 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
Last month Rob Haskell, among other more
general remarks, responded to Don
Morgan's claim that there is a possible contradiction between PR 8:13 &
16:6, where "It is the fear of God that keeps men from evil," and 1JN 4:18,
where "There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out fear." Mr. Haskell
claimed:
it is a well known fact that both the Hebrew and Greek words for
"fear" are often used as synonyms for "respect" or "honor."
Don Morgan replied:
What matters as to whether there is or is not a valid inconsistency
in what
I
pointed out is not so much what you think is well-known with regard to the
usage of the Hebrew and Greek words translated "fear," rather what matters is
what the specific Hebrew and Greek words in the verses in question were
intended to mean. And in this, I believe that the Bible translators probably
generally know better than either you or I what was likely intended. (Keep in
mind
that the Bible translators are experts in their field.)...[and]...the word
translated "fear" in all of the following verses is exactly the same word in
the
Greek
[LK
12:5,
1PE
2:17,
1JN 4:18].
To keep our readers informed I added a note on the word in question (the verb
phobeô), which I subsequently revised after discussing the matter with Mr.
Haskell, who led me to examine Hebrew roots of the concept. His response is
reproduced, in part, below, followed by an abbreviated version of my reply to
him.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for posting my response to Donald Morgan and his response as well. For some reason I merited an "editor's note," which a dubious privilege, I suppose. But I beg to differ with it on a factual basis. I reproduce it: phobeô in the Greek of Paul's day indicated an extreme fear or terror, of the sort that makes one flee (it is the root of our word "phobia"). It was not used to indicate "respect" or "honor." To the contrary, it is only the Greek words for "revere" (hazomai) and "stand in awe" (sebomai) and others which came to mean by analogy "fear" (especially in respect to gods and parents), and not the other way around, and such words are conspicuously unused in the passages noted above. [this has subsequently been rewritten--ed.]
I read your bio. As you know Greek, I assume you are familiar with the The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which is the standard work for defining Greek words used in the New Testament. This is not a Fundamentalist work, but for the most part was produced by Liberal German scholars who were if anything anti-traditional in their views. The dictionary first defines, with copious evidence, the meaning of Greek words in the Greek world in general. Then it explores Biblical uses. All this is to say that TDNT is a (if not the) legitimate authority when it comes to Greek words used in the New Testament and is recognized by all scholars in the field. Here are a couple of the statements made about phobos in its common usage (i.e. without any reference to its use in the NT) in TDNT: The expressions containing the words of the phobos group always describe a reaction to man's encounter with force. The scale of reactions ranges from spontaneous terror and anxiety to honor and respect. [192 Vol. IX]; The meaning vacillates between 'anxiety', 'fear', and 'respect'. [195 Vol. IX] These statements are supported by several pages of technical details. I am sure you can look it up! Mr. Morgan appealed to the authority of scholars and Bible translators in his response. TDNT is what the experts in the field have said. Also, it is interesting that he assumes I am not an expert.
As to the passages that Mr. Morgan claims I am being too charitable with, I offer my understanding:
of Luke 12:15: The Bible does teach very clearly and in many ways that those who do not repent from evil behavior have much to fear from God. There is no contradiction in this. That fear is alleviated through repentance;
of I Peter 2:17: This is a case in which the meaning "honor," "respect" or "obedience" is meant. The immediate Context supports this. The first phrase is literally "honor all" (New International Version: "Show proper respect to everyone" and adds a colon). Mr. Morgan quotes the King James version, which adds "men" because it treats "all" as substantive. I think the NIV renders it better. "Honor all" is a general statement that is then spelled out specifically. Thus the meaning "honor" or "respect" is to be preferred over "Be in terror" or some such thing;
of I John 4:18: Verse 16 says, "God is Love. Whoever lives in love, lives in God, and God in him." Those who do not live in God have reason to fear (and here the "terror" sense is certainly meant). This is another way of saying what has already been stated in the Luke passage.
I hope I have shown that I am not being overly charitable and at least as objective as I am able. Even if you do still disagree with my understanding of the word phobos, I have at least shown it is a legitimate reasonable understanding and I am not speaking out of ignorance, and to be honest, I was a bit miffed that I came out looking so.
Holding no grudges,
Rob Haskell
The Richard Carrier responds:
I must first say that my editorial note was meant only to confirm Don's one linguistic claim (I wasn't sure it was right, checked it, then added my results). I generally agree with you otherwise, and have at your advice researched the Hebrew roots of fear terms and changed my editorial note to allow that possibility, but even after consulting the TDNT I still see no evidence whatsoever that phob- words ever meant respect or honor instead of dread.
