August 16, 2009
Dr. James McGrath Responds to Jason Long, Ed Babinski and Me
I like his respectful tone so let me merely link to him. What d'ya think?
Clergy Letter Project aka Compartmentalization
The growing clergy letter project is, I believe, a fine example of compartmentalization. "We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
Started by a biologist who was fed up with creationism, it has become a safe haven for Christians from critical thought. I agree with fundamentalist Jefferson Reed that the signers of the petition are Apostates who deviate from the plain reading of the Bible. I believe it is nothing more than a cursory way of eliminating cognitive dissonance. One can now feel much more comfortable accepting evolution while maintaining faith simply because thousands of others have publicly done so - never mind that research and critical thought would be a much better way to evaluate whether religion and science are compatible. No one will ever force the different compartments to a debate.
Started by a biologist who was fed up with creationism, it has become a safe haven for Christians from critical thought. I agree with fundamentalist Jefferson Reed that the signers of the petition are Apostates who deviate from the plain reading of the Bible. I believe it is nothing more than a cursory way of eliminating cognitive dissonance. One can now feel much more comfortable accepting evolution while maintaining faith simply because thousands of others have publicly done so - never mind that research and critical thought would be a much better way to evaluate whether religion and science are compatible. No one will ever force the different compartments to a debate.
Jesus, James D.G. Dunn, James Barr and Christianity
James D.G. Dunn is regarded worldwide as one of today's foremost biblical scholars, and in a real sense one of my intellectual heroes.
When I was an apologetics instructor I used his book The Evidence for Jesus in that class. It’s very small but mighty. It put to shame other available books at that time. I loved it so much I bought up several copies to hand out. I’m selling my last spare copy on Amazon now. Another book of his, The Living Word, changed my thinking. After reading it I could no longer affirm inerrancy, I began thinking Jesus was a liberal and was introduced into the problem of Pseudonymity and canonical criticism like never before. I bought several copies of this book to hand out as well. I have two left. I see it’s now made it to a second edition recently (2009) and I heartily recommend it too.
Another of my intellectual heroes was James Barr who wrote a devastating critique of fundamentalism which to this day is probably unsurpassed, called Beyond Fundamentalism. I bought up several copies of this book to pass out too, and I’m selling my last two copies on Amazon. This book literally shatters fundamentalism I think.
But they do not go far enough. Read for yourselves what James D. G. Dunn admitted in what will prove to be Dunn’s magnum opus series of books, beginning with volume one, Jesus Remembered:
When I was an apologetics instructor I used his book The Evidence for Jesus in that class. It’s very small but mighty. It put to shame other available books at that time. I loved it so much I bought up several copies to hand out. I’m selling my last spare copy on Amazon now. Another book of his, The Living Word, changed my thinking. After reading it I could no longer affirm inerrancy, I began thinking Jesus was a liberal and was introduced into the problem of Pseudonymity and canonical criticism like never before. I bought several copies of this book to hand out as well. I have two left. I see it’s now made it to a second edition recently (2009) and I heartily recommend it too.
Another of my intellectual heroes was James Barr who wrote a devastating critique of fundamentalism which to this day is probably unsurpassed, called Beyond Fundamentalism. I bought up several copies of this book to pass out too, and I’m selling my last two copies on Amazon. This book literally shatters fundamentalism I think.
But they do not go far enough. Read for yourselves what James D. G. Dunn admitted in what will prove to be Dunn’s magnum opus series of books, beginning with volume one, Jesus Remembered:
Jesus' own experience of anointing and ministry empowered by the same Spirit/power of God may in itself have convinced him that God's longed-for (final) manifestation of his royal rule was already in evidence and that its full manifestation could therefore not be long delayed... The point is that such treatments have found it impossible to deny that Jesus had expressed expectation for the imminent happening of events which did not happen. Jesus' kingdom preaching cannot be disentangled from imminent expectation, with or without 'apocalyptic' features. Which also means that Jesus had entertained hopes which were not fulfilled. There were 'final' elements in his expectation which were not realized. Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events” (p. 479).What I don’t get is how these critically honest scholars could come to these correct conclusions and still profess to be followers of Christ (i.e. Christians). I think anyone with intellectual honesty should jump ship like I have.
Debunking Christianity Carnival #1
A smorgasbord of annotated weblinks.
John recently brought up the subject of poisonous plants. Below are related items:
Why We Believe in a Designer
The most provocative things ever said about the way God "designed" the cosmos
God's Cool Designs [video]
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design [video]
Jesus and Mo, "World" [cartoon]
The Evil God Challenge (part 1)
The Evil God Challenge (part 2)
Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Google the word "carnival" and you'll retrieve over 44 million "hits," but the #1 top-ranked "hit" (as of today) was this one: Biblical Studies Carnival. A "carnival" in the blogging world refers to a "best of" collection of links to recent entries at different blogs. I recommend the Biblical Studies Carnival since the entries are from the blogs of biblical studies professors ("bibliobloggers"), and cover an informative and intriguing range of topics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I create amazon.com "wish lists" in order to keep track of interesting book titles and bundle them by category. The following two lists feature books written by (or about) those who question Christian religious beliefs:
Testimonies, questioning Protestantism
Testimonies, questioning Catholicism
See also this piece from a creationist website:
Losing faith: how secular scholarship affects scholars
And this new book:
When Faith Meets Reason: Religion Scholars Reflect on Their Spiritual Journeys
And this:
People who left Christianity as a direct result of their studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Godless Comedy from Mitchell and Web
John recently brought up the subject of poisonous plants. Below are related items:
Why We Believe in a Designer
The most provocative things ever said about the way God "designed" the cosmos
God's Cool Designs [video]
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design [video]
Jesus and Mo, "World" [cartoon]
The Evil God Challenge (part 1)
The Evil God Challenge (part 2)
Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Google the word "carnival" and you'll retrieve over 44 million "hits," but the #1 top-ranked "hit" (as of today) was this one: Biblical Studies Carnival. A "carnival" in the blogging world refers to a "best of" collection of links to recent entries at different blogs. I recommend the Biblical Studies Carnival since the entries are from the blogs of biblical studies professors ("bibliobloggers"), and cover an informative and intriguing range of topics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I create amazon.com "wish lists" in order to keep track of interesting book titles and bundle them by category. The following two lists feature books written by (or about) those who question Christian religious beliefs:
Testimonies, questioning Protestantism
Testimonies, questioning Catholicism
See also this piece from a creationist website:
Losing faith: how secular scholarship affects scholars
And this new book:
When Faith Meets Reason: Religion Scholars Reflect on Their Spiritual Journeys
And this:
People who left Christianity as a direct result of their studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Godless Comedy from Mitchell and Web
August 15, 2009
A Site for My Book: Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity
I created it recently and will update it from time to time. See here.
Praise God for Wicked Plants!
There are 58 poisonous plants, some milder than others (it depends on which part is eaten, roots, leaves, seeds, flowers, fruits, etc.). Possible fatal ones include: Autumn crocus, Castor bean, Daffodil, Hyacinth, Hydrangea, Jimson Weed, Lily of the Valley, Mistletoe, Morning Glory, wild Mushrooms, Poinsettia, Hemlock, Sumac, Rhubarb, White Snakeroot (which was one of the most common causes of death among early settlers in America), Yew (eat it and you die within minutes), and so on. If they don’t kill you they may cause diarrhea, convulsions, paralysis and even comas.
A new book out called Wicked Plants tells us about them. In order for human beings to learn these plants were poisonous people had to die from eating them. That's a nice way to learn about them. Praise God for his creation! Praise God for informing us about them! God is Great!
A new book out called Wicked Plants tells us about them. In order for human beings to learn these plants were poisonous people had to die from eating them. That's a nice way to learn about them. Praise God for his creation! Praise God for informing us about them! God is Great!
August 14, 2009
New Book: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
This site was created by Richard Carrier for our new book. Bookmark it for updates.
Should I Go to WordPress?
As you can see, I grabbed a slot there in January of 2008. Would this be better because of the trolls at Blogger? It would be a lot of work to figure out how to use this. Is it worth it?
If I were to do this, does anyone who knows how to set up such a site care to help make the switch?
If I were to do this, does anyone who knows how to set up such a site care to help make the switch?
August 13, 2009
Greatest possible being?
The following argument is valid.
1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater possible beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.
This argument is not intended as a proof for the nonexistence of God; rather, it is intended to challenge theists (particularly Christians) to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?
1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater possible beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.
This argument is not intended as a proof for the nonexistence of God; rather, it is intended to challenge theists (particularly Christians) to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?
August 12, 2009
PZ Myers Reports on His Trip to the Creation Museum
You can see the videos here. He also wrote several blogs about it.
August 10, 2009
Atheism Explained: What is an Atheist?
Words mean what I use them to mean. Dictionary definitions merely report how most people use words. They may not always report how I use them or how small groups of people use them. So any word can mean anything I use it to mean. The problem is that using words in some private sense that is unfamiliar to others will result in miscommunication. There is a shared understanding of how English people use words so we must use them in the standard ways if we want to be understood.
Words are not static in their definitions either, but dynamic and forever changing. The word “nice” previously meant “stupid” and the word “gay” previously meant “happy,” but now they mean something different. That’s because how we use words evolve down through the centuries. There is Old- Middle- and Modern English, which was derived in part from German and even Greek forbearers. There is American, Britain, and Australian English.
Now let’s think about the word “atheism” in this light. I am an atheist. What do I mean when I use this word? I mean that I do not think there are any supernatural beings or supernatural forces. It’s not that I have no beliefs about them. I do. I believe they do not exist. People who do not have any beliefs about such beings are people who have never considered them in the first place.
By using this word in that way the ONLY question left unresolved is whether I am effectively communicating to others. The problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of this word by atheists themselves. One of the problems is that atheism is a negative word. Etymologically speaking an atheist is a non-theist (a=non theist). Christians themselves were called atheists in the Roman days because they did not believe in the Roman pantheon. But if I were to say that some object is not a door I have not told you what that object is, only what it is not. The problem is further compounded by Christians themselves who wish to define the word for us as meaning “metaphysical naturalists,” which may not adequately describe all of us.
Skeptics have proposed other words to positively describe themselves as “Brights” or “Secular Humanists.” There are agnostic atheists, spiritual atheists, and Christian atheists. There is both a positive and negative atheism. Buddhism may be described as an atheistic philosophy.
For Christians listening in on these discussions let me say for the record that I consider them to be little more than Wittgensteinian language games, which will probably be solved in the future as more and more atheists adopt the same language to describe the same thing, which, when the dust settles will indeed communicate who we are and what we share (if there is a "we" to be found). [Keep in mind that Christians have the same problem with the word “Christian.” Is everyone a Christian who describes himself as one? I repeatedly hear that some group or person is/was not a “true Christian.”] I suspect that if most everyone in the world became atheists there wouldn't even be a word to describe us. We would probably be described as human beings, or members of the same golf club, or of another type grouping.
In any case, Dr. John Shook recently attempted to define it. See what you think.
Words are not static in their definitions either, but dynamic and forever changing. The word “nice” previously meant “stupid” and the word “gay” previously meant “happy,” but now they mean something different. That’s because how we use words evolve down through the centuries. There is Old- Middle- and Modern English, which was derived in part from German and even Greek forbearers. There is American, Britain, and Australian English.
Now let’s think about the word “atheism” in this light. I am an atheist. What do I mean when I use this word? I mean that I do not think there are any supernatural beings or supernatural forces. It’s not that I have no beliefs about them. I do. I believe they do not exist. People who do not have any beliefs about such beings are people who have never considered them in the first place.
By using this word in that way the ONLY question left unresolved is whether I am effectively communicating to others. The problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of this word by atheists themselves. One of the problems is that atheism is a negative word. Etymologically speaking an atheist is a non-theist (a=non theist). Christians themselves were called atheists in the Roman days because they did not believe in the Roman pantheon. But if I were to say that some object is not a door I have not told you what that object is, only what it is not. The problem is further compounded by Christians themselves who wish to define the word for us as meaning “metaphysical naturalists,” which may not adequately describe all of us.
Skeptics have proposed other words to positively describe themselves as “Brights” or “Secular Humanists.” There are agnostic atheists, spiritual atheists, and Christian atheists. There is both a positive and negative atheism. Buddhism may be described as an atheistic philosophy.
For Christians listening in on these discussions let me say for the record that I consider them to be little more than Wittgensteinian language games, which will probably be solved in the future as more and more atheists adopt the same language to describe the same thing, which, when the dust settles will indeed communicate who we are and what we share (if there is a "we" to be found). [Keep in mind that Christians have the same problem with the word “Christian.” Is everyone a Christian who describes himself as one? I repeatedly hear that some group or person is/was not a “true Christian.”] I suspect that if most everyone in the world became atheists there wouldn't even be a word to describe us. We would probably be described as human beings, or members of the same golf club, or of another type grouping.
In any case, Dr. John Shook recently attempted to define it. See what you think.
August 09, 2009
Richard Carrier on Rodney Stark's Disastrously Awful Treatment of Ancient Science
You can listen to what Carrier says about it right here.
