The Infidel Delusion

  • (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

  • 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

  • Prominent Christian apologists convert to atheism?

    Intro:

    Christian apologists from around the world gathered in San Diego to discuss honestly their misgivings about defending the faith.  It was an unprecedented, no-holds-barred, "skeptifest" of Biblical proportions.  It had been long supposed that Christians could stand up to any intellectual attacks and hence had nothing to fear from brandishing their confidence for all to see.  Everyone was encouraged to get their most skeptical thoughts and doubts "out there" and see what others had to say.  By some accounts, from some of my atheist friends who were allowed to attend, this apparently snow-balled into mass apostasy.  I'm still a little skeptical, but I've pulled some intriguing quotes from the transcript.  Take a look...


    At first everyone was a bit squeamish to speak and a few offered some rather vague random points of contention that really didn't matter that much to the big picture.  Finally, William Lane Craig just blurted out why he'd apparently stopped trusting the Holy Spirit:

    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. [...] they've just had some emotional experience...

    Dead silence.  Um...that's the HOLY FREAKING SPIRIT you are talking about.  And yet Richard Swinburne cheered Craig on and was remarkably sarcastic noting (with air quotes no less) we'd never want to be forced into certain absurdities based on that kind of evidence:

    ...if it seems to me Poseidon exists, then it is good evidence that Poseidon exists.

    He had the whole crowd rolling with laughter since they all knew that the Greek pantheon had a long history of success in the hearts and minds of ancient Greeks.  Were they really going there?  Maybe I'm missing something.

    Staunch evidentialist, Lydia McGrew, wanted to turn the conversation to more tangible matters and get the ball rolling on discussing her lack of confidence in the resurrection of Jesus

    Well of course the prior probability is very low and we all know that. [...]

    There’s a most unfortunate passage by G. K. Chesterton in which he says, “If my Apple woman, the woman who sells me apples tells me that she saw a miracle I should believe her. I believe her about apples so I should believe her about miracles.” That’s a paraphrase; it’s not an exact quotation.

    I really wish Chesterton hadn’t said that because that’s just wrong as an approach. You don’t just automatically say, “Oh, somebody says they saw a miracle, I’m going to buy it.” You have to have much stronger evidence than that.

    Indeed.  I can agree with that.  Triablogger, Steve Hays immediately piped up with three pertinent examples of the kind of evidence we would need to justify various kinds of similar extraordinary claims

    [In reference to having an alien spaceship]  On the face of it, I could discharge my burden of proof by showing you the spacecraft.  Of course, you might insist on having it properly inspected (to eliminate a hoax).

    So what evidence would I need to prove that I own this unique coin? [...]  Ideally, the only evidence I'd need to prove that I own this unique coin is the coin itself. My ability to produce the coin upon request.  Maybe you'd demand that the coin be authenticated. Fine.

    ...suppose I call you up and tell you I've just won the lottery (and on the first occasion I've ever bought a ticket). Surely that's an extraordinary claim. Naturally you're skeptical, so I invite you over to my house, where you see with your own eyes both my ticket and the newspaper reporting the winning numbers. I'd say that would be sufficient for you to rationally believe that I've won the lottery.

    So it was a case of a highly improbable event that required evidence of a[n] admittedly powerful [...] kind in order to be rationally believed.

    I can't help but note that it was almost as though the words of atheist, Richard Carrier, were on the minds of all those in attendance:

    If Jesus was a god and really wanted to save the world, he would have appeared and delivered his Gospel personally to the whole world.

    Recognizing of course that Jesus didn't do this, Craig spoke up again to say what had been weighing on everyone's mind since the conference began

    ...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.

    People were clearly shocked.  And it got everyone lingering on the problem of evil.  Hays spoke up again to point out that the long standing explanations for evil from Calvinism and Arminianism both suck

    ...it sounds bad [...] to say that God predestined sin and evil. However, it also sounds bad to say that God allows sin and evil.

    Everyone was dismayed by this.  How could they all have been defending such bad explanations for evil all of this time?  How in the world had Christian apologetics kept up with it?  They weren't all that stupid and/or delusion were they!?!  No one especially wanted to hear atheist, John Loftus, say, "I told you so."  Even though their faiths seemed to be cracking under the weight of their collective doubts, they all agreed no one wanted to hear that guy gloat. 

    Hays had clearly been thinking things through and gave everyone an astute analogy to help explain where most everyone had gone wrong with their apologetic sensibilities: 

    An ufologist is often a smart, sophisticated individual, deeply committed to secular science. [...] And while it’s easy to make fun of ufology, an astute ufologist has a well-lubricated answer to all the stock objections. [...] 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. [...] As far as I'm concerned, the issue is not how long it would take for a legend to develop.  Anyone can write anything at any time.

    Almost too proud of himself for how well he'd explained things, something clearly snapped in his mind.  Hays collapsed on the floor in front of everyone and started mumbling almost incoherently.  It seemed he was talking about himself though he couldn't bring himself to even speak in the first person:

    ...he indulges in so many ad hominem attacks [...] which includes that constitutional incapacity for self criticism in its judgmental criticism of others which emboldens him to openly expose his emotional insecurities, oblivious to the disconnect between the image he is laboring to project and what is really coming through.

    It also seemed that he was admitting that all of his previous apologetic efforts could not be said to:

    ...move us from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge.

    He'd realized that too many people had been wondering if Hays was:

    ...really that dense, or if he is just playing dumb to advance his agenda.

