William Lane Craig on the Penal Theory of the Atonement: "Any Takers?"

I've been waiting for Dr. Craig to offer up some thoughts on the atonement. He finally did so but I'm disappointed in them. I think he avoids doing so because the Penal Theory cannot be defended.

Dr. Craig thinks the concept of "imputation" solves the problem of atonement. But he doesn't think this has been adequately worked out in the philosophical literature. He wrote:

The doctrine of the atonement is one of those areas of Christian theology which is most in need of careful philosophical analysis. In fact, if any of you readers are contemplating graduate work in philosophy, here is a great dissertation topic! You can be almost guaranteed publication of your work, given how central and philosophically underdeveloped a doctrine the substitutionary atonement is....What I’d like to see some Christian philosopher do, then, is to really tackle this concept of imputation, explore how it functions in legal affairs, and make a moral and theological application. Any takers? Link

There are so many things wrong with his suggested explanation I don't know where to begin. In the first place, anyone who thinks this is an underdeveloped doctrine is just fooling himself. It has been around for oh, say, 4 1/2 centuries, beginning with the Reformers. The problem with this theory is that it just cannot be defended.

Since Craig thinks "a full-orbed doctrine of the atonement...must include the penal aspects," and since such a view cannot be reasonably defended, then Christianity fails. It's that simple. The reason is because there are many beliefs essential for one to be a Christian such that if any one of them is shown false the whole belief system falls to the ground.

You see, we're not talking about an insurance claim here. We're talking about torturing and killing an innocent person because someone else did wrong. When insurance companies make the rules they can make any rules they want. These rules are arbitrary. They do not have to be consistent nor do the companies have to morally justify their rules. They only have to be legal. That's why insurance companies cover some claims but not others. That's why different insurance companies treat the same claims differently according to their respective policies. These policies are also agreed upon by the people who buy these policies (at least tacitly).

A reasonable defense of the Penal Theory of the atonement should start by morally justifying the rules. But that cannot be done. None of these insurance aspects are analogous or applicable to the Penal Theory. So the insurance analogy of imputation fails. Q.E.D.

But that's just the start. One of the biggest problems for the theory is to explain the relationship of punishment to forgiveness. Think about this. Why must someone--anyone--be punished before that person can be forgiven? We all have heard of victims who forgave their attackers even though they have not been punished. We also have heard of victims who will not forgive their attackers even after having been punished.

I'd like just one person to explain this. Any takers?

Bruce Droppings is Gone

A fellow pastor who left the fold has moved on with his life. He's no longer blogging. I'll miss him but I wish him well. His Blog was a very good one.

I have decided to permanently stop blogging. The reasons are many and quite personal....The Church robbed me of so much of my life and I have no intention of allowing her to have one more moment of my time. Link

Sometimes I feel the same way. What the hell am I doing here at this computer when there is a life to be lived?

The Kalam Argument Critiqued by exapologist

He is critiquing J.P. Moreland's defense of it, here.

Using Celebrity Status to Stump for Jesus. Legendary Trick Shot Artist Mike Massey: "Jesus Loves Us"

In the pool world there is probably no one bigger than Mike Massey. He is probably the greatest trick shot artist of all time. So it was quite an honor when I met him last week in Vegas and he signed this poster for me.

I'm not a person who gets awestruck when I meet a celebrity. I know that people like him put their pants on in the morning just like I do. Since his back was hurting he was not participating in the competiton last week, but he did have a booth where he was signing cue balls and posters for a fee. I introduced myself as a monthly columnist for Inside Pool magazine, for which he had also written a few columns a year or so back. He said writing was too hard for him so he didn't write many of them.

Aside from that it seemed he was more interested in witnessing to people about Jesus than anything else. He was telling me how Jesus saved him from drugs, loose women and the ills of pool hustling in his younger years. Not interested in debating anything with this legend of a man, I told him that an autobiography of his life would sell very well. He informed me he had tried but needed a co-author. Knowing I was a columnist he was feeling me out to see if I might help him write it. At that point I merely said I wouldn't be a good co-author because I'm an atheist. In the pool halls he's met plenty of professing atheists in his life, so this was no surprise to him. But his response was typical:

"There are no atheists."

"But I am an atheist," I said.

"Not in your heart," he replied. "Inside, you believe in God."

To which I gave him my card and said if he was interested to get my book. He took it with some interest (after all, the title looks like a personal story). And then he said, "If you were a preacher then you KNOW there are no atheists."

Really, I do? What was the title to my book again?

;-)

Another Example of Christians Who Reinvent Their Faith.

John Walton's book, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009) is getting a lot of attention on the web, most notably because he's an evangelical who accepts the mythical status of the creation accounts in Genesis, accounts which were adapted by the Israelites from their neighbors. Here again, rather than abandon one's faith because of this, Christians are reinventing it as they are being forced by the findings of scholarship to change their minds. Christians repeatedly do this in every generation.

Professor James McGrath: "Preach Your Doubts"

This is an excellent post by Dr. James McGrath advising preachers to preach their doubts.

If the church won't let people express their doubts then they must do so alone by searching the internet. And some of them just might fall into my claws. ;-)

Alone I came to deny my faith. I could not express my doubts in the church.

Although his advice is healthy, no one can say that by expressing one's doubts openly it will be more conducive to resolving one's doubts. It might actually produce more doubt among church people who hear these doubts expressed. Maybe it might be better to shut up about one's doubts in the church. But that's no longer a question I have to deal with.

Giving God The Glory By Misinterpreting Intent and Purpose In Inaminate Objects

I was watching Animal Cops (a "reality" TV show) the other night and a Veterinarian was working on a potentially lifeless dog (bear with me, this story does have a happy ending).

The medical team didn't want to give up on the dog even though there was no discernible heartbeat. The indication that they focused on was that the chest was perceptively moving occasionally like it was trying to take a breath. The doctor said that the chest movement could be caused by postmortem reflex.

THE DOG EXHIBITED NO SIGNS OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Though its eyes were open they were not blinking. The doctor said at one point
"Right now we don't know if we're working on an animal that is alive or dead".
So from the doctors perspective an animal can be dead and still have a weakly and irregularly contracting and expanding chest.

Over time, the dog blinked, and they interpreted this as another sign of life. They persevered saying to each other that the "Animal has a will to live".

LET'S STOP FOR A MINUTE AND INVENTORY WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
- It was unknown whether the dog was dead or not
- the dog was not conscious
- the "signs of life" at one point could be mechanical reflex actions
So HOW can it have "a WILL to live?"
It doesn't seem to me that it can possibly have a "will" to do anything if it doesn't have the energy or oxygen to be conscious. And taking it one step further, we know that brain damage occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen, so the possibility exists for brain damage to be occurring.

SO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?
I am sure that if these people were interviewed in another time and place and asked
"can an animal without consciousness that can barely breath and blink its eyes want or will anything?"
they would say
"No, its not likely that it can want or will anything because its unconscious and in such a weakened state"

LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT
Yet while they are working on a dog that they admittedly didn't know was alive or not, in effect, they are saying that even though the dogs mind is not functioning it had the will to live. So then we can say that at least at this one time, when these people were under stress and very emotional, they had two logically inconsistent beliefs existing in parallel in their mind and did not realize it.

Okay, that's probably no surprise to anyone since we can't possibly realize all the logical implications of all our beliefs, but why did they do that in this case?

LET'S PUT THE QUESTION ON HOLD FOR A MOMENT AND LOOK AT COMPLEX SYSTEMS.
Complex systems are collections of diverse components which are connected that are interdependent, and adapt. The components collectively exhibit one or more properties that CAN NOT be reduced to the sum or difference of its components. The interaction of the components creates a situation where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Examples of complex systems are color, convection, swarming, proteins, cells, organs, systems of organs, bodies, life and consciousness.
Complex Systems
Emergence

THE DOG'S BODY IS A COMPLEX SYSTEM DOING WHAT COMES NATURALLY.
The brain at its most fundamental level was converting energy chemically to generate the signals that were being automatically sent to the muscles of the lungs and the muscles of the lungs were relaxing when those signals weren't present. The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting and losing energy and input, they were doing what they developed to do which is the only thing that they can do. The medical team interpreted the mechanical and chemical operations of the body burning energy as THE DOG not wanting to die instead of the THE DOGS BODY doing the only thing it can do when there is energy available.

