Philosophical Gerrymandering and Cumulative Case Arguments For Theism

I've argued that no argument for God, taken by itself, demonstrates theism -- or even makes theism more probable than not. However, this leaves open the possibility that, when taken together, these arguments do demonstrate the truth of theism, or at least make theism more probable than not.

Richard Swinburne is one famous philosopher of religion who takes this approach to arguments for theism[1]. He uses a formula from the probability calculus known as Bayes' Theorem to argue in this way. He calls an argument that raises the probability of a hypothesis a good C-inductive argument, and he calls an argument that makes a hypothesis more probable than not a good P-inductive argument. He then considers a large variety of arguments for theism, and admits that none of them, when construed as a deductive argument, constitutes a sound argument for God's existence. However, he argues that a number of them, when reformulated as inductive arguments, each raise the probability of theism at least a little bit. Thus, he thinks that a number of them are good C-inductive arguments for theism. And when taken together, they make theism at least a little bit more probable than not, making the set of arguments taken together a good P-inductive argument for theism.[2]

To illustrate Swinburne's ideas about C-inductive arguments, P-inductive arguments, and cumulative case arguments, consider a simpler example. Suppose we're detectives investigating a murder, and that we know that either Smith committed the murder or that Jones did it. Then we have two hypotheses:

H1: Smith committed the murder
H2: Jones committed the murder

Suppose further that the following constitutes all our evidence, or data:

D1: Smith's fingerprints are on the murder weapon (a gun)
D2: Jones's fingerprints are on the murder weapon
D3: Smith had a strong grudge against the victim for sleeping with his wife
D4: Jones disliked the victim
D5: Jones is a terrible shot
D6: A somewhat reliable acquaintance of Jones said they talked to Jones at his house at 8pm, which was only 10 minutes before the time of the murder.
D7: Jones lives about 15 minutes from the victim's house.
D8: Smith lives 5 minutes away from the victim's house.

Notice that no single piece of evidence makes either hypothesis even slightly more probable than not -- i.e., not one of D1-D8, when considered individually, is a good P-inductive argument for either hypothesis as to who killed the victim. However, each one (or at least most of them), when taken individually, raises the probability of the relevant hypothesis at least a little bit, in which case each one (or at least most of each one) is a good C-inductive argument. And when taken together, they do make H1 a bit more probable than H2. In fact, D1-D8, taken together, constitutes a good P-inductive argument for H1. Similarly, even if none of the arguments for God establish the truth or the probability of theism, perhaps they do when taken together. Well, do they?

I've already mentioned that Swinburne thinks they do. Some other examples include J.P., Moreland[3], WIlliam Lane Craig, and Basil MItchell.

So, for example, suppose our hypotheses are:

H1: theism
H2: naturalism

And suppose our data are:

D1: the apparent contingency of the universe
D2: the apparent fine-tuning of the universe
D3: the apparent irreducibility of consciousness to the physical
D4: religious experiences of various sorts
D5: the existence of morality[4]

What's the probability of H1 on D1-D5? Of course, as everyone in this debate admits, there's probably no way to assign precise numerical values to the pieces of evidence here, whether taken individually or collectively[5]. To be charitable, though, let's say that each of D1-D5 raises the probability of theism at least a bit, and thus each is a good C-inductive argument for theism. Furthermore, let's be charitable and say that, when taken together, the probability of H1 on D1-D5 is a very strong P-inductive argument, raising the probability of H1 to .9 (i.e. 90%)[6]. Do we now have a cumulative case argument based on D1-D5 that makes the posterior probability of H1 higher than that of H2?

No, we don't. For to truly assess the posterior probability of a hypothesis, one has to include in the data pool *all* of the evidence that has a bearing on the hypotheses in question; to ignore the other evidence is tantamount to philosophical gerrymandering: artificially limiting the range of relevant evidence in order to ensure the conclusion you want. It would be analogous to arguing above that Jones probably committed the murder by just presenting D2, D4, and D6 of the data presented there, and suppressing all the rest.

But it turns out that there is a lot of data that appears to conflict with theism that needs to be added to the data pool before we can properly assess the hypotheses. Some of this evidence includes:

D6: massive amounts of apparently random and pointless suffering
D7: massive religious diversity
D8: empirical studies on the ineffectiveness of prayer
D9: the apparent hiddenness of God
D10: evolution

But once we throw in this data, it's no longer clear whether H1 (i.e., theism) is more probable than H2 (i.e., naturalism): even if the probability of H1 was about .9 on D1-D5, it sinks down to about .5 (i.e., 50%) when we evaluate it on D1-D10. At worst, H1 is lower than .5 on the total evidence.

So it seems to me that cumulative case arguments for theism fare no better than the same arguments taken singly.
=======================================
Footnotes:

1. See especially his classic book, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979). In this post, I refer to the revised edition (1991). An extensively revised edition was released in 2004. A popular-level presentation of the main ideas in that book can be found in his book, Is there a God? (Oxford: OUP, 1996).

2. While this is roughly correct, technically it isn't quite right. In at least the original edition, Swinburne argues for the weaker claim that, taken together, the arguments for theism he endorses give theism a probability of at least .5 (50%), or thereabouts. He then argues that (what he dubs) the Principle of Credulity applies to religious experience -- i.e., like ordinary perceptual and memory experience, religious experience enjoys prima facie justification (it's "innocent until proven guilty"). But since he thinks he's shown that theism isn't improbable on the evidence (i.e., it's not less than 50% probable), then the prima facie justification of religious experience isn't undercut, and thus religious experience of God justifies theism. In an appendix in the 1991 version of the book, he considers the new "fine-tuning" version of the design argument, and concludes that with this new piece of data, theism is indeed more probable than not, in which case there is a decent P-inductive, cumulative case argument for theism. I haven't read the newest edition of Swinburne's book, but I believe he is even more optimistic about the cumulative case for theism is if anything even stronger than he thought in his 1991 version.

3. Moreland's views here are a bit more optimistic than Swinburne's. He thinks that there are a lot of sound deductive arguments for theism, and that several versions of the design argument are good P-inductive arguments all by themselves. Thus, the function of a cumulative case for theism isn't primarily to make theism more probable than not, but rather to (i) provide a finer-grained conception of the identity of the God established by the arguments (e.g., to rule out deism), and (ii) to strengthen a theistic case already made strong by most of the arguments taken by themselves. See his "rope" analogy of theistic arguments in his debate with Kai Neilsen (Does God Exist? The Great Debate), as well as his remarks in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (co-authored with William Lane Craig). William Lane Craig seems to endorse this view as well. This comes out especially in his discussion of the arguments of natural theology in his popular-level debates, as well as the book on the Christian Worldview just mentioned.

4. It should be pointed out that although at least some theists take moral arguments to support theism, Swinburne does not -- indeed, he doesn't even think they make good C-inductive arguments for theism. For he takes moral truths to be necessary truths, akin to mathematical truths (e.g., 1+1=2), in which case they would exist even if God did not. See his discussion of this in his chapter on moral arguments in his The Existence of God (1991).

5. For example, Swinburne says this explicitly in the final chapter (not the appendix) of The Existence of God (1991). Plantinga says this in Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford: OUP, 2000).

6. This is of course extremely generous. For not even Swinburne thinks the probability is this high even when you add more theism-friendly pieces of data (see footnote 2, where I mention that Swinburne thinks the data give theism a posterior probability of around .5). Plantinga more-or-less agrees with Swinburne's assessment. See Plantinga's section on the Problem of Dwindling Probabilities in Warranted Christian Belief, where he argues that inductive arguments for theism aren't sufficiently strong to render religious belief epistemically appropriate..

William Lane Craig Debates Victor Stenger

Link [The audio may take a minute to load]. Stenger is the author of The God Failed Hypothesis which I reviewed here.

I found Vic's opening statement:

There Is No God

Aloha. It's wonderful to be back in Hawaii where Phylliss and I spent so many happy years. Our two children were born in Hawaii and both graduated from the University of Hawaii. I would like to express my thanks to Keli'i and the other organizers and sponsors for inviting me.

It's certainly an honor to share the platform with William Lane Craig. I've read that he is one of the world's foremost Christian apologists.

In his opening remarks, Dr, Craig has appealed to your common sense. You know what common sense is. It's the human faculty that tells us that Earth is flat. Objective observation, on the other hand, tells us that Earth is round.

In tonight's debate, I will be defending the view that the universe, life, and mind are purely material. I will argue that objective observation as well as reason and logic lead to the conclusion that a God with the traditional attributes of the Christian God does not exist, beyond the shadow of a doubt..

I will give four arguments to support my position.

1. Attributes are self-contradictory

The attributes of the Christian God are self-contradictory. They are like a square circle.

2. Attributes incompatible with what is known

The attributes of the Christian God are inconsistent with what we know about the world.

3. Naturalism is a better explanation than supernaturalism

Supernatural explanations for events in the universe are unnecessary. Natural explanations are simpler, are based on objective observations, and are fully consistent with all we know about the world.

4. God's actions should be observable but are not

The attributes of the Christian God imply actions that should be objectively observable. But they are not observed.


Attributes of God

Let me list a set of attributes that are traditionally associated with the God of the monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity.

1) He is the creator of the universe.

2) He is an immaterial being who transcends the physical world.

3) He is all-powerful all-knowing, all-good.

4) He is perfect in every way.