    And whether or not it was always just a "rhetorical tactic:"

    ...to impose an all-or-nothing dilemma on the reader.

    Hays was okay apparently and someone nursed him back to health in a corner of the room as the conference moved on.  Was he really talking about himself?!?  We may never know.

    The next day after Hays had recomposed himself, he was overheard talking to fellow Triablogger, Jason Engwer, about all the horrible things that he'd said about agnostic, Ed Babinski, to get out of the force of the case in Ed's "The Cosmology of the Bible" chapter in "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails."  Hays finally admitted it was implausible to dismiss all the evidence that the Bible embraces a false cosmology:

    Mixed metaphors are mutually inconsistent if taken literally, but a wide variety of metaphors can and do figurate the very same concept.

    So I guess they did understand the criticism after all to all their hairsplitting?  Not sure. 

    Elsewhere, William Lane Craig was overheard discussing the many universes hypothesis with Robin Collins:

    We appear then to be confronted with two alternatives: posit either a cosmic Designer or an exhaustively random, infinite number of other worlds. Faced with these options, is not theism just as rational a choice as multiple worlds?

    They both agreed they hadn't taken the hypothesis seriously enough in the past and that we really weren't in any position to decide between two rational options.   I didn't think Christians were capable of agnosticism on that issue...

    Near the end of the conference there were a lot of tears shed and everyone was looking around at each other a bit anxiously, thankful they had not brought any babies to test their new atheist appetites on or any children to dismember to make sure they were made of all atoms.  Triablogger, Paul Manata went around poking walls, waiving his arms up and down, and testing various places on the floor to check on the uniformity of the universe for everyone.  He kept yelling, "It's all clear!" over and over again to the annoyance of all.  Finally they told him to shut up and that they should just go with it until further notice.  However everyone was still bracing for impact and wondering how they could prepare for the inevitable Nazi-brainwashing-rapist-regime that was sure to sweep the whole world away from them now that they'd changed their minds about Jesus.

    Fortunately libertarian renegade and (former) theologian extraordinaire, Vox Day spoke up to call attention to atheist, Sam Harris' book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values":

    I have to applaud Sam for having the intellectual courage to seize the bull by the horns; unlike his fellow New Atheists (except Daniel Dennett), he has recognized the weak point of the lack of universal warrant and is attempting to do something about it.

    So amazingly, all was not lost. 


    Outro:

    If anyone has any other interesting quotes from the conference, post them in the comments, please.

    Ben

  • (argument map) Why should atheists care about truth?

     

    Intro:

    I've taken the liberty of argument-mapping my exchange with Christian apologist, Steve Hays, on the topic.  The history of this particular conversation started with Triablogue's "The Infidel Delusion" (TID) response to atheist, John Loftus' "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD).  Hays started responding to my review of TCD and that generated three rather long posts of his and contributed a significant chunk to my review of chapter 4.  Hays attempted to undermine TCD in his intro in a number of ways, one of which was questioning the epistemic duties of non-theistic worldviews.

    SPOILER ALERT:  All you need is some motivation and some utility to it to care about truth in order to bother addressing or refuting the beliefs of anyone on any topic.  Iknowright?  But that doesn't stop Christian apologists from "objecting" with nonsense anyhow.  It also ends up churning up some interesting other nonsense as well (for those interested). 


    "Atheists have no principled reason to care about truth" is a stock objection from Hays so any time he wants to toss this onto the path, it'll be pretty clear where that gets him.

    Click on the thumbnail to embiggen:


    If anyone would like to contribute more iterations of the debate, feel free.  Also, if there are any typos or grammar errors, I'll make corrections. 

    I've used Compendium to start mapping out a huge network of interrelated debates.  A fellow atheist challenged me to a public debate on the TAG which is the Christian presuppositionalist beachhead of all forms of naturalistic incredulity.  Hence, as you can see:

    Each of those nodes opens up a whole other argument map (each of which I'll eventually post I'm sure).  I had to be prepared for just about any tangent that could come up. That's the whole idea of the TAG strategy is to be vague and presumptuous, and then pretend that nonbelievers have to solve every problem in philosophy and metaphysics before they are "allowed" to doubt all the other evidential claims of Biblical Christianity.  It would almost be "fair" (since some of the issues are legitimate enough) if they didn't ignore the worldview shopping cart of all things Christian they could honestly at-least-as-equally doubt as well.  But giving all the tough questions of one positive worldview a pass while holding another to the grindstone is dubious to say the least.  Are you not sure about all the implications of metaphysical naturalism?  Okay...we have a word for that.  It's called "agnosticism."  Not "Christian." 


    Outro:

    I'd covered the vast majority of the material already in my review of TCD, so it was mainly a matter of appropriating it for the argument map network.  Eventually I'll have a network that covers pretty much all the most typical philosophical issues that come up in these debates and I can provide that meta-file to download.   It's on the "to do" list.  :)

    Ben

  • (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 2)

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that has been 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 educational and perhaps the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.


    Who cares if the Bible gets some things wrong?

    But before we get into the issue of scholarly authority and bias and the details of atheist, Paul Tobin's chapter, a surprising number of Christian reviewers seem relatively okay with an errant word of the Christian god.  Let's take a look.

    Looney said this:

    My bet is still on Luke getting it right - especially since he writes much closer to the events - but if he gets one event a bit confused, it certainly won't shake my faith.  [emphasis mine]

    I assumed Looney was an inerrantist, but perhaps not.  It seems he is of the opinion at least that inerrancy is optional.