August 07, 2009
Three Undeniable Facts About the Great God Artemis and Dr. Craig's Three Facts About the Resurrection of Jesus
Dr. Craig argues there are at least three facts held by the majority of New Testament scholars: 1) The tomb was found empty by the women followers of Jesus three days after his crucufixion; 2) The disciples of Jesus held that they saw the risen Jesus after his crucifixion; and 3) The original disciples held strongly to the belief that Jesus really did rise for the dead. Sounds like a slam dunk, right? Let's go back in time to the first century and see the three undeniable facts the Ephesians all accepted, okay? ;-)
There was a riot in Ephesus when Paul was in town and the people shouted him down, claiming their god Artemis was Great. Then we read:
I guess it's because Dr. Craig lives in a Christian culture with Biblical scholars who accept these so-called facts he can make this argument in the first place. After all, who can dispute the facts, right? Facts are facts!
There was a riot in Ephesus when Paul was in town and the people shouted him down, claiming their god Artemis was Great. Then we read:
The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash.The three facts he spoke of were: 1)The city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis; 2) and of her image, 3) which fell from heaven. The clerk said "these facts are undeniable."
Acts 19:35-37
I guess it's because Dr. Craig lives in a Christian culture with Biblical scholars who accept these so-called facts he can make this argument in the first place. After all, who can dispute the facts, right? Facts are facts!
Sound Familiar Anyone?
A Mormon negatively commented on the skeptical book, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. Read on:
You know, I could probably spend a few years of my life trying to find dirt on the author of this book and likely, I would find some. The question is: why would I? It seems to me a pretty sad way to spend my life. It also seems to me that if I wanted to learn about someone, I should ask someone who loves them... if I went to someone who hates you and asked them, "what's this person like?" what kind of an answer would I get? Yes it's very easy to find dirt on someone if that's what you are looking for because the bottom line is: people believe what they want to believe. If you want to KNOW something, why not ask the only one who truly knows... God? That was Joseph Smith's message. That was the message of the Book of Mormon. It was also the message of our Savior who said: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" (Matt. 7:7). Or you can refer to the scripture quoted by the prophet himself: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (I would like to continue on through the next couple of verses-) "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." (James 1:5-7).This Mormon claims people who don't believe don't want to believe. He's not offering his opinions. He knows because he has the inner witness of God in his heart. Does any of this sound familiar? ;-)
I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Not because some person told me, and not because some man showed me a book full of evidence (there is much evidence for those who want to find it). I know, because like Joseph Smith, I got down on my knees, in faith, and asked my Heavenly Father if it was true. You cannot know anything, but by God. What do you have to lose? I'm not giving you my opinions. I only invite those who wish to know the truth, and who are not trying to simply reinforce their budding hatred for a man that they simply do not know. If you want to know, ask God, I promise you that He will answer if you honestly seek only the truth. Link
Another One Leaves the Fold and Starts a Blog
23 year old Devin Lorentzen, that's who. Give him a warm welcome to our herd of cats. Sheep or cats? Which do you prefer? ;-)
August 06, 2009
Robert G. Ingersoll on the Bible
Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all. Link.
August 05, 2009
Why I've Been Somewhat Quiet Lately
It's because I was finishing up editing a new book to be published by Prometheus Books. I sent the manuscript off to them this week. See below for the table of contents:
The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
Foreword by Dan Barker
Introduction
Part One: How to Think About and Test Faith.
1 The Cultures of Christianities. Dr. David Eller
2 Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science. Dr. Valerie Tarico
3 The Malleability of the Human Mind. Dr. Jason Long
4 The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited. John W. Loftus
Part Two: Why the Bible is Not God’s Word.
5 The Cosmology of the Bible. Edward T. Babinski
6 The Bible and Modern Scholarship. Paul Tobin
7 What We’ve Got Here is a Failure to Communicate. John W. Loftus
Part Three: Why the Christian God is Not Perfectly Good.
8 Yahweh is a Moral Monster. Dr. Hector Avalos
9 The Darwinian Problem of Evil. John W. Loftus
Part Four: Why Jesus is not the Risen Son of God.
10 Jesus: Myth and Method. Dr. Robert M. Price
11 Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable. Dr. Richard Carrier
12 At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Doomsday Prophet. John W. Loftus
Part Five: Why Modern Society Does Not Depend on Christian Faith.
13 Does Christianity Provide the Basis for Morality? Dr. David Eller
14 Was Atheism the Reason Hitler Killed So Many People? Dr. Hector Avalos
15 Was Christianity Responsible for Modern Science? Dr. Richard Carrier
--------------------
I have been sending Dr. Michael Martin the material along the way. He is professor of philosophy emeritus and author of the books The Case Against Christianity, and Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Of this book he wrote:
As the editor of this new work I designed it to be an extension of my book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, and so it further argues for the things I did there. To read recommendations of that work, click here.
The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails
Foreword by Dan Barker
Introduction
Part One: How to Think About and Test Faith.
1 The Cultures of Christianities. Dr. David Eller
2 Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science. Dr. Valerie Tarico
3 The Malleability of the Human Mind. Dr. Jason Long
4 The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited. John W. Loftus
Part Two: Why the Bible is Not God’s Word.
5 The Cosmology of the Bible. Edward T. Babinski
6 The Bible and Modern Scholarship. Paul Tobin
7 What We’ve Got Here is a Failure to Communicate. John W. Loftus
Part Three: Why the Christian God is Not Perfectly Good.
8 Yahweh is a Moral Monster. Dr. Hector Avalos
9 The Darwinian Problem of Evil. John W. Loftus
Part Four: Why Jesus is not the Risen Son of God.
10 Jesus: Myth and Method. Dr. Robert M. Price
11 Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable. Dr. Richard Carrier
12 At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Doomsday Prophet. John W. Loftus
Part Five: Why Modern Society Does Not Depend on Christian Faith.
13 Does Christianity Provide the Basis for Morality? Dr. David Eller
14 Was Atheism the Reason Hitler Killed So Many People? Dr. Hector Avalos
15 Was Christianity Responsible for Modern Science? Dr. Richard Carrier
--------------------
I have been sending Dr. Michael Martin the material along the way. He is professor of philosophy emeritus and author of the books The Case Against Christianity, and Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Of this book he wrote:
John Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have certainly produced one of the best and arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known. Using sociological, biblical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological and ethical criticisms, this book completely destroys Christianity. All but the most fanatical believers who read it should be moved to have profound doubts.---------------
As the editor of this new work I designed it to be an extension of my book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, and so it further argues for the things I did there. To read recommendations of that work, click here.
August 04, 2009
I'm Building a Hotel. Will You Help Me?
I’ve decided to build a Hotel and I am here to solicit your much-needed financial support.
Let me begin by saying that it will be like no hotel you’ve ever seen in your life. It’s going to be a big Hotel – a massive, super big Hotel beyond belief – so big that humans will almost never be able to reach the outer walls and fences of the property. Yes, it’s going to be BIG!
As surely as it is going to be big, it’s going to be expanding in all directions all of the time. We’ll never quit building onto it. It will have many rooms, so many rooms that they will never be used or serve any constructive purpose, but I want to have them anyway. I like empty, unused space. There will be lots to look at…lots of lights and chandeliers and bright ornaments…and they’ll always be running, even when no one is around.
If you call the front desk and ask for a bucket of ice, a couple of extra blankets and a pillow, or perhaps a towel, I may have the items sent to your room…or I may not. I may send 10,000 blankets, so much so that the room can’t hold them, or I may just send one. There’s always a 50/50 chance that I will grant your requests.
Some of the rooms and wings of my glorious Hotel will be either hot or cold. Some guest rooms will have either air conditioners or heaters. Some will have both, but others will have neither. There are rooms in this Hotel that are kept so hot that no human could enter them without being disintegrated. And there are rooms kept so cold that guests entering them would freeze solid in under 30 seconds of exposure. Registering guests have no control over whether or not they will get put in a room with moderate or extreme temperatures. It is based on the accidents of registration that determines who gets what.
You’ll have to prepare yourself when staying at my Hotel as some of the doors and stairwells open to unfinished hallways and rooms. You might take a single step and plummet to your death, so be careful. And once you check in, there is no leaving. You can’t step outside of the Hotel, so make the best of it and try to enjoy the good that there is.
The kitchens in my Hotel are exquisite. There is no food I won’t offer, except in certain places of the Hotel where guests will be left at or near starvation, but for everyone else, there is plenty to eat. My cooks are not what you would expect. They offer such a huge selection of dishes that you have to be careful what you order. My kitchen has herbs and spices and ingredients that are toxic, as well as nourishing and tasty. The cooks might serve you poisonous mushrooms at the breakfast buffet. Only experience can inform you of what foods will nourish you and which will poison you. You can watch other guests get sick and die, and over time, you’ll learn what to consume and what never to consume.
My Hotel does have a maintenance crew, though you wouldn’t know it. When something breaks, the guests usually have to fix it. You can put in a work order to have a door or a safe or your TV remote replaced, but that rarely works. If you want something done, do it yourself! I’ve given you the permission to do as you will. Just so that we’re clear, remember that once it’s done, I want the credit for doing it!
There are no police or security at my Hotel, and so any domestic disputes that arise must be settled in-house by the guests as they set up systems of government to try and keep order themselves. But remember, once law and order has been established by whichever dominant party made it to the top, I want credit for it! I will speak and keep order through that party.
The complaint system is a little different around here—there isn’t one. I hate complainers. Everybody always has something they don’t like, so I don’t want to hear it. It just angers me. If you’re not satisfied with the way things are, that’s too bad. It’s my Hotel. I can run it the way I want.
Guests will be provided with an instruction manual on how to be better and more informed guests of my Hotel. Please try not to fight over how it is interpreted, but use it to show others how to be an effective establishment of good guests.
So…will you help me?
Dig deep now, my dear investors! ☺
Anyone?
Please?
Come on!
No one?
Well, I knew the atheists wouldn’t help me…but you Christians?
Why won’t you help me?
I will operate my Hotel just like your God operates this universe.
How is it you find fault with me, and not with your deity?
I don’t understand...shouldn’t we resemble our Creator in the ways we operate?
Why do I get faulted for doing the same things God does?
I even ask for money like your God does!
Why can’t you support his works by supporting my Hotel?
“Do as I say, not as I do,” huh? Is that how God is? Needless to say, I am very disappointed!
(JH)
Let me begin by saying that it will be like no hotel you’ve ever seen in your life. It’s going to be a big Hotel – a massive, super big Hotel beyond belief – so big that humans will almost never be able to reach the outer walls and fences of the property. Yes, it’s going to be BIG!
As surely as it is going to be big, it’s going to be expanding in all directions all of the time. We’ll never quit building onto it. It will have many rooms, so many rooms that they will never be used or serve any constructive purpose, but I want to have them anyway. I like empty, unused space. There will be lots to look at…lots of lights and chandeliers and bright ornaments…and they’ll always be running, even when no one is around.
If you call the front desk and ask for a bucket of ice, a couple of extra blankets and a pillow, or perhaps a towel, I may have the items sent to your room…or I may not. I may send 10,000 blankets, so much so that the room can’t hold them, or I may just send one. There’s always a 50/50 chance that I will grant your requests.
Some of the rooms and wings of my glorious Hotel will be either hot or cold. Some guest rooms will have either air conditioners or heaters. Some will have both, but others will have neither. There are rooms in this Hotel that are kept so hot that no human could enter them without being disintegrated. And there are rooms kept so cold that guests entering them would freeze solid in under 30 seconds of exposure. Registering guests have no control over whether or not they will get put in a room with moderate or extreme temperatures. It is based on the accidents of registration that determines who gets what.
You’ll have to prepare yourself when staying at my Hotel as some of the doors and stairwells open to unfinished hallways and rooms. You might take a single step and plummet to your death, so be careful. And once you check in, there is no leaving. You can’t step outside of the Hotel, so make the best of it and try to enjoy the good that there is.
The kitchens in my Hotel are exquisite. There is no food I won’t offer, except in certain places of the Hotel where guests will be left at or near starvation, but for everyone else, there is plenty to eat. My cooks are not what you would expect. They offer such a huge selection of dishes that you have to be careful what you order. My kitchen has herbs and spices and ingredients that are toxic, as well as nourishing and tasty. The cooks might serve you poisonous mushrooms at the breakfast buffet. Only experience can inform you of what foods will nourish you and which will poison you. You can watch other guests get sick and die, and over time, you’ll learn what to consume and what never to consume.
My Hotel does have a maintenance crew, though you wouldn’t know it. When something breaks, the guests usually have to fix it. You can put in a work order to have a door or a safe or your TV remote replaced, but that rarely works. If you want something done, do it yourself! I’ve given you the permission to do as you will. Just so that we’re clear, remember that once it’s done, I want the credit for doing it!
There are no police or security at my Hotel, and so any domestic disputes that arise must be settled in-house by the guests as they set up systems of government to try and keep order themselves. But remember, once law and order has been established by whichever dominant party made it to the top, I want credit for it! I will speak and keep order through that party.
The complaint system is a little different around here—there isn’t one. I hate complainers. Everybody always has something they don’t like, so I don’t want to hear it. It just angers me. If you’re not satisfied with the way things are, that’s too bad. It’s my Hotel. I can run it the way I want.
Guests will be provided with an instruction manual on how to be better and more informed guests of my Hotel. Please try not to fight over how it is interpreted, but use it to show others how to be an effective establishment of good guests.
So…will you help me?
Dig deep now, my dear investors! ☺
Anyone?
Please?
Come on!
No one?
Well, I knew the atheists wouldn’t help me…but you Christians?
Why won’t you help me?
I will operate my Hotel just like your God operates this universe.