When I checked the evidence in the TDNT for the claim that phob- words can mean "respect" or "honor," I found the point not at all supported--the argument becomes circular, since the very passages in question, which are not clear at all, are cited as "evidence" for a particular meaning which is not really confirmed there. The fact that this "meaning" comes last out of the five given in the TDNT suggests to me that the authors are giving leeway to theologians who would otherwise object. The Hebrew evidence I found to be stronger, though still inconclusive, hence I have changed the editorial note to allow for disagreement.
But consider what the TDNT claims first to be evidence for this definition as "honor" or "respect" (2.e): Plato, Laws 927a-b. But this offers no support at all--in fact, it gives the exact opposite evidence. I ask all who are interested to read paragraphs 927a through 927d of the Laws. You will find that the only possible meaning of all phob- words there is actually being afraid of harm. Plato makes it clear that the Guardians are to fear the harm that can come to them from Gods, spirits, and elders (who will actively use the law to punish them double). Thus, this is fear of harm--of the sort intended to make the Guardians flee from contemplating wrong. How then do the authors of the TDNT read this as evidence of the meaning "respect" or "honor"? There is something seriously suspect here.
Then the authors cite Aeschylus, Suppliant Maidens 893--but that use is also clearly fear of harm: an abductor is warned by the chorus that the gods will punish him (872ff.), and he responds--"I do not fear the native gods, be assured. They did not rear me, nor by their nurture did they bring me to old age." In other words, he does not know them and thus does not fear any harm from them (and he is doing no wrong, cf. line 916ff. "And in this case where have I gone wrong and transgressed my right?" etc.). Again, this proves a meaning of fear of harm, not of respect or honor. Why then is it cited as evidence of the reverse? Then they give Euripides, Medea 1202, but this again is clearly a dread that makes the characters flee from touching a hideously poisoned body, for fear of contamination. So clearly, these three cases being examples of fear as dread, not as respect or honor (except as might be caused by dread), there is something extremely fishy about this definition. Don't you agree? The same problems also arise with the Hebrew evidence, but the issue there is much more complex, and my expertise much weaker.
Perhaps a clue is to be gotten when we read this TDNT section carefully. Section 3.b notes that in the Hebrew idiom this "reverence and submissive recognition" stems from both "fear resulting essentially from threat but also...the author of the threat" and then section 5 says "faith and awe, hope of salvation and fear of judgement, cannot be fundamentally separated in the NT" and in their analysis of 1 John 4:17 they say that punishment, the source of fear, is "indissolubly connected and posited with fear." Thus, these authors are saying that phobos only means reverence, respect, honor with and because of fear of harm and not instead of it. It seems then that the TDNT supports what Mr. Morgan is claiming about the passages in question.
Now, I do not really take a position on whether there is a contradiction in the Bible here--I was only concerned with Don's linguistic claim. I personally could care less whether such contradictions exist--it is not contradictions in the Bible, but its barbarity and rudeness that turn me away from revering that book. I can see your point how it is said that only perfect love casts out fear, because such a person no longer has reason to fear. Yet this qualifier seems to be ignored in the other passages, when all believers are being told en masse to fear God--as if no one really loved god enough that they did not have to fear him anymore.
And your analysis of I Peter 2:17 is not at all clear to me. The specific word for "honor" is used twice in that passage, yet is conspicuously not used in reference to God--why change vocabulary? This suggests that our attitude toward God must have something different about it than mere "honor." I agree that "honor all" is much to be preferred to "honor all men" but this is a blanket term, not a synonym. Not only are we to honor God, our brothers, and kings, Peter then says we are also to fear God (phobeisthe), love brothers (agapate), and honor kings (timate again). It would have been better for an author not to use a threatening word here--so the specific choice to do so implies something (especially in apposition to love), and it must mean something more than just "honor." In line with everything that the TDNT states and that I have found, this "something more" is dread .
Thank you, first, for taking the time to read this note. I believe it is of ample importance. My concern has to do with the recent September 1999 edition of the Internet Infidels Newsletter. There was, as you probably know, an article included there concerning Lee Strobel and his alleged response to Jeffery Lowder on the Bible Answer Man program.
