1. Preliminaries: 1.1 Topic: the design argument for the existence of a god 1.2 Defining ‘design’: 1.2.1 What do we mean when we say that something is designed? We mean, roughly, that a person of some kind intentionally made or altered something for a purpose. 1.2.2 A word that is often associated with the notion of design is ‘teleology’ and its derivatives, such as ‘teleological’. 1.2.3Etymology: telos: end, purpose 1.2.4 ‘Teleological’: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose, especially in nature 1.2.5 Thus, the design argument is often called the teleological argument 1.3 The design argument has often been called the most rationally compelling and intuitive argument for the existence of God. 1.3 It attempts to provide strong reason for believing that the universe, or at least parts of it, is the product of an exceedingly intelligent being, viz., God. 1.4 The basic idea: 1.4.1 Many of the features of the world have the appearance that an intelligent agent – i.e., a person – made it. 1.4.2 Other explanations for this appearance, e.g., that it looks that way by chance, seem implausible compared to the hypothesis that it was designed by an intelligent agent. 1.4.2.1 For these features of the world are too complex and orderly to make it probable that they got that way through chance or other natural processes. 1.4.2.2 By contrast, we know by experience that intelligent beings are able to create these features 1.4.3 So, probably, it really was designed. And if so then, probably, an intelligent designer of the world exists. 1.4.4 But such a being is what we refer to as ‘God’. 1.5 The most widely-known defender of the design argument: William Paley (1743-1805). His most famous exposition of the design argument is found in his book, Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature. 1.6 He compared the universe to a watch: 1.6.1 Just as a watch has features from which one justifiably concludes that it was designed, so, too, does the universe and its parts. 1.6.2 Therefore, it is probable that just as the former was designed by an intelligent being, so too was the universe.
2. Setting Up the Argument 2.1 When and why do we infer that something has been designed? 2.1.1 If, walking through a field, you came upon an object, and were immediately convinced that a person made it, what is it about that thing that would lead you to think that a person had made it? 2.1.1.1 Complexity: having parts 2.1.1.1.1 This might be necessary for a thing to be recognized as designed, but it isn’t sufficient by itself 2.1.1.1.2 E.g. rocks, piles of sand, etc. are complex, and yet no one says “design!” when looking at them 2.1.1.1.3 So there must be something else, in addition to complexity, that leads us to infer design 2.1.1.2 Functionality: the parts work together to perform a function 2.1.1.3 (If the parts weren’t fit together in just the right way, then it wouldn’t carry out the function) 2.1.1.4 Examples: plastic cups (with plastic lids and straws), mousetraps, tables, chairs, houses, bicycles, cars, computers, etc. 2.1.1.5 Let’s call the combination of these two features – complexity and functionality – design indicators 2.2 How do we come to learn that complexity and functionality indicate design – i.e., that they are the design indicators? 2.2.1 It doesn’t seem that it’s an innate idea, i.e., we’re not born knowing this 2.2.2 It doesn’t seem to self-evident that they are the design indicators, either. Compare: “All bachelors are unmarried males”, “and “nothing can be red all over and green all over at the same time”, vs. “all complex and functional things are designed”. The first two are self-evident; the last one is not. 2.2.3 So it must be that we learn that those are the design indicators by experience. 2.2.3.1 Step 1: we observe a constant conjunction of one type of cause (intelligence) producing one type of effect (complex, functional things). This justifies the belief that there is a causal connection between intelligence and complex, functional things. 2.2.3.2 Step 2: after our observations justify this causal connection, we no longer have to observe the cause of a thing to know that it was intelligently designed; rather, we just observe the effect (the complex, functional thing) and then infer the cause (intelligence).
3. Paley’s Design Argument 3.1 Most of the things that we observe to have design indicators are human artifacts: i.e., human-made objects 3.2 However, many things in the natural world have these same design indicators! 3.3 But if so, then, probably, these things were designed as well! For example: 3.3.1 the human eye (Paley’s favorite example) 3.3.2 the wing of a bird 3.3.3 the human circulatory system 3.3.4 whole organisms 3.3.5 whole ecosystems 3.3.6 In general: living organisms and their parts 3.4 But of course, these things weren’t designed by humans 3.5 And to say they were designed by, say, aliens, only pushes the issue back a step: aliens are complex and functional, and so they, too, would require a designer 3.6 So we need some designer that escapes this regress 3.7 That would require an intelligent being that’s not part of the biological realm 3.8 This being we all call ‘God’. 3.9 Standardizing the argument 3.9.1 Human artifacts are intelligently designed. 3.9.2 Living organisms and their parts resemble human artifacts (in that they both have several parts that work together to perform a function). 3.9.3 Therefore, probably, living organisms and their parts are intelligently designed as well.
