The Epic Plan of Salvation: The Sequel

I don't see why he can't just jump across...

A while back I made a quite sarcastic post lambasting the Epic Plan of Salvation found in the Bible. While I do think it covered a broad range of important points, I'd like to drill down a little deeper and focus on one particular issue: the play between faith/belief and knowledge/understanding. This post will be more geared toward already-believing Christians but will generally be a critique of the theology in general for those who don't fully understand how it works.

Why is that chair empty anyway?

All too often, hardworking Americans are sleeping soundly on a Saturday morning, only to be rudely awakened by two men at their front door carrying Bibles. When the door is opened, what will be the first thing to come out of the evangelists' mouths? Most likely, "Have you accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?" According to most Christians that I am aware of, the doctrine of salvation is the most important bit of theology from the Bible. Everything else pales in comparison to the question, "Are you saved?" But what do they mean by this question? There are many biblical verses with similar (but not always identical) answers. It generally goes like this:

Realize you are a sinner. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

Understand that you are condemned to death. "For the wages [payment] of sin is [eternal] death [in Hell]." (Romans 6:23)

In order to avoid this death, you must "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." (Acts 16:31) "[Jesus is] the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father [gets into heaven] except through [him]. (John 14:6)

So he can't jump across the gap but he's supposed to step
over the cross hump? I say give the man a pole and let him
try his hand at vaulting.

Some explain this as the "ABCs" of salvation: Admit that you are a sinner, Believe in Jesus, and Confess that Jesus is your Lord. The reasons for believing that any of the above verses are actually true are sort of assumed in the bible. Theologically, every single person that has ever lived has sinned and deserves to be tortured in hell forever as their just punishment. (No explanation for this necessary - it's just true according to the bible.) You must believe that Jesus took your punishment on the cross and accepting his sacrifice in your place is the only way to avoid hell and receive eternal life. Once you have done this, you are a True Christian™.

See anything missing from the above paragraph? If you were thinking "good deeds" or "a person's heart or attitude" you were right! (Christians are usually very proud of this. They believe it sets them apart from all other religions.) According to the Bible, it's not about what you've done, only what you believe. Many of you may find this as perplexing as I do - that there is a god who wants to forgive you but can only do so if you believe in this particular religion when it says that God became man and lived a perfect life and sacrificed himself to himself to appease himself for the wrong things that human beings have done to other human beings. Why wouldn't God just forgive everyone, or at least everyone who tried to be a good person? Because that's not how it works. You have to believe these very specific things. Which is usually fine and dandy for those who have grown up in Christian households because they are very aware of how this salvation thing works.

But what about those who have never heard before? What about American Indians who lived long before Columbus came and Catholicism could have spread? They would have had no clue what the right thing to believe was, which means there was no way to to believe in Jesus, which is the only way into heaven. Certainly I am not the first person to bring up this kink in the otherwise simple plan of salvation. Nonetheless, the bible seems to be very clear on the rules and therefore the ignorant seem to be doomed. How do Christians explain this troubling problem?

There are two camps. One takes the position that "Because Jesus is the only way, then by definition any person ignorant of the Scripture must be destined to Hell upon death." This is certainly harsh and therefore does not seem to enjoy support from the majority of the Christian crowd. If it were true, then we can easily see how bad a plan of salvation this is, since the vast majority of people who ever lived probably wouldn't know the exact right thing to believe unless a Christian explained it to them. These billions of people would certainly find themselves surprised to appear in the eternal lake of fire upon their death, especially if they were what we would consider good and kind people. Any god using this method of punishment would immediately be condemned as immoral, cruel, and sadistic by an honest, objective observer.

The other camp (and I make no attempt to argue which viewpoint is the "right" one) believes that in the absence of Scriptural understanding, God will judge peoples' hearts and how they dealt with the general revelation that was provided to them. By "general revelation," I mean any evidence that points to the existence of a god that can be observed by simply viewing nature. (Many Christians - and indeed the Bible itself - argue that we can deduce the fact that god exists by the fact that nature exists [Romans 1:20]. While I disagree with this notion, that's an argument for another day.) I understand this to mean that God will judge these peoples' hearts and if they were "good" people according to what they understood about morality, then they can be allowed access into heaven.

If the second viewpoint is true, then a simple question must be asked: Why use the belief based system for the non-ignorant at all? If it is possible to avoid punishment based on one's actions, then why introduce belief into the equation at all? That just makes it more likely that people will end up damned. If a good person who otherwise would have made it into heaven because of their Scriptural ignorance hears the Gospel, they will immediately enter a spiritual state of doomed-until-further-notice. What if they died before they decided to accept? This reminds me of a portion of a dialogue between a missionary and an Eskimo.

Eskimo: “If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?”

Missionary: “Not if you did not know.”

Eskimo: “Then why did you tell me?”

Up until now in this discussion, I have generally assumed that people would generally accept the Gospel if they had heard of it and understood it. This leaves out one major portion of the population, however: those from other religions and atheists. It is generally the case that people brought up in a certain religion will tend to stay with that religion even when approached by missionaries from other religions. But what about my case? Specifically, I am someone who grew up with Christianity and believed it up until around 20 years old, and now rejects it as a myth akin to any other religion that has died out. I am fully aware of what the requirements are for salvation according to the Bible, but I reject the truth of the bible out of honesty and education. "Why is this a problem?" you may ask.

Let's assume for the moment that I am both justified in my non-belief and that the Bible is true insofar as it speaks about salvation. I find no reason to believe that Jesus died on the cross and rose again due to lack of historical evidence, but I try to be a good person all the same. There is no reason, theologically, that I should fall under the salvation plan (viewpoint two) of those who have not heard, so I would inescapably be destined to hell. Because I am a good person? No - for as the bible states, even one sin is enough to condemn you to hell forever, no matter at what age that sin was. (Another popular theology is "Original Sin" which basically states that you would still go to hell even if you lived a perfect life, because you inherited the "sin nature" from Adam. Again, not worth discussing in detail but it is relevant in the case that I wanted to somehow argue that I've never done anything wrong, ever.) I would be condemned simply for not believing what I know is not true. This is a plan of salvation that does not factor in what you've done or what you know, it is simply a matter of belief. It rewards blind faith from those who could not possibly know if the biblical stories are true (such as indigenous tribes in Africa) over justified rejection in the case of those who have good reasons not to believe.

This makes sense to me in a religious context, since religions need people to follow regardless of truth. What better way to gain followers than the threat of an eternal fiery torture in hell, when the only thing one must do to be saved is believe the right thing and ultimately assimilate into that religion? What doesn't make sense is how a good, loving, and forgiving god could ever come up with a salvation plan like this. Ignoring the fact that God must have created hell and the rules that condemn everyone to it initially, only a cruel god would reward ignorance over knowledge and faith over justified belief.

The Christian response to this is often either A) You haven't done enough research or you would believe, or B) You are just suppressing (my) god's truth so that you can continue your life of sin. I need only to respond to each of those criticisms by saying that A) I have done more honest research than most Christians I know concerning all kinds of biblical topics, and B) If I really believed that the bible was true and, by extension, that I would be condemned to hell, why would I pretend to disbelieve just so that I could enjoy a short-lived life? Why would I think that any omniscient god couldn't see past my pretending? The fact is that I have no reason to think that the bible is true in any non-trivial way and therefore I have no reason to ask forgiveness from a Jesus I don't think exists. (An aside: why does Jesus want us to ask him for forgiveness instead of us asking forgiveness from those we've wronged? Why are we apologizing to Jesus at all? We haven't harmed him in any way.)

If any Christians are willing to respond, what are your explanations for a plan of salvation that doesn't involve God just forgiving everyone and giving each person a happy afterlife where no one will be wronged again? Why does God reward blind faith over honest research? And what are your opinions on how ignorant non-believers will be handled?

Were you there?

The Flammarion engraving

I was going to write a completely original blog post this time, free of references to Answers in Genesis and the likes, but this one is just too easy. It is entertaining sometimes to see how many mental hoops Christians have to go through to justify their strongly-held convictions. Let's see what we're dealing with today.

When teaching children, we tell them they should politely ask the question “Were you there?” when talking to someone who believes in millions of years and molecules-to-man evolution.

