Month: April 2011

  • Can you prove the external world exists?

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important skeptical anthology aimed at Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.


    It seems that in order to deflect away from the primary skeptical charge of special pleading that atheist John Loftus' "Outsider Test for Faith" represents, Christian reviewers seemed to unanimously reach for any and all philosophical obstacles to throw in the way.  "Why are we just being critical of Christian beliefs?" so many of them asked.  Why not ALL beliefs?  To the extent this isn't a disingenuous diversion from basic critical thinking in regards to the Christian faith, we'll explore one often used example that many Christian reviewers made use of. 

    Jayman777 objects:

    Reppert notes that most Westerners are raised to believe in an external world whereas someone born in India may believe that the external world is just an illusion.  Should we not subject our Western beliefs to the OTF ["outsider test for faith"]?  Loftus begs the question when he asserts that the existence of the external world is experienced every moment we are alive.  He tries to rely on the consensus of scientists but scientists merely assume the existence of the external word, they do not demonstrate it.  This issue is a philosophical issue and Loftus cannot skirt it with appeals to probability (how could you calculate a probability in this case?).

    Paul Manata raises the same objection:

    Or, more troublesome, the counter example shows that we should have the same level of skepticism towards, say, the philosophical belief that the world is maya as we should have towards the philosophical belief that the external world exists and is mind independent.

    David Marshall didn't even seem to formulate his coverage of this issue into an actual argument against Loftus' position:

    I think Loftus is confusing a particular movie with the scenario it illustrates. It is certainly the case that some intelligent people DO take the scenario that the world is some sort of simulation seriously. One atheist philosopher, another told me, put the odds of the world being unreal at about one in five. (Don't ask me how he calculated this -- taking the rationality of his own brain for granted, still!)  I believe in the reality of the external world -- that's why I'm blogging. But Keller and Craig are right to say we can't prove it -- nor do Loftus' arguments manage the trick.

    So he pokes fun at one atheist for pulling ratios out of his/her existential arse, notes two Christians can't prove it, and then notes that Loftus can't either.  So what?  Is this where superstitious Christians are "just supposed to know" that magically their belief in a god gets them around this problem?  I want my "get out of philosophical problem free" card, too, please! 

    After John Loftus confronts jayman777's review, jayman777 replies:

    I am not denying that there is an external, material world. I am saying that your defense for the existence of an external world fails. That we perceive a world in front of us is no surprise to the Indian in Reppert’s example and thus gains your position no advantage in the debate. Unless you can provide a better argument, Reppert has shown that your own beliefs fail to pass the OTB ["outsider test for beliefs"]. If you are going to muster a better argument, I think it will have to be a philosophical argument.

    Yup.  And this isn't hard to do.  I let Loftus' somewhat lame answer slide as I read through the chapter, but atheist Richard Carrier addresses this more directly in his book, Sense and Goodness without God (page 52):

    On the other hand, if the [Cartesian] demon were really this consistent in giving us results, through which we satisfy our every goal and desire, there would hardly be any intelligible difference between what we call “reality” and the world the demon is inventing for us [or in this case an illusionary world]. As noted in II.2.1.2 (“Meaning, Reality, and Illusion”), such a construct would be reality, in every sense of the word we normally use. And since we observe some methods to work better than others, and indeed some work best of all, a Cartesian Demon would have to be arranging it this way, constructing reality for us solely in accord with a fixed plan it has chosen. In that case we have just as much reason to pursue the relevant methods for discovering that plan, and to abandon the bad ones, so we can gain the reward of a successful life experience from this mischievous demon. In other words, there is no reason to trust that any Cartesian Demon theory is true, and even if it is, nothing significant changes for us regarding method.

    That passes the Indian OTB since the persistent distinctions in our collective illusion are common ground.

    I noticed one commenter on Loftus' blog said:

    I don't think it is possible for us to know if we are brains in a vat or in the Matrix. How could we possibly know? That is also the consensus of contemporary philosophers. See David Chalmers.

    I'd like to see the references on that just out of curiosity.


    Into the Matrix:

    Manata says:

    In response to the claim that Loftus needs to take the outsider test for his belief that the external world is an illusion, Loftus says that before he takes that test the challenger must show him that his belief in a mind-independent external world is "probably false" (95-96). Loftus holds the position that the response to the person who claims that your belief could be false is, "So what? Give me good reason to believe that it is false" (96).

    For this thought experiment, we'll call one party Thomas Anderson and we'll call the other party Trinity.  Now, Trin and Tom both have something in common.  As Carrier pointed out above, they share the pattern  of what Tom calls "reality" and Trinity calls "the Matrix."  So they are both insiders as far as that pattern goes as I'm sure they would agree.  However Tom is an outsider to what Trinity calls "the real world."  Even if Trinity is completely confident that what she calls the real world is in fact the real world, it may not seem to make much sense for her to take an OTF (Or in this case, it would be an OTB).  We're not dealing with faith here, just her holistic past experiences of actually being unplugged and discovering an apocalyptic world that is hosting a computer simulation for most humans.  However, she can still take the test.  She doesn't need to get all indignant about it like Manata does.  It's just the fact she's going to pass so easily because she'd be using all the same standards of evidence that Tom uses for calling the Matrix real applied to her very obvious experiences from outside of the Matrix.  This is a technicality, but the point is, she can do it.  There's nothing logically impossible about it.  And more importantly, for Tom's sake, if she wants to make a more convincing argument without just unplugging him, she should be prepared to expose him to really good reasons for believing they are currently in a simulated world.  She needs to be able to look at things from his perspective and not just pretend like her assertions are going to be credible based on Tom's background knowledge.  Her reasons would need to be based on reasonable standards of evidence in that context. 

