LETTERS OF DISAPPROVAL
Identities Withheld Automatically
Letters Containing Personal Correspondence May Be
Truncated
Writer Comments Appear In Black
My Comments Appear In Blue
The letters
of disapproval section has been closed and finalized effective
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.
Jason Long,
Greetings. While I did do a high level read through your book (thorough
in the introduction and the age of the universe section), I was disappointed to
not find it filled with facts and thus I didn't do a thorough read. It is
interesting how you point to science as your evidence that the bible is wrong,
yet you do so in a very precursory manner by making high level statements that
claim something without the references to evidence to back them up and not
offering evidence to the contrary of what is stated (with reference). In
your defense, you do list reference books, but that isn't the same as precise
scientific reference. As a scientist it is very important to use
scientific methods without leaving out opposing evidence. Theories should
also be mentioned as theories and assumptions as assumptions.
The majority of the writer’s statements in the opening paragraph
were regarding an earlier version of the book that I had published online. His
chief complaint is that I do not spend enough time dealing with
counterevidence. As I mentioned several times, the goal of the book is to
provide the broadest possible look at biblical problems. It is simply
impossible to go into the detail that he wishes if I am to stay within my set
publication limits. Furthermore, if there was even a miniscule bit of evidence supporting
a young earth, as the writer insinuates, I would be more than happy to
reconsider my position. However, this evidence is 100% lacking. As I stated
several times in Thousands Or Billions,
any supposed evidence of a young earth has been thoroughly refuted.
You do a decent job at trying to show why the universe is billions of years
old, but once again, you leave out specifics - what elements are missing that
don't have a half life longer than 8 million years old and which ones that have
a half life are present (forgive me if I missed it somewhere).
Unfortunately, space constraints limit me from including every
single piece of supporting data that every single person would like for me to
include.
I
do know that the Hubble telescope has in recent years convinced the majority of
astronomers that the universe isn't billions of years old (I'm not an
astronomer, but it had something to do with the number of a certain type of
stars being few in number - hundreds instead of thousands).
The Hubble telescope story is one of those comforting myths that
Christians pass among each other to justify their beliefs. As a former
Christian, I was once guilty of this. Anyone who does a modest amount of
research will discover that there is only documentation for the contrasting
position.
I
would also caution you that linear extrapolation (things are as they always
have been: atmospheric pressure and exposure to air dramatically affect the
half-life of radioisotopes) and circular reasoning (dating earth layers based
on fossils that are based on the earth layer they were found in) are not
scientific (linear extrapolation is scientific if clearly stated as an
assumption, but linear extrapolation over billions of years would seam rather
presumptuous). The Earth strata layer date structure also has yet to be
proven - only linear extrapolation and circular reasoning justify it.
As for his linear extrapolation statement, one would consider it
wise to believe that the best assumption regarding a process, such as
radioactive decay, is that the process has indefinitely taken place in the same
manner unless we have good reason to believe it has been affected in some
fashion. It is astronomically improbable to assume that such an effect has
taken place regarding earth’s radioactive isotopes. The writer's incredulous
statements regarding the circular nature of fossil layers and radiometric
dating inspired their own paragraph in the final version of Poor Christian Reasoning. I do not claim
that they prove each other, only that both independently lead to the same
conclusion. A challenge to refute the
facts that I presented went unanswered.
As a science oriented society, we have fallen a long way from the roots of
science and tend to get wrapped up in arguing and emotion instead of facts.
A lead Chinese scientist (forgive me that I don't have his name) was quoted
recently as saying "In China it is okay to question
People are going to see what they want to see, I suppose.
Please let me know when you have a more thorough scientific explanation (proof
for your points and proof against the opposition) - I will be happy to read it.
Seeing as how the writer was not pleased with my work, I
recommended the talk origins archive.
They do an infinitely more thorough job on the issues of evolution and the
earth’s antiquity. In his subsequent response, he voiced his disappointment in
the archive for two reasons: not including direct counterarguments; and the
lengths that “evolutionists” will go through to stretch the truth. A quick
check at the archive will demonstrate the lack of veracity of this statement.
His subsequent response also included a list of “evidences,” such as Chinese
writings and dinosaurs in the Bible, that support the book’s scientific
veracity. Again, a modest amount of research will show the lack of validity in
these suggestions. I simply don’t have the time or patience to point out direct
references for every single “proof” offered by apologists. If this were a
formal debate, I would make the time. People must learn to be responsible for
doing their own research. While I am thankful that the writer took the time to
write, his letters forced me to make a policy of not sending personal responses
to those who will obviously not look at the data objectively.
Regards,
DR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I was just wondering why you were so full
of hate
I wonder if I would be full of hate if I attempted to demonstrate
the fraudulent nature of a religion to which the writer did not belong.
and trying to take it out on the only decent belief system the
world has to give people hope.
This is simple bigotry of other religions and philosophies.
I will not fight you on wheither it is true or not, it is a belief, it is apparent
you do not believe.
Being a belief does not take a proposition outside the realm of
logic. If I "believe" that
2+2=4, it is either true or not true. If
I "believe" that the world is a few thousand years old, it is either
true or not true. Religions do not get
immunity from examination just because they are beliefs. Either the events in the Bible did happen or
did not happen.
I suspect you have a
chemical imbalance, I have to tell you some people live a happier life with
medications.
I will let this statement speak for itself.
I had watched a show on the Discovery
Channel, the airing showed contravercy on extinction
of dinosaurs (I believe it was in
Scientific findings are not absolute. They are designed specifically to be testable
and falsifiable. Otherwise they become
part of a dogma, like religion. We no
doubt have incorrect and uncertain information about topics like
dinosaurs. The important part on which
mainstream scientists all strongly agree is that they lived millions of years
ago. This alone disproves a literal
interpretation of the creation story.
What did I come up with in my search was someone trying to
disprove what this world needs.
This is an opinion – and I have demonstrated to the best of my
ability that it should not be agreed with.
If we lose the respect of
the ten commandants, what type of world will we live in. Not a world I want to
live in, especialy not a world I want my children to
live in.
I don't think we should steal, murder, or lie unless it's for the
greater good. I think we should honor
our fathers and mothers unless they did us wrong. This is as far as most freethinkers will go
along with the commandments. Where I
disagree is that I believe in freedom for a person to have (not necessarily act
upon) their religious beliefs. I don't
think we should be disallowed from working on Saturday. I believe idols of other gods are okay to
have. I think that using God's name in
vain does harm to no one. I think that
adultery is okay if both responsible parties are willing to let the experience
happen. I go beyond not being jealous of
other people's slaves and believe that no one should own slaves. So, with just this paragraph, I have offered
a moral code superior to the one in the Bible.
The type of world we live in, according to the writer's question, I
think would be much more enlightened.
Honestly I read with interest, you only
held me for so long. I know why you do not yet have a publisher, (You are a
very good writer), your outlook (better word for saying it) is bleak!!!
That's pretty much on target.
The facts I present aren't popular.
I have lots to improve on myself, but I
get angry when someone disrespects my Lord, when they are so right brained,
without flexibility, that they find themselve
clueless.
I am willing to entertain any possibility presented, but from my
observations, many Christians will admit that nothing will change their
minds. I would say that the opposite is
true of what the writer says.
I was reading your excert
on Noah's
God lifted the souls of these Children
before the demise.
This is a classic case of adding something to the Bible that isn't
there. The writer knows that such an act
is cruel, begins with the premise that God is not cruel, and invents a
necessary scenario that will complete the thought.
Horrible fate? #1 they were animals.
Animals feel pain just like humans do. They may not be intelligent, but I personally
don't believe they should be drowned for no good reason.
Have we forgotten about the life cycle, or
are you surviving without?
I wish the writer had elaborated on this point. What on earth does it mean?
Are you okay with over population of every living thing?
No, but this wasn't why the flood took place. The reason was specifically stated as the
evil of humankind, not overpopulation of every living thing. Even if overpopulation was the problem, what
gives God the right to drown everyone?
I have not read all passages in the bible, God having
knowledge of the furture, I believe that would be
choice. I believe he did give us choice.
I realize that this is what many people believe, but I have already
demonstrated in the book that God knowing the future means that we must do
exactly what he knows we are going to do.
We cannot do things that God doesn't know we're going to do because this
would make God wrong. As demonstrated
more thoroughly in the book, omniscience and freewill cannot coexist. Philosophers without dogma to defend have
demonstrated this for centuries now.
I also believe we continue to make really bad choices. You so need
to take yourself away from negativitaty and find
something positive to "hold" onto!
Why does the writer assert that I have nothing positive to hold
onto? This letter has so many ad hominems
that I've lost count.
My rebutle of Noah's
God lifted the souls of these children
before the demise.
Horrible fate: they were animals.
Did we forget about the life cycle, or are you surviving without?
(
Are you okay with over population with every living thing?
Yes, this was included twice.
Omniscient, "God is a parent to earth as we are parent's to
our children".
What does this have to do with omniscience? Do parents kill and torture their children
for eternity for not doing what they are told?
God is not a dictator, he wants us to learn and be better, did you
miss that one?
I can't miss what is not there.
This characterization of God is way out of line with the Old Testament.
Okay, I can understand if you are an life time, physics, biology
and chemistry major, that is really bad when you don't believe in mircles,
People with thorough backgrounds in science tend not to believe in
miracles, superstitions, etc. We try to
explain phenomena via natural means. I
don't know what point the writer is trying to make here.
I am sending you a miracle,
because I want you to write better books. You will have a revelation and a
better aspect on life, all I want back is a smile, I think god sent me to you!
I hope you read this part,
If the writer thinks that God sent her to spray ad hominems as
a miracle for me, I again weep for society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right now you are hellbound. I would be happy to show you the truth of your
mistaken assumptions of your 5 biggest hostilities towards Jesus Christ being
the 2nd Person of the Godhead and the completeness of God's Word, that is, the
66 books of the Bible.
The first letter
on this page was an example of the gullible; the second letter was the basket
case; now we have the question begging, philosophical preacher. If the writer
has something to offer that apologists haven’t rehashed a million times, I
invite him to share it with us. I have no idea what he’s referring to as my “5
biggest hostilities toward Jesus.” Since I have no real hostilities against the
biblical character, this is simply a case of the sender not taking time to
understand the perspective I offer.
This is your opportunity to
give your life to Christ when you see that the 5 biggest things you hold
against God's Word are in fact mistaken assumptions in your heart of hearts,
bad reasonings, and selfish imaginations. How vain to
live your life with these errors from your upbringing to now, ultimately
showing hell is what you really do want. All this time you had been living a
lie. Praise the Lord there is a way of salvation!
This is simply
condescending preacher nonsense with the typical designation of the
non-Christian as a vain individual who wants to go to hell.
URL:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Christianity.htm
The sender’s URL
sent me to his homepage, which was filled with information about the rapture
and end times. Also present were book recommendations, some written by Lee Strobel, probably one of the top three worst apologists
that a Christian could recommend to someone.
Realize that agnosticism is
like sitting on a pedestal of pride in the world.
This is a common
apologetic statement, and it could very well be the most foolish one that they
offer. The sender is basically saying that it’s prideful and arrogant to admit
that you don’t know which religion, if any, offers the correct view of the world.
Preaching that you know the truth, were born into the truth, and claiming there
is no other truth, however, should not be regarded as prideful and arrogant.
Since
we know you were intelligently designed because you did not create the universe
and nature does not just happen all by itself (all things have cause and effect
except the uncreated), this proves that atheism and angosticism
are false. So this untruth you have is unresolved and needs to die on the
cross.
The sender’s
argument about cause and effect is called the “first cause” argument. This
argument basically states that all effects have causes, except for the uncaused
first cause, which is God. Four key problems invalidate this line of argument.
1. The field of
quantum mechanics demonstrates that some effects may not require causes.
2. The argument
attempts to circumvent its own axiom that all effects have causes by baselessly
inserting an exception.
3. The argument
does not deal with the much more simple explanation that the universe is the
first “uncaused cause.”
4. Causes and
effects are universal constructs; we cannot apply laws of the universe prior to
the creation of the universe.
Interjecting a
creator into the mix only needlessly complicates the issue. If all effects
except the first one need a cause, why must an infinitely complex creator need
to be part of the solution? Utilizing this line of argument, it is much more
feasible to say that the universe was the first uncaused cause (the uncreated,
as the sender put it). To circumvent this problem on his webpage, the sender
simply asserts, without proof, that only non-material (i.e. God) is exempt from
creation. What’s worse is that I don’t even reject the notion of a creator – I
just reject the one depicted in the Bible.
Additionally, 1001 words, or
1001 books don't solve this problem. People think they can fillibuster,
but it is just vanity no matter how many decades you have been at for see, in
just one setence I destroyed your whole approach.
I didn’t realize
that such a grammatically nightmarish sentence could destroy my “whole
approach.” Anyone can plainly see that
there is no substance to this attempted rhetoric.
For a further investigation
of the 4 point perfect proof for God:
URL:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/perfectproof.htm
Summarized and
answered, they are:
1. Since we have
evolved so much in 6000 years, we would already be perfect if we had evolved
for millions of years.
A1. This is a
ridiculous (and incorrect) assertion without proof.
2. Nature does
not happen by itself.
A2. I covered
this previously.
3. God could not
have been created because he would no longer be God.
A3. Ignoring his
question begging of the nature of God, this “proof” has nothing to do with
proving God’s existence.
4. (Variation of
#1)
A4. See A1.
Hundreds of people have
tried, but they have always failed in trying to bring down the perfect proof
for God.
In other words, whatever
contention you will bring up I am infinitely ahead of you to eternal life as
has been revealed in previous discussions.
I see. I
encourage readers to visit his page to view a nice example of empty,
amateurish, pop-philosophical rhetoric.
Don't you know that once you
have eternal life you can never lose it. To say otherwise is unBiblical nonsense. Obviously, therefore, the god that you
believed in was not the God of the Bible since you did not enter into the new
creation, so that means it is impossible to be an ex-Chistian.
You have in fact never changed as though you are ex-nothing.
This is a good
example of the no true Scotsman fallacy: “If you left the faith, you were never
a true Christian.”
I don't want to see you
perish for losing even one soul to hell is not joyous.
Still, he thinks
he’s doing the right thing. You can’t argue with that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs, Please see my web page http://www.andrijar.com/other/climate.htm that deals with pressure drop, avalanchecondensation and meteor impact as mechanism for global flood, dinosaurs and huge animals extermination as proof thatBible is correct.The theory is copyright protected at 1996. As the theory becomes very popular these days please tell me if you read thaton some other source because I am willing to attempt all possible legal acts to protect me as author of the theory andthe device's patent pending process as well. If someone claims that he invented the same theory before the 1996, thanthe court will identify the truth. Thank you in advance for you kind understanding and cooperation, I remain. Best regards,AR
AR’s page is another good example of an author with a
flight-of-ideas approach that invents highly unlikely hypotheses to wrap
science around the story rather than dealing with the flood’s problems. His essay is definitely recommended reading. I believe English is not his native language,
so please try to overlook the grammar.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unoriginal
Nonsense Or, a Long, Hard Look
This is a link to a critical review
written by Biblical apologist James Patrick Holding (a.k.a. Robert Turkel). Aside from
the insults, Turkel does a very respectable job at addressing
a few of the points raised in the book.
I’m sure that had this society compelled him to believe a different
religion, he would achieve similar results in its defense as well.
My Response To Turkel's Critique
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be nonsense to you now. But my friend you will
find out soon enough who is talking nonsense. For a person so “logical” I would
be interested in hearing how we all got here???
Sincerely,
SB
SB’s rhetorical question is the
quintessential example of a logical fallacy known as the argument from incredulity or the god of the gaps fallacy. He
essentially insinuates that since I cannot answer his question, his belief is
the only solution that makes sense. This
line of thinking has been appropriately named the “god of the gaps” because
“God did it” has been used throughout history as a way of explaining the
apparently unexplainable gaps in our understanding. Similarly, as I point out in the book,
natural phenomena, such as earthquakes and eclipses, were once considered
direct interventions of God because there were no other suitable explanations.
Unfortunately, SB still utilizes this bankrupt line of reasoning.
Many Christians find comfort in the belief
that “God did it” solves any problem without an apparent solution. The problem that people like SB overlook is
that his proposal only creates a more difficult problem. If God created us all, who created God? If we suppose that God was created from
nothing, why can we not suppose that the universe (a system far less complex
than an all-powerful being) was also created from nothing? Answering the question of life’s origin by
supposing that it was created by an all-powerful being only complicates and
confounds the issue.