How is it you find fault with me, and not with your deity?
I don’t understand...shouldn’t we resemble our Creator in the ways we operate?
Why do I get faulted for doing the same things God does?
I even ask for money like your God does!
Why can’t you support his works by supporting my Hotel?
“Do as I say, not as I do,” huh? Is that how God is? Needless to say, I am very disappointed!
(JH)
August 02, 2009
Unverifiable "Knowledge" is Demonstrably Trivial.
On April 14, 1994, two American Air force pilots in F15 fighter planes misidentified two American Army helicopters operating in Iraq and shot them down killing all 26 people aboard. Because the lead pilot was not able to evaluate his personal belief using external evidence, 26 people are dead.
In an interview after the incident, the lead pilot, the pilot that fired on the helicopters, reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The wingman, who was supposed to confirm, took the lead pilots word for it and the AWACs officers in charge of command and control believed the lead pilot even though they had information that the helicopters were scheduled to be there. If they would have taken the time to look at all the evidence, it would have been obvious that they were not Iraqi helicopters. His personal belief needed external verification.
After the fact, The secretary of Defense identified four causes of the incident
Wikipedia has an entry on it as well. 1994 Black Hawk Shootdown Incident
I have included a Dr. Snooks elaboration on the causes at the end of the article.
Though this case is usually studied as an example of how decision making in an organization fails, I want to focus on an aspect referred to in this statement by the AWACS pilot, since the helicopters were shot down by the man who held the belief.
Though the AWACs officers had prior information about the helicopters, the AWACS pilots took the word of the lead pilot when he said he saw Iraqi helicopters. In fact the AWACS pilots were impressed by the lead pilots ability to not only identify that the helicopters were enemy but that he could identify what kind they were. The AWACS officers placed a higher value on the lead pilots belief than the data that they had on file. Additionally, the wingman in the other fighter jet did not confirm that the helicopters were enemy, but only confirmed that there were two helicopters. The wingman believed that if the lead pilot believed they were enemy helicopters, then they must be.
The pilots expected that if they saw helicopters when they were doing their initial patrol, then they could only be Iraqi helicopters. When they saw the helicopters, they perceived and inferred what they expected. They believed what they thought they saw. They were certain that they had knowledge of two Iraqi helicopters and were justified in shooting them down.
COGNITIVE BIASES
We are fundamentally bounded in our rationality. We are bounded by the physical architecture of our brain, our experiences, what we already know and believe, our feelings, our self-interest. We don't examine every possible option, or every scrap of data before we make a decision. We adopt heuristics, mental shortcuts. Usually, when the stakes are low and mistakes happen, whatever harm is done is tolerable. But only when the stakes are high is it obvious that procedures need to be in place to correct for cognitive bias and human error.
Some of the Biases that I can see that were obviously involved in this incident are
List of Cognitive Biases from Wikipedia.
[Wikipedia should not be considered authoritative, but a good place to start]
HOW DO WE COME TO "KNOW" SOMETHING?
In an interview after the fact: the fighter pilot reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The black hawks did not even cross his mind when he made the decision.The lead pilot "knew" that they were Iraqi helicopters.
What is Knowledge?
Knowledge can be of how to do something, knowing a person, or a place, or propositions. This discussion will be limited to "Someone knows that a Proposition is true or is a fact". Briefly stated, "S knows that P" or "The lead pilot knew that they were Iraqi helicopters" or "I know that God exists because of the inner witness of the spirit".
Epistemologists have wrestled with the idea of "rightly justified belief" as a definition of knowledge, but they always come to the same point of disagreeing on "what makes some knowledge or belief preferred over another?". Can a consensus be reached on a standard for determining what makes some knowledge or belief more preferred or "better" than another? I think an external standard has already has been found and has been put into practice in fields such as Public Safety and Public Health, civil engineering and such, for many years. I think the strongest work in Epistemology is being done outside the domain of philosophy and is not being done by philosophers.
Justified Beliefs
The fighter pilots belief about the Iraqi Helicopters was not "rightly justified". It was a weakly justified belief on little evidence that was of a type that was likely to be in error. While its true he had to make a time critical decision, and while a military hearing found him not culpable for anything other than making a mistake, some points in the time-line of the event were identified that could have prevented the shootdown had some action been taken to account for the likelihood of human error. The team could have considered the external data they had. Someone should have asked the lead pilot "What makes you so sure those aren't the Army Helicopters that we expect to work with today?"
Introduction to some key concepts in Epistemology
Key terms in epistemology are Belief, Truth, Justification, Evidence, Reliability, Internalism, Externalism, Foundationalism, and Coherentism, but unfortunately, some of the key terms in use are largely undefined. In reading through the Epistemological literature, it is obvious that in some cases the terms and words are minced until they are no longer useful. It results in some philosophers positing obviously improbable and unknowable "thought experiments" as analogies to use in deliberation while presuming that the analogy "fits". The "Brain-in-a-vat" thought experiment is a famous one, and Berkeleys "we all exist in the mind of God" is another. In reality, a thought experiment that breaks down the boundaries so much so as to permit "fantasy" is not very useful. We have to find a reliable way to exclude "fantasy" and more importantly "Human Error".
AN EXTERNAL STANDARD TO USE IN DETERMINING WHAT IS "KNOWLEDGE"
In order to make progress in defining what is knowledge and what is not, some standards need to be agreed on. If language is insufficient to capture a definition of knowledge, yet everyone seems to "know" things and use that knowledge to interact in the world, then "What knowledge is" is not as important as "what action are you taking on what you think you know"? More importantly "Will it cause any harm?" Does the possible harmful outcome outweigh the risk? What justifies a person in taking some action based on what they think they know?
Having The Humility To Accept The Possibility Of Error In Perception
Lets look at the shootdown incident through an Epistemological lens and try to come up with why one variety of knowledge is more preferred than another.
1. The pilot thinks that if he see's helicopters where he doesn't expect them, they will be enemy.
BIAS, BELIEF:
2. He see's helicopters and he didn't expect them.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE, JUSTIFIES HIS BELIEF AND IT BECOMES TRUE TO HIM, CONFIRMATION BIAS
3. He is an expert, he gives his opinion to his team.
HE EXPRESSES HIS BELIEF, OVERCONFINDENCE BIAS
4. His team defers to his expertise rather than checking the data
DEFERENCE TO AUTHORITY, INTERNAL EVIDENCE VS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:
5. He shoots down the helicopters and kills twenty six people
INTERNAL EVIDENCE APPARENTLY NOT AS RELIABLE AS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
6. If he had externally verified his beliefs with the external data that was held by the AWACS plane, he would not have shot down the helicopters.
THEREFORE EXTERNAL VERIFICATION IS MORE VALUABLE THAT INTERNAL VERIFICATION IN MATTERS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.
But we all already knew that didn't we? This principle is already presumed in society. Its just that some of us have to deny it to make a system of beliefs work.
Therefore, generally, unverifiable internal knowledge is trivial compared to externally verifiable knowledge. This principle is accepted as a sound principle and expected to be used to make judgments. To not use this principle can be considered negligent.
Using an external standard of minimizing harm, I have shown that the relative value of Internal Knowledge is less than the value of External knowledge.
Equivocation Of The Word "Justification"
Paul's use of Justification by Faith means "justified to join the christian community of believers" by faith in Christ not by being Jewish, joining the Jewish community or following Jewish laws. Its not a knowledge claim at all, its membership criteria. So "Justification" is membership criteria for whatever it is that is being assessed for inclusion in a category.
It would fit the task of assessing whether a belief should be considered knowledge. Justification for inclusion in the Jewish community is quite another thing than Justification by faith of knowledge of God. When someone says that they are justified in a belief in god by faith, then they are making a circular statement. Faith is a belief in god, and belief in God is Faith. Or do I have a misconception?
Belief does not seem to be the preferred way to acquire knowledge because it doesn't counteract the likelihood of Human Error.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Here is a brief summary of the elaboration on the findings of the Secretary of Defense from Snooks Book with my notes in brackets and curly braces.
- The helicopters were army, the fighter planes were Air Force. They did not effectively share information with each other.
- The fighters pre-flight papers did not indicate the helicopters were going to be there
- Before anyone can come into the zone, fighter pilots fly around the zone ensure there are no enemy and make the call or decision that it is clear. The US Helicopters were in the zone before the pilots had finished their initial flight. The pilots did not expect to see Helicopters in the area until they had reported that it was clear of enemy.
- An American AWACs plane was in the area whose task it was to ensure monitoring and control of the area. It knew about both fighter planes and helicopters were in close vicinity to one another.
[Part of the verification process]
- The Helicopters could not respond to the IFF signal in the affirmative because they were not using the same code as the fighters.
- The pre-flight papers did not indicate the helicopters would be there
- Standard operating procedure dictates the Jets should be first in the zone to ensure it's safe
- The US Helicopters were outfitted with extra fuel tanks that caused them to resemble Iraqi helicopters.
- The pilots were not familiar with the new equipment configuration.
[Human Error]
- The fighter pilot and wingman did not verify or confirm each others conclusions when they conducted the visual assessment though they INFERRED each others confirmation due to ambiguous language usage.
[Cognitive Biases]
- Interview after the fact: the fighter pilot reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The black hawks did not even cross his mind when he made the decision.
{He did not have access to information he needed that was stored in his brain. For some reason, his cognitive processes did not access what he had in memory and bring it to consciousness. This is a common cognitive limitation that occurs to people on a daily basis, and will probably occur to the reader today or this week. }
- Interview after the fact: The wingman said that when the fighter pilot said he identified them as Iraqi helicopters, he believed him.
{In social psychology, Research in persuasion has created four major categories of persuasion variables. In this instance the wingmans decision making was biased by the variables in the "Communicator" category. They all liked, trusted and viewed the pilot as an authority. Research in persuasion has demonstrated that people are more easily influenced by people they like, trust, consider and authority or are attactive}
- Persuasion
- Weapons of Persuasion
- Interview after the fact: After the fact, The AWACs officers trusted the Fighter pilots opinion over the data, so they did not challenge them. {Same as above}
In an interview after the incident, the lead pilot, the pilot that fired on the helicopters, reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The wingman, who was supposed to confirm, took the lead pilots word for it and the AWACs officers in charge of command and control believed the lead pilot even though they had information that the helicopters were scheduled to be there. If they would have taken the time to look at all the evidence, it would have been obvious that they were not Iraqi helicopters. His personal belief needed external verification.
After the fact, The secretary of Defense identified four causes of the incident
- Pilots mis-identified the Black HawksRetired Lt. Col. Scott Snook wrote about his investigation of the incident in a book called "Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq".
- The AWACS crew failed to intervene
- The helicopters were not well integrated into the task force
- The "Identification Friend or Foe" System failed. However it worked properly, it was just not configured properly.
Wikipedia has an entry on it as well. 1994 Black Hawk Shootdown Incident
I have included a Dr. Snooks elaboration on the causes at the end of the article.
Though this case is usually studied as an example of how decision making in an organization fails, I want to focus on an aspect referred to in this statement by the AWACS pilot, since the helicopters were shot down by the man who held the belief.
"AWACS crew members added in their testimonies that once Wickson (the lead pilot) and May (the wingman) visually identified the helicopters as hostile, all responsibility for the shootdown passed to the F-15 pilots."
Peterson, "Court-Martial Begins in 'Friendly Fire' Deaths in Iraq", Piper, Chain of Events, p. 214–215.
Though the AWACs officers had prior information about the helicopters, the AWACS pilots took the word of the lead pilot when he said he saw Iraqi helicopters. In fact the AWACS pilots were impressed by the lead pilots ability to not only identify that the helicopters were enemy but that he could identify what kind they were. The AWACS officers placed a higher value on the lead pilots belief than the data that they had on file. Additionally, the wingman in the other fighter jet did not confirm that the helicopters were enemy, but only confirmed that there were two helicopters. The wingman believed that if the lead pilot believed they were enemy helicopters, then they must be.
The pilots expected that if they saw helicopters when they were doing their initial patrol, then they could only be Iraqi helicopters. When they saw the helicopters, they perceived and inferred what they expected. They believed what they thought they saw. They were certain that they had knowledge of two Iraqi helicopters and were justified in shooting them down.
COGNITIVE BIASES
We are fundamentally bounded in our rationality. We are bounded by the physical architecture of our brain, our experiences, what we already know and believe, our feelings, our self-interest. We don't examine every possible option, or every scrap of data before we make a decision. We adopt heuristics, mental shortcuts. Usually, when the stakes are low and mistakes happen, whatever harm is done is tolerable. But only when the stakes are high is it obvious that procedures need to be in place to correct for cognitive bias and human error.
Some of the Biases that I can see that were obviously involved in this incident are
- Overconfidence bias: Human beings are systematically overconfident in our judgments.Cognitive bias skews our thinking and makes it hard to come to correct conclusions, make good decisions, and formulate "Justified Beliefs". That is why it is important to use methods to counteract cognitive bias. One of the first to be formulated was "the scientific method". If the scientific method is used as it is intended, it will counteract many of the effects of cognitive bias. If a persons belief system makes it difficult to trust the scientific method, then at least it should be agreed on that things in general need some definition and boundaries, and those definitions and boundaries should be kept in mind when deliberating. Human error should always be considered likely in anything a human does.
- Confirmation Bias: Human beings tend to gather and rely on information that confirms thier existing views and tend to avoid or downplay information that disconfirms what we think is the case.