5) He is a person. He loves humans and wishes us to know him.

6) He is forgiving and merciful.

7) He speaks to humans, revealing truths to us that we would not otherwise know.

8) He answers our prayers, as he sees fit.

9) He performs miracles, violating natural laws.


Incompatible attributes

Many philosophers have argued that the traditional attributes of God are logically incompatible. Here are just a few of these:

1) Perfect v. creator. If God is perfect, then he has no needs or wants. This is incompatible with the notion that God created the universe for some divine purpose. Divine purpose implies that God wants something he doesn't already have, which makes him imperfect.

2) Transcendent v. Omnipresent. How can God be beyond space and time and everywhere within space and time≠at the same time?

3) Just v. merciful. To be just means to treat a person exactly as they deserve. To be merciful means to treat a person better than they deserve. You can't do both.

4) Immaterial v. personal. To be a person is to have a material body.

So a God with these attributes cannot exist.

Existence of nonbelief

The God of monotheism also has attributes that are inconsistent with what we see in the world. For example, an all-powerful, all-knowing God who also has the attribute of wanting all humans to know and love him is inconsistent with the fact that there are nonbelievers in the world.

The Problem of Evil

Perhaps the most ancient and strongest of the arguments for God's nonexistence is the problem of evil. An all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God is inconsistent with the fact of evil and gratuitous suffering in the world.

God's reasons for evil and suffering

Theologians have, of course, grappled with the problem of evil for centuries, and still do. For example, Richard Swinburne says of the problem of evil,

"If the world was without any natural evil and suffering we wouldn't have the opportunity . . . to show courage, patience and sympathy."

But . . . is so much suffering necessary?

Certainly, pain has a role in warning us of illness or injury. But does God really need so much suffering to achieve his ends? Is there any good purpose behind so many children dying every day of starvation and disease? How are they helped by the rest of us becoming more sympathetic?

Logically consistent gods

Dr. Craig and many other theologians have spent their lives building models of God that are logically consistent and at the same time in broad agreement with the traditional teachings of Christianity.

This has mainly consisted in trimming off God's characteristics one by one until he is defined mostly in the negative: not-material, not in space or time, not seen or heard. Apologists have reduced God to an almost undetectable background -something like what we physicists used to call "the aether" until we found the aether didn't exist either.

I have no doubt that a logically consistent picture of some kind of God can be devised. But I have considerable doubt that this God can be made consistent with Christianity.

Computer games

These theologians remind me of the creators of computer games. Programmers invent whole new universes in which the characters have all kinds of superhuman powers and many of our familiar laws of physics are violated. Yet the rules of the games are logically consistent. They wouldn't run on a computer if they weren't. But the computer game universes have little connection to the universe we see around us. They exist in what is called "virtual reality."

God's actions should be observable, but are not

Just because something is logically consistent, it doesn't necessarily follow that it exists. For the theologians' logically consistent God to actually exist, he must have something to do with the observed universe, some attributes that can be objectively observed. Otherwise God is as useless as the aether.

Naturalism is a better explanation than supernaturalism

Even if a God can be devised who is consistent with logic and observations, natural explanations for phenomena are better than supernatural ones. They better explain why nonbelievers, evil, and gratuitous suffering exist. They better explain the origin and structure of the universe, life, and mind. They are based on objective observations and theories that are testable.

Supernaturalism offers no explanation for these except "God did it," which coveys no more information than "Santa Claus did it."

Most scientists do not believe

Only seven percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in the personal God worshipped by perhaps 90 percent of other Americans. Most scientists don't believe in God because they don't see any objective evidence for him! When they look at the world around them, they see no sign of God. They don't see God when they peer through their most powerful telescopes. They don't detect God with their most sophisticated microscopes and other instruments. Furthermore, scientists find no need to introduce God or the supernatural into any of their explanatory theories.

Here are a few of the famous scientists who have been outspoken in their nonbelief: Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg, Francis Crick, and Carl Sagan. Let me add that all of these great scientists would have become believers had they been shown sufficient evidence.

Objectively observable actions of God

A God with the attributes I have listed implies phenomena that should have been easily observable by now. For example, let us consider revelation, prayers, and miracles.

Revelation

Most people believe in a God who has a substantial, and detectable, role in the universe and in human affairs. One common characteristic attributed to this God is that he communicates with humans and provides them with verifiable new knowledge.

The theistic religions have traditionally taught that God speaks to humanity. Their scriptures are widely assumed to be the word of God and he's believed to have revealed knowledge to religious leaders in the past that they would otherwise not have known. Many believe God continues to do this today, speaking even to common people.

Revelation Is verifiable

Surprisingly, these claims can be easily verified­≠if they are true. All we have to do is find some fact supposedly gained by divine revelation that was unknown at the time of the revelation, and then confirm this fact at a later time.

For example, suppose the Bible had predicted that men would walk on the moon in two thousand years. Then we would have a rational basis to take seriously what else is written in the Bible.

No revelations

Unfortunately, no revelation of previously unknown knowledge has ever been empirically validated.

The scriptures contain nothing that could not have been known to or imagined by the ancients who wrote them. The Bible reads exactly as we would expect it to read, based on existing knowledge at the time it was composed.

Failed revelations

There are many examples of the failure to confirm of Biblical revelations. Consider the failed prophecy of the Second Coming:

"They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory." (Mat 24:30)

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." (Mat 24:34)

We're still waiting. It was supposed to happen 2,000 years ago. It's time to give up and move on.

All in the head

Those who have claimed to talk to God have provided no knowledge that was not already in their heads. Many people have claimed religious experiences in which they felt the presence of God, but they never return from those experiences with any exceptional knowledge that would easily validate their claim.

Furthermore, religious experiences can be induced in the brain by drugs, electromagnetic pulses, and oxygen deprivation. Consider the example of pilots undergoing high-g in a centrifuge. They experience a tunneling of their vision, with the "light at the end of the tunnel" characteristic of the near-death experience.

Does God choose to hide?

In Rom. 1:20 St. Paul says:

"Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, have been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."

In other words, God may be invisible but his actions are visible.

Theists may respond that God's actions are obvious to those who wish to see them. Well, I would love to see them, but they are not obvious to me, or to the millions of other nonbelievers in the world.

Prayers and miracles

Another commonly believed attribute of God is that he listens to entreaties from humans to change the natural course of events. He can be expected to grant a sufficient number of these requests so that the results should be observable. Otherwise, what's the point in praying?

Many people will testify that they've had prayers answered. But personal testimony is insufficient since it doesn't rule out other more mundane explanations. For example, if someone is ill and recovers after praying, it could be that the prayers had nothing to do with it. After all, the body, sometimes with medical help, does a pretty good job of healing itself. In fact, it works every time≠except the last time.

If prayer had value in healing we'd have doctors prescribing Prayer Aspirin. "Say three Our Fathers and four Hail Mary's and call me in the morning."

Convincing evidence for a God who answers prayers can, in principle, be scientifically demonstrated with high probability≠if he really exists. Well-designed experiments on intercessory prayer should turn up solid, statistically significant results on the success of prayer in healing.

In fact, some studies claiming positive effects of prayer have been published in refereed medical journals to great media hoopla. However, you can't rely on media reports but need to look at the actual published papers. Applying the same criteria that are used in conventional science when testing extraordinary claims, you'll find that none of the reported effects is significant. Furthermore, most of these experiments are severely flawed and none of the claimed positive effects have been successfully replicated.

Mayo Clinic study

The best study published so far was done at the Mayo Clinic. Here is the summary:

"The results of 26 weeks of intercessory prayer, a widely practiced complementary therapy, were studied in 799 patients randomized to an intercessory prayer group or to a control group after discharge from a coronary care unit. As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on specifically defined medical outcomes, regardless of risk status." (2001)

Summary

1. The traditional attributes of God are self-contradictory. Such a God cannot exist.

2. The traditional attributes of God are incompatible with objective facts about the world. Such a God cannot exist.

3. Natural explanations are superior to supernatural explanations. No basis exists for anything supernatural.

4. The traditional attributes of God imply actions that should be objectively observed, but are not.

It is possible to hypothesize a God whose attributes are logically compatible with each other. But, it does not follow that such a God exists unless it has objectively observable consequences. No such consequences have been observed.

If God exists, where is he?

Stenger's first rebuttal:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dr. Craig has made the extraordinary claim that certain empirical facts require supernatural explanations.

In order to refute this, all I need to do is provide plausible natural explanations for these phenomena. I need not prove these. If he wants to argue that God is required to exist in order to explain the observed universe, Dr. Craig must disprove all possible natural explanations for these phenomena.

Cosmological Argument

Dr. Craig argues that

1) Whatever begins must have a cause

2) The universe had a beginning

3) Therefore the universe must have had a cause

Not everything that begins has a Cause

Physical bodies begin to exist all the time without cause. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously, without a cause. The universe at the beginning of the big bang was a subatomic particle.

Is the big bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning?

Even if everything that begins has a cause, this does not apply to the universe if the universe did not have a beginning.

Dr. Craig argues that the big bang is evidence that the universe had a beginning. However, the universe need not have begun with the big bang.

Many prominent physicists and cosmologists have published papers in reputable scientific journals proposing various scenarios by which the big bang appeared naturally out of a preexisting universe that itself need not have had a beginning. Once such recent scenario is called "The Cyclic Universe".

