As a young, inexperienced lawyer, I represented a fellow who had a bench warrant for failing to pay Child Support. The client told a truly moving tale of his attempts to find work, his current living situation, and his inability to pay.
I agreed to represent him for free, because such an injustice seemed to be happening. He had asked for a reduction in Child support, which appeared to be unreasonably denied. And it sure looked as if he could go to jail, based upon how the case was developing.
On the day of the hearing (as typical) I met with the prosecutor and the judge in chambers prior to court. The Judge indicated, based upon what he saw, that he was going to throw my client in jail for 90 days. Bond to be set at $20,000.
I begged, I cajoled, I explained how patently wrong and unfair that was. How this guy couldn’t put enough money together to buy a cup of coffee, let alone the outrageous amount the judge was thinking. How we are throwing a guy in jail, when he could be out looking for work, and perhaps coming up with the means to pay some support.
The judge ignored my pleas. He insisted he would be putting my client in jail. I remember being physically angry at the judge for refusing to listen.
After the meeting, I asked if my client had any resources to borrow the funds, or come up with something to prevent jail. He said he had nothing, and started to quietly cry.
“I don’t want to go to jail.”
We went through the hearing, and despite my best efforts, the Judge ordered my client to 90 days of jail; he could get out if he came up with $20,000. Might as well tell him to jump over the moon. They led him away in handcuffs as he just shook his head.
I started planning my appeal. I was furious at how the system had failed.
Later that day, I called the jail to contact my client regarding his options on appeal. He wasn’t there. He had come up with the money and been released. Total time in jail: 4 hours.
This was a large life lesson for me. Don’t always believe your client.
Sounds like a terrible thing, eh? Sounds like a breach of trust. Sounds as if one’s lawyer is somehow not part of the plan; not “on your side” if they don’t believe you. But here’s the thing—the only way we can do our job and do it most effectively is if we are FULLY informed. If my client had told me he had access to $20,000, I could have prevented even those four hours in jail. I could have possibly avoided court altogether.
It is counter-intuitive. You can tell the client wants you to like them; wants you to believe them. Wants you to be assured of their innocence; or--if not complete innocence--then 98% purity. You can see the fear that if we think they are guilty, we won’t work as hard. We won’t try and get the best deal for them. We will be spending our energy protecting other people we think are “more” innocent.
So we hear phrases like:
“I had never done this before…”
“If it wasn’t for my friends…”
“I always get a written agreement. But this time…”
“I only had two beers…maybe three…”
Yet if we don’t know the actual truth, we end up being less able to help the client. This conversation occurs too often to be humorous:
Judge: Has your client ever been convicted of a crime?
Me: [whispering to client] Any crimes?
Client: [whispering back] Nope.
Me: No, Your Honor.
Judge: What about this conviction two years ago for _____?
Client: [whispering to me] I didn’t think they would find out about it.
Find out? And these aren’t forgotten shoplifting cases as a teenager. I have represented clients who had spent years in prison and “forgot” about the conviction. Or didn’t think they would find out about it.
Again, if I am informed of it, I can actually turn it into a positive spin. How they had encountered the justice system before with no issues on bond, had previously appeared timely, etc. But by not knowing and then being “caught”—we are in a far worse position because we look like liars. (Good reason for that…)
It is not that clients want to lie to their own attorney. They just want to present the most favorable position. Put a positive “spin” on each fact. A more favorable nuance on each supposition.
“I only took one CD” turns into one CD and a bunch of memory cards.
“I forgot about the memory cards” turns into 2-3 trips back to the rack to have grabbed some more.
“They were only small items” turns into $2-400 worth of small items.
So one thing we learn as lawyers (at least the good ones) is to take our client’s story with a small cupful of salt. Perhaps we haven’t heard it all. We learn to start looking at the case with independent eyes. Look at it as to how others would see it, not as how our client would like us to see it.
The reason I bring this up, is that I have had the distinct unpleasure of dealing with two (2) different attorneys who passionately and whole-heartedly believed their client. Even when the facts demonstrated demonstrably otherwise. (I have changed the facts slightly to protect the innocent. But I can assure you, the essence is the same.)
In the first situation, the attorney insisted her client had never received the contract. Thus, there was no contract (in her mind) because her client insisted he had never received a copy. I pointed out how her client had transferred a $200,000 piece of property, exactly on the same terms as this “non-existent” contract.
Didn’t matter. Since she believed he never got it; she continued to argue he didn’t.
The problem was the documents didn’t support her. There were e-mails about the contract. There were signatures on the contract (including her client’s.) There was a closing on the contract whereby the Seller listed in the contract sold the property listed in the contract to the Buyer in the contract at the price listed in the contract. In the time outlined in the contract.
She believed her client and couldn’t see it. The court ruled against her. The Judge could see it; I could see it; the entire courtroom of lawyers could see it.
The second situation was another contract where the other side admitted her client signed the contract, but stated she didn’t read it because she believed it was for something else. We had the following conversation. (And after having cases where forgeries are claimed—such as will disputes—we obtain a general knowledge of how to compare signatures.)
Me: Here is the contract with your client’s signature.
Other Attorney: Mmmm…
Me: Here is an additional contract with your client’s signature.
Other Attorney: That’s not her signature.
Me: How do you know? It looks the same to me.
Other Attorney: Because she told me.
Me: But she is not here; how do you know?
Other Attorney: I believe her.
We then entered a fun-filled two minutes of:
Me: Here is an addendum to the contract with your client’s signature.
Other Attorney: That’s not her signature.
Me: Here is an additional clause with your client’s signature.
Other Attorney: That’s not her signature.
Me: Here is the application of credit with your client’s signature.
Other Attorney: That’s not her signature.
Me: Here is closing statement with your client’s signature.
Other Attorney: Wait, wait, wait, wait. THAT one is REALLY not her signature. See how the capital letters are different, and the “e” is not smashed, and the crossing on the “t” is not complete? THAT is not her signature.
I agreed. I do not think it is her signature either. Because the documents speak for themselves and show it to be so different from the other 8 signatures I have. I didn’t let on (the case may still go to trial) that the attorney’s own actions demonstrated how she was merely saying “Not her signature” by rote until we actually came across a signature that was not her client’s, and the attorney’s brain kicked in.
I’d make some dashedly clever comparison to growing up as a Christian, and believing what they taught me, but I don’t think I need to.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Evidence, Theism, Debates
Recently, The Barefoot Bum posted a blog:
“Theism and Evidence.” Jon also posted an entry on “Two Superb Performances from Atheists in Debate” mentioning how we are prone to argue evidence with Christian Apologists.
Both make very good points. Having been listening to Resurrection Debates recently, and knowing a thing or two about evidence, I thought to highlight a few particulars:
There are two factors about evidence—its definition and its “weight.”
Evidence is “testimony, writings, material objects or other things presented to the senses (such as a view of a scene) that are offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.”
Notice it is comprised of two elements: both the fact (or non-existence of the fact) it is attempting to prove AND the piece of evidence itself. I often see confusion on this in theistic debates.
Imagine we are attempting to prove a woman wore a red shirt. So we call Witness Bob to the stand and he says, “The woman wore the red shirt.” The fact we are trying to prove is “the woman wore the red shirt;” the sensory item we are using is Witness Bob’s testimony.
The evidence is NOT “the woman wore the red shirt.” The evidence is “Bob testified, ‘the woman wore the red shirt.’” This is not merely nit-picking or quibbling over a definition without a distinction.
Part of what we look for, in testimony, is the credibility of the witness, their ability to observe, and their bias. What if Witness Bob is color-blind? Or was in a dark room? Or has an interest in proving the woman wore red? Understand--Witness Bob may be the most credible, honest, forthright individual who genuinely is attempting to testify to the truth, yet by being in a dark room, 100 yards away, and without his glasses on—this calls into the question how viable our “evidence” is, given these factors.
Gary Habermas often employs the same opening speech in which he states, “I am NOT going to do a number of things. I am NOT going to claim the Gospels are reliable. I am NOT going to rely upon scholars; rather I will point out if numerous scholars agree upon something it is because facts underlie their agreement.” (By the way, whenever someone starts off saying all the things they are not going to do, they inevitably fall into the trap of doing them. Dr. Habermas is no exception.)
Yet he then relies upon facts which are ONLY relevant evidence if the witness is reliable. In other words, using our example, he is saying, “I will NOT claim Witness Bob is reliable;”—but then he goes on to talk about how the woman’s shirt is red. If Witness Bob is not reliable—how can we even talk about the woman’s shirt color?
See, he wants to bifurcate the evidence between the sensory item and the fact we are attempting to prove. He does not want to talk about the sensory item, yet then assumes the fact we are attempting to prove!
He does the same thing with 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians received a letter from Paul, who said he received information from unknown persons about Jesus appearing to people after He died. Our evidence is, “Paul says, ‘______ told me, “Jesus appeared to certain people in a certain order.”’” The fact we are attempting to prove: Jesus appeared. The sensory item: “Paul says that they said.” (I should note Dr. Habermas indicates Paul received this from James and Peter. This doesn’t change the issue, the sensory item is still “I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.”
One of the things we look for in evidence is whether the witness ever said anything different. Did Witness Bob ever say the woman wore a different color? In Gal. 1:11-12, Paul says the gospel he received, he did not get from a man, but rather from direct revelation from God. Further, although I never see this addressed, one wonders if Paul was persecuting Christians—what was he persecuting them for if he didn’t even know what they believed? Are we seriously saying Paul did not know the claim Jesus was physically raised from the dead when he was going after Christians? I can’t see that helping the Christian apologist.
The first item is to understand evidence is a two-part concept. Both the sensory perception AND the fact it is attempting to establish. Removing one of those concepts from consideration means it is no longer evidence.
Secondly, we consider the “weight” of the evidence. Even though evidence may be admitted because it barely makes the cut, its “weight” may not bear up. It may not be considered very persuasive. An accused’s mother is allowed to testify the Defendant was with her, watching Seinfeld re-runs at the time of the crime. Her testimony (“I observed my son sitting next to me the whole time”) meets the criteria for evidence, but may not bear much weight. The fact the victim points out the Defendant, the Defendant’s fingerprints were on the gun, and the Defendant confessed all cause us to sympathetically question the strength of the mother’s memory as to which particular night the Defendant watched Seinfeld with her.
One frustrating aspect of treatment of evidence in these debates is the claim ALL evidence must be given the same weight. Poppycock.
I don’t particularly care for the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as the term “extraordinary” is too difficult to define. To a theist, resurrection is NOT extraordinary. And what is the difference between “extraordinary evidence” and “regular evidence”? I do appreciate the notion behind the phrase, that we require weightier evidence the more a claim is outside our normal observations.
Imagine I told you three things:
1) Yesterday, my brother had lunch with my Father;
2) Yesterday, my brother had lunch with President Obama;
3) Yesterday, my brother had lunch with Elvis Presley. (Lives in Santa Monica, as it turns out!)
As to the first claim, we would not require very much, or strong evidence. Sons eat with fathers all the time. This is within our normal experience. I suspect for most people, my word on the matter, in one sentence, would be more than sufficient.
As to the second claim, we would start to require more evidence. President Obama does eat lunch, so it is certainly feasible he had lunch with somebody yesterday. And we can conceptualize a situation where more proof would be sufficient. Perhaps my showing my brother works in the White House, or my brother’s ticket to a fund-raising event attended by Pres. Obama.
As to the third claim, since Elvis is believed to be dead, and proof that he is still alive would have a HUGE impact on the next day’s newspaper headlines, we would require quite a bit more evidence. My brother’s lunch receipt signed by “Elvis” would not have enough weight to carry the day. Our testimony is certainly not enough. Even my brother’s insistence, to the point of exasperation, that he really, really, really, really saw Elvis is not enough. A picture with Elvis (impersonator?) would not be enough.
As claims go farther and farther from our normal observation, the more and weightier evidence we require to substantiate them. It is absolutely, patently ridiculous to take umbrage you don’t believe my brother had lunch with Elvis by claiming, “Well! Then you can’t even believe my brother had lunch with my father, since it is much the same thing.”
Wrong. Caesars battled wars. Believing a man came back from the dead after three days is not “the same.” It is time to bury the comparisons to Alexander the Great, Socrates and Julius Caesar every time the apologist says, “We have A LOT more information about Jesus than these people, yet you don’t accept the claims about Jesus.”
Great. I have a LOT more information about my brother eating with Elvis—a signed Lunch receipt and a picture—than I have about my brother eating with my Father. Surely you accept both claims as true? No? Why not?
Because we “weigh” evidence in light of the claims being made! Claims of Socrates philosophizing (people philosophize), Alexander the Great overtaking countries (it happens) and Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon (within our normal observation) pale in comparison to supernatural, miraculous resurrections.
The idea we must give the same “weight” to evidence describing normal events, as evidence describing one-time supernatural events is not born out in our normal lives.
Unless you think, “my brother ate lunch with my father” must be given the same weight as “my brother ate lunch with Elvis.”
In which case, I have an autograph to sell you that is invaluable…a 2009 Elvis.
“Theism and Evidence.” Jon also posted an entry on “Two Superb Performances from Atheists in Debate” mentioning how we are prone to argue evidence with Christian Apologists.
Both make very good points. Having been listening to Resurrection Debates recently, and knowing a thing or two about evidence, I thought to highlight a few particulars:
There are two factors about evidence—its definition and its “weight.”
Evidence is “testimony, writings, material objects or other things presented to the senses (such as a view of a scene) that are offered to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.”
Notice it is comprised of two elements: both the fact (or non-existence of the fact) it is attempting to prove AND the piece of evidence itself. I often see confusion on this in theistic debates.
Imagine we are attempting to prove a woman wore a red shirt. So we call Witness Bob to the stand and he says, “The woman wore the red shirt.” The fact we are trying to prove is “the woman wore the red shirt;” the sensory item we are using is Witness Bob’s testimony.
The evidence is NOT “the woman wore the red shirt.” The evidence is “Bob testified, ‘the woman wore the red shirt.’” This is not merely nit-picking or quibbling over a definition without a distinction.
Part of what we look for, in testimony, is the credibility of the witness, their ability to observe, and their bias. What if Witness Bob is color-blind? Or was in a dark room? Or has an interest in proving the woman wore red? Understand--Witness Bob may be the most credible, honest, forthright individual who genuinely is attempting to testify to the truth, yet by being in a dark room, 100 yards away, and without his glasses on—this calls into the question how viable our “evidence” is, given these factors.
Gary Habermas often employs the same opening speech in which he states, “I am NOT going to do a number of things. I am NOT going to claim the Gospels are reliable. I am NOT going to rely upon scholars; rather I will point out if numerous scholars agree upon something it is because facts underlie their agreement.” (By the way, whenever someone starts off saying all the things they are not going to do, they inevitably fall into the trap of doing them. Dr. Habermas is no exception.)
Yet he then relies upon facts which are ONLY relevant evidence if the witness is reliable. In other words, using our example, he is saying, “I will NOT claim Witness Bob is reliable;”—but then he goes on to talk about how the woman’s shirt is red. If Witness Bob is not reliable—how can we even talk about the woman’s shirt color?
See, he wants to bifurcate the evidence between the sensory item and the fact we are attempting to prove. He does not want to talk about the sensory item, yet then assumes the fact we are attempting to prove!
He does the same thing with 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians received a letter from Paul, who said he received information from unknown persons about Jesus appearing to people after He died. Our evidence is, “Paul says, ‘______ told me, “Jesus appeared to certain people in a certain order.”’” The fact we are attempting to prove: Jesus appeared. The sensory item: “Paul says that they said.” (I should note Dr. Habermas indicates Paul received this from James and Peter. This doesn’t change the issue, the sensory item is still “I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend.”
One of the things we look for in evidence is whether the witness ever said anything different. Did Witness Bob ever say the woman wore a different color? In Gal. 1:11-12, Paul says the gospel he received, he did not get from a man, but rather from direct revelation from God. Further, although I never see this addressed, one wonders if Paul was persecuting Christians—what was he persecuting them for if he didn’t even know what they believed? Are we seriously saying Paul did not know the claim Jesus was physically raised from the dead when he was going after Christians? I can’t see that helping the Christian apologist.
The first item is to understand evidence is a two-part concept. Both the sensory perception AND the fact it is attempting to establish. Removing one of those concepts from consideration means it is no longer evidence.
Secondly, we consider the “weight” of the evidence. Even though evidence may be admitted because it barely makes the cut, its “weight” may not bear up. It may not be considered very persuasive. An accused’s mother is allowed to testify the Defendant was with her, watching Seinfeld re-runs at the time of the crime. Her testimony (“I observed my son sitting next to me the whole time”) meets the criteria for evidence, but may not bear much weight. The fact the victim points out the Defendant, the Defendant’s fingerprints were on the gun, and the Defendant confessed all cause us to sympathetically question the strength of the mother’s memory as to which particular night the Defendant watched Seinfeld with her.
One frustrating aspect of treatment of evidence in these debates is the claim ALL evidence must be given the same weight. Poppycock.
I don’t particularly care for the phrase, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” as the term “extraordinary” is too difficult to define. To a theist, resurrection is NOT extraordinary. And what is the difference between “extraordinary evidence” and “regular evidence”? I do appreciate the notion behind the phrase, that we require weightier evidence the more a claim is outside our normal observations.
Imagine I told you three things:
1) Yesterday, my brother had lunch with my Father;
2) Yesterday, my brother had lunch with President Obama;
3) Yesterday, my brother had lunch with Elvis Presley. (Lives in Santa Monica, as it turns out!)
As to the first claim, we would not require very much, or strong evidence. Sons eat with fathers all the time. This is within our normal experience. I suspect for most people, my word on the matter, in one sentence, would be more than sufficient.
As to the second claim, we would start to require more evidence. President Obama does eat lunch, so it is certainly feasible he had lunch with somebody yesterday. And we can conceptualize a situation where more proof would be sufficient. Perhaps my showing my brother works in the White House, or my brother’s ticket to a fund-raising event attended by Pres. Obama.
As to the third claim, since Elvis is believed to be dead, and proof that he is still alive would have a HUGE impact on the next day’s newspaper headlines, we would require quite a bit more evidence. My brother’s lunch receipt signed by “Elvis” would not have enough weight to carry the day. Our testimony is certainly not enough. Even my brother’s insistence, to the point of exasperation, that he really, really, really, really saw Elvis is not enough. A picture with Elvis (impersonator?) would not be enough.
As claims go farther and farther from our normal observation, the more and weightier evidence we require to substantiate them. It is absolutely, patently ridiculous to take umbrage you don’t believe my brother had lunch with Elvis by claiming, “Well! Then you can’t even believe my brother had lunch with my father, since it is much the same thing.”
