From faith to reason, my journey

The conversion of Bart Willruth

In the summer of 1979, I was a theology student at the top of my game. I was standing next to several of my professors, some recognized as the worldwide authorities in their fields. I had already completed a B.A. degree with a double major, history and theology, with a minor in Koine Greek. Now I was the fair-haired golden boy of the theological seminary at Andrews University. It was graduation. I was speaking with these professors I had looked up to for so many years, who were now starting to treat me as a bit of a colleague. I was basking in the glow of graduation from the Master of Divinity program at the theological seminary and had graduated first in a class of 300, Summa cum Laude. I had just been invited to enter the Doctor of Theology program at the University. What made that unusual was that no student had ever before been allowed to enter that program prior to serving several years as a pastor and receiving ordination. I was being fast-tracked to become a seminary professor myself. I had just been interviewed by the executive editor of the Southern Publishing Association and asked to write a commentaty on the Apocalypse for educated laymen and college students. Two of my professors had already given me multiple opportunities to guest lecture in their M.Div. classes on the subject of apocalyptic literature and New Testament eschatology. I was a committed Christian who was realizing a dream years in the making.

While I had been brought up in the Armenian Protestant tradition, I had steadily been embracing Calvinist theology, albeit without the hard predestinarianism associated with it. The death and resurrection of Jesus as my saviour, forensic justification, the Protestant credo; Grace alone, Faith alone, and scripture as sole authority, were my life blood. I stood firmly in the gospel and let the gospel stand in judgment of all things; creeds, church institutions, and worldview. I was as committed as one could be and certain of my salvation by the grace of God through his son Jesus Christ. I was a believer, an Evangelical Christian.

As I entered into my doctoral program, specializing in apocalyptic literature, I took on the position of associate editor of "Evangelica" magazine, published numerous articles, and begain accepting invitations to give seminars at churches in several states. I excelled in my studies, maintaining a straight 4.0 G.P.A. throughout.

But there was a serpent in the garden. I had studied deeply in Christian apologetics (defending the faith) using clear logic and argumentation to bolster the reasons for articles of faith. I was convinced that reason and faith could work hand in hand, that reason strengthened faith, and faith could take us where reason could not. One day I picked up a book on economics by Ayn Rand, "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal." I found the arguments for free markets and capitalism to be enlightening and compelling from the practical standpoint. But the more challenging part of the book was the moral defence for capitalism. I had always believed, in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, that there was no positive morality involved in the pursuit of commercial interests, wealth, or any of the material benefits of the secular world other than to renounce them and give to the poor. Suddenly I was confronted with a tightly argued presentation of the morality and the necessity of using one's mind for survival and well being, for being properly concerned with life, this life on earth, and the irrationality of self sacrifice and altruism. Her interplay of the practical and the moral were a blatant challenge to my Christian worldview wherein this life was to be used to serve the purposes of God in sacrifice to Him and others, with the reward coming in the next life. Jesus, as he is presented in the gospels, deliberately drives a wedge between the moral and the practical. A three page section of Rand's book called "the Meaning of Money" presented a conversation of two protagonists debating the question of the truth of Jesus' position that money is the root of all evil. As the conversation grew sharper, the debate corrected to Jesus' position that the Love of money is the root of all evil. The capitalist protagonist began to show that there is no higher value to man than life. Without it, no other values exist. That that which supports this life is the moral and that which is destructive of life is the immoral. That this life is the only one we have (any other is just a hope). That we survive through the use of our mind and reason. That we use our minds to judge the best course of action, to reep the rewards of our thought and action, and to live as we see fit without coercion. That reason is our only guide and means of knowledge. That self sacrifice by any organism, from the lowliest worm to the most intelligent human, is the road to self destruction and death. That money is the visible means of identifying the value we offer to others in exchange for the value they offer to us. It is the tangible symbol of the best within us and is the support for life, our highest value. That the value we put on money is the value we put on our own life itself. That to disdain money is to disdain life. That to love life is to love money which supports it. I was stunned, not that I agreed with the position at that time, but that morality could be so logically argued and tightly reasoned from an ontological perspective (arising out of that which is, existence) rather than being a kind of knowledge only available from revelation. Reason from existence vs. acceptance by authority. She summed up Judeo-Christian morality in this way, To the degree that we are fitted properly for this life, we are unfit for the next. The result of the Christian morality is that to the degree we are fitted properly for the life to come, we are unfit for survival in this life. The vision before my mind was the ultimate symbol of Christian righteousness, Christ on the cross, death in this life in sacrifice for others, self immolation, with new life in glory. Death and humiliation as the paradigm for our proper behavior vs. a morality of making the best out of the life we have, to live for our own purposes, to love this life. The differences are obviously stark, and the sources for the two moralities just as opposite, reason vs. authority. The explosion of Christian morality through reason was shocking. I had never questioned it before. I had thought that Christian morality was the obvious, the given. That those who rejected it did so for sinful reasons, not for moral reasons. Could it be that the morality of Jesus' was irrational?

And then came the computer virus that began working its way through my mind, corrupting every connection, thought, and memory. Rand pointed out that all systems of thought begin with premises. But then she issued the challenge, "CHECK YOUR PREMISES." Nothing, no other concept, no other challenge, has so profoundly influenced my life. I had observed Rand systematically debunking the sermon on the mount, the moral teachings of Jesus, and the Christian life of piety, through reason and logic, the same methods I had used in Christian apologetics to support my faith and that of millions of others throughout the last 2,000 years. How could this be? How can two systems both use the same logical methods to arrive at such opposite conclusions? The answer was in their respective starting points. These questions didn't percolate quickly through my mind, but they did work as a background program over the next two years.

Finally, with a troubled mind and a fear of doubting, which is placed into every Christian early on, I took the challenge. I decided to check my premises. It is such a simple thing to do, and it is a continuing source of embarassment to me that I had managed to achieve the doctoral level in my theological studies without ever asking the basic questions and demanding satisfactory answers. I asked myself, "What are the premises upon which Christianity is based?" I started from the philosophy of religion perspective and found Karl Barth to be the most lucid expositor of the theistic premises. He posited two presuppositions (premises) on which the whole of theological speculation is based:

1. There is a God
2. He has revealed Himself.

Yes, I agreed that those are the starting points upon which all logical arguments for God and His will are based. Number one deals with metaphysics, the issue of existence. To acknowledge this premise is to accept as a fact that God exists. Number two deals with epistemology, the means of knowledge and verification. Together, these presuppositions state that God exists and He has made Himself known to man. The problem as I pondered was that these premises were presuppositions, not objective facts. That is, they were propositions that we suppose to be true in advance as a starting point. But are these propositions really facts? Are they proper starting points? Or are they themselves conclusions? On what basis? Theologians and philosophers have long pondered these issues, and other than the more ignorant fundamentalist country preachers, most have acknowledged that there is nothing within the natural world enabling us to indicate the existence of the supernatural. Or to put it another way, God's existence must be taken as a given, not the result of a line of reasoning or argumentation. We must first believe that He is. The act that existence exists, that there is a universe rather than nothing, does not require the existence of God. Without evidence, and indeed no evidence is possible, the brutal fact is that the first premise that God exists, is an arbitrary proposition; arbitrary meaning that it has no cause or evidence. That "God exists" must be accepted solely on the basis of sheer faith, unseen, and unknowable. When it is acknowledged that the first premise is arbitrary, it necessarily follows that the second premise, that God has revealed Himself, is also arbitrary since it is derivative upon acceptance if the first premise that God exists. Even so, the question becomes "Revealed how?" The Christian will always answer this with a two-fold response. God first revealed himself through "inspired" men throughout the ages and finally through his son who was the pre-existent God becoming a man, living about two thousand years ago ina poor backwater of the Roman Empire. This revelation to "inspired men" is problematic. Why was such vital information released piecemeal in a geographically limited area to one group and not available to every person equally? And how can we know that anything was actually revealed to any of these individuals? We cannot check out their stories and claims. In fact, in many cases the original writers are unknown. How do we know if they conveyed their revelations accurately? And how do we know that the copying of texts through millenia has been scrupulously accurate? If errors could have crept in, how do we know what they are, what was original, and what was altered? How do we know which claimants to revelation were truthful and which were fakers? Numerous individuals have claimed to have received communication from a god. We know more about Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Ellen White, and the Rev. Moon than we know about many of the authors of the writings which make up the Bible. Which prophet do we accept and which do we reject? By what criteria? If we choose Paul and use his thoughts as a standard, then we reject Muhammad. But if we choose Muhammad and use his thoughts as a standard, then we reject Paul. Why would the great Revealer make us arbitrarily choose which guy to trust in order to come to salvific knowledge? When we choose, and choose we must if we accept the premise that God has revealed Himself, we are ultimately directing faith not to a god, but to the man or woman claiming to be the recipient of the revelation. Why must we exercise faith in fallible men to understand God and his will? Do we know if any inspired man was actually mentally ill or delusional? Do we know if he had a good memory and faithfully wrote down every detail which was revealed to him accurately? We do know that problems occurred in the transmission of the texts, that corruptions entered the texts through omissions by copyists, additions to add authority to someone's pet beliefs, through changes intended to clarify based upon current understanding, through outright fraud and forgery, through simple copying errors, and by the church of the fourth century as it tried to clarify and define orthodoxy. The fundamentalist will answer that from start to finish, God's revelation was controlled and preserved at every level by his will, that is by a long series of miracles safeguarding his word. But this is an argument of faith, not fact; it is unknowable, circular reasoning.

