I have much more to say about this book than what you'll read below. These are my initial thoughts. How would you respond?
Timothy Keller, Pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan, New York, claims: “All doubts, however skeptical and cynical they may seem, are really a set of alternative beliefs. You cannot doubt Belief A except from a position of faith in Belief B.” Writing to skeptics he claims that “The reason you doubt Christianity’s Belief A is because you hold unprovable Belief B. Every doubt, therefore, is based on a leap of faith.” (p. xviii). Faith, according to him, is anything we accept that is unprovable. As such, “All of us have fundamental, unprovable faith commitments that we think are superior to those of others.” (p. 20). Then by defining religion as “a set of beliefs that explain what life is all about, who we are, and the most important things that human beings should spend their time doing,” he goes on to argue that even the most secular pragmatists have an “implicit religion.” Why? Because skeptics, just like religious believers, have “set of faith assumptions about the nature of things.” (p. 15-16). So he argues that skeptics likewise “must doubt your doubts.” [The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Riverhead Books, 2008), p. xix].
But even if I grant for the sake of argument that faith is what we have when we cannot prove something, then what method does Keller propose to distinguish between that which is provable from that which is unprovable? Surely he doesn’t mean to say that if we cannot be absolutely certain of something all we have left is blind faith, or that everything that is unprovable has an equal epistemological merit. Christians like him want to claim that skeptics too have beliefs which cannot be proven, and then try to drive a whole truckload of Christian assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice. If that’s what he’s doing then a Mormon or a Muslim could have written the same things he did, and then driven a whole truckload of Mormon or Muslim assumptions and beliefs through that small crevice too. And we would still be in no better position to judge between faiths, even granting that skeptics also have faith assumptions. What I’m proposing with the Outsider Test For Faith is a way to distinguish between what we should accept from what we should not. I’m arguing there isn’t a better test when it comes to religious beliefs. So again, what better method is there?
And even if I grant Keller’s definition of religion for the sake of argument such that everyone has one, including skeptics, then once again what better method is there but The Outsider Test to decide which one of them is correct, if any? When we all apply it to our respective religions we should all be agnostics about all metaphysical claims, all of them. We should all be agnostics. We should all doubt our doubts. Agnostics already do this. This double negative way of expressing things does not lead to faith. It leads to agnosticism.
Keep in mind that the choices in front of us are emphatically NOT between any one particular situated cultural form of Christianity and atheism. The choices are Legion. This fact makes agnosticism the default position. Anyone, and I mean anyone including myself, who leaves the default position and affirms an answer, any answer, has the burden of proof. The denial is the easy part. We deny the beliefs of nearly everyone else, sometimes without even considering them. The hard part is in affirming the correct set of beliefs. I am an atheist because that’s the direction agnosticism pushes me. My atheism is due to the process of elimination. One supernatural entity, being, or force after another was rejected by me leaving the only reasonable answer to be atheism.
But in fact, I do not accept Keller’s definition of faith or of religion. He’s manipulating the debate by using a language game in his favor here. I refuse to play this game. I know as sure as I can know anything that there is a material world, and that I can trust my senses. Therefore I know the scientific method is our only sure way for assessing truth claims. Words like hope and faith and trust just don’t do these things justice. The word faith must be reserved to apply in this context to beliefs about that which cannot be sensed or empirically tested, like ghosts, angels, demons and gods. And likewise the word religion must be based upon beliefs about those kinds of entities if it’s to have any separate meaning at all.
What Keller is doing is descibing a worldview anyway. Everyone has one but that does not make everyone religious. An atheist worldview is not a religion. That is a language game I refuse to accept. If by denying all religions this makes the atheist worldview a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby!
Ken was formerly a blogger here at DC under the name Former_Fundy.
He writes:
I was "saved"(trusted Christ and Christ alone) at the age of 18 and was baptized in an independent Baptist Church in Georgia. I graduated from Baptist University of America (1981) with a B.A. in Theology. I earned an M.A.(1982)and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology from Bob Jones University. After graduation, I taught at International Baptist College in Tempe, AZ for 9 years. After a few years of accumulating doubts, my Christian faith evaporated sometime during the course of 1996. I am no longer a believer. If I had to pigeon-hole myself, I would say I am agnostic.
A guy named Joshua has criticized my OTF. Here is what he said and my response to him.
He finds that I am unclear about the test and as such there are not one but five (different?) tests because I'm not clear about it. Joshua is doing three things with me and my test in order to maintain an improbable faith.
1) He’s mistaking my attempts at clarifying and further explaining the OTF as different tests, which is wholly inappropriate rhetoric. 2) He’s faulting me for not writing to the professional philosopher, which, if I did so would not be my target audience. 3) He’s chosen to personally offend me with his rhetoric in hopes that I will not respond so he can have the last word. All in all this is indeed an interesting strategy, but it will not work with me. Leaving aside his many mischaracterizations of my position, and leaving aside the things I’ve already addressed, along with his offensiveness, I’ll briefly respond.
He said: Whether Loftus thinks skepticism is a presumption or a “control belief”, something we start with or something we conclude with, is now wholly beyond me.
Both. I said it is circular but not viciously circular.
He said: This should lead us to “presuppose” skepticism, one of Loftus’s many underdefined terms. But skepticism seems to be a negative term, meaning something akin to “Don’t assume the Bible is true,” or something very much like that. It’s unclear whether Loftus has anything positive in mind for skepticism as an actual investigative methodology for the epistemology of religion.
If he doesn’t know what it means to be skeptical of a positive claim or assertion then he’s being willing obtuse. As Vic Stenger repeats, “absence of evidence is evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.” In my book I argue for Hume’s standards, methodological naturalism, and the scientific method itself. There are no better standards or methods. What are the alternatives if not?
He said: Loftus repeats his book’s claim that sociological data is akin to a “background” fact to be used in assessing religious “truth claims.” It is important for the non-specialist reader to realize that, usually, sociological or cultural arguments are relevant only to the rationality of religious believers themselves. Say Joshua’s only reason for believing in God is because his trusty uncle told him so. This wouldn’t cast doubt on the proposition “God exists,” but it would cast doubt on the proposition, “Joshua believes in God for good reasons.” This is an important distinction that Loftus frequently ignores.
This analogy is disanalogous and even disingenuous, for we’re not just talking about one case of one uncle telling one person to believe in one kind of God. There are myriads of uncle’s telling a myriad of nephews to believe in a myriad number of gods, and these nephews all believe what they’re initially told. And THAT is what I’m addressing with the OTF. Such a situation does indeed cast doubt on what any given uncle tells his nephew such that these nephews ought to be skeptical of what they were told. Why? Because all nephews believe what they were initially told by their uncles, and because at the very least all but one of these uncles must be wrong. They could even all be wrong.
He said: Loftus says certain rather conspicuous things given his own projects, such as “Christian, just ask yourself whether the initial reasons you had for adopting your faith were strong ones.” Yet Loftus doesn’t want us examining his initial reasons for adopting his atheism, and to instead examine the new arguments in his book (and arguments in future books, and on blogs). Remember, not only did Loftus have weak-to-bad reasons for adopting his atheism, but had he been born in Saudi Arabia, he likely would have never become an atheist at all.
I deny I have weak reasons to be an agnostic. That’s the default position. And I deny I have weak reasons to be an atheist once I leave the default position. I claim that when it comes to the truth about these sorts of questions agnosticism is the default position precisely because of these sociological factors. We should all doubt all of our conclusions, and I do. Join me won’t you?
He said: The worst case scenario is that Loftus’s argument yields an infinite regress of Outsider Testing. Shouldn’t we do Outsider Tests with respect to the beliefs that led us to take the Outsider Test? And so on.