Wrong. Caesars battled wars. Believing a man came back from the dead after three days is not “the same.” It is time to bury the comparisons to Alexander the Great, Socrates and Julius Caesar every time the apologist says, “We have A LOT more information about Jesus than these people, yet you don’t accept the claims about Jesus.”
Great. I have a LOT more information about my brother eating with Elvis—a signed Lunch receipt and a picture—than I have about my brother eating with my Father. Surely you accept both claims as true? No? Why not?
Because we “weigh” evidence in light of the claims being made! Claims of Socrates philosophizing (people philosophize), Alexander the Great overtaking countries (it happens) and Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon (within our normal observation) pale in comparison to supernatural, miraculous resurrections.
The idea we must give the same “weight” to evidence describing normal events, as evidence describing one-time supernatural events is not born out in our normal lives.
Unless you think, “my brother ate lunch with my father” must be given the same weight as “my brother ate lunch with Elvis.”
In which case, I have an autograph to sell you that is invaluable…a 2009 Elvis.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Arguing with Christian Apologists
I’ve been off, debating Early Church writings on
Vinny’s blog. Nothing exciting; the same arguments we see time and again.
One of the frustrating aspects is when Christian apologists take only the positive from a document, or couch the statement is such a carefully worded way so as to appear if this was a great point, but in fact there are numerous problems.
One of the common items we see is a statement along the lines of Papias mentioned the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.”
This is technically true. Papias did mention two gospels—one by Mark and one by Matthew. But the impression given is that these are the same Gospels we have today. Are they?
A few points to ponder which are also in the few writings we have on Papias:
1. That Mark’s gospel is “not in order” when, in fact, it IS in order.
2. That Matthew’s gospel was in Hebrew, whereas our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek.
3. There is a question whether Papias was a disciple of John the Disciple or another John (the Presbyter), yet Papias does not list any Gospel by John.
4. Papias does not list any gospel by Luke, nor indicate any familiarity with Luke.
5. Papias lists a saying of Christ which he claims to have heard from John that is not in a canonical Gospel. It is from 2 Baruch.
6. Papias gives an account of Judas’ death that is different than Matthew’s and different from Luke’s.
7. Eusebius did not find Papias reliable, primarily because of Papias’ doctrinal belief in a Millennium.
I think it important to emphasize that last point. People’s writings were rejected NOT because of the historical accuracy, NOT because of the reliability of the writing, NOT because of the deterioration of the copies—they were rejected because the person held the “wrong” doctrine!
Imagine that! If a stenographer followed Jesus and recorded his every word, yet ended up Gnostic, his/her writings would be eliminated from consideration for their Gnosticism. Not their accuracy.
The Christian apologist is attempting to use documents, claiming they are historically accurate, when the people of the time were not trying to be historically accurate, had no goal of being historically accurate, and were not preserving documents based on historical accuracy. Theological “correctness” is what determined a documents viability—not its historical accuracy.
Anyway…what does the Christian apologist do when these points are brought up? Usually two responses:
1) Hand-waving: “Oh, those points aren’t important. What IS important is that Papias mentioned any gospels at all.”
2) Ad hoc explanations: “Oh, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated to Greek. Papias had the Hebrew Copy.” (We would call it “Matthew 1.0” in the computer age.)
The problem with hand-waving is what the Christian embraces; they would NEVER allow a skeptic or a person from another religion. Imagine if we said, “Papias doesn’t mention Luke, so it wasn’t written then.” There would be cries of “Argument from Silence” and “He mentions other Gospels” and “there is no demonstration he would have known Luke to mention it.”
If all we want to do is pick-and-choose the helpful bits, the Christian apologist would cry “foul.” Yet this is exactly what they do.
The problem with ad hoc explanations is that there is no proof (where is a copy of this “Hebrew Matthew”?) and only create further problems. How is it Hebrew Matthew was translated to Greek Matthew in many places the exact same wording as Mark?
Of course, when a Christian apologist has a Christian congregation, these problems are easily resolved. They are never confronted with them from a friendly audience.
When I prepare for a case, I have to look at each fact in the case from three standpoints:
1) Does this help my client?
2) Does this help the other side?
3) What will a neutral party likely determine?
If I had the Christian apologist sitting across my desk, and they brought out Papias, I would be questioning them on these very points. What do I say when the other side brings them out? I cannot ignore them, because if I do, my opponent will surely demonstrate these problems. The jury will not only hear them, but wonder why I ignored them.
What would a neutral party think? Would they be convinced of a (non-existent) Hebrews Matthew we cannot prove, but conveniently “helps” our case? Would they think Mark is not in order? Would they think the death of Judas contradicts Matthew and Luke?
Would they be impressed that these were the same Gospels as what we have today? Or would they be more hesitant to make such a conclusion.
I tire of the failure to recognize the other side has legitimate points. Of Christian apologists who dogmatically state conclusions and then are shocked when we skeptics don’t roll over and simply agree. Their congregation of 1000 did last Sunday—who are we to dare question them? Dare to actually claim knowledge of their church father’s writings.
In my practice I would be lambasted, paupered and then disbarred for continually being unprepared if I treated cases in such a fashion. We HAVE to acknowledge counter-points, because they will be presented to our neutral party who is making the determination. To ignore them, or act as if they don’t exist would be malpractice.
I don’t care if the Christian apologist agrees or disagrees with me. I don’t care if, after reviewing arguments from both positions, they are convinced of their own. This is humanity. What I find stunning is the inability to even recognize the counter-points as having any legitimacy, and the constant brush-off of such points as those of heretics, heathens and hyper-skeptics.
I would dearly, dearly love to take such a Christian apologist, with their approach, into a court of law. They would find such tactics a catastrophic failure.
Vinny’s blog. Nothing exciting; the same arguments we see time and again.
One of the frustrating aspects is when Christian apologists take only the positive from a document, or couch the statement is such a carefully worded way so as to appear if this was a great point, but in fact there are numerous problems.
One of the common items we see is a statement along the lines of Papias mentioned the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.”
This is technically true. Papias did mention two gospels—one by Mark and one by Matthew. But the impression given is that these are the same Gospels we have today. Are they?
A few points to ponder which are also in the few writings we have on Papias:
1. That Mark’s gospel is “not in order” when, in fact, it IS in order.
2. That Matthew’s gospel was in Hebrew, whereas our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek.
3. There is a question whether Papias was a disciple of John the Disciple or another John (the Presbyter), yet Papias does not list any Gospel by John.
4. Papias does not list any gospel by Luke, nor indicate any familiarity with Luke.
5. Papias lists a saying of Christ which he claims to have heard from John that is not in a canonical Gospel. It is from 2 Baruch.
6. Papias gives an account of Judas’ death that is different than Matthew’s and different from Luke’s.
7. Eusebius did not find Papias reliable, primarily because of Papias’ doctrinal belief in a Millennium.
I think it important to emphasize that last point. People’s writings were rejected NOT because of the historical accuracy, NOT because of the reliability of the writing, NOT because of the deterioration of the copies—they were rejected because the person held the “wrong” doctrine!
Imagine that! If a stenographer followed Jesus and recorded his every word, yet ended up Gnostic, his/her writings would be eliminated from consideration for their Gnosticism. Not their accuracy.
The Christian apologist is attempting to use documents, claiming they are historically accurate, when the people of the time were not trying to be historically accurate, had no goal of being historically accurate, and were not preserving documents based on historical accuracy. Theological “correctness” is what determined a documents viability—not its historical accuracy.
Anyway…what does the Christian apologist do when these points are brought up? Usually two responses:
1) Hand-waving: “Oh, those points aren’t important. What IS important is that Papias mentioned any gospels at all.”
2) Ad hoc explanations: “Oh, the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and then translated to Greek. Papias had the Hebrew Copy.” (We would call it “Matthew 1.0” in the computer age.)
The problem with hand-waving is what the Christian embraces; they would NEVER allow a skeptic or a person from another religion. Imagine if we said, “Papias doesn’t mention Luke, so it wasn’t written then.” There would be cries of “Argument from Silence” and “He mentions other Gospels” and “there is no demonstration he would have known Luke to mention it.”
If all we want to do is pick-and-choose the helpful bits, the Christian apologist would cry “foul.” Yet this is exactly what they do.
The problem with ad hoc explanations is that there is no proof (where is a copy of this “Hebrew Matthew”?) and only create further problems. How is it Hebrew Matthew was translated to Greek Matthew in many places the exact same wording as Mark?
Of course, when a Christian apologist has a Christian congregation, these problems are easily resolved. They are never confronted with them from a friendly audience.
When I prepare for a case, I have to look at each fact in the case from three standpoints:
1) Does this help my client?
2) Does this help the other side?
3) What will a neutral party likely determine?
If I had the Christian apologist sitting across my desk, and they brought out Papias, I would be questioning them on these very points. What do I say when the other side brings them out? I cannot ignore them, because if I do, my opponent will surely demonstrate these problems. The jury will not only hear them, but wonder why I ignored them.
What would a neutral party think? Would they be convinced of a (non-existent) Hebrews Matthew we cannot prove, but conveniently “helps” our case? Would they think Mark is not in order? Would they think the death of Judas contradicts Matthew and Luke?
Would they be impressed that these were the same Gospels as what we have today? Or would they be more hesitant to make such a conclusion.
I tire of the failure to recognize the other side has legitimate points. Of Christian apologists who dogmatically state conclusions and then are shocked when we skeptics don’t roll over and simply agree. Their congregation of 1000 did last Sunday—who are we to dare question them? Dare to actually claim knowledge of their church father’s writings.
In my practice I would be lambasted, paupered and then disbarred for continually being unprepared if I treated cases in such a fashion. We HAVE to acknowledge counter-points, because they will be presented to our neutral party who is making the determination. To ignore them, or act as if they don’t exist would be malpractice.
I don’t care if the Christian apologist agrees or disagrees with me. I don’t care if, after reviewing arguments from both positions, they are convinced of their own. This is humanity. What I find stunning is the inability to even recognize the counter-points as having any legitimacy, and the constant brush-off of such points as those of heretics, heathens and hyper-skeptics.
I would dearly, dearly love to take such a Christian apologist, with their approach, into a court of law. They would find such tactics a catastrophic failure.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Arguing Gay Marriage. Again.
The passing of Proposition 8 in California and the aftermath have re-ignited arguments surrounding gay Marriage. Thought I would address a few…
1. It is not traditional
Certainly the most common. We hear, “Marriage has traditionally been defined as one man; one woman, and to allow something other than that traditional definition would be wrong.”
Why? Traditions change. Laws change. People change. Interest rates fluctuate. Limited time offers end. Believe it or not, humanity managed to muddle on.
Marriage, at one time, “traditionally” meant one man and multiple wives. “Traditionally” required a dowry. “Traditionally” required the father’s blessing. (Tevye sings vociferously on this very point!) “Traditionally” required the church’s blessing. “Traditionally” prohibited mixed races from marrying.
And those traditions changed. This is simply another change.
Yes, we ARE asking what you consider “traditional” to change. So what? Where is it written “Traditional is always, always, always correct. Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye?”
This is a horrible argument, because it fails to demonstrate why we must stick with what is “traditional.” (And why didn’t we in the past?) It is a law. It is established by the government. Laws can change. Even Constitutions can change. We are asking for a change in the law. To whine, “Hey, we can’t change” is a pretty stupid argument.
2. Children
There are a variety of arguments under this heading. Gay’s can’t naturally produce children. Children would be harmed by learning of a law allowing gays to marry. Children will be taught in school that gay marriage is acceptable.
First, the thing about gays not naturally producing children. True—but marriage is not defined by “having children.” I thought (see above) the “traditional” definition was “one man; one woman” Not “one man; one woman; one child.” Ain’t it funny in one breath the complaint is how gay marriage violates some definition by asking it to change, and in the next, the person is asking for a change in the definition!
I’ll try to make it clear--Marriage has nothing to do with children. If a couple has a child, and the child dies—are they no longer married? If a couple is married without a child (either by inability or choice) are they not married? If a couple is not married, but has a child—are they married? If a couple leaves Boston on a train going 60 kph, and they don’t have any children on the train coming from San Francisco at 80 kph—are they still married in Kansas?
Second—I hate to tell you, but kids already know about homosexuals. They already talk about it. To pretend they don’t know is to remove yourself from the real world. If you are really interested in what is being taught to your children in school—ask yourself these questions. How many school board meetings have you attended in the past year? How many classes have you helped out? How many field trips have you been a parent helper?
3. It is not natural
Well…homosexual sex has been observed in other creatures, so I am not certain what is meant by “natural.” Are you saying there are penguin marriages? Presided over by Penguin pastors, attended by the little penguin bride and her penguin flower girl? (The penguin bridegroom is formally attired, of course.)
Marriage is a human construct. Yes, some creatures mate for life. But they aren’t “married.” Only humans, by definition of law, are “married.”
This is a re-wording of the “against tradition.”
4. The Bible is against homosexual acts.
Finally. A legitimate argument. Many people don’t like homosexual marriage. In their opinion (and that is all it is—an opinion), they do not want it. They can bolster this by claiming their God says it is wrong.
Hey, if you want to live your life and vote for/against laws by your opinion of what aliens whisper in your brain during sleep—so be it. In the same way, if you want to vote for/against homosexual marriage because of your opinion about some Holy Writing—that is equally your right. Heck, if you want to vote by roll of the dice—you are free to do so.
What surprises me is that this argument is mixed in amongst the others. If one’s god teaches against it—who cares if it is traditional, natural or whether children are involved? If this is a person’s reasoning—this should be the ONLY argument, and more than sufficient.
Here’s the thing—the person is concerned this isn’t convincing. They recognize that maybe—just maybe—other people do not hold their Holy Writing in such high opinion. Therefore they stretch out, trying to bring in other arguments. Other “reasons” (and I use the term as loose as an XXXL shirt on an anorexic) to persuade non-Holy-Writing-believers that homosexual marriage is wrong.
Do they understand by abandoning their own standing of this being the “Word Of God” by bringing in other arguments they undercut any force the “Word Of God” argument has? If they consider their Holy Writing insufficient to be a sufficient argument, and need these other arguments to make their point—why should we consider it a sufficient argument either?
When are we going to cut it to the quick? Lose the dross of “non-traditional” or “not-natural” or “no-children”? Call it what it is—certain people have an opinion against homosexuality; they find support for their opinion in their God, and will vote against homosexuality because of their distaste.
Not because of their concern over re-writing dictionaries.
1. It is not traditional
Certainly the most common. We hear, “Marriage has traditionally been defined as one man; one woman, and to allow something other than that traditional definition would be wrong.”
Why? Traditions change. Laws change. People change. Interest rates fluctuate. Limited time offers end. Believe it or not, humanity managed to muddle on.
Marriage, at one time, “traditionally” meant one man and multiple wives. “Traditionally” required a dowry. “Traditionally” required the father’s blessing. (Tevye sings vociferously on this very point!) “Traditionally” required the church’s blessing. “Traditionally” prohibited mixed races from marrying.
And those traditions changed. This is simply another change.
Yes, we ARE asking what you consider “traditional” to change. So what? Where is it written “Traditional is always, always, always correct. Cross my heart, hope to die, stick a needle in my eye?”
This is a horrible argument, because it fails to demonstrate why we must stick with what is “traditional.” (And why didn’t we in the past?) It is a law. It is established by the government. Laws can change. Even Constitutions can change. We are asking for a change in the law. To whine, “Hey, we can’t change” is a pretty stupid argument.
2. Children
There are a variety of arguments under this heading. Gay’s can’t naturally produce children. Children would be harmed by learning of a law allowing gays to marry. Children will be taught in school that gay marriage is acceptable.
First, the thing about gays not naturally producing children. True—but marriage is not defined by “having children.” I thought (see above) the “traditional” definition was “one man; one woman” Not “one man; one woman; one child.” Ain’t it funny in one breath the complaint is how gay marriage violates some definition by asking it to change, and in the next, the person is asking for a change in the definition!
I’ll try to make it clear--Marriage has nothing to do with children. If a couple has a child, and the child dies—are they no longer married? If a couple is married without a child (either by inability or choice) are they not married? If a couple is not married, but has a child—are they married? If a couple leaves Boston on a train going 60 kph, and they don’t have any children on the train coming from San Francisco at 80 kph—are they still married in Kansas?
Second—I hate to tell you, but kids already know about homosexuals. They already talk about it. To pretend they don’t know is to remove yourself from the real world. If you are really interested in what is being taught to your children in school—ask yourself these questions. How many school board meetings have you attended in the past year? How many classes have you helped out? How many field trips have you been a parent helper?
3. It is not natural
Well…homosexual sex has been observed in other creatures, so I am not certain what is meant by “natural.” Are you saying there are penguin marriages? Presided over by Penguin pastors, attended by the little penguin bride and her penguin flower girl? (The penguin bridegroom is formally attired, of course.)
Marriage is a human construct. Yes, some creatures mate for life. But they aren’t “married.” Only humans, by definition of law, are “married.”
This is a re-wording of the “against tradition.”
4. The Bible is against homosexual acts.
Finally. A legitimate argument. Many people don’t like homosexual marriage. In their opinion (and that is all it is—an opinion), they do not want it. They can bolster this by claiming their God says it is wrong.
Hey, if you want to live your life and vote for/against laws by your opinion of what aliens whisper in your brain during sleep—so be it. In the same way, if you want to vote for/against homosexual marriage because of your opinion about some Holy Writing—that is equally your right. Heck, if you want to vote by roll of the dice—you are free to do so.
What surprises me is that this argument is mixed in amongst the others. If one’s god teaches against it—who cares if it is traditional, natural or whether children are involved? If this is a person’s reasoning—this should be the ONLY argument, and more than sufficient.
Here’s the thing—the person is concerned this isn’t convincing. They recognize that maybe—just maybe—other people do not hold their Holy Writing in such high opinion. Therefore they stretch out, trying to bring in other arguments. Other “reasons” (and I use the term as loose as an XXXL shirt on an anorexic) to persuade non-Holy-Writing-believers that homosexual marriage is wrong.
Do they understand by abandoning their own standing of this being the “Word Of God” by bringing in other arguments they undercut any force the “Word Of God” argument has? If they consider their Holy Writing insufficient to be a sufficient argument, and need these other arguments to make their point—why should we consider it a sufficient argument either?
When are we going to cut it to the quick? Lose the dross of “non-traditional” or “not-natural” or “no-children”? Call it what it is—certain people have an opinion against homosexuality; they find support for their opinion in their God, and will vote against homosexuality because of their distaste.
