Why Atheists would Disobey God

As one wanders through internet conversations, it is common to see an exchange like:

Christian: What would you do if you were convinced there was a God?
Non-Theist: If it turned out to be the Tanakh God, I wouldn’t worship it, because I find such a God to be a monster.
Christian: Oh, you just don’t want a God; that is why you claim to be a non-theist.

The problem with this exchange is that the participants are talking about different perceptions of God. Two different Gods, in fact.

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

And Christians find this offensive, because they view this same God as an all-loving, all-merciful, all-grace creature that would never, NEVER perform an immoral act.

Let me try and put this in perspective. Think about the nicest, kindest person you know. The person who you would nominate as “Most Moral Person Alive.” The type of person who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Got that person in mind?

Imagine this person rushed up to you with a kitten and said, “Quick, bash this kitten on the ground, killing it!”

You would probably pause and a few questions would cross your mind. Sure, this is atypical and so out-of-character, you would think they MUST have a good reason for such a request. This is so unlike anything they have ever done, and this is the nicest person you know. To kill a kitten? Something doesn’t add up.

Secondly, you might ponder why they don’t do this deed themselves? Why do they need to involve you, as they seem perfectly capable of killing this kitten if it is so necessary?

Thirdly, you might question the rush. Why must this kitten die right now? Is there some disease? Is it rapid? Is it carrying the plague that will end the world?

Despite your past dealings, you are going to hesitate. You are going to question why this person wants this kitten to die right now.

See, you have your own moral barometer. Your own moral determinator causing you to question the morals of another. Even a person—up until that very minute—who you thought had the same moral barometer as you did. A person who would never want to kill a kitten.

This is why atheists would question God. A Christian envisions a God who would only ask his followers to do a moral act. A Christian envisions a God who, if asking the followers to kill a kitten, must be asking the Christian to be doing a moral act. A God who, if asking its followers to kill another human, must have a moral reason and justification for that human’s death.

We do not share that same vision! We have our own moral determinations that would question such an action. Now, it is possible some God could provide extremely convincing proof another human would die, but we would still be left with the question as to why God doesn’t do it in the first place? If God has the ability, justification and moral reasoning to kill a human—why involve me in the first place?

Personally, with my understanding of morality, I would seriously question anyone who blindly followed such an authority simply because it was an authority. Think of this scenario:

King: Subject, kill your son as proof of your loyalty to me.
Subject: O.K.
[kills son]

Do we read that and nod our heads, thinking, “What a great moral act?” Of Course not! Every fiber in our being says, “Wait a minute, something is wrong, here!” Yet this is the God the Christian is surprised we would dare question (Gen. 22:1-2):

God: Abraham, kill your son as proof of your loyalty to me.
Abraham: O.K.
God: Good job!

If this was Allah, Christians would use this scene to point out the atrocities of Islam. Instead, they smile and pat Abraham on the back for being such an obedient doppelganger to whatever God orders. I would have more expected:

God: Abraham, kill your son as proof of your loyalty to me.
Abraham: O.K.
God: You ignorant dolt! That was a test to see if you had any sense of morality at all and you failed miserably. Don’t you question even child-sacrifice? What is going to happen, a dozen years from now, when some priest says I want a child-sacrificed? Are you going to so easily and readily give up your child, simply because you think I ordered it? Can’t you even crawl, morally, on your own?

See Christians, when they hear we non-believers have the audacity to question the morality of their God are aghast. Non-theists, when we see how believers are willing to do anything if they think their God ordered it, are terrified.

While I do not live in fear of Christians thinking God has ordered to genocide me…well…at least not yet…Christians do feel justified to deny homosexuals the right to marry, to ostracize non-believers, to treat women as second-class citizens, to support the battiest of candidates—all because they think their God ordered it.

I wish they could see why we question the morality of such decisions.

What would the Police composite sketch look like?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Bugger. I hate moderated blogs.

If you have been following the conversation on Stan’s Blog, the following comment by me was moderated out due to being “unfriendly.”

You figure.

Ah…culture of victimization. An interesting tactic to take; Sarah Palin has perfected the style.

Stan, I do not recall EVER calling you delusional. I certainly haven’t in this discussion. I don’t think you are. Instead you keep complaining about what I think of you, without my ever saying it! If you keep saying it long enough, loud enough and often enough, people will presume it is true. “Skeptics think I am delusional. Skeptics think I am delusional. Skeptics think I am delusional.”

Curiously, the only argument you have made in support of this claim is that YOU think skeptics are delusional and therefore presume they think the same about you. In other words, you are the only person making the accusation of delusion; yet at the same time claim the accusations are being made at you.

Clever.

This tactic does two things:

1) It generates empathy in those similarly situated. Other Christians can think, “Poor Stan, being picked on by the mean atheists. We are all such martyrs; to be pitied for the oppression.”

2) It avoids the topic at hand. No further arguments need to be presented by you, as those who you want to convince—the already convinced—are convinced by virtue of the fact you are being victimized!

Stan, I haven’t called you delusional. I don’t think you are. Stop playing the victim.

Secondly—how about answering my questions? I have stayed decidedly on-topic here. I have asked the same questions over and over and over. I have answered your questions to clarify. Stop beating around the bush. If this “God’s justice system” makes “perfect sense” to you--start explaining it!

Any lurker can see how many times I have asked these questions. How many times you have avoided them? I’ll ask them again (and again and again):

When can God order the killing of humans?
When can God order the raping of humans?
Can God punish one person for the crimes of another (even if that is only one of the reasons)?
What sins can God pardon? What sins can he not?

Like my four scenarios—is this guesswork on your part? Or is there a way we can verify what God’s system is?

I have to tell you, I have had this discussion with numerous Christians. None have even come close to attempting to be able to come up with a Justice system explaining the events surrounding David’s baby. I picked this example for that very reason; it is a sticky wicket. First God pardons David, then God punishes the Baby. God indicates he would use Rape as a punishment (and others point to Absalom, the problem being—was that a punishment? Did God impose that punishment after saying he wouldn’t? This only creates MORE problems!) God takes 7 days to kill the baby, rather than immediately. All these are difficulties; not easily dismissed.

I don’t ever recall someone saying “this makes perfect sense to me.” Thus the reason I asked the questions regarding this justice system. Most Christians struggle and say they don’t know and it doesn’tmake sense to them—they have to rely on God knowing what he was doing.

But you didn’t say that. You said it makes “perfect sense.” I figured you could then explain it.

Stan: Is there actually an answer you're thinking would be satisfactory?

Sigh. (And yes, it was a judgmental one.) Are you ever going to answer my questions, or are you hoping by a combination of victimization and asking your own, you can avoid them? I will answer your question (again) and then hope for an answer from you on mine (again).

The satisfactory answer would be…..(drum roll, please)….the truth. Wow. Wasn’t that terribly surprising? If you claim this system, where God orders rape as a punishment, where God orders a capital offense pardoned, where God orders the death of a child as punishment for the crime of the child’s parent, where God takes seven days to kill the baby, makes “perfect sense” then all I asking for is how to verify this system. How to know what this system claims.

If you claimed the speed limit was 25 mph on Brown street, we can come up with a number of ways to verify your claim. You could propose some for us to look at.

I am asking for the same thing here. How do I verify this system you claim makes “perfect sense” to you? What are the laws within this system? And so…I will ask again (and again):

When can God order the killing of humans?
When can God order the raping of humans?
Can God punish one person for the crimes of another (even if that is only one of the reasons)?
What sins can God pardon? What sins can he not?

Apologetics are Useless

There is no checks-and-balance system. There is no means to determine whether an argument, a method or a conclusion is correct, slightly correct or completely bafflingly wrong. Nothing in place to improve the strength or eventually abandon the claim.

It is nothing more than, “In my opinion, it is possible…” and then whatever follows—no matter how deluded, incomprehensible or salient—as long as there is the remotest possible connection, becomes what is considered a “solid apologetic.”

The field “apologetics” comes from 1 Peter 3:15: “…and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a the reason for the hope that is in you…” The word “defense” is translated from the Greek apologia meaning a verbal defense or a reasoned argument. Simply put—it is explaining why one believes what they believe.

This explanation is given to two possible groups—those who already believe exactly as the Apologist or those who do not. To those who already believe, any explanation is sufficient. (They already believe it anyway.) To those who do not, the Apologist has already prepared an apologia for why they are unconvinced by the Apologist! A truly win-win situation.

Let’s look at how an argument is prepared by a scientist, a lawyer and an apologist. Imagine we have a situation where the claim is, if you add sufficient copper to an experiment, it will turn the solution green. Work with me on this.

A scientist will carefully note the amount of the solution, the type of solution, the amount of the added copper, the conditions, temperature, time of day and so on regarding the experiment. Why? Because she knows eventually she will have to defend (apologia) the claim. To a hostile audience. To other scientists who may not be convinced adding copper is what turned the solution green. She is aware other scientists are going to repeat her experiment, both under the same conditions and different conditions. That scientists are expecting to rely upon results to make subsequent experiments, so they are going to make certain this is the correct conclusion.

