 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Note from Guest Editor: This month we are in a transition period. Starting next month, the feedback pages will be edited by Mike Earl, the newest member of the II Board of Directors. (This change will allow II Secretary James Still to concentrate fully on the Internet Infidels Newsletter.) And we are experimenting with a new format for our feedback column. I decided to change the "look and feel" of this month's feedback page. You'll find comments on new Secular Web resources at the beginning of the file, with comments on older postings towards the end. Also, I've implemented a new look for the feedback messages themselves.
As usual, we had to delete the majority of the feedback messages we received. Most of the feedback messages we receive are redundant with previous messages, use a bogus e-mail address, or are addressed to one of the dead authors in the Historical Library. Curiously, most of the messages with forged or nonexistent return e-mail addresses were purportedly from religious believers.
Please let us know what you think of the new format for the feedback section. Enjoy!
Jeffery Jay Lowder
President
Internet Infidels, Inc.
What did Wilson say?
Dear Sirs:
I have just completed reading the first installments of the "Drange-Wilson Debate". Mr. Drange's paper was straightforward and to the point, however I can not say the same about Mr. Wilson's. As I read the first paragraph, I was reminded of the saying "If you can not dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle with them with bull****.
I eagerly await the next installment maybe he (Wilson) will get his act together and actually say something meaningful, we will see.
Lee Bowen <lee250@hotmail.com>
Gurley, Al USA
Editor's Note: I find the presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics intriguing but obscure. Wilson's opening statement was a case in point. Although Wilson clearly showed that Dr. Drange relied on reason by participating in the debate, he never explained why reason cannot exist (or cannot be trusted) in a world without God. I hope he corrects this deficiency in his second statement.
Who Said That?
Concerning James Still's report on Email Threats: You might want to know Voltaire didn't say "The pen is mightier than the sword." -- that was Edward Bulwer-Lytton.
Jason Silverstein <jag82@excite.com>
Chandler, AZ USA
What about the soul-building theodicy?
I was very intrigued by the new paper "The Moral Argument from Evil" by Dean Stretton. My question is: Is the argument not quite easily undermined by some version of the soul-building theodicy? As I understand it, the argument is formally valid, but I wonder if its weakest point isn't what is stated in the Jones principle, which in turn is restated as A5. If a person knows that there is objective justification for evil E, *and that this justification will occur even if this person does not intervene to stop or prevent E*, then the argument seems to hold alright.
But what reason is there to suppose that a theist will grant what I just put between asterisks? He can simply invoke some version of the soul-building theodicy to argue: "It is the case that I know that there is objective justification for E, but I do not know that this justification will occur even if I do not intervene to stop or prevent E. The justification may in fact be that my intervening to stop or prevent E creates in me moral sensitivity and compassion of a kind which would not come about *except through my intervening to stop or prevent E.*" It seems to me that this counter-argument is successful in rendering Mr. Stretton's strong conclusion dubious, at best. One could perhaps argue that this theodicy is improbable, on some body of knowledge, but is it possible to deem it *impossible* (which is what I think is required for the argument to hold)?
Perhaps one could construct a new argument from this, arguing that since no person knows when or if the soul-building theodicy (entailing intervention) applies, this creates moral uncertainy or confusion of a kind which makes the existence of God improbable (cf. my "Moral-Knowledge Argument for Atheism," which could perhaps be reformulated in an inductive manner, comprising this idea).
I would be most interested to hear Mr. Stretton's views on this.
Niclas Berggren, Ph.D. <nicb@hem.passagen.se>
Stockholm, Sweden
Heavy going article...
I've just read through Dean Stretton's "Moral Argument From Evil." I recognise that this type of formalised argument is valid and important, and useful for working through all the definitions and implications in a debate. However, it has to be said that it is really heavy going for those of us who are not used to such a formal philosophical approach. I'm sure that many atheists and theists who would be able to find something in papers like this that supported or damaged their position are put off very quickly by all the "if P then Q"'s and obscure bits of latin. By the time I struggled to the end of it, I was not entirely sure that I had worked out what he trying to put across. Maybe the Infidels could ask future contributors of these sort of papers to include a "layman's interpretation" of the argument, or make provision for others to write one which could be linked to from the main article? Something that is much easier to digest, but could refer to the main document for those readers who would like to examine the details. When you're engaged in an informal discussion with a theist (which is generally the case for most of us), you're not going to get very far if you start speaking in formal terms, and such a detailed paper is hard to condense into a couple of sentences when you're arguing about God over a pint of beer.
Adrian Barnett <adrian@abarnett.demon.co.uk>
UK
Editor's Note: The Secular Web aims to provide resources at all levels. Some of our material is introductory, some of it is very advanced. Dean Stretton's article was not intended for laymen. However, many of our other aticles are intended for layman. (In the past, we've received complaints for offering too many popular articles!) We think we've achieved a good balance.