Not because of their concern over re-writing dictionaries.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Do No Harm
In these theistic debates, we often see the argument over who killed more people. How atheist leaders killed this many millions in the 20th Century, or Christians killed that many millions in the Crusades and so on. As if “who killed more” is some indication of truth…
Rather than focus on these huge numbers, and the grandiose crime of murder, I thought I would look at something more here-and-now. More relevant.
Dallas Academy is a school for kids with some learning problems. They have about 20 girls, most of whom have never played basketball. Not surprisingly, their team is not very good. They haven’t won a game in four years.
But on January 13 2009, they played a north Dallas Christian school called “The Covenant” losing the game 100-0.
Think about that. 100-0.
The Coach for Dallas said “They are really good. Their point guard is terrific. This is what it came down to in the second half: steal at half court and layup. Steal and layup. Steal and layup. It was a layup drill. They finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left."
The score at 1st quarter was 35-0, at half 59-0 and at 3rd quarter 88-0. One player obtained 48 points.
The Coach for The Covenant said, "It just happened, and we are not happy about that. Please know Covenant intended no harm against them. I see this as a real learning opportunity, so we can prevent this from happening in the future.”
Excuse me? “It just happened…”???
No, you let it happen. You wanted it to happen. You have a program where other teams are struggling and you deliberately pounded them into the ground. Were there “Boo’s” from The Covenant’s home crowd as score after score were made? Did the coach tell the players to stop shooting baskets, and start working together?
There are complaints in public schools of “running up the scores”—and this Christian school couldn’t figure out what they were doing?
No—they knew exactly what they were doing.
Then the story broke out in the newspapers. Dallas Academy has pulled out of the league after this game. Dallas Academy was proud of how well the girls held up under this beating. Now the world looked at the Christian school The Covenant as a monster. What does it do?
AFTER the story broke, it offers up a formal apology and a formal offer to forfeit. (Here’s the thing—you don’t need to do a “formal forfeit” through an administrative process. All one has to do is forfeit. A bit of trumpeting one’s own horn.)
Not before. Not on the 14th. Nor the 15th.
What is the difference between a secular school and a Christian one?
In the secular school we have:
1. Runs up the score.
2. Gets caught.
3. Makes formal apology.
4. Moves on with no change.
Whereas in the Christian School there is:
1. Runs up the score.
2. Gets caught.
3. Makes formal apology.
4. Moves on with no change.
However, there is one subtle difference. The secular school is left shouldering the responsibility. It did what it did. No blaming others, no absolution. The Christian school, however, is considered “good” for making an apology. “Isn’t it great it stepped forward and so kindly offered to forfeit the game?” [After it got caught, of course.]
The Christian school doesn’t have to live with what it did—because it is “forgiven.” It asked for forgiveness and Jesus washed away all its sin. Forgiven and forgotten. The Christian is better for getting forgiveness from its God; while the poor non-Christian is doomed to a hotter hell when performing the same deed..
In all this bickering about who is better than whom—I find it odd the Christian is satisfied with only being “as good as” the non-Christian.
It isn’t “who killed more?” It is that both killed.
Rather than focus on these huge numbers, and the grandiose crime of murder, I thought I would look at something more here-and-now. More relevant.
Dallas Academy is a school for kids with some learning problems. They have about 20 girls, most of whom have never played basketball. Not surprisingly, their team is not very good. They haven’t won a game in four years.
But on January 13 2009, they played a north Dallas Christian school called “The Covenant” losing the game 100-0.
Think about that. 100-0.
The Coach for Dallas said “They are really good. Their point guard is terrific. This is what it came down to in the second half: steal at half court and layup. Steal and layup. Steal and layup. It was a layup drill. They finally eased up when they got to 100 with about four minutes left."
The score at 1st quarter was 35-0, at half 59-0 and at 3rd quarter 88-0. One player obtained 48 points.
The Coach for The Covenant said, "It just happened, and we are not happy about that. Please know Covenant intended no harm against them. I see this as a real learning opportunity, so we can prevent this from happening in the future.”
Excuse me? “It just happened…”???
No, you let it happen. You wanted it to happen. You have a program where other teams are struggling and you deliberately pounded them into the ground. Were there “Boo’s” from The Covenant’s home crowd as score after score were made? Did the coach tell the players to stop shooting baskets, and start working together?
There are complaints in public schools of “running up the scores”—and this Christian school couldn’t figure out what they were doing?
No—they knew exactly what they were doing.
Then the story broke out in the newspapers. Dallas Academy has pulled out of the league after this game. Dallas Academy was proud of how well the girls held up under this beating. Now the world looked at the Christian school The Covenant as a monster. What does it do?
AFTER the story broke, it offers up a formal apology and a formal offer to forfeit. (Here’s the thing—you don’t need to do a “formal forfeit” through an administrative process. All one has to do is forfeit. A bit of trumpeting one’s own horn.)
Not before. Not on the 14th. Nor the 15th.
What is the difference between a secular school and a Christian one?
In the secular school we have:
1. Runs up the score.
2. Gets caught.
3. Makes formal apology.
4. Moves on with no change.
Whereas in the Christian School there is:
1. Runs up the score.
2. Gets caught.
3. Makes formal apology.
4. Moves on with no change.
However, there is one subtle difference. The secular school is left shouldering the responsibility. It did what it did. No blaming others, no absolution. The Christian school, however, is considered “good” for making an apology. “Isn’t it great it stepped forward and so kindly offered to forfeit the game?” [After it got caught, of course.]
The Christian school doesn’t have to live with what it did—because it is “forgiven.” It asked for forgiveness and Jesus washed away all its sin. Forgiven and forgotten. The Christian is better for getting forgiveness from its God; while the poor non-Christian is doomed to a hotter hell when performing the same deed..
In all this bickering about who is better than whom—I find it odd the Christian is satisfied with only being “as good as” the non-Christian.
It isn’t “who killed more?” It is that both killed.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Blog Boredom
I have started a number of blog entries. One on Rick Warren at the Inauguration. One on arguing against Liberal Christianity. One on the Problem of Evil. And each one I get halfway through and think, “Meh…who cares?”
Isn’t this all the same tired old stuff?
So here is the capsulated version of three (3) blog entries:
Rick Warren
Fail. If President-elect Obama wants Rev. Warren to give a prayer—fine by me. If Obama thinks he is winning any political points with the Evangelical front by using someone he doesn’t want but picked for political perception at the inauguration (like having the token Republican in the Cabinet to show how unbiased, balanced and fair he is) then he doesn’t know who he is dealing with.
Anyone see an article from an Evangelical who was pouring it on against Obama prior to November say, “Hey wait a minute. He DID pick Rev. Warren to pray. Maybe he isn’t the child-killing, liberal, anti-christ we thought he was.”? Hardy Har Har.
He gains no points by having Warren. Even Warren wouldn’t vote for him if the election was held again tomorrow.
Problem of Evil
Its one thing to make all these excuses about how God has to allow some Evil sneak into the world. To show his Glory. To account for Free will. To allow choice. To allow True Love.
But what about all the evil committed in his name? People beating their children to death to “get out the demons.” Women being brutalized in abusive marriages. People justifying lavish lifestyles while the poor of their charities starve.
President Bush.
Wouldn’t it piss you off, if you were God, that in all the evil that has to be allowed, people were doing it in your name? Would ya try to at least eliminate THAT evil?
Debating Liberal Christians
Defining the difference between a fundamentalist and a liberal and an in-betweener is the devil itself. Not that it matters since the most fundamentalist thinkers rarely consider themselves fundamentalists, and nor do the liberals.
I argue against Liberal Christianity because it is wrong. Just because it may get a few things right, it is still wrong. A person who claims water freezes at 10 degrees Celsius is wrong. The person who disagrees, and says “I feel water freezes at 5 degrees Celsius” may be right about water not freezing at 10 degrees, but they are still wrong.
What I see amongst both fundamentalists and liberals is picking and choosing what parts of theism they like and discarding the others. Simply because fundamentalists have a mean streak doesn’t make the method any better; it is just as subjective.
A friend said it best about Liberal Christianity. “The fact you are only part of the solution means you remain part of the problem.”
Isn’t this all the same tired old stuff?
So here is the capsulated version of three (3) blog entries:
Rick Warren
Fail. If President-elect Obama wants Rev. Warren to give a prayer—fine by me. If Obama thinks he is winning any political points with the Evangelical front by using someone he doesn’t want but picked for political perception at the inauguration (like having the token Republican in the Cabinet to show how unbiased, balanced and fair he is) then he doesn’t know who he is dealing with.
Anyone see an article from an Evangelical who was pouring it on against Obama prior to November say, “Hey wait a minute. He DID pick Rev. Warren to pray. Maybe he isn’t the child-killing, liberal, anti-christ we thought he was.”? Hardy Har Har.
He gains no points by having Warren. Even Warren wouldn’t vote for him if the election was held again tomorrow.
Problem of Evil
Its one thing to make all these excuses about how God has to allow some Evil sneak into the world. To show his Glory. To account for Free will. To allow choice. To allow True Love.
But what about all the evil committed in his name? People beating their children to death to “get out the demons.” Women being brutalized in abusive marriages. People justifying lavish lifestyles while the poor of their charities starve.
President Bush.
Wouldn’t it piss you off, if you were God, that in all the evil that has to be allowed, people were doing it in your name? Would ya try to at least eliminate THAT evil?
Debating Liberal Christians
Defining the difference between a fundamentalist and a liberal and an in-betweener is the devil itself. Not that it matters since the most fundamentalist thinkers rarely consider themselves fundamentalists, and nor do the liberals.
I argue against Liberal Christianity because it is wrong. Just because it may get a few things right, it is still wrong. A person who claims water freezes at 10 degrees Celsius is wrong. The person who disagrees, and says “I feel water freezes at 5 degrees Celsius” may be right about water not freezing at 10 degrees, but they are still wrong.
What I see amongst both fundamentalists and liberals is picking and choosing what parts of theism they like and discarding the others. Simply because fundamentalists have a mean streak doesn’t make the method any better; it is just as subjective.
A friend said it best about Liberal Christianity. “The fact you are only part of the solution means you remain part of the problem.”
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
In-breeding
Reading through deconversion accounts, we see many different precipitating factors for why a person would start to question a firmly held belief. Perhaps it was a traumatic, painful hurt within their life. Perhaps it was other believers not acting in a consistent manner. Perhaps it was being thrown in a situation where they were confronted with different belief. Perhaps it was a search for knowledge.
Regardless of what it was, the stories converge on a consistent theme—eventually the person searches for information outside their normal parameters. They start reading books they would never think of reading before. Perusing websites and programs previously uninvestigated. Talking to persons with contrary beliefs, unlike before.
Eventually it is this new information, this new study that causes the person to modify their belief.
And really—this is no surprise. New information presents us opportunities to change all the time. Listen to the radio on the way to work; hear of traffic tie-ups and this new insight causes you to change your route. We learned of microwave ovens; modifying how we cook popcorn forever. We learned of DVD; good-bye VHS. We learned the wrong way to change tires, new words, greater discoveries.
What does surprise me is how many Christians actively limit learning new information. As if, somehow, this new information could possibly require them to change their mind and as long as they stick their finger in their ears, close their eyes and hum real loud, they will never have to address the problem.
If you cut-off access to the information in the first place, you never have to worry about dealing with it. They become in-breed.
I recently held a debate with a theist, who wanted it posted on his forum--Faith and Fellowship Forum. A forum with interesting Rules:
So if one dares to…say…argue the existence of God, one could easily be accused of “promoting atheism” and the posts would be deleted. Perhaps the poster banned. The ONLY thing one is allowed to do is promote the same belief as the administrator.
Think about the natural outcome of such a place. Pantheist?—good-bye. Deist?—right out. Mormon?—Sorry, we require the Nicene Creed; there’s the door. Eventually, by process of elimination, the only persons left would be the ones that believe the same as you do!
Now—if the only people you talk to know the same things you do; what is the chance of learning new information? Exactly! Zero. What a great insulation from ever having to be confronted with a possible contrary opinion—never allow it in the front door in the first place.
For obvious reasons, in order to even HAVE a debate within such a format, one of the parameters was my being exempted from the rules. (Wouldn’t be possible, otherwise.)
Doesn’t matter. The Administrator has now deleted the debate off the forum. Gone, as if it never existed.
This is by no means unique. I hadn’t been on Christian Forums in years and years. I happened to wander back, looking for an old post and guess what I found? The same blocked door to information! As of this fall, it was no longer open for non-Christians to respond to posts. All Christian All The Time.
I have been on blogs who politely informed me they were Christian blogs, only looking for Christian responses (or seekers looking to become Christians) and my information was not welcome.
My own family and friends, upon learning of my deconversion, did not ask why. (With the exception of one friend.) They didn’t want the information. They didn’t want to deal with it.
Growing up Christian we only learned of evolution what our Christian leaders wanted us to learn. Minute bits and rare out-of-context quotes designed to show the ridiculousness of the theory. We were NOT encouraged to read scientists. We were NOT encouraged to read scientific journals. Oh, most certainly not! Those doors must be barred. If we learned that information…why…we would have to address it!
How many conversations have we had on the topic, only to learn the creationist has not read one single book from a scientific standpoint, while demanding we read dozens of theirs?
If your belief cannot stand to look at new information—I have no use for it. If your belief cannot allow scrutiny by those in disagreement—it is a sham.
Regardless of what it was, the stories converge on a consistent theme—eventually the person searches for information outside their normal parameters. They start reading books they would never think of reading before. Perusing websites and programs previously uninvestigated. Talking to persons with contrary beliefs, unlike before.
Eventually it is this new information, this new study that causes the person to modify their belief.
And really—this is no surprise. New information presents us opportunities to change all the time. Listen to the radio on the way to work; hear of traffic tie-ups and this new insight causes you to change your route. We learned of microwave ovens; modifying how we cook popcorn forever. We learned of DVD; good-bye VHS. We learned the wrong way to change tires, new words, greater discoveries.
What does surprise me is how many Christians actively limit learning new information. As if, somehow, this new information could possibly require them to change their mind and as long as they stick their finger in their ears, close their eyes and hum real loud, they will never have to address the problem.
If you cut-off access to the information in the first place, you never have to worry about dealing with it. They become in-breed.
I recently held a debate with a theist, who wanted it posted on his forum--Faith and Fellowship Forum. A forum with interesting Rules:
You will not use any aspect of FF Forums to promote a religion, belief, faith or doctrine other than "Christianity" as stated in the Nicene Creed. A post that merely provides information about a non-Nicene Christian belief is allowed for informational purposes only (with references provided) and without promotion. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity. For the purposes of this rule, atheism and witchcraft/psychics are to be considered faiths.
…
A. You will not post content regarding the following subjects anywhere on FFF except in Ethics & Morality.
drug use
gambling
polygamy
extramarital or premarital sexual activity
homosexuality
transsexuality
*You will not make posts promoting or endorsing any of these subjects.
So if one dares to…say…argue the existence of God, one could easily be accused of “promoting atheism” and the posts would be deleted. Perhaps the poster banned. The ONLY thing one is allowed to do is promote the same belief as the administrator.
Think about the natural outcome of such a place. Pantheist?—good-bye. Deist?—right out. Mormon?—Sorry, we require the Nicene Creed; there’s the door. Eventually, by process of elimination, the only persons left would be the ones that believe the same as you do!
Now—if the only people you talk to know the same things you do; what is the chance of learning new information? Exactly! Zero. What a great insulation from ever having to be confronted with a possible contrary opinion—never allow it in the front door in the first place.
For obvious reasons, in order to even HAVE a debate within such a format, one of the parameters was my being exempted from the rules. (Wouldn’t be possible, otherwise.)
Doesn’t matter. The Administrator has now deleted the debate off the forum. Gone, as if it never existed.
This is by no means unique. I hadn’t been on Christian Forums in years and years. I happened to wander back, looking for an old post and guess what I found? The same blocked door to information! As of this fall, it was no longer open for non-Christians to respond to posts. All Christian All The Time.
I have been on blogs who politely informed me they were Christian blogs, only looking for Christian responses (or seekers looking to become Christians) and my information was not welcome.
My own family and friends, upon learning of my deconversion, did not ask why. (With the exception of one friend.) They didn’t want the information. They didn’t want to deal with it.
Growing up Christian we only learned of evolution what our Christian leaders wanted us to learn. Minute bits and rare out-of-context quotes designed to show the ridiculousness of the theory. We were NOT encouraged to read scientists. We were NOT encouraged to read scientific journals. Oh, most certainly not! Those doors must be barred. If we learned that information…why…we would have to address it!
How many conversations have we had on the topic, only to learn the creationist has not read one single book from a scientific standpoint, while demanding we read dozens of theirs?
If your belief cannot stand to look at new information—I have no use for it. If your belief cannot allow scrutiny by those in disagreement—it is a sham.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Christmas Message from Atheists
At the Washington State Capital, Freedom From Religion Foundation (headed by Dan Barker) was permitted to place a plaque next to the two (2) other Holiday displays. A “Holiday Tree” and a Nativity Scene. The plaque reads:
According to Mark Impomeni this is “an offensive message of intolerance.”
I see it more as an exercise of freedom of speech. If you want a Nativity, why can’t the Jewish community have its Menorah? Or the atheist community have some plaque like this?
Frankly, if you want the REAL meaning of Christmas displayed, I would think the shopkeepers should be entitled to put up a great big metal green Dollar Sign.
At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
According to Mark Impomeni this is “an offensive message of intolerance.”
I see it more as an exercise of freedom of speech. If you want a Nativity, why can’t the Jewish community have its Menorah? Or the atheist community have some plaque like this?
Frankly, if you want the REAL meaning of Christmas displayed, I would think the shopkeepers should be entitled to put up a great big metal green Dollar Sign.
Friday, November 21, 2008
A Petty Pet Peeve about Vampires
The movie Twilight opens today. The movie is based upon a book series; the author, Stephenie Meyer freely admits she did no research on Vampires prior to writing the books, “Because I was creating my own world, I didn't want to find out just how many rules I was breaking.”
This disrespect for the genre has always bothered me. (Told ya it was petty.) I watched movies where Vampires can go in daylight. Where Crucifixes and garlic doesn’t bother them. Where a wooden stake is meaningless. I can’t tell you which ones because after I watched them I did not bother watching them again.
Apparently in Twilight the Vampires can choose to be “vegetarian” meaning they will on suck blood from animals and not humans. Too bad for the animals, of course. Yet the Vegan Vamps (Come on—how stupid does that sound?) still have quite a longing for occasional human Vintage 2008, so they have to keep their sexual desires in check and refrain from thinking too longingly on a juicy, ripe, pulsating jugular.