This is a red herring. In one sense all tests would fall prey to such an objection. And yet we’re all just mere mortals. Agnosticism is the default position anyway, as I have repeatedly said.
He said: Here he’s trying to argue that we should have skepticism about beliefs arrived at through cultural means. As Alvin Plantinga has shown, this sort of thing reduces to attacking the truth of belief, in those cases where the belief system includes beliefs about how the system came about. For example, Christians will often hold that the spirit of God gets much of the credit for their belief. So if Loftus is correct about cultural determinism, then he actually is objecting to the truth of Christian belief. In any case, I’m not sure I can take Loftus seriously when he says he’s just trying to convince Christians to use skepticism for their further investigations into their beliefs.
Here he uses the word “skepticism” as if he knows what I mean by it, so which is it? Does he or doesn’t he know what I mean by it? If he doesn’t know then he just doesn’t know, right? And if so he cannot turn around and act like he does.
In any case, even if we grant Plantinga’s argument, the fact remains that all belief systems that excuse themselves from scientific testing are belief systems which include beliefs about how the system came about. So there is no way to decide between them. And they are almost certainly culturally caught in the culture of one’s origin. So I see no reason not to be skeptical about all these kinds of belief systems, and I see no reason why the Christian believer wouldn’t want to be skeptical about his own system of beliefs because of this.
He said: But the Christian can just say, “Hi John Loftus. I’ve given arguments for my Christian belief. Therefore I don’t need to apply the Outsider Test to it.” Loftus claims he doesn’t have to test his test, because his test has good grounds for it, despite the indisputable cultural data he keeps talking about, that shows Loftus would not have developed the Outsider Test if he was born on Mars. But the Christian usually thinks she has good ground for her beliefs, despite the indisputable cultural data.
Again, these things all point to agnosticism being the default position. Why can’t he understand that? Because he’s trying his best against the arguments to defend what he was raised to believe and he just cannot bring himself to doubt what he was taught. I’m sure every believer in every different culture would say the same thing as he did here, which I dealt with in my book.
He said: Lastly Loftus should realize that we need to figure out the best way to investigate religious claims. To me it seems to be that proper methodology will be to put ourselves in situations where we would be likely to perceive religious objects – say, God. For example, it would be silly to write off Islamic belief on the basis of reading a book about it, when Muslims claim to have palpable experiences of God. If we really want to investigate Islam so that we can justifiably say it is groundless, we at least need to include some experiential investigation.
Muslims do indeed claim to have done the experimental investigations. And surprise, they have experienced Allah! Maybe he can tell me why the Mormon Church still exists now that DNA evidence has conclusively shown that Native American Indians did not come from the Middle East too? His test comes straight out of William James whose argument only serves to reinforce what one believes. Any believer who approaches his faith as James sought to do would only become more entrenched in what he originally believed.
He said, quoting me:
Let me put it to you this way, if you read everything that I have read and experienced everything that I have experienced, then you would think on these issues exactly the same way I do. Deny this if you can.
I have an even better suggestion. If I became John Loftus, my beliefs would be those of John Loftus. Deny this if you can!
My point, since he missed it, is that this is the case for every single one of us when it comes to all of our beliefs. I don’t claim we cannot be rational. We can. I only maintain that the human mind is extremely malleable and capable of believing a great many different mutually exclusive things. It is a fact that all of us hold to beliefs which cannot all be true and which contradict other things we accept!
This is what I think of Victor Stenger's book,The New Atheism. To read what I wrote about it on Amazon click here and scroll down. As always, if you think this is a helpful review then a positive vote would be appreciated.
To read my review of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolutionclick here and scroll down. As always, if you think this is a helpful review then a positive vote would be appreciated.
This is brilliant but apparently done by a Christian whose book is receiving some good amount of praise. Intelligent design theorists, take a look and you too might laugh a bit.
See what you think below. His name will be kept private unless he wants me to reveal it.
I had first asked about the probability of Messianic prophecies being interpreted correctly in the New Testament, and of the probability of Christianity.
Jan said:
It's tough only if you approach texts in a distinctly modern way. Understanding that narratives speak of worldviews and texts reference one another within a cultural tradition, the interpretive task looks rather different. People like Tom Wright and John Sailhamer have made this idea clear to me.
You'll also know that terms like "probable" in this vein are rather harder to assess than, say, calculating the probability of drawing to an inside straight. Historically folks have assessed the probability of theisms differently. I find the comprehensive case for Christian theism to be rational and satisfactory in a holistic way. You don't. The history of thought doesn't make me expect a breakthrough on either side of this debate anytime soon.
John W. Loftus said:
Jon D. Levenson, Professor at Harvard Divinity School in the Department of Near Eastern Studies and Civilizations, offered a great definition of what a critical scholar is when he wrote they “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.” See page 3 of his book The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son.
I hope we can agree on that.
Jan said:
It begs the question of self-awareness, perpetuating the myth of the objective scholar, the romantic notion of the iconoclastic individualist. My view of human nature, including my own nature, is rather less optimistic than Dr. Levenson's. I like the goal of objectivity. I doubt it every time it's claimed.
John W. Loftus said:
Hmmmm. Well it's one thing to strive for objectivity. It's another thing entirely to engage in special pleading to defend something you were raised to believe in a Christian culture and/or by parents who taught you what to believe. We must realistically entertain the PROBABILITY that we are wrong. Do I? Yes, most emphatically. I may be wrong in what I affirm. I doubt very much I'm wrong in what I deny, since the denial is the easy part when it comes to a multitude of competing religious claims. That's what I mean when I say there is a difference between smelling a rotten egg and laying a good one. The smelling is the easy part and we all do it, even if we cannot lay a good egg. And no, atheism is not a religion nor is it a worldview. If it is, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. ;-)
The atheist is the skeptic who doubts all religious viewpoints. I'm ultimately an agnostic. But precisely because I'm an agnostic I affirm atheism. In fact, I'm a protest atheist. I'm protesting the lack of good evidence and God's care even should some supernatural force or being exist. If God does exist then a distant God is no different from none at all.
An atheist is someone who normally arrives at his position through the process of elimination. That too describes me.
Jan said:
Do you know who is "engaging in special pleading to defend something you were raised to believe in a Christian culture and/or by parents who taught you what to believe" and who isn't? Conversely, do you know who is engaging in special pleading to >attack< the same, and who isn't? From what standpoint of objectivity do you offer any such description in any specific instance? When you say, "That too describes me," do you not mean, "That is how I describe myself"? Is that an objective description?Are these rhetorical questions?
John W. Loftus said:
Jan, no one, and I mean no one, who attacks objectivity as much as you are compelled to do can turn around and claim with a straight face his views on such matters as faith are objectively correct! You are a closet agnostic, or a postmodern. Welcome to my world. Otherwise you really do not mean to attack objectivity at all. You only attack it when someone claims to have it whom you disagree with, which applies a double standard to your opponent's claims. The fact is that I don't claim any kind of objectivity at all, even if I strive for it! That's precisely the reason why I'm an agnostic, you see. So you're preaching to the choir. And in so doing you've actually shown me that you are engaged in special pleading, my friend. You are in denial. ;-)
Here's your dilemma: Either you affirm a kind of objectivity that others who disagree do not have, or you say we're in the same mostly subjective boat. The first horn is that you have a double standard. The second horn is that you should be an agnostic.
I hope I'm not taking you away from more important things. Feel free at any time to ignore me. Now would be a good time BTW ;-)
Jan said:
Between the claim to superior objectivity, which I think your rhetoric implies, and the despair at knowing anything at all lies the ground on which we make rational (warranted) decisions but disagree. What you miss in my deliberately irreverent rhetoric, which you style an attack on objectivity, is my resentment at the way you frame the question. There's nothing inherently superior or especially objective in denying something you used to believe. Levenson's (typical) remark doesn't identify objectivity; it simply affirms rebellion, which can be a kind of subjective reaction different from traditionalistic adherence but no less subjective for being different. You, like my Calvinist friends, like to posture your position as inherently better informed or more intellectually honest than the opposite number. I think that's silly. Do not discount the degree to which the atheist subculture is infused with romantic exaltation of the courageous, iconoclastic individualist, passing out rewards for displaying such a persona.