- Accepting the word of someone based on acquaintance: the wingman worked closely with the lead pilot and had a lot of respect for his skills.
- Deference to Authority: the wingman and the AWACs officer did not question the mis-identification by the lead pilot, though the AWACs officers had information about the identity of the helicopters prior to the shootdown.
List of Cognitive Biases from Wikipedia.
[Wikipedia should not be considered authoritative, but a good place to start]
HOW DO WE COME TO "KNOW" SOMETHING?
In an interview after the fact: the fighter pilot reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The black hawks did not even cross his mind when he made the decision.The lead pilot "knew" that they were Iraqi helicopters.
What is Knowledge?
Knowledge can be of how to do something, knowing a person, or a place, or propositions. This discussion will be limited to "Someone knows that a Proposition is true or is a fact". Briefly stated, "S knows that P" or "The lead pilot knew that they were Iraqi helicopters" or "I know that God exists because of the inner witness of the spirit".
Epistemologists have wrestled with the idea of "rightly justified belief" as a definition of knowledge, but they always come to the same point of disagreeing on "what makes some knowledge or belief preferred over another?". Can a consensus be reached on a standard for determining what makes some knowledge or belief more preferred or "better" than another? I think an external standard has already has been found and has been put into practice in fields such as Public Safety and Public Health, civil engineering and such, for many years. I think the strongest work in Epistemology is being done outside the domain of philosophy and is not being done by philosophers.
Justified Beliefs
The fighter pilots belief about the Iraqi Helicopters was not "rightly justified". It was a weakly justified belief on little evidence that was of a type that was likely to be in error. While its true he had to make a time critical decision, and while a military hearing found him not culpable for anything other than making a mistake, some points in the time-line of the event were identified that could have prevented the shootdown had some action been taken to account for the likelihood of human error. The team could have considered the external data they had. Someone should have asked the lead pilot "What makes you so sure those aren't the Army Helicopters that we expect to work with today?"
Introduction to some key concepts in Epistemology
Key terms in epistemology are Belief, Truth, Justification, Evidence, Reliability, Internalism, Externalism, Foundationalism, and Coherentism, but unfortunately, some of the key terms in use are largely undefined. In reading through the Epistemological literature, it is obvious that in some cases the terms and words are minced until they are no longer useful. It results in some philosophers positing obviously improbable and unknowable "thought experiments" as analogies to use in deliberation while presuming that the analogy "fits". The "Brain-in-a-vat" thought experiment is a famous one, and Berkeleys "we all exist in the mind of God" is another. In reality, a thought experiment that breaks down the boundaries so much so as to permit "fantasy" is not very useful. We have to find a reliable way to exclude "fantasy" and more importantly "Human Error".
AN EXTERNAL STANDARD TO USE IN DETERMINING WHAT IS "KNOWLEDGE"
In order to make progress in defining what is knowledge and what is not, some standards need to be agreed on. If language is insufficient to capture a definition of knowledge, yet everyone seems to "know" things and use that knowledge to interact in the world, then "What knowledge is" is not as important as "what action are you taking on what you think you know"? More importantly "Will it cause any harm?" Does the possible harmful outcome outweigh the risk? What justifies a person in taking some action based on what they think they know?
Having The Humility To Accept The Possibility Of Error In Perception
Lets look at the shootdown incident through an Epistemological lens and try to come up with why one variety of knowledge is more preferred than another.
1. The pilot thinks that if he see's helicopters where he doesn't expect them, they will be enemy.
BIAS, BELIEF:
2. He see's helicopters and he didn't expect them.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE, JUSTIFIES HIS BELIEF AND IT BECOMES TRUE TO HIM, CONFIRMATION BIAS
3. He is an expert, he gives his opinion to his team.
HE EXPRESSES HIS BELIEF, OVERCONFINDENCE BIAS
4. His team defers to his expertise rather than checking the data
DEFERENCE TO AUTHORITY, INTERNAL EVIDENCE VS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:
5. He shoots down the helicopters and kills twenty six people
INTERNAL EVIDENCE APPARENTLY NOT AS RELIABLE AS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
6. If he had externally verified his beliefs with the external data that was held by the AWACS plane, he would not have shot down the helicopters.
THEREFORE EXTERNAL VERIFICATION IS MORE VALUABLE THAT INTERNAL VERIFICATION IN MATTERS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.
But we all already knew that didn't we? This principle is already presumed in society. Its just that some of us have to deny it to make a system of beliefs work.
Therefore, generally, unverifiable internal knowledge is trivial compared to externally verifiable knowledge. This principle is accepted as a sound principle and expected to be used to make judgments. To not use this principle can be considered negligent.
Using an external standard of minimizing harm, I have shown that the relative value of Internal Knowledge is less than the value of External knowledge.
Equivocation Of The Word "Justification"
Paul's use of Justification by Faith means "justified to join the christian community of believers" by faith in Christ not by being Jewish, joining the Jewish community or following Jewish laws. Its not a knowledge claim at all, its membership criteria. So "Justification" is membership criteria for whatever it is that is being assessed for inclusion in a category.
It would fit the task of assessing whether a belief should be considered knowledge. Justification for inclusion in the Jewish community is quite another thing than Justification by faith of knowledge of God. When someone says that they are justified in a belief in god by faith, then they are making a circular statement. Faith is a belief in god, and belief in God is Faith. Or do I have a misconception?
Belief does not seem to be the preferred way to acquire knowledge because it doesn't counteract the likelihood of Human Error.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Here is a brief summary of the elaboration on the findings of the Secretary of Defense from Snooks Book with my notes in brackets and curly braces.
- The helicopters were army, the fighter planes were Air Force. They did not effectively share information with each other.
- The fighters pre-flight papers did not indicate the helicopters were going to be there
- Before anyone can come into the zone, fighter pilots fly around the zone ensure there are no enemy and make the call or decision that it is clear. The US Helicopters were in the zone before the pilots had finished their initial flight. The pilots did not expect to see Helicopters in the area until they had reported that it was clear of enemy.
- An American AWACs plane was in the area whose task it was to ensure monitoring and control of the area. It knew about both fighter planes and helicopters were in close vicinity to one another.
[Part of the verification process]
- The Helicopters could not respond to the IFF signal in the affirmative because they were not using the same code as the fighters.
- The pre-flight papers did not indicate the helicopters would be there
- Standard operating procedure dictates the Jets should be first in the zone to ensure it's safe
- The US Helicopters were outfitted with extra fuel tanks that caused them to resemble Iraqi helicopters.
- The pilots were not familiar with the new equipment configuration.
[Human Error]
- The fighter pilot and wingman did not verify or confirm each others conclusions when they conducted the visual assessment though they INFERRED each others confirmation due to ambiguous language usage.
[Cognitive Biases]
- Interview after the fact: the fighter pilot reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The black hawks did not even cross his mind when he made the decision.
{He did not have access to information he needed that was stored in his brain. For some reason, his cognitive processes did not access what he had in memory and bring it to consciousness. This is a common cognitive limitation that occurs to people on a daily basis, and will probably occur to the reader today or this week. }
- Interview after the fact: The wingman said that when the fighter pilot said he identified them as Iraqi helicopters, he believed him.
{In social psychology, Research in persuasion has created four major categories of persuasion variables. In this instance the wingmans decision making was biased by the variables in the "Communicator" category. They all liked, trusted and viewed the pilot as an authority. Research in persuasion has demonstrated that people are more easily influenced by people they like, trust, consider and authority or are attactive}
- Persuasion
- Weapons of Persuasion
- Interview after the fact: After the fact, The AWACs officers trusted the Fighter pilots opinion over the data, so they did not challenge them. {Same as above}
August 01, 2009
Debate Challenge
I have issued a debate challenge over at the FRDB forums. Would any Christian (someone who is reasonably skilled in debate) like to take me up on the question of whether or not God raised Jesus from the dead?
July 30, 2009
Debate with Jerry McDonald: My Final Rebuttal
With my fifth rebuttal now up (please read!), the final round of my debate with Jerry McDonald is now complete. All that remains is for Jerry to write his concluding summary.
update: Jerry's summary remarks is now up, which concludes this debate. Those who don't have an account on FRDB can view Jerry's remarks here on his website
update: Jerry's summary remarks is now up, which concludes this debate. Those who don't have an account on FRDB can view Jerry's remarks here on his website
July 28, 2009
Debate with Jerry McDonald: Jerry's Fifth Affirmative
July 27, 2009
Another One Comes Out to His Family and Finds it Okay!
I get emails from people who have left the Christian fold who fear coming out to tell the people they love. In one of them recently I was told by parents who raised several believing children, some of whom are in the ministry, it is "impossible" for them to tell their kids the truth. Bullshit! It's not impossible, although it may be hard, and there may be adverse consequences, and you may want to wait to do so in the future at a more appropriate time. But it's not impossible. Many of these kind of fears are simply unjustified. Here's one example of what I mean:
A friend of mine on Facebook named Luke Haugen was extremely fearful to tell his parents. They visited with him and he just couldn't tell them. But even though he expected the worse he called them after they visited him and then he told them. With his permission here's what he said:
A friend of mine on Facebook named Luke Haugen was extremely fearful to tell his parents. They visited with him and he just couldn't tell them. But even though he expected the worse he called them after they visited him and then he told them. With his permission here's what he said:
I had a great week with my parents. They had an awesome vacation out here. I think my Dad didn't want to leave. They also fell in love with my girlfriend, which I knew they would just like I did. I talked it over with my sister at the beginning of the week and told her that I was going to do it and she got really worried that when I told them they would freak out and it would ruin their vacation. So I decided to wait until they got back home and got settled in for a few days to call my Dad. He was surprisingly much more understanding that I was anticipating. I gave him a few of my reasons and asked him a few questions that he had a really hard time answering with the most common answer being "I don't know." He even said that I should have told him while he was here, which, I wish I would've done now but either way, at least they know who I really am. Overall it went very smoothly and they still do love me and I love them. I am sure you can relate to how awesome it feels to get that huge weight off of your shoulders especially after it has been burdening you for a number of years and you have had to "fake it" in certain situations. I am much more comfortable and at peace with where I stand now that everyone knows who I really am.To read some of my advice to people who leave the fold check this link out.
It feels so great to finally have my family know who I really am!
July 25, 2009
Debate with Jerry McDonald: Fourth Round
The fourth round of my debate with preacher Jerry McDonald is now complete—there is one final round left (consisting of one affirmative and one rebuttal statement), plus Jerry’s concluding summary.
July 24, 2009
Should We Just Stop Talking About God? That's What One Columnist Thinks
See what you think. Click here. *ahem* He mentions lil ole me. ;-)
July 23, 2009
Advice to People Who Leave the Fold
People email me from time to time asking for advice now that they no longer believe. I've written a chapter in my companion book on that topic, but for people who don't have that book this is where I'll place links below about this problem.
I'll begin with an actual email that's typical of the ones I receive:
2) To the "guy on the street" I’d say that Christianity doesn't make sense. That opens up the discussion. If they say you're not supposed to make sense of it but just believe, I say that advice doesn't make sense. ;-) Then I would tell them that if God exists he created us with our minds and if that's so we should use them. If God is a reasonable God then the truth should comport to reason. In fact, we are asked to love God with all of our minds (the greatest commandment). So if it doesn't make sense then there is a real problem for faith. I cannot do othewise but to use my mind. Such a faith should stand up to reason so by saying it's "not supposed to make sense" makes no sense. I cannot think otherwise.
Here are some similar links:
Some advice to those who leave Christianity.
Should I come out of the closet?.
I no longer believe: What do I tell my kids?.
Ed Owens' story.
Help me Convince my Brother, John!
Here's a link to a young man who feared the worse in telling his parent he no longer believed and found it to be just fine. They still love him--imagine that!
I'll begin with an actual email that's typical of the ones I receive:
Greetings. I know you must get tons of email everyday, and thus cannot respond to each one. I’m hoping just writing this will help. I’ll keep my story short. It is similar to yours in many ways, although I confess I did not go as deeply into the intellectual end of Christianity as you did, however I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. Certainly, at least, a thoughtful one... I was converted to Pentecostal Christianity in my teen years following a rocky childhood…Here is my typical response: 1) I don't know you or your family to be able to give specific advice on what to do now. But I know I would tell your family and friends when the time was right. I would break it to them slowly by asking questions or by telling them you are investigating into the new atheists and show them the books you're reading. After all, if your faith is true then it should withstand the arguments to the contrary. And I would ask them the questions that these books are asking whenever I could. [Actually for anyone who is secretly reading this Blog and/or these books I would tell my Christian friends up front about this, just in the slim case that you might actually lose your faith. I would inform people from the very beginning so they would not be that shocked if you do deconvert.]
I pursued a calling in full time ministry for 9 years after going to Bible college for 4 years and being credentialed with the Assemblies of God. I was later ordained as well. Recently, due to some relatively minor occurrences, a floodgate of doubts has opened up to me in my faith. I had come across a couple of books that peaked my interest, such as Dawkins book “The God Delusion”. I am currently working my way through it. I’ve always contended what good is your faith if it can’t stand up to scrutiny? Well, mine isn’t standing up very well. It is not the outside sources warring on me (such as Dawkins book, or the anti-christian bias of our culture), as much as my own struggle with my beliefs and being honest to myself. I find I am tortured going to church now.