4. Four main criticisms 4.1 The “Weak Analogy” objection: the analogy between human artifacts and biological organisms (and their parts) is too weak to confidently infer that the latter were intelligently designed 4.2 The “Design Mimickers” objection: it seems as though other, non-intelligent causes can mimic the effects of designers (i.e., complex, functional things) 4.2.1 We see in nature that there are also many non-intelligent causes of complex, functional things (e.g., spiders produce spider webs by instinct; tiny seeds contain an internal principle of order that lead to various kinds of vegetation (e.g., plants, trees, vegetables), etc.). [1] 4.2.2 Neo-Darwinian evolution can produce the complex, functional structures seen in living things 4.3 The “Who Designed the Designer?” objection: 4.3.1 Either all complex, functional things require an intelligent designer, or some don’t 4.3.2 If all entities that have parts that work together to perform a function require an intelligent designer, then since the mind of the hypothetical designer of the natural world seems to bear these traits, then it, too, would need a designer. 4.3.3 On the other hand, if some entities with these features don’t require an intelligent designer (e.g., God), then why can’t we say that same thing about living organisms, or at least the universe? 4.3.4 Therefore, either God needs an intelligent designer, or we have no good reason to think that living organisms – or at least the universe – needs an intelligent designer 4.3.5 The basic point here is that *both* key hypotheses -- theism and naturalism -- have brute functional complexity (i.e., functional complexity that has no prior cause), and so it's special pleading to say that one sort of complexity requires an explanation while the other does not. 4.4 The “Even if it Worked” Objection: Even if the argument works, it doesn’t prove that the designer is the god of theism. I.e., it wouldn’t prove that: 4.4.1 the designer is all-knowing 4.4.2 the designer is all-powerful 4.4.3 the designer is perfectly good 4.4.4 the designer is an immaterial spirit 4.4.5 the designer is eternal 4.4.6 the designer is omnipresent (present everywhere) 4.4.7 the designer is also the creator 4.4.8 there is just one designer 4.4.9 the designer still exists
--------------- [1] One might wonder: "but what is the cause of the functional complexity of the spiders with their instincts and the seeds with their internal principles of order?" See the "Who Designed the Designer?" Objection for one reply to this. But before you do: remember, the proposition, 'All functional complexity comes from intelligent designers' isn't self-evident or otherwise a priori. Rather, the argument states that we come to learn of the causal connection between intelligence and functional complexity via experience. Now the theist, the atheist, and the agnostic are all interested in the most basic direct causes of functional complexity. And in their inquiry, all parties appeal to observed causes of functional complexity. But these are all non-basic direct causes. Now the hope is that such non-basic direct causes resemble the most basic ones. As it turns out, though, we observe various non-basic direct causes of functional complexity besides intelligence. But if there is more than one non-basic direct cause of functional complexity, and all we have to go on are our observations of such causes, then the grounds for accepting any one of the known non-basic direct causes as an analogue of the basic one(s) are basically the same as for any of the others. And if that's right, then the inference to intelligent design is undercut.
To the Biblically illiterate, the so-called Ten Commandments appear to be the ideal theocratic bases for the rule of a religious society. Within the past year, debates raged about posting these ancient Jewish legal codes in court rooms, schools, capitals, and public squares. When the Supreme Court ruled against the public display on the bases of separation of religion and State, churches here in the South passed out weather resistant Ten Commandment posters on wire frames which could (and are) displayed in private yards throughout the upstate of South Carolina as well as decals of the Commandments which were stuck on many a conservative Christian’s vehicle’s rear window.
However, when taken in the context of ancient Israelite socity as record in the Hebrew Bible, of what real value are these ancient Israelite Codes many call the Decalog. Then too, it should be noted that in ancient Israelite society, the penalty for breaking any of the first nine codes was death!
(Since Exodus 20: 1 - 17 is repeated in Deut. 5 6 - 21 as part of the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) I’ve used the popular section of the Sinai story in Exodus to adds some short comments on. The first 40% are dealing strictly with Israelite religion and Israel’s contract with their God.)
1 Then God spoke all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 3 You shall have no other gods before Me.
(This establishes an exclusive contract / Covenant with Israel only based on God’s deliverance of Israel form Egypt. It does acknowledge other equally real Gods)
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
(This further defines the bounds of Yahweh’s contract with Israel and will be the bases for future the fall of Israel (722 BCE) and Judea (586 BCE).
7 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
(An oath sworn to Yahweh must be carried out even if it meant the death of ones own daughter. See story of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter. Judges 11)
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
(This establishes the a rest day drawn for the creation myth and the anthromorphic nature an ancient Near Eastern Semitic god called Yahweh. This is the main Commandment Jesus is often found breaking in the Gospels and the religious section of this Decalog was the reason the religious Jews felt Jesus must died.)
12 Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.
(A son or daughter’s days were “prolonged” if one was not killed for a rebellious actions.)
The following are exclusive laws which apply only to Israelites who had the contract / Covenant with Yahweh. Israel’s neighbors were viewed as in violation to the first 4 religious codes and were thus free to be killed. raped, lied to, and plundered for sexual needs and human sacrifice.
13 You shall not murder.
(Exodus 20: 13) תִּֿרְצָח׃ לֹא רְצָח (qal: kill, murder, strike down. A very limited verb used to protect only righteous Israelites. Out of this violent Hebrew society which employed 10 different word of killing often with their gods approval, slaughter and murder; ratsach is used only six times mainly to protect only Israelites.)
הִרְג is a word meaning roughly the same thing as רְצָח, but is used with Yahweh’s approval in Holy War.
14 You shall not commit adultery.
(This Commandment is far from what adultery means today. In Israelite society a girl was property of her father until married and then property of her husband after marriage, adultery meant the use of another man’s sexual possession to pleasure and children.