Sadly, this report is misleading in at least two areas. For instance, the Newsletter says Strobel noted his unwillingness to give the Secular Web "free publicity." According to this document, Strobel, in this declaration, was referring to Mr. Lowder's plagiarism accusations. This is false. Instead, Strobel said this in reference to another one of Lowder's problems with the book. Specifically, the one where Lowder accuses Strobel of not providing the Secular Web address for Dr. Robert Price's arguments against the empty tomb of Christ. The caller had mentioned prior that this accusation was included in Mr. Lowder's review. Strobel said that he was amazed that Mr. Lowder would actually say something like that. He found it strange that Mr. Lowder was actually angry that Internet Infidels (i.e. this Price paper) was not given recognition in The Case for Christ. So this statement about "free publicity" was not in regards Lowder's earlier paper, but Price's (it also had nothing to do with "plagiarism").
The second piece of inaccurate information comes in the article's concluding statement. It says, "Hanegraaff cut off the caller before any debate could ensue." This, of course, is untrue. In actuality, the caller first spoke of these matters regarding Lowder's review. At the conclusion of the call, Mr. Strobel asked if the caller would, at some point, provide him with the web address of Mr. Lowder's critique. The gentleman graciously complied and ended the call on that note. It was unequivocally clear that the young man had absolutely no intention of debating these matters. For all that, he seemed quite happy with the answers he was provided (it's worth noting, he was actually a supporter of Strobel and Hanegraaff). And, to be sure, he certainly was not "cut off" in any manner.
Of course, I can see where you might be suspicious of my testimony concerning this dialogue. Thankfully, you do not have to take my word for it. I believe one can purchase an audiotape version of this specific show (for approximately $5.00) from the Christian Research Institute. The phone number for such orders is (949) 858-6100. It is certain that the Internet Infidels would never want to misrepresent anyone such as Mr. Strobel or Mr. Hanegraaff in any of these Newsletters. Hence, I'm sure that these errors will soon be amended.
Under
the mercy,
T. Wanchick
Richard Carrier responds:
As you will note, the article only reports the observations of one listener. Now we have the observations of another. Thankyou.
For his essay "Must a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?" great thanks go to J.J.
Lowder from those of us who are silently irritated at our many
fellow-nontheists who show a fearless arrogance in their language.
I have met far too many career atheists and blasphemy-page owners who
carelessly equate the words "religious" and "minion" with an ease too great to
be found humorous. Mr. Lowder draws credit to the nontheist community by
defining the "Freethinker" label and thus preserving its meaningfulness,
especially for those of us who have carefully doubted and struggled with a
faith rooted in complex apologetics.
Perhaps if such atheistic dogmatists put in the research and debate time Mr.
Lowder has, they would realize that any philosophy can have its dogmas and that
pure freethought is like infinity--it's an abstract notion that can be
approached but never reached.
Alan Simpson <simpso81@msu.edu>
East Lansing, MI USA - Tuesday, November 30, 1999 at 11:47:24 (MST)
Thank you, Dr. Lowder, for addressing a lingering burden in the back of my
(theistically oriented) mind. I have been frustrated in the past by such dogma
that defines "freethinking" in terms of what is believed instead of why it is
believed. My own conversion to Christianity involved intense skepticism and
rigorous questioning. Sometimes I wonder how many atheists did not become so
simply because of an intense desire to shed their fundamentalist or Catholic
rearing, rather than balanced inquiry alone. Perhaps more than a few.
Thanks,
Rob Blueside <blueside@hotmail.com
>
Chicago, IL USA - Monday, November 29, 1999 at 21:01:35 (MST)
Thank you! I consider myself a freethinker, and I believe in something much greater than us, that is this great force that creates us in the first place...could it be a God, maybe. But I definitely do not guide my life by what a book (bible) tells me to because it is God's will, or by what a religion (Catholic, Adventist, or any) tells me I should do, because I form my own opinions, based on logic and reason to do the best in this world.
Melida Olivo <miguelida@excite.com
>
San Antonio, TX USA - Monday, November 29, 1999 at 09:20:30 (MST)
As an individual who is both a believer in a higher level of existence than
the physical and someone who prides himself on his open mind, I was very
pleased to see this article. Too many atheists think that "theist" and
"brainwashed plebe" are synonymous, which is hardly the case. I myself tore my
beliefs down to their foundations and rebuilt them using both logic and
intuition, and by no means do I consider the work finished!! It is good to see
that there are people out there that agree that the moment you close your mind
is the moment you begin to die.