Does an infinite universe have a beginning?

Dr. Craig also claims that the universe had to begin because if it were infinitely old, it would take an infinite time to reach the present.

However, if the universe is infinitely old, then it had no beginning - not a beginning infinitely long ago.

Universe can be finite and still not have a beginning

Einstein defined time as what you read on a clock. It's a number, the number of ticks of the clock. We count time forward and never reach infinity. We can also count time backward and never reach minus infinity. The notions that the universe has a beginning and will have an end are theological, not scientific.

Is the universe fine-tuned for life?

Dr. Craig calls upon the currently popular argument that the physics of our universe is fine tuned for life. This is taken as evidence for divine purpose behind the existence of life.

However, even if any given kind of life is highly improbable to have arisen by natural means, some kind of life may be highly probable. Another form of life might evolve in a universe with different physical constants or even different physical laws. We certainly don't have sufficient knowledge to rule out the possibility of every conceivable form of life under every conceivable circumstance. Dr. Craig cannot prove that only carbon-based life like ours can exist.

Argument from improbability

Dr. Craig claims that the universe and life are too improbable to have come about by purely natural processes alone.

The Improbable happens

However, this is a fallacious argument. To use probability to decide between two alternatives requires a comparison of the probabilities of each alternative. Simply saying that one has low probability without calculating the probability for the other is inadequate.

What's the probability that the laws of nature are violated? What's the probability that there's an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing--but undetectable­--super being? Complex things are common. We see natural events every moment. We've never seen a supernatural event.

Low probability events happen every day. What's the probability that my distinguished opponent exists? You have to calculate the probability that a particular sperm united with a particular egg, then multiply it by the probability that his parents met, and then repeat that calculation for his grandparents and all his ancestors going back to the beginning of life on Earth. Even if you stop the calculation at Adam and Eve, you will get a fantastically small number.

To use Dr. Craig's own words, "improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers."

Dr. Craig has a mind-reeling, incomprehensibly small probability for existing, yet here he is before us today.

Modern versions of the argument from design, both the fine-tuning argument and intelligent design share this fatal flaw. They are based on the idea that natural causes can be ruled out by some arbitrary notion of low probability.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Dr. Craig asks: why does the universe exist instead of nothing? Why should nothing be a more natural state than something? Why would you expect nothing rather than something? In fact, how could nothing ever exist? Wouldn't it then be something? Why is there God rather than nothing? Dr. Craig leaves these questions unanswered.

Genesis confirmed?

Dr. Craig claims the big bang confirms the Biblical view of creation.

Genesis falsified

Let's look at what Genesis actually says. In the first day, Earth is created. Not until four days later does God create the sun, moon, and stars. This is clearly at odds with modern cosmology, which says that the Earth did not form until 7 billion years after the big bang. There are many other disagreements.

Genesis implies that the universe is only about 6,000 years old. Here's a picture of a quasar whose light left its source 12 billion years ago.

Every one of the thousand or so religions in the world has a creation myth. Most probably resemble modern cosmology as well or better than Genesis.

Objective morality

Dr. Craig calls upon our common sense to attest that morality is objective and so must come from God.

Subjective morality

Not everyone shares the same morals. So, there is no evidence for objective morality.

But, even if morality were objective--its source could be natural--an evolutionary process that aids in human survival and built into our genes. Dr. Craig has not disproved hat possibility.

Is the Gospel historical?

Dr. Craig claims the Gospel stories describe actual historical events, such as the empty tomb of Jesus.

The Empty Tomb

There is no evidence outside the Bible. The story of the empty tomb is second and third hand, written years after the event from the oral testimony of supposed eyewitnesses. Paul did not seem to know about it. Furthermore, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Even if the story of the empty tomb is accurate, it could have a simple, natural explanation. If you went to the Napoleon's tomb in Paris one morning, and found that his remains were not in their usual place of honor, would you conclude Napoleon had risen bodily into heaven?

Hardly. You would figure that somebody took the body! Dr. Craig has not shown that Jesus's body could not have been removed. So that remains a more plausible explanation and a supernatural explanation is not required by the data,

Personal experience of God

Dr. Craig says that many people have a personal experience of God. Well, many, including myself, have not. So that cancels his final argument for the existence of God. We can't rely on subjective experience. Any successful argument for or against God's existence needs to be objective.

No Evidence for God

Dr. Craig has not ruled out plausible natural explanations for any observable phenomenon in the universe. He has failed to prove that God or any supernatural hypothesis is required to explain the universe.

Thus, he has failed to prove that God exists. In the meantime, I have proved that a God having the traditional attributes of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God cannot exist.

Some Thoughts on Scientific Humility and Religious Hubris

What attitude best explains why both science and religion have changed their views on a various number of topics down through the years? Science gradually learns and grows. Religion usually adapts, regroups, and reaffirms new truths with the same confidence as before. Science has learned humility. Most religions still claim to represent the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Distinguished philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has argued that scientific knowledge progresses by conjectures (or guesses) which are in turn refuted for better conjectures (or guesses). He argues science progresses because we learn from our mistakes, and likewise I argue, so does our morality . We have learned to accept moral principles by trial and error because we learn from our mistakes. Echoing the Greek philosopher Xenophanes, who said “all is a woven web of guesses,” Popper argues we should “give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all knowledge is human; that it is mixed with errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes; that all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach.” [Conjectures and Refutations, p. 39]

What Christian Bible believer will say the same types of humble things about how their own beliefs develop? Catholics, and liberals already so. But not Bible believers. According to them their interpretation of the Bible is true. They have the truth and will call anyone who disagrees both ignorant and deceived by Satan.

Now consider this approach of some Christians I’ve met on the internet, and contrast that with the humility of scientists. Sure, there may be some heated debates within the scientific community, but there is no comparison to these type of Bible believing Christians who berate us daily for disagreeing.

Such things would not go over within a knowledgeable scientific community who seeks to understand the truth about the universe at all. Because scientists have a seeker attitude.

What scientist, for instance, would claim that his opponent disagrees with him because she is blinded by Satan? Which scientist would argue before an audience that anyone who disagrees is going to be dammed to hell? Which one would treat other scientists with complete and utter disrespect and distain if she tries to get people to agree with her view of things?

Many Christians have an arrogance that is beyond description and beyond reasoning with.

The Four Horsemen Discuss the Issues

Reasonable Doubt About the Problem of Evil/Needless Suffering As A Test

This article builds on the argument that the Problem of Evil/Needless suffering is caused by the process of Creation initiated in the article Resolved! God Caused The Problem Of Evil/Needless Suffering. (I should point out that "the process of creation" is a euphemism I am using for "Chance". With or without a God, Stuff Happens.) Its conclusion is that if the Problem of Evil is a Test, then there should be no biological bases for handling stress or decision making, it should all be a mysterious function of the soul and there should be no biological price to pay for it.

The problem of evil/needless suffering causes harmful stress. People are poorly 'designed' to handle stress and it negatively affects their decision making in some cases creating a negative feedback loop of decisions and consequences. People have varying degrees of stress tolerance. I have seen some people come unglued for what I consider to be nothing. I know people with Bi-Polar disorder and I spend quite a bit of time every week calming a person that has panic attacks because he/she dreads going to work. Two people in my family committed suicide, and a third was believed to be suicidal and they were all three Christians. Why would Christians commit suicide? If Christianity is true, it doesn't follow. But don't take my word that situations cause harmful stress in people, at the bottom of the article there are some lists I got from the Mayo Clinic.

The PoE causes harm to the subject of the test and can actually break them. If the PoE were actually a test, this variable should be controlled for. We should be more robust or equally robust in handling stress.

God won't give us anything we can't handle? It makes sense, and that's what I was always told. God is a strong tower. If someone can't handle it, its their fault, not praying hard enough, not living right, not waiting long enough, not humble enough, not patient enough, whatever excuse in the world could be thought up to put the blame on the person. The fact is that God won't give us more than we can handle because he doesn't have anything to do with it. He's not there. Christians get more than they can handle all the time. Sometimes with tragic consequences.

I think I stopped believing in God on Sept. 11, 2001 when I heard the newscasters say "we have reports that people are jumping out the windows of the towers, presumably to avoid being burned alive". If I had been on the towers on Sep. 11, instead of watching it on TV, and looked out the window and felt the fire behind me and had to make a decision of how I wanted to die, pain for a second or pain for some minutes, I probably would have lost my faith then too. If not before I jumped, then probably on the way down as I realized that I really was going to hit the ground and that the last most important prayer in my life was not going to be answered. I would have prayed that if I can't float down like a feather, then at least take me before I hit. Would I have gone to hell for losing my faith? Or maybe from committing suicide? Would the last act of my life have been a sin? Am I going to go to hell now because I empathized so much with those people that I don't believe that God could have anything to do with any of it or because this situation doesn't support my belief that the God of the Bible would not allow someone to be put in this situation? What would Jesus do? What did Jesus do? What was Jesus thinking?

My "Belief Balance" tipped the other way that day.

I hear it from Christians all the time "Why this and Why that?" "This must be some type of punishment." etc. A key concept in punishment is rehabilitation and without that aspect punishment doesn't make sense. If punishment without rehabilitation is the goal then it is more like revenge. If there can be no rehabilitation then the offender should be removed from society, and at that point, logically, it doesn't matter if they live in a prison or a luxury hotel. There is no evidence of a principle of rehabilitation in the doctrine of Hell, just retribution.