I love this site!
I love this site! I've never seen a better site dedicated to ridding society of harmful beliefs. One of the most impressive attributes of this site is the fact that you regularly supply references and links to the very writings that you are arguing against! I have never found a site supporting a religion (especially Christianity) that does this. Gee! I wonder who is really trying to arrive at truth in a rational and scholarly manner. Still, even without this refreshing quality, this site would still stand tall above the rest merely because of its wide variety of well organized writings! Good work!
BTW, I live in Austin, Texas. Is there an easy way to find out about debates and conventions in my area? Thanks! :)
[Identifying information deleted at the request of the author, 1 Aug 2002.]
Editor's Note: When I was an agnostic student at Seattle Pacific University (a Free Methodist university), I made a point of looking at the bookshelves in students' dorm rooms and professors' offices. Specifically, I wanted to see if the Christian students or faculty had any books which promoted another religion or criticized Christianity. In my non-scientific study, I did not find a single Christian student or professor who possessed any such book (though I found many bookshelves with books promoting Christianity). When confronted, the Christians would state that they did not see anything wrong with that. By contrast, I had several books on my bookshelf promoting Christianity; yet I was routinely criticized for not having the right Christian books. "Sure you have XXX, but how come you don't have YYY?" I quickly realized that the majority of Christians had no interest in genuinely understanding nonChristian viewpoints. The one exception to this rule was the SPU library, which did have some books critical of Christianity.
Similarly, my experience has been the same as yours: most theistic sites do not link to their critics. (Hugh Ross's "Reasons to Believe" ministry and the Southern California Center for Christian Studies are two cases in point.) Personally, I have never understood why someone would choose to read only one point of view. If you never read what your critics have to say, how can you really know that your position is right?
As for debates and conventions, we list those on our Events page. We announce updates to that page on "What's New?".
You are helping a lot of people
I just wanted to say keep up the good work you are helping a lot of people.
Sheryl Stone <shstone@du.edu>
A Skeptic of Our Skepticism
I'm a skeptic of the acute skepticism manifested in your web-site. Almost everything is debunked except your own dogmas. I am reminded of a phrase by G.K. Chesterton "In truth there are only two kinds of people, those who have a dogma and know it and those who have a dogma and don't know." I do however like your criticism of the rife apocalyptic madness expressed by many Christians. When I read some of the feedback from christians I can only be disgusted at the condemning, vindictive nature of their comments. I do not condemn you for your conclusions, I do think your dead wrong but at least you demonstrate more civility than most believers. Being a Christian myself I find it sad to see many big name believers promoting such junk.
I do have a good verse for you from the paraphrased bible for skeptics. "As we approached Mt. Improbable our great liberator proceeded up to mountain. Amidst the vast vistas of ecclesiastical relics he spotted the sacred stones. Upon the stones were etched the presuppositions. As our liberator descended Mt. Improbable he triumphantly shouted forth the skeptics Shema: The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be" And as we let forth a loud shout we basked in the liberating radiance of the Secular Trinity: Time - Matter - Chance.
I have enjoyed reading your articles. It has helped me to be honest with what I believe and strenthen my resolve to study. I do notice that in the church I attend a complete ignorance of contrary views. I find it particually acute at the church I attend. It sadly seems like the resident infidels on this site know more christian doctrine than the people who pack the pews in any given church.
David Anderson <ex_nihilo@juno.com>
Peoria, AZ USA
Editor's Note: "Paraphrased bible for skeptics"? The "liberating radiance of the Secular Trinity"? LOL!
However, Mr. Anderson is attacking a caricature of nonbelievers. Evolutionists don't "presuppose" the theory of evolution dogmatically; they prove it! And if any creationists in the audience--including Mr. Anderson--think they can refute the scientific case for evolution and make a case of their own for intelligent design, then I challenge them to submit a paper to the Secular Web with their arguments. Although our purpose is to defend a naturalistic worldview, we will gladly publish well-written papers from other perspectives.
Proud to be in the top 5%!
Thank you for this site. Having lived in the "Bible Belt" my entire life it is a breath of fresh air. I have been told many times by devout christians that I cannot be a truly decent or moral person without accepting christ. They somehow ignore the fact that I am a nurse, that my patients seem to love me, that I value all people, and that I somehow seem to know the difference between right and wrong, and act on those principles. I have heard it said that 95% of the people in the world beleive in God in one form or another. I am proud to be in the top 5%. I do not devalue anyone for not being in the top 5%, I just disagree!