The check and balance is the scientist knowing she will have to defend this claim to others who will test, probe, question, replicate and do everything they possibly can to prove her incorrect before being satisfied with her conclusions.

The scientist will therefore do her own re-experimenting under a variety of conditions to bolster her claim. She will approach her own experiment as if she was opposed to the conclusion.

A lawyer is slightly different. The lawyer is attempting to convince a neutral determinator—not a hostile one. A jury uncaring as to whether the copper turns the solution green, purple or does nothing at all. However, a lawyer anticipates having a hostile opponent who will do everything within their ability to show the opposite conclusion. Equally the lawyer has to anticipate how convincing the claim would be to the jury, in light of opposing evidence.

Eventually the check and balance to the lawyer is when the jury finds either for or against him. This conclusively demonstrates the strength of the apologia.

But where do we have that in theistic apologetics? Nowhere! Where is the concern of the opposing argument? Where is the check and balance. Using our same experiment, imagine we have an apologist who…oh…I don’t know…believes the sun turns solutions green. All our apologist has to do is:

1) Show one (1) experiment that occurred in the sun
2) Show the solution turned green.

Voila—they have given a reason, an apologia in support of the claim the sun turns solutions green! And all the sun-worshipping adherents bow in submission—glorifying the “proof” of their belief. So what if the same thing happens in the dark. So what if it never happens when other additives are introduced in the sun.

As long as the apologist shows one (1) instance of it occurring—this is deemed sufficient “reason” for their belief! And if you are not convinced—it is because you don’t like the sun. Or you don’t like heat. Or you never believed in the sun in the first place. Or you want to tell the solution what to do. Or you are a nihilist. The apologist has plenty of reasons why you can’t plainly see it was the sun turning the solution green.

Hyperbole? I think not.

The Book of Mormon indicates (at Ether 9:19) there were elephants in Mesoamerica, at least around 2500 BCE. The problem is, there are no indications of elephants. No bones. No drawings. No anything that would ever indicate the American species of elephant existed.

To the scientist, since elephants have a certain impact on ecosystems, leave remains, and would have been recounted in stories or pictures or sculptures—they realize any claim elephants lived in 2500 BCE Mesoamerica would be a daunting task. They would understand the skepticism of other scientist. Understand the evidence they presented to claim elephants did exist would have to be substantial to convince, or at least sufficiently plausible to give consideration.

To the lawyer, they realize their opponent will scoff and mock them regarding the lack of evidence. That the proofs would have to be presented in such sufficiency, a neutral jury would be convinced. Most importantly, the lawyer must always, ALWAYS maintain credibility with his jury.

An apologist? Heck, his or her audience already believes elephants lived in Mesoamerica in 2500 BCE, all they have to do is present one (1) possible item of evidence, and their apologia is considered sufficient.

So they cough out this drawing of what appears to be elephants on Stela B of the Great Plaza of Copan.


The Stela was made sometime around 700 CE. (Approximately 3200 years after elephants lived!) (H/T to Sam for this drawing.


Looks like an elephant, doesn’t it?

Here’s a helpful tip. If anyone ever gives you a “drawing”—look for the original. See, if you look at a picture of Stela B you will see that the upper parts have been completely broken off! This is NOT a drawing of Stela B!



It is not clear to me where the drawing on the right--the “close up” of the elephants is from--but it may even be another Mayan Structure.

Do you see how useless apologetics is? How a scientist would NEVER present such a drawing, realizing others will attempt to verify it and would question its veracity. How a lawyer knows his opponent will point out this isn’t a drawing.

How incredible the claim! Elephants existed in 2500 BCE—but no bones, no drawings, no stories, no results of their existence. Nothing about them 500 years later. Nothing about them 1000 years later. Nothing about them 2000 years later. More than 3000 years later, one (1) sculpture might have been an elephant, if we “draw in” the broken off bits!

Yet if you and I are not convinced there were elephants in Mesoameria—the apologist doesn’t care. They have done their duty; they have done their apologia. They have given a “reason” and that is all they need do.

Anyone can think up a reason. Catch a two-year-old with their hand in the cookie jar, and they will apologia how they were not stealing cookies. We didn’t accept it from two-year-olds; why would we accept it now?

Hits, Misses, Sales, Archeology and Mormons

Thaddeus requested I address his evidences for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. At the moment, I haven’t studied enough to adequately reply to these points. ‘Course, in the blogging world—who does that stop? *grin*

I am familiar, however, with argument techniques, and apologetic salesmanship and this smells much the same. First we have to understand what argument methods and peddling mechanisms are so commonly used to see the similarity.

Hits and Misses

(I am indebted to Why People Believe Weird Things for this point.)

Why are psychics so successful? How do they uncannily discover truths about people they don’t know? Much of this has to do with understanding demographics (if speaking to an audience of 200, “Someone here has had a heart attack” has a huge possibility of obtaining a “hit” due to the common occurrence) and the fact people remember the “hits” and forget the “misses.” The conversation of cold-reading (as it is called) looks like this:

“You have a friend…or a relative…who recently died?”
“Nope.”
“Or perhaps was involved in an incident where they could have died?”
“My brother was in a car accident!”
“And I see that you are close to him…”
“Not really—he lives in Arizona.”
“…or close to him in your relationship…”
“No…we don’t talk much…”
“…I see closeness. In age?”
“We are only a year apart!”

“And he is getting better?”
“Yes!”
“And he is wishing you two could talk more….”
“He did mention that!”

The person walks away telling their friends, “The psychic knew I had a brother, close in age, who had just recently been in an automobile accident and wants to get together more! A-MAZing!” Yet when we review the conversation we see the person has conveniently forgotten all the “misses”—the psychic started off with death, and closeness, and the general terms were so non-specific, a “hit” was almost a certainty.

Dr. Shermer made another point, that sometimes even the “hits” are not necessarily “hits.” He referenced one psychic who, upon learning a young woman was a widow, stated, “Your husband wants you to know that you will re-marry.” She blurted out, “I recently became engaged!” and considered this a “hit.” But consider three things:

1) Psychics tend to give good news. They are not likely to say, “Your will be doomed to a life of grieving widow, misery and loneliness.”

2) She was a young woman—there is a great likelihood due to her age that she would re-marry.

3) The psychic DIDN’T say, “You are engaged”—rather they said she would someday re-marry. The woman took it as more specific than stated.

This will come up in a bit, but for now remember we tend to recall the “hits” and forget the “misses.”

Salesmanship

20 years ago I attended a car show with my father. As one does, I sat in the driver’s seat, felt the steering wheel, switches and knobs. Dad asked, “How does it feel?” Looking for an appropriate word, I settled on, “It feels safe.” A nearby salesperson happened to overhear my comment and rushed over to inform us of all the safety imbued within this particular automobile.

“Do you know the hood has a double-catch safety feature, preventing it from coming loose in an accident and decapitating the driver? The engine is designed to drop, in case of a head-on collision, rather than shove straight back into the front seat. The steering wheel...” And he launched into 5 or 6 different ways in which one would only be horribly mangled rather than killed in case this car was struck by a Mack Truck.

My father and I got the giggles as to how matter-of-factly this person described these horrible events, and how this car would prevent you from being killed out-right, but your feet would be crushed, your pelvis shattered, your neck twisted 180 degrees (but still attached) and so on.

Now why did the Salesperson talk about safety? Why didn’t he tell us about the fuel efficiency, cost of ownership, or choice of colors and fabrics? Because he heard “safe” and (incorrectly) assumed this was the “selling point” we were looking for.

Apologetics sells what it thinks its audience wants to hear. It is designed, NOT to win over the non-believer, but to reinforce what the believer already believes. It tells the person who thinks the automobile is “safe” why the automobile is “safe.”

Archeology

The confirming archeological evidence Thaddeus refers to is the city of Nahom.

The First Book of Mormon—1 Nephi—discusses the journey of Lehi and his sons (including Nephi, the author of the book) from Jerusalem, through the Arabian Peninsula Wilderness. The area comprised primarily of Saudi Arabia today.

1 Nephi 16:34 records Lehi (and clan) stopping at a place “which was called ‘Nahom.’” (There is some issue as to whether Lehi called the place “Nahom” (having named other areas previously) or whether it had previously been called “Nahom” before their arrival. See The place that was called “Nahom.”)

The problem is—there is no place called “Nahom.” Certainly not on any map in 1830! A few decades ago, a German archeological team discovered a temple in Yemen with an altar donated by “Bi’athar, son of Sawdum, son of Naw’um, the Nihmite.”

Because Semitic languages do not use vowels in writing, “Nahom” would be written. “Nhm.” In the same way “Nihm” would be written “Nhm.” Ah—do you see the connection? Further, because people generally were named after regions (“Israelite” came from “Israel;” “Canaanite” came from “Canaan”) Therefore a “Nihmite” would arguably come from “Nihm.”