INTERPRETING "OTHER MINDS" MUST BE A COGNITIVE BIAS
Even scientists can't speak about inanimate objects without falling into using language that describes intent and purpose in inanimate objects. Its just a habit of speaking. If I had not purposely avoided using language that suggested intent and purpose in one of the sentences above I could have used more common terminology and wrote
"The key here is that as long as the "motors" were getting energy and input, they were doing what they WERE DESIGNED to do which is the only thing they can do".

Even though the dog is in "auto-pilot" the medical team are thinking about the dogs body as if the dog has intent and purpose. It seems the reason they are doing that is because they are being fooled by the emergent properties of the components of the body of the dog.

SERENDIPITY MUST BE THE KEY TO LIFE
Lets take another inventory of what we know.
- We know that chemicals interact.
- We know that since chemicals interact, that over time they will interact for however long they will interact for.
- We know that mistakes and accidents happen which generates diversity.
- We know that mistakes will happen while every unregulated combination will occur.
So serendipity causes change. Random events cause change.

CHILDREN, INTENT AND PURPOSE AND SERENDIPITY
How many times have we seen children presume intent and purpose in inanimate objects? How many times did we do it as a child, and how many times do we still do it on a daily basis at the office and at home? When things are going particularly bad and misfortune seems to beat the odds it seems like SOMETHING is trying to teach us a lesson or is out to get us. Its seems to be quite a natural thing for humans to do, as evidenced by religions in all parts of the world throughout the ages making sacrifices to appease the Gods.

COMPLEX SYSTEMS WORK VIA FEEDBACK LOOPS
Feedback loops depend on amplifying, regenerative, and degenerative information.
In our complex system known as our "life", events are judged to be either bad, neither bad-or-good or good. Very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance that there will be no degenerative feedback, in other words, very roughly speaking there is a 66% chance nothing bad is going to happen. There is no intent or purpose behind it. Just complex interaction of components and some measure of chance events.

THAT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE FOR YOU! MISINTERPRETING INTENT AND PURPOSE IN INANIMATE OBJECTS
Since the medical team was providing what the body of the dog needed, it survived the night, regained consciousness and lived happily ever after. Everything went as it should since there were no degenerative random chance events.

But regardless of the facts, in the minds of the medical team (and I'm sure most of the audience), when the dog was unconscious it had [ANGEL CHORUS] "THE WILL TO LIVE", and even though nothing bad happened during the recovery (of which there was a roughly 66% chance), it was a "miracle".

The Devil by the Pond

Imagine you are hiking in the woods. As you pass by a pond, you get a glancing view of some scavenging birds as they fly off some ways away from you. You make nothing of it. You keep walking. Then you spot it in the distance—the reason the birds flew away. A deer comes ripping through the bushes as he’s being chased by a grizzly. You hide quickly as best you can. With any luck, you’ll go unnoticed and that deer will be the thing’s lunch instead of you.

As you've seen, not only is he big, but boy does he move! He's strong too. One good swat from him is equal in force to a small piano (about 450 pounds) being swung from the height of a second story window. You know that if caught, he could literally knock your head off! You’d need a good gun to fend him off if he had his mind set on rending your flesh like the skin off a thigh from Church’s Chicken. But thankfully, you don’t have to go up against him. He’s gone now and so you can forget about him just like humans do all the things on planet earth that God creates which are deadly.

So forget about the bear.

Now imagine you are at the same pond, seeing the same birds fly away. This time, you are startled to see a red beast with big red eyes, with scales instead of fur, and fangs and canines just like the bear. If you will, he has a pointed tale and horns. Hiding, you are hoping that this deer-chasing demon is no smarter or more observant than that bear.

The demon is so different from the bear, but strangely, he’s no more or less terrifying than the bear. Let’s switch them; let’s say the bear was the mythical beast and the demon was the evolved creature. Would the raging bear not be exactly as terrifying or more than the demon? Would not someone who was sheltered from nature’s harsh realities feel the same fear as if that someone saw a traditionally described demon? Of course that person would.

So, let’s say you did see that bear. And let’s say you happen to be a Christian, but then it dawns on you (if you’re a halfway thinking Christian) that all this time you’ve been afraid of the Devil when you should have been afraid of (and prepared to face) things like bears—of things that are real and that you have a much higher chance of encountering, of things that are deadly and everywhere, just waiting to bring your life to an end.

And then, for the first time, it starts to occur to you that you’ve been praising a God for building a world for his people that is full of unspeakable horrors. You are now starting to realize that anything you ever saw on Friday the 13th or Halloween or The Outer Limits is no more horrifying than what God has exposed his people to and that we take for granted on this planet.

Maybe God hasn’t created boogiemen or monsters in closets, just like we tell our children, but he did create bears and alligators, creatures that do the same things that mystical “boogiemen” do. What’s the difference? And what does your church have to say about that? They rattle on about curses and snakes and the fall of man being the cause of poisonous plants and carnivorous creatures. But you start to see a problem with that because that means bears were once herb-eaters and God modified them just to make us live in fear! Fuck you, God!

Finally, you de-convert because you keep thinking back to that devil by the pond and realize that he’s not scary anymore. He’s really stupid to oppose a deity who is all-powerful when he knows that he is outmatched infinitely and has a short time left to reign (Revelation 12:12). But he’s also not scary anymore for another reason; your heretical mind now has the blinders off and sees that the Devil and demons were just a regurgitation of man’s living in fear of clawed, powerful, fanged creatures like bears. Man, living in a world of unspeakable nightmares, sleeps and then awakes to create…what else but…“daymares”! Superstitious man lives in fear—of this world and the next.

Having joined the ranks of the godless, you now choose to be afraid only of what has claws and fangs and can smack your head clean off your shoulders. The next time you walk near the pond, you’ll only be looking out for the bear (and all the other billions and billions of things great and small that can harm you), but hopefully next time, you’ll just be pondering how stupid you were to have traipsed into God’s woods without the gun you now have!

(JH)

Health Care Debate Based on Lack of Logic

The following are excerpts from an article found here. The piece isn't on religion, but the criticisms on the defense of beliefs certainly are.

People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

A totally rational person would lay out — and evaluate objectively — the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

"People get deeply attached to their beliefs," Hoffman said. "We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter."

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs.

Similarly, past research by Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has shown in particular that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives. So these people avoid counter evidence all together. The same could apply to the health care debate, Albarracin said.

"Even if you have free press, freedom of speech, it doesn't make people listen to all points of view," she said.

Just about everybody is vulnerable to the phenomenon of holding onto our beliefs even in the face of iron-clad evidence to the contrary, Hoffman said. Why? Because it's hard to do otherwise. "It's an amazing challenge to constantly break out the Nietzschean hammer and destroy your world view and belief system and evaluate others," Hoffman said.