I’ll be honest. I’m scared. No, petrified. I feel like I’ve murdered someone and am trying to keep it a secret. My wife literally has no idea, and would / will come unglued when I finally bring the subject up. I’m scared of the response of my wife/kids/family, but also of the prospect of life without God. Yet I feel a strange sense of exhilaration as well, like a great burden may be soon lifted off my shoulders. This is what I experienced when I left the ministry.
As I said, I can’t even believe I’m writing you this email. I’ve read through much of your blog. Yet there are a couple of questions that I didn’t see addressed (perhaps they are in your book) that I think would be great for the average “joe” like me, who is really struggling in their faith.
1) What do I do now? How do I weed through all of the questions / struggles / problems going on in my head? Where do I start? How do I tell my family? How do I explain (there is no one simple answer)?
2) What would you say to the “guy on the street”? What I mean is this. I consider myself to be of average or slightly above average intelligence, with a higher motivation than most for understanding things (I enjoyed school). But what about the average guy that needs it boiled down in USA today fashion? Is there hope for this person, or do we merely leave them to struggle along with their faith? I REALLY appreciate your approach (not angry, bitter, condescending), like many other people who are anti-Christian.
I purchased your book today (linked through your site so you should get some commission), and I do intend to support the site. I know this gets a bit tricky, probably not wanting to take the Church approach of asking for donations, but I’m glad you have the option there. I still believe a workman is worth his wage. You are performing a great service, and I hope you are able to support yourself at some point through the service you provide. I am finding many of the stories and posts simply fascinating, and I’ve only scratched the surface. As I said, I’m very early in this journey, and not at all sure where it is going to take me. Either way, I’m glad you’ve made this site available. It is a Godsend (sorry, I just had to say that. I’ve a bit of a warped sense of humor).
I can’t imagine how difficult it must have been in terms of the personal attacks you’ve had to endure. I am going to continue down this road, and your book seems to be the most “human” approach to the subject I’ve seen so far.
Best wishes to you, and thanks again.
2) To the "guy on the street" I’d say that Christianity doesn't make sense. That opens up the discussion. If they say you're not supposed to make sense of it but just believe, I say that advice doesn't make sense. ;-) Then I would tell them that if God exists he created us with our minds and if that's so we should use them. If God is a reasonable God then the truth should comport to reason. In fact, we are asked to love God with all of our minds (the greatest commandment). So if it doesn't make sense then there is a real problem for faith. I cannot do othewise but to use my mind. Such a faith should stand up to reason so by saying it's "not supposed to make sense" makes no sense. I cannot think otherwise.
Here are some similar links:
Some advice to those who leave Christianity.
Should I come out of the closet?.
I no longer believe: What do I tell my kids?.
Ed Owens' story.
Help me Convince my Brother, John!
Here's a link to a young man who feared the worse in telling his parent he no longer believed and found it to be just fine. They still love him--imagine that!
July 22, 2009
Want To Stick It To JP Holding?
I usually ignore JP Holding and I think others should too, as much as possible. He reminds me of a little boy who throws tantrums because he isn't the center of attention. My review of his book The Impossible Faith is on Amazon. If you read it you'll see that my review has gotten the most positive votes, thanks! This bothers him. Just look through the comments and see what kind of person he really is! If you think it's a good review I would appreciate your positive vote. Then it will be there on the front page of his book forever. ;-)
Dr. W. L. Craig Caught Telling More Untruths: A Case Study in Theistic Apologetics
Character Assassination by Theistic Apologists in the YouTube Era.
Theists repeatedly characterize atheists as having little or no regard for the truth. But over on YouTube a blogger using the moniker, “Drcraigvideos,” has posted a gem of a study in the theistic ethics of truth-telling---see
Craig Attack video
It is hard to count the number of untruths in this video, but the story gets even stranger when I confronted the website about these untruths. Since the website would not post my comments there, I decided to bring their unscrupulous tactics to light here. It is a study in how self-described professional evangelical apologists, such as Dr. Craig, use character assassination with little regard for basic fact-checking or fairness.
Theists repeatedly characterize atheists as having little or no regard for the truth. But over on YouTube a blogger using the moniker, “Drcraigvideos,” has posted a gem of a study in the theistic ethics of truth-telling---see
Craig Attack video
It is hard to count the number of untruths in this video, but the story gets even stranger when I confronted the website about these untruths. Since the website would not post my comments there, I decided to bring their unscrupulous tactics to light here. It is a study in how self-described professional evangelical apologists, such as Dr. Craig, use character assassination with little regard for basic fact-checking or fairness.
July 21, 2009
Evangelicals, Your Days Are Numbered
In the comments of this post Chuck O’Conner tells us that his Pastor thinks Christianity may be one generation from extinction. What d’ya think?
Well extinction is probably an impossibility. There are always pockets of Christianities left behind who still exist in the backwoods. His pastor probably meant American evangelical Christianity, since it is growing by leaps and bounds in parts of Asia and in the Southern Hemisphere. So the question is whether evangelical Christianity will be relegated to the backwoods in one generation in America. Who knows, right? I think I agree with him, if that's what he meant. Yes it will. You have one generation evangelicals--40 years at best here in America. I won't be alive to see it, but I do predict it.
Here is what Chuck wrote:
Well extinction is probably an impossibility. There are always pockets of Christianities left behind who still exist in the backwoods. His pastor probably meant American evangelical Christianity, since it is growing by leaps and bounds in parts of Asia and in the Southern Hemisphere. So the question is whether evangelical Christianity will be relegated to the backwoods in one generation in America. Who knows, right? I think I agree with him, if that's what he meant. Yes it will. You have one generation evangelicals--40 years at best here in America. I won't be alive to see it, but I do predict it.
Here is what Chuck wrote:
John,
Great post. I had lunch with a friend of mine yesterday. He happens to be a young pastor, graduate from Trinity and is planting a church in Minnesota. He preached on Acts 17 and how Christianity may be 1 generation from extinction. His premise was that the Gospel is irrelevant to younger Americans for three reasons 1) Personal experience of abuse within Church 2) Intellectualism and inability to understand the mysteries of faith (e.g. The Trinity, Jesus as fully human and fully divine) 3) Cultural alienation (e.g. An Indian resident who has no context for monotheism). I suggested a fourth area where the Gospel is being questioned and that is around the desire for truth-seeking people to pursue a path with not as many obvious internal self-contradictions. As I take a skeptical look at the superiority claims of Christianity centered on sciptural inerrency claims I am coming to see the bible as a product of men trying to understand their cirucmstances via myth. Therefore the whole foundation of a Christian God starts crumbling for me. Your post hightlights the inability for scripture to be an absolute guide towards optimal morality because it perfectly supports the institution of slavery.
My friend agreed and said he wishes the bible said exactly what you have said, "It is absolutely wrong to own another human being." He still holds their is a lesson to be learned by considering these aspects of the bible as part of a larger narrative. I see them as self-contradictory and therefore am coming to the conclusion that Christianity and the bible are elements of our culture but are not superior to other elements.
Thanks for the thoughts. Good stuff.
July 20, 2009
What Did the Southern States Do That Isn't Found Here?
Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
You can buy slaves from foreign nations! They will become your property! You can will them to your children! You can make them slaves for life!
You can buy slaves from foreign nations! They will become your property! You can will them to your children! You can make them slaves for life!
July 19, 2009
Is the Christian God loving and compassionate?
First an apology. I accidentally deleted my previous post "A Simple Question"--along with all the comments--in the process of editing this one. Sorry! I'll do what I can to retrieve it.
The following argument is valid.
1. No one whose rational faculties are functioning perfectly can make an irrational decision.(premise)
2. Rejecting God is an irrational decision. [assumed for the sake of argument]
3. Therefore, the rational faculties of nonbelievers are not functioning perfectly. (from 2, 1)
4. Therefore, their rational faculties are defective in a way that prevents them from making a rational decision with respect to accepting God. (from 3)
5. If the Christian God were loving and compassionate, then he would want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers (premise)
6. The Christian God does not want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers.(premise)
7. Therefore, the Christian God is not loving and compassionate. (from 7, 6)
The following argument is valid.
1. No one whose rational faculties are functioning perfectly can make an irrational decision.(premise)
2. Rejecting God is an irrational decision. [assumed for the sake of argument]
3. Therefore, the rational faculties of nonbelievers are not functioning perfectly. (from 2, 1)
4. Therefore, their rational faculties are defective in a way that prevents them from making a rational decision with respect to accepting God. (from 3)
5. If the Christian God were loving and compassionate, then he would want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers (premise)
6. The Christian God does not want to correct this defect in all nonbelievers.(premise)
7. Therefore, the Christian God is not loving and compassionate. (from 7, 6)
A delicate situation
For several years my wife has been occasionally attending a local “home church,” usually about once a month. A couple of families take turns hosting the once-a-week meetings in their home, the father of the host home directing the activities with the large families in attendance: Bible study, Bible memorization, singing, and prayer, all of which is followed by a hearty meal. I normally join the group for the meal on days when my wife and children attend. I get along fairly well with the leaders of this home church, even though their worldview is diametrically opposed to mine. We have had some spirited discussions over the years, but we’re all normally quite friendly and congenial to each other.
Disclaimer: I am not a first-hand participant in the story I’m about to tell; I have heard only one perspective, so I cannot claim complete objectivity, but I present the story as accurately as I’m able.
A member of this home church, a single mother (I’ll call her Jane) who was abandoned by her husband about eight years ago, recently started dating another man (I’ll call him John) whose wife had left him and their three children a few years ago. Both John and Jane are fundamentalist believers. I met John at a recent home church dinner, and he seems very personable and successful in his career. In observing them together, I am happy for them: they’re obviously in love, talking about marriage. She has worked so hard as a single mother, baby-sitting and cleaning houses, to provide for her children for so many years, but if they marry, she will no longer bear this intense burden. In turn, John will have someone to help care for his children.
Enter the home church leadership. Their understanding of Jesus’ teachings does not permit them to bless this relationship or the marriage into which John and Jane seem to be headed. They feel that John should make a greater effort to be reconciled with his former wife, even though she was the one who initiated the divorce. Otherwise, if he remarries, he will be living in sin. Not only is the home church leadership not prepared to bless the relationship; they have gone so far as to confront Jane, a longstanding member of the home church, and when she declined to call off the relationship, the leadership excommunicated her.
Of course Jane is devastated by all this: in the midst of one of the most joyous periods of her life, she is sternly confronted and excommunicated by some of her closest friends. John will not speak to the home church leaders, knowing how they have treated Jane. It appears the relationship will go forward, but their joy has been doused by the moral zeal of Jane’s home church.
Now my wife is wondering how to relate to the home church. She feels for Jane and doesn’t understand the actions taken against her, but she wishes if possible to retain her ties with the home church. In discussing the situation with my wife, I expressed my dismay at what the leadership had done, but I did not advise her one way or the other—I felt it was up to her to decide whether to continue her occasional attendance at the home church. So far no decision has been made, and since her attendance was only occasional, perhaps no stir will be caused if she quietly stops attending the church.
Perhaps I have taken the easy way out by washing my hands of the situation. I’m glad Jane will no longer be part of the home church and that she will be free to marry John. I just wish it hadn’t happened, and part of me wants to confront the home church leadership to show how ugly their faith has become. Then again, none of my prior conversations with them about the age of the earth or the reliability of the Bible had any apparent effect, so I’m doubtful they would be any more swayed by a moral confrontation from an infidel like me.
This is truly a lamentable situation. It shows how human compassion can be made to take a back seat to the “righteousness” of one’s firm religious views.
Disclaimer: I am not a first-hand participant in the story I’m about to tell; I have heard only one perspective, so I cannot claim complete objectivity, but I present the story as accurately as I’m able.
A member of this home church, a single mother (I’ll call her Jane) who was abandoned by her husband about eight years ago, recently started dating another man (I’ll call him John) whose wife had left him and their three children a few years ago. Both John and Jane are fundamentalist believers. I met John at a recent home church dinner, and he seems very personable and successful in his career. In observing them together, I am happy for them: they’re obviously in love, talking about marriage. She has worked so hard as a single mother, baby-sitting and cleaning houses, to provide for her children for so many years, but if they marry, she will no longer bear this intense burden. In turn, John will have someone to help care for his children.
Enter the home church leadership. Their understanding of Jesus’ teachings does not permit them to bless this relationship or the marriage into which John and Jane seem to be headed. They feel that John should make a greater effort to be reconciled with his former wife, even though she was the one who initiated the divorce. Otherwise, if he remarries, he will be living in sin. Not only is the home church leadership not prepared to bless the relationship; they have gone so far as to confront Jane, a longstanding member of the home church, and when she declined to call off the relationship, the leadership excommunicated her.
Of course Jane is devastated by all this: in the midst of one of the most joyous periods of her life, she is sternly confronted and excommunicated by some of her closest friends. John will not speak to the home church leaders, knowing how they have treated Jane. It appears the relationship will go forward, but their joy has been doused by the moral zeal of Jane’s home church.
Now my wife is wondering how to relate to the home church. She feels for Jane and doesn’t understand the actions taken against her, but she wishes if possible to retain her ties with the home church. In discussing the situation with my wife, I expressed my dismay at what the leadership had done, but I did not advise her one way or the other—I felt it was up to her to decide whether to continue her occasional attendance at the home church. So far no decision has been made, and since her attendance was only occasional, perhaps no stir will be caused if she quietly stops attending the church.