"All of this is a problem" I thought to myself, "and a huge and fundamental problem at that." If all theological thought begins with two premises which must be accepted by faith alone, then is there no objectivity involved? This gets to the crucial questions,\

1. What do I know? and
2. How do I know it?

We are right back to the issues of metaphysics and epistemology.; I had long believed that reason and faith were fellow travelers. Reason could be used to get us part of the way and to bolster faith with evidence, and that faith could fill in the gaps of information unavailable to reason. But if the starting point must be accepted by faith, it is then like a child's game of "let's pretend." Let's pretend that there is a God and that he has revealed Himself, and then logically and with reason extrapolate those premises. We end up with systems called Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but the pyramid of belief which was so carefully built up with so much painstaking care and reasoning all stands on a completely arbitrary and very uncertain foundation. At this point, the marriage of reason and faith is on the rocks. If faith is the starting point and posits "facts" not in evidence, no reasonong beyond that point, no matter how erudite, can claim anything more than that it is a house of cards, smoke, and mirrors. No knowledge can be furthered by extrapolating arbitrary "facts."

As I grappled with these issues, I was devastated. Could my whole worldview, all my study, all my hopes be false? I couldn't accept it. I began to loook for another way to objectify my beliefs. I turned to the second claim of God's revelation, that of the incarnation of Jesus. The Judeo-Christian tradition (and its stepchild, Islam) is unique in world religions in that it claims that God has entered history. In the case of Christianity, He entered history in the person of Jesus of Nazareth who was born a Jew in the first century, was the promised Messiah of the Jews, taught with the authority of God, worked numerous miracles which certified his claims, was crucified, dead, and buried. That on the third day through a mighty miracle, God raised him from the dead. The risen Jesus was then seen by hundreds of witnesses over a period of weeks, and was then raised up to heaven before a group of witnesses. This claim is not a faith issue (using "faith" as an epistemological method). Rather, it is a historical claim, subject to the same methods of examination to which other events of history are subject. That he was dead and then alive again is the historical claim. That the event has implications for believers is a faith issue and is not subject to historical investigation. It is the claim of the actual events on the Judean dirt that must be examined as history.

I seized on this issue as the solution to my questions. It would objectify the basic claims of Christian belief even if the philosophical side was wanting. I threw myself into the question with high energy. While this is not the venue for explaining the details, I put together a research project to marshall all the evidence possible to bolster the arguments for the objective historical claims. I read every apologetic book I could find on the resurrection. I read some historical-critical scholarly texts. And I did intense research on my own. I came out at the far end of that study with the realization that the claim of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a historical event was indefensible. The only way to hold on to that belief would be to blindly accept the internally contradictory and irrational claims of the mostly anonymous writers of the New Testament.

I was faced with two options; retreat into faith, blind faith, to believe in the absence of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Or I could use the mind I have to apprehend the universe and existence as it is, not as I wish it were. FAITH or REASON. There is no middle ground. Either-or. I chose reason, but not without pain. It was an exceedingly difficult thing to shed the beliefs of a lifetime which had permeated every part of my being and my outlook. At every point I had to stop and ask myself if I were reacting automatically to my old perspectives or was I thinking and acting in accordance with reason.

I deliberately and proudly expunged faith from my being and took up the banner of reason. When asked what I believe in now, I invariably respond "I don't believe in anything." What I mean is that I know. I apply reason to every part of my life. That perspective is helpful in protection against all con men, religious or commercial. For the last 25 years I have been an Objectivist with reason and logic as my only means of knowing and acting. I have rejected Christianity and other forms of theism. I consider faith to be a short circuit of the mind and hugely detrimental to achieving the full potential of human possibility. Faith is the lazy man's attempt at gaining knowledge, free from the rigors and risks of thinking.

In the interim years, I have remained a careful student of philosophy, theology, and history. I have worked diligently to deconstruct the claims of Christianity, for my own benefit and that of others crippled by this scourge. I study the formative period of Christian origins to ascertain what actually took place and how Christianity evolved into that which we recognize today. I believe theism is the most destructive force in the world today. It cripples the human mind and its potential. It causes the sacrifice of the interests of this life for the delusion of a hoped for afterlife. It allows separation and vilification. Its fundamentalist side can has frequently led to coercion and voilence. It is intolerant. Its liberal side has led to the collectivist/altruist governance of communism, progressivism, and the social welfare state. In a post-enlightenment world, it has no place. Christianity belongs to the primitive, superstitious, and credulous past.

Bart Willruth

"I'm Praying for You."

"I'm praying for you." I get this response from Christians quite a bit. I don't suppose they would say this if they read the chapter in my book on prayer. But here is my response:

Go ahead. Thank you. But remember, don't just count the hits when a prayer request is answered, or discount the misses when a request is not granted. Make it a testable prayer. Pray specifically such that we will both know if your prayer request is answered. Don't offer a nebulous prayer which reveals you truly do not believe, like "help him," or "convict him," or "turn his life around before he dies." None of those prayers can be known to have been granted before we both die, since you might die before me. Be specific. If you want me to return to the faith then give a date when this is supposed to happen. This is not the same as demanding God to do something on your timetable at all, no more than it is when you ask for it not to rain on a given day.

Cheers,
John

The Argument From Ignorance

Surely people have heard of the "Argument From Reason," which attempts to show God exists, and the "Argument From Evil," which attempts to show God does not exist. I hereby advance for the first time the "Argument From Ignorance," which is short for the "Argument From Human Ignorance." Hitchiking and expanding on the arguments found in J.L. Schellenberg's book The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism, I will attempt to show that religious skepticism is justified based upon the fact that human beings are ignorant, and we are ignorant because we are profoundly limited and immature as human beings. [This might take a few posts to do so]. Let me begin with a summary of the argument found in Part One of Schellenberg's book.

In Part One Schellenberg argues for religious skepticism based on four distinct categories of thought called "modes," which he later combines into one. In the "Subject Mode" the author argues that human beings are limited in understanding. There is available evidence that is neglected and/or inaccessible to us. There is unrecognized evidence that is undiscovered and undiscoverable by all of us. In the "Object Mode" the author argues that it's probably beyond finite humans beings to understand Ultimate reality, since it must be "something infinitely profound." (p. 51) As such, we may have inadequate and incoherent conceptions of it.

In the "Retrospective Mode" the author considers the human past with regard to religious claims. The human past is too brief, ("only a few thousand years old") and we have been occupied by other things for us to conclude we have arrived at a final understanding. There have been moral, psychological and social factors which were actively against religious improvements to our understanding. There has been hubris (or self-importance) and greed, jealously and envy, which taken together led to dogmatism, hostility and rivalry among people of different understandings. "Because religious belief is wrapped up with this ultimate concern, it has tended to go hand in hand with a rather fierce loyalty. Nothing less than complete devotion is appropriate where such a reality is involved." "How, for example, can one remain loyal to God if one allows oneself to be seduced by objections to the belief that there is a God?...she is likely rather to become stubborn and intransigent, because of a well-intentional but misplaced loyalty." "When they notice that others disagree, they tend not to think of this as an opportunity for dialogue and growth toward deeper understanding, but rather feel impelled to insist on fundamental error in the opposing views." (p. 76-78). Furthermore, "the more attached one becomes to one's beliefs, the more difficult it is to remain open to their falsity and to engage in investigations that might show them to be false" (p. 84), which in turn has been "inimical to creative and critical thinking" about the Ultimate.

In the "Prospective Mode" the author "considers what may lie ahead rather than what lies behind us." (p. 91). If we survive on this planet we have 1 billion years to come up with better solutions to understanding the Ultimate, especially since we've just entered an era of unprecedented access to digital information that may all be categorized and placed into a hand held iPod someday. Science will progress into the future as well. People will increasingly be forced to get to know others who have a different religious perspective with a global economy and travel, and we will learn from each other and become more tolerant and assimilating of these views with a healthy exchange of information.

