Framing Science and Atheism for the Public

A bit of a bomb has gone off in the blogosphere. I refrained from posting earlier on the precursor -- the "framing" debate sparked by a Science article and discussed at length here -- but I think there are sufficient disparate issues at play here to tie together into one coherent argument. My argument is simple: people are talking past each other because of a lack of focus. Now, the same issue hit the WaPo, and the blogosphere is buzzin' again.

The larger issue is fundamentalist religion, plain and simple. In Chris Mooney's own words,

In the Post, we focus on one of the most obvious examples of badly framing the defense of evolution--tying it to criticism of religion. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent example in this regard, and we single him out accordingly. I want to emphasize that I grew up on Dawkins' books; they really helped me figure out who I am. But nevertheless, over the past several years I've grown increasingly convinced that his is emphatically not the way to make many Americans (people very different from me) more accepting of science.

It isn't only defenders of science who feel the way Mooney and Nisbet do -- humanists and freethinkers have recently decried "angry atheists who hold down our movement".

While some progressive Christians maintain that Christ was divine, they nevertheless manage to agree with us on principles of human rights, reason and science. If we refuse to build alliances with people who do not agree with us on every single issue, we will never be strong enough to stand up to the Religious Right.

The media, by its nature, interviews figures whose views are diametrically opposed. News has morphed into entertainment, and the masses cry for gladiators of words and ideas to step into the ring and let mental blood. Sophisticated viewpoints don't conform to soundbytes. Therefore, why waste a perfectly good 30-second interview on an atheist who refuses to call names and instead wants to discuss transcendental arguments for a god's existence?

When Elaine Pagels was interviewed by Salon, we see this common theme resurface:

What do you make of the recent claim by the atheist Richard Dawkins that the existence of God is itself a scientific question? If you accept the idea that God intervenes in the physical world, don't there have to be physical mechanisms for that to happen? Therefore, doesn't this become a question for science?

Well, Dawkins loves to play village atheist. He's such a rationalist that the God that he's debunking is not one that most of the people I study would recognize. I mean, is there some great big person up there who made the universe out of dirt? Probably not.

Are you saying that part of the problem here is the notion of a personal God? Has that become an old-fashioned view of religion?

I'm not so sure of that. I think the sense of actual contact with God is one that many people have experienced. But I guess it's a question of what kind of God one has in mind.

So when you think about the God that you believe in, how would you describe that God?

Well, I've learned from the texts I work on that there really aren't words to describe God. You spoke earlier about a transcendent reality. I think it's certainly true that these are not just fictions that we arbitrarily invent.

Certainly many people talk about God as an ineffable presence. But if you try to explain what transcendence is, can you put that into words and explain what it means?

People have put it into words, but the words are usually metaphors or poems or hymns. Even the word "God" is a metaphor, or "the son of God," or "Father." They're all simply images for some other order of reality.

I own two of Pagels' books. I respect her scholarship greatly, but she seems to have missed a very large point: Dawkins (and Harris) are aiming for exactly the sort of god that is most dangerous to believe in, and the one that the overwhelming majority of anti-scientific anti-gay bigots cling to. Dawkins doesn't put the intelligentsia in his sights because they are not the ones whose stance against science has led to the current stem cell veto, and the battles over teaching sound biology. These Christian academics instead resort to, *gasp*, reasonable and long discourses.

She mentioned Dawkins as "village atheist," and this same term was reserved for him by Novak in his recent "Lonely Atheists of the Global Village." Novak is no dummy, and I commented a month ago that I was looking forward to reading this. In fact, I enjoyed reading this article, and then a couple more, especially his response to Heather McDonald's article in TAS in November. The exchange was typical of the sort of dialectic that doesn't make newspaper headlines and can't seem to find its way into a split-screen on FauxNews. It was complex and engaging to someone who honestly wants to learn.

Some Christians have already commented on Novak's new article, but without in-depth analysis. I agree with both he and Pagels on some of their criticisms regarding the shallow treatments given god(s) by Dawkins and Harris, as I've said previously, but Novak, especially, seems to dismiss Dennett very lightly, which I find telling. Those who try to lump Dennett in with Dawkins and Harris are those who haven't read the books. His critiques are philosophical and scientific in nature, not polemical, and not directed at any one particular religion.

There is a tension between the god of the philosophers and the god of the layman, and I think it has always been there. When I say that I'm an atheist, for example, I don't mean towards an abstract concept of "the grounding of existence" or "the nexus of causality" or "the first cause". While the "tri-omni" god is beyond my capacity to believe or findreasonable, these rather abstruse theological ideas I constantly engage my faculties in contemplation of -- I am a freethinker, after all. While I'm an atheist towards Yahweh, and Zeus, and Thor...etc., and while I think there are adequate responses to many philosophical arguments for theism, I find some of them lacking, especially with respect to cosmology and those along moral lines (not that I find the religious alternatives on the latter subject any more coherent). There are a lot of atheists who completely disregard philosophical arguments for a god's existence, and think that the Todd Friels of the world represent the best of intellectual Christianity. That's unfortunate.

I agree completely with PZ and Larry Moran that atheists and scientists must continue to criticize superstition and fantastical thinking in order to preserve scientific knowledge in our culture. If we muzzled our "angry" and "militant" voices, then the angry, militant fundamentalist Christians and Jews and Muslims would gladly step into the void. They would love nothing more. And I agree with them that appeasement has not worked. These people believe any ground-giving to science is "compromise," punishable by brimstone. But the question I want to ask is whether we should consider religious liberals and moderates our friends, and refrain from insulting them, as PZ thoughtlessly does to Ken Miller in that latest response.

The sorts of people that we need Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris for are the Falwells of our culture: the unthinking lynch-mobs whose readiness to rapture lauds them (they're showing 'great faith!') in ignoring the perils facing our grandchildren. The sorts of people who use deceit and fraud and millions of dollars to erode our civil liberties into their vision of theocracy and oppose sound science education because their small brains can't encompass the theologians' alternatives, or Gould's NOMA.

I also agree with Elaine Pagels and Michael Novak -- we cannot paint religion with such a broad brush as to attack all forms of religiosity and call names and hold to the old, insulting phraseologies ("reality-based community" and "I live by reason" are tacit insults). We must remind ourselves that there are voices of reason in the religious community, no matter how silly we feel some of their views are. And the Pagels of the world are those we atheists and we scientists need to sit down and have more discussion with. If that happened, there would be a great deal more respect on each side of the fence.

While Pagels (and intellectuals like her) are focused on getting the fundies to grow their brains a little to encompass the more sophisticated aspects of theology, and PZ et al on getting the fundies to stop their anti-scientific crusades, perhaps they could realize that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Perhaps more honest discussion between the "evangelical", "uppity", "angry" and "militant" atheists and liberal/moderate Christians would yield a rich reward in finding the assistance we can afford each other in reaching mutual goals.

I want to "frame" science and atheism together, because that's my perspective. But I want to hear every possible (logical) framing as well -- I also want to hear and have heard Elaine Pagels' view of evolution from a theologian's perspective. Am I saying I want her teaching biology courses? Of course not. I want her views heard in the same media mine are, and PZ's, and Dawkins --in the 'sphere, or the MSM. The creationist hordes need to have their stupid false dichotomy (my version of Christianity or atheism) irreparably damaged by the critical words of god-believing theologians. The demagogues like Falwell and Pat "Midas Touch" Robertson hold sway over the sheep precisely because of the false picture they present --that their own views of God are the only/most valid. When more Christians see that the huge majority of scholarly Christians are moderate or liberal in their theological views, and especially towards Genesis (sometimes they find this out with much chagrin), perhaps more credence will be given to evolutionary biology, and this would be a win for "both sides". Or perhaps no change will be affected.

Let's face it: we're both minorities and we're both intellectually-centered. Our common enemy is the anti-intellectual, theocratically-wet-dreaming, rampantly superstitious Christian/Muslim/Jewish right that work tirelessly to render America into Jesus' Iran -- replete with a new "creation-based science" and the conversion of our secular institutions into "godly" ones. They're a huge voter bloc, well-organized and well-funded.

We need all the friends we can make in our "coalition of the unwilling" -- those quite unwilling to participate in theocracy or pseudoscience at our species' own peril.

What is My Ideal Kind of God?

The good thing about Blogging is that you can just have a conversation without always quoting a bunch of scholarly authors. Here's an exchange I've had in the comments section to this post of mine [Edited somewhat].

One Wave asked me this:

"I'm wondering what your ideal God would do if the world He created went against the things He knew would be best."

I answered:

We're talking anout an omni-benelovent God, correct?

Then I would at least like him to have the same kind of love for his creatures as a mother does for her children.

Do not respond that God does this. He doesn't. Yes, parents punish their childen, although, with Parent Effectiveness Training, they do not need to spank or hit them. But the punishments are called "discipline," beause they are geared toward helping to teach their children how to behave. A good mother never punishes her children in any harsh manner at all simply because they deserve it. It's always to teach them to be better. No mother sends a proverbial hurricane because her child "swears" or says "no" to his momma.