    Diglotting said this:

    ...as with a lot of this essay, I am left thinking, “so what?” If the Genesis flood narrative never actually took place, what does that prove? That Jesus was never resurrected and is not Lord over all creation? Hardly. It only proves that perhaps the genre and literary purpose of Genesis needs to be rethought.  [...]  if  Luke was just plain wrong, what does it prove? That the rest of what Luke wrote is historically false and should not be believed? If Luke was historically inaccurate on the census issue, I guess it could be a problem for those who hold to a scientific/historical view of inerrancy.  [emphasis mine]

    Jayman777 said this:

    Like the previous chapter, an individual Christian’s response to this chapter will depend largely on his views of inspiration and inerrancy.  There are numerous Christians who are modern scholars and have felt no need to leave Christianity because of their findings.  [...]  The bulk of the section is spent attacking the historicity of the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke.  Raymond Brown’s The Birth of the Messiah is a scholarly treatment of the infancy narratives.  He does not attempt to defend every historical detail of the narratives.  I must also note that if a passage in the Bible is of a genre of literature that is not concerned with history then it is pointless to criticize that passage for not being history.  [...]  I agree with Tobin that the prophecies he mentions from Ezekiel were not fulfilled.  [emphasis mine]

    I'm not clear on what Diglotting and jayman777's views on inspiration are (and I recall that jayman777 doesn't have his views 100% crystallized yet).  Presumably they are fine with their god's word being as generally true and reliable as other human works.  One wonders why a most excellent god aimed so low in terms of quality control, but okay.  The expectations of fundamentalists seem more philosophically justified at face value.

    Randal Rauser said this:

    Tobin talks about "forgeries" in the Bible, what New Testament scholars call pseudopigraphy. To call them forgeries is about as blunt as calling a polygamist living in sub-Saharan Africa an "adulterer".  [...]  So let's say that 2 Peter is pseudopigraphic – it was not written by Peter but rather by someone emulating his style (rather unsuccessfully it must be said) and claiming his authority. Tobin's argument presumably would be that God cannot appropriate a pseudopigraphic text, that is, he cannot include it within a canon of literature that through the providential course of history will come to be recognized as authoritative in matters of faith and action by a specific community of faith.  Why not Mr. Tobin? What's the problem? [emphasis mine]

    Rauser's view of inspiration is the most unsettling since the Christian god can appropriate literally anything that he wants to.  Perhaps mythicism is true and Christianity started out as a mystery cult with a cosmic Jesus who never even existed.  Why couldn't this god just use the urban legend style gospels as "authoritative" and divinely insist the church take historicity seriously?  Maybe Rauser wouldn't have a problem with that, or with my proof that the character of god in the Old Testament lies to Abraham.  I don't know.  But we have to admit here that modern Christians have some extremely lax standards of "inspiration" as far as truth goes and then still manage to be confounded when outsiders looking in have an eyebrow raised.  The only thing left to grant errant documents divine authority is Rauser's flimsy "god perception evidence" and perhaps the "unfair cultural mystique" of the Bible that was discussed in Jason Long's chapter 3.



    Outro:

    Each of these Christian folk are willing to defend Biblical contradictions when they think skeptics have gone too far, but ultimately inerrancy (or at least Tobin's standard of inerrancy) isn't an issue for them.  That's a slight majority of Christian reviewers.  The three Triabloggers in The Infidel Delusion will presumably not be giving ground. 

    This situation might be inspiring if I thought that the more liberal Christian reviewers were necessarily going to compromise on some of the more important errors in the Bible (as in, something that might help the Christian population get along with the modern world) rather than just covering the Christian god's behind and maintaining the general status quo of mere self-satisfying belief.  I'm not familiar enough with any of their stances on various modern issues to know for sure.

    Ben

  • (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 6: The Bible and Modern Scholarship (part 1)

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important 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.


    Chapter 6, "The Bible and Modern Scholarship" by Paul Tobin:

    First impressions:  This chapter covers way too much ground and doesn't appear to do it very well (since some of the problems are fairly evident in just a first reading).  It is barely argued, mainly asserted and takes for granted the perspective of the first four chapters, where in any other case, we'd just accept secular scholarship and dismiss every defense of supposedly inerrant magical books.  It is a summary of part of another book and Tobin references books that seem to be summaries of conclusions reached by scholars rather than the under-structure of those arguments.   In other words, Tobin opens up a huge cans of worms and leaves himself open to a lot of criticism even if every conclusion he touches on about the Bible and modern scholarship happens to be completely correct.  Many Christian reviewers simply pointed to other evangelical scholarship and said "they disagree."  Any Christian who has some investment in apologetics already and who took offense to the first 3 chapters and especially the "outsider test for faith" in chapter 4 will be unimpressed with Tobin's contribution to TCD (unlike Babinski's chapter 5 which stands on its own merits). 

    I will take each issue in turn to the best of my ability and call the debate as it stands presented in TCD vs. the all the responses from Christian reviewers.  As you can see from this post, I will be bringing the entire conversation to my readers, chunk by chunk and will use Christian reviewer, Steve Hays' 36 numbered points (that Tobin uses as well in his responses to Hays) and supplement that framework with the random tidbits less thorough reviewers have contributed.  The table of contents below will eventually be a full set of links for future posts (and I've thrown in some other links for basic reference purposes).  By the end of this survey hopefully it should be clear where each issue stands insofar as what is available online is concerned.  Arguments that require the supplement of books and unavailable academic papers will take a hit in terms of my provisional non-professional conclusions.  It's important though to see how things look through the eyes of the internet-only crowd and people who are in the know can easily figure out which chunks need to be online in the future and easily accessible to all.