As to special pleading, I think you're again assuming a set of rules that others won't agree to. Don't bait me by saying I'm not striving for objectivity. I'm simply reminding us of the limits of our so-called objectivity and the suspiciousness of any claim to objectivity that arises out of biography.
Now, differently and briefly. We both know that in the history of thought, (Christian) theism has always been challenged but remains resilient. We both know that people make decisions and commitments for a whole host of reasons, many of which are opaque, including to the person who makes the decisions and commitments. My point is twofold: history suggests that Christian theism is controversial but not intellectually irresponsible, and experience suggests that one does well not to trumpet his objectivity.
Am I objective? No, but neither is anyone else. Does that make rationality impossible? No again, just difficult and properly infused with humility. Is it irrational to believe in the Christian God? No, just very controversial. You or I could be wrong. Neither of us is inherently more objective in any way that we could confirm by objective means, however.
To go back to your remark about stamp collecting. First I say thanks for clarifying your nonbelief in the way that I've heard other agno-atheists do so. Second I observe that a-phatelists don't write books telling stamp collectors that their hobby is stupid and that stamps are simply worthless slips of paper if people don't attach value to them. It always makes me wonder why people care so much about something they find irrelevant. I know, I know: it does great harm to the people who believe it. Well, why care about those people?
John W. Loftus said:
I honestly didn’t intend to become your friend and then use it to argue with you. I appreciate getting to know other scholars and I wish you the best.
But don’t get me wrong. I am not a subjectivist nor a postmodern thinker. I do, however, think we can convince ourselves to believe in most anything. Two examples in my own life illustrate this. As a teen I found an interesting book by Frank Edwards on UFO’s. I read it and then several like it. So I became convinced there were UFO’s because what a person reads or experiences shapes what he thinks. Later, having graduated from Great Lakes Christian College, I was a conservative in every respect. But I had not yet studied the Biblical feminist arguments. A graduate from Emmanuel School of Religion presented the case and recommended some books which convinced me of that position even though I was a conservative in every other area. It was because of his influence and the books I first read on the topic that convinced me of that non-conservative position which was inconsistent with everything else I believed.
So while I don’t think subjectivism is the case I do think we are all far less objective then anyone wants to admit. This leads us to skepticism about that which we want to believe and supports Levenson’s comment on what honest critical scholarship entails. To claim he is advocating rebellion is unwarranted. Imagine a scientist in a conference who cannot convince his peers of his findings resorting to that as an explanation for why they reject them. Then you’ll see what I mean. That’s an ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the evidence or lack of it.
So I’m not claiming you do not strive for objectivity. In fact I’m not claiming anything about you personally since I don’t know what you think. I’m claiming emphatically that we human beings all fail in being objective when there isn’t a mutually agreed upon reliable test to adjudicate our differences. We’re all woefully inadequate at being objective. Dismally inadequate. That's why science is the best antidote to wishful thinking.
Now please don't go off denouncing science, either, which seems to be what believers are forced into doing. You do not doubt the findings of science in a host of areas. Do you want to denounce astronomy, plate tectonics, computer science, mechanics, chemistry, rocket science, etc? No. You accept its results in every single area except in those areas you think the Bible speaks about. So I merely have to ask you once again to defend the double standard you must have to accept your faith. Why do you accept science and even appeal to it except when it comes to what ancient superstitious barbaric people wrote in a pre-scientific age? Have you recently read Judges 19-21? I know that text is a narrative one which merely describes the barbaric actions of people rather than a prescriptive one. But my question is why I should ever listen to anything these ancient barbaric people wrote on morality or God or the universe and its beginnings. These people have no intellectual or moral standing to have any claim to tell me what to think or to do.
I do what I do in order to help others because I care that others don’t waste their education and their lives in pursuing a dead end. I wish someone would’ve told me in my early years. I may have pursued a lucrative career instead. And like Dr. Hector Avalos I say that since I spent so much time studying these things it would be a waste not to share what I eventually learned. If every person who came to the same conclusions I did would walk away and not share what they learned then Christianity would be flourishing (think Kantian Categorical Imperative here). I need no further justification for doing what I’m doing. I’m certainly not an angry person. Who would I be angry at? Are you angry at Allah by arguing against Islam (if you did)?
Cheers
Jan said:
I do not reject science, nor do I accept science in everything except what the Bible says. I don't think it provides "a . . . reliable test to adjudicate our differences" on all matters. The boundaries of science are more intensely debated than the boundaries of India and Pakistan, but there are boundaries nonetheless. Science can't adjudicate every question, and even those questions that it can adjudicate are hardly settled in an instant by applying "science." What you say smacks of logical positivism to me, and I'm certainly done with that, as are others.
Still, I appreciate your words about subjectivity, and your statement that you are not a postmodernist. I am postmodern insofar as I reckon with the reality of subjectivity in every statement, including the scientific. I do not despair of objectivity but I try to be aware of subjectivity.
Thanks also for acknowledging how little you know about what motivates me or exactly what I think. One of these exchanges soon may include less assumptions on that score.
My point (yet again) about your citation of Levenson is that it suggests that those who find against their belief system are somehow more objective than those who don't, while I observe that one can be subjectively motivated by a desire to rebel (anger at daddy? at the nuns in parochial school? at the seventh commandment?) as by true objectivity. But I guess that along the way you've acknowledged the problem of subjectivity, so we can stop bragging about whose objectivity is bigger.
Sharing what you've learned is noble, but why be noble towards others? I suppose you can choose to be so, but why give a rip at all? Is it objective to be sentimental about others' well being?
John W. Loftus said:
You have a way with words! Yes, “The boundaries of science are more intensely debated than the boundaries of India and Pakistan.” But there can be no disputing that methodological naturalism as a method is the defining hallmark of science. So the question is why you yourself apply that same method in every area of your life except when it comes to studying the Bible which forms the basis of your beliefs? I think that is a double standard. Since that method has been so very fruitful in every area you should consider using it to study the Bible too, just like you would use it to study the Koran or the book of Mormon. You assume these books were written by men and not God. Working with that assumption provides some significant insights and better conclusions than the God hypothesis.
In areas where science cannot adjudicate any given question then we should doubt any answer to that question as agnostics. What alternative method do you propose if not? One need not be a logical positivist to do this, which like you I agree is a dead issue.
My point about Levenson is that we should be skeptical of any conclusion that confirms what we believe since we all desire to confirm our prior held beliefs. That we do is a fact. I think what Levenson is saying is a responsible way of doing research even if we are woefully inadequate at doing this. I see no reason from what you’ve written not to seek to do what Levenson wants us to do given the pyschological studies suggesting we all seek a reduction to cognitive dissonance.
Is it objective to be sentimental about others' well being? Sure it is. Think Kantian Categorical Imperative again. Dr. David Eller dispenses once and for all (I think) this whole notion that Christianity provides the basis for objective moral standards anyway, in my edited book The Christian Delusion.
Jan said:
Why should methodological naturalism be applied to areas that are outside the bounds of science? If there is a god, the existence of that god is not a valid object of scientific inquiry, right? Methodological naturalism assumes the point to be proved in that discussion, or at the very least sets what might be an unreasonably high threshold of proof. But that's old stuff.
By the way, I don't think that Christianity is the only way to establish morality. I was just curious as to your desire to share your insights with others. Categorical imperative is fine with me. Just curious.
