Peter Kirk on the Haitian Disaster: Defending the Indefensible

I'm amused most of the time at what it takes to defend the Christian faith. I am even more amused when a defender of the faith lacks the required thinking skills to do so, like Kirk. Remember, he's the one who assures us that it wasn't God's fault for the Haitian disaster. Nothing personal here, but with critical thinking skills like this no wonder he believes. Let's take a look:

Read more »

My Engaging Debate with Paul Moser

Almost every time I have engaged Dr. Paul K. Moser on Facebook, he has berated me as being below him. This time was different, probably because it was noted that Dr. James Sennett had highly praised my first book, WIBA. 

Moser denigrated Dr. Daniel Dennett in this meme. It prompted a good discussion, starting with this response by Mark J. Mathews:

Richard Carrier and John Loftus express the same sentiment in their platforms. I'm also willing to engage their evidence for God's non-existence, if it's such a slam dunk. In fact, I'd be willing to resign my ministry tomorrow.

Okay, I thought. I'll respond. If Paul Moser reads and considers everything I said and linked to, I would think his faith took a hit. Two days ago I had posted my initial statement. Here's the rest of the engaging story:

Read more »

I'm less than convinced

My line of work affords me the opportunity to convince a variety of people to do various actions. I am acutely aware of motivating factors, and how they impact situations. We realize that we must interact with these motivations, because ignoring them will only bring doom.

It is fascinating to me, communicating with so many different people on so many different levels, as to what one person finds extremely significant, another finds completely irrelevant.

As deconversion stories abound, we see people, due to the variety available in humanity, question their long-held belief for various reasons. This should not surprise us, given the make-up of humanity.

I find it even more intriguing how others will criticize the deconvert for doing it “incorrectly.” As if there is only one proper way in which one can deconvert!

So what is that proper way? What steps must I follow to deconvert? Why is it that the way in which you are convinced; I must be convinced?

This is a deviation from my normal blog entry. No Bible verses. Only little cry for methodology. No hermeneutics. Never fear—I will be back in full form and function.

As I said, I am actively involved in convincing other people.

I convince clients. Perhaps they want to pursue a course of action that is not beneficial to their case. Perhaps they do not fully understand the implication or costs involved in a certain action. Perhaps they believe the practice of law is similar to what is on TV.

And in our discussion, we talk about motives. One of the first questions asked in a new divorce matter is whether there is a new love interest on the part of a spouse. Such a factor will have a huge motivating force. (Those with love interests tend to want to resolve the divorce quickly, even to the point of financial detriment.) Mothers tend to be motivated by maternal instincts; Fathers by finance. The most common tactic in the book is the man fighting for custody to scare the mother, and the female fighting for higher child support to scare the father.

I have seen clients motivated by greed, jealousy, revenge, money, principle, fear, anger, business direction, spouses, friends, parents, children and just about every facet in-between. And each must be deal with at their motivating factor. If a person is motivated by principle, there is no sense convincing them of the unnecessary cost of a matter.

I convince judges. Here’s a great feeling—going into court prepared to the hilt to argue a legal issue. And hear the Judge say, “I don’t find that very important. What I would like to see is some argument on this other legal issue.” One that frankly my position is not nearly as strong. What can I do? Argue with the judge as to what is more important? Or convince him that I will prevail on both the weaker issue, and then attempt to persuade him that the legal issue I originally wanted to argue is clearly the crux of the matter.

And each judge is different. Some follow the letter of the law, some the spirit. Some want the case to go away, regardless of how it is done. Some favor oral argument, some despise it. As we practice, we learn what the judge desires, and what persuades him or her.

I convince jurors. At times, the most difficult of all. We are presented with a mixed cross-section of the community, and are given only a morning to question them. Within that morning, we attempt to learn what they will find important, and what they will ignore. Then, with that little information, we spend the next few days using that data in the hopes to gain or prevent millions of dollars, or decades in prison.

Talking to jurors after a trial is always enlightening. Very often they will say, “You spent way too much time on this point” or “We were surprised you did not talk about this point.”

We think to ourselves, “I have been a trial lawyer for 15 years. My opponent has as well. We have each done 100’s of trials. The Judge has seen 100’s more. Clearly we thought these points were important, or those were not based upon our experience. Had we anticipated the jury would think completely differently, obviously we would have focused our attention otherwise.”

See, at that moment, with those few people, what all our experience(s) informed us was meaningless. To them certain items were persuasive and others were irrelevant. Because each jury has a different make-up; a different motivation.

If each of us look in our lives, we use different methods, different words to persuade different people—based upon our relationship, or their personality, or what they are interested in at that moment.

Why should deconversion be any different?

I read deconversion stories. I read them as a Christian (upon learning such a thing existed!) wondering what would make a person want to stop believing in something as obvious as a God. I read them while deconverting, to attempt to understand what I was going through, what to expect and what to avoid. I read them now because I find the story of the human race continues to enthrall me.

One concept that sticks out, almost universally, is the desire to investigate alternative forms of information. Either we were always reading Christian books, and discovered scholars in fields other than our particular form of Christianity, or creationists discovering scientific fields or historians reading secular history. Does this always lead to deconversion? Of course not! But I cannot think of a single deconvert that does not mention graduated levels of study of a broader spectrum during the process.

But what led a person to investigate originally? Perhaps for some, it was an incident or a tragedy that made them begin to question how God works. Or, for others, a personal struggle that brought them to the point of looking for answers. Perhaps a purely academic endeavor or an interest in debating the topic.

In every other aspect of our lives, humanity’s motivations are too varied to contain in a limited number of boxes—so, too, with deconversion.