    Table of contents for my review series on chapter 6 of TCD:

    1: Does Genesis 1 contradict Genesis 2 on when plants and animals are created?
    (see here and here) Tobin appeals to consensus authority on the validity of the documentary hypothesis to justify the probability of the contradiction, and Hays and others provide an argument that is persuasive, imo.

    2:  Does Genesis 6 contradict Genesis 7 in terms of the number of clean animals taken aboard Noah's ark?

    (see here)

    3:  Is Deuteronomy 23:3 an example of Biblically mandated racism?

    4:  Does Ecclesiastes contradict Proverbs?

    5:  Does James contradict Paul on the relationship to faith and works?

    (see here)

    6:  Is the young earth creationist version of Noah's Flood a scientific impossibility? 

    (see here)

    7:  Are parts of the Genesis story dependent on the epic of Gilgamesh?

    8:  Could Abraham have been from Ur of the Chaldees?

    9:  Could Isaac have met a king of the Philistines at Gerar?

    10:  Had camels been domesticated at the time of Abraham and Joseph?

    11:  How could circumcision set God's covenant with Abraham apart if all the other cultures were doing it, too?

    12:  Is the story of Moses a meaningful parallel with the story of Sargon?

    13:  Does the Bible give Moses' father-in-law three different names indicating different traditions?

    (see here)

    14:  Should we expect Moses' name to be Hebrew rather than Egyptian?

    15:  Does the uncertainty of the dating of Exodus matter to authenticity?

    16:  Is the Exodus historical?

    17:  Is the conquest of Canaan by Joshua historical?

    18:  Is the Hebrew monarchy historical?

    19:  Should we expect King David and King Solomon's empires to be vast (in contradiction to the archeological evidence)?

    20:  What's wrong with talking snakes and talking donkeys?

    (Covered previously here.)

    21:  Does the virgin birth of Jesus parallel other pagan stories?

    22:  Is Herod's massacre of the infants in the gospel of Matthew a fiction?

    23:  Should it have been God's intention to avoid infant massacres? 

    24:  Can the nativity of Jesus be discounted because it is the aggadic midrash genre?

    25:  Does Matthew contradict Luke on the nativity of Jesus (this is the census of Quirinus issue)?

    (see Richard Carrier's extensive article here)

    26:  Is Matthew 2:14-15's use of Hosea 11:1-2 an example of a fake/unfulfilled prophecy?

    27:  Does Matthew misuse Isaiah 7:14?

    28:  Does Isaiah 19:5-7 get the prophecy wrong about the Nile river drying up?

    29:  Does Isaiah 17:1-2 get its prophecy wrong about Damascus ceasing to be a city?

    30:  Does Ezekiel 26:7-14 get its prophecy wrong about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Tyre?

    (Covered here, though I somewhat side with the apologists on this one.)

    31:  Does Ezekiel 29:8-12 get its prophecy wrong about Egypt becoming uninhabited?

    32:  Does Ezekiel 29:19-20 get its prophecy wrong about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt?

    33:  Does Jeremiah 36:30 contradict 2 Kings 24:6 about Jehoiakim, king of Judah, having a successor?

    (see here)

    34:  Did Paul expect the end of the world in his own lifetime?

    35:  Does the ecclesiology of 1 Corinthians contradict the ecclesiology of 1 Timothy and Titus?

    36:  Are many books (and portions of books) of the Bible pseudonymous?

    Continue reading

  • (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 5: The Cosmology of the Bible (part 5)

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important 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.


    Chapter 5, "The Cosmology of the Bible" by Ed Babinski (part 5 of 5):  

    I decided to go ahead and add another part to my review of chapter 5 just for the sake of The Infidel Delusion (TID). 

    In a post called, "Rock and roll," Christian reviewer, Steve Hays tells Babinski:

    You keep taking refuge in your tattered chapter on “Biblical Cosmology,” as if that’s a given. But, of course, I subjected your chapter to a sustained critique. That’s why you’re currently in full damage control mode. So you can’t keep retreating into your tattered chapter, as if that’s a given.

    A sustained critique, eh?  Interesting idea.  Maybe I should try that sometime.  Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer echoes the same sentiments in the comments of two posts, "Newton's bucket" and "Borrowed Cosmology." 

    Anyway, in TID, Engwer made 12 basic points, Hays made 21, and Christian reviewer, Paul Manata made 2.  That's 35 points with many sub points on various items (especially when you splice in the three Appendixes aimed at Babinski).  There are also 28 posts (so far, as of November 2010) at Triablogue elaborating, reiterating, defending, and/or interacting with Babinski.  Talking points from those have been spliced in where I thought they were the most relevant.  All told there are over 100 objections here to Babinski's chapter that I've responded to.  The table of contents below can be used to quickly skim the entire interaction and see what the approaches basically amount to (and clicked on for detail).  I don't think I've missed anything significant.