The first thing that creationists must realize is that evolution is not something that solely happened in the past. We still see all kinds of evolution - even drastic changes within our own lifetimes - and to approach the subject this way is just setting yourself up for failure.

If someone replies by asking the same question back, we say, “No we weren’t there, but we know Someone who was there, Someone who cannot lie, who knows everything, and has always existed. And this One has revealed to us what happened in the past in His history book called the Bible. Are you interested in reading God’s history book to find out what the Word of One who was there tells us about the true history of the world?”

I'm not interested, but thanks for the offer. I've read the book and I don't find its sections pertaining to science and history trustworthy enough to consider authoritative. Consider the image above - this is the image of the world as the people who lived at the time of the Genesis story saw it. The idea back then was that there were multiple layers to the heavens (the first of which being crawled under by the man). This layer was called the firmament - it was like a curtain, it held up the stars, and had windows so that the sun and moon could travel through it and so that rain could fall upon the earth. We can see this view expressed in the Bible in such passages as Genesis 1:6-8 and Isaiah 40:22. This is just one of the many ways that this supposed holy book disagrees with well-established modern science.

It's hard to argue this against Christians, however, because many of them do hold the view that their god is omniscient and cannot lie. It's very odd to me to try to imagine how a person can justify the idea that a person or being both cannot be wrong and would never lie. I mean, how could you ever know? If I claimed that I was infallible, it would only take me being wrong one time before you could be totally convinced that I was a liar. With the Christian god, however, there's a different standard. When science disagrees with what their thousands-year old book says, their book takes precedence. If it said that some people can telepathically communicate with rocks, there would be many Christians who would profess to be able to do so. If it said that putting striped sticks in front of your cattle would make them bear striped offspring, they'd be trying to add that to our science textbooks. If it said we should be cutting parts of little boys' penises off, we'd probably be doing that too. Actually, wait, those last two actually are in the Bible. My bad.

In a nutshell, we have a much better reason to believe what modern science says about our world than the bible for a few reasons. Mainly, because science requires evidence and explanations and creationism just requires faith. Christians have the right to believe that Yahweh created everything in 7 days just like I have the right to believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn created this world just five minutes ago and implanted our brain with the memories of everything past that time. It doesn't mean that either of our beliefs would be valid. The fact that AiG would appeal to an old book to verify their story instead of everything we already know about the universe automatically forfeits any rights they have to say that their view of history has any academic merit.

And that's why you always use facts.

Some Common Misconceptions About Atheists

Because I often have conversations with Christians who either explicitly or implicitly accuse me of believing something or holding some position that I don't, I'd like to say a few brief words. I mean, the words themselves will be brief. I make no claims about the length of my blog post itself. (Though if I can legitimately work pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis into a relevant paragraph, I probably deserve to violate my previous statements.)

1. "Atheists have no morals"

I hear this the most often so it gets the first spot. So I feel like I've definitely already addressed this in previous posts, but I'll reiterate the major point here. I can't speak for all atheists, but the majority of them, like myself, still agree that the concepts of right and wrong are important and relevant without the concept of a god. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" was around long before Jesus and will continue to be applicable long into the foreseeable future. We humans are empathetic creatures and we know what it feels like for others to be hurt, sad, sick, happy, and healthy. We realize that we have largely the same goals and that none of us can be the best we can be without other people in our lives. I find murder morally wrong because I value human life and the right to a person to his or her own. I find stealing to be wrong because I value ownership and the right of a person to be secure in his home and property. And I don't find homosexuality wrong because it involves two consentual people and doesn't hurt anyone outside the relationship in any kind meaningful way (outside the "I'm offended!" crowd).

2. "It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a <religion>ist"

Atheism is really a lack of faith in a god or gods. I don't have faith that Yahweh doesn't exist any more than you have faith that Zeus doesn't. Our explanations of the world around us work perfectly well without the need to invoke a supernatural deity pulling the strings of the universe behind our backs. They also don't require beliefs in demonstrably false claims such as "the universe is <6000 years old" and "all modern languages were created at the tower of Babel." This claim is most likely just an attempt to make it seem like the statements "my god exists" and "your god doesn't exist" are on equal footing because they both require faith. Sorry, but to posit the existence of a deity, you need evidence. I don't need to provide you evidence of the non-existence of leprechauns to justify my non-belief; you must show me why they do. (See: null hypothesis)

3. "If you would just read the Bible/Koran, you would know the truth."

Many of us have read these books and find them to be disturbingly void of morals and evidence for their extraordinary claims. I've heard it said by some that "the quickest way to atheism is to read a bible." While I wouldn't say it leads to atheism itself, it is true that if one starts from the beginning and critically reads with an open mind, there's a slim chance that they'll suddenly convert. It would probably lead them to the opposite conclusion: that their god is mentally challenged, did a particularly poor job of planning ahead, or is losing a bet and needs to step up his game. In any case, I have like five physical bibles laying around and three more electronic searchable ones and I'm not a Christian.

4. "Atheists are angry at God"

This would mean that we actually believe in him but just don't like the guy. Many of us dislike the character portrayed in the bible but realize we don't actually hate a real thing. Would you accuse someone who gets angry at Darth Vader while watching Star Wars of actually being angry at a real Vader? Please.

5. "Atheists worship the devil"

Um, no. The devil doesn't exist either. Most satanists don't even worship the devil. Although to be fair, he does seem like a nicer guy than Yahweh.

6. "Some tyrannical dictators in the past were atheists and therefore you're both bad people."

Depends who you're talking about. While it's true that some genocidal maniacs were atheists, many were also religious. Even Hitler. I mean, take a look at this quote:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

I'm not saying he was a "true Christian" (often as that phrase is thrown around), but combining this with other quotes, it's pretty clear that he believed in some concept of a god. And I can condone his actions no more as a theist than atheist. However, it would be extremely difficult to say that the non-belief in god was the cause of their actions. And even if it was, it would have no bearing on whether a deity exists or whether any other atheist is immoral.

7. "Atheists think life is meaningless"

Imagine you walk up to a stand at a carnival and ask for an ice cream. It's the middle of July in Texas, 103° in the shade, and you've been walking around all day. The pudgy man behind the booth hands you your double-dip and tells you that this is the last ice cream cone in the world. Would your response be one of disgust, causing you to throw your cone on the ground and storm away? Or would you eat it all the more slowly, savoring every lick? My response is the latter in the context of my only life in this world. I only get one. Why waste it? That's why it is meaningful. No second chances or eternal life once I'm dead. I should make the most of what I have before it's over. Atheism does not inevitably lead one to nihilism, regardless of what your church leaders may have told you. I know plenty of non-believers and not a single person who thinks their life is fully devoid of meaning.

8. "Atheists claim that no god exists"

Close. We only lack a belief. Most atheists don't claim to know for certain that a god doesn't exist. We're just pretty sure he doesn't. (To be fair, some actually do take the hard-line position and are called "strong atheists," but I'm not one of them nor do they represent all of us.) Like the aforementioned leprechauns, I can't disprove their existence or any gods'. I am, however, justified in non-belief until positive evidence has been brought forth.

9. "Atheists wouldn't believe even if verifiable proof was shown to them."

Again, I can't speak for all atheists, but that's not true for me. I'm open to the idea that one could exist and I would publicly acknowledge it if the time ever came. That does not mean, however, that I would worship it. Any being that asks for or requires worship probably doesn't deserve it in the first place. I would judge that deity on its own merits, in the same way I judge other people. Probably more harshly if it is wiser or more knowledgeable than us.

10. "Atheists eat babies."

Aw, come on now, that's just wrong.

Contradictions in the Bible

I came across this graph of biblical contradictions as I was browsing the internets the other day and though this was interesting enough to share. It's an enormous image plotting a large number of Biblical contradictions (439) with multiple sources for each specific instance. It might not be the best reference in practicality, but it does look pretty cool. Cool enough to make a wall poster, perhaps? It was made by The Reason Project, created by Sam Harris and his wife, of whom I am big fans.

It's pretty astounding that there are still so many people who deny that there are any contradictions in the Bible at all - as if it were some perfectly consistent book that people have continuously tried to poke holes in but somehow never could. To anyone who has actually done research on it, they know the fundamentalist claim is a bunch of crap, but for people who don't know or would just rather believe otherwise, it's a relatively easy claim to make. You don't really have to know anything about what's in the bible or have fully read it, and in the event that a good, sound contradiction is proposed, it can usually be dismissed by a wave of the hand to the tone of, "you're taking it out of context," "you don't understand the full meaning of the passage," or, my favorite, "God works in mysterious ways."