Perhaps I have taken the easy way out by washing my hands of the situation. I’m glad Jane will no longer be part of the home church and that she will be free to marry John. I just wish it hadn’t happened, and part of me wants to confront the home church leadership to show how ugly their faith has become. Then again, none of my prior conversations with them about the age of the earth or the reliability of the Bible had any apparent effect, so I’m doubtful they would be any more swayed by a moral confrontation from an infidel like me.
This is truly a lamentable situation. It shows how human compassion can be made to take a back seat to the “righteousness” of one’s firm religious views.
July 18, 2009
Paul Tobin's Book: The Best Skeptical Book on the Bible as a Whole
Paul Tobin’s new book, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus has arrived and I am very glad it did. It is the best skeptical work on the Bible as a whole. Gerd Lüdemann, author of several skeptical works on early Christianity, recommends it “with the utmost enthusiasm.” I do too.
Tobin’s whole argument is aimed to show that Pascal’s famous wager has no effect on us because we are not forced to choose between Pascal’s Catholic brand of Christianity and unbelief. Why? Because the central claims of Christianity are false. He takes aim at the Bible to show that while it may be a great work of literature it is not the word of God. And Tobin backs his claim up with his massive 652 page book, complete with a nice bibliography and indexes.
If you’re a former Christian who has deconverted at a later time in life then you need to re-learn most all of what you were taught about the Bible. If you were college and seminary trained like me, this can be a difficult thing to do. So, you could go on a massive reading binge, spending many hours and a lot of money feasting on book after book. Or, you could read this one. Given that choice I highly recommend you get this one. Tobin masterfully takes us through the Bible using critical scholarship to show us what we can and cannot know about it. It has helped me remember several things I learned back in college and seminary but had forgotten. It taught me some very interesting things I hadn’t yet thought through as a skeptic, and I think I’ve read a great deal on the subject since my deconversion. Tobin showed me I hadn’t read enough.
It’s all here for the most part in an encyclopedic fashion, covering the ancient myths, the errors, the lack of confirming archaeology, the failed prophecies, and the forged authorship. He also covers the ad hoc canonization process and the textual transmission of these texts. Tobin is a very good guide to these topics, using the results of critical scholars whom he refers to time and again.
He writes and thinks well too. Take for instance Noah’s Ark. Tobin tells us simply that on the one hand “it is too big,” in that the structure could not be seaworthy. On the other hand “it was too small,” with not enough room for all of the animals it would have had in it. (pp. 75-77).
Tobin also spends a few pages effectively dealing with the minutia of numerical “contradictions” in the Bible, like the value of Ï€ (pi) found in Kings 7:23-26 (pp. 29-38). He even shows how that the evangelical New International Version has purposely mistranslated several passages to eliminate the appearance of difficulties inherent in the original languages (pp. 197-204).
And he addresses how the liberals view the Bible by concluding that they “did not reach their conclusions by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances—the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism.” (pp. 187-196).
If you want to know why scholars think the Gospel of Mark was written first you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars don’t think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their gospels, and why they are written later than evangelicals claim, you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why the Nativity stories are fictions you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars have serious doubts about what Jesus may have said, or why they doubt the Passion Narratives and resurrection stories, you may only need to read this book.
If you have only one skeptical book about the Bible as a whole this one is all you need. And even if you have some other books, this one will still inform you of issues you probably haven’t read up on, like it did with me.
Tobin did a massive amount of work here. I will use it as a reference when dealing with some of these topics in the future. It’s worth the price. I liked it so much I asked Tobin to write a chapter for a book I’ve been editing/writing.
Tobin’s whole argument is aimed to show that Pascal’s famous wager has no effect on us because we are not forced to choose between Pascal’s Catholic brand of Christianity and unbelief. Why? Because the central claims of Christianity are false. He takes aim at the Bible to show that while it may be a great work of literature it is not the word of God. And Tobin backs his claim up with his massive 652 page book, complete with a nice bibliography and indexes.
If you’re a former Christian who has deconverted at a later time in life then you need to re-learn most all of what you were taught about the Bible. If you were college and seminary trained like me, this can be a difficult thing to do. So, you could go on a massive reading binge, spending many hours and a lot of money feasting on book after book. Or, you could read this one. Given that choice I highly recommend you get this one. Tobin masterfully takes us through the Bible using critical scholarship to show us what we can and cannot know about it. It has helped me remember several things I learned back in college and seminary but had forgotten. It taught me some very interesting things I hadn’t yet thought through as a skeptic, and I think I’ve read a great deal on the subject since my deconversion. Tobin showed me I hadn’t read enough.
It’s all here for the most part in an encyclopedic fashion, covering the ancient myths, the errors, the lack of confirming archaeology, the failed prophecies, and the forged authorship. He also covers the ad hoc canonization process and the textual transmission of these texts. Tobin is a very good guide to these topics, using the results of critical scholars whom he refers to time and again.
He writes and thinks well too. Take for instance Noah’s Ark. Tobin tells us simply that on the one hand “it is too big,” in that the structure could not be seaworthy. On the other hand “it was too small,” with not enough room for all of the animals it would have had in it. (pp. 75-77).
Tobin also spends a few pages effectively dealing with the minutia of numerical “contradictions” in the Bible, like the value of Ï€ (pi) found in Kings 7:23-26 (pp. 29-38). He even shows how that the evangelical New International Version has purposely mistranslated several passages to eliminate the appearance of difficulties inherent in the original languages (pp. 197-204).
And he addresses how the liberals view the Bible by concluding that they “did not reach their conclusions by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances—the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism.” (pp. 187-196).
If you want to know why scholars think the Gospel of Mark was written first you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars don’t think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their gospels, and why they are written later than evangelicals claim, you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why the Nativity stories are fictions you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars have serious doubts about what Jesus may have said, or why they doubt the Passion Narratives and resurrection stories, you may only need to read this book.
If you have only one skeptical book about the Bible as a whole this one is all you need. And even if you have some other books, this one will still inform you of issues you probably haven’t read up on, like it did with me.
Tobin did a massive amount of work here. I will use it as a reference when dealing with some of these topics in the future. It’s worth the price. I liked it so much I asked Tobin to write a chapter for a book I’ve been editing/writing.
Why does God give up on nonbelievers?
If rejecting God is a grave mistake, then why would God not wish to help nonbelievers see the error of their decision? Why would he let them perish in hell for all eternity (or simply perish) without any hope of redemption? The reason, Christians tell us, is one of respect: God respects the decision to reject him, and therefore will not devalue this “free choice”—however irrational—by interfering. Below, I show why this answer is problematic.
First, the answer assumes that the “free” decision to reject God is worthy of respect, since without this assumption, it is impossible to explain why God would respect it. It makes no sense to say God will respect decisions unworthy of respect. So what is it about the decision to reject God that is worthy of respect? I see only two possibilities: the decision is either (1) intrinsically respectable or (2) worthy of respect because it is made by a free being who is itself worthy of respect. No will argue the first possibility. As for the second, the Christian needs to demonstrate the connection between a free agent being worthy of respect and the (irrational) choices she makes being worthy of respect. What is this connection? If I see my friend ready to jump into a volcano, should I “respect” his choice, or attempt to prevent him from making a grave error? The latter, clearly. Thus, I can respect my friend’s worth without having to respect his irrational choices. As the example illustrates, I can even respect my friend’s worth while interfering with his free will.
Christians will undoubtedly argue that God cannot interfere with the nonbeliever’s free will, despite how she chooses to exercise it. For if God were to not accept the nonbeliever’s irrational choice, he would be devaluing her humanity or intrinsic moral worth. I’d like to see some justification for this claim, but even supposing the Christian could provide a satisfactory answer, there lies a deeper problem: why would God wish to give up on the nonbeliever? According to Christians, the decision to reject God is indicative of a deep defect in the nonbeliever’s moral and rational faculties. So it is utterly incomprehensible why God would wish to give up on trying to correct this defect. If God thinks the nonbeliever is making the biggest mistake one can possibly make, then it is far more plausible to suppose he would do everything in his power to help her realize her error—reach out to her until she ‘gets it’, no matter how long it takes. Hence, the obvious answer to the question of when God should give up is ‘never.’ It is what a fully compassionate and loving being would do, and therefore what God would do, if he exists.
First, the answer assumes that the “free” decision to reject God is worthy of respect, since without this assumption, it is impossible to explain why God would respect it. It makes no sense to say God will respect decisions unworthy of respect. So what is it about the decision to reject God that is worthy of respect? I see only two possibilities: the decision is either (1) intrinsically respectable or (2) worthy of respect because it is made by a free being who is itself worthy of respect. No will argue the first possibility. As for the second, the Christian needs to demonstrate the connection between a free agent being worthy of respect and the (irrational) choices she makes being worthy of respect. What is this connection? If I see my friend ready to jump into a volcano, should I “respect” his choice, or attempt to prevent him from making a grave error? The latter, clearly. Thus, I can respect my friend’s worth without having to respect his irrational choices. As the example illustrates, I can even respect my friend’s worth while interfering with his free will.
Christians will undoubtedly argue that God cannot interfere with the nonbeliever’s free will, despite how she chooses to exercise it. For if God were to not accept the nonbeliever’s irrational choice, he would be devaluing her humanity or intrinsic moral worth. I’d like to see some justification for this claim, but even supposing the Christian could provide a satisfactory answer, there lies a deeper problem: why would God wish to give up on the nonbeliever? According to Christians, the decision to reject God is indicative of a deep defect in the nonbeliever’s moral and rational faculties. So it is utterly incomprehensible why God would wish to give up on trying to correct this defect. If God thinks the nonbeliever is making the biggest mistake one can possibly make, then it is far more plausible to suppose he would do everything in his power to help her realize her error—reach out to her until she ‘gets it’, no matter how long it takes. Hence, the obvious answer to the question of when God should give up is ‘never.’ It is what a fully compassionate and loving being would do, and therefore what God would do, if he exists.
July 17, 2009
Is the nonbeliever at fault for rejecting God?
No, she is not at fault. Consider the following:
1. If one is adequately informed of the consequences of a decision, and willfully choosing to make that decision is clearly irrational, then it is irrational to willfully choose to make it.
2. If one willfully chooses to make an irrational decision, then one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective.
3. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective, then this defect was either the result of (a) choices that the agent herself made in the past or (b) external causes.
4. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to external causes, then it cannot be one's fault that one's reasoning faculties are defective.
5. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to choices that the agent herself has made in the past, then it cannot be one's fault that her reasoning faculties are defective.
6. If it cannot be one's fault that one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective, then it cannot be one's fault for willfully making an irrational decision.
7. Nonbelievers are adequately informed of the consequences of rejecting God, and willfully choosing to make that decision is clearly irrational. [assumed only for the sake of argument]
------------------------
8. Therefore, nonbelievers who willfully choose to reject God are irrational in choosing to make this decision. (from 6, 1)
9. Therefore, those nonbelievers' moral or reasoning faculties are defective. (from 7, 2)
10. Therefore, it cannot be the nonbelievers' fault that their moral or reasoning faculties are defective. (from 8, 5, 4, and 3)
11. Therefore, it cannot be the nonbelievers' fault for willfully choosing to reject God. (from 10, 8, and 6)
Some would question (5). Some, I suspect, are inclined to think that if one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to choices that the agent herself has made in the past, then it can be her fault that her moral or reasoning faculties are defective. Not so: we first have to inquire why the agent made the choices she did. Were they rational choices or irrational choices? Was she aware of the fact that her past choices would result in her moral or reasoning faculties becoming defective? If she was aware of this consequence, then her past choices could not have been rational -- hence they were irrational. But if willfully choosing to make those choices was irrational, then her moral or reasoning faculties were already defective.
At some point, after we have inquired into why the agent made the choices she did, we arrive at an external explanation. We thus arrive at conclusion (4): that if one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to external causes, then it cannot be one's fault that one's reasoning faculties are defective.
1. If one is adequately informed of the consequences of a decision, and willfully choosing to make that decision is clearly irrational, then it is irrational to willfully choose to make it.
2. If one willfully chooses to make an irrational decision, then one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective.
3. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective, then this defect was either the result of (a) choices that the agent herself made in the past or (b) external causes.
4. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to external causes, then it cannot be one's fault that one's reasoning faculties are defective.
5. If one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to choices that the agent herself has made in the past, then it cannot be one's fault that her reasoning faculties are defective.
6. If it cannot be one's fault that one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective, then it cannot be one's fault for willfully making an irrational decision.
7. Nonbelievers are adequately informed of the consequences of rejecting God, and willfully choosing to make that decision is clearly irrational. [assumed only for the sake of argument]
------------------------
8. Therefore, nonbelievers who willfully choose to reject God are irrational in choosing to make this decision. (from 6, 1)
9. Therefore, those nonbelievers' moral or reasoning faculties are defective. (from 7, 2)
10. Therefore, it cannot be the nonbelievers' fault that their moral or reasoning faculties are defective. (from 8, 5, 4, and 3)
11. Therefore, it cannot be the nonbelievers' fault for willfully choosing to reject God. (from 10, 8, and 6)
Some would question (5). Some, I suspect, are inclined to think that if one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to choices that the agent herself has made in the past, then it can be her fault that her moral or reasoning faculties are defective. Not so: we first have to inquire why the agent made the choices she did. Were they rational choices or irrational choices? Was she aware of the fact that her past choices would result in her moral or reasoning faculties becoming defective? If she was aware of this consequence, then her past choices could not have been rational -- hence they were irrational. But if willfully choosing to make those choices was irrational, then her moral or reasoning faculties were already defective.
