Debunking Christianity

Conditional Immortality or Annihilationism

2009-11-21T19:22:00.001-05:00

Since I was able to question my Christian faith for the first time once I believed in Conditional Immortality or Annihilationism as the best Biblical description of hell, see here, I thought I'd offer a few brief notes on that view, from a Biblical perspective. I know there is a debate about this going on among Christian circles, but here are some of the things that those who dispute it must deal with:

We should not confuse the reality of hell with its images. The images of hell are of: 1) “everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46); 2) “eternal destruction” (Matt. 10:28); and 3) banishment into the “darkness” (Matt. 22:13; 25:30). How we interpret these images depends on other Bible verses. In the O.T. the wicked will cease to exist (Psalm 37, Mal.4: 1-2). Jesus in the N.T. shows us that the purpose of fire in punishment is to destroy or burn up the wicked (Matt.3:10-12; 13:30,42,49-50). According to John R.W. Stott: “The main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction.” [Evangelical Essentials, (p. 316)]. Paul likewise emphasized destruction (2 Thess 1: 9; I Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28; 3:19). Peter likewise stressed the sinners’ fate as that of destruction (2 Pet. 2:1,3, 6; 3:6-7). Even in John’s book of Revelation, the lake of fire will consume the wicked (Rev. 20:14-15). G.B. Caird: “John believed that, if at the end there should be any who remained impervious to the grace and love of God, they should be thrown, with Death and Hades, into the lake of fire which is the second death, i.e., extinction and total oblivion.” [Commentary on Revelation, (p. 186)].

“The Bible uses language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it.” But “linking together images of fire and destruction suggests annihilation. One receives the impression that ‘eternal punishment’ refers to a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment (i.e. eternal punishing).” [Pinnock, Four Views of Hell, p. 144].

L.E. Froom claims that conditional immortality was generally accepted in the early church until its thinkers tried to wed Plato’s doctrine of the immortality of the soul to the teaching of the Bible.” [The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Herald Pub., 1966]. Biblically speaking, human beings are not immortal. God alone has immortality (I Tim. 6:16); well doers seek immortality (Rom. 2:7); immortality is brought to light through the gospel (2 Tim. 1:10); those in Christ will put on immortality (I Cor. 15:54), so that they now partake of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

If human beings don't have immortality until they die in Christ when God grants it to them, then according to the Bible we cease to exist after we die. We are annhihilated, and that's our punishment. And since according to the Bible God is judging us all along the way, there's no need to believe that the figurative pictures of a great white throne judgement are literal events one can expect to experience, either.

First posted 7/14/06

A Corrupt and Scandalous Faith

2009-11-21T09:36:00.001-05:00

By Joe E. Holman

Smith

The year was 1928. The place was Arkansas. Charles Lee Smith, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism was arrested “on charges of blasphemy.” His crime? Passing out atheist tracts in a local town. After spending one night in jail, Smith was released with one charge dismissed while the other was never set for trial. Just like the famous blasphemy trial of C.B. Reynolds decades earlier, Mr. Smith was just one more victim of the American legal system, hijacked by Christianity.

Inoculation

The year was 1722. The date, July 8th. The place, St. Andrew’s Church in London, England. A bold, determined preacher walked up to his pulpit and delivered a heartfelt sermon entitled, “Against the Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation.” The sermon was published and became widely famous. His text, Job 2:7, “So went Satan forth from the presence of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.” His contention, that Job was suffering from Smallpox (the epidemic of the time) and yet he endured it, and therefore, so should Christians the onslaught of Smallpox in his day. The masses took this advice. Smallpox killed and maimed and ravaged hundreds of thousands of people. It spread and spread some more. The new and experimental scientific practice of inoculation was an abomination, which the preachers proclaimed, “usurped God’s providential authority.” This preacher was none other than the Rev. Edmund Massey, who pleaded from the bottom of his heart, along with scores of Catholic and Protestant church leaders everywhere, not to tolerate the “diabolical operation.” God wanted man to suffer for his sins and to endure his punishment, so said University of Cambridge’s, Reverend Ramsden no less vigorously. He and other Bostonians formed the Anti-Vaccination Society in 1798. The result, an incredible death toll among both Catholics and Protestants, particularly the Catholics, some of whom almost came to bloodshed out of the pious desire to trust in God and not let some physicians make the procedure mandatory…

“Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:” (James 5:14)

“And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.” (2 Chron. 16:12)

So there you have it – God does not recommend amoxicillin! It is not hard to see what God wants us to do when we’re sick. Very few dissenting voices expressed themselves, until later when yet a greater number of lives were lost because of this foolish zeal.

Bruno

February 17, 1600. Giordano Bruno, an Italian philosopher, astronomer, ex-priest, and freethinker, was burned at the stake for the crime of heresy. His Copernicanism, Arianism, his contentions that all churches should tolerate their schismatic disagreements, along with his somewhat materialistic beliefs that the universe was infinite and contained many worlds, could not be tolerated. He really crossed the line when he decided Jesus was nothing more than a skillful magician! Talking like that back then would get you killed. Bruno’s defiance and distinct individuality made him seas of enemies. On May 22, 1592, he was arrested, and by January of 1593, his trial, which lasted almost 7 years, began. He was tortured and delivered up to be killed, repudiating images of the cross along the way. Lest any be seduced by his heretical words, a large spike was driven through his jaw, just after proclaiming his last words. He then painfully awaited his silent consummation by fire. Giordano was a man bigger than the time in which he lived. The world was not worthy.

Servetus

The year was 1553. On October 27th, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for the crime of heresy. He committed serious “crimes,” disbelieving in the trinity, dabbling in astrology, and denying the need and validity of the practice of infant baptism. His irate, argumentative tone, much like Bruno, made him plenty of enemies among both Protestants and Catholics. Having been burned in effigy after escaping from Roman authorities in Vienna, he fled to Geneva where he was spotted by reformer, John Calvin, who had vowed to God that the heretic, Servetus, would not leave the city alive! True to Calvin’s vow, it was not the Catholics who killed him, but the Geneva Council, who decided he should meet his maker by way of the flames.

The impenitent, stubborn Servetus soon lost his pride as the slow-burning flames engulfed his body. Blood curdling screams for mercy were rumored to be heard throughout the crowd of onlookers, and thus, ended the legacy of a brilliant mathematician and quite able physician.

Corrupt and scandalous

It does not take Solomonic wisdom to detect my running theme -- that Christianity is an albatross to humankind, this small list being scarcely a microscopic fraction of what could be cited to prove the point. It should be noted that these are modern and not-so-modern examples of Christian oppression. They emanate from Catholic and Protestant groups, and therefore, cannot be so easily wept under the rug of willful ignorance by suggesting that the above examples were merely the result of “false Christianity.” For centuries, believers have been disagreeing with each other, telling each other that they are wrong on this and that, and therein lies the problem when a believer tries to deny that Group X is a “True Christian” group, but not Group Y. The dispute on what constitutes “genuine” Christianity is as unsolvable a puzzle as partisan politics.

Christianity is not a religion of progress, nor is it a religion of open-mindedness. It does not tolerate, nor appreciate free inquiry. It condemns it outright (I Timothy 6:20-21). It sets up the classic clergy-laity system by setting up few as teachers (See James 3:1) and the rest as dumbbells, members who sit like wooden Indians and take in what their spiritual leaders tell them. Like the ancient mystery cults, which were so common in New Testament times and before, Christianity claims infallibility and thereby vilifies everyone and every school of thought to disagree with it…

“If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” (I Cor. 16:22)

“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:10-11)

Without the aide of an evolving, progressive culture, Christianity would still have us in the dark ages, prattling off the pious nonsense of Tertullian…

“The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert-that is, death-even the Son of God had to die.”
- Tertullian, “On Women and Fallen Angels,” Book I

Without the aide of an evolving, progressive culture, Christianity would still have us forbidding surgery lest we defile a dead body and dishonor God. Mankind would have no doubt progressed medically beyond where we are today had we had access to biological experimentation 700 years ago. But in exchange for life-saving medical advances, we are given the sanctified decisions of church councils. In 1299 A.D., Pope Boniface VIII issued a papal bull that decreed the penalties for anyone with the ungodly gall to dissect a corpse -- excommunication and possible imprisonment. The hurt that this has done to the fields of anatomy and biology is quite incalculable, but I’m sure Boniface felt more than justified in this move and even felt he could support it with the Bible…

“Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime:” (Amos 2:1)

Christianity produces intolerance and suspicion and a dreaded, undying fear of change. As we have seen, it opposes science, it opposes medicine, it opposes logic, and even common sense. It makes man’s way difficult, burdened down with needless concerns and worries. It lays at the feet of society an alarmist mentality of spotting trouble where there is none and always being ready to reject sensible solutions to problems. These handful of examples, if nothing else, show us that when mankind is morally motivated and indoctrinated by a religion that claims to be “infallible truth,” the tendency to bind those “truths” on others always ends up being hurtful.