Bleh.
Look, part of the complete, scare-the-bejesus-outta-ya fact of Vampires was their moralless view of humanity. It wasn’t evil to kill humans; it wasn’t moral to save humans—humans were food. Much like most of us would approach a hamburger at McDonald’s. We don’t wrestle with the implications of eating a brown-eyed Bessie. We order it with extra ketchup and let our chompers fly.
What made Vampires scary was the inability to reason with them. They considered you one or two steps down on the food chain, and thus unnecessary as part of any moral quandary. A vampire with angst? What is scary about that?
I love the idea they cannot be in sunlight. There is something so temptingly delicious about this weakness. As if somehow we could conquer a Vampire within the few hours of daylight, due to their inherent inabilities. Yet (as the great authors write) it always seems as if time is slipping away. Daylight, once thought so plentiful, becomes less and less. And every time one is finally prepared to meet the Vampire—daylight is almost gone. Stephen King’s writing in Salem’s Lot comes to mind.
Or the idea they can be held at bay by simple sticks of wood. Sure, if they come at you from behind—you’re royally screwed. But if you can find a couple a popsicles, and a corner, and can hold out all night—you could survive a Vampire. There is hope, even in the darkness. Of course, part of the problem was the Vampire’s cunning, hypnotic eyes, and ability to shape-shift; all resulting in this being a terrible strategy—doomed to failure.
The adrenaline-enhancing fright of a Vampire was how one could—so close—perhaps overcome it; yet never quite manage to do so.
I know, authors who re-write Vampires make millions more dollars than I do, and another Vampire move like Count Dracula wouldn’t even make it to pre-pre-production.
I just happen to like the scary, “Holy Crap!” vampires—not the “Ain’t he just dreamy?!” sort.
This disrespect for the genre has always bothered me. (Told ya it was petty.) I watched movies where Vampires can go in daylight. Where Crucifixes and garlic doesn’t bother them. Where a wooden stake is meaningless. I can’t tell you which ones because after I watched them I did not bother watching them again.
Apparently in Twilight the Vampires can choose to be “vegetarian” meaning they will on suck blood from animals and not humans. Too bad for the animals, of course. Yet the Vegan Vamps (Come on—how stupid does that sound?) still have quite a longing for occasional human Vintage 2008, so they have to keep their sexual desires in check and refrain from thinking too longingly on a juicy, ripe, pulsating jugular.
Bleh.
Look, part of the complete, scare-the-bejesus-outta-ya fact of Vampires was their moralless view of humanity. It wasn’t evil to kill humans; it wasn’t moral to save humans—humans were food. Much like most of us would approach a hamburger at McDonald’s. We don’t wrestle with the implications of eating a brown-eyed Bessie. We order it with extra ketchup and let our chompers fly.
What made Vampires scary was the inability to reason with them. They considered you one or two steps down on the food chain, and thus unnecessary as part of any moral quandary. A vampire with angst? What is scary about that?
I love the idea they cannot be in sunlight. There is something so temptingly delicious about this weakness. As if somehow we could conquer a Vampire within the few hours of daylight, due to their inherent inabilities. Yet (as the great authors write) it always seems as if time is slipping away. Daylight, once thought so plentiful, becomes less and less. And every time one is finally prepared to meet the Vampire—daylight is almost gone. Stephen King’s writing in Salem’s Lot comes to mind.
Or the idea they can be held at bay by simple sticks of wood. Sure, if they come at you from behind—you’re royally screwed. But if you can find a couple a popsicles, and a corner, and can hold out all night—you could survive a Vampire. There is hope, even in the darkness. Of course, part of the problem was the Vampire’s cunning, hypnotic eyes, and ability to shape-shift; all resulting in this being a terrible strategy—doomed to failure.
The adrenaline-enhancing fright of a Vampire was how one could—so close—perhaps overcome it; yet never quite manage to do so.
I know, authors who re-write Vampires make millions more dollars than I do, and another Vampire move like Count Dracula wouldn’t even make it to pre-pre-production.
I just happen to like the scary, “Holy Crap!” vampires—not the “Ain’t he just dreamy?!” sort.
Monday, November 17, 2008
If you can’t say anything nice…
I recently had a medical incident causing my family members to send a rare contact. Most were thoughtful; but a few had to add they were praying for me. One went on and on about it.
I never know how to respond to this. Do I say, “Thank you”? I know this is how they handle difficulties and to them they are offering me a great and wonderful gift. “We took time out of our busy, busy commute when we would much rather be listening to local newscasters telling us once again the weather to turn off the radio and talk out-loud to a God who apparently needs constant reminding that humans actually like to be healthy and not in hospitals.”
I understand it is comforting to them. Not so much directions to a God, but a way of feeling like they are doing something rather than nothing and feeling useful.
Yet I can’t bring myself to say, “Thank you.” See—I am NOT thankful they are praying for me. I don’t care whether they are praying for me or not. Actually, rather than waste the time praying, I would rather they spend a 5:1 ratio in talking to me rather than praying about me. For every 5 minutes they spent talking to God, if they spent 1 minute e-mailing me it would be far more beneficial.
And I don’t think praying is doing anything. I view it much the same way as if they said, “Every time I mow the yard and go around a tree, I am going to scream out your name. Isn’t that wonderful?”
“Sure,” I would reply, slowly backing away.
And I could almost understand if they didn’t know me. Almost. Because of sheer numbers, it could be presumed the other person is a Christian and would appreciate the concept of being prayed for. Even though it is still presumptuous; it is a natural reaction.
They know I am an atheist. They know I find their prayers of little meaning. As if they are reiterating, “See? We are Christians and we want to subtly remind you once again of what that means.” To them it has meaning, truth and depth; and since it is true, my own personal feelings on the matter must take a far, far second to their “truth.”
But to me—atheism is true. Does this justify my making some smary comment in reply? “Hey, your prayers really helped. Well…in addition to the medicine. And the Doctors. And the Nurses. And the diagnostic machines. And the technology available to us today. I’m sorry—what was it you said you did again?”
If their “truth” trumps courtesy; can mine?
Or another example. My hospital roommate was a devoted Christian. I heard him praying out loud. As we talked, it was not a surprise when he started to share his faith. I became real silent. How do you tell an 82-year-old man who is having health difficulties his hope of an afterlife is pure fantasy? As make believe as Dungeons and Dragons? At one point he said, “Make sure you take the Great Physician with you. You know who that is, right?”
After a dramatic pause: “Jesus.”
The first thought crossing my mind was, “Well, I hope he has studied up some, ‘cause medicine has really changed in the past 2000 years.” The second thought was, “I wonder if my roommate knows how health was viewed in First Century Mediterranean, and it was a disassociation with one’s place in society, and not an illness as we understand it.” My third thought was “Er….thank you?” My fourth thought, the one I went with, was silence.
I find these statements awkward.
So what do you say? What do you think I should say?
I never know how to respond to this. Do I say, “Thank you”? I know this is how they handle difficulties and to them they are offering me a great and wonderful gift. “We took time out of our busy, busy commute when we would much rather be listening to local newscasters telling us once again the weather to turn off the radio and talk out-loud to a God who apparently needs constant reminding that humans actually like to be healthy and not in hospitals.”
I understand it is comforting to them. Not so much directions to a God, but a way of feeling like they are doing something rather than nothing and feeling useful.
Yet I can’t bring myself to say, “Thank you.” See—I am NOT thankful they are praying for me. I don’t care whether they are praying for me or not. Actually, rather than waste the time praying, I would rather they spend a 5:1 ratio in talking to me rather than praying about me. For every 5 minutes they spent talking to God, if they spent 1 minute e-mailing me it would be far more beneficial.
And I don’t think praying is doing anything. I view it much the same way as if they said, “Every time I mow the yard and go around a tree, I am going to scream out your name. Isn’t that wonderful?”
“Sure,” I would reply, slowly backing away.
And I could almost understand if they didn’t know me. Almost. Because of sheer numbers, it could be presumed the other person is a Christian and would appreciate the concept of being prayed for. Even though it is still presumptuous; it is a natural reaction.
They know I am an atheist. They know I find their prayers of little meaning. As if they are reiterating, “See? We are Christians and we want to subtly remind you once again of what that means.” To them it has meaning, truth and depth; and since it is true, my own personal feelings on the matter must take a far, far second to their “truth.”
But to me—atheism is true. Does this justify my making some smary comment in reply? “Hey, your prayers really helped. Well…in addition to the medicine. And the Doctors. And the Nurses. And the diagnostic machines. And the technology available to us today. I’m sorry—what was it you said you did again?”
If their “truth” trumps courtesy; can mine?
Or another example. My hospital roommate was a devoted Christian. I heard him praying out loud. As we talked, it was not a surprise when he started to share his faith. I became real silent. How do you tell an 82-year-old man who is having health difficulties his hope of an afterlife is pure fantasy? As make believe as Dungeons and Dragons? At one point he said, “Make sure you take the Great Physician with you. You know who that is, right?”
After a dramatic pause: “Jesus.”
The first thought crossing my mind was, “Well, I hope he has studied up some, ‘cause medicine has really changed in the past 2000 years.” The second thought was, “I wonder if my roommate knows how health was viewed in First Century Mediterranean, and it was a disassociation with one’s place in society, and not an illness as we understand it.” My third thought was “Er….thank you?” My fourth thought, the one I went with, was silence.
I find these statements awkward.
So what do you say? What do you think I should say?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Great Greeting Giver
For a period of time, I attended college in the Southern United States. Even though we share the same citizenship, it has some very different nuances in its culture. One of those was the open and friendly way in which people interacted with each other. Even strangers. Two illustrations of what I mean:
I am from the Midwest. We are in a hurry, avoid eye contact in crowds, and attempt to get from point A to Point B with as little inconvenience as possible. Including human interaction. I did not realize how ingrained my southern interaction had become until I came back to Michigan. I was walking through a local campus (summer courses) and as I saw people—anyone, really—I would wave; calling out a friendly greeting, “Hi, there!”
They started back at me; moving as quickly as possible away from the strange little person who dared say “Hi” and slow them on their way. I was shocked at how rude and impatient these “northerners” were. My inner-being had changed to the point it felt “wrong.” This was not how humans were to interact! Of course, I quickly re-assumed my Midwestern “values.”
The second instance was when I took my wife back to visit friends. I warned her things were just a little bit…different…than she was used to and moved at a distinct pace. “Oh, that is fine by me,” she said, “I think it will be nice to slow down and be friendlier.” She didn’t know what she was getting in to.
We bought some items at a store, and got in line at the cashier behind a person with only one or two items. Lucky, right? Er…no. The cashier and the buyer struck up a conversation. Now it was evident they didn’t know each other; but that wasn’t hindering the conversation a bit. They were more than willing to chat away. After about a minute I turned to my wife:
“Are you O.K?”
“This is fine. It’s kinda nice, actually.”
Another minute passed.
“How are you doing?”
“Do they always talk like this?”
“Yep.”
Another long minute passed.
“You O.K.? You look a little…red.”
“Don’t they know people are trying to purchase things here? Don’t they know we have things to do?”
And another minute…
“Uh…maybe you should wait in the car…?”
[words chopped off with a snap of the teeth] “WHY. CAN’T. THEY. SHUT. UP?”
Even though we are but a 1000 miles apart in distance; the cultural divide may be far greater.
As humans we recognize the cultural and societal impact of greeting each other, and how that varies from place to place. In some parts of world, touching each other in greeting would be considered very rude. A bow is appropriate. Yet in others, a greeting may be on the other end of the spectrum, consisting of a firm hug and a kiss on each cheek.
We have quick handshakes, firm handshakes, handshakes that the more respected person must offer first, power handshakes and no handshakes. We have bear hugs and side hugs and one-armed hugs. We have kiss on the cheeks, kiss in the air near the cheek, one kiss, two kiss and three kiss greeting. Here are different forms of greeting from a few selected places.
We even indicate the depth of relationship by the amount of body we use: to a friend we use a whole arm (hug), to a stranger this is reduced to one hand (handshake) and by the time we reach an enemy, the only thing left in our greeting is one finger. In business gatherings we have one form of greeting; in doctor’s offices another. (Who shakes hands with a proctologist?)
We understand both the differences and the force of upbringing affecting how we view greetings. In fact, as cultures interact, they can even affect each other. Because of Japan’s interaction with Americans, the handshake has become more common, for example.
None of us is surprised at the differences of greeting. None of us is surprised that how we were raised causes us to feel some greetings are “right” and some feel “wrong.” If I met some of you in person and grabbed you in a great big hug—some would find this shocking, others would take little note. Why? Because of our relationship and our culture. On the other hand, if I were to bow and not offer a hand in a handshake—this, too, would seem stilted and odd.
Fine and dandy but…so what? Here is my question: Why is this any different than morality? In the same way greetings are determined by culture, time, locale and society—why can’t morality be determined the same way? The same way greetings modify upon meeting new cultures; morals can change.
At some point humans met each other. They learned there must be a way to indicate how this meeting was to progress. Were they to fight? To talk? To avoid each other? By creating simple forms of greeting, these questions were answered. How many fights start with, “Hi”? (Curiously, after all these years, we still haven’t figured out a way to end conversations. How many times, at parties or meetings, does an awkward silence eventually end with a muttered, “So..O.K., then…uh…see you later?”)
In the same way, humans recognized they had to interact with each other and began to institute morals within these interactions. If I could steal stuff from my neighbor’s cave, then they could steal stuff from my cave. Meaning I could never leave my cave to get more stuff. If I was burned with a stick, I didn’t like it. Presumably if I burned someone else with a stick; they would like it.
Yet somehow, in our discussions on God, theists are vastly impressed with the fact there are morals--that this proves there is a God; but are not equally impressed with the fact there are greetings. Look, if morals (which appear driven by society) imply there is a Great Moral Giver then greetings (which appear driven by society) imply there is a Great Greeting Giver.
What is the difference? When we point out the vastly different morals over locales and time (slavery, polygamy, divorce, euthanasia, abortion, etc.) what we are told is the point is not what the morals are—it is the fact there are morals.
All right. Then it is not important what the greetings are—it is the fact there are greetings. Thus proving the importance of greeting to this Great Greeting Giver. We can even continue this argument along similar lines; using it to demonstrate if morals must be absolute by their mere existence, then greetings must equally be absolute by their mere existence.
What does this mean for the Christian? According to 1 Cor. 16:20:
If we have “absolute greetings”—it would seem the Christian God requires it be a kiss. Not a handshake. Not a bow. A kiss. (And not just “any” kiss mind you—but a “holy kiss.”)
Does this seem ridiculous? Isn’t Paul talking about a cultural norm? Well…wait a minute. Then we could equally claim the prohibition against homosexuality in Romans 1 was merely a “cultural norm.” and dismiss it as well. If greetings are relative to time and place—why can’t morals equally be relative to time and place?
What method does the Christian use to determine greetings are NOT absolute under their God, but Morals are? If the only proof for absolute morals is the claim “Well gee--everybody has morals” then I can claim “Well gee--everybody has a form of greeting” as well.
If you can see how greetings are derived from culture, develop over time, modify upon interaction with other cultures—can you see how morals will too?
I am from the Midwest. We are in a hurry, avoid eye contact in crowds, and attempt to get from point A to Point B with as little inconvenience as possible. Including human interaction. I did not realize how ingrained my southern interaction had become until I came back to Michigan. I was walking through a local campus (summer courses) and as I saw people—anyone, really—I would wave; calling out a friendly greeting, “Hi, there!”
They started back at me; moving as quickly as possible away from the strange little person who dared say “Hi” and slow them on their way. I was shocked at how rude and impatient these “northerners” were. My inner-being had changed to the point it felt “wrong.” This was not how humans were to interact! Of course, I quickly re-assumed my Midwestern “values.”
The second instance was when I took my wife back to visit friends. I warned her things were just a little bit…different…than she was used to and moved at a distinct pace. “Oh, that is fine by me,” she said, “I think it will be nice to slow down and be friendlier.” She didn’t know what she was getting in to.
We bought some items at a store, and got in line at the cashier behind a person with only one or two items. Lucky, right? Er…no. The cashier and the buyer struck up a conversation. Now it was evident they didn’t know each other; but that wasn’t hindering the conversation a bit. They were more than willing to chat away. After about a minute I turned to my wife:
“Are you O.K?”
“This is fine. It’s kinda nice, actually.”
Another minute passed.
“How are you doing?”
“Do they always talk like this?”
“Yep.”
Another long minute passed.
“You O.K.? You look a little…red.”
“Don’t they know people are trying to purchase things here? Don’t they know we have things to do?”
And another minute…
“Uh…maybe you should wait in the car…?”
[words chopped off with a snap of the teeth] “WHY. CAN’T. THEY. SHUT. UP?”
Even though we are but a 1000 miles apart in distance; the cultural divide may be far greater.
As humans we recognize the cultural and societal impact of greeting each other, and how that varies from place to place. In some parts of world, touching each other in greeting would be considered very rude. A bow is appropriate. Yet in others, a greeting may be on the other end of the spectrum, consisting of a firm hug and a kiss on each cheek.
We have quick handshakes, firm handshakes, handshakes that the more respected person must offer first, power handshakes and no handshakes. We have bear hugs and side hugs and one-armed hugs. We have kiss on the cheeks, kiss in the air near the cheek, one kiss, two kiss and three kiss greeting. Here are different forms of greeting from a few selected places.
We even indicate the depth of relationship by the amount of body we use: to a friend we use a whole arm (hug), to a stranger this is reduced to one hand (handshake) and by the time we reach an enemy, the only thing left in our greeting is one finger. In business gatherings we have one form of greeting; in doctor’s offices another. (Who shakes hands with a proctologist?)
We understand both the differences and the force of upbringing affecting how we view greetings. In fact, as cultures interact, they can even affect each other. Because of Japan’s interaction with Americans, the handshake has become more common, for example.
None of us is surprised at the differences of greeting. None of us is surprised that how we were raised causes us to feel some greetings are “right” and some feel “wrong.” If I met some of you in person and grabbed you in a great big hug—some would find this shocking, others would take little note. Why? Because of our relationship and our culture. On the other hand, if I were to bow and not offer a hand in a handshake—this, too, would seem stilted and odd.
Fine and dandy but…so what? Here is my question: Why is this any different than morality? In the same way greetings are determined by culture, time, locale and society—why can’t morality be determined the same way? The same way greetings modify upon meeting new cultures; morals can change.