Can you honestly tell me your omnibenelovent God is more loving than a good mother? Really?

Even humane governments do not pluck out a criminals eyes, or maim him for life, or starve him to death, or burn him alive, or decapitate his head. Even when it comes to capital punishment we demand that it's not done cruelly.

Then an anonymous person wrote:

Yes, God is more loving then a good mother. God, the creator of the universe, died for my wrongdoings. There is no greater love than laying down ones life for a friend. However Jesus died before I knew him, and he even died for those who rejected him.

How good is love to only love those who love you?

Then I responded:

Okay, anon, now tell me why my sins are such dreadful things that someone had to die for my sins?

Besides, there is no coherent understanding of exactly how Jesus' death on the cross helps us.

Furthermore, if God is omniscient then he should understand what sin is from our perspective, or, if he knew in advance that he just couldn't stomach our sins, he should never have created us knowing that he'd have to send an overwhelming majority to hell. Why do that when everything was already perfect for him such that he needed nothing, desired nothing, and had everything he wanted...everything...he lacked nothing. To say he just wanted to share his love isn't a satisfactory answer, since he would also know that to share his love he would also have to condemn a great majority of human beings to hell in the process. To say he wanted free willed creatures who freely love him isn't a satisfactory answer either, for then arises the difficulty of whether or not there will be sin and free will in heaven. If there isn't free will in heaven, then why bother creating us on earth? If there is, and God can also guarantee people won't sin, then why didn't he just create us in heaven in the first place? If there is free will and sin in heaven then why bother to die for us on earth?

Tabash-Friel Debate on God's Existence, 3-26-07

The debate bode very well for atheism, and very poorly for any future hope for Friel at a career in philosophy. I think Eddie won handily. Friel basically sermonized and waxed emotive all night. His only arguments were from incredulity and ignorance (something I expected, from personal experience with him and the general creationist style). He honestly sounded more like a guy trying to convert a bunch of teenagers than someone attempting to make a rational case for theism. But...make up your mind for yourself, and leave a comment.

[See the debate videos below].

I really won't go any further than that, because I swear I don't think Friel is worth the analysis. He had nothing new, and what older arguments he did have were mangled versions (e.g., the first cause argument), which Eddie was able to refute, as he was met only with more personal incredulity and appeals to ignorance.

I was unable to tape Eddie's opening because I was limited by lack of equipment, but his arguments for naturalism were almost identical to what he presented (see below) to AAFSA last Sunday, albeit abbreviated, since he had 15 mins instead of 45 -- Eddie opened with arguments against the supernatural along Humean lines: miracles, the argument from physical minds, arguments against an afterlife, the argument from divine hiddenness, and the problem of evil. It was typical Eddie -- cogent, precise and clear.

The Center for Inquiry - Daytona came off looking great, from their representation to the graphics and banners and the ACLU table. Props to them for their hard work -- they were all really nice and appeared to have taken this project quite seriously.

My seat for part 1 gave me a poor angle to begin with, and the issue of quality was compounded because I was only able to post this in low-res as the shitty Google Video Desktop Uploader for large files wasn't working earlier (no matter what I tried) with the hi-quality versions. I have DVDs (hi-res, 3.0Mbps) burned, and if you want a DVD, email me and we'll negotiate the $^***. I also have Eddie's talk at UF encoded and burned to DVD, and am uploading it to GV right now.

Here is part 1 of 2, which I recommend watching below as GV stretches it out and makes it look even worse at their site:

Here is part 2 of 2 of the debate:


Here is part 1 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF on 3-25-07:


And finally, here is part 2 of 2 of Eddie's talk at UF:


Please leave thoughts and comments below.
________________
***To cover my time and media/shipping expenses -- I think $10, including S&H, is fair. You can pay me via mailed check, but I would prefer using the PayPal function on my own webpage, it will expedite the process and make record-keeping easier. Go down to the bottom of the left sidebar, where it says "Austausch", and use it there (I prefer it over Amazon). Again, email me and we'll negotiate.

PS: I'm always amazed by how differently two eyewitnesses can report the facts about an event -- see here for someone who thinks that atheists were "humiliated" by Eddie's performance...

You be the judge.
_________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Philosophy, AAFSA

Why atheists should go to church

Yes, it may surprise you, but even we atheists might just have reason to visit church every once in a while. The reason: free stuff and some decent stimulation. Eternal life isn’t the only thing that’s free! The church has always been in big business. Now it’s time we put it to work for the godless!

1) Scratch paper: that soon-to-be-thrown-away piece of trash you get handed to you when you walk in the door called a church bulletin, it can serve some practical uses, like being folded up and put under the leg of a wobbly table to level it. Who knows how many other odd uses junk like this could have if we really put our minds to it?

2) Free note cards: upon being seated, there will be attendance cards in the pews in front of you and nice little half-pencils that could be used to make out a grocery list or a “to do” list for the coming busy week.

3) Soft-core porn: church provides views of pretty, revealingly dressed young women with parents who don’t seem to mind their college-aged daughters dressing up to become eye-candy for the congregation. Not many of us will let this go unnoticed!

4) Potluck meals: nothing beats potluck Sunday! Show up then and you’ve got a belt-buster meal and the generosity of strangers encouraging you to eat it all. Go on…eat it up; they’ll be offended if you don’t!

5) Canned foods or bags of groceries: poor? Nothing wrong with being the subject of a little charity now and then—at the church’s expense, no less! Who said a church can’t be useful?

6) Bill pay: having hard times? Can’t quite make ends meet? Don’t mind using an organization for strictly financial purposes? Well, then let the church help you out. They may be willing to pay a bill for you, freeing up some money to get cable TV turned back on.

7) A place to send the kids away: church can also be a place to send the kids away on camping trips for a few days so you and the spouse can have some good, old fashioned, conjugal fun. *Of course, you’ll want to do a background check on whoever’s heading up the camp first. The clergy doesn’t always have the best track record when it comes to integrity and young people. It is also good to warn the youngsters not to believe the lies they will be told while they are there.

8) Good horror stories: an unexpected treat! Freddy Krueger doesn’t have a thing on Jesus Christ and his hot-tempered daddy. In the Bible, you can find more stories of unsurpassed cruelty than in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Amityville series, and every Friday the 13th movie ever produced. Murder, rape, incest, torture, slavery, cruelty to women and children, witchcraft, angry gods, lighting bolts, natural disasters, plagues, wars, duels, mutilations, crucifixions, more blood than you can shake a stick at, and of course, eternal torment! Freddy Krueger? Jason? The Nightflyer? Puh-leaze!

9) Free stand-up comedy: whereas in a secular comedy club, it would cost you upwards of $20.00 to get in. In the church, the comedy is free, plus you get a read-along script called the bible to stay up with the action yourself. It sure is a riot to hear the funny things these preachers are willing to say from their pulpits! And the comedy doesn’t end there either. Debating people who take this humor seriously is also funny. To see them affirm with a straight face their belief in a Noah’s ark, or that the sun was “stopped” until some Jews won a battle, is hilarious! Yes, churches can provide hours and hours of knee-slapping entertainment!

10) Free bibles: to serve as classical ancient literature, not to mention funny papers and comics.

(JH)

Land of the Free-Thinkers

Ni men hao! (Hello to you all!)

In case you didn't know, I live in China. I am not Chinese, although my wife is and our two kids are half Chinese. You may have heard of The Great Firewall of China, which is a playful name given to the Chinese government's ability to block and allow websites of their choosing at any given moment. We get no warning, but one day a website is just gone, blocked. Time Magazine and the BBC were blocked for years and then one day, 'bingo', I was able to read them. Wikipedia has always been blocked. Go figure.

Blogspot is blocked at the moment. Someone somewhere posted something that got some government official's undies in a knot and so all the Blogger pages are gone. That means I cannot read posts or comments on any Google-based blogs including this one of course. Ironically, the block has not effected my ability to post, perhaps because the two functions are on different servers? Whatever the reason, I can speak to the world but I cannot hear from the world...at least not via Google blogs.

This got me thinking about my fellow non-believers in the USA. I know that often you guys feel somewhat troubled by the lack of non-belief in your country, and fair enough too. After all, you have a born again President (Jeez, that must be hard to take), a Faith Based Initiatives Office in his White House, more Christian cable channels and televangelists than one country could ever need, a plethora of extreme Christian groups and individuals, and who could ignore the aggressive Intelligent Design activists pushing to have archaic beliefs taught in your high school science classrooms. Frak, it must be hard to be an American at times.

And yet, the Internet is brimming over with Atheist and Agnostic websites, podcasts, online books and even video podcasts. Blogs and discussion forums like these are easily accessed and are regularly updated with new posts. Dan Barker's FFRF is having its cases heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, nationally broadcast news programmes and magazines are running stories on Atheist activists and their agendas, and Sam Harris, Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins have all had their books make national best-seller lists.