    Engwer circulates and elaborates on many of the typical ambiguity issues addressed in part 1 of my series.  It is about as bottom of the barrel as it gets though when apologists are forced in their worst case scenario to defend a model of inerrancy where the Bible authors believe x, but somehow don't mean x when they write x in documents that would later become the Bible (and apparently God doesn't mean it either).   In the comments of a post called, "Newton's bucket," Engwer says:

    In a discussion with WAR_ON_ERROR earlier this year, I said that I think the cosmological argument against the Bible has some merit. It is significant that so many false cosmological views and cosmological ignorance existed in the past, that the Biblical authors sometimes made comments that could be taken as false cosmological claims, etc. But I don't think the argument is significant enough to refute Christianity or Biblical inerrancy on its own. It can strengthen a cumulative case, but I don't think it's sufficient by itself. And I think the larger context favors inerrancy rather than errancy.

    It seems that Engwer admits that Babinski's contribution to TCD was basically a success.  I have to agree with Babinski though that in order to claim that inerrancy hasn't been refuted, one has to take what I call  the "Mario-toe" position [see image >>>].  However even a cumulative case that doesn't establish the skeptical conclusion with 100% certainty so there's no real reason to defer to that possibility that would be just as equally "rejectable" with those standards (picture lots of Marios all standing on their one pixel tippy-toes). 

    It may be important to note where Hays is coming from.  In "This Joyful Eastertide," which is a book length response to the skeptical anthology, "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave," Hays explains:

    The closest thing we can ever get to a direct description of the way things are is a description supplied by the Creator of the world.

    It seems from Hays' perspective he has a lot of ideology on the line.  The case in Babinski's chapter has the potential to either turn Hays into a flat-earther or refute his religion altogether:

    Certainty is the yardstick of probability.  And revelation supplies the yardstick.  The explanatory power of God’s word is what makes explanation possible. Facts without values are literally meaningless. Only the Creator of the world is in a position to interpret the world. If there is an omniscient mind, and if that omniscient mind has revealed to us a finite, but interpreted body of knowledge about the way things are, then we know as much as we need to know.

    And:

    If Scripture claims to be wholly true, but is only partly true, then the claim is wholly false.

    It's no wonder he's so irrationally defensive on this issue.  Tucked away in the Appendixes of TID Hays admits:

    ...cosmology and prehistory is the area that Christian apologists find difficult to defend.

    Hays is being remarkably candid here and that's surprising coming from him.  To summarize how he did, Hays starts off on the wrong note by misrepresenting and ignoring Babinski's main argument.  Instead of showing us why we should ignore or consistently reinterpret a preponderance of evidence pointing to the conclusion the Bible embraces false cosmology, Hays spends an unnecessary amount of time trying to show that it was possible without the means of modern science to discover more accurate facts about cosmology.  He does this despite the relevancy (and that no skeptic was saying otherwise), since human authors are not supposed to be the ones bringing inerrant content to the Bible.  Another significant theme of his critique is the idea that if certain primitive cosmological ideas can be shown not to entirely make sense, that no one would have believed in them as though everyone always rejects ideas that don't entirely make sense.  Also, if any primitive cosmology rhetoric can be associated with some other concept (like temple imagery, ANE mortuary customs, mystical experiences, etc.), that concept (in Hays' mind at least) gets full credit and it somehow always negates a belief in the primitive ideas as applied to reality.  Hays nitpicks many random points against the general trend of the Biblical evidence, and attempts haplessly to sabotage the use of an appeal to a scholarly majority that presumably is against his perspective.  There are a few instances where Hays defers to various other books with arguments he does not articulate (here, here, here, and here) and I will not be addressing those unless someone wants to send me copies of those books.  Ultimately, Hays can be found to concede the basic points and is just making a special exemption for the Bible apart from it actually earning it on this particular issue. 

    Manata takes some lame shots at Babinski and contributes very little to the discussion. 

    There are a few loose ends which probably won't have much effect on the overall exchange here that can be tied up later.  I'm sure I've gotten some things wrong here and hopefully some knowledgeable folk will take the time to correct me and improve the general quality of the response (and I mean you, Ed!).  [note:  Thanks Ed for the updates!]

    Table of Contents:

    I respond to Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer:
     
    1.  Isn't the Bible ambiguous?
    Sometimes...

    2.  Couldn't the Bible authors have had no position on cosmology?

    They sure did mention it a lot...

    Might the writers of the Bible have known they were ignorant of cosmology?

    It is much more likely they did not know that they did not know and accepted an incorrect baseline of ignorance based on popular cultural beliefs.

    Are people who struggle to describe things beyond their area of expertise wrong?

    There can be a kernel of truth to what they say, but they are still wrong to some degree.

    Should we believe that every author of the Bible had a fully developed view of cosmology?

    No, but even the most basic incorrect ideas are still wrong.

    How likely was it that none of the authors of the Bible believed in any of their primitive cosmological imagery?

    Engwer asks the question no Christian defending inerrancy should ask. 

    Didn't some church fathers admit to their own ignorance on cosmology?

    Yeah, they did, but this ironically demonstrates proof of concept for setting the boundaries of their ignorance incorrectly.

    Might one be able to argue that the authors of the Bible were likely to be more educated and discerning of their own ignorance?

    Good luck.

    Couldn't a writer of the Bible believe a false cosmology, but not mean it when they wrote Scripture?

    Even if we are allowing for other evidence of inspiration as Engwer would like, this is some serious stretching of credibility.


    3.  Couldn't the Bible rhetoric be non-literal?

    Yeah...some of it.

    If other Christian literature hardly even comments on cosmology, why should we expect the Bible to?

    The Bible mentions it a lot, hence the comparison seems meaningless.

    Should the Bible try to impress us with correct cosmology?

    Perhaps it doesn't have to excel in every possible way, but if it is going to bother to go there at all, it wouldn't hurt to at least make it a non-issue.