Of course I understand Levenson's point, and yours. I simply make the contrasting point that a person's objectivity is still very much in question even if he claims to be doing something that runs against his present or prior belief system. Abbie Hoffman wasn't objective as a Yippie because he was born to the upper middle class. An atheist is not objective because he was raised a Christian. My former-atheist colleague is not objective because he is now a devout Christian and biblical scholar. You can't not think about pink elephants if given the task.
By the way, I affirm that Christianity is wishful thinking. I don't think it is merely wishful thinking, or irrationally wishful thinking. There's the mischief.
John W. Loftus said:
Methodological naturalism can be applied to the Bible. Think philology here. James D.G. Dunn argues that it would be flying in the face of overwhelming evidence to argue against the fact that the Pentateuch was written by a lengthy process which has nothing to do with whether there is a God or not. And Raymond Brown argued the Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke cannot be reconciled regardless of whether God can inspire the Bible or not.
If there is a God, the existence of that God should indeed be open to scientific investigation. Why not? After all, science starts with the five senses and if by using them we cannot experience God then how else could we know he exists, especially if he demands that we conclude he does. And if we cannot learn that God exists from science (archaeology, history as a science, psychology, investigation of miracles and prophecy) then we can safely ignore him. What kind of intelligent being would demand that we believe and not offer any scientific evidence for his existence? And no, religious experience cannot count for there is no objective scientific evidence that all people have it or that those who do have it come to the same theological conclusions from having it.
And if you affirm that Christianity is wishful thinking, then you of all people should treat your inherited faith with the same level of skepticism as you treat the faiths of others. This expresses my Outsider Test for Faith. If you don't do this then you are once again holding to a double standard.
Jan said:
Your arguments for applying a scientific test to the existence of God don't deal with the obvious way that methodological naturalism excludes the possibility of God. Your rhetoric assumes that science is an obviously superior way of knowing.
If for a variety of reasons, one concludes that theism is likely, and for additional reasons that Christian theism is the most likely (e.g., because of its impressive explanatory power regarding human experience in the world in all dimensions, including the empirical but not limited to it), the question for me is whether such a decision has warrant. I find that it's been proved satisfactorily that it does. In fact, I think it has more warrant than the idea that I must know first, last and only by science, not least when among the things that such a theism can explain is why a human can do science and even the philosophy of science that justifies it.
John W. Loftus said:
You said: "Your rhetoric assumes that science is an obviously superior way of knowing." Yes, that's correct. What's the alternative and how reliable is it given the diversity of religious beliefs around the world? Be honest here. What is the alternative? Now don't get me wrong. I think it's rational to believe. I just think what you believe is not probable at all to say the least. In fact, I'm so sure you're wrong I'm willing to risk Pascal's Wager on it. What I'm unsure of is which view is correct, hence agnosticism.
Nonetheless, if you can be made to believe most anything if exposed to it for a prolonged period of time then your judgment that Christianity has warrant cannot be any more objective than anything else you believe when there is no scientific evidence for it. And so why would you spend your life understanding it, articulating it, or defending it when at best your faith is based on wishful thinking? Strange that.
*Last Update*
Jan said:
Yes, methodological naturalism has its defenders. The defense is old and has proved to be unpersuasive for many. It is also not scientific.
You do seem to allow some nonscientific ways of knowing, like basing ethics on the categorical imperative, which has little to do with science. Science alone counts, except when it doesn't.
Still, whatever. There are no surprises here for me, and probably not for you either. You think you have defeaters for Christian theism. I've heard them before and don't find them persuasive. You were once impressed with arguments for Christian theism but now find them unpersuasive. That's where we started yesterday and where we are today, to no one's surprise.
John said:
Jan, I do allow some nonscientific ways of knowing, yes. It’s just that the scientific method based in methodological naturalism is the surest way to knowledge such that anything lacking that support has less credibility. I think the human sciences can help us know what is right and good too (i.e., smoking is bad; democracy is good, rape is wrong if we want a free society). That’s a digression but I’m sure I could give it a robust defense quite easily. In any case you mischaracterize my position on science. You don’t even try to understand it. I’m philosophically rather than scientifically oriented. I understand the limits of science very well and admitted so earlier (“the boundaries”). I’m not some two-bit atheist thinker who does not understand the issues. But of that I can forgive you since you really haven’t met the likes of me before. You can see for yourself the high praise people on both sides are saying about my book in the link offered below.
BTW the categorical imperative does not apply to all ethical questions. It can’t, and from what I understand Kant himself didn’t think so. Like many thinkers I’m an eclectic on ethics. Some issues are best dealt with by this imperative while others are not. I stand squarely in the happiness tradition of Aristotle. I am a moral realist. Look it up. I think we can know what makes people happy and then claim that since holistic happiness is an end in and of itself therefore the pursuit of it is ethical, moral, good and right.
[Written by John Loftus] Read and try to respond to German critic Gotthold Lessing's (1729-1781) argument regarding miracles and history:
“Miracles, which I see with my own eyes, and which I have opportunity to verify for myself, are one thing; miracles, of which I know only from history that others say they have seen them and verified them, are another.” “But…I live in the 18th century, in which miracles no longer happen. The problem is that reports of miracles are not miracles…[they] have to work through a medium which takes away all their force.” “Or is it invariably the case, that what I read in reputable historians is just as certain for me as what I myself experience?”
Lessing, just like G.W. Leibniz before him, distinguished between the contingent truths of history and the necessary truths of reason and wrote: Since “no historical truth can be demonstrated, then nothing can be demonstrated by means of historical truths.” That is, “the accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason.”
He continued: “We all believe that an Alexander lived who in a short time conquered almost all Asia. But who, on the basis of this belief, would risk anything of great permanent worth, the loss of which would be irreparable? Who, in consequence of this belief, would forswear forever all knowledge that conflicted with this belief? Certainly not I. But it might still be possible that the story was founded on a mere poem of Choerilus just as the ten year siege of Troy depends on no better authority than Homer’s poetry.”
Someone might object that miracles like the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, are “more than historically certain,” because these things are told to us by “inspired historians who cannot make a mistake.” But Lessing counters that whether or not we have inspired historians is itself a historical claim, and only as certain as history allows. This, then, “is the ugly broad ditch which I cannot get across, however often and however earnestly I have tried to make the leap.” “Since the truth of these miracles has completely ceased to be demonstrable by miracles still happening now, since they are no more than reports of miracles, I deny that they should bind me in the least to a faith in the other teachings of Christ.” (“On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power,” [Lessing’s Theological Writings, (Stanford University Press, 1956, pp. 51-55)].
Last night a young friend showed me a couple of great looking and very funny R rated graphic books he's beginning to collect. They are sacrilegious, extremely well done, and funny. Check them out: Battle Pope; and Jesus Hates Zombies. There is a generation of young people who think the Pope and Jesus are objects for ridicule. No argument here. Just ridicule. And they find these books funny. To me THAT is funny. We no longer have to debunk Christianity with arguments. Just get them hooked on these books! ;-)
When I became convinced that the universe is natural-that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world-not even in infinite space.
I was free-free to think, to express my thoughts-free to live to my own ideal-free to use all my faculties, all my senses-free to spread imagination's wings-free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope-free to judge and determine for myself-free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past-free from popes and priests-free from all the "called" and "set apart"-free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies-free from the fear of eternal pain-free from the winged monsters of the night-free from devils, ghosts, and gods.
For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought-no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings-no chains for my limbs-no lashes for my back-no fires for my flesh-no master's frown or threat-no following another's steps-no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.
And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain-for the freedom of labor and thought-to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs-to those whose flesh was scarred and torn-to those by fire consumed-to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still. Link.
If you have been freed from religious dogma then join him. "[G]rasp the torch that [he] had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still." What can you do on behalf of skepticism today?