    Why is that?  Well, incidentally there's another example from the animated anthology The Animatrix.  Specifically, in "A Kid's Story," we find a young man named Michael Popper who doesn't seem to have very credible reasons for thinking he needs to wake up from the Matrix.  Is a vague mystical notion that reality isn't as it should be, having bizarre existential conversations with a random person online, and being chased through school by some government agents a good enough reason to throw yourself off of a building believing you will wake up in the real world?  Would Mike, the day before the story takes place, have a convincing case that passes an OTF if he were trying to convince another student that the Matrix is real?  Probably not.  As far as epistemology goes, being correct about the Matrix was an accident (which is what makes this segment of the movie kind of disturbing, since this is cultish thinking).  He probably shouldn't have believed it himself.  Plenty of people have all sorts of mystical notions and convoluted escapist intuitions.  And there are plenty of people online who are willing to feed your choice delusion.  Getting mixed up with the authorities for some reason or another could happen by chance.  If the Matrix is anything like the world we know, then there would be all sorts of people who believe all sorts of crazy things that go well beyond what is immediately evident to all.  Responsible people know that and are willing to re-think their grasp on reality accordingly.

    People like Manata can pretend like their convictions about Christianity are based on personal evidence that is much more like Trinity's situation than Mike's.  It's doubtful that's actually the case.  On the other hand, if I'm mistaken about that, it seems they could easily get into some convincing detail and they'd never bother appealing to anything like faith.  They would also more readily respect how outsiders should view what they say and construct meaningful ways to bridge the gap of credibility to the best of their ability.  And if for some inconvenient reason this simply can't be done, they would respect those unfortunate circumstances like rational caring people do and they wouldn't waste everyone's time arguing with assertions.  Rational, caring people conclude, "You know what?  I wouldn't believe me either if I were you." 

    The point is, the OTF still applies in either event.  Neither a Trinity, nor a Mike should have much to fear from it.  Especially, to mince analogies, if they are backed up by a loving god who likely wouldn't put them in inconsiderate epistemic circumstances to begin with.  Then again, that's why Christians have the problem of "divine hiddeness."  Maybe they should fear the OTF since they have everything to lose in the world of intellectual credibility. 


    Outro:

    In ordinary life, the less people can verify my own claims, and the more it would cost them if they believed me, the less I naturally expect them to take my claims seriously.  I may still have to believe my own experiences (since the real world example I'm thinking of would be unverifiable mental/emotional states that impact interpersonal conflicts) since I personally can't deny it, but I respect the fact I would be asking others to potentially go out on a limb.  That can be a struggle, but that's just how it is. Welcome to what we call reality.

    Ben

  • (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 4)

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important skeptical anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.


    Mainstream Scholarship Vs. Evangelical Scholarship?

    Paul Tobin, author of the 6th chapter of TCD, claims:

    A “Consensus” among evangelicals however, comes not from the result of arguments and evidence but from their “statements of faith.” In other words, such “consensuses” among evangelicals come from the unquestioned presuppositional biases.  So when Hays cites his “authorities” on the reliability of the Bible, all he is saying to the skeptic is, ‘Hey, see how all these apologists with PhD’s are using ingenious methods to defend beliefs which cannot be held without a presuppositionary belief in Biblical inerrancy!”

    I noted the disadvantage that conservatives have when it comes to this topic in my previous post and tried to explain where I thought Tobin was coming from with his chapter.  The Triabloggers have come up with a number of weaker arguments in response (which we'll get to in a moment), but Jason Engwer, for example, admits:

    Saying that an Evangelical position is a minority view today has some significance...

    Because basically that means as far as the popular literature goes, that scholars need to work out their issues amongst themselves and leave us out of it.  If that puts "God's people" in an inconvenient position, maybe the Christian god should have thought of that before decreeing or allowing otherwise. 


    Jason Engwer's "Majority Appeal: Dismissing Evangelicals Because Of Their Minority Status"

    Engwer continues:

    ...Tobin's atheism or Price's view that Jesus didn't exist. If modern unpopularity is bad, how much worse is an unpopularity that's lasted even longer?

    A.  Humans are not experts on metaphysics and so an unqualified human consensus on the god question is irrelevant (should we ask humanity at large and throughout history about multiverses, too?). 

    B.  Price's views that Jesus didn't exist are not the topic of TCD and surely he'd admit that he has a job to do in terms of attempting to convince the scholarly community his position is correct. 

    C.  That one heavily mythologized historical figure was slightly more mythical is a much smaller qualitative deviation from the mainstream than trying to defend that Jesus was actually a god and had superpowers and that the Bible is inerrant. 

    D.  The duration isn't necessarily as important as the plausibility of a quality consensus.  Historical tools have vastly improved in just the last 50 years and we can say much the same for the sciences in general in the last 200.  A modern consensus on the shape of cosmology is going to count a lot more in just the last few years than anything said 500 years ago even if that view lasted for 3,000 years.  We have satellites.  They lose. 

    Engwer continues:

    Richard Carrier's view of the genre of Mark's gospel, for instance, has been unpopular in Biblical scholarship...