I think the real answer is obvious - it's a collection of writings made by many different men over a long period of time. Most 120-minute long movies don't go without some kind of plot holes; why should we expect any differently from a 788,258 word mega-book? I doubt that the document I have linked above is even an exhaustive list, but it's certainly a good starting point and enough to chew on for those who may think that the bible is the infallible and inerrant word of an all-knowing god.

To be fair, I certainly haven't checked all of these myself (though I did look up a few I wasn't familiar with) and I grant that not all of these may even be contradictions. Some may simply be legitimate misunderstandings or translation issues. However, that begs the question: is a book so poorly written as to be interpreted differently by almost every Christian indicative of the work of an all-powerful god? If so, I think I could do him one better, and if not, why give him the omni-attributes in the first place? Something to think about.

The Epic Plan of Salvation

According to Christian theology, God is a perfectly holy, moral, just, forgiving, and loving God. Basically, omni-everything-good. He lives up in the perfect "universe" of heaven where everyone is always happy (except for one Satan person and about 1/3 of the angels). God was just so loving that he decided to make humans so that they could also experience the pleasure and joy that heaven brings. Well, that heaven-on-earth brings. (It's close. Or at least, it was. 'Til it became un-perfect.) Unfortunately, God hates it when people do things that are so not in his nature. Not even things like undisputed moral wrongs, but things that he just decides to be wrong. (Sorry, gay people.) He can't stand them so much that he won't allow anyone to be in his presence if they have but even the faintest hint of sin on them. (Sin being anything that God doesn't like. He's picky with his company that way.)

Unfortunately, because Adam and Eve got fooled by a really ingenious snake/Satan, we're all naturally sinners! (Yes, it's fair. Trust me.) Because of this, we can't be with God when we die because we've either all done wrong or are just inherently unworthy from birth. Due to the fact that God can't coexist with sin, nothing imperfect is allowed into heaven and in his presence. (Satan is the exception.) Naturally, it follows that all humans must go to hell and be tortured forever and ever, no matter how much or little flawed they may be or however good or bad they lived their lives. Yes, that means you.

BUT - God doesn't want you to suffer! It's true. Because he's a logical God, he did the best that he could to provide you a way out of your suffering. (A thoughtful guy, eh?) Dispel any notions you may have conjured up about what you might do if you were an all-knowing god in this situation, because Yahweh is going to blow your mind. Here it is: For the vast majority of humankind, men were bad. (All of them.) In order for them to be forgiven for their sins, they had to slaughter the most perfect of their cattle, sprinkle their freshly-squeezed blood upon the altar, and burn the body as a pleasing aroma to the Lord. (I know, it makes so much sense!) However, God, being the ultimate Planner that he is, knew that this wouldn't work forever. (Well, he originally thought it would but then came up with an even BETTER idea!) Because God is unchanging (...mostly), he couldn't just outright modify his requirements for forgiveness. (That would just be silly.) So he did the next best thing - find a loophole. Because he needed to nip sacrifices in the bud once and for all, he decided to make a physical copy of himself. (Starting to make sense?)

He would send himself down to earth to live a normal human life (minus all of that nasty sinning and inherited sinful nature). He'd show that it is in fact possible to live a perfect life while being mortal - proving that he was actually God and that we don't live up to his standards. (Whether it's easy to be sinless if you're the definition of non-sin is still up for grabs.) But get this: instead of wimping out and just forgiving everybody instantaneously, he decides to show how much he loves us. (And get around those pesky laws.) What's the loophole, you ask? Well, God requires a perfect sacrifice, but one animal can only pay the price for one (or a few) sins (but not all of them) but Jesus (being God) (and human) in his eternal nature could pay the price for ALL of our sins! Hallelujah!

God brutally whipped and beat his own son (who was actually him) beyond human recognition and killed him in a most gruesome manner to appease himself so that he could officially forgive everyone without going against the laws that he himself made so that we could all go to heaven. He took the punishment for our crimes against him! (Well, except the suffering in Hell forever part.) And, to top it all off, on the third day (or second, depending on how closely you listen to calendars), he rose up from the grave, came back to life, and floated away into heaven! (Yes, it is a sacrifice even if the sacrificee doesn't technically stay dead.) (And yes, it's still a sacrifice even when you know you're going to get it back.)

The best part about it all is that it's FREE! Yes, anyone and everyone can now go to heaven and spend the rest of eternity in the exclusive God Won't Torture You Forever Club! You don't have to do anything to be eligible for this wonderful forgiveness. Well, except believe. You have to believe that all of this happened just like it was said and on the basis of that belief (and not your knowledge of the evidence or lack thereof) will your eternity rest. It really makes so much sense when you think about an omnipotent God doing what will save the most amount of souls, considering all other possibilities. (Why would he settle for a second-best plan? Looking at the ratio of saved to damned, I'd say this scheme is first-rate.) How could you imagine doing anything differently? (Remember: your eternal soul depends on how you answer that question.)

You... do believe, don't you?

Were we created in the image of God?

This week's AiG newsletter talks about angels, something I don't care too much about, but I'd like to highlight a few things I find interesting.

Mankind has a unique spiritual aspect, and this spirit is uniquely made in the image of God. We should expect this image to have certain aspects of God’s characteristics since God is spirit (John 4:24).

The word "spirit" or "spiritual" is meaningless. What is a spirit and what makes someone spiritual? It's a vague and vacuous concept used by people of all religions (and even non-religions) and it never means the same thing to two different people. How does it help me to realize that God is spirit? Does that just mean that he isn't physical? I can think of a lot of things that aren't physical but don't fall under most peoples' definitions of spiritual - math, anger, logical absolutes, etc. Does it describe those things that have life? Does that mean that animals and plants are spiritual as well? In most cases I think it's just synonymous with "religious."

Often Christians describe the image of God as superior intellectual ability, such as reason and abstract thought, worship of God, language and communication with God, ability to make decisions, creative expression, immortality, emotions such as love, sadness, anger, and so on. These attributes show how separate man is from beasts and other physical entities...

That's funny, because animals are capable of most things on that list. Many animals can reason (at least rudimentarily), communicate with each other (through what some would call languages), make decisions (part of reasoning), creatively express themselves, and contain various emotions like the ones mentioned. The only attributes I can see non-human animals having is the ability to worship gods (and in that aspect, perhaps they are better off) and abstract thought (though it'd be tough to know if extremely intelligent animals such as dolphins are capable of this). And the jury is still out on immortality.

I suppose the moral of the story is this: contrary to what the creationists would like to believe, we're just not that much different from the rest of the animals. We're just a bit smarter and better suited for general purposes. If I was created specially by a god, I would expect nothing less than the ability to shoot lasers out of my eyes.

Interpreting Circumstances

Often times people cite personal experiences as evidence of a god - and not just any god, but their God (Allah, Yahweh, etc.). First, I'd like to say that no personal experience that someone else has had could ever convince me that a god exists. This may sound closed-minded, but I feel the same way about demons and ghosts and monsters. If someone were to tell me that they felt the presence of a ghost or even heard or saw one, I would not be obliged to believe them on testimony alone. While it's true that what they experienced may have been convincing for them, there's no way I can objectively and correctly analyze the scenario. To begin with, I wasn't there. I have no independent access to the events that took place. This is very important, because people tend (even unknowingly) to leave out important details when they don't think they're relevant. This assuming that they already know all of the details which surely never happens. So it isn't possible for me to come up with a possible alternate explanation for what happened because I only have access to what they remember and tell me. In short, their personal experience alone can't be enough to convince me.

But the important point I want to argue is that, in the case of experiences (positive or negative) relating to the existence of a god, it shouldn't be convincing to them either. I have heard many people over the years claim that "X good thing happened to me. This shows that God is there and that he cares for me." While that may seem like a nice thing to say, it's totally without merit and doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny. Let's say the example given is that someone receives a check in the mail for $400, exactly what they need to pay rent that month. The person claims that the only way that could have happened is if God orchestrated it. If you think this is true, allow me to ask a few questions.