JCS <leatherank@aol.com>
chicago, il USA - Monday, November 29, 1999 at 02:32:08 (MST)
Dear Mr. Lowder:
As Bertrand Russell is a hero of mine, I do not disagree with him. I merely
find a loose thread in his argument to support my argument, namely: Anyone who
sincerely seeks truth is led invariably to the epistemological duo of
empiricism and rationalism (reason), because he finds that intuitionism and
mysticism are unfounded superstitious froth, and authoritarianism is by
Russell's (and my) definition, the antithesis of free thought. No one claims
any
other source of knowledge than the five above.
In Russell's statement, "...after careful thought, he finds a balance of
evidence in their favor...", it is inconceivable that "evidence" has meaning
apart from empiricism and reason. Free-thinking must begin with "What is truth
itself?" The answer must be based on reason, because it takes reason to
consider the choices.
I would call theist free-thinkers friends--one is a former Lutheran minister
who became a Unitarian Universalist. But he would be foreign in a humanist
group,
or say, in cosmology, back to where the science/God interface has been pushed.
Travis Hardin <
travishardin@mindspring.com>
Huntsville, AL USA - Sunday, November 28, 1999 at 18:34:04 (MST)
Regarding Jeff Lowder's article, Must a Freethinker be a Non-theist. Seems to
me that it's nice to have a so-called authority figure like B. Russell try to
make
life simpler for us by his explanations regarding Freethinkers,
theists and nontheists. I do respect B. Russell for his long time opposition to
the promoters of supernaturalism. I also respect our facilitators of the
Secular Web and the Infidels organization and so on. Jeff's article brings to
mind the meetings of the Cardinals wasted time on trying to determine "how many
angels danced on the head of a straight pin" Jeff and I being admitted Atheists
are permitted to disagree with each other. For my suggestions to M. Murray,
about
use of the words below I was scolded. I was nice about it, but some people take
a suggestion as an affront to their dignity. What is that? Poor folks don't
have dignity?
Since I was 5 years of age, I suspected that the supernaturalists religions
were a sham, and a power trip at that young an age. Now then I know I am not a
genius because to be one, one must be exalted as one publicly. It's like
sainthood. The title must be voted on by a board of some sort. I expect I will
never be exalted by the public. The article would have impressed me more if the
phrases with the word God in them had the words "a God" in them, because there
to me is always the presumption there is a "god" of some kind. The last living
god was Emperor Hirohito an invention, title & position created by the
murderous ruling classes of the Japanese people. Will & Ariel Durant in their
books explain in their books somewhere, when the invention of the invisible god
occurred, invented by a priest and he was killed for expressing the idea by the
other ruling priests. However they later used to idea. Similar to how Jesus
Christ was a rebel was turned into a God by influential people.
We Atheists, Freethinkers are living proof that no gods of any kind are needed.
The
ideas of People, Education, Sciences, and Evolution ideas (PESE) are the true
ideas to replace supernaturalisms hold on all societies.
Respectfully,
Drew Kovaly <drew@ap.net>
Cotati, Ca USA - Sunday, November 28, 1999 at 11:44:37 (MST)
Jeff Lowder responds:
I am as guilty as anyone for engaging in petty arguments over definitions. But I strongly disagree with the accusation that discussing whether theists can be freethinkers is a waste of time. Many nontheists tend to use the word "freethinker" as an umbrella term for nontheists and possibly some very liberal theists (e.g., deists). This won't work, however, for two reasons. First, some nontheists are not freethinkers. For example, some nontheists have never bothered to consider the arguments for the existence of God; such nontheists therefore by definition cannot be considered freethinkers. Second, some theists (and not just deists, either) have based their theism on arguments for the existence of God, not emotion, tradition, or authority. (Those arguments may very well be mistaken, but as I argue in my essay, that is irrelevant to whether theists can be freethinkers.) Any nontheist who denies these two points is equivalent to the fundamentalist who says that all atheists are fools. Not only is such a person mistaken, they sound like idiots to the theistic majority.
Lowder's "Must a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?" is a refreshing breeze of
freethought in a too-often pseudo-freethought environment of elitist
materialists. Elitism of any form is contrary to the spirit of freethought
which embraces an open discussion of disagreements and conflicting opinions.
The Secular Web, by the way, embraces this philosophy--especially seen in its
library. I only wish other "freethought" organizations were less sectarian and
more
open to dialogue with each other.
Mark Wenneborg <norteno@famvid.com
>
Springfield, IL USA - Saturday, November 27, 1999 at 12:23:42 (MST)
Very well-stated. I've long held that some of my friends who happen to be
theistic deserve the label of "freethinker" much more than some of my fellow
atheists. Dogmatism transcends the issue of whether one believes in a deity...
a look
at Stalin's regime in Russia shows that in startling clarity.
