Foxhole Atheism

People follow general rules of logic and science in almost every aspect of their daily lives. When they see an incredulous story on the cover of a magazine, they look at it with doubt. When they want a method to arrive at work, they get a vehicle, rather than attempt astral travel. You see my point, I hope. In general, people find no reason to question rational, even critical, thinking and praise scientific discovery and analysis. There is one area of exception– religion.

Why is faith valued, and even praised as a virtue? Benjamin Franklin (a Christian) once said something like “Faith is what happens when reason closes its eyes.” Here you have an intelligent, scientific man who recognizes the topic of my discussion and believes it is a good thing. This is perplexing and frustrating to me. It is exactly as he described – closing your eyes at the scary parts. And that is how I view the phenomenon. The reason for faith is that religion is in direct conflict with reason. This threatens religion, and people hold these beliefs very dearly. So, just ignore it – not for every other area because you would starve or die in some other way, but for the area in which you wish to remain blissfully ignorant. Faith is an invention, a hiding place, to avoid admitting irrationality. Or, in the case of considering faith a virtue, people actually embrace the irrationality; they are competing for who can have the most faith.

I should address that some will rebut that non-believers also have faith; this argument is usually wrought toward science (Side Note: when did science become the villain?). They may say one of the following, or some variation:

• Don’t you have faith in evolution?
• Don’t you have faith in the Big Bang?
• Do you believe in the wind even though you can’t see it?

This is preying upon the term having multiple meanings. Yes, it is true that in common parlance people say they have faith in x or y, but there is a nuance being missed if you lump those things in with religious faith. When it comes to scientific things, there is an element of testability. That doesn’t mean it is true, it means there are ways to determine its truth. Religion does not offer that. With things like evolution or the Big Bang, I am actually quite indifferent to whether they are true. They seem to be plausible explanations given the evidence so far, but there is an excellent chance one or both will be proven wrong. And people are attempting to do that every single day.

Religious claims, for the most part, are also subject to test in that they are making a claim about something in the world being affected. This is an excellent start for any test. So, you say there is a yeti roaming the wild? Let’s search for him. There is poison in the victim’s body? Let’s do an autopsy. The bread and wine transform into flesh and blood? Ok, let’s test it. Of course, the tests never (and I mean never because this would be big news – front page stuff) produce affirmations of religious claims. That is the faith with which I take issue.

I challenge someone to tell me why faith is a good thing. Further, if it is good, then why does it not manifest itself in other areas of our lives?

A number of people have taken religion to odd conclusions. I always find particular enjoyment with one group – the people at www.fixedearth.com. It is their assertion that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis or revolve around the Sun.

You may ask, “How can they make such a ridiculous claim given our knowledge of the Solar System and planetary orbits?” Well, they have a list of “scientific” articles to support their cause. Oh, and a few bible verses taken out of context for the icing on top.

They do this all to diligently carry out their motto:

Exposing the False Science Idol of Evolutionism,          
and Proving the Truthfulness of the Bible from Creation to Heaven…

Indeed. How can we continually fall prey to the false idol of bad science? You know, the kind of science that looks at facts and research results, and then draws conclusions (BAD). Instead, we should take a pre-determined conclusion, like things in the bible, and try to make the facts meet them (GOOD). It makes total sense. I particularly love that this method even violates a bible verse they promote on the front page of their own site! “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame unto him.”  Proverbs 18:13

They follow that up with further irrefutable evidence like:

“The world also is established that it cannot be moved.” Psalm 93:1                                   

AND

 “He…hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” Job 26:7

I hope you enjoy the site as much as I always do. While you’re there, check out their air tight refutation of Darwinian evolution.

I had the privelege of attending all three lectures by Bart Ehrman last week. It was very entertaining and he was quite funny. I’ll provide a quick recap of the subjects of the three and some general observations. I’ll provide approximate titles, as I don’t have the programs in front of me.

Lecture 1: A World of Contradictions

This lecture focused on the fact that there are irreconcilable differences in the Christian New Testament. Some have tried to explain these away over the years, but it’s an exercise in theological gymnastics and leads to outright illogical conclusions. Rather than ignore these differences between mainly the four canonical gospels, we should understand the differences and why the authors made the changes. One example is the dispute in when Jesus was crucified between Mark and John. John, for a variety of reasons that I won’t get into, is believed to have changed it from the earlier version of the story to make a theological point about Jesus being the sacrificial lamb from the original passover story. The author had a specific point of view and changed the writing to match it. This was done numerous times throguhout the gospels, either by the original authors or later scribes.

