Answering Objections to Visions: Part Four

Defending Visions: Part Four

This will probably be my final post on the subject of visions in this series. I want to concentrate on answering one final objection to the kind of visionary hypotheses of Christian origins that I happen to advocate. This argument concerns the disciples' expectations of Jesus. I wish to address the argument of an online Christian apologist, Robert Turkel, who uses the writing name "James Patrick Holding". But before I proceed to answer his argument, I want to make some preliminary comments. First of all, I have been wrestling with hesitancy in writing this post. It's not due to a lack of confidence in my reply to Mr. Holding's argument. Rather, it's because I am opening a can of worms or so I fear. The fact of the matter is that I am taking quite a risk in replying to Mr. Holding's argument. For some reason I have never been able to fully understand, I believe that Mr. Holding has an obession with always having the last word in a debate or exchange with someone. Just as bad is what I consider to be Mr. Holding's overconfidence. It's not enough to simply think that he may have done a good job in answering an argument; rather, I have seen him brag about destroying an argument. Likewise, it's not enough that Mr. Holding simply think that he has answered someone; rather, I have seen him act as though he gave someone a good intellectual flogging. It's this egotism of his that makes me wince.

I try a different approach. I try and let readers decide for themselves whether I have answered my critics or I have successfully argued a point. Sometimes I might come across as more confident than my argument warrants. For this apologize to readers. I want to be able to articulate my arguments and let readers decide for themselves if I have met my stated burdens. Having said this, I will adopt this tone for these posts. I simply leave it to readers to evaluate my arguments and see if they hold water. The exception I am willing to make is if I feel that a rude, cocky, and all-around obnoxious spin-doctor needs a douse of humility or perhaps a dose of his/her own medicine then I will drop the niceties and turn quite confrontational myself. So I write this essay in response to Mr. Holding and I will leave it to readers to judge whether I am successful or not; I simply trust the intelligence of readers. I doubt that Mr. Holding's readers will read this open-mindedly or in its entirety to see if I, perhaps, have a good argument. I suspect that many of Mr. Holding's readers have gotten to the point where they see him as a faultless guru who simply cannot be wrong and will only read what he has quoted in terms of rebutting my arguments without having to see anything written by me. As much as I regret this, I have come to accept that many Christians only want their doubts quenched and will only read rebuttals to atheists and skeptics like myself, only, ever, with the intention of seeing us refuted, stomped on, intellectually flogged (and perhaps even bullied into salvation, hopefully).

I will state my argument here and perhaps only write one rebuttal to what Mr. Holding has written if he responds to me (I have no doubt that he will and I predict it as utterly inevitable that he will. I don't believe he can pass up an offer to respond to what he admitted is a rising star in biblical academia). I really lack any desire to drag out any exchange with him ad infinitum but I am not always sure where to draw the line. Where do I simply stop, having said my piece, and then move on? I don't want to get into a prolonged exchange with him because I dread that it will only charge his ego. I believe Mr. Holding's is overconfident as it is and I regret the thought of having contributed to that and I fear that a prolonged exchange like this will likewise bolster his ego. This is the last thing I want to do! Having aired these concerns, here into the murky waters we go....

1.) Holding's Argument Against "Visions" and "Hallucinations"

Mr. Holding's chief argument against the hypothesis of visionary origins was stated in response to atheist philosopher Keith Parsons. Readers will recall that Parsons contributed a chapter to the skeptical anthology The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, writing a rebuttal to the arguments against theories of hallucinations by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. I have to state here that I do not agree with Parson's rebuttal actually. I believe that Parson is not familiar with the relevant social-science literature on visionary experiences involving A.S.C. and I don't particularly think that his rebuttal arguments for Kreeft and Tacelli are particularly effective (this may well make a good post one of these days on here!) Holding states his main thesis as follows:

"Here is why I regard the hallucination theory as completely untenable: As noted in the link above, "expectation plays the coordinating role in collective hallucinations". The critical problem here is that the disciples were not expecting a resurrection; any hallucination of Jesus would be interpreted as, if anything, his "guardian angel" (an exact twin), but not as a ghost of Jesus himself, nor especially as Jesus resurrected."

In this statement, Holding linked to a response he wrote to Bible skeptic Farrell Till of The Skeptical Review. Holding's argument is that the disciples would not have been expecting a resurrection, at least not as defined by Jews at the time of Jesus. The core of Holding's argument is that the Greek word "anastasis" when employed in reference to the resurrection referred to what conservative theologian N.T. Wright termed a "tranphysical" body. This is a glorified, immortal, imperishable, body of flesh that rose from the dead. Holding argues that no Jew would have been expecting anyone resurrected in this kind of body and, hence, it would've taken an actual transphysical body to convince the original disciples of Jesus that this is precisely what Jesus had.

Naturally, I am skeptical of this argument. The chief basis for my skepticism has to do with the very Greek word "anastasis" itself. I am not an expert in biblical Greek and the last thing I want to do is leave any readers with the impression that I am so I will offer what I consider to be a potential argument against Holding's argument here. I honestly don't know if my argument will succeed-that remains to be seen. At the very least though, if my argument has any substance at all, what I do want readers to do, especially if they're convinced that Holding is really onto something here, is to pause and think. At the very least, I hope that my argument here, if it doesn't answer Holding's argument in its entirety, can at least take the wind out of Holding's sails. In other words, I hope that my argument can at least have the effect of cancelling out the effectiveness of Holding's argument. Perhaps we can reach a stalemate and conclude that the expert opinion of a Greek scholar is needed to settle the question once and for all.