Relative to what's going on in some parts of the world, you guys in the U.S. have got it really good. You discussions are not censored, your websites and blogs are not blocked and John Loftus can publish and sell his book. ;P For all its faults, the U.S. is still a place where ideas can be debated and discussed in the public arena, even if most of its citizens subscribe to one religion or another. Please stop and remember, it isn't necessarily like that in places like China. I would hate to see you guys fall into the all-too-common persecution complex held by our old friends in Evangelical circles. They have deluded themselves to the point where they really do think they are persecuted and that there is a Secular Humanist conspiracy (headed by Satan of course) mounting against them, and all the while their human rights are largely protected by your (secular) Constitution. I doubt unbelievers in America would ever really go so far as to develop a persecution complex, but hey, it's nice to be on guard anyway.

So see the half-full glass guys. Atheism is alive and well in the free world. You're free to have your say...even to the point of debunking your President's religion. You certainly couldn't do that in China.

Zai jian! (See you later!)

Christians Often Retreat to the Merely Possible

Time after time I have found Christians retreating to the merely possible when trying to defend their faith. Keep in mind that anything that's not logically impossible, is possible. It's possible I'm dreaming right now. It's possible I'm merely recalling an event in the year 2007 in a dream I'm having in the year 2010. It was possible that Jim Carrey could've gotten the girl of his dreams in the movie "Dumb and Dumber," too (remember, the girl said he had a "one in a million" chance at doing so).

However, the more that Christians must constantly retreat to what is "possible" in order to defend their faith, then the more their faith is on shaky ground. Why? Because we want to know what is probable, not what is possible. If we ask Christians to defend a particular belief and they argue such a belief "isn't impossible," then practically speaking, such an argument provides no support for what they believe.

Let me offer a few examples of what I mean here, and let others comment on some more.

Christians claim it's possible that an eternal 3 in 1 Omni-God has always existed without ever learning anything, or growing incrementally.

Christians claim it's possible there is an answer to why God allows so much evil in the world.

Christians claim it's possible that God has a legitimate reason for being hidden from us.

Christians claim it's possible there is an explanation for how Jesus is 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over.

Christians claim it's possible there was a reason why Jesus died on the cross.

Christians claim it's possible that a single mind (or 3) can understand and respond to a billion voices talking to him in prayer at the same time.

Christians claim it's possible that the billions of people who have never heard the gospel of salvation wouldn't have accepted it even if they had heard it.

Christians claim it's possible to gain sure knowledge about the historical past, which is enough to base an ultimate commitment to God upon.

Christians claim it's possible that an immaterial Supreme Being can act in the material universe even though they cannot show how this can be done.

Christians claim it's possible that miracles occurred in the superstitious past, even though there is no credible evidence they take place in today's world.

Christians claim it's possible God can foreknow every human action and yet those human actions are truly free.

Some Christians claim it's possible that God can foreknow truly free willed choices and at the same time act in history.

Some Christians claim it's possible that God can know all possible outcomes of all possible human free willed choices down through history, even of those we didn't make.

Some Christians claim it's possible that God is a timeless being and yet a personal being who thinks.

Calvinistic Christians claim it's possible that a good God can sovereignly decree both our desires and our actions and then condemn us for what we desire and what we do.

Happy Easter!

That's right. Here's an Easter egg for you.

I was baptised on Easter Sunday in 1973, so this is sort of a strange and interesting day for me.

-------------------
I want to take this opportunity to thank the people who have been commenting here recently. It's become a much more civil conversation than we've had previously, and for that I thank everyone.

Bad Guys Can’t Shoot Straight

We’ve all seen the movies where the good guys are pitted against the bad guys. The bad guys have numerous faceless henchmen, armed with weaponry that fires off projectiles at incredible rates. After the flurry is over, and the force of the attack shreds all the items within the vicinity, the good guy is unscathed. Or, at best, a flesh wound (that will not affect their performance for the rest of the flick.)

He or she, of course, assesses the situation, and with hands tied, shoots once, which ricochets off a convenient steel plate, severing the rope holding the equally convenient chandelier, which drops on the faceless henchmen, rendering them unconscious.

The Evil Villain often brings in the “expert” to do the job right. The hired gun; the assassin.

This is the situation presented in the New Testament. The “Bad Guys” which consisted of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, and the chief priests as well as unidentified “Jews” were frustratingly unable to kill Jesus. So they had to bring in the hired guns of the Romans.

Why didn’t the Chief Priests simply kill Jesus upon his conviction? Because they were the bad guys—and bad guys can’t shoot straight. We all know that.

Being the Easter season, as I typically do, I re-read the various accounts of Jesus’ accusation, trial, death, burial and resurrection. It is a simple question, really—If the chief priests convicted Jesus of blasphemy, the punishment being death—why did they get the Romans involved at all? Why not just stone him and be done with it?

A little background as to the animosity between these individuals and Jesus would be appropriate. Beginning in the first Gospel—Mark;

The very first encounter we see between Jesus and the bad guys is the healing of the Paralytic. (Mark 2:1-12) The one where the four friends lower the sick person through the roof. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven.” The teachers of the law, who happened to be there on instructions from the Fire Marshall due to the over-capacity crowd, recognize that this is blasphemy. The first confrontation, and the first accusation against the Jesus were to remain the same throughout Jesus’ entire recorded career.

Jesus shows them up by healing the paralyzed fellow.

The Pharisees confront Jesus about fasting and eating and healing. In each situation Jesus is able to foil them with witty repartee. By Mark 3:6, the Pharisees and Herodians were already plotting to kill Jesus.

Jesus continues to teach, to heal and to confront the various leaders. Once he clears the temple, we are reminded again that the chief priests and the teachers of law (and presumably the Pharisees and the Herodians) plotted for a way to kill him. (Mark 11:18) Jesus has quite a few enemies at this point!

Yet they continue to attempt to trap Jesus by tricky words. And continue to be stumped by Jesus’ pithy statements. Finally, they were able to coerce one of the Twelve Disciples to betray Jesus, and arrest him in the Garden. (Mark 14:43-50)

The Sanhedrin listened to numerous conflicting testimonies that were clearly not doing the job. (Worthless faceless henchmen.) Finally the High priest stands up and asks Jesus whether he was the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One. (Mark 14:610 Odd, considering claiming to be the Messiah was not blasphemy.

Jesus replies, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” A nondescript response that could mean a number of things, not necessarily that Jesus was claiming to be God, or equal to God. Yet the High Priest considers this answer sufficient and they condemn Jesus to death. (Mark 14:63-64)

Now would have been the time to stone him. But what do they do instead? Take him to Romans…Curious.

How does Matthew record the relationship? Following Mark, the author records the first confrontation and accusation being the paralytic, forgiveness of sins and claims of blasphemy. (Matt. 9:1-7) Again, we see the pattern of fasting, eating and healing, followed by the Pharisees (but no Herodians) plotting to kill Jesus. (Matt. 12:14)

Matthew veers a bit from Mark, by including some parables after the cleansing of the temple before reminding us that the Chief priests and the Pharisees (but no Herodians or teachers of the law) wanted to arrest Jesus. (Matt. 21:45)

Mathew follows Mark’s tale of the betrayal, arrest in the Garden, the accusations before the Sanhedrin, the High Priest’s question, Jesus’ response and the condemnation of death. (Matt. 26:57-66) Again, now would have been the time to stone him. Yet we see them get the Romans involved. (Matt: 27:1-2) Why?

Luke also includes the first accusation of blasphemy at the healing of the Paralytic. (Luke 5:17-26) Luke has the fasting, eating and healing. He removes some of the teeth of Mark and Matthew by stating that the Pharisees and teachers of the law began to discuss “what they might do to Jesus.” No explicit death threat here. (Luke 6:11)

Luke also is less emphatic over whether the bad guys intended to do physical harm to Jesus after he confounds them. The author records that they wanted to “besiege him with questions.” (Luke 11:53-54) Irritating—perhaps. Deadly? Not at all. Most striking, Luke indicates Pharisees helping Jesus, since Herod wants to kill Jesus! (Luke 13:31) (Interestingly Luke only records Herod imprisoning John the Baptist (Luke 3:20) and that subsequently John is dead (Luke 9:7) Did Luke know the history of Josephus that said Herod killed John the Baptist out of fear of insurrection, and not the accusation of Herod’s wrongdoing? Was Luke correcting Mark’s history, here?)

Luke conforms to Mark’s indicating the chief priests and teachers of law began to plot to kill Jesus following the cleansing of the temple. (Luke 19:47-48) It should be noted that Luke indicates the chief priests “were included” in the people that wanted to kill Jesus. Rather than being the sole or precipitating cause, they were just some among the many.