If the problem of Evil is a test, why is it so inequitable? Why do some people get born in impoverished unstable countries to struggle their whole life and others a born relatively affluent and hardly have much to complain about? It just doesn't make sense. It seems to be more a result of chance. Why are some people more able to handle stress than others? Why does stress break some people and it doesn't break others? Why are there biological bases of stress tolerance rather than a function of this mystical soul we are supposed to have and be punished or rewarded with. It seems to be more a result of chance. If the Problem of Evil is a Test, then there should be no biological bases for handling stress, it should all be a mysterious function of the soul.

When we feel stress we feel uncomfortable. We naturally want to feel better. I assert that all of our motivations are initiated from a desire to feel good rather than anything spiritual or moral. The 'spirituality' and 'morality' are the self-justifications that follow to help us maintain that feeling.

Some symptoms of stress and effects on our bodies are as follows. These lists were taken from The Mayo Clinic Website but it left some things out such as schizophrenia and multiple-personality disorder.

On your body
* Headache
* Chest pain
* Pounding heart
* High blood pressure
* Shortness of breath
* Muscle aches
* Back pain
* Clenched jaws
* Tooth grinding
* Stomach upset
* Constipation
* Diarrhea
* Increased sweating
* Tiredness
* Sleep problems
* Weight gain or loss
* Sex problems
* Skin breakouts

On your thoughts and feelings
* Anxiety
* Restlessness
* Worrying
* Irritability
* Depression
* Sadness
* Anger
* Mood swings
* Job dissatisfaction
* Feeling insecure
* Confusion
* Burnout
* Forgetfulness
* Resentment
* Guilt
* Inability to concentrate
* Seeing only the negatives

On your behavior
* Overeating
* Undereating
* Angry outbursts
* Drug abuse
* Excessive drinking
* Increased smoking
* Social withdrawal
* Crying spells
* Relationship conflicts
* Decreased productivity
* Blaming others

What Do You Make of Our Recent Poll?

Here are the results...

The question was this:

How probable is testimonial evidence in history (TE) relative to repeatable scientific evidence (SE) when it comes to assessing the claims of Christianity if they contradict each other?

TE = 0%; SE = 100% - 74 (61%)

TE = 20%; SE = 80% - 21 (17%)

TE = 40%; SE = 60% - 3 (2%)

TE = 50%; SE = 50% - 3 (2%)

TE = 60%; SE = 40% - 0 (0%)

TE = 80%; SE = 20% - 3 (2%)

TE = 100%; SE = 0% - 16 (13%)

Analyzing A Typical Well-Meaning Christian Response.

An anonymous commenter wrote this to me in response to my article that God is an accessory to Child Abduction.

Lee, I sympothize with you that it seems that you are hurting and are trying to find someone to blame for something that has happened. I will pray for you!

I'm trying to find someone to blame? The blame falls where it resides, on chance, or whichever individual does something harmful, or me, but it doesn't automatically default to me as much as Christians will tell me it does.

God is not to blame for things that happen. He sees things that we don't so to say that there isn't a reason for even the most horrible thing to happen you just don't know what the bigger picture is. None of us do.

The other side of this logic is that the Christian doesn't know that there IS a reason. Since we neither know that it is true or that it is not true, all we can say is that we don't know. When we don't know we are agnostic. When we choose one belief over the other without a reason other than it makes us feel better, we are biased. So go ahead and say it. Lee you are biased. However I have demonstrated that I can overcome my bias because I was a Christian once.

Another aspect to this logic is that if there is a reason, who's reason is it? It must be the reason of whomever is in control. That would be God. For Gods reason horrible suffering happens. Then, if we do something to try to interfere with this horrible suffering, then we are interfering with Gods reason. We can make one of a couple of assumptions, that it is a test for us, or a test for the sufferer, or we don't know what is going on, so by interfering, we are acting out of ignorance which may be mucking up gods reason. Sounds silly doesn't it? There's no reason, just chance.

Here is the fundamental flaw in Christian reasoning. It is the starting point for a hasty conclusion that leads to a slippery slope that can only be justified using special pleading and the sliding window of criteria.

An assumption must be made that God exists to get him into a position to help write the Bible.
1. Christianity is built on an assumption that God exists and he helped write the Bible
2. and Christian faith is built on the bias of wishful thinking that the assumption is true obviously because it makes them feel better
3. With ambiguous evidence when viewed in the light of confirmation bias, maintains the good feeling about their assumption.

So my suggestion is that you stop blaming God for all the sick and despicable things the MAN does in this world and start looking at how to either correct the problem or how to help yourself deal with what has happened. It maybe hard and you may need some counseling.

I need the counseling? Am I really that bad off? You don't need counseling? I may need some counseling and you do not. Does it make you feel better to think that I'm that bad off?
anyway...
If God made it so that a tumor in the frontal cortex will make a man act on pedophiliac tendencies (true story) then god didn't design the brain very well. If god designed the brain such that a malfunction in the Limbic system will create a psychopath, then god didn't design the brain very well. If god designs us such that we get worked up so much with religious fervor that we kill people over it, then he's got a problem in his design. Granted these are all extreme examples, but less extreme examples are seen in the behavior of Christians every day and throughout history. It wouldn't be a big deal except that they think they have the moral advantage. Even Christians get cranky from lack of sleep and get depression and panic attacks and sexually aroused at an odd moment occasinally.
The other option is that God didn't have anything to do with any of it.

Again, I will pray for you.

Thanks I appreciate the sentiment. Thats the equivalent of saying "Good Luck" or "I wish you the Best".
But what makes you think YOUR prayer will make any difference?
1. will it influence god?
2. if it influences god, won't it turn out worse if it was going to happen for the best anyway?
3. does he not know already?
4. doesn't he know what you want already?

You don't realize that your prayers cannot logically have any effect at all as long as an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being already has a plan.

Think about it.

A Response to William Lane Craig on Genocide

Here's a response by Wes. See also what Dr. Hector Avalos said about genocide here. Joe Edward Barnhard comments on C.S. Lewis and genocide here. Thanks to Ed Babinski for these links.

Dinesh D’Souza v. Michael Shermer Debate: "Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?"

"Nonbelievers Have No Objective Basis for Morality" vs. the Evidence

William Hawthorne recently expressed the sentiments of many Christians when he said...But you see, John, nobody is claiming that without God, humans must be immoral. The problem is whether and how the existence of objective value and moral facts can be explained in an atheistic world.

Well then, while the philosophers are debating this problem like they do the ontological argument and the brain/mind problem, life goes on doesn't it? Christian philosopher Terence Penelhum has gone on record as saying we cannot wait for the philosophers to conclude these kinds of debates before we make our religious choices. And G.E. Moore's shift probably applies here since he was more sure from the evidence that he's holding a pencil in his hand than that the arguments to the contrary are correct.

Let me briefly explain. You claim atheists and agnostics don't have an ultimate objective moral basis, and as such without it there is no logical reason prohibiting us from murdering, and raping, and cheating, and stealing at will without regard for any consequences. This would be your SPECIFIC claim, which is part of a more GENERAL claim. Your GENERAL claim is that all non-Christians are in the same boat as the atheist and agnostic with regard to not having an ultimate objective moral basis for how they should behave. If you want to make the SPECIFIC claim and not make the GENERAL claim, then I’d like to know your reasons for doing so.

Now here’s the rub. With the GENERAL claim you indict all non-Christians everywhere in all eras of human history, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, and Buddhists. You’re claiming that none of these potentially 50 billion people have had an objective moral basis prohibiting them from murdering, and raping, and cheating, and stealing at will without regard for any consequences, and that this applies to them as well as to us skeptics. You’re saying that none of us non-believers have had an ultimate moral basis for being good, period, and so there is no logical reason why we should refrain from commiting horrendous evils. [60 billion is Frank Tipler’s estimate of the number of Homo Sapiens since we developed, from which I merely subtracted 10 billion for Christians since the NT times, which I think is being very generous).

All I need to do while the philosophers settle this debate is to look at the evidence, just like G.E. Moore did. Look around the globe. Look to our human past. There are many people who act morally who are non-believers and they have been doing so since the dawn of time. All someone needs to learn who makes such a claim as yours is a basic history lesson. There have been great Chinese dynasties, the great rule of Mohammed, along with the Greek Golden Age, the Roman Empire, and nearly all Japanese dynasties, NONE OF WHICH HAD ANY DOMINATING INFLUENCE FROM THE CHRISTIAN FAITH to gain their ultimate objective morals from. Some of them had no influence from Christian morals at all. And if you think Christianity is waning in America, then consider the evidence that even in this secular dominated culture our government works well with diversified religious and non-religious groups of people in it, as do all European countries.

So while the philosophers debate these issues, where is the evidence that backs up your claim? Surely if non-believers have no logical reason for upholding ultimate objective morals then we should see billions of non-believing people acting logically by murdering, raping, cheating, and stealing at will with no regard for any consequences. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. But if we do just fine without this supposed ultimate objective moral standard then why do we need one at all? And if there is no evidence supporting this claim of yours then I think the claim is false no matter how long the philosophers take to decide the issue (and I personally like participating in the philosophical debate as well).

People Can't Choose To Believe, Therefore Christianity is False.