The argument is conveniently drawn to conclusion by saying “Nhm” (“Nahom”) is similar to “Nhm” (“Nihm”) and since this is “close” to the area where Lehi and clan were—voila! We have demonstrated Nahom exists!

But let’s look at the “hits” and “misses”…

The Book of Mormon also discusses smelting iron and steel. Coins. Domesticated oxen, sheep, goats and pigs. Fighting with bow and arrows. Fighting with metal shields. Temples. Linen. Silk. Plants such as wheat, barley, oats, rice. The Book refers to horses. See here.

What we find are miss after miss after miss, with one possible hit—“Nahom.” Like our psychic, we would be more inclined to believe it mere coincidence they happened across a hit—especially after so many misses!

Look, imagine I gave you 100 items for discussion. And you find me wrong on 75 of them, 24 of them you can find no information and one you find me correct. Are you inclined to believe (based upon my percentage) that I must be correct on the 24 unknowns? Or, would you say since I was overwhelmingly wrong on the 75, it is pure happenstance I was correct on the one, and I should not be considered reliable on the 24 unknowns.

But is “Nahom” a hit?

There are many problems with the claim the altar demonstrates a place called “Nahom.”

First, it should be noted that even the LDS article indicates the “Nhm” of the Book of Mormon and the “Nhm” of the temple may not be the same letters! The “h” in the Book of Mormon would be the “rasped” Hebrew “h” whereas the “h” on the altar would be the softer “h” of the Arabian dialect.

Second, “Nhm” in Hebrew can mean comfort or compassion. As this was the place Nephi’s Father-in-Law was buried, it could be called “Nhm” by Lehi and the clan.

Third, Joseph Smith wasn’t translating from Hebrew! The exact method of this translation is unclear, but the claim (as near as I can tell) was that the plates were in “Reformed Egyptian” and translated into English (either from the plates, or from letters in the air). The fact Hebrew “Nhm” is similar (albeit not exact) to Arabian “Nhm” may be interesting, but is of no import when the language being translated is Egyptian!

Fourthly, we add vowels as a matter of convenience. How we go from “YHWH” to “Yahweh.” As we do not have the “original” plates Joseph Smith had, we do not even know what letters were in place. Or whether there were vowel markers. Was it “Nhm”? And how did Joseph Smith happen to pick “a” and “o” to come up to “Nahom”? It should be noted in modern Arabic (as I understand it) the verb form dictates the vowels being added. For example, “ksr” could be “kasar” or “kassar” or “inkasar” depending on the verb form. See here. Was there a verb form or indication of what letters should fit?

Fifth, it should be noted the Book of Mormon uses similar names to the Bible. “Nahom” is extremely similar (and would appear the same in written Hebrew) as “Nahum”—a minor prophet.

Sixth, while generally true, it is not always true “-ite” would refer to a place. One need only look at the Nephites in the Book of Mormon (Named after “Nephi”). So a “Nihmite” may not be a locale, but refer to a person—“Nihm.”

Seventh, we don’t know where the Moabites lived. Nor the Hittites. We hadn’t even heard of the “Nihmites” until the 20th century. To claim they lived at our about the place most convenient to the needs of Mormon Apologetics is pure speculation. Yes, the altar was on the Arabian Peninsula. But it was (apparently) given by a person from a different area. Was that by means of money, or the altar, or gift? We don’t know.

Let’s see if we have this straight. Joseph Smith translates from plates written in “Reformed Egypt.” We don’t know what the plates said, because we don’t have them any more. He translates a certain word to English—“Nahom”—a word remarkably similar to a previously known word in the Tanakh—“Nahum.” We see other occurrences of formal nouns being only one letter off from formal nouns in the Bible.

The Book of Mormon makes numerous other claims that are flat-out unsupported by archeology, and if this was not theological—would be laughed out of any respectable university. Simply put—it is wrong time and time again.

No placed called “Nahom” has been discovered. However, we have discovered a writing about a fellow who was “Nihmite”—and while the letters may not be exact, are very similar to what “Nahom” would be if translated from English back to Hebrew. So “Nihmite” might be from “Nihm”—which in Arabic would be “Nhm”—which is similar (but not necessarily exact) to “Nhm”—which is what “Nahom” is when translated from Reformed Egyptian to English and then translated again to Hebrew.

Do I have that straight? Is THAT what is supposed to be convincing archeological proof? Similar letters?

This is where salesmanship comes in. See, a Mormon is looking for confirmation. (The reason we use the term “confirmation bias.”) As thin as this may be—it is sufficient for a person who is predisposed to believing it anyway. Hey—they believed it BEFORE they found Naw’um the Nihmite—this is icing on the cake.

Does a single non-LDS archeologist claim Naw’um must have come from a place called “Nahom”? Now—I have seen cries of “Are you saying all Mormons liars?” when such questions are generally asked. No—I am saying this is confirmation bias. They are looking for substantiation, and this is sufficient. This would have far greater effect if non-LDS scholars agreed “Nhmy” came from what the Book of Mormon calls “Nahom.”

In the end—when it comes to archeology I see far, FAR too many misses. And this one “hit” looks like, at best, a coincidence, but more likely a sales pitch to confirm what the Mormons already believe.

I do not believe it would convince a neutral jury.

Studying Mormonism

Sam has been doing a series on Mormonism, making me realize how unfamiliar I am with this particular flavor of Christianity. We briefly discussed it growing up—hitting the high points. Joseph Smith, Plates of Gold, polygamy. We knew they sent out missionaries, had a choir, and lay claim to the Osmonds.

Since Mormonism was wrong, of course, we only discussed it from the aspect of how it was wrong. Much like we treated any other belief—atheism, Catholicism, Democrats, etc. And due to the extreme brevity of our study, I don’t know very much about it. I am a little embarrassed as to how little I know.

Because of my location (America) and my upbringing, I generally assume people have an understanding about the Bible. I understand where the book of Exodus fits in the Big Picture. Or Isaiah. Or Matthew and Romans. I presume others do as well. Sometimes I am surprised at atheists who proclaim, “I didn’t know that was in the Bible!” or “That’s a good quote—I am going to have to remember it.” I forget others were not as immersed in it as I was.

Yet I have absolutely no idea about the Book of Mormon. Where does Jacob fit? What is Alma about? Or Ether? I find myself both ignorant, and curious to learn more.

Utilizing my method, I went looking for Mormon apologetics. What do Mormons say Mormons believe—not what creedal Christians say Mormons believe. And consequently have spent much time on the FAIR Mormon Apologetic site reading the various articles.

Two over-arching ideas have stood out:

1. “It is possible…”

This is the very bedrock of ALL theistic apologetics, I fear. Having never studied Mormon techniques, I am struck by the similarity in method. Time and time and time again, the proposed solution to a problem is framed, “It is possible…” and then just about anything is inserted after that phrase.

Which leads me to the second striking feature:

2. Pot—meet kettle

For as much as creedal Christianity castigates and ridicules Mormonism, and Mormons defend themselves against these attacks—the similarities are eye-poppingly obvious to an on-looker.

One difficulty with Mormonism is the claim in the Book of Mormon regarding coins, and the use of steel, and numbers of deaths, and certain animals and materials and grains when archeology has not provided proof of these things existence. And so we see the one-two punch:

1. “It is possible….” [animals were called different things] [barley might have existed] [we translated this wrong]

2. “Just because we haven’t found it yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.”

What made me chuckle, though was the comparison Mormon Apologists do to the Exodus and Joshua’s Genocide. They point out how there is scant (i.e.—none or contradictory) evidence of these things happening, yet creedal Christians believe it—why can’t the same be true of the Mesoamericans?

I wryly chuckle at the concept of proving the Bible wrong as a means to prove the Book of Mormon correct. Perhaps the better answer is they are both wrong!

And I find it fascinating how Creedal Christians respond with, “Even though it may be possible—how likely is it? Shouldn’t we look at plausibility?”

Yep!—the same thing we non-believers have been saying to Creedal Christians! Sure it is possible Judas hung himself, the rope broke, he fell, received a nasty gash in the gut and then wandered into the path of a chariot—but is that plausible?

Mormon Apologists point out the AMAZING accuracy of the prophecies of Jesus written in the Book of Mormon long before Jesus lived. Creedal Christians point out, “Wait a minute. At the time of the writing, the author already knew about Jesus, and was merely ‘back-dating’ what they knew into a story.”

Right. The same thing we say about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Mormons point out how they have a “burning” confirmation of the truth. Creedal Christians guffaw at such a concept. But then reverently refer to the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit.”

Hello? Pot? Kettle?

I am enjoying my study from the aspect of a newbie. Sadly, I see the same tired methodology, resulting in fairly quick dissection.

Carrie Prejean…or…We Have Gone Mad?