I find it interesting how Christians will so readily site Newton and Galileo as examples of Christians demonstrating scientific refinement, and then silently gloss over the long, cold, dark years of bibles being chained to pulpits, women being forced into convents, the mentally ill being locked up and tortured for fear of their being possessed, and forbidding marriages in local towns because of expressed defiance from the common people. The Church expressed her complete contentment with the “Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water” theory of elements as taught by the ancient Greeks, until the likes of Priestly and Scheele came along and set us straight on the matter with the groundbreaking discovery of oxygen. Christians are every bit as capable of anything everyone else is, but my question is, if Christianity promotes science and free inquiry, why did it take Christianity many centuries to produce only a handful of great thinkers? The answer is, it didn’t. Christianity has never directly produced a single freethinker. Mankind was finally breaking away from the stranglehold that the infamously oppressive Catholic Church had on the world, and with that came flourishing minds who could begin to experiment and question and think on their own without fear of the guillotine (or as much fear of it, at least). As the Church began to lose grip of the world, slowly but surely, objective learning could once again be exercised. Christianity remained, by far, the most dominant religion throughout Europe, so it would be a shock if at least some scientists and thinkers were not of the Christian Faith. But those good scientific minds were scientists and Christians – they were not scientists because they were Christians. We cannot give credit where credit is not due.

Christianity, unleashed on the world, has done many terrible things throughout the ages, far outweighing any good it managed to accomplish. Only when faith in the church’s infallible dogmas began to decline did we see increases in liberty. Today, the church contains only a glimmer of her former, snarling, mad dog image. To make better inroads infiltrating societies, she now uses the stealth approach.

This, however, is the freethinker’s perspective. It is not the believer’s perspective. The proud, white, middle-class, Protestant of today is utterly perplexed at how the freethought movement could dare suggest that Christianity is a vice against humanity. They live in their own Christianized world and attribute every little semblance of pleasantness and decency to their God. Christianity takes credit for everything even remotely good and runs away, like a caught-cheating husband, from any hint of bad publicity. As Woolsey Teller so eloquently put it…

“But leave it to Christianity to bedeck itself in stolen plumage. After blocking the cultural progress of the world for hundreds of years, it now poses as the champion of civilization, when, in plain truth, its behavior has been like that of the chameleon, changing colors and blending with the background whenever it is expedient. Let a people gather a few crumbs of culture in spite of Christianity and Christianity will claim the credit.

Christianity upheld slavery for over a thousand years, yet no sooner was emancipation achieved than it posed as "the black man's friend". It spat on woman suffrage, then, when woman's rights were won, it posed as the "liberator" of women. It fought tooth and nail the doctrine of evolution, but now assures us (from "liberal" pulpits, at least) that there never was any "real" conflict between science and religion. It opposed anesthesia in child-birth; it now proclaims it as God's "gift" to womankind. Before the war, it worshiped "the Prince of Peace"; it is now singing the song, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.”
- Woolsey Teller, Essays of an Atheist, “Chameleonic Christianity.”

This is why Christianity stands condemned in the council of freethinking humanity as a mischievous trespasser, a migrant troublemaker, stirring up ruckus and unrest everywhere she goes. With useless regulations and hindrances, it does nothing but crush the life out of an observant, budding, and experimental society. Like a cruel, dry, second grade teacher who berates her students for innocently choosing to color and doodle outside of the lines, Christianity is a detriment to the progress of any society. Christianity operates by manipulation, befriending the mighty, seizing their power, and when finished using them, casting them out like spoiled goods. Just like a crooked, but sharply-dressed, well-poised politician, Christianity vainly points to a bright, appealing future, replete with promises of a Utopian tomorrow, while cleverly maneuvering their believers to keep from noticing the plentitude of horrendous injustices, allegations, and scandals of the past.

First posted 3/6/06

The Beauty of God's Design?

2009-11-20T14:45:00.001-05:00

Nature is red in tooth and claw. This is best explained by natural selection. If a good God exists then why didn't he create all animals as vegetarians?

First posted on 9/2/07

WWJD?

2009-11-20T09:24:00.001-05:00

Christians claim that God is the basis of morality which we should exemplify. Jesus taught that we should be perfect as God is perfect. The early Christians argued that we should be holy as God is holy. It is straightforward that we should look to God, and what He does, and mimic it as exactly as possible.

However, Jesus further taught that we must love our enemies and forgive them. Jesus wouldn’t command a moral that God doesn’t ascribe to, would he? Give humans a higher calling, a greater duty than God Himself?

If we are to love and forgive our enemies, why can’t God love and forgive His enemies?

Since I am posting on a blog entitled “debunking Christianity” I thought it only fitting to figure out exactly what it is I am supposed to be debunking. What is this thing called “Christianity”? As we all know, there is no set and steady definition, by which we can say with bright line precision –“this is Christian and this is not.”

Some claim following the Nicene Creed is necessary to be a Christians. Some Protestants say Catholics are not “Christian.” The Mormons continually are rejected “Christian” status by both Protestants and Catholics. Christian Science adherents attempted to upstage everybody by putting it right in their name, yet still are assured by many camps they are truly not “Christian.”

I even have seen atheists claim that, by certain definitions, they are “Christians.” In reviewing all of these claims, the one base-line definition in which everyone seems to concur, is that it means to do the things that Christ taught. If you aren’t doing that, then regardless of race, religion or creed, you are not being “Christian.”

Obviously the place to look, then, is at Christ’s teaching. One of the stalwart principles, the very reason Christians claim the superiority of Jesus’ words, is the concept of Love. And what does He say about that?

“…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you,…” Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27-28.

Jesus even points out that it is not to one’s credit to simply love those that love you. Even the pagans and sinners can do that. The identifying mark, the uniqueness of the Christian experience is the ability to love one’s enemies.

“But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. “ Luke 6:32-33
“For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” Matt. 5:46

The Bible is replete with the claim that this type of demonstration of love is the defining characteristic of a person that is to be Christ-like. A Christian.

“All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another.” John 13:35
“We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar and the truth is not in him.” 1 John 2:3-4
“And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. Those how obey his commands live in him, and he in them.” 1 John 3:23
“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:7-8.

So far, simple enough. Jesus defines morality. Jesus tells us the moral code. “Love your enemies.” Having been informed by many theists that I am now an “enemy” of Jesus, I rest easy in the fact that He loves me, right? Unfortunately, this moral code of “loving one’s enemy” does not apply to Jesus Himself.

At the end of the Luke passage regarding love, Jesus states, “Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.” (Luke 6:36) O.K. How is God merciful? He has mercy on whom he has mercy, and does not on those he does not. (Rom. 9:15-18) It would seem, that in copying God’s morals on mercy, the Christian can be merciful as those they want to be merciful, and not on those they choose to not.

All of a sudden, I am not so certain I like this “Christ-likeness.” It seems to have an ugly side to it. Jesus says, that it is to human’s credit to love those that persecute them, but when it comes to God, “He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink…” Matt. 25:41-42. It would seem we have a double-standard. Humans have to love those that persecute them. God does not. But if a human chooses to act like Christ, who was God, they are off the hook. No more loving those that persecute them.