The Following is a contribution from The Dude in the Atheist RFC for Empirical Evidence... I think it is brilliant.

Christian salvation doctrine clearly stated in the bible dictates that in addition to good deeds, a "saved" follower must, above all else, choose to believe with no doubts. If one does not utilize the "free will" given to him by god and choose to believe, they will be banished to an eternity of hellish suffering upon death. No amount of good deeds over a lifetime will save a person if they do not choose to believe in the biblical god/Jesus.

The problem with this biblically-stated doctrine is that humans are naturally unable to choose to believe in anything, as belief is the result of biochemical/neurological processing of evidence in the human mind, and how information is processed is biologically unique to every individual. The way an individual processes information is absolutely out of their control - one cannot simply choose to accept evidence, it must be processed and evaluated by the brain, and the result of this processing is either non-belief or belief. Humans are born with specific genetic tendencies beyond their control that dictate how to process information, which can then nurtured or suppressed based on outside factors such as parenting, education, social influences - all of which are not within the control of the individual.

With this premise laid forth, the biblical requirement for salvation based on choosing to believe goes out the window, and thus in my mind dismisses the entire doctrine as jibberish.

Dr. Hector Avalos Comments on his Debate with Dr. William Lane Craig

Atheism Sucks has a post deriding Avalos in his debate with Craig. Here is his response...

Read more »

Dr. Hector Avalos Responds to JP Holding/Robert Turkel

The following was written by Dr. Avalos in response to JP Holding:
-------------------------

Over at Theologyweb, James Patrick Holding (aka Robert Turkel) has begun what he calls an “in depth” review of my book, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007).

However, it does not take long to realize that Holding offers neither depth nor competence in biblical studies. Indeed, it is not a good sign of research competence when that review begins with a patently false statement about my background. As he phrased it:

Read more »

Measuring Morality, The Highlighter Test

Since Logic is necessary to understand God, we can apply sound principles derived from reasoning, using logic grounded in experience and evidence to other areas of our lives. We can derive a list of sound moral principles in this way. We can take our list of sound moral principles and apply them to other cultures, other time periods and stories in the bible to see if they meet, beat or break the principles.

In this way we can compare our list of sound moral principles to those displayed as evidence and compare them. In this way we can see what percentage of our list of moral principles are met, and then measure how much our morality matches another. I suggest we all take a highlighter and go to the bible and highlight all the verses that do not match our list of morals and see what we have at the end.

I think Christians will agree that their set of morals don't really come from the bible.

Logic Is Necessary To Understand God

(God Limits Himself) This article is an extension of an article called "God Limits Himself". It is intended to show that principles of Logic are valid and necessary for an inquiry into the characteristics of the Christian Religion. It will be referenced by subsequent articles as a premise for their complex arguments. It intends to show that God (if he exists) has agreed implicitly to use the principles of logic to further our understanding of him.

Our trust in another being, including God, is built on the avoidance of the violation of those principles. Every case in which he violates a principle of Logic is a violation of that commitment. A violation of that commitment results in a violation of the trust. In order to maintain that trust it is necessary to use due care and diligence not not violate principles the trust is built on. In this way God must limit himself to working within the principles of Logic in order to maintain our trust in him.

* The Bible tells us that God exists and that he created all things.
So how were people able create the Bible so that we can look at it and come to know about God and attempt an understanding of Him?

If God wants us to know about him and to understand him he must commit to following rules that will achieve that goal, effectively making the commitment to limit himself.

1. All things have various interdependencies and relationships between themselves.
2. We can observe our environment and when we see that an event reliably follows another event then using a rule such as "when this happens, then this follows", we can create a simple rule that describes it. This rule is called a precedent. It is based on experience. It depends on evidence created by the successful performance of this rule. This becomes a principle and we can add it to a "set" of "rules". This set of rules and principles we call logic.
3. Using this set of rules and principles we can develop another set of rules. By applying sets of rules to create other sets of rules we create a complex set of interdependent rules. One of these sets of rules we call "Reasoning".
4. Using the process of reasoning we can make reliable observations and predictions about our environment.
5. Using reasoning from precedent we can look at the accumulation of successful predictions about our environment and we are able to identify more interdependencies and relationships in the world. The idea that results from the application of these rules is called "inference". When our inference is shown be correct by a successful prediction then we call it "understanding".
6. When we see a phenomena or "sign" we are able to think and recall things that are interdependent and have relationships to it, and make predictions or conclusion about the next event, or its state or past events.
7. These successful rules and processes, when appropriate, can be applied elsewhere with varying success and we call this extending the rules or principles.
8. Applying these rules and processes help us to successfully interact, survive and create memories of rules and processes that we use to understand our world and make further predictions. It creates a complex rule set that we can call our "world view"
9. We can extend these principles to other areas such as communication and language. We can create rules for sets of sounds that we can call words, and using principles that regulate how we use these sounds we can create a category of sounds and rules that we call language.
10. We can extend these principles to a set of rules that we use to represent these sounds and call it writing.
11. We can apply these rules to a series of sounds and apply other rules for representing them using lines and record the proper sequence. This recording can be observed and understood by another being using those same rules and principles. In this way we can transfer information between beings and ensure as much integrity as possible.

Therefore, the bible comes to us by a complex set of rules derived from the extension of sets of simpler rules and our understanding of it as information depends on applying these rules to comprehend the content and to make inferences, conclusions and predictions about it. God must follow these rules if he wants us to know about him and understand him. This knowledge and understanding is necessary to have a "relationship" with him.

Christian apologists appear to agree that logic is necessary to understand God since they use logic and reason to provide apologia for their faith. Logic is necessary to understand God, its use spans categories of people (i.e. Christians and Atheists) and categories of subjects ( religion and science) and God (if he exists) has apparently made the commitment to participate.

The simplest rules of logic are even exhibited to be understood by animals. The algorithm for understanding simple principles of logic seem to be hardwired in the brains of many species of animals. Any one with a pet can tell you anecdotes about smart things their pet has done. Additionally researches have observed and measured in the lab the use of rudimentary logic with fish and some predatory animals. One of the simplest rules of logic is one that can be made using precedent. For example, since the sun has risen every day of recorded history, then the sun will rise tomorrow. Another (lame?) example. Since the stop light changes every minute and it just changed to red at 0700, then if I record how much time it stays red in addition to the time it takes the other lights to change, then I can reliably predict that unless something unexpected happens, the light will turn red at 0746 (for example). Using rules (principles) created from experience and evidence we can create rules (principles) of precedent, and we can describe how we derived the rules and principles. Should the light become irregular or random, it would need to be repaired because it would not be trustworthy since there will be a case when it will be green when it should be red.

RFC from Christians for Empirical Evidence That Supports Biblical Claims

RFC: Request for Comment.
A belief should come from a reason, which should be derived from logic which should be based on evidence.

This article is intended as a fun exercise between Christian and Atheist teams. This article is a request for Comment from Christians for items in the bible that are supported by empirical evidence.

For example some things I can think of follow.

- the four rivers in the Garden of Eden really existed.
- the egyptians, assyrians, bablylonians, persians existed
- there is corroboration from other cultures for Ba'al
- there is evidence for a 'house of david'

I heartily endorse you to get your friends to participate and take us evidence loving Atheists to task!

In another article I'll compare this list with the other teams list and see what we get!

RFC from Atheists for Empirical Evidence That Refutes Biblical Claims

RFC: Request for Comment.
A belief should come from a reason, which should be derived from logic which should be based on evidence.

This article is intended as a fun exercise between Christian and Atheist teams. This article is a request for Comment from Atheists for items in the bible that are refuted by empirical evidence.

For example some things I can think of follow.

- Witches do not really exist
- No evidence of the Exodus
- No evidence of the sun and moon stopping as in Joshua 10
- No evidence of darkness during the crucifixion
- No corroboration that Many bodies of dead saints came out of their graves after the resurrection.
- Dubious evidence of Solomons Temple
- No evidence of the two great united Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

I heartily endorse you to get your friends to participate and take those evidence loving Christians to task!

In another article I'll compare this list with the other teams list and see what we get!

Natural Disasters As Part Of The Problem Of Evil

(Resolved! God Caused The Problem of Evil/Needless Suffering.) This article briefly discusses Natural Disasters as Part Of The Problem Of Evil. I argue that the problem of Evil was caused by God and his process of Creation. While I suspect that almost no one will dispute that natural disasters such as earthquakes, volcano's, tsunami's, hurricanes, tornado's and such are caused by natural seismological and meteorological processes, I claim that if there is a God, the way he made the earth guarantees that they will happen.

Some argue that Natural Disasters are not Disasters unless they affect people. I think Bambi and Peter Singer would disagree with this definition, but it works for this article. The intersection in this to the problem of Evil is that mankind is supposed to have brought the PoE on himself by disobeying god in the early days of its interaction with him. I avoid saying Adam and Eve because I think most people accept that there were people on the earth before 6000 - 10000 years ago. If natural disasters affect people and cause suffering and is used by clergy as an example of Gods Judgment and punishment on humanity, then it doesn't seem to follow from the fact that it happened before humans were humans, Adam and Eve or not. And if one argues that Natural Disasters happen anyway but sometimes are directed by God, then I call into the question the moral principles of group punishment especially when some of the punished are undergoing treatments to keep them alive in hospitals, toddlers and babies. Maybe some of you don't know this but a group of doctors in a hospital are under suspicion of 'hastening nature' because a disproportionate number of their terminally ill patients died within a couple of hours during hurricane Katrina.