Which brings me to the odd question: What makes a deconversion legitimate? Is a deconvert more justified in her action because she decided to engage in a study of the origin of Christianity, as compared to a homosexual that decided to investigate why God made him that way? Or is a scientist that discovers the viability of evolution a more suitable deconvert than a questioning parent who loses a child to disease?

There are two items that strike me as particularly humorous in this regard. First, for a religion that prides itself on faith, it certainly has a fascination and worshipful awe for intellectualism. “Thinking” one’s way out of Christianity is demanded, but “believing” one’s way into it is required. Second, since all deconverts have an equal degree of heathenicity, does it really matter by what method we started or traveled this path? “You were never saved in the first place” is equally tattooed to the homosexual deconvert, the scholarly deconvert, the scientific deconvert, or the {fill in the blank} convert.

So…you tell me. What is the “proper” way in which one becomes a deconvert?

What is disappointing about this discussion is how small the Christian God becomes. Even as humans we figured out that people are different. That their needs, wants and desires are different. Consequently, and certainly not surprisingly, what persuades them is different. To some, a series of books that is complied over the course of few centuries which contain amazing stories is enough. For others, in observing the world about them, they need more.

We are often told “Who are you to ask ‘Why?’ of God?” (“Often.” Heh heh. There’s an understatement!) Who am I? I am a person with different motives than you. I am a person that cannot sleep with “ultimate purpose” as a response to the Problem of Evil. I am a person that is not convinced a series of books with possible, not plausible, resolutions to contradictions qualifies as spectacular. I, like numerous other humans, am looking for more evidence that convinces me.

You, as a human, can figure it out. If you were selling me a car, or trying to date me, or persuade me to not see a Movie, you would understand that you must first learn what motives me. What persuades me. What is convincing to me. And your God cannot figure that out?

So many times we are told, “THIS is what God claims must convince you. THIS is what is persuasive.” And yet it turns out the “THIS” is exactly what persuades the person making the claim. Can’t God do better? Can’t God actually persuade someone else with evidence that convinces them and does NOT convince you?

Because we see that happen in life all the time.

If my deconversion does not meet your standard, if it was deficient and ineffective in some way, please; I ask you. Provide me with the “proper” way in which one can be a legitimate deconvert.

Asking for EVIDENCE for God: Why Is that So Hard to Grasp?

Sentiments about Jesus do not qualify

According to the devout, evidence for their god is so obvious, “I feel Jesus in my heart!” “Just open the Bible, it’s right there.” “People all over the world have seen visions of the Virgin Mary.” “Every day I receive guidance from my god in prayer.” “The holy spirit fills me with joy during Sunday worship.” 

 

Please note these claims are usually made by people who have been groomed from a very young age to accept what they’re been told by preachers and priests. Or maybe they converted to Christianity as adults—which is no surprise, since the marketing of Jesus is a multi-billion-dollar business. There are thousands of churches ready to welcome converts into their grooming communities.

Read more »

Here is Andrew Lamprecht's Deconversion Story

Andrew Lamprecht is a former Christian living in Adrian, Michigan, who is an aspiring author. Enjoy. See if his story resonates with you.

Read more »

Andy Bratton, a Senior Minister Where I Formerly Served as His Youth Minister, Asks Why We No Longer Believe

On Facebook I wrote this post:

Andy Bratton is now the Senior Minister of a Church of Christ in Kalkaska, Michigan. I knew him as his Youth Minister of that same church, when his father was the Senior Minister before him. He recently asked something of those of us who now doubt. Help him. Be courteous please, as he's a super great guy!

"So here is an honest question, not for judgment but for research sake. For the atheists or agnostics out there, what exactly is it about Christianity that cause you to reject it as a belief system? Is it personal research? Is it too outlandish to believe? Has the church hurt you in some way? Do you feel that there can't be a God because your life hasn't gone so well? I am simply curious. I am preaching a sermon series right now and it would help to understand. Thanks ahead of time for your answers."

Answers flooded in. Then Andy responded and I took him to task.

Read more »

A Tsunami of Christian Hate

What can happen when a prophet gets it wrong

The Prophet Jeremiah—not the one in the Old Testament—but the Prophet Jeremiah Johnson of North Carolina appears to have fumbled the word of God; he had predicted the reelection of Trump. Hemant Mehta, in a post on The Friendly Atheist blog, quoted Johnson’s follow-up:

“My aim in this public apology is twofold. First, I would like to repent for inaccurately prophesying that Donald Trump would win a second term as the President of the United States. I refuse to blame the saints and say, ‘It didn’t come to pass because they did not pray enough.’ Nor will I proclaim, ‘Donald Trump actually won, so I was right, but now it has been stolen from him.’ I believe the first statement seeks to alleviate the prophetic messenger from the responsibility of what he prophesied, and the second statement is filled with potential pride and an unwillingness to humble himself and admit he was wrong.

Read more »

William Lane Craig is an Epistemological Solipsist, Revisited

Dr. Craig responds to similar questions I've raised about his claim that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit "trumps all other evidence" in his recent Q & A. Remember, I had claimed he was an Epistemological Solipsist and as such, similar arguments against both viewpoints apply. I made my argument here. Let me further comment on what he just wrote...

Dr. Craig wrote:

...most of our beliefs cannot be evidentially justified. Take, for example, the belief that the world was not created five minutes ago with built-in memory traces, food in our stomachs from meals we never really ate, and other appearances of age. Or the belief that the external world around us is real rather than a computer-generated virtual reality. Anyone who has seen a film like The Matrix realizes that the person living in such a virtual reality has no evidence that he is not in such an illusory world. But surely we're rational in believing that the world around us is real and has existed longer than five minutes, even though we have no evidence for this.