Why are humans held to a higher standard than God, do you think? We have to exhibit more love than He can!

Now, Jesus said He is kind to the unthankful and evil, right? Luke 6:35. What does this kindness look like? Take a trip in the time machine, back to Moses’ day. Let’s observe the kindness Jesus shows to the unthankful and evil, shall we?

Numbers 31. The Midianites. “Kill every man, no matter what the age from 1 day to 100 years old. Kill every mother. Kill every widow. Keep all the virgin females to be your forced wives, as booty for the war.” I hope every moral barometer just blew off the charts.

Jesus is saying that the Hebrews, in exhibiting God’s love, had a right to kill and take virgins as wives (perhaps second or third wife at that). This is kindness to evil? (Assuming they even were evil) I would hate to see unkindness!

But imagine Jesus. Use the artist’s imagery, or your own. Picture his face, his eyes, his mouth, his chin. Place him in Jewish clothing. Now put him at the scene of Numbers 31.

He looks to his right. There a woman is running from a soldier, clutching her 2-year old boy to her chest, attempting to get away. Another soldier pushes her to the ground. She covers her baby boy. Pagan, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, it doesn’t matter. A mother will protect her child. She doesn’t care about rituals, or religions, or war. She doesn’t even care about dying. Just that her child will live.

The soldier thrusts his sword through her back into the boy. Killing a human outright is surprisingly difficult. Most would die from mortally inflicted wounds. The mother would pull away her son, who is screaming in pain and fear, and will watch him slowly die, while her own innards are sprayed upon his face. And Jesus watches this.

This is a bad situation. Christians need to read their tales as they are written. Not pretty them up with flannel graphs and pictures of bloodless swords and string and glue. Before imposing their moral system on others, they should take a good long hard look at their own.

Jesus looks to the left. A soldier has just killed a young man, and, expecting the same, his twelve-year old sister crouches next to the twitching body. The soldier shoves his bloody hand between the girl’s legs. (How do you think they determined who was a virgin or not?) His hand leaves a bloody mark. He pushes her over to a group of girls huddled and crying together. They have watched, and are watching their mothers, cousins and brothers die—screaming in pain. Her thighs slowly stick together with the coagulating blood of her brother. And Jesus looks on.

Jesus looks straight ahead. A group of soldiers is worn out from the killing. Both arms are covered in blood, as they have had to switch the sword from arm to arm, due to fatigue. They can hardly stand, due to the slippery blood. Waiting to recuperate, they gather in a circle around a few boys who are standing among their dead friends. Rather than wade in and kill them, while resting they wait. If a boy attempts to escape, the soldier would have to lift his weary arm and knock him down.

What look do you imagine on Jesus’ face? Even assuming there was some bizarre moral necessity that warranted the love exhibited by the killing of baby boys (they are explicitly mentioned!) so that the men could take virgin females as wives, do you think Jesus would have compassion on this horrible situation? Let’s see what Jesus does, shall we? “Count up the plunder, and make sure I get my share.” (vs. 26-28) THAT is what “kindness to unthankful and evil” consists of. THAT is what “being merciful as God is merciful” looks like. Jesus is mercifully relieving the bodies of their Gold, and the fathers of their virgin daughters.

It is at this moment that I breathe a sign of relief. Thank goodness Christians feel bound by what Jesus says! Otherwise, I could see the thought process of:

1. God loves His enemies.
2. God kills His enemies, takes their virgin daughters and their gold.
3. I must love as God loves.
4. You are my enemy.
5. *shudder*

My only hope is that these few words (not Jesus’ actions) keep them in check!

Why can’t God forgive his enemies? Shoot, I am not even trying to be an enemy of God. The evidence is overwhelming He does not exist, let alone be his enemy. We could equally say I am an enemy of Superman, or leprechauns.

Because of my occupation, I am often informed (and was on my initial blog here) about how I will or will not be able to argue my case before Jesus on Judgment day. This will certainly be an area that comes up:

“I looked for you. I searched history, philosophy, archeology, texts, articles, books, lectures, Sacred writings and even debated with any theist that would have me. As you can clearly see, I did not find you. I do not hate you (although some of your followers are pretty scary) I do not loathe you. I assumed, since you did not exist, that humans blamed their desire for virgins and gold on you.

“But now that I am here, apparently you will consider me an enemy. Then what was all that language about “loving your enemies”? Does that not apply to you as well? What about being merciful? Was that simply a ruse? The time on “debunkingchristianity”? Is making your followers think qualify as “persecution”? Then why create us with brains?

“I see you are hell-bent on not forgiving, not loving, and imposing impossible standards on persons you consider your enemies. Fine. Just remember, that, as humans, we did a better job of loving than you can. We can follow your morals better than you.”

When people tell me they find Christianity compelling because of what Jesus said and did—I look to what Jesus said and did. And safely say that I am not a Christian. Not even in being Christ-like.

First posted on 3/16/06

The Soul--A Rational Belief?

2009-11-19T20:07:00.001-05:00

Because this blog attracts readers of varying philosophical experience, I have chosen to summarize some of the philosophical concepts involved in the discussion of the mind rather than assume the reader's knowledge of them. More versed readers will forgive the often hasty generalizations of complex ideas (especially the many ideas regarding the philosophy of the mind).

Most Christians (and many other theists) believe in a dualistic human nature--i.e. that humans are both physical and spiritual beings. In this view, there is a brain and a spiritual consciousness. It is thought that the spiritual consciousness determines a person's identity, personality, and behavior. Many theists believe this spiritual consciousness can live on after the brain and physical body of a human is destroyed. They are committed to the idea that the brain and a spiritual consciousness are independent, yet somehow linked.

In this post, I will argue against the plausibility of a spiritual human consciousness separate from the human brain. I will argue that the brain alone is responsible for a person's identity, personality, and behavior. After constructing a few informal philosophical arguments that rely on what I will refer to as "brain-dependence"(hereafter, BD) and conclude that the existence of a spiritual consciousness separate from the brain is implausible, I will describe and give examples for BD.

From the evidence listed below, it seems indisputable that the human brain is, at least, partially responsible for a person's identity, personality, and behavior (traits traditionally ascribed to a spiritual human consciousness). If a theist agrees that the brain can affect a person's identity, personality, and behavior, they must either concede that the brain can exercise control over a person's supposed spiritual consciousness or they must believe that the spiritual consciousness can exercise control over a person but that the brain cannot affect it in any way. Both are problematic for theists who believe in a spiritual consciousness.

If the brain is clearly and demonstrably responsible for some aspects of a person's identity, personality, and behavior, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that the brain is responsible for all aspects of a person's identity, personality, and behavior. In fact, it seems as if the notion of a spiritual consciousness is completely superfluous. If human identity, personality, and behavior can be determined by the brain it seems that this is the most natural explanation of human (non-spiritual consciousness). Any further additions would seem to violate Ockham's razor--the principle that one should not multiply explanations when a simple one answers the question (e.g. If I saw a George Washington standing over a freshly-cut cherry tree with an axe, it would be illogical for me to argue that aliens flew down and knocked the tree over with their laser blaster. The simplest explanation is that GW chopped the tree down. In the same way, if the brain can be responsible for a person's identity, personality, and behavior, there is no reason to posit some kind of spiritual consciousness).

If, instead, a theist asserts the transcendence of the spiritual consciousness so that it cannot be affected by the brain, many questions follow. The brain, for instance, limits learning. If a spiritual consciousness is not limited by the brain, then everything that consciousness experiences, it must retain. Every spiritual consciousness is a little Einstein, smarter even. Not only would every spiritual consciousness retain every memory and piece of information it was ever exposed to, it would also be free from the reasoning limitations of the brain. It would take all of the available information and put them together perfectly.