    In that link, Engwer cites Charles Talbert who is actually a scholar that Carrier often cites to support his views on the genre of the gospels.  The gospels can be mythological biographies. Carrier doesn't dispute that.  I didn't realize we needed a century or so of conservative scholarship to tell us that the gospels narrate the life of Jesus, but okay... 

    I wonder how long it will take before it is admitted by evangelicals they narrate obvious mythical elements as well.  **holds breath**

    Engwer says:

    ...it's even more significant that his view was unpopular among the ancient sources who addressed the subject. Similarly, Tobin makes much of modern scholarship's doubts about Luke's census, yet the census account seems to have been widely accepted in antiquity. (For a discussion of the significance of those ancient sources, see my series of posts here.) Or when both the ancient Christian and the ancient Jewish sources seem to agree that Jesus' tomb was found empty after His body had been placed there, why do critics like Tobin reject that ancient consensus? Why should we think the sort of highly speculative objections they propose weigh as much as or more than the agreed testimony of ancient Christian and non-Christian sources, who were much closer to the event in question?

    Ancient people weren't necessarily in a position to know better than we do and sometimes we know a lot more than they did.  I can Google more ancient documents in a second than most ancient people would ever even know existed.  Any given early Christian may not have even been aware of the entire NT and so on.  When you don't know any better, you are bound to take arbitrary premises for granted if they didn't have any particular reason to challenge them.  That doesn't really mean anything. 

    And in fact, skeptical anthologies like "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave" are still doing that today.  Though you'll find apologists like Steve Hays continually baffled throughout his book long review that skeptics are arguing through layers of ambiguity with various types of provisional conclusions that don't necessarily have to all go together. 

    I feel compelled to go so far as to say (in my unqualified opinion) that in all likelihood all skeptical theories are wrong.  I certainly haven't read everything, but from what I have read I get the distinct impression that everyone is arguing in a vacuum of ignorance.  I don't think we do know what happened at the origin of the Christian religion.  It seems likely that most scholars are taking for granted various premises that they don't have a good reason to challenge (out of ignorance) and applying their methods as consistently as they can from there.  The problem is that pretty much none of the source material is that trustworthy and trivial "naturalistic" things are just as easy to invent as mythical things.  I can tell you that I'm holding a ray gun and a baseball bat.  Incidentally both claims are false even though baseball bats exist and I own some.  History isn't necessarily obligated to put a big red arrow over every mundane thing that seems plausible at face value but is nonetheless wholesale invention for who knows what reason.  There may also be some unknown chunk of significant information we don't have.  Who knows.  I can easily quote Steve Hays jumping at any chance to point out the likelihood of a Jewish cover up of certain Christian evidences to save face.  Of course, earlyish Christians would NEVER have any similar motive to do the same.  *eyeroll* 

    We don't know what we don't know and even the best "most probable" skeptical case from our vantage point may well be incorrect. 

    Engwer says:

    Tobin keeps criticizing Steve's citation of Evangelical scholars, but Steve hasn't just cited Evangelicals. Since Steve cited C.E.B. Cranfield, who wasn't an Evangelical, Tobin responded by categorizing him as a "theologian". Apparently, that's Tobin's way of trying to lessen the significance of a non-Evangelical scholar. If he can't dismiss that scholar as an Evangelical, an "apologist", etc., he labels him as a "theologian". But how often has Tobin referred to his own sources that way? He dismisses Cranfield as somebody "whose understanding of the historical method is suspect". Compare Cranfield's credentials to Tobin's. And what about other non-Evangelical scholars who disagree with Tobin? I cited the example of Raymond Brown in my response to Tobin in chapter 6 of The Infidel Delusion. Other non-Evangelicals have disagreed with Tobin's view of the infancy narratives as well, such as Ethelbert Stauffer (Jesus And His Story [New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960]), Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, and Joseph Kelly. In fact, as I pointed out in The Infidel Delusion, Tobin's skepticism about the infancy narratives is so radical as to place him in disagreement with the vast majority of modern scholars. If you go to Tobin's web site, you can find more examples of his disagreements with many non-Evangelical scholars. 

    I'm assuming that most of Tobin's positions represent the mainstream conclusions and so it would appear that these oddball instances (assuming Engwer is correct) really don't matter.  If Tobin was smarter, he'd have simply ran the ball right down the middle aiming purely at public education of what properly represents modern scholarship (similar to what Bart Ehrman seems to do) rather than bothering with pet theories he doesn't seem qualified to defend.  Oh well.  We'll see how that goes later in this series on chapter six as we sort through all the details.

    Engwer says:

    Tobin frequently claims that a position is held by a majority or represents "mainstream critical scholars", for example, without presenting any documentation for that conclusion.

    That is a problem.  *shrug*  Tobin could certainly have exercised more care with his "scholarly majority heuristic."   It seems his case is still stronger here.


    Outro:

    Engwer seems only to have waived a bit of dust up in the air.  Not that impressive.  If I'm an average Christian or nonbeliever there's really no reason to be confident about the conclusions of conservative scholarship (over the mainstream) I'm never going to have a chance to dive into and rigorously sort out. 

    Steve Hays is up to bat next on the same issue. 

    Ben

  • (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 3)

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important skeptical anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.  I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.


    Where was Paul Tobin coming from with his chapter in TCD?

    In part one of Tobin's response to The Infidel Delusion (TID), he says:

    The main thesis of my original article in the book The Christian Delusion is that the fundamentalist/evangelical position on the Bible is not reflected by modern mainstream Biblical scholarship, historical research and near eastern archaeology.