Six years ago I was sort of browbeaten into debating a handicapped Walmart clerk named Nick, whom I didn't want to beat up on. The proposition to be resolved was this one: The amount of human suffering in the natural world is incompatible with a kind, caring, omnipotent father/creator God. I've since become sort of an an expert on this issue. But in preparing for that debate I saw how powerful the case against God from suffering was. I'm Doubting John. What d'ya think?. If you've read my book (which will be available again mid-October) then you have my most developed thinking on this issue, which I gained later in preparation for a debate on the same issue with Dr. David Wood. The debate with Dr. Wood can be viewed here.
For Christians who think the Bible has the answer please get and read Michael Sandel's book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?. In this link is a video where you can see him ask some difficult questions. How does the Bible answer them? Is the Bible even helpful? Be sure to get and read his book of readings too.
Since I'm getting blasted in the comments below, supposedly because I may have made fun of a person with a mental disability, let me respond.
I found this video posted on Facebook by a well-respected Christian scholar, so if you blast me then blast him too.
Besides, I never said exactly what it was that I found to be funny about this guy who can't sing, so let me spell it out now.
What I find hilarious is that the church allowed him to sing before the congregation in the first place. That's it! They knew how he would sing on camera before he sang and they let him sing anyway! That's the hoot! So no, I would not want him to sing at my funeral for the same reasons the church leadership should not have let him sing before the faithful. Why? Because it’s painful to hear him sing. He can’t sing! Do I need to be any clearer?
If a Christian wants to respond that God doesn't care how talented someone is when it comes to worshipful praise, and that sincere faith is all God asks, then let's do a review. People have gifts. Christians say believers have spiritual gifts. This guy’s gift is NOT singing. So a responsible church leadership should not let him sing and/or lead the congregation in song. Any church leader who was this irresponsible should be fired. I know. I taught a church leadership class for a Christian college. This is not indicative of good church leadership. Not only is it not edifying to the congregation but it can also harm the guy who sang who will be ridiculed afterward.
Think of it this way. If sincere faith is all that's important then why doesn’t the church hire this guy to be their preacher and listen to him every week? Why not make him the treasurer of the church? Why not make him the choir director? You see, sincerity is not enough when it comes to placing the right people with the right gifts in the right place. Church leadership must be more responsible than this in identifying and properly placing people with the right gifts.
And that’s it. I find this incident absolutely hilarious for those reasons. It has nothing to do with whether or not this guy has a mental handicap. If he does I sympathize for him much more than that church did, for I would never have placed him in this situation in the first place. As a result, people would not be making fun of him in public like they are now.
So, let's have some more fun with this for the reasons I just stated.
In the recent issue of the Wall Street Journal former nun Karen Armstrong claims we need God to grasp the wonder of our existence, while Richard Dawkins claims evolution leaves God with nothing to do. See what you think. You know where I stand. In the coming days after I get both books I plan on reviewing Armstrong's latest book The Case for God and the recent book by Dawkins titled, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. As always I'd appreciate any financial help in buying and reviewing books like these (see the "Donate" button in the sidebar).
Many Christians who comment at DC seem all too willing to offer platitudes to defend their faith. So let me try to rectify this problem by challenging them to become more informed.
Christian, what skeptical and/or liberal books have you read? Have you read my book? [It will be available again after a reprinting around October 8th]. Have you read any of the ones in the Debunking Christianity Challenge? Have you read any of the ones linked to in the sidebar from evangelicals? Have you considered what one Mormon wrote?
I'm curious because only someone who has not done so could make your case so blithely without a clear understanding of the issues.
Alvin Plantinga himself admits that the results of biblical criticism could show him wrong. The problem is that he does not show an awareness of knowing anything much about biblical criticism. He's a philosopher defending as best as he can what he was raised to believe based upon conservative biblical scholarship. Well, the conservatives have finally caught up in some ways to critical scholarship.
Critical scholarship is what we should all try to attain. Critical scholars “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.”
Save this comment for future reference. Let it provoke you to do your own investigation of the issues. Read all of the links. Tell me about the books you've read and then proceed to read those books I recommend. Start with Kenton Sparks evangelical book, then read Peter Enns book.
Investigate, don't simply regurgitate these pat answers.
The renowned biblical scholar agrees with the New Atheists, at least in part.
In a post that is drawing fire from Christian biblical scholars, Philip Davies argues that biblical ethics have little to do with our western values. See Philip Davies’ post
Davies' conclusions are not really that different from my argument that the Bible is largely irrelevant to modern society in terms of its ethical values (The End of Biblical Studies [2007]). But I would add that the appeals to biblical authority are still causing a lot of ethical problems in modern society.
Yes, if these reasons are relevant to the question of the truth. So says one Christian Blogger named Joshua, who answers the accusation against me that I left the Christian fold merely for "emotional" reasons. He gets it!!
There is plenty of theology floating around that indicates that the church and people with God’s spirit “inside” of them will have certain features, and that the church will not be merely nominal in nature. So bad experiences are more epistemically relevant than you and many others might like to think. After all, doesn’t this approach what Jesus suggests when he says that people will know his disciples by their love? Indeed, only if we could rely solely on esoteric argumentation, and not our lives, to be a witness and sustainer of faith. Link.
There are believers who personally attack me based on some personal information I relate in my book. These people are believers. I’m attacking their personal invisible friend in their minds. End of story for them. So there must be something wrong with me. Nevermind for the moment that on some occasions they lie for Jesus in attacking me by exaggerating and purposely mischaracterizing exactly what I said. If one must lie for Jesus in order to defend Jesus then that should be a clear indication that one is not being honest with the evidence for Jesus. But then they are blinded by their faith.
People have repeatedly asked me when I'm going to debunk Islam. My answer is that I don't have the expertise to do so. I can only do what I know best and I know best about Christianity. For a debunking of Islam I recommend the books of Ibn Warraq, who I heard give a talk yesterday. While I lack the expertise to properly evaluate his case, it seems that it doesn't get any better than this. See also the story told by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her amazing book Infidel.
Hindu is the oldest religion known to man so far. It has been argued that Christianity borrowed heavily from Hinduism. Lord Krishna was the physical manifestation of one of the Gods of the Hindu Trinity who is named Vishnu. Vishnu came to earth as a Human 5000 years ago to battle evil and show people the right way to live. This is an introduction to Lord Krishna, the human manifestation of the God Vishnu.
Folklore Typologies: Similarities between Krishna and Biblical Characters
There are striking similarities between the stories in the Christian Bible and the Stories that make up the Scriptures of Hinduism. Here is a link to ReligiousTolerance.org where they discuss Similarities between Jesus and Krishna. I will explore this topic in a follow on article done in parallel with this one.
Hare, Hare, Hare! Step right up and hear about Lord Krishna!
I was exposed to the Hindu Scriptures as a Christian pre-teen living in Europe. At that time, I supposed that since Hinduism was so much older, and Israel was so far away from India, that Christianity must be a result of a misunderstanding of Hindu Scriptures and Ideas carried over from India by visitors. I was almost converted. I realized that the Jews didn't think Jesus was the messiah because he didn't qualify and it was uncharacteristic for Yahweh to diminish himself to become a human. No-where in Christian scripture does Jesus unambiguously declare that he is Yahweh in human form, however, it is a characteristic of Vishnu to appear in human form periodically. In my young mind I thought, Jesus was a strikingly different "person" than the Yahweh of the old Testament, Jesus was similar to Krishna and the teachings of Jesus were similar to Hinduism. Therefore, Christianity should be an extension of Hinduism rather than Judaism.