But if this is the aspect of a person's self that lives on, can one really argue that she will survive her death? The spiritual consciousness is not at all like the consciousness that a person is aware of after the brain has limited it. It is smarter, more well-reasoned, has more memories, and doesn't even share the same body as the one a person has been aware of. The person emerging from death wouldn't be anything like who they were in life. That person would have truly died and a new entity (an unlimited spiritual consciousness) would live on.

BD states that there is an inextricable link between the human brain and human consciousness. It has been shown that altering part of the brain alters certain states of consciousness and that the destruction of parts of the brain destroys certain states of consciousness. Furthermore, it has been empirically verified that every thought corresponds to an occurrence in the brain. Steven Pinker, a psycholinguist, says, "We know that every form of mental activity -- every emotion, every thought, every percept -- gives off electrical, magnetic, or metabolic signals that can be recorded with increasing precision by Positron Emission Tomography, functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Magnetoencephalography, and other techniques." Adam Marczyk writes, "there is no aspect of the mind that does not correspond to any area of the brain."

There are many examples of how human consciousness is affected by brain injury (I am indebted to Adam Marczyk's article "A Ghost in the Machine" for most of the specific examples). I may have gone a little overboard with the actual cases (I thought they were interesting), so if you want to read a couple

Anterograde amnesia is the inability to form new memories (if you are familiar with the movie, Momento, the main character has this disorder). Conifer writes, "Dr. Kenneth Heilman tells us of a patient named Flora Pape whose left and right fornices [the area of the brain responsible for memory] both had to be excised to save her from a life-threatening brain tumor. Mrs. Pape had lived in east Kentucky all of her life, until she and her husband both moved to Jacksonville, Florida, two years before her surgery. At the time of her surgery, she had two sons in their 20s, both of whom still lived in Kentucky." Heilman recounts what took place after leaving the hospital:

When she was discharged from the hospital, her husband drove her from Gainesville to their home in Jacksonville. After leaving Gainesville, her husband noticed that she was looking out the window and saying, "Oh, my!" He asked what was troubling her and she said, "What happened to the mountains?"
He asked, "What mountains?"
She replied, "You know, the mountains."
He said, "There are no mountains here."
She replied, "No mountains in Kentucky. We must be in the western part of the state. What are we doing here?"
Mr. Pape had been told by [the doctor] that the surgery might make her memory worse, but he was still surprised. "Dear, we are not in Kentucky. We are in Florida."
She asked, "Why are we in Florida?"
He told her that they had moved to Jacksonville about 2 years earlier. She said, "Moved to Jacksonville? Why?" He told her that the company had asked him to transfer. She asked, "Where are we going now?"
"Back to Jacksonville from Gainesville. You had some surgery on your brain. It was a tumor. The doctors think they got it all out. You are having some memory problems, but the surgeons hope it will improve with time."
Then she asked, "Who is watching the boys?"
"No one," he replied. "They are grown and live in Kentucky."
"What do you mean, grown? They are still teenagers."
"No, they are not. They are in their twenties. They are coming down this weekend to see you."
She stopped asking questions for a few minutes and looked out of the car window. Then she turned to her husband and asked, "Where are all the mountains?"

Now, is this wife really the same person she was before the surgery? What does it mean to be you? Are you not a product of your memories? Are you the same person now that you were two years ago?

This also introduces other problems for religious theists. What if this wife had been an atheist two years before the surgery, but had then become a theist (let's say, a Christian theist). After the surgery, however, she only remembers her reasons for not believing in a god. She, now, espouses the strong atheism she held prior to the surgery. Is she or is she not a Christian?

The point is that if there is a spiritual consciousness that exists outside of the brain, why does damage to the brain change a person's identity? A person is a collection of their thoughts and memories (e.g. If I were asked to describe myself, I would talk about what I've experienced, what I think, what I do for a living, etc. All of these descriptions would change if I lost two years of my life like Mrs. Pape).

Some religious theists argue that, perhaps, the soul/consciousness works through the brain and, if the brain is damaged, has trouble expressing its true self. A disorder known as callosal disconnection raises some interesting questions about this theory.

The right and left hemispheres of the brain can be naturally (by a stroke) or surgically disconnected (this is done for patients with severe epilepsy to help with seizures). The hemispheres of the brain lose the ability to communicate with one another. These two hemispheres can gain a consciousness exclusive of one another. An interesting example is of a patient was asked what his ideal profession was. Verbally (a function of the left hemisphere), the man said draftsman. When asked to spell it out using blocks with his left hand (which is controlled by the right hemisphere), the man spelled "automobile race." It seems that, in the same person, there were two consciousnesses--one wanted to be a draftsman, the other a racer.
A more interesting (and, more frightening example) can be seen in alien hand syndrome. One recorded case is about a woman who came to her doctor because, every now and then, her left hand would try to strangle her to death. The doctor checked her for psychiatric disorders, but found no evidence of any. He theorized that if she had experienced a natural callosal disconnection in her brain, her right hemisphere might have suicidal tendencies and might be trying to act out on them (the right hemisphere cannot communicate verbally, and it has been shown that the left hemisphere is responsible for controlling most erratic behaviors). After she died of unrelated causes, the autopsy showed that she had, in fact, experienced a callosal disconnection. Subsequent cases have substantiated alien hand syndrome. (In another case, a man's left hand attacked his wife and he had to use his right hand to stop it.)

How can two consciousnesses (or "souls" for many theists) be explained within the same person? Is there a devil in one hemisphere and an angel in the other? Does the spiritual consciousness of one hemisphere go to heaven and the other to hell (assuming religious traditions believing in reward and punishment)?

Capgras syndrome has the unusual effect of causing a person to suddenly insist that a loved-one is an imposter. When a person meets someone else, they "start a file" on that person. The limbic system of the brain recognizes familiar faces and accesses emotional centers connected with those faces. If the face is that of a loved-one, the limbic system accesses positive emotional centers. If that limbic system is damaged, however, a person will recognize the familiar face, but will not have the same emotional connection with that face. They cannot believe that it is the same person. The brain starts another file for this person who looks like a loved-one but does not have a positive emotion associated with them.

Why can't this person's soul recognize his "soul-mate"? Why doesn't the spiritual consciousness hold on to this?

Phineas Gage had his ventromedial prefrontal cortex blown out in a dynamiting accident. Before the accident, he was a kind-hearted, reasonable, well-liked man. After the accident, though, he became mean-spirited and ill-tempered. The part of his brain that was damaged is the part that is believed to control normal decision-making and social skills.

Anecdotally, my brother-in-law knows a person that demonstrates signs of this syndrome. He knew a Christian man who was a very loving husband and father. After an automobile accident in which he sustained a head injury, he became both verbally and physically abusive to his wife and young children. The doctors and his family blamed the behavior on his head trauma. The injury, however, completely altered his personality. He was a different person after the injury.

Both cases raise difficult questions about the responsibility of any soul in so-called "sinful action." If Gage's spiritual consciousness existed outside of his mind, is that spiritual consciousness morally responsible for his post-trauma behavior? Is the Christian man now in sin because of his actions and his failure to live up to his wedding vows? He promised to love his wife until death, but now he hates her and denies that she is who she is. Further, if sin can be blamed on the brain and not the spiritual consciousness, can it be argued that all sin occurs because of the brain and the spiritual consciousness (if it existed) cannot be held responsible for any action?

Frontotemporal dementia in the right hemisphere of the brain has been shown to affect "food and dress choice, political ideology, social behavior, sexual preference, and [even] religion." Now, if a person is ultimately judged for the religion they choose, what are the ramifications if someone walks away from her religion because of a deterioration of her brain? Isn't this supposed to be a decision made by a person's consciousness/soul? Will they be judged because of a condition of their brain?

A Jesuit priest had a stroke that damaged the right hemisphere of his brain. After the accident, he lost the ability to have intense emotions. He joked when his parents told him that his sister had leukemia and he lost all of his passion for his ministry. His parents complained to the doctor, "That's not the way our son acted before he became sick . . . He now sounds like a robot."

Where is the priests "true self"? What happened to his spiritual consciousness?