What’s worse than the utter lack of
rationale exhibited by SB is that he becomes yet another person who lacks the
capacity to understand my position correctly. I don’t discount the possibility
that a higher power exists, but theorizing that the one in the Bible must exist based on our failure to
explain the origin of the universe is patently absurd.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear LONG,
Concerning your book Biblical Nonsense.
Do you really
think that rise questions that common Christian never asked himself during his
devotional time reading his bible? I don’t know if anyone told you this and you
might be surprised but questions from Reality and the bible and Morality and
the bible, are normal in any reasonable Christian mind. Actually it is
beginning for real understanding of God. You just don’t need to stop on your
conclusions because they are wrong. Not facts but what you take out of them.
Anyway I think it
is nice introduction. Most of the questions of my 1-3 years of Christianity.
Continue your research and you might find the truth. Just don’t make the same
mistake, though opposite, that we are usually do, start reading the bible
knowing before we open even first page that there are no mistakes.
God bless you and
lead you.
OG
I
certainly do not propose that the questions I raise in the book have never been
contemplated by Christians. The problem lies with the process of thinking through
the potential problems. The vast
majority will only look for answers confirming the validity and benevolence of
the Bible. In other words, most
Christians will only look for an answer that satisfies the question the way
that they want it to be satisfied. It’s
not comfortable to look at a problem from an impartial standpoint. As I mentioned that the creationists only
look for answers to confirm Genesis, many doubting Christians will seek advice
only from sources to confirm the Bible.
Once an individual gains the ability to look at the situation without a
confirmation bias, it will become obvious that the book is one of hundreds that
falls short of its claims. The worst
thing we can ever do to solve the problem is “start reading the bible knowing
before we open even [the] first page that there are no mistakes.” This is precisely how scores of religions
have continued to survive for centuries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are taking it literally. Your arrogance will be
your downfall.
Criticism
is more effective if constructive in some manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting site, to be fair an open mind should be
kept both ways. As far as the claim that the bible is wrong because it says the
earth is young.......A study in the original language of the scriptures should
be done. From what I find the Earth has had many ages. The scriptures start off
by saying the Earth had become waste and void, and that is when the Spirit of
the mighty one started the recreation of the earth. The flood till today would
be another age.
The
writer merely mentions "multiple ages" of the earth, which is a
commonly used form of the "figurative days" argument for Genesis. If
there is something in the original language to support multiple ages (as
opposed to forcing puzzle pieces to fit with known data), let the writer
present it. I’ve studied various
interpretations and have found them to be desperate attempts to reconcile the
Bible with scientific data. Author P’s
intent is clear. He wishes to convey
that the earth was literally created over six days about 6000 years ago. No amount of textual manipulation can change
that.
Mistranslations happen when going from one language
to another.
Based on the writer pointing this out, one
should wonder how much of my book was actually read.
For myself I am a reconciliationist.
I believe that it is and always has been the will of the ultimate being to
bring all his creatures to perfection. Hell and punishment has been another
terribly mistranslated subject. When trying to understand why the supreme being
punishes we should realize that the scriptures state that we are being created
in the image of this supreme being, therefore the human race will one day have
incredible powers which we will need to be able to handle.
The subject has now changed to a sermon
regarding hell, filled with one individual’s opinions and interpretations, but
without biblical support.
I realize from a human perspective the Almighty's
punishments are harsh but we must realize that they can be, because he can undo
all the effects of them.
Except that there is no support for the
idea that they will be undone.
Parents punishments seem hard to the child but they
are necessary because the parent is trying to create a good person. The
Almighty's punishments are harder because he is creating (super beings), beings
whose very thoughts can create realities. "Let us make man in our
image."
Again, there is no textual support for
this idea.
The scriptures state that when the Almighty wounds he
does it to heal, and when he kills he does it to make alive.
I’m not sure where the support for this
idea lies, but the writer is now begging the question of the Bible’s
legitimacy.
Imagine if you
will an all powerful being recreating himself. What would that involve?
Well, if I were all-powerful, I could wish
it to make it so. No creation, no
hellfire, no punishment. Why is this so
complicated?
The creation would have to be self willed but still
the creator is the source. The false view that we created ourselves or some
power without a mind created us causes us to cut ourselves off from our source.
Imagine living forever in this state, always incomplete. This is why the
Almighty drove men out of paradise, so we would not live forever in our own
false beliefs. Sometimes what is true can only be truly known when we have no
choice but to come face to face with it. Experience it for our selves. Death
for us is terrible, but we have no life apart from the life giver. When all
illusions about this and all the pain that comes with it are known by the human
race, all, it is written, will fall down on the knee and swear union with our maker
so the almighty can be "All in All." The Almighty knew how self
willed beings would act. He knew the situations and influences and environments
that would shape every man. We have our responsibilities and he has his. He
knew the first being he created would be the instrument he would use to perfect
others and he knew who the first rebel would be. But knowing this does not
remove our responsibilities either. He uses good and what we call evil to bring
about his purposes. Again I state that purpose is to create human beings in his
own image. This view of universal reconciliation was held by the early
assemblies before the pagan religions slipped in. You are questioning those
twisted views of the scriptures, this is good. But be open to the possibility that
The Almighty is perfecting all mankind.
This
letter is another good example of the flight-of-ideas approach for solving
objections to God’s ruthless actions. Notice how it says a lot without actually
saying much of anything? Opinions,
interpretations, fancy ideas, excuses, etc.
Do some research on the original language of the
scriptures, discover what is true.
A Fellow Truth Seeker,
M
Again, one should wonder how much of my
book was actually read.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Jason Long,
I’m somewhat disappointed in what appears to be a very
biased view of Christians and The God they worship.
Most Christians do not worship the God of
the Bible. They don’t know anything
about him because extremely few of them read the Old Testament, much less study
it in depth. They worship the one that
they hear about in Church. Most of my
book does not deal with mainstream Christianity. If one reads Biblical Nonsense in its entirety, this much is obvious. My views are not easily biased; they are
based on what is written directly in the text.
If someone presents a better translation or interpretation of that text,
I am more than open to accepting it. I
have no dogma to defend. Apologists will
defend inerrancy and the like no matter how grim their situation.
It seems that
you, yourself Sir have also been prejudiced by a view whether encouraged by the
conditions around you or views shaped and brought on by your inability to deal
with the problems you were unable to answer within the most profound book I and
thousands of others like me have ever come across.
Conditions around me play no discernable
part in the conclusions that I’ve made about the book. I’ve read the Bible, studied what it means,
and arrived at conclusions that are unavoidable to anyone who isn’t trying to defend
what they’ve been taught. I’m most
intrigued about these “problems [I’m] unable to answer.” I’ve read just about
all the apologetic answers there are to these problems, only to find them
attempting to sidestep the real issues.
If the Bible is the most profound book one comes across, I would
encourage more reading.
While it is very obvious that you are antagonistic
towards The Holy Bible and what you think the Christian world view is, You too,
it seems, have your biases and have been influenced by what appears to be
verses what actually is!
Now, this letter has just reduced itself
to “If you believed, you would understand.
I have the answers, and I’m sorry you don’t understand.”
I would like
to ask you if you would be willing to deal with some questions I have for you
and share with me back and forth on your time line why it is as you claim it is
in your introduction.
I’m more than willing to respond to any
questions.
How do you KNOW that you are correct? Are you sure!
Can you defend what it is you blieve?
I never claim to “KNOW” that I’m correct
in my conclusions. I admit this much in
the book. I don’t “KNOW” that fairies
don’t exist, but I can be reasonably sure based on the lack of evidence and
known hoaxes throughout history that they don’t. In the same manner, scientific errors,
historical mistakes, and other absurdities in the Bible lead me to the same
conclusion about this particular version of a creator. Demanding that I defend what I believe is
also an attempt to shift the burden of proof on the disbeliever. This, as I mentioned in Poor Christian Reasoning, is using fallacious logic. I am more than happy to explain what I
believe and why I believe it. If my
conclusions appear wrong based on further evidence or alternate avenues of
thought, my beliefs and thoughts change.
Those who make the positive claims have the burden of proof.
I will say without doubt that you definitely seem to
be a very intelligent man (probably much more intelligent than I ever will be)
from the way you write; however, as I am sure you would say to me just as
easily, "things are not always as they appear." Is it possible that you may be wrong about
what you believe today?
Yes.
I am most certainly wrong about a few things regarding the Bible. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll probably be
wrong again. This is the scientific
method: forming tentative explanations, testing ideas, gathering data, and
making rational conclusions based on those tasks. Based on the problems presented in my book, I
think the stories on the cover of Weekly
World News are just as likely to be true as those in the Bible. Both have an awful lot of explaining to
do. The level of evidence against the
Bible is overwhelming, and that is highly unlikely to change.
I'm most
interested in having you share with me if you would. Would that be okay Sir?
Thank you
TH
Share away.
--
Update: After several months, TH has yet
to send me any questions. I’ll remove
this line and post them if TH ever does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came across your book and skimmed through some of it
and plan to spend some more time looking through it. It looks like you
cover a lot of material. I enjoyed your explanations about fallacious
reasoning as that is one of the things in life that just drives me crazy.
However, I was a little disappointed that the examples you gave were somewhat
disingenuous or as a result of a lack of good quality exposure to what I would
call “real” apologists. As a student of apologetics for about 12 years
now, the only places I have heard those kinds of ridiculous arguments were in
listening to uninformed Christians (unfortunately a large portion of the
Church) and televangelists (also an unfortunately blight on the Church).
Of course, reading through the “Letters of Disapproval” I can see where
you and others would get the idea that Christians are ignorant or brain
washed. It pains me to see my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ drag
His name through the mud with ridiculous arguments that hurt rather than help
our cause. You are probably aware of these authors already, but I will
mention them anyway, just in case because I believe they have some good sound
arguments and reasoning:
Greg Koukl (www.str.org – lots of short, topical
commentaries and discussions on a variety of issues)
Norman Geisler
Gary Habermaas
J.P. Moreland
If you haven’t checked any or all of them out, I
would encourage you to do so (in the order I put them) as they are not the
typical “’cuz the Bible sez
so” Christians. It is by no means exhaustive, but these are some of my
personal favorites and I am generally pleased with their intellectual honesty.
I don't consider the examples put forth in
"Poor Christian Reasoning" to be the best of the lot, just some of
the clearest violations that I've encountered. It wouldn't do much good
for me to include some long, drawn-out, thoughtful discussions that contained
these examples since it’s not the point of the chapter. I stand by my
observation and the identical observation made by others who have left
Christianity - almost all religious people have been conditioned to believe
what society has told them to believe. This does not apply solely to
Christianity. I hope the readers can appreciate that people tend to
believe whatever their parents and society in general believes and are
typically able to rationalize their beliefs with evidence pointing to the
contrary. Let’s take the writer of this letter, for example. Does he go into church and tell the kids that
they should impartially study both sides of the Christian/Atheist argument in
order to find out the truth, or does he tell them that Christianity is true and
give them reaffirming material if they have doubts? If it is the former, I would be very
impressed since I have not met any pastor who fits that choice. I have read arguments by the apologists
mentioned and consider them to be much more honest and eloquent than the likes
of the typical internet apologists, just as I find the sender of this letter to
be more respectable than other disagreeing people who have written me.
This does not change the fact that they are guilty of trying to cover obvious
errors with ridiculous explanations. What good is a researcher who will not
consider that his point of view may simply be wrong? Should we honestly
believe that these apologists think the Bible might be wrong? This is the problem with all religious
apologists, regardless of the belief. They will begin by assuming certain
premises to be true (e.g. talking donkey, man coming back to life, DNA changes
via peeled branches, moon splitting in half) and mold an explanation to patch
the error, no matter how unlikely it may be. This is how religions
thrive. Are these not the confirming answers doubting Christians want to
find? If the sender knows of a
particular argument that is especially compelling, by all means, I think it
should be shared. I’m almost certainly
wrong on a number of issues, but any freethinking individual realizes that the
Bible is errant on an overwhelming number of topics.
Also, you might want to check out some of the
information about Anthony Flew’s recent rejection of
his long held atheistic beliefs in favor of theism (specifically a deistic view
at this time, but Gary Habermaas is still working on
him J ) as a result of the argumentation for Intelligent
Design. You can find an interview with him at
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf. While it is not proof for
the existence of God, it is interesting to see an intellectual giant in the
field of atheistic and religious philosophical thought change after so many
years of strong atheistic belief.
Regarding Anthony Flew, readers will want
to look into the rest of the story. Flew withdrew his two sole reasons
for becoming a deist. Since this part of
the account is not newsworthy to Christians, the balance of the story doesn’t
get passed around. (I originally stated
that Flew completely rescinded his beliefs, but that does not appear to be
correct. I probably made a mistake by
saying so.) Still, at no point did he
endorse the ridiculous biblical god or biblical creation - and the writer is
correct by realizing that it would not amount to proof if he did. If such
things were proof, the readers should realize that five times as much proof is
amounting on the wrong side of the fence every day.
I hope you have a great day and I hope that you will
continue to honestly examine the evidence on both sides of the debate,
JA
Children’s Pastor
First Baptist Church B
JA has also informed me that he urges the children
to study both sides of the religious issue.
I felt that this was worth mentioning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were there any historians who were contemporary of
Jesus whose writings still exist. The historians you mention seem to be after
the fact.
Yes, Philo of Alexandria, as written in the
book. Others contemporaries who could have mentioned him include
Apollonius of Tyana, Valerius
Maximus, and possibly Seneca, not to mention the
thousands who allegedly witnessed these miracles but weren't moved enough to
write about them. All sorts of second century historians write about him,
but no contemporary and first century historians. To answer your
question, there are very few contemporaries who could have mentioned him, but
there were plenty a few decades later who should have recorded the reports.
Why not consider the apostles to be historians?
What did the apostles write? No unbiased
scholars and hardly any Christian scholars maintain that the Gospels were
written by the Apostles. The same goes for dating these texts as anything
earlier than the late first century. Otherwise, why not consider works
like the Gospel of Peter, James, and Thomas if we're going to consider Matthew
and John. The further contradictions destroy New Testament reliability.
You mention JEWISH historians did not mention Jesus. They would have
considered Jesus a false prophet. False prophets abounded; did they mention any
of them by name?
Philo was one who had no problem mentioning all sorts
of religious movements, regardless of how he felt about them. Not all of
the historians were Jewish. Others were Roman or Greek.
Would not Jesus be a rather local phenomenon? He did not travel widely and his
emergence was of short duration. The word was mainly spread by the
apostles.
Historical stories of feeding five thousand people
with a plate full of food, raising the dead, healing the blind, exorcising
demons, walking on water, rising from the dead, and walking around with five
hundred zombies with countless witnesses would hardly remain local for several
decades.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason,
I will be upfront and let you know that I have not nor will I ever read you
book. There are a few things I would
like to say about what I have read from your site (which I happened on by
accident). In Chapter three you make a
comment that pretty much says the smarter you are the more chance you have of
leaving Christianity. This carries great
implications with it.
First, that's a great mischaracterization of what I
actually propose in the chapter. Influence plays a major role, and almost
certainly an even greater role, along with intelligence. Second, whether
or not this observation carries implications is unrelated to whether or not the
observation is valid. Before we get ahead of ourselves, however, let us
see if the implications are even part of a valid causal relationship.
The implications that you have to lack intelligence to have faith is
very rude and does not do any favors to your cause (whatever that might be).
Problem one is that, again, I say no such thing.
Arguing that an intelligent person is more likely to leave the faith (a
position defended time and time again by statistical analysis) is not the same
thing as saying that you have to lack intelligence to have faith. I even
go as far as to say that there are many intelligent people within the
faith. Thus, the author's accusation is obviously a non sequitur. Choosing not to read the book (or at least the
relevant passage), of course, has handicapped the author from making a valid
argument. Problem two is that what one considers to be "rude"
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If you feel you have no cause then let me ask you why write this
book?
Where do I say I have no cause? I obviously feel
that this is a worthy cause, or else the book would have never been written.
You talk about Christian authors writing on the same topic multiple
times and it not making their subject anymore believable, well you fall into
this category as well.
The problem is not with the Christian authors, it is
with the erroneous assumption that somehow a large volume of repeated material
defending a certain proposition somehow increases the validity of the
proposition. A lot of people make this mistaken assumption, and that's
the only reason I point it out. Of course, the same goes for non-Christian
authors. If a million people repeat what I've written, the statements are
no more valid than they are right now. The validity of the statements
rests entirely on how well they can be demonstrated as factual.