Debunking Christianity Carnival #2 (Galaxy Evolution Explorer Edition)

Data from NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer has revealed that more "little stars" (many the same size as ours) are out there whose existence had been masked by the light of massive, brighter stars. So in some regions there are four times more stars than astronomers had previously estimated. Galaxies demand a stellar recount A look into the hellish cradles of suns and solar systems Space telescopes find trigger-happy star formation According to the Bible, God made the stars on the fourth day of creation. But even more remarkable is the fact that He is creating them still, though the latter miracle is considered not worth mentioning by any of the Bible’s authors. CREATIONISTS ADMIT THE EVIDENCE FOR STELLAR EVOLUTION POSES PROBLEMS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The order of creation in Genesis 1 is farcical from a modern astronomical viewpoint. Our earth is a child of the sun. The offspring could not have existed before the parent. The sun, moon, and stars were “made and set” in heaven “to give light upon the earth?” When the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras dared to suggest that the sun was as large as the southern part of Greece he startled his Greek contemporaries. What must have been the notions of a grossly unscientific people like the Jews? For them it was easy to regard the sun, moon, and “the stars also,” as mere satellites of the earth, as lanterns for the human race. George William Foote, “The Creation Story,” Bible Romances ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GIMME THAT EARTH-CENTERED CREATION, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME Genesis 1:3-5 describes the first act of creation: 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. At this point in the biblical creation process, not only has the sun not yet been “made and set in the firmament,” but the earth is also still “without form.” In other words the Bible depicts the establishment of “Days” (days-nights-evenings-mornings) before anything else, which is about as earth-centered a creation story as one can possibly conceive, and about as far as one can leap in the direction of ancient thought as opposed to modern scientific conceptions of the cosmos. Daytimes or weekly times (i.e., approximately one quarter of the lunar cycle) experienced by earth dwellers would naturally appear central to them, such as the earth-dwellers who composed the Genesis 1 "creation story." But think of how geocentric the beginning of such a story is, with all of creation revolving right from the beginning around the earth's time schedule. Perhaps creationists do not realize the story fits ancient views of cosmology (with the earth as creation's foundation and heaven above) far better than modern Copernican ones. A day, night, evening or morning, or even numbered days of the week on earth are not of any central cosmic significance since we know the earth is not the foundation of all creation. All creation does not revolve around "earth days." The earth is merely one of nine planets (with many more planets circling distant stars) whose "days" (as they spin on their axis around their respective stars) vary considerably in length. Yet Genesis and Exodus agree in depicting these as literal days and nights as understood in earth terms: "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation" (Genesis 2:3) "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and sanctified it." (Exodus 20:8-11) The point of dividing the creation process into days, a feature that could easily be omitted without affecting the sense of the story, is to reinforce sabbath observance. These "days of creation" were therefore accepted as normal days of the week by the ancient Hebrews, and illustrate another way in which they viewed the earth as the flat firm base of all creation. Speaking of God "resting," the priestly author of Exodus 31:17 may have elaborated a bit too much on the meaning of the Sabbath when he wrote, “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested AND WAS REFREHSED.” "Rested and was refreshed?" This passage adds that after God had ceased from His labor of creating everything His soul-life [or breath/nephesh] was replenished, refreshed (cf., Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, Fortress Press: 2009, p. 97), or, as translators of a Bible published in 1774, put it, “on the seventh day God rested and fetched breath.” E.T.B. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AN EVEN GREATER MIRACLE IS HOW GOD TOOK IMMEASURABLE PAINS TO _NOT_ LIGHT THE EARTH WITH THE REST OF THE COSMOS If the sun, moon, and stars were created “to light the earth,” then why create over a hundred billion galaxies whose light is invisible to the naked eye? (Out of billions of galaxies only two relatively close ones galaxies can be seen with the unaided eye, and they appear no brighter than two dim stars in our sky.) In other words, over a hundred billion galaxies produce light that can only be seen with our most powerful telescopes, and it took telescopes recently mounted in space to detect 99/100ths of those galaxies. And our galaxy is composed of about a billion stars, some of which are far larger than our sun. Therefore, the creation story in Genesis would be even more believable if it told us how much trouble God went through to “NOT light the earth” with the rest of creation. Astronomers are even hypothesizing that the cosmos may contain “dark” matter and “dark” energy, so much of the stuff in fact, that most of the cosmos might still be invisible to us even with our satellite telescopes surveying it to a depth of thirteen-billion light-years in every direction. Again, that’s a lot of work to do to “NOT light” the earth. E.T.B. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AN EVEN GREATER MIRACLE IS HOW MANY _MORE_ LAMPS RULE THE NIGHTS AND PROVIDE FOR SIGNS AND SEASON ON OTHER PLANETS Genesis 1:16 depicts the sun and moon as “two great lamps” [literal Hebrew translation]. Those “great lamps” were made to “light” the earth, to “rule” the earth’s days and nights, and, “for signs and seasons” on earth. But a couple thousand years after the Bible was written, astronomers discovered a curious thing about that “great lamp” the moon. They discovered that Mars has two moons. Yet Mars has no people who need their steps “lit” at night, or who need to know the “signs and seasons.” Even more curiously, it was discovered that Neptune has four moons, Uranus has eleven, Jupiter has sixteen, and Saturn has eighteen moons (one of them, Titan, is even larger than the planet Mercury). The earth was created with just one moon, and it “rules the night” so badly that for three nights out of every twenty-eight it abdicates its rule and doesn’t light the earth at all--at which time creationists bump into each other in the dark. E.T.B. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GALACTIC HABITABLE ZONES IN THE COSMOS What fraction of stars in our Galaxy might play host to planets that can support multi-cellular life? Lineweaver and others have calculated the probable extent of hospitable space for complex life in the Galaxy, called the “Galactic habitable zone.” The criteria include distance from deadly supernovae, enough heavy elements to form terrestrial planets, and enough time for life to evolve. Based on these criteria, the Galactic habitable zone is an annular region between 7 to 9 kiloparsecs from the Galactic center and contains about 10% of the Milky Way stars with ages between 4 to 8 billion years old. [The Milky Way, like most of the 100 billion other galaxies in the cosmos, contains roughly a billion stars.] - Science, Vol. 303, Jan. 2, 2004 www.sciencemag.org Keeping in mind the above “odds,” there may be plenty of possible planets on which life might exist. But what does that imply about the Bible’s understanding of the cosmos when interpreted literally as in Genesis and the New Testament? See the following quotations to understand the questions raised by the notion of “[intelligent] life elsewhere in the galaxy.” E.T.B. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “A NEW HEAVEN?” EVEN FOR PEOPLE LIVING IN DISTANT GALAXIES? According to the book of Revelation a “new earth” and a “new heaven” will be created after Jesus returns. Occupants of other planets throughout the hundred billion galaxies of our present “heaven” will no doubt be surprised to receive such an unearned favor, all because of what happens on our little world. Or is this simply another example of how the Hebrews viewed the earth as the flat firm foundation of creation with the heavens above created simply for the earth below? E.T.B. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Though it is not a direct article of the Christian faith that the planet we inhabit is the only inhabited one in the cosmos, yet it is so worked up from what is called the Mosaic account of creation, the story of Eve and the forbidden fruit, and the counterpart of that story, the death of the Son of God--that to believe otherwise renders the Christian system of faith at once little and ridiculous, and scatters it in the mind like feathers in the air. Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So long as people believed, as St. Paul himself did, in one week of creation and a past of 4,000 years--so long as people thought the stars were satellites of the earth and that animals were there to serve man--there was no difficulty in believing that a single man could have ruined everything, and that another man had saved everything. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “Fall, Redemption, and Geocentrism,”Christianity and Evolution ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Did Jesus die uniquely to save the sins of human beings on planet Earth, or is he being strung up somewhere in the universe on every Friday? Michael Ruse, “Booknotes,” Biology & Philosophy, Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan. 1999 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE NEW JERUSALEM The last book of the Bible mentions a fabulous city called the “New Jerusalem”: "And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth… twelve thousand furlongs [about 1500 miles according to most commentaries]. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal." - Revelation 21:16 In other words the New Jerusalem is a gigantic cube and it is depicted as descending out of heaven above and landing on the earth below. The author who wrote about the city may have made it of such gargantuan proportions so that the length of just one of its sides was equal to the distance from Jerusalem to the capital and heart of the Roman Empire. Perhaps the author had in mind that God meant to flatten Rome just as Rome had flattened God’s holy temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D.? However the author of Revelation does not seem to have paused to consider that a cube that was 1500 miles on all sides would simply see-saw on the earth’s curved surface, since the earth is not flat, but a sphere. Even if it didn’t see-saw and settled onto the surface of the earth gently, such a massive object would probably make the earth’s crust buckle or crack beneath it and initiate earthquakes and eruptions; or cause the rotating earth to wobble (just try gluing a small cafeteria-sized carton of milk to a large bowling ball and spin the bowling ball to see what I mean) How could a cube that was 1,500 miles on each side maintain its cubic shape since much smaller objects in space that are merely 400 miles in diameter collapse into spherical shapes due to the force of their own gravity? And, what would prevent the city, after it landed, from growing as wide and flat as any mountain range due to its mutual attraction with the earth’s own gravity? This "New Jerusalem" is so depicted as being so tall that it would extend 1,300 miles further out into space than the International Space Station that is situated only about 200 miles above the earth. In fact the New Jerusalem would block jet streams in the upper atmosphere, and be pummeled by natural and man-made objects orbiting the earth, as well as its topmost floors being hit by solar winds and radiation. If you happen to live on any floor higher than merely the first 100 miles above sea level, I wouldn’t suggest opening your windows without first donning a space suit. The author of the book of Revelation also depicted the “twelve gates” of the New Jerusalem as “twelve pearls; every gate is of one pearl.” (Rev. 21:21) Hence the slang expression for heaven, “The pearly gates.” (I’d pay money to see the oyster that popped those babies out.) Of course some Evangelical Christian creationist apologists like Grant R. Jeffrey assume that the description of “The New Jerusalem” must be true without a doubt because “what reason would God have for describing such details so precisely unless they were true?” [Apocalypse: The Coming Judgment of the Nations--Bantam Books, Toronto, 1994), p.351] But then, who ever said “God” was the one describing such details? And who ever said that human writers didn’t have imaginations capable of adding details to a story? Maybe the author of the book of Revelation assumed like most people of his day that the earth was flat [see NOTE], so a cube-shaped object would sit securely and squarely on it? He probably also made the New Jerusalem a cube because that’s how the holy of holies of Solomon’s temple was shaped. The author of Revelation, probably had no idea that the enormity and shape of such a city might raise questions in the minds of "latter day" readers, especially since he probably assumed that the heavenly abode of God and angels existed not very far overhead, instead of that region being filled with orbiting bits of matter, solar radiation, and the vacuum of space? Finally, maybe Grant R. Jeffrey should cease making a career out of trying to anaesthetize the frontal lobes of people’s brains, and embark on an expedition to find that oyster that pops out pearls as big as city gates? And he had better hurry and find that whale-sized oyster before King Kong enjoys it as an appetizer. (But where is Kong going to find a lemon large enough to squeeze on it?) [NOTE] The author of the book of Revelation wrote completely in accord with a flat earth view of the cosmos: “I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1); and added elsewhere, “There was a great earthquake...and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” (Rev. 6:12,13). “Stars of heaven falling to earth” after the earth below has been “shaken,” mirrors the way that the sun, moon, and the stars are portrayed in the creation story in Genesis, being “made” and “fixed” above the earth. And just as those stars were “fixed” there, they might one day “fall to earth” like “figs” from a tree after the earth below had experienced “a great earthquake,” because to the ancient Hebrews the whole of creation consisted of a cosmos whose two halves were the earth below and the heavens above. E.T.B. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ARE THERE CREATIONISTS ON OTHER PLANETS? Do they quote from a book somewhat like our earth-centered book of Genesis? And, supposing that the name of their planet is "Zontar," does their book read something like this... In the beginning God created the heavens and ZONTAR, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters OF ZONTAR and God said let there be light, and there was the first evening and morning [on ZONTAR]. And God separated the waters and caused dry land to appear, and he called the dry land ZONTAR, and there was a second evening and morning [on ZONTAR]... And God made TWO GREAT LIGHTS, one to rule the day ON ZONTAR, and one to rule the night ON ZONTAR, and he made the stars also, and set them in the sky to light ZONTAR and for signs and seasons [on ZONTAR], and there was a fourth evening and morning. And God made animals ON ZONTAR, and there was a fifth evening and morning. And God made beings IN HIS OWN IMAGE, and he visited them in the garden where He and they left slimy trials as they moved and talked to each other via their antennae, and there was a sixth evening and morning. And on the seventh day God "rested" from creating the heavens and ZONTAR. Of course, we earthlings, being raised on our Bible, would know that God needed to "rest" after creating ZONTAR, so He could regain enough energy to trek to another part of the cosmos (near one of those stars he'd created "to light ZONTAR") and create a place called "earth." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHAT DO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PROFESSORS OF OLD TESTAMENT THINK ABOUT GENESIS 1? Several Evangelical Christian professors have recently argued that their fellow Evangelicals ought to relinquish "scientific creationist" interpretations of Genesis 1, and that the creation story in Genesis 1 ought to be interpreted in a mythical/spiritual/analogical or metaphorical fashion. Such figures include: John Walton, Old Testament professor at Wheaton College (author of The Lost World of Genesis 1: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate ) The blog, Jesus Creed, has devoted separate blog entries to examining all 18 propositions in Walton's book, beginning here. Peter Enns, Old Testament professor at Westminster Theological Seminary (author of Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament) Kent Sparks (author of God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship) Not to mention statements by popular bibliobloggers including: R. Christopher Heard, Old Testament professor at Pepperdine University and lifelong member of Churches of Christ (author of the succinct post, "Why I Am Not A Creationist") Chris Tilling, post-grad N.T. theology student (author of the post, "From Creationist to Evolutionist - my story") ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTATION FROM JOHN WALTON'S NEW WORK, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the clouds or high flying birds [able to "fly across the face of the firmament" per Gen. 1]. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of the deity as well as hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today. And God did not think it important to revise their thinking. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CREATION AND THE PSALMISTS Ancient Hebrew psalmists drew a parallel between the height of the “clouds” and the wondrous height of their Lord’s “truth”: “For Thy loving kindness is great to the heavens, and Thy truth to the clouds.” (Psalm 57:10). The height of clouds appeared so near to the holy heavens that they excitedly strung such phrases together to praise God in a way we do not react to today in the same way because we are able to fly above the clouds and also know how high “the heavens” can be, in light-years, making the height of clouds seem not comparable at all. A psalmist wrote, “As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.” (Psalm 103:12) Yet today we know we can walk from east to west and wind up right back where we started. A psalmist asked, “[Can] the heavens above be measured?” (Jeremiah 31:37) Yes, it’s someone’s job to measure such things—from meteorologists noting the heights of certain clouds, to astronomers measuring distances to the sun and moon, even distances to the furthest galaxies. A psalmist wrote, “The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; But the earth He has given to the sons of men” (Ps. 115:16) One of NASA’s satellites passed Pluto several years ago, not to mention telescopes peering into “the heavens of the Lord.” We have even launched spacecraft named after pagan gods (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) when the Bible forbids mentioning even the names of “other gods” (Exodus 23:13). A psalmist wrote, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou are mindful of him? (Psalm 8:3-4) The “heavens” referred to the clouds, and to the sun, moon and stars that the psalmist believed did not lie far above the clouds, along with the angelic heavenly realm lying not far above the sun, moon and stars. Any similarities between such ancient verse and modern day cosmic angst are merely relative. Even the clouds felt intangibly high to the ancients, but then, none of them could even guess what lay beyond the horizon. In fact it may be that their cosmos felt more intangibly huge to them than our cosmos does to us because we can fly round the globe, above the clouds, gaze at photos of outer space, and open a book and read the distances to stars and galaxies set down for us in tangible numerical form. “Those little heaven-encrusted universes of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Hebrews seem quaint enough to us, who have formed, thought by thought from within, the immense modern Cosmos in which we live—planned in such immeasurable proportions, and moved by so pitiless a mechanism... Yet what a splendor dazzles us in these great halls! Anything less limitless would now be a prison.” (Logan Pearsall Smith).