The author finally combines these four into one called "The Presumption Mode," which builds on everything he said before. He argues that "human beings are both profoundly limited and profoundly immature." (p. 117). Lacking any pragmatic reasons to counter his truth-oriented arguments, he concludes that "religious skepticism is positively justified." (p. 129).

Jeffrey Shallit Debates ID'er Kirk Durston at the University of Waterloo.

The God of the Gaps, One More Time

Victor Reppert repeatedly discusses the "God of the Gaps" in which many Christians have argued that if science cannot explain something then this is evidence or a pointer to God's handiwork in the world. But since modern science has explained numerous things without recourse to a supernatual explantion, like how babies are born, why people get ill, and why it rains, this whole reasoning is now problematic. Let me explain...

This whole discussion reminds me of what I wrote when summing up my case against Christianity here: In every case when it comes to the following reasons for adopting my control beliefs the Christian response is pretty much the same. Christians must continually retreat to the position that what they believe is “possible,” or that what they believe is “not impossible.” However, the more that Christians must constantly retreat to what is "possible" rather than to what is “probable” in order to defend their faith, the more their faith is on shaky ground. For this is a tacit admission that instead of the evidence supporting what they believe, they are actually trying to explain the evidence away.

Robert M. Price echos this statement of mine when he says that for Christian apologists “the controlling presupposition seems to be, ‘If the traditional view cannot be absolutely debunked beyond the shadow of a doubt, if it still might possibly be true, then we are within our rights to continue to believe it.’”

Now let me try to explain how this applies to the god of the gaps reasoning. Many Christians claim that methodological naturalism (MN) has not closed all of the gaps, and since that’s so, they can still believe. According to them so long as there are gaps it hasn’t been shown God doesn’t exist. But the point is that MN has indeed closed numerous gaps because such a method has proven fruitful. Christians must admit that while MN is indeed fruitful it cannot or should not be used to explain the Biblical miracles or the origin of the universe itself. But when they take this tact they are already admitting the fruitfulness of MN which has had overwhelming success. They have to deny what seems to scientifically literate people undeniable, or at the very minimum, most probable. They must apply a double standard here, for while they accept MN in all other areas of their lives they deny it when it comes to the Bible. Why the double standard?

Other Christian theists faced with the onslaught of science and its method have changed the historic Christian view in which it was believed the gaps are evidence for God's handiwork. Now they are forced into claiming instead that even if the gaps were all closed it wouldn’t undercut their beliefs, since God is behind the whole ordered universe as the divine orderer. And while this is true if God exists, at the same time, as the gaps are closed there is less and less evidence to believe he does exist! If all of the gaps are closed, which is theoretically possible but not likely, would the theist then admit there is no evidence for God at all, or will she again switch tactics?

So Christian theists either have a double standard, or they have the we can’t beat ‘em join ‘em attitude towards MN. I consider both views to be an admission of the power of MN, and indicative that their only resort is retreating to what’s possible rather than to what’s probable.

Cheers.

Twelve Arguments for Atheism by Richard Spencer

Link.

I'll Be Speaking At the University of Wisconsin-Madison Campus, Tuesday, February 12th.

Chris Hallquist and his secular student organization invited me to speak on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison about why I rejected Christianity. I'll be doing this February 12th at 7 PM in the Mosse Humanities Building. [On the University map link, click on "Show Me," then "Arts Venues." The building is on the corner of N. Park and University Ave. This will take place in room 2650 of that building. If you're near the area I would like to meet ya. Please tell anyone you know who lives near there about it as well.

Any Good Christian or Secular Sites Out There?

I'm looking for some top notch sites from both sides that deal exclusively pro or con with the truth claims of Christianity, along with ones defending atheism/skepticism. First check the links in our sidebar to be sure we don't have them. No political sites, please. Only apologetical, anti-apologetical, philosophical, theological and/or Biblical sites from scholars or academic people on both sites. Also tell us if we link to any inferior sites or links that no longer work. Thanks.

Reasonable Doubt About Sin, Biological Bases For Behavior

This article expresses doubt about sin. It challenges the concept of Sin and Eternal Reward and Punishment. Human behavior is too complex to be handled by a dichotomy of "reward and punishment".

It is a very long article, and i apologize but it is so long exactly because it gets to the heart of Christianity and shows how ignorant of human behavior the authors were. It argues that if God created us, that since we have biological bases for behavior that heavily influence our freewill, the dichotomy of reward and punishment rather than remediation is unjust because he designed us with a high potential to fail. The article is divided into two sections. The first section is a general overview of the argument, and the second part is more technical with links to data.

Even as a Christian, I have always thought the policy that people were more bad than good was odd. I just took it on faith that it was true. Then I just took it on faith that all the little tiny sins amounted to something that was relatively disgusting to a god, however much I couldn't understand it. But since I lost my faith, I now believe that Christianity follows in the footsteps of all the other religions before it that correlate blood with fertility, Gods with kings and heroes who struggle with death. Humans have a special part as subjects and should constantly strive to behave better. Basically, religion creates a problem by exaggerating the bad then sells the solution. Its a tried and true technique, that many different organizations (including marketing) practice today. People are bad and they need God or a King to keep them in line. In fact, I just heard about how nasty people were from my co-worker, then I challenged him to walk around the building with me and point to "nasty people". "Nasty People" are a minority. If they weren't there would be no civilization. Its The Blame Game. The claim goes "People are Evil, Lazy, Unmotivated and Stupid because they choose to be, but don't despair, there is a solution!"

Human behavior is and has typically been viewed as good or Bad/Evil. Supposedly Jesus cast out demons, and this practice continues today. But this idea of spirits causing bad behavior was left behind by science. Science has taken a slow track to the point it is today because until recently fruitful "non-destructive" brain research has been impossible. Science has exposed the good/evil false dichotomy and shows that Christianity ignores a lot of very important qualifiers about human behavior. Even in the cases of ordinary behavior of the people you work with, their behavior doesn't stem from them being a "bad" or "good" person. Human behavior is influenced by the following inter-dependent factors and the human is more or less unaware of them.
- Population and Species attributes
- Natural selection
- Genetic Makeup
- Fetal Development
- Perinatal Biology
- Development
- Acute Hormones
- Environmental Triggers
- Neurobiology

What you will notice is that Freewill is missing. That is because freewill itself is made up of those components. We don't have as much "freewill" as we imagine we do. Where do you draw the line between normal behavior and a disorder? Where do you draw the line of culpability?

Additionally as I discussed in Reasonable Doubt About The Problem of Evil/Needless Suffering As A Test there is a negative feedback loop between stress and our behavior. The influence that environmental and biological factors have on the function of the brain limits options and performance without the person even realizing it. These factors are an inseparable part of the decision making process.

When we see behavior exhibited by a person, it is a result of these factors. Whether or not the behavior meets our expectations or that of God, it originated out of the frail bodily organ that is the brain. It may be that these factors cannot really be appreciated until they are put under stress or do not work properly. Many times the result is behavior that is outside the norm and/or doesn't meet our expectations. How much culpability does a person have when the tools they are given are not adequate for the task at hand? In the context of having our behavior judged by God, there is only eternal reward or eternal damnation. Curiously there is no facility for treatment except for the bible, church, prayer and repentance. But living in a constant state of repentance causes stress, poor self-esteem and approaches depression. With the advances in biological sciences in the last few decades, Western Judicial Systems have been forced to re-evaluate policies to determine if treatment rather than punishment is the better decision, because everyday secular science gets one step closer to easing a previously mysterious malady.

I argue that if we were put here as a test, then we should have been designed exactly opposite. As it is now, resisting temptation and denying our nature causes frustration and stress. It seems to be a backward system where following the rules results in angst, frustration, poor health and ultimately unhappiness. It seems to be a system designed to demotivate. It seems to be a system designed to foster failure.

If god made us, then obviously he is responsible for our architecture. The bible says we prefer sin, and using the definition of sin in the bible, it seems to be true. But what is sin? Who decides what sin is? Is sin being promiscuous or overeating? Human beings would have never survived if they did not act this way. It is necessary behavior in the survival of organisms to procreate as much as they can and eat when they can find food. Natural Selection has filtered this behavior to prominence because those organisms that behaved that way, passed on more copies of themselves, their genes.

How do we stay motivated to do things that promote our survival? We have to have some internal 'detector' that makes us want to do something that promotes our survival. Sex feels good doesn't it? Eating when you are hungry feels good doesn't it? Dopamine receptors in the brain receive Dopamine that gets released into the blood stream by the endocrine system that provides some of that positive feedback. But a malfunctioning dopamine system or the introduction of foreign bodies that are similar to dopamine can cause addictions. It is a flawed process that can be easily fooled by things such as food, alcohol and cocaine into malfunctioning. Not the high quality I would expect out of the workshop of a God.