Robert Hull <rhull@terraworld.net>
Ft Scott, KS USA
This site is truly a goldmine
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I stumbled upon your website a few weeks ago and have been visiting regularly ever since. I have been a 'freethinker' for a long time...just didn't know the term. I've enjoyed all the links and many of the discussions. I had no idea there were so many folks out there who agree that freedom of thought is an inalienable right, for which one should not be persecuted. This site is truly a goldmine. Thanks. Keep it up!
Maxine <Naima711@aol.com>
Oakland, CA USA
At least you are open for discussion...
I think your site is an excellent forum for theological discussion by believers and non-believers alike. I have noticed, however, that you receive many nasty e-mails from Christians who seem to have forgotten St. Matthew 7: 7 - "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you".
Is this not a testament to curiosity? The most dangerous beliefs are those that go unquestioned and untested. Any Christian who feels compelled to threaten the Infidels with fire and brimestone should consider this - the first people to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun were also persecuted and often killed in the name of God. The Infidels may be wrong to base their disbelief on biblical or religious discrepancies, but they are certainly not wrong to point them out for discussion.
Having said, I confess my belief that truth is the actual word of God and turn my attention to the Infidels. In a response to some feedback James Still implied that he does not believe in an "afterlife". Though it may not be what the religions of humanity teach us to expect, isn't some sort of afterlife inevitable? Wasn't it Al Einstein who showed us that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed? If we are not energy then we are not anything.
Though the religious and/or biblical portrait of God may be off the mark in many instances, the idea that massive amounts of energy existed before the physical universe seems unavoidable. Many have tried to suggest ways that something could come from nothing, but their ideas are no more comprehensible than the Bible is.
So yes Infidels, the Bible does seem to be plagued by contradiction and fallacy, but atheism doesn't offer much more. I will say this for you, at least you are free from the fear of punishment that makes so many Christians ignore the facts. At least you are open for discussion.
Does it matter to God that we profess our belief in "him"? Does it matter to God wether or not we have been dunked in water to show our peers that we believe? Aren't the things that really matter internal? Wether you are Christian or Atheist, if you are kind, compassionate, and honest with yourself and others what more could a loving God expect in this ambiguous world?
T. Green <TGreen142@aol.com>
Battle Creek, MI USA
Editor's Note: We do indeed receive many messages from purported Christians threatening us with hellfire, accusing us of trying to justify an immoral lifestyle, or having an inferior intellect. We take such messages as a compliment: if that is the best that our opposition can come up with, then our arguments must be strong indeed.
I do take issue, however, with your suggestion that we disbelieve on the basis of Biblical discrepancies. Although Biblical errancy is a fascinating topic, our nonbelief is based primarily on the lack of evidence for theism. Moreover, given that the world is "ambiguous" (as you admit), that fact is evidence for atheism (or at least evidence for the nonexistence of the Christian god). Christian theism claims that there is a god who wants everyone to believe in Him. Thus, if Christianity were true, we would expect to find many more theists than we actually have. In contrast, if atheism is true, there is no God and we would expect the world to be ambiguous about the existence of God. Therefore, the ambiguity seems much more likely on atheism than on Christian theism.
You say that atheism "doesn't offer much more" than the "contradictions and fallacies" of the Bible, and then you claim that "massive amounts of energy existed before the physical universe." I suppose that is possible, but I understand "energy" to be something physical. Therefore, I have a hard time understanding what it means for "energy" to exist "before" the physical universe. If, instead, you meant to say that some sort of spiritual energy existed "before" the universe, then I want to see the evidence for that. At any rate, it is simply false that the atheist must believe that the universe came from nothing. In fact, even those atheists who accept Big Bang cosmology do not need to believe the universe came from nothing.
Keep up the balanced coverage
First time on your site, I found it very hilarious! Keep it up, you guys are doing a great job, especially the balanced coverage between Pro and Con sites, very cool! This is what's great about the Internet, it gives everyone a chance to be heard, regardless of how objective they are, or aren't!
Joe Fox-Barrett <joefoxmcsd@hotmail.com>
Hilliard, OH USA
Outstanding Website
Thank God for your site!! Outstanding Website.
Redden Crisp <redden@tutty.com>
Woodland Hills, CA USA
Yet another accusation of quoting the Bible "out of context"
I have studied the Old Testament and i belive most if not all of your quotes are out a content and are made purposefully to degrade the good book so if poossible to please quote the whole quote and not to depict it wrongfully. Thank you
Yochanan Kalfa <yakalfa@hotmail.com>
Betar Illit, Israel
Editor's Note: What did we quote of context? Where? These are crucial factors in evaluating Kalfa's allegations, but Kalfa never provides specific details. Moreover, notice the accusation here. Kalfa is just not saying that we are mistaken in our interpretation; he claims that we "purposefully" trying to degrade the Old Testament. Whereas the former is at least possible to prove, what possible evidence could Kalfa have for the latter? Even if we are mistaken--which Kalfa never shows--it does not at all follow that we "purposefully" misinterpreted the Old Testament.