    Isn't the Bible only trying to get the job done?

    One has to significantly lower reasonable expectations to consider the Bible to have gotten the job "done."

    4.  Aren't the Bible's mixed-metaphors proof that they couldn't have meant things literally?

    The range of imagery still leaves various errant conceptual artifacts.

    Is the earth propped up on pillars or suspended on nothing?
    Engwer does not discuss what Babinski says about the "suspends the earth on nothing" verse.  He should.

    Should we think the ancient Jews thought there were really doors at the boundaries of the seas?

    I don't see why not. 

    Is Job 38:8 referring to an actual womb?

    Nothing wrong with a little poetry on top of some bad cosmology.

    The idiom, "four corners" can be found to refer to four directions and pancakes are quite round.
    Not really, since pictures of it certainly aren't impossible to draw.

    Engwer doesn't have much of a case with his creative incredulity.

    7.  Weren't there people who believed in a spherical earth even in ancient times?

    If they weren't anywhere near a majority, I don't see how this matters.

    By this time it seems bad precedents have been set and followed by later generations of Jews/Christians who contributed to the Bible so it doesn't really matter.

    I respond to Hays: Don't the critical questions of the pagan critics of Augustine and St. Basil prove that the ancients were quite capable of taking false cosmological ideas to task?
    There are a lot of ironies here that backfire since both Augustine and Basil are defending primitive ideas they've lifted from the Bible against their more observant pagan counterparts.

    9.  If critics date the book of Genesis late, then they have to deal with the evidence that more and more ancient people were figuring out the correct shape of the earth, don't they?

    The evidence suggests that the Hebrews in particular were not ahead of the game in terms of science and cosmology and at best, this likely just causes other problems for inerrancy if an apologist is actually conceding the late dates.

    If skeptics are so willing to accuse the Bible authors of borrowing pagan and Gentile ideas on other issues, why won't they accuse them of borrowing correct ideas on cosmology?

    They demonstrate that by pointing out actual commonalities not present on the cosmology issue.

    What would keep the authors of the Bible from accepting convincing Greek and Roman ideas on cosmology?

    OT prooftexts (like many of the ones Babinski appeals to) to the contrary is probably a strong candidate.

    10.  Didn't early Christians hold a variety of views on cosmology?

    Since when does the range of early Christian views impact what the canonical books are supposed to say?

    If "four corners" refers to "four nations" in Revelations 7:1 then how can Babinski use it as evidence of belief in a flat earth?
    The four angels are standing on something flat regardless.

    Doesn't Basil of Caesarea tell us that doubts were raising in general about the legitimacy of ancient cosmological views?

    No doubt that's the kind of reason why eventually false ideas were overturned, but doesn't do much against the case in Babinski's chapter.

    Shouldn't we be cautious of Babinski's conclusion given the evidence given the diverse range of views in the NT culture at large?

    We should also be cautious of being implausibly agnostic on the issue.
     

    12.  Shouldn't the Bible be given the benefit of the doubt on this issue if there is good evidence for its inspiration and inerrancy on other issues?

    Inerrant documents should be inerrant and the other debates on equally dubious issues like OT prophecy and the resurrection of Jesus will have to wait.
     

    I respond to Christian reviewer, Steve Hays:

    Christian reviewer, Randal Rauser vs. Hays:  In what way is Babinski getting Biblical hermeneutics wrong?
    Both Christian reviewers appear to accuse Babinski of mutually exclusive versions of hermeneutical ineptitude. 

    I respond to Hays: 

    1.  Is it reasonable to assume that the ancients didn't understand cosmology like we do today?
     Hays admits this is possibly the case for many ancient people, yet wants to make a special case for inspired authors who weren't saying anything different than anyone else.

    Did the difficulties of the ancient world tend to weed out the dummies?
    Hays really does appear to defend a thesis where he believes many ancient people were really on the ball with cosmology even though he only defends this in hypothetical terms based on what makes sense to him.

     Hays takes up this line of argument to avoid the preponderance of evidence and instead contradict a straw man claim that says the ancients had no possible means of discerning some correct cosmology.

    Which is more unbelievable:  A flat earth or a spherical one?

    This depends on where you are coming from and Hays seems to want to show that no one could have ever believed in a flat earth.

    Did everyone know a competent sailor?

    Probably not.

    3.  Are the sun, moon, and stars supposed to be embedded in the firmament?
    Yes, and that doesn't stop embedded things from moving like lights on a track.

    Why should there be seasonal variations in their perceived position if the earth were flat?

    God controls things, not physics.

    Even if they had no concept of any kind of water cycle (or a pump that put it back up in the storehouses above the firmament), that wouldn't mean they didn't believe in it.
    The brute appearances would likely set the precedents, not the implications that could simply be left mysterious.

    Apparently Hays has never been to Sea World.

    With God (or just a little imagination), all things are possible. 

    Um...yeah.

    6.  Isn't the earth only immovable in reference to earthquakes?
    We know what Steve Hays thinks, but not what the Bible authors thought from his rebuttal.

    What happens on a flat earth when earthquakes happen?

    Hays has some really bizarre ideas on this in order to attempt to show that no one could have believed in a flat earth.

    Did the ancient Jews understand the concept of relative celestial motion?

    Even if they did, there's no reason to think they applied it to the earth and cosmology.

    7.  Wasn't Joshua's request to God to hold the sun still just based on earth bound appearances?
    Hays ignores that this was prefaced by Babinski with a verse that is from God's God-bound perspective. 