Plus, the fact that prostitutes, polygamy, concubines were protected sexual rights for all men under Yahweh’s Commandments, males were always assured of sexual gratification and while women remain uneducated property.)
15 You shall not steal.
(Applies only to Israelite clan property be it women or animals. Since non-covenanted countries were not protected, the conquest of Canaan in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua reveal how (even after these commandments were given) the children of Yahweh killed, raped, stole and plundered the land with God‘s orders and blessings.)
16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
(“neighbor” רֵעֲ is only used for Israelites. The rise of King David revels how the most famous figure often abused his Hebrew neighbor.)
17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
(To ensure any legal violations were deterred, an Israelite was to protect his own life by not planning a violation which could mean his death.
Within this commandment, one can see how women were equated with slaves, donkeys and material goods of other male Israelite.)
The other day, I found myself needing to hang a wicker basket shelf in my bathroom. But the shelf was too heavy for tacks and glue, so I had to fetch a hammer and nails to do the job. After some milling around in the ever-useful “junk drawer,” I found the nails and a Stanley claw hammer dad had left at my place. I took some time to take a look at the flashy thing; it was relatively new, nearly all metal, with a duel-pronged claw on one end and the head at the other. It had a tremendously ergonomic rubber handle too, with curves and ridges along its surfaces, making it a perfect fit for the hand. I said to myself, “Now this is a well-made hammer!”
It was when the job was done that I found myself thinking of how the elements of the hammer work together so well. I thought to myself that if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that the universe was “fine-tuned” just for the sake of producing this very useful hammer I was still holding in my hands.
Of course, I did and do know better. I understand that the handy instrument I held in my hands was indisputably designed and existed for a purpose, and before I gave it a name and was able to appreciate its worth, it existed in other, less useful forms. I realize that a “hammer” is just matter manipulated by humans into a tool to fulfill a small range of tasks.
I understand that the entire cosmos did not come to be for the sake of that practical-but-petty item known as the hammer. The universe doesn’t revolve around it. It doesn’t really matter in the cosmic scheme of things if it exists or not, and in no sense can it be said that the universe was “fine-tuned” to produce that instrument—even though the nice rubber handle whereby I held onto the hammer was designed to fit neatly into my hands, and even though the weighting was just right for swinging and tapping, and even though the shape and construction of the instrument made it ideal for the task for which we humans made it. The hammer has a place in my life, albeit a very small place.
But I also understand something else; I understand perfectly well what many Christians do not understand—that all teleological arguments (arguments based on the “intelligent design” of the universe, including the anthropic or “fine-tuning” arguments) are worthless and false. We exist like the hammer, and for most of the same reasons as the hammer; we fit nicely into our environment and we are a manipulation of matter, being made of the same stuff that the universe is composed of.
But we are also not like the hammer; we manipulate matter based on our intelligence and the hammer doesn’t, and the hammer was designed while we have no proof that we were. But we do know that we designed the hammer, and we don’t have any reason to believe that anyone designed us, and that is the central fallacy of all versions of the design argument—they just assume what they want to prove (that we and other life forms, as well as objects like houses and watches, were designed by an intelligence).
It is intellectual folly to assume that the universe was “fine-tuned” for the formation of life, just as it would be to assume that the universe was made so that a nicely crafted, shiny hammer can be built for the purpose of nailing a wicker shelf to a wall. The universe was “fine-tuned” for neither purpose. At least, if it was, there are no logical arguments or observations that lead us with any gusto to accepting that conclusion.
And we must ask the really big question here—why must a designer be posited to explain our sensory observations of the world? Does the fact that 9 or 7 cannot be divided evenly mean that there must be a Creator? Is e=mc² less true if God doesn’t exist? Can atoms not revolve around one another and have stability without a Master-designer? Would the atoms making up concrete and steal suddenly fly apart on an atomic level, or else lose their “hard” properties and become like Jello without a deity? Does the survival of fish in frozen ponds due to water freezing from the top downward mean that the universe was fine-tuned for life? Does the fact that gravity is strong enough to keep us on this planet, and yet not strong enough to liquefy us constitute proof that God made this world to house life like us? Does the fact that oxygen/nitrogen – as we have them on this planet for breathable air – instead of toxic gases, like methane and ammonia, mean that the earth must have been designed for habitation?
Robert G. Ingersoll, in his oh-so-eloquent 1872 work entitled “The Gods,” pointed out the grotesque absurdities of intelligent design thinking when he said…
“Even the advanced religionist, although disbelieving in any great amount of interference by the gods in this age of the world, still thinks that in the beginning, some god made the laws governing the universe. He believes that in consequence of these laws, a man can lift a greater weight with, than without, a lever, that this god so made matter and so established the order of things that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so that a body once put in motion will keep moving until it is stopped, so that it is a greater distance around, than across, a circle, so that a perfect square has four equal sides, instead of five or seven. He insists that it took a direct interposition of providence to make the whole greater than a part, and that had it not been for this power superior to nature, twice one might have been more than twice two, and sticks and strings might have had only one end apiece…These religious people see nothing but design everywhere, and personal intelligent interference in everything. They insist that the universe has been created, and that the adaptation of means to ends is perfectly apparent.”