1. Was your bill exactly $400, or was it just pretty close?
2. Did God himself send the check to fill your needs? If not, didn't that check come from a human and not from God? Did God make that person send you the check or was it of their own will?
3. Have you ever received checks that didn't arbitrarily coincide with something else in your life? Did you credit those to God as well?
4. If God is in the business of paying bills, why doesn't he do it more often?
5. If God cares enough about you to pay your bills, why doesn't he also care enough about Africans to abolish AIDS? Or heal amputees? Or pay off the US's enormous debt?

The point I am trying to make is that there are a lot of assumptions in going from "X good thing happened" to "my God caused X to happen." When you start to examine the details, the magic of it all quickly fades away and you're left with very human answers. Sure, it could have been God behind the scenes influencing people somehow and supernaturally causing events to happen, but it's unlikely. I've never seen divine intervention, so I'm under no obligation to think that it happened in that person's case.

But another underlying assumption is at work here as well - that God wants good things to happen to you. Well, that might be true in some cases, but what if it wasn't always. Couldn't God want bad things to happen to you, for whatever reason? Some people do accept this line of thinking and believe that bad things are lessons and that they are better for having learned from them. If this is true, we now have evidence for God coming in the form of both good and bad things. (You can apply my previously-asked questions to bad experiences as well.)

My question is then, "How do you filter the God-caused events from the naturally caused ones?" That is to say, if God is in the business of causing good things to provide blessings and bad things to teach lessons, how can you ever say that one event is evidence of God? After all, any event could have had God behind it. Additionally (and more plausibly), any event could have had God completely out of the picture.

A final question I would ask is, "How is this event evidence of your God?" After all, couldn't it be some random other god? In none of the events did he actually reveal himself to you outside your own interpretational bias, did he/she? What if it's some other God punishing you for not believing in him? Or what if he is just allowing good things to happen to you because he isn't totally evil? There's no particular reason why any good or bad thing X must have been caused by supernatural being Y because there's never a correlation beyond the connections a person makes in his or her own mind. That's why Christians, for example, don't find personal stories from Muslims convincing and vice versa. And that's why I don't find any random event evidence of a particular god or religion.

Because out of all of the trillions of personal experiences that billions of people all over the planet have hundreds and thousands of times per day, some strange (even bizarre) coincidences are bound to happen. Even the best good, bad, and weird things will happen at the most (in)opportune times. And I don't find that evidence of the supernatural, especially considering the fact that people are just intrinsically bad at statistics.

You're Not Really an Atheist

I've heard it said quite a few times, "You're not really an atheist. You know God exists! You just don't want to admit it and be accountable." This is usually followed by quoting, "The fool says in his heart there is no God."  Or, better yet,

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

A little bit wordier, but the same idea. It sounds like a classic case of somebody who believes so strongly in their god that they can't fathom anyone else not believing (for whatever reasons convince them). And it's really tough (and sometimes impossible) to convince them otherwise. Maybe it's because they believe the bible, and if everything the bible says is true and if the bible says I really do believe, then I must believe. Now wouldn't that just be convenient.

I've known a lot of people that really wanted to believe (and I'm not excluding myself) but ultimately gave up their faith for logical reasons. This is admittedly rare, probably partially due to the fact that it's tough to get reasoned out of a position you didn't reach with reason in the first place. But it happens, and often enough that I'm not completely discouraged. It's tough to explain how someone could go from being a fundamentalist conservative evangelical Christian or Muslim to atheist if they really knew a God existed. But it definitely happens. Perhaps some religious people only see what they want to see.

Though I have to wonder, what exactly was Paul talking about when he mentioned the "things that are made"? Is he referring to the earth or the universe or Jesus or unicorns or what? I don't buy the Argument from Design for various reasons and that seems to be what's being pushed here. "Don't you know that every watch has a watchmaker?" the writer asks. Yes, actually, I do know that. I know that watchmakers exist and I know the explanation for how a watch gets into my hands. I also know that snowflakes exist and are quite complex, but I know of no snowflake-maker in the sky that carves out each and every one individually. But that seems to be the problem. Pesky naturalistic explanations of things, always encroaching on God's (former) territory. I don't feel particularly "without excuse" when it comes to my apparent lack of "understanding by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." Am I supposed to infer from my mere existence that there's an eternal being that exists beyond this realm of understanding? Seems like a stretch in any case.

But of course, we can't forget the accusations of foolishness. Seems like an unfair trump card to me. If I were to go around touting my beliefs as inerrant and unquestionable - proclaiming everyone who disagreed with me to be a fool, I'd probably gather more than a few haters. But this is what Christians can get away with, because it's in their holy book.

In any case, I have plenty of good reasons for not believing the bible or Christian claims (or religious claims in general). These range from scientific to philosophical to logical to historical and a few more I don't know how to categorize. Despite that, some people will just continue to insist that I know that a god exists (and not just any god, but the Christian God, mind you) and that I just don't want to face up to it. And that seems like the most absurd claim of all. If I really knew for a fact (somehow) that there was a God and a hell that I'd go to forever if I didn't do the things he wanted and I knew I didn't do them, I'd be a little reluctant to outright reject his existence. That would literally be the dumbest thing any person could ever do, but apparently some people (like myself) work up the courage to do it every day. That kind of thinking blows my mind.

Proving God Exists: Morality

I can't decide whether I'm glad or disappointed that Eric Hovind actually hasn't written these articles I'm critiquing here. The dude's name is Joshua Joscelyn, but I'm sure Eric at least had to approve these for them to appear on the website. So I hold them both responsible for their production's absurdity. And this final article is not exempt. Shall we?

Atheism is bankrupt. The unbeliever's worldview is utterly devoid of justification. When someone takes the unbeliever's claims to the bank, the check will bounce. If anything is to be said for this illogical worldview, it could be said that the unbelievers have been clever enough to turn the tables on Christians and paint believers as the illogical ones. However, this only underscores the importance of subjecting your worldview as well as that of the unbeliever to closer scrutiny. And one of the best areas in which to do this is in the area of morality.

Utterly devoid of justification is great wording. Well, at least if you're referring to your previous inane articles where you assumed your own conclusions. I don't feel like anyone has turned any tables. Rather, claims have been held up to scrutiny and some have been shown to be... transparent.

Now, before we go any further, it must be stated that I am not claiming the atheist or unbeliever to be immoral, necessarily. This is often confused with the true intent of what I am about to say. But rather, I will demonstrate that, like logic and science, morality is merely assumed by the unbeliever, yet without a rational basis. While he may claim that morality—the concept of right and wrong—is merely the evolutionary result of self preservation, this counter claim has a few fundamental flaws. The unbeliever suggests that morality is simply a man-made construct that came about as an aid to our evolution. After all, it is simply pragmatic to avoid stealing from or killing my neighbor as this will garner favor for myself, and will thus further my survivability. This is sometimes extrapolated to also suggest that morality is what society agrees upon. But this would mean that societies like Nazi Germany were, by definition, good. It would mean that doing wrong to my neighbor when no one else can possibly find out is not wrong, but right.

Ah, I'm not necessarily immoral. Just probably, amirite? All because of this damned unbelief. God, give me faith! Oh,wait, actually that's just wishful thinking kicking in again. When people tell you to "ask God to increase your faith," that's as helpful as telling me to ask the unicorn fairy to increase my faith in leprechauns. If it helps, it's only because I wanted it to help. Otherwise, wouldn't God/unicorn fairy have increased my faith in the first place? I don't know. I honestly haven't dealt with any supernatural beings in my short stint on earth.

Anyway, yes, I do believe morality is a man-made construct. And yes, I do believe it has its basis in evolution. But please, "assumed... without a rational bias?" Just keep drinking that Kool-Aid. Yes, it does actually increase survivability if you don't go around stealing things or killing people. But you say that morality could (under some definitions) be determined by society. Well, I have to disagree. Read on:

And what is "wrong," anyway? How does one define this word? By what standard can something be right or wrong? When the unbeliever is faced with this question, he does not have a rational response. 