What about defenses of Christianity?
Have you gotten any feedback from Christians that defend their side? It would be interesting to see what they, supposedly have to defend. This is my all time fave website and you do one hell of a job running it! Know any good defending webpages towards the Christian movement? Thank you for the message!
Marissa Geiger <eushakes@hotmail.com>
Cincinnati, Oh USA
Editor's Note: Yes, we get feedback from Christians all the time. However, many of the messages we receive from Christians never get posted here because they are written to one of the dead authors in the Historical Library. Christians who follow the feedback guidelines, though, do get posted in this column.
As for web sites defending Christianity, please see our "Select Christian Apologetics Web Sites" page in the Christianity section of the Modern Library. For some reason, very few Christian apologetics web sites seem to link back, though! (Why do you think that is?)
The Diversity of Religions....
Great site - but heavily christian orientated, as far as I can see (still got a lot more to work through :)
I think that it's the diversity of religions which provides the greatest grounds for disbelief. My favourite question for christians/muslims/jews... how come the native Australians never heard of your 'omniprescent' god?
Tom Rees <tomrees@brighton73.freeserve.co.uk>
Brighton, UK
Editor's Note: Theodore Drange has formulated an argument for atheism called the Argument from Confusion (AC) based in part on the diversity of religions. According to AC, there is widespread confusion among believers concerning the precise nature of God, the religious path God wants his followers to take, and so forth. Drange argues that this confusion is much more likely if atheism is true than if Christianity is true. See his opening statement in his Internet debate with Douglas Wilson for more information.
Yet another nonbeliever produced by the Secular Web...
I want to thank you for your site and for all your hard work. You helped me to achieve (yes, achieve) atheism a few years ago. Raised a Catholic, I became seriously religious as a teenager and planned to become a priest which, thankfully, didn't pan out. Years of law school and law practice instilled a habit of criticism in me which, when focused on the bible and church dogma, led me finally to begin asking tough questions. My faith didn't survive the scrutiny. After transitioning through an interest in Eastern religions (I couldn't bring myself to believe in karma or reincarnation), I realized to my surprise and relief that I was an atheist.
Timothy Mulligan <tmulligan@central.uh.edu>
Houston, TX USA
Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict
One: The two geneologies of Jesus are not both refering to Joseph. One is refering to Joseph's line, the other is refering to Mary's line.
Two: You may convince more people of your point if you rave less, do not run on and on with so many convulted arguments, and stop the playground name calling. What you can't dispute is that the book of Luke in the Bible was written by a learned man - a physician and historian. If Luke had written a "secular" history book, nobody would dispute his accounts. To have so many ancient books agreeing on so many common themes, as does the New Testament, in the secular world would lead academics to say "Of course it's legitimate!" Don't give me the "But, they don't agree on EVERY point" stuff because, just as in secular hitories by secular historians, those can be explained by any competent, conservative biblical scholar (see Frank Harber for one www.defendingthefaith.com). Not to mention that there are secular historians such as Josephus that support the New Testament accounts of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. What it boils down to, and this is always the case because we are humans and not machines, is that we eventually must reconcile our heads with our hearts. If you are hell-bent on not believing in Christ, guess what? There's a good chance you never will. If your mind is open to all sides of the argument, and ultimately open to God, you will come to Christ because the Truth is evident, as McDowell points out.
Thanks.
Greg Carpenter <activatemail@yahoo.com>
Wake Forest, NC USA
Internet Infidels' Response:
The Mary claim is not logical even to a layman who can read the plain English. Luke 3.23 states quite clearly "He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,...etc." and Matthew 1.16 concludes "Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus." Mary's geneology is thus nowhere represented here--all we have is allowance for a virgin birth (whereas Luke allows this with the "so it was thought" qualification). We are given the father of Jesus, and the father of Joseph, and so on, all the way up, in both cases. Thus, the two books contradict each other, plain and simple, by one declaring that Joseph's father was Jacob, and the other that Joseph's father was Heli. There is no way out of this.
As for how Luke's being a doctor "can't be disputed," that is beyond me--it is merely a supposition, so it can certainly be disputed. The physician companion of Paul may not be the author of acts or the gospel attributed to him--we have no evidence, in fact, that they are. It was merely presumed by others, a century later. Luke doesn't sign either book, much less tell us his profession. His accounts are less fabulous, and thus show signs of an educated seriousness lacking in the other gospels, but the works display no details that would require him to have had an actual medical education. So it certainly can be disputed that the author was a doctor. Not that this matters. Doctors could be just as superstitious as anyone else in antiquity, even employ magic in their healing practices. And we are not told which school of medicine Paul's companion belonged to.