    In part three of Tobin's response to TID, he says:

    ...in mainstream biblical scholarship, [...] debates and differing positions are taken based on how each scholar marshals the evidence. When a consensus is reached by such a boisterous group of scholars–it tends to mean that the evidence for such a consensus is strong. Thus when we say that 80% to 90% of such scholars agree that the pastorals were not written by Paul, we can be certain that the reason for such a consensus must be compelling.

    That makes enough sense to me.  What should we do with this information?  Remember, atheist contributor Richard Carrier had said

    John Loftus contextualizes all of this by reiterating and defending his Outsider Test for Faith, [...]  It's the lynch pin of the whole book, the fulcrum on which every other chapter does Christianity in.

    So how do we apply the OTF to Tobin's chapter?  Similar to dealing with the modern scientific consensus on miracle claims, in terms of scholarship on the vast majority of issues, we'd accept the claims of the consensus of experts and move on with our lives.  This allows Tobin his general assert-a-thon to function well enough in context of the argumentative continuum of TCD.  For those Christian reviewers who will insist that Tobin would need to respond to all of their objections to part 1 to make this stand, please note, I've done exactly that

    In terms of description, I don't think anyone can contest what the mainstream scholarship generally entails.  For example, Christian reviewer Jason Engwer seems to take this for granted when he says:

    Today's conservative scholarship often holds views that were majority positions previously, even though they're minority positions today.

    Practically speaking for most of us, that really should be the end of the debate.  In this sense Tobin wins all 36 points even if he deviates somewhere from the general consensus or states things wrong.  How can non-scholars hope to do better or be more responsible with the many issues brought up in this chapter and in hundreds if not thousands of scholarly books on the many complicated historical and archeological subjects?  We can't hope to be experts on this, or on physics, philosophy, and whatever other major subject that a "personal" relationship with God would force us to engage to know that we aren't delusional.  You might say, "That's unfair," but then again was it really fair for God to burden people with ancient hearsay that most scholars don't believe stands up to scrutiny?  Even prominent defenders of Christianity like William Lane Craig note the obvious ridiculousness of this situation for ordinary people:

    Some of you are thinking, “Well, goodness, if believing in God is a matter of weighing all of these sorts of arguments, then how can anybody know whether God exists? You'd have to be a philosopher or a scientist to figure out whether God exists!” In fact, I agree with you. A loving God would not leave it up to us to figure out by our own ingenuity and cleverness whether or not he exists. Rather a loving God would seek to reveal himself to us and draw us to himself. And this is exactly what Christian theism teaches. Jesus of Nazareth said, "If any man's will is to do God's will, then he will know whether my teaching is from God, or whether I am speaking on my own accord" (John 7.17). And Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit of God would be given by him to convict and draw persons into loving relationships with himself.  [emphasis mine]

    Naturally we've covered the legitimacy of the inner witness many times before in this review series (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).  In short, how can Christians be sure their god-feelings are not just subjective reactions to provocative theistic ideas or are any better than contrary subjective inner feelings from other denominations and religions?  And if we have to marshal all the evidence to responsibly sort this mess out, then we're right back to how ridiculous a situation that is.  Craig is kind enough to sabotage himself in this way:

    Of course, anyone (or, at least any sort of theist) can claim  to have a self-authenticating witness of God to the truth of his religion. But the reason you argue with them is because they really don't: either they've just had some emotional experience or else they've misinterpreted their religious experience. So you present arguments and evidence in favor of Christian theism and objections against their worldview in the hope that their false confidence will crack under the weight of the argument and they will come to know the truth. (This also is what the atheist should do with me.) [emphasis mine]

    [note:  A youtuber named antybu86 does a great job of pointing out Craig's general circularity on all his major arguments.]  I also pointed out to Steve Hays that the arguments he appeals to from the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology to show that religious experience would suffice for ordinary people also only fall into the category of compatibility with other theistic arguments that have to actually succeed.  So Christian epistemology is drowning in its own epistemic irresponsibility (and see my my argument map here that defends naturalistic epistemic duties and that entire tangential debate between Hays and myself, since Hays would surely take us right back there). 


    Outro:

    Now, perhaps the current consensus of Biblical scholarship happens to be wrong.  Certainly as many have pointed out, various contributors to TCD hold some minority positions on various issues.  In all likelihood every scholar in every consensus holds at least some minority views on some issues.  They all should know they have a job to do, an uphill climb so to speak, if they expect those minority views to be taken seriously on whatever those issues are.  Are the serious Christian thinkers among us doing that?  Or more importantly, in a book like "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" do nuances like that even really matter in the face of the strength of the basic criticism presented?  If conservatives don't want liberals to be able to appeal to their bias, why should conservatives get to appeal to theirs to blow off mainstream scholarship?  If it comes down to the arguments, where does that leave the average believer who is in over their heads? 

    Ben

  • Opening words at Ethical Society

    Intro:

    The Ethical Society I go to asks different members to do the 5 minute "opening words" to each Platform on Sunday.  Incidentally I happened to be asked to do the Easter version.


    Good morning. My name is Ben Schuldt. I’m thirty years old and I’ve been a member of the Ethical Society since near the beginning of last year. I’m now running the monthly forum, Responsible Public Debate during the school season, where we promote respectful dialog between competing perspectives on important issues in our culture.