I find these examples to be strange ones, very strange. So let’s see if I can put this into perspective. He's arguing that since it’s rational to believe we’re not in The Matrix or that we have not been created five minutes ago, it’s also rational to believe in God without evidence. Is there truly no evidence against our beliefs that we were not created five minutes ago or that we're not living in The Matrix? These examples are bandied about among philosophers as if they are self-evident, including the evil demon and dream conjectures of Rene Descartes. We are told there is no evidence for what we believe about such things AND we are told by Reformed Epistemologists like Plantinga and Craig that these examples parallel their belief in the “great truths of the gospel.” Let’s look at these things in turn.

First, I think there is evidence to suggest we were not created five minutes ago, depending on what we mean by evidence. Evidence in its broadest conception includes anything and everything used to demonstrate the truth of a claim, which includes our arguments based on the things we’ve experienced. What we believe will be based on the probability of the evidence, all of it, as broadly defined. As such, I think there is evidence against the existence of a creator God. The arguments for the existence of God are not persuasive. I do not think such a God could create the first moment in time if he is somehow “outside of time.” And I do not think a spiritual Supreme Being could create a material world. Even if a creator God exists I find no evidence that he would create us into such a massively deceptive world five minutes ago anyway. Therefore there is evidence against our having been created five minutes ago. Now, could it be possible that we were created five minutes ago? Maybe. But if so, this is an very very slim possibility given the evidence.

The demon hypothesis of Rene Descartes, in which there might be a demon who is deceiving me right now, fails because of the same evidence just mentioned above with regard to God creating us five minutes ago. Descartes uses his extreme method of hypothetical doubt like a massive sword. The mere possibility that there is such a demon was enough to cast doubt on his knowledge about the external world. But why must we base what we believe or don’t believe on a mere possibility?

When it comes to the question of whether I’m dreaming right now a good case has been made by Norman Malcom [in his book Dreaming and Skepticism], and Bernard Williams [in his book Descartes], that there is a difference between dreams and our waking experience. The fact that we can distinguish between them presupposes we are aware of them both and of their differences. It’s only from the perspective of being awake that we can explain our dreams. Hence we can only make sense of this distinction if we are sometimes awake. And since this is the case, all of our experiences throughout our entire lives cannot be made up merely of a sequence of dreams.

What about the world depicted in The Matrix film? There are several responses to such a radical scenario which would upstage most every belief we have about our existence in this world. Such a scenario is a mere possibility, if it is possible at all, and a very unlikely one at that. I’d have to refresh myself on the story line but the story is just implausible. I see no reason why there would be any human resistance or knowledge of the Matrix at all by people living in the Matrix, since it determines all of their experiences…all of them. I also see no reason why a pill or a decision by Neo could make any difference at all while inside the Matrix. Apart from the story line itself I see no reason for the Matrix in the first place, and I see no reason why our bodies are better at fueling it than other sources. I’d have to watch the movie again to say more about it.

As David Mitsuo Nixon argued, “The proper response to someone’s telling me that my belief could be false is, “So what?” It’s not possibility that matters, it’s probability, So until you give me a good reason to think that my belief is not just possibly true, but probably false, I’m not changing anything about what I believe or what I think I know.” [“The Matrix Possibility” in The Matrix and Philosophy, ed. William Irwin (p. 30)]

So even if the Matrix is a possibility, it’s an extremely unlikely one. To overturn nearly everything we believe in order to believe it would be to go against the overwhelming evidence (as defined above) about that which we claim to know. In fact, it would be self-defeating to believe it, for if we did come to believe in the Matrix then how do we know that THAT world isn't just another kind of Matrix? That is, if the belief in the Matrix leads us to distrust most everything we experience, then what reason would Neo have for trusting the experiences he had while supposedly outside the Matrix in the so-called “real world?” When it comes to Neo knowing the real world in distinction from the Matrix he has been given no reason to think one world is real and the other is illusionary. The red pill could have been nothing more than a hallucinogenic drug, for instance. So Neo would have no basis for trusting those experiences supposedly outside the Matrix in the real world, and as such he would end up as an “epistemological solipsist,” not having any reason for trusting there is a world outside his mind, something I accuse William Lane Craig of being.

Here’s what Professor Craig additionally said…

Plantinga does not to my knowledge clearly commit himself to the view that the witness of the Holy Spirit is an intrinsic defeater-defeater. Such a thesis is independent of the model as presented. But I have argued that the witness of the Spirit is, indeed, an intrinsic defeater of any defeaters brought against it.

It is in this sense that I argue Craig is an epistemological solipsist. He claims that no other evidence can convince him or any other believer that they are wrong…none...apart from this so-called inner witness of the Holy Spirit, which always serves as an intrinsic defeater-defeater to this evidence.

Craig also wrote…

Many of the things we know are not based on evidence. So why must belief in God be so based? Belief in God and the great truths of the Gospel is not a blind exercise of faith, a groundless leap in the dark. Rather, as Plantinga emphasizes, Christian belief is part of the deliverances of reason, grounded in the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, which is an objective reality mediated to me from God.

Notice the impossibly huge leap Craig makes here. From the fact that we cannot be absolutely certain

(a) that we were not created five minutes ago, or

(b) that we are not living in a Matrix,

Craig claims,

(c) we can know with some real assurance that the Christian God exists and that the gospel is true.