    8.  Didn't ancient travelers ever notice that the world extends beyond what you can see from any particular hilltop or mountaintop?
    I'm sure they did, but how would we know that the author of Matthew was one of them? 

    Somewhat for Luke, but that doesn't change what Matthew himself probably meant.

    9.   Did Jesus ascend into heaven high up enough to imply he was aiming for the firmament?

    Hays references other literature, but doesn't explain himself very well.

    Hays needs to explain why this matters.

    10.  Aren't biblical depictions of the netherworld simply modeled on ANE mortuary customs and didn't imply any ontology?

    Why can't it be both?

    Were ancient Jews living in a metaphorical daze?
    Hays continually denies it, but never seems to apply the implications to his own view.


    11.  Couldn't Daniel's world-tree just seem like it was visible to the ends of the earth?

    If Daniel knew that the world was a sphere, he wouldn't have been fooled by appearances.

    12. Does Babinski disregard scholarly arguments against the literary dependence of Gen 1 on the Enuma Elish?

    Maybe. 

    That's a great question that doesn't need an answer, but I'm going to say, "sugar and spice and everything nice."

    13. Why can't the Bible use dead metaphors?

    In context, they seem quite alive.

    Maybe, but that doesn't mean the hyperbole starts where Christian apologists want it to.

    When the Bible says that everyone will "see" Jesus when he returns, couldn't it just mean that they know he's there?
    Who knows, but at face value and in context of many other such indications, it probably means the authors believed the earth was flat.
     
    Doesn't mean the flat earth believing author didn't mean it anyway.
    What if Jesus hovered "in place" for 24 hours, then wouldn't everyone be able to see?
    He might actually have to zigzag quite a bit to cover everyone or perhaps he could just get on CNN or do an Oprah interview. 

    14.  Isn't the New Jerusalem imagery all symbolic?

    Real buildings can have dimensions with symbolic meanings, too, you know.

    Are the contributors to TCD hypocrites for seeing so much symbolism in the gospels, but not seeing enough in regards to Biblical cosmology?

    Hays ignores the actual arguments presented in either case in order to make his comparison work.

    15.  Can't God create things like stars that then have self perpetuating cycles?

    Sure, why not.

    16.  Isn't the meaning of the Hebrew word, "raqia" disputed in the scholarly literature?

    Maybe, but one wonders if it is just the inerrantists who are disputing this.

    Can't "raqia" have a figurative meaning and not necessarily mean that the firmament is a solid dome?
    Probably not.

    Can't the use of "raqia" indicate the Bible authors were figuratively depicting the world as a cosmic temple?

    It can also indicate they thought the sky was hard.

    Wouldn't Revelation 6:13 mean the writer thought the cosmos was a giant fig tree?

    It uses the language of a simile, which isn't the case for the vast majority of texts that have been referenced to show false cosmology in the Bible.

    17.  Don't parts of Babinski's chapter disagree with some of the scholars that he cites on other issues?

    If Hays wants to say that his views are more dominant in the scholarly literature at large, so be it (if he can show it), but if he wants to complain that Babinski doesn't agree with everything every scholar he cites argues for, that's petty.

    18.  Does Babinski mishandle the mythopoetic passages in Scripture?

    Not that I can tell, but I'd have to look into this more deeply when I have time.

    19.  Isn't Paul Seely wrong about stuff?

    Seely persuasively argues from the evidence rather than from convenient hypothetical premises that suit inerrancy.

    Hays just says no, but Seely seems to say yes and gives examples.

    Not necessarily, but it sure doesn't seem to disagree with them.

    Isn't the Bible often intentionally counter-cultural?
    That may be the case, but it helps to actually rebel when you are rebelling.

    Isn't apologetics allowed to make a distinction between historical and cosmological statements and religious ones?
    In other words, the Bible is allowed to get what we can verify wrong.

    Can the case against the Bible's inerrancy on this issue be made despite the pitfalls presented by apologists?

    I don't see why the case in Babinski's chapter doesn't qualify.

    If there is any variation of ancient cosmological beliefs does that mean Seely's case is nullified?

    Hays continues with straw man misrepresentations.

    Are there only scientifically naive statements in the Bible?

    Why not theological ones as well?

    Didn't the authors of the Bible combine their theological and cosmological assumptions?

    Yes, and that appears to backfire on Hays' case since that adds to the probability that the theologians believed they knew what they were talking about in an inspirational way.

    Can Seely's argument from the surrounding cultures be weakened?

    Hypothetically, yes, but the counter examples Hays provides reinforce Seely's case.

    What about the fresh water and salt water contradiction of an Apsu and Tiamut based cosmology?

    Yet again, it seems Hays assumes all ancient people thought things through or couldn't have had their own excuses for getting around the problems.

    Did Seely admit most primitive people didn't think there was water above the sky?

    I can't find the quote Hays alludes to.

    Was the aim of Enuma Elish cosmology or background info for Marduk's temple?

    Yet again, why can't it be both?

    Does Psalm 24:2 and 136:6 establish the relationship between the land and the waters using the meaning of "upon" or "above"?

    I'm not sure what the difference would be with the alternate meaning.

    Are the waters above the firmament merely a way to describe metaphorical judgment?

    Hays, once again, tries to lamely associate away all actual belief in every single cosmological statement in the Bible.

    Is the firmament not solid if there are spaces above and below it?

    Um...no.