I suppose one could say that God knew that mankind would disobey God so he made the earth this way as a result of foreknowledge, but then I have to wonder why make man in a way that would guarantee that he would 'malfunction' and need to be kicked around by the environment. If god was omniscient, and he knew everything ahead of time, including what choices we would make throughout our life and who the saved would be, then we only have the appearance of free will. But that debate is not the point of this article or necessary as a premise.

So if God created the world he created in such a way that it is constantly changing, and these changes seem to be necessary for it to work properly. These changes affect one another sometimes to a frightening degree causing the events that HUMANS PERCEIVE as disasters and "Gods Judgment". These events are a result of and necessary for the ecology of the earth. They have nothing to do with Mankind. Mankind just happens to live in its path. They happened before mankind showed up, and will happen after he is gone, and in fact may cause mankind's extinction.

God is a Philosophical Concept and NOT and Extraterrestrial Power

After spending over 35 years as a true believer in the Bible and Christianity, plus listening to all the philosophical arguments from every kind of philosopher (both medieval and modern) along with reading tons of theological apologetics, I am convinced that God and the metaphysical word of religion (Christianity) exist only in and is given life strictly by the living and creative brains of humans.

A reply might be: Yes, but Christianity has a god who is the source of “absolute truth” from which we have a standard to base our morals and ethics on. To which I would respond: Are Disney cartoons such as the Little Mermaid true? It certainly has moral and ethical battles between good and evil…the Little Mermaid and Sebastian the crab vs. the evil Sea Witch. So if truth needs to be based on morals and ethics, then the Little Mermaid is true. Certainly we know humans drew and wrote the Disney cartoons, but then modern scholars (other than fundamentalist) would say that the Bible too was written and created by humans just as any other ancient text was.

Thus, if the secular world wants a reference for kids teaching both ethical and moral truths, the cartoon world is full of ethical and moral characters going back from Betty Boop to Tooter Turtle to the present computer created semi-real Teletubbies. I would bet anyone coffee and a donut that kids today learn more from the Cartoon Network then twelve years spent in most churches services and Sunday Schools. Plus, they have fun learning without the fear of revenge from a wrathful God who only offers a carrot (Heaven) and stick (Hell) mentality.

Other than a symbolic book used in court rooms and swearing in ceremonies, the Bible remains a mostly unread iconoclastic book by the majority of Christians. Most believers I’ve talked to are almost totally illiterate on Biblical knowledge (as Hector Avalos notes in his book: The End of Biblical Studies). I asked a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher of 12 years where the book of Tobit was located. She said that sounds like an Old Testament book. She was close, but wrong.

In the end, present debates by Christian apologists keep God alive are his philosophical life support system. With no physical proof of any vital signs of life for a so-called "living God" today, he is indeed simply a philosophical concept and NOT and extraterrestrial power. God's home is not in Heaven, but just a the Bible says, he lives only in the hearts (mind) of those who love him.

Man, that's enough to make a deacon shout! Amen?

William Lane Craig vs. Frank Zindler Debate Christianity

This is a fairly good debate. I liked both of their opening statements. They express their positions quite well. It took place at the Willow Creek Church in 1994.

The Myth of the Problem of Evil

My thesis is simply this: There is no good. There is no bad / evil. There is only an event and the interpretation of that event. This destroys the idea of an absolute truth (god) and leaves us with simply an interpretation of an action founded upon the contextual needs of society. As far a religion goes, it is only a tool made either good or bad/evil by the faithful in that the living give life to past so-called deities who are demanded to have moral and ethical goodness. A living religion is kept good by the social needs of the living.

So in the religious context, is “God good”? Simply depends on the time the Biblical text was written and how society defines a “Good God”. Primary interest here is the Hebrew text of Numbers 22: 22 where (as in Job) God uses Satan to doing his bidding. The Hebrew of Numbers 22: 22 clearly reads “Elohim” used "Satan" block Balaam’s donkey. To keep God looking good, the English text follows the LXX (Septuagint) translating “Satan” as “Angel”. Scholars have noted that Yahweh’s messenger here is (as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible) is basically a hypostatization of God or, as noted by R.S. Kluger (Satan in the Old Testament, 1967); the real Satan in Numbers 22 is none other than Yahweh (God) himself!

Thus, when the Judeo-Christian traditions needs “Good” or “Evil”, an earlier text of an infamous deity can simply be revitalized via theological relevancy as an ideological move towards some concept of “goodness”. This fact can be readily heard in the sermons of the radio and TV evangelist who beat to death several dozen Old Testament verses while staying away from such horrific texts as Numbers 31 or, put another away, the Biblical text is like a cow pasture; when its preached from (to kept the concepts of good and evil relevant) preachers must watch where they step (preach). God is only good because the preacher is good via selective reading and theological interpretation of the scriptural text.

So how do I know what is to be considered good or bad (evil)? The same as my dog! And one thing is for sure: He sure the hell is not religious!

Finally, my question to all the C.S. Lewis fans that need some standard of good to know what is evil and, as one of the “Lewis Christians” asked me once: Why are you not out killing, stealing and raping?

My reply: I’ll leave that to God, Moses and the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible!

Antony Flew vs. Thomas B. Warren Debate on the Existence of God

Since there is quite a buzz about Antony Flew's change of mind, maybe people would like to see him in his prime debating a Church of Christ professor. See here. You will need Quick Time Player to view it if you don't already have it.

Have You Ordered My Book Yet?

I'm the sort of person who gets excited when what I do is helpful and receives some recognition, just like anyone else. Anyway, as of today my book is ranked 3,635th on amazon, 11th in the category of atheism books, and 12th in apologetical books. And it's not yet out! See capture below...

On Reductios and the Argument From Evil

I have said that one of the most asinine Christian arguments is probably the one where it's argued I cannot use the argument from evil as an atheist without having an ultimate moral standard for good and evil, seen here. I stand by that. Let me comment on a couple of others who have weighed in on the matter...

Let's say I press the argument from evil upon the Christian theist. I argue that based upon her own beliefs (not mine) that it's improbable that her Omni-God exists. As I've already argued it's asinine to say I cannot make that argument. Even Vic Reppert has weighed in that I can do this, here, at least theoretically.

Now, over at The Prosblogion Blog we read:

The basic point here is this: The theist can always get out of the atheist's argument by rejecting something that the atheist thinks is nonsense or contradictory--and how can the atheist complain about that?

But this is just silly on a few levels. In the first place it's not an atheist argument at all, as I've argued, especially since it doesn't lead one to atheism if it's sound, and Christians themselves must deal with it even if atheists never argued for it.

Moreover, can the theist "always" get out of this problem? Many theists have become Process thinkers because of it, and many others have become atheists because of it, although it doesn't necessarily lead to atheism. No, theists cannot "always" get out of this problem. Many do, of course, but many do not. The force of the argument is pretty powerful.

Surely Trent Dougherty is talking about tactics here, isn't he? That, tactically speaking, the theist always has an out. Well, in my opinion, a Holocaust denier always has an out too, as does a Flat Earth Society member. Just because there is always an out doesn't mean much to me, for I'm talking about probabilities here, not possibilities. Is it logically possible that a good omnipotent God exists? Yes, it's probable that this is possible, although I even have my doubts about this. But given my argument it's not probable an Omni-God exists given the amount of suffering in this world, and probabilities are all we have to work with. After all, Jim Carrey in the movie "Dumb and Dumber" still thought he had a chance to get the girl of his dreams after she said he didn't have a one in a million chance, too.

Then Trent asks how an atheist can complain when the theist rejects his argument. That too is silly. In the first place, who's complaining, and about what? Besides, if the theist rejects my argument, so what? That's within his epistemic rights. Arguments are rejected all of the time. Am I then to just walk away from the argument at that point? Why should I? I still think it's powerful even if a particular theist or group of theists reject it. Do theists walk away from an argument when an atheist rejects it? No! She regroups, reformulates it better, and comes back for another go of it, and so do I.

Sheesh. Sorry, but these kind of thinking skills baffle me. Where's the substance? That's what I want to know. With thinking like this no wonder there are believers.

The Most Asinine Christian Argument I've Probably Ever Heard

This argument is touted recently by the Maverick Philosopher which Vic Reppert links to, who merely asks the question of whether or not he's correct. It's used by C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, Paul Copan, and others like Steve Hays and David Wood. It concerns the problem of evil and whether or not the atheist can make that argument without an objective standard to know evil. Now I don't usually call Christian arguments asinine, so hear me out...

C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, argues from the start that there can be no evil without absolute goodness (God) to measure it against. "How do you know a line is crooked without having some knowledge of what a straight line is?” In other words, I need some sort of objective moral in order to say something is morally evil. But the word “evil” here is used both as a term describing the fact that there is suffering, and at the same time it’s used as a moral term to describe whether or not such suffering makes the belief in a good God improbable, and that’s an equivocation in the word’s usage. The fact that there is suffering is undeniable. Whether it makes the belief in a good God improbable is the subject for debate. I'm talking about pain...the kind that turns our stomachs. Why is there so much of it when there is a good omnipotent God? I’m arguing that the amount of intense suffering in this world makes the belief in a good God improbable from a theistic perspective, and I may be a relativist, a pantheist, or a witchdoctor and still ask about the internal consistency of what a theist believes.