However, since everyone I knew, especially every adult I knew, was a Christian, I was persuaded that Hinduism was mythology, Christianity was "A Religion", Jesus was the one and only God in Human Form. As a Christian adult, I revisited the Hindu Scriptures to see what was so compelling about them, but I didn't feel the same pull towards Hinduism as I did as a child. Maybe our Psychologist Contributors Valerie or Marlene can elaborate on that phenomena.
The Bhagavata Canto 10, The Story of Lord Krishna, and The Birth of Lord Krishna
The Primary reference I used was Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 10, (Bhagavata Purana) but since then they have begun improvements to the site and the links are no longer available. They do provide an alternate site which you can reach from site above or from the links I provided below.
"In summary, we may safely conclude that technical and literary evidence from several independent sources point to the traditional Kali date of 3102 BC as being close to the actual date of the Mahabharata War. We have therefore overwhelming evidence showing that Krishna was a historical figure who must have lived within a century on either side of that date, i.e., in the 3200-3000 BC period."
Summary of the story of Lord Krishna
Lord Krishna is regarded by Hindus and the incarnation of the God Vishnu. They believe that Vishnu is one of the Gods that make up the Hindu Trinity and is believed to be the lord of the universe who takes human form and is the lord of all creation, all things, all time. Through him people will know what is real, meaning comes only from god. Whenever there is too much evil in the world he takes human form to deal with it.
If you watched the video above, and you know your bible, you probably noted quite a few similarties to the stories in the Christian Bible. Here is an abbreviated list of some of the ones I noticed. The simplest explanation of how the stories can be so similar is if they are Folklore, in other words, the same story structure with the details changed to suit the audience.
- Evil king will be overthrown by a savior (The Messiah)
- The Birth of God on Earth prophesied (Various Biblical Prophesies)
- Virgin birth [depending on the Hindu "denomination"] (Mary)
- Devaki was the mother of Krishna and therefore all divinity (Mary)
- The Kings killing of the sons to attempt to kill the God-Child (Herods action)
- Escape of the central characters with the help of God (Acts 5 and 12)
- Receding of the waters during an escape (Red Sea)
- Talking Snake (Adam and Eve)
- Baby was raised by foster mother (Moses)
- Baby raised by peasants (Moses and Jesus)
Other Similarities outside the scope of the Video that are part of the Krishna Story
- Mischevious boy (Similar to Jesus going to temple as a boy and non-canonical stories of Jesus as a child)
- River associated with Holiness and cleanliness (Baptism in the river)
- Krishna wrestled a snake by the river and won (by the river Jacob wrestled an angel, God or his brother depending on how its interpreted)
- Sacrifice out of love (similar to teaching of Christ)
- Picking up a mountain (to hold over his followers as shelter to protect them from heavy rains caused by another angry God, Faith can move mountains)
- Killing a Giant Serpent (Yahweh slaying the Leviathan)
- Krishna would return when things got bad (Second Coming)
- Krishna was Pierced, killed, and taken up to Heaven (Jesus Stabbed by soldier, body disappearing, later taken up to heaven)
Any form of an argument a Christian can use to defend Christianity can be used interchangeably to defend Hinduism and Lord Krishna.
However, it is more likely that since the stories about Krishna predate Judeo-Christian scripture, then it seems that the similarities in the stories about Moses, Jesus and in Acts are pre-existing folklore structures with the details changed to suit the audience.
Below is an incomplete list of events in Lord Krishnas life with my notes as to the Chapter and verse in the Bhagavata Canto 10.
I only noted enough to make my case and leave the rest as an exercise for those interested in comparative religion studies.
Chapter 1, verses are listed above the line
1:29
- Princess Devaki got married to Vasudeva
1:30
- Her Evil Brother Prince Kamsa drove the coach on thier wedding day
1:34
- While driving the coach, a spiritual voice told Prince Kamsa that "Devaki will have eight sons and the eighth son will kill him"
1:65-66
- He put his sister Devaki and her husband Vasudeva in prison
- They had sons in jail and each one was killed by Kamsa to prevent Lord Krishna from being born.
1:69
- Prince Kamsa overthrew his father put him in prison and took the throne,
Chapter 2:8-9
- Vishnu says he will put himself in the womb of Devaki to be born.
Chapter 3:31
- One evening during thunder and lightning, the eighth child was born and they saw that it was the lord Vishnu as vishnu said he would do in Chapter 2:8-9
3:48
- Since the child was in danger of being killed, Vishnu put the guards to sleep and freed the father
3:49
- The father took the baby out into the stormy night and the great serpent accompanied them spreading its hood over them to protect the child
3:50
- As the father approached the river Jumna, it parted to let the father cross,
3:51
- The father went to a house where a woman had just given birth, and the father switched the babies, and Vishnu was raised by the family never knowing the difference.
[MISCHEVIOUS BOY: Similar to Jesus leaving his parents to go the temple]
- The boy was mischievous, he stole sweet milk and distributed it to the other people and animals in the town
[MISCHEVIOUS BOY]
[HEROD: Event similar to and event related to Herod]
- But Kamsa summoned and demons and spirits to search for the child
[HEROD]
[LEVIATHAN, HOLY RIVER: Similar to an event related to a story about Yahweh slaying Leviathan in Job, similar to the event where Jacob wrestled an Angel, God or his brother (depending on the interpretation) and similar to Jesus going into the river to be Baptized, similar to the tradition to the belief that baptism is a sort of rebirth, cleansing, new beginning or relinquishing the bad and accepting the good]
- One day, wrestling and playing by the river, they saw that the river was poisoned, so Krishna jumped in to kill the Giant Serpent that was poisoning the river.
- He danced on the serpents head and set if free, cleaning up the river making the river Holy once again.
- Kamsa saw the giant serpent and its children in the river and knew that it had been defeated by Krishna,
[LEVIATHAN, HOLY RIVER]
[HOLY RIVER]
- Krishna made the land around the Holy River beautiful. Krishna went down by the river and danced with all the women that were there.
[HOLY RIVER]
[SACRIFICE OUT OF LOVE]
- One day Krishnas surrogate father was preparing a sacrifice to Indra the rain god in order to bring rain. The people were afraid that Indra was angry at them. Krishna said that people should sacrifice out of love not fear, so the sacrifice was not appropriate and would be better spent if it were directed to worship the things they love and to sacrifice to the cows and mountains
[SACRIFICE OUT OF LOVE]
[MOVING THE MOUNTAIN]
- So they did and Indra got angry and sent a terrible storm, so Krishna lifted the mountain and used it as an umbrella for the town.
[MOVING THE MOUNTAIN]
- After the storm Krishna got the invitation and he went with his friend Bellarama.
- Krishna and Bellarama killed the combatants and ordered the guards to kill them, so Krishna killed the evil king and returned the real king to power.
- Krishna battled many evils during his lifetime
[VISHNU WOULD RETURN WHEN THINGS GOT BAD]
- Krishna vowed to return to fight evil whenever it occurs.
[HE WOULD RETURN WHEN THINGS GOT BAD]
[PIERCED, KILLED AND TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN]
- There were many other events in the life of Krishna but the last thing Krishna did was to meditate under a tree in the forest, before being shot by mistakenly by a hunter and taken up to heaven.
[PIERCED, KILLED AND TAKEN UP TO HEAVEN]
Video about Dwarka, City of Krishna. Hindu pilgrims go there to worship. Hindu scripture says that the original Dwarka was destroyed by the sea. Archeologists think they have discovered parts of it extending 19 miles offshore of present day Dwarka, just like scriptures described.
A University of Michigan graduate in Philosophy and Biblical Studies is reviewing my book. He starts out by writing:
Unlike reviewing polemical works by someone like Richard Dawkins, engaging Loftus is more interesting to me...The epistemology of religion developed by William Abraham and shared by Loftus (p. 56) is indeed the best – and, luckily, most descriptively accurate – way of dealing with issues like rationality and justification in the context of religious belief. As far as I know, Loftus is the only major published atheist to explicitly argue in this fashion.