Let me see if I have this straight. We have a Beauty pageant contestant. A person whose primary requirement (whether we admit this out loud or not) is to look pretty. Ms. Prejean wisely desired to improve her chances in the contest. Does she study a new language? No. Does she increase her work-out routine? Perhaps. But most certainly what we DO know will increase her chances is to get breast implants!

Do you get that? We are discussing on the national stage the opinion regarding gay marriage from a woman who, in order to improve in her chosen profession thought, “Hmmm…the best way for me to excel here is to get breast implants!”

And we have Perez Hilton. A blogger. Who has occasionally appeared on such weighty Television shows as hosting “The Bad Girls Club Season 3” according to Wikipedia. I did not know there WAS a “The Bad Girls Club” show let alone one warranting a second or third season or a host. And this D-List celebrity asks Ms. Breast Implants an obvious question.

Now the world is all a-flutter over the question and the answer.

And Ms. Prejean has become a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage. How stupid have we become?

Is she qualified on Marriage because she is…well…married? Nope.
Because she has studied psychology and counseled married people? Nope
Done anthropological research on marriage? Nope.

She’s qualified because she got Breast Implants and bumbled through an answer in a Beauty Contest. Ow, Ow—my brain hurts writing that!

Or Bristol Palin. A spokesperson for Abstinence. What are Ms. Palin’s qualifications? Well…she hopes to finish High school….she is the daughter of a Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate…and…she…oh—she got pregnant for NOT doing what she recommends the rest of us do!

Seriously, if any of the 1000’s of “Bristol Palins” out there—the high school students who became pregnant--indicated they wanted to become a spokesperson for Abstinence Education we would chuckle up our sleeves and reply, “Why don’t you finish High School, first?” And think to ourselves, “…and maybe practice what you preach.”

But because Bristol is the daughter of Sarah, we ooh and aah at the idea. We debate it on the national forum. Because Bristol is a celebrity.

So, too, is Ms. Prejean. And Mr. Perez.

We have reduced ourselves to an age where “being a celebrity” is considered the ONLY qualification to do…well…anything! Do we want to know what anthropologists or scientists or economists indicate regarding providing help to African nations? Not really…what does Bono say? Does Liberty College invite psychologists and marriage counselors and experts in the field of homosexuality and marriage to speak? Who are they?...they get chest-endowed Carrie Prejean!

Richard Dawkins is a bright scientist. But they are a dime a dozen. Write a few books, do a few lectures, and for whatever reason fate smiles on some—he became a celebrity. Now, every single Christian apologist seems to think Dawkins is the full, final and sole word on atheism. Because he is so knowledgeable? Nope—because he has reached celebrity status and everyone knows being a celebrity is THE qualification to know anything.

America is obsessed with who Paris Hilton is voting for. What Harrison Ford has to say about the environment. Charles Bronson’s take on values. A woman has eight kids, and all-of-a-sudden I am supposed to be engrossed with every facet of her life—what car she drives, what food she eats, etc. Why? Because she is a celebrity. The singers who make it into the top Ten spot on American Idol play to throngs of 1000’s during their season. And in a few short months are asking the more relevant question, “Do you want fries with that?”

Worse, we watch people compromise their values, simply to be near and see a celebrity. Liberty College teaches people to be content with their physical selves. If some female told them how she had gotten implants to become the runner-up on a Beauty Contest, and she is a Christian, so can she speak to the student body—they would say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” But make her a celebrity…

Why do we care? The proper response to Carrie Prejean should have been, “So what?” A beauty contestant has an opinion. Big deal. Frankly her answer should have been lampooned as a hilarity. (“opposite marriage”??)

I’ll bet Mr. Perez regrets slamming her for that question. It made her a celebrity. It made her an “expert” in the eyes of the Public on the question of marriage. It gave her the ultimate qualification—being well-known.

Interview with an Atheist

The Barefoot Bum pointed out this person’s interview questions for non-theists and, of course, The Barefoot Bum’s response.

These aren’t questions intended to learn about the other person—they are talking points intended to argue about theism, and for that they are sufficient. But if you want to understand the other position—you have to first learn what it is saying. Live in their skin for a bit.

Why Can’t Christians get this right? Why must they always assume their own view of the world when asking these repetitive, boring questions?

“How can you impose morals on others?”
“Where did we get Free Will?”
“How does life have purpose?”
“If Christianity were true…”
“Is the most difficult thing about becoming a Christian the moral demands?”

Have we not answered these one or two (million) times?

What questions do you wish Christians would ask in these “Questions for Atheists?” Here’s a few off the top of my head:

1. You are in a High-School debate on the pro-theism team. What argument for God do you think is the strongest to put forward?

2. In America, non-theists are a distinct minority. Why do you think that is? Why do you think the percentage of non-theists is growing?

3. Why do you think atheists are distrusted in American culture?

4. As a Christian, we sometimes cringe when we hear another Christian say something. Like Pat Robertson. Or Fred Phelps. Is there an atheist who makes you cringe when you hear them speak? If so—why?

5. What do you think Christians “get right.”? What do you think they get wrong?

6. If you could have a Christian read three (3) books—what would they be?

7. Is there anything a local church could do that would make you want to attend at least twice a month?

8. What surprises you the most about Christians? The least?

When you saw only one set of footprints--I was off helping someone else

One Small Step recently wrote on How Far do you Trust God? This brings to mind something itching on my brain.

Last November, I was having some pain in my chest, so I scheduled an appointment with a doctor. (Which, for me, means I’m fairly concerned. I hate doctor visits.) They did an EKG, the doctor rushed in and said, “Take this aspirin. Chew it so it gets into your system faster. And here’s nitroglycerin, let it dissolve under your tongue.”

“Uh…sure. Doc, what’s up?”
“There was an irregularity on the EKG, and we recommend you go to the Emergency Room immediately.”
“O.K. It’s just an ‘irregularity’—right? Not like it’s an inverted T or anything.”
“Actually, it IS an inverted-T.”

This raised my concern level, of course. But only mildly.

“Fine. I’ll drive right over.”
“Frankly, we recommend an ambulance.”
“Well…I CAN drive, right?”
“Sure, but if you leave now, I want you to sign a form saying I recommended an ambulance, and you went against my orders.”

As lawyers, we do the same thing when we think clients are doing something pretty stupid and we want it in writing so when they come back and complain we can point out it was against our advice. A CYA letter, as it is called.

I got the message and received a quick trip in a siren-screaming ambulance.

Once at the hospital, though, the ER staff didn’t seem very concerned. We started Emergency Room Time—where minutes stretch to hours and nothing seems to happen. Occasionally a white-suited individual (could be a janitor for all I knew) would look at my EKG and grunt. I asked about the inverted-T, and they didn’t seem very concerned.

I felt like just another guy who ate a bad bean burrito and the nurses were secretly rolling their eyes at me. “Wimp…thinks he’s having a heart attack…” Started to plan my escape.

All of a sudden the room starting filling up with people.

Nurse One: We want him up to the Cath lab NOW!
Nurse Two: But we have to give him this medicine first—
Nurse One: No time, no time! We will give it on the way up.

Me: [a little meekly] Uh…what’s up?
Nurse One: The blood test came back. You had a heart attack. We are going to do a heart catheterization right now!

Now they were rushing me out of the room as quickly as possible. I liked the slow, “nothing happening” medical pace better than “Get out of the way, we need to get this guy somewhere RIGHT NOW” frenzy.

Once in the cath lab, the Doctor told me what he was going to do, and the staff was helpful. They looked like they knew what they were doing. I didn’t have time to google out “Catheterization” or look up my choices. I had to rely upon the medical personnel to be competent. They looked like they had done it before—it was reassuring.

I am informed of all the things that might happen—may have a stint put in, perhaps an angioplasty. Maybe even surgery if it is determined to be necessary. Yet I find myself curiously unconcerned. Detached, even. This was out of my hands, so I left it to the professionals to do what they felt was necessary.

As it turns out, while there is some blockage (due to age and genetics), nothing terrible was happening. The inverted-T was probably a bad read on the pad. The blood test was a false-positive. No big deal—discharged the next day.

The cardiologist started me on a course of medication (unnecessary, in my opinion) that I weaned off in a few months. Given a clean bill of health, and back on my way…

I can understand, going through that, how comforting the God-idea is. Life throws us some curve balls. Some unexpecteds. Some bad circumstances. Things out of our control. It is immensely encouraging to think, “No matter how bad this is, ‘someone, somewhere’ is in control, and is working to correct the situation. Make it better.” No one wants to see that puzzled look on their Doctors’ face. No one wants to hear, “WOW! That’s a new one on me!” We want, “Oh, I have seen that. Do this and that and your problem is solved.”

It is comforting to think, when you lose your job, “God” will help you find a new one. That “God” did this for some reason. Or when your child hurts, or when a loved one dies—that there is some Great Comforter who has YOUR interest at heart, and is doing everything in their power to improve the situation.