"Mary" was a student at an Ivy-league school. During her first two years, she did extremely well. She was a devout Baptist who did not drink or sleep around. During her third year, however, Mary became belligerent to other people, started drinking heavily, and became very sexually active. She could not explain why her behavior had changed so dramatically. An MRI revealed that Mary had a tumor in the frontal lobes of her brain (the area of the brain that controls impulses). Almost immediately after the removal of the tumor, Mary's behavior changed back to what it was before.

Another man was a teacher who suddenly became obsessed with sex with minors. He was convicted on molestation charges. He said that he couldn't understand why he couldn't resist his impulses. An MRI revealed that he, too, had a tumor in the frontal lobes of his brain. After the removal, the man claimed that he no longer had the desire for aberrant sex acts. A few years later, though, the man started having headaches and began buying pornography again. He went to the doctor and an MRI revealed that the tumor had begun growing back.

A hard-working Baptist minister who had refused pay from his church (choosing, rather, to support himself so that the church could direct funds elsewhere) began showing up late for appointments, then skipping them altogether, then doing nothing but sitting in front of the TV even choosing to urinate on himself rather than go to the bathroom. An MRI showed that there was a tumor pressing on his frontal lobes. After the removal of the tumors, he began faithfully working again and living an active life.

If the spiritual consciousness exists, why does a tumor affect a person's identity so much? Who that person is is affected by his or her brain?

In summary, I argued that theists who believe in the existence of a spiritual consciousness face the difficult challenge of making room for it. If they believe agree that the brain can affect identity, personality, and behavior, then, it seems that the brain is the most natural and easiest explanation of all identity, personality and behavior. Adding the concept of a spiritual consciousness violates the principle of Ockham's razor. If, instead, the theist believes that a spiritual consciousness can affect the brain, but cannot be affected by the brain, then the spiritual consciousness would be much different than the consciousness of which the person is aware, and if the spiritual consciousness lived on, it would not be the same person. I, then, attempted to prove BD through case studies that demonstrate that the brain can affect identity, personality, and behavior.

After posting this in my former blog, I got this comment:

I think there are a few areas lacking in your post. First, you don’t address the problem of qualia . . . the fact that I thought that a painting is beautiful cannot be reduced to any physical fact about my brain and central nervous system (also another problem with qualia).

I responded (in part):

For those who have not done much study in the philosophy of the mind, qualia are the subjective experiences of things, the difference between "knowing about" something and "knowing" something. The classical example is of a fictional woman who had never experienced color (only black and white). She studies all about color and knows how they affect the brain, but until she actually sees a color, she does not really "know" it. This sujective knowledge (compared to objective knowledge) is a qualia.

Dualists often argue that this indicates that there is something non-physical in our consciousness, something that is beyond the brain. Two additional medical cases (also from ) may be relevent to this "problem":

Pain asymbolia occurs through brain damage and causes patients to lose all subjective responses (but not physical perceptions) of phenomena. The patient will know the difference between hot and cold, but will no longer have any subjective response to it. After having nerves in the brain surgically severed because of chronic, intense pain, one patient commented, "The pain is the same, but I feel much better now." The patient's subjective experience of pain was altered physically by a procedure on the brain.

Synesthesia is a condition that mixes the subjective experiences people have of things. One woman can actually taste different musical tones. Not only does she hear them, she also tastes them. She can distinguish between tones by taste.

Both of these examples show that there is a physical basis for qualia. Adding a spiritual consciousness is, again, multiplying necessities.

. . . [On beauty]

I have a friend who had a neurological condition that changed her tastes. Things that she enjoyed eating before, tasted terrible to her after. It certainly seems that the fact that she thought something tasted good could "be reduced to any physical fact about [her] brain and central nervous system."

I also think this is covered in my discussion of Capgras syndrome. This is the condition that causes people not to have the same emotional responses to familiar faces.

In Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works he discusses how art "tickles" parts of the brain so that the person enjoys them. Also, beauty can rely heavily on the senses (e.g. a person can have a poor olafactory response to say, wine, and not be able to distinguish between certain tastes that someone with a greater sense).

First posted 3/20/06

Question: Does Religiosity Correlate Strongly to Charity?

2009-11-19T07:42:00.001-05:00

Kaffinator gave us two questions in the comments section, which I am dealing with separately. One deals with health and religion, while the other deals with charity and religion.

Question 2:

Mr. Atheist, if you had your wish and all of the Christians in the United States suddenly joined you, the result would be that many charities would starve for funds. Other charities, schools, local governments, and other volunteer-based organizations would suffer as well...

So here is my question. What kind of warped morality would wish this upon a nation?

Again, we ought to examine Kaffinator's premise for veracity before accepting his conclusion.

"The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)." [link]

First, in Brooks' work, he goes off on a tangent concerning what we are discussing here: Democrats and Republicans, Left and Right, and correlating those with "secular and religious". So it is a little difficult here to separate the various secularists from the various religionists, and that makes this source artice a little ambiguous. I mean, Buddhists may be either "secularists" or "religionists", depending on criteria, which Brooks does not clearly delineate overall. Each of the studies he cites use slightly different definitions and self-identification criteria to distinguish the groups.

Now, it has been amply demonstrated that aside from church attendance, factors like prayer and belief in God do not fall along "party lines". See here for more. The author wrongly conflates politics with religion, a fairly egregious intellectual error, especially considering the shifts of religious identification within parties over the decades, but let's stick to the topic...

That said, let's just consider Brooks' work as Kaff, and others, probably want it to be, and let "religious / people of faith" = Christian and "secular" = atheists. I will freely say at the outset that I find myself agreeing that persons of faith tend to be more charitable than those without, as a simple measure of reported giving of income to general non-profits, including, especially, their church. However, and I think this is important, how much of the money given to the average church goes for a charitable work?

Let us think for a moment about charity in effect versus charity in intent.

For instance, the fiercely secular AmeriCares reports that 99% of its income go to its programs! In fact, a secular organization I belong to, CFI, links to this charity for hurricane relief. Those who give $1 will see $0.99 go to help people there. On the other hand, the Red Cross, which is also secular, only sees $0.95 of every $1 go to the people, and there have been many accusations of corruption there. Furthermore, the CEO of the Red Cross pulls down $600K, which is a ridiculous salary for a charity admin. Given this information, I would much rather give to the Salvation Army before the Red Cross, and I could care the less that they are spreading what I consider to be a false message along with their help [although Charity Nav doesn't have data on them, since they don't have to file a 990], and to the AmeriCares organization before either one of them.

In this sense, we need to think about what you really want to do -- just evaluate people's giving, or evaluate the effect of that charity. I don't think you'd cry your eyes dry if corrupt and inefficient charities were bumped out and replaced by or subsumed by those of integrity and efficacy, secular or religious, would you? If you care about people, you wouldn't. If all you care about are the actions done [charity] and not what faith [or lack thereof] the acting parties maintain. So, at the outset, I would like a little clarity in your question -- do you want to ask us atheists what would happen if everyone became atheists, insofar as clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, giving medical care to the sick, etc., are concerned, or insofar as churches are concerned? Because we will need to define "charity" and think about how churches relate to charity.

Now, in the case of the average church, the church maintains land, a building, insurance, a staff (sometimes a large staff as a ratio of parishoners), vehicles, and all the overhead associated with all of those things. In that sense, a realtively HUGE portion of every $1 given as a "tithe" goes to do nothing but serve "the church" and not someone in need. Let's be honest, here, most Christian giving is in tithes to their own church -- 10% of their income, according to the OT. If we want to look at how much that 10% can be considered charity, I would love to consider the argument anew. In fact, let's think about this for a moment -- every church in america shuts down tomorrow, every mosque, every house of worship of any kind. Now, suddenly, 10% of the income of 80-90% of the population (yes, I know this is estimating, but the gist remains) is free and available to be given to organizations which do nothing but feed the poor, clothe the naked, and bind up the wounds of the sick.

Hmmmm...this issue is a little more complicated than you want to make it out to be, isn't it?