2.) "Anastasis" and the Resurrection

Holding argues that the Greek word "anastasis" specifically refers to the resurrection, that is a risen body of immortal, imperishable, glorified flesh! Holding writes: "The only word that is term-specific to resurrection is the noun form of anistemi -- and that is anastasis." If this is the case, then whenever, "anastasis" refers to the resurrection, any other raising of the dead, if by "raising of the dead" one means a resuscitation, like that of Lazarus, then it must be described by some noun other than "anastasis". Let's look at some examples here:

"Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near.'
8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment...."

The Greek word here is a verb form of "egeiro". It is spoken in in terms of raising people from the dead. Holding might argue that because a verb form of the Greek word "anastasis" was not employed, it couldn't have been referring to the resurrection, that is the raising of a glorified, immortal, imperishable, body of flesh. The phrase "raise the dead" pairs the Greek words "egeiro" and "nekros" not "anastasis" and "nekros", so it couldn't have been referring to the resurrection but rather a resuscitation.

In Matthew 11:5, these same words are used in referring the the "raising of the dead" in Matthew 10:5. It would seem that they folks have been resuscitated and the verb form of the Greek word "egeiro" is used here. In Matthew 14:2, these word pairs are used again, to describe Herod's belief that John the Baptist had risen from the dead. He mistakenly thought that Jesus was John the Baptist. Likewise, in Mark 6:16. However, in some passages, when Jesus speaks of his own "rising from the dead"- the Greek word used is "anastasis" and it's verb forms are employed. Consider Jesus' prediction in Matthew 20: 19. Here Jesus says "They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" Here the Greek word is "anistemi".In Matthew 17: 9, Jesus tells his disciples "Don't tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." Here the Greek words "anistemi" and "nekros" are used in conjunction with each other.

So, it would appear here, then, that there are two Greek verbs in use here "anistemi" and the verb form of "egeiro" used in conjunction with "nekros". I have to be careful to point out that I am not an expert in Greek but I am willing to make a prediction that I believe that my studies of Greek will bear out. Here goes: "Anistemi" is a verb form of "anastasis", correct? If "anastasis" as a noun, specifically means "resurrection" in the sense of a glorified, immortal, imperishable, body of risen flesh, then I am predicting that whenever the Greek verb form "anistemi" is used in conjunction with "nekros" it can only refer to whatever "anastasis" refers to as a noun. If "anastasis" refers to a resurrection in the sense of a glorified, immortal, imperishable body of risen flesh, then whenever "anistemi" is used as a verb in referring to people being raised from the dead, it can only refer to the actual act, of raising someone from the dead in this kind of body. "Anistemi" when used in any other sense can refer to any "rising" or any sort, whether from sleep, from a chair, or the sun, but whenever it's used in conjunction with "nekros", Christians would have to argue, then, that it can only refer to the action (denoted by the verb) of raising someone in the sense that "anastasis" demands.

Likwise, whenever "egeiro" is used, it can be "to raise" in any sense, but whenever its verb form is used in conjunction with "nekros" it, logically, can only refer to people raised from the dead as in a resuscitation, never a resurrection, never a transphysical body. I believe that this is the logical outcome of Holding's argument here! Now, here is my prediction. My prediction is that the Greek verb form for "egeiro" will never be used to describe the rising of Jesus, whether by itself, or in conjunction with "nekros". If Jesus was risen in a body of glorified, immortal, imperishable flesh, then the only word that will ever be used of Jesus to describe his risen, glorified body, is "anistemi". How might my prediction bear out? I believe that if I am right about this, then these following examples should bear out my prediction:

Jesus predicts his future suffering, his death, his resurrection, and his future meeting with the disciples in Galilee in Mark 14: 28 "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee". Here the Greek verb employed is a form of"egeiro" not "anistemi"! In luke 9:22, Jesus predicts of himself: "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life!". Once again, the Greek verb here is of "egeiro" not "anistemi"! Again, the author of John's gospel, apparently writing in retrospect regarding the words of Jesus, had this to say about Jesus' resurrection: "John 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said to them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

Here the Greek word is "egerthe", not "anistemi"and worse of all, it's paired with "nekros!" If Jesus had a risen, glorified, immortal body of flesh, why isn't the Greek word "anistemi" used in conjunction with "nekros"? This would better fit the meaning carried by the noun-form of the word "anastasis". It gets much worse. Perhaps St. Paul is the most damning of all. He constantly uses the Greek verb form of "egeiro" in conjunction with "nekros". Here are some examples I have seen used before.

"Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." So, the Greek verb "egeiro" is used in conjunction with "nekros". Why not "anistemi" since this would convey whatever meaning "anastasis" had? Likewise, verse 9 also has the same thing: "egeiro" paired with "nekros" in reference to Christ's resurrection. In 1st Corinthians 15, we find this very strange reference to Jesus rising from the dead:

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead?"