That’s nice. Makes funerals more pleasant.

But there is an undiscussed down-side. It becomes permeated in your being. “God loves you.” “God wants what is best for you.” “God has a purpose for your life.” “God has a will for you.” “God will give you direction.” And you hear story after story from other people how God found them the perfect job, the great opportunity, the wonderful mate, the career, the house, the pet, the cure, the friend, the…whatever it was the person was looking for.

You begin to believe the creator of the universe has you on his mind 24 hours a day. Good and bad. And what is a source of comfort in bad times becomes a lack of direction in good times.

I know a fellow who has not held a steady job for decades. Waiting for “God” to give him the “right job.” And why shouldn’t he? Doesn’t “God” look out for his needs? Doesn’t “God” have his best interests at heart? If there is a God who is concerned about your every thought, and your every deed, certainly He is equally concerned about your career. Right?

This being the graduation season, I am seeing notes from Christian graduates along the lines of “I don’t know what God wants me to do with me life.” “I am looking for God’s direction.” See, we were so immersed in God the Comforter, we believed in God the Life-Plan Director. And yet God becomes silent.

We end up doing…what? Think about it—we ended up doing what we felt was best. God didn’t come down with golden plates, telling us what college to go to! Just like every non-believer, we wrestled with some personal choices and eventually chose one. Or two. Or more. The difference being, afterwards if we felt good about our choice, as a Christian we said, “That must be what God wanted.” A non-believer doesn’t bother.

We picked our careers, our spouses, our locations on the same meter. If it failed—as a Christian we figured with 20-20 hindsight, it must not be what God wanted. We even became good at retro-inserting justification! “Oh, I knew at the time that was not what God wanted, but I did it anyway.”

As I read these statements from students, my heart breaks. Oh to be free of God-approval! To understand we make our own choices and savor our own responsibility. There is no “God-plan” for their life. No grandiose scheme the human can only hope to follow or sit around waiting to be revealed.

The concept of God the comforter comes at a terrible price—becoming God the Cruise Director.

Argument by Parable

I’ve been involved in a discussion at Pensees regarding the cosmological argument and Paul penned out this parable:

Long, long ago in a land far, far away there were two friends named Matt and Theo. One day while hiking through the forest they happened upon a clearing. In that clearing, to their utter amazement, was a shiny red machine, which we moderns would know as a corvette.

Upon inspection Theo's reaction was to appeal to some sort of magic to explain the machine. Matt, however, held out for a further look and managed to find and work the door handle. Viola! It had seats in there! It must be a carriage of some sort. Matt then proceeded to discover the key and started it up. He discovered the pedals, the steering wheel, the gearshift: soon he could drive it!

Matt's confidence grew even while Theo invoked sorcery to explain each feature and effect. Matt even found the hood and began to unravel something of the workings of the engine. Theo was mystified and skeptical at every turn that a mechanical explanation could be found. Matt spent the next week reverse-engineering the car. He was quite pleased with himself and equally annoyed with Theo.

By this time Theo's skepticism had lost all credibility — so much so that Matt failed to see the gravity of his final concern. Asked Theo, "By what natural means did such a finely crafted machine arrive here? Surely there must be some creator, beyond the simple means of this world, that brought it here." But Matt dismissively offered all kinds of explanations, from popping out of nothing, to growing from a heretofore unknown seed, to the forces of nature randomly forming it. In Theo's mind some of the explanations seemed no less objectionable than the sorcery that Matt was hoping to avoid.

In the end, Matt was completely unconcerned with the question. He had been so successful in explaining the magical workings of the corvette that his faith was strong that he should never have to appeal to sorcery or fairies. Surely there is some natural explanation out there, even if he never finds it. On the other hand, Theo is humbled by all the wondrous knowledge and possibilities opened up by Matt's investigation, but he can't help thinking that there's actually something to his last question.

I admit…upon reading it, I thought, “THAT is supposed to be an argument FOR theism?” Am I missing something here? Do you notice how many times Matt turned out to have the correct answer using his methodology? Every time! Do you notice how many times Theo turned out to have the correct answer using his method? Not once!

Is the theist arguing, “Gee, I have been wrong in every other instance in the past, but surely this time I have it right when faced with the same question, using the same method to find a solution”? Would you accept this concept in any other facet of your life?

Imagine going to a doctor who says, “I am not sure what you have. So I will prescribe Medicine Theos. Now, I should let you know, every single time in the past when faced with an unknown ailment, I prescribed Theos, and it later turned out Medicine Matt was the proper medicine. But this time I think I may have it right.”

I don’t know about you, but I would be saying, “How about we try Medicine Matt first!”

Or if your lawyer said, “Not sure how the judge will rule. I am going to try relying upon People v Theos. Now every time I have relied upon Theos the judge has told me I should have used People v Matt. But this time, maybe Theos will work.”

Would you have any confidence in such a lawyer?

Can anyone point out anywhere else in their life where using the same method, getting the same wrong answer, means the next time they use the same method, it will work?

I understand why the parable might work on a theist who already believes in a god (trying to convince them there is a god is like convincing me chocolate tastes good!) but how is this parable supposed to convince a non-theist? How is it supposed to generate any reliance on a method with such a poor track record?

“You have the Burden of Proof” doesn’t work

It is important to lay some definitional groundwork to ensure we are all on the same page. “Burden of Proof” answers the question “Who?” whereas “Standard of Proof” answers the question “How much?” [There is a third and even more important question I will address in a moment.]

In a legal setting, we allocate burden of proof by declaring who must present sufficient evidence to substantiate what is at issue. In a trial, it is the prosecutor or plaintiff. (For hyper-critical lawyers reading this—yes, I know there are some issues the burden “shifts” to the defendants.) In a legal motion—it is the moving party who has the burden. On appeal, it is the Appellant who has the burden.

In a formal debate, it is the person who defends the Affirmative. Although I am not as familiar with scientific presentations, I would imagine it would rest on the person presenting the article or speech. On the person defending their doctoral thesis.

In these situations, it is easy to determine burden of proof. We can point directly at the person and say, “They have the burden of proof.” It answers “Who?” In more informal settings, this gets a bit murkier. Before we move on, though, we need to understand not only the “who?” but the “how?” as well. Just knowing who has the burden is not enough; we need to know what they need to do with it.

“Standard of Proof” answers the question as to how much evidence does the person need to present to sustain their claim. Looking at a gradual scale, from least to most proof necessary:

1. No proof at all. (0%)
2. An iota or scintilla or any proof. (1%)
3. Possible.
4. Probable.
5. More likely than not or preponderance of the evidence (51%)
6. Clear and convincing.
7. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. Absolute. (100%)

The percentages are given as an indication. There are no hard-and-fast percentages as to how much greater “probable” is than “possible” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” is than “preponderance of the evidence.” Again, in legal situations, we can easily answer this question. A preliminary examination determines whether it is probable a crime was committed, and probable the accused did it. A personal injury Plaintiff must prove his/her case by preponderance of the evidence. A prosecutor must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, in informal situations, this is not as clearly defined.

The O.J. Simpson case gives an excellent example of the inter-working between burden of proof and standard of proof. In the criminal trial, the prosecutor had the burden of proof; in the civil trial the Plaintiff had the burden of proof. O.J. Simpson never had the burden of proof. So in comparing the two trials—the burden of proof was on the same person. However, in the criminal trial, the prosecutor was unable to meet the standard of proof—“beyond a reasonable doubt” whereas the plaintiff was able to meet the standard of proof—“preponderance of the evidence” that O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Same burden of proof. Different standard of proof. Different results. (Don’t get confused by the common vernacular of “She met her burden of proof.” This is technically incorrect, as it should be “She provided sufficient evidence to meet the standard of proof” since burden of proof answers “who?” not “how.” But we commonly use the phrase anyway.)

And so in forums and blogs and chatrooms we banter about these terms when debating on theism or politics or economics of just about anything. These are not formal debates; these are not courtrooms. There are no set determinations as to burden of proof or standard of proof. This is just us discussing.

If you cannot agree on a Standard of Proof with an opposing position, there is no reason to bother discussing Burden of Proof. Answering “who” will not further the conversation one bit, if you cannot agree on the “how.”

Let’s use inerrancy, since it is about the brightest line in the otherwise foggy world of Christian debate. Often times, you will see an inerrantist declare a contradiction is when two writings logically contradict each other. “A is an apple.” “A is not an apple” would be a simplistic example of this. The inerrantist demands those claiming a contradiction within the Bible demonstrate a contradiction using this Standard of Proof. Maybe not quite an absolute Standard of Proof-- No. 8 on the DagoodS Scale above—but pretty close.

Yet when defending proposed resolutions, we hear claims of “it is possible…” “it is possible…” It is possible Peter denied Jesus 52 times, and different gospels records different instances of the many occasions. That Mark and Luke knew of, but didn’t include things Matthew did. That the Gospel of John uses a “possibly” completely different measure of time that is unrecorded, unheard of and unknown in any contemporary history.