I think a proper conclusion from what he’s argued can only lead him to conclude that since it’s possible that (a) and (b) obtains, it’s therefore possible that (c) obtains. But this is extremely problematic. As I’ve argued in my book, Christians repeatedly retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or “not impossible,” rather than what is probable. When they do this they are admitting the evidence is not on their side. They’re trying to explain the evidence away. Just because all of these things are possible he cannot conclude that what he believes is probable. A possibility is not a probability. How he slips in a probability because of a possibility is beyond me. The inference does not follow. It's a huge non-sequitur.

Just look at the analogous belief he thinks he has assurance about. In my debate challenge I asked what a potenital Christian opponent would like to defend. Here is what Craig must be assured of, depending on how he answers each question:

Would you like to defend the existence of the social Trinitarian God (versus an anti-social Trinitarian God) of the Bible (which had a long process of formation and of borrowing material from others) who never began to exist and will never cease to exist (even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end), who never learned any new truths, who does not think (for thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives), who is not free with respect to deciding his own nature, who revealed himself through a poor medium (history) in a poor era (ancient times), who condemns all of humanity for the sins of the first human pair, who commanded genocide, who allows intense suffering in this world (yet does not follow the same moral code he commands believers to follow), whose Son (the 2nd person of the trinity) became incarnate in Jesus (even though no one has ever made sense of a person who is 100% man and 100% divine) to be punished for our sins (even though there is no correlation between punishment and forgiveness) who subsequently bodily arose from the dead (even though the believer in miracles has an almost impossible double-burden of proof here) and now lives embodied forever in a “spiritual” human body to return in the future, who will return to earth in the parousia (even though the NT is clear that the end of all kingdoms and the establishment of God's kingdom was to be in their generation), who sent the 3rd person of the trinity to lead his followers into "all truth" (yet fails in every generation to do this), who will also judge us based upon what conclusions we reach about the existence of this God and what he has done (paralleling the ancient barbaric thought police), and who will reward believers by taking away their freedom and punish the dammed by letting them retain their freedom?

Interesting hypothesis, if so. This is such a large claim. The larger the claim is, the harder it is to defend it.

In my book I marshal a great amount of evidence against that which Craig believes. I think I have more than adequately debunked any claim he has to believe AND ALONG WITH IT any degree of assurance that he has an inner witness of the Holy Spirit. What will he do with that evidence? Argue against it, of course. But what if he cannot argue against me on any issue that undermines a key belief of his? Will he continue to believe against it, despite the evidence? He claims he can and he will continue to believe. I think he should follow the evidence by rejecting his so-called inner witness of the Spirit.

Lastly Craig does say something about the evidence, when he writes:

What is true is that evidence, as it is defined in these discussions, plays a secondary role compared to the role God Himself plays in warranting Christian belief. Should we, then, ignore strong evidence if it shows that our faith is probably false? Of course not! My work as a philosopher exemplifies the effort to confront objections to Christian belief squarely and to answer them. But most Christians in the world don't have that luxury. For them they may have to hold to their Christian belief even though they lack an answer to the alleged defeater. What I insist on is that, given the witness of the Holy Spirit within them, they are entirely rational in so doing.

In essence what Dr. Craig is saying is that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives him all the evidence anyone needs to believe, even if he cannot show this evidence leads to God, and as I argued earlier, even if he cannot sufficiently defend the whole concept of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (which I find extremely puzzling, but this follows from what he says, because this so-called inner witness trumps even his own attempts to argue sufficiently on its behalf). So, does Craig ignore the other evidence? No. But this other evidence is "secondary." He believes that the other secondary evidence confirms what he already knows to be true by the primary evidence of this so-called inner witness of the Holy Spirit. When it comes to this other evidence, believers do not need it to believe, period, even if this other evidence does not support the Christian witness of the Spirit. No Christian needs supporting evidence to believe, not him…not anyone. That’s his position and why I claim again he’s an epistemological solipsist.

An Interview With Richard Carrier About His Book, "Proving History"

Richard Carrier has kindly agreed to answer some questions I posed after reading his soon to be released book Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. 2012). This book introduces Bayes’s Theorem as a basis for assessing whether or not Jesus existed, a subject he will deal with in a forthcoming book titled, “On the Historicity of Jesus Christ.”

Read more »

Three Definitive Answers To What It Would Take to Convince Atheists To Believe!

Here is the Christian challenge: "I don't believe that if God appeared to us, atheists would believe. For atheists can always make the case that the appearance of God was a hallucination, or a trick by super-advanced extraterrestrials."

This bald assertion is akin to a second Christian claim that the reason atheists don't believe is because we are in conscious (or unconscious) rebellion against God, their particular God. Completely oblivious are they of the fact that they aren't in conscious (or unconscious) rebellion against Allah, or the Jewish God Adonai, or any other different God, or god, or goddess, or demon with their different (and bizarre) moral demands. Christians are narrow-atheists with regard to these other gods, so they judge them to be lacking in sufficient evidence just like wide-atheists do who reject them all. Christians themselves would scoff at the notion they are in rebellion against Allah, you see. So Christians who make this second ignorant assertion cannot be taken seriously if they also make the former ignorant one. The ignorance is one and the same.

Skepticism is a virtue anyway. I think intelligent adults should double-check their experiences to see if they comport with reality. Mature adults should question whether an experience that feels like God might be better explained as a hallucination or produced by aliens. What's wrong with doing this? Nothing I can see at all. I wish believers would do that with their own private subjective experiences, just as former believers like myself have done.

When it comes to believing despite the evidence, readers to consider that the reverse is actually the case, from what I've seen. I've seen Christians revise their faith so much in my lifetime, as the evidence shows one doctrine then another incorrect, that they would probably refuse to believe if scientists discovered the elusive Theory of Everything. They would just say God did it. So I think Christians are projecting upon atheists what they themselves would do in light of a massive amount of counter-evidence. They would still believe despite it. In fact, they already do.