Then we must ask why God needed to even bother with awkward designs like the flawed and ridiculously concocted ones we see in nature; why, for instance, did God give us skin as protection from germs and foreign particles, and yet not make us to thrive on what we know as harmful radiation? Or, if God gave us ears to hear with, noses to smell with, eyes to see with, taste buds to taste with, and nerve cells to feel with, then why did he only give us those senses? Why not also the ability to see gamma radiation and rays of light not visible to the human eye? We see them with telescopes, we detect them with finer instruments, so why not with the eye? God was not limited in having to create cardboard creatures as flimsy as ourselves. He could have made us to exist and thrive in black holes or within the hearts of blue stars, and yet he went through the senseless trouble to create (or some would stupidly say, “evolve”) these bundles of bunions called human bodies. Words don’t describe the asininity of it.
And this is the real foolishness of the fine-tuning argument—its limited focus. Just look at how much of the universe is inhospitable to any type of life. If the universe was fine-tuned for life, why is there so little life in it? Why is most of our world trying to kill us, let alone all of space and time beyond this odorous outhouse called Earth? Not even a seedling can grow and thrive on Mars, and yet Mars is the closest to habitable planet in this solar system we have knowledge of outside of our own. This realization makes our own evolution rather unique and spits on the dumb notion that the universe has been tailor-made as an environment for the growth of carbon life forms (and even more arrogantly, for the growth of the human race, so that we may fight and quarrel and give credit to a fictitious being for its existence).
First, the universe was, and then it evolved us. Only later did theologians come along, with their suits and ties, and their hymnals and sermon notes, and their calfskin-covered New International Version Bibles, standing in their pulpits, proclaiming that the way things are is the way they had to be. When an apologist says, “the stability of atoms makes the material world possible,” that means to him that matter was fine-tuned by God Almighty on the atomic level to make all substances possible. But using this reasoning, any given order of nature that managed to bring about any type of sentient life at all would have to be considered designed, in which case teleology’s assumptions are unfalsifiable. In other words, we humans are no different than some really big, smart fish—we’re going to think that the proverbial river we are swimming in was “made” for us no matter what! And there’s no point in stopping there! We might as well say that the riverbed beneath it was intelligently designed to be just big enough for the river!
No, Mr. Theologian, the universe exists in some form or fashion with or without us. We, and our petty, self-aggrandizing perceptions of it come after it and as a result of it. We are not special and we are not wanted. Our perceptions of the cosmos are subjective and only valuable to us as tools to understand it, but those perceptions cannot be used to question reality. We can use our perceptions of metal beaten into a hammer to categorize the instrument made and give it a name, but we cannot argue that because metal can be shaped into a hammer that therefore a cosmic mind fine-tuned the universe to work together on an elemental level to make that product possible, and the same has to be true of humankind’s existence.
The flakey idea of a fine-tuned universe reminds me of an encounter with a mystic I had several years ago who insisted that apparent faces spotted in nature (such as in clouds or in natural formations like wood and sand) are evidence for the divine and man’s destined place in the grand scheme of things. Of course, we have to get booster seats for these mental midgets by correcting them: in truth, the “faces” seen in nature are only faces when homosapien brain-farts come along and call them “faces.” But until then, they are only one among many possible visible formations of matter, and nothing more.
We have no evidence – not even a smidgen of it – to believe that the universe has been finely tuned by a cosmic entity for any purpose whatsoever. But we do have minds, and as with the so-called faces showing up in nature, the minds by which we perceive and understand nature also sometimes project false images onto it. We find “evidences” for a fine-tuning God because we humans create and fine-tune things ourselves. So it should come as no surprise when uninformed people come along and assume that someone like us (but higher than us) does the same things. It’s a classic case of projection and a very humbling sign of our own cosmic level of ignorance, arrogance, and juvenility.
In September 2008, Bart Ehrman delivered one of the 2008 Foerster Lectures on the Immortality of the Soul at the University of California, Berkeley. The lecture series commenced in 1928, and has included lectures by Oliver Sacks, Thomas S. Kuhn, Aldous Huxley, and Paul Tillich.
There are things in this video I don't agree with, and certainly neither will Calvinists. But there are a couple of interviews in it that are instructive of the kind of God Calvinists worship. [The script is hard to read so I've posted it below, sorry about the language].
Script of the video:
Have you ever heard of this brand of Christians?
You haven't? Well let me briefly summerize the difference between Calvinism and arminianism...
Calvinists believe in so called predestination coupled with limited atonement This means that they believe that Jesus didn't die for everyone but only for specific people whom God choose before he created them. And only those people are saved, the rest will go to hell
So basically it comes down to this: God created a whole bunch of people who are just forever fucked
Yup a fucking cosmic lottery If you don't have the right number, well that is just too fucking bad How lovely right?
The calvinist's view is that mankind does have free will, but that free will shall always lead people to hell
Because sinning is just so fucking great right?
So God basically just violated some people's free will so that they would choose to obey him. That way some of the people can go to heaven.
Let me introduce you to some famous calvinists: (picture of the westboro baptist church)
You know how most christians say that God is love and such Well at least the calvinists are honest to admit that their God is a God of hate... and a little tiny bit of love on the side
(video)
Can somebody please kick this guy's teeth in?
