When moral and spiritual ideas were handed down via oral tradition, they could evolve with the cultural and technological context in which they existed. Some stories were repeated often around the fire while others, less favored, eventually faded into the hazy past. Uninteresting details might be omitted by a storyteller, others elaborated. New implications might be extracted—rules, roles, and ideas about the natural world--depending on the needs of the era. The gods themselves matured.
The advent of writing changed this. On the one hand, writing was one of humanity’s most powerful inventions. It allowed information to be transmitted directly between people who didn’t know each other. It allowed knowledge to accumulate. But it also allowed ideas –especially those that couldn’t be tested—to stagnate. Written words are frozen in time, a snapshot of the mind of the writer at a specific point in history. Allegiance to a set of civic, moral or spiritual writings allows a person or a group of people to become developmentally arrested, bound to the insights and limitations of the authors.
Canonization, the process by which an authoritative body designates a specific set of writings as complete, perfect, or more holy than all others, makes this worse. Prior to canonization, a single fragment of text may be static but the mix can evolve, with some documents moving to the fore and others falling out of favor, perhaps being lost altogether. Canonization freezes the mix, giving priority not only to the written word, but to a specific set of written words that have received the blessing of a specific human hierarchy.
Ironically, the invention of the printing press, a world changing wonder insomuch as it accelerated the growth and spread of human knowledge, made even worse the opportunities for developmental arrest. By making a static set of sacred texts widely available, it removed yet another form of flexibility and spiritual/moral growth. Clergy could no longer selectively emphasize those canonical texts that fit the moral consciousness of a given time period (omitting the rest), without losing their authority in the minds of many adherents. Some scholars have suggested that fundamentalism had its birth in the invention of the printing press, and that its spread across the planet region by region, religion by religion, has paralleled the growth of literacy.
This leads to two conclusions:
1: Religious fundamentalism, a phenomenon that many consider one of the top current threats to our longevity as a species, can be thought of as problem of communication technology. Specifically, it may be thought of as book worship or, in religious terms, bibliolatry. Recall that an idol is an object (shaped by human minds and hands) that attempts to represent and communicate the essence of divinity. For pre-literate people, statues, images, icons, and sacred spaces filled this role. In an age of mobility and literacy, what better idol than a book? And what more likely idolatry than bibliolatry?
2: As a problem that originated in communications technology, the nuclear standoff of tribal fundamentalisms in which we live may be transcended also by communications technology. Problems introduced by technological evolution frequently are solved by further technological evolution. In fact, I might argue that they are rarely solved otherwise.
In this light it is tremendously exciting that now, for the first time in human history, we have communication technologies that combine the best of oral tradition and the written word. For the first time, utter strangers thousands of miles apart can exchange ideas and information via living documents that evolve continuously.
A book, they say, is out of date the day it is in print. Not so with the Web. Web 2.0 allows an individual text to evolve the way that oral instruction once did. Wikipedia articles change daily as new information becomes available. The Web also re-opens evolution at the level of the collection—a rich, indexed, ever-changing library replaces a canonical list of authoritative texts.
Savvy, entrepreneurial fundamentalists have latched onto new web technologies as a means of dispersing the words and world view of our Bronze Age ancestors, just as their ideological forebears did with the printing press. But in their devotion to this world view they miss the stunning opportunity we have been given.
Now as never before we have the means to honor not the answers of our spiritual ancestors but their questions: What is Real? What is Good? How can we live in moral community with each other? Because we have moved beyond the age of the book and of sacred books, we have the means to make this a conversation, not of a priestly class nor of a single culture, but of scholars and seekers and life lovers from every part of this precious planet. Together we can take the conversation from where it got stuck and set it free once more to flow forward on the currents of human need and knowledge.
Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.--Basho
Valerie Tarico, Ph.D.
Seattle, 2008
www.wisdomcommons.org
In order to compete in an ancient world where everyone was superstitious (religious) and all human thinking swam daily in a vast sea of religions; where good forces (Gods) or evil forces (demons) were seen as either directly or indirectly contributing to all human suffering and death; religion was the science of the both ancient though medieval thought that explained why things happened the way they did.
Since whole cities could be devastated by a plague or just ones neighbor could be signaled out to be afflicted either by sickness or some other natural disaster (birth defect, sickness or a lighting strike causing fire or death), supernatural causations were totally seen as “no brainier” from the general population to many philosophers.
While the ancient Israelite beliefs where limited to “Covenants” and the religions of the Greco-Roman empire were old established main stream “church” like religions (by the way, church / “ekkliesia” is a borrowed pagan term), the new cult of Christianity, just like high yield Junk Bonds, pulled members out of these old stagnated orthodox religions into a belief where the average poor illiterate person had a chance to become a divinity too just like Jesus and the Roman Emperor: Deified in the here and now while working “Signs and Wonders” and, best of all, were said to never died.
Signs and Wonders WERE the only proofs Christianity could promise over and above the other religions that the common person could have right here and now so, who in their right mind would not want to be a god just like Jesus (being a Christian, even today, means being “Christ like” or being a wonder working messiah like figure yourself).
Since about 99.9% of the world that early Christians proselytized from were already religious, Christianity had to offer something totally new and different to gain converts. Now (as advertised or ‘As Seen of TV’), you too could become a God working miracles just like the Jesus, the emperor and the Classical demi-gods / semi-gods (This being the proofs promised by Jesus in the Gospels, but today practiced mostly by Faith Healers).
However, if you did NOT want the “carrot” of being be a wonder working Christian here on earth, then you would get the “stick” of roasting forever (Thus, if you think it’s bad for you now, just you wait and you’ll wish you had of converted)!
As stated above, in a world where all sickness was said to be caused by the Gods (or demons)(often for wrong actions as punishment); where the reality of severe pain of being burnt either in daily cooking or in fires for warmth; where the daily struggle to find clean clear drinking water form wells and stream not cursed by demons or the Gods (remember they had no knowledge of micro-organisms) meant life or death. The claim where one MUST live after death in a place that incorporated all the real fears and realities of this life, was a great tool in evangelizing propaganda that the other competing religions in the Greco=Roman west just did not have.
[Here is a hard fact! Especially note the fierily burning trash dump of the Semitic term and Hebrew place called “Gehenna”. This was a place where the general population could actually see the fires, smoke and smell the rotting and burning flesh of dead animals along with unclaimed human bodies. Palestinian Christianity used this concept to strike fear in the people of that location, but , once the Christian religion moved west into Asia Minor, Gehenna was totally dropped for the Classical Greek religious concept Hades / Hell which itself was reworked to strike fear in the Hellenistic populations.}
In conclusion, the claims and promises of a once powerful Christianity fueled by human fears and superstitions also being re-enforced by the lack of knowledge (modern science) which preached that all natural disasters were from either God or Satan (a modification of the old demons(note here within the last 300 years the Witch trials in Europe and Salem, Mass.)) is a parade which has forever past.
Christianity has conceded so much of its mystical word view that it now appears weak and deflated much like King Triton who lost all his mighty powers to the Sea Witch in Disney’s “The Little Mermaid”.
Without Christianity’s living proofs of what the Gospels calls “Signs and Wonders” no longer able to compete with our scientific knowledge, all its reality (now known as dogmas / doctrines ) are moved into some vague and mysterious “after life” untouchable by “sinful man’s” science and technology begin relocated in either Heaven (for the righteous) or Hell (for the people who refuse to join in on this superstition in the modern world).
The “Bible Christians” who show up here at DC to argue the “truths” of Christianity, appear like the Cain in Genesis 4: 13; they seem to be forever cursed to wonder in a strange new land where their burden of a past mystical claims now seems almost too much to bear.
With hope fueled by faith, they struggle on just like Pilgrim in John Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress, but whose faith, like the ancient Gods, are superstitions that die hard.
In an article for the
Journal of Religion and Society,
Gregory S. Paul argues based on the sociological data from several different nations to this conclusion:
The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.
This interview took place when I spoke in Indianapolis.
Enjoy.