Morality is, at its core, based on the results of free-will decisions upon fellow humans. That is to say, something is morally "wrong" if it unjustly harms someone and "good" if it helps them in some way (which would be decided by the receiver of the action). Now if we use that basic definition of morality to analyze your scenario, the Nazis, we can see that it was not moral. Their actions benefited no one and harmed the lives of millions in unspeakable ways. The tough thing about morality is that there aren't always easy choices. Sure, some basics are easy, like "don't murder" (that never helps the victim), "don't steal" (other people have a right to their property - you wouldn't want someone taking your stuff), or "don't rape" (I don't need to explain this one). But as scenarios change and get more complex, things can get more muddled. This happens for issues like nuclear proliferation (incidentally, not a topic covered by the Bible), homosexual marriage rights, abortion, and "universal" (American) healthcare.

One side (clear-thinking people) believe that homosexual marriage should be allowed because it gives people the right to do what they want in a situation where other people will not be notably negatively affected. The other side thinks that it should continue to be outlawed because.... well, their book says so. This is an issue of morals because one side believes their position is morally correct and the other's incorrect (and vice versa). This issue does not require a Bible or any other text to tell you what to think.

Other, more complex issues would be those like nuclear proliferation. Is it moral or immoral to stockpile nuclear weapons? Should we distribute them? Should we try to remove all of them everywhere and use all of our military power to do so, voiding other countries' rights to sovereignty, trying to ensure that everyone in the world can be free from the threat of nuclear violence? People have taken stances on both sides of this issue and have made compelling arguments both ways. Christians often paint a picture of a completely black-and-white world where each action is either completely right or completely wrong. This unfortunately just isn't how the world works. Choosing the lesser of two evils is sometimes the best thing to do. But I'm digressing.

To him, if right and wrong are only based on human consensus, than morality is entirely subjective—it changes, and is not absolute. In other words, what is right to one group at one particular time can "morally" be wrong to another group at another time. Or if right and wrong are in the mind of the individual, then how can they be blamed by their actions? If evolution is the explanation, and we are only acting as our DNA dictates, then once again, there is no way we can logically be outraged when somebody's DNA causes them to kill, rape, or lie. After all, we are not outraged at the rock that falls on a car and injures the occupants. How is this any different from the purely naturalistic explanation given lamely by the unbeliever? They're only reacting to their genes, right? Evolution cannot account for morality.

No, conversely, if morality is entirely based on what God says, then it must be relative - subjective. It would be completely based on "God says so" (never a good reason to believe when the person who told you that isn't known to be trustworthy).  If God says that action X is good, then it simply is good regardless of context, motivation, or meaning. If God told you to slaughter children (and don't say it hasn't happened... repeatedly), then it is a good thing to do. An honorable one. A required one. And that's something I just can't buy. Remember the Euthyphro Dilemma? It asks the question, "Is it moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?" Clearly, I do not believe it can be the former, for that would require countless absurdities like the one I just mentioned. If it is the latter, then God is simply a bystander at the moral carnival, watching the ferris wheel of choices spin and dictating to you when to get on and off the ride. This is especially hurtful to those believers who would like to think that God created and is in control of everything, including morality. But it's just not so.

In case it hasn't been obvious from what I've said so far, people are not outraged at rocks for falling on them (well... some are, but it's a futile thing) because rocks don't have free will. They aren't making choices. Morality requires choices. In the same way that you can't fault a person for pulling the trigger and killing a child if his hands and fingers were hooked up to a machine that controlled them against his will, you can't fault a rock for falling on a car if it had no say in the matter. If a rock did become sentient and decide to crush my muscular legs, I'd have a legitimate reason to complain.

Yet evolutionists and unbelievers, in general, behave in moral ways. They make statements like "You shouldn't teach Creationism to little kids," or "You ought not to judge other people." They bear witness to the Creator by their conscience, while making moral statements, though these statements cannot be accounted for within their worldview. The fact that unbelievers appeal to objective morality, even though they lack the standard for such, proves that they really do believe in God! Unbelievers borrow from the Christian worldview in operating within the guidelines of morality. It is the Christian worldview, because morality to a Christian is merely a reflection of God's nature. Morality to a Christian stems from an absolute standard—God and His Word. Morality is built into the hearts of every person God created, whether they follow that conscience or not. Deep down inside, even atheists know that there is an absolute moral standard—they just can't bring themselves to confess His name. In this way, morality bears witness to the Creator God, who is good and right. And that, you can take to the bank.

Yay! You finally get it! We shouldn't be teaching creationism to little kids. Because it isn't science and it isn't true. I mean, you can deny that, but reality isn't up for grabs here.

Non-Christians appeal to a non-objective but intellectually defensible morality that tries to find the best decision in the set of all possible decisions. Note that this whole while, you've used the adjective "Christian" to describe all of these things that you're trying to prove here. I could change that to "Jewish" or "Muslim" and that wouldn't change your arguments one bit. That should raise some flags for you, but that isn't even your biggest problem. You assert, again, without justification, that we have defined our ways of thinking upon your Bible without realizing or acknowledging it. You haven't backed up a whit of these assertions, and I think now that realization has been heavily poured upon your head.

So here's the "moral" of the story. Think rationally. Anticipate the consequences of your actions, especially in situations where you are aware that things can go wrong. By being conscious about the impact you have on your family, friends, and society in general, you can make the world be a happier, less crappy place. And smile about that!

:D

Why Christianity Fails: Morality

A few months ago I heard Christopher Hitchens' introduction in the debate, Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World. I thought it was brilliant and I'd like to share it here with you in transcript form. I promise, it isn't boring.

When I debate with Jews and Muslims and Christians, I very often say, “well, do you really believe there was a virgin birth, do you really believe in a Genesis creation, do you really believe in bodily resurrection?” I get a sort of Monty Python reply. “Well, it's a little bit metaphorical, really.”

The main thing I want to dispute this evening is this: you hear it very often said by people of a vague faith that, while it may not be the case that religion is metaphysically true, its figures and its stories may be legendary or dwell on the edge of myth, prehistoric, and its truth claims may be laughable.

We have better claims -- excuse me, better explanations for the origins and birth of our cosmos and our species now, so much better so, in fact, that had they been available to begin with, religion would never have taken root. No one would now go back to the stage when we didn't have any real philosophy, we only had mythology, when we thought we lived on a flat planet or when we thought that our planet was circulated by the sun instead of the other way around, when we didn't know that there were micro-organisms as part of creation and that they were more powerful than us and had dominion over us rather than we, them, when we were fearful, the infancy of our species.

We wouldn't have taken up theism if we'd known now what we did then, but allow for all that, allow for all that, you still have to credit religion with being the source of ethics and morals: “where would we get these from if it weren't from faith?” I think, in the time I've got, I think that's the position I most want to undermine.

I don't believe that it's true that religion is moral or ethical, I certainly don't believe of course that any of its explanations about the origin of our species or the cosmos or its ultimate destiny are true either. In fact, I think most of those have been conclusively, utterly discredited, but I'll deal with the remaining claim that it is moral. Okay, and I can only do Christianity this evening. Is it moral to believe that your sins, yours and mine, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, can be forgiven by the punishment of another person? Is it ethical to believe that?

I would submit that the doctrine of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is utterly immoral. I might, if I wished, if I knew any of you, you were my friend or even if I didn't know you but I just loved the idea of you (compulsory love is another sickly element of Christianity, by the way), but suppose I could say, “look, you're in debt, I've just made a lot of money out of a god-bashing book, I'll pay your debts for you, maybe you'll pay me back some day, but for now I can get you out of trouble.”

I could say if (I really loved someone who had been sentenced to prison) if I can find a way of saying I'd serve your sentence, I'd try and do it. I could do what Sydney Carton does in a Tale of Two Cities, if you like. I'm very unlikely to do this unless you've been incredibly sweet to me. I'll take your place on the scaffold, but I can't take away your responsibilities. I can't forgive what you did. I can't say you didn't do it. I can't make you washed clean. The name for that in primitive middle eastern society was scapegoating. You pile the sins of the tribe on a goat, you drive that goat into the desert to die of thirst and hunger. And you think you've taken away the sins of the tribe. This is a positively immoral doctrine that abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and all morality must depend.

It has a further implication. I'm told that I have to have a share in this human sacrifice even though it took place long before I was born. I have no say in it happening, I wasn't consulted about it, had I been present I would have been bound to do my best to stop the public torture and execution of an eccentric preacher. I would do the same even now.

No, no! I'm implicated in it, I, myself, drove in the nails, I was present at Calvary, it confirms the original filthy sin in which I was conceived and born, the sin of Adam in Genesis. Again, this may sound a mad belief, but it is the Christian belief.