By Luke 20:19, they moved to the forefront of the people desiring to kill Jesus.

Luke includes the betrayal, and corrects Mark’s error by moving the trial before the Sanhedrin to the morning (Luke 22:66) Luke also adds to Jesus’ claim. In this instance, Jesus is recorded as being asked the additional question “Are you the Son of God?” (whatever a Jew would think that meant) and Jesus replies, “You are right saying I am.” (Luke 22:70)

Luke never states what Jesus was specifically condemned for. Luke never has the Jews stating Jesus committed a Jewish law worthy of death.

Luke does include an interaction between Herod and Pilate that is not recorded in any other Gospel. The author states Pilate, upon learning Jesus was from Galilee, sends Jesus to Herod. Now would have been a perfect time to kill Jesus.

We have Herod, who killed John the Baptist out of fear of an uprising, and who we have been informed desires to kill Jesus. He has the legal authority to do so. This would be the opportunity. Yet Herod does not kill Jesus. Why not? What sense does this make? (Luke 23:8-12)

Previously, Luke records Herod desiring to kill Jesus, but the Pharisees protecting him. In a (slight) role reversal, Luke now has Herod protecting Jesus and the chief priests and teachers of law desiring to kill Jesus! Is Luke absolving the Pharisees? (They have dropped out of the picture since Luke 19.) Even so, what happened to change Herod’s mind from desiring to kill Jesus to saving him?

At this point we are left puzzling until our puzzler is sore—if the Priests had condemned Jesus to death, wanted to kill him—why not pick up stones and stone him?

The Gospel of John adds an interesting insight. John, like Luke, does not include a specific condemnation, nor does it include the trial transcript of Mark. No, what John includes is Jews stating, “But we have no right to execute anyone.” (John 18:31)

Now that would make the rest of the pieces fall into place. If the religious leaders did not have the right to implement capital punishment—this would explain why, in the other Gospels, the leaders turned Jesus over to the Romans. They wanted him dead. They couldn’t do it on their own. So they take him to the authorities that can. (This does not resolve the problem of Herod, who clearly DID have the authority to kill Jesus. Not surprisingly John fails to record the claim that Herod was involved in any way.)

There is only one problem with this. Where is it indicated that the Jews could not execute someone by stoning? In fact, the first place we can look to see that they could is the Gospel of John itself!

In John 8:57-59, the “Jews” (the Gospel of John commonly uses this vernacular rather than chief priests, teachers of law or Pharisees) are amazed by Jesus’ claim to have seen Abraham. They question how that could be, and Jesus responds, “Before Abraham was born, I am.” I need not remind the readers of the “I am” of the burning bush. (Exodus 3:14) Nor, apparently did the Jews need any such reminding.

They picked up stones to stone Jesus. No plotting. No tricky questions. No fear of a crowd. Justice at its most simple—Jesus claims to be God; Jesus is stoned. But lest we forget, these are the Bad Guys. There is still an hour left in the movie. Bad Guys can’t shoot straight. Jesus is able to slip away.

If the Jews could not stone people under Roman law it sure wasn’t stopping them. Twice.

John records another instance of Jesus in the temple area where Jesus proclaims, “I and the Father are one.” John 10:30. Again, the Jews pick up stones to stone him. No plots, tricky questions or worry about the crowd. (John 10:31) Again, they forgot they wear the Black Hats; they miss. (John 10:39-40)

The Disciples certainly seemed to grasp the Jews’ ability to stone Jesus. When He wants to go visit sick Lazarus, the disciples say, “Hey. Last time you were there, they were going to stone you!” Jesus responds with the obvious answer, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world’s light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light.” (John 11:8-9)

Wha--? According to Mark, Matthew and Luke, Jesus had made it quite plain to his disciples that he was going to suffer at the hands of the chief priests and be killed. (Mark 8:31-32, Matt. 16:21, Luke 9:22)

Jesus: I am going to Jerusalem to suffer, be killed by Gentiles and raised again.
Disciples: Don’t go! They are going to kill you!
Jesus: [smacking his head with that “don’t you get it?” look] You should walk in the day, so you don’t stumble like at night.

No one is saying, “Hey, don’t worry. They can’t kill you.” Everyone acts as if that is exactly what can occur—Jesus, the Disciples, and the Jews.

At this point, in John the High Priest and the Pharisees DID plot to kill Jesus. So Jesus stopped working in public. John 11:45-57. This is a good justification for the reason of the need of a betrayer. They couldn’t find Jesus. Notice, though, the limitation seems to be on finding Jesus—not on whether they could kill him or not.

Humorously, when Jesus is questioned by the High Priest, he replies that he has always spoken openly, and said nothing in secret. What about having just been in hiding from the Jews? That wasn’t in the open. And when he WAS in the open, and DID speak openly, they tried to stone him. Twice.

In Mark the Sanhedrin seems to be looking for a reason to condemn Jesus. In John, despite having been ready to stone him (twice) we still see them looking for a reason. It is as if everyone completely forgot the very basis of plotting against Jesus!

The Jews want to kill Jesus, try to stone him, and he escapes. Herod wants to kill him, has him in his grasp and Jesus escapes. It is a Hollywood staple—the plot must proceed and the movie would end unceremoniously early if the Bad Guys can hit.

It should also be noted that Stephen was stoned with no thought or qualm about the legal right to do so. Acts 7:59. Paul records being stoned, without any indication as to a legal irregularity. 2 Cor. 11:25. The Sanhedrin is indicated as having the ability to sentence Peter to death. Acts 5:33. And James the Just is recorded by Josephus as having been stoned to death.

What changed? What happened that by the time of Peter’s preaching, Stephen, Paul and James, the religious leaders clearly could stone, yet at the time of Jesus, they could not?

It is my position that Mark, in writing his Gospel was utilizing the Tanakh, and used Psalm 22 as the outline for Jesus’ death. A crucifixion. In order to do so, he needed Jesus to die by the Romans (Jews would not have crucified a condemned person), so he has the chief priests turning Jesus over to Pilate.

Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s outline (correcting awkward problems as need be.) But by the time of John, the question as to why the Romans were involved at all was raised. So, the sole Gospel to do so, John attempts to offer a defense, claiming that Jews did not have the right to execute. A claim that is problematic in light of John itself other books of history.

This Easter season, I ask the question: Why didn’t the Jews just stone Jesus?

A Review of David Mills' Atheist Universe

A review of David Mills, Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism (Berkeley, CA.: Ulysses Press, 2006).

As an atheist author myself, I'm always curious to read other books written by fellow atheists.

I noticed that Mr. Mills advertises his book on the Secular Web, which, I understand, gets nearly thirty thousand hits every month, and that his book was the top selling atheist book on amazon.com at one time. This is impressive.

However, the number of books sold doesn't always tell us whether a book is a good one, and Mr. Mills acknowledges this (p. 14). The sales of a book may be due to the publisher's (or author's) marketing campaign strategy. One marketing strategy can be found on the back cover of Mr. Mills' book. Clearly some exaggeration is going on there of what this book actually accomplishes. There it's claimed his book "rebuts every argument that claims to `prove' God's existence," and as "a comprehensive primer" to answering religious dogmatists, it "addresses all the historical and scientific questions." This is all fluff and hype, at best. Only the ignorant would walk away from reading this one book by concluding every argument for God's existence was addressed and rebutted. Such misleading language is unbecoming of an author of a book that claims to be a "Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism," or anything else for that matter.

But since Richard Dawkins calls it "an admirable work", and since the late Carl Sagan's son, Dorion, wrote a "Foreword" to it, I thought it probably must be a good book. So I went ahead and bought it.

As I considered buying it I couldn't find any detailed reviews of it from people I knew were knowledgeable. So after reading it I thought I would do people that service, here.

Mr. Mills writes very well in a conversationalist tone, as if the reader were sitting down over a cup of coffee talking with him, for the most part. He also seems to be somewhat well read.

His book is intended for "open-minded readers who are not afraid to learn about the many conflicts and controversies between science and the Christian Bible." It's not intended to convert the "religious right-wingers," who think they belong to the one "true" religion. "Their ears and eyes and minds are closed forever. No amount of science or logic will make any difference to them." Since they know God exists, "anyone who disagrees with them is evil" (p. 21).

I don't like caricaturing people like he does here. Who is an "open minded person," for instance? Maybe there is some sense in which people are open-minded, but he never articulated what that sense is, except to say they are "eager to learn." Are these uncommitted people? Liberal Christians? Those who reject the inerrancy of the Bible? Agnostics? I just don't know. Moreover, which minds "are closed forever?" My mind was a closed mind for over two decades. Now I am an atheist. I suspect no one's mind is "closed forever" as he suggests. Besides, how does he think "open-minded" people got that way in the first place? Like me, some of them were former religious right-wingers. Since there are many people who leave the Christian faith, including himself (pp. 57-58), the question is when it can be said of a Christian that his or her mind is "closed forever?" We never can know.