The dilemma for the theist is to reconcile senseless suffering in the world with his own beliefs (not mine) that all suffering is for a greater good. It’s an internal problem for the theist and the skeptic is merely using the logical tool for assessing arguments called the reductio ad absurdum, which attempts to reduce to absurdity the claims of a person. The technique is to force a claimant to choose between accepting the consequences of what he believes, no matter how absurd it seems, or to reject one or more premises in his argument. The person making this argument does not believe the claimant and is trying to show why her beliefs are misguided and false to some degree, depending on the force of his counter-argument. It’s that simple. If skeptics cannot use this argument here on this issue then we should disallow all reductio ad absurdum type arguments. Just ask yourself if, in order to show Idealism to be implausible by accepting the premises of George Berkeley’s argument, whether you therefore must abandon your view that there is a material world, and you’ll see what I mean.

Christian theists argue that in the natural world nothing can count as evil for the atheist, since everything that happens is part of nature. So, they claim atheists have no objective basis for arguing there is any evil in the natural world that can count against the existence of the Christian God. But this is fallacious reasoning. What counts as evil in my atheist worldview is a separate problem from the Christian problem of evil. They are distinctly separate issues. Christians cannot seek to answer their internal problem by claiming atheists also have a problem with evil. Yet, that’s exactly what they do here, which is an informal fallacy known as a red herring, or skirting the issue. Christians must deal with their internal problem. Atheists must do likewise. I will not skirt my specific problem by claiming Christians have one. I adjure them to do the same.

The fact that many professional philosophers agree with this can be seen in reading through the book, The Evidential Argument From Evil, edited by Daniel Howard-Snyder. Not one scholarly Christian theist attempted to make this argument in that book; not Swinburne, not Plantinga, not Alston, not Wykstra, not Van Inwagen and not Howard-Snyder. I suggest it’s because they know it is not dealing with the problem at all. They recognize it as a bogus argument, and obviously so.

That this is a theistic problem can be settled once and for all by merely reminding the Christian that she would still have to deal with this problem even if I never raised it at all. That is, even if I did not argue that the existence of evil presents a serious problem for the Christian view of God, the Christian would still have to satisfactorily answer the problem for herself. So to turn around and argue that as an atheist I need to have an objective moral standard to make this argument is nonsense. It’s an internal problem that would still demand an answer if no atheist ever argued for it. The problem of evil is one of the reasons why Process Theologians have conceded that God is not omnipotent. It didn’t take atheists to persuade them to abandon God’s omnipotence at all. The problem speaks for itself. There is nothing wrong with a Christian who wishes to evaluate the internal consistency of her own belief system. To say otherwise is to affirm pure fideism.

Should We Teach Religion in School Poll Data

Here is our poll data for the above question:

NO! It's against the Constitution, and/or creation science simply isn't science. 94 (38%)

Yes, but only to educate students what each religion teaches. 81 (33%)

Yes, I can agree with Dennett's proposal for an informative open debate about religion in the classroom. 60 (24%)

Yes, but only to present the evidence for creation along with evolution for debate. 8 (3%)

What do you make of the results?

Becky Garrison Interviewed by The Friendly Atheist

Becky Garrison is the author of the just-released The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith . She is also Senior Contributing Editor for The Wittenburg Door, a Christian satirical magazine which I used to read every month for a few years. Becky had requested a review copy of my book so I struck up a conversation with her on My Space. She's intelligent. Hemant Mehta, the friendly atheist who "Sold His Soul on Ebay," interviewed her recently. See what you think.

A Review of John Beversluis' book C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion: Revised and Updated

C.S. Lewis has had an enormous impact on the evangelical mind. His books still top the charts in bookstores. But what about the substance of his arguments? Philosopher Dr. John Beversluis wrote the first full-length critical study of C. S. Lewis's apologetic writings, published by William B. Eerdmans, titled C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985). For twenty-two years it was the only full-length critical study of C.S. Lewis’s writings.

Beversluis was a former Christian who studied at Calvin College under Harry Jellema who inspired Christian thinkers like Alvin Plantinga (who was already in graduate school), and Nicholas Wolterstoff (who was a senior when he entered). Later he was a student at Indiana University with my former professor James D. Strauss. He became a professor at Butler University.

In this first book, Beversluis took as his point of departure Lewis's challenge where he said: “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it” (Mere Christianity p. 123). Beversluis thoroughly examined that hypothesis and found the evidence Lewis presents should not lead people to accept Christianity.

According to Beversluis, his first book “elicited a mixed response-indeed, a response of extremes. Some thought I had largely succeeded. I was complimented for writing a ‘landmark’ book that ‘takes up Lewis's challenge to present the evidence for Christianity and ... operates with full rigor’” (p. 9-10). But the critics were “ferocious.” He said, “I had expected criticism. What I had not expected was the kind of criticism…I was christened the "bad boy" of Lewis studies and labeled the "consummate Lewis basher" (p. 10).

In his “Revised and Updated” book published by Prometheus Books, which was prompted by Keith Parsons and Charles Echelbarger, Beversluis claims “this is not just a revised and updated second edition, but a very different book that supercedes the first edition on every point” (p.11). According to him: “Part of my purpose in this book to show, by means of example after example, the extent to which the apparent cogency of his arguments depends on his rhetoric rather than on his logic…Once his arguments are stripped of their powerful rhetorical content, their apparent cogency largely vanishes and their apparent persuasiveness largely evaporates. The reason is clear: it is not the logic, but the rhetoric that is doing most of the work. We will have occasion to see this again and again. In short, my purpose in this book is not just to show that Lewis's arguments are flawed. I also want to account for their apparent plausibility and explain why they have managed to convince so many readers” (pp. 20,22).

Additionally, Beversluis tells us, “My aim in this revised and updated edition is twofold. First, I will revisit and reexamine Lewis's arguments in light of my more recent thoughts about them. Second, I will to reply to my critics and examine their attempts to reformulate and defend his arguments, thereby responding not only to Lewis but to the whole Lewis movement—that cadre of expositors, popular apologists, and philosophers who continue to be inspired by him and his books. I will argue that their objections can be met and that even when Lewis's arguments are formulated more rigorously than he formulated them, they still fail” (p. 11).

C.S. Lewis’ writings contain three arguments for God’s existence, the “Argument from Desire,” the “Moral Argument,” and the “Argument From Reason.” Lewis furthermore argued that the Liar, Lunatic, Lord dilemma/trilemma shows Jesus is God. Lewis also deals with the major skeptical objection known as the Problem of Evil. Beversluis examines all of these arguments and finds them defective, some are even fundamentally flawed. Lastly Beversluis examines Lewis’ crisis of faith when he lost the love of his life, his wife. (He denies he ever said Lewis lost his faith).

I can only briefly articulate what Beversluis says about these arguments here, but his analysis of them is brilliant and devastating to Lewis’ whole case. The Argument From Desire echoes Augustine’s sentiment in his Confessions when addressing God that “You have made us for yourself and our hearts find no peace until they rest in you.” Lewis develops this into an argument for God’s existence which can be formulated in several ways, but the bottom line is that since humans have a desire for joy beyond the natural world, which is what he means by "joy," there must be an object to satisfy that desire in God. Beversluis subjects this argument to criticism on several fronts. How universal is the desire for this "joy"? Is "joy" even a desire? Is Lewis’ description of "joy" a natural desire at all, since desires are biological and instinctive? Do all our desires have fulfillment? What about people who have been satisfied by things other than God, with their careers, spouses and children? In what I consider the most devastating question, he asks if there is any propositional content to the object of Lewis’ argument? Surely if there is an object that corresponds to the desire for "joy" then one who finds this object should be able to describe it from such an experience. Based upon Lewis’ argument she can’t. In fact, Beversluis argues if she cannot do that how does she even know it's an object that corresponds to her desire for "joy" in the first place?

Lewis’ Moral Argument is basically that all people have a notion of right and wrong, and the only explanation for this inner sense of morality must come from a Power behind the moral law known as God. Beversluis claims this argument is based on a few questionable assumptions related to the Euthyphro dilemma, and it depends on the theory of ethical subjectivism from which Lewis only critiques straw man versions rather than the robust versions of Hume and Hobbes. And if that isn’t enough to diminish his case, deductively arguing that there is a Power behind this moral law is committing “the fallacy of affirming the consequent.” (p. 99). 1) If there is a Power behind the moral law then it must make itself known internally within us. 2) We do find this moral law internally within us. .: Therefore, there is a Power behind the moral law. As such this argument is invalid. Of course, there is much more here in Beversluis’ argument.

The Argument From Reason, as best seen in Lewis’ book, Miracles, “is the philosophical backbone of the whole book,” from which “his case for miracles depends.” (p. 145). Lewis champions the idea that if naturalism is true such a theory “impugns the validity of reason and rational inference,” and as such, naturalists contradict themselves if they use reason to argue their case. If you as a naturalist have ever been troubled by such an argument you need to read Beversluis’ response to it, which is the largest chapter in his book, and something I can’t adequately summarize in a few short sentences. Suffice it to say, he approvingly quotes Keith Parsons who said: “surely Lewis cannot mean that if naturalism is true, then there is no such thing as valid reasoning. If he really thought this, he would have to endorse the hypothetical ‘If naturalism is true, then modus ponens is invalid.’ But since the consequent is necessarily false, then the hypothetical is false if we suppose naturalism is true (which is what the antecedent asserts), and Lewis has no argument.” (p. 174).