I imagine no religion, like John Lennon did, although not the Marxism implicit in his song. But what is the vision for the future that we atheists and skeptics have? What if atheism were predominant in America? What then? Would atheists want to marginalize and kill Christians? Would it return to the days of Lenin, Stalin and others in which there was mass killing? I think Christians are scared about this. I really do. Can we assauge their fears right here and now? What say you?
I would like for the whole world to embrace democratic capitalism, the kind we have in America, with a constitution like it, and with the separation of powers. I want a firm wall between church and state, and that means believers would have no fear of atheists since the state could not and should not enforce anti-religious beliefs either, even if we were a majority of atheists. There would be no religious nor non-religious litmus test for running for office, and no state supported religion or non-religion.
Religious people would still be free to practice their religion as they see fit, although we will still have to step in like we do now when they refuse life saving medical treatment for their children. Religious people will be able to argue their cases in public and before the courts if their rights are being violated, much like it is now, since we grant minorities legal rights that the majority opposes.
Christian does that assauge your fears?
Lets say all the facts as recorded in the Gospels were totally true.
Let say that all the ancient testimonials of the ancient pagan authors were correct and true as recorded about Jesus and what they recorded totally supported the Gospels.
Lets say we had a Jesus who was 100% New Testament reality who lived and functioned in the past reality.
Lets say we had the original autograph texts of the Gospels themselves, no question about it.
Lets say there was no doubt that Jesus did miracles. He, without a doubt, did raise the dead, heal the sick and cast out demons.
Let say there is totally no way anyone today could deny the reality of miracles a wonderworking Jesus did in the Gospels as recorded by both Christian and pagan authors.
Lets say that we possess Gospel texts which are totally in 100% agreement with each other without any mixture of error or contradiction and that all the events in the life of Jesus are such hard facts that no one in his right mind would even think of denying them.
Now lets asked: Just what happened to all the miracles (the works the Gospels calls the “Signs and Wonders”)? Just why did everything come to a sudden stop? Just why don’t we have a continuation of wonder workers or miracle working disciples known as Christians today rising the dead, healing the sick and working “Signs and Wonders” as given by the master Jesus himself to all who believe in the King of Heaven / God and as proof of the Gospel reality? In short, just why are not there Gospels miracles still happening today performed by ALL Christians?
Fact is, even if we removed all the debate about the truthful historicity of the New Testament, we still fail to have Christians living and working “Signs and Wonders” among us today.
Fact is, the Dodo bird did exist. The Dodo bird did feed hungry sailors. The Dodo bird did factually live in history and no one could argue otherwise.
But the Dodo bird is no more. Gone is its wonderful nourishing meat. Gone is this huge flightless bird that fascinated all who saw it. Far all the historical truthfulness of a past real live Dodo bird, it can now only live on in human imagination. That’s the price of extinction.
So to even if one were to accepts all the above about Jesus in the New Testament as being totally true, he would remain an extinct creature of the past just like our Dodo bird. A factual and wonder working reality of the past, but a totally extinct wonderworker who is now gone forever.
By applying principles of Information and Data Quality (IDQ) in research to the Bible, it can be shown that a high level of confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the information in the Bible is irrational, therefore arguments or claims using the bible as a premise are inherently weak.
Cross-check, Cross-check, Cross-check!
Accuracy and verifiability are part of the foundation of IDQ.
Researchers of Information and Data Quality (IDQ) have created classifications for Data Collectors, Data Custodians and Data Consumers. Those that collect the data provide it to those that store it and maintain it, and to those that use it. There are different values associated with IDQ dimensions depending on which categorical context it falls into(16). For example, the data custodian considers accuracy as the number one value while the consumer (depending on the context) may not consider accuracy the most important dimension. In all cases the most important criteria for the user is whether or not it is useful.
The fact that the consumer does not necessarily regard accuracy as the highest value creates a market for less accurate information which enterprising data producers are willing to satisfy. One example is the "tabloid" and "gossip magazine" industry. However, the desire for useful though inaccurate information extends across categories into business, marketing, politics and religion. Unfortunately, to ensure accurate data when needed, some extra work is necessary in the form of cross-checking.
Who is the author?
Like everything in life, cross-checking should be able to be used to verify a piece of information to see if it makes sense from another perspective. One way to do that is by being able to identify the author. When the author can be identified their credentials can be reviewed. Whether or not the author is an expert can be assessed, what their peers thought of them and what environment they lived in. These properties can be used to cross-check to see if the information has external consistency and makes sense from other perspectives. These properties allow the use of inference to assess the credibility, plausibility, believability and most importantly the accuracy of the information. There is no precise definition of accuracy, and in fact many of the dimensions of IDQ are self-referential, but it is the case that what accuracy is NOT is apparent and using that as a criteria, a working definition can be derived.
Accuracy implies that the datum represents a real world state.
It implies that when the data are reviewed, and compared to the real world event or object it describes the real world event sufficiently for more than one person to have as close to the same understanding of it as possible. An accurate representation of a real world event will not be ambiguous, will not lack precision and will not be incomplete because this will lead to inferences about the real world that do not or never existed or that represent an incorrect element in the real world(3).
Accurate and verifiable data are crucial to having enough understanding about the subject to be able to make reliable decisions, inferences and predictions in order to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes. Verifiability increases the credibility of information.
Your spouse, parents and reputable organizations endorse accurate reporting.
Almost everyone that has an interest in making some kind of an investment whether its monetary from a giant corporation or emotional from a trusting spouse desires, requires and demands IDQ. Human understanding and knowledge depend on it. Technology is successful because it builds on the accurate reporting and successful reproduction of work that came before it. Relationships are successful because Information Quality (also known as truth) fosters trust. Since Information Quality is so fundamental, it is easy to find reputable organizations that endorse it and not just your mother, father, spouse or friend.
Reputable organizations such as Cornell University(17), East Tennesee State University(19) and George Mason University(20) and McGraw Hill(21) and the U.S. Government(18) have websites set up which are devoted to promoting criteria for assesing the quality of information from sources. They place a high value on it and stress the importance of it. Two other websites related to education are "The Virtual Chase"(22) which is devoted to "teaching legal professionals how to do research", and Robert Harris's VirtualSalt(15) which is heavily referenced throughout the Internet. VirtalSalt has a checklist called "CARS" which was derived from the first letter of its major criteria, Credibility, Accuracy, Reasonableness and Support. The CARS Checklist encapsulates the research criteria that are endorsed by reputable organizations in an easy to remember mnemonic and can be found here
Criteria for Data and Information Quality in research
Listed below are the components of the CARS checklist. The initials of some of the other organizations listed above are used to show where their criteria fit into it. Their initials are beside the data quality dimension they endorse - vs is VirtualSalt, c is Cornell, vc is VirtualChase,
* Credibility (Credentials)
vs Author, c Author, vc Authority, c Publisher, c Title of Journal
Two relevant indicators of a lack of credibility are Anonymity and lack of quality control.
Critical Questions to ask are:
- Why should I trust this source?
- What is it that makes this source believable?
- How does this author know this information?
- Why is this source believable over any other?
- What are the authors credentials?
- What type of quality control did it undergo?
- Was it peer reviewed?
* Accuracy
vc Accuracy, vs Timeliness, vc Timliness, vs Comprehensiveness, c Coverage, vc Scope of Coverage, vs Audience and Purpose, c Intended Audience, c Edition or Revision, c Date of Publication,
Three relevant indicators of a lack of accuracy are no date for the document, vague or sweeping generalizations and biased to one point of view.
Critical Questions to ask are:
- Is it accurate? Is it correct?
- Is it up to date? Is it relevant?
- Is it Comprehensive? Does it leave anything out?
- What was the intended audience and purpose?
* Reasonableness
vs Fairness, vs Objectivity, vc Objectivity, c Objective Reasoning, vs Moderateness, vs Consistency, World View, - c Writing Style, vs consistency, vs world view
Some relevant indicators of a lack of reasonableness are intemperate tone or language, incredible claims, sweeping statements of excessive significance and inconsistency (written on the VirtualSalt as "conflict of interest")
Critical Questions to ask are:
- Does it offer a balanced, reasoned argument that is not selective or slanted?