I am not here to bash you, tell you that you are going to hell, or
insult your intelligence. You seem to be
an intelligent man that has a biased toward Christianity. If you feel that you have no biase towards Christianity then you are an amazing writer
because you wrote with an underlying disdain for it.
Bias and disdain are two entirely
different concepts. I had no bias or disdain for Christianity when I did
my original study of it. I neither hated it nor liked it. I was
only born to become a member of it. Only after an in depth analysis did I
truly appreciate the evil contained in the Bible. I have never had a
considerable emotional attachment to make me favor one conclusion over the
other. Considering the overwhelming evidence against the faith, it's not
necessary for me to have a bias against Christianity.
One can even dislike a principle while remaining unbiased towards it. For
instance, suppose that an individual has been called to be a jury member in a
trial that involves someone he hates on the defense team. The jury member
can weigh the evidence independent of his personal feelings, decide how he
would have voted in the case had the hated person not been a member of the
defense, and apply that decision to the case at hand. Some people are
capable of setting aside emotions while others are not. This separates
disdain and bias into two distinct entities, even in the instance that they are
concurrently present.
One last thought, in the letters of disapproval (I
think that is what it was titled) on your website, someone asked you for your
thoughts on how we got here. You
automatically went defensive and accused them of the god of the gaps
fallacy. I am pretty sure, from the
letter you posted, that they had an honest curiousity
of what you thought.
I will repost the letter to which the
author refers in its entirety. Readers can make up their own minds as to
whether or not this is "an honest curiosity."
It
may be nonsense to you now. But my friend you will find out soon enough who is
talking nonsense. For a person so “logical” I would be interested in hearing
how we all got here???
Did the one asking the question already have his mind made up that I was
wrong? So much is clear. Did this sound like “an honest curiosity?”
Obviously not. Furthermore, I have never
been asked this question without my answer of "we don't know" leading
to the god of the gaps fallacy, so I feel it's a safe bet at this point to make
such an assumption. The question is also epistemologically meaningless
since we can only use concepts contained within our universe to discuss what
was before the universe. This presumes existence of universal concepts
(such as logic) before the universe existed, which is fallacious. This
leaves us with only guesses.
If you are strong enough and intelligent enough to attack
Christianity please be strong enough to offer up your opinion. Now if your response to that is that it is in
your book you must realize that many who visit your website will never purchase
your book.
My position is that we don't know.
My position is also irrelevant to whether or not the Bible is true and,
therefore, irrelevant to the subject of the book. Suggesting otherwise is
creating a false dichotomy of Christian Theism versus my opinion, which also
borders on shifting the burden of proof. An opinion isn't a required
prerequisite for eliminating possibilities.
It’s also irrelevant whether or not people
buy the book because it’s reprinted in its entirety on the website. If people visit the website and the book
contains the answer, two requisites per the question, they have all the tools
necessary to obtain the answer. In
actuality, there was no reason for me to answer this question, but I suppose
some people would rather intimidate than research.
As I wrote I thought of one other thing I wanted to
mention. At one point, I think it is
when you were wrapping up, you said something to the effect of if you are still
stubborn enough to still believe in Christianity. That is very rude and very damaging to any
objectivity that you claim to have.
Exactly how does this observation of the
opposite viewpoint destroy objectivity? Is not Christianity (and other
religions) stubborn by nature? Are the followers not unyielding, firmly
resolved, determined, resolute, and persistent in their beliefs? If I
decide that people who believe in a flat earth are stubborn, can I not still
have an objective opinion as to the shape of earth based solely upon the
evidence, especially if the evidence was reviewed long before I arrived at the
conclusion that one side was stubborn?
There was absolutely no reason to insult someone who
believes in a religion that you cannot prove to be untrue.
M
Again, where was the insult? I
defend Christians while blaming the Bible for their misguidance throughout the
book. Again, however, the author's statement borders on shifting the
burden of proof. I do not need to disprove anything. If I believed
that a herd of ten-pound elephants knitting cashmere sweaters on the surface of
Jupiter created the earth, and if I refused to budge from my position
regardless of the counterarguments offered, am I anything but stubborn?
Would the author defend me as readily if this were my position? Should I
require my belief to be disproven or else given
proper respect?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am 16 years old and have explored the works of
yourself, CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, and Darwin himself.
I mean absolutely no offense when I say
what I do, because I was sixteen once.
Lewis and Strobel are quite possibly the worst
two apologists to ever defend the Christian faith, and anyone well versed in
biblical issues would realize this. When
I was sixteen, however, they would have been very convincing because they were
telling me what I wanted to hear. I
believed some strange things at that age but now know that anyone who believes
he reads a few books at age sixteen and has all the answers to form a
conclusion on an important issue will find out otherwise soon enough.
And as I look I always arrive at the same conclusion:
Atheism has alot of ''If'', and ''let us suppose
that''.
“If” and “let us suppose that” are usually
logical steps and constructs in a proof.
For instance, “if” red is good, “then” good is red; and “let us suppose
that” green is bad. This would mean that
red is better than green, given correct premises. See how it works?
In the Bible
there is no such thing.
The alternative to proofs is
assertions. The Bible is not really
attempting to defend itself, so what need would it have for logical arguments
anyway?
I have not read all of "Biblical Nonsense,'' but
I see that you are dedicated to fighting our God on the grounds that some
things in his word don't make sense.
I am submitting an argument against the
veracity of Christianity based on the Bible’s absurdity, errancy,
historical inaccuracy, cruelty, and moral bankruptcy, not because it doesn’t
make sense.
God gave us common sense as a tool. You can't use it
back on Him!
It will be difficult to list all the
reasons wrong with this statement, but I’ll list a few off the top of my head.
My bottom line is this.I
have seen you admit on this site that you make mistakes.
All humans make mistakes, even those who
wrote the Bible. Suggesting that my
conclusion is erroneous simply because I make mistakes is rather foolish. I believe that the earth is spherical,
substances are composed of atomic particles, and the body uses ATP as its
primary energy source. Should I drop
these beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to their veracity simply because I
make mistakes? Should I drop these
beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to their veracity simply because I might
be punished for not believing an alternative explanation?
If you are
right, and there is no Hebrew God, or maybe no God at all, you may or may not
know after death if you are right. But if you are wrong you will know forever.
I have doubted, but decided the same thing you should. IT IS NOT WORTH RISKING
HELL..
I’ve been waiting for Pascal’s Wager to be
presented in one of these letters, and it has now arrived. Pascal’s Wager states that we should believe
in the God of the Bible because:
Thus, according to Pascal, we only lose or
break even for not believing; and we only win or break even for believing. Most Christians abandoned this line of
reasoning long ago. First and foremost,
Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy which, as I described in Poor Christian Reasoning, is the
erroneous belief that there are only two solutions to a question. Pascal ignores other possibilities. For instance, what if Islam is the right
religion? Christians are punished for
blasphemy and the non-religious are punished for denial. What if an unknown ancient European religion
was the right one? We will all die, but
some of us will have wasted our lives on a delusion. As there are countless possibilities, it is
not as simple as Pascal and the sender would like for us to believe.
It is also incorrect to suggest that we
gain nothing by abandoning false belief and superstition. Instead of wasting time in practices that are
unnecessary, we can live more productive lives that offer some sort of benefit
to humanity. For instance, what if just 10%
of the hours spent on religion throughout human history were instead spent on
scientific research? I think even many
Christians would agree that we would be better off than we are now.
CS Lewis said he found no reasonable alternative to Genisis 1:1. Neither have I. If you have, please present
it.
Why don’t I just copy what I said to the
last person who made such a suggestion?
My
position is that we don't know. My position is also irrelevant to whether
or not the Bible is true and, therefore, irrelevant to the subject of the
book. Suggesting otherwise is creating a false dichotomy of Christian
Theism versus my opinion, which also borders on shifting the burden of
proof. An opinion isn't a required prerequisite for eliminating
possibilities.
Like other disagreeing voices who have
written, the sender fails to appreciate the common problems with the “God did
it” solution: using universal constructs in arguments prior to the universe,
determining how God was created, explaining why self-creation is more likely
with increasingly complex entities, etc.
I’ve covered these with previous letters and feel no need to go further
in depth again.
God Bless Always,
I Believe dude
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello!
I just stumbled on your site--it would seem you've got quite a lot on your
mind. Without delving too deeply into things, I'd like to note a few
things:
1. It's interesting that the historical evils you attribute to Christians are
almost all the result of those people violating the principles of
Christianity. Therefore, much of the evil you attribute to Christianity
(including the Crusades) is the result of UN-Christianity.
This is a fine example of the writer
flirting with the No True Scotsman fallacy. For whatever action the writer deems to be a
black mark on Christianity, he claims that it is "un-Christian." There is no such defining line (or
"principles of Christianity") as to whether or not a person is or is
not acting like a Christian. The
writer's definition would have to be arbitrary, because by strict definition, a
Christian is someone who is like Christ, which is, again, arbitrary. The writer simply wants us to think that the
evils in society perpetuated by those who claim to be Christians aren't really
acting like Christians and we should not consider them as such. That is the fallacy. A person who considers himself a Christian by
following what he believes to be proper Christianity is considered a Christian
by the standards of society. Thus, the
issue with these actions is whether or not they were carried out in the name of
Christianity. In other words, were the
actions the result of Christians following their beliefs? The answer is affirmative to all the examples
I provide in the opening of the book: Manifest Destiny, slavery, witch hanging,
etc. These specific events would have
been eliminated or greatly reduced without Christian beliefs fueling them.
(Not to mention the Crusades were initially intended
as a defense against the wars instigated in the name of Islam.)
This myth is constantly passed among
members of the Christian community. The
truth is that Christian scholars blame the Muslims, Muslim scholars blame the
Christians, and independent scholars are mixed.
Just do a google search on who started the Crusades, and you'll receive
dozens of different opinions. The only
consistent finding is that the Christians carried it out for way too long, as
the writer alluded by saying they "were initially intended as a defense…" (emphasis mine)
2. I have not seen anywhere that you document the evils of atheism
If evils of atheism exist, they are
probably not documented for the same reason that I didn't document the evils of
Islam or child molestation: they are not the subject of the book. We'll get to these so-called evils of atheism
in a minute.
(or humanism, if you prefer that term).
It is not a matter of what term I prefer
because the two schools of thought are independent and sometimes even
contradictory. Atheism is a religious
stance that there is not sufficient evidence for a god. Humanism is a philosophy to do what is for
the greater good without the expectation of a supernatural reward. Since there are several known Christian
Humanists, it wouldn't make much to sense to call them Christian Atheists. The writer's attempt to derail Humanism as
just another word for Atheism will not be overlooked. He simply does not know the difference.
While I understand that's not the purpose of your
site or your writing,
Then why does the writer even ask why they
are not included?
the evils perpetrated by consistent atheists, even
through just the last century, make the evils of inconsistent Christians pale
in comparison.
This statement, as a whole, is incorrect,
but I'll get to that in a minute. Again,
atheism is a religious stance. There is
no philosophy behind it. I will assume
that the writer is primarily referring to
Notice how the writer also refers to the
Atheists as "consistent." In
other words, he wants us to believe that it is, by definition, consistent for
Atheists to perpetuate evil because Atheism is consistent with evil. This is nothing but hateful bigotry coming
from an ignorant Christian, and I think very little of people who think this
way. The Christians, on the other hand,
who perpetuate the very same evils are "inconsistent" with true Christianity. Whether you call them
"inconsistent" types or "untrue" types, the same No True Scotsman fallacy is being
committed.
Where atheism reigns, there has always been mass
murder and an increase in human enslavement and suffering. Atheistic regimes are responsible for the
deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the repression and enslavement of
hundreds of millions more.
Since the writer does nothing but assert,
I will do the same and say that monotheistic religions have proven to be more
violent throughout history than polytheistic and non-theistic. There have been studies to support this
notion, and I will leave it to the reader to research the matter. The notion that mass murder, enslavement, and
suffering exist under Atheistic regimes is no doubt true. The same can be said about Christian regimes
and other Christian governments throughout history. This is irrelevant, however, because the
issue at hand, once again, is the evils carried out strictly in the name of
Christianity. The writer can knock down
his straw man all he wants, but readers are going to know that he isn't dealing
with the real issue. Furthermore, I
would like the writer to demonstrate how "Atheistic regimes are
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and the repression
and enslavement of hundreds of millions more." I know the writer cannot do so because I've
read all of these bogus arguments before.
I would also like the writer to explain how areas with polytheistic
religions are more peaceful and have less suffering than monotheistic societies. Do more gods equal more happiness?
Where Christianity has been consistently practiced
people enjoy the highest levels of literacy, prosperity, and peace.
Such as
This is not at all an argument for the truth or
falsity of Christianity,
One of the few things on which we will probably
agree.
but it would seem that atheism (or humanism)
I will point out again that a major
difference exists between the two and that the two terms cannot be used
interchangeably.
is a historically guaranteed road to everything held
to be evil, unpleasant, and backward, whether or not it's true.
I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated
that the writer has not proven the point that he keeps revisiting.
The workers' paradise never materializes.
The writer has now shifted to Communism,
which like Humanism, is a distinct entity from Atheism. Perhaps he does not know this.
For whatever reason, Christianity seems to produce
happier people, even if the people in a Christian society don't happen to be
Christians.
Perhaps the reader would like to share his
findings that happiness is higher in Christian countries, that the happiness is
higher as a direct causal result of the society being Christian, and that this
is somehow relevant to whether or not the Bible is the word of God.
To not come off looking like a hack, you need
to defend why you'd like to steer society toward such a horrible fate as
atheism consistently produces.
Since I have demonstrated that the
writer's reasoning fails, that the assertions he has made are demonstrably
false, and that he is attacking a straw man, I will let his statement here
speak for itself.
The onus is on you to demonstrate that atheism leads
to a better existence. Not an easy task.
An unprecedented number of logical
fallacies exist in this statement.
3. You do not possess (or choose not to use) the set of mental categories
necessary to deal with the Bible honestly.
What "mental categories?" Does the writer expect the reader to just
accept whatever he asserts because he uses abstract terminology of which no one
can comprehend the intention?
It will always be an incomprehensible book if
you insist on overlaying a foreign framework over it and insist that the Bible
fit the framework.
This isn't necessarily true because if the
Bible is expected to fit within a wide foreign framework and it actually does
fit within the framework, then it will make sense. However, the only framework that I insist the
Bible fit in is one that is consistent and factual. If it is not consistent and factual, it
should be disregarded as the authentic message of the universe's creator.
You must see if the Bible's own framework is
necessarily inconsistent with itself, human experience, and the observable
universe, like you would do with any other book (I hope).
For reasons demonstrated in my book, God
is inconsistent with himself, the Bible is inconsistent with itself, and both
are inconsistent with the observable universe.
As for what the writer intended as being "necessarily inconsistent
with … human experience" is anyone's guess. He does not elaborate.
Of course if you look at the Bible presuming it is
false and impossible ( i.e. not even considering "what if it were
true?") then nothing you read in it will be convincing.
No matter how many times I explain this,
it keeps popping up. "What if it
were true?" is not the correct first question to ask. "Is it true?" would be more
appropriate. The remainder of the
writer's statement has been addressed before.
I did not begin my analysis with presuming it was false and impossible. I began by searching for the truth and
forming conclusions based on gathered information. Any person with no religious dogma to defend
who begins an analysis on a work this ridiculous, regardless of what religious
message it offers, will come to the same conclusion. It is also incorrect to suggest that if one
finds a work, as a whole, false, then there is nothing in it that can be
considered convincing toward a specific viewpoint.
4. A Ph.D. should already know everything I just mentioned.
Most Ph.D.s aren't this logically
handicapped, but even an attempted insult by the writer has holes in it. How is a Ph.D. in, say, medical engineering
supposed to know that "Christianity seems to produce happier
people?" If the writer is referring
to a specific Ph.D., perhaps he would like to share what field encompasses the
history of the Crusades; Russian history; religious philosophy; rates of
literacy, prosperity, and peace as they correlate to religious demographics;
and notions like "Atheism is responsible for hundreds of millions of
deaths," "Atheists are consistent if evil," and "Humanism
is just another word for Atheism."
5. While you state that there is a psychology of denial involved in religious
belief, from a biblical point of view, (since we're talking Bible here) there
is a psychology of atheism that represses any evidence for God.
Now this is the first intelligent
statement offered by the writer. If an
Atheist represses evidence for God, then he is committing the same mistake as
the Christian who represses evidence against God. The trouble for the writer, however, is that
there is no psychology of freethinking Atheism.