So, let's look at what your study says about non-religious causes:
Religious people are more generous than secular people with non-religious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to non-religious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent).

Now this is impressive, but for a totally different reason:
While Christians [and others] have a commandment from God to give, and fear of hell, and hope of heaven, to motivate them, a mere 10% difference is observed in what we can objectively call "pure charity work" insofar as money is concerned, and a slightly more substantial 21% in volunteering. Would you wave this as a banner of triumph for your religion? Pretty shoddy statistics to soapbox from, especially considering the organizational factor behind churches, etc., and that the prevalence of stay-at-home-moms among religionists is much higher than secularists, and thus more available volunteers to pool from, etc. Now, I won't defend those of us who are irreligious and have no empathy, nor rational self-interest extrapolated to altruism, as I believe it logically does. Those people who do not care for their fellow human beings, religious or nonreligious, are a blight to those of us who do, and those of us who will take care of these apathists through our giving and volunteering at some point in the future.

Back to the question at hand, though -- if all the churches in the country shut their doors tomorrow, would private schools and "pure charities" really suffer? Those people who already demonstrate their willingness to give without religious motivation would continue to do so, and it is logical to infer that those who are currently religious would follow the trend observed once the churches shut their doors -- that a sizable chunk of them would continue to give, if not nearly all of them. In fact, the sudden effluence of wealth created by the shutting of church doors would be available to do "pure charity work" = feeding, clothing, medical care, etc., with no "strings attached".

So, your burden is, at this point, to rationalize how any people would actually suffer a loss of food, clothes, or medical care if all churches were shut down tomorrow, and to consider your own question carefully, and perhaps to rephrase it to be more specific. Atheists and other secularists really have an onus to do a better job in organizing and making a public spectacle of their giving, to "rally the troops", and to continue to maintain the moral high ground that we have: when we do good, it is unquestionably and unequivocally because we care, have compassion for, and empathy for, our fellow human beings, and not for hope of reward [heaven], fear of punishment [hell], or the prodding and guilt trip of a pastor.

Thus the issue is not as clear-cut as you would have it, and I will concede that secularists/atheists need to do a better job of promoting naturally-grounded ethics and morality and charity [humanists do a pretty good job here, but we need a broader front]. So do some more research and thinking, and please reformulate your question to consider the effects of charity, versus the facade of charity [church/tithing].

A compilation of articles and books on giving and faith:
Faith and Philanthropy
Two really good resources for those interested in the topic of charitable efficacy:
Charity Navigator
Charity Watch

The latter resource is most useful only if you are a member, write off and send $3 for a written report, or if you just want the top-rated charities. The reason is that they don't report this information freely on their website for every charity they research.

In my agreement with you about the general trend of charity and faith going hand-in-hand, you ought to read this article by an atheist who praises Christians for their charity work.

First posted on 4/23/06

The Goal of My Book Was to Overwhelm the Believer

2009-11-18T23:59:00.000-05:00

A few Christians and skeptics have criticized my book because in it I quote from many different sources to make my points for me. Let me explain why I did this and see if it makes sense.

My goal was to overwhelm the believer. I learned this from my mentor James Strauss at Lincoln Christian University, Lincoln, IL. He did this to his Seminary students. The syllabi he handed out for each one of his classes were sometimes books in and of themselves. They included extensive bibliographies. Sometimes they were annotated bibliographies. In his classes he was able to remember and refer to these works quite fluently, and he expected us to get many of them for his classes. We were overwhelmed by him and his arguments because of his wide ranging knowledge of the relevant literature.

If one expects to change someone's mind about a whole religious worldview s/he must overwhelm the believer. That is my conclusion, and it comes directly from Strauss, but in reverse, since I'm arguing against what he taught. Nothing short of that will do the trick. Strauss was interested in worldview change and he taught us well by personal example. To change one's worldview means that every key belief must be called into question at the same time, if at all possible.

So I attempted to do this in my book. I presented a whole case, a complete case, a comprehensive case, from start to finish as a former insider to Christianity. I threw everything at the believer plus the kitchen sink. I referred to as many books as I could in it, using the very words of other scholars to argue for me so readers can see for themselves that it's not just me saying these things. I did this over and over and...well you get the point.

With this unique goal of mine I was also able to get together some great recommendations for it which were placed on the back cover and inside front pages. You can read them plus others here. Having multiple recommendations also helps to overwhelm the believer, since if so many people are saying such great things about it, this can challenge anyone who wants to think otherwise.

While the book may be a bit difficult reading because of this, especially some of the first few substantive chapters, what I did can be very effective as a change agent. Again, nothing short of overwhelming the believer has a chance to work in my opinion. This then is the reason for so many references quoted in my book.

Besides, since in order to overwhelm the believer I had to question every key belief of Christianity, my problem was that as a mere mortal I could not have a scholar's grasp on every topic in it. Science is actually my weakest area, especially the creation/evolution debate. So sometimes I merely refer believers to what scholars in their respective fields of research have argued. No one can have a scholars grasp of God and the universe using the disciplines of science, philosophy, theology, ethics, history, the Bible, and apologetics. No one. So I constantly refer my readers to the scholars who argue my case for me.

My goal was to overwhelm the believer in just one thick densely packed comprehensively argued book replete with references for further reading.

Some people understand this. Others don't. Now you know the rest of the story.

I Will Be Debating Dinesh D'Souza

2009-11-18T23:50:00.000-05:00

I have been given a formal invitation to debate Dinesh D'Souza on Feburary 10th at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. It's now official. The topic of the debate is this: Does the God of Christianity Exist? Dinesh will take the affirmative and I the negative. As you'd guess, I'm excited.

A Description of the Problem of Evil

2009-11-18T22:35:00.000-05:00

Victor Reppert offered a great description of the problem of evil Here:

The problem is as old as Socrates’ Euthyphro. If...."good” must mean approximately the same thing when we apply it to God as what it means when we apply it to human beings, then the fact of suffering provides a clear empirical refutation of the existence of a being who is both omnipotent and perfectly good. If on the other hand, we are prepared to give up the idea that “Good” in reference to God means anything like what it means when we refer to humans as good, then the problem of evil can be sidestepped, but any hope of a rational defense of Christianity goes by the boards. - Victor Reppert.

I've already commented on the Euthyphro dilemna Here.

First posted 2/1/06

Why Are There So Many Disputes Between Bible Believers?

2009-11-18T18:48:00.000-05:00

I want to highlight the problem of the huge differences between Evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is God's Word [The question concerning who or what is an Evangelical is vague, even though they have convened lectureships to help decide who or what is one]. I mean, come on, here are Christian people who claim to believe the Bible is divine guidance for all of life, ethics, and salvation. They claim atheists do not have such a standard and that theirs is firm as a rock. With such a standard you’d actually think that Christians all over the world would see things fairly uniformly, whether it’s the Russian Orthodox Church, or the Black Southern Churches; whether it’s the Lutheran Church of Germany, or Roman Catholics of Italy; whether it’s the Episcopal Church in England, or the Amish in Northern Indiana. There are Methodists, Disciples of Christ/Church of Christ Churches, Reformed Churches, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Assemblies of God, and a host of smaller groups including many groups that some others would call cults, like the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Moonies.

But let me just stick to Evangelical Christianity here in America. After all, they claim to believe in the inspired, infallible and even inerrant Word of God, and they live in the same country. How goes the unity that Jesus prayed for them (John 17:21), or that Paul demanded (I Corinthians 1:10)?

There are several major dividing denominational issues, which cause splits in the local churches. Some of these issues include, the role of women in the church, the nature of charismatic gifts, the nature of the Bible, the issue of soteriology and sanctification, Calvinistic predestination/election, eschatology, church polity, and of course many ethical, political and social issues, like the war in Iraq, capital punishment, the separation of church and state, euthanasia, and even abortion and cloning. So what do you make of this phenomena among Evangelicals who have the only sure revelation from God? What's wrong with this picture?

How can the Christian explain this situation, since he or she believes in the Holy Spirit's guidance? Where's that guidance?