    I’m a former Christian fundamentalist. I was raised in a moderate Lutheran household and started taking the religion seriously of my own accord at age 16 through the young earth creationist literature. At age 22, I discovered that a different Christian denomination, Eastern Orthodoxy, was more convincing to my sensibilities. But in the transition between denominations that scorned each other’s religious conventions almost equally and oppositely in terms of divine justifications, I found myself in mid-air with no Christian net. Their criticisms of each other made too much sense. Further, I was coming of age and making difficult life choices that impacted people I cared about. The ideologies and the belief system had significant implications in those decisions and the level of actionable conviction certainly wasn’t there. In some senses, you could say, it got real.

    I felt it necessary to start from scratch with what I believed, an intellectual resurrection if you will, determined to take my skeptical thoughts equally seriously and be willing to ask any question and live with the best answer I happened to have available regardless of whatever ideology that happened to be in favor of. I’ve never seriously regretted that and it opened up a whole new world of explanatory success I could not abandon.

    I’m a proficient blogger online and I know how difficult worldview transitions can be and how complicated the many big grand issues we little humans have to wrestle with thanks to the peculiarities of our culture. It seems to me a type of calling that there ought to be people with some experience out there on the non-believing side of things (or the pro-reality believing side of things) to help the next generations of folks over and through those hurdles even if the culture at large does not change. And so that’s what I try to do.

    Incidentally a particular hot-spot of debate that comes up between Biblical Christianity and Metaphysical Naturalism is the historical evidence surrounding the origins of Christianity, specifically the stories about the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament and whether there’s any good reason to believe they happened in any way resembling what is told. I have many online writings about that and much more forthcoming as I review some popular literature on the subject and attempt to condense that conversation between educated skeptics and believers into something we can all follow.

    It’s a little perplexing from the get-go why this convoluted historical inquiry would be necessary from a divine perspective. We’re not all historians and certainly very few people in history have even had the opportunity to attempt to sort these issues out. Layers and layers of ambiguity resist clarity. History is a poor carrier for miracle claims and realistic levels of confidence.

    I also find compelling the arguments from evil against the existence of a divine good shepherd of our souls, and so the Christian Easter for me is a bit of an ideological slap in the face. Jesus has an unverifiable bad weekend once and somehow that’s supposed to make up all the negligence for the rest of history. If that sits well with a sizable portion of this country, then I would say that perhaps they need a resurrection of their own when it comes to their humanity and their conscience.


    Outro:

    I had a lot more to say, but trying to be on topic rather limited the scope.  Oh well.  Next time.

    Ben

  • (argument map) The Dubious Doctrine of Hell

    Intro:

    [Please, note that updates to this map will be posted here: "(argument map) The doctrine of hell is unjust."]

    So last week I was listening to Alpha & Omega Ministries' James White give his very Christian thoughts on the William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate.  White presented a number of amazing misrepresentations of Harris' views, made huge accusations against Harris' character based on circumstantial evidence, and gave many standard "not my religion" objections to what he called Harris' "red herring" rebuttals in the debate.  This isn't just "off topic" for White, but also even if it were the topic White wants to think Harris has misrepresented various aspects of Christian doctrine (not all are covered here though). 

    So this inspired me to revisit my old post, "The Dubious Doctrine of Hell" and generate a comprehensive argument map with some updated arguments (Actually, I did the vast majority of it from memory, but it parallels the content from that post and I double checked some things to make sure I remembered my talking points).


    Anyway, the basic premise is that the doctrine of hell is a punishment that does not fit the crime no matter how you cut the cake.  Christians preach a just god and hence their moral paradigm and their worldview are incoherent.  Most Christians if they accepted that conclusion would not remain Christian even though technically speaking, there could still exist an extremely powerful unjust god or forfeit Biblical inerrancy or something.  I state that argument in the "popular" sense so that all the cliche' responses to it from Christians can "correct" the argument and then I can show how those "corrections" don't amount to anything more than quibbling. 

    Enjoy:


    Feel free to update me with more of those delightful nuances (or spelling corrections, etc.) in the comments.  There will be no "not my religion" excuses, but I'm sure there's more twists and turns to add.

    I really like the longest tangent there that cuts through the majority of the map since the end summary basically gets to add up a long list of improbable, unproven, and suspiciously ad hoc excuses that it would take to make the doctrine of hell morally plausible.  Basically god's perfection and goodness amount to his omnnipotent arms being mysteriously tied behind his immaterial back.  My old post is an extremely long and thorough reaming of the doctrine from every conceivable angle I could think of at the time.  I recall being baffled at many of the things various Christians were offering up in defense and I even took an informal poll at work to find out if it was true that people would really value eternal torment over non-existence.  Sometimes it really seems like Christians will gnaw off their own philosophical foot like a wolf caught in a trap before they'll doubt their religion.  As far as Biblical arguments from evil go, the doctrine of hell is probably the biggest thorn in the side of mainstream Christian culture from a PR perspective and merits rigorous articulation to nail all that defensive apologetic Jell-O to the wall. 


    Outro:

    There are two "link nodes" on the map ("Does the Bible teach eternal suffering for the unsaved?" and "Is it easy to be saved?") that have been posted.  There are six links to other maps that I'll get around to posting eventually. 

    Ben

  • Does the Bible teach eternal suffering for the unsaved?

    Intro:

    I think it's pretty clear the Bible teaches eternal torment for the unsaved and Jesus himself is the primary advocate of the doctrine.  In case anyone hasn't happened to peruse the verses, I've collected the most pertinent here.

    This post is designed to supplement my forthcoming argument map on the injustice of the Christian doctrine of hell.  I couldn't fit all these verses with commentary on an argument map, so here we go...