Read more »

Green vs Engwer: Defending Visions

Green Answers Engwer: The Argument over Visions

On this blog, I have put forth an essay series on the visionary origins of Christianity. I have decided to make it a five-part series, beginning with an essay on visions and four subsequent posts defending objections to my visions. Jason Engwer of Triablouge has seen fit to compose a rebuttal of what I have written on the subject of visions. In what follows will be a point-by-point rebuttal to what Mr. Engwer has written.

Read more »

Haberdashery

What do you call Parachuting Attorneys?
Skeet.

On another discussion, I saw a reference to the article by Dr. Montgomery regarding the application of legal principles to the claimed testimony of the authors of the New Testament Books. Mr. Packham has written an ample reply. (Read them if you are aching to read a Christian apologetic that makes reference to books with titles such as Wigmore on Evidence.)

As I was re-reading this article, it struck me that applying our legal system--specifically the American legal system of admitting evidence into the proofs, in order to substantiate the plausibility of the facts within the books of the New Testament does not help their reliability.

I understand the inclination to use the same method we see on TV, with its apparent deeply probing questions, and presentation of countering facts, and clever cross-examination, all with the result of bring forth the truth of what really happened before the credits roll in an hour or so. But the reality is that the way we allow testimony in a trial is not really designed to determine truth of ancient historical facts, nor was the New Testament designed to be 21st Century testimony in a trial.

It is like using a glove for a sock. Technically you probably can, but neither your foot, nor the glove will appreciate the effort.

The Glove

We initially look at the system being used—the American Judicial system.

We recognize that there comes a point of time in which two (or more) people cannot agree as to what happened, who is at fault, and/or how to allocate justice. Society created a system by which it attempted to resolve this problem in a manner that it hopes is the most fair to all involved. Part of that is digging out the most basic question of all—what happened?

First we make the trier-of-fact (either a judge or jury) as neutral to the outcome as possible. We do not allow the jury to get a “split” of any sums it awards. We keep family members and friends from being jurors or judges in cases their loved ones are involved. We attempt to remove (as much as humanly possible) any bias or prejudice from the person who must make the ultimate decision.

We recognize that a friend will have a natural inclination to find in favor of their friend.

Who were the neutral, unbiased individuals monitoring what was placed in the books of the New Testament? At what point did a person neither committed toward Christianity, nor against it, make the decision that a portion of a book, or a story or even a sentence either should or should not be included?

I want to be clear, I am not requiring that such an event should ever have taken place in the creation of the canon. But if we are using the legal system to make this determination, we need to recognize how the system works, including the method it uses to answer the simple question—what happened? And that method involves a decision-making performed by a person uncommitted to whether the events actually occurred or not.

Without that, we are not really using the legal system as an arbiter of the facts. I was surprised to see Dr. Montgomery confuse this fact. In his article he claims the Jewish religious leaders performed the tacit act of cross-examination (more on this later.) But then he states, “Such an audience eminently satisfies Given’s description of ‘both a cross-examiner and a tribunal.’” No, it does not! The cross-examiner is NOT neutral. The cross-examiner and the neutral tribunal, in our system is never the same. (It is possible that Dr. Montgomery was referring to those converted as the “neutral” and the religious leaders as the “cross-examiner” but this is not at all clear.)

Secondly, the practice strives to use only the best evidence available. This is the area of focus of Dr. Montgomery’s article and Mr. Peckham’s response. They discuss concepts such as hearsay, and ancient documents. Very good examples of what I mean by using the best evidence.

We are concerned, due to the fallibility of human memory, when a person testifies about what another person said. “Hearsay,” extremely simply stated, is a witness testifying as to what another person said. It looks like:

Witness: Joe told me—
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: Sustained.

If we want to hear what Joe saw, we will bring in Joe to testify. How many times have we had the conversation where we thought someone said something that they claim they never did? I am certain my wife told me she would love for me to buy a big-screen television, yet oddly she makes the claim she never said such a thing!

We are concerned that the witness, even inadvertently, may introduce their own perception and alteration into what Joe said. We know the telephone game. One person whispers a statement to another and it passes around a circle of 20. We then hear how the statement is muddled and mixed up by the end. A picture of hearsay in action.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Boring, everyday statements will slip through. “Joe said, ‘Hi,’” while technically hearsay, it is silly to exclude such trivial testimony. An exception, though, that highlights our concern for the best evidence is called “the Excited Utterance.” It is a statement that a person makes relating to a startling event, while under the excitement of the event, like this:

Witness: Joe staggered into my house, holding his chest with blood spurting between his fingers and exclaimed, “John shot me!”
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: No, the exclamation was made during an exciting event, and clearly Joe was still in an excited state. Overruled.

The concept of denying hearsay evidence is the fear of introducing an element of dishonesty. The exceptions allow for situations in which it is hardly likely dishonesty would have a chance to occur. We doubt that Joe would be shot, and take a moment to reflect, “Now, I know I was shot by Sally, but it would be great to pin this on John, so I will rush in and blame it on John.”

We have all seen people’s immediate reactions to startling events. Their first reaction is genuine. There is no time for reflection. That is where the difficulty creeps in.

What if Joe says it the next day at the hospital? Is he still under the shock of the event? What about the next week? The next year. At some point, the court says, “Wait a minute. Joe is no longer in the state of shock.” We begin to question this exception to hearsay (and this is important) when the person has had an opportunity to pause and reflect upon what they would say.