At some point humans met each other. They learned there must be a way to indicate how this meeting was to progress. Were they to fight? To talk? To avoid each other? By creating simple forms of greeting, these questions were answered. How many fights start with, “Hi”? (Curiously, after all these years, we still haven’t figured out a way to end conversations. How many times, at parties or meetings, does an awkward silence eventually end with a muttered, “So..O.K., then…uh…see you later?”)
In the same way, humans recognized they had to interact with each other and began to institute morals within these interactions. If I could steal stuff from my neighbor’s cave, then they could steal stuff from my cave. Meaning I could never leave my cave to get more stuff. If I was burned with a stick, I didn’t like it. Presumably if I burned someone else with a stick; they would like it.
Yet somehow, in our discussions on God, theists are vastly impressed with the fact there are morals--that this proves there is a God; but are not equally impressed with the fact there are greetings. Look, if morals (which appear driven by society) imply there is a Great Moral Giver then greetings (which appear driven by society) imply there is a Great Greeting Giver.
What is the difference? When we point out the vastly different morals over locales and time (slavery, polygamy, divorce, euthanasia, abortion, etc.) what we are told is the point is not what the morals are—it is the fact there are morals.
All right. Then it is not important what the greetings are—it is the fact there are greetings. Thus proving the importance of greeting to this Great Greeting Giver. We can even continue this argument along similar lines; using it to demonstrate if morals must be absolute by their mere existence, then greetings must equally be absolute by their mere existence.
What does this mean for the Christian? According to 1 Cor. 16:20:
All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.
If we have “absolute greetings”—it would seem the Christian God requires it be a kiss. Not a handshake. Not a bow. A kiss. (And not just “any” kiss mind you—but a “holy kiss.”)
Does this seem ridiculous? Isn’t Paul talking about a cultural norm? Well…wait a minute. Then we could equally claim the prohibition against homosexuality in Romans 1 was merely a “cultural norm.” and dismiss it as well. If greetings are relative to time and place—why can’t morals equally be relative to time and place?
What method does the Christian use to determine greetings are NOT absolute under their God, but Morals are? If the only proof for absolute morals is the claim “Well gee--everybody has morals” then I can claim “Well gee--everybody has a form of greeting” as well.
If you can see how greetings are derived from culture, develop over time, modify upon interaction with other cultures—can you see how morals will too?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama – the next contestant on “Who is the Anti-Christ?”
Well, maybe not. Every presidency or so, there are claims the person is the Anti-Christ. I remember the claim “Ronald Wilson Reagan”—six letters in each of his names---666. Proving he was the antichrist.
Christians, especially of the Rapture Ready sort have a bizarre love/hate relationship with the Rapture, End-times, Tribulation and, of course, the Anti-Christ. They recognize Matthew 24:36 says no one (not even Jesus) knows when the Second Coming is…yet they guess anyway. They would refuse to vote for a person they thought was the anti-christ…yet acknowledge their God is sovereign and would control the vote putting the anti-christ in power.
They don’t want to act as if they would enjoy the terrible deaths of the tribulation…yet it is these deaths that usher in the age they look forward to. They talk of ancient times when it was necessary for God to use genocide…yet readily hold to the same God using genocide in the future.
It is so curious how Christians think they can affect their own God. If we all managed to never vote in the anti-christ, or never place him/her (*cough, cough* “Hillary”) in power—could we thwart their God? Does God watch CNN on election night to determine his game plan? Or if we planned very hard on electing the perfect anti-christ person—would God be forced to “move up” his timetable to conform to our vote?
They want it…they don’t…they do. Like constant air quotes: “Wouldn’t it be ‘terrible’ if Obama was the anti-christ? He He he.” Do they want this country to fall into bad times under Obama? Just to prove their point?
When will this particular flavor of Christianity cease to exist?
Christians, especially of the Rapture Ready sort have a bizarre love/hate relationship with the Rapture, End-times, Tribulation and, of course, the Anti-Christ. They recognize Matthew 24:36 says no one (not even Jesus) knows when the Second Coming is…yet they guess anyway. They would refuse to vote for a person they thought was the anti-christ…yet acknowledge their God is sovereign and would control the vote putting the anti-christ in power.
They don’t want to act as if they would enjoy the terrible deaths of the tribulation…yet it is these deaths that usher in the age they look forward to. They talk of ancient times when it was necessary for God to use genocide…yet readily hold to the same God using genocide in the future.
It is so curious how Christians think they can affect their own God. If we all managed to never vote in the anti-christ, or never place him/her (*cough, cough* “Hillary”) in power—could we thwart their God? Does God watch CNN on election night to determine his game plan? Or if we planned very hard on electing the perfect anti-christ person—would God be forced to “move up” his timetable to conform to our vote?
They want it…they don’t…they do. Like constant air quotes: “Wouldn’t it be ‘terrible’ if Obama was the anti-christ? He He he.” Do they want this country to fall into bad times under Obama? Just to prove their point?
When will this particular flavor of Christianity cease to exist?
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Tradition Protected
With the passing of Proposition 8 in California, I am hearing the statement, “Thank goodness the traditional definition of marriage has been affirmed.” I have seen the argument against homosexual marriage is that it is not ”traditional.” This is a stupid argument, and should rightly be abandoned.
Two questions immediately come to mind:
1) How long must something be practiced before it is “traditional”? and
2) What is it about “tradition” that makes something correct, moral or right?
As I grew up, steeped in Baptist Culture, I attended weddings. After a while, to a young boy, they all looked the same. There was a reason for this—they were. The wedding would take place in the church. Same wedding song was played. (“Here comes the bride. Big, Fat and Wide. Where is the Groom? In the Dressing Room. Why is he there? He lost his underwear.” Sung by every 8-year-old at some point, I warrant.) Same formation on stage. Same verses read. (Ephesians 5. 1 Cor. 13) Same sermonette. (“The ring is round, indicating eternal. It is made of gold, because it is precious.”)
Candles. Kneeling bench. Coupla solos.
Reception to follow in the church hall. Same food. (Even the same mints.) Same ceremony. Toss the bouquet, toss the rice, toddle off.
It was…tradition.
In my wedding, we mixed things up a bit and had the wedding party face the crowd, with the pastor’s back to the audience. (Hey—it was 1990. More radical back then.) The funniest item within our wedding was that one of the bridesmaids was 9 months and 3 days pregnant. A few times she would startle a bit and grab her stomach (as pregnant women do) and every time she did there was an audible “GASP!” in the audience. They figured she would drop the baby right there on stage!
[Ironically enough, the only song I wanted sung was “Sunrise, sunset” because I didn’t want a dry eye in the place. A good wedding is a crying wedding. The song comes from Fiddler on the Roof--a movie about following tradition.]
But our reception violated all kinds of tradition from my family’s point of view. We had…dancing. Before this, a (very) few had been to weddings—such as distant cousins—where dancing occurred. Those cousins were heathens; it was expected of heathen cousins to perform heathen rituals.
This was a…Christian wedding. With dancing? Broke every rule in the book! A Band playing Rock ‘n Roll??!! Wedding party members who had never dared to walk quickly to music for fear of angering God expected to go out on…(I can’t bring myself to say it)…a dance floor?! Many of my father’s Baptist friends were aghast, appalled, and so outraged they only stayed for seconds. And desert. And the cake. But then they showed their moral uprightness and social disdain by leaving immediately afterward.
Humorously, many of my wife’s relatives equally felt a severe breach of tradition as we did not serve alcohol. (Luckily there was a bar adjacent.)
Seems quaint and silly, doesn’t it? 18 years ago what was considered a supreme breach of tradition would now pass without notice. Almost embarrassing to recall how upset people were over such a minor item.
Isn’t that what tradition is? Something we do over and over and over…until we don’t?
What if I told you I would pick out my daughter’s husband? And it would be a choice based upon his family, their position in my society, their wealth, and how it could benefit me? The age, disposition, character of this husband is meaningless. The idea they should “love” each other—preposterous. Marriage is about uniting families to form societal bonds. Not love, or romance, or making a home.
You would (rightly) consider me out-of-my-mind. Yet for 100’s and 100’s and 100’s of years—that was exactly what marriage was. (Tragically, because that was how marriage was performed at the time of Jesus, some Christians believe this system has “divine blessing” and impose it upon their children in our time. Crazy.) It was tradition. It was how marriages were formed.
At some point, one person within this traditional culture went against tradition; decided to do it differently. What we now consider normal and expected would have been NON-normal and UNntraditional.
Polygamy was traditional. Taking captive females as wives was traditional. If an American soldier took two (2) Iraqi females, forcing them to be his wife—we would be shocked. Headlines would scream. Yet 3000 years ago, this would not even cause an eyebrow to rise.
So here’s the thing. I don’t give a flying fuck if “traditional” marriage is one man and one woman. Even if it is—it is time for that tradition to end. There is nothing about “tradition” making an idea sacrosanct. If it was, we would still have slavery, women wouldn’t vote, and schools would be segregated.
There is nothing about “tradition” giving the concept a pass on its correctness. We never are entitled to say, “This is the way we have always done—so that makes it right.” We must always adjust our thinking, re-evaluate our position, and question our long-held belief.
For those using “tradition” as a weapon against homosexual marriage—don’t. Stop cowering behind important-sounding, multi-syllabic words. Stop acting as if you have the higher moral ground because you think the same way as other people. If you want to be against homosexual marriage—lay claim to your true feelings. You don’t like homosexual sex. You don’t. You find it “icky.” Start being the bigoted bastard that you are; not the intellectual, morally-minded protector of all things traditional you want to portray. We aren’t buying it.
In case you can’t tell, I am sick by the passing of Proposition 8. I hope the youth—my children—can change the thinking from the twisted, cobweb-ridden mind of yester-years “tradition.” I hope my grandchildren look back at our generation as an anathema, just like we look back at our slave-owning ancestors.
I don’t give America the “pat on the back” for voting in the token African-American when, at the same time, it denies privileges to another segment of the population.
“Traditional marriage” proponents can bite my shiny metal ass.
Two questions immediately come to mind:
1) How long must something be practiced before it is “traditional”? and
2) What is it about “tradition” that makes something correct, moral or right?
As I grew up, steeped in Baptist Culture, I attended weddings. After a while, to a young boy, they all looked the same. There was a reason for this—they were. The wedding would take place in the church. Same wedding song was played. (“Here comes the bride. Big, Fat and Wide. Where is the Groom? In the Dressing Room. Why is he there? He lost his underwear.” Sung by every 8-year-old at some point, I warrant.) Same formation on stage. Same verses read. (Ephesians 5. 1 Cor. 13) Same sermonette. (“The ring is round, indicating eternal. It is made of gold, because it is precious.”)
Candles. Kneeling bench. Coupla solos.
Reception to follow in the church hall. Same food. (Even the same mints.) Same ceremony. Toss the bouquet, toss the rice, toddle off.
It was…tradition.
In my wedding, we mixed things up a bit and had the wedding party face the crowd, with the pastor’s back to the audience. (Hey—it was 1990. More radical back then.) The funniest item within our wedding was that one of the bridesmaids was 9 months and 3 days pregnant. A few times she would startle a bit and grab her stomach (as pregnant women do) and every time she did there was an audible “GASP!” in the audience. They figured she would drop the baby right there on stage!
[Ironically enough, the only song I wanted sung was “Sunrise, sunset” because I didn’t want a dry eye in the place. A good wedding is a crying wedding. The song comes from Fiddler on the Roof--a movie about following tradition.]
But our reception violated all kinds of tradition from my family’s point of view. We had…dancing. Before this, a (very) few had been to weddings—such as distant cousins—where dancing occurred. Those cousins were heathens; it was expected of heathen cousins to perform heathen rituals.
This was a…Christian wedding. With dancing? Broke every rule in the book! A Band playing Rock ‘n Roll??!! Wedding party members who had never dared to walk quickly to music for fear of angering God expected to go out on…(I can’t bring myself to say it)…a dance floor?! Many of my father’s Baptist friends were aghast, appalled, and so outraged they only stayed for seconds. And desert. And the cake. But then they showed their moral uprightness and social disdain by leaving immediately afterward.
Humorously, many of my wife’s relatives equally felt a severe breach of tradition as we did not serve alcohol. (Luckily there was a bar adjacent.)
Seems quaint and silly, doesn’t it? 18 years ago what was considered a supreme breach of tradition would now pass without notice. Almost embarrassing to recall how upset people were over such a minor item.
Isn’t that what tradition is? Something we do over and over and over…until we don’t?
What if I told you I would pick out my daughter’s husband? And it would be a choice based upon his family, their position in my society, their wealth, and how it could benefit me? The age, disposition, character of this husband is meaningless. The idea they should “love” each other—preposterous. Marriage is about uniting families to form societal bonds. Not love, or romance, or making a home.
You would (rightly) consider me out-of-my-mind. Yet for 100’s and 100’s and 100’s of years—that was exactly what marriage was. (Tragically, because that was how marriage was performed at the time of Jesus, some Christians believe this system has “divine blessing” and impose it upon their children in our time. Crazy.) It was tradition. It was how marriages were formed.
At some point, one person within this traditional culture went against tradition; decided to do it differently. What we now consider normal and expected would have been NON-normal and UNntraditional.
Polygamy was traditional. Taking captive females as wives was traditional. If an American soldier took two (2) Iraqi females, forcing them to be his wife—we would be shocked. Headlines would scream. Yet 3000 years ago, this would not even cause an eyebrow to rise.
So here’s the thing. I don’t give a flying fuck if “traditional” marriage is one man and one woman. Even if it is—it is time for that tradition to end. There is nothing about “tradition” making an idea sacrosanct. If it was, we would still have slavery, women wouldn’t vote, and schools would be segregated.
There is nothing about “tradition” giving the concept a pass on its correctness. We never are entitled to say, “This is the way we have always done—so that makes it right.” We must always adjust our thinking, re-evaluate our position, and question our long-held belief.
For those using “tradition” as a weapon against homosexual marriage—don’t. Stop cowering behind important-sounding, multi-syllabic words. Stop acting as if you have the higher moral ground because you think the same way as other people. If you want to be against homosexual marriage—lay claim to your true feelings. You don’t like homosexual sex. You don’t. You find it “icky.” Start being the bigoted bastard that you are; not the intellectual, morally-minded protector of all things traditional you want to portray. We aren’t buying it.
In case you can’t tell, I am sick by the passing of Proposition 8. I hope the youth—my children—can change the thinking from the twisted, cobweb-ridden mind of yester-years “tradition.” I hope my grandchildren look back at our generation as an anathema, just like we look back at our slave-owning ancestors.
I don’t give America the “pat on the back” for voting in the token African-American when, at the same time, it denies privileges to another segment of the population.
“Traditional marriage” proponents can bite my shiny metal ass.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Debating a Theist
I am in the process of debating a theist here. The topic, “Does God Exist?” is not very exciting, but he seemed quite enthusiastic about debating me, so I obliged.
Question: Does any one think there has been any new developments in this fight in the past…say…100 years? Or is it the same arguments re-worked?
Question: Does any one think there has been any new developments in this fight in the past…say…100 years? Or is it the same arguments re-worked?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Invisible Bible
Last Thursday I was listening to the Albert Mohler Program and he mentioned a book: The Invisible Constitution with the complaint, “Why—If there is an ‘invisible’ Constitution behind the real one; you can put whatever you like in it!”
Now, I haven’t read the book; this is not a take-off on any premise therein.
Coincidentally, this was the same day One Small Step wrote this comment:
that was resonating through my head at the moment. I almost shouted “Eureka!” as I heard the disapproval from Dr. Mohler. I wanted to reach right through the radio, grab Al by the face, look him in the eye and say, “This is exactly what Christians do. They create an ‘Invisible Bible’ behind the real one and insert whatever they want into it.”
We see the poetic book of Job. A Christian creates an “invisible Bible” and determines it was either poetic, or perhaps poetically describing a literal event, or doctrine, or a description of God, or…whatever! We see a literal event. Right? Nope—the “invisible Bible” is giving us a metaphorical event—didn’t happen. Or perhaps it was a literal event, only mythically enhanced. Or a literal event that was to be a type for a later event. Or a metaphorical event demonstrating prophecy.
We see Jesus mixing it up with the Pharisees. Some look in their “Invisible Bible” and claim this actually happened and is a demonstration of how to show “love” to non-believers. Other people’s invisible Bible indicates it didn’t happen at all—it is myth. Still other people’s invisible Bibles say it did happen, and Jesus was loving them, but this is not an example of we should do.
Yeah, Dr. Mohler—you got it! By creating these “invisible documents” we CAN insert whatever we want. Christians are prolific at it. Paul’s doctrines about women? Well, the bit about not preaching in church—THAT one the Southern Baptist Invisible Bible says the same as the literal Bible. The One about women wearing pearls and gold? Lo and behold the Southern Baptist Invisible Bible says this one is “Right out!” Has to do with a principle, doncha know!
Psalm 22. A poem about a cry for help from an afflicted person. Ahhhh…but turn with me to Psalm 22 in your “Invisible Bible” and it turns out to be a miraculous prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion. Mind you, the Invisible Bible also says the author of Mark couldn’t have figured that out and used Psalm 22 as midrash to create the Passion Story---oh, no! The Invisible Bible says Mark was writing history. Or at least this one does…
Because the Bible is considered “God-breathed” by most Christians, this creates a façade. A veneer. Where the actual, physical Bible is boringly traipsed over, but underneath one can pull out the “Invisible Bible.” The “Real” Bible. The “God-Breathed” part. This is the part that is taught and fought and commentated and preached and teached and wrestled and able to create divergence in so many different denominations we have given up trying to keep track of them.
Think of this. If all we had was the literal Bible, the available sermons on the topic would have dried up long ago. Assuming there were only 1,000 churches preaching 3 sermons a week, this gives us 312 million sermons having been taught on the Bible. Using the KJV, it averages out to over 10,000 sermons per word! Why hasn’t it stopped?
‘Cause the Invisible Bible provides an infinity of possibilities that can never be exhausted.
What is the Christians’ favorite version of the Bible? The invisible one.
Now, I haven’t read the book; this is not a take-off on any premise therein.
Coincidentally, this was the same day One Small Step wrote this comment:
And then, to carry on with your line of what other secret messages future generations will find ... if God did inspire in such a way, what other parts of the Bible were inspired in such a fashion? What else did the authors write thinking it was literal truth, but would later to be found metaphorical or symbolic or figurative?
that was resonating through my head at the moment. I almost shouted “Eureka!” as I heard the disapproval from Dr. Mohler. I wanted to reach right through the radio, grab Al by the face, look him in the eye and say, “This is exactly what Christians do. They create an ‘Invisible Bible’ behind the real one and insert whatever they want into it.”