Do people choose who they are sexually aroused by? I didn't choose my sexual preference, and by the way most people talk, they didn't either, but to hear a Christian denounce homosexuality as abhorrent behavior you'd think they are attracted to both sexes but choose to be heterosexual. I don't buy it because I know that pheromones or at least something that is given off by an individual has an effect on arousal. I know that 1 in 6000 humans are born with both genitalia and I know that some people are pseudohermaphrodites (they have the normal genitalia but with opposite gender ovaries or testicles partially developed in the lower torso). I also know that scientists can biologically manipulate the sexuality of Mice and Fruit-flies in the lab and that there are over 1500 species of animals that are know to exhibit homosexual behavior.

I challenge the whole concept of sin. I think it is a misunderstanding of evolutionarily developed behaviors and human biology that were not understood at the time the scripture was written. I say we are at least as 'good' as we are 'sinful' and in reality the lines of 'good' and 'sin' are blurred by context. The act of lying is a good example of that. Organisms use a mixture of strategies such as Individual Selection, Kin Selection and variations of "Tit-for-Tat" to survive. Game theory mathematics predicts some behaviors such as cooperation and selecting for cooperative mates. "Tit-for-Tat" is a logical strategy not specific to humans that naturally evolves out of situations as demonstrated in nature and between armies in World War 1 and 2.

Christians say this 'death' came after Adam disobeyed god, but I say that the evidence is reasonably conclusive that there never was an Adam and Eve. The only evidence for Adam and Eve come from the bible, the Egyptian myth of the potter that makes humans out of clay, and the Sumerian myth of the god that was killed and his blood was mixed with the earth to make humans. Experts on the bible, Christians and scientists discount the Egyptian and Sumerian accounts so all that is left is the Bible as the sole source. If Adam and Eve did exist then for them to have conceived of choosing to disobey god, the mechanism to do that would have had to already existed. They would have already had to have the architecture in place to allow that to happen. If not, then God would have had to make a "Great Overhaul" of human and animal physiology to 'curse us'. Alternately to say that Adam and Eve are just Metaphors for mans sinful nature is to admit that we were made from the beginning to "prefer sin" or somewhere along the line, we were perfect and then decided to sin and the "Great Overhaul" occurred, but anthropology does not support that conclusion in any measure.

If God made us this way then we are sabotaged to prefer to sin (survival strategies), and to resist it causes stress which adversely affects our happiness and sometimes our health. Some of our biological features had evolutionary advantages that don't make sense anymore. Such as overeating and sexual promiscuity. Addictions are evolutionary processes running amok that never had the ability or time to compensate for error. To say that God sabotaged us to prefer sin is obviously a ridiculous charge against the Christian God, therefore the alternative is that he didn't have anything to do with our creation.

WHAT IS BEHAVIOR?
It is the result of a feedback loop between the environment and a biological system of feedback loops that all influence each other circularly. As research progresses, it is removing the mystery and supernatural aspects of who we and how we behave. There are biological factors involved in who we vote for, what we believe in, what we like, what we think about, what we experience, what makes us an "I", what makes up our essence.

POPULATION AND SPECIES ATTRIBUTES, NATURAL SELECTION
Through a strategy of reproducing, eating when food is available, selecting for things that 'feel good' and/or selecting for things that support its well being organisms naturally survive. There is a point when their behavior prevents them from dying, and another point when it causes them to thrive, and another point when their behavior is not appropriate in the environment anymore. The more of these organisms that survive, the more they reproduce and the more copies they make of themselves. Over time, survival strategies evolved naturally. Some of these were discovered after that "Beautiful Mind" John Nash created a mathematical model of economic behavior. This model was expanded into what is now known as "Game Theory". In Game theory a strategy known as "Tit-for-Tat" was discovered, where participant A trusts participant B till B does something that violates it, then A will do something against B until B's behavior conforms, and vice versa. The most famous example of this spontaneous non-violent behavior is in the "Christmas Truce" of World War One in 1914 which was an instance of the "Live and Let Live" spontaneous cooperation behavior. Not only are these cooperative behaviors selected for because they result in the survival of the organism, the organism selects partners that it sees will cooperate. These naturally arising survival strategies ensured early humans could pass on copies of themselves. Generally speaking, our behavior has evolved to ensure the successful copying of our genes.

GENES, GENETIC MAKEUP
Genes are the foundation for biological systems including the brain. They are a hereditary unit consisting of a sequence that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. DNA is a nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristics. Genes undergo mutation when their DNA sequence changes by suboptimal process execution. They result in differences in eye color, body style, "quality" of blood, bones, teeth, cells, TEMPERAMENT, etc.

There are genetic factors that promote or detract from survival. Those genetic factors that promote survival will get more copies made. Organisms that survive will pass them on. A famous genetic mutation is Sickle Cell anemia. It evidently created an evolutionary advantage against malaria, but over time the need has diminished and now it is a disease because the context changed. Additionally, sometimes genes get distorted and a mutation occurs. Most of the time these mutations don't have much affect but sometimes they do. A striking behavioral example of this is Frontotemporal dementia. It is a neurological disorder (most often due to a specific mutation) in which disintegration of the frontal cortex occurs. This one genetic variant affects two people with opposite temperaments in opposite ways, turning a meek person into a wild one and a wild one into a meek one. Temperament is defined as the part of the personality that is genetically defined. Patterns of behavioral traits run in families. Another example is how Genital Arousal Disorder Adversely Impacts Women's Lives. Its challenging for us to make sense of 'who's the them inside there that's doing that'.

Genes code for the architecture of the neuron. The neuron is made up of a cell body (Soma) a dendritic tree and an axon . The axon is covered by a myelin sheath made of glial cells that provide support in the form of nutrition and insulation. Multiple sclerosis is a disease that attacks the myelin sheath. When the neurons are working properly, they communicate via electrochemical mechanisms. This results in the release of neurotransmitters such as Dopamine and Serotonin. Dopamine and Serotonin levels affect the brain and are used by a mechanism of recycling. When the levels of Dopamine and Serotonin are incorrect or interrupted, it results in diseases such as depression, bi-polar disease, schizophrenia, and others including addiction and possibly Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. For example, categorically speaking, serial killers have reduced levels of Serotonin. Additionally, cocaine is a type of drug that causes premature release of Dopamine transmitters and makes the drug highly addictive. Once a person is accustomed to the feeling created by the release of dopamine, when they don't have it, they miss it and will try to regain it. This is an effective evolutionary survival strategy. This is one reason why addiction is so powerful. It works on the central processing unit of the body. Manipulating neurotransmitters in the brain are a powerful way to manipulate moods and behavior in humans. Diseases such as schizophrenia are a result of poor neurotransmitter performance and are passed genetically. A less debilitating version is called Schizotypy. It has negative dimensions to it such as reduced social behavior but in some cases it results in higher incidences of creativity in individuals. Statistically, artists and authors have a higher incidence of schizophrenia in their families. Schizophrenia not only affects behavior, it also affects perception.

FETAL DEVELOPMENT, PERINATAL BIOLOGY, DEVELOPMENT
Another important factor in the development of this architecture of behavior is fetal development. We all know that mothers that smoke and drink alcohol increase the risk of harm to the baby, but we don't think about the mothers environment. Excessive stress is known to be harmful to the baby and mother. For example, excessive stress in the third trimester is known to correlate to a smaller head size. Poor nutrition is another factor that negatively impacts the fetus. Over successive pregnancies the womb compensates and modifies itself to account for what has been going on inside of it. It compensates for hormones, and correlates to fetus sexual development. I'm not saying that homosexuals are made in the mothers womb, but I am saying that Congenital adrenal hyperplasia is a pathology which makes a biological base for homosexuality very plausible. Additionally, factors that negatively impact the brain, nervous system, or endocrine system put the organism at a disadvantage before it leaves the womb. These factors play a part in developing the architecture that will produce behavior. The brain is made up of around 100 billion neurons each with connections to between 1000 - 10,000 other neurons, it uses a combination of electrical, chemical, analog and digital "state change" signaling to accomplish communication between them. There is a lot that could go wrong in a system like that. For example people under 16 years of age can't be given death penalty because it is recognized that the frontal lobe is not fully developed yet. This article from sciencedaily.com discusses Why Teens Are Such Impulsive Risk-takers. Biological factors reduce reasoning in one area while wildly enhancing it in others (Autism) reduce inhibitions, and leads to thinking about things that were previously unthinkable as evidenced in the following section.
Reasonable Doubt About The Atonement, Psychopathy
Reasonable Doubt About The Soul

BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES, ENDOCRINE SYSTEM, REGULATION OF THE BRAIN BY HORMONES, REGULATION OF THE HORMONES BY BRAIN, ACUTE HORMONES
This section shows the loop-back between the body and the brain.
Once the organism is born, in the early stages, its behavior will be mostly a result of reacting to its environment and the quality of the processes that result from the architecture that was formed in the womb. Babies that don't feel good, cry. Crying babies cause stress in the care provider. Crying babies will naturally motivate other babies to cry. Stress releases hormones from the organs (endocrine system) of both organisms. These hormones affect the frontal cortex and the limbic system, two systems that play a large role in behavior. But like all systems, organisms burn energy and use resources. There is never an endless supply of resources so the organism or system must reduce its activity to replenish resources or risk degraded performance. For example Sugar Affects Our Ability To Resist Temptation. A person that is chronically aggressive must spend more energy than those that are not resisting that feeling of aggression. Aggression is so basic that it can manifest itself through a genetic predisposition (MAOA), a tumor in the frontal cortex as in the famous case of Charles Whitman and the famous case of a recurrent tumor that caused recurrent pedophilia in a man, or testosterone and estrogen. Additionally, other ways hormones affect behavior is in the affect that male sweat has on females, female hormones have on each other (Menstrual syncronicity) , and how Subliminal Smells Bias Perception About A Person's Likability

ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE, ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS, NEUROBIOLOGY
As organisms interact in their environment, they behave according to internal factors, according to things they have learned and according to things they have stored in memory. They have the function of their internal processes influenced and shaped as time goes on. While it can be shown that a kind of xenophobia naturally results in the brain and the evolutionary advantage is apparent, people can reduce its impact by learning about the stranger and creating positive feelings about them. A practical example of this is Racism, and the fact that racism can be diminished through learning to trust one another. Xenophobia is a neurological reaction, an automatic dislike of strangers, and likewise there are some factors that make us feel the opposite automatically. A pleasing view or sound, or sensation on the skin is an example. The Biological clock has been shown to be regulated by light, and blue light at the wavelength of 480nm supports alertness and cognitive tasks. Sound at subsonic wavelengths from 17hz to 0.001 (aka infrasound) has been known to cause feelings of awe or fear in humans. Some reactions are automatic and set off reactions in the endocrine system that regulates the brain. Some stimuli gets that dopamine released and headed for those receptors. But what if something we like naturally is harmful? What if watching an organism experience fear causes dopamine to get released? Or what if we don't get the feedback we need to help shape our behavior one way or another? What if those paths between portions of the brain don't work efficiently because of a "Silent Stroke" or some natural defect? Sociopathy and Psychopathy are results of poor performance in emotional responses, and speaking less pathologically Schizotypy can result in a "wall flower", science fiction and fantasy enthusiast (like me) that can be amplified or reduced by the home environment.

REASONING, INFLUENCE
People are very easy to influence. For example, the more in sync we are with the people around us, the more we like a movie. Reasoning properly is not something we are born with. There are many books related to sales that teach you tricks for how to influence people in a positive way to a sales pitch. Robert Cialdini is probably the most famous doctor to popularize principles of influence. In business we have to overcome many counter-intuitive biases to come up with a sound successful business strategy. We have to gather data in a certain way and use learned principles of interpreting that data to come to sound conclusions of what 'truth' it represents. We have to overcome the tendency to confuse correlation with cause, etc. We have to be trained to think properly to overcome biases that are either learned or 'hardwired' in us. One bias is the famous "Pascals Wager". It is a simple heuristic that is analogous to the survival instinct. It says "minimize risk". While this is a sound principle, how one goes about is the hard part. We have to teach children to "reason away" the fear of something under the bed, in the closet or noises in the house. This is where the discipline in thinking comes into play, the inference from statistics, and learning the difference between correlation and cause and effect.

FREEWILL, DECISION MAKING
How much freewill is left in the pie chart of decision making? It is said among Christians that God gave us freewill as a gift and we are supposed to use it to choose to love and obey him. They say that he won't influence our freewill. If god will not influence our freewill, then it doesn't follow that he made us. If he made us, he built in all kinds of factors that influence our freewill.

So how does this figure in when we have to love god, or love our neighbor in the middle of living in this "evil" world? Stress reduces our ability to behave as we would like. It doesn't make it easy and your prayers may or may not get answered, and we may even find ourselves having to decide to jump to our death or burn to death when its all over.

Alternately, Biological Bases for Behavior make it plausible that atheists have no real choice but to be atheists in the same sense that creative thinkers have no choice in thinking creative thoughts or paranoids believe that people are out to harm them. It is likely that some are "wired" to be less susceptible to belief not supported by a certain level of criteria for evidence. Biological Bases for Behavior makes it plausible that 85% of the world are ABLE to believe, but 15% aren't. The Christian would be in that 85% and the Atheist would be in that 15%.

THE FLAWED PRINCIPLE OF REPENTANCE
If we are to be judged according to our thoughts, actions and decisions, and our thoughts, actions and decisions are influenced and or created by physiological factors, then we cannot be judged according to any standard since all people are physiologically unique and some behave in ways that they otherwise would not in different circumstances. How can we be judged for disobeying god when we cannot completely control our thoughts? To say, for example, that we are guilty of adultery for thinking about it (as Jesus did) is to say that there is no hope for redemption unless we are in a constant state of repentance. I should be repentant for something that I cannot control? For an aspect of my physiological makeup? Should I be sorry because I am ugly? I will be sent to eternal punishment because I am what I am? I am not able to live up to an unreachable standard so I am to be punished? If we are all supposed to do as well as we can and be repentant for the rest, what is the point at all? And how long can we stay repentant for something that never goes away? If our ability to avoid temptation is reduced as the amount of glucose is reduced, isn't it likely that as brain resources in general are reduced so are the associated processes? Are people to blame if they get tired of being repentant? Can someone be blamed for not being repentant about not being repentant? How can what we learn on the physical earth possibly transfer into our 'final reward' which is completely different? How is the ethereal 'soul' linked in any way to these physical processes? Is it affected as my glucose depletes?

Since the brain is a biological device. It can be influenced by physiological factors, and physiological factors induce desire and motivation. Since we cannot get outside of our thoughts and feelings, they make up our personality our "essence". This renders any judgment by an external supernatural creator meaningless because it would know that we are helpless to feel any other way than our physiological make up will support at the time, and that our behavior and desire will follow that. We are helpless to think any thoughts that are not supported by our physiological make up at the time. The physiological factors would have to be eliminated to make any judgment meaningful.

There is a theory that the brain is wired to do what it thinks and that it is because of an 'inhibitory circuit' in the brain that we can control our actions. When this is damaged, then we do things that we would ordinarily not do and in some cases do not realize it is wrong. I know bigots, and self-important arrogant people that don't even realize when they are being condescending and judgmental and don't even realize that what they are doing is wrong or unpleasant to be around. Any mention of it and I am the one that is in error because I am too sensitive or "exaggerated" or "self-righteous". Since our thoughts are determined by what state our brain is in at any given time, then so is our freewill and our moral compass. Our will, or motivation and desire is determined by what state our brain is in at any given time. This is not to say that we absolutely cannot control our behavior, it is just to say, that behavior outside the norm should be remediated, analyzed and assessed rather than judged.

None of this is laid out for understanding in the Bible. It was all misunderstood. Western Judicial Systems are on the edge of a cognitive science wind of change about why we behave the way we do and thinking about our culpability. At an AAAS Conference, Judges Explored the Impact of Neuroscience on the Justice system. They realize, as we all should, that the line between the essence of who we are and the biological factors tossing that essence about is getting shown be blurred.

Below are some links and notes I collected doing this research that support the article further.

* Time magazine,
- Ape with a conscience, pg. 54. vol 170, no. 23. Dec. 3, 2007
- The Science of Addiction, pg. 42. vol 170, no. 3. July 16, 2007
- The Science of Appetite, pg 32. Canadian Edition vol 169, no. 24. June 11, 2007.
* Biology and Human Behavior: The Neurological Origins of Individuality, 2nd Edition
* University of Berkeley webcast courses: Psych 1 General Psychology
* Norman Geschwind can be considered the father of modern behavioral neurology in America.
* Pseudohermaphrodites
* Search for Craving Response on ScienceDaily.com. Research on addiction
* Temporal Lobe Epilepsy
* Epilepsy, religious figures
* Twin Studies
* Phineas Gage
* Tourette Syndrome
* Bipolar Disorder
* Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
* Borderline Personality Disorder
* Nymphomania
* Kleptomania
* Neophobia
* Depression
* The Role of Persuasion In The Question Of The Holy Spirit

Eternally Unforgiven: St. Paul’s View of Women and Its Influence on the Rest of the New Testament

Apart from the four Gospels, Paul’s theology of women forms the main historical and theological reason women have suffered for their gender under conservative evangelical Christianity…a theology which has suppressed Christian women for two thousand years.