- Is it biased?
- Is a reality check in order? Are the claims hard to believe? Are they likely, possible or probable?
- Does this conflict with what I know from my experience?
- Does it contradict itself?
* Support
vs [source documentation or bibliography], vs corroboration, vs External Consistency, c Evaluative Reviews
Some relevant indicators of a lack of support are numbers and statistics without a source, absence of source documentation and/or there are no other corroborative sources to be found.
Critical Questions to ask are:
- Where did this information come from? What sources did the author use?
- What support is given?
- Can this be cross-checked with at least two other independent sources?
- Is the information in the other independent sources consistent with this information?
What are some real world examples of poor Data and Information Quality research?
Conclusions about History are necessarily defeasible. One of the problems is that methodology and techniques improve a little every century. Conclusions made about a certain topic are revised as new information turns up. New information is used to compare to the old information for coherency and consitency. Some of these problems stem from poor data creation by the originator. Data are not accurate or complete. Users still struggle with these problems today. "A Website Dedicated to Information/Data Quality Disasters from Around the World" has been set up by the International Association for Information and Data Quality (IAIDQ) and its called IQ Trainwrecks(14 ). "Poor data quality can have a severe impact on the overall effectiveness of an organization"(3) and "Poor data quality can have substantial social and economic impacts"(11) that span the spectrum from news to marketing to text books to health care. Fortunately we can examine the methods of the ancient historians and scientists to see what led to poor results so that we can avoid those methods, improve what can be improved and derive new ones to replace the old.
Applying Data and Information Quality for research to the Bible.
As accurate as they tried to be, the authors of scripture still suffered from the same sorts of problems common with ancient historians and scientists. They were biased, inaccurate, had no way to verify information, depended on second or third hand information from relatively uneducated people, were influenced by political affiliations and commissions from aristocrats and state leaders and had poor tools to work with.
The Authors of the bible do not do any better job than their historian and scientific peers in documenting the world. In fact, of the three categories, scientists fared somewhat better because of their quality of documentation. The Library in Alexandria was destroyed by fire over time, so much of ancient scholarship and science was lost but some of the works that do remain leave little doubt about how to reproduce their experiments or their authorship.
It used to be believed that every author of every book in the bible could be identified but over time, it has come to be recognized that tradition is a poor way to record who authored what. External verification of the data revealed how unlikely it was that the person traditionally believed to be the author actually was or even existed.
According to several sources "The Bible comprises 24 books for Jews, 66 for Protestants, 73 for Catholics, and 78 for most Orthodox Christians." (24) From others: "The Protetant Bible contains 66 books (39 OT, 27 NT); the Catholic Bible contains 73 books (46 OT, 27 NT); the Eastern Orthodox Bible contains 78 books (51 OT, 27 NT). The Hebrew Bible (the name of the OT by Jews) contains only 24 books.(23)
Most of the authors of the original information about the Abrahamic God are unknown
There are different books in the bible depending on if you use the Hebrew, the protestant, the catholic or the orthodox (for example) If we use the greatest number of books in any bible as our total, then there are only about 21% of them where the author can be identified. 79% percent of them are unknown(24). 79% percent of the original information that exists about the abrahamic god comes from unknown sources. One of the indicators for lack of credibility in a work is anonymity(15). A small percentage of scripture are not considered worthy of inclusion between denominations. What makes one worthy to one group and not worthy to another? Lack of credibility is one criteria that comes to mind.
The bible is an amalgum of scriptures that span years. Some of the scriptures seem to be derived from other scriptures most of which were also included in the Bible. Trying to use the criteria for varied sources for cross-checking with the Bible is difficult because they were derived from each other, a large portion of the authors are unknown and the quality of production was poor. The criteria used to put them together is not clear but a presumption at a minimum of a need for coherency and consistency is warranted.
The word "trust" is used liberally to describe IDQ criteria. While the bible is generally considered to be trustworthy, is it really? What is it about something that make it "trustworthy"? Accuracy? Coherency and consistency with what we know from our experience?
What follows is a summary of principled research criteria standards which the Bible does not meet with some generic examples.
For the sake of brevity I did not include many solid examples but I do welcome audience participation by documenting them in the comments.
* Authorship - Traditional authorship have been overturned by later scholarship
* Not up to date - Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the OT, Pauls bias against women in the NT
* Inaccurate, incorrect - The rivers of Eden in the OT, Inconsistencies between the gospels
* Irrelevant - Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the OT, ambiguous NT fallacy apparently contradictory anyway "Whoever is not against us is for us — Mark 9:40" vs "He who is not with me is against me — Matthew 12:30a"
* Bias - Old testament treatment of worshipers of other gods, NT treatment of Jewish leadership and scholars.
* Unlikely - Most of the OT and in NT Jesus sternly rebuked his disciples for sleeping in the garden of gesthemane so who witnessed it?
* Conflicts with knowledge obtained from our experiences - Magicians do water to wine tricks.
* Contradicts itself - Who discovered the empty tomb?
* Cross-checking with external sources is extremely difficult and does not support to a large degree. There is no verifiable eyewitness account of the existence of Jesus, however that does not mean he did not exist.
Robert Harris's VirtualSalt has a checklist with a mnemonic for how to deal with information.
Living with Information: The CAFÉ Advice from VirtualSalt(15)
Challenge
Challenge information the information with critical questions and expect accountability.
Adapt
Adapt your requirements for information quality to match the importance of the information and what is being claimed. Extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence.
File
File new information in your mind rather than immediately reaching a conclusion. Turn your conclusion into a question. Gather more information until there is little room for doubt.
Evaluate
Evaluate and re-evaluate regularly. New information or changing circumstances will affect the accuracy and the evaluation of previous information.
I will sum it up in a word.
Cross-check, Cross-check, Cross-check.
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
1. Wikipedia, "Data Management"
2. Information Quality at MIT
3. Anchoring Data Quality Dimensions in Ontological Foundations
4. DMReview, Data Management Review
5. IQ-1 Certificate Program
6. Wikipedia, 2003 Invasion of Iraq
7. How Accurate Is The Bible?
8. Datalever.com
9. Wikipedia, Tanakh
10. Null Hypothesis
11. Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means To Consumers
12. IQ Benchmarks
13. Reasonable Doubt About Adaption Theory
14. IQ Trainwrecks
15. Robert Harris' VirtualSalt
16. Data Quality Assessment
17. Cornell University Library
18. Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agnecies
19. East Tennesee State University Researchers Toolbox
20. George Mason Univeristy
21. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Evaluating Internet Resources
22. The Virtual Chase, Criteria for Quality in Information--Checklist
23. Know Your Bible
24. Wikipedia, Authors of The Bible
25. Ancient HistoriansPart 1, Part 2
I was asked this morning about our vision for the future. What do we hope to accomplish by advocating atheism? Do we want to get rid of religion entirely? Would the world be a better place without it? Here is my off the cuff answer...
A philosopher with a Ph.D. emailed me this question:What is the goal and purpose of these atheists? What purpose do they want to accomplish? What kind of existential purpose are atheists offering people who would replace their purpose-filled faith with atheism? I'm curious what you think. I'm not being impish.
Where do I start? ;-)
We're tired of being maligned and considered to be less trustworthy than prostitutes and child molesters, for start.
We're tired of scientific ignorance, and the destruction and killing in the name of God, too.
There are plenty of negative reasons for asserting ourselves and our arguments, and that alone is justification for our arguments.
But we also have a positive goal. We believe we're right. Being correct is a worthy goal, even if we think that delusional beliefs lead to terrible puplic policies and agendas.
Our vision for the future? It would depend on the particular skeptic I suppose. I mainly think about MY particular future. So I want less antagonism toward me as an atheist. Since I don't believe religion will ever pass from the scene, given what Paul Kurtz calls The Transcendental Temptation, if all we can do is to lessen the effects of religious beliefs then that's a worthy goal, probably the only goal possible.