Now calvinists will say that God is not obliged to save everybody, since we all deserve to go to hell. It is actually very merciful for him to save at least some. Now what kind of fucked up logic is that? Because according to calvinists it is in our very nature to go against God. The unsaved people simply CANNOT do anything else but sinning.
This is the important part; we CANNOT choose anything else but sin. It is in our nature to sin, it is impossible for us to either choose to live a sinfree live or to choose to accept God's salvation. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE
So God is going to torture his creatures forever for doing what comes naturally with no way out...
But calvinists will say that God doesn't make people sin, they do it because they want to (because they cannot want to do anything else by nature)
But if God created our nature, it is HIS fault, not ours. Of course they have a pathetic answer to this as well.
(video)
Okay so God did not fuck us over, but adam did.
So send adam to hell you fucking idiot!
It is impossible for a calvinist to get around the fact that God simply created most people for destruction, even though they are not to blame and have no way out.
If God created evil (or let evil be created by adam, whatever... that is the same thing) then God is infinitely evil for doing so
And everbody who believes, accepts and follows this God is therefore also infinitely evil
And you can see to what kind of horrible people calvinism leads to.
The weirdest thing is that calvinists actually DO evangelize, because the bible commands them to. However, even if they wouldn't the exact same amount of people would go to heaven
So why don't you just go around shooting people in the face? That would work a lot faster right?
Why would anybody's life matter? They are already fucked or "blessed"
Also how are the unelect supposed to live? Their lives are completely worthless since eternal hell is unavoidable for them.
So why shouldn't I just torture as much calvinists as possible in my life?
It doesn't matter right? After all, if I am elect I will go to heaven anyway even if I would live a life of torture and murder.
And if I am unelect, so what? I was simply already fucked from the start. Can't make it any worse right?
Calvinists are simply the sickest psychotic people on the planet and don't deserve any respect whatsoever. They don't give a crap about people so neither should we care about them.
I cannot possibly conceive of a God who is more evil than the God of calvinism. That is not meant as an insult, I honestly cannot conceive of any possible God which would be more evil.
Even a God who would send everybody to hell would not be more evil because at least he would treat everybody equally. I mean if a judge would randomly let murderers go you wouldn't call him merciful or good right?
The only two words which apply to calvinism are: Infinite Evil
The originators of scripture had a remarkable lack of insight when creating scripture considering it was revealed to them by God. Apparently God didn't reveal to them some fundamental principles in ensuring they were creating quality information and data that would stand the test of time and generations.
What are Design Deficiencies? As the saying goes "Do it right the first time" many industries recognize and practice the principle of ensuring quality early in the production cycle to avoid problems later in the cycle or in the market(27). As a marksman knows when taking aim, a tiny deviation from the target at the source can lead to large deviation at the target. By not ensuring data integrity and quality at the creation of scripture, many problems have manifested themselves and continue to appear as the scripture gets older. Metaphors do not retain their integrity in meaning over thousands of years. Some of the problems have led to persecution for heresy, divisions in the church and division of the Churches into denomintations until there are tens of thousands of variations of Christianity in existence. For example, they may all agree that Jesus died on the Cross, but they don’t all agree on his nature.
With these kinds of problems it is no wonder why after close to 2000 years, Christianity has only a 33% mind share while all other religions together total 66%(28). Its not that people are evil so they don't believe, it is that there are no compelling reasons to believe in Jesus. Comparing all these religions to some other philosophical ideas that were developing in parallel about the same time, Mathematics has become ubiquitous while the various religions are still languishing under the weight of implausibility(26).
The originators of scripture had a remarkable lack of insight when creating scripture considering it was revealed to them by God. Apparently God didn't reveal to them some fundamental principles in ensuring they were creating quality information and data that would stand the test of time and generations. And furthermore God had a choice in who he revealed scripture to. Using the law of large numbers, he would have been able to analyze and consider any number of millions of starting points for his desired outcome to include the one person that would start a path of reliable transmission of the data from person to person(29). He, like no one else, had the ability to choose the one in ten million starting point that would have gotten the scripture to this point uncorrupted.
Overview of Proper Representation and Design Deficiencies Some fundamental deficiencies in data design and creation have been identified in the field of Information and Data Quality through research and trial and error(3). Each of them will be defined in this overview and then how they relate to scripture will be elaborated on separately in follow on articles. They are as follows. - Incomplete representation - Ambiguous representation - Meaningless representation - Garbling by mapping to a meaningless state - Garbling by mapping to a wrong state
Proper representation In order for an Information System (IS) to accurately represent real world events, each of the datum in the Information System must "map" to real world states. Each real word state must be accounted for in the information system. Having more than one instance of a Real World state (a record) is appropriate if it represents an aspect of the Real World state that hasn't been previously accounted for. To have more than one instance of a record of the same Real World state doesn't add any significant value, but a record of the same Real World state that has related data, in another context for example, adds value if it doesn't lead to a meaningless Real World state such as a contradiction. For example, having two instances of the same story do not add any value unless one of the stories has different information in it which does not contradict the other. Figure 1 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and four instances of Data in the D column. Each Real World state is represented by a datum in the information system with one instance of a Real World state being represented by two instances of data in the Information System.
Figure 1.