A lack of a belief based upon a lack of evidence is not the same as
being conditioned to accept only evidence that invalidates God. Freethinkers didn't get their name by
starting off with no influence; they fought their way through it.
If we start off by assuming that the Bible is true,
…which is a strict violation of scientific
principle
your entire
body of work becomes evidence for the veracity of the Bible.
Not even close. If we want to be unscientific and start off
by assuming that the Bible is true, my entire body of work can work either for or against the veracity of the
Bible. If evidence is offered that does
not agree with the assumption, the position that the Bible is true becomes
weakened. If evidence is offered that
does agree with the assumption, the position that the Bible is true becomes
strengthened. Asserting that any
evidence, regardless of the evidence, supports a proposition is
epistemologically ridiculous. The writer
should have just as well said, "If we start off by assuming that Hinduism
is true, the Bible becomes evidence for the veracity of Hinduism." It would have been just as logically
consistent if he had done so.
Just like if you start off by assuming that
only psychological glitches and conditioning keep people believing in God, they
will all be evidence for the power of conditioning and mental repression. Presuppositions make all the difference.
The writer offers yet another straw man
because I offer no such idea. People
believe in God for a variety of reasons.
The primary reason for a person's religion is the importance that the
person's environment places on it.
Conditioning and dissonance are strong factors in people not wanting to
change their strongest beliefs, religious or otherwise. This extremely well documented phenomenon is
the cornerstone of persuasive psychology.
The fact that it exists and plays a strong role in decision-making is
not in doubt. I did not start by
assuming that "only psychological glitches and conditioning keep people
believing in God," so no such presupposition was made to "make all
the difference."
I wish you nothing but the best, but your work in its current form is arrogant,
This copy and paste from a previous letter
will do fine:
The
writer is basically saying that it’s prideful and arrogant to admit that you
don’t know which religion, if any, offers the correct view of the world.
Preaching that you know the truth, were born into the truth, and claiming there
is no other truth, however, should not be regarded as prideful and arrogant.
intellectually lazy, sloppy,
Considering the amount of critical and
rational thought exhibited by the writer, I don't take much offense to his
opinion. Anyone can assert that a
project is intellectual lazy and sloppy.
If the audience is expected to side with an opinion, elaboration is
necessary.
and unconvincing.
Somehow, I doubt that the writer read the
book, but anyone who is adamant enough about defending a religious dogma that
they consider it important and essential is not going to be easily
convinced. This goes for any position
held fast by a great emotional investment.
If the point of this (rather extensive)
exercise is to get people to reject Christianity you are going to have to do a
lot better job of providing them with a better alternative.
The point of the exercise is to
demonstrate that Christianity is based on false information. It is not an attempt to win a crowd over to
another viewpoint. However, some people
are honest and strong-minded enough to realize when they are wrong, yet realize
that they don't need all the answers to declare that a certain position is
incorrect. Some people can start
eliminating possibilities.
Right now, you just come off like God beat up
your dog and you need to vent about it.
The book is over two hundred pages of
evidence submitted on the Bible's absurdity, contradictory nature, historical
inaccuracy, and moral bankruptcy.
Perhaps I wouldn't "come off like God beat up [my] dog and [I] need
to vent about it" if people who thought this chose to read a section
before commenting on it.
Show us the glories of humanism as it has
actually played out in history, and you shall have a following.
It's statements like this that lead to me
believe some people just don't read anything before attacking it. Not once in the book do I mention anything
pertaining to humanism. Only one obscure
statement in the FAQ mentions anything about this:
I
really don’t have a religion, but I pretty much follow the basics of humanism.
This means I try to do what I believe is for the greater good of humanity
without the expectation of a reward. I base my decisions and actions upon
reason and observation rather than religious convictions and ancient
superstitions. I call myself agnostic because I know of no way to be certain
about supernatural existence – I can only eliminate possibilities.
The "glories of humanism," if such things exist, are irrelevant to
whether or not the Bible has any veracity as the word of the universe's
creator. They are also irrelevant to
whether or not humanism is valid. More
than enough time has spent on the assertions and fallacious logic of this
letter.
Best Regards,
MG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Long,
I will begin by saying I currently believe myself to be athiest. I am from a christian
family and have been looking around to make sure I am believing what is
correct. In a google search I came upon your page and decided to check it out.
I began by reading your "poor christian
reasoning" chapter and was very disapointed. Not
only did you commit MANY of the same faults for which you heavily(and very
harshly) blame christians,
First, I don't blame Christians for
faults. I point out that people on both
sides of the debate commit logical fallacies and that it's important for people
to avoid them. All of the examples are
of Christian speakers because the point of the chapter is to educate the reader
against what he might hear when discussing religion. It is the opinion of the writer that I'm too
harsh on Christians, but I point out several times in the book that I do not
place blame on the individuals, but on society as a whole. Second, we will see if it can be demonstrated
that I "commit MANY of the same faults" of which I accuse Christians
of making.
but in the very
next chapter you base almost everything on some form of circular reasoning.
Where?
Why not provide examples?
Assertions do not make arguments on their own. What conclusions are reached on circular
reasoning?
I tried to
read further, I really did, but your hypocrisy
If I am guilty of hypocrisy, we will see
below.
and lack of any TRUE evidence bogged me down.
What is wrong with the evidence
provided? Why is it not
"TRUE"?
I have included a list of just a few of the faults I
noticed below.
In the very first paragraph you say, "illogical attributes of Christianity
itself ", before you have made any attempt to show evidence, you are
already trying to sway your readers your way.
Before I have made any attempt to show
evidence? It's in the fourth
chapter. Arguments for how Christianity
thrives through ignorance, how it is observed in our region by chance, and a
few sporadic examples of biblical error have already been discussed to this
point. Even if it were the very first
sentence in the book, it doesn't matter that it would be proceeded by
nothing. It's part of the entire thesis
of the work. Perhaps the writer does not
have experience in reading or writing argumentative papers, but it's practical
(and one might say necessary) to state your position on an issue before
presenting the evidence to support your thesis.
This exercise is something that most people learn in grade school while
writing standard five paragraph essays that have an introductory paragraph for
presenting three main ideas to support a position.
This is a clear violation of the fourth paragraph of
the "smoke and mirrors" section.
Well, this isn't true for two
reasons. First, as I described above, it
is proper to do so. Second, the
paragraph to which the writer alludes discusses the ad hominem logical fallacy. As I discussed in the book, this is an attack
against the opposite viewpoint by using insults or threats that are unrelated
to the veracity of the viewpoint. "Christianity
has illogical attributes" is not an attack on the followers of
Christianity. It is an assertion that is
later supported by examples over the next few chapters. Whether or not the supporting material is
accurate is irrelevant to whether or not the assertion "Christianity has
illogical attributes" is logically fallacious. It is clear that the writer just doesn't
fully know what an ad hominem
is.
In the first paragraph of the "baseless assertions" section, you
state "A christian might say, 'The crucifixion
is a historical fact because no one has found any documents conspiring to
invent the story.'", however I have NEVER heard someone say that to be
used as a fact.
Two more things are wrong here. Perhaps the writer should have gone back and
read the introduction, which stated:
I
will support examples of these poorly developed techniques with hypothetical
religious arguments in order to reinforce the often-confusing explanations. (emphasis mine)
Hypothetical, for those who do not know,
means that I do not claim that it has been offered (even though I know that it
actually has been used because I've read it in more than one online
forum). Also, whether or not the writer
has "NEVER heard someone say that to be used as a fact" is irrelevant
to whether or not it has actually
been used, if that were the level of proof required for me to make the
statement.
They MIGHT use
it as evidence(and I have ALWAYS heard it used with other evidence,
Again, it is a hypothetical example. I will also agree to the point that most
often it is used with over evidence and not as a stand-alone proof.
if you have an example of a noteworthy christian speaker, please contact me with that
information).
Whether or not it has been used by a
noteworthy Christian speaker is irrelevant to whether or not I can use it as a
hypothetical example. Even if I had
claimed that it had been used, the writer would be committing the Moving the
Goalposts fallacy by setting a goal beyond what I actually need to reach in
order to prove my point, since he requests a noteworthy speaker. Still, this sentence can be interpreted (and
probably should be interpreted) as just a simple request for an example of a
noteworthy Christian speaker using it, and not a demand to prove my point. In such a case, I do not know of a noteworthy
Christian speaker who has used it.
Furthermore, as I've stated before, the
purpose of the chapter is to use illustrations to help explain confusing
definitions of logical fallacies. It
wouldn't do much good for me to include some long, drawn-out, thoughtful
discussions that contained these examples since it’s not the point of the
chapter.
You go on to
make this view look incredibly stupid(which, I grant you, it is), but then you
make it look like a common christian act. You never
say it, but you imply it heavily.
How do I heavily imply that it is a common
Christian act when I state that the examples in the chapter are
hypothetical? If the writer would have
paid attention to the introductory material instead of attacking it, perhaps he
would not have made this series of blunders.
Just for the reference of future readers, this chapter is not an attempt
to beat Christian arguments; it is an example of logical fallacies that might
be used by a person in an argument.
In paragraph three of the "baseless assertions" section you adress the "recorded history" point, but you miss
the whole point. You state that the mere fact that it is in recorded history
makes it fact, wereas no one I have ever seen has
made that absurd claim. The point most people make is that it is harder to
prove wrong do to the overwhelming amount of copies of the new testament found.
Again, it is a hypothetical example, so
how can I miss the point of a hypothetical argument that I invented? Again, what difference does it make whether
or not the writer has seen someone make it?
Yes, most Christians only use this line of reasoning as supporting
evidence and not proof, but I recall someone once actually making this
argument. I even go as far as stating
that it can be used to support a
position, but it does not rise to the level of proof. Perhaps the writer needs to step back and
think of the world outside of well-researched articles he reads on the
Internet. People make all sorts of crazy
claims.
I could go on and on and on.
I would prefer that writers not go on and
on and on if they are not going to make an attempt to understand what is
stated.
If you wish me
to I will review the two chapters mentioned above fully, however I do not
currently have the time or desire to do so. I will just say that I noticed the
majority of your "proof", is anything but proof.
Where?
Why not provide examples?
Assertions do not make arguments on their own. Chapter four is not at all about evidence or
"proof" of the Bible's lack of veracity. Please demonstrate that, anywhere in chapter
five, I have said that something has been "proven," other than the
fact that there is not a solid layer of sky.
What I have offered is evidence. There is a difference between proof and
evidence. If the evidence is faulty,
explain why. Assertions do not make
arguments.
In chapter 5
you use alot of the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" talk.
Where?
Why not provide examples?
Assertions do not make arguments on their own. Please demonstrate where I have committed the
fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. I may have done so. I do not know, and I will never know as long
as people only assert.
You make many many claims against christianity
that are very blind and devoid of proof.
Where?
Why not provide examples?
Assertions do not make arguments on their own. How are they "blind"? How does one obtain "proof" for a
negative? Perhaps the writer would like
to explain how this is not an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
You seem to
like to use scientific termonoligy to cloud the
readers mind into thinking you know what you are saying.
Where?
Why not provide examples?
Assertions do not make arguments on their own. How can you get into my head and know what
I'm attempting to do? How can you
demonstrate that I don't know what I'm saying.
Please provide examples of passages in which I don't know what I'm
saying. I'll either explain it better or
admit that I don't know what I was saying.
You also bash
the people who sent in other "letters of disaproval".
Many people in the letters of appreciation
section bash the letters of disapproval, and it is their right and my right to
do so. Most are full of absurd claims,
and very few are reasonable arguments.
Still, I do not attempt to "bash" anyone. I wish to point out erroneous arguments
offered against my work. Every now and
then, someone demonstrates that I've made a mistake, and I like to point that
out as well.
You refer to
one as a basketcase
If I "refer to one as a [basket
case]," it is my right to do so since the writer approached me with the
most erratic, nonsensical, grammatically nightmarish letter I've ever had the
displeasure of reading. This is
referring to the second letter on the page, and I will leave it to the readers
to form their own opinions about the mental state of the person who wrote
it. I admit it sounds harsh, and I would
probably not do it again, but I was primarily referring to the different types
of religious individuals that have been categorized before.
when such was not the case,
I wish the writer would demonstrate how an
opinion, based on subjective terminology, is wrong.
and one as
gullible simply because he did not hold your beliefs.
Again, it is my right to do so, but I did
not do so "because he did not hold [my] beliefs." I did so primarily because I caught him
submitting an urban myth passed around the Christian community without first
checking the legitimacy of the claim. It
is extremely easy to do so. He also used
the "radioactive decay and fossil layers are circular reasoning"
argument. Gullible people tend to do
these things, and I feel safe in categorizing a person as such. Still, I admit it sounds harsh, and I would
probably not do it again.
Like I said, I
do not wish to make baseless accusations and if you want more examples, or
examples of statements made in the last paragraph e-mail me and I will be more
than happy to give them to you.
I have sent the email and will attach the
remainder of points raised onto the original letter.
I am grateful
that you are trying to help people out, I just wish you would lose the anti-christian view you seem to love to use in a manner way to
loud to make your works presentable.
Again, I am not anti-Christian, I am
anti-Christianity. I know many people
find that this comes off too loud in my work.
This is a reasonable opinion, and one that I respect.
I did like
many parts of you work, I just kept hitting brick walls and kept finding it
harder to believe you everytime you slandered christianity for no aparent
reason. I believe if you toned down your book it would have much more mass apeal and I for one would readily read it.
G
Again, I appreciate the opinion, but you
can't please everyone all the time.
--
Update: After two weeks, the writer has
not sent me any examples despite the promise to do so. I will remove this line and post them if the
writer sends them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is actually taken from a
letter of appreciation, but I think it deserves public comment.
I contacted James P. Holding of tektonics.com to show him your article.
He responded with a link that seemed to decimate many (not all) of your points
in your book. What's more, he even said that he asked you to rebut
his refutation but that you made excuses as to why you couldn't(!).
If this is true, this is very disappointing.
Is he lying? If not, where is the courage of
your convictions?
Thanks,
M
I would encourage readers to take anything
that Robert Turkel (a.k.a. James Patrick Holding)
says with a handful of salt. What an
honest apologist would do, after receiving M's email, is simply tell the
truth. Turkel
is known to tell lies and partial truths in exchanges, and he has apparently
done so yet again. Turkel
knows that I've published a response to his article, but he will not
tell visitors this unless he feels that he needs to. Turkel has even placed
a response at the bottom of his original article to my rebuttal. Thus, Turkel is
well aware that I have rebutted part of his refutation and that this rebuttal
is available online at my website. The
notion that I made excuses as to why I couldn't respond to his refutation is an
outright lie. What many readers don't
know about Turkel is that, in addition to his history
of lying, he will not link to those with opposite viewpoints when he discusses
them. If he did so, he knows that his
readers are much more likely to actually read the opposite viewpoint. If they actually read the opposite viewpoint,
then he knows that he is much less likely to get away with the tactics that he
practices. These tactics are well
documented by others (see the links provided in my response), and we see Turkel putting them into play when writing his critique of
my book.
At no point has Turkel
ever approached me about the article he wrote regarding my book, so there's
obviously no way that Turkel "asked [me] to
rebut his refutation" or that I "made excuses as to why [I]
couldn't." I received word of Turkel's article from an anonymous email sent several
months ago, but weeks after he claims to have written it. I think this adequately puts the notion that Turkel asked me to rebut his refutation to rest.
As far as his response to my work goes, Turkel refuses to link to it, quotes me out of context,
ignores portions of an argument to which he chooses to respond, appeals to
authority, argues by assertion, makes ad hominem attacks,
and invokes all sorts of fallacious logic, most notably the straw man. For instance, in his rebuttal to my response
to his comments on the public prayer contradiction, he takes two indefensible
steps. First, he tries to make it sound
as though I need 1 Timothy 2:8 to mean that we have to pray non-stop when I
only need it to show that "praying everywhere" means it's okay to
pray in public. Second, he accuses me of
ignoring a supposed qualifier in Matthew 6:5 that allows public prayer while he
completely ignores the meaning of Matthew 6:6, which has Jesus ordering people
to pray in private because hypocrites pray in public. There is no point in debating a person like Turkel who will not address the points raised. In another statement, "The God Jason
Long wanted came with a key on its back and did what it was told; and when he
didn't get it, he threw a temper tantrum."
When Turkel decides to end these practices, he
will earn more of my attention.
Seeing as how I was well aware in advance
of Turkel's methods, I knew that a complete and
thorough response, which would have taken months to assemble, would have fallen
on no one's ears. The short response
that I provided took two or three days because I like to make sure that
everything is complete and thorough.