Lewis’ Liar, Lunatic, Lord Dilemma/Trilemma is one of the most widely used arguments among popular apologists, in variations, where since Jesus claimed he was God, the only other options are that he was either a liar or a lunatic, or both, which Lewis argues isn’t reasonable. Therefore Jesus is God, who he claimed he was. Even William Lane Craig defends it in his book Reasonable Faith. But it is widely heralded as Lewis’ weakest argument as he defended it, and fundamentally flawed. Beversluis subjects Lewis’ defense of it and his defenders to a barrage of rigorous intellectual attacks. There is the problem of knowing what Jesus claimed, which by itself “is sufficient to rebut the Trilemma.” (p. 115). Also it is a false dilemma. Even if Jesus claimed he was God he could simply be mistaken, not a lunatic, for lunatics can be very reasonable in everyday life and still have delusions of grandeur. And it’s quite possible for someone to be a good moral teacher and yet be wrong about whether he was God. Furthermore, the New Testament itself indicates many people around him including his own family thought he was crazy. In the end, Beversluis claims, “we can now dispense of the Lunatic or Fiend Dilemma once and for all….If the dilemma fails, as I have argued, the trilemma goes with it. In the future, let us hear no more about these arguments.” (p. 135). I agree.

In Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he deals head on with the Problem of Evil coming at the heels of WWII. Suffice it to say, as Victor Reppert summarized the argument of his first book, Beversluis: “If the word ‘good’ must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that ‘good’ in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of the Christian God goes by the boards.”

This is must reading if you think C.S. Lewis was a great apologist, and it's part of the Debunking Christianity Challenge. Beversluis’ arguments are brilliant and devastating to the apologetics of Lewis and company.

The Dawkins Effect: How The God Delusion Mainstreamed Atheism (Reposted)

Simon Owens over at "Bloggasm: Was it good for you?" wrote a piece called The Dawkins Effect: How The God Delusion Mainstreamed Atheism. It’s well written and I recommend it, especially since he quotes me in it. I'm reposting it because he claims it was his best article in 2007.

He wrote:

PZ Myers has said several times in his writing that he thinks that Dawkins has done very little to convert the religious into nonbelievers. Instead, The God Delusion and other books like it are simply rallying calls for the choir. But other atheists have argued that the poor conversion rate is the result of a weak book. Some atheist purists have made claims — generally in blog comments and online message boards — that The God Delusion is inferior to much weightier atheist texts.

John W. Loftus is one of several atheists who write at a group blog called Debunking Christianity. When I interviewed him in August, he seemed to disagree with what he considers the offensive tactics Dawkins uses. “Even though we argue against…faith, we do so in a more or less non-offensive way,” he told me. “To belittle [the religious] like other sites do is not effective if we want them to consider our arguments. There is a place for ridicule, and people on both side of the fence do this. Sometimes it just feels good to vent, I suppose. But that’s not us (for the most part). That’s one of the reasons so many Christians visit us and discuss these issues with us, and I like it this way.”

Loftus expressed ambivalence toward Dawkins, saying that on the one hand, The God Delusion book suffers from a lack or research (in Loftus’s mind), while on the other hand, “Dawkins has gained for atheists an audience.” This audience, he argued, has caused more people to provide additional research against religion in general. “That’s something I am grateful to Dawkins for,” he said, “even if educated people immersed in these debates don’t think that highly about his arguments.”

Empirically Considered: The Body and Blood of Jesus VS the Body and Blood of Humans

The Blood of Jesus vs. Human Blood

According to the Gospel Tracts (as well as my training in Christian schools), it is the believer’s faith in Jesus Christ and His Vicarious Atonement of His shed blood on the cross that saves the confessed sinner from judgment before God. If one accepts this, then he or she is assured of eternal life with Christ.


So what would an old unsaved sinner (even more damning, a Secular Humanist and Atheist) like me have to offer the world in light of this fantastic Christian claim of Jesus?

How about reality!

For one: Every month I go to the Blood Connection here in Greenville where I spend from one to three hours giving at least two of the following: blood, plasma or platelets. While lying in the donor’s chair, I’m often informed how many lives my blood and its products will have saved (that’s right: SAVED…Amen?!).

Let’s say an old sinner (or saved Christian for that matter) is injured by doing something stupid (sinful) such as driving while intoxicated and wrecks his vehicle with a lot of blood loss. This individual is now facing the “judgment of death” unless he or she can get an infusion of my -or another donor’s - life saving blood. If, in the case they got my blood, then just like Jesus Christ my blood atoned for their sin by giving them life. But real life here and now and not some pie in the sky in the sweet by and by!

Lets go further and put Christ to the test again. Let’s take the example of a hemophiliac or a cancer patient who desperately needs my platelets in order to live. Now they could do nothing and have a total Biblical faith in Jesus and (via prayer) claim John 14:13-14 (“And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” Or they can depend totally on “sinful” and often “unsaved” people (such as my self) and be given life here and now (not just some religious Bull Shit)!

Still have doubts, well just look how many faithful believers in the sect of Christian Science (Mary Barker Eddy’s group) who trusted in FAITH ONLY as promised in the Bible, but have died while praying to Jesus Christ claiming his promises. Also, Jehovah Witnesses who consider honoring God and His Word (the Bible) by not getting blood transfusions.




The Body of Jesus vs. The Body of Humans

Christianity holds the body of Jesus as sinless, pure (that is, undefiled by sin), plus he was fathered by God Himself though a virgin as extra protection. But, empirically speaking, just what value is theology and the body of Jesus for the suffering of humanity in this present life?

In 1999, my fourteen year old daughter was taken to the hospital with chronic vomiting and weight loss. Her blood pressure was 184 over 123. After some lab tests, the staff doctor called in a Nephrologist to confirm the test: End Stage Renal Failure. He told my wife and me that we had three choices: My daughter could live the rest of her life on dialysis, better yet, hopefully one day get a kidney transplant, or we could take her home and let her die. However, we better act soon as she had about two weeks to live!

I remember sitting beside my daughter’s hospital bed and a seeing her now frail body with one tube for in her neck for hemodialysis, plus several more tubes in her arms for plasma and blood.

I also remember my daughter (who had been raised in Sunday School and Church all her life (I let my child attend with their mom and decide for themselves)) who, when she was told that all the churches were “praying for her”, ask me crying: “Daddy, I love my cat and dog and I take care of them. If Jesus loves me, why did he not take care of my kidneys?” I must admit, just how do you answer someone that young and in that much mental pain?

After she was on dialysis for four months and in a state of decline, the doctor told us that some people don’t tolerate it well and my daughter was one of the ones who did not. He told us that any long term life for her would have to be in the form of a kidney transplant.

As an Atheist and Secular Humanist, I came forward and was consider a match.
In short, in November 1999 I gave her one of my kidneys and she has been doing very well health wise since.

With that background said, I want to close with the second part of my thesis below.

Beginning in 2002, my daughter attended her first National Transplant Games. These games are composed of over 3,000 people from the United States who have had kidney, liver, heart, pancreas, lung, bone and bowel transplants given by either a living people or a non-living donors (donated by the family). Although, there is competition at the games, the games themselves are really about the celebration of life here and now.

What I found very interesting at both the opening and the closing ceremonies is that at NO TIME was there ever a prayer offered (even to some god in general), nor did I hear anyone make the statement; “It is only by the Grace of God that I’m here!” Moreover,
at the last two Transplant Games I attended with my daughter, I made it a point to try find out if there was any credit given to religion at all (Christian or otherwise). There was none! I am not saying these people are not religious, but credit was given where credit is due…to secular society and modern medicine.

In short, while Christian apologists sit behind a keyboard in fairly good heath and philosophically discuss the “proofs for God and Christian dogma”, these 3,000 plus transplant reciprocates have looked death in the face and are alive today simply because of secular technology and they know it! Apart from the games themselves, great heart felt thanks are given to modern medicine and the pharmacology that makes their life giving anti-rejection drugs possible…all from sinful man.

In the end, the reality of the body and blood of Jesus (along with Jesus’ fantastic Biblical promises) are, for the terminal chronically sick, left totally out of the reality of life’s reach. Being stored up in some mythical Heaven, they are only awarded after death to those who are deemed good and doctrinally obedient.

However, to try and tell the chronically ill person with end-stage organ failure or someone bleeding to death that somehow it “is God’s will” or that God’s Word requires you to just suffer (or that it was some ploy of Satan) is just plain apologetically trying to save theology at the expense of the dying; a tactic religion is well know for.

Another One Leaves the Fold...Is there Anything Comparable on the Christian Side of the Fence?

For more of his videos see here.

I just want to note that what is common to every team member here at DC, along with Robert M. Price, John Beversluis, Hector Avalos, Michael Shermer, Bart Ehrman, William Dever, and so on, is that we were very serious about our faith and studied to defended it against the skeptics, but in the end we abandoned the effort and abandoned our faith. Is there anything comparable on the Christian side of the fence with skeptics who were very serious about their skepticism and studied to defend it against Christianity who subsequently abandoned the effort and became evangelical Christians? Surely if Christianity is true, serious skeptics who adopted the Christian faith should be commonplace. Where are they?