Incomplete representation If the Information System is missing some information about the real world, then the information system cannot accurately represent the state of the real world for which it was intended. This is termed as "incompleteness". Figure 2 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and two instances of Data in the D column. One instance of a Real World state is not represented by the Data in column D.
Figure 2
Ambiguous representation While it is permissible to use to a multiple datum to represent one real world state, it is not permissible to use one datum to represent two real world states. If multiple Real World states are represented by one datum there is not enough information with which to accurately represent either Real World state. This situation is called "Ambiguity". It is similar to incomplete representation because it can be considered an instance of missing information, even though one datum could incompletely represent two instances of a Real World state because it is not specific enough. It is analogous to using the term "she" in a conversation when discussing an event concerning multiple women. By not specifying which "she" is being referenced, the details of the event become unclear because the "she" being referred to is ambiguous.
Figure 3 illustrates this point by showing three instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and two instances of Data in the D column. One instance of a Real World state is not represented by the Data in column D but instead, two instances of Real World states are represented by one instance of an information state.
Figure 3
Meaningless representation When the information system contains superfluous information then it can lead to a situation where the Information System does not accurately represent (map back to) a real world state. For example this can occur by the use of too many descriptive terms, undefined terms or some minor addition to the story intended as an elaboration. To say that in a battle some person or group chose a brilliant strategy and exhibited exceptional strength or bravery may mean that an unintended desperate situation has been incorrectly represented and will be incorrectly interpreted. This situation happens often in television, movies and songs about historical events such as the Spartan battle with the Persians at Thermopylae depicted in the movie "300" or Egyptian Hieroglyphs documenting events in the lives of pharoahs.
Figure 4 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state .
Figure 4
Operation Deficiencies - Garbling: Meaningless State In human terms, garbling occurs at the point of "consumption" or reading and interpretation. In Information Systems, it occurs at operation time or when the database is being accessed. Garbling occurs when a Real World state is incorrectly mapped to a wrong state in the Information System. There are two cases in which this occurs. If a meaningless state exists, then Real World mapping will be to a meaningless state, or the mapping might be to a meaningful but incorrect information state. This can occur as a result of inaccurate data entry or omissions of real world states at the creation or origin of the data. Analogous examples of this type of garbling are legends, folktales and the "Artistic License" of the author or originator.
Figure 5 illustrates this point by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state and a Real World state in incorrectly interpreted as being represented by the superfluous datum.
Figure 5
Map to a wrong state Figure 6 illustrates this phenomena by showing two instances of data represented by spheres in the column labeled RW (Real World) and three instances of Data in the D column. One instance of an information state is not represented by or does not map back to a real world state and a Real World state in incorrectly interpreted as being represented by a valid however incorrect or unintended information state.
Figure 6
In successive articles I will explore each IDQ design deficiency and give a biblical example.
The striking fact that I’ve read over and over from most all Christians trying to apologetically defend the Bible is that the only thing that separates them from our DC staff posters is a word called faith.
Since the active Biblical God is now “Dead in the Water” we non-religious fully developed atheist are given apologetic theologies replete with platitudes as to why a once active Biblical God only appears dead in the water.
I’ve asked regular apologetic commentators such as our District Supt. Harvey Burnett about healing. Harvey assures me he and his church have the ability to heal via God and prayer.
Harvey states: “I have done that Harry. I have first hand experience of seeing some who the doctors had medically gave up on before believers gathered, prayed and God raised them up and or reversed their physical illness. In fact Harry, I have some people in my church that were medically diagnosed with cancer and in at least 1 case cancerous tumors. Those tumors no longer exist and cancer is either inremission or cannot be found.”
He further claims: “That's the problem with your thinking Harry, I cannot heal anyone...ONLY God can and that's the part that escapes you. So far as taking what seems to be an impossible situation and healing it, there have been credible testimonies gathered over the years for such phenomea INCLUDING the regrowth and extension of limbs development of organs etc. in response to believing prayer.”
Here’s the problem with Harvey’s claim. There is no objective external proof that anything but random events and positive thinking did any healing. In light of the more positive Religious Atheist I’ve debated here, our charismatic Pentecostal Christian, Harvey is at least attempting to make the Bible claims live today as much as it did 2,000 years ago even if our boat (God) is dead in the water and only appears to be acting, but which is in reality, is only drifting with the wind.
On the other hand, another commenter named David is more inline with what I call a hard-core Religious Atheist. Like most Fundamental Baptist, he sees the New Testament miracles (called in Greek “Signs and Wonders”) some how as having officially ended.
Except for faith, David has only wishful thinking (or positive energy called prayer) to hope one is healed or God’s will is done. For me, David is less of a believer that Harvey and is left with only God called Faith.
To push my point, I took a stance in line with claims given by Jesus and the New Testament that “Signs and Wonders” are proof of the truths Christian over classical and stagnant paganism. David emphatic stated them to be over.
Harry stated: “Please quote me chapter and verse where the Bible states these gift have ended.” David replied: “No sir, your claim is under question here. Please quote me chapter and verse where the Bible states "signs and wonders" should still be manifest.”