    Scripture Picture

    Arguably there are a few different versions of the afterlife in the Bible especially in comparison from the Old Testament to the New Testament, but we aren’t talking about contradictions here (other than the Bible says God is good and he isn’t).  Everything in bold is "emphasis mine."

    Isaiah 66:24

    "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

    Daniel 12:2

    Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

    Hebrews 6:1-2

    Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

    Jude 7

    In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

    Revelation 14:9-11

    A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.  And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever.  There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

    Mark 3:29

    But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

    Mark 9:43

    If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.  And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.  And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'  Everyone will be salted with fire.

    Matthew 25:41-46

    "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

    "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

    "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

    "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

    Luke 16:19-31

    The Rich Man and Lazarus

    "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.  At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

    "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.  In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.  So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

    "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.  And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'


    Outro:

    I'm sure there may very well be limited metaphors at work in these passages, but they must be limited as in god doesn't have to go into details of the physics of it, but you get the gist.  If you try to metaphoricalize it away, contextually it becomes gibberish.  Sure not every verse spells it out, but do they have to?  Not every connection directly relates to everlasting torment…but what other comparison would there be?  Why can’t those earthly finite connections be the limited metaphors instead?  That makes much more overall contextual sense.

    So I needed two posts of Bible verses to spell out chunks of my next argument map.  There will be several other supplemental argument maps as well, since all of these debate link up with all the other debates...

    Ben

  • Are atheists demon possessed?

    Intro:

    Previously, I posted some chunks of Christian apologist, Steve Hays', views on demons, skeptics, and UFology from "This Joyful Eastertide" (TJET), his ebook length response to the skeptical anthology, "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave."  Today we're going to get into another example of how he attempts to apply that in debate (see also, "Christian demons vs. Muslim demons"). 

    The original conversation started in another skeptical anthology, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" and the ebook length response to it called, "The Infidel Delusion" and then continued into the blog realm with Debunking Christianity and Triablogue "discussing" the issues further.


    In his response to Loftus, "Scoring the Outsider Test," Hays says:

    [Loftus] shifts from literal demonization to figurative demonization. Is Loftus so caught up in his persecution complex that he can’t tell the difference any more?

    Hays is being a little superficial.  For example, in TJET, Hays had said:

    I find it more than plausible that a man who was dabbling in the occult (Taoism) would leave himself wide open to the demonic—especially in the case of an apostate like [Richard] Carrier. Those that pray to false gods become the devil’s prey.

    *shrug*  It's not like Hays isn't known for the accusation (or the overt suggestion, in the case of Carrier).  And as I showed in a previous post, "Steve Hays' 'Demon-Haunted' Apologetics" it should be pretty clear that if Hays isn't saying it overtly, I don't see why we shouldn't assume he isn't thinking it.  Satan is behind everything!

    In his third post to me, "Ne'er shaw yir teeth unless ye can bite!", Hays avoids the issue in favor of a personal attack as though this has something to do with me:

    Since Carrier is one of Ben’s “heroes” (along with other luminaries like Barack Obama, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, Anthony Weiner), I understand why his feelings are hurt when I slight his idol. However, I simply drew an inference from autobiographical material which Carrier publicly volunteered about himself. Since Taoism is an occultic tradition, and Carrier also admits to having undergone an episode of Old-Hag syndrome as a practicing Taoist, there’s nothing untoward about my suggestion.

    While I'm sure that a Christian like Hays has some lovely things to say about Obama, Stewart, Franken, and Weiner, Loftus' original point is that Hays is willing to think his opponents are demon-possessed (and ignores perfectly mundane explanations like "sleep paralysis hallucination").  Hays avoided the issue to attack Loftus personally and I demonstrated Loftus' inference about Hays was in fact perfectly reasonable. We're all just making perfectly innocent inferences around here, right?


    Outro:

    Hays doesn't like his inverse scarlet letter, but that's just too bad isn't it?  Maybe he should bother to prove that demons actually exist or that Loftus is actually wrong about something important.  There's a thought.

    Ben

  • Christian demons vs. Muslim demons?

    Intro:

    Last time I posted some chunks of Christian apologist, Steve Hays' views on demons, skeptics, and UFology from "This Joyful Eastertide," his ebook length response to the skeptical anthology, "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave."  Today we're going to get into how he attempts to apply that in debate. 

    This conversation started in "The Infidel Delusion" (TID) which was an ebook length response to another skeptical anthology, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails," and from there it continued in blog posts from Debunking Christianity (DC) and Triablogue "discussing" the issues further.


    Atheist, John Loftus, at DC says in response to TID:

    Muslims claim the same exact thing. They say the reason Christians believe is because demons are deceiving them. Where does that get anyone? I’ll tell you where—nowhere as in NO WHERE.

    It would have been nice if he would have said something like that in his chapter as an example of how to consistently apply the "outsider test for faith," but that didn't quite make it in.

    In his response to Loftus, "Scoring the Outsider Test," Hays objects:

    [Loftus] acts as if Islam and Christianity are symmetrical. Yet that’s obviously not the case. For instance, Muhammad treated the Bible as the standard of comparison. He invited doubters to ask Christians and Jews to vouch for his prophetic credentials. But that’s hardly reversible. It’s not as if Bible writers ever invited Mohammedans to judge the Bible by the Koran.

    Just because some aspects are asymmetrical doesn't mean all of them are.  Duh.  Loftus appeals to a point of more substance, since if demons inspired Christianity or Islam, then they can make up any further "tests" or asymmetries that they like which will be superfluous.   
     