My Book is Being Reprinted

Yes, it's made it to a reprint edition where we fixed many typos. No new material was added. But it was supposed to be available after August 11th when done (but here it is August 17th without it in sight). This is why you won't be able to get it on Amazon until after then. Poor planning in my opinion, but it'll be good to go afterward. To read some reviews of it click here.

What is a Critical Scholar?

Jon D. Levenson, Professor at Harvard Divinity School in the Department of Near Eastern Studies and Civilizations, offered a great definition of what a critical scholar is when he wrote they “are prepared to interpret the text against their own preferences and traditions, in the interest of intellectual honesty.” See page 3 of his book The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son. In that book he argues that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous" (p. 5). Why shouldn't all Biblical scholars be critical scholars?

Are Liberals "Intellectually Dishonest"?

In the first comment below this post Bruce the Agnostic asked me whether liberals are intellectually dishonest not to jump ship like I did, once they recognize there is no objective basis for Christianity. It was a good question that gave me pause. Do I think this? Yes I do, but let me explain.

How would you describe someone who undermines the objective basis for Christianity at every turn but then turns around and professes to be a Christian? I know, I know, the Christianity they profess isn't the one they deconstruct. I do think people are not honest with themselves. We probably all are to some degree about some things. We may think we're handsome or good at something when we're not. We may excuse our behavior and think we've done good things when deep inside we know we've done wrong. I think the intellectually honest thing to do is to abandon any profession of Christianity once it’s recognized that Jesus did no miracles, was wrong about the eschaton, didn’t fulfill OT prophecy, and did not bodily rise from the dead. I mean really, what does professing to be a Christian mean at that point when it’s recognized that Jesus was a failed doomsday prophet like a plethora of them have been who have come and gone?

I’ll tell you what I think. I think such a profession is merely to stay within a group, a group of people who do the same things, much like the Moose Lodge, the Elks, or Eagles at that point. Is this meaningful to people who profess such things? Yes. But there is no basis for doing so. Christianity becomes a mere label at that point which some people have applied to Americans as a whole: “I’m an America so I’m a Christian.” Is that meaningful? Again, yes, and it may be the true definition of a Christian since Christianity is a culture. All I’m doing is making a case and stating it in as forceful of a way as I can. Will liberals agree? No. But I want to force them to say that their version of Christianity is very far from anything that any Christian of the past would accept. The truth is that liberals did not arrive at their position by a process of abstract reasoning. No. They were forced into it against their preferences by the progress of the sciences. I think they should just acknowledge that and admit they have cut themselves off from any historic understanding of what defines a Christian and then say, "but we like being with these people in this group because we like people."

A Word About My Self-Published Book

I self-published a book that I consider a companion volume to the one published by Prometheus Books (PB) titled, Why I Became An Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments. You can see the table of contents on Amazon just underneath the picture of it.

Anyway, if you've read my PB published volume and liked it for one reason or another, then you'll also like my self-published book. Let me tell you about it.

Read more »

Dr. James McGrath Responds to Jason Long, Ed Babinski and Me

I like his respectful tone so let me merely link to him. What d'ya think?

Clergy Letter Project aka Compartmentalization

The growing clergy letter project is, I believe, a fine example of compartmentalization. "We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."

Started by a biologist who was fed up with creationism, it has become a safe haven for Christians from critical thought. I agree with fundamentalist Jefferson Reed that the signers of the petition are Apostates who deviate from the plain reading of the Bible. I believe it is nothing more than a cursory way of eliminating cognitive dissonance. One can now feel much more comfortable accepting evolution while maintaining faith simply because thousands of others have publicly done so - never mind that research and critical thought would be a much better way to evaluate whether religion and science are compatible. No one will ever force the different compartments to a debate.

Jesus, James D.G. Dunn, James Barr and Christianity

James D.G. Dunn is regarded worldwide as one of today's foremost biblical scholars, and in a real sense one of my intellectual heroes.

When I was an apologetics instructor I used his book The Evidence for Jesus in that class. It’s very small but mighty. It put to shame other available books at that time. I loved it so much I bought up several copies to hand out. I’m selling my last spare copy on Amazon now. Another book of his, The Living Word, changed my thinking. After reading it I could no longer affirm inerrancy, I began thinking Jesus was a liberal and was introduced into the problem of Pseudonymity and canonical criticism like never before. I bought several copies of this book to hand out as well. I have two left. I see it’s now made it to a second edition recently (2009) and I heartily recommend it too.

Another of my intellectual heroes was James Barr who wrote a devastating critique of fundamentalism which to this day is probably unsurpassed, called Beyond Fundamentalism. I bought up several copies of this book to pass out too, and I’m selling my last two copies on Amazon. This book literally shatters fundamentalism I think.

But they do not go far enough. Read for yourselves what James D. G. Dunn admitted in what will prove to be Dunn’s magnum opus series of books, beginning with volume one, Jesus Remembered:

Jesus' own experience of anointing and ministry empowered by the same Spirit/power of God may in itself have convinced him that God's longed-for (final) manifestation of his royal rule was already in evidence and that its full manifestation could therefore not be long delayed... The point is that such treatments have found it impossible to deny that Jesus had expressed expectation for the imminent happening of events which did not happen. Jesus' kingdom preaching cannot be disentangled from imminent expectation, with or without 'apocalyptic' features. Which also means that Jesus had entertained hopes which were not fulfilled. There were 'final' elements in his expectation which were not realized. Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events” (p. 479).

What I don’t get is how these critically honest scholars could come to these correct conclusions and still profess to be followers of Christ (i.e. Christians). I think anyone with intellectual honesty should jump ship like I have.

Debunking Christianity Carnival #1

A smorgasbord of annotated weblinks.

John recently brought up the subject of poisonous plants. Below are related items:
Why We Believe in a Designer
The most provocative things ever said about the way God "designed" the cosmos
God's Cool Designs [video]
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Stupid Design [video]
Jesus and Mo, "World" [cartoon]
The Evil God Challenge (part 1)
The Evil God Challenge (part 2)
Bart Ehrman: How the Problem of Pain Ruined My Faith
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Google the word "carnival" and you'll retrieve over 44 million "hits," but the #1 top-ranked "hit" (as of today) was this one: Biblical Studies Carnival. A "carnival" in the blogging world refers to a "best of" collection of links to recent entries at different blogs. I recommend the Biblical Studies Carnival since the entries are from the blogs of biblical studies professors ("bibliobloggers"), and cover an informative and intriguing range of topics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I create amazon.com "wish lists" in order to keep track of interesting book titles and bundle them by category. The following two lists feature books written by (or about) those who question Christian religious beliefs:
Testimonies, questioning Protestantism
Testimonies, questioning Catholicism
See also this piece from a creationist website:
Losing faith: how secular scholarship affects scholars
And this new book:
When Faith Meets Reason: Religion Scholars Reflect on Their Spiritual Journeys
And this:
People who left Christianity as a direct result of their studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Godless Comedy from Mitchell and Web

A Site for My Book: Why I Became An Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity

I created it recently and will update it from time to time. See here.

Praise God for Wicked Plants!

There are 58 poisonous plants, some milder than others (it depends on which part is eaten, roots, leaves, seeds, flowers, fruits, etc.). Possible fatal ones include: Autumn crocus, Castor bean, Daffodil, Hyacinth, Hydrangea, Jimson Weed, Lily of the Valley, Mistletoe, Morning Glory, wild Mushrooms, Poinsettia, Hemlock, Sumac, Rhubarb, White Snakeroot (which was one of the most common causes of death among early settlers in America), Yew (eat it and you die within minutes), and so on. If they don’t kill you they may cause diarrhea, convulsions, paralysis and even comas.

A new book out called Wicked Plants tells us about them. In order for human beings to learn these plants were poisonous people had to die from eating them. That's a nice way to learn about them. Praise God for his creation! Praise God for informing us about them! God is Great!

New Book: The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

This site was created by Richard Carrier for our new book. Bookmark it for updates.

Should I Go to WordPress?

As you can see, I grabbed a slot there in January of 2008. Would this be better because of the trolls at Blogger? It would be a lot of work to figure out how to use this. Is it worth it?