We recognize that the next day, Joe might be more inclined to pin it on Sally, rather than John. Or he may not want to pin it on anyone. That time to pause and reflect causes a greater likelihood of dishonesty to occur. Therefore, we no longer want to hear what a witness says Joe said, we want Joe himself.

Think about the time to pause and reflect (and modify) between the events claimed, and the time it was written down concerning the books of the New Testament! In the article, this time is not even mentioned, but within a trial, it is extremely significant.

Mark: So Peter told me that Jesus said—
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: How close to the time of the event did Peter tell you about it?
Mark: Oh, about 10 years.
Court: Sustained.

Worse we have hearsay within hearsay:

Mark: Jesus was baptized—
Counsel: Objection! Where did you learn that information?
Mark: Peter.
Counsel: Was Peter present?
Mark: Oh, no! Peter must have heard it from someone else.
Counsel: It is hearsay for Mark to say what Peter said, and even if it was not, it is hearsay for Peter to say what some unknown person said.
Court: Sustained.

Simply put—we want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. We don’t want testimony of what the witness hears someone else say happened. We want the actual eyewitness.

Bringing us to the Gospel accounts. We immediately see that, even if Christian conservative theological scholars are correct that the Gospel of Mark was information provided by Peter; using American rules of evidence, it is entirely hearsay and must be excluded. (Again, I am not making the argument we should use such rules to determine historicity—it is the Christian legal apologist that claims legal reasoning results in a verdict for the Christian faith.)

The Gospel of Luke must also be deemed inadmissible, as it is hearsay. (Luke 1:2). (Curiously, Dr. Montgomery dismisses Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger as being “secondary at best” yet does not explain why the Gospel of Luke is exempted from such treatment under the same strict application of the law.)

While traditionally, it is claimed that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness (the disciple) the book itself makes no such claim. In fact, the only statements would indicate that it was hearsay. (John 19:35; John 21:24)

The Gospel of Matthew likewise makes no claim to be an eyewitness, and Dr. Montgomery fails to even mention the fact that the author relies upon the Gospel of Mark in telling the story. That is hearsay (Matthew saying what Mark said) of hearsay (Mark saying what Peter said) of hearsay (Peter hearing of events such as the Baptism)!

Even if we make the leap, and assume the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, events are recorded that would necessarily come through hearsay evidence. Neither Matthew nor Luke was at the scene with the Magi or the Shepherds. John could not observe Pilate speaking privately to Jesus.

We start to see that using the legal system as our barometer does not help the Christian claim.

We sequester witnesses. This means only one witness can testify at a time and the other witnesses cannot hear what is being said. We want people to testify as to exactly what they remember they saw and not be influenced by other testimony.

Imagine Witness No. 2 who is fairly certain that the blue car went through a yellow light. But as he is sitting in a courtroom, Witness No. 1 states with resounding conviction, “That blue car went through a Red Light. A Red light, I tell you!”

Now Witness 2 begins to question their own memory. Did that light turn red, perhaps? Witness 1 seemed so certain. And it seems as if testifying differently is sorta calling Witness 1 a liar. So instead of Witness 2 testifying, “The blue car went through the yellow light,” they are far more likely to quantify their testimony, “As far as I recall the blue light went through the light as it was yellow, turning red. But it is possible it was already red before it went through.”

No longer are we getting the best eyewitness evidence. Even the witness, being as honest as possible, is starting to filter their own testimony.

Neither article addresses the problem of Witnesses 2 and 3 (Matthew and Luke) clearly being aware of Witness 1 (Mark). Did Matthew believe that the temple cleansing happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, but since Mark put it at the end, Matthew did as well? And what about Matthew and Luke modifying what Mark had to say? Are they correcting the other witness’ testimony?

We lose the independent testimony that the judicial system holds in high esteem.

A brief side note on “ancient documents.” At times, on Internet debates, I have seen the statement, “The Bible is accepted as evidence in a court of Law!” That is most likely true. (Although how a fact within the Bible could be relevant to a court case escapes me.)

When talking on this issue, we have to be careful to differentiate between “admitted as evidence” and “accepted as true.” The defendant could testify that they were abducted by aliens on the night of the crime, and therefore could not possibly be guilty. That testimony would be admitted. Simply because the rules of evidence allow it in, does not make aliens a reality!

The rules of evidence provide direction as to what can or cannot be provided to the trier-of-fact. They neither endorse, nor renounce that evidence. As the Bible is more than 20 years old, and of common knowledge, most courts would allow it in evidence if it was relevant in some way.

See, trials are designed to determine what happened in the immediate past. An accused is entitled to a speedy trial, to prevent evidence from deteriorating, or becoming lost. The reason that we allow documents more than 20 years old, is that they would have little bearing on events that occurred last year. We are focused on the immediate past, not ancient history.

In the same way, if relevant, we would allow the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, and the Communist Manifesto. When viewed in that light, is it all that remarkable that some court would mark “Exhibit One” on a Bible?

The third aspect of our glove—the American Judicial system—is that it is adversarial. It is designed and intended to bring out the truth by placing people on polar opposites, and have them argue for their position, and against their opponent.

We expect and pattern the system expecting that a witness will be cross-examined by a skeptic, that evidence will be presented against the other person’s position, that the litigants will provide argument directly contrary to the other’s position in order for the neutral to decide which is more plausible.

Where was the cross-examination of the authors of the New Testament?

Dr. Montgomery appears to recognize the fatal flaw in the application of the judicial system, by the lack of such a cross-examination, acknowledging that they were never literally placed in a witness chair. To avoid this, he asserts there was the “functional equivalent” of cross-examination by virtue of the Jewish religious leaders that would have confronted the Disciples.