Well it's here that we find something very sinister about monotheism and about religious practice in general. It is incipiently at least and I think often explicitly totalitarian, because I have no say in this. I am born under a celestial dictatorship which I could not have had any hand in choosing. I don't put myself under its Government. I am told that it can watch me while I sleep. I'm told that it can convict me of, here's the definition of totalitarianism, thought crime, for what I think I may be convicted and condemned.

And that if I commit a right action, it's only to evade this punishment and if I commit a wrong action, I'm going to be caught up not just with punishment in life for what I've done which often follows action systematically, but, no, even after I'm dead. In the Old Testament, gruesome as it is, recommending as it is of genocide, racism, tribalism, slavery, genital mutilation, in the displacement and destruction of others, terrible as the Old Testament gods are, they don't promise to punish the dead. There's no talk of torturing you after the earth has closed over the Amalekites. Only toward when gentle Jesus, meek and mild, makes his appearance are those who won't accept the message told they must depart into everlasting fire. Is this morality, is this ethics?

I submit not only is it not, not only does it come with the false promise of vicarious redemption, but it is the origin of the totalitarian principle which has been such a burden and shame to our species for so long.

I further think that it undermines us in our most essential integrity. It dissolves our obligation to live and witness in truth. Which of us would say that we would believe something because it might cheer us up or tell our children that something was true because it might dry their eyes? Which of us indulges in wishful thinking, who really cares about the pursuit of truth at all costs and at all hazards?

Can it not be said, do you not, in fact, hear it said repeatedly about religion and by the religions themselves that, well it may not be really true, the stories may be fairy tales. The history may be dubious, but it provides consolation. Can anyone hear themselves saying this or have it said of them without some kind of embarrassment? Without the concession that thinking here is directly wishful? That, yes, it would be nice if you could throw your sins and your responsibilities on someone else and have them dissolved? But it's not true and it's not morally sound and that's the second ground of my indictment.

On our integrity, basic integrity, knowing right from wrong and being able to choose a right action over a wrong one, I think one must repudiate the claim that one doesn't have this moral discrimination innately, that, no, rather it must come only from the agency of a celestial dictatorship which one must love and simultaneously fear.

What is it like (I've never tried it, I've never been a cleric), what is it like to lie to children for a living and tell them that they have an authority, that they must love compulsory love? What a grotesque idea and be terrified of it at the same time. What's that like? I want to know.

And that we don't have an innate sense of right and wrong, children don't have an innate sense of fairness and decency, which of course they do. What is it like? I can personalize it to this extent, my mother's Jewish ancestors are told that until they got to Sinai, they'd been dragging themselves around the desert under the impression that adultery, murder, theft and perjury were all fine, and they get to Mount Sinai only to be told that's not kosher after all.

I'm sorry, excuse me, we must have more self-respect than that for ourselves and for others. Of course the stories are fiction. It's a fabrication exposed conclusively by Israeli archaeology. Nothing of the sort ever took place, but suppose we take as metaphor? It's an insult, it's an insult to us, it's an insult to our deepest integrity.

No, if we believed that perjury, murder and theft were all right, we wouldn't have got as far as the foot of Mount Sinai or anywhere else.

Now we're told what we have to believe and this is, I'm coming now to the question of whether or not science, reason and religion are compatible or I would rather say reconcilable. The late, great Stephen J. Gould said that he believed they were non-overlapping magisteria, you can be both a believer and a person of faith.

Here's why I, a non-scientist, will say that I think it's more radically irreconcilable than it is incompatible. I've taken the best advice I can on how long Homo sapiens have been on the planet. Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and many others, and many discrepant views from theirs reckon it's not more than 250,000 years, a quarter of a million years. It's not less, either. I think it's roughly accepted, I think. 100,000 is the lowest I've heard and actually I was about to say, again not to sound too Jewish, I'll take 100,000. I only need 100,000.

For 100,000 years Homo sapiens were born, usually, well not usually, but very often dying in the process or killing its mother in the process at life expectancy probably not much more than 20, 25 years. Dying probably of hunger or of micro-organisms that they didn't know existed or of events such as volcanic or tsunami or earthquake types that would have been wholly terrifying and mysterious as well as some turf wars over women, land, property, food, other matters. You can fill them in, imagine it for yourself what the first few tens of thousands of years were like.

And we like to think learning a little bit in the process and certainly having Gods all the way, worshiping bears fairly early on, I can sort of see why, sometimes worshiping other human beings, (big mistake, I'm coming back to that if I have time), this and that and the other thing, but exponentially perhaps improving, though in some areas of the world very nearly completely dying out. And a bitter struggle all along.

According to the Christian faith, heaven watches this with folded arms for 98,000 years and then decides, "It's time to intervene. And the best way of doing that would be a human sacrifice in primitive Palestine where the news would take so long to spread that it still hasn't penetrated very large parts of the world and that would be our redemption of human species."

Now I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that is, what I've just said which you must believe to believe the Christian revelation is not possible to believe, as well as not decent to believe. Why is it not possible? Because a virgin birth is more likely than that. A resurrection is more likely than that and because if it was true, it would have two further implications. It would have to mean that the designer of this plan was unbelievably lazy and inept or unbelievably callous and cruel and indifferent and capricious. That is the case with every argument for design and every argument for revelation and intervention that has ever been made. But it's not conclusively so because of the superior knowledge that we've won for ourselves by an endless struggle to assert our reason, our science, our humanity, our extension of knowledge against the priests, against the Rabbis, against the Mullahs who have always wanted us to consider ourselves as made from dust or from a clot of blood, according to the Koran, or as the Jews are supposed to pray every morning, at least not female or gentile.

And here's my final point, the final insult that religion delivers to us, the final poison it injects into our system. It appeals both to our meanness, our self-centeredness and our solipsism and to masochism. In other words, it's sadomasochistic.

I'll put it like this: you're a clot of blood, you're a piece of mud, you're lucky to be alive, God fashioned you for his convenience, even though you're born in filth and sin and even though every religion that's ever been is distinguished principally by the idea that we should be disgusted by our own sexuality. Name me a religion that does not play upon that fact. So you're lucky to be here, originally sinful and covered in shame and filth as you are, you're a wretched creature, but take heart, the Universe is designed with you in mind and heaven has a plan for you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I close by saying I can't believe there is a thinking person here who does not realize that our species would begin to grow to something like its full height if it left this childishness behind, if it emancipated itself from this sinister, childlike nonsense.

Proving God Exists: Science

In case any of you are wondering, I haven't abandoned my weekly dissection of Answers in Genesis's weekly newsletter. For the last two weeks they've just been... uninteresting. Which is sort of odd for a creationist organization, but I suppose even they run out of pseudoscience now and again. So today I'll be doing a review of the next sermon on the list of Eric Hovind's underwhelming "proof of the Christian God." You don't have to read the first quote, but I thought it funny.

"All rise," comes the command in the musty and dim courtroom. "This court is now in session, the Honorable Judge Science presiding in the case Skeptic vs. Bible." The visitors in the gallery return to their seats as the case begins with opening arguments from the prosecutor. Skeptic's attorney makes several remarks, pleading to Judge Science to see that the evidence shows clearly that Bible is at fault, and cannot be trusted. The jury is on the edge of their chairs, wondering how the attorney for Bible will fare against such staggering evidence. By the time the verbose attorney for Skeptic takes his seat, things look bad for Bible. According to the case made by the prosecution, Science will no doubt rule against Bible. But then something curious happens. Science stands up and walks over to the seat of Bible. Bible stands up. Science mutters sheepishly, "Forgive me, he keeps calling me 'Judge.' I must have sat in the wrong seat, Judge Bible." A collective gasp is heard around the courtroom. As Judge Bible is seated in His rightful position, He holds up the gavel and asks Science how he pleads, "Are you guilty against this court and my laws, or do you plead innocent?" The room is all ears, as the new defendant rises and smiles. "I plead 'No Contest,' your Honor. I only do as you dictate."