This should be enough to make one's head spin! Paul is using the Greek word "egeiro" in conjunction with "nekros" and not "anistemi". Why though? Why use the same Greek verb used of people resuscitated like those resusciated by the disciples in the above verses? Why does Jesus use "anistemi" sometimes and yet the verb form of "egeiro" at other times? It would appear that Jesus in one case is saying that he will "rise" in the same way as those whom he had his disciples raise from the dead and these same people, whom Jesus had used as examples to John the Baptist, in efforts to answer his doubts about the Messiahship of Jesus. But why would Paul ever use "egeiro" to speak of Jesus being raise from the dead when "anistemi" would've accurately carried the meaning of "anastasis".

If Holding's argument is that "anastasis" can only refer to the raising of a transphysical body of flesh from the dead, then "the resurrection of Christ" which uses the word "anastasis" as a noun, should mean the same thing as "Jesus raised from the dead" in which "anistemi" would be the verb form used in conjunction with "nekros" to mean dead. "Egeiro" should never be used in conjunction with "nekros" to describe Jesus rising from the dead.

As for Holding's argument that no Jew would've been expecting any individual to rise from the dead before the general resurrection, I have to say that I cannot agree with that. In luke 9:18-19, we read the following:

"Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were were him, he asked them, 'Who do the crowds say that I am?' They replied 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life'". The Greek word used here in verse 19 is "anistemi". Now, if it was believed that no one would rise from the dead prior to the general resurrection, why is it that some believed that one of the prophets came back to life and that this "raising" was described by the Greek word "anistemi"? How could anyone get the impression that one of the prophets had come back to life before the general resurrection? If they believed that one of the prophets from long ago was resuscitated, why? Why would God resuscitate a prophet temporarily, only to have that prophet die and then raise him up, transphysically, at the general resurrection from the dead? Finally, if people could become convinced that a prophet from long ago had risen from the dead before the general resurrection, without any one of those prophets from old actually rising from the dead to convince them, how hard would it be to convince the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead, without requiring that Jesus actually rose from the dead? The disciples of Jesus strike me as being no more literate or educated as many people who believed that Jesus was a risen prophet from old, so if they could become convinced that one of the prophets had risen from the dead before the general resurrection, I don't imagine that it was very difficult at all for Jesus' disciples to believe that he could be risen from the dead prior to any general resurrection.

Here is a question for Christians. If the same words for Jesus' resurrection is used of the "raising-from-the-dead" of all of these people, then whatever Jesus meant by it in reference to his own alleged resurrection would probably have to be the same as what it meant for other people who rose from the dead. If Christians accept the authenticity of these passages and that the disciples really did do these "resuscitations" (Christians do not think of these as genuine resurrections because the body in which they were raised were not glorified, immortal, imperishable, and incorruptible), then wouldn't there be at least a historical precedent in terms of expectation? For Pete's sake, it was the actual disciples bringing these people "back to life"! If the Greek words are the same in referring both to the activity of the disciples and the resurrection prediction of Jesus, then, by all means the disciples should have been expecting Jesus to have been raised from the dead! If the disciples were merely performing resuscitations, at the very least, they should have been expecting Jesus to have been resuscitated. If not, why not?

3.) The disciples would've been expecting an angel and not Jesus.

Except for a passage in Acts that was once cited to me as evidence, I am not all that sure that this would've been the case with Jesus' disciples. Consider the resuscitations that the disciples are believed by Christians to have performed. I ask Christians this: why did no one think that these people who had come back to life (mentioned in the above verses as being raised by the disciples as proof for John the Baptist) were still dead and that they were seeing angels of these dead people instead? In other words, why weren't people expecting the angels of the deceased rather than conclude that the deceased had been raised to life? Consider the confession of Peter to Jesus that he was the Christ and Son of God. Jesus asked who the crowds thought that he was. One of the answers is that people believe that Jesus was actually one of the prophets of old that came back to life. Why didn't the crowds, instead, believe that Jesus was simply the angel of one of the prophets who had died long ago? (I am quite sure that the crowds thougt that one of the Hebrew prophets such as Isaiah or Jeremiah had come back to life and that the crowds were Jewish)

Also, consider the fact that when Herod had John the Baptist beheaded, he concluded that Jesus was John the Baptist who had risen from the dead and that's the reason these miraculous powers were at work in him! Why didn't Herod conclude that Jesus was simply an angel of John the Baptist? Consider the dead raised in the great earthquake following the crucifixion of Jesus. According to Matthew, after Jesus died, there was an earthquake, the tombs were broken open and the dead were raised. Matthew's gospel doesn't add anything in the way of people thinking that they had seen the angels of those who had died, so even Mr. Holding cannot say with complete certainty that this was an expectation of all Jewish people.

4.) The disciples would've been expecting Jesus to directly ascend into heaven.