Certainly the gospel author was educated. He could write, and less than 10% of the population at the time could claim that. But was he "learned"? The only men whom we feel qualified to call learned are those who cite or quote many other ancient authorities--the definition of being learned is, after all, having read many authorities. Plutarch and Pliny were learned. I see not even a single piece of ancient source material even mentioned in Luke. So he does not qualify as learned--at least not on what we have of his work.
And Luke proves a serious lack of academic skill in one respect: he appears to have not read Paul's letters (also a good reason to reject the claim that he was paul's companion). He seems ignorant of many of Paul's theological positions (including his views on justification). And many other details, such as his account in Acts of Paul's conversion and travels, contradict many of Paul's own accounts (such as in Galatians, etc.).
As for this history business, Mr. Carpenter is really putting his foot in his mouth with that one. It amazes me how Christians think us historians are all gullible dupes who "never" dispute anything an ancient historian writes. Indeed, I know of no ancient author, of any genre or subject, whom any modern historian completely trusts--and that even includes the most meticulous of them all, Polybius and Thucydides. The first thing we are taught as historians is not to trust any source. We are taught to find ulterior motives, weaknesses of evidence, the tendency to embellish and regard rumor and myth as fact, the attraction of amazing tales over sober reality (an attraction more than once explicitly stated, in even sober historians like Tacitus), as well as literary features such as redaction, propoganda, and agenda. And all these distortions find their way into all ancient sources, secular or otherwise.
Physical evidence is also essential to the most reliable historical claims. Yet we have none to support the miracles of Jesus, yet plenty to "support" the healing miracles of Asclepius. Certainly, if amazing recoveries happened in the temples of a pagan god, there can be nothing divine about the same thing happening in the presence of a Jewish holy man. And if we can be told about giant ants by Herodotus, who treat this tall tale as if it were true, then the tall tale of the zombies in Matthew should not surprise us either. The same things can be said of every aspect of the gospel accounts, in Luke or otherwise.
Isn't this all just a big waste of time?
Hi. I'd like to start off by saying again how informative and enoyable I find your website. It would even go as far as saying that it's probably the most intelligent collection of thought provoking material on line at this point. It's certainly my favorite.
However, even though many of my own professors reference your material for their personal use, many of them feel that your organization is unfortunately a waste of time. They feel that the philosophical community looks down on professors who belong to an organization whose sole purpose is to attack and defame religion. I think your aims are much more noble and complex than that, but I'm starting to agree that any organization which argues forcefully for nontheism tends to leave a bad taste in the mouths of even the most atheistic philosophers that I've come into acquaintance with. Why is this and what can we do to change it?
Also, I would like to ask if anyone on the premises of this site has heard ofany information on a recent crop of arguments for/against the resurrection based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I've heard a rumor that J. P. Moreland has recently written a paper in defense of the resurrection based on this kind of argument. Is there any truth to this and are they any counter-arguments available on your site?
Greg Scorzo <Cortex3959@aol.com>
Downey, CA USA
Editor's Note: I'm glad to hear that you find our website informative and enjoyable. And yes, I am all too familiar with atheist professors who are turned off by "any organization which argues forcefully for nontheism." (I find it ironic that your professors consult the Secular Web "for their personal use," but then claim that it is a waste of time.) I'm inclined to agree with Eddie Tabash, who writes that "the core of the problem is that the dominant culture, which is controlled to a large degree by theists, has so structured contemporary social norms that it is considered bad manners to attack religion."
However, I want to immediately set the record straight about the purpose of Internet Infidels, Inc. (I think this distinction may also help to alleviate the concerns of your professors.) The purpose of II is NOT to "defame religion." To defame something is to make an untruthful assertion of fact about the victim. Nor is the purpose of II to attack religious believers; we criticize religious claims. To put the point another way: we don't attack religious people; we criticize religious ideas. As we state in our FAQ, "the purpose of the Internet Infidels is to provide a virtual library of information on nontheistic worldviews, including agnosticism, atheism, freethought, humanism, and secularism."
As for a defense of the Resurrection based on the second law of thermodynamics, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with such an argument. Perhaps one of the Christian theists in the audience could submit an essay for publication on the Secular Web, summarizing the argument?