Eric, are you honestly asserting that the Bible is to dictate to us what is and isn't scientifically factual? Are we to believe it when it tells us that the earth is flat, there is a solid dome in the sky, that bats are birds, that a whale is a fish, that a rabbit chews the cud, or that placing sticks in front of cows will make their offspring striped? That isn't a great track record. But even if I agreed that it was, why should I take the word of an ignorant nomad who wrote that God created everything in 6 days? How would he know that? He wasn't there. It sounds to me just like any other story a religion would tell you. The bible isn't a science textbook (and some creationists would even agree with me here), so to take any kind of scientific insight from it at all is putting it in a realm it doesn't belong. But to say that the book somehow overrides what we know about this world is preposterous. I wouldn't care if the Bible or any other holy book tells me that the sun revolves around the earth or that sicknesses are caused by demons - I know better, and I won't be naively fooled by your assertions that you know better than thousands of scientists over hundreds of years.

In the realm of debate among skeptics and Christians, science is often brought up as the standard by which we judge truth. Christians often pander to this, searching for the best scientific evidence possible, making multiple pleas to science in order to gain a favorable footing in this contest. But what Christians need to understand is that this puts science in the judge's chair. If we surrender our Bible to determine what is truth, we will never win. For the Bible tells us "Thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17). We've got it all backwards if we think we can appeal to science to vindicate Scripture. Furthermore, we elevate to an improper position the minds of men if we think we can put God's Word on trial to begin with! God's Word is sovereign, and science pleads "No Contest!" Scientific evidence merely bears witness to the absolute Truth of the Bible. In fact, if we may carry our courtroom analogy one step further, when Judge Bible is enthroned, the roles of defendant and prosecutor switch places. It is the skeptic who is now in the hot seat! God's Word is the standard, the skeptic has fallen short of this standard (Rom. 3:23), and we see from the testimony of scientific evidence nothing but verification of this assertion. We see that the skeptic's worldview is all wrong, and that science has no place in the position as judge.

No, the bible isn't the standard. It hasn't been for some time. If something is true, it can be found to be true without requiring some holy book. If something is true in the natural world, it can be investigated and conclusions can be drawn from our perceptions of whatever it is we're talking about. If we can't investigate it, we can't know that any claim is true, so to take the word of the bible (aka, the word of men), we're just assuming that what they said is true. That's a foolish thing to do when it comes to issues such as science (though in this paragraph you seem to drift away from that and lean more toward spiritual issues). There is absolutely no reason to think that the bible has any kind of monopoly on truth or that it is self-proving, because it isn't. And yet you talk as though it is, something you completely failed to show in your last post (Logic) and again fail to do here.

Now let's look deeper. Let's examine the presuppositions of the skeptic or unbeliever. He attempts to disprove the Bible through many venues, one of which is science. But there is a fundamental problem with this. Science depends on the Uniformity of Nature. If the laws of nature changed randomly, there would be no way to measure or experiment accordingly. If gravity, for example, were different from one day to the next, how could science be possible? The obvious answer is that it couldn't. Yet the scientific laws of nature are uniform and unchanging, because God established them to be so. He created laws and told us that they will not pass away – we can count on them (Gen. 8:22). But the unbeliever refuses to believe in God, though he operates with the same understanding of the uniformity of nature as do believers. But why? This is inconsistent with his professed worldview, which claims that nature and her laws evolved into what they are today through an ever-changing and random process. You see, the unbeliever must borrow from the consistent worldview of the Christian in order to even do science or appeal to scientific evidence. He takes God's existence for granted while he tries to argue against Him! In this way, the skeptical or unbelieving evolutionist professes a worldview that is self-refuting.

Just as in your last post, you assume with no evidence whatsoever that certain things don't make sense if there is no god. Again I must ask, why must there be any god for nature to be uniform? Does there need to be a Flying Spaghetti Monster for pasta to be tasty?  That assertion makes as much sense as yours, and if you don't think so, you might want to reexamine your logic. You can't just say that "X requires a God" and leave it at that. You need to show it through evidence and logic - something you haven't even attempted.

You then go on to say that unbelievers opine that nature and her laws evolved through random processes. This simply is not the case. Nature itself does not evolve and laws are unchanging. Life evolves due to the set laws of nature and is not completely random. I've explained this before and I don't need to do it again. You know as well as I that you're being misleading and spreading disinformation.

Christian, when you are presented with a scientific "evidence" against the God of the Bible, remember two things: First, never put the Bible on trial or place science in the judge's seat.  The Bible is the Final Authority. It is God's Word. When you use evidence, use it to show that science agrees with the Bible. And secondly, use science to show that the unbeliever has no way to account for the uniformity of the laws of science without the Biblical God, who never contradicts Himself, and who created laws to be relied upon. Show the skeptic that if he truly believes in Evolutionism, then there is no way he could measure or test his theory at all. Because without God, there is no way we can know anything. God established the laws of nature, and if this were not true, we could not trust these laws. And if we can't trust the laws, we can't trust any of our science. But thank God we can trust the uniform laws of nature and science, because our great God established them to endure when He created the whole universe in just six days.

I was at first under the impression that you were trying to prove to non-believers that a god exists. However, through your shallow logic and assumption of the infallibility of the bible, I have to assume that you're writing to and for Christians with no intent for your message to reach unbelieving eyes. This "logic" wouldn't even have convinced me when I was a Christian, much less now as an atheist.

You've moved on to asserting that without a god we can't know anything. This makes no sense at all - what we do and don't know are based on observation and testing, not by reading books and asserting them to be true despite all evidence to the contrary. Evolution by common descent can be tested in myriad ways and has been done in uncountable ways. (Just look up Tiktaalik or Human Chromosome II, for starters.)

Occam's razor is a useful tool that I would like to briefly explain here. It says that the explanation that fits the evidence and makes the least assumptions is most likely to be correct. An analogy is: let's say that right now, I hear a noise in my closet. I go investigate and find that a box has fallen onto the floor. I can assume perhaps one of two things. Either it fell on its own or it was knocked over by a cat. I know that the law of gravity pulls things down and that I've stacked many boxes on top of one another, so it is likely that one that was at an angle finally slid off the box below it and hit the floor.

Alternatively, I could simply theorize that a cat was crawling around in my closet and knocked it over. This is akin in science to throwing away modern explanations and just saying "Goddidit." However, like the box analogy, this makes more assumptions and leaves more things unexplained than it solves. Think about the cat: how did it get into my apartment? How did I not hear it crawling around for the last few hours and where did it go? Assuming a cat is responsible raises more questions than it answers, so the better explanation in light of the circumstances is that the box simply fell on its own.

In the same way, is it more likely that the universe's laws are uniform because that's just the way it works, or is it more likely that some all-powerful god created it with a blink of his eye and left us no evidence of his existence otherwise? I'm afraid the answer is the former. You can believe the latter if you wish, but you then must explain how and where God exists, show that he exists, and show that he is the one responsible for taking the action in the first place - none of which you can do. It is for this reason that I can't accept your rationale that you display throughout your post and believe it makes more sense to not unnecessarily throw a god into the mix when things make just as much sense without him.

You argue from the viewpoint that the Bible starts off as infallible and perfect. You can't do that when trying to prove God's existence because you're assuming the conclusion. However, if you didn't have your Bible, you'd be up a creek without a paddle because it's the only tool you have. This is why nobody will be convinced of what you have to say. You must start with common ground and work your way up until you've proven your point without assuming anything your opponent doesn't.

So, to my readers, if you disagree with anything I've said, please leave a comment and explain what you think and why.

Proving God Exists: Foundations

Eric Hovind is a man who really has no idea what he is talking about (much like his father). His inherited website, Creation Science Evangelism, is a website dedicated to -what else? - creationism. He's got a series going called "How Do You Prove God Exists?" where he interviews a man named Sye TenBruggencate, from whom comes the website I blogged about not too long ago. It's only a 4-part series, so I thought it'd be relevant to go through these so-called "proofs" and see if they really hold up or if they're just creationist propaganda. So, without further ado, here's my response to "How Do You Prove God Exists? Foundations":

 When arguing for the existence of God, the unbeliever often demands that the discussion not include anything from Scripture. After all, if we are to prove the existence of God, we can't use the Bible..., because we must meet the unbeliever on neutral grounds. But this is a trap! When we drop our weapon and discuss anything with an unbeliever on only rational grounds, using only logic or science, the unbeliever does not join us on these "neutral" grounds. And don't think these grounds are neutral. To the contrary, he is the only one left with a weapon! He uses his rationalization. This is the foundation (or weapon) for the unbeliever's worldview—logic and rationalizing.