Unlike Turkel, I don't churn out work full of
assertions, appeals to authority, faulty assumptions, and grammatical
mistakes. I can demonstrate Turkel's behavior to my readers more thoroughly than what I
did in my rebuttal, but this is not the point of the work. My book was designed to help people within
the Christian faith, but Turkel will not allow it to
reach his readers. I link to Turkel's article and will allow all of my readers to see Turkel's response because I'm confident that he does more
harm than good to the Christian faith, but if Turkel
feels that my work is equally poor, why does he not let his readers see my
response? According to Turkel, "because it gives small minded people
something to complain about."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a waste.
Criticism
is more effective if constructive in some manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Long,
I recently stumbled across your
website, and I read the article entitled "The Darker Side of God",
and I was startled to read your opinion. However, it seems to me from this
article that your reasoning is leaving out some very critical truths that the
Bible provides, and the lessons we learn from the stories you mentioned.
Agreed, one who hasn't read the Bible would be startled at these accounts, but
when one takes into consideration the whole message the Bible provides, and
what we know about God, they actually are more clear than you portray them.
Fair enough. Let us see if they are part of a larger
message.
Why does God seemingly attack and
brutally kill innocent people? How can a perfect God command His people to do
such a thing? I had the same reaction you had when I first read. However, in
order to understand anything the Bible teaches, we have to go back to square
one. When God originally created the world, it was perfect. Adam had it made,
but when Eve succumbed to temptation, he was right there with her. This and
Satan's fall get the ball rolling. Due to their sin, not God's doing, has death
and all the problems God promised them before banishment come into being.
I'll begin with the problem of blaming
Adam and Eve. First, Adam and Eve did
not know good from evil because they had not yet eaten of the fruit. If one cannot tell good from evil, then one
has no way of knowing what is right and wrong.
While one can understand that good is right and evil is wrong, one cannot
apply what is right or wrong without first knowing what is good and evil. Adam and Eve could not have known that obeying
God was good and that disobeying God was evil.
The story presupposes that they had this knowledge and were
appropriately punished for not acting properly.
Furthermore, God, being omniscient, knew that this was going to happen
to the beings the he created entirely by himself. Thus, Adam and Eve had no chance of escaping
their fate. Second, and much more
briefly, I hope we see that it is unethical to punish a person for something
that their ancestor has done. I have
covered this to the best of my ability in the book and feel no need to expand
on the matter further. The world is
exactly how God created it, envisioned it, and knew it would become. If he is displeased with how things turned
out, he need look no further than himself.
Now, we see
that man and angel have opted to go outside of the boundaries God provided to
protect them from Hell. When God created man, He created man in His likeness.
The only thing man and angel seem to have in common with God that no other life
has is free will. God relinquished His absolute authority so we all may make
our own decisions. This is the basis of my argument. Man's fall was due to
man's decisions, you seem to claim that God cornered mankind. I'll get to that
part later.
Very little of the chapter speaks about
the need to punish and correct humankind.
The topic is usually killing innocent people for something that someone
else did. I've also adequately
dispelled, to the best of my ability, the notion of freewill and omniscience
coexisting. In short, if God knows all,
he knows what we are going to do.
Further, if God knows what we are going to do, we must do this or God
would be wrong. Since God cannot be
wrong, we have no other choice but to do what he has already envisioned.
Also, I found the reasoning here to be
absurd. It's about the same as telling
someone to stand on one foot while touching his nose or be killed. As those are the rules to save one's self
from being murdered, it's one's own fault if one goes outside of the boundaries
provided. The standard is not
reasonable. It's basically imprisonment
and duress. "Do what I say or be tortured."
So why do I feel that God was justified in His
actions? Because He covered all HIs bases.
That's kind of vague.
Take for instance
Well, this begs the question of the God's
existence, not to mention the Bible's validity, but I'll allow it at the
present for the sake of argument.
We know that all men are descendants of Adam, so
therefore the people of
How do personal experiences amount to
proof? Where is the evidence? Since anyone can just say that he saw God face
to face, and since anyone can make a similar claim in support of any belief,
evidence of the claim is required in order to expect one with a critical mind
to accept it. Again, just as a reminder,
this proof relies on begging the question of the Bible's authenticity.
Should God have to apperear
before every generation in order to ensure the life of our faith? Certainly
not, for you yourself admitted that God hasn't apperared
for a long while, yet the faith endures.
I agree that it is unnecessary for God to
appear in order to maintain the religion, but that's not really the point. The point is that some people will consider
the matter critically and expect evidence of such extraordinary claims. How do we know we are angering god
"A" who exists, but not god "B" who does not exist? If we are to just take the matter on faith,
why should we give credibility to one religion over another? Simply saying that we should believe because
he appeared to those before us is not an answer. Anyone can, and often did, make such a claim.
So why does God punish the
descendants of wicked people, who haven't had the opportunity to be Jewish? Why
are children killed. Looking at God's nature, we'll see clearly. The Bible
claims God is perfect, meaning He has no flaw, He is perfectly good, meaning He
has no evil in Him. If He is also omnipresent, this means He displaces all evil
perfectly with no remnant remaining. Pagan people produce pagan offspring. It's
that simple.
What?
So far, this answers nothing. God
can't do evil because God is perfect, and we know that the God is perfect
because the Bible says so?
You also seem to be concerned as to why children are
killed along with the adults. The God that killed them is the same God who
created them and all other things. God is omniscent,
He knows who is wicked and who isn't.
This doesn't solve anything. Assuming God is omniscient, he knows that
people of other religions cannot help believe what they believe. They believe just as much as God's followers
do because that's what they've been taught.
Being the creator does not give him an ethical right to kill innocent
people, nor does it automatically grant him a title of morality. Two parents create a child, yet they cannot
do as they please with it because they might do things that are immoral. Furthermore, God kills people for explicitly
stated purposes that indicate their innocence.
It can't always be explained away by God having known their supposed
wickedness.
Due to man's fall from grace, our life on this earth
is temporary. There is a better place, a paradise that lies in wait for us when
we pass on. If the children are too young to make their own rational decisions,
that also means they couldn't possibly blatantly disobey God's commands. No
harm, no foul. If they did nothing wrong, God could not possibly punish them
for they haven't disobeyed the way a rational thinking adult would.
Yet he punishes Adam and Eve when they had
no ability for rational thinking, as I demonstrated before. Aside from the contradiction in reasoning
here, drowning children but not sending them to hell because they knew no
better isn't an ethical compromise. One
must demonstrate, apart from begging the question of God's omnibenevolence, that
God cannot do evil. The actions, as they
stand on their own, most certainly appear to be.
They must be
in Heaven to this very day. It was actually merciful, for they have
skipped over all the hardships and problems you and I must face every day.
If I murdered someone in order to save
them from this earth and send them straight to heaven, is it merciful? If not, why do we apply this reason to an
entity just because it is of superior quality?
Remember, we cannot beg the question of God's perfection.
Why such a viscious
death? You've got me there, but in the book of Romans, Paul proclaims "Who
can seperate us from the love of Christ? Can
affliction or anguish or persecution, or famine or nakedness or danger or
sword? As it is written: 'Because of You we are being put to death all the day
long; we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered' No, in these things are we
more than victorious threugh Him who loved us. For I
am persuaded that neither life nor death, nor angels nor rulers, nor things
present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other
created thing will have the power to separate us from the love of God that is
in Christ Jesus our Lord!" (
Paul's apologies cannot justify God's
actions. This is circular
reasoning. It's also irrelevant whether
or not God loves the people he murders.
The morality of God's actions are what are in question here. Why should we presuppose that God is good and
try to explain his actions only within the boundaries of our presupposition?
Why would God command HIs people to murder others in order to claim the
promised land? Couldn't He have just moved them? Couldn't they share? No, this
relates to Gods perfect standards. "Be perfect, even as your Father in
Heaven is perfect" (Matt
Well, I don't think I can allow the
circular reasoning to continue. Why not
just say "God is perfect" instead of submitting a long apology in
God's defense? One is just as logical as
the other. If God is perfect and omnibenevolent, then of course, these actions are
justifiable. However, I see no reason to
make such an assumption.
Furthermore,
the Israelites had to be punished when they made the idol when Moses
went up on the mountain to recieve the law a second
time, for God gave them the law before! How could you defend the Israelites,
they had been given the commandments by Moses, and they saw the presence of
God! Look in Exodous ch.
20:1-17 then, in verses 18-19 the story records that they saw the presence of
God on
If the story actually took place, then I agree
that they should have known they were going to be punished. The issue I have with this specific
situation, however, is that God acts like a ruthless dictator who orders people
to worship him and denies them freedom of opinion. As punishment, he murders them. Why does God feel the need to inflict mass
torture and death because insignificant beings that he made the way they are
don't want to worship him? If apologists
would only stop making excuses around their preconceived notions and start
appreciating the absurdity of the matter, we could move beyond such useless
exchanges.
Is God too brutal, or are we too
compromising regarding sin? What the Bible calls sin, or what man calls bad or
evil, is like a disease. If it is left alone, it will grow, ultimately killing
or severely injuring its host. A doctor would rather remove a part of one's
brain or remove an appendage before he/she allows cancer to kill the patient.
God would rather allow some of His creation to be destroyed than to let it
destroy all of mankind. Our beating hearts are a testimony of this.
Except that this is a false analogy built
upon question begging. Yes, a doctor
would remove part of the brain before allowing cancer to spread to the good
part, but the doctor is limited while God is omnipotent. The doctor has to remove the part because he
does not have the ability to correct what has been compromised. God can choose any avenue he wishes to
correct the situation, including getting his creation the way he liked it the
first (Adam) or second (Noah) time, but he instead chooses torturous deaths as
punishments for insignificant incidents.
This is one reason out of many as to why the analogy does not apply.
Agreed, God
has killed alot of people, but isn't He responsible
for all death? He's not a murderer, for you and I know well all men are
sinners.
God is not automatically granted freedom
from morality because he created us, as I've demonstrated to the best of my
ability before; and one is not declared innocent of murder because the victim
sinned.
However, He
continued to deal with
Well, the obvious reason why he doesn't
come kill people like me is that we have no good reason to believe that he
exists. Still, simply offering someone a
dichotomy of everlasting torture of everlasting happiness with the prerequisite
that one must follow certain actions isn't ethical behavior. What choice would there be in such a
situation? It is absurd, if not for any
other reason than, because it conflicts with the freedom to believe as one chooses.
The problem
is, we are too compromising with things that will hinder happiness in our life.
We live in a world where pedophiles get probation, and parents no longer are
responsible for disciplining their children; now they just have
A.D.D.
This is a red herring and an appeal to
emotion.
From such a perspective, any one who is insistent
upon right and wrong is either mean or crazy. "The world cannot hate you,
but it does hate Me because I testify about it-that its deeds are evil"
(John 7:7). Why is God this way? The only answer I can give you is one I myself
have experienced, and many, many others can tell you the same. As a child, I
didn't understand why my parents, and all other authority had so many rules,
and why they were so insistent upon them. Now that I am mature, I understand
because I have seen the consequences thereof. God, having all knowledge, and
being perfectly good, is so strict because He knows what can happen if we lie,
cheat, steal, and the such.
Again, this begs the question that God is
perfectly good. If so, then his actions
are good as well, and there is no reason to write such a defense. The parent/child explanation is also a false
analogy because there is no correction involved in the majority of the Old
Testament. God becomes angry and
murderers people for unethical reasons.
I have demonstrated this already and feel no need to expand on the
matter further.
Which leads me to my conclusion,
for we have gone full circle back to Adam and Eve. Why did God put the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil in the first place? The serpent in the garden
tells us why. "'No! you will not die' the serpent said to the woman. 'in
fact, God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be
like God, knowing good and evil'" (Gen. 3:4-5). He was right, but God has
used this seeming tragedy to actually give man more, and a more full
understanding of His ways and life. We have gained a somewhat knowledge of God,
but we recieved it too prematurely to adequately use
it. This in turn has caused man to fall instead of grow.
That's certainly one interpretation of the
story, but it doesn't provide a reason for God's cruelty.
We have lost
billions due to this mistake, but through Christ we who have chosen to obey Him
will all be repaid for our losses. For with our finite knowledge and sight, we can't
see the outcome of different situations, and we can't discern whether something
is good or bad until we actually screw up. So we see through simple logic that
Gods commands are the metal detector in this spiritual mine field we call human
reasoning. We can't see enough to decide on our own that which is good or bad.
The problem with this line of reasoning,
as I've mentioned in response to a previous letter, is that it presupposes that
God is good and all things he's done must be good. It's the same as battered wife syndrome. These women presuppose that their husbands
love them and that they are beaten out of love.
The correct way to determine whether one is good or bad is to evaluate
the actions and render a decision based on collected observations. The incorrect way is to start with the
conclusion and find justification for the observations.
So, by owning up to the responsibility that has been given to us, and learning to read the Bible in its entirety can we use this divine gift. For Christianity is no where close to a crutch as some assume. Our faith calls us to stand on our own two feet, and being able to go against the grain, knowing that we will have face a God who knows all and sees all, and won't let anything slide, nor can we bargain or out-wit Him. If we fail, we face an adversary that has shown Himself to be brutal, unforgiving, and impossible to defeat. He has given us His requirements, and there are no excuses.
I have not read your book yet, but I will be looking for it in the bookstore. I appreciate your opinion, because it has pushed me to see things in a new light. If I have commented on any thing that you have covered in your book, please excuse me.
Thank you for your time,
WJ
Again,
the overwhelming bulk of this letter presupposes that God is good from the
beginning, begs the question that the Bible is an authentic divine work, and
invokes circular reasoning in the defense of these
beliefs. If these presuppositions were simply granted as being true, there
would be no need to write the letter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Long,
I have attached a link that all doubting christians may want to take a look at along with your website. It is only fair that they hear both sides of the story, both with a scientific viewpoint. I'm not saying this is the authoritative word, but its a starting point.http://creationevidence.org
Thanks again,
WJ
I'm all for Christians viewing both sides
of the debate. I encourage them to do so
in the book and provide links here on the webpage. However, I was skeptical of posting a letter
that had the sole intent to advertise.
Furthermore, this site is just unusually bad even for apologetics. The evidence on the front page is mostly concerning
the Pauxley river findings, which have long been
debunked by scholars and abandoned by most apologists. I feel that one need look no further than the
ten evidences for creationism to show the lack of substance. The author uses anomalous studies that have
long since been repeated and corrected.
I address most of points 2, 3, and 4 in my book, but all of them are
covered more thoroughly at the talk.origins archive.
If one wishes to view the most up-to-date creationist material, I
recommend true origin, Christian thinktank, or answers
in genesis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Dr Long (if this is actually getting through to a
real person ;)),
I'm fascinated by your web site. Particularly so due
to the contradictions and tensions it displays about your own life.
This should be interesting.
In your conclusion, you invite response to your
claims. Unfortunately, I've got little time to go through your entire site
right now. One or two items immediately piqued my interest and were easily
refuted; at this point I'm left with the impression (hopefully wrong!) that you
have had a need to substantiate your own lack of understanding, and thus are
satisfied with repeating weak arguments designed to make God look bad to those
who are not themselves willing to invest serious effort into the investigation.
The writer's borderline ad hominem
opinion is one possibility. The other is
that apologetic claims are weak excuses for a predetermined conclusion made by
people who have had the notion of the existence of a perfect god imbedded in
their minds from childhood. Let us see
who can demonstrate what.
By way of preface to a couple of possibly substantial
thoughts, I noticed a statement in your conclusion where you require counter
arguments to be "probable" solutions. I'm left wondering how that
should be defined? You seem to discount anything supernatural from
"probability." To me, that's illogical. If God exists, then
supernatural causes are probable. And by definition they will not be (fully)
subject to human or even standard physical analysis. How are we to define
"probable" in such a situation?
"Probable" in this sense should
be defined as the most likely explanation for a question. If the Bible has an apparent conflict, is it
more likely that it is the result of human error, or is the explanation of the
apparent conflict more likely to be the author's intent? Until we have evidence that anything in the
supernatural exists, it is only appropriate to consider it improbable. If God is supernaturally altering a
scientific experiment to provide different results, or if magical unicorns are
altering a scientific experiment to provide different results, we have no way
of knowing. We can observe one as much
as the other. If we beg the question of
God's existence, or the existence of magical unicorns, then supernatural
explanations become probable. Since we
can plead for the existence of any supernatural entity we wish, we must first
prove that one exists before attributing it to data gathered through
observation.
On to my responses.