I have read Mr. Holding argue this in his response to Farrell Till. If I am to accept that Jesus really was buried by Joseph of Arimathea and that this tomb was subsequently found empty, I would probably have to accept that this was, in fact, the original belief of the disciples of Jesus. I would probably have to conclude that the appearances stories came later, perhaps as a anti-Docetic apologetic or an apologetic against would-be critics who might've alleged that the disciples were hallucinating the whole thing. At any rate, I really do not accept the resurrection stories as original but later creations of the evangelists who wrote the gospels. As I have written elsewhere on the subject, I believe that any distinction between visions on one hand and appearances on the other hand would've evolved later as an apologetic by the early Church, against possibly Gnostics such as the Docetics, or even against critics who might've alleged that the disciples were hallucinating or that the visions were self-induced. I believe, then, that the earliest disciples would've believed that Jesus had directly ascended into heaven and only after the distinction between visions and appearances was concieved of by the early Church, would the need to place such a distinction in its historical context arise, thereby creating a gap between the empty tomb and the ascension for apologetic purposes.

In conclusion, I have to say that I really do not buy into Holding's argument. I am not saying that I believe I have actually refuted Holding's argument; only that I might have a potentially powerful rebuttal. I believe that my future studies of New Testament criticism and biblical Greek will bear this suspicion of mine out. But if I do have an argument here, it's my sincere hope that Mr. Holding will not put too much emphasis on his own argument and will offer it as a potential argument. Mr. Holding is not an expert in Greek and I am glad that he acknowledges that he isn't (although from the way that he constantly makes usage of Greek words without referencing his sources, or qualifying his understanding of Greek, you'd never know that he didn't think of himself as an expert in Greek or someone who has mastered it). I am not at all an expert in Greek and I don't pretend to be and I usually go out of my way to qualify my understanding of Greek in my writings, although sometimes I might fall short of it and give a mistaken impression that I know for more than I do. I am sorry if anyone has gotten this impression because, frankly, it was never intended.

Matthew

It's Possible That Evangelical Christianity is the True Faith

Okay, I've said it. It's possible Christians are right after all. But then it's possible the Loch Ness Monster exists and is evading our attempts to detect her too! Christians must be convinced that their faith is nearly impossible before they will ever consider it to be improbable, which is an utterly unreasonable standard. There are at least two reasons why they demand such a high standard of disproof. The first is what I call the Omniscience Escape Clause (read all the links in this post!). The other reason is Pascal's Wager, in that unless the Christian faith is shown to be nearly impossible the threat of hell still holds sway over the minds of believers. I would think however, that if their faith is shown to be improbable that should be good enough. Here then are several ways where believers, especially evangelicals (my target audience), try escaping out from underneath the weight of probabilities:

Read more »

How NOT to Convince Us About God

A favorite theological scam

I never, ever visit Christian websites or blogs to advocate atheism; I don’t invade the online space of any religion. I’ve always thought this would be a waste of time and keystrokes—but moreover, it would be bad manners: it would be like walking into a church on a Sunday morning to argue with the preacher. Bad manners. I don’t want to be a troll.

Read more »

The Religious Condition (rough draft) part 01

Over the next few weeks, I'll be posting a rough draft of my upcoming book (in about 10-15 parts) that should be out early next year. I would appreciate comments, corrections (grammatical and other), and evaluations. I don't have much time to get involved in the discussion of comments on this blog, but I'll definitely read all of them. If it's boring, say so!

Read more »

Additional Thoughts On Using Bayes' Theorem

No one should expect that a good argument is one that convinces reasonable people. What we should expect is that an argument is a good one, or a strong one, or very strong one, irrespective of whether it is a convincing one. Even though I know this, I still try to come up with arguments that are convincing to most reasonable people. I expect kickback from Christian believers. What can annoy me is kickback from other atheists and agnostics, especially if they don't let it go after a while, until they say nothing new I haven't considered before. BTW: A person can annoy me on one issue but be very informative, completely delightful and insightful on most everything else. That describes Ignorant Amos. In fact, the commenters here seem to be the best I've seen anywhere!

I have defended the use of Hitchens’ Razor over the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) when assessing miracles like a virgin birthed deity and the resurrection of Jesus. I have argued that BT cannot and should not be applied to claims which are nonsense, and that miraculous claims in the ancient Biblical past are all nonsense! They are all nonsense because there is absolutely no credible evidence for any of them. I have also argued that the goal of atheists should be to change minds, and that fewer minds are changed the more we respond with greater and greater sophistication. Doing so also legitimizes nonsense by giving believers undue credibility. I agree with philosopher Julian Baggini who said, "Converts are won at the more general level." [infidels.org/kiosk/article.] For responding to fundamentalist philosophy only encourages fundamentalist philosophers. On the general level even ridicule changes minds.

I don’t object to using BT when it’s applied appropriately to questions for which we have prior objective data to determine their initial likelihood, along with subsequent data to help us in our final probability calculations. It’s an excellent tool when these conditions obtain. So a new provocative question arises, one I didn't address: What is the best tool for assessing the possibility that a historical person existed behind the Jesus character in the Gospels?

Read more »

Ten Lessons From Randal Rauser On How Not to Lose Gracefully

Dr. Randal Rauser and I co-wrote the debate book, God or Godless?, according to which, on most accounts he lost. So he's reviewing his own book on his blog. That's not bad in itself, so long as its educational. One should learn from failed attempts, yes. But he's whining, mischaracterizing and special pleading his case. Typical Christian apologist.