Is religion beneficial? It is beneficial for delusional people in the same way that a prozac drug is beneficial for depressed people. As long as there are depressed people we'll need prozac, a new kind of "opium for the masses." But a healthier person doesn't need prozac or religion. I want to make people healthier, you see. When that time comes, if it does at all, we won't need religion.
Twenty years ago, while I was president of our humanistic discussion group here in Greenville
The Lion‘s Den, I debated a young ministerial student over the truth of the Bible (one of a number of debates I did back in the 80’s). This nice you man published very well written a monthly apologetic newspaper he entitled:
The Bible Trumpet.
With regards to our debate, he asked me if his wife could help in defending his conservative position on Biblical truth. I told him I would welcome her input. The debate did not fair well for them and they left disappointed..
A year later, he excitedly told me that he was going to attend an apologetic Bible conference where the famed Gleason Archer (The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) and the renowned conservative Old Testament scholar, Walter Kaiser would be leading a major conference on the defense of the Bible.
Dr. Archer's topic was: What Proof Do We have That Moses Wrote the Pentateuch?
Dr. Walter Kaiser’s topic was: The J E D P Documentary Hypothesis Exploded
After both apologetic lectures, Drs. Archer and Kaiser would debate several Moslem scholars in order to exposed the Qu’ran as a false historical record (A debate I thought was like the pot calling the kettle black!).
My young friend told me he had been in touch with Dr. Archer who challenged him to have me write down any facts which I felt proved Moses did not write the Pentateuch. My friend said he would personally give them to Dr. Archer at the conference who he claimed “would put me in my place“.
My editor friend told me that he was very excited about Dr. Archer’s challenge to me and he could not wait to give me my irrefutable apologetic answers. So I wrote down five hard facts which I felt proved Moses did in fact not write the Pentateuch.
A week later my ministerial friend returned, but seemed put out. After all, he had used his short vacation time off from his night job (as he was a full time college Bible student during the day), plus he paid all his expenses to and at the conference.
When I asked him what irrefutable evidence did Dr. Archer provide to prove my facts wrong, he told me he did not know what happened. He said he gave Dr. Archer my questions, who studied them for a short time, then he threw them on the conference table and exclaimed: “Whose this nut?” before walking off.
That’s right! Your’s truly was declared an official declared a “nut” by the editor / author of The International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (sounds a lot like JP Holding).
However, I had the last laugh since, the funny thing is, it only took a “nut” to stump the great Gleason Archer!
Sad to say, about 3 years later I heard form my apologetic ministerial friend again. Since I work in electronics, he wanted me to show him how to hook up a motion controlled camera to catch him wife cheating on him after he went work at night while she stayed with the kids. He told me he had already caught her once and that it had upset him so, he quit writing his apologetic paper.
I gave him the information and wished him well. That was seventeen years ago and sadly, I never heard from him again.
Jeff Carter responds to my chapter on the problem of evil. He wrote:
Suffering allows for the proving and demonstration of courage, faith, stamina, perseverance, determination, spirit, triumph, glory, heroism, overcoming. Thus, while motives of an individual may be malicious, the condition of meaningless suffering is not evil to God - it is the backdrop against which the godly qualities of life are manifested and made clear.
My question is why these virtues are important to God since in heaven for the saints they will be completely irrelevant in an eternal bliss without any pain or suffering. See what you think.
Buses around London are now driving about sporting ads like this:
More
here,
here, and
here.
That's what I would do. And my book is being attacked quite a bit on Amazon. There are three poor reviews of it from Christians who never even read it, one calling me a "liar" simply because I deny the existence of God. On the 17th of this month my book was ranked around 3,000th but a Christian placed an image there and slowly it dropped to 22,000th by today. The image? This one with the related caption:
You can find it here. Then we read a caption that said:Are you sure you want to go down the path John chose? Eternity is a very long time, you do understand? Your choice, the religion of atheism or follow the Creator of all called Christianity.
I reported it to Amazon by clicking on the "report abuse" button. Please do so as well.
Fear tactics. That's what it is. Scare people into not reading my book. Scare 'em with hell. You already know the truth. There is nothing to learn from me. The only thing that might happen if people read it is they will likely doubt their faith. Doubt is bad. Faith is good. Ask Christian people to put their faith in you. Have them trust you when you tell them this is not a good book. You know. John doesn't. Don't buy this book.
To read some superb reviews of my book follow this link.
----------------
Edit: the image was taken down finally.
With respect to some of the comments I’ve read to my posts that as a former Christians John and I are often told we never knew what Christianity was. In light of this claim, would some Christians care to give the posters here at DC a working definition of Christianity? Or is there really no standard definition believers can agree on?
Statements like “It’s a belief in God” or “It’s a belief in Jesus” are so vague that the character Satan could be a Christian too. And again, statements like “It’s trusting Jesus Christ for salvation.” fails too in that hundreds of denominations who believe this attack one another as false religions (some weird oxymoron isn‘t it?).
A case in point:
A so called “Christian” commenter here at DC who goes by the name Jason tells me there are no righteous dead in Heaven be they Enoch, Elijah, or Moses, neither are there any wicked / unsaved dead in Hell, nor is there any Great White Throne Judgment where the lost or cast into a Lake of Fire.
If Jason can deny clear orthodox Biblical teachings and still be a Christian, exactly how much of the Bible can one deny and still be “saved” or salvation just a subjective term that can have over 20,000 sectarian or denominational meanings which make it basically meaningless?
Jason has stressed in comments to my posts that the “saved” or “righteous” dead or just like the “lost” or “unsaved” dead; in their graves. So be you Christian or atheist, your fate at death is the grave.
By rejecting historical orthodox dogma as traditional historical Christianity has always felt the Bible clearly teaches, is Jason a Christian while John and I never were?
In short:
A. What makes one a Christian?
B. How much of the Bible can one deny and still be a Christian?
C. What is the difference between historical orthodox doctrinal denial and Biblical denial?
All comments welcomed.
This post is a further reflection on the debates that ensued from my claim that
Jesus was a historical person.
I have made the point, contrary to the Christian claim, that if God revealed himself in the historical past then he chose a poor medium and a poor era to do so. Historical studies are fraught with all kinds of difficulties when it comes to what happened in the past. History does not give up its truths easily. What we have are glimpses and hunches and guesses about a great majority of questions concerning what happened in the past, along with how we can best understand the writings of the past. This is quite evident in what has transpired when it comes to whether Jesus was a historical person who was a failed apocalyptic prophet behind the myths surrounding him. This is obvious to me.
It is NOT the case then, that God has confirmed his revelation in the past. Even if God did so to the people in the past, this confirmation does nothing for us living in the present. We do not know what to believe even about the most fundamental question for the Christian set of beliefs, i.e., whether or not a historical person named Jesus even existed in the first place. I think he did. But I could be wrong, as I said.
I claim it's patently false to say that if someone comes to a different conclusion he is motivated by some sort of desire to reject God. Historians dispute the conclusions of other historians on a host of mundane questions which have nothing to do with the desire to reject God. They just want to know what probably happened, that's all. And since this is the case about mundane questions, it provides strong evidence that it's also the case when it comes to whether or not Jesus existed. Historians who disagree on this question merely disagree, and that's all there is to it.
Furthermore, if we can reasonably doubt this fundamental non-miraculous question about the existence of Jesus (which it is) then how much more so will we have doubts about the claims of the miraculous in the past. We dispute the miraculous claims of the present, so how much more is it the case that we doubt the miraculous claims of the past. God has not confirmed to people living in today's world his revelation in the past, period. As an omniscient God he should know better. Is he stupid, or what?
How does the Christian reconcile his or her claim that God is omniscient with the fact that God was stupid with regard to confirming his revelation in the past? I know my answer.
One Christian answer is that I have made an unreasonable demand upon God. That “God doesn’t do what I want.”
