't face the problem head on for what it really is.

But there is more. After these people die, according to Christian theology some of them, maybe most of them, will suffer eternal conscious torment forever in hell. This is where the other shoe drops.

Face the problem head on. There are people according to YOUR own theology who wish they had never been born.

Stop joking about this real situation from the standpoint of the silver spoons in your mouths.

You actually make me sick.

I do think it's sick to so glibly treat a serious issue of why GOD, not parents, brings people into existence. And I think it's ignorant to even hint that my argument is anywhere close to what David Wood says it is here. He even thinks I wish I never existed! He has even argued that, if I enjoy life, I "shouldn't constantly describe the world as if it's nothing but a cesspool of death, disease, and bloodshed." But that again, is nothing like what I'm saying. He just doesn't understand for some reason. There is good in the world. I enjoy life very much. My questions are about why so many people (other than me) have to suffer so much if there is a good God, and why this God created such a world when he knew in advance that these people will suffer like they do.

Speaking of my questions, that's all he thinks I'm doing, asking questions. He summarized my 20 minute opening statement by placing the following words in my mouth: "I asked 'why this?' and 'why that?' for twenty minutes without making a serious argument." If anyone can read my opening statement and come away thinking I never made a serious argument, he is intellectually challenged.

I have repeatedly asked Mr. Wood to state my argument in his own words, and the two times he tried to do so, he failed miserably. So I challenge him to do so again, if he responds here. For he cannot seriously interact with my argument until he can effectively state it. That's what scholars do before they argue against someone. First they lay out the other person's argument, so that everyone can see for themselves if he did so fairly, with no strawmen. And scholars must do so charitably too, giving it the most charitable interpretation. I suspect he refuses to do so because he cannot effectively argue against it. Whether that's the case or not is to be seen. Maybe I'm wrong on this. But because he misunderstands and misrepresents so much of what I'm saying, I doubt it.

David Wood responded:

"You actually make me sick."

MORE FROM LOFTUS:

If God exists, why would he make so many people who make me sick? A good God would have put us on different planets, so I wouldn't get sick thinking about you disgusting people and your logic and all that. If I had the choice between living in a world with you people, and not living at all, I'd rather not exist. But here again, God hasn't given me what I want. So I will fight against him with all my might, and I will teach him that no one denies John Loftus! No one!

My concern here is that David Wood is in a Ph.D program at Fordham University in Philosophy where he must logically evaluate arguments. When it comes to the problem of evil he shows little evidence that he can do this. I wonder what his professors would think of this? It does not speak well for Fordham University, in my opinion. What Mr. Wood is saying is filled with many strawmen arguments, including the informal fallacy of "horse laughter."

Then I responded one final time:

John Loftus said...
David, I guess your response either means 1) my questions are silly and have already been answered by you so the only fitting response is to laugh at me, even though my questions about existing are sincere ones, and even though I have never seen you even attempt to answer them, ever, or 2) you refuse to face head on what your theology commits you to, so you refuse to deal with it. If there are other options please let me know what they are.

Bottom tier buddy. Sorry. But that conclusion is inescapable.

Carry on then. Bring on more ridicule. When you actually want to deal with this problem, let me know.

When I referred to "bottom tier," here, I meant that he is in the bottom third tier of those who defend the Christian faith, which parallels his placing the Rational Response Squad in the bottom third tier of those who defend atheism.

There are probably about ten types of things Mr. Wood continues to argue that shows me he's not really dealing with the problem of evil head on, and which shows me he is in the bottom third tier of those Christians who defend the Christian faith.

Now is he worth my time or not? I've just spend some time here, haven't I? Well, then yes, and no. Maybe I'm still hoping that by bringing these things to the light it might help him to take a serious look at what I'm actually saying and respond as the budding respectful scholar he's supposed to be. But until he does, I can no longer take him seriously.

Two More 5 Star Reviews of My Book.

There are two more 5 star reviews of my book, one from a Christian! I especially like the fairmindedness of people on opposite sides of the fence who are reasonable enough to think what someone writes is good even if they disagree, as I did when I reviewed Paul Copan's book That's Just your Interpretation.

Loftus blows over the Christian theology house of cards., March 14, 2007. Reviewer: Thomas A. Lewis.