A case in point here is what has happened in the largest conservative evangelical Protestant body in the United States - the Southern Baptist Convention, which is, in all likelihood, going to elect the very conservative Dr. A. Albert Mohler, Jr. (Now president of their Southern Seminary in Louisville, Ky.) as its next convention president this summer. Also, Under the leadership of Paige Patterson (President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dallas Texas) the Southern Baptist have forced out all women professors in their seminaries following the Biblical command drawn especially from the Pauline corpus in the New Testament that demands that women are to be second class humans and totally submissive to men. In light of this fact, it’s time to review this evangelical denomination’s view of women as they under stand their roll in the New Testament.

To understand the position of the Southern Baptist Convention on this issue, one needs to understand the Apostle Paul and his theology of women as drawn form the Old Testament; mainly Genesis 2: 21 – 3: 24.

For the Jewish Saul turned Christian and renamed Paul (Acts 13), only men are created in the image of God as a literal reading of Genesis 2: 21 – 24 makes clear. From this Hebrew text, we find that women were made, not in the image of God, but in the image of man from whose body she was taken. This creation story forms Paul’s bases for church order in 1 Corinthians 11: 7b “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

As such, the man must have short hair to reveal the image and glory of God shown forth in him alone. For a man to have long hair, which might cover up this fact, it is a shame: “14. Does not even nature itself teach you, that if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Thus, for Paul, it is a shame or sinful for the man to cover up his face because only he alone is in the image and glory of God as the creation account in Genesis 2 states.

However, for a woman to have short hair and show her face in the assembly or church, it is to her “shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, but let her be covered.” (Verse 11: 6) For the woman, long hair is nature’s way to provide a covering for her face should she be found without a cloth veil: “but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given as a covering.” I Corth. 11: 15. It is very important that the woman cover her face (again, with her hair if necessary) doing worship for, who knows, there maybe angels present (verse 10) in the assembly also who would be offended should they see the face of a non-Godly image; that is a woman’s face.

Paul continues this natural theology and builds it into a divine hierarchy (verse 3) “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

Again, Paul has Genesis 2 in his mind when he declares in I Corth. 14: 34 “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. 35 And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

For the deutero-Pauline author that wrote the Pastoral epistle of I Timothy, this is the doctrine that was to develop into what has come to be called “Original Sin”. This is the direct result of the woman speaking (Genesis 2: 6 & 16) as he restates it in I Tim. 2: 11 - 14 : “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.”

Thus, for conservative denominations like the Southern Baptist, to allow women to teach men in religious studies (such as seminaries) would be in direct violation of each of the three natural and divine prohibitions: A. The divine order of creation. B. The divine hierarchy. C. The fact that women can be mentally shallow so as to mislead men (if given a place of leadership over men) just as Eve did Adam (verse 14).

However, all is not lost on the woman as I Timothy 2: 15 understood Genesis 3: 16. The woman can earn her salvation by bearing children, which may imply that male babies who are created in the image of God who will continue to fulfill the divine plan and will keep future women submissive.

This topic is again built upon in the deutero-Pauline letter of Ephesians 5: 22 – 24 which bases its reading on the divine hierarchy in I Corinthians 11: 3.

Finally, the New Testament closes with the apocalyptic book of Revelation were the 144,000 are celibate men who follow the lamb (Christ) where ever He goes because they are kept pure by not having defiled themselves sexually with women (Rev. 14: 3 – 4).

While Christians debate just what composes the “Unforgivable Sin” of Matthew 12: 32, one thing is for sure; women, who were created out of man will never be forgiven this fact as based on the story of Genesis 2 and expounded not only by Paul, but repeated in the deutero-Pauline schools and kept alive today in the Southern Baptist Convention by their complete elimination of all women professors in their seminaries and crushing any hope for women being ordained in this denomination’s ministry. It is indeed an unforgivable “sin” of gender.

Chasing Christians Down the Rabbit Hole

Here at DC we are debunking generalized notions of evangelical Christianity. When it comes to what you as a Christian believe, I say "if the shoe fits wear it, if not, then don't try to put in on." What's there not to understand about that? Just recently Jim Jordan, who visits us regularly and should know better, wrote this: "If you want to call this "Debunking Apostasies of Christianity" I think we'd all find common ground there. :-)" But I have a big problem with him saying that this is what I did, or what we do here at DC.

We used to be evangelicals, or at least, that's how we best described who we were as former believers. We know what evangelicals believe. Or do we? Well it depends on what beliefs are essential to evangelicalism, doesn't it? Maybe I should start a post and limit participation to Christians themselves, who would debate what beliefs are specifically Christian, along with who or what is an evangelical? That would be fun, except that few Christians would participate because they know the rest of us would be laughing our butts off as they debate those things.

This is not a one-on-one discussion. There is no way we can address any specific professing Christian's beliefs, unless we know what they are. We write from our background as former evangelicals, and that's all we can do. If others visit DC who claim the evangelical faith is different than what we express, or if a liberal Christian visits here, remember: "if the shoe fits wear it, if not, then don't try to put it on," okay? And to demand of us to write about stuff we don't want to write about, or to demand we deal with things that are uninteresting to us, is unreasonable. What if I demanded the same thing of you? Would you write about uninteresting stuff you don't want to write about just because I demanded it? Hardly.

We cannot write any given blog entry against the whole gamut of Christian beliefs, or it may end up being somewhat of a book. But if you tell us what you specifically believe about Christianity and if it's interesting to us, then we might. Keep in mind that we cannot deal with what every single believer thinks is the case. That's why we're reduced to writing generalized accounts from our own experience of what evangelicals believe.

Not long ago over at Parchment and the Pen was a discussion about why Christians have doctrinal disputes. After reading through this discussion here's my explanation for why they do:

The real reason why other Christians don’t agree with you is because of the nature of a history itself, along with the fact that God purportedly revealed himself in the ancient past. My argument is that if God did reveal himself, he chose a poor medium (history) and a poor era (the ancient past) to do so, and that makes an omniscient God look stupid.

We have a hard enough time understanding one another living in today’s world. We disagree about everything and we are constantly correcting misunderstandings about what we have said. So it stands to reason that this is compounded when we try to understand the literature of the ancient past. This is just obvious to me.

Of course, if God wanted to communicate more clearly and he could foresee that Southern slavery and witch hunts would result because he wasn’t clear, he could’ve said “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, trade or beat slaves of any kind,” and said it often enough that believers could not misunderstand. He could’ve done the same with witch hunts and avoided the Galileo debacle as well. Genesis 1 could’ve started out by stating more clearly the nature of creation. [If you’d like, I could show you how an omniscient God could’ve communicated better, and I only have an IQ of 160.]

What’s the alternative, you may ask? For God to reveal himself today on the great issues that divide the church. How could he do this? Through miracles and the church’s recognition of a 14th Apostle “like unto Paul.” In the meantime the disunity of the church speaks against the existence of the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit who has not done his job down through the centuries, and therefore provides evidence the Christian faith is a delusion.

Now back to Jim Jordan. Jim, would you be so kind as to tell us the beliefs that professing Christians hold to that you think are "apostasies," why you consider such beliefs to be "apostasies," how many professing Christians agree with you about them, and what it means to describe those beliefs as "apostasies?" Would you also explain why Christians have so many doctrinal disputes over their beliefs? Would you additionally explain why you think what you said applied to what I had written? Lastly, don't forget to tell us what are the true set of Christian beliefs.

This should be very interesting. Sheesh.

Lee's Rejoinder To "Atheism is not rational".

Brian asked me to comment on a link that asserts that Atheism is not Rational. My rejoinder follows. This started as an email and I hastily posted it to get it on the table.
I cannot afford the time to defend this as well as I should, but if any one wants to take me to task on it, there will be ample time in the future. I'm hoping that it is coherent enough that it won't need much defending.

My rejoinder to "atheism is not rational".
First lets look at what is considered rational.
Rationality is a process that uses logic and logic makes inferences from data. Inferences are correlations and experiences between objects or things whatever you want to call them. The more correlations and dependencies in a relationship between two objects the more inferences we can make about them until we can get to a point of some 'understanding' where we can make accurate predictions about it.

A large part of that process is the criteria we use for data and evidence.

As I see it, the whole debate between Christians and atheists calling each other irrational boils down to the criteria for evidence.

So now lets look at Atheism. Atheism is not subscribing to the authority of a god.
Show me what is irrational about this viewpoint.
I do not know if there is a god,
therefore I do not act like there is one
therefore I am an Atheist.