I write to the Christian. That's who I aim my arguments toward. I figure if I can write to those who are supposedly "closed minded" in ways they can understand and appreciate, then others who are "open-minded" (however understood) will see more force to my arguments, and be better prepared to deal with the arguments of evangelical Christians. There are a lot of books that do nothing but "preach to the choir," on both sides of the fence. Someone has got to try to cross the great divide and try to speak so that those on the other side can see what the atheist universe looks like. But that's not a task Mills is attempting, and that’s okay.

Mills is going to write about “the tough issues.” In so doing, he admits there is nothing in his book that the reader does not already have easy access to in any local library. It’s just that he will bring those scattered bits of information and put it all together to show that “we live in an atheist universe” (p. 21-22). This is another way of saying there is nothing original in his book, which is something that can probably be said of most books. Originality for most books has to do with how the author organizes his material, and how well he expresses himself. Originality also has to do with how well the author researches into a topic. If, for instance, an author summarizes ontological arguments for the existence of God since the time of Anselm, he has produced an original work if he does this more extensively and in a greater depth than others, even if that's all he does.

Mills claims the chapters in his book are "independent and self-contained" ones. That is, there is no real flow to the book. They could just as well be separate essays in a periodical about "Atheist Topics."

Right he is about this. The first chapter is a "fun filled give-and-take" interview, in layman's terms, which claims to cover "almost every aspect of atheism," (p. 22), which it doesn't do. While I very much liked his short answers to some of the interview questions aimed at an atheist, this chapter reflects what we see in the book as a whole. In this chapter we see him dealing with mostly unrelated questions about atheism. Here we see Mills briefly and astutely answering questions about everything from his definition of atheism, to why an atheist would quote the Bible, to why people believe in God, to why believers have the burden of proof, to why he doesn't believe in God, to whether Jesus existed, to whether Jesus arose from the dead, to the existence UFO's, to the Supreme Court ruling on prayer, to whether he is afraid to die, to whether religion encourages moral conduct, to his getting arrested once for protesting a faith healer's "Miracle Crusade," to whether he celebrates Christmas, and what he'd say on Judgment Day if he is wrong, plus many more, all in the space of 39 pages.

As I said, I liked his answers. He has a way of succinctly and memorably coming up with sentences that resonate with the reader. And since he's writing to those who are "open-minded," I cannot overly fault him for the lack of in-depth answers here. It’s only when an author actually tries to write to the “close minded” that his arguments become deeper. This kind of writing requires more effort and study. It requires knowing what people who disagree with you will say in response, and in providing counter-arguments.

For example, in chapter six Mills deals with the impossibility of reconciling the Genesis creation stories with modern science. He doesn't show an awareness that there are actually two creation accounts in Genesis, containing four models of creation. There are at least nine different theories used by Christians to reconcile the creation accounts with science. He deals with just three of these theories, although, I'll grant that he does a fairly good job in dealing with these theories in the short space allotted for this in his book.

At the beginning of chapter seven, Mills claims that even if the reader has only casually read the first six chapters of his book, then he or she has become "somewhat of an expert" on the inspiration and reliability of the Bible. He goes on to claim that the reader of his book up until this point is not only better informed than most Christians about such things, but that he or she is "more knowledgeable than 90 per cent of the professional clergy in America (p. 156). Well, having been a preacher I can emphatically deny that what he wrote in the first six chapters does what he claims it does for the reader. There isn't any single book out there which will make the casual reader more knowledgeable than 90 percent of the clergy on anything.

When it comes to chapter eight, on the "Myth of Hell", the same things can be said. There are at least four conceptions of hell and many variations within evangelical thinkers, and Mills shows little evidence he understands these differences. His focus is mainly on why God should punish sinners after they die, and concludes quite reasonably that there is no good reason for God to do so. He neglected to deal seriously with the Christian argument that retribution is a good reason for punishment, which is the notion that punishment is what a criminal deserves, and something for which C.S. Lewis has argued. Besides, many Christians argue that Hell isn't a punishment for sin so much as it's finally giving sinners what they want. Furthermore, the reason Christians believe in some kind of hell after we die is because they believe the Bible is God's word, and the Bible says there is a hell. The reason why Christians believe the Bible is because they believe Jesus arose from the dead, a belief which Mills cannot effectively deal with in one page (p. 38), or two (p. 164).

Included in the "Myth of Hell" chapter, Mills offers a very brief critique of the substitutionary atonement theory, and he does a fairly good job of this (pp. 180-182). However, there are up to four major evangelical Christian atonement theories, not the least of which is Richard Swinburne's relationship theory. Mr. Mills doesn’t show how one could effectively argue against them.

I'll have no comment on why he inserted chapters on Internet porn, and on whether America was founded upon Christian principles. I'm not sure why these two studies are so important to include in a book on atheism, when he doesn't deal seriously with the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, religious diversity, and several other more worthy topics.

The main strength of his book is with the scientific basis for the evolution of life on this planet without the need for an explanation in God. No wonder Richard Dawkins and Dorion Sagan recommend it. It's because Mills is at his best when it comes to science and the origins of the universe. Whether or not you need to read Mills' book will depend entirely on how much of this literature you've read. I myself found what he wrote to be very good in this area.

If this book merely contained the chapters that dealt with the science of origins (chapters 2,3,4,5, and 11), this would be a good book. Because of these chapters it is definitely worth the cost. Mills speaks best in the area of science, not theology, and not philosophy.

When is comes to theology he misunderstands what Christian thinkers are supposed to be doing. In chapter eleven on "Intelligent Design," for instance, I find Mills rhetorically mischaracterizes ID theorists as a "cult" simply because they reject some traditional literal Christian understandings of the Genesis accounts. When it comes to a literal interpretation of the Bible, the literal interpretation is always going to be the correct one according to the particular genre of the passage in its wider context as understood by the original readers of the text. A literal interpretation of the book of Revelation, for instance, would mean we should to take it as it's intended to be taken, and that means taking it as apocalyptic literature. Christian ID theorists can further claim their interpretation of Genesis is the literal one that the true author behind the human authors of the Bible intended.

When it comes to philosophy Mills isn't any better. Mills doesn't understand some aspects of the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig, such that what he writes in opposition to it has only a modicum of merit. Mills uses an example reminiscent of Zeno's paradoxes (p. 237) which is supposed to show why Craig's "mathematical infinities" are "empirically ridiculous." What Mills fails to understand is that Craig distinguished between "Actual" and "Potential" infinites, although, in Mr. Mills defense, Dr. Nicholas Everitt thinks such a distinction is a bogus one, and I agree. Dr. Craig’s thought experiments about traversing actual infinites are to show that one cannot count to infinity, nor can one have an actually infinite set of books, nor can there be an actual infinite number of events stretching into the past. And it's not "special pleading" to say these rules don't apply to God since according to Christian theology God is not matter-in-motion, but a spirit. That being said, Mills does offer some good questions in opposition to Craig, such as asking what it means for God to be outside of time prior to creation, and raising the question of whether quantum mechanics "flatly contradicted" the first premise of the Kalam argument.

Again, Mr. Mills’ science is very good. However, I think he draws some conclusions from science that may not be warranted, a typical problem for scientifically minded people. Mills thinks the law of the conservation of mass-energy leads us to only "one conclusion." Since mass-energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changed from one form to another, and because no experiment has ever invalidated this law "under any circumstances," therefore "our universe of mass-energy, in one form or another, always existed."(pp. 76, 232-233). The problem here is that there is no reason why the laws of physics, including the law of the conservation of mass-energy, apply to what I describe as the VOID ("before the Planck era"), prior to the existence of anything at all. Besides, the law of conservation of mass-energy says nothing to a Christian about whether a creator God exists, since if he exists, God would be the one to create this law in the first place, along with the stuff of the universe. If God created the universe, then he also created this law at the same time he created the universe.

I don't see why scientists think science can show us why this universe exists. Many scientific minded atheists fail to understand what the philosophy of science from Thomas Kuhn, Michael Polanyi, Frederick Suppe and Ian Barbour have all shown us. There are no uninterpreted facts. Complete objectivity is a myth. All data are theory-laden. There is a reciprocity between scientific cold hard evidence and presuppositions, assumptions and biases; all of which I call "control beliefs." Control beliefs, control how we view the evidence, especially when it comes to metaphysical and religious beliefs. That's why I'm not sure science can solve the religious questions. They must be dealt with historically, theologically and philosophically. Science plays a role, no doubt, but only as a part of the whole cumulative case against religious beliefs. Even at that, scientifically minded atheists don't seem to be able to articulate exactly why science is, in Sagan's book subtitle, "a candle in the dark." It's not just because of scientific experiments. It's because of the scientific method behind them, which is based upon a control belief that defines us as modern people. It's known as "Methodological Naturalism." We assume a natural cause for any unexplained event. This modern bias does more to undermine religious belief than any experiment does.