Do you see what happened? Do you see how the Standard of Proof changed? To prove a contradiction—it must be absolute. (An 8 on the DagoodS scale.) Yet to prove a resolution—it must only be possible. (A mere 3 on the DagoodS scale.) Do you see why this disagreement makes “burden of Proof” irrelevant?

To the inerrantist, if the burden of proof is on them—the standard of proof is “possible.” If the burden of proof is on those claiming a contradiction—the standard of proof is “absolute.” It is the standard of proof controlling the problem—not the burden of proof.

In the evolution debate, the scientist believes the evidence preponderates to evolution. Or even is clear and convincing. The creationist believes the evidence fails because it is not absolute. Or above “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Determining who has the burden here would be useless, since each would say the other failed, because they are using different standards of proof.

Before we go any further--as this will have bearing on why “burden of proof” doesn’t work—we should look at the third and most important question. Even having the burden of proof, and having the standard of proof—the third question is whether the evidence is sufficient. Burden answers “who?” Standard answers “how much?” We would need a determinate to figure out whether the standard was met. Answering the question “to whom?”

Again, in the legal field this is easy. A judge or jury makes the determination. In a formal debate, there are judges as well. Again, in informal situations such as the Internet, there are no judges. No juries. The same discussions go ‘round and ‘round. Even knowing who has the Burden of Proof, and agreement on the Standard of Proof, there is so rarely agreement the standard was met. Even knowing She has the burden of proof, and agreeing the burden is preponderance of the evidence—who decides she presented evidence that preponderates over the opposition?

Again, making “burden of proof” pretty useless, since we cannot agree (even agreeing on burden and standard) whether it was met. The inerrantist, even agreeing they have the burden, and the standard is “possible resolution” is met by those holding to contradictions saying they didn’t sustain the standard of proof. (Realistically, because the contradictionist is using “preponderance of the evidence” as the standard of proof.)

And this is in a simplistic example. Get into historicity of Jesus, or documents using other writings, or authorship or dating and it gets worse. Then get into events of the Tanakh and find even less distinction and greater difficulties determining standard of proof, burden of proof and determinate.

O.K., now let’s go back to the top of the circle, having seen the bubbling problems festering in the background…who, in these informal Internet discussions, has the burden of proof?

Normally, we fall back on the notion, “The person making the claim has the burden of proof.” If the theist claims there is a God—they have the burden of proof to demonstrate there is a God. If an atheist claims there is no god—they have the burden of proof to demonstrate there is no god. If a person claims Matthew the disciple wrote the Gospel of Matthew—they have the burden of proof. If a person claims Matthew the disciple did not write the Gospel—they have the burden. And so on.

At first blush, this seems reasonable. But upon further inspection, it begins to fragment and fall apart. See, we make claims where we presume the nature of the claim is so obvious, no proof is necessary. We often see the use of “2+2=4” in theistic debates, as analogy or example. But how many people go on to prove 2+2=4? They are making a claim, true? Don’t they have the burden of proof? Yet if we start to apply this persistently, conversation becomes impossible.

“The Disciple Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.”
“Prove it.”

“The first attribution of the Gospel was that it was Matthew’s”
“Prove it.”

“Here is the manuscript.”
“Prove that is the manuscript”

“Here are photos, translations, documents.”
“Prove they made manuscripts.”

See, each evidence to support one’s claim, requires another claim. And that claim requires another claim. Here is one minor point regarding a proof of Matthew and we can almost have infinite retrograde as to “prove it” upon each point used to prove the previous one! Let alone starting to look at other proofs of Matthew writing the Gospel. Or refutations against his writing the Gospel.

If we rigidly applied, “The person who makes the claim has the burden”—the conversation would disintegrate. And we would rightly be hounded from every blog, forum and group for being a troll. We reach a point in reviewing claims, where the premise becomes so basic, we agree the other side no longer has to “prove” the claim. We no longer use terms like burden of proof, standard of proof and so on.

In practice, the notion “The person making the claim has the burden of proof” becomes, “The person making a claim outside our everyday experience and knowledge has the burden of proof” which is actually, “The person making a claim outside MY everyday experience and knowledge has the burden of proof.”

Have you ever seen a theist tell another theist they have the “burden of proof” regarding whether there is a god? Of course not! To them, this is such a basic claim, “burden of proof” is not necessary. Like having a mathematician demand another mathematician prove 2+2=4.

Have you seen a fundamentalist Baptist tell another fundamentalist Baptist they have the “burden of proof” that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible are inspired? Of course not! Again, this is a basic claim. Yet when those two Baptists reach a point of disagreement—such as freewill vs. predestination—all of a sudden we hear cries of “burden of proof”!

The notion, “the person making the claim has the burden of proof” really only comes into play when we reach a claim where we disagree. Yet the only way we know we disagree—is by making competing claims! And by virtue of making claims that compete with other people’s claims—each has just gained a burden of proof…right? So why are we stating the other person has the burden of proof by making a claim, when by virtue of our disagreement, we are making a claim ourselves, thus obtaining the burden of proof by our own methodology!

I see it as a sheer waste of time claiming the opposing position has the burden of proof. I find the notion the Bible is anything more than human writing to be outside my experience and knowledge. A fantastical, unsupported claim. To ME—any person who claims it has God-influence would have the burden of proving it. Of differentiating it from all the other writings out there.

But to Christians, the Bible is a superior, unique, transcendent literature of such impossibility that it could not possibly be merely human made. To THEM—any person claiming it is solely human would have the burden of proving it. It is outside their experience and knowledge.

So what are we going to do—spend hours pointing out to the other how “they” have the burden of proof because “they” have the more extraordinary claim? And then, once that is (not) settled, we are still left with standard of proof, and the determinate?

If you can agree with your opposing position as to the standard of proof (a near impossibility in these discussions) you may find you have gone a long way to negating the issue regarding burden of proof.

On a personal note…

When attorneys negotiate with each other, we very rarely use the concept of who has the burden of proof. We know who does (which helps)—but more importantly we attempt to convince the other attorney on proofs. Evidence. What that jury will likely do on the standard of proof.

If I can convince opposing counsel they will lose, on the evidence, I don’t have to worry about convincing a judge or jury. The attorney is much, MUCH harder to persuade. Due to the nature of the beast, very rarely does opposing counsel concede. We are lawyers—we live to find reasons, excuses and loopholes as to why we will prevail.

My focus, however, is on persuading the other side. If I can present enough argument to convince them—persuading a judge that is neutral to my position will be a cake walk.

I approach my Internet conversations with Christians much the same way. I focus on having enough facts and argument to convince them. I want my position to be presented clear enough and strong enough to cause them to concede my point; how much more would it convince a lurker? Of course, just as in the case of opposing counsel, while this is my goal, I do not expect a Christian to do so. If they did, it would surprise me to no end! It is how I want to present myself more than a need to deconvert—if that makes sense.

I think my position has enough strength in the facts and arguments,--it doesn’t matter who has the burden of proof--it will prevail as obvious. That is why, while I understand the point being made, I don’t think “You have the burden of proof” is ever an effective statement. Maybe they do; maybe they don’t.

Be knowledgeable enough in the field it doesn’t matter.

Convincing those who know better

To become a lawyer in my state, you must first obtain a bachelor’s degree. Then you attend law school for 3-4 years to receive a juris doctorate. (and the pretentious title of “Esquire” that only the pretentious use.) Take the bar, pass the character/fitness committee and you are licensed to practice law.

There is no further specialization. My license allows me to appear in Immigration Court, or Tax Court. I can practice in the field of family law, criminal law, personal injury, transactional law. You name it--my license “allows” me to practice that type of law.

Realistically what happens is that after law school you obtain a job and eventually narrow your focus. You become a divorce lawyer. Or a criminal lawyer. Or a personal injury lawyer. Frankly, I have absolutely no business dispensing tax advice, as I have no knowledge in the field. We see, on occasion, a lawyer attempt to go outside his/her field. They may be a personal injury lawyer, and decide to help a family member out for a criminal matter. Generally they make a complete balls-up of it, since they don’t know what they are doing. If I was giving tax advice or patent advice, I would likewise screw it up—I don’t know those areas of law.

I do, however, happen to know Landlord/Tenant law. I have represented Landlords, Tenants, and sat as a Case Evaluator and Arbitrator in Landlord/Tenant disputes. I have performed numerous jury trials, even more judge-trials and countless hearings within this area of law. All over the course of the past 15 years or so. I have practiced in almost every jurisdiction within 100 miles of my office.

A few years ago, I was at a family affair when a relative-in-law piped up with a statement regarding a Landlord’s legal obligation. Thinking she would actually be helped by understanding the nature of the law, and a few points she was in error, I politely stated what the law was.