John. W. Loftus is a serious thinker and philosopher, and while his self-published book lacks the professional style and editing that mainstream authors enjoy of their publications, his argumentation and critical analysis of Christian theology is top tier.

I can personally identify with Loftus in many ways, being a former evangelical myself. The process of de-conversion is a long and drawn out intellectual, thinking, and learning process, unlike the quick emotional rape that can be had at the alter of any fundamentalist church.

On page 24 Loftus says: "I was so sure and so confident in my faith that I didn't believe I could learn anything that would ever cause me to doubt my faith." I highlighted this sentence in my copy since it was so close to what I had thought at the beginning of my investigation of Christianity. I thought to myself: "I'll read these books by evolutionists and their arguments will fall like sand through the reason of the Bible." "I'll read about these other religions and see how silly and insincere their believers are." "I'll read about the psychology of religion and demolish their babble with sound doctrine."

Like Loftus, the results are quite contrary to what one expects as a Christian going in. Christian naivety and ignorance is revealed at every turn. The flimsy arguments of theistic apologists are blasted to bits in the strong wind of reason and evidence. Christian insularity is eroded away by sound knowledge. In the end, one is left feeling like Blade at the end of the second movie where he is holding a beautiful vampire that is soon evaporated into ash by the rays of the sun. To me, my religion had been like that vampire. Yes, you loved her. Yes, she was beautiful on the surface. But in the end you're glad that the sun rose, she is gone, and you awoke from the myopia of the night.

Still Keeping The Faith, March 9, 2007
Reviewer: Mrs. M.

Actually I changed from a 4 to a 5 star as soon as I began writing this review. While the author makes it an easy read (thank you I am not as intellectual as a lot of others on this board), I have mixed feeling. The part about hell and the evil were all questions I struggle with. I agree wholeheartedly and have a really hard time with a God that would not offer salvation to all of mankind. Punishing someone eternally really bothers me.As the author points out no one (as even in Hitler) should be in total agony forever and ever. Do I think a fair and just God would demand retribution as in, well let's use Hitler. Let him feel the pain and agony of people he burned alive, let him have his organs pulled out the way he did to the many Jewish and yes Christians that was part of his evil ways.Let him know.taste and feel the horror of what he did. Please do not think I am a Hitler sympathizer, I certainly am not. But eternity is a long time. And then.......I look at the stars, the moon, the beautiful deer in my yard and I know he is there.Do I fear what may lie beyond our mortal death,I don't know, sometimes, but I just can't believe that this is it.I was so blessed in this life I just know someone was looking out for me. I know the author was disappointed (for lack of a stronger word) at the so called "Christians and friends that turned their back on him.But these people are not your judges, that's what happens when people do the judging. I look forward to the day that I will see Christ and my loved ones. No one here knows all the answers, sometimes we just have to trust God. The book does raise questions though, and I will pray I get the answers.

First Congressman in History Comes Out as Nonbeliever!

Here's an email I received from the FreeThought Association of West Michigan about the first congressman in history to come out as a non-theist:

Press Release: Congressman Holds No God-Belief
March 12, 2007
For Immediate Release

There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org ). Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition’s research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.

Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, attributes these attitudes to the demonization of people who don’t believe in God. “The truth is,” says Silverman, “the vast majority of us follow the Golden Rule and are as likely to be good citizens, just like Rep. Stark with over 30 years of exemplary public service. The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists. Rep. Stark shows remarkable courage in being the first member of Congress to do so.”

In October, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.

In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass.

Surveys vary in the percentage of atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheists in the U.S, with about 10% (30 million people) a fair middle point. “If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population,” Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes “there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one.”

Mugger punches 101-year-old woman on video

• Man breaks woman's cheekbone as he punches her twice, takes purse
• Attack captured by a surveillance camera in apartment building lobby
• Police think same man mugged 85-year-old woman for $32

"God saved my life," she said.

That's one way to look at it.

video:
text:

Alonzo Fyfe on Levitating Superturtles

Alonzo Fyfe wrote an interesting piece on Paul Davies: Levitating Superturtles. I really liked the thought experiment he uses about a super deck of cards. This deck has one billion suits, each with one billion and three cards (cards numbered 1 (ace) though 1,000,000,000 plus the jack, queen, and king of each suit).....

Check it out.