At least Sam Harris honestly acknowledges "no one knows how or why the universe came into being. It is not clear that we can even speak coherently about the creation of the universe, given that such an event can be conceived only with reference to time, and here we are talking about the birth of space-time itself. Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists." - Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006), pp. 73-74.

I especially liked three chapters in Mills' book very much. I liked the author's description of how the solar system developed and how he concluded this is what "we would expect to observe if the solar system formed naturally" (pp. 87-104), his various and rigorous supports for evolution (pp. 105-135), and the fact that "Selective Observation" is a perceptual error that believers use to count answers to prayer as evidence for God, but fail to count unanswered prayers as evidence against the existence of God. (pp. 158-169). These three chapters form the best parts of the book. They are well worth reading.

There are some good arguments in the rest of the chapters, but because they are a tad brief, they distract from the greatness of the best chapters.

In the end, no single book can contain all of the arguments on behalf of atheism and against religion in general, or Christianity in specific. The more you want to know about these issues the more you’ll just have to read different books. I think The Atheist Universe is a great compliment to my own book which deals with the theological and philosophical problems with Christianity. Taken together our books demolish Christianity, although there will be plenty of Christians who will still disagree.

The Atheist Universe is a good book. It just does not live up to the exaggerated claims made about it, that's all.

David, I don't know if or when you plan on revising your book, but from reading it I know you still have a lot more to say, and I hope you say it.

I hope we are able to meet someday. We have a lot in common. We can learn from each other.

A Random Act of Sheer Brash Self-Promotion

As a random act of sheer brash self-promotion, my book is presently ranked in the top 7200 books at amazon.com (it fluctuates quite a bit). This isn't too bad for a self-published atheist book that doesn't have much of a potential market share. It's at an affordable price though, at $13.57 with free shipping (if you buy a total of $25 in books). I can't mail this book to you for a better price. I think it contains the best case against Christianity to be found in any single book presently on the market, but that's just me. It covers most all of the important issues in sufficient depth for the average college student, and it's written in a fairly easy to understand fashion.

Believe this or not, Dr. Norman Geisler is recommending this book of mine to his Seminary students. Dr. Geisler was Dr. William Lane Craig's professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and is the author of over 60 apologetics books. He disagrees with my book, of course, but he also thinks there are many things his students can learn from it. There is another Christian apologetics professor I know of who is considering having a seminar to discuss and to debate with my book.

If you have believing friends and relatives who would consider reading just one book about why you no longer believe, I suggest you hand them a copy of my book. I would. ;-)

Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars

See the Biblical Archaeological Review's Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars. Both Bart Erhman and William Dever are interviewed, along with two others who remain believers. Erhman lost his faith because of the problem of evil. William Dever expressed himself in these words: I’m not an atheist. I’m an agnostic. I don’t know but I’m willing to learn. Right now the Christian tradition does nothing for me and the Orthodox Jewish tradition does little for me. In my own experience, I find this God so distant that it doesn’t make any practical difference. And, for me, I guess the final straw probably was the death of my son five years ago. If I had believed in God, I would have been very angry, but I didn’t and I survived. As the Yiddish expression says: “If God lived on earth, people would break his windows.” That’s been my experience.

They both claim they would still like to believe. They just cannot do it.

Interesting.

There is No Christian God.

This is the third post in a series titled, "There is No Christian God," which is highlighting several serious problems for the Christian faith. In the previous two I had argued that God should've created all human beings as one race of people in a world containing nothing but vegetarians.

Here's something else God should've done.

Down through the ages there has been a great deal of religious conflict. If God exists and wants us to believe in him, then he should’ve made it a priority to prevent this religious conflict by clearly revealing himself in this world such that only people who refuse to believe would do so. In this way he’d prevent all religious wars, Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings. There’d be no religiously motivated suicide bombers, no Muslim terrorists, and no kamikaze pilots.

For those who claim God has provided enough evidence to believe, show me the evidence for this claim. Look at the world map below and reconcile that evidence with such a claim (click on it to enlarge it):


Here is the enlarged map key:


How could God provide more evidence he exists? I've already argued that history is a poor medium for God to reveal himself, and I've already suggested several better ways he could've done so.

There is no Christian God.

There is No Christian God!

I've already argued there is no Christian God because of the law of predation in the natural world. My argument is that had God created all creatures as vegetarians and kept us that way, a whole lot of needless suffering could've been avoided. This is a simple change we know is possible because we see it in the natural world.

Here's another reason why the Christian God doesn't exist.

God could've created all human beings as one race of people with one color of skin, and kept us that way. It doesn't matter which race or which color of skin, either. I see no reason why a perfectly good God wouldn't have done that, since there has been so much needless racial conflict because we are not all one race of people. There has been a great deal of needless suffering due to lynchings, beatings, hate speech, racial discrimination and especially race based slavery...lots of it. This is something that a good creator would've easily done differently, if he exists.

And even if God had not chosen to create us as one race, at least he would've told us that slavery was unequivocally wrong. He didn't even do that. One of the ten commandments could've been, "Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves." And if this additional commandment couldn't replace the commandment about honoring the Sabbath Day, or the one about not taking the Lord's name in vain, or if God couldn't have combined two of the other ones to make room for it, he could still have repeatedly said it until there was no denying what he meant.

Many Chritian theologians argue that God was clear about slavery in the Bible. But such arguments are hollow ones. If they themselves were born into the brutal slavery of the South, and if their masters were beating them daily, wouldn't they wonder why God wasn't crystal clear about condeming slavery?

According to Sam Harris, when it comes to the issue of slavery, “Nothing in Christian theology remedies the appalling deficiencies of the Bible on what is perhaps the greatest—and the easiest—moral question our society has ever had to face.” Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Knopf, 2006), p. 18.

So here we have simple changes a good God should've done differently: Create us all as one race of people in a world filled with of nothing but vegetarians. Just think of the suffering that would've been avoided. There is no Christian God!

Reasonable Doubt About the Resurrection

I will not be so bold as to say that I can prove the resurrection didn't happen but I will argue that it has not been proven that it happened and there is no reason to believe it happened based on the evidence. There are three other plausible hypotheses two of which are introduced in the Bible itself for what might have happened to the body of Jesus. It might have been stolen, or since Jesus was only on the cross for about six hours, he might not have been dead at all. The Koran tells us that he wasn't. Another plausible explanation is that the story of the resurrection might have been Folklore.

"Folklore whether oral or written is characterized by multiple existence and variation. The variation may be reflected in such details as different names, different numbers, or different sequences of lines" (Dundes, 7). This would also account for the different stories between Paul and the Gospels.

The argument as I understand goes like this.
Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened
Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important

Premise2: The gospels support each others testimony within reason
Warrant2: We would expect there to be variation in different testimonies.

Premise3: There is no body
Warrant3: There would be no body if he was taken up to heaven.

Premise4: People suffered and died to defend the idea of the resurrection
Warrant4: People would not suffer and die to defend if it were not true.

Conclusion: The resurrection happened.

There are strong and weak forms of evidence and argument. Testimony is regarded as weak evidence because it is based on a presumption of the honesty of the speaker. Presumptions from testimony are defeasible because they are not based on objective 'hard' evidence. They can be overturned by the introduction of new information. Corroboration can make testimony stronger. Expert witness testimony is stronger based on the presumption that the expert is in a "position to know". Objective or 'hard' evidence can make testimony stronger. First hand testimony is more plausible than second hand testimony. One way to test testimony is cross-examination. Cross-examination checks for consistency and plausibility. In a legal case, witnesses are required to swear to the truth of their statements introducing pressure on them to tell the truth under penalty of law (Walton). In the case of the Gospels, there is no clear pressure from consequences to tell the truth and the length of time from the source make it unlikely that a challenge would be issued among believers.

In the case of the scriptures, Paul (50-60CE) was the earliest account of the resurrection. His details don't match with the Gospels. Mark was second (65-80 CE), his don't match with what the other three said even if Matthew (80-100CE) and Luke (80-130 CE) copied Mark heavily to make their own. John (90-120CE) is farthest away from the incident, up to 90 years after the fact (Home). This is not corroboration, this is plagiarism and it would not have been a violation of the principles of canonization since they were not canonized yet. It is unlikely that the apostles or even eyewitnesses wrote any of the Gospels. That makes them at least second hand testimony.

Since Mark was probably not an eyewitness, he must have put his Gospel together from a source such as 'oral tradition'; stories he heard, collected and wrote down and/or other writings. He may not have realized that the major points of his resurrection story came from Daniel, especially chapter 6. The irony is that Daniel in the Lions Den is similar to Aesops Fable "The Lion and the Slave" written up to 500 years before (Aesop). Another characteristic of the Book of Daniel is that according to Tim Callahan, "in general the history in Daniel is so corrupted that it must be (written) by someone who lived much later and was unfamiliar with the specifics of a far-off time (Callahan, 335).