Take for instance his review of chapter five. In that chapter he wanted to debate whether science is a substitute for religion. *Cough* Commenting after the fact on his blog he adds:

Read more »

On Being Ignorant of One's Ignorance and Unaware of Being Unskilled, by John Loftus

[Written by John W. Loftus] As a former Christian, especially soon after I first converted, I thought I knew the answers to the riddle of existence. The answers were all in the Bible. And I thought I could also understand the Bible well enough to know, especially before I had any advanced learning. Initially I was a Bible Thumper. My motto was: God said it. I believe it. That settles it. All of the answers were to be found in the Bible, and I thought I knew them--all of them. So without any education at all I soon had the confidence to speak to college professors I met and not be intimidated at all. And I did. I remember walking away from some conversations thinking to myself how ignorant that professor was. Yep. That's right. At that time I was what psychologists have dubbed "Unskilled and Unaware of it." And it appears to me many Christians who comment here are just as I was. They come here with the answers. Some of them do not even have a college education. And yet they offer nothing but ignorant comments. I can't convince them otherwise. They are like I once was.

Looking back on those initial years I could see clearly that I was not able to think through the issues of the Bible, especially hermeneutics, until after gaining a master's degree. I would have told you upon receiving my first master's degree that I was ignorant before then. But I kept on learning and studying. Age had a way of teaching me as well. It seems as though as every decade passed I would say I was more ignorant in the previous one. As every decade passed I see more and more wisdom in Socrates who claimed he was wise because he didn't know. According to him the wiser that a person is, then the less he claims to know. Awareness of our ignorance only comes with more knowledge.

Read more »

The Religious Condition (rough draft) part 02

Read more »

No Magic Bullets!

I don't know how many emails I get each month from newly made atheists and agnostics, asking me for "ammo" to defeat an apologist's claim, to win an argument, or to cause someone to once and for all lose faith in Christianity. Here's how it ends up working; They get from me my views on a position and then naively assume that because I am an ex-minister, my answers will somehow make an atheist out of any theist who hears them. When this person's opponent has a reply for the objection I supplied them with, they are back again for another answer, unwilling to do their own research and somewhat perplexed that any other answers would be required. It is at this point that I explain to them that theists will always have some retort to offer up, as will the ardent believers of every cult or philosophical belief system. Newbies to the search for truth tend to want quick, simple, booming answers and tend to want to test the waters and see how formidable they are in debates. I consider both of these characteristics ridiculously juvenile.

Inquirers like these are looking for a "magic bullet" sort of answer, a "one shot deal", one they think is so indisputable that when confronted with it, a Christian or god believer will just melt and say, "OK, you got me. I will now renounce my faith and am an atheist from this day forward." This just doesn't happen.

Would that all who will be emailing me for answers with this mentality would read this: There are NO magic bullets! There is no one answer that totally destroys a belief system or answers a point that all will see and be receptive to anymore than there is one wrestling maneuver that will counter all kinds of attacks all of the time from all types of opponents. It is foolish to expect so. There will always be points, counterpoints, and counter-counterpoints, ad nausium. Anyone in any belief system can always put their spin on something and make a claim make sense no matter what the issue. If someone looks diligently enough for answers to the hard questions that trouble their belief system, they will find them. The Mormon finds "evidence" of Jesus having come to the Americas and witnessing to Native Americans regarding himself. The literal creationist finds "evidence" that the earth is 6,000 years old. Even the geocentrists and flat-earthers (rare as these may be) manage to come up with clever ways to respond to even the most sensible debaters who represent true science. Tons of information and misinformation is out there in a tremendous sea, waiting to be preferentially cyphened out by an individual. Psychology is involved in adopting the positions we hold and the lifepaths we choose to walk, factors beyond simple deductive and inductive reasoning. Humans have ways of making even the simplest of things complicated. The search for truth is never a simple one unless you are a gorilla...

1. Here are bananas.
2. I like bananas.
~ Therefore, I will eat them!

Nope! We humans just don't get off that easy! Our 3 pound brains bring us lots of heavy considerations, and there's no way to escape them and live.

The only way to get to the bottom of an issue and "prove" a conclusion is by being able to draw a demonstrable conclusion from an assortment of facts, and this usually requires a good level of knowledge. But this still does not guarantee everyone will accept it, and it shouldn't have to. Instead of getting discouraged at the fact that the hallway of truth is so dimly lit, at times making us uncertain of our own conclusions or whether we can really "know" anything, we ought to realize that the discovery of truth is first a deeply personal thing, then a collective thing. People will not automatically change their views, but one at a time, those individuals will change and come to form a new consensus.