Of course the one thing we do not have is a single scrap, or independent verification of any such “cross-examination.” Josephus lists the various sects among the Jews, and seems to be completely unaware of this group known as “Christians.” Pliny the Younger has to torture them to even discover who they are, and what they believe. Tacitus makes a passing mention of them as being scapegoats, but no statements as to the validity of their claims.

Where is this cross-examination? We would need to answer some very key questions, which frankly we have no information on:

1) When, in relation to the events, was the testimony stated?
2) To Whom?
3) Where?
4) Was a person contrary to the position present?
5) Did this person have means, opportunity and motive to respond?

Dr. Montgomery relies upon the Book of Acts to claim that it was within 2 months that the testimony was provided, and then to people who had the opportunity to respond. However, Acts was written long after these events happened. What we really need is a person who was aware as to whether the events of Acts happened at the time the Book was written.

If I write of events that happened in World War II, we need someone both aware of my book AND aware as to the reality of these events. One is not enough.

Where are these “functional equivalent” cross-examiners when Christianity was being spread through Corinth and Ephesus and Rome? Every time a missionary told of Jesus rising from the grave, was there a nearby Jewish leader who was aware of the events in Judea in order to “functionally” cross-examine the missionary?

The forest that is missed for the trees, in this allegation of “functional equivalent” of cross-examination is that trials are closed environments! We carefully limit the evidence provided to the tribunal by giving each side a full opportunity to examine each witness, but that is it. It is not a public forum or a free-for-all or a bar room discussion!

If Paul stood up and eloquently spoke out, stirring the emotions of a crowd, utilizing careful rhetoric, timing, humor and persuasive speech—the crowd is not sitting back saying, “Well, O.K. But let’s hear what he says when the Jewish leaders perform the ‘equivalent’ of cross-examination.”

Which brings us to…

The Foot

Is what the disciples and apostles were claimed to be doing both in spreading the Gospel, and writing the books the same as testimony?

We go to a party, and a friend begins to tell of a fish he caught. While we may suspect it was not quite that big, do we subject them to intensive cross-examination? Of course not! We recognize it for what it is—a fish story.

Or a person making a business presentation. Your child tells you of their day in school. Your teenage daughter tells you that she was out late with her boyfriend because of a flat tire. (O.K. That last one you might want to cross-examine!) Every day we have situations in which people communicate in a fashion that is not designed, nor intended to be testimony in a court.

Assuming the disciples were proclaiming events that happened in the recent past; it is placed in the form of persuasive speech—not testimony of disinterested answers about what one sees. When one agues persuasively, certain facts can be overlooked, inflections and emphasis made on specific events. It is far different than merely recalling facts.

What facts did they use? Jesus stated that those specific people would not receive a sign. (Mark 8:12) Or at best, just the sign of Jonah. (Mt. 12:39; Luke 11:29) Did the apostles refer to Jesus’ miracles? According to a book written many decades after the event, they did! (Acts 2:22) Which is it—was Jesus wrong and signs were received by the people or was the author of Acts wrong and signs were not received by the people? Careful cross-examination would be necessary.

Paul’s letters are replete with discourse over doctrinal issues. While mention is made of a few factual events, most is addressed to concerns regarding spiritual principles. If factual issues, such as the events of Jesus’ miracles, and the statements made by Jesus had already been testified and “cross-examined,” why wouldn’t Paul utilize them in his arguments?

It is as if Paul’s letters are the closing arguments, in which he never uses the testimony of the trial!

Further, assume that these disciples (or their close associates) wrote down the Gospels many years later. Were these intended to be the equivalent of testimony?

We can only speculate the intended audience of the Gospels. Were they documents designed to tell the story to non-believers and explain this phenomena surrounding the person of Jesus? Were they tales written to Christian communities to solidify the oral traditions?

I do not propose within this blog entry to even brush the alternatives that scholars have proposed regarding the writers, intentions or the audiences. However, within each of those possibilities, the type and depth of the quality of “testimony” of the Gospel changes.

For a most simple example—if the Gospels were written to non-believers, the writers would refer to common events in order to “place” or put markers within the story. In essence, give it a time and geography by which the non-believer would be familiar with the setting. However, if the Gospels were written to believers, they may not be as inclined to utilize such markers, as the believers were already convinced of the reality of Jesus. The believer would be far more concerned with what Jesus said and did, than where and when.

A different emphasis would appear, depending on the intended audience. (As we have both items within the Gospels, this is a matter of some dispute.)

Were the authors intending to write a defense of the reality of Jesus, or was the reality presumed? That would reflect different testimony.

Further, as pointed out, the gospels were written decades after the event. The authors may have forgotten, modified, been influenced by other oral traditions, obtained bad information through different witnesses, etc. How much was unintentional? How much was deliberate?

Frankly, to treat the Gospels as testimony is to treat them as static documents, complied at one time, and not provide the depth and interaction that we can now see. They are not simple, “This happened at noon. This happened at one. This happened at two.” There is a great more to them than that.

The Fit

Even with all that, if we apply the Legal system to the testimony of the disciples (with or without “functional equivalent” of cross-examination) it still fails!

We attempt to convince either a singular person (judge), a majority (civil) or a unanimous (criminal) tribunal. Christianity was present to the public at large, and not a singular tribunal.

From the very onset to today, Christianity has failed to convince a majority! It has offered its testimony. It has presented its case. And it has failed to convince its tribunal that the events of the First Century accorded as recorded in the Gospels. Why, in light of that simple fact, would one want to subject the disciple’s claims to our current legal system?