I agree that our starting point should be logic and rational thinking (not rationalizing, which is usually trying to justify preconceived notions... like a god). However, the bible does not fall under the category of presupposed truths and it should not. What if, for example, you are a Christian trying to dialogue with a Muslim. You have your Bible and he has his Qu'ran. Are you supposed to both quote scriptures back and forth until one of you gives in and converts? No, that doesn't work, and I think we all realize it. For the same reason here, you can't use your bible in the discussion of the existence of god because I don't think the bible is necessarily true on all points, especially not when it comes to its position on a god.

Christians build their worldview on the foundation of the Bible. God's Holy Word is the only sure truth we can build our house upon. All other ground is shifting sand. With that said, the unbeliever's worldview is built upon something as well: the ability to reason or invoke logic. As the Christian builds his worldview on the foundational assumption (faith) that God's Word is true and complete, the unbeliever, using the logic of empiricism, will often build his entire worldview on the assumption (faith) that all things must be observed to be true. However, while he is correct to point out that we are presupposing (assuming) God's Word is true, he is also presupposing that his logic is correct! We both start with our own fundamental assumptions. After all, how does he absolutely know that seeing is believing (empiricism)? What if his sight deceives him? How can he trust his logic to be sound? What if all of his senses and his capability to reason are skewed?

I like how here they seem to imply that our two presuppositions are at odds - it's faith vs. logic, people! Of course, I'm not saying that's the case. You, hopefully, would be using both faith and logic, whereas I do not have faith. However, I am not required to buy into your "faith" arguments and as such, we must both start with logic and move up from there. You state that empiricism is the assumption (faith) that all things must be observed to be true. This is a patently false claim. Empiricism is simply a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from the senses. I have never claimed that something must be observed to be true necessarily, but I would have no justification for believing something that has never been observed in some sense.

Eric dips his foot into the cold waters of solipsism here, inquiring as to how I know that my sight doesn't deceive me, that my logic is sound, or if all of my senses and capability to reason are skewed. I would first respond by asking him the same question: how do you know your senses are functioning correctly? Faith in a god is not an acceptable answer. We're both working on the same playing field here. In theory, my senses could be malfunctioning and my sense of sight could be mistaken, but I have no reason to currently think so and I will operate as though everything is functioning correctly. I assume you'll do the same.

If we are to have a rational debate, I cannot allow you to simply assert the validity of the bible, because it carries no weight with me. Certainly, debate on that topic is up for grabs, but this idea that we're at least on "equal ground" with our two worldviews is false. Mine is based on observable, repeatable phenomena that can be verified by my peers. Yours is based on a book written thousands of years ago by men that understood little to nothing about how the world works. I think I have the stronger ground, but we can't start arguing "science vs. the bible" if we haven't yet settled on where the bible stands with respect to science. All clear? Ok.

Of course, the laws of logic are sound. After all, they are only consistent with God and His Word. But the unbeliever doesn't necessarily believe in God and His Word, and so it turns out that he has to borrow from our foundation to argue anything. So here's my point: if the unbeliever can keep his foundational presuppositions..., then why can't we? The unbeliever may ask you to be neutral, but don't be deceived—he's not being neutral, and you shouldn't be, either. God is the beginning of all things, and we must invoke the logic He gave us as well as the Word He gave us when discussing anything—be it science, doctrine, or even the existence of God. He is the Alpha and Omega. With all respect, He is the best six-gun a cowboy could need. Don't throw away your weapon, Christian. Don't surrender your foundation. 

Wait now... what do you mean by "the laws of logic are...only consistent with God and his Word?" How do you justify that statement? At what point, exactly, do I "borrow" from your foundation to argue? These assertions require more than  simply being stated to be taken seriously and you've put forth absolutely no effort in justifying them. I have to completely ignore that you ever said that to continue to respect your understanding of logic. You can keep your presuppositions, if you wish, but you cannot use them during a debate. You are not allowed to say things like "God exists because it says in the bible that only the fool thinks He doesn't exist." Those statements, like I've said before, presuppose the accuracy of the bible and basically fall under the circular reasoning category.

When I mention God or Creationism on this blog, I expect people to disagree with my views. What we can't do is have a discussion that begins with you quoting scripture at me or telling me what God thinks (because obviously you speak on his behalf). If we are going to have a debate over existence, science, or the bible, that's fine, but you will have to prove your point without using the bible because I don't care what it says. How the world works (evolution or otherwise) is a fine topic, but the bible has no authority in that area and if you want to make a claim about it, observe the world itself. Don't go running to a book that was written by ignorant sheepherders. If you want to talk about the bible with me, you can't assume it's already true. You have to show why I should believe it to be true. I, likewise, will show why I don't think it's true because of its inherent contradictions with itself, science, history, or what-have-you.

Does that make sense? Make your claim and support it with objectively true facts - the more the better. After all, if the bible is true and Yahweh is real, you should have plenty of facts on your side, right?

Why are we punished for Adam’s sin?

This is a big question to pose for a loving God, so I'm surprised that AiG decided to tackle it in under 200 words. Well... not really tackle. More like brush-by-so-that-its-shirt-barely-ruffles.

A: When Adam sinned, his punishment was death (Genesis 2:17). Because of Adam’s sin, death came upon all men. Some have said that it is harsh for God to punish all of Adam’s descendants for something Adam did. But is it?

If it is true that we are punished for what he did, then that is extremely harsh. (But to be sure, we're not punished for what she did, even though she did it first, because women weren't as important. Or something equally as stupid.) Parents, I know that disciplining your child can be a hassle sometimes, but just imagine doing it the bible's way. If your firstborn is a complete rebel and gets all into trouble, you are to punish him. Then, when your next child is born, you are to punish him for his brother's crime. Your next daughter? Punish her for it too. You will repeat this for as long as you have children. It's about as fair as what we have in Genesis which comes from the perfect book, so I would see no conflict there

The answer is simple—we are without excuse since we sin too (Romans 3:23; 5:12), and we all deserve death before a perfect Holy God. To assume Adam’s descendants are innocent is a false assumption. Due to the sin nature received from Adam, death is coming for all since all have sinned (Romans 3:23).

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.

But I thought the theological reasoning for us all sinning was because we have a sin nature, not the other way around. If that's so, and our sin nature causes us to sin, and we all have sin natures against our will, then this is just circular reasoning. I'd imagine, according to what I was brought up learning, that if I never had a sin nature, I'd never sin. Then I'd never need punishment. But because God gave me and all of you sin natures, we don't have a choice and we're all doomed. Thanks big guy!

It is illogical to think that two imperfect people could produce perfect offspring. Since Adam and Eve had both sinned and been cursed then it would be impossible for their children to be perfectly free from sin. So the real question is: why would God permit sin nature to pass along to Adam’s descendants?

In what sense do you mean "imperfect?" If physically, then I would probably agree. But when it comes to invisible non-tangible spiritual things I wouldn't know. Are sin natures passed down in the genes when a baby is formed so that it has its own brand-spanking-new sinful nature? Or is God planting it there and hoping we won't blame him for it? Or is it somehow duplicating from its parents and spiritually attaching itself to the child while God sits back and calls it good? I don't know, but the logic here is very suspect. Without the sin nature, I think it would be safe to say that yes, Adam and Eve's children could have been perfectly free from sin. Besides, "nothing is impossible with God," so couldn't he just remove it with a snap of his fingers? It would be a good starting point.

But thank you for asking a question and then not answering it. I'm guessing you most likely don't have a good response and want to leave it up to the reader to decide. I'm going to deduce it's because the idea of original sin is full of holes and doesn't match up with the attributes of the Judeo-Christian god. No, you never answered the original question. God "permitting" sin nature to progress is still a punishment no matter how you play with the semantics. The God of the bible isn't perfectly loving, fair, just, merciful, powerful, or knowing, despite what your bible may tell you.

I'm not expecting believers to look at this blog post and say, "yeah, now I see his point of view!" But hopefully this will act as a starting point for doubt. If you can look at an issue like this and not be challenged by it, you either have far too much faith or simply aren't being honest with yourself. Try looking at this from an outsider's perspective and try to rationalize Yahweh with the word "fair."