In one sense this is true, but I’d rephrase it differently, I’d say God doesn't do what is needed for people like me to believe. The past is irretrievable for the most part. Believers seek merely to confirm what they were raised to believe, including the Mormons, and Muslims. But I need sufficient reasons and sufficient evidence in today's world to believe. This is who God supposedly created me to be as an intelligent human being. I am a person who needs sufficient reasons and evidence to believe.
So, in order to satisfy the demands I have for reasons and evidence as a thinking person, God should’ve met my so-called “demands.” In the first place, either God should've created humans with a greater intelligence to better figure out the mysteries of the faith, like why there is intensive evil if he exists, or how Jesus could be 100% God and 100% man without anything leftover, or how Jesus' death actually atones for our sins....OR he could've explained these mysteries in a "mother of all philosophical papers."
Short of doing that he should've given us sufficient present-day evidence to believe. The location of Lot’s wife who was turned into a pillar of salt, would still be miraculously preserved and known by scientific testing to have traces of female DNA in it. There would be non-controversial evidence that the Israelites lived as slaves in Egypt for four hundred years, conclusive evidence that they wandered in the wilderness for forty years, and convincing evidence that they conquered the land of Canaan exactly as the Bible depicts. But there is none. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
So I don't think this is an unreasonable request at all.
Another Christian response is that God hides himself…he’s a hidden God. Well, if so, he’s doing a great job of this given the numbers of people who are not Christians.
But why should I believe in a God who hides himself in the bushes, so to speak, and then who will punish us if we don't find him? And how does he expect us to find him if he’s hiding from us. If he fails to show us his true love and we reject him because of the presence of the massive amount of suffering in the world, then we have merely rejected a caricature of him and not the real God. How can he be upset with us for this?
One last Christian answer to this problem is that God reveals himself, not through the historical evidence, but through the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit. I’ve recently dealt with this answer here, here, and here. But let me summarize what I’ve said and offer a dilemma for the Christian.
What propositional content does this inner witness provide the Christian with?...that Jesus was born of a virgin as a historical person living in the 1st century AD? William Lane Craig claims Christians do not need any other evidence but the inner witness of the Spirit, and that it's rational to believe even if the evidence is against it. Convenient, eh, especially when the Mormons claim the same thing with regard to their faith.
The best that Alvin Plantinga can say is that IF Christianity is true THEN it's rational to believe. But how does he make the case that Christianity is true? He doesn't even attempt this as far as I can see. Craig does, of course, but his actual case doesn't hold up to the evidence (a subject for another time). But to show Christianity to be true requires dealing with the historical evidence, for no one can come to the conclusion that Jesus was born of a virgin via philosophical argument. This then, is the problem for such an argument. At least that's what I think.
Again, the best that Plantinga can show us is that IF Christianity is true THEN it's rational to believe. But what if his arguments concerning the proper basicality of the God-hypothesis were found to be circular, uninteresting and trivial, or false? Then what? Would you as a Christian still maintain your faith? Does your faith now depend upon his arguments or not? If so, then you believe based upon an argument after all! If not, then what basis do you have for believing?
Lets look at this famous Gospel tract evangelical verse cited in the late Gospel of John in light of the older Bible traditions themselves.
First the verse:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Deception 1: For God so loved the world, (1 John plainly states: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” So, on the one hand we are told God loves the world only to be again told for Christians not to love the world. Since, in both cases the Greek word here is κόσμον, one is feed a flat out contradiction especially in light of the statement of Jesus “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Perfection is not contradiction!
Secondly, if God really loves the world, he would not have destroyed it in the flood of Noah. Love and destruction are totally antonyms.)
Deception 2: …that He gave His only begotten Son, (In Genesis 6:2 we are clearly told: “that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.” Just as the Hebrew states: בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּרְאוּ God already had “sons” plural! So one must wondered, even if the Hellenistic Greek writer of John did not understand the Hebrew text, he surly had the LXX which clearly states “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ”. While Christians get all choked up about God giving his only son, Jesus, they need to read and believe their Bibles more!)
Deception 3: …that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, (The problem posed here is the fact that orthodox Christian dogma states ( as based on Jesus and the New Testament) that the soul of the non-believer will suffer for eternity in the fires of torment. The Greek word here is “ἀπόληται” clearly means “to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish”. So which is it? The dead according to both atheists and Jehovah Witnesses are simply fully destroy meaning no eternal soul / nothingness. So, we could say that John 3:16 supports the ahteist view of life too!)
Deception 4: …but have eternal life. (The propaganda sold in this verse is to an ancient world where the average person making it to the age of 30 was considered old where a simple abscessed tooth could mean certain death, to work miracles and not die was to be like the gods themselves (to argue that “ζωὴν αἰώνιον” means that the dead believer lives forever in Heaven is not only a contradiction of terms, but really begs the question all over again as to what not being destroyed and living forever plainly means). When one considers the older Hebrew stories of Enoch, Moses and Elijah along with the Greek story of the miracle worker Apollinus of Tyana who is claimed also to have never died. The false claim in eternal life in John 3:16 is given even more credence as it was preached to the superstitious and mostly literate masses of the Greco-Roman empire to gain fast converts in a ancient world that swam in a sea of religions and promises of hope. End the end, it was Christianity which out sold its fellow religions with verses like John 3:16 which gave more hope to its superstitious world.
Finally, we must understand that hope need not be true; it only needs to be hope; thus John 3:16!
Apart from the hobby / fellowship nature of Christianity and apart from the apologetic mental gymnastics believers use to keep this ancient concept of reality spinning on the modern stick of logic; just what does Christianity offer over and above that the basic secular world does not give?
The stimulus for this post was a church bulletin I saw announcing “Flu Shots” and listed the times Christians could receive their secular protection from this virus. But why would God fearing, Jesus believing, Bible claiming church members need the same secular protection just as the non-religious / anti -religious secular world would?
I’m an atheist who, as a former Christian, overtly has renounced both God and the Bible. I work with sincere Christians who received free flu shots given at work while I refused it. Over the course of last winter, a number of these Christians became sick with the flu (both those who got the shot and those who did not) and were out of work for a week while this non-believing secular atheist never even got a cold that year.
Paul states in 1 Corinthians 11:30 (For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.) as a supernatural reason why many believers at Corinth were sick and even died was that it was a curse from God for misusing the Lord’s Supper. (This Biblical “Fact” implicitly states that God was active in either attacking his own faithful or, as in the case of Job, used Satan to do his dirty work.)
In short we are told that God actively engages the health of his “children” (remember, he is the Dad…”Our Father who art in Heaven…”) as proof he exists even to the point of sickness and death.
So just what good is Christianity other than a mental apologetic argument used to peddle magical promises to uninformed people understood as “Lost" or "Unsaved” to the believers.
Preachers (ordained and endorsed by an ecclesiastical authorities and lead by the Holy Spirit ) and Christians are arrested for sex crimes, thefts, murders, frauds and just about any and everything the worst anti-Christian could be arrested for even though most minsters make a very good living announcing (preaching) the “absolute truths” of God.
In conclusion, Christians are given a Great Commission by Jesus to tell both the wrong religion and the non-religious world that they are indeed wrong and must submit to the promises of God (as stated in the Bible). If one rejects the Gospel of Jesus, then God will also attack the non-Christian (just as he attacked or allowed the Christian to be attacked in Corinth) at the Great White Throne Judgment; this despite the fact that Biblical promises for Christians for the here and now are failures (just as I’ve pointed out above) .
Now Christians, it’s time to pull the only strings you have to make God appear logical and loving…use your apologetic mental gymnastics and to tell us at DC just why the reality we live with everyday is not the truth and that that mountain Jesus tells us can really be moved and cast into the sea can be done if only we have the oh-so-pure Christian faith (but the size of a mustard seed).
And finally, if the Bible has promises which, in order to keep them true, must be understood as allegories, exactly what is the difference between an allegory and a flat out lie? Or, to put it another way, if God and the Bible are caught with their proverbial pants down, can you apologetic defenders now convince us at DC that you and your God of absolute truth have the gift of deception…that the Bible REALLY does not say what it means?