I, of course, was wrong. Not only wrong in thinking she may be interested in the law, but quite terribly wrong in what the law was. She went on and on, berating me for not knowing the law (“and you are a lawyer?”) and how SHE was right and SHE knew the law, and who was I to dare question HER? I diplomatically kept my mouth shut to keep the peace and moved on.

Of course I wanted to point out my experience in the field, and as a disinterested person (not my landlord or tenant)—I was merely stating what was, not what I wanted it to be. There would be no gain.

This is not unusual. Often tenants are unrepresented, and when we meet in court, they will tell me what the law is. “A landlord has to replace the carpet after each tenant.” [No—they don’t.] “A landlord can’t kick me out, and then sue for rent to the end of the lease” [Yes—they can.] “I told them my new address, and that was enough.” [No—it wasn’t.] I try to explain the law, in the hopes of resolving it. They don’t listen. We go before the Judge. I win. They feel “cheated”—I feel nothing. The law is what the law is.

I do think--if you are trying to convince me of what the law is in a field I know very well--you ought to know the statutes. You ought to know the case law. You ought to know how judges rule, why they rule that way. You ought to know the Court rules and the Rules of Evidence.

In the same vein, why aren’t cosmologists convinced by Kalaam’s Cosmological Argument? If this was such a great and impenetrable argument—shouldn’t every cosmologist say, “Why, clearly the universe has a cause?” Why is it that only Christian apologists, using it on Christian audiences, find it effective?

Why aren’t scientists convinced by Intelligent Design? Why is it only Christian apologists, using it on Christian audiences, find it effective?

Look, I don’t mind the minority view. We can all recall minority positions that eventually prevailed over the then-majority position. (*cough, cough* “Geocentricism, anyone?”) But at least recognize you are promulgating the minority position within the field, and recognize the up-hill battle you face!

I understand the frustration of Christians when faced with Christ-mythers. I deplore the tactic of saying those who claim Christ as historical have the burden of proof. Look, like it or spike it, Christ-myth is a minority position amongst historians. I am not sure I am over-stating it by claiming it is an extreme minority position.

This does not mean it is wrong, per se—but it does mean you should have your ducks in a row and be prepared to fight an up-hill battle against the prevailing view. You should know the strongest arguments for a historical Jesus. You should be able to respond to them. Your hypothesis needs to answer what facts we have better than the claim of a historical Jesus.

Yet often, the very people who are aghast against Christ-myth, employ the same (and worse) method when it comes to evolution. Amongst scientists it is NOT over-stating it to say non-evolution is an extreme minority position. Less than 1% when you take into account all the scientists in the world.

Do creationists (including intelligent design) likewise treat their own position as a minority position? Do they understand the up-hill battle? Do they know the arguments for evolution? Are they able to respond to them? Does a non-evolution hypothesis answer all the facts we have better than an evolution hypothesis?

Please understand, I am NOT saying “Majority opinion is correct.” What I am saying is, when you are trying to convince a lawyer—know the law. If you are trying to convince a cosmologist—know cosmology. If you are trying to convince a scientist—know science.

Book Review – The Unlikely Disciple

Over my vacation, I read The Unlikely Disciple by Kevin Roose upon a recommendation by the FriendlyAtheist. Some lighter, enjoyable reading.

First the Book Reviewy Part:

It is a story of a secular student, raised in a Quaker, liberal household with an extremely “general” view of God (what I would call typical Americana) who decides to join Liberty University for one semester and write about his experiences amongst the conservative, fundamentalist Christian crowd.

He begins his tale with how he was accepted in the University, what preparations he did to “bone up” on what he should know, and his family’s initial reactions. He then spends the remainder of the book detailing his adventures, including his internal reactions to people and their statements, his own developing indoctrination into the system, and describing those he met. Including Jerry Falwell himself.

It was easy-reading; the author did a good job keeping the reader interested in what happened next, whether he would be found out as a non-Christian, and what would happen to the students he met. He described the classes he attended, and the social life of the campus.

I would recommend you get the first few chapters to review, or glance through it at a bookstore before buying. The tone and message stays consistent throughout, so if you like portions of it, you would probably like the whole thing. For me—this was a library-loan worthy book, but not something I see reading again.

Now, my individual impression:

First, I was surprised at the lack of educational depth at Liberty University. I understand the author deliberately took introductory Christian-focused classes—but some of his tales were downright surprising. For example, he indicated his difficulties in learning the names of the New Testament books in order.

This is college? I might expect these fundamentalists not knowing Greek—but not even knowing the books of the Bible? I’ve probably had to know that since 3rd grade!

Or he talked about having fill-in-the-blank notes. Where the teacher hands out copies with most of the notes filled in, and the student just fills in the blanks. “Jesus was the _____ of the world” and you write in “light.” I never remember a fill-in-the-blank note in college. I am scratching my head trying to remember one in high school. And apparently this was in more than one class!

Secondly, I laughed as the author was surprised at meeting the variety within Christian fundamentalists. Just as non-theists are lumped together in one concept by Christians—the author commits the same error by assuming fundamentalists would all look and act the same. There were all the familiar characters from my history.

The Rule Enforcer: the Guy (it was always a guy) who insisted on following every single letter of the law, and inevitably reached a point of authority to impose it on others. Mr. Roose wrote on the RA who sat out at the Movie Theater to catch people going into R-Rated Movies. I know him.

The Rebel: the people who watched the R-rated Movies and were considered the “bad crowd.” The author discussed a certain “room” that everyone wanted to be at, because they were the rebels. In my first college—that was our room. Yet underneath, the Rebel was no more rebellious than your average teenager.

The Rule discriminatory. The person who felt some rules were important until it applied to them. The person who never liked others sneaking kisses (apparently kissing was rule violation at Liberty) until they got a girlfriend/boyfriend. Then it became “O.K.”

The homophobe, the prayer, the “Let’s talk,” the sex-obsessed. All from my past; all here.

Thirdly, I was not surprised at how much the author enjoyed the relationship and camaraderie with Christians. When they thought he was a Christian—he enjoyed how supportive and encouraging and communal the society was. When they discovered he was not a Christian, because they already knew him, he became a “potential Christian” and maintained some of the companionship.

Unfortunately, this often ends when the Christian feels like you are no longer one of them, or a potential. Not just in becoming a heretic (like me), but in church meetings when another Christian trounces your idea, or at Church softball games. Its all fun and games until the Christian perceives they are crossed.

Finally, it was a bit scary how easily Average Theist could assimilate into the community. Mr. Roose talked about how it was initially shocking to hear so much “You are gay” and “Faggot” and “Homosexual” all as derogatory talk. Yet after a time, hearing it over and over, it became less so. Soon you could see in the tenor of the book, it became de rigor--accepted for what it was.

In the end, I forget how odd fundamentalism must be to others completely unaccustomed to it. Being raised and living in it for so long, this all seemed like a trip down memory lane.

God’s Priorities

My wife is an avid Michigan State University Fan. “Avid” may not be a strong enough adjective—obsessed would be the terminology psychiatrists would use. We have the flags, the stickers, the dog collars, the pillows, the blankets and even a room with Spartan wallpaper border. Pens, screen savers, wastebaskets. And every imaginable coat, sweater, sweatshirt, or hat.

To give you an inkling of how “MSU” my house is, you would have to understand there is a friendly (like Hatfield-McCoy “friendly”) rivalry between MSU and University of Michigan. My wife never roots for U of M. I didn’t realize how deep and insidious this was being passed onto our children until the day I was having a conversation with my youngest. 7 or 8 at the time. We have a relative who attends U of M.

Youngest: I can’t wait to see C…..but….
Me: Yes?
Youngest: Don’t tell Mommy….[whispering]…she goes to a VERY BAD SCHOOL!

Ah the joys of brainwashing children.

Secondly, what you would have to know about my wife is that her favorite sport is basketball. She played basketball in High School. Watches basketball (college) whenever the opportunity arises. When the NCAA 64 was being played locally last year—she got tickets. Even though the teams playing were all from out of town. Needless to say, our March is absolutely controlled by “March Madness.” Brackets, games—the works.

This year, the Final Four of the NCAA was to be played in Detroit. Over a year ago, my wife began scheming and planning to get tickets. As you get them through a lottery system, my wife had every friend, relative, neighbor, or minor acquaintance signing up in the hopes of getting tickets.

And she got four (4). She was ecstatic. This was the equivalent of Super Bowl, World Series and the U.S. Open all rolled into one.

This year her beloved Spartans were not likely to get past the top 8—in other words, probably not coming to Detroit. Yet they managed to beat a higher-seeded team to be in the Final Four. She was thrilled to see them play at least once.

Then they did the even more unlikely, and won again on Saturday—meaning they are in the Championship Game. My wife thought she was in heaven. A dream come true.

Now I am not going to say my wife prayed for this to happen…but I am pretty certain someone did somewhere! Yet while all these things were being put into play, 100’s of 1,000 of children were dying from starvation. From easily treatable diseases. Surely someone was praying for them?