The Catholic Church and Indulgences
I'm responding to your sarcastic article on the Catholic Church's decision to grant indulgences for the Millennium Jubilee, in which the author mocks the doctrine of papal infalliblity. The author remarks, "Remember that the Holy Father may be infallible, but he still needs all the help he can get." The problem is with the first part of this sentence. Contrary to what many critics of the Church may believe, the pope himself is not infallible. The doctrine of infallibility only applies when the pope is sitting ex cathedra, literally in a special chair, and--here's the shocker, folks--it has only been used TWICE in the Church's history, both times on Marian teachings. It's true--LOOK IT UP! So it is FALSE that anything the pope does or says is infallible. Now I'm not saying anything about my opinion on the decision; I simply feel that perhaps you'd better do a little more research before posting such snide commentaries.
Jonathan Raia <jraia@mail.utexas.edu>
Austin, TX USA
Editor's Note: I just received a message from the author of that sarcastic article. He wrote, "I got a lot of heat over the fact that my joke article wasn't a 100% accurate description of Catholic dogma. I got so tired of explaining that it was a joke, that I decided the only thing to do was go away and write a serious article." He hopes to have the "serious" article available soon.
How many eyewitnesses do you need?
Thank you for your research. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ who believes in his atoning death, resurrection, and coming eternal kingdom. Yet the bible is no more infallible than its human authors, though they were inspired by their Creator. That is the grace of God, that God has not forsaken us through our long history, though we have time and again. I thank you because many believers put their faith in a book- using it as an idol- rather than in God the savior. I am grateful that you'll help me to reveal this error. I had some great laughs at some of the "contradictions/unfulfilled prophecies", they were so absurd. My one question is this:"How many eyewitnesses do you need to be told the same, identical, in perfect chronological order, story of whatever event you may choose?" Thanks again.
Eric Banasiewicz <lexijoy@aol.com>
USA
Please educate your readers about the true nature and significance of the Bible...
It is apparent to me that most, if not all of the books and articles, presented at this site were written by or for people who are or have been fundamentalists. By this I mean people who regard the Bible as a book literally dictated by God, and probably so in the English of 1611. It is nor surprising that such an understanding of the Bible could cause them trouble. This view of what the bible is, is erroneous as I know many scholars will confirm.
When one recognizes how the bible developed and what the bible is, the books and articles to which I refer in the first paragraph, appear as silly as the biblical understanding which they strive to undermine. May I then suggest that you adopt a scheme under which people may be informed of what sort of a library the bible actually is and the resulting significance of its contents.
J. Stanley Wilkinson <jbsw@bc.sympatico.ca>
Chilliwack, BC Canada
Unscholarly cheap shot
[This message was in response to: "Jesus Was a Hypocrite" by Donald Morgan.]
Such a title as the above is catchy, and probably appeals to a certain element but is an unscholarly cheap shot. Much that is available at this cite is and thought provoking but this does neither the author nor the maintainers of the pages any credit.
J. Stanley Wilkinson <jbsw@bc.sympatico.ca>
Chilliwack, BC Canada
The evidence for psychic phenomena is fairly substantial
[This feedback was in reply to: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/define.html]
Very interesting essay, but I suspect if there is a afterlife you would have to alter your whole way of analysing things so much you couldn't possibly understand it without seeming insane. Which of course would immediately discount you on the basis of delusions.
It's a real trap, just like early age man contemplating the possibility of flight or space travel or the internet. It's beyond the scope of thinking. Of course I've now strayed into the optimistic delusional irrational thinking of religions, so I'm discredited. So, simply, evidence that challenges the materialist view. Ghosts, pyschic phenonama, things that get caught on video cameras throwing things around - if not dead human spirits then what the hell are they? Maybe we don't want to know?
Now this mighn't sound very scientific, but almost everyone I've asked has a memory of feeling strong anxiety about a loved one to find something has happened to them or their partner, and when you question to see if a intuitive/perceptive reason for this could exist (ie. out of contact for longer than normal, how often have they felt this way (and been wrong?) etc) rarely has there been any logical explanation. I can't prove the soul survives death, but I feel the evidence for pyschic phenoma in this life is fairly substantial (at the subtle level, not your dial a pyschic crap).
And finally, materialism is fine as a basis, being built on a established materialist universe that is made of things you can touch. But, was a lump of crud floating around in a void and exploded, and that's it. Where did it come from? I think George Lucas and Jung had the right idea. The Force, the Collective Mind that"surrounds us, penetrates us and binds the galaxy together"etc. SORRY, but now I'm definitely labelled in the religious delusional category!
Darren Lierkamp <dlierkam@dbworld.net.au>
West Melton, Vi Australia
Editor's Note: Actually, as a nonbeliever I do NOT categorize believers as "delusional." (Jim Jones and David Koresh are another story altogether.) As someone who used to claim to be a follower of Jesus, I know all too well how real religious experiences can seem. Although I think believers are mistaken, I do not consider them delusional.