I'm having a discussion with a Christian named Drew, who has a B.S. in philosophy, which can be read
here. Let me summarize some of the main arguments so far concerning what I've previously called
The Most Asinine Christian Argument I've Probably Ever Heard...
I have argued that the more often Christians have to resort to background beliefs—the more often they have to resort to their overall religious worldview to defend a particular tenet of faith—then the less likely their faith is true. I realize we all retreat to background beliefs here and there to support a weak plank in our worldviews, an anomaly, so to speak. But the more one has to do this then the weaker his whole position is. And I claim that on any given issue I wrote about in my book, one after another, a Christian cannot defend that issue on its own terms. Instead he must resort to his background beliefs to do so, time after time, after time. THAT'S why I say my case should be judged as a whole. It's because it will become crystal clear that the Christian cannot fall back on any background belief since I attack each and every major background belief he has, one after another, from the existence of God, to miracles, to the resurrection of Jesus.
When it comes to the problem of evil I made an argument that a Christian must deal with based upon what he believes, not upon what I believe. Based upon what he believes about God and this world he must reconcile the two on its own terms. It’s an internal problem to his belief (not mine) about the existence of a perfectly good God given the massive amount of suffering there is in this world.
Here is my argument:If God is perfectly good, all knowing, and all powerful, then the issue of why there is so much suffering in the world requires an explanation. The reason is that a perfectly good God would be opposed to it, an all-powerful God would be capable of eliminating it, and an all-knowing God would know what to do about it. So the extent of intense suffering in the world means for the theist that either God is not powerful enough to eliminate it, or God does not care enough to eliminate it, or God is just not smart enough to know what to do about it. The stubborn fact of intense suffering in the world means that something is wrong with God’s ability, or his goodness, or his knowledge. I consider this as close to an empirical refutation of Christianity as is possible.
Is this a logical argument? Yes, even though it's written for the average college student and not for the professional philosopher. Is it an evidential argument? Yes, since I'm looking at the evidence in this world. This whole distinction between a logical and evidential argument is blurred.
The way Drew describes an "internal critique" means I must show his beliefs to be logically impossible by use of deductive logic based solely on the things he believes. And he maintains that an "external critique" depends on my having ultimate standard for objective morals (a separate problem I have dealt with head-on without skirting the issue). So Drew thinks he has me choosing between two horns of a dilemma where I reject BOTH horns. It's a false dilemma. On the one hand, I reject the claim that my logical argument (above) must show his beliefs to be logically contradictory. That's a near impossible standard that isn't required of most ideas we reject. On the other hand, I reject his notion that by offering a so-called "external critique" of his present beliefs means I must have some sort of ultimate standard for objective morals to do so as an atheist, since my argument is not an atheist argument at all; it doesn’t led to atheism. It's an argument that Drew needs to consider in reconciling all that he believes, since he believes God is the author of all truth. Regardless of whether as an atheist I press this argument against him or not, and regardless of whether he agrees with me or not, he must still consider my argument to reconcile his beliefs. This is evidenced by Christian thinkers who have become process thinkers.
This stuff is elementary to me. I think he's been informed by ignorant people who feel the need to justify ignorant beliefs.
Drew said: While both approaches can be affirmed by a single atheist, they are separate critiques and cannot logically be combined into one argument.
Yes they can! I use a cumulative case argument that uses both approaches to come to the same conclusion. As I said, it’s one argument, a comprehensive one, utilizing many other arguments, both logical and inductive. Yes, each one is separate argument. That’s correct. But since no single argument can topple your whole worldview, or anyone’s for that matter, these separate arguments, while seemingly defective on their own terms, present a comprehensive and cumulative whole case.
Drew said: Note: If the atheist says of the Christian’s definitions, “Those definitions are just wrong. Christians have defined God (evil/gratuitous/greater good) incorrectly,” then the atheist has entered evidence outside the Christian worldview, and has therefore switched to an external critique.
What you must remember, is that the argument from intensive suffering is not an atheist argument. An atheist uses it, of course. But since it does not lead to atheism, it’s not an atheist argument at all. Process theologians, deists and pantheists can look at that argument, agree with it, and conclude that the Christian conception of an Omni-God is improbable while retaining some belief in God.
And it's just false to say that as an atheist I’ve entered into an external criticism of your faith by arguing with you about the correct definitions of God and evil. Because every single argument I offer has been considered by a thoughtful Christian who wants to reconcile his own conception of God based on the evidence of suffering. Some of these thinkers will remain Christians after having thought through this, while others have become process thinkers and/or atheists.
As I’ve argued on page 58 in my book, it is a solid Christian principle that “all truth is God’s truth.” Experience, for instance, has always been a check on Biblical exegesis and theology, whether it comes to Wesleyan perfectionism, perseverance of the saints, second coming predictions, Pentecostal miracle workers, and so on. While experience is not the test for truth, the Christian understanding of the truth must be able to explain personal experience. The whole science/religion discussion is an attempt to harmonize the Bible with what scientists have experienced through empirical observations of the universe. My contention is that other disciplines of learning, including experience itself, continually forces the believer to reinterpret the Bible and his notion of God, until there is nothing left to believe with regard to either of them. Is this external? It cannot be. For according to a Christian “all truth is God’s truth.” He's supposedly the creator, so he must be the author of all truth! No Christian can possibly say that all truth—all truth—is found in the Bible. Is rocket science found in the Bible? So my argument is neither an external one, nor is it an atheist argument.
What exactly is an external argument given the Christian view of truth? If an external argument is merely one that the Christian doesn't accept at the present time then that’s irrelevant, for Christian theology has adjusted itself numerous times by arguments and evidence that the previous generation did not accept. Christians should adjust their views here too, just like they’ve done with a rigorously literal view of the Genesis creation accounts in the light of modern science. They should adjust, just like they've adjusted to liberal views on women when compared to Christians of earlier centuries. They should adjust, just like they've done by condemning racism and slavery, unlike Christians who justified these things in the American South. They should adjust, just like they do with their liberal views of hell when compared to the Middle Ages. They should adjust, just like they do with regard to their liberal and heretical ideas of a free democracy when compared to earlier times of the divine rights of kings. They should adjust, just like Christians have done who no longer think the Bible justifies killing people who disagree. If these previous Christians replied to the evidence, as you do now, that such arguments are external to their faith, you'll see my point. Since Christians have historically changed their views based on this so-called “external evidence,” what they believe is now considered to be internal to their faith.
Drew said: If the atheist is making an external-evidential critique, then the atheist’s worldview must account for that evidence.
At some point, yes, and I think I have. But I do not need to make that argument before I make my case based upon the suffering in this world.
Drew said: Overall, it looks like the internal critique, but he refers to the “extent of intense suffering”.
If I cannot force the believer to look at what we find in the world itself to show his beliefs wrong, then that believer lives in la la land. You might as well be a solipsist. You MUST look at the world that exists and reconcile it with your beliefs about God. This problem, even though I point to the world that exists, is still an internal one for your beliefs.
I am distinguishing what I think about evil from what a Christian thinks. I’m claiming intensive suffering is a problem for the Christian theist. This is not my problem. It’s yours. I’m arguing that this kind of suffering is what you should consider an “evil.” That’s what this debate is all about at this point. I’m trying to argue that it is an evil from YOUR perspective. What counts as a moral evil from MY perspective can and is much different. For instance, the law of predation is not considered by me to be a moral “evil” at all. This is what I expect given evolutionary biology. But I’m arguing that it is an evil from your perspective. I think it’s you who is confused here about that which I’m arguing about.
If I cannot convince you that your faith is improbable then that does not matter. I claim it is. I use your standards to do so. Why you don’t see it is strange to me. As I former Christian I became persuaded of these things, so why is it impossible for you to do so? The answer is that it is not impossible for you to see that you’re wrong, just like I did. That’s how we change our minds, and we all do. Who knows, you might end up a panentheist after further considerations of these arguments. Who knows, right? THEN what will you say about my arguments? You will say they helped you to see the improbability of your prior beliefs.