Since I like case studies, I have posted below an event that happened at a local Baptist church. In order to prove that there are Religious Atheist commenting here and that the ONLY thing they have is a God called FAITH, I want any Bible Believing Christians to explain why, in your apologetic defense, God failed to act by either sending this rabid fox down the road to attack and bite the “debauched men and women” at the local strip club or, as Daniel in the Lions Den, protect these Christians as they cried out to God (or anyone else that would listen) for help!
My thesis is that, except for their God called Faith, their explanation will be just like the explanation of any secular person or what I now call Religious Atheist (“Religious” in the same sense that Buddhism is called religious, but, in fact is a philosophy.)
Fox Attacks Family Inside Church
Greenville News Published: November 6, 2008 A fox attacked two adults and a 6-year-old child inside a Spartanburg County church Wednesday evening, that’s according to the Greenville News.
Other members of Liberty Baptist Church, on Bishop Road, were scratched by the fox as they tried to get the animal out of the church fellowship hall. The Rev. David Duncan said the attack occurred around 6:55 p.m. when his daughter, 20-year-old Alicia Duncan, opened the fellowship hall door. The fox jumped on her and bit her several times before biting another woman’s leg when the animal latched onto her ankle, he said.
The fox then went into the fellowship building and started attacking those inside, even as they used metal chairs to hit the fox, the pastor said. The animal went into the hallway of the church’s main building and back into the fellowship building before it was forced outside, under a car, where it later died.
Duncan said those who were bitten were treated at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center. Spartanburg County Environmental Enforcement Director Don Arnold said results to determine whether the animal was rabid will be available Friday.
Arnold urges those who live in the area to make sure all outdoor pets have been innoculated against rabies.
Up Date: The local news tonight (11/07) confirmed the fox was rabid.
I'm doing some research into this issue and it should spark some debate. Answer the question. Don't merely parrot back an answer to me. Think about it. Then reply. Does Dawinian evolutionary biology best explain what we see with the law of predation or does creation by a perfectly good God?
November 4th is upon us. Please vote. If you have any reasons to vote for your Presidential candidate tell us here. In the meantime my plea is that everyone vote your conscience, everyone.
I am struggling hard to know whom to vote for. I live in Indiana. My vote may finally count this time and I don't like anyone. Do I "waste my vote" by voting for Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate, or Ralph Nadar? Unless you're paying attention you probably didn't even know there are other choices. Does voting for these other candidates really send a message?
Damn political parties. They are almost always extremist. Damn party politics. The government cannot, and I mean cannot, keep spending my (our) money like it does. The local Libertarian candidate said it plainly today: "We cannot afford it." He made a great deal of sense to me. Again: "We cannot afford it."
Since the balance of power has been extremist in both dominating political parties our only hope may be to reign them in with another extremist party until the third party helps brings spending in check, and spending will not be brought into check when we vote for politicians who compete with other politicians to buy our votes with things like earmarks and special interest projects. Our district Congressman, Mark Souder, a pragmatist, said he doesn't like doing it but when the other Senators are taking away Indiana's tax money for their special projects, he needs to get in there and fight for Indiana. Go figure.
We are in a financial crisis, an energy crisis, a health-care crisis, an infrastructure crisis, and a crisis in Iraq. The way this election is being treated it's like my former professor Strauss would say: "They think rearranging chairs on the Titanic will help." It won't. Don't bet your ass on it. I have seen politicians come and go. They always make promises, and most of them lie. That's the nature of the political beast. Neither Obama nor McCain can deliver what they have promised. Mark my words. They cannot do it. Even if they try, when Congress doesn't go fully along with what they hope to achieve they will blame Congress. That's what will happen. Again, mark my words. That has always been the excuse for most any President who doesn't deliver on his promises. So on the campaign trail they can promise us the sky! Just don't say what President Bush (Senior) said. He said, "No new taxes" and then later signed a bill with additional taxes. His hand got caught in the cookie jar.
Is it truly a wasted vote to vote for a candidate who has little or no hope to win an election? Well, not if enough people vote their conscience. Is it possible to get people to vote their consciences? I don't know. But that's my plea. Don't vote for what the political parties throw out on the table, as if those are your only two choices. Of course you may want to. But vote your conscience. Our biggest problem is spending. We are spending money like there's no tommorrow. If we continue to do this there will be no tommorrow. Send them all a message loud and clear.
Within a few days of each other last week, on opposite sides of the world, on opposite ends of the wealth and privilege spectrums, the faithful filled two stadiums. In one, in Kismayo, Somalia, 1000 Muslim believers watched the stoning of a 13 year old girl—Aisha was her name--condemned for adultery because she dared to complain about being gang raped. In the other, in San Diego, California, thousands of Evangelicals sang and swayed and pledged their bodies and souls to the purpose of stripping gay men and women of equality under the law and specifically the right to marry. Like Aisha, those men and women have names. One of them is named David. Another Will. I know because I love them , as Aisha’s broken parents loved their daughter.