We see the poetic book of Job. A Christian creates an “invisible Bible” and determines it was either poetic, or perhaps poetically describing a literal event, or doctrine, or a description of God, or…whatever! We see a literal event. Right? Nope—the “invisible Bible” is giving us a metaphorical event—didn’t happen. Or perhaps it was a literal event, only mythically enhanced. Or a literal event that was to be a type for a later event. Or a metaphorical event demonstrating prophecy.
We see Jesus mixing it up with the Pharisees. Some look in their “Invisible Bible” and claim this actually happened and is a demonstration of how to show “love” to non-believers. Other people’s invisible Bible indicates it didn’t happen at all—it is myth. Still other people’s invisible Bibles say it did happen, and Jesus was loving them, but this is not an example of we should do.
Yeah, Dr. Mohler—you got it! By creating these “invisible documents” we CAN insert whatever we want. Christians are prolific at it. Paul’s doctrines about women? Well, the bit about not preaching in church—THAT one the Southern Baptist Invisible Bible says the same as the literal Bible. The One about women wearing pearls and gold? Lo and behold the Southern Baptist Invisible Bible says this one is “Right out!” Has to do with a principle, doncha know!
Psalm 22. A poem about a cry for help from an afflicted person. Ahhhh…but turn with me to Psalm 22 in your “Invisible Bible” and it turns out to be a miraculous prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion. Mind you, the Invisible Bible also says the author of Mark couldn’t have figured that out and used Psalm 22 as midrash to create the Passion Story---oh, no! The Invisible Bible says Mark was writing history. Or at least this one does…
Because the Bible is considered “God-breathed” by most Christians, this creates a façade. A veneer. Where the actual, physical Bible is boringly traipsed over, but underneath one can pull out the “Invisible Bible.” The “Real” Bible. The “God-Breathed” part. This is the part that is taught and fought and commentated and preached and teached and wrestled and able to create divergence in so many different denominations we have given up trying to keep track of them.
Think of this. If all we had was the literal Bible, the available sermons on the topic would have dried up long ago. Assuming there were only 1,000 churches preaching 3 sermons a week, this gives us 312 million sermons having been taught on the Bible. Using the KJV, it averages out to over 10,000 sermons per word! Why hasn’t it stopped?
‘Cause the Invisible Bible provides an infinity of possibilities that can never be exhausted.
What is the Christians’ favorite version of the Bible? The invisible one.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Bible proves Cosmology
Do you know what an ”ad hoc” or “after-the-fact” argument is? It is taking a known conclusion and reviewing the facts in attempt to fit that conclusion.
For example, we obviously now know the Japanese planned a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Should we have known it was coming? Many people review the build-up of hostilities between the Japanese and the United States (war was almost inevitable) looking for any reference to Pearl Harbor, or plans of such a raid.
Any such indication found, or any notes regarding it becomes an “A-Ha!” moment in which the person claims, “See? See? They should have seen it coming.” What is often overlooked, though, was the anticipation the Japanese would initially attack in the Southern Pacific (they did almost immediately after Pearl Harbor) as well as the fact that war appeared imminent for a long period of time. Even the Japanese were extremely concerned about the viability of such a long-range sortie going undetected.
It is easy to look back, “after-the-fact” and see how America could have seen it coming—the better method is to view it in light of what was happening at the time. As is commonly noted in the intelligence gathering community—it is rarely the lack of information but rather the wealth of information that one has to discern what is relevant and what is not that causes the problems.
Scientists have recently (since 1929) discovered and confirmed through observation and experimentation the universe is expanding. Space itself is expanding. Some Christians have taken this relatively new finding and note how the Bible indicates the universe is expanding. This claim is utilized to show how supernaturally accurate it is to make such a prediction 1000’s of years prior to science discovering it.
But does the Bible really make the claim the universe is expanding? Or is this an ad hoc determination made by picking and choosing certain verses? Let’s look at the verses:
From Here
The word “stretched” is the Hebrew word natah meaning to spread or stretch out. To understand its meaning, let’s see its use in other verses:
“…and pitched [or stretched out] his tent…” Gen. 12:8
“…and spread his tent…” Gen. 35:21
“…Take your rod and stretch out your hands over the waters…” Ex. 8:5
“…The carpenter stretches out his rule…”Isa. 44:15
What we see from that is NOT an infinite and continual expansion, but rather a lengthening with a finite beginning and finite end.
Secondly, we must discuss what is meant by “heaven.” The Tanakh uses the term interchangeably for three regions:
1) The Sky/air where birds fly, winds blow.
2) The area where stars/sun/moon exists
3) The place where God lives.
We see all three examples:
Air/Sky Jeremiah 16:4 “They shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, and their corpses shall be meat for the birds of heaven and for the beasts of the earth.”
Stars/Space Psalm 8:3 “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,”
God’s residence Psalm 53:2 “God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.”
The heavens were stacked one on top of the other: first the sky, then the stars/sun and then God’s abode. We see remnants of this thought in Paul’s statement of a man being caught up in the “third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2) and Jesus floating “up;” (Acts 1:9) to get to God’s heaven one had to go past sky, past stars and then hit God’s place.
So what “heaven” were these verses talking about? Go outside. Night, day—doesn’t matter. If you look at the clouds and sun as they stretch from horizon to horizon and almost appear to arch overhead—does it look like a “tent” of sky stretched out? Or at night, if you are away from the city, and can see what look like millions of stars, does it look like a dark tent and tiny pinpricks (with the moon as a great big hole)?
At the time the Jewish authors were writing this—they were poetically describing their impression of what the sky and space looked like from God’s perspective—like a great big tent. There was no intention of making a cosmological claim of the Big Bang Theory.
What the Christian must be claiming is God was sending secret signals across the millenniums—a double-entendre, if you will, informing us in the 21st Century how the Jews were thinking of a tent, but God was sneakily telling us of expanding space. (Makes you wonder what other “secret messages” are out there for future generations!)
Or is this “after-the-fact”? Are people looking for any clue as to any indication of God knowing about an expanding universe, and using this as an excuse?
So I thought for a fun thought experiment, we could pretend the universe isn’t expanding. That scientists discovered it has a finite, definite size. Can we find verses supporting the theory God was sending secret messages of a limited, measurable universe?
Well, what do you know...
Psalm 19:6 “Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.”
Isaiah 13:5 “They come from a far country, From the end of heaven-The Lord and His weapons of indignation, To destroy the whole land.”
Isaiah 40:12 “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, Measured heaven with a span. And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure?”
Jeremiah 31:37 “Thus says the Lord: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord.”
Jeremiah 49:36 “Against Elam I will bring the four winds From the four quarters of heaven, And scatter them toward all those winds; There shall be no nations where the outcasts of Elam will not go.”
Look at what we found! Verses discussing how there are “ends” and “corners” to heaven. An infinitely expanding universe doesn’t have ends or corners—only a finite, fixed one could. The heaven described is measurable—something an expanding universe never is.
We find other verses describing what appears to be a fixed size universe:
Job 22:14 “Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.”
Job 26: 11 “The pillars of heaven tremble, And are astonished at His rebuke.”
Job 41:11 “Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine.”
Unless God’s walks are getting longer, it is describing a set-sized universe. Or a God who needs to get on a diet plan:
Jeremiah 23:24 “Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?" says the Lord; "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord.”
If God fills heaven and earth, and heaven has expanded (quite a bit) since Jeremiah was written—is our God “bigger” than their God?
O.K., that was easy to find. Now let’s try something harder. For our thought experiment let’s assume science discovered our universe is getting smaller--instead of a Big Bang we had a Vast Vacuum. Can we find verses describing such a universe? I could find one:
Isaiah 34:4 “All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree.”
Scrolls get smaller as they roll up. Yeah, this one is a bit of a stretch. (he he he) No more of a stretch than claiming:
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. 8:20-21
Is “proof” the Bible talks about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Not kidding.
What’s the point of all this? To demonstrate claiming some book has holy insight is a dangerous thing. It causes people to look for things that simply are not there. There is no great scientific insight into the Big Bang here. No “secret revelation” waiting for Hubble to unlock the hidden code.
Just people trying to bolster the Bible into something it is not.
For example, we obviously now know the Japanese planned a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Should we have known it was coming? Many people review the build-up of hostilities between the Japanese and the United States (war was almost inevitable) looking for any reference to Pearl Harbor, or plans of such a raid.
Any such indication found, or any notes regarding it becomes an “A-Ha!” moment in which the person claims, “See? See? They should have seen it coming.” What is often overlooked, though, was the anticipation the Japanese would initially attack in the Southern Pacific (they did almost immediately after Pearl Harbor) as well as the fact that war appeared imminent for a long period of time. Even the Japanese were extremely concerned about the viability of such a long-range sortie going undetected.
It is easy to look back, “after-the-fact” and see how America could have seen it coming—the better method is to view it in light of what was happening at the time. As is commonly noted in the intelligence gathering community—it is rarely the lack of information but rather the wealth of information that one has to discern what is relevant and what is not that causes the problems.
Scientists have recently (since 1929) discovered and confirmed through observation and experimentation the universe is expanding. Space itself is expanding. Some Christians have taken this relatively new finding and note how the Bible indicates the universe is expanding. This claim is utilized to show how supernaturally accurate it is to make such a prediction 1000’s of years prior to science discovering it.
But does the Bible really make the claim the universe is expanding? Or is this an ad hoc determination made by picking and choosing certain verses? Let’s look at the verses:
Job 9:8 “He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea;”
Psalm 104:2 “Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.”
Isaiah 40:22 “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”
Isaiah 42:5 “Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:”
Isaiah 45:12 “I have made the earth, And created man on it. My hands- stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.”
Isaiah 48:13 “Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, And My right hand has stretched out the heavens; When I call to them, They stand up together.”
Isaiah 51:13 “And you forget the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens And laid the foundations of the earth;…”
Jeremiah 10:12 “He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.”
Jeremiah 51:15 “He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding”
Zechariah 12:1” The burden of the word of the Lord against Israel. Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:”
From Here
The word “stretched” is the Hebrew word natah meaning to spread or stretch out. To understand its meaning, let’s see its use in other verses:
“…and pitched [or stretched out] his tent…” Gen. 12:8
“…and spread his tent…” Gen. 35:21
“…Take your rod and stretch out your hands over the waters…” Ex. 8:5
“…The carpenter stretches out his rule…”Isa. 44:15
What we see from that is NOT an infinite and continual expansion, but rather a lengthening with a finite beginning and finite end.
Secondly, we must discuss what is meant by “heaven.” The Tanakh uses the term interchangeably for three regions:
1) The Sky/air where birds fly, winds blow.
2) The area where stars/sun/moon exists
3) The place where God lives.
We see all three examples:
Air/Sky Jeremiah 16:4 “They shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, and their corpses shall be meat for the birds of heaven and for the beasts of the earth.”
Stars/Space Psalm 8:3 “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained,”
God’s residence Psalm 53:2 “God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.”
The heavens were stacked one on top of the other: first the sky, then the stars/sun and then God’s abode. We see remnants of this thought in Paul’s statement of a man being caught up in the “third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2) and Jesus floating “up;” (Acts 1:9) to get to God’s heaven one had to go past sky, past stars and then hit God’s place.
So what “heaven” were these verses talking about? Go outside. Night, day—doesn’t matter. If you look at the clouds and sun as they stretch from horizon to horizon and almost appear to arch overhead—does it look like a “tent” of sky stretched out? Or at night, if you are away from the city, and can see what look like millions of stars, does it look like a dark tent and tiny pinpricks (with the moon as a great big hole)?
At the time the Jewish authors were writing this—they were poetically describing their impression of what the sky and space looked like from God’s perspective—like a great big tent. There was no intention of making a cosmological claim of the Big Bang Theory.
What the Christian must be claiming is God was sending secret signals across the millenniums—a double-entendre, if you will, informing us in the 21st Century how the Jews were thinking of a tent, but God was sneakily telling us of expanding space. (Makes you wonder what other “secret messages” are out there for future generations!)
Or is this “after-the-fact”? Are people looking for any clue as to any indication of God knowing about an expanding universe, and using this as an excuse?
So I thought for a fun thought experiment, we could pretend the universe isn’t expanding. That scientists discovered it has a finite, definite size. Can we find verses supporting the theory God was sending secret messages of a limited, measurable universe?
Well, what do you know...
Psalm 19:6 “Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.”
Isaiah 13:5 “They come from a far country, From the end of heaven-The Lord and His weapons of indignation, To destroy the whole land.”
Isaiah 40:12 “Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, Measured heaven with a span. And calculated the dust of the earth in a measure?”
Jeremiah 31:37 “Thus says the Lord: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the Lord.”
Jeremiah 49:36 “Against Elam I will bring the four winds From the four quarters of heaven, And scatter them toward all those winds; There shall be no nations where the outcasts of Elam will not go.”
Look at what we found! Verses discussing how there are “ends” and “corners” to heaven. An infinitely expanding universe doesn’t have ends or corners—only a finite, fixed one could. The heaven described is measurable—something an expanding universe never is.
We find other verses describing what appears to be a fixed size universe:
Job 22:14 “Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.”
Job 26: 11 “The pillars of heaven tremble, And are astonished at His rebuke.”
Job 41:11 “Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him? Everything under heaven is Mine.”
Unless God’s walks are getting longer, it is describing a set-sized universe. Or a God who needs to get on a diet plan:
Jeremiah 23:24 “Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?" says the Lord; "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord.”
If God fills heaven and earth, and heaven has expanded (quite a bit) since Jeremiah was written—is our God “bigger” than their God?
O.K., that was easy to find. Now let’s try something harder. For our thought experiment let’s assume science discovered our universe is getting smaller--instead of a Big Bang we had a Vast Vacuum. Can we find verses describing such a universe? I could find one:
Isaiah 34:4 “All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll; All their host shall fall down As the leaf falls from the vine, And as fruit falling from a fig tree.”
Scrolls get smaller as they roll up. Yeah, this one is a bit of a stretch. (he he he) No more of a stretch than claiming:
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” Rom. 8:20-21
Is “proof” the Bible talks about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Not kidding.
What’s the point of all this? To demonstrate claiming some book has holy insight is a dangerous thing. It causes people to look for things that simply are not there. There is no great scientific insight into the Big Bang here. No “secret revelation” waiting for Hubble to unlock the hidden code.
Just people trying to bolster the Bible into something it is not.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tagged
A tagging by The Barefoot Bum
Can You Remember The Day That You Officially Became An Atheist?
I remember the day I first contemplated the horrific thought there might not be a god. I looked in the mirror, drew in a breath and said out loud, “There is no god.” My next immediate reaction was the slight fear of lightening coming out of the socket! No joke.
I went to work, and over the next few weeks I realized I no longer thought of god as an entity, but more as a project. I don’t remember the exact day. Some time in July-September of 2004
Do you remember the day you officially became an agnostic?
Never really thought about it. I remember listing my belief as “agnostic” when I posted on Christianforums, but that was more out of a sense of being slightly stunned there couldn’t be a god. Was it really that possible?
How about the last time you spoke or prayed to God with actual thought that someone was listening?
Hmmm…long ago. Few years? I have spoken to god when believers tell me, “Just say the following prayer…” more to humor the notion. But think someone is listening? Nah…
Curiously, perhaps, the few times I have had spiritual moments or God-moments since becoming an atheist, the last thing I wanted to do was talk or pray or do anything other than revel in the moment.
Did anger towards God or religion help cause you to be an atheist or agnostic?
No. Why would it? I could not get my mind to process the thought, “There is a god” without evidence crowding the thought out.
If I felt anything about God or religion on my journey to atheism it would be disappointment. I asked god a lot to answer my search for him and heard nothing. Who wouldn’t be disappointed in such an event?
Here is a good one: Were you agnostic towards ghosts, even after you became an atheist?
I was a-ghostic (as in “there are no ghosts”) prior to being an atheist and still am today. I see a similar lack of proof for ghosts—why would I be agnostic toward them, but atheistic toward a god?
Do you want to be wrong?
No. Who “wants” to be wrong? Don’t we “want” to have correct information and act upon it in a correct manner? My chief desire is to know what actually is, and act rationally upon it. However, I recognize, having been wrong in the past, I am certainly wrong about something now.
Tagging Roman, Jon, and He Is Sailing (if he is even around anymore)
Can You Remember The Day That You Officially Became An Atheist?
I remember the day I first contemplated the horrific thought there might not be a god. I looked in the mirror, drew in a breath and said out loud, “There is no god.” My next immediate reaction was the slight fear of lightening coming out of the socket! No joke.
I went to work, and over the next few weeks I realized I no longer thought of god as an entity, but more as a project. I don’t remember the exact day. Some time in July-September of 2004
Do you remember the day you officially became an agnostic?
Never really thought about it. I remember listing my belief as “agnostic” when I posted on Christianforums, but that was more out of a sense of being slightly stunned there couldn’t be a god. Was it really that possible?
How about the last time you spoke or prayed to God with actual thought that someone was listening?
Hmmm…long ago. Few years? I have spoken to god when believers tell me, “Just say the following prayer…” more to humor the notion. But think someone is listening? Nah…
Curiously, perhaps, the few times I have had spiritual moments or God-moments since becoming an atheist, the last thing I wanted to do was talk or pray or do anything other than revel in the moment.
Did anger towards God or religion help cause you to be an atheist or agnostic?
No. Why would it? I could not get my mind to process the thought, “There is a god” without evidence crowding the thought out.
If I felt anything about God or religion on my journey to atheism it would be disappointment. I asked god a lot to answer my search for him and heard nothing. Who wouldn’t be disappointed in such an event?
Here is a good one: Were you agnostic towards ghosts, even after you became an atheist?
I was a-ghostic (as in “there are no ghosts”) prior to being an atheist and still am today. I see a similar lack of proof for ghosts—why would I be agnostic toward them, but atheistic toward a god?
Do you want to be wrong?
No. Who “wants” to be wrong? Don’t we “want” to have correct information and act upon it in a correct manner? My chief desire is to know what actually is, and act rationally upon it. However, I recognize, having been wrong in the past, I am certainly wrong about something now.
Tagging Roman, Jon, and He Is Sailing (if he is even around anymore)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Figurative Morality
The Barefoot Bum wrote an excellent blog entry entitled ”The Moral Failure of Figurative Theology.” I am not quite ready for it to be consigned to the back-room of blogdom.
There has always been a tension regarding the literalism of the stories of the Tanakh. At one time, most Christians believed the Great Flood literally occurred as recorded in the Bible. (Whether Judaism always believed it to be an actual historical event is a matter of another discussion.) Christians believed there was an actual 40 days (and nights) with actual rain, and the entire planet, every continent, every mountain, every single piece of earth was covered with water. And Christians believed the entire animal kingdom was saved by virtue of one (1) very big boat.