That's what liberal Timo S. Paananen argues. In addition he gives six reasons he finds compelling enough to continue to be a worshiping liberal Christian. See what you think. I do have a certain affinity toward liberals since we stand together against ignorant evangelicals, yes. But I am not a sympathetic atheist, unless one means by this someone who understands how easy it is to be brainwashed to believe and/or someone who sympathizes with believers, because I do.
It's time once again to discuss what is known as the bedrock of atheism, the problem of evil. As my springboard let's start with David Hume:
A deity who knows the secret springs of the universe might easily, by particular volitions, turn all accidents to the good of mankind and render the whole world happy, without discovering himself in any operation. A fleet whose purposes were salutary to society might always meet with a fair wind. Good princes enjoy sound health and long life. Persons born to power and authority be framed with good tempers and virtuous dispositions. A few such events as these, regularly and wisely conducted, would change the face of the world, and yet would no more seem to disturb the course of nature or confound human conduct than the present economy of things where the causes are secret and variable and compounded. One wave, a little higher than the rest, by burying Caesar and his fortune in the bottom of the ocean, might have restored liberty to a considerable part of mankind.” [Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part XI].
Here are some more things God could’ve done: One childhood fatal disease like the Spanish Flu of 1918 could have killed Hitler and prevented WWII. One actual attempt on Hitler’s life by some people, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer, could have ended his reign after the war started. A different police officer could have discovered a naked boy who had briefly escaped Jeffrey Dahlmer’s clutches, and upon investigating further could’ve saved that boy’s life. Timothy McVeigh could have had a fatal vehicle crash while driving to Oklahoma, or a crash that would reveal what was inside his truck. McVeigh could also have been killed while in combat before coming back to the states.
A fatal heart attack could’ve been sent to Saddam Hussein before our war with Iraq, stopping it dead in its tracks. The poison that Saddam threw on the Kurds a decade ago could have simply “malfunctioned” by being miraculously neutralized. Sure it would puzzle Saddam, and it would not be explainable by science, but there are a great many things that take place in our world that are not explainable, so this wouldn’t necessarily lead him to believe that the laws of nature were suspended, revealing God behind it all. The same thing could have been done to the Zykon-B gas pellets dropped down into the Auschwitz gas chambers. Even if Nazi's did conclude that God performed a miracle here, what’s the harm done?
Why did God allow the earthquake that sent the tsunami that killed a quarter of a million people in Asia? Did he not have the power to restrain that earthquake? No one would know that he kept it from happening. The same goes for the predicted San Andreas Fault and the earthquake that will send Los Angeles into the Pacific Ocean. No seismic scientist would ever discover God as the reason why it doesn’t do this.
Why couldn’t something have happened to all nine hijackers of those planes on that fatal 9/11 day? One could trip and fall to his death, or a broken limb. Three others could’ve gotten in a car accident on the way. One other could’ve had a heart attack. Still another could have been robbed by a New York pair of thugs and killed (there’s utilitarianism at its best!). Another could have been reminded of something by God that would weaken his will, maybe intense doubts like those who walk down the wedding aisle. Another could have been spotted at security by a different officer, while another’s take-on-bag might have spilled open revealing his knife. And so on. These things would all occur on that morning stopping the terrorist attacks dead on. But none of these things happened, did they? God allowed the destruction of nearly 3500 lives that day even though there were means at his disposal to stop it.
And even if by changing these things in the world God would “eradicate the laws of nature,” which I seriously doubt, the Christian would still have to argue that these things are impossible for God to do. Who says that the laws of nature must be fixed and unalterable, anyway? David Hume first questioned this. The ordering of the world by general laws “seems nowise necessary” to God. If by changing something requires some adjustment that does not accord with any known laws of nature, so what? The Christian claims God can do miracles, then why not a perpetual one that doesn’t affect anything else in his creation?
I've written about my friend Dr. Sennett before. [FYI: He maintains he's still a believer]. Well it looks like he's got another possible career in music going for him. Listen to him singing an awesome song he wrote about the love of his new wife.
Darrel Falk on Belief.net wrote a post called Saving Anthony about a former Blogger at DC who still regularly comments here. Why did Anthony reject his faith? Falk writes:
Consider, for example, the story of Anthony outlined in his autobiographical essay which is posted at a blog-site for former Christians. Anthony had little room for mystery in his theology. Everything had to be nailed down tightly and he built his life around being-in-the-know about everything related to God. When he found that his tight theology didn't mesh with the facts, he thought he had no choice but to give it all up. So steeped was he in a theology where all the pieces had to fit together, that when he found some which didn't, there was nothing left for him except atheism itself. So Anthony, a former believer who wanted nothing more than to know God, has now decided that there is no God; he has rejected all faith, and he is a regular contributor in the comments section of atheistic blog-sites. There are likely thousands like Anthony, people who no longer think they can have a relationship with their Creator because they find pieces that don't fit into their once-neat theology.
The Christian Century recently reviewed William Lobdell's book where Valerie Weaver-Zercher made an interesting comparison:
"Either you don't believe in God or you're a dope." This is how Newsweek's Lisa Miller sums up the thinking of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
Lobdell's deconversion narrative, Losing My Religion, refrains from both bombast and suggestions of dopiness. By his very choice of genre—memoir rather than apologia—Lobdell enters a different territory of the new atheism, one already inhabited by several other counter conversion narrators, including John Loftus...and Dan Barker. Link.
There are people on both sides of this debate who claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope." My contention is that anyone who claims this is himself ignorant! Check out this post of mine and this one too. Yes, there are ignorant people on both sides of the fence. But just because someone disagrees does not mean that person is ignorant at all.
As I argue in my book [which is presently being reprinted], it's about seeing things differently along with WHY we should see things differently.
It might make someone feel good to think the other side is ignorant. It might make someone appear to be intelligent and also help him gain many followers. But to claim that anyone who disagrees is a "dope" is the height of ignorance in my opinion. I would never follow someone who made such a claim. I would never follow someone so cocksure of himself when ignorance is the rule and knowledge is the exception.
Now yes, I happen to agree with the so-called New Atheists and I appreciate all they have done to open up a debate on the issues. But my goal is to reach believers, not to chide them or to rally the skeptical troops (both worthy goals in and of themselves). Again. My aim is to reach believers, like Barker, Lobdell and others are attempting to do.
One way to catch my attention is to comment on something I have written, so here comes triablogue who responded to my earlier post: Why Was Jesus Punished?
triablogue: For God to simply forgive a person apart from the cross would be an unjust act. It would be an unrighteous act. It would be an unholy act. It would fail to satisfy his wrath. Going back to the illustration of the courts, it is not the duty of the court to forgive the offender. The same is true with God.
Poppycock! Absolute poppycock. The fact that I once touted this crap is a surprise to me now.
In this case the person primarily offended by our sins is God. He is the primary offended party. While others on a horizontal plane might feel slighted by comparison, God is the primary one offended. In this case, there doesn’t need to be any punishment between offender and offended, even though God is also the judge. Why? If God is a person at all then he responds towards us as a person does, a father, and even as a creator who cares for us, not a harsh and demanding judge.
Your Christian God is primarily a judge and not a father. He’s an aloof potentate who rules his people like the Kings of old did over the serfs and peasants. The very image bespeaks of a God who doesn’t really love us, but cares more for administering punishment to offenders in a kingdom of serfs. But the Christian God wants to be known as a father, a person, a lover, and even as a friend of sinners--in Jesus.