As for the possibility that the soul survives death, I know that many (but not all) stories of psychic phenomena have been shown to be hoaxes. Moreover, I have independent reasons for believing that consciousness and personality are highly dependent on the brain. If that is the case--and I sincerely wish it were not--then it's highly unlikely that there is life after death.
Daniel P. Fuller's Defense of the Resurrection
I am looking for a reponse to the following reasoning for Jesus' resurrection taken from Daniel P. Fuller's book Easter Faith and History (1965, Eerdmans). Here I can present only his conclusions (of little value without his arguments), but could send more if you cannot locate the book.
"Somehow it must be understood how Paul, who remained completely loyal to the basic tenets of orthodox Judaism, could nevertheless cease to glory in the Jewish distinctives. No motivation residing in Paul nor deriving from his background as a Pharisee can account for his doing this in heading up the Gentile mission, for his pride in these distinctives had been so great that he had been as zealous to persecute the church as the Jews were now zealous to persecute him. The explanation for the Gentile mission must, therefore, derive from something apart from Paul and his background. It must derive from something outside the natural sphere. Paul's explanation is that the risen Jesus appeared to him, and since no explanation from the natural sphere is possible, and since the only proposal for an explanation deriving from the supernatural sphere is the resurrection of Jesus, therefore this is the explanation for the Gentile mission that is to be accepted" (p. 219).
I could not find this approach addressed on the Secular Web. Did I miss it?
Jim McClain <jmcclain@cogent.net>
Duarte, CA USA
Internet Infidels' Response:
Paul may have seen the clouds gathering on the horizon--the coming Jewish War. The Judaism of Jesus (Jesus was not a heretic--he was a Jew, and taught a reform of Judaism) offered an ideal solution to what any intelligent man would have seen to be the impending doom of his people and his faith. Violence was certain to bring about the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. The fate of Carthage, and Corinth, a place whose history Paul was very familiar with, proved that. And the Jewish desire for a savior was becoming militarized. Josephus records the rising violent messianism rising from the twenties all the way to the war in the sixties. Jerusalem was destroyed. Millions were enslaved or killed. The Temple Tax was redirected to Jupiter.
The teachings of Jesus were an obvious way for Paul to save his people and his faith: by teaching a non-violent submission to Rome, a concentration on inner rather than outer expressions of faith, and a displacement of present complaints by promissing an accounting after death, and in an apocalypse, and the expansion of the faith beyond racial limits (which was already the secret to the success and acceptance of other asian religions by Rome), he would succeed in removong those features of other popular messianic movements which were increasingly violent, and overtly divisive and offensive to the occupying power. Moreover, tens of thousands had been killed in riots over the Roman treatment of the Temple, and a reform which would take attention away from that hotbed of violence would have been ideal.
We also have to consider the effects of guilt. Paul persecuted the early followers, but what if he realized this was wrong? Indeed, if he realized that this new reform was essential to the survival of his people and their faith, the guilt may have been unbearable, yet could be easily atoned for by conversion, support, and penance in the form of enduring the wrongful persucution that he deserved (an eye for an eye). This becomes even more likely when we consider that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh. He only saw a light and heard a voice, long after Jesus had died. If his guilt and revelation (of the need for this new reform) led to an epiphany, a moment of clarity, or even combined with the physical effects of an optical illusion, embolism, or other event, which he interpreted as a vision from god, telling him what his conscience was already coming to realize, then all of this becomes a plausible, realistic, and unsupernatural explanation, which happens to fit the facts fairly well.
Comments and questions on a great site
Hey there, Infidels: Great site. If only there were more places like this (particularly OFF the Net), atheists might not be so afraid to "come out". However, I would like to point a few things out, as well as ask a few questions:
1) Firstly, in your atheist celebrities area, Isaac Asimov died seven years ago, shortly after finishing his novel Forward The Foundation. Unless you have other dead atheist celebrities listed and I didn't realize it, I would suggest getting rid of his name. Also, pointing out Mikhail Gorbachev as an atheist celebrity doesn't seem to make much sense, considering in the former Soviet Union everyone was (theoretically) atheist. Oh well, whatever works...
2) I have (personally) found that the majority of people are tolerant of atheists. I should point out that when I say "majority of people", I am speaking mostly of other teenagers (I'm 16 and a junior in high school). A few of my friends are even devout Christians, which makes it all the less realistic. The only problem I have hit is people trying to convert me (See my poem, The Door-to-Door Salesman, currently entered in the Arizona State Poetry Contest. You can put it on the II site if you want.).
3) I know you've already talked about "coming out" about being atheist, and you might find it strange that practically everyone but my family knows, but maybe you could help me here. My parents are quite tolerant of all kinds of people (including atheists), but I'm not sure how'll they'll react to knowing their son is one, even though we're not a very
religious family. What would you recommend to someone who's not sure if their family will accept them or, say, send them to a military school?