Lecture 2: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?

This lecture was about the historical Jesus. Ehrman discussed tests used by Scholars to measure what may be historically accurate in texts. A few of these are multiple attestation, dissimilarity, and historical context.

Multiple attestation simply means it appears in more than one story, with the caveat that it can’t be copied. For example, something from the Q Gospel that was written nearly verbatim in both Matthew and Luke does not count as multiple attestation. On the other hand, something that appears in Q, Mark, John, and the letters of Paul is more likely to be accurate.

Dissimilarity means something that would not be similar to the common notions of what the writers wanted to prove. For example, to say that the Jewish Messiah, who was expected to be a warrior, was crucified by the Romans would indicate accuracy.

Many of these gospels were written well after Jesus lived. If something is true to the historical context of 1st century Palestine, it is more likely to be true. For example, some of the wordplay that only makes sense in Greek probably did not link back to Jesus, who likely spoke Aramaic.

Ehrman’s ultimate conclusion was that to best understand the historical Jesus, we can’t remove him from his context. He was a Jewish apocalypticist who felt the end of the world was happening within his lifetime.

Lecture 3: Literary Forgery in the New Testament

The point of this lecture is pretty simple: the books in the New Testament were not for the most part written by the attributed author. This was a common practice of the time and used to grant authority to your work. An early church was more likely to follow your letter or gospel if it were written by Peter, for example. Some of the letters attributed to Paul may be accurate, but that’s about it.

Thanks for reading. If anyone wants more information on a particular topic, let me know and I can expand in the comments.

I’ve been inspired recently by a debate between William Lane Craig (theist) and Victor Stenger (atheist). In it, Craig presents the same, tired arguments that have been in use for centuries. Though discounted many times over the years, these arguments still haunt us today. They are a constant reminder that those using the arguments either do not care to research what has already been said on the topic or simply choose to ignore the fallacies of these arguments.

For now, I will cover (briefly) the Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, and the Ontological Argument. Later, I may discuss some new hybrids, but let’s stick to the classics for now.

The Cosmological Argument

Everything that exists was caused, the universe exists and must have a cause, nothing can cause itself. Yes, the old nothing can come from nothing approach.

The most obvious flaw, and one that I assure you can never be overcome, is that God would have to be held to these same restrictions. There is no adequate proof that God should count as an exception to this. You could say that God has always existed, but then you open the possibility of the Universe always existing, and you’re back to square one. God, in this case, acts as a typical deus ex machina. An intersting side point by Stenger during his debate was that, in particle physics, we know of things that exist with no appparent or intelligble cause.

The Teleological Argument

Nature is complex and seems to have a purpose. These complexities seem like they can only have arrived from mind, rather than random chance. This implies a designer, ala Paley’s watchmaker. There is a modern remix of this argument called the Argument from Fine Tuning, but I won’t go that in-depth here.

Darwinian evolution serves as a counterpoint. Basically, our evolutionary history has resulted in only keeping the lifeforms that function relatively well. Many may say here that we must prove evolution. Not true. This logical construction is arguing that it is necessary for us to have been designed. Our only job is to show that it may have come about in other ways. A more obvious retort could also be that there are so many problems with our species, planet, etc. that it would seem to be poorly designed in many areas. This would conflict with the traditional notion of God as perfect, but does not necessarily derail the argument as a whole.

The Ontological Argument

This one is my favorite, as I don’t see how the terrible logic could convince anyone; yet, it remains in use today.

We can conceive of nothing greater than God. To exist is greater than to not exist. If God did not exist, then we would be able to conceive of something greater than God. So, God must exist. Incredible. I’ve always seen this as less of an argument for God’s existence and more of a definition for people who already believed – God is the greatest thing you can possibly conceive.

The problem, and it is a ridiculous one, is that conceiving is not the same as existing. Kant also critiqued this argument by saying that existence is not a property. For example, you wouldn’t logcally treat walking on two legs and existence the same. So, to add existence to the definition of a concept produces numerous fallacies. Go ahead and think of something ridiculous and then also think that it exists. Whatever you think about must, by definition, exist now. It works like magic! More traditionally, we treat existence as something that has to be empirically proven. That is why people don’t believe in unicorns – because no one has ever seen one.