So while it may say a lot to convince someone who does not agree with you, by sidestepping their objections and belief barriers, and leading them down the logical path to clarity of thought, this rarely, if ever, happens. Human nature always gets in the way. A paradigm shift is an arduous process. It takes time and reflection to occur if it ever does, and when it happens, no one ends up being able to take home the bragging rights for it's accomplishment. I have learned through the years to rejoice in the fact that the discovery of truth is of such a personal nature. Indeed, this is the biggest benefit of being able to call myself a freethinker: I don't have to agree with anyone! In the search for answers to the meaning of life, I came to find myself and contentment in the conclusions I draw. This means I am not terribly eager to fall on my face to hear what the "big guns" say about this or that subject. I am not aching to believe something just because someone smart or well known in a field believes it. I am only eager to believe something that rings of truth in my mind, as it "clicks" along the way of inquiry. For most of us, the seed of investigation can only be planted, and in time, may grow into the tree of knowledge that becomes our new world view. The search for truth is a journey, and journeys take time. Sensibility dictates that I must neither expect, nor look for magic bullets to complete the journey for anyone. There are no magic bullets!

(JH)

Take It to the Lord in Prayer: More Magical Thinking

“Tonight is the night that Mary passes through your house…”

Six years ago I published an article here about a sure-fire way for

devout believers to prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that prayer is an authentic way of communicating with god. That YES, god uses prayer as a way to let humans know his will on a wide variety of issues. I suggested recruiting 1,000—or 10,000—believers known for their intense prayer activity for a special project. But there’s a very crucial rule for the selection of these prayer experts: they must be drawn from the many different branches of theism, e.g., Catholics, Protestants—so many different kinds, including Pentecostals—Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Greek Orthodox. 
 
After a few weeks of intense prayer activity, these folks across the broad spectrum of theism would share what god had told them about such things as:

Read more »

Born Free

The concept of Free Will is used in defending Gods lack of intervention in many human events. That God esteems Free Will, elevating it to a position in which it must be preserved at all costs. But can Christianity stay consistent in defending Free Will, both practically and pragmatically?

Why would God have put that horrendous tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If but a small act would unleash death, sin, and destruction upon the world to such an extent that God Himself would have to die, and even then only abate a portion of the effects, it was self-defeating to allow this travesty to occur.

The most common response is “free will.” However one chooses to philosophically debate and define it, there is some broad concept out there under this cloak—free will—by which God determined it was necessary to provide humans with a choice between morality and immorality. Reflect on what an awesome usurpation of reality this free will is.

We see pictures of the genocides of the past century, and what humans can do to do to other humans, and are physically repulsed by these events. Yet somehow God determined that free will makes such atrocities necessary. We watch events unfold as nature destroys homes, and cities, and countries, and pour our sympathy to the people affected. Yet somehow, there is hierarchy in God’s domain that requires these calamities to cause devastation in order to preserve this essential Free Will. Many Christians believe regardless how one lives their life on earth, for a mere 100 years, if they fail to get it right, God will punish them for billions and billions and billions of years by eternal torment. And the reason for this endless punishment? The exercise of Free will is of greater import than horrendous pain inflicted upon humans.

Over and over we see this idea thrown back as a defense to the reality provided by the Christian God.

Why let the snake and Tree in the Garden? Free Will.
Why eternal punishment? Free Will.
Why the Problem of Evil? Free Will
Why can’t God show Himself? It would impair Free Will.
Why allow sin in the first place? Free Will.

Very Well. If the theist desires this idea to be the all-encompassing defense to these varied problems, then it is high-time to give it the proper place of propriety. Obviously Free Will is of greater concern, and more important to God than the exercise of immorality itself!

But wait a minute. God does not hesitate to impair, reduce and even eliminate Free Will. Starting right at the Garden. God did not limit the snake from being in the world, even though He certainly could have. Humans must have Free Will. God did not limit the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, even though he certainly could have. Humans must have Free will.

Yet, after the exercise of Free Will, God steps in, and declares that Humans must no longer have free choice to eat from the Tree of Life. And places a barrier in the shape of a sword to that Tree. (Gen. 3:22-24) What happened to “Free Will”? Does God only grant Free Will to humans when it harms them, and not when it is beneficial? Why couldn’t humans exercise Free Will to eliminate sickness and death?

Or the Tower of Babel. Humans exercised their Free Will to gather together in a social community, and avoid being separated across the face of the earth. They mutually entered into production, and engaged in a peaceful cooperation. Everything we wished humans could do today. God reviewed it, and intervened in their Free Will. He confused the languages. (Gen. 11:5-8) Again, we wonder why God superceded Free Will at the moment it was beneficial to humanity.

“God, God, Adam is about to introduce sin, cancer, plague, earthquakes and death into the world”
“Sorry. Nothing I can do. Must allow Free Will.”

“God, God, Humankind is working together in peace and harmony. They do not want to be separated from each other. They have peace.”
“Whoops. Can’t have that! Time to invade Free Will.”

Of course, the most famous individual incident of God impairing Free Will is Pharaoh. God gives Moses the heads-up that He will be interfering with Pharaoh’s Free Will. Even when Pharaoh wants to let the Hebrews leave, God will harden Pharaoh’s heart. (Ex. 4:21, 7:3, 9:12) In fact, God determined to impair Free Will so that God could perform signs and wonders. (Odd that God then erased every trace of these Plagues from happening, but that can be discussed another time.) Again and Again, God hardens not only Pharaoh’s heart, so they no longer have Free Will, but God also hardens Pharaoh’s servants and army’s heart as well. (Ex. 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8, 14:17)

Throughout the Tanakh, God steps in and moves events, places people in situations, provides insights, prods and pushes situations, all of which are designed to affect Free Will. In the New Testament, God is directly interfacing, performing miracles, teaching, ridiculing, and appearing in visions, all molding and shaping Free Will. “Inspiration” itself involves some impact on Free Will.