    20.  Is Babinski right to label Peter Enns & Denis Lamoureux as "Evangelicals" if they deny the inerrancy of the Bible?

    Who cares?

    Aren't secondary sources not bound by the original intent of primary sources?

    True, but there's no evidence I know of that the Bible authors departed from the general intentions of primitive cosmological statements found in other surrounding cultures.

    Does Babinski apply scholarly double standards with his citations and arguments?

    Hays appears to ignore the qualifications of some of Babinski's scholars in a vain attempt to kick up some academic and political dust.

    Did Babinski misrepresent Gregory Beale and John Oswalt views on whether the Bible's primitive cosmology challenges inerrancy?

    Even what Hays quotes from their emails shows that Babinski is using a different standard of inerrancy than Hays has them reacting to.

    Was ANE cosmography pretty fluid on the number of cosmic "tiers?"

    Yeah, and Hays is the only one that thinks this is a big deal.

    Are Lamoureux's criticisms of Beale's case for temple symbolism too literal?

    Probably, but Beale's case doesn't negate belief in the primitive cosmology so it doesn't matter.


    Did the authors of the Bible believe in absolutely every literal appearance?

    Surely not, but why does this ridiculous extreme allow Hays to completely dismiss the idea of appearance-based beliefs in the Bible?

    Didn't the authors of the Bible see that rain clearly came from clouds?

    Even Hays' proof texts appear to demonstrate a separation of origins between water from clouds and water from above the firmament.

    Why would the ancients believe in waters above the firmament that they could not see?

    There's a mix of appearance-based beliefs as well as logical deductions from their primitive appearance-based beliefs.

    If the firmament was transparent, then there'd be no reason for them to be below the dome rather than above, right?

    Regardless, that's just not where they put the luminaries and their light would have a much easier time coming from under the firmament rather than traveling through God's house, a store house of water, as well as some thick firmament that holds all that up.

    This doesn't deal with the verses that portray people under the earth and the spiritual implications of Jesus coming to see them after his death or resurrection, unless Hays thinks the Bible is referring to some very special coal miners or something.

    Aren't the Biblical stories of ascents and descents visionary out-of-body experiences and do not refer to actual geography?

    There's ambiguity, but there's no reason to assume absolutely no conceptual overlap between the visions and the beliefs.

    Does the book of Psalms greatly vary on its use of near and far away metaphors in relation to God's proximity?

    Hays needs to get specific, because I already refuted a similar point of J. P. Holding's.

    Does NASA believe in a three tiered cosmos when they use the term "up?" 

    Obviously not, and we know this from context.

    Should we think that Neil Gaiman believes in a two tier London cosmos based on his novel Neverwhere?

    Obviously not, and we know this from context.

    Mostly Hays blamed me for calling him out on his straw man attacks and the conversations degraded into him making lots of spurious insults. 
    I respond to Christian reviewer, Paul Manata:
     
    1.  Is Babinski hypocritical for using poetic language to describe the earth in his own chapter?
     When did Babinski ever say, "All poetry should always be taken literally"?

    2.  Shouldn't we give the authors of the Bible some credit for agreeing with some modern Christian theistic philosophy?

     Manata completely ignores the substance of Babinski's case and finds a trivial point of agreement between himself and ancient theologians as though that grants them credit on anything else. 

    Outro:  TID's collective response to Babinski's chapter fails by any reasonable standard and when every logical fallacy and weak argument is said and done the Triabloggers basically admit it. 

    Continue reading

  • (book review) "The Christian Delusion" - Ch. 5: The Cosmology of the Bible (part 2)

    Intro: 

    This series is an atheist's review of an important 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.


    Chapter 5, "The Cosmology of the Bible" by Ed Babinski (part 2 of 5): 

    I have created a study guide and reference all of Babinski's links: 

    A)  For my own information, understanding, and convenience. 

    B)  To be a good student of the chapter by actually reading the verses referenced rather than taking them for granted. 

    C)  To double check Babinski's strong positive case against known apologetic strategies for circumvention

    D)  To enable readers to more easily do the same (A-C).  If you are newly reading through TCD, it would be really handy to have this post right there so you could click on the references as you go along, wouldn't it?  I'd like to think so. 

    E)  For any reader to skip everything all together and just skim through the long list of verses without skeptical or apologetic interpretation.  I think there's an obvious winner just at face value.

    It should be noted up front that it is a mistake to try to win every single battle here, at least in an absolute sense.  A more sensible reader would do their best, verse by verse, to allow for various levels of uncertainty.  I haven't counted, but let's say there are a hundred relevant verses here.  And on the vast majority of them, even if we can't be absolutely certain the author believed in what he was saying, it may turn out there are strong indications.  What business do we have going with a weaker explanation in every case?  There are certainly problems of ambiguity to deal with.  Despite the apologetic list of excuses that could defend virtually any ancient document from these kinds of false cosmological beliefs, the authors are mixing in poetry, metaphor, and possibly referring to things in anachronistic ways uncritically.  There are also at least 66 documents in the Protestant Bible with lots of authors who may well have their own perspectives, cosmological convictions (or lack thereof), and vantage points in history.  We don't necessarily know when exactly any of that begins or ends and so our claims need to be careful and provisional.  And that's also why looking at the overall case is so important rather than over-focusing on vaguely possible interpretations here and there. 

    Note, I have yet to update this with responses from The Infidel Delusion, but I will be sure and do that when I find time.

    Outro:  My Rating:  5 out of 5 stars

    Babinski has a pretty solid case here that is worth taking seriously.

    Continue reading