First, the item that initially piqued my interest: your
statements about Job and the Ostrich. My wife's a naturalist, so I'm always on
the lookout for good bird stories. Your "proofs" fall quite flat in
the face of knowledgable field analysis. A quick
search provided a good reference for further study:
Job and the Ostrich: A Case Study in Biblical
Accuracy
http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1963/JASA12-63Howe.html
Where do I offer "proofs," and
where do I say that the ostrich story is "proof" of human
authorship? There's a reason, called an
appeal to authority, as to why I don't simply reply back with a link that
disagrees with this link. Taken from
chapter four:
You
should make an important discrepancy between this logical fallacy and the
referencing of an authority on a given subject. If the speaker sufficiently
explains the authority’s position, the proposal then becomes an acceptable
supplementary argument. Cutting the debate short by exclaiming things like “you
just need to read this book by John Q. Public” isn’t a satisfactory procedure
because two speakers citing books back and forth all day would accomplish
nothing.
If there is something particularly
compelling about the article, let the writer present it. Otherwise, as in the example, nothing will be
accomplished.
Second, the section about women in the Bible is
fallacious from start to finish.
This is an assertion without any attempt
at proof beyond the appeal to authority below.
Since the writer only addresses one small portion of the chapter, I
wonder how he has come to the conclusion that it is "fallacious from start
to finish."
In Genesis,
God's not _angry_ at them but _sad_!
Assuming this is true, and without begging
the question of God's omnibenevolence, exactly how does this change whether or
not God is going to treat them as inferiors?
There's a whole lesson to be learned about the
desire/rule-over issue ("desire" is as a lion after its prey!) --
broken version: she wants to rule over him, he actually rules over her; fixed
(Ephesians) version involves mutual submission.
In other words, the Bible says something
it didn't mean in Genesis. Ephesians is
the most common defense submitted against the argument that women are to be
inferior. First, however, why is the New
Testament "fixed?" This
certainly implies that the Old Testament is "wrong." Why can God not get his ideas across properly
the first time? Second, how does one
arrive at that translation of "desire" and "rule over?" What in the original language indicates that
this should be translated in such a way? To be consistent, if a woman should
desire her husband like a lion desires its prey, shouldn't we also suggest that
the prey rules over the lion? It's
hardly an appropriate analogy. We're not
talking about a lion and its prey; we're talking about God declaring that one
gender is going to rule over the other.
Although the idea that women are to be
submissive to men is nearly universally consistent throughout the Bible,
apologists like to reference a passage in Ephesians that supposedly corrects
the problem. It does not succeed, as I
will show, but even if it did, how does one explain the remainder of passages
that support female subordination?
Ephesians 5:21, which I will assume is to what the writer refers, states
"submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." There are several problems with using this as
an equal rights argument. First, Paul
addresses a general audience in his letters.
When he wants to address specific roles, he will say so. He does this three times in the next few
verses. As you will see in the NIV,
there is a topic change from verse 21 to 22.
After addressing the general population and telling them to submit to
each other, as a message of general kindness, he addresses wives, husbands, and
children specifically, beginning in verse 22.
Wives are to submit to husbands in everything, as husbands must submit
to Christ. Husbands are to love their
wives as they love themselves. Paul had
the perfect opportunity to say that husbands should submit to their wives, if
this was what he intended in verse 21, but he did not do so. Furthermore, if he meant for husbands and
wives to submit to each other, why was he redundant with just the wives? There is obviously no mutual submission
here. Paul is consistent with his
bigotry of women in his other works, and there is no reason to believe that he
promoted equality between the sexes.
An in-depth discussion of every one of the
"women" notes, and much more, can be found at
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html
(The same site has many other valuable discussions,
including an extensive one on slavery which refutes the "nonsense"
page on that topic.)
Again, this is an appeal to
authority. If there is something
particularly compelling about the article, let the writer present it. Otherwise, I'll just a post a link to a page
that disagrees with that page, and we'll accomplish nothing.
Third, the examination of science and the Bible is
equally atrocious. Your argument seems to be based on the idea that people's
_conversational_ use of language will follow precise rules of scientific
observation and nomenclature. That's ridiculous! My wife is an expert in
various areas of biology, but she long ago gave up trying to use latin bird/flower/etc names in conversation with me. And
I've got a good science background ;)
What?
This is extremely vague.
Conversational use of language?
How do scientifically erroneous facts in the Bible gain immunity from
scientific scrutiny by being conversational?
Scientific claims are made. They
are either wrong or right. If they are
allegorical or figurative, one should demonstrate how we are able to
differentiate figurative passages from literal passages. One cannot simply claim that something is
figurative if scientifically inaccurate.
This begs the question of the Bible's perfection. Furthermore, what does scientific
nomenclature have to do with anything we're discussing?
There's a great book recently published, which
outlines in a VERY science-friendly way both naturalistic and supernaturalistic theories of life's origins. It then uses
current peer-reviewed journal publications to assess the state of our
knowledge...with devastating effect to proponents of naturalistic origins. Life
as we know it is not just improbable. It is physically _impossible_. (We're
talking nothing-to-life here, not bacteria-to-humans.) See
"Origins of Life" by Ross and Rana.
Again, this is an appeal to
authority. If there is something
particularly compelling about the book, let the writer present it. It's a wonder that these authors don't submit
their claims to the scientific community and win a Nobel prize by becoming the
people who overthrew the cornerstone of modern biology. I've read refutations of abiogenesis,
and they're sorely lacking. Studies have
demonstrated transitions from molecules to amino acids, amino acids to
proteins, proteins to prions, and so forth. This supposed boundary between non-life and
life is not as definitive as were taught in years ago in school. As for going from "nothing" to
life, one cannot say how "nothing" becomes "something" for
reasons I've discussed in previous letters.
We cannot say it is "impossible" because we have no point to
start with before the universe. All
premises are universal constructs, which begs the question of the universe and
renders the proof epistemologically meaningless. It's also quite absurd to suggest that
something is "impossible" unless it's on the basis that it is
logically impossible. After all, God
could have created life the exact way described by biologists. Going back to the beginning of this letter,
we now see a double standard.
So there we have it. Ostriches, Women, Slaves,
Science. On all counts, the "expose" provided on your site appears
quite weak.
I'd be quite disappointed if someone considered
my site weak on the basis of two assertions without evidence, three appeals to
authority, one mischaracterization, and two specifics that I've addressed quite
thoroughly. One will see what one feels
comfortable seeing, I suppose.
Are there other areas of your investigation that you
feel may be particularly strong? I'd love to have a challenge worth some
serious new reflection over time!
Below I provide a bit of feedback on the site's
concluding notes. But in the meantime I pray for all...
I'll let the previous two lines speak for
themselves.
You ask
" ...any readers who still stubbornly insist
that Christianity is the one true religion to allow others, including their
children, to observe their own religious beliefs without fear of punishment or
disappointment from you. If the truth is strong enough, it will find
them."
Yes, many people misunderstand God's love.
Yes, many people misunderstand Allah's
love and his desire for not wanting others to read the Bible because it's
blasphemous. This argument is equally
valid because it presumes the authority of a book and the existence of the
deity in question. In other words, the
writer's statement is logically fallacious.
If we could place your request in the context of a
more familiar reality, I hope you will understand why what you've said sounds a
bit wierd to me. Following Jesus is not about
"religion" but about a love relationship. I hope you've heard that
idea stated many times in your life. So, here is your statement, in that
light:
Following Muhammad is not about
"religion" but about a love relationship with Allah. This argument is equally valid because it
presumes the authority of a subject and the veracity of the subject as a deity's
speaker. In other words, the writer's
statement is logically fallacious.
" ...any readers who still stubbornly insist
that Christianity is the one true love relationship to allow others, including
their children, to maintain their own (separate) love relationships without
fear of punishment or disappointment from you. If your love is strong enough,
it will find them."
Again, this begs the question that God's
love is the correct love and a necessary love.
It is also a false analogy for more reasons than I care to cover.
Imagine a father who is madly in love with his wife
and children. But his children do not love him in return. Would we expect him,
or his wife, to have no disappointment in children who harbor no love for their
Dad?
The actions indicating the father's love
are observable. A parent's love for a
child is widely observed, where as a supposed supernatural love from God is
just as observable as a supernatural love from any other entity. This continues along the same fallaciousness.
Or suppose one's spouse is unfaithful, continuously
wandering off into adulterous relationships...would we expect there to be no
consequences of any kind?
Again, this is a false analogy for a
number of reasons. First, the two lovers
came to an agreement, where as God forces his counterpart to love him or face a
severe punishment. Second, the
consequences of adultery are not the same as the consequences for shunning
God. The former is paltry in comparison
to the latter. This also continues along
the line of question begging God's existence and love.
You also write:
"learn to rely on observable and testable
evidence when examining religious claims."
Have you studied the origins of the scientific
method? I've been amazed at the wisdom of the guy who invented it. Among other
things, he knew that the "book of
God's works" (i.e. the physical universe) can only be understood with
humility
Since the opinions of the person who
derived the scientific method are irrelevant to the veracity of the scientific
method itself, this is a red herring.
It's also absurd to suppose that findings such as "atoms combine to
form molecules" can only be understood with humility. How is humility necessary to determine fact
from fiction or right from wrong?
It's preposterous for the created to imagine that we
can observe and test every aspect of reality!
Really?
How so? Is not reality by
definition what is? How is it impossible
to observe and test our surroundings?
Are there things we can't know yet?
Absolutely. Are there things we
may never know? Absolutely. Does this mean we can't reasonably eliminate
logically absurd possibilities and suggestions like magical unicorns, the god
of the Bible, and any other countless possibilities raised by countless
individuals over the years? Why use a
supernatural explanation when it is not testable? Better yet, why use a supernatural
explanation when a natural one will do?
And even more so when it comes to the supernatural.
If the writer provides one solid reason
why we should consider the supernatural as an explanation for something in the
natural world, this will change naturalistic philosophy as we know it.
"One day, perhaps, we can all peacefully
coexist."
IMHO, that won't happen until we eliminate greed and
evil desires for total domination. Neither of those (greed, evil) are promoted
by Christianity. I think you're barking up the wrong tree by a long shot.
This is a matter of interpretation. As I've said before, contemporary
Christianity is usually Salad Bar Christianity, picking and choosing from the
Bible and ignoring the rest. Depending
on what you choose and leave behind, this might be a good practice, as long as
one does not simply submit the Bible as reasoning for an opinion. I can provide several examples of the Bible
preaching its followers to carry out acts of greed and evil. What one believes Christianity does and
should be is often entirely different than what is actually written. In fact, one of the basic instructions of the
New Testament is to tell the world that they will suffer for eternity unless
they take a specific avenue to reach paradise.
This very idea has sparked a number of groups to commit acts of greed
and evil under the idea that they were practicing Christianity. Why does the Bible not teach a consistent
message?
A very engaging
read in this general topic, that also provides tremendous insight into the
challenges of
The Quest for Freedom and Dignity: Caste, Conversion
and Cultural
Revolution
http://www.vishalmangalwadi.com/wtld/wtld_contents.htm
Again,
if submitted as an argument, this is an appeal to authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Note: The following is taken from a
letter (with my subsequent comments) written regarding a previous response I
posted on this page. Since I took a
great deal of time to form that response, only to hear nothing back, I feel
that it's only right to include it here.]
You have conflated appeals to _legitimate_ authority
(which carry much value) with appeals to _illegitimate_ authority, which have
no value. Is it your position that a publication should only be valued by those
who directly discover and read it?
No, I state just the opposite in the
book. Appeals to authority that meet certain criteria (such as those you
submitted) can be used as evidence. It does not mean that something is
necessarily true, as I'm guessing you either knew or have since caught
onto. If one wishes to argue a point, one needs to submit the
argument. If your only argument is that so-and-so person or number of
people agree with me, that's a weak argument. It doesn't even attempt to
deal with the evidence. For instance, recent surveys indicate that about
99% of earth scientists believe that the planet is billions of years old.
I make note of this statistic in the book, but I don't rest my argument
there. It's a legitimate appeal to authority, but I do not offer that the
position is right based solely on this statistic. Even with overwhelming
support, I still take a lot of time to explain their arguments and explain why
counterarguments are incorrect. Let me ask you a question so that I can
really put you to the test. The vast majority of scientists report data
that consistently yield an age of the earth in the billions of years.
Let's also assume you are a YEC. How would you feel if I just kept
asserting that you were wrong, that you knew nothing on the issue, and that you
need to read articles written by legitimate authorities, instead of discussing
the issue with you? That's what you're doing.
Most people I know are willing to cooperate in
leveraging/multiplying the value of legitimate knowledge expressed by legitimate
experts.
Of course, stating that 80% of experts
agree with position A is a valid point. It does not stand on its own as
the ultimate answer. I'm perfectly aware that the vast majority of
experts in the history of the near east will back positions that are beneficial
to Christianity/Judaism/Islam. I would be foolish to think
otherwise. What I hope you realize is that this shouldn't even be
considered as evidence in this instance, much less as an adequate
argument. For, this is where bias, as you pointed out in one of your
criteria, becomes a major issue. This refers not only to the bias of the
individuals, but the bias of the sample as well. I'm not going to get to
far into this, so I'll be brief. People who have an interest in pursuing
knowledge of the history of Christianity are probably Christians
themselves. If they are Christians, they are more likely to interpret
evidence so that it is favorable to Christianity. (I'm afraid I cannot
get into persuasive psychology at this point, so deem me a hypocrite for
asserting.) If 90% of the scholars agree with a position on a dichotomy
that favors Christianity, I would make the bet every time that 90% of the
scholars came into the field as Christians. The opinion of such
authorities, who began with the conclusion, cannot be trusted simply because
they are authorities. The evidence is what is important. If we
brought in a sample of people who were never exposed to religious conditioning
and saw to it that they become experts in near middle east history, I would be
extremely confident that it would be almost unanimous that the Bible is
bunk. You just can't trust those with huge emotional investments to be
objective on critical issues. You cannot trust a used car salesman when
buying a care; you should trust a consumer report. You cannot trust an
Islamic scholar when studying Islam; you should trust a scholar who had no
opinion going in. You cannot trust a Jewish scholar when studying
Judaism; you should trust a scholar who had no set opinion going in. You
cannot trust a mother of an artist when determining which person made the best
painting; you should trust an art critic with no knowledge of the
artists. For this reason, I put little stock in the opinions of people
who began studying years after they accepted the notion of a talking
snake. If you wish to take objection to anything here, I will be more
than happy to elaborate. Furthermore, apologists and the bunch ignore
counterevidence when they find it, or find someway to rationalize it with the
Bible. This practice isn't localized to one religion either.
Muslims, Mormons, Jews, etc will interpret according to their preconceived
notions. The importance of the fact that such adults were indoctrinated
with beliefs from childhood cannot be overstated! How else do multiple
religions survive in the age of scrutiny and reason? So, you must excuse
me for wanting authorities, if you must appeal to them, to have no religious
preference. Practice of religion clouds judgment. Understanding of
religion does not. The problem does not solely apply to religion.
Think of other fields that skeptics consider to be based on myths. What
percentage of people who are UFO experts believe they are flying saucers?
I don't have the statistic, but I bet the vast majority are apologists.
People with such interests will join such fields, entering with the notion that
they are flying saucers. They don't pay much attention to evidence that
debunks their beliefs. They find ways of making it consistent. They
do not like simple explanations for sightings, so they begin with premise that
the sighting is authentic, and mold explanations without breaking the
premise. The same goes with Bigfoot, Nessie,
yetis, psychics, ESP, ghosts, homeopathy, faith healing, etc. The believers
become the experts. The people without bias are the ones who have the
likely explanations. People with no interset in
the field that take the time to learn both sides will agree. How would
the skeptic like it if I told him to read this and that article on Bigfoot
evidence? The skeptic knows that it is based on myth and that the
evidence doesn't support the claims because he has no emotional investment in
Bigfoot. Despite no good evidence, the believer is going to continue
believing what he wants to believe. The Bigfoot enthusiast will not
listen to reason because he convinced himself long ago. To some foreign
of humanity, Yahweh and Bigfoot would be no different. Smart people
believe dumb things because they are very gifted at coming up with scenarios
that maintain their beliefs. This is no more of a debate to me than it
would be if I were debating Bigfoot. I see it simply as a matter of
exploring the best option to remove the blinders. Very rarely do we see
experts go from skeptic to believer. John Mack is one in the UFO
community. In the religious community, we have people like Strobel who claim to have been learned atheists, yet they
cannot offer a reason for the switch. Even with years of reinforcement
from the environment, the number leaving greatly outweighs the opposite.