It would be like living in a kingdom where we slightly offend each other from time to time (the horizontal plane). But none of us would ever want any of our worst enemies to be punished in ways that the King will do when he's offended by the very same actions that have merely slighted us(on the vertical plane). We would all desire that our enemies were all completely forgiven, including us ourselves, than suffer under the wrath of that aloof potentate who only cares about a infinite tit for a finite tat. None of us would be happy about such a king at all, nor that he would have had to punish his own Son (himself?), when none of us would have wanted anyone to be punished at all. We would think such a God is a monster, a weirdo, and even retarded.
All I am saying is that forgiveness between persons does not logically involve punishment, or retaliation, repentance, or reparations. Show me the logical and rational relationship between punishment and forgiveness between persons. That's all you have to do.
And I'll say that our methods of punishment today are much more humane today by comparison; that all humane punishment should be for the purpose of rehabilitation anyway; and that God should give up on no one--no one.
And I'll say that the more I understand someone, the easier it is for me to forgive them. That's why mothers seem to always love their sons no matter what they do. Does God not understand why we do the very deeds we do? Then he understands like no one else. If he understands, then he cannot be angry. Unless, of course, he's an aloof potentate who simply doesn't care.
While I may want someone who hit me to spend a few months in jail, or someone who stole from me to spend up to a year in jail, I would never want my worse enemies to be treated as Jesus suffered, nor spend eternity in hell, however conceived. I would want everyone who has ever done anything to wrong me to eventually be forgiven. All is eventually forgiven anyway, in time. Why doesn't God do this, since he apparently has all the time in the world?
Based on my own judgment we'll continue to moderate comments here at DC. The recent polls are not that accurate of a measuring stick of the people who actually comment regularly at DC.
When I shut the polls down here were the results:
On Moderating Comments at DC -
Except for Extreme Abuses Let There be a Free For All 45 (35%) Continue Moderation As Is 49 (38%) Be Flexible Depending on the Threat 34 (26%)
A Reader Poll on Comments -
Only Prohibit X-Rated Comments 44 (37%) Prohibit X And R-Rated Comments 4 (3%) Prohibit X, R-Rated Comments And Personal Attacks 24 (20%) Prohibit All the Above Plus Ignorant or Troll Comments 35 (29%) Prohibit All Comments 10 (8%)
My detractors want their cake and eat it too. If I allow a free for all, they'll spam up the combox to the point where no reasonable discussion can take place. There will be personal attack after personal attack, personal charges and counter-charges. That's the nature of the beast when there exists such a potent force like this site with these contributors who speak on the level of the average person for the most part.
If instead we moderate comments, my detractors will claim that I'm censoring speech by prohibiting some very important refutations of our arguments. This is not true nor has it ever been true. We follow a reasonable comment policy.
A third option that I and/or other team members should monitor comments 24 hours a day (or even most of the day) is simply unacceptable.
What my detractors must do is to provide reasons to suggest this Blog would not degenerate as described if there was a free for all, or else they must provide evidence that we have not followed our comment policy.
My goal is to have a reasonable discussion of the ideas that separate us. That's all I have ever wanted. Some people do not share this goal.
Until later, happy surfing!
Oh, and check out a couple of new books linked in the sidebar.
Since May of 2006, Pastor Ed Lowman has shepherded the Aryunder Baptist Church in Aryunder, Tennessee. Since before that time, the native South Texas pastor spent time in Iowa, Maryland, and different parts of the nation ministering the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
Having become very well known for his self-published Christian How-to pamphlets, we present one of them here, re-published with permission from the Jesus Saves Bible and Tract Society...
So, your precious little girl has grown up to be a mating, blood-dripping machine known as a woman? That is hard news to handle since God thinks less of baby girls than he does of baby boys (Leviticus 12:2,5)…
“Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks.”
But now you learn that your daughter has upped and gone about to marry a man without your parental approval. I cover that in my pamphlet “When The Sow Don’t Ask Permission” and I offer steps on how to correct the problem. But right now, we’re dealing with a bigger problem—your daughter is fixing to marry a black man.
Don't just be ashamed of your daughter. Be ashamed of yourself for not taming that thoroughbred like the Bible says you should have done (Proverbs 22:6). You, as the parent, decide who your little girl marries, not her (I Corinthians 7:38). Maybe the liberal, secular authorities got you thinking otherwise, but God's Word hasn't changed one bit. So after you repent for falling short of God's Glorious Word, pick yourself up and move along and continue reading.
First, accept the bad news. Your daughter isn't coming back conjugally to the white race again. “Once they go black, they never go back,” as the saying goes. The Bible confirms this when it states with God-sealed inspiration that Negro genitalia is superior to the rest of humanity’s…
“Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.” (Ezekiel 23:19-20)
We do not know why God has endowed the darkies with huge dongs, but in His infinite wisdom, He decided to give his Caucasian servants packages that are only a little further along than the Burmese whom God has been cursing with natural disasters since 2004. What God has given He has given.
That your daughter wants to marry a black man is not good news. No self-respecting white Christian who respects their race in keeping with Genesis 9:25-27 would be happy with even partially darkie grandbabies. And no Christian wants to get together at Thanksgiving with a cursed descendant of Ham at the dinner table asking to pass the mashed potatoes and gravy. Moving on.
Second, appear to be supportive. When your daughter announces that she's found herself a minority, act supportive. However the news gets back to you, appear enthused even though you are crying inside.
Third, invite the young buck over. Tell your pumpkin…insist, rather…that you must meet the guy. Don't take no for an answer, and don't buy into that “oh, we're not that far along yet” garbage. Invite him over ASAP. Just remember to put away any valuables you have out and have 911 on speed dial.
If you have trouble getting him over there, offer to cook collared greens and fried chicken or barbeque. That should do the trick. Failing that, offer a free set of 20-inch rims. Then it’s a done deal.
Fourth, once he arrives at your house, ask your daughter to give you a minute with the lad. If she feels too nervous for that, snatch him away when she ducks out to use the lady’s room. Use this opportunity to ask him about a business proposal, but tell him not to tell your daughter about it, but to meet with you privately the next day.
Fifth, meet with him discreetly at a classy restaurant and pay for his meal. Make him feel like he is a high roller. It is here that you are going to offer him a financial settlement to leave your daughter and walk away forever. How much you offer depends upon how much the Lord has blessed you with.
Because he is black, he will probably take the money and split, but just to ensure that he does, offer half of the money up front and the other half six weeks later when you have established that no contact has been made behind your back. If you still find him a hard sell, offer him a free Biggies Smalls or Mike Jones CD. No black can resist those.
Sixth, contact some of our Godly friends and affiliates from the Bush Administration to hook you up with under-the-table wire-tapping to make sure their relationship has been severed. Once you see to it that no contact has been made, you can offer him the rest of the money. By then, both of them will have grown apart and the spark of ungodly love will have died. Praise Jesus!
Be advised that it may take some time to build a working relationship back up with your daughter, but it was worth it. We cannot disrespect our Godly race and heritage.
Seventh, and finally, pray to the Lord above that our African lugger never comes back. If he does, you must consult Chapter 4 “When Blackie wants it The Hard Way.” Sub-paragraph 6 goes into bodyguard stand-in requirements and locating a nearby lake. Sub-paragraph 9 deals with acquiring a 50-gallon drum.
It's very gratifying to hear the overwhelming positive feedback about my book. Here's an interesting comparison:
Your book has all but utterly demolished the faith and hope I was holding onto about the evangelical Christian faith. I grew up believing of course, but had certain fundamental questions as I got a little older. I took it upon myself to read both apologetic and anti-apologetic books to address the issue (Strobel, Dawkins, Ehrman, etc). Both sides continued to make good debatable points, but when I finally came across your book, it was like chopping grass with a chainsaw. No chance of survival.
You can read other reviews of it by clicking here. [It's being reprinted and will be available shortly]. Be sure to also get my forthcoming book, The Christian Delusion.