Now what is the definition of atheist? I think some want to include anti-christian or anti-religious activity in the definition but that is unwarranted.

I do not know if some crystals have healing power,
therefore I do not act as if they do,
therefore I am not a person that 'uses' crystals.

What is irrational about that?

Lets look at Christians.

- Christians assume god inspired the bible. Christians don't agree on how much inspiration that means, but some of them think it was so much that he helped write the bible in some fashion. Indeed I argue, that if a Christian does not take this position to attribute some "quality assurance" then there is no warrant to giving the bible any more authority than the Hindu Upanishads or Bagavadgita, or Islamic Quran.

Here are four assumptions that Christians must make to get Christianity off the ground.

1. Assume god exists to get him into position to help write the bible.

2. Assume that all other scripture purported to come from a god is false.

3. Assume God is the first cause when there is no precedent for any 'first cause' or "spontaneous existence"

4. And assume that the soul correlates to consciousness but does not use the brain and is not affected by any consciousness altering brain trauma. At that point why infer any correlation to consciousness at all?

Now to make these the result of a rational process, they need to follow the rational process. They are a conclusion, based on using the principles of logical inference about the relationships of data/evidence. How many correlations do the data have outside the sphere of Christianity? Not as many as the data that atheists have for their world view. How is a conclusion sound if it is based on an assumption? It is not.

There is an alternate hypothesis to how the universe got here that is based on empirical observation and inference that is consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them. Thats a lot of correlation. We can see that larger more complex things depend on smaller simpler things. This principle spans every category you can think of. It is a sound principle with many correlating examples in unrelated fields. That is its strength. Correlations across categories. It is used to make accurate non-supernatural or non-metaphysical predictions about things.

Atheists do not ascribe to any of those assumptions, and we have more strict criteria for our evidence. Our strict criteria for evidence are comparable to the strict criteria used in science and law. If you use the Christian criteria for evidence in science and law, it wouldn't work very well. Just look at how much regard the four gospels are given by Christians, and then think about how you would feel if you were convicted on testimony as uncorroborated as that.

Atheists do not make any of those assumptions. One can assert that atheists do make all kinds of assumptions till they are blue, but those are PRESUMPTIONS. They depend on Evidence in some way. And once again our criteria for evidence is different than Christians. So if the Christian wants to say that Atheism is irrational, they are saying that it is derived outside a rational process. This argument can just as easily be turned around on the Christian.

So obviously a Christian can say anything she wants to about Atheism, but she cannot say it is irrational without convicting herself.

A Call For The Scientific Investigation Of Exorcism

The image is of Terrance Cottrell. He was killed during his exorcism.
This article is intended as a call for the scientific investigation of exorcisms and a collection of data for a forthcoming article called "Reasonable Doubt About Sin, Biological Bases For Behavior". It shows why in all aspects of life, including faith and religion, that sound principles for evidence need to maintained. It seems there is broad agreement that the suspected demon possessed individual should be screened for psychological disorders, but when and how it gets done seems to be a problem. This is a call to "The Body Of Christ" to do the responsible thing and devote some of those tithes to a fund for the medical/scientific investigation into suspected cases of demon possession to include such things as blood tests, MRI and PET scans.

Wikipedia, Exorcism
An exorcism is a ritual to expel evil spirits from a person or place. In human possession it works by making the demon uncomfortable enough to leave the victim. In order to make the demon uncomfortable, it is usually necessary to make the victim uncomfortable. This entails methods that span the spectrum of annoying, to torturous to deadly. Exorcisms are a common practice in many places in the world. It is sanctioned by at least two protestant churches in the United States, Protestant churches in Nigeria Africa, and by the Vatican. As far as I can tell, they all caution against mistaking psychological disorders for demon possession. This, like prayer, seems to be an intersection between the natural and the supernatural that should have a significant amount of resources devoted to it.

If demon possession is real, what is it about the exorcism that is so compelling that it causes the demon to leave? The exorcist? Why wouldn't it be Christ? Is it the combination of Christ and the Exorcist? Considering that demons don't leave without the exorcist, it must be the exorcist that is the most important part.

The following are a short and incomplete list of deaths by exorcism

* On March, 8, 1995, Kyung-A Ha, 25, was beaten severely during a night-long exorcism conducted by members of the Jesus-Amen Ministries in San Francisco.
* Kyung Jae Chung was killed in a July 4, 1996 exorcism in Los Angeles.
* In 1997, a 5-year old girl in Bronx, N.Y., was forced to drink a mixture of ammonia, pepper, vinegar and olive oil because her mother and grandmother thought she was possessed. Gagged with duct tape, she died.
* Charity Miranda, a teenager from Long Island, N.Y., was suffocated in a plastic bag by her mother and sister during a ceremony in 1998.
* Terrance Cottrell, an 8-year-old, was beaten to death during an attempted exorcism in Milwaukee last September.
The above taken from CBS News
* priest and nuns jailed for exocism death
* Janet Moses, a mother-of-two, is thought to have drowned when at least one member of her 'healing group' held her under water, while trying to drive out an evil curse.

The following are links to information about Pope sanctioned exorcism
Pope John Paul II performs exorcism
Pope Benedict XVI promotes exorcisms

And the following are a list of where to go to get an exorcism done.
Logos Christian Fellowship
Erica Shepherd, Lady Exorcist
Integrated Healing Prayer Ministry, maybe Erica again
Adversaries Walk Among Us
Vatican School for Exorcism
Witch Children of Nigeria

With greater scrutiny maybe the practice will fall into disrepute and the victims will get the help they need instead of abuse.

Marlene Winell's Release and Reclaim Workshop

You really should consider attending if you can. Link.

Prosperity as Salvation and Government Taxation

Back in the late sixties and early seventies there was an African-American radio evangelist called Reverend Ike. He made no excuses of why he was on the radio: To get money.


Rev. Ike coined phrases such as: “The more you pay, the harder I pray.” “Some people need a checkup from the neck up!” and “Don’t send in that chicken feed, give me those green frog skins!”

Though I thought it was funny and no real evangelist would ever be so brazen, I must admit I have been proven wrong and the Prosperity Gospel is alive and well more than ever today!

Although I have not heard Rev. Ike on the air from for more than 30 years, his absents has been filled with Prosperity Preachers (the Gospel of Health and Wealth) by the likes of Kenneth Copeland, Binny Hinn, Mike Murdock and Richard Roberts to name but a few. Most are reaching the multi-million dollar level in personal income and some, such as Kenneth Copeland (as reported last night on the CBS evening news last night), have become multi-billionaires.

With the blessings of the Lord Jesus Christ, CBS reported the Rev. Copeland has a fleet of jet air craft with the last one purchased at $22 million dollars. All his jets are storied and land at Copeland’s ministry's own private airport.

It was reported that Evangelist Copeland has personal and family holdings in oil, aviation, real estate, cattle and a number of other for profit enterprises all paid for though income directly from preaching the Gospel of Prosperity (you give God a hundred dollars and He will pour out His blessing upon you and bless you ten fold! Hey, it's in the Bible).

The United States Congress is now investigating Rev. Copeland along with a number of other big name televangelist for tax evasion which, if Evangelist Copeland is convicted, could cost the world of the Prosperity Preachers millions of dollars and time in prison. And yes, as these Prosperity evangelists have already claimed, Satan himself is behind this attack.

If I was a believer in the Prosperity Gospel, I would argue (as they have in their defense) that they believe and live what they preach! Proof is that God (though the Lord Jesus Christ) as abundantly poured out His blessings on them!

The So-Called Unique Transformative Power of Christianity

Here’s my response to some interesting questions about the so-called unique transformative power of Christianity.

Anonymous said...

You stated that when you became a Christian it delivered you from a hard life of drugs and so forth. If you hadn’t had your ‘Christian experience’ do you think you would have been able to over come your struggles?

Most certainly, since I grew older. And even if the Christian faith did help me overcome my juvenile delinquency that says nothing about the truth of the Christian faith. It only shows the power of an individual person’s faith, regardless of the object of that faith.

Anon: Are you aware of any atheist testimonies relating to an individuals rationalism delivering them from a life of drugs and alcohol?

Young male atheists who decide to settle down by getting married and having children, plenty of them. Atheist prisoners who decide to go straight when released. Atheists who simply decide they deserve better than a life of drugs, plenty of them. And the basis for their decision is not because of any authoritarian approach to living life based on an outdated superstitious barbaric Bible, but rather as the result of thinking for themselves. By contrast, I know plenty of Christians who live a life filled with prescription drugs, even illegal narcotics, and alcohol. The Christian people I know from being a counselor in the churches I’ve served have just as many psychological problems and addictions as atheists.