I can name you dozens of well-known skeptics who are former Christian
apologists that were also ministers with doctorates in religion and near east
history. You just don't see learned skeptics becoming religious. I
could go on forever with this topic, and I do in chapter two/three of the
book. I realize this is getting off topic a little, but I feel it's
important when determining whether or not we should accept authorities as
authoritative.
It's important to know whether God is _describing_ or
_deciding_.
No, it's irrelevant. God is in
complete control of the creation. He can decide to punish women into
inferiority, assign them into inferiority, declare that they were inferior to
begin with, or describe them as being inferior creations. It makes no
difference because God had the opportunity for complete control.
Otherwise, why call him a god? If God wanted men and women to be equal in
society, one must assume that God would say so. If he wanted women to be
superior to men, one must assume that God would say so. I he wanted men
to be superior to women, one must assume that God would say so. If he did
not care, one must assume nothing would be said. It is clear, however,
what God says in the OT.
One of the basic Biblical perspectives
is that we have free will.
I will not allow you to beg the question
of Biblical perspectives being accurate. Free will cannot exist with
omniscience. That statement alone would be an assertion, which I am
getting tired of. I don't just make assertions like you do. I
explain them. Free will indicates that we have the ability to control our
future because it has not yet been decided. If omniscience exists, the
future has been envisioned. If the omniscience is perfect and never
wrong, the future must take place as envisioned. Thus, it has been
decided what we are going to do. We cannot change it, which contradicts
free will. If I practiced the same methods of argumentation as you, I
would post some articles written by philosophers that concluded this year
ago. I don't do so because you could do the same with the opposite
viewpoint.
And that our spiritual choices carry
spiritual consequences just as our temporal choices carry temporal
consequences.
This begs the question that there are
supernatural elements and, thus, a true distinction. If there is no
supernatural, then spiritual choices carry temporal consequences.
Thus, when Adam and Eve blew it,
I've already explained how Adam and Eve
cannot be held accountable for their actions in emails with previous writers.
First, Adam and Eve did not know good from evil because they had not yet eaten
of the fruit. If one cannot tell good from evil, then one has no way of
knowing what is right and wrong. While one can understand that good is
right and evil is wrong, one cannot apply what is right or wrong without first
knowing what is good and evil. Adam and Eve could not have known that
obeying God was good and that disobeying God was evil. The story
presupposes that they had this knowledge and were appropriately punished for
not acting properly. Furthermore, God, being omniscient, knew that this
was going to happen to the beings the he created entirely by himself.
Thus, Adam and Eve had no chance of escaping their fate. Second, and much
more briefly, I hope we see that it is unethical to punish a person for
something that their ancestor has done. I have covered this to the best
of my ability in the book and feel no need to expand on the matter further.
The world is exactly how God created it, envisioned it, and knew it would
become. If he is displeased with how things turned out, he need look no
further than himself.
their actions automatically resulted in
certain consequences. In the passage you cited, it is quite reasonable to read
it as God's _description_ of those consequences, rather than as His
_prescription_.
So, God was not in control with what
was? He merely described how things were based on the consequences?
That's funny because I thought that God made women and men how they were; and
that he had the ability to just say "You're both wrong, but wives
shouldn't be ruled by husbands; they should compromise." One can
easily take the passage out of context and say that it's equally likely to be a
description or prescription, as if it truly mattered, but to make matters worse
for your suggestion, God sure picks a hell of a time for a description - right
after they've disobeyed him. You don't see many superiors going up to
their inferiors to give them descriptions of their nature after they've
disobeyed them. What you're suggesting seems to be just another
how-it-could-have-been-scenario that doesn't invalidate your preconceived
notion that God is loving and would not force one sex to be ruled by
another. You don't want it to be a punishment, so you're not going to see
it that way even when context clearly demonstrates that it is. I'm open
to the idea that it's a description, but you have yet to demonstrate
this. If you do, then you can explain how God is exempt from the blame
because it's just a description of what the consequences were.
And the description was not one of
superiority/inferiority, but of broken relationship:
"He will rule over you."
It does not get clearer than that, so why don't you give me a reason that this
is not right? You just keep asserting your opinion in the form of
analogies like the lion and prey that I show cannot be carried out as a full
analogy, as an appropriate analogy should necessarily be. If you have an
argument to present as to why it should be translated in such a manner, present
it. Again, no more assertions.
God is describing a badly broken
relationship here: BOTH man and woman will be striving to dominate. And the
reality is, man will _actually_ dominate. (For many reasons...)
Again, another assertion. I see
nothing to support the notion that man is going to strive to dominate over the
woman. I see a clear declaration from God that man is going to rule over
woman immediately after she is discovered to have being the instigator in
disobeying a command. Furthermore, the Bible is consistent in the
subordination of women, and this statement is consistent with that notion, as I
have detailed in the chapter. If you will explain these reasons why God
allows man to "actually" dominate over woman yet not be the decider
of the domination, I would appreciate it.
Look at the context, look at the words chosen, look at what other similar words
_could_ have been chosen but were not, etc. (Of course, we're talking Hebrew
here, not English.)
Obvious double standard here in the
apologetic community. When I explain that the earth is shaped like a kadur and not a chug, I hear that the word is sufficient
because the intent is clear. The context is obvious to anyone who does
not care about the outcome. I do not care one way or another whether
Genesis
There are two separate words describing two separate
people. The meaning of "Desire" (in this case) happens to be
analogous to a lion and its prey. The meaning of "Rule" is completely
separate and apart from the meaning of "desire". (In this case, it is
a generic "rule" with no implication of "good" or
"bad" rule... other words could have been chosen for such meanings.)
Again, this is an assertion. Submit
your argument on the original Hebrew and why modern texts are mistaken by
translating it the way they do. I have shown how mashal means to have authority
over something. According to my search, 81 times in the OT, meaning rule,
reign, dominate, govern, etc. There is no neutral usage. When one
is granted natural, inherent authority over another, it's bigotry. No one
is suggesting that the husband has the right to treat the wife however he
wants.
God was talking about how the woman and man would relate to one another.
No, he was telling woman how she would
relate to man. He was telling man how he would suffer during work.
Yet another perfect opportunity for God to say how husbands should rule
together with his wife, yet, according to your take on Ephesians, it takes a
man thousands of years later to do so. Interesting. As people
become more enlightened, according to your opinion, so do the authors.
Are you able to appreciate the value of
analogy embedded in the meaning of words?
I'm able to appreciate analogies when they
apply. You've only asserted why it does.
There's a difference between stating a natural result, and changing the rules.
Let's use the simplest interpretation: the universe was already created. God
had no need to change the rules. He simply was stating already-existent truth.
A natural result? What? Men
ruling over women was a natural result? That's weak. What does God
say? "Look, women, it's just natural that you're going to be ruled
by men. I could say that this is injust and see
that it isn't carried out by using my omnipotence, but I'm not going to change
the rules. Sorry about the millenia of
injustice, that's just the way things are." This trivializes your
god in ways I can only begin to imagine. It's more damaging to the Bible
than a bigoted god. He's a lazy, indifferent one. He creates an
unethical situation knowing full well that women are going to suffer as inferiors
for millennia but just isn't going to change the rules because it's what he
decided was a natural result. I could elaborate further on how pathetic
that is, but I've already wasted enough time.
Ephesians contains a beautiful understanding of how
the consequences of Adam/Eve's sin can be repaired.
I've already explained the absurdity of
how Adam and Eve can be blamed for their actions and that we in some form need
to correct what they did. I will agree however that part of Ephesians
talks about this "necessity."
Instead of brokenness and mutual
attempts to dominate, the man and woman are instructed to each go against their
base nature and serve one another in submission.
No, the general population is to serve one
another, particularly in worship (which is the topic of the preceding
verses). Husbands and wives, and their roles in those niches, are not yet
addressed by Paul. When he gets to the specific role of a wife and role
of a husband, he will say so.
You can get a flavor of this in English by mangling
the NASB a little: leave out the periods, and leave out all the italicised words (those are words not found in the original
but added for clearer English comprehension.) Then you get:
21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ
22 Wives to your own husbands, as to the Lord...
So, wives go against their desire-to-dominate by subjecting to husbands as to
the Lord.
Agreed. The Greek word is not
there. This does not change anything because the verb is in the previous
verse. Subject to one another. Women to your husbands.
Husbands love your wives (not "and Husbands to your wives"). It
does not say "Husbands to your wives" anywhere because men were not
to submit to the wives. It says nothing of the sort. Paul was well aware
that two people could love each other fully yet have disagreements on certain
issues. He clearly states that men should love their wives as much as
possible, yet they are the ones with authority in the matter. The man
makes the final decisions, and this is bigoted. How many times does the
NT say that man is above woman in status? We see it in Colossians, Titus,
and 1 Peter as well. Even if the NT had corrected everything perfectly,
it's hilarious how God made women wait 4000 years before doing so. Great
guy.
You neglected to metion
HOW husbands are to love. In fact, the women's side didn't need much
explanation. Men (of the time) couldn't believe what they were hearing, so Paul
expressed their side in a lot of detail...
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the
church ****and gave Himself up for her****; ... 28
So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own
bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no
one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes
it, just as Christ also does the church...
He's telling men to give up their own desires, give them "selves" up
for their wives. To nourish and cherish them -- not just as much as they love
themselves, but actually give themselves up in preference to their wives!
I'm perfectly aware of the radical departure from
tradition. Paul tells men to set aside their own desires and to give
their complete love to their wives. Before, in the OT, husbands treated
women like objects. I assume no examples are necessary. It was
acceptable to God, and it was acceptable to man. Paul is one of the first
to humanize women, but he still declares them to be in submission to their
husbands. Husbands who love their wives completely can still order them
to do what they think is best. This is bigotry. It's ridiculous
beyond comprehension to assume that a god would inspire something so
unenlightened, much less what we see him inspiring in the OT. Of all the
worthwhile things he could have wrote, this is what came out. I'm not
divinely inspired, yet I can do better: "Submit to each other. Wives
to your husbands. Husbands to your wives. One shall not have
submission over the other. Work together to come up with solutions to your
problems. Listen to each other. Love each other as you love
yourselves. Give yourselves completely, so long as you do no harm to
yourself" Wow. No divine inspiration, yet I'm more
enlightened than the father of Christianity who was inspired by an omnipotent,
omniscient being. For the life of me, I cannot understand why apologists
won't accept the ramifications here.
On the issue of submission, people should be submissive to each other, and
women should be submissive to husbands. There is no submission, as
detailed above, only total love, from husband to wife. The husband, who
should act with his wife in mind, still has authority over her. Bigotry,
plain and simple.
How many men do you know who find it easy to give up
their own desires in preference to their wives?
First of all, there is nothing about
giving up one's desires to the preference of the wife. The passage says
love your wife as yourself and love your wife like Christ loved the
church. Whether your heavily asterisked phrase continues the analogy or
further mentions what Christ did is ambiguous. Remember Paul's tenacity
to group thoughts. I'm inclined to agree somewhat with your assessment
that the analogy carries. "For the husband is the head of the
wife" and "Wives [submit] to your husbands" are quite
contradictory to "Give up yourself completely to your wife."
The analogy is that Christ was the leader of the church, setting standards with
his natural authority that he thought was best for the church, just as the
husband is the leader of the wife, setting standards with his natural authority
that he thought was best for the wife. Christ followed his love for the
church to the point that he knew he was destined to give his life for it.
There is no need for a husband to give himself over to the wife because it is
not required of him. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with who has
natural authority.
Paul highlighted women as leaders in the church, as
prophets and even apostles (Rom 16:7 Junia is a
woman! **See below**)
So? They either were or they
weren't. He states a fact. He appreciates that women can serve
God. I don't suggest otherwise. All I'm saying is that he wants
wives to be in submission to husbands.
Paul disagreed violently with those who would shut
women up. (1 Cor
I think the possibility that Paul is
quoting is not all that implausible. This of course assumes that the
opening article should be translated as "what?" to show Paul's
disgust with the quote. It is then reasonable to think that he is mocking
the belief that God spreads his word only through men. Thus, women should
speak also. However, the article is also used when preceded by a
question, which is exactly what follows, and not necessarily a question on its
own. It need not be a contradiction to the previous verse and can serve as a
clarification. Matthew 7 has fine examples. The NASB has a good
rendition in this manner, which makes the most sense considering we don't know
it was a quote. Other authorities believe it was added in at that point
from the margin. If you have a convincing argument that it was a quote,
preferably one that I haven't heard before, present it. Don't
assert. I find it hilarious that God needs apologies to get his word
clear, don't you?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The link in this section takes you to a
separate page with a series of letters all from the same individual. He was found to have committed plagiarism on
a number of occasions, continued to commit plagiarism even after being caught,
and lied about doing so. Click here to view them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear man who believes he is omniscient,
After reading
some of your arguments and coming to the conclusion that your bias alters your
understanding of the points you make about as much as the media inaccurately
portrays politics today, I am convinced that you should try looking at
your "swiss cheese" arguments a
little deeper and plug some of the blatant holes and gaps before you lead any
other ignorant viewers horribly astray with you.
Criticism
is more effective if constructive in some manner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t believe I’ve ever witnessed worse informed
“scholarship” or sloppier “reasoning”.
It’s a pity that some will find you credible. Many finer minds than yours have
tried… and miserably failed to accomplish your obvious aims. You truly have a
lot to learn.
J
Perhaps the writer would like to offer one
example for all the readers to see?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Dr. Long
Thank you for taking time to read this response. I admire
you for the space you provide for those that agree or oppose your position.
This is a nice change of pace from recent
letters.
From reading your introduction and various portions
of your articles I believe I can identify with you. Being raised in a Christian
home (my father was, and continues to this day in ministry), I tried to believe
and understand the “The Way”. I committed my life to Christ three or four times
during my tender years, as was necessary, I believed, because I would lose
out/quit following him/live sinfully, etc. During my childhood, I too, had a
myriad of questions which were left unanswered. Finally, at the age of 15 ½, in
the midst of a very emotional spiritual crux, I knew I had come to an impasse.
On this critical day I told myself that in one year from that day I would
either be a soul-winner for Christ or I would reject Him.
I'm confident that this isn't a very
logical course of action. One shouldn't
put a deadline on a discovery or else claim that something is right or wrong
simply because the alternative hasn't presented itself yet. This is a common illogical reason why people
leave Christianity. Such people give God
a deadline to meet, leave once the deadline isn't met with the evidence, and
return when they receive the expected response because the deadline is no
longer a factor as to whether God exists since the positive evidence for some
arbitrary individual goal has now manifested.
I would not
continue any longer in this state of confusion! That prophetic moment turned
out to be the pivotal day of my life, as I almost immediately began moving away
from the teachings of God. The next 20 years of my life was given over to
self-gratification and developing a belief system that was agreeable to the
kind of life I wanted to live.
I'm sorry to hear that the writer couldn't
develop a proper moral code outside of religious dogma. Plenty of others have done so.
I’ll spare you the morbid details, but will say that
I considered many different options to Christianity…all of which, were notably
lacking as an alternative. What I ended up with was very much like what you
believe; i.e., agnostic (if not atheistic) and becoming very bitter towards
anyone that would try to dissuade me with religion---especially Christianity!
From what this sounds like, it was a very
shallow form of agnosticism that mirrors the very shallow form of Christianity
widely practiced today. In other words,
just being agnostic or Christian without researching the veracity of either
belief system in depth and instead relying on individual preferences and
anecdotal observations.
I have had a lot of experiences in my life, read
several works (including the Bible [several times]), and observed many
occurrences that would help to solidify this way of thinking. After a while
this is the way I wanted to believe and I would bolster it with the same kind
of logic/fact-finding/critical thinking that you use on your website.
Does the writer have a method of study superior
to that of logic, fact-finding, and critical thinking? I would be very interested to share it with
the readers. Also, wanting to believe a
certain position and analyzing evidence that supports only that position is the
worst thing an undecided person can do.
But guess what? (and you’re not gonna’
want to hear this) God got to me! There’s not room here to explain how it all
came about, but I do know that in spite of everything I’d done to shun Him,
Jesus Christ still loved me and provided a way to Him! At 43 years of age, this
hard-hearted, self-obsessed, analytical free thinker got down on his knees and
said “God, help me! I can not deny you any longer!”