We are left with this conundrum of, on the one hand, God holding the Free Will of Humans in such high regard that He must allow sin, sickness, and death into the world at immeasurable rates (even His own death will not extinguish the effects), but on the other, interfering without apparent rhyme or reason with Free Will. Yet another aspect of God in which we have no parameters to gauge when God will or will not act. Yet another problem left unresolved by the mysterious God.

Frankly, it looks more like an excuse, rather than a defense. As if the Christian sees the problems presented by the issues, the Problem of Evil, the Tree, the perpetual punishment, and whips out what appears to be a convenient excuse at the moment—that God holds Free will in such esteem it must not be interfered with on these specific occasions. But there is no reasoning behind that. No demonstration as to why God can’t interfere with Free Will. Especially in light of how many times God does anyway. Even more especially in light of how much the Christian asks God to do it!

How many prayers are requests for God to step in and intrude on Free Will? One of the most common is prayer for employment. Are they asking that God encroach upon the hiring individual’s complete freedom of choice, and give the Christian the “nudge”? Or are they asking God to become involved in the Christian’s own Free Will and “give them the right things to say”? Either way, it is God involving Himself in Free Will.

Christians have no problem with God meddling in Free will when it comes to a pay raise. But meddling when billions will suffer for trillions of years? How brash to make such a request!

Another common prayer is for healing. King Hezekiah was assured by God he was going to die. One prayer, God intervenes, and he lives for another 15 years. 2 Kings. 20:1-6. James states that prayers will heal the sick. James 5:15. Thousands of times, I have heard, “God, give the doctors wisdom and guidance in this surgery…” Whoa! Isn’t that imposing on their Free Will? Shouldn’t God let their hand slip, if it chooses to do so, or let their mind forget, if they are having an off-moment?

Think of the irony of a child dying with leukemia. The only reason the child has this horrible disease (according to the Free Will Defense to the Problem of Evil) is that God holds Free Will as of more value, of more important than the unfortunate effects of disease. God may not like the disease, but its existence is necessary, due to the allowing of Free Will. And the Christian by the bedside prays that God provides insight, a flash of brilliance, an imposition on the medical team’s free will to develop a cure. Sure, the disease was necessary for some “ultimate” God-sized Free Will problem. Just not for one individual situation. Why isn’t the Christian thankful for the demonstration of how God holds Free Will in such high regard? Because that is merely a defense to an observed problem, not a reality to the Christian.

In every stadium, one-half are praying that the God will involve Himself on the Free Will of the Home team, and the other half are praying that God will involve Himself on the Free Will of the away team. People pray for monetary assistance, for mental assistance, for love, for physical help, for spiritual help. All of which requires God to interact. Many situations, requiring God to manipulate Free Will.

Jesus said that whatever you ask in pray, believing you will receive. (Mt. 21:22) He had no problem with impinging on Free Will at request. He said to pray that one’s Faith would not fail. (Lk. 22:32)

Fascinating that Jesus prayed God would keep “those who you gave me” from the evil one. John 17:15. Now why wouldn’t Jesus have prayed that for Adam? Certainly Jesus has enough faith to believe, and what He asks would come true! Jesus is watching the events unfold in the Garden of Eden. He knows that eventually he can only save a few that he will be asking God to keep away from the evil one. If it is acceptable for God to impose and “keep” people away, what was the problem in the Garden?

Paul prays that the Corinthians “do no evil.” 2 Cor. 13:7. Is this a request? If a petition to God, how is God supposed to put it into effect? Remove temptation? How much interaction can God do before it is too much? That the same Free Will that could not be violated in the Garden of Eden appears?

And what of those of us that voluntarily requested God to suspend our Free Will, and provide some proof of His existence? Odd that for us ex-Christians God could not impede our Free Will when we asked him to show some proof, but Christians find God giving a person the “right things to say” perfectly acceptable. We asked for wisdom, (James 1:5) but that would be infringing on our Free Will. Why, then, couldn’t we ask? Oh, I know the claim we were “doubting” so God didn’t have to give wisdom. We were to ask “in faith.” Clever defense. God only provides answers to those that already know the answers. If you don’t know the answers, God won’t give you them.

Why—would it infringe on Free Will?

God imposed Himself on Free Will all the time. With little hesitation. There is no reason He could not have equally imposed in the Garden of Eden. “Free Will” is a handy defense, brought out to convince other Christians there must be some reason why God allows travesty, and then quickly discarded when faced with life’s troubles personally.

A Reflection On Randal Rauser: Some Final Thoughts On An Interesting and Paradoxical Personality, Guest Post Written by Tristan Vick aka The Advocatus Atheist

Way back in October of 2013 I sat down and read Randal Rauser’s book The Swedish Atheist the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails and then, as is my habit, wrote a series of brief reviews about my impressions on my philosophy of religion blog The Advocatus Atheist.