First posted 2/13/06

The Flood Story of Genesis 6-9

2009-11-17T23:49:00.001-05:00

Commenting on my previous post, Mark Plus claims that a universal Flood "couldn't have happened for so many reasons that I don't know where to start." I agree. Let's start with the story itself.

The first thing to notice in the story is that there is a great deal of repetition. We are told that Noah is commanded by God to make an ark, load it with food and animals, and then board it. Afterward it says Noah “did everything just as God had commanded him.” (6:14-22). But after doing all of this once, God repeats similar instructions to Noah, and once again it says Noah “did all that the Lord had commanded him.” (7:1-5). Did Noah make two arks and board them twice? But we’re not done yet. It goes on to say Noah and his family boarded the ark again (7:7-9), and again (7:13-16).

There are also discrepancies in these chapters. In 6:14-22 God is referred to as “Elohim”, and only one pair of each species of animal was put in the ark, whereas in 7:1-5 the word for God is “Yahweh” and Noah is told to put in the ark seven pairs of clean animals and one pair of unclean animals. There are also discrepancies with how long the flood lasted: 40 days (7:17), 150 days (7:24), or one year (compare 7:11 with 8:13)?

Biblical scholars now see the way the flood is presented here as reflecting two ancient sources that were combined into one account. This was done by “following a very conservative principle of keeping virtually everything from both sources, even though that produced considerable repetition” and, I might add, discrepancies. Donald Gowan, From Eden to Babel: Genesis 1-11 (Eerdmans, 1988, p. 89).

The closest stories we find to the flood story in the Bible are from Mesopotamia: the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Atrahasis. According to Gordon J. Wenham the Epic of Gilgamesh was written about 1600 B.C. and it “may be based on the flood story told in Atrahasis.” These stories have several striking similarities, including a flood hero, an ark, a universal worldwide flood because of man’s disobedience, and even a dove! [See “Ancient Parallels to the Flood Story,” in Gordon Wenham’s book, Genesis 1-15 (Word, 1987, pp. 159-166). “These texts are evidence for the transmission of a very popular story from century to century and from people to people; among the recipients of this tradition were the Greeks and the Hebrews.” (Gowan, p. 91).

If this is the case, then the flood story in the Bible is taken and reshaped to fit the purposes of the final editor of Genesis 1-11. And if we consider prior sources to be the more authentic sources (and historical scholars consider this to be the case in every other historical investigation), then the true account of the flood (if there is one, and it reflects something that historically happened) is to be found in Atrahasis along with the Epic of Gilgamesh! Genesis 6-9 is very late and therefore unreliable, historical analysis would reveal. Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh would be our primary sources for information about a great universal flood that covered the whole world. And in them neither a person named Noah, nor a God named “Yaweh,” are to be found!

How much of the flood story that we find in the Bible can be regarded as historical, if it is based upon ancient superstitious polytheistic folk-tales which were handed down throughout the centuries?—tales which have been told by almost every ancient culture except most of Africa, and in central and eastern Asia? [To read 97 pages of summaries of these tales see Sir James G. Frazer’s book, Folklore in the Old Testament]. Textual analysis cannot really lead us to think all of these tales speak of the same event. Rather, these tales are told based upon local devastating floods (notice the absence of Egypt!) which most ancient cultures believed were sent by the gods to punish people for their disobedience. We now know why floods take place, and it isn’t because of our sins, but because of atmospheric, and oceanic conditions.

Problems Connected to the Flood Story. Bernard Ramm’s critical analysis of a universal flood (while dated a half century ago) is still one of the best summations of the evidence. [See Bernard Ramm’s book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Eerdmans, 1954, pp. 163-169). 1) “There is no known geological data to support those who defend a universal flood.”

Gowan sums up the available evidence with these words: “Not only have all archeological excavations failed to uncover any such evidence (for a universal flood), the record of the earth’s history discovered by geology virtually rules out the possibility that anything of that sort has ever happened.” (p. 89). [There is a recent discovery by Robert Ballard that the Black Sea shoreline increased by 60,000 square miles around 7,500 years ago. But he admits this could have been the result of an earthquake, a massive storm, or perhaps the sheer weight of the ocean waters, none of which demands a worldwide flood (See U.S. News & World Report “Mysteries of the Bible," November 2004)].

2) “The problems in connection with a universal flood are enormous.” a) “It would have required eight times more water than we now have.” b) The mixing of salt water and fresh water along with the pressure of the waters would have been devastating to marine life. Fresh-water fish would die in salt water and salt-water fish would die in fresh water. The pressure of the water six miles high (to cover the Himalayas) would crush to death the vast bulk of marine life that lives within the first fifty fathoms in the water. c) Getting rid of such a vast amount of water would be impossible—think of it! d) “The astronomical disturbances caused by the increase of the mass of the earth would have been significant.” e) There are improbabilities with regard to the animals involved. How did Noah get them all into the ark? Bringing them from all four corners of the globe would take considerable time. How did they get along in the ark? Some are carnivorous and would be prone to eating the other animals, while others would have vegetarian diets. Where did the food come from to feed all of these animals from around the world? How could a few people care for them all in the ark? Some animals need a moist climate, and others a dry one; some need it very cold, while others need it warm. f) After the flood how did these animals all migrate back to their original lands, like the kangaroo, from Australia?

There was no universal flood to discount the geological evidence that leads scientists to believe the earth is billions of years old. According to the Anchor Bible Dictionary, “Scholars are agreed that archaeological evidence for a universal flood in the historical past is wanting.”

First posted 2/8/06

Miracles, a Double Burden of Proof, and Control Beliefs.

2009-11-17T19:23:00.001-05:00

When it comes to believing in miracles, Christians have a double burden of proof. On the one hand, they must show that a particular “event” was not very likely. Hume goes so far as to say that a miracle is a “violation of a natural law.” But the point is that the more unlikely an event is by the standards of natural law, the more its occurrence can be understood as a miracle. Who, for instance, would claim that a blooming flower is a miracle, or a thunderstorm, or even the birth of a baby?

Dennis Weaver narrated a video series called “Mysteries of the Ancient World,” which tried to show how it would’ve been possible for several Biblical “miracles” to occur. But in explaining how these “miracles” happened, they were explained away as chance events, not miraculous ones. For instance, by showing how it may have been possible for three of Daniel’s friends to have been placed in an upper “cooling” chamber of Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, then there is no longer a miracle!

On the other hand, Christians must show that the purported miraculous event happened. And yet, everything they say to establish the first burden of proof takes away the strength of the second burden of proof. That is, the more they argue that an event was miraculous, the less likely such an event occurred. But the more they argue that an event was likely to have occurred, then the less likely that event can be understood as miraculous.

The only way people judge whether or not a miracle occurred is whether or not it fits within their control beliefs (i.e., which God he believes in and was taught to believe). One cannot start with the evidence for a miracle to show that the Christian God exists, simply because a person must already believe it’s plausible for the Christian God to exist in the first place (unless it’s a case of accepting what someone says because that person is believable). Otherwise, the evidence isn’t evidence for anything, much like how the evidence in a criminal trial isn't evidence of anything since the prosecutor and defense attorney will have two different ways of seeing that evidence based in separate control beliefs. And yet, how is it possible to believe in the Christian God in the first place without the cold hard evidence that will lead him to believe? The explanation of a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit doesn’t solve anything.

The Christian believes and defends the Christian miracles. He rejects other miracles; those that don’t align themselves with his control beliefs. Even among Christians themselves they disagree. Do Protestants accept the Virgin Mary sightings in Fatima, Portugal, 1917? No. Why? Because they don’t think Mary is everything that Catholics say she is.

Our control beliefs dictate what we will be skeptical about. And 99% of the time the control beliefs we have are caught not taught; they are socially assumed not individually chosen ones. Why else would there be the battle fought in our school systems over the hearts and minds of our children? For the overwhelming majority of people, the first believably sounding person to teach a young person what to believe will have that child believing in that idea.

This is why I have proposed the outsider test.