Being hard-hearted and self-obsessed is
more about foolishness and moral depravity than it is about the absence of
religion. Perhaps the reader would like
to share what valid reasons he had for abandoning freethought
and embracing a particular religion, especially the religion he just happened
to begin with. Did he do an in depth
analysis of the historical inaccuracies, contradictions, absurdities, and
cruelties of the Bible, yet have an emotional experience that caused him to
abandon all of this? More times than
not, those who leave a religion and rejoin do not offer logical reasons for
rejoining, which leads us to believe that they did not leave for logical
reasons either. Such changes are just
attributed to "life changing experiences."
It is absolutely incredible what God can and will do
with a repentant heart!
Rather, I would say it is absolutely
incredible what God is accredited with.
In spite of all the “evidence” that seems to justify
the argument that “God and His Word are nonsense”, it is simply wrong!
Now it does indeed boil down to anecdotes
and personal experiences. One can change
the word "God" to any deity of choice and make an equally valid
argument. Personal experiences are not
evidence of God because people of all faiths have personal experiences that
reaffirm their beliefs in the gods that just happen to be observed in their societies. It is for this reason that we must not just
say that a certain argument is wrong because of the way we feel. Otherwise, we're left with epistemological
paradoxes across the globe.
It is this
very God that has changed me. It’s not just me saying this…several others have
told me I’m changed. My heart is different. My mind is different. My goals are
180 degrees different.
I have absolutely no doubt that
subscribing to a belief can change a person.
The issue is whether a veracious premise serves as the basis for the
belief.
I know God loves me. I feel His presence. I know He
speaks to me. In the three years since I let Jesus into my life, my whole life
is completely different!…which is odd, considering I still have the same wife,
house, job etc.
More anecdotes and personal
experiences. I'm glad that the writer is
happier now, but it means nothing when discussing the existence of a particular
god if we cannot demonstrate a causal relationship between the two.
God has been
answering prayers by the bucket-full
Perhaps the writer would like to share
with the readers how he can differentiate an answered prayer from a solved
problem.
and the Bible is not a boring, confusing,
contradictory book of tales.
While the designation of boring is purely
subjective, perhaps the writer would like to solve one of the contradictions
offered.
It is the
breath of life to me and one of my most critical links to the Creator of the
universe! I really thought I could never be this content with life, much less a
life of following Christ! Even if I were to die without hope of eternal life, I
would continue to live for God because it fulfills me!
More anecdotes.
Human logic
would make that sound wacko, but that’s OK.
I can only urge readers who utilize the
same way of thinking to weigh the testimony of all the contradictory personal
experiences against what we can conclude from dispassionate empirical
observation.
None of this
makes since to someone who is bitter towards God. (I know because I was there
for most of my life.)
This borders on abusive because I'm in no
way bitter towards a character that I have absolutely no good reason yet many
good contrary reasons to believe that it exists. If the deity did exist, the Bible is more
than enough evidence to deem it unworthy of worship.
For the
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which
are saved it is the power of God. I Corinthians 1:18.
Foolishness is subjective, but to me, a
fine example of foolishness is the invocation of circular reasoning and
question begging as an argument to support a point
Out of concern for you, Jason, I write this from my
heart. I would not even consider responded tit for tat, point for point on your
laundry list of the Lord‘s deficiencies. He will reveal all that to you in
time.
Empty conjecture.
Just consider
this one thought, though…Is there any chance at all, however minute, that you
are wrong?
I can't recall exactly how many times I've
answered this question, but I'll do a cut and paste from a recent exchange:
Yes. I am most certainly wrong about a few things
regarding the Bible. I’ve been wrong
before, and I’ll probably be wrong again.
This is the scientific method: forming tentative explanations, testing
ideas, gathering data, and making rational conclusions based on those
tasks. Based on the problems presented
in my book, I think the stories on the cover of Weekly World News are just as likely to be true as those in the Bible. Both have an awful lot of explaining to
do. The level of evidence against the
Bible is overwhelming, and that is highly unlikely to change.
Based upon the amount evidence, I would
sooner abandon the entire atomic particle theory than to accept the Bible as a
valid work. Now, will the reader admit
to any chance at all, however minute, that he is wrong? Perhaps, but based on past letters from other
writers, I would say probably not. This
speaks volumes about which party is rational and open-minded.
I right now will say a prayer that the Spirit of God
will speak to your heart, Jason. As a matter of faith, I will say this: If
there’s any thing left of your heart for the Holy Spirit get a hold of, I
believe, at this moment as you read this He is working on you. That is my
prayer. God doesn’t answer every prayer like I want Him to, but I know He loves
you immensely and that is why I believe He will come through on this one!
Although the writer has the best
intentions, that is perhaps the most futile prayer ever offered. I highly doubt God is going to appear and
defend the innumerable ethical problems of the Bible. Instead, he seemingly relies on apologetic
messengers who utilize bankrupt logic and can't even agree among
themselves. I'll leave it to the readers
to consider the ramifications of this problem.
You can’t out-think God.
How can the writer offer such a loaded
assertion? This deserves no further
comment.
You’ve tried
the life of reasoning. Are you happy? I know you are not.
This is arrogant abuse which deserves no
further comment.
For once in
your life let your heart take charge!
The writer should have just as well asked
me to abandon logic and rational thought in favor of emotional appeals.
Romans
CB
No comment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear DR. Jason Long
I was sufing the net and
ran across your book,well I was reading some of it,and I justed want to tell you
that There Is A God until you can prove me wrong,
I'm not going to explain the fallacy of
shifting the burden of proof again. Even
the most inexperienced in logical arguments understand it by this point.
now my faith
is bigger than ever.
This should be expected. More faith is required in the presence of
more counterevidence.
and I also
teach kids the bible, because they need it in there lives, wish i had it when i was younger,
How does the writer know what the kids
need in their lives? Do they need to
hear how God treats women, slaves, and innocent children? No.
The writer believes that they need to hear what he picks and chooses
they should hear.
if you want i can provbe there is a GOD.
As no one ever follows through on such
promises, such a request would be a pointless exercise.
thank you
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a young believer here.
This individual, admittedly impressed by
McDowell and Strobel of all people, has written to me
before, attempting to submit Pascal's Wager as a valid argument. He stated:
If you are
right, and there is no Hebrew God, or maybe no God at all, you may or may not
know after death if you are right. But if you are wrong you will know forever.
I have doubted, but decided the same thing you should. IT IS NOT WORTH RISKING
HELL..
To which I responded:
I’ve
been waiting for Pascal’s Wager to be presented in one of these letters, and it
has now arrived. Pascal’s Wager states
that we should believe in the God of the Bible because:
Thus,
according to Pascal, we only lose or break even for not believing; and we only
win or break even for believing. Most
Christians abandoned this line of reasoning long ago. First and foremost, Pascal’s Wager is a false
dichotomy which, as I described in Poor Christian Reasoning, is the erroneous
belief that there are only two solutions to a question. Pascal ignores other possibilities. For instance, what if Islam is the right
religion? Christians are punished for
blasphemy and the non-religious are punished for denial. What if an unknown ancient European religion
was the right one? We will all die, but
some of us will have wasted our lives on a delusion. As there are countless possibilities, it is
not as simple as Pascal and the sender would like for us to believe.
It
is also incorrect to suggest that we gain nothing by abandoning false belief
and superstition. Instead of wasting
time in practices that are unnecessary, we can live more productive lives that
offer some sort of benefit to humanity.
For instance, what if just 10% of the hours spent on religion throughout
human history were instead spent on scientific research? I think even many Christians would agree that
we would be better off than we are now.
And his response was:
After
finishing your book I still think it should not be risked. God defys human concepts because he is bigger than us and our
minds.
Unfortunately, this is indicative of the
critical thinking ability of the general high school population. I don't wish to pick on this young person in
particular, but this is the point in education where people tend to have
already drawn their conclusions on many issues in life. This is why it's important to teach students
critical thinking. I can only hope that
these individuals are curious enough in college to discuss the
creation/evolution "debate" with reputable professors and to discuss
religious beliefs with persuasive psychologists. Now, on to the new material:
i would like you to explain this problem with the
"world is billions/millions of years of years old" theory as pondered
by Joe White, Ed.D.
Not a reputable source, but I'll treat it
as such
"
Much sedimentary rock is filled with fossils. This gives us clues about
how the rock was formed. When a plant or animal dies and lies on the
ground, it quickly rots and decays.
True
After a few weeks, often little is left of the
creature. Within a few months even the bones of a larger animal
disintegrate.
Not exactly true. Bones often survive for over a year. Shells often survive for decades. It helps if people check reputable scientific
sources like the talk.origins archive if they wish to
utilize scientific arguments.
For a fossil to form, the plant or animal must be
buried very quickly by mud, volcanic dust, or another protecting substance.
Not exactly true. They need to either be buried within their
time limit for decay or reach an area where decay is much slower, such as a
lake bottom, pool of tree sap, river delta, local flood sediment, landslide,
sand dune, or volcano.
Otherwise, the creature would decompose or be
eaten by worms or predators.
Well, surprise. Many fossils demonstrate that they have
encountered other animals by being bored or chewed before they were
preserved. This alone defeats the
argument that fossils must be quickly buried.
Next, the minerals in the water, rock, and
soil are absorbed by the buried body. Over time, the body becomes hard
because it has been saturated with the minerals.
True.
If sedimentary rock was
formed by laying down dirt and sand over millions of years, then the remains of
living things would easily have rotted long before they were covered and fossilized.
Well that's an "if" that I've
demonstrated doesn't always apply. Even
if it did apply, think of how often floods, landslides, and volcanic eruptions
have happened over the past one hundred years.
Given billions of years, these instances would accumulate in large
numbers.
The only way to explain the presence of
fossils within rock is for these plants and animals to have been buried very
quickly(perhaps by alarge sudden flood?).
Perhaps by Noah's Flood? I'm not going to elaborate on this ridiculous
apologetic.
Aslow dying off period is impossible, pointing to a younger
Earth".
Already covered.
This is one of
the many ways the fossil record and modern geology lean toward a young earth.
No, this is one of the many ways that
creationists present false/inaccurate/partial scientific information that they
do not understand in an attempt to make their pre-determined beliefs seem
valid. This is one of the many ways that
uncritical minds are fooled into believing what they read because the author appears
to have great knowledge on the subject.
Read DARWINS
DEMISE chapter 3 and the other books cited in the bibliography for further
evidence. Please respond soon.
Creationists at Answers in Genesis do not
even recommend the arguments in this book. Why would I read a book suggested by someone
who does not understand the folly of Pascal's Wager, who does not take the time
to confirm scientific material presented by an author who holds an opinion
against the overwhelming majority in the field discussed, and who does not
recommend material still held in regard by the creationist community? There is a perfectly good reason why over 99%
of earth scientists have no doubt that the earth is much older than 10,000 years.
Sincerely, SJS
P.S, No evidence is valid if
bias is present.
So, what does that say about a book
written by Christian creationists whose sole intent is to advance the validity
of the Bible?
I put aside my
bias when i did my investigation as an agnostic.Now I believe
I suspect the problem isn't bias, but
rather failure to investigating the claims.
Reading introductory material on earth science, speaking with
geologists, or discussing evolution with professors who teach entry level college
sciences will show how creationist claims are bankrupt. Since people don't bother to do any of these,
creationism is often viewed as a viable alternative.
(as does jason McDowell, whose work I reccomend).
Does the writer mean Josh McDowell, widely
regarded as the most popular but one of the worst apologists to ever publish a
defense of the Bible? If the writer is
convinced by material that most creationists have abandoned, what does this say
about his willingness to check the validity of what he reads? Perhaps the writer should read responses
to McDowell's apologetics. There's a
reason why McDowell won't respond to or acknowledge them.
Have You put
aside your bias, doctor?
I've already answered this question nearly
a dozen times. Instead of answering it
again, I will merely point out the absurdity of being asked the question by
someone who does not bother checking the validity of arguments that he finds
convincing enough to go against the position of over 99% of experts in the
field.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr.Long
You seem read the Bible as though it were a
scientific or historical document;
No, I read it as a book of
information. I expect the information to
be accurate. When the science or history
is inaccurate, I state that it is in error.
The historical books in the Old Testament, I pretty much read entirely
as attempts at history because they are widely acknowledged to be such. Hence the name: "the historical
books."
as though it
were measurable and logical.
Events either happened or did not
happen. The Bible is speaking either
literal or figurative. That is the
standard by which I measure the Bible.
Is it too much to expect for a book to be logically sound if it was
inspired by the creator of the universe?
You provide no
reason why you read it in this manner.
I read it in this manner for the same
reason that I read any other book in this manner. It is either true or false. Trying to place a book on some different
plane of thought by begging the question of its divine nature is wrong for so
many reasons, primarily because it can be done for any work. What book cannot simply be held as figurative
whenever it fails test of scrutiny?
Do you suppose
its many stories were ever intended as literal actual accounts?
Let the writer demonstrate how he can
separate fact from fiction, literal from figurative, etc. To my knowledge, no one has ever been able to
do so. Christians who are willing to
accept science and logic will attempt to shrug off the absurdities by claiming
the statements are merely figurative.
Christians who will not accept obvious scientific conclusions attempt to
invent their own conclusions.
Aesop's fables contain no actual occuerences yet
they contain a deeper meaning (colloquially- a moral).
False analogy. Aesop's fables are set in a fantastical
environment and are clearly intended to be works of fiction. The Bible is an attempted history of the
There are
several literary forms that reveal truths, though not necessarily an
empirically measurable truth.
Agreed.
(By the way
can science measure the extent of an aesthetic experience?- does that mean that
such experiences are not true?
What science can or cannot do is
irrelevant. It's patently absurd to
imply that since there is no known way for a discipline to explain a certain observation,
the discipline is incapable of being applied to the observation.
What about
moral truths?)
Let the writer demonstrate some
"moral truths." This should be
interesting.
Most people understand that the bible is full of
allegories, metaphors and symbolsism.
Yet for every person who believes a
certain story is allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic, I could find a person
who believes it is entirely literal.
What does this say? How can one
determine literal from figurative? Is
the resurrection of a dead man allegorical, metaphorical, and symbolic? If not, why not? "Most people understand that the
resurrection is full of allegories, metaphors, and symbolism." How is that statement less valid than the one
above?
You have not
discussed different types of truths nor different literary forms.
Different types of truths? The stories are either literally false or are
in some way figurative. The writer has
not discussed how he can determine literal from figurative. I find that there is no convincing argument
to take them figuratively. It is just
the obvious and easy conclusion when science and rational thought demonstrate
that the stories are false. One should
not consider information to be figurative unless given good reason.
The Catholic
Church has never made any assertion to the effect that the Bible is literally
true. It has made statements to the
effect that it happily supports evolution.
Have you researched the official stance of the Catholic Church?
This is hilarious on a number of
levels. What the Catholic Church does
and does not do is irrelevant. Is the
Catholic Church the ultimate authority on the Bible? Hardly.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church once killed people who presented
scientific discoveries contrary to statements of the Bible. Let us not even get into the history of the
Catholic Church. A decade ago, a pope
apologizes for such acts and endorses evolution. The writer believes that this somehow helps
the Catholic Church's credibility in the argument for figurative
interpretations?
It is curious, for example, that you suppose that the
genesis stories are consisdered scientific-
I do not consider them to be scientific
works; I merely expect them to be free from scientific error if they are
inspired by an omnipotent god.
what would be
your reasoning for this approach
My reasoning is that Genesis is an attempt
at the history of the
(was science a
discipline when the various stories of the bible were written?
Irrelevant. Science can test whether the stories did or
did not happen. Just because the idea of
science did not exist at the time of the Bible does not mean that it is beyond
the scrutiny of it. If the Bible says
that plants existed before the sun, it is either literally true or false. If one wants to argue the story is
figurative, one must have a satisfactory explanation. The story was a suitable literal explanation
in the time it was written and for centuries afterwards.
They are
clearly, and have been understood as such since their inception, as origin
stories that reveal a religious truth.
Then why is it that one has not been able
to support this assertion with a satisfactory argument? Then why is it that some Christians claim to
be able to support a literal reading of the stories? Then why is it that Christians cannot agree
on what is figurative and what is literal?
More importantly, what good is a book that inspires so much
confusion? Consider the ramifications of
this.
They contain
religious, symbolic truths and were always intended as a theolical
reflection that explains the reason for the (then) current state the world (an aetiology).
Another bald assertion that deserves no
comment.
(Do you really believe that it is accurate to
use the expression 'plagiarized' in the context of explaining the origin of
these stories?
When writers lift ideas from pre-existing
stories in the region and attempt to use these ideas when creating a history of
their own without proper attribution, I consider it to be plagiarism.
Many cultures
use elements from stories that circulated in their geographical
vicinity but adapted it to reflect their interpreataion
of the world-
Agreed.