At some point, after we have inquired into why the agent made the choices she did, we arrive at an external explanation. We thus arrive at conclusion (4): that if one's moral or reasoning faculties are defective due to external causes, then it cannot be one's fault that one's reasoning faculties are defective.
July 16, 2009
Philip Davies on The End of Biblical Studies
Does Prof. Davies love the Bible more than Prof. Avalos?
Philip Davies, a professor emeritus at the University of Sheffield in England, is one of my heroes. He has been a long-time critic of biblical scholars who claim that there is more history in the Bible than there is.
His work is one of the inspirations for my book, The End of Biblical Studies (EOBS), which argues that the field of biblical studies is still permeated by religionist biases.
But, although Davies may agree with me on some major issues, he says he disagrees with me on the notion of ending biblical studies. He has expressed his opinion in his review of my book in The Journal of Theological Studies 60:1 (2009):214-219. He has also posted a related item at The Bible and Interpretation blogsite--- Philip Davies’ post.
Philip Davies, a professor emeritus at the University of Sheffield in England, is one of my heroes. He has been a long-time critic of biblical scholars who claim that there is more history in the Bible than there is.
His work is one of the inspirations for my book, The End of Biblical Studies (EOBS), which argues that the field of biblical studies is still permeated by religionist biases.
But, although Davies may agree with me on some major issues, he says he disagrees with me on the notion of ending biblical studies. He has expressed his opinion in his review of my book in The Journal of Theological Studies 60:1 (2009):214-219. He has also posted a related item at The Bible and Interpretation blogsite--- Philip Davies’ post.
The Influence of The Canaanite Religion on The Theology of Jesus And The New Testament
It has long been known by ancient Near Eastern scholars who concentrate in the Hebrew Bible that early oral traditions were used as major references in shaping the Patriarchal narratives, particularly in the Jacob Cycles (such as noted by Julius Wellhausen (1844 - 1918), Herman Gunkel (1862 - 1932), Martin Noth (1902 -1968)) and thus formed the bases for Israel’s narrative traditions.
In 1928, an Arab peasant plowing the land near a mound struck a slab of stone. Upon raising the stone, he found traces of an ancient tomb with potsherds and small undamaged vessels. The antiquities service in Syria was informed who, in turn notified the French archeologist Mons. Ch. Virolleaud.
The stone that the peasant had hit turned out to be just an ancient necropolis with little promise. However, the archaeologist in the team next turned their attention to an artificial near by mound (named by locals as Ras-ashShamrah), which, when explored, proved to be the site of the ancient city know in texts from Babylonian, Hittite and Egyptian as the city of Ugarit.
Excavation carried out by the French archaeologist Mons. C.F.A. Schaeffer between 1929 and 1939 and then continued after WWII, have unearth thousands of clay tablets around the main library attached to the temple of Baal. The tablets are dated between 1400 and 1350 BCE and are extremely varied in their contents.
The script of the tablets are written in Akkadian, Hurrian and Sumerian, but the native language of the city is a script using the cuneiform symbols based on an alphabetic constant signs now classified in the group of Northwest Semitic languages which predates Hebrew. This language, now know as Ugaritic, is the parent language of the Israelites who are said to have spoken Hebrew.
Because the name of one of the gods in the text was called “Baal” and of whose temple the library it was next to, the city has now been identified with the Canaanites with whom the Israelites are said to have taken the land from to form Israel.
Modern scholars of the Hebrew Bible such as Richard Clifford, Frank M. Cross, Nicholas Wyatt, Mark Smith, John Day, William Dever, J.C. de Moor the late Marvin Pope, C.H Gordon and M. Dahood see a direct connection or continuation of Canaanite stories in the older cycles of the Israelite.
An example here is Psalm 29 which is traditionally assigned to King David, but is basically a reworked Canaanite hymn from Ugarit.
So, did this connection and continuation of Canaanite material end in with the Hebrew Bible or is this tradition (which was once held in high regards by the early Israelites) still able to shape the New Testament? I think so and I list the following:
A. Jesus never calls the deity of his Jewish nation by his personal proper name Yahweh, but simply Theos = El ("El" is Hebrew for god) . El is the same name of the supreme god of the Canaanites at Ugarit.
B. Jesus calls El “Abba” or father: (“And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." Mark 14: 36). Jesus tells his disciples to call El also “father” in the Lord’s Prayer. Baal calls his god “ab” or father too. Both divine fathers of Jesus and Baal (El, the supreme god of the Jews and the Canaanites) are fatherly figure gods who live in Heaven.
C. Jesus is called “Lord” many times by his followers in the Gospels and Jesus is identified with God in the Gospels. Likewise, God is Jesus’ heavenly father.
In the Ugaritic texts, the term b’l=baal can simply mean “Lord” or elsewhere it can be used as a proper name “Baal” where he is the title of the chief god of the Canaanites who is the son of the supreme god El.
D. Jesus descends and returns from the neither world (Hell) (For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40 and “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; I Peter 3:19) so too does Baal descend and return from the underworld.
E. Jesus stills a storm on the Sea of Galilee, so too does Baal control the wind and weather.
F. Jesus intervenes between his followers and God his father. So too does Baal intervene between the people of Ugarit and El his father.
G. Jesus is depicted as King seated on a throne ruling his kingdom and giving righteous judgments. So too is Baal seated on his throne ruling a kingdom with righteous judgments.
H. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus fights and kills the evil serpent / dragon. So too does Baal fight and kill the twisted serpent Ugaritic “ltn btn brh” (Litanu, the serpent or Leviathan).
I. Biblical numbers such as 3, 6, 7 and 40 are used many times in the New Testament are used equally in the Ugaritic text to give divine meaning to these Canaanite texts.
In 1928, an Arab peasant plowing the land near a mound struck a slab of stone. Upon raising the stone, he found traces of an ancient tomb with potsherds and small undamaged vessels. The antiquities service in Syria was informed who, in turn notified the French archeologist Mons. Ch. Virolleaud.
The stone that the peasant had hit turned out to be just an ancient necropolis with little promise. However, the archaeologist in the team next turned their attention to an artificial near by mound (named by locals as Ras-ashShamrah), which, when explored, proved to be the site of the ancient city know in texts from Babylonian, Hittite and Egyptian as the city of Ugarit.
Excavation carried out by the French archaeologist Mons. C.F.A. Schaeffer between 1929 and 1939 and then continued after WWII, have unearth thousands of clay tablets around the main library attached to the temple of Baal. The tablets are dated between 1400 and 1350 BCE and are extremely varied in their contents.
The script of the tablets are written in Akkadian, Hurrian and Sumerian, but the native language of the city is a script using the cuneiform symbols based on an alphabetic constant signs now classified in the group of Northwest Semitic languages which predates Hebrew. This language, now know as Ugaritic, is the parent language of the Israelites who are said to have spoken Hebrew.
Because the name of one of the gods in the text was called “Baal” and of whose temple the library it was next to, the city has now been identified with the Canaanites with whom the Israelites are said to have taken the land from to form Israel.
Modern scholars of the Hebrew Bible such as Richard Clifford, Frank M. Cross, Nicholas Wyatt, Mark Smith, John Day, William Dever, J.C. de Moor the late Marvin Pope, C.H Gordon and M. Dahood see a direct connection or continuation of Canaanite stories in the older cycles of the Israelite.
An example here is Psalm 29 which is traditionally assigned to King David, but is basically a reworked Canaanite hymn from Ugarit.
So, did this connection and continuation of Canaanite material end in with the Hebrew Bible or is this tradition (which was once held in high regards by the early Israelites) still able to shape the New Testament? I think so and I list the following:
A. Jesus never calls the deity of his Jewish nation by his personal proper name Yahweh, but simply Theos = El ("El" is Hebrew for god) . El is the same name of the supreme god of the Canaanites at Ugarit.
B. Jesus calls El “Abba” or father: (“And He was saying, "Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." Mark 14: 36). Jesus tells his disciples to call El also “father” in the Lord’s Prayer. Baal calls his god “ab” or father too. Both divine fathers of Jesus and Baal (El, the supreme god of the Jews and the Canaanites) are fatherly figure gods who live in Heaven.
C. Jesus is called “Lord” many times by his followers in the Gospels and Jesus is identified with God in the Gospels. Likewise, God is Jesus’ heavenly father.
In the Ugaritic texts, the term b’l=baal can simply mean “Lord” or elsewhere it can be used as a proper name “Baal” where he is the title of the chief god of the Canaanites who is the son of the supreme god El.
D. Jesus descends and returns from the neither world (Hell) (For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt. 12:40 and “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; I Peter 3:19) so too does Baal descend and return from the underworld.
E. Jesus stills a storm on the Sea of Galilee, so too does Baal control the wind and weather.
F. Jesus intervenes between his followers and God his father. So too does Baal intervene between the people of Ugarit and El his father.
G. Jesus is depicted as King seated on a throne ruling his kingdom and giving righteous judgments. So too is Baal seated on his throne ruling a kingdom with righteous judgments.
H. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus fights and kills the evil serpent / dragon. So too does Baal fight and kill the twisted serpent Ugaritic “ltn btn brh” (Litanu, the serpent or Leviathan).
I. Biblical numbers such as 3, 6, 7 and 40 are used many times in the New Testament are used equally in the Ugaritic text to give divine meaning to these Canaanite texts.
July 14, 2009
Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?
[Written by John W Loftus] It all started recently with Richard Dawkins and his charge that the God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant fictional character he'd ever seen. So Paul Copan, President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, wrote an article defending Yahweh's ways. Here are links to the further discussion so far. How does Copan's position fare now?
This is Copan's original article: Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?: The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics.
Hector Avalos wrote a devastating response to Copan: Paul Copan’s Moral Relativism: A Response from a Biblical Scholar of the New Atheism.
Here is professing Christian Wes Morriston's devastating response to Copan's inerrantism: Did God Command Genocide? A Challenge to the Biblical Inerrantist.
Undismayed, Copan wrote a rejoinder here: Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Mandated Genocide or Corporate Capital Punishment?
Anyone see Copan's Cognitive Dissonance Reduction like I do?
FYI: Paul Copan knew of Avalos's response before he wrote this last article. I had emailed him about it. But he chose not to respond to it. I wonder why?
HT on the Morriston paper to exapologist.
July 13, 2009
I Highly Recommend the New Book, Doubting the Resurrection
It is rare that I recommend a new book twice to my readers, but the recommendations for Kris D. Komarnitsky's book keep coming in: Doubting Jesus' Resurrection: What Happened in the Black Box? In it he lays out a probable naturalistic hypothesis of Christian origins. Here's what some scholars are saying about his book:
“If you liked my book Beyond Born Again, you're going to love this one by Kris Komarnitsky! He shows great acuity of judgment and clear-eyed perception of the issues. He does not claim to have proof of what happened at Christian origins, but he does present a powerfully plausible hypothesis for what might have happened, which is all you need to refute the fundamentalist’s claim that things can only have gone down their way. By now it is a mantra – it is also nonsense, and Kris shows that for a fact.”
–– Robert M. Price, Ph.D. Theology, Ph.D. New Testament
“A surprisingly excellent demonstration of how belief in the resurrection of Jesus could plausibly have originated by natural means. Komarnitsky is well read in the leading scholarship on this issue and boils the debate down to bare essentials in plain language. He quotes and cites dozens of scholars and primary sources to build a solid case. Though I don't always agree with him, and some issues could be discussed at greater length, everything he argues is plausible, and his treatise as a whole is a must for anyone interested in the resurrection.”
–– Richard Carrier, Ph.D. Ancient History
“Komarnitsky is addressing an important topic in a considered and rational way. This book offers the open-minded reader an opportunity to work through some of the key questions surrounding the Easter mystery that lies at the heart of Christian faith.”
–– Gregory C. Jenks, Ph.D. FaithFutures Foundation
“Clearly written and well argued, Doubting Jesus’ Resurrection lays out a plausible and intriguing case for a non-supernatural explanation of the New Testament resurrection accounts. Don’t be put off by the fact that Komarnitsky is not a scholar – his book makes a solid contribution to the historical-critical understanding of these immensely important texts. This book deserves serious attention from scholars and all those interested in Christian Origins.”
–– Robert J. Miller, Professor of Religious Studies, Juniata College.
"In Komarnitsky's third chapter he ventures onto my home turf--psychology--and his treatment of the the subject is impressive. I found the chapter opening a bit hard to follow, but persistence paid off in spades.
Komarnitsky pulls together the work of historians and psychologists and tells story after story of apocalyptic cults that find ways to sustain their beliefs despite radical disappointments (a messianic figure betrays trust, an end-of-the-world date comes and goes, aliens fail to appear). Social psychologist Leon Festinger's work on cognitive dissonance provides a theoretical framework for understanding an otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon. For anyone who is interested in how apocalyptic beliefs are sustained, whether in a Christian context or not, I recommend this thorough, well-documented overview.
Although the Christian resurrection story is shrouded in mythos, making it hard to know what actually happened in history, modern examples and cognitive dissonance theory offer a compelling possible scenario. Without resorting to any form of supernaturalism, drawing just on what we know about human behavior, Komarnitsky offers a sufficient explanation for the resurrection story at the heart of Christian orthodoxy."