The points of similarity to Daniel 6 are as follows.
* The leader of a nation opposed to the spokesman for Gods people (Darius of Persia, Joseph of Arimathea)
* Yet one who reveres that spokesman (Daniel, Jesus)
* Though greatly distressed, feels obliged to place the spokesman into a pit in the ground and cover it with a stone (Lions Den, Tomb).
* An act that clearly means a permanent end.
* The Death of the spokesman is required by Law (Law of the Medes and Persians, the Law of Rome)
* The executor is reluctant to enforce it (Darius, Pilate)
* Despite reluctance and delay, late in the afternoon, both are placed in the pit
* Both are covered by a stone
* In both stories the one who put the stone in place has hope in the providence of God
* Early on a subsequent morning the pit is approached by those who care for the hero,
* Next comes joyful news
* The stone is removed
* death is miraculously overcome
* and deliverence is assisted by another entity
(Helms, 135)

Years later, Matthew and Luke evidently realized the source and modified Marks to create their own and make it match the Old Testament better. (Helms) Marks Gospel presented a problem because he had the women going to anoint the body and finding the body gone, a more plausible explanation than a resurrection would be that the body was stolen. Matthew 27:64 fixed this by having guards placed at the tomb to prevent that. This is called Redaction and typical of Folklore so this was not something necessarily deceitful.

So Paul was first, years after the fact. Mark was second even further after the fact. He said a youth told the women that Christ was risen, but they didn't tell anyone. Matthew Addresses the possibility that the body had been stolen, but changes the facts in his story to make that implausible, and changing the youth to an angel having the guards fall prostrate. Mark says that Jesus could not do miracles in home town because of their unbelief. Many of the best psychics have had that experience, especially in the midst of skeptics. Mark makes Jesus sound normal, and that his body was stolen. Mark was the closest to the event. There is no corroboration for Mark. Mark is unique. The most significant thing they agree on is that there was no body.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was on the cross for six hours or a little more. In fact, Pilate was surprised he was dead (Matt. 27). It appears to be unusual for six hours of crucifixion to kill a man. The historian Josephus wrote about pleading for a reprieve for two of his crucified friends and reports that one of them lived. Roman-style crucifixions usually resulted in the victim dying of suffocation after days. Ritual crucifixion happens in the Philippines, even in some cases using nails through the hands not resulting in death (Crucifixion). A New Scientist magazine article says that in some cases the time it takes to die could be short but overall the intent of crucifixion was torture till death and in some cases, the legs were broken to hasten death (Cross). The Bible tells us Jesus legs weren’t broken. Joseph of Arimethea went to ask for the body and got it. The Koran may be right in saying that Jesus wasn't dead yet:

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

This would explain sightings after the fact, but it is not clear if he went straight to heaven, to Galilee or if he hung out in Jerusalem for a little while. It would make sense if he went straight to Galilee (Marks version) if he survived and was making an escape.

He was in the tomb less than 48 hours. Friday evening to Sunday morning is not 48 hours. Three days is seventy two hours. They were at least 24 hours short of seventy two hours. The sign of Jonah was three days not one day and two nights. To say that Jesus was in the tomb for three days requires a bit of equivocation on the meaning of "three days".

The Gospel of Mark is similar to Daniel in the Lions den, and Daniel in the Lions den is similar to Aesops "The Lion and the Slave". The characteristics of Folklore are multiple existence and variation

Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened
Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important
Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.

Premise2: The gospels support each others testimony within reason
Warrant2: We would expect there to be variation in different testimonies.
Rebuttal: The stories are all inconsistent in the details, show signs of significant plagiarism, and were written at least a decade apart from each other. This is a characteristic of Folklore.

Premise3: There is no body
Warrant3: There would be no body if he was taken up to heaven.
Rebuttal: Jesus could have survived the crucifixion and had help getting out of the tomb. The story could also have been folklore.

Premise4: People suffered and died to defend the idea of the resurrection
Warrant4: People would not suffer and die to defend if it were not true.
Rebuttal: People suffer and die for Islam all the time.

Conclusion: The resurrection happened.

I think anyone would be justified in having a reasonable doubt about the resurrection.

References:

"Aesop". Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop

The Bible

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

"Cross Examination". 1995. Richard Forrest Nottingham. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=lw195

"Crucifixion." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

"Home".Early Christian Writings. Early Christian Writings, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

The Koran 4:157.

Walton, Douglas N. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

There is No Christian God!

The Discovery Channel is host to an eleven part series called Planet Earth, being aired on Sunday's.

You'll watch as a parasite grows out of an ant's head, how a polar bear preys on Walruses, how hunting dogs kill prey, and so on, and so on. Yes, this is a majestic earth, and wonderful in so many ways. But when you watch this series I want you to ask why God didn't create us all as vegetarians. To me the horror of the law of predation negates the existence of an omni-God...period. And I just don't see how anyone who watches what takes place every second somewhere around the globe can still think God is good. He isn't. The horror of predation in this world proves such a God doesn't exist beyond a shadow of doubt.

My Introduction

I'm greatly honored to receive the invitation to join such an elite group of freethinkers. I don't have a fraction of the experience or credentials that the majority of the authors here hold, but I nevertheless hope that my writings will play some minor part in the deconversion of those who are starting to have doubts about the veracity of Christianity. I am by no means a theologian, biblical scholar, or former minister, but as I often like to point out, it doesn't take an expert to realize that donkeys can't talk.

Discovering the bankruptcy of Christianity at an earlier age than most of my colleagues here, I took the opposite path in life and acquired an education in scientific disciplines. My university education ended when I earned a Doctorate in Pharmacy with honors from Mercer University in 2005. Four years earlier, under full scholarship, I earned a Bachelor of Science degree with honors in Chemistry from Middle Tennessee State University. I also completed minors in biology and psychology. Although the utilization of chemistry and biology is commonplace for debunking Christianity, psychology is inarguably a field that is inseparable from the core reasons why people hold their religious beliefs. Expect to see this point revisited many times in my writings.

My deconversion story that begins in the next paragraph is taken from Biblical Nonsense, my debut manuscript from 2005. My primary goal while writing the book was to have fun completing a project designed to dismantle Christianity as much as possible in an attention span of two hundred pages. I describe the book as a utilization of scientific scrutiny, sound logic, and enlightened rationalism to present a remarkably compelling case against the legitimacy of the Bible. It's not an exhaustive scholarly study into the issues covered, but rather a brief introduction to the facts we have and analyses we can make concerning pertinent biblical issues. By no means did I intend for Biblical Nonsense to be an exclusively novel, methodically referenced, meticulously comprehensive volume of perplexities plaguing the Bible. I designed the book to be my own careful summation of these discoveries, occasionally accommodating some innovative philosophical questions that the findings should naturally provoke. Fittingly, Biblical Nonsense was inspired by the efforts of such writers like Dan Barker, Ed Babinski, and Farrell Till.

I was born agnostic, as are all children, but both of my parents were Christian. Naturally, my mom enrolled me in church at a young age because she wanted to do what she felt was best for me. Having also been enrolled in church at a young age, however, she’s never had the opportunity to see the religion from an honest and impartial perspective.

By the age of seven, I acquired the typical boyhood interest in dinosaurs. As a result, I wondered how the divine creation of man could have preceded the existence of these creatures. I learned in school and from my outside reading that dinosaurs had been around for millions of years; Adam and Eve, on the other hand, were divinely created during the earth’s first week only about six thousand years ago. No matter how many scenarios I considered, I couldn’t think of a way to resolve this important incongruency. I asked my mom for an answer, but she didn’t have one either. Instead, she advised me to ask my Sunday School teacher. The shameless answer I received the following Sunday was, “We don’t know there were dinosaurs.” It was then that I realized the religion had fundamental flaws if it resorted to such claims in order to explain scientific discrepancies. As time went on, however, cognitive dissonance drove me to justify further scientific contradictions as “explainable in some way” while holding onto the word of “absolute truth.”

A great inspiration struck me while sitting in church one Sunday that made me realize billions of people who didn’t accept Jesus as their savior were imminently bound for Hell. Even so, they were over on the other side of the globe thinking the exact same thing but with the roles reversed. However, what if they were right and we were wrong? Exactly who decided that Christianity was true while Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism were demonstrably false; and how did this individual make these determinations? I remember justifying this interesting perplexity by burying my head in the sand and declaring Christianity to be a morally superior religion. I’m patently ashamed of ever forming such a notion.

By the age of seventeen, I began composing a list of all the absurd Old Testament rules and regulations that God and Moses suppressed upon us. Soon after, I gained the courage to disregard the Old Testament as fiction due to the cruelty and scientific errors that it relentlessly presents. The Bible was no longer a perfect book, but Jesus and the New Testament were still solid proof of a god to me.