If I were to do this, does anyone who knows how to set up such a site care to help make the switch?

Greatest possible being?

The following argument is valid.

1. God is defined as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived.
2. If there is no such being as the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived, then there is no such being as God.
3. There is no such being. (Because, like the notion that there is no "best" possible world, there are greater possible beings without limit).
4. Therefore, there is no such being as God.


This argument is not intended as a proof for the nonexistence of God; rather, it is intended to challenge theists (particularly Christians) to show why the notion of "the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived" is preferable to the view that "beings can be greater without limit." In other words, can (3) to be rejected on the grounds that the notion of “greater beings without limits” is less rational than the notion of “the greatest possible being that can ever be conceived?” If so, how?

PZ Myers Reports on His Trip to the Creation Museum

You can see the videos here. He also wrote several blogs about it.

Atheism Explained: What is an Atheist?

Words mean what I use them to mean. Dictionary definitions merely report how most people use words. They may not always report how I use them or how small groups of people use them. So any word can mean anything I use it to mean. The problem is that using words in some private sense that is unfamiliar to others will result in miscommunication. There is a shared understanding of how English people use words so we must use them in the standard ways if we want to be understood.

Words are not static in their definitions either, but dynamic and forever changing. The word “nice” previously meant “stupid” and the word “gay” previously meant “happy,” but now they mean something different. That’s because how we use words evolve down through the centuries. There is Old- Middle- and Modern English, which was derived in part from German and even Greek forbearers. There is American, Britain, and Australian English.

Now let’s think about the word “atheism” in this light. I am an atheist. What do I mean when I use this word? I mean that I do not think there are any supernatural beings or supernatural forces. It’s not that I have no beliefs about them. I do. I believe they do not exist. People who do not have any beliefs about such beings are people who have never considered them in the first place.

By using this word in that way the ONLY question left unresolved is whether I am effectively communicating to others. The problem is that there is no agreed upon definition of this word by atheists themselves. One of the problems is that atheism is a negative word. Etymologically speaking an atheist is a non-theist (a=non theist). Christians themselves were called atheists in the Roman days because they did not believe in the Roman pantheon. But if I were to say that some object is not a door I have not told you what that object is, only what it is not. The problem is further compounded by Christians themselves who wish to define the word for us as meaning “metaphysical naturalists,” which may not adequately describe all of us.

Skeptics have proposed other words to positively describe themselves as “Brights” or “Secular Humanists.” There are agnostic atheists, spiritual atheists, and Christian atheists. There is both a positive and negative atheism. Buddhism may be described as an atheistic philosophy.

For Christians listening in on these discussions let me say for the record that I consider them to be little more than Wittgensteinian language games, which will probably be solved in the future as more and more atheists adopt the same language to describe the same thing, which, when the dust settles will indeed communicate who we are and what we share (if there is a "we" to be found). [Keep in mind that Christians have the same problem with the word “Christian.” Is everyone a Christian who describes himself as one? I repeatedly hear that some group or person is/was not a “true Christian.”] I suspect that if most everyone in the world became atheists there wouldn't even be a word to describe us. We would probably be described as human beings, or members of the same golf club, or of another type grouping.

In any case, Dr. John Shook recently attempted to define it. See what you think.

Richard Carrier on Rodney Stark's Disastrously Awful Treatment of Ancient Science

You can listen to what Carrier says about it right here.

Dr. Valerie Tarico's Interview With the Internet Monk

This is a great interview!

Three Undeniable Facts About the Great God Artemis and Dr. Craig's Three Facts About the Resurrection of Jesus

Dr. Craig argues there are at least three facts held by the majority of New Testament scholars: 1) The tomb was found empty by the women followers of Jesus three days after his crucufixion; 2) The disciples of Jesus held that they saw the risen Jesus after his crucifixion; and 3) The original disciples held strongly to the belief that Jesus really did rise for the dead. Sounds like a slam dunk, right? Let's go back in time to the first century and see the three undeniable facts the Ephesians all accepted, okay? ;-)

There was a riot in Ephesus when Paul was in town and the people shouted him down, claiming their god Artemis was Great. Then we read:

The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash.

Acts 19:35-37

The three facts he spoke of were: 1)The city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis; 2) and of her image, 3) which fell from heaven. The clerk said "these facts are undeniable."

I guess it's because Dr. Craig lives in a Christian culture with Biblical scholars who accept these so-called facts he can make this argument in the first place. After all, who can dispute the facts, right? Facts are facts!

Sound Familiar Anyone?

A Mormon negatively commented on the skeptical book, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon. Read on:

You know, I could probably spend a few years of my life trying to find dirt on the author of this book and likely, I would find some. The question is: why would I? It seems to me a pretty sad way to spend my life. It also seems to me that if I wanted to learn about someone, I should ask someone who loves them... if I went to someone who hates you and asked them, "what's this person like?" what kind of an answer would I get? Yes it's very easy to find dirt on someone if that's what you are looking for because the bottom line is: people believe what they want to believe. If you want to KNOW something, why not ask the only one who truly knows... God? That was Joseph Smith's message. That was the message of the Book of Mormon. It was also the message of our Savior who said: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" (Matt. 7:7). Or you can refer to the scripture quoted by the prophet himself: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (I would like to continue on through the next couple of verses-) "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord." (James 1:5-7).

I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Not because some person told me, and not because some man showed me a book full of evidence (there is much evidence for those who want to find it). I know, because like Joseph Smith, I got down on my knees, in faith, and asked my Heavenly Father if it was true. You cannot know anything, but by God. What do you have to lose? I'm not giving you my opinions. I only invite those who wish to know the truth, and who are not trying to simply reinforce their budding hatred for a man that they simply do not know. If you want to know, ask God, I promise you that He will answer if you honestly seek only the truth. Link

This Mormon claims people who don't believe don't want to believe. He's not offering his opinions. He knows because he has the inner witness of God in his heart. Does any of this sound familiar? ;-)

Another One Leaves the Fold and Starts a Blog

23 year old Devin Lorentzen, that's who. Give him a warm welcome to our herd of cats. Sheep or cats? Which do you prefer? ;-)

Robert G. Ingersoll on the Bible

Every sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all. Link.

Why I've Been Somewhat Quiet Lately

It's because I was finishing up editing a new book to be published by Prometheus Books. I sent the manuscript off to them this week. See below for the table of contents:

The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails

Foreword by Dan Barker
Introduction

Part One: How to Think About and Test Faith.

1 The Cultures of Christianities. Dr. David Eller
2 Christian Belief Through the Lens of Cognitive Science. Dr. Valerie Tarico
3 The Malleability of the Human Mind. Dr. Jason Long
4 The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited. John W. Loftus

Part Two: Why the Bible is Not God’s Word.

5 The Cosmology of the Bible. Edward T. Babinski
6 The Bible and Modern Scholarship. Paul Tobin
7 What We’ve Got Here is a Failure to Communicate. John W. Loftus

Part Three: Why the Christian God is Not Perfectly Good.

8 Yahweh is a Moral Monster. Dr. Hector Avalos
9 The Darwinian Problem of Evil. John W. Loftus

Part Four: Why Jesus is not the Risen Son of God.

10 Jesus: Myth and Method. Dr. Robert M. Price
11 Why the Resurrection is Unbelievable. Dr. Richard Carrier
12 At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Doomsday Prophet. John W. Loftus

Part Five: Why Modern Society Does Not Depend on Christian Faith.

13 Does Christianity Provide the Basis for Morality? Dr. David Eller
14 Was Atheism the Reason Hitler Killed So Many People? Dr. Hector Avalos
15 Was Christianity Responsible for Modern Science? Dr. Richard Carrier

--------------------

I have been sending Dr. Michael Martin the material along the way. He is professor of philosophy emeritus and author of the books The Case Against Christianity, and Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Of this book he wrote:

John Loftus and his distinguished colleagues have certainly produced one of the best and arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known. Using sociological, biblical, scientific, historical, philosophical, theological and ethical criticisms, this book completely destroys Christianity. All but the most fanatical believers who read it should be moved to have profound doubts.