They did not convince a majority of Jews. They did not convince a majority of gentiles. Even taking the unverified claims of the book of Acts, Christianity for all its testimony was only convincing a few.

Now, one can justify that with the allegation that Christianity itself proclaims that only a few would believe. (Matt. 22:14) Find and good--then why use a methodology that requires a majority?

In conclusion, it appeared to me that the claims of the events of the First Century are mistreated in the attempts to use modern legal rules of Evidence in order to substantiate their existence. Honestly, it seems like a standard apologetic in which the claimant attempts to bolster the factual claims by making it look as if such claims were offered in a court today, they would preponderate.

They would not. It is not their fault—neither the system nor the claims themselves were intended to.

My Opening Debate Statement vs Wallace Marshall

The details of the debate can be seen here on Facebook. Below is my 20 minute opening statement. Enjoy below.

Christianity or Atheism? Which Makes More Sense?

Read more »

Christian, Tell Us in Advance Which Prayers if Unanswered Would Count Against Your Faith

I recently pointed out how a high profile prayer on national TV was not answered by God. I claim this as yet another piece of evidence that God doesn't answer prayers even if he exists, which he does not. So along come the Christian wannabe apologists, and guess what, surprise...

Read more »

The Anatomy of a Conversion: Richard Morgan, From Atheist to Christian

I read with some interest Richard Morgan's conversion to Christianity. I wanted to know how deeply committed he was as an atheist and what caused him to change his mind. I'd like to know more about him, but all we have is this article he wrote for a publication called The Monthly Record, beginning on page 8 and highlighted by several Christian websites. Morgan seems to have been a committed atheist, who was a frequent visitor on Richard Dawkin's site forum. There was a Christian guy named David Robertson who also posted there who was kind and thoughtful. And what he said and how he said it had an impact on Morgan, when everyone else there ridiculed this guy. Then for some reason the atheists began to belittle Morgan, perhaps because he was becoming sympathetic to David Robertson and his views. So Morgan defected to a theistic site where he encountered two questions that changed his life, as he tells us:

Read more »

Peter Kirk Responds To Assure Us God is Not to Blame for Haiti's Disaster

I previously wrote: "We atheists do not revel in tragedy. We hate the fact that people suffer in this world as all people do. It's just that in times like these it's good to be an atheist. Earthquakes happen. That's all there is to it. What we revel in are attempts by Christians to justify God's actions. They are pathetic, all of them. And guess what? God isn't to blame for the Haitian disaster! Nope. God is completely good and loving towards us all. His ways are perfect. Atheists like myself and Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, and Valerie Tarico have had a heyday with Christian responses so far." Link. Peter Kirk showed up in the comments with some answers.

Read more »

My Response to Ed Brayton of Freethought Blogs

Ed Brayton says he welcomes disagreement. Does he? If we both started driving toward each other we could meet halfway in an hour and a half for a few beers and laughs. We are that close to each other in our views too. We are not world’s apart. I suspect he welcomes disagreement from people he considers his friends. Am I his friend? We shall see. While Ed appreciates my work very much (thanks so much Ed!) he recently answered two questions of mine and offered two basic criticisms of me. Let's start with the questions.

Read more »

The Introduction To My Last Book, "Unapologetic"

Introduction

This will probably be the last book I’ll write on the topic of religion. I think I’ve said all I need to say. I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it. Mine has been a publishing career that stretches back ten years and ends with this, my tenth book.

Read more »

Paul’s Christianity: Belief in Belief Itself, by John W. Loftus

I was honored to write the Foreword to Robert Conner's excellent new book The Jesus Cult: 2000 Years of the Last Days, which you can get on Amazon.

It was long, so understandedly Conner had to edit it down. Here it is in it's entirety.

Paul’s Christianity: Belief in Belief Itself

Citing plenty of Roman writers familiar with the early Jesus Cult, along with teasing out the true meaning from Christian sources, Robert Conner makes a solid case that “Christianity was a cult from its inception, a toxic brew of apocalyptic delusion, sexual phobias and fixations, with a hierarchy of control of women by men, of slaves by masters, and of society by the church.” It had an “irrational and antisocial nature” to it, and “its destructive features remain a clear and present danger today. Its greatest threat is the core feature of the Christian cult: belief in belief, the conviction that the Christian narrative is literally its own proof.”

To say I agree with Conner is a huge understatement. I love how he writes! Readers will find in his book a great amount of erudition combined with an unmatched use of rhetoric and even hilarity. I am honored and delighted to write this Foreword for another excellent book by him.

Connor says Christianity was nothing more than a cult “in the most pejorative sense of the word.” In the chapters to follow he makes his case, showing that religious cults share with Christianity “several familiar features” like “a fixation on sexual purity, bizarre interpretations of scripture, and often a preoccupation with End Times theology which leads members to interpret events through an apocalyptic lens.”

Read more »

A Christian Flunks Pop-Quiz Number 3

It’s a big fat F

So far I have posted three Pop-Quizzes for Christians here on the DC Blog (One    Two   Three). My motive has been to coax, to prod Christians to read the Bible, to study the gospels especially. Surveys have shown that most can’t be bothered. I encourage readers to share these pop-quizzes with their church-going friends and relatives. 

 

A few weeks after Pop-Quiz Number 3 was posted, a Christian who identifies as Oreo Pagus offered his comments on the post. The first question on the quiz is about science: What was Carl Sagan referring to when he described The Pale Blue Dot. Oreo Pagus gave the correct answer: Planet Earth, about which Sagan had observed:

 

“Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.”

Read more »