    In his third post to me, "Ne'er shaw yir teeth unless ye can bite!," Hays objects again:

    No, that’s not how Loftus framed the argument. Loftus said:

    Muslims claim the same exact thing. They say the reason Christians believe is because demons are deceiving them.

    Muslims are in no position to say that, for that would be self-refuting. The Koran claims to be a confirmation of Biblical revelation. If, however, Christians are demonically inspired rather than divinely inspired, then that undercuts the ostensible foundation for the Koran.

    Wow.  Alright, well the illustrious all-mundane-things-knowing wikipedia says:

    Muslims believe that those texts were neglected, corrupted (tahrif) or altered in time by the Jews and Christians and have been replaced by God's final and perfect revelation, which is the Qur'an.

    Hence, it's not so self-refuting to claim that demons helped Christians corrupt the original revelation and inspires them to reject the updated version.


    Outro:

    Maybe Hays could try a little harder next time?  Christians have lots of epistemic problems like these.  See my argument map, "Could Jesus be lying about hell?" and my coverage of "2 Thessalonians 2:11 and Strong Delusion" for some more examples.

    Ben

  • Is it easy to be saved?

    Intro:

    The Bible does not portray salvation as trite and as easy as modern pop-culture Christianity would like us to believe. Many Christians are of course under no illusions that their afterlife plan entails "a difficult life," but they don't seem to recognize the implications of that when juxtaposed to what is at stake according to their own doctrine. 

    This post is a supplemental post for my argument map on the injustice of the Christian doctrine of hell (which is forthcoming in a few days).


    I've always complained I've never met any "real" Christians since none of them have all the cool magic powers the early Church had.  But even those "obvious" Christians can't be too confident:

    Matthew 7:21-23

    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'  Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

    Let's not forget the religious moderates among us:

    Revelation 3:16

    So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

    You guys should definitely stop being so not-Westboro-Baptist on us. 

    And if you think this god will judge you fairly based on your own standards (I do mean you, Richard Carrier), consider:

    Mark 4:24

    "Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. [emphasis mine]

    Wow...that seems a bit unnecessarily dishonest, but whatever.  Who are we to talk back to the Christian god?  Moving on...

    And if you think this god is necessarily intimately cultivating your soul..chew on this:

    Matthew 25:24

    "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed.

    The "Master" is clearly meant to represent the Christian god in this salvation parable and that seems quite a haphazard "whatever happens happens" methodology.  That makes me feel extremely secure.   

    And for you believing slackers out there:

    1 Corinthians 9:24

    Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

    No wonder it says:

    Philippians 2:12

    Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

    That sounds pretty tough.  This planet doesn't seem very geared towards generating the maximum number of saints any more than it seems set up to generate the maximum number of professional basketball players.  In case you thought only Hitler will end up in hell:

    Matthew 7:14

    But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. [emphasis mine]

    The body count of hell has to come from somewhere, folks.  So it seems almost certain that many more Christians than not who will be reading this should have a great deal less confidence in their salvation, "realistically" speaking. 

    I quote all this in order to make the Christians who say, "it's so easy, just believe" a little antsy.  Not quite feeling like an Olympic saint today?  Not so keen on 9 out of 10 people you know being royally screwed over for all eternity (or having to watch)?  Wondering why you have to play such a dangerous game without your consent that you didn't start?  Second guessing how meaningful it is to have this god's grace "on your team" when it's still pretty much dependent on you?  Thinking maybe that this god isn't such a great guy after all?  If you think everything is okay here...you seem quite mistaken to say the least.  You can quote verses that more uplifting things and yet they will not magically cancel out anything said here.

    Scripture seems keen on painting a very grim picture and when apologists and evangelists would like to spin that in a way that is not really representative of the contents of their holy book, non-believers such as myself wonder where the intellectual honesty of the defenders of Christianity wandered off to.  Because this is what I see:  

    It's like apologists manage to see "Buddy Jesus" despite the obvious "Jigsaw Jesus" architecture of the situation.  In the Saw horror movies, Jigsaw defends himself as not a murderer, because apparently even though his victims were put in some overtly panic inducing environment...they could have immediately seen Jigsaw's perspective, followed all the rules and saved themselves.  This is the moral equivalent of saying, "I'm not a hit man...there was a 10% chance my sniper bullet could have been blown off course by the wind."  Similarly, it seems the Christian god might try to say, "I'm not an evil god...there was a ten percent chance you could have been saved given the convoluted circumstances I let you be born in."  Jesus did seem to call the final score there in case you thought all of this might turn out all right in the end.

    You decide.


    Outro:

    The next supplementary post to my forthcoming argument map will be, "Does the Bible teach eternal suffering for the unsaved?" since there are apparently many Christians in denial of that in some form. 

    Ben

  • Steve Hays' "Demon-Haunted" Apologetics

    Intro:

    It is not hard to point out the hypocrisy of Christian apologist, Steve Hays.  Hays will often be found to turn on a dime within a sentence or two of a vicious denouncement to commit the very same intellectual crime without any justification whatsoever.  For example, in "This Joyful Eastertide," which is a book length response to the skeptical anthology, "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave," Hays calls conspiracy theories, "the refuge of all intellectual scoundrels."  It doesn't take him long to outdo any skeptic out there.