Science began to discredit the story in two primary ways: 1) Geology demonstrated there was no universal flood and 2) Biology demonstrated the difficulty in all the species (including insect, plant, fish, and avian) either surviving such a flood, or fitting in such a boat.
This tension caused Christianity to fracture into three predominant groups. The first group continues with literalism. Any evidence pointing to the contrary is discounted, discredited or disavowed. Literalism is maintained at the cost of science, observation and (in my opinion) reasonableness.
The second group assumed a combination of literalism/allegory. That there is “some truth” (and how much is a matter of debate) to the story, but it didn’t actually happen as literally written out in Genesis. Most hold to a “local flood” concept.
The third group considered it a complete allegory. Entire myth. That this was just a story, made to give a moral point. Much like Aesop’s fables—there was no talking mouse and talking lion and never expected to be. The idea was what was to be conveyed.
We see these machinations in Creation (OEC vs. YEC vs. theistic evolution). In Exodus (including the Ten Plagues and Joshua’s genocide.) In the stories of Judges. Regarding David and Solomon—even later prophets like Daniel or Isaiah. And yes, in the New Testament as well. Did the authors of the gospels record what Jesus actually said, or did they record what they expected him to say? Did the author of Acts recording the literal speeches of Peter, Stephen and Paul, or summations or even broad doctrinal statements?
But The Barefoot Bum takes it a step further. A warranted step further. If the stories presented are of figurative historical nature; are the moral dictates within the stories equally figurative?
Going back to the flood story. If it was only a local flood, or was entirely a myth—what is the moral being proclaimed here?
God sees wicked people.
God kills all the wicked people.
God saves a few humans and a few animals.
In our current society, we attempt to rehabilitate people. If they are doing something wrong, we hope to give them an opportunity to correct their ways. We punish people based upon the extent of their wrong-doing. We do not levy the death sentence to rapists and jay-walkers alike.
We punish the actual wrong-doers. We do not electrocute the murderer, then kill his wife, then kill his new-born son and 5-year-old daughter. And kill his dog, his cat, and 10 gold fish.
Yet these are the very actions of the God of the Great Flood. He didn’t attempt to rehabilitate. He administered the same punishment for all. He killed 2-day-old infants for the sins of their fathers and mothers. He killed all of the household cats (except 2) because…well…cats are evil, I guess. (Dogs, I could see. But cats?)
In fact, we start to see figurative morality begin to take hold in the claims of Christianity. Ask about Onanism. Or the Mosaic Law. (“Much of that was done away with by the New Covenant.”) Or slavery. (“Their slavery was different than our slavery.”) Or Polygamy. (“Uh…er…”) Or women wearing gold 1 Tim. 2:9. (“That has to do with modesty, not actually wearing gold.”) Or Divorce. (“The wronged party can re-marry.”) Or alcohol. (“Their wine was different than our wine.”)
We see how the morals being imposed within the Bible no longer apply today (eating pork) or mean something else today (women dress modestly) or only meant for that time period (polygamy, slavery). They become a “figurative” morality.
Which brings us to the great question as posed by The Barefoot Bum. I would state it as follows (making it my own):
If the stories of the Bible are figurative, and the morals are figurative—what possible mandate would the Bible have upon us today? In other words—if we do not rely upon the Bible for history and we do not rely upon the Bible for morals—what DO we rely upon it for?
Other than stories of how former civilizations viewed their gods.
There has always been a tension regarding the literalism of the stories of the Tanakh. At one time, most Christians believed the Great Flood literally occurred as recorded in the Bible. (Whether Judaism always believed it to be an actual historical event is a matter of another discussion.) Christians believed there was an actual 40 days (and nights) with actual rain, and the entire planet, every continent, every mountain, every single piece of earth was covered with water. And Christians believed the entire animal kingdom was saved by virtue of one (1) very big boat.
Science began to discredit the story in two primary ways: 1) Geology demonstrated there was no universal flood and 2) Biology demonstrated the difficulty in all the species (including insect, plant, fish, and avian) either surviving such a flood, or fitting in such a boat.
This tension caused Christianity to fracture into three predominant groups. The first group continues with literalism. Any evidence pointing to the contrary is discounted, discredited or disavowed. Literalism is maintained at the cost of science, observation and (in my opinion) reasonableness.
The second group assumed a combination of literalism/allegory. That there is “some truth” (and how much is a matter of debate) to the story, but it didn’t actually happen as literally written out in Genesis. Most hold to a “local flood” concept.
The third group considered it a complete allegory. Entire myth. That this was just a story, made to give a moral point. Much like Aesop’s fables—there was no talking mouse and talking lion and never expected to be. The idea was what was to be conveyed.
We see these machinations in Creation (OEC vs. YEC vs. theistic evolution). In Exodus (including the Ten Plagues and Joshua’s genocide.) In the stories of Judges. Regarding David and Solomon—even later prophets like Daniel or Isaiah. And yes, in the New Testament as well. Did the authors of the gospels record what Jesus actually said, or did they record what they expected him to say? Did the author of Acts recording the literal speeches of Peter, Stephen and Paul, or summations or even broad doctrinal statements?
But The Barefoot Bum takes it a step further. A warranted step further. If the stories presented are of figurative historical nature; are the moral dictates within the stories equally figurative?
Going back to the flood story. If it was only a local flood, or was entirely a myth—what is the moral being proclaimed here?
God sees wicked people.
God kills all the wicked people.
God saves a few humans and a few animals.
In our current society, we attempt to rehabilitate people. If they are doing something wrong, we hope to give them an opportunity to correct their ways. We punish people based upon the extent of their wrong-doing. We do not levy the death sentence to rapists and jay-walkers alike.
We punish the actual wrong-doers. We do not electrocute the murderer, then kill his wife, then kill his new-born son and 5-year-old daughter. And kill his dog, his cat, and 10 gold fish.
Yet these are the very actions of the God of the Great Flood. He didn’t attempt to rehabilitate. He administered the same punishment for all. He killed 2-day-old infants for the sins of their fathers and mothers. He killed all of the household cats (except 2) because…well…cats are evil, I guess. (Dogs, I could see. But cats?)
In fact, we start to see figurative morality begin to take hold in the claims of Christianity. Ask about Onanism. Or the Mosaic Law. (“Much of that was done away with by the New Covenant.”) Or slavery. (“Their slavery was different than our slavery.”) Or Polygamy. (“Uh…er…”) Or women wearing gold 1 Tim. 2:9. (“That has to do with modesty, not actually wearing gold.”) Or Divorce. (“The wronged party can re-marry.”) Or alcohol. (“Their wine was different than our wine.”)
We see how the morals being imposed within the Bible no longer apply today (eating pork) or mean something else today (women dress modestly) or only meant for that time period (polygamy, slavery). They become a “figurative” morality.
Which brings us to the great question as posed by The Barefoot Bum. I would state it as follows (making it my own):
If the stories of the Bible are figurative, and the morals are figurative—what possible mandate would the Bible have upon us today? In other words—if we do not rely upon the Bible for history and we do not rely upon the Bible for morals—what DO we rely upon it for?
Other than stories of how former civilizations viewed their gods.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Explain Yourself
How many times have we heard the phrase, “Atheists have to explain _____”? (Yes, I know. Atheists actually have to only explain is no god, but work with me here…)
“Atheists have to explain how the observable universe came into existence.”
Apparently I will need extensive knowledge in cosmology, astronomy, physics, and quantum mechanics.
“Atheists have to explain how life came from non-life.”
Now I need training in chemistry, geology, astronomy, and biology.
“Atheists have to explain ‘gaps’ in the fossil record.”
Brush up on biology; add paleontology, more on geology.
“Atheists have to explain how consciousness and morals came into existence.”
Add psychology, sociology, anthropology, quite a bit of history. And, to help flesh out our education, it would be great to study archeology and writing, as well as learning economics, environmental and even marine biology.
Like a shotgun, questions surrounding the universe are fired one right after another, prefaced with, “Atheists have to explain…” and when we are unable, it becomes an “A-Ha!” moment whereby atheism is considered an intellectual bankrupt concept.
Fine. You want an explanation? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” How did the universe come into being? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” Life from non-life? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” Life developing consciousness and sense of morality? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” Evolutionary “gaps”? Well….you get the idea.
Not a very compelling explanation is it? Not something you walk away thinking, “Wow! That guy REALLY knows his stuff! Every question presented, he came up with a well-researched, thought-out viable demonstration of how such a thing existed.”
I don’t have to connect the dots, do I?
”God” is not an explanation.
No one accepts “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust” as telling us anything about abiogenesis, or the initiation of the Big Bang. Even with the words coughed out, we are left scratching our heard. “HOW does Magic Fairy Pixie Dust make morality?”
Yet as crazy a scenario as this might be, it is exactly the thinking behind the idea of asking these questions. Since the atheist says, “we don’t know” and the theist can say “God”—that “God” is somehow an explanation. Guess what? It is not!
We are left with the same problems. HOW did God initiate the Big Bang? HOW did God evolve the animals?
I have come to a realization in my life. I don’t know everything. At some point I will have to rely upon some experts. Even experts who may not agree with me. I don’t know cosmology. Quantum mechanics? I strongly suggest you talk to someone else. I am more than willing to listen to alternate views, but they have to be persuasive against the experts.
I am always stunned at how many Christians think they have to be “experts” on everything. We can have a reasonable discussion about the existence of God, and they are an “expert” on philosophy. If the topic switches to the Bible, they become “experts” on history in the First Century CE as well as Canaanite History. Oh, and archeology as well.
Don’t believe me? How many times have we heard Christians say, “In those times, people would…” and upon researching we would realize they don’t have a clue? If the topic switches to evolution—guess what? By golly, they are “experts” on biology. On to abiogenesis—“experts” on chemistry. How the universe started? I don’t have to say it.
There seems to be no topic in which the Christian says, “You know what? I don’t know that field, and probably shouldn’t discuss it. I will leave it to experts who disagree with me.” Never.
And why not? Because they have a ready made expertise answer for everything. “Magic, fair”--…er…”God.”
“Atheists have to explain how the observable universe came into existence.”
Apparently I will need extensive knowledge in cosmology, astronomy, physics, and quantum mechanics.
“Atheists have to explain how life came from non-life.”
Now I need training in chemistry, geology, astronomy, and biology.
“Atheists have to explain ‘gaps’ in the fossil record.”
Brush up on biology; add paleontology, more on geology.
“Atheists have to explain how consciousness and morals came into existence.”
Add psychology, sociology, anthropology, quite a bit of history. And, to help flesh out our education, it would be great to study archeology and writing, as well as learning economics, environmental and even marine biology.
Like a shotgun, questions surrounding the universe are fired one right after another, prefaced with, “Atheists have to explain…” and when we are unable, it becomes an “A-Ha!” moment whereby atheism is considered an intellectual bankrupt concept.
Fine. You want an explanation? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” How did the universe come into being? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” Life from non-life? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” Life developing consciousness and sense of morality? “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust.” Evolutionary “gaps”? Well….you get the idea.
Not a very compelling explanation is it? Not something you walk away thinking, “Wow! That guy REALLY knows his stuff! Every question presented, he came up with a well-researched, thought-out viable demonstration of how such a thing existed.”
I don’t have to connect the dots, do I?
”God” is not an explanation.
No one accepts “Magic Fairy Pixie Dust” as telling us anything about abiogenesis, or the initiation of the Big Bang. Even with the words coughed out, we are left scratching our heard. “HOW does Magic Fairy Pixie Dust make morality?”
Yet as crazy a scenario as this might be, it is exactly the thinking behind the idea of asking these questions. Since the atheist says, “we don’t know” and the theist can say “God”—that “God” is somehow an explanation. Guess what? It is not!
We are left with the same problems. HOW did God initiate the Big Bang? HOW did God evolve the animals?
I have come to a realization in my life. I don’t know everything. At some point I will have to rely upon some experts. Even experts who may not agree with me. I don’t know cosmology. Quantum mechanics? I strongly suggest you talk to someone else. I am more than willing to listen to alternate views, but they have to be persuasive against the experts.
I am always stunned at how many Christians think they have to be “experts” on everything. We can have a reasonable discussion about the existence of God, and they are an “expert” on philosophy. If the topic switches to the Bible, they become “experts” on history in the First Century CE as well as Canaanite History. Oh, and archeology as well.
Don’t believe me? How many times have we heard Christians say, “In those times, people would…” and upon researching we would realize they don’t have a clue? If the topic switches to evolution—guess what? By golly, they are “experts” on biology. On to abiogenesis—“experts” on chemistry. How the universe started? I don’t have to say it.
There seems to be no topic in which the Christian says, “You know what? I don’t know that field, and probably shouldn’t discuss it. I will leave it to experts who disagree with me.” Never.
And why not? Because they have a ready made expertise answer for everything. “Magic, fair”--…er…”God.”
Friday, October 03, 2008
An Evening Wasted with Frank Turek
This week I had an opportunity to hear Dr. Frank Turek, co-author of ”I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” speak at a local university. I am firmly convinced some discussions deduct IQ points. Just by listening and following the conversation, you become stupider the longer you give it any deference. While I can’t say the total evening consisted of such conversations, there were moments…
Dr. Turek initially started off indicating four points were in contention: (actually there were five, but I forget the additional point—it was encompassed within these anyway):
1. Does Truth Exist?
2. Does God Exist?
3. Can Miracles Occur?
4. Is the New Testament reliable?
We were immediately informed he would not be able to get to the fourth point, and after talking around a bit, he also indicated he would not be covering the third point either. So we were going to be talking about the first two only. From the collective “Amen’s” and “That’s right” at the appropriate Jesus-moments throughout the speech, I would guesstimate the audience at 85-90% Christian. The “True Christian” pk-readings maxed out at 74.5% at one point.
Dr. Turek introduced the law of non-contradiction. (Yawn.) Explained it, and then jumped in with “Does Truth Exist?” “Truth” was defined as “what actually is.”
O.K. so far—no worries. He conspiratorially let in the audience on a big secret as to how to refute skeptics. Are you ready? “Turn the claim on itself.”
On the PowerPoint Screen (used liberally) up popped the statement, “There is no Truth.” Dr. Turek indicated how he hears this “all the time” and how we hear this “all the time” and how we may have even said it at one point. He then unwrapped the mystery of how to “turn this claim” on itself and refute it.
If you are reading my blog and you do not know how to respond to “There is no truth”—I suggest you stop reading right now. In fact, I recommend you pop over to Line Rider--a lovely little drawing game that will remind you of the pleasure of drawing from young childhood. And you don’t even have to stay in the lines!
A graphic was added, accompanying his statement, “In fact—you will look like a genius when you rebut this statement.” Somebody’s genius-gauge has been set way, way too low. And broken. And then stolen.
I was begrudgingly granting this may be necessary ground to cover. For many Christians—this may be new territory, and needed establishing. I eagerly waited for the next point. I did not know I had time to get a bite to eat, make some phone calls and catch a quick nap before it would come.
Dr. Turek felt this Grand Idea needed reaffirming. Over and Over and Over. We entered into a dreary routine. Up would pop a statement like “That may be true for you, and this is true for me” and he would ask how to refute it. After the requisite pause, some audience member would figure out how to turn it into a question, and yell it out. And then another phrase would appear, “You can’t know the truth.”
We built and burned this strawman. Then we built and burned the strawman’s wife. Then we built and burned the strawman’s kids. We were deep into Second Cousins, I think, before Dr. Turek was satisfied we had sufficiently absorbed the technique.
[Although this did give me an opportunity to test the theory as to whether this made one “look like a genius.” After one man shouted out the correct response, I peered at him intently, looking for signs of genius. He did not appear geniusified…but I discovered I felt pretty stupid for looking for signs of genius when there shouldn’t be any. Perhaps the system works; a “reverse-osmosis” sort of thing.]
Now that we had established “truth” exists (because we are SUPER-geniuses) we could move on to the next question—“Does God Exist?”
Dr. Turek decided to give us a heart attack by saying, “I believe in the Big Bang!...[dramatic pause]” You could feel the audience swell with tension: Big Bang = Big Bad Science = Darwinism = Burn the Heretic and we didn’t Bring. Enough. Matches! “…and I know who the Banger is!” A collective sigh; he was back on the right side. The creepy kid in the corner stopped menacingly flicking his Bic.
He then spent some time proving the Big Bang. (Red shift, radiation noise, Einstein, blah, blah, blah.) Actually gave some pretty good facts and figures. I don’t want to shock you too, but I believe in the Big Bang as well. I was only paying half-attention as I listened, waiting for him to get to the next point. Again.
And after proving the Big Bang (whoopee!) out pops this morsel of yesterday’s head cheese:
“So atheists say that something (universe); came from nothing (prior to the Big Bang). What sounds more reasonable? That ‘something can come from nothing’ or that ‘something came from an eternal something.’?”
Stop the busses and back up! There is something seriously incorrect here. While this term may be colloquially used--Dr. (we want to know “the truth,” right?) Turek, could have provided more clarification to our situation.
We begin observation of our universe at 1 Planck Time (that is 1/10 to the 43rd power of a second. A very, VERY short time) after the Big Bang. We cannot observe prior to that instant We simply don’t know if there was “nothing” at Big Bang, or a singularity, or what. We don’t know!
Secondly, we should note that while quantum physics works, and the theory of relativity works—both of these are incompatible. We don’t know how both can work. Further, both completely break down, and do not exist prior to that 1st Planck. Dr. Turek’s “law of causality” does not exist. The very law he is attempting to utilize to prove what was in place at this point in time--does not exist at this point of time!
Thirdly, we must note that time (and space and matter) began at the Big Bang. This is difficult to wrap our hands around. “Time” is a measurement in change. We go from one status to another status by time ticking forward. To our minds, one “second” there was ____, and the next “second” the Big Bang occurred. Yet no such “seconds” could happen, because there was no “time.”
It is incorrect, really, to use the term “prior to the Big Bang,” since “prior” implies a comparison in time, and there IS no prior to our observable time. (Note, this is as difficult a problem for a theist as the non-theist. Most theists, to avoid this problem, conveniently declare by definition [but they really don’t know] God is “outside” time. Never really explaining what “outside” means other than “a fancy philosophical term that sounds good to get me out of the current time conundrum.” But if God is outside time, He/She/It has the same problem of never changing. Never going from “God” to “God and Creation” since no time can occur to allow God to change from being alone to being with us.)