Initially, I think the thing that struck a chord with me about Randal was that he didn't seem like he was rehashing all the same old Christian apologetic fanfare. Rather, there seemed to be some genuine thought behind his arguments, and I found that rather refreshing (for a religious apologist). Randal is articulate and approaches perceived problems in Christianity differently than other apologists (heck, he even admits there ARE theological problems in Christianity that need addressing – so kudos to him).

Read more »

The Making and Unmaking of a Zealot, By Dr. Dale O’Neal

This essay was written by Dr. Dale O'Neal, who received a “Preacher of the Year” award from Talbot School of Theology when he studied there. The winner two years earlier was John MacArthur Jr., and the winner the previous year was Josh McDowell. As an ex-christian and psychologist he explains  how Christian zealots are made. This is very insightful! Christian apologists should read this essay to see what has happened to them. I can only hope it will be shared and read widely!

Read more »

Hermione Granger or the Apostle Paul? Take Your Pick

The enduring appeal of magical thinking

Young Harry Potter didn’t know that he was one of the most famous wizards in the world. He found out on his eleventh birthday, when he was rescued from his despicable uncle and aunt by the enormous, gentle Rubeus Hagrid. In the hours that followed, Harry learned from Hagrid there was a school called Hogwarts and that he belonged to the world of wizards. Everyone else in the world—the non-wizards, including his uncle and aunt—were Muggles.

The morning after his rescue, Hagrid mentioned the Ministry of Magic, and Harry wanted to know what the Ministry of Magic did.

Read more »

Preface and Introduction to "The Gospel According to Whom?" by Dr. John Beversluis

[See the Tag below for my introduction to these series of posts]. When I looked again at the book files that the late John Beversluis sent me in 2008, he included a Preface, an Introduction, and not six but seven chapters. Here for the first time are his Preface and Introduction. What he wrote is as good as I remembered! It's also more timely today than it was thirteen years ago.

Read more »

Contra Steve Hays and Jason Engwer on the OTF

I'm in the process of assessing Triablogue's online book against The Christian Delusion. Since I don't want to repeat myself if you haven't already done so read my first response.

Read more »

You Can't Argue With Christians

One of the things I have noticed in dealing with Christians on this blog and in person is that they are hard to deal with. They are hard to deal with because of their belief system and their world view. They are nearly impossible to talk with rationally (about religion, especially theirs) and they are dead set in their ways. They can quote snippets of the Bible with such forceful authority that it can make your hair stand on end. They speak as if their opinion is the God-sanctioned truth about both religion and politics.

Read more »

Review of: "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will" by Robert M. Sapolsky

Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will by Robert M. Sapolsky
Penguin Publishing Group | 2023 | ISBN: 9780525560982, 052556098X | Page count: 528 | Wikipedia article | Goodreads entry and quotations from the book | Google Books entry with preview | Amazon link

Determined is Robert M. Sapolsky's skeptical take on the topic of free will. The topic is relevant to this blog since conceptions of free will have a long (and contentious) history in Christianity and other religions. In the religion debate, the issue of free will is likely to come up at some point, given that religious conceptions of free will tend to be pretty far from the scientific picture. See for example:

• My Rambling Thoughts On Free Will, Determinism, and Making Choices by John W. Loftus at 4/26/2023
• Christianity in the Light of Science: Critically Examining the World's Largest Religion (Goodreads entry), Part 3: Science and Salvation, especially Chapter 9: Free Will
• My Foreword to God and Horrendous Suffering, ed. John Loftus by Stephen Law, May 18, 2022 (mentions free will as a strategy by theists to solve the problem of evil)

As Sapolsky's book demonstrates at great length, free will is nowhere to be found in a scientific study of the human organism. Now, maybe some future scientific discovery will rescue free will, and therefore breathe some life into religious talking points that assume free will, but the trend so far is not encouraging for those who chain their theistic wagons to it.

Determined is a fairly high-profile book in its niche, and has attracted its share of comment. Rather than rewrite everything in the existing commentary, I'll link to some of it. If anything in the rest of my review seems hard to follow, consider coming back here to read some or all of these:

Read more »

When Clergy “Just Say No” to Christianity

A Review of John Compere’s book, Outgrowing Religion

Pope Francis may, as a show of theistic solidarity, offer handshakes and hugs to leading Protestant, Jewish and Muslim clerics. Such posturing plays well with the faithful and the media. We’ve all seen the feel-good photo ops. (I wonder, are the Mormons ever included? Or do they still smell too much like a cult?)

The pope knows full well, of course, that the other theistic brands are wrong about God—and he could tell you why. They all could point out the errors of the others, and they all have teams of apologists to back them up. When the most devout theists disagree with each other—as much as they disagree with nonbelievers—why aren’t they embarrassed by the discord? Sad to say, the brains of these hardcore faith fanatics have been wired not to allow interference. Each brand specializes in capturing brains at the earliest possible age.

Read more »

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 3

[First Published 8/3/21] I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). Here is chapter three on "The Genealogies of Matthew and Luke." Do not skip this chapter! It's the most thorough taken-down of the inconsistent, inaccurate, absurd genealogies you will find. It deserves to be studied! I highlighted a few awesome statements of his.

Read more »