4) While my school does not have school prayer of any kind (unless you count moment of silence), there is something else that disturbs me. Sometimes at school assemblies, particularly those right before winter break, the band and chorus play and sing religious songs (The song "When Jesus Christ Was Born" comes to mind as one played in recent years). Since all students' are required to attend these assemblies, doesn't this violate the 1st Amendment rights of non-Christian students?
Thanks for reading, and. keep up the good work!
Jason Silverstein <jag82@excite.com>
Chandler, AZ USA
Not accurately representing the true insights of spirituality
As a person who spent 30 years pursuing spiritual quests and found interesting answers (and many more questions) I would like to point out some deficiencies in your factual material. The main problem is that representing firm believes in non-existence of spiritual reality you fight and dismiss opinions that are not representative to the true insights into spiritual realm. Spirituality, to me, is an awarness that physical (or material) is just one of many dimensions in which human being, or any being for that matter, exists. It has very little to do with God with the exception that the concept of God is helpful to some people in experiencing the spiritual side of their nature. On the other hand, some people do very well without that concept. As incredible as it seems to be today you can find sources that offer not only reliable insights into spiritual realm but also very rational explenations and helpful hints on how one can gain personal experience of the spiritual. But again, if you keep focusing your attention on superstitious and religious examples you will not go very far.
The subject is rich and complex so by necessity I have to limit the scope of my letter to the most fundamental issues. First, let me explain the concept of 'other dimensions'. Unlike in mathematics and physics the spiritual dimensions are not of spacial nature. The exact nature of those dimensions is irrelevant (some people claim that it is the rate of vibration that defines and differentiates dimensions but I think that elaborating here on that subject would derail our discussion into unproductive speculations). What is important that those dimensions coexists more or less the same like thousand of messages traveling through fiber optic at the same time and hardly interfering with each other. Yet, there are some subtle and very important interferences and, what is most important, the conscious you exists independently of any of those dimensions. In other words, your conscious you not only is not a product of the physical body (your brain) but is capable of moving between and focusing on any dimension it chooses so. The hard link between your conscious mind and the physical body is nothing else but a hypnosis. Sort of watching a horror movie and getting scared as if it was a reality (I am not saying that life is a horror). However, there are ways of loosening that link and set yourself, or your consciousness, free. This is the essence of every serious meditation but it happens not only to oriental mystics. Actually, it can happen to you if you give it a serious try. And it will definitely happen at the time of your death but experiencing it before you die makes a tremendous difference. The simplest way today to experience the other dimensions is to find somebody who is trained in Manipulating the Human Energy Field and let this person treat your health problems. Of course, you want to avoid charlatans and crooks so a good recommendation is necessary. As a preparation for such experience I recommend buing and reading the book 'Hands of Light' by Barbara Brennan (a psychologist and healer who used to work for NASA). If you contact me I can recommend a friend, a certified healer, who can do the same. By undergoing such treatment you will not necessarily gain experience of your other dimensions but you will certainly experience many amazing and 'unexplained' physical sensations including heat and dizziness. You may also experience seeing colors related to your energy centers (chakras) and if you give it a try, you may start seeing human aura which is not as hard to accomplish as you may think.
The next experience I recommend seeking is to find a good book on astrology and study it with an open mind. It may help to know that astrology was proven correct by few honest scientifical studies. Of course, the modern science being as superstitious and fanatic as any orthodox religion doesn't advertise those findings but if you ask me I will provide references. Please, understand me well. Those scientifical findings about astrology are quite irrelevant and they prove nothing more than some unexplained statistical correlations. Any serious astrologer will explain to you that applying statistics to astrology is to miss the point but nevertheless it is a good way to shake a little your hardened mechanistics believes about the nature of the universe. The book I would recommend for starters is popular Linda Goodman's Sun Signs (by Linda Goodman, of course).
The third and final (for today) venture into the spiritual realm is to get yourself acquainted with the works of Monroe Institute. Robert Monroe was engaged for many years in 'Out of Body Experience' but what is important here is that while doing so he never lost the instinct of a scientist who questions all experiences and demands that everything is verified and evaluated by the rigorous rational process. As a result the Monroe Institute is able to offer a set of sound recordings that very efficiently support your efforts in experiencing different and to many unexplored states of mind, or of your consciousness, which can be precisely matched with specific brain waves. Yhat may, or may not, lead to the OBE (Out of Body Experience) but it certainly leads to some quite fascinating discoveries about yourself.
Przemek Nowicki <kingprzemyslaw@geocities.com>
Hightstown, NJ USA
|
[ e-mail the URL of this page ]
[top of page]
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Copyright© Internet Infidels® 1995-Present. All rights reserved.
|