---------------

As the editor of this new work I designed it to be an extension of my book Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, and so it further argues for the things I did there. To read recommendations of that work, click here.

I'm Building a Hotel. Will You Help Me?

I’ve decided to build a Hotel and I am here to solicit your much-needed financial support.

Let me begin by saying that it will be like no hotel you’ve ever seen in your life. It’s going to be a big Hotel – a massive, super big Hotel beyond belief – so big that humans will almost never be able to reach the outer walls and fences of the property. Yes, it’s going to be BIG!

As surely as it is going to be big, it’s going to be expanding in all directions all of the time. We’ll never quit building onto it. It will have many rooms, so many rooms that they will never be used or serve any constructive purpose, but I want to have them anyway. I like empty, unused space. There will be lots to look at…lots of lights and chandeliers and bright ornaments…and they’ll always be running, even when no one is around.

If you call the front desk and ask for a bucket of ice, a couple of extra blankets and a pillow, or perhaps a towel, I may have the items sent to your room…or I may not. I may send 10,000 blankets, so much so that the room can’t hold them, or I may just send one. There’s always a 50/50 chance that I will grant your requests.

Some of the rooms and wings of my glorious Hotel will be either hot or cold. Some guest rooms will have either air conditioners or heaters. Some will have both, but others will have neither. There are rooms in this Hotel that are kept so hot that no human could enter them without being disintegrated. And there are rooms kept so cold that guests entering them would freeze solid in under 30 seconds of exposure. Registering guests have no control over whether or not they will get put in a room with moderate or extreme temperatures. It is based on the accidents of registration that determines who gets what.

You’ll have to prepare yourself when staying at my Hotel as some of the doors and stairwells open to unfinished hallways and rooms. You might take a single step and plummet to your death, so be careful. And once you check in, there is no leaving. You can’t step outside of the Hotel, so make the best of it and try to enjoy the good that there is.

The kitchens in my Hotel are exquisite. There is no food I won’t offer, except in certain places of the Hotel where guests will be left at or near starvation, but for everyone else, there is plenty to eat. My cooks are not what you would expect. They offer such a huge selection of dishes that you have to be careful what you order. My kitchen has herbs and spices and ingredients that are toxic, as well as nourishing and tasty. The cooks might serve you poisonous mushrooms at the breakfast buffet. Only experience can inform you of what foods will nourish you and which will poison you. You can watch other guests get sick and die, and over time, you’ll learn what to consume and what never to consume.

My Hotel does have a maintenance crew, though you wouldn’t know it. When something breaks, the guests usually have to fix it. You can put in a work order to have a door or a safe or your TV remote replaced, but that rarely works. If you want something done, do it yourself! I’ve given you the permission to do as you will. Just so that we’re clear, remember that once it’s done, I want the credit for doing it!

There are no police or security at my Hotel, and so any domestic disputes that arise must be settled in-house by the guests as they set up systems of government to try and keep order themselves. But remember, once law and order has been established by whichever dominant party made it to the top, I want credit for it! I will speak and keep order through that party.

The complaint system is a little different around here—there isn’t one. I hate complainers. Everybody always has something they don’t like, so I don’t want to hear it. It just angers me. If you’re not satisfied with the way things are, that’s too bad. It’s my Hotel. I can run it the way I want.

Guests will be provided with an instruction manual on how to be better and more informed guests of my Hotel. Please try not to fight over how it is interpreted, but use it to show others how to be an effective establishment of good guests.

So…will you help me?

Dig deep now, my dear investors! ☺

Anyone?

Please?

Come on!

No one?

Well, I knew the atheists wouldn’t help me…but you Christians?

Why won’t you help me?

I will operate my Hotel just like your God operates this universe.

How is it you find fault with me, and not with your deity?

I don’t understand...shouldn’t we resemble our Creator in the ways we operate?

Why do I get faulted for doing the same things God does?

I even ask for money like your God does!

Why can’t you support his works by supporting my Hotel?

“Do as I say, not as I do,” huh? Is that how God is? Needless to say, I am very disappointed!

(JH)

Unverifiable "Knowledge" is Demonstrably Trivial.

On April 14, 1994, two American Air force pilots in F15 fighter planes misidentified two American Army helicopters operating in Iraq and shot them down killing all 26 people aboard. Because the lead pilot was not able to evaluate his personal belief using external evidence, 26 people are dead.

In an interview after the incident, the lead pilot, the pilot that fired on the helicopters, reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The wingman, who was supposed to confirm, took the lead pilots word for it and the AWACs officers in charge of command and control believed the lead pilot even though they had information that the helicopters were scheduled to be there.  If they would have taken the time to look at all the evidence, it would have been obvious that they were not Iraqi helicopters. His personal belief needed external verification.

After the fact, The secretary of Defense identified four causes of the incident

- Pilots mis-identified the Black Hawks
- The AWACS crew failed to intervene
- The helicopters were not well integrated into the task force
- The "Identification Friend or Foe" System failed. However it worked properly, it was just not configured properly.

Retired Lt. Col. Scott Snook wrote about his investigation of the incident in a book called "Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq".
Wikipedia has an entry on it as well. 1994 Black Hawk Shootdown Incident
I have included a Dr. Snooks elaboration on the causes at the end of the article.

Though this case is usually studied as an example of how decision making in an organization fails, I want to focus on an aspect referred to in this statement by the AWACS pilot, since the helicopters were shot down by the man who held the belief.

"AWACS crew members added in their testimonies that once Wickson (the lead pilot) and May (the wingman) visually identified the helicopters as hostile, all responsibility for the shootdown passed to the F-15 pilots."
Peterson, "Court-Martial Begins in 'Friendly Fire' Deaths in Iraq", Piper, Chain of Events, p. 214–215.

Though the AWACs officers had prior information about the helicopters, the AWACS pilots took the word of the lead pilot when he said he saw Iraqi helicopters.  In fact the AWACS pilots were impressed by the lead pilots ability to not only identify that the helicopters were enemy but that he could identify what kind they were.  The AWACS officers placed a higher value on the lead pilots belief than the data that they had on file.  Additionally, the wingman in the other fighter jet did not confirm that the helicopters were enemy, but only confirmed that there were two helicopters.  The wingman believed that if the lead pilot believed they were enemy helicopters, then they must be.

The pilots expected that if they saw helicopters when they were doing their initial patrol, then they could only be  Iraqi helicopters.  When they saw the helicopters, they perceived and inferred what they expected. They believed what they thought they saw.  They were certain that they had knowledge of two Iraqi helicopters and were justified in shooting them down.

COGNITIVE BIASES
We are fundamentally bounded in our rationality. We are bounded by the physical architecture of our brain, our experiences, what we already know and believe, our feelings, our self-interest.  We don't examine every possible option, or every scrap of data before we make a decision. We adopt heuristics, mental shortcuts. Usually, when the stakes are low and mistakes happen, whatever harm is done is tolerable.  But only when the stakes are high is it obvious that procedures need to be in place to correct for cognitive bias and human error.

Some of the Biases that I can see that were obviously involved in this incident are

- Overconfidence bias: Human beings are systematically overconfident in our judgments.
- Confirmation Bias: Human beings tend to gather and rely on information that confirms thier existing views and tend to avoid or downplay information that disconfirms what we think is the case.
- Accepting the word of someone based on acquaintance: the wingman worked closely with the lead pilot and had a lot of respect for his skills.
- Deference to Authority: the wingman and the AWACs officer did not question the mis-identification by the lead pilot, though the AWACs officers had information about the identity of the helicopters prior to the shootdown.

Cognitive bias skews our thinking and makes it hard to come to correct conclusions, make good decisions, and formulate "Justified Beliefs".  That is why it is important to use methods to counteract cognitive bias.  One of the first to be formulated was "the scientific method".  If the scientific method is used as it is intended, it will counteract many of the effects of cognitive bias.  If a persons belief system makes it difficult to trust the scientific method, then at least it should be agreed on that things in general need some definition and boundaries, and those definitions and boundaries should be kept in mind when deliberating.  Human error should always be considered likely in anything a human does.