Although we differ on the issue of whether God exists, nontheists and members
of more liberal religious groups share more in common, I think, than the
liberal theists share with fundamentalists. We and the liberal theists
generally believe in keeping the wall between church and state; fundamentalists
would tear it down. We and the liberal theists typically have humanistic
concerns in protecting the environment, working toward equality for women,
combating prejudice; fundamentalists would rape the earth, feeling it's only a
temporary vessel that will soon be destroyed anyway, and keeping women and
other minorities down is what they consider holy.
It would seem we're natural allies, atheists and religious liberals. The only
thing keeping us apart are some "freethinkers" on both sides who don't deserve
the label.
Jason Tippitt <scarcrest@hotmail.com
>
Camden, TN USA - Saturday, November 27, 1999 at 10:30:03 (MST)
Good stuff! Some time ago I sent away for the "CFA packet" with the idea of
creating a chapter here at UNM. During that process I became more and more
troubled with the semantics. Was the info I received really pointing to a
"Campus FREETHOUGHT" group, or a "Campus ATHEIST" group? Not that I--as an
atheist--have any sort of problem with the latter, but these two groups have
non-negligibly different agendas. I think that, clearly, atheism is home to
more
true freethinkers than religion, but the correlation is not total.
Sean Elicker <tsean@santafe.edu>
Albuquerque, NM USA - Friday, November 26, 1999 at 13:21:22 (MST)
Concerning Lowder's column "Must a Freethinker be an atheist?", the view
that freethought equates to atheism is not unique to US non-theists:
Jeff Lowder responds:
This doesn't contradict my point at all. "Doubting or denying religious dogma" is not equivalent to denying or lacking belief in the existence of God; moreover, the above definition does not even rule out applying the label "freethinker" to a person who forms opinions on non-religious subjects "on the basis of reason independently of authority."
I
want to show my appreciation for Lowder's feature article on freethought. I am
not a naturalist, so I do not consider myself a freethinker; however, being a
critical examiner of both my chosen tradition (Christianity) and non-theism, I
consider your thoughts to be right on the mark and long overdue. I oftentimes
find
that
some non-theists consider theists to be mindless and brain-washed. I'm sure you
frequent Christian links and could corroborate this fact. While those labels
may definitely be appropriate for some disciples, you appear to recognize that
such labels are by no means normative. Although you did not mention this
directly, I appreciate your remarks about Swinburne. Your critical comments can
do nothing but strengthen your case. I, for one, resent the notion that theists
cannot examine various traditions with the same degree intellectual objectivity
that non-theists can, and you are correct in asserting that many theists
consider "freethought" to be a joke. If your proposition could gain strength
among freethinkers, perhaps you could gain a forum among "freethinking"
theists. I would look forward to the conversations that would surely be
generated from such a development. Thank you for your willingness to honestly
examine your own viewpoints. It certainly increases my respect for you as a
thinker. I perceive no personal agenda with you, but that, instead, you are
truly a genuine seeker of truth. I hope the journey is fruitful.
Sincerely,
Brian Hall <xpistiavous@hotmail.com
>
Memphis, TN USA - Friday, November 26, 1999 at 12:08:23 (MST)
Lowder spoke volumes in his article when he stated "as an atheist, so far..."
People who believe in god are not free thinkers because their belief in god
does not allow free thought. They allow no debate concerning the central issues
of theism. They accept as a given that there IS a god. To be a free thinker,
one must at least be willing to consider the idea that there might not be a
god. Theists cannot do this. To be theists they have to believe, as a
fundamental tenant of their belief systems, in god. They allow no debate on the
issue. There might be debates between the various sects of theism as to what
god is like, what god thinks, where god is, what sex god is, but there are no
acceptable debates among theists about GOD IS. To suggest otherwise is sorely
mistaken. No religious institution has room in it for debate about its
foundation. None. Can theists be freethinkers? No, because they are FORCED to
believe as a part of being theists.
This whole argument is designed by theists as an apologetic for their belief
system. Atheists claim that theists are not and cannot be freethinkers and
theists turn around and claim that to be truly freethinking, you have to be
allowed the option of being a theist. The point is not whether theists can
think freely. The point is whether they can think freely about their beliefs.
There is no religion that tolerates the notion of NO GOD. Therefore, theists
cannot
be free thinkers except in some convoluted realm of fantasy where down is up
and in
is out.