    Hays says:

    i) Ufology is the delinquent child of modern science. An ufologist is often a smart, sophisticated individual, deeply committed to secular science. His worldview is the same as [atheist, Richard Carrier’s]. And while it’s easy to make fun of ufology, an astute ufologist has a well-lubricated answer to all the stock objections.

    The very existence of ufology undercuts Carrier’s Humean analysis of Christian faith as a throwback to the retrograde outlook of primitive superstition and ignorance. For an ufologist can be a very bright and highly educated individual—indoctrinated in the very fields, and professing the same presuppositions, which Carrier regards as the antidote to Christian faith. Once gain, Carrier is trying to ride two different horses.

    ii) Actually, if you do some research on ufology, you find a striking connection between “alien abductions” and Old Hag Syndrome (also called ASP). Since Old Hag Syndrome appears to be a cultural universal, this would suggest that there is a core experience which underlies ufology. In prescientific times, this “encounter” was construed in occultic categories of possession and the like. But in the space age, with the popularity of science fiction, this is reinterpreted in terms of alien encounters rather than demonic encounters.

    So, in my opinion, ufology should not be dismissed out of hand, but understood for what it really is, at least some of the time, as an essentially occultic phenomenon with a pseudoscientific overlay.

    iii) The Roswell legend is, of course, just one thread in the fabric of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are the snare of bright minds. They have just enough suggestive, tantalizing evidence to be appealing, but never enough evidence to be compelling. On the face of it, it does seem as though things are often a little too coincidental to be…well…to be coincidental.

    And yet we know that such a grand conspiracy is far too large and complicated to be orchestrated and kept under wraps by human ingenuity alone.

    But there is an explanation for this. There is, indeed, a conspiracy. A very well kept conspiracy. So well kept that it’s even a secret to the coconspirators. They are not in on the plot.

    For the mastermind is the “god of this world.” Satan is the one who, behind-the-scenes, is pulling the strings of human pride—pride in our tolerance and utopian cloud castles.

    Inside the Devil’s sleeper cell, you can be under deep cover without ever knowing so. You can do his bidding without any apprehension of the diabolical choreography. Most of the devil’s militia are unwitting draftees, conscripted in the trippy state of sin.
     
    So the conspiracy theorist is half-right and half-wrong. Indeed, the conspiracy theorist is often a dupe of the Devil himself—chasing after Jewish bankers and flying saucers. The Devil lays just enough crumbs in his path to keep him on the scent, but never enough to lead him to the infernal hideout and hellish headquarters of the movement.
     
    Conspiracies are ultimately concentric: if a human conspiracy lies within the wider circle of a diabolical conspiracy, then the diabolical conspiracy lies within the wider circle of a divine conspiracy. In the end, the Devil is only God’s useful idiot.
     
    Carrier goes on to compare the NT writers with snake-handling charismatics.

    And how dare he make such a comparison!  Really!

    Hays says:

    Because the average atheist suffers from a persecution-complex, he is prone to crackpot theories of church history. This sort of cosmic paranoia is both understandable and irrational.

    In fact, there’s an ironic sense in which he’s right: God really is out to get him! I don’t suppose, though, that Richard Carrier would readily avail himself of this particular explanation.

    Hays says:

    Carrier then relates a personal anecdote:

    In addition to a vivid Taoist mystical experience of an obviously hallucinatory nature, there was a night when I fought with a demon trying to crush my chest—the experience felt absolutely real, and I was certainly awake, probably in a hypnagogic state. I could see and feel the demon sitting on me, preventing me from breathing, but when I “punched” it, it vanished. It is all the more remarkable that I have never believed in demons, and the creature I saw did not resemble anything I have ever seen or imagined before. So what was it? Supernatural encounter or hallucination? You decide.

    i) This is a classic case of “Old Hag Syndrome” or ASP, which is a widely attested phenomenon. Here we see the power of ideology to trump evidence. Here he recounts a personal experience of an especially immediate kind—equivalent to a self-presenting state. And yet his secular philosophy, which is based, at best, on secondhand information worked into a worldview with various interpolations and extrapolations, takes precedence over his own direct awareness.

    ii) Notice that he expects the reader to believe this story without benefit of any multiple-attestation. He holds himself to one standard, and Scripture to another.

    iii) Speaking for myself, I find it more than plausible that a man who was dabbling in the occult (Taoism) would leave himself wide open to the demonic—especially in the case of an apostate like Carrier. Those that pray to false gods become the devil’s prey."

    Please ignore the "sleep paralysis hallucination" theory.  That one is just too crazy for Hays.  Also note that Christian apologist, J. P. Holding, also felt free to pounce on Carrier's dogmatic skepticism (see: "J. P. Holding's "Leaning Tower of Preterism"), yet dismissed the eyewitness testimony himself because he's a Preterist.

    Hays says:

    One effect of the gospel is to exorcise the land. The more Christians you have, the fewer demoniacs you have. The more Christians you have, the less occult activity you have. If there is less evidence of occult phenomena at present than in the past, that is evidence, not of secularism, but of the success of the gospel. And it is no coincidence that the decline of the faith in modern-day Europe has corresponded with a rise of the occult.

    Hays says:

    Carrier’s Freudian psychobabble is on the same evidentiary plane as repressed memories of Satanic ritual mass murder. It’s pretty interesting that a man who, just two pages before, was appealing to neuroscience, which claims to be a hard science, can, in the very next breath, go Freudian on us—even though this is regarded as pseudoscience by scientifically trained critics.


    Outro:

    I didn't think this needed much comment.

    Ben