List of Cognitive Biases from Wikipedia.
[Wikipedia should not be considered authoritative, but a good place to start]

HOW DO WE COME TO "KNOW" SOMETHING?
In an interview after the fact: the fighter pilot reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The black hawks did not even cross his mind when he made the decision.The lead pilot "knew" that they were Iraqi helicopters.

What is Knowledge?
Knowledge can be of how to do something, knowing a person, or a place, or propositions.  This discussion will be limited to "Someone knows that a Proposition is true or is a fact".  Briefly stated, "S knows that P" or "The lead pilot knew that they were Iraqi helicopters" or "I know that God exists because of the inner witness of the spirit".

Epistemologists have wrestled with the idea of "rightly justified belief" as a definition of knowledge, but they always come to the same point of disagreeing on "what makes some knowledge or belief preferred over another?".   Can a consensus be reached on a standard for determining what makes some knowledge or belief more preferred or "better" than another?  I think an external standard has already has been found and has been put into practice in fields such as Public Safety and Public Health, civil engineering and such, for many years.  I think the strongest work in Epistemology is being done outside the domain of philosophy and is not being done by philosophers.

Justified Beliefs
The fighter pilots belief about the Iraqi Helicopters was not "rightly justified".  It was a weakly justified belief on little evidence that was of a type that was likely to be in error.  While its true he had to make a time critical decision, and while a military hearing found him not culpable for anything other than making a mistake, some points in the time-line of the event were identified that could have prevented the shootdown had some action been taken to account for the likelihood of human error.  The team could have considered the external data they had.  Someone should have asked the lead pilot "What makes you so sure those aren't the Army Helicopters that we expect to work with today?"

Introduction to some key concepts in Epistemology
Key terms in epistemology are Belief, Truth, Justification, Evidence, Reliability, Internalism, Externalism, Foundationalism, and Coherentism, but unfortunately, some of the key terms in use are largely undefined. In reading through the Epistemological literature, it is obvious that in some cases the terms and words are minced until they are no longer useful. It results in some philosophers positing obviously improbable and unknowable "thought experiments" as analogies to use in deliberation while presuming that the analogy "fits".  The "Brain-in-a-vat" thought experiment is a famous one, and Berkeleys "we all exist in the mind of God" is another. In reality, a thought experiment that breaks down the boundaries so much so as to permit "fantasy" is not very useful.  We have to find a reliable way to exclude "fantasy" and more importantly "Human Error".

AN EXTERNAL STANDARD TO USE IN DETERMINING WHAT IS "KNOWLEDGE"
In order to make progress in defining what is knowledge and what is not, some standards need to be agreed on. If language is insufficient to capture a definition of knowledge, yet everyone seems to "know" things and use that knowledge to interact in the world, then "What knowledge is" is not as important as "what action are you taking on what you think you know"?  More importantly "Will it cause any harm?" Does the possible harmful outcome outweigh the risk?  What justifies a person in taking some action based on what they think they know?

Having The Humility To Accept The Possibility Of Error In Perception
Lets look at the shootdown incident through an Epistemological lens and try to come up with why one variety of knowledge is more preferred than another.

1. The pilot thinks that if he see's helicopters where he doesn't expect them, they will be enemy.
BIAS, BELIEF:

2.  He see's helicopters and he didn't expect them.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE, JUSTIFIES HIS BELIEF AND IT BECOMES TRUE TO HIM, CONFIRMATION BIAS

3. He is an expert, he gives his opinion to his team.
HE EXPRESSES HIS BELIEF, OVERCONFINDENCE BIAS

4.  His team defers to his expertise rather than checking the data
DEFERENCE TO AUTHORITY, INTERNAL EVIDENCE VS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:

5.  He shoots down the helicopters and kills twenty six people
INTERNAL EVIDENCE APPARENTLY NOT AS RELIABLE AS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

6. If he had externally verified his beliefs with the external data that was held by the AWACS plane, he would not have shot down the helicopters.

THEREFORE EXTERNAL VERIFICATION IS MORE VALUABLE THAT INTERNAL VERIFICATION IN MATTERS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.

But we all already knew that didn't we? This principle is already presumed in society.  Its just that some of us have to deny it to make a system of beliefs work.

Therefore, generally, unverifiable internal knowledge is trivial compared to externally verifiable knowledge. This principle is accepted as a sound principle and expected to be used to make judgments.  To not use this principle can be considered negligent.

Using an external standard of minimizing harm, I have shown that the relative value of Internal Knowledge is less than the value of External knowledge.

Equivocation Of The Word "Justification"
Paul's use of Justification by Faith means "justified to join the christian community of believers" by faith in Christ not by being Jewish, joining the Jewish community or following Jewish laws. Its not a knowledge claim at all, its membership criteria. So "Justification" is membership criteria for whatever it is that is being assessed for inclusion in a category. 

It would fit the task of assessing whether a belief should be considered knowledge. Justification for inclusion in the Jewish community is quite another thing than Justification by faith of knowledge of God.  When someone says that they are justified in a belief in god by faith, then they are making a circular statement.  Faith is a belief in god, and belief in God is Faith.  Or do I have a misconception?

Belief does not seem to be the preferred way to acquire knowledge because it doesn't counteract the likelihood of Human Error.

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Here is a brief summary of the elaboration on the findings of the Secretary of Defense from Snooks Book with my notes in brackets and curly braces.

- The helicopters were army, the fighter planes were Air Force. They did not effectively share information with each other.

- The fighters pre-flight papers did not indicate the helicopters were going to be there

- Before anyone can come into the zone, fighter pilots fly around the zone ensure there are no enemy  and make the call or decision that it is clear.  The US Helicopters were in the zone before the pilots had finished their initial flight. The pilots did not expect to see Helicopters in the area until they had reported that it was clear of enemy.
 
- An American AWACs plane was in the area whose task it was to ensure monitoring and control of the area. It knew about both fighter planes and helicopters were in close vicinity to one another.
 
[Part of the verification process]
- The Helicopters could not respond to the IFF signal in the affirmative because they were not using the same code as the fighters.

- The pre-flight papers did not indicate the helicopters would be there

- Standard operating procedure dictates the Jets should be first in the zone to ensure it's safe
 
- The US Helicopters were outfitted with extra fuel tanks that caused them to resemble Iraqi helicopters.

- The pilots were not familiar with the new equipment configuration.

[Human Error]
- The fighter pilot and wingman did not verify or confirm each others conclusions when they conducted the visual assessment though they INFERRED each others confirmation due to ambiguous language usage.

[Cognitive Biases]
- Interview after the fact: the fighter pilot reported that he had no doubt they were Iraqi helicopters when he shot them down. The black hawks did not even cross his mind when he made the decision.
{He did not have access to information he needed that was stored in his brain.  For some reason, his cognitive processes did not access what he had in memory and bring it to consciousness. This is a common cognitive limitation that occurs to people on a daily basis, and will probably occur to the reader today or this week.  }

- Interview after the fact: The wingman said that when the fighter pilot said he identified them as Iraqi helicopters, he believed him.
{In social psychology, Research in persuasion has created four major categories  of persuasion variables.  In this instance the wingmans decision making was biased by the variables in the "Communicator" category.  They all liked, trusted and viewed the pilot as an authority.  Research in persuasion  has demonstrated that people are more easily influenced by people they like, trust, consider and authority or are attactive}
- Persuasion
- Weapons of Persuasion

- Interview after the fact: After the fact, The AWACs officers trusted the Fighter pilots opinion over the data, so they did not challenge them. {Same as above}

Debate Challenge

I have issued a debate challenge over at the FRDB forums. Would any Christian (someone who is reasonably skilled in debate) like to take me up on the question of whether or not God raised Jesus from the dead?