Conclusion

I hope that all makes sense. I assume readers don’t want to digest an entire term paper, so I kept it short. That also means that I had to move through the arguments fairly quickly. If there is something you think I should clarify, feel free to comment.

Bart Ehrman will be in St. Louis April 23-24. I will be attending on the 24th. The subjects of all three sound interesting and I’m really looking forward to it. See details below:

Friday, April 23 @ 7 PM

Lecture 1: A world of contradictions? An historical approach to the new testament.

Saturday, April 24 @ 9 AM

Lecture 2: Liar, lunatic, or lord? Searching for the historical Jesus.

Lecture 3: Is the new testament forged? Literary forgery in the early Christian tradition.

Lectures will be held at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church. 1200 North Warson Rd, Saint Louis.

For more info and directions, visit St. Peter’s Episcopal Church

Let’s play a game. I’ll describe someone to you and you see if you can guess who it is.

This is a man who lived around the First Century of the Common Era (some people may call this A.D.). He was a well known Jewish teacher from Galilee and had many followers who claimed he was the Messiah. It is said that a voice in the sky even proclaimed him the son of God. He worked miracles and was eventually martyred outside the walls of Jerusalem around the Passover.

Did you guess Honi the circle drawer? No?

Ok, how about Hanina ben Dosa? Still no?

Oh, well then you probably guessed Jesus. That’s what I thought.

Well you would have been right on all three. There have been many Jewish Messiah claims over the years and a lot of supporting miracle stories to back them. You could even extend it further to find prominent figures in other religions who were born of virgins, or conquered death, or some other fantastical claim.

My only point is that the story of Jesus is by no means unique. Messianic claims are a dime a dozen and not a single one of them can stand on evidence.

You might counter with: “Yes, but look at how many people still believe in Jesus and I’ve never heard of these others.”

Interesting point. I’m sure Muslims would be interested to hear a Christian answer the same question regarding Muhammad. Why not follow him?

Last time, I discussed a well known story from the Christian New Testament. This time, I’d like to kick it old school.

First of all, I can’t believe I even have to make this argument. This story should be discounted on its own merits alone. It is as silly, and obviously made up, as any other classic hero-as-a-child story. Does no one read Joseph Campbell? Anyway, here we go.

Today, I want to discuss the man who, according to the bible, killed Goliath. His name was Elhanan. But what about David and Goliath? Elhanan and Goliath doesn’t have the same ring to it! Spoiler alert: the bible contradicts itself many times and this is one of them. This is another of those items it’s just easier to never cover on Sunday mornings. We probably all know the story of young David, only 12 years old when he used a sling and stone to kill the well-armored giant, Goliath of Gath.

Elhanan, on the other hand, was a member of King David’s elite fighting force called, “The Thirty”. The story of Elhanan killing Goliath is part of a set of four short stories about members of The Thirty killing giants. A story about killing Goliath certainly fits that motif, so it makes sense in that context.

I don’t want to make all the necessary arguments to hammer the David version of the story’s inauthenticity home because it would take forever, so here are the highlights and I can give you a reference if you want to dig deeper:

• The Hebrew Bible attributes Goliath’s killing to Elhanan in 2 Samuel 21:19. If you read that verse today, it will probably say he killed the brother of Goliath (unless you have a good translation like NRSV). That is because scribes intentionally changed the passage. It can be assumed this was changed to avoid conflict with the beloved story of David. A well-known warrior already seems more believable than a 12-year-old boy, but I’ll continue.
• In the David version, Saul asks Abner “Whose son is this youth?” after Goliath is dead. Abner replies, “As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell.” That’s funny because by this time David was already a favorite of the Royal Court. Saul would surely have known David.
• In the David version, David supposedly brought Goliath’s head to Jerusalem after slaying him, but Jerusalem was under control of the Jebusites. It didn’t come under Israelite control until after David was king.
• The David version usually just speaks of “the Philistine” when referencing the man who was killed. Goliath’s name is randomly placed here and there and seems likely to have been a later addition.

Whew! That’s a lot of bible study. I hope you didn’t get bored. I promise it will be short, sweet, and powerful next time. Check out 101 Myths of the Bible by Gary Greenburg if you want to read more.