The horror of imagining a thirteen-year-old raped and stoned is so enormous that it is hard emotionally to put the two events in the same bucket. And yet we must, if we are to understand what is happening to our country and to our world. We must, because they belong there. Both events can be understood only in terms of a single human phenomenon: the worship of specific brutal words that were written in a brutal time and place. Those 1000 Muslims and thousands of Evangelicals are “People of the Book,” the ideological Sons and Daughters of Abraham, bound by a lineage of clay tablet and papyrus and vellum and paper to moral priorities of our Bronze Age ancestors. These ancestors were sworn enemies of sex--outside of the relationship in which a man controlled and jealously guarded his females: wives, slaves, and daughters. He owned them all, and to violate one of them was to violate his property (“You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20.) He owned their offspring, and if he was vigilant enough he could be reasonably confident about whose DNA his females carried in their bellies. When he went to war, he raped or kept the women of his enemies, as a part of the plunder. (“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Numbers 13.) The stoning, like the urgent need to bar gays from acceptance as full members of society comes straight out of the Books, chapter and verse. And though one seems more vile than the other, both reflect the widespread human willingness to deny to others the rights we want for ourselves: liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or even life. How quickly we turn brutish when we idolize the fears and angers of our ancestors or our own fear and anger –and thus give divine sanction to our darkest impulses. In the end, in California, over 30 million dollars were spent in an attempt to deny one of the world’s most basic human rights to young couples, and old lovers, and pairs of moms and dads with kids in school or highchairs. An equal amount was spent in defense of fairness. How many thirteen-year-old girls might have been saved—from malaria or starvation or even stoning-- if the American People of the Book could let Books be books and could freely turn their moral energy toward alleviating suffering instead of causing it. Valerie Tarico Seattle. November 3, 2008 www.wisdomcommons.org
In a second debate with John Lennox on October 23rd, it's being reported that Dawkins said: "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." Here is the link.
Melanie Phillips saw the live debate and comments:
This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force.
She approached him afterwards and asked him "whether he had indeed changed his position and become more open to ideas which lay outside the scientific paradigm." She reports: "He vehemently denied this and expressed horror that he might have given this impression."
I didn't see the debate. Maybe it'll be posted on the web before long. But how can we reconcile what Dawkins said in his book with this admission? In any case, I agree with Dawkins's recent admission. Glad he said it. It's a much more reasonable position to leave his previously held belief that God "almost certainly doesn't exist." But then I'm an agnostic atheist.
Nonetheless, I don't see why this admission does anything to support the Christian case. The Christian must come to grips with the differences between a full blown Christianity and deism. Moving from deism to Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon. It cannot be done. A distant God is no different than none at all.
Six Egyptian "loanwords" cited by Triablogue are debunked.
In the near future, I may issue a more thorough rebuttal to some of Triablogue’s recent and comically uninformed posts (e.g. “The Avalos Legend,” “Au Chocolat,” “The End of Hector Avalos,” etc.), but here I will concentrate on the SIX so-called Egyptian loanwords that Dr. James K. Hoffmeier uses to deny that the Moses story in Exodus 2 could have been composed in the post-exilic era.
The six words (TEBATH, GOME’, ZAPHETH, SUPH, HAYE’OR, and SAPHAH) are listed and discussed on pp. 138-140 of Dr. Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt. These six words also will show how poorly Mr. Steve Hays reads scholarly materials, and how uncritically he reads Dr. Hoffmeier.
This critique was written by Principia Atheologica based on exapologist's critique of Craig's Tristram Shandy paradox, which supposedly demonstrates the impossibility of an actual infinite.
The apologetic defense of religion is so illusive and illogical that it is a basic mental default; a remnant left over from the mystical and superstitious childhood years fed and modified by the professional (paid) clergy. The rush to lock a young mind into a god complex is the main goal of all denominations, sects and cults. The old Catholic maxim “Given be a child to the age of twelve and I’ll give you a Catholic for life.” can also be seen in fervent missionary movements especially in the LDS Mormons, who, like the Blues Brothers Jake and Elroy, are “on a mission from God”.
Those who have remained religious have commented here at DC representing one of two Positions:
The Deist and Theist Position: Easiest to defend since there is no religion or cult attached to it and this position draws in many agnostics.
Without a Bible, there are very little, if any dogmas or doctrines to defend, and, thus very little emotionalism (if any) is found here. All one need do here is take a past event and say, “It’s of god!”
A good Comparison would be: “A cat died. God killed it.” When this cat lived and how it died are not relevant to this apologetic defense. The debate is simply, “It’s of god". (An example here is our agnostic commenter Charlie.)
The Biblical Religionist Position: This apologetic defense is associated with an established belief usually either Judaism or Christianity. Unlike the Deist or Theist position, some form of salvation is involved in that since God is now personal and has a plan for all his creation (especially humans), thus he demands morals and ethics.
These apologists usually feel empowered by the Holy Spirit and debate believing that religious truth is singular and orthodox. This position has an evangelical goals in mind, usually viewing Jesus as a personal savior and God as a “Heavenly Father”. (An example here is our fundamentalist commenter Rick.)
Finally, no matter how much time John, Evan, or Lee puts into writing a very logical argument, the apologetics that defends this illusive God are still just as un-phased as the magical and religious Ouija Board which spells out the future and the unseen world for its believers despite logical fact against it for the last 120 years.
So, just how would an atheist defend God? Easy! An ancient nonfunctioning entity is so illusive, it simply defies logic. As such, any illogical mental construct that is pro god is good to go!
Simply remove the Bible and the Biblical Religionist position becomes the Deist / Theist position. Remove the illusive term “god’ and the Ouija Board now has all the answers.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