-- Valerie Tarico, Ph.D., Author: The Dark Side - How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth
Science and Religion: A Truce
I, Science, have heard your plea for a truce, oh religion, My nemesis of ages past.
You are wounded, oh religion.
The still-warm blood runs down your side as you say it did your savior on the cross.
My Soldiers in white coats have maimed you.
They have crippled you, leaving you to limp away a casualty from the battlefield.
And now, on the loser’s end, with My chipped and crimson sword laid at your throat, you plead for mercy.
You beg Me to spare your life.
You ask for compassion and for understanding from Me, Science.
You want to be held up and accepted.
Know that I, Science, have no obligation to hear you.
Better it is that you should die, as all things old and decrepit.
But out of compassion and mercy, I grant you what you seek.
I let you alone.
I let you go your way.
I spare you.
But like a fool, you press your luck and demand more.
Instead of running away with your tale between your legs, with a morsel of thankfulness, and what little dignity you have left intact, you debase yourself.
You whine and complain.
You want your doctrines to be accepted in the universities and Institutions of Science and higher learning as viable theories, if not Scientific Truths.
You ask, “Why does science have to be so hostile to religion?”
“Why does the Scientific Community mock us so?”
“Why can't we as religious believers get the respect that we seek?”
“Why can't science and religion join hands?”
And I, Science, reply to you that We are hostile to you because you claim to be of Our Number, but are not.
Your representatives – the creationists and apologists of the ID movement – claim allegiance to Science when your claim is invalid and a manipulation for your own advantage.
You are imposters, all of you, liars and imposters with an agenda.
You serve yourselves and your own interests, and not those of Science.
You seek to exalt your savior and your faith.
You don't seek Truth.
So this I say to you – the religious intelligencia who actively seek an alliance with, Me, Science – take the liberties I give you. Bask in the sun of the life conveniences and the comforts I have granted to you, to worship, to sing, to pray, and to affirm or to deny any belief you want; teach and expound; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine; imagine and create, appoint and oversee; stand outside and admire the stars and the host of heaven as you believe your god provided them for you to admire.
Let the raindrops bounce off of your tongue; admire to no end; teach on love, seek peace, and promote change as you see fit. Do all these things and My covenant of peace shall abide with you, and a very small number of My White-coated Representatives of Science shall at times join you as you worship.
But should you cross into My Territory, into the Territory that belongs to Science, should you bring your antiquated holy books into My Realms of microscopes and peer-reviewed journals, should you take select quotes from real Scientists to bolster your own beliefs and the claims of your false scientists, I will attack you and will kill you in open debate.
You can never stand up to Me, oh religion.
I am your Successor.
I am your Better.
Should the outstretched arms and bleeding hands of your savior embolden you to embrace Our Naturalistic Approach and begin to choke our Scientific Method, should the representatives of your splintered, pious movements begin to interfere and impersonate Our Scientists, to subvert our Work and to make it your own work, a great trespass is committed, and I will remember no more the covenant I made with you.
Nay, I, Science, shall strike you down, and your academics shall be cast out of the universities.
All My Scholars shall hiss at you, and you will be a mockery and an abhorrence to all of the Enlightened everywhere.
You shall grope in the darkness.
Only the simpleton and the ignoramus and the child shall hear you.
The dumb and the fool and the unlearned shall be they who give ear to your words.
And I, Science, shall surely slay you in the courts of the lands.
Cursed shall you be in the schools and cursed shall you be in the colleges.
Cursed shall you be in the laboratories and cursed shall you be in all of the institutions of higher learning.
I, Science, have spoken.
(JH)
You are wounded, oh religion.
The still-warm blood runs down your side as you say it did your savior on the cross.
My Soldiers in white coats have maimed you.
They have crippled you, leaving you to limp away a casualty from the battlefield.
And now, on the loser’s end, with My chipped and crimson sword laid at your throat, you plead for mercy.
You beg Me to spare your life.
You ask for compassion and for understanding from Me, Science.
You want to be held up and accepted.
Know that I, Science, have no obligation to hear you.
Better it is that you should die, as all things old and decrepit.
But out of compassion and mercy, I grant you what you seek.
I let you alone.
I let you go your way.
I spare you.
But like a fool, you press your luck and demand more.
Instead of running away with your tale between your legs, with a morsel of thankfulness, and what little dignity you have left intact, you debase yourself.
You whine and complain.
You want your doctrines to be accepted in the universities and Institutions of Science and higher learning as viable theories, if not Scientific Truths.
You ask, “Why does science have to be so hostile to religion?”
“Why does the Scientific Community mock us so?”
“Why can't we as religious believers get the respect that we seek?”
“Why can't science and religion join hands?”
And I, Science, reply to you that We are hostile to you because you claim to be of Our Number, but are not.
Your representatives – the creationists and apologists of the ID movement – claim allegiance to Science when your claim is invalid and a manipulation for your own advantage.
You are imposters, all of you, liars and imposters with an agenda.
You serve yourselves and your own interests, and not those of Science.
You seek to exalt your savior and your faith.
You don't seek Truth.
So this I say to you – the religious intelligencia who actively seek an alliance with, Me, Science – take the liberties I give you. Bask in the sun of the life conveniences and the comforts I have granted to you, to worship, to sing, to pray, and to affirm or to deny any belief you want; teach and expound; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine; imagine and create, appoint and oversee; stand outside and admire the stars and the host of heaven as you believe your god provided them for you to admire.
Let the raindrops bounce off of your tongue; admire to no end; teach on love, seek peace, and promote change as you see fit. Do all these things and My covenant of peace shall abide with you, and a very small number of My White-coated Representatives of Science shall at times join you as you worship.
But should you cross into My Territory, into the Territory that belongs to Science, should you bring your antiquated holy books into My Realms of microscopes and peer-reviewed journals, should you take select quotes from real Scientists to bolster your own beliefs and the claims of your false scientists, I will attack you and will kill you in open debate.
You can never stand up to Me, oh religion.
I am your Successor.
I am your Better.
Should the outstretched arms and bleeding hands of your savior embolden you to embrace Our Naturalistic Approach and begin to choke our Scientific Method, should the representatives of your splintered, pious movements begin to interfere and impersonate Our Scientists, to subvert our Work and to make it your own work, a great trespass is committed, and I will remember no more the covenant I made with you.
Nay, I, Science, shall strike you down, and your academics shall be cast out of the universities.
All My Scholars shall hiss at you, and you will be a mockery and an abhorrence to all of the Enlightened everywhere.
You shall grope in the darkness.
Only the simpleton and the ignoramus and the child shall hear you.
The dumb and the fool and the unlearned shall be they who give ear to your words.
And I, Science, shall surely slay you in the courts of the lands.
Cursed shall you be in the schools and cursed shall you be in the colleges.
Cursed shall you be in the laboratories and cursed shall you be in all of the institutions of higher learning.
I, Science, have spoken.
(JH)
What Is The Difference Between A Perception And Knowledge?
Or, "What is the difference between private personal experience and knowledge?". I know this may sound like a stupid question to some, but it seems that it is pivotal in the "Disregarding Established Knowledge..." discussion. In my view, considering inaccessible personal experience to be of the same value as established knowledge is untenable.
July 12, 2009
Disregarding Established Knowledge Is Bad, UnKay?
Its simple,
If your beliefs are not consitent with established human knowledge, then they probably are not justified. In that case, other people are not justified in believing what you say about them, and furthermore you have no reason to expect anyone to believe you.
If your beliefs are not consitent with established human knowledge, then they probably are not justified. In that case, other people are not justified in believing what you say about them, and furthermore you have no reason to expect anyone to believe you.
July 11, 2009
Another One Leaves the Fold: YOU Could Be Next.
Below are excerpts from yet another former Christian telling his family and church friends he no longer believes. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing?
I dare say no one has called out more to God than I for answers, even for answers about his own existence. No one has pleaded more with God for help. No one has been on their knees more than me. But I’ve heard nothing. Not one thing but my own voice, until eventually I got the impression that my prayers were merely floating to the ceiling and falling back down like stillborn stars. So, I got off my knees and determined, like the human that I am, to find the truth.His name is Jeremy Styron.
We have, indeed, for centuries, received nothing at all but silence from the God of the Old Testament, just as we have received no recent word from Jesus or Zeus or Apollo or Allah or Osiris. Thousands of years have passed and not an utterance. Does that not strike anyone else as peculiar?
I did not set out at the start to disprove anything. I set out to find the truth. And these truths we can’t escape: Earth is billions of years old, Earth exists on a spiral arm of our galaxy, an insignificant spot, and not the center of the galaxy as many of our forebearers thought (which, by the way, gave creedance to the argument that we are the special planet, and a special species, in all of creation). The Earth will one day be uninhabited by people once again, not by a rapture, but either by a wayward asteroid or gamma ray burst or by the sun losing power. The truth is the canonical Bible contains many irreparable self-contradictions; condones slavery, mass slaughter, rape, the mutilation or altering of children’s genitalia, among other things; and cannot even get the details straight about the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.
And at some point, all us of have to make a similar choice: Do we want to be complacent in living our lives for a faith that may or may not, in reality, be true, or can we mentally and emotionally handle another possibility: that we are an insignificant dot in a vast, vast universe.
For me, the option that we are an insignificant dot in a vast universe, takes much more wherewithall, and frankly, is a quite liberating axiom, to know that we are, at the core, connected and interconnected with the universe, not just Earth, and everything the universe is quite a beautiful thing, as astrophycisist Neil deGrasse Tyson noted.
July 10, 2009
Direct Evidence Of Moral Behavior From Evolution
My working hypothesis is that Game Theory and simple rules derived from self-interest are sufficient to generate self-organized behavior that is labeled as "Morality". Here's more evidence to back that up.
Evolution Guides Cooperative Turn-taking, Game Theory-based Computer Simulations Show, ScienceDaily.com
Evolution Guides Cooperative Turn-taking, Game Theory-based Computer Simulations Show, ScienceDaily.com
"We published indirect evidence for this in 2004; we have now shown it directly and found a simple explanation for it. Our findings confirm that cooperation does not always require benevolence or deliberate planning. This form of cooperation, at least, is guided by an ‘invisible hand’, as happens so often in Darwin’s theory of natural selection.”
July 09, 2009
Should Skeptics Send Their Children to Church on Sundays?
Last night I talked with a skeptic who wants his children to be exposed to Christianity in order for them to learn about it and to decide for themselves. So he's sending them to some church on Sundays. Is this a good strategy? NO, not at all, for several reasons. There are other alternatives. I have an alternative proposal for him and others like him.
Let me suggest to these skeptics what they ought to do. If they want to truly expose their children to religious ideas then they should send their children to different churches for a month at a time, or more. Have them attend them in a random order. Have them attend a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, United Church of Christ, Congregational, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Unitarian, Disciples of Christ, and Non-instrumental Church of Christ churches. And don't forget a Jewish Synagogue, a Muslim Mosque, a snake handling service, a Pentecostal healing service, and so on and so on, and so on and so on. If this skeptical parent truly wants to expose his children to the religious ideas of his culture then give them the whole range of choices to choose from. And don’t forget to take these children to atheist meet-ups, and freethought gatherings too. Then these children can truly choose for themselves. Then these children can be truly educated about these ideas. And then these children will most assuredly choose to be skeptics.
Nothing but total exposure to the varying options will educate his children. This is what Daniel Dennett proposes with regard to educating our youths in American schools, but will probably never fly because of First Amendment concerns. When placed on a equal playing field religious options are no options at all. THAT’s why I love Bill Maher’s movie Religulous, because it does just that.
One danger in sending our children to the same church over and over is that children are easily swayed to believe what an authority figure tells them in a community of happy looking, but deluded, people. Take for instance Norman Geisler, known as the "Dean of Christian Apologetics." He was raised in an atheist home, but because of a bus ministry he went to church every Sunday for nine years and was swayed to accept and then later defend Christianity. His parents thought the same thing as this skeptic, but they were wrong to do so.
Let me suggest to these skeptics what they ought to do. If they want to truly expose their children to religious ideas then they should send their children to different churches for a month at a time, or more. Have them attend them in a random order. Have them attend a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, United Church of Christ, Congregational, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Unitarian, Disciples of Christ, and Non-instrumental Church of Christ churches. And don't forget a Jewish Synagogue, a Muslim Mosque, a snake handling service, a Pentecostal healing service, and so on and so on, and so on and so on. If this skeptical parent truly wants to expose his children to the religious ideas of his culture then give them the whole range of choices to choose from. And don’t forget to take these children to atheist meet-ups, and freethought gatherings too. Then these children can truly choose for themselves. Then these children can be truly educated about these ideas. And then these children will most assuredly choose to be skeptics.
Nothing but total exposure to the varying options will educate his children. This is what Daniel Dennett proposes with regard to educating our youths in American schools, but will probably never fly because of First Amendment concerns. When placed on a equal playing field religious options are no options at all. THAT’s why I love Bill Maher’s movie Religulous, because it does just that.
One danger in sending our children to the same church over and over is that children are easily swayed to believe what an authority figure tells them in a community of happy looking, but deluded, people. Take for instance Norman Geisler, known as the "Dean of Christian Apologetics." He was raised in an atheist home, but because of a bus ministry he went to church every Sunday for nine years and was swayed to accept and then later defend Christianity. His parents thought the same thing as this skeptic, but they were wrong to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)