By the age of twenty, I finally undertook an unprejudiced analysis on the prerequisites of entering Heaven. They simply weren’t fair. If the New Testament is true, so was my original realization that members of other religions are going to Hell because their teachers mentally conditioned them to believe their respective religious systems. These individuals were simply doomed from the beginning; they had no chance. After I factored in the lack of evidence for any of the events surrounding Jesus, the exception being a handful of contradicting accounts written decades after the alleged events, it was just a little too convenient that God decided the fate of the world in a highly superstitious age void of testable records. Because of this painfully poor choice, no one could know for sure what really happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago. All the while, he supposedly watches us in total silence as we continue to kill each other over who has the correct religion.

When I was twenty-two, I browsed the increasingly popular internet out of interest in seeing if there were others who had made similar discoveries. I was amazed to find that there were millions of these freethinking individuals in America alone. Using enlightened rationale in conjunction with the enormous amount of counterevidence, hundreds dedicated their time to freeing others from lives of conditioned thought. In fact, a select few had an understanding of the Bible far beyond what I ever realistically hoped to ascertain. As for the Christian defense of these findings, I could see a lot of straw grasping. Their best representatives, having obtained bogus doctorates from self-accredited paper mills, stretched and twisted biblical text in order to make it fit with their predetermined agendas. Besides, how objective can one honestly remain while analyzing evidence that’s contrary to the belief system in which an enormous emotional investment has already been made? After a long childhood journey, the ultimate answer had finally become obvious to me. If you undertake an honest, dispassionate, and emotionless analysis of the Bible, you can easily conclude that it’s not the word of a supreme being. Contrary to what many Christians would like the world to believe, certain facts can’t just be absolute truth.

Once I completed my minor in psychology, I had a better grasp on how religious systems tend to work. As a general rule, individuals exhibit their desire to be in groups by surrounding themselves with those who hold similar interests in order to reinforce the perceived appropriateness of their beliefs and opinions. I recognized that I, too, underwent a near-universal conditioning process and tried to recruit/assimilate others into my group because that’s what I was told God wanted me to do. I also realized that many Christians don’t even know what they believe because they never take the time to read the whole Bible. Because of this shockingly lazy choice exercised by the vast majority of Christians, they’re mentally unequipped to answer challenges to their belief system. As a result, the common response to presented complications is usually this: “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.”

When it comes to religion, the mainstream believers exhibit no more in-depth thinking than the cult members everyone watched burn in Waco, Texas not too long ago. Christians are normal people in the outside world, but their brains seem to switch over to standby mode on Sunday. Cult members usually exercise the ability to live normal lives, too. Regardless of the actions such religious people take, I could never deem them as evil because I understand that they’re victims of an unfortunate destiny misleading them down a path of ignorance and unwitting gullibility.

Agnostic once again, I began to realize the full impact of Christianity on our society just a few months before the completion of my book. I was particularly interested in the wealth of scientific evidence against the occurrence of a global flood. Using common sense and knowledge from my scientific background, I decided to compile my own list of reasons why Noah’s flood couldn’t have feasibly taken place as told by the Bible. A Christian friend of mine who always asked to hear about biblical problems was fascinated by my research. I later decided to convert my list into a publishable essay in hopes of being acknowledged as a beneficial freethinker. In the process, a few additional topics worthy of discussion came to mind. While scholars, historians, and philosophers have thoroughly covered these issues, they scribed most of their material on an extremely sophisticated level. Even with a bachelor’s degree and a doctorate in the sciences, much of it went over my head. For this reason, I decided to write on a level that everyone could enjoy and comprehend. After the first few essays were completed, I knew I had more than enough ideas to write a book.

So, with all of this said, why even spend so much time debunking Christianity? Although I can’t offer an exact reason, my passion is probably driven by the salient danger created by Christianity and its subsequent influence on nearly two billion people every day. While the evil forces of certain deceitful religions have somewhat subsided in more recent times, the hatred inadvertently generated by these belief systems remains the greatest threat to humankind’s continued existence. In the past two thousand years, Christianity has been guilty of initiating several wars and crusades resulting in thousands of needless deaths, blatantly oppressing women to the point of worthlessness, abhorrently justifying the enslavement of Africans and perpetuating cruelties upon them we would rather just forget, shamelessly driving its followers to hang or burn alleged witches, nearly exterminating the entire Native American population, and inconspicuously robbing billions of people of countless man-hours that could have been much better spent on improving our planet. Someone certainly needs to address these issues, and the book most of the Western world swears by demands a thorough critical analysis.

Notes on Clifford's Famous Paper, "The Ethics of Belief"

The point of my posting the following notes on Clifford's paper is not necessarily to endorse them, but rather to discuss the ideas of the paper, and evaluate them for ourselves. With that said, here's a rough outline of Clifford's famous paper:

Notes on Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief”

Thesis: It is immoral to either form a new belief without sufficient evidence, or to sustain an existing belief by deliberately ignoring doubts and avoiding honest investigation.

The “shipowner” illustration:

Version 1: a shipowner who rents out his ship to others sincerely believes that the ship is seaworthy without sufficient evidence – indeed, against the evidence -- and acts on that belief, and the belief turns out to be false. The result is that everyone aboard his boat drowned. We consider the shipowner to be blameworthy
-he had no right to believe it, since his evidence didn’t support it

Version 2:
-same as before, except that the belief turns out to be true:
-still blameworthy
-the rightness or wrongness of holding a belief doesn’t depend on its truth or falsity, but on how one came to believe it.
-but in this case, he came to believe it without good evidence, and this is what makes his believing immoral

The “persecution” illustration:

Version 1:
-a group of citizens come to sincerely believe without sufficient evidence (unsubstantiated rumors) that a religious group in their certain country illicitly indoctrinated children with certain unpopular religious beliefs (denial of original sin and eternal punishment).
-The citizens act on that belief and persecute the religious group, but the belief turns out to be false
-a commission was formed to look into the allegations
-the evidence discovered clearly showed that the religious group was innocent of the charge
-the group of persecutors could’ve easily discovered this if they had looked into it, but they chose not to
-blameworthy
-the rest of the citizens came to see the persecutors as unreasonable and untrustworthy

Version 2:
-same as before, except that in this case the belief turns out to be true:
-still blameworthy

The underlying point: it is wrong to believe something without sufficient evidence.

Objection: The illustrations don’t show this. Rather, what they show is that it’s wrong to act on a belief for which one has insufficient evidence.

Reply: it is impossible to compartmentalize beliefs so that they don’t affect one’s actions – or at least so that they don’t affect others in some way or other

-Once you believe something, your ability is diminished to fairly evaluate evidence that has the potential to undermine that belief.

-Each new belief influences one’s total system of beliefs to some extent, and one’s actions are based on this system of beliefs

-Beliefs are not private, but are public property, and serve as the basis of human action.
-From the beginning of human history until now, human beings have collectively generated a huge network of beliefs about the world
-These are constantly added to, either by careful investigation and testing, or by irresponsible acceptance
-They are transmitted to others and handed down from generation to generation
-The human community bases their actions and lives on this network of beliefs
-Thus, communicating an unjustified belief results in it being added it to the publicly held network of beliefs, in which case it can have potentially harmful effects on others if they act on it

Every belief must be based on sufficient evidence

-No belief exists for the good of any particular individual alone, but for the sake of the public good
-they all contribute to the common network of beliefs
-thus, they all contribute to binding humans together and directing their cooperative actions
-But if so, then every belief, no matter how seemingly insignificant, can have an impact on the lives of others

Every person has this duty to believe only upon sufficient evidence

-Every person has the power to either diminish or strengthen harmful superstitions in the home, among friends, or at work by what they say
-But if so, then each person is morally responsible for the beliefs that form the basis of what they say to others

The case for the immorality of unjustified belief

1) unjustified beliefs can harm others due to their content:

-Beliefs determine our ability to predict, control, and navigate our way in the world
-when they are true, they enhance our ability to do these things
-when they are false, they diminish our ability to do these things

-Beliefs have two features that give them the power to potentially shape the behavior and character of the whole human race
-beliefs have the power to alter human behavior and character, individually and collectively
-Once a belief resides in one person, it can be transmitted to others through communication and thereby affect their behavior and character

-Thus, beliefs – the public network of beliefs – have a huge impact on the lives of human beings

-Given this picture of the nature and power of beliefs, and thus their impact on human lives, it is easy to appreciate why it is important to form beliefs responsibly

2) Consistently believing upon insufficient evidence harms people by making them credulous

-Your credulity is harmful to others
-It can lead to a return to “savagery” (think of the Jim Jones case, the Heaven’s Gate case, the Fox News case, etc.)

-Your credulity is harmful to yourself
-If you don’t care about truth, then you’re vulnerable to those who are willing to lie to you in order to manipulate you


Application: morally irresponsible religious belief


Objection: most people don’t have time to inquire into the evidence regarding their religious beliefs.

Reply: “then he should have no time to believe”.