First posted on March '06

Artistic and Humorous Attacks on Christianity

2009-11-16T19:30:00.001-05:00

I recently argued that Calvinism is Bullshit, which has gained some attention on the web. This reminded me of several other links to creative attacks on Christianity that I've seen.

1) George Carlin: Religion is Bullshit.

2) Song: The Bible is Bullshit.

3) Penn & Teller: Bible - Bullshit.

4) Penn & Teller: Creationism - Bullshit.

Other attacks:

5) Song: Dear God. I like this song a lot!

6) Julia Sweeney: Letting Go of God.

First posted on 2/2/09

Why Don't Christian Sites Link to Skeptical Sites?

2009-11-16T07:44:00.000-05:00

I've asked this question before, and I'll ask it again. Only very rarely do I ever find Christian apologetics websites linking to skeptical ones. There are very very few that do, and among those that do, DC is usually found linked there with a small number of others. Compare what Christians do with what we do here at DC. At DC we not only link to several of the best Christian apologetical sites, I even link to some popular Christian apologetical books from time to time, like the new Apologetics Study Bible. Why is there this disparity? I think we can link to and provide people with the best that Christianity has to offer and still beat their best arguments. If they truly thought as we did they should have no problem doing likewise. Maybe they're just worried something like this could happen.

First posted on 10/06/07

Still Another Great Site, Early Christian Religion

2009-11-14T13:45:00.002-05:00

Dr. Robert Oerter, Associate Professor of physics at George Mason University and author of The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics, has a website called Early Christian Religion. He tells me "It's not really a debunking Christianity site; more of 'let's learn what actual Biblical scholars are saying about early Christianity and the Bible.'"

Another Great Site, The Bible Skeptic

2009-11-13T17:45:00.000-05:00

Click here and enjoy.

Brian Worley's Ex-Minister Site Looks Great!

2009-11-13T08:52:00.000-05:00

Brian has a post written by me called "Calvinism Explains Everything...and Nothing!" And says in it "John's website: Debunking Christianity is awesome!" There's lots of other good stuff there. Check it out for yourselves.

Born Divine: The Births of Jesus & Other Sons of God, by R. Miller

2009-11-12T10:01:00.005-05:00

Probably the most comprehensive treatment of the Christian virgin birth claim is this recent book by Robert J. Miller, a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar. Check it out and then give up such a claim as the liberals have already done.

Judges 19-21 is a Major Obstacle to Why I Cannot Believe the Bible

2009-11-11T15:47:00.002-05:00

Before reading further read Judges 19-21. Okay?

Can someone tell me why I should trust ANYTHING that these people wrote? I know, you'll say God didn't approve what they did and that these chapters merely record without comment what happened. But my point is that they depict the barbaric nature of a people who also claimed to have a divine revelation from God. I will not listen to what they have to say about God if that's the kind of people they were. Q.E.D.

Steve Hays Recommends My Forthcoming Book, The Christian Delusion! ;-)

2009-11-11T12:44:00.005-05:00

The Christian Delusion is new book by a hack village atheist editor (and contributor) who has rounded up a number of other hack villages atheists to form a literary village of hack village atheists. On top of that, the hack village atheist editor has also rounded up some additional hack village atheists to write glowing blurbs for a book by, to, and for hack village atheists.

This is a truly monumental breakthrough in the history of hack village atheist publications. Link

Start You Own Recovering Religionist Group

2009-11-10T02:29:00.002-05:00

If you are one of the millions of people who have determined that religion no longer has a place in your life, this may be the right spot for you. Many people love the social support they get from religion, but can’t deal with all the crazy ideas they are required to espouse. It can be difficult to leave a religion because family and culture put so much pressure on us to stay and pretend to believe. If this is you, we want to help you find your way out. We are Recovering Religionists™, people who have given religion our best shot but just can’t bring ourselves to believe in virgin births, resurrections, 2000 year old miracles and the “power of prayer.” We are recovering Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, Jehovah Wittnesses, Hindus, Moslems, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Evangelicals, and more. Link

Notre Dame Conference: My Ways Are Not Your Ways: The Character of God in the Hebrew Bible

2009-11-08T21:29:00.006-05:00

I really like Luke's website Common Sense Atheism where he recently called my attention to the videos of this conference that took place in September. I think everyone interested in the issues that separate us should subscribe to his site. It's my favorite one, both informative and keeping me up to date on what is happening on the web.

On God Answering Prayers Retroactively

2009-11-08T20:39:00.017-05:00

Christians like C.S. Lewis and recently William A. Dembski in his book The End of Christianity, claim God can answers prayers retroactively. Kevin Timpe explains by saying "past directed prayers, as I understand them, are requests for God to have done something at a time prior to the time of the prayer." And he argues like Lewis and Dembski that God does in fact answer these prayers on most accounts of God's foreknowledge. ["Prayers for the Past" Religious Studies (2005) 41, 305–322. This raises some interesting problems and allows me to propose a scientific test for prayer.

First, here's some of the problems. Consider this scenario by Timpe:

Allison is watching the morning news, and learns that a tornado touched down in western Ohio the previous evening, leaving a path of devastation and destruction in its wake. The news anchor reports that seventeen homes were destroyed by the tornado, and that one individual was killed. Allison’s father lives in the area affected by the storm. As she runs to the phone to call him, she offers a prayer that he may not have been the one killed in the tornado. Even though she knows that the state of affairs she is praying about is already in the past, and that thus it is already a fact whether or not her father was killed, Allison thinks that her prayer might be efficacious in the same way that prayers for future states of affairs can be.

At the time Allison prayed she didn't know whether her father was killed or not. What if, as in many unanswered prayer cases, Allison finds that her father was killed? Then what? Should she continue to pray for his safety after learning about his death? Can God answer prayers retroactively or not? What difference would it make to God whether or not something happened in the past if he can answer prayers retroactively prior to the time of the prayer, as Timpe says? Isn't that precisely what it means to say God can answer prayers retroactively?

Furthermore let's say Allison had a brother named Ned who lived in a different time zone and heard the news about the tornado one hour later than Allison. Since Allison found out about their father's fate, whatever it was, one hour earlier, does this mean God could not answer Ned's prayer retroactively? If not, because the past is the past, then what about a neighbor who lived near their father who knew what had happened to their father before Allison did. Should either Allison or Ned expect their prayers can be answered once that neighbor found out? What difference does it make to God, if he is able to answer prayers retroactively, whether or not Allison and Ned had any knowledge about their father's fate? If God can answer these prayers then it should not make any difference who knows what or when, otherwise there will almost always be someone at the scene who will learn what happened earlier than when these types of prayers are prayed, which would make almost all such prayers unanswerable. If these prayers can be answered it should not make one whit of difference at all who knows what or when.

Hence, if God answers prayers retroactively believers should pray for the past to be changed just as they do in praying for present and future hopes to be realized. Can these apologists really have it both ways, saying God can answer these prayers but also denying that the past can be changed?

So let me suggest a scientific test if God can answer these kinds of prayers, one that I broached in my book. Pick an event in the past and pray that God changes it. The event could be as simple as praying that some kids who were in a car accident and died the night before did not die because there was no accident.

My prediction is that the past will never be changed AND that every prayer to change the past will be remembered by the one who prayed it precisely because nothing will ever change, ever. What's YOUR prediction?

This is as sure of a test for prayer as we can get.

Come on Christian. Put your prayers where your mouth is! ;-)

There's a Young Freethought Blog for Younger Freethinkers

2009-11-08T12:16:00.001-05:00

Young Freethought is an independent blog, open for anyone, but with the aim of providing a way for young people to find the ideas of like-minded peers regarding issues such as rationalism, atheism, science and philosophy. Young Freethought is here to try and give a voice to a small section of society that, we feel, is currently being ignored. Link

Joe Holman on "God’s Entrapment and James’ Idiocy"

2009-11-08T12:02:00.000-05:00

It's one of the worst blunders in the scriptures, and it comes from James, writer of the New Testament. He says:
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” (James 1:13)
Link