Back to our Dr. Turek. The audience is nodding their approval to such a fantastically astute statement as to how reasonable the notion of “something from nothing” is not, and “something from something we made up” is. To tighten up what the comparison (if accurately stated) we should have:
1. Cosmologists say the observable universe can only be seen back to 1 Planck time after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what existed we do not (and possibly cannot) know.
2. Dr. Turek says the observable universe can only be seen back to 1 Planck time after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what existed we do not (and possibly cannot) know. Therefore there must be a God we cannot observe who did…something… What that “something” is [the creation process] we do not (and possibly cannot) know.
Now, in comparing those statements—which is more reasonable? “I don’t know.” Or “I don’t know, so a God we don’t know must have done it in a way we don’t know.” Seems to me one “I don’t know” is sufficient.
And now we launched into Dr. Turek’s three (3) proofs for God:
1. Kalaam’s Cosmological Argument.
2. Teleological Argument
3. Moral Argument.
It was the standard presentation of Kalaam’s. Whatever begins must have a cause. [At the end of the talk, prior to the question and answer period, Dr. Turek raised this again, and stated, “perhaps you wonder how this applies to God?” Sure enough, one of our audience members was kind enough to indulge by asking “What Caused God?” which allowed Dr. Turek to pounce with glee on the ”whatever BEGINS” must have a cause, and since God doesn’t have a cause, he is exempt from the law.]
Again, having heard these arguments, I tuned out. (Do you see a pattern here? Hmmm…)
The Teleological Argument is one of design. (If you need the argument it goes like this:
1) See all these amazing facts about the universe/the cell/humans/small sea animals?
2) Aren’t those facts amazing?
3) There must be a god, ‘cause those facts are so amazing!)
We hit the same tired analogies. Yep—the watch. Mountain vs. Mt. Rushmore. He did introduce a spilled box of Alpha-bits spelling out a message. ½ point for the new analogy. He didn’t mention “Shakespeare” to my surprise. Extra 2 points. He failed to tell us how to compare a designed object by a designer within our universe and an object not designed by this designer within our universe. Minus 10 gadjillion points.
It was during this argument I noticed a very bizarre thing. See, I’m the type of person who does his research. Prior to the speech I had downloaded a number of youtube videos of Dr. Turek, popped ‘em on my iPod, and listened on the way. One of them was on the fingerprints of God.
Dr. Turek launched into the same speech. When I say “same speech” I do not mean similar illustrations, or arguments. It was the exact speech. Word-for-word. The same pauses. The same inflection. The same jokes. The same moments in time when he read the Bible. This was far more than mere memorization—even that will have some hiccups.
It was as if he was an actor, and had performed this play so many times, with the same lines and the same tones and the same breaths, and this was one more performance. I’m telling you—I could have played the video over the loudspeakers and shut off his mike, and no one there would EVER accuse him of lip-syncing. I started saying his exact words immediately before he did. It was eerie.
Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with this—I understand speakers have prepared speeches they use repeatedly. I just have never heard one so…exactly imitated.
We finished the beating the design argument, and zipped right into the moral argument:
1. Every law has a lawgiver.
2. There is moral objective law.
Conclusion: Therefore there is a moral objective law giver.
The first point was considered a given. The second point was “proven” by the concept we all have a sense of morality, so it couldn’t just be opinion, right? Godwin’s Law came into force, as Mother Theresa was compared to Hitler. (Personally, I wouldn’t have used Mother Theresa.)
And if it is just your opinion Hitler was wrong…why…that’s ludicrous; people are outraged by the notion morals could only be opinions. And golly gee, we all share some opinions, so they must be objective. Right? That proved objective morality, right?
Alas, the conclusion does not necessarily follow, in that we failed to answer the question “objective to WHOM?” There is more I could discuss in response, but this argument was kinda rushed through due to timing.
One thing I found fascinating was that Dr. Turek had three (3) books on stage: “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” “The Bible” and ”The God Delusion.” I remember him pointing out his own book twice, each time to promote it. (I have no problem with that, by the way. He is a paid speaker earning a living.) He used the Bible as an illustration once (“If there is no truth; THIS can’t be true.”) and read from it once. But he pointed out and picked up, and used for illustrations “The God Delusion” half a dozen times.
I heard Dawkins name again and again. If we counted up the words in this speech, “God” would be number one, with “Dawkins” firmly in second. “Jesus” would have been a far, far third. At one point, I looked around for Dr. Dawkins, because it seemed Dr. Turpek was addressing him so much, I thought it was a debate! I wanted to stand up and say, “Since Dr. Dawkins could not make it this evening—could you address us, please?”
And then came the Question and Answer period. I wondered how some of these people could process thoughts well enough to put one foot in front of the other. It is here I must commend Dr. Turek. Questions that I would have said, “Sit down and stay here for 3 hours until you can complete two sentences that are coherent” he politely nodded his head. Good responder, always found a point of agreement, avoided the tough questions with a question (people feel obligated to answer questions, so he often used the tactic, “Well…let me ask you a question…”) and was polite to things that were barnyard inane. He did an outstanding job of catering to his majority audience, while refraining from disassociating the questioner.
One question:
“I am a ‘gnostic’ [I couldn’t tell if he said “Gnostic” or “agnostic” so I will put in an apostrophe to be safe] “and you brought up some interesting points. That stuff about how the universe was designed, and from the Big Bang. I don’t know about all those things on morals and such….and you mentioned how that school…Harvard?” [Audience: “YALE!”] “Yeah…Yale…how it was founded on God and stuff. See, some of that stuff your God did, like in the Old Testament, and in those communities, how it was O.K., but you talked about a moral objective and, well…my question is this:
“Why is it God is always referred to as a male?”
You can’t make this stuff up. Actually, the question was much, MUCH longer, and much more rambling, and never gave us a clue as to where it was headed.
Then we had the Christians who stood up and gave us their testimony and how it is better to believe in a god and be wrong, then not believe in a god and be wrong. Thank you Dr. I-Just-Came-From-My-Bowling-League Pascal. Or if we would just ask Jesus, he would provide all the answers…..if we are sincere, of course.
I never ask questions at such things. The audience is [extremely] hostile, the speaker well-prepared, and even if you DO manage to catch them up, they respond with:
1) Asking a question with a question;
2) State they don’t have time, and recommend a book.
3) Modify the question to a sound bite pleasing to the audience.
About the only thing you can hope for is to ask a question pertinent enough, someone who is actually interested in learning more talks to you afterward.
Was it really a “wasted” evening? Naw—I enjoyed it. Once in awhile I still get cravings to go back to church. Fit in. Be part of “that scene” once more. An evening like this?—great reminder as to why I don’t fit in. If this was “intellectual heavy” for Christian get-togethers, I would commit hari-kari with a pew-pencil in the “emotional-light” situation of church.
Dr. Turek initially started off indicating four points were in contention: (actually there were five, but I forget the additional point—it was encompassed within these anyway):
1. Does Truth Exist?
2. Does God Exist?
3. Can Miracles Occur?
4. Is the New Testament reliable?
We were immediately informed he would not be able to get to the fourth point, and after talking around a bit, he also indicated he would not be covering the third point either. So we were going to be talking about the first two only. From the collective “Amen’s” and “That’s right” at the appropriate Jesus-moments throughout the speech, I would guesstimate the audience at 85-90% Christian. The “True Christian” pk-readings maxed out at 74.5% at one point.
Dr. Turek introduced the law of non-contradiction. (Yawn.) Explained it, and then jumped in with “Does Truth Exist?” “Truth” was defined as “what actually is.”
O.K. so far—no worries. He conspiratorially let in the audience on a big secret as to how to refute skeptics. Are you ready? “Turn the claim on itself.”
On the PowerPoint Screen (used liberally) up popped the statement, “There is no Truth.” Dr. Turek indicated how he hears this “all the time” and how we hear this “all the time” and how we may have even said it at one point. He then unwrapped the mystery of how to “turn this claim” on itself and refute it.
If you are reading my blog and you do not know how to respond to “There is no truth”—I suggest you stop reading right now. In fact, I recommend you pop over to Line Rider--a lovely little drawing game that will remind you of the pleasure of drawing from young childhood. And you don’t even have to stay in the lines!
A graphic was added, accompanying his statement, “In fact—you will look like a genius when you rebut this statement.” Somebody’s genius-gauge has been set way, way too low. And broken. And then stolen.
I was begrudgingly granting this may be necessary ground to cover. For many Christians—this may be new territory, and needed establishing. I eagerly waited for the next point. I did not know I had time to get a bite to eat, make some phone calls and catch a quick nap before it would come.
Dr. Turek felt this Grand Idea needed reaffirming. Over and Over and Over. We entered into a dreary routine. Up would pop a statement like “That may be true for you, and this is true for me” and he would ask how to refute it. After the requisite pause, some audience member would figure out how to turn it into a question, and yell it out. And then another phrase would appear, “You can’t know the truth.”
We built and burned this strawman. Then we built and burned the strawman’s wife. Then we built and burned the strawman’s kids. We were deep into Second Cousins, I think, before Dr. Turek was satisfied we had sufficiently absorbed the technique.
[Although this did give me an opportunity to test the theory as to whether this made one “look like a genius.” After one man shouted out the correct response, I peered at him intently, looking for signs of genius. He did not appear geniusified…but I discovered I felt pretty stupid for looking for signs of genius when there shouldn’t be any. Perhaps the system works; a “reverse-osmosis” sort of thing.]
Now that we had established “truth” exists (because we are SUPER-geniuses) we could move on to the next question—“Does God Exist?”
Dr. Turek decided to give us a heart attack by saying, “I believe in the Big Bang!...[dramatic pause]” You could feel the audience swell with tension: Big Bang = Big Bad Science = Darwinism = Burn the Heretic and we didn’t Bring. Enough. Matches! “…and I know who the Banger is!” A collective sigh; he was back on the right side. The creepy kid in the corner stopped menacingly flicking his Bic.
He then spent some time proving the Big Bang. (Red shift, radiation noise, Einstein, blah, blah, blah.) Actually gave some pretty good facts and figures. I don’t want to shock you too, but I believe in the Big Bang as well. I was only paying half-attention as I listened, waiting for him to get to the next point. Again.
And after proving the Big Bang (whoopee!) out pops this morsel of yesterday’s head cheese:
“So atheists say that something (universe); came from nothing (prior to the Big Bang). What sounds more reasonable? That ‘something can come from nothing’ or that ‘something came from an eternal something.’?”
Stop the busses and back up! There is something seriously incorrect here. While this term may be colloquially used--Dr. (we want to know “the truth,” right?) Turek, could have provided more clarification to our situation.
We begin observation of our universe at 1 Planck Time (that is 1/10 to the 43rd power of a second. A very, VERY short time) after the Big Bang. We cannot observe prior to that instant We simply don’t know if there was “nothing” at Big Bang, or a singularity, or what. We don’t know!
Secondly, we should note that while quantum physics works, and the theory of relativity works—both of these are incompatible. We don’t know how both can work. Further, both completely break down, and do not exist prior to that 1st Planck. Dr. Turek’s “law of causality” does not exist. The very law he is attempting to utilize to prove what was in place at this point in time--does not exist at this point of time!
Thirdly, we must note that time (and space and matter) began at the Big Bang. This is difficult to wrap our hands around. “Time” is a measurement in change. We go from one status to another status by time ticking forward. To our minds, one “second” there was ____, and the next “second” the Big Bang occurred. Yet no such “seconds” could happen, because there was no “time.”
It is incorrect, really, to use the term “prior to the Big Bang,” since “prior” implies a comparison in time, and there IS no prior to our observable time. (Note, this is as difficult a problem for a theist as the non-theist. Most theists, to avoid this problem, conveniently declare by definition [but they really don’t know] God is “outside” time. Never really explaining what “outside” means other than “a fancy philosophical term that sounds good to get me out of the current time conundrum.” But if God is outside time, He/She/It has the same problem of never changing. Never going from “God” to “God and Creation” since no time can occur to allow God to change from being alone to being with us.)
Back to our Dr. Turek. The audience is nodding their approval to such a fantastically astute statement as to how reasonable the notion of “something from nothing” is not, and “something from something we made up” is. To tighten up what the comparison (if accurately stated) we should have:
1. Cosmologists say the observable universe can only be seen back to 1 Planck time after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what existed we do not (and possibly cannot) know.
2. Dr. Turek says the observable universe can only be seen back to 1 Planck time after the Big Bang. What happened before that, and what existed we do not (and possibly cannot) know. Therefore there must be a God we cannot observe who did…something… What that “something” is [the creation process] we do not (and possibly cannot) know.
Now, in comparing those statements—which is more reasonable? “I don’t know.” Or “I don’t know, so a God we don’t know must have done it in a way we don’t know.” Seems to me one “I don’t know” is sufficient.
And now we launched into Dr. Turek’s three (3) proofs for God:
1. Kalaam’s Cosmological Argument.
2. Teleological Argument
3. Moral Argument.
It was the standard presentation of Kalaam’s. Whatever begins must have a cause. [At the end of the talk, prior to the question and answer period, Dr. Turek raised this again, and stated, “perhaps you wonder how this applies to God?” Sure enough, one of our audience members was kind enough to indulge by asking “What Caused God?” which allowed Dr. Turek to pounce with glee on the ”whatever BEGINS” must have a cause, and since God doesn’t have a cause, he is exempt from the law.]
Again, having heard these arguments, I tuned out. (Do you see a pattern here? Hmmm…)
The Teleological Argument is one of design. (If you need the argument it goes like this:
1) See all these amazing facts about the universe/the cell/humans/small sea animals?
2) Aren’t those facts amazing?
3) There must be a god, ‘cause those facts are so amazing!)
We hit the same tired analogies. Yep—the watch. Mountain vs. Mt. Rushmore. He did introduce a spilled box of Alpha-bits spelling out a message. ½ point for the new analogy. He didn’t mention “Shakespeare” to my surprise. Extra 2 points. He failed to tell us how to compare a designed object by a designer within our universe and an object not designed by this designer within our universe. Minus 10 gadjillion points.
It was during this argument I noticed a very bizarre thing. See, I’m the type of person who does his research. Prior to the speech I had downloaded a number of youtube videos of Dr. Turek, popped ‘em on my iPod, and listened on the way. One of them was on the fingerprints of God.
Dr. Turek launched into the same speech. When I say “same speech” I do not mean similar illustrations, or arguments. It was the exact speech. Word-for-word. The same pauses. The same inflection. The same jokes. The same moments in time when he read the Bible. This was far more than mere memorization—even that will have some hiccups.
It was as if he was an actor, and had performed this play so many times, with the same lines and the same tones and the same breaths, and this was one more performance. I’m telling you—I could have played the video over the loudspeakers and shut off his mike, and no one there would EVER accuse him of lip-syncing. I started saying his exact words immediately before he did. It was eerie.
Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with this—I understand speakers have prepared speeches they use repeatedly. I just have never heard one so…exactly imitated.
We finished the beating the design argument, and zipped right into the moral argument:
1. Every law has a lawgiver.
2. There is moral objective law.
Conclusion: Therefore there is a moral objective law giver.
The first point was considered a given. The second point was “proven” by the concept we all have a sense of morality, so it couldn’t just be opinion, right? Godwin’s Law came into force, as Mother Theresa was compared to Hitler. (Personally, I wouldn’t have used Mother Theresa.)
And if it is just your opinion Hitler was wrong…why…that’s ludicrous; people are outraged by the notion morals could only be opinions. And golly gee, we all share some opinions, so they must be objective. Right? That proved objective morality, right?
Alas, the conclusion does not necessarily follow, in that we failed to answer the question “objective to WHOM?” There is more I could discuss in response, but this argument was kinda rushed through due to timing.
One thing I found fascinating was that Dr. Turek had three (3) books on stage: “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” “The Bible” and ”The God Delusion.” I remember him pointing out his own book twice, each time to promote it. (I have no problem with that, by the way. He is a paid speaker earning a living.) He used the Bible as an illustration once (“If there is no truth; THIS can’t be true.”) and read from it once. But he pointed out and picked up, and used for illustrations “The God Delusion” half a dozen times.
I heard Dawkins name again and again. If we counted up the words in this speech, “God” would be number one, with “Dawkins” firmly in second. “Jesus” would have been a far, far third. At one point, I looked around for Dr. Dawkins, because it seemed Dr. Turpek was addressing him so much, I thought it was a debate! I wanted to stand up and say, “Since Dr. Dawkins could not make it this evening—could you address us, please?”
And then came the Question and Answer period. I wondered how some of these people could process thoughts well enough to put one foot in front of the other. It is here I must commend Dr. Turek. Questions that I would have said, “Sit down and stay here for 3 hours until you can complete two sentences that are coherent” he politely nodded his head. Good responder, always found a point of agreement, avoided the tough questions with a question (people feel obligated to answer questions, so he often used the tactic, “Well…let me ask you a question…”) and was polite to things that were barnyard inane. He did an outstanding job of catering to his majority audience, while refraining from disassociating the questioner.
One question:
“I am a ‘gnostic’ [I couldn’t tell if he said “Gnostic” or “agnostic” so I will put in an apostrophe to be safe] “and you brought up some interesting points. That stuff about how the universe was designed, and from the Big Bang. I don’t know about all those things on morals and such….and you mentioned how that school…Harvard?” [Audience: “YALE!”] “Yeah…Yale…how it was founded on God and stuff. See, some of that stuff your God did, like in the Old Testament, and in those communities, how it was O.K., but you talked about a moral objective and, well…my question is this:
“Why is it God is always referred to as a male?”
You can’t make this stuff up. Actually, the question was much, MUCH longer, and much more rambling, and never gave us a clue as to where it was headed.
Then we had the Christians who stood up and gave us their testimony and how it is better to believe in a god and be wrong, then not believe in a god and be wrong. Thank you Dr. I-Just-Came-From-My-Bowling-League Pascal. Or if we would just ask Jesus, he would provide all the answers…..if we are sincere, of course.
I never ask questions at such things. The audience is [extremely] hostile, the speaker well-prepared, and even if you DO manage to catch them up, they respond with:
1) Asking a question with a question;
2) State they don’t have time, and recommend a book.
3) Modify the question to a sound bite pleasing to the audience.
About the only thing you can hope for is to ask a question pertinent enough, someone who is actually interested in learning more talks to you afterward.
Was it really a “wasted” evening? Naw—I enjoyed it. Once in awhile I still get cravings to go back to church. Fit in. Be part of “that scene” once more. An evening like this?—great reminder as to why I don’t fit in. If this was “intellectual heavy” for Christian get-togethers, I would commit hari-kari with a pew-pencil in the “emotional-light” situation of church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