You cannot answer YOUR problem by skirting the issue. You cannot say “you too” when you must answer an argument that you must deal with even if NO ONE pressed it against you! You must think about this problem for your faith on your own. The beliefs of a person who makes this or any argument are absolutely and completely irrelevant to the problem you yourself face. Again, if you believe all things can be reconciled by your faith then you and you alone must do the reconciling. You can say you have done so all you want to, but since human beings have an overwhelming tendency to intellectually defend those beliefs they have been brought up in, and since they treat those things they believe with an insider perspective, they must come to grips with the arguments of outsiders just to test what they believe.
I’ll have to admit Drew is tenacious, something that’s both annoying and at the same time rewarding. It’s annoying that I have written so much about the internal/external problem without any success with you. It’s rewarding because it forces me to go deeper and deeper with him.
Drew responds by saying…An internal argument assumes the truth of the worldview, position, or argument in question in order to derive a contradiction from that assumption. Loftus is completely incapable of supporting [his arguments] with anything other than either (1) evidence of evil that is external, or (2) some other evidence against God that is unrelated to the problem of evil. If Loftus chooses option (1), then he must account for that evidence on his own worldview. If he chooses option (2), then he’s making a tacit admission that his position is weak [per what I, John, argued above with regard to retreating to background beliefs supporting a weak plank in what we believe]. The point is, explanation of how the Christian worldview accounts for certain facts is not in any way “presupposing” what one is trying to prove. If it is, then Loftus is guilty of the same thing every time he explains some feature of his worldview in order to defend it.
Loftus then argues against hell, attempting again to do it internally. His basic argument is that the “punishments don’t fit the crimes”. (p. 256) He also says that the reality of the majority of people suffering in hell is “incompatible with the theistic conception of a good God.” (p. 256)
I had to read that statement a couple times. The Christian theistic conception of God holds that He does condemn some people to hell. What “theistic conception of a good God” is Loftus talking about here? It’s not the Christian one. If the Christian conception of a good God conflicts with Loftus’ conception of a good God, or anyone else’s for that matter, so what? I know he’s trying to make it an internal argument by claiming there’s an incompatibility, but he keeps jumping outside the Christian worldview when he says things like, “the punishment doesn’t fit the crimes.” I have to ask, “by what standard?” Not the Christian one, so which one? And why is that standard true?
Here’s the problem Drew.
My particular argument in chapter 12 is not directed at the Calvinistic conception of God, per se. As I’ve already admitted, I dismiss such a Calvinistic conception of God. And it’s not supposed to be a defeater of the whole Christian worldview, since my case is a cumulative case, even if I say it’s an “empirical refutation” of such a God (which is rhetoric, although I believe it). Nor is it a logical disproof of the theistic God, although it is a logical argument. Therefore, your criticisms of my arguments are not aimed properly against that which I am arguing against. In that sense there should be several occasions where you would be found saying: “Yes, John is absolutely correct, given the nature of that which he’s arguing against.”
Even at that, I take a swipe at your conception of God when I shared John Beversluis’s argument: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.”
As I said, there is no real distinction between an internal and external criticism given that you believe all truth is God’s, for you must still account for the external evidence of intense suffering in this world. Besides, in any deductive argument ABOUT THE WORLD (in contrast with abstract entities) there is always an appeal to induction from the evidence found in the world, while in any inductive argument there is always some deduction that must be concluded from the evidence.
Reductio ad absurdum arguments can either be used to show what you believe is logically impossible or they can be used to show that your beliefs commit you an improbabilities. I’m saying something like this, “Let’s suppose you are right. If so, these are the absurd consequences. My argument is that your beliefs commit you to accept improbably absurd consequences. I’m not arguing that your beliefs are internally contradictory. Now let’s say you deny or reject the consequences that I point out. Okay. Fine. That does not mean I haven’t used a reductio ad absurdum argument. It’s clear that I have. But in order to reject my arguments you must retreat into other background beliefs to do so, and that’s when I say “the more you retreat into background beliefs the less likely your faith is true.” When it comes to the problem of intense suffering I maintain this is just another example of you retreating to these background beliefs. Once I make this point let’s move on to the next chapter, and the next and the next, until I make my whole case that you have no probable background beliefs from which to fall back on.
And so I find it completely ignorant for you to still maintain that the force of a particular argument depends on the beliefs of the one making it. Just show me one other argument that depends on the beliefs of the one making it. There is a widely accepted strategy called “the Devil’s Advocate” in which the arguer merely argues for the sake of seeing how someone responds. It would do absolutely no good once it’s realized that someone was playing the devil’s advocate to dismiss his objections at that point, for his arguments must still be met and dealt with.
Finally, as I have said, no single argument can debunk a whole Christian worldview. Yet you claim that “an internal critique must assume one's worldview at the outset for the sake of argument.” The argument I’m making in my chapters about suffering is narrowed to this problem alone. I am not taking on your whole worldview at this point. Given the nature of worldviews I can’t do that…no one can. I’m dealing strictly with one aspect of your worldview. Other chapters, such as the arguments for the existence of God, are dealt with elsewhere. If I had to abide by your rule and assume your whole worldview with everything in it, then you have given me an impossible task when dealing with any single belief in your worldview.
Worldviews, anyway, are almost but not quite incommensurable, if you know what I mean. They are elusive to an outsider’s criticisms. They account for nearly everything within it as insiders. That’s why I also argue for the “Outsider Test for Faith.” To use the insider language of a whole worldview would make it near impossible to offer any outsider criticisms of that worldview. Have you ever tried to critique pantheism as an insider? Try it. In the meantime read what Christian philosopher James Sire said about it in his book The Universe Next Door. Here’s a snippet: “What can Westerners say? If they point to its irrationality, the Easterner rejects reason as a category. If they point to the disappearance of morality, the Easterner scorns the duality that is required for the distinction. If they point to the inconsistency between Easterner’s moral action and amoral theory, the Easterner says, ‘Well, consistency is not virtue except by reason, which I’ve already rejected.’…If the Westerner says, ‘But if you don’t eat, you’ll die,’ the Easterner responds, ‘So what? Atman is Brahman. Brahman is eternal. A death to be wished.’ It is, I think, no wonder Western missionaries have made so little headway with committed Hindus and Buddhists. They don’t speak the same language, for they hold almost nothing in common.”
That’s exactly how I feel with you. We live in different worldviews. I cannot critique your whole worldview by criticizing one issue, and we don’t speak the same language. You must simply “See” things differently. If I cannot help you to see things differently then I’ve still done the best I can. I do the best I can to bridge the worldview gap between us that I think is possible, despite your insistence that my arguments are not consistently internal (or inside) to that which you believe. I maintain they are the best that an outsider can do (they are the best I can do anyway).
Let me put this into perspective, Drew. You say God is sovereign and can do whatever he wants to with us as human beings because we’re sinners deserving of hell. This does not make him less than perfectly good, you maintain. He’s perfectly good. We deserve what he sends our way as punishment. We have done this to ourselves.
That, in brief, if I understand it properly, is your Calvinistic position…your theodicy. Granted there is much more to it, okay?
I have already argued that since we cannot behave differently, or desire to do to differently, or even believe differently than what we do, this defeats the whole notion of the God you believe. But leaving that insurmountable problem to the gerrymanderers, since it seems perfectly clear we do not deserve the treatment God punishes us with, there's more to say about this.
How then can I make you see the improbability of your beliefs? It reminds me of James Sire’s discussion above with a pantheist. You see the problem now? We see things differently. To assume this whole explanation of yours as a basis for my argument about intense suffering in this world is to assume too much for one argument. I dispute these other assumptions of yours in other parts of my book. I dispute the existence of God. I dispute the claim that we alone are responsible for our sins because God supposedly created us. And I dispute the whole notion that our sins deserve punishment in such draconian ways as we experience on earth and later in hell. I dispute the concept of hell. I dispute the concept of Satan. I even argue that you should approach your faith as an outsider.
All of these arguments converge against you when attempting to dispute my rejection of Christianity, plus more.