It is usually at this point the atheist says something like, “Why would God allow those children to die?” and the Christian is supposed to respond with, “Who are you to ask God, ‘Why?’” and we get into a bizarre discussion debating characteristics of a creature we cannot verify a thing about.

I guess I am looking at this slightly differently. We all agree it is unlikely MSU would be going to the Final Four this year. Not impossible—just unlikely. And even more unlikely it would happen in Detroit and my wife would get tickets and so on. We all probably agree that if there was a personal, interactive God, it would be within its power to manipulate the universe in such a way to make sure MSU was in Detroit, playing the Final Four, with my wife in the audience.

It is also possible for this God to prevent starvation. To facilitate cures for diseases. Yet it does not.

It would seem, in the grand scheme of things, if there was an interactive God, for whatever reason, it is more important to it that MSU be in the Final Four, then for children to live. Because that is the situation in the world.

How are we able to discern anything about a creature that has priorities so contrary to what we believe? I can understand people who are motivated by things I am not—maybe they have a higher priority for a larger salary than I do. Or they love a sport more than I do, and will commit time and effort to it.

But imagine someone who thinks it is more important a certain team plays basketball than 1000’s dying? We can’t get our hands around that; we can’t understand that. In fact, if we presented a moral dilemma where a person chose to go to a basketball game at the expense of 1000’s of people dying—we would lock them away! We would question the stability of their mental state!

It baffles me when I read theist say, “God finds this important….” Or “God looks at that….” Or “God wants this….” or “God dislikes….” We can’t even understand the priority system of such a God; to talk of “likes” and “dislikes” is pure unadulterated speculation.

You have a God (if there was such a creature) who finds it more important to have a world where my wife gets to go to a basketball game than to save dying children. Don’t tell me you understand the inner-workings of what such a creature desires—you can’t even explain its priorities.

Is “God” a good answer?

I was reading on Debunking Christianity of a Christian who appreciated the skeptic’s arguments, yet maintains his belief in theism, in part, due to the Cosmological Argument:

Always I have been of the opinion that the unanswered questions of belief are much easier to live with than those of unbelief. For example (and this is a huge one for me), if I choose naturalism (which I see to be the only real alternative to theism), then I must accept that somewhere, at some time, something came into existence out of absolutely nothing. (For all the efforts of contemporary atheists to escape what Frank Hoyle [Ed. – I believe he meant “Fred Hoyle”] saw clearly as the implications of big bang cosmology, this consequence still stands undefeated.)

I don’t get why this argument resonates with theists. Oh…I understand wanting to know what happened at the Big Bang; wanting to know how the universe works—what made the clock start to tick. What I don’t get is why “God” is such a good answer.

Look, we have an innate desire to present an Answer to a Question. Present a solution to a difficulty. If you have picked up any relationship book written in the past 50 years, you have read how men are supposed to learn when women present them with a problem, they don’t want a solution—they just want someone to listen. We are informed, and have to learn and often fail in suppressing our natural inclination to present a solution before our wives have even finished relaying what happened!

And our universe presents some great questions. Like the Big Bang. Or the start of life. Or why deep-fried Twinkies taste good when regular Twinkies do not. And certainly we want answers to those questions. But we want actual answers—not some propped up idea that is both unhelpful and presents more questions!

I had a teacher who, whenever you prefaced a question with “I have a question” would always interrupt with “I have an answer; let’s see if they match.” This resulted in conversations like:

Student: I have a question—
Teacher: Good. I have an answer; let’s see if they match.
Student: --what chapters are we supposed to read?
Teacher: Oh, too bad. My answer was ‘Three blind mice.’

While I appreciate he was attempting to break us of the habit of prefacing a question with a useless clause—doing it every…single…time…became annoying. Yet I get that same sense with the convenience of God

“Where did the universe come from?”
“God.”

“How did life form?”
“God.”

“What keeps atoms from blowing apart?”
“God.”

“How do we impose our moral sense on others?”
“Say God says it.”

“Is our few years of life it?”
“God.”

“What if I am struggling with my current situation?”
“Don’t worry—God.”

Like the theist has the same perpetual answer for any difficult question. An answer that, in the end isn’t very helpful. It is that co-worker who, when you tell them your car wouldn’t start that morning, says, “There must be something wrong with your car.” Hey—thanks for the valuable insight. Never crossed my mind! I thought cars were supposed to not start!

How did God start the universe? The theist doesn’t know.
What morals does a God impose? The theist makes a guess.
How did God initiate life? The theist doesn’t know.
What exists after this world? The theist makes a guess.
What would a God do to help me today? The theist doesn’t know.

This is what puzzles me about this argument. If you are going to propose an “answer” to our problem—shouldn’t it progress us forward toward a resolution? Instead, the God hypothesis introduces another character we know even less about, with even less understanding (or equal) as to how the problem would be resolved.

I almost find this argument…lazy. Like looking for a solution is too hard to do. So much easier to presume there is this “Unknown Entity” and lay the credit at its feet.

A Canard That Needs to Go

Updated...(see below)

Canard (noun) 1. A false or baseless usually derogatory story, report or rumor.

2. A duck intended or used for food.

On occasion, we hear the statement, “You atheists reject claims within the Bible because you presuppose supernatural things can’t happen.” Yeah, Dr. Craig—I’m looking at you! (If you have ever heard a debate with Dr. William Craig, this inevitably comes up—how one’s “philosophical” view affects one’s “historical” view.)

In one very slight aspect this concept is true—because we are convinced no god exists, we necessarily believe no god interacts in the world. The same way you believe there are no unicorns in your back yard results in you not believing the claim unicorns are doing anything in your backyard.

However, just as you are convinced it is more likely there are no unicorns because of the evidence you know—we are convinced there is no god because of the evidence we know.

See, we reject miraculous claims not because of some presupposition; but rather because we are convinced a natural explanation is more compelling. Or, in some situations, a possible natural explanation is more likely.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, for a moment, and demonstrate why it is not presuppositions; but rather proof. Take your average Christian. They obviously believe in a God. They believe in a God who interacts within our natural world. A God who “shifts” things from what would be a natural, normal course, to a new course. A miracle.

Your average Christian even prays that God would intervene. Rather than Aunt Jane dying from cancer, as would naturally occur—God would swoop in and stop the natural process. Rather than miss a job interview, God would strategically place the Christian miraculously next to the perfect employer on their next plane flight.

Your average Christian believes in a God who is so mighty, He could perform momentous miracles--spin the continents with a passing thought, and so conscientious He can perform the tiniest of interferences—a smile from a child when needed.

There is every reason in the world such a God can miraculously affect…toast. So does the Christian really believe God miraculously put the Virgin Mary’s Face on a Grilled Cheese Sandwich? Remember, it is logically possible. (The last bastion of every Christian argument.)

Nothing prevents the Christian God from entering the natural world in Miami, 1994—and instead of the normal scorch marks appearing on such sandwiches—rearrange them so they would take the shape of a face. A particular face. Mom.

This is the same God who obtained a coin from a fish’s mouth. Or broke a few loaves of bread into such itty-bitty, tiny pieces, once divided, it could feed 1000’s with basketfuls left over. A God who made bones dance, and sent dreams, and stopped the sun for a whole day. Toast would be a piffle.

So why does the Christian believe this isn’t a miracle? Is it because of some presupposition against Catholicism? Against Cheese? Against cheesy miracles? Of course not! It is because the natural explanation is more believable than a claim of a supernatural intervention.

We see scorch marks on grilled cheese all the time. Putting butter in contact with heat will do that. And we understand how our minds make patterns from randomly generated shapes. It is how, on a summer’s day, we see pirate ships and flying pigs in cloud formations. It is perfectly natural we would do the same with shapes in scorch marks and “see” a woman. (Obviously, it is made even more humorous that the Virgin Mary appears as depicted in Church art, and no one knows what Mary would look like—let alone if that was her.)

We can pick other miracles. Does the Christian believe the Gospel of Peter, and the miraculous sign of Jesus coming out of the tomb, helped by angels whose heads reached to the clouds? And a talking cross following them out? Or tales of Jesus’ swaddling clothes causing healing? Or Thelca magically opening prison doors and not being burned by a fiery execution?

See-no one believes every miracle story ever written. Not even every miracle story written by those within their own religion. At some point, their own skepticism kicks in and they think, “There is a perfectly good natural explanation for this, outweighing any need to resort to supernatural.”

We do the same thing. Only we happen to find natural explanations more sufficient in YOUR claims of miracles. You may not like it; you may think the evidence is compelling and sufficient. But please understand it has nothing to do with presuppositions—just like you it has to do with evidence.

Lose the idea, “You don’t believe this because you presuppose against miracles.” I’ll show you how you suffer from the same “presupposition”—that you are reviewing evidence and remain unconvinced.

Updated: Bugger Blogger. I posted this twice. Vinny and Bruce – I moved your comments to this one and deleted the repetitious entry. Thanks for understanding