It seems totally believable when Caravaggio paints it.

One of the most beloved stories in the canonical gospels tells us of an encounter between Jesus and the Pharisees. In it, they bring a prostitute to Jesus and ask his opinion of what to do. The Jewish Law of the time advocated stoning for the offense. Jesus is famously quoted as saying “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Take that, Pharisees. Such Solomon-like wisdom could not be countered.

I also love that story, but for different reasons than most. It is a fake. The story was not in the earliest manuscripts of John that we have (we don’t have the autographs, or originals, of any New Testament writing). It was added later by a scribe. According to a footnote in the New Oxford Annotated Bible (my bible of choice) the “episode is not found in the most authoritative manuscripts.”

The part I find most interesting is not the continued re-telling of this story. It imparts what many Christians feel is valuable wisdom regarding our haste to judge others. Rather, it is the ignorance regarding the story’s authenticity. It is common knowledge among Christian scholarship, including most pastors who have attended some version of seminary, yet no one mentions it outside of textual criticism circles. In my life, I have probably heard that saying repeated in church hundreds of times, but it wasn’t until a New Testament class in college that I learned that.

My point in all of this is only to share what was once a new and interesting revelation for me. I don’t feel this knowledge has to cheapen the story’s status among Christians. It would probably be just as revered if attributed to Paul, James, or Ignatius.

There are countless changes, additions, and deletions that have been made over the years to the Christian bible, most of them minor, but some quite interesting. If you want to know more on the subject, Bart Ehrman is a great resource for books on modern textual criticism.

Tune in next time when I take on an even more well known, and loved, biblical story.

I was eating lunch a few weeks ago with some friends from work. We had been discussing religion a few days prior—specifically, questions of origin.

One friend was eating a Waldorf salad and commented, “I wonder who thought of putting apples, grapes, walnuts, and mayonnaise together.” As an avid fan of Good Eats with Alton Brown, I was able to reply, “I think it was the concierge of the Waldorf Hotel in New York” (turns out it was the maitre d’hotel, Oscar Tschirky). To this, my friend replied, “You know, you have all the answers to the small questions in life and no answers to the big questions.”

I have previously encountered similar statements, and they always irk me. It reminds me of an interaction I saw between Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard, during which Haggard called Dawkins’ atheism “arrogant.” I find that ironic because it is those like Haggard who feel they know all the right answers to what are, in my view, unanswerable questions.

Without the appropriate technology (hot tub time machine), none of us can know the answer to questions of origin, the afterlife, and so on. My response to statements like those of my friend is to freely admit that I don’t know the answer to those questions, and neither do you. Just because someone has an answer, doesn’t imply its correctness. All I do is recognize the epistemic limitations of others and myself.

No one can answer the big questions.

Whenever I’m being driven to madness by illogical arguments for religion, there is typically bound to be a bright spot – faith. It is, by far, my favorite word to hear in such discussions. It is the refuge of a dying man, a dead end street. I rarely have a mirror, but I think it even makes me get this egotistical, self-righteous smile on my face.

Recently, I was having lunch and the topic of religion was brought up to me. Specifically, the topic of “How can you not be religious?” was brought up to me. As I swatted away feeble arguments, the discussion grew ever nearer to that eventual cliff. Someone I knew posed this little conundrum. “If you’re right, I don’t have anything to lose and will just rot in the ground. But if I’m right, you’ll have everything to lose.” Of course! It’s so simple. How can I have been so foolish? What a perfectly utilitarian rationale.

But, wait, does my friend even believe that himself? I asked him if he would like some dragon repellant that I happened to be selling. I heard there were some dragons in the area and I really thought he should be protected just in case I was right. I had put some on that morning and, wouldn’t you know it, I hadn’t seen a single dragon. I then gave a little tighter analogy. If Hinduism is correct, then you should follow its principles or risk coming back as a bug. So wouldn’t my friend like to become a devout Hindu in case he is wrong? Of course not. What a ridiculous method to convince someone over the age of 6 (or who isn’t just kind of dumb).

Since he couldn’t convince me and I couldn’t convince him to either become a Hindu or buy some dragon repellant, we reached a standoff. In this moment (and you can see it coming from a mile away), he said “Well, I guess it just comes down to faith and we’ll know for sure in the afterlife.”

How convenient.