Anon: This is just to satisfy my own curiosity, I have found Christianities transformative power as some rather convincing evidence in it’s support.

If so then you need to read what Ed Babinski wrote about it.

Anon: You stated that there was an event that happened and based on that event your Christian community abandoned you. You stated that if they hadn’t responded in the way they did you might still very well be a Christian today.

No one knows what would’ve resulted if something different had happened in his or her life, that’s all. Do you know if you would still be a believer today if you were raised by an atheist, or if a preacher/priest you trusted molested you, or your daughter? No one knows, except God, if he exists. And if he does exist and he knew what it would’ve taken to keep me in the fold, and he didn’t do what it took, even though Christians themselves are morally obligated to do what it takes to keep people like me in the fold, then God failed miserably in my case. He's also a hypocrite. His motto is this: “Do as I say but not as I do.” And he really does not love people like me either, for now all that awaits me according to your faith, is everlasting hell. And he doesn’t care about anyone I will reach with this Blog or my book, if he foreknew I would do this once I left the fold. You’d think a foreknowing God would’ve given Hitler a heart attack before starting WWII, and that he would’ve done whatever it took to keep me in the fold. Don’t tell me he couldn’t do this, otherwise God cannot answer any prayers for the salvation of another person, or prayers for Christian people who are experiencing doubts. And he couldn’t turn the hearts of kings as he said either: "The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases." (Proverbs 21:1)

Anon: So how do I not take your book and this blog as your emotional response to a perceived slight by God and Christians?

There is an emotional component to all decisions that have to do with our personal lives. This is unavoidable since we are not logical machines. We are persons with feelings, and as such, we react emotionally to stimuli. I could just as well ask you if your decision to become a Christian was an emotional one based upon hearing the most wonderful story of a father-type God who loved you so much to die for you, even though no sense can be made of the existence of such a triune God who didn’t cease being divine when he became incarnated in a human being, who supposedly died on the cross for your sins, even though no sense can be made about why his death was necessary for this, and even though there isn’t enough evidence to believe in any of this, including the claim that he arose from the dead, which is subsequently disconfirmed by the fact that Jesus did not return to earth as he predicted in the lifetimes of the people of his era.

Anon: I appreciate your time.

No problem. I treat reasonable people reasonably, and you seem reasonable.

Cheers.

The Ideal Cultic Order: Sex, Food and God in Leviticus

Ritual in the Hebrew Bible (as composed by the Priestly writer / school) defines not only the person in relation to cult, but why that person is different from the other main stream neighboring cultures and how one is to identify with their central leading god.

As anthropologist have noted, most a cultures distinguish themselves as being more human, that is, more than just one step above the animals by having divine cultic formulations which controls two basic humans drives: What we eat and who we sleep with or simply put: Food and Sex.

To save time and to deal with a discussion in comments started earlier in a post by John, I will deal only with the issue of food as recorded by the Priestly School in Leviticus 11(though parallels are also found in Deuteronomy).

As a reference for my discussion, I have drawn my three points form the late British social anthropologist Mary Douglas (she died in 2007) and her ground breaking work: Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (1966).

Concerning the food laws in Leviticus 11, Ms. Douglas gives three explanations for these cultic codes in Israel. The first two explanations are both traditional and popular with the last being the one critical Biblical scholars along with Ms. Douglas accept today (and such major Jewish scholars as Jacob Milgrom).

A. Moses recorded these kosher dietary laws as directed by Yahweh to safe guard the Israelites from diseases. This answer was championed by the late archeologist and Semitic scholar, W.F. Albright in his work “Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan” (1968) as the proof for early empirical medical knowledge. This also is the explanation usually given by the average “Christian on the street” and is often used to justify Gods caring foreknowledge for his chosen people: the Israelites.

However, as the anthropologist Marvin Harris has pointed out in his work entitled: Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture (1989), pigs can not carry anthrax while cattle and sheep can. Cattle, pigs and sheep can carry Tapeworms. Although pigs can carry Trichinosis, it’s seldom fatal (unlike anthrax), and most humans recover completely with a good immune system.

B. It is a Divine Mystery and we should not question why God chooses some animals as “clean” for food and others as unclean. Ms. Douglas explains this type of reasoning as “Scholarly bafflement passed off as an explanation”.

C. The Priestly writer has categorized animals as "clean "or "unclean" based on the earlier work of the Priestly school as recorded in Genesis 1. As such, fish must swim, have scales and fins; this is the correct category of creation in P’s cosmology. Why can’t an Israelite / Jew not eat crab, shrimp or lobster? Because they don’t have scales and walk on the bottom instead of swimming. They violate God’s correct category of creation.

The same for eels and catfish, they have fins and swim, but they don’t have scale and again, violate the correct category of creation.

Thus, with land animals: Why can’t you eat a snake? Because it does not have legs and sliders on its stomach.

With mammals too, the correct category of creation says they must “divide the hoof” and “chew the cud”. Thus, cattle and sheep are clean in that’s how the correct plan of creation meant it to be. However, the camel chews the cud, but does not have a divided hoof and is unclean.

As pointed out by Ms. Douglas, the Priestly writer runs into trouble with the rabbit and the “rock badger”. To the Priestlywriter, it looks like the rabbit and “rock badger” “chews the cud” Lev. 11: 5-6 (which is totally wrong), but they do not have a “divided hoof” and are pronounced as unclean because they are again in violation of the correct category of creation.

I’ll leave off here, but for those who want more information, I would recommend:
Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (now re-released in 2001 in paperback).

Finally and for me, this raises a major question. If Genesis 1 is the work the Priestly School (as now taught in all major critical seminaries and universities) and this Priestly writer drew from it to create the kosher food laws in Leviticus (as discussed above), just who is the god (El?) who created the animals which violated the correct category of creation or cosmological order of cleanness? Could we have here and unintended account that Israel drew their story of creation form their older neighbors of the Semitic world and the priestly school under stood Yahweh as creating order out of chaos (a common motif in the Hebrew Bible: see John Day: God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of Canaanite Myth in the Old Testament (1994)?

William Lane Craig's Debt to Stuart C. Hackett

[Written by John W. Loftus] I remember my first class with Stuart Hackett at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the Fall of 1982. The class was called "Religious Epistemology," and we studied through George Mavrodes book, Belief in God, William Montague's book, The Ways of Knowing, C. Stephan Evans' book, Subjectivity and Religious Belief, and Arthur Holmes book, All Truth is God's Truth. My memories of Dr. Hackett as a teacher parallel Dr. Craig's memories, as can be read here. As a man Stu was indeed a sort of an odd ball, but he was also brilliant.

Stu argued for a Neo-Kantian "rational/empirical" epistemology, which he would reverse by calling it an "empirical/rational" epistemology. I remember arguing with him in class from time to time. I argued he must choose between being a rationalist or an empiricist because one side or the other must dominate his epistemology, but following Kant he disagreed. Then I argued that Montague's book actually argued against his position, and he did have to agree, even if he wouldn't budge from his own view. In any case, he developed a fondness for me, and I had a respect for him. I remember Stu telling me that some of his best students were the ones who argued against him in class, so he expected good things from me.

The last time I saw him was at a Fall Philosophy Conference held at Wheaton College, probably in 1987. After a Christian philosopher had presented a paper, there was a time for questions and answers. Time was running out when someone said that if the evidence was against Christianity we must give up our faith, and Stu blurted out "NO!" Since the time was up, the moderator closed the session and directed anyone who was interested in what Stu had to say to discuss it with him. So people from all over the room came to listen to him, and some listened to him for about a half an hour.

I suppose it's too bad I now argue against what Stu argued for, but that's how life goes sometimes. We must follow the evidence, and if the evidence is against Christianity we must reject it, period. I argue that the evidence is indeed against the Christian faith and therefore should be rejected by civilized, scientifically literate educated people.

In any case Dr. Craig said this about Dr. Hackett's 1957 book, The Resurrection of Theism (which you can download for free):

I am convinced that if The Resurrection of Theism had been published by Cornell University Press rather than Moody Press, then the revolution in Christian philosophy that began with the publication of Alvin Plantinga’s God and Other Minds in 1967 might well have begun ten years earlier.

This book was subtitled as a "Prolemogena to Christian Apologetics". It was an introduction to the knowledge of God, which was to be followed by two other volumes, but they didn't appear. Hackett, however, did write what he called "my Magnum Opus," titled Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim: A Philosophical and Critical Apologetic, in 1984. To read a very brief description of Hackett's views see chapter three in Gordon R. Lewis' Testing Christianity's Truth Claims: Approaches to Christian Apologetics.

-----------

Edit on November 17th, 2012: I just learned of the death of Stu Hackett. My continued reflections upon his death can be found here. He will be missed.