It’s the best anyone can do. It is certainly the best I can do.
So it’s simply false that I must assume your whole worldview (an impossible task) when disputing any single tenet insider your worldview. Such a task cannot be done when looking at any single tenet inside your worldview. But I have examined each major tenet you believe in the many other chapters in my book, all which converge to make the over-all case that your faith is delusionary.
As I said, you must continually retreat, over and over, on each and every issue I write about, to background beliefs to defend a weak plank in your worldview. You must do it for each chapter I write about. You’re doing this here on the problem of suffering. You will do it when it comes to the resurrection (since you will say miracles are not impossible if God exists). You will do it when it comes to the existence of God (since I cannot prove God does not exist). You will do it with regard to my chapter on miracles (since if God exists this would not be impossible for him). And so on and so on.
Have I made my case about the problem of suffering and the existence of God? I think so, as an outsider. But whether you think so will depend on what you think of my whole over-all case against Christianity. As I said, you must deal with my book as a whole. Maybe you’ll do that, I don’t know. But what I’ll look for is how many times you must retreat to background beliefs to support the each and every chapter in my book, beliefs which I debunk in subsequent chapters, one after another. The more you do this then the more circular your approach becomes and the less likely it has explanatory power in defending what you believe.
Staring at a metronome, wondering if and when his name would ever appear in lights, Christian composer Wolfgang Sivori almost gave up trying to make it in the Christian music industry. After composing countless songs and albums, and with over twenty years of experience in creating enchanting Christian melodies, Sivori was just about to give up.
He wasn’t happy with the way his career was going. This gifted composer/conductor/songwriter/singer/trombone player had seen what he felt was only mediocre sales and impact from his work. But on bended knee, he went to the Lord in prayer and asked for guidance. Upon standing again, he realized that he had at least one more song left in him.
“The Lord promised me that if I would just let go and speak his word in my last song, that it would be a hit and many people would be led to the truth of Jesus Christ. I had faith, and the prayer was answered.” Sivori said. That song is now a Christian classic, which also proved to be Mr. Sivori’s last work before succumbing to pneumonia complications in his Baton Rouge apartment and dying last Thursday evening. The song was called Water From a Jawbone, based on the life of Samson.
With permission from Saving Mythology Records, the lyrics of this short-but-powerful Christian hymn are reprinted below…
Between Zorah and Eshteal was a strong man, a strong man.
Between Zorah and Eshteal was a man given to lust and whores, lust and whores.
Oh, sun man Samson!
Oh, sun man Samson!
He killed many men and bragged about it, slew them without thinking about it.
Oh, sun man!
Oh, mighty sun man!
Just like Hercules, a product of mythologies.
Oh, sun man Samson!
Oh, sun man Samson!
He slew a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass, and then God gave him water to last.
Oh, oh, oh, water from a jawbone!
There was water from a jawbone!
When he was alone, there was water from a bone!
There was water from a jawbone, saving water from a jawbone!
Amennnnnnnnnnnn!
The song was a huge success. Many Christians praised it. It went triple platinum within the first month of its release. But while the majority of the Christian world praised the work, there were some disgruntled voices that could be heard in their midst.
The first criticism was that Sivori was dishonoring God by associating the story of Samson with paganism. Sivori defended the song thusly: “God is an inclusive God. His grace works among the pagans as well as us. This is why there were a number of virgin-born savior-god-men, like Hercules and Perseus, well before Christ’s time. Church father Justin Martyr even admits this in his work Apologia I. The name ‘Samson’ actually means ‘sun man’, meaning his character was brought over from paganism. He was a sun god made into a man, but God wanted the story in the Bible to show how inclusive he can be. Besides, the Bible is a book that is 95 percent mythology. The very first book of the Bible has angels getting boners for earth girls (Genesis 6:1-4). With such silly heathen myths found all throughout our holy book, how can we but be diligent in using these occurrences to demonstrate to the pagans that Jesus Christ died for their sins?”
And what of the charge that his song denigrates God and puts him on the level of a violent thug? Mr. Sivori says: “There’s really not much I can say about that. All one has to do is pick up the Bible and open it to absolutely any page and they can see for themselves somewhere on that page just how vicious, vindictive, and openly violent God is. God was happy having Samson carry out his divine will by slaughtering a thousand men and then bragging about it (Judges 15:15-17). One has to be pretty stupid to miss the fact that the most righteous men in the Bible are unequivocally the bloodiest. Take David, for example; he was God’s favorite Old Testament saint, but even he had so much blood on his hands that Father God decided that he couldn’t build his house for him” (I Chronicles 22:8).
Mr. Sivori went on to say…
“The lesson is, instead of finding fault with God and trying to change him, as I had tried to do in my earlier songs, we need to accept his character and who he really is. Jesus Christ is the most merciful side of God there can be, but the savior with outstretched arms himself is more than willing to cast us into a lake of fire where there ‘shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew 13:50). For years, I gave it my all, like so many Christians do, to make God look more presentable, to make him look nicer. But that was wrong of me. God is not nice. Nobody needs to hear about John 3:16 and lovey-dovey passages that falsely portray God as some gentleman with a beard and a timepiece. No, God is a mauling warrior, with sinews for bootlaces and skulls for beverage containers, and he must be portrayed as such (Exodus 15:3).
Having left us a rich musical treasure chest of angelic tunes, Mr. Sivori is now resting in the sweet bosom of Jesus. His music mentor was another great composer, that sweet singer of Israel, King David, who was arguably God’s first big-time music maker...
“Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be: and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah.” (Psalm 59:13)
(JH)
Steve Hays has a great post up on
Triablogue. I couldn't agree more.
Don't get me wrong here. I like Bill; very much so. And I respect him as a person. I don't mean to pick on him. It's just that he is one of the world's leading apologists for the Christian faith and he writes something each week on his website, some of which is worthy of further consideration by me. I have challenged Christian apologists to do what I did in the opening chapter of my book, to tell us the initial conditions and reasons why they became Christians in the first place. Bill does so
right here. Let me comment...
I'm thankful for his openness and honesty with this. I've argued that people who first choose to believe do not initially have sufficient reasons to do so. I've argued that the initial choice to believe is like putting on "God Glasses," from which all other evidence is subsequently viewed and forced to fit, much like a person who has been brainwashed.
It was only later after having examined my faith more thoroughly that I realized these initial reasons were not good ones to believe. From reading his story I don't think Bill had good initial reasons to believe either. What do you think?
Notice in his personal story his need for happiness, love, genuineness, significance and meaning. Notice also the fact that he read the Bible uncritically along with some Christian books. But think about this. How does someone properly investigate whether a claim is true or not? A person doesn't do it by only reading the literature of the people who advocate it. He does so by also reading the best critiques of the people who disagree with it, and Dr. Craig now knows this. By now he also knows there is a lot of hypocrisy and unhappiness among church people. He was personally "shocked" when a particular pastor friend of a church he attended was caught in adultery nearly 20 years ago, or so. As a Christian I was unhappy for periods of time, and also hypocritical. Surely this has been Bill’s experience as well. It's a human problem that Christianity does not solve. That's why people come to church weekly to get an emotional boost. They come because they are unhappy and hypocritical. Does this subsequent experience of his cause him to doubt the initial youthful rush of friends and the happiness he felt at the time? I suspect so, or it should. By now he also knows the need for significance and meaning isn't a good reason for believing a religious story, since there are many to choose from. He also knows that the Bible was pieced together from several different authors and sources. I'll bet he also can pick up those very same Christian books he first read and find several large holes in their arguments, since apologists disagree with themselves.
So the question I have is whether Bill would've believed in the first place if he knows what he does now. Remember, back then he didn't have any “God Glasses” on, so he was merely investigating the Christian faith as "an outsider." The difference is that the “God Glasses” he now has on provide him with a presumption which causes him to view all of the evidence from that presumption.
I dare say that if he knew what he does now and hadn't already chosen to put on the “God Glasses” he would not have chosen to believe in the first place.