Terry Gabriel <
tgabriel@bellsouth.net>
Raleigh, NC USA - Friday, November 26, 1999 at 09:44:22 (MST)
Jeff Lowder responds:
Perhaps you've spent too much hanging around fundamentalists. I personally have known several theists who allow plenty of debate concerning the central issues of theism. They have doubts about their belief and are very willing to consider the idea that there might not be a god. One simply does not have to disallow debate on the existence of God in order to be a theist. Of course, it may very well be the case that freethinking theists are rare. But that wouldn't contradict my thesis that one cannot rule out by definition the possibility of a freethinking theist.
People are reticent about using the word 'dogma' because of the word's
negative, even offensive, connotations. Instead of avoiding dogmatism, however,
we hide our commitment to dogmatism with word games. Religious people call
their reliance on tradition and authority 'faith'. Nontheists attempt a similar
obfuscation by re-defining freethinking as the opposite of theism. The opposite
of freethinking is dogmatism. Nontheists who re-define freethinking as
nontheism are implicitly refusing to acknowledge that thought which reaches
conclusions opposite to their own conclusions can be the result of good
thinking. Such nontheists are thereby embracing a favorite anti-theistic dogma:
The
dogma that only nontheism can be non-dogmatic. They are, at least in this
respect, being anti-intellectual.
This refusal of both theists and nontheists to confront dogmatism for what it
is is a shame because it is dogmatism versus freethought, not theism versus
nontheism, that is the more important distinction with the most impact. As an
example, the Chinese authorities today utilize a dogmatic form of atheism to
defend their authoritarianism. So I thank Jeff for his essay, and I hope people
read it.
Matt G <matt@tidalwave.net>
USA - Thursday, November 25, 1999 at 09:23:50 (MST)
In
his column on Freethinking and Nontheism, Mr. Lowder says that equating
nontheist with freethinker makes the term 'freethinker' out to be a semantical
joke. This would be true in the case that a freethinking one becomes both an
exclusivist and welcoming organization. He has identified that the definitions
provided by FFRF and the Council for Secular Humanism are both more properly
termed Secular Skepticism. They essentially say that one should rationally
critique all views and come to a proper conclusion, provided that that excludes
God.
Clearly, one can not be a proper rational skeptic with this moniker of
secularism. One can never totally exclude that possibility of a God or the
possibility in toto and still truly be accepting of all possibilities.
Moreover, one can not totally condemn others who have come to a theist position
"on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established
belief." This is even given that the freethinker does not come to a similar
conclusion.
The problem in this case lies in an improper definition of a "Freethinker." I
would suggest that the proper definition is one of a rational skeptic as I
defined above, without the exclusion of the possibility of God. Again, the
explicit exclusion of the possibility of a Theistic Freethinker is
contradictory, clearly not freethinking. What I would like to do is explain the
inherent contradictions in worship and dogma in being a freethinker. The
problem lies not in some definition of freethinking, but the hypocrisy of
freethinking for the pious theist.
A theist is one who believes in God. Insofar as one believes in God, this is
not a restriction to anything as long as the belief, no matter how concrete, is
still subject to review. However, given that one ascribes to any religious
belief, it becomes a moral imperative to follow divine law regardless of
reason. At the moment rational inquiry indicates to an individual that a
religion is "The Truth," the divine authority of that religion supercedes the
individual's own reason. Human beings are fallible, but given a true belief in
a divinity, one has an infallible creed complete with an omniscient judge, and
one must follow those teachings or that person is a hypocrite and heretic.
I would agree with Mr. Lowder that a Theist, one who believes in God, could be
a freethinker given that he continues to examine counterexamples to that belief
with
full scrutiny. However, any person who ascribes to a religion must follow the
precepts of that religion unhesitatingly. This requires that a person reject
all possibilities contrary to previous divine revelation or scripture,
particularly the atheist view. Consequently, the religious theist can not be
considered a freethinker. To do so is not unacceptable to the freethinker, but
rather
to his fellow religionists who must brand his open-mindedness heresy and
hypocrisy.
Jason Torpy <nephilim1@hotmail.com
>
Marietta, OH USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 22:10:33 (MST)
Jeff Lowder responds:
This is excellent feedback. I agree that any theist who is unwilling to subject his theistic beliefs to critical scrutiny is not a freethinker. But it is not so clear to me that theists who practice a religion must automatically be excluded from the "freethinker" label. It seems to me that even a moderately conservative Christian could be a freethinker so long as he bases his beliefs on arguments and he is willing to consider critiques of those arguments.
Must
a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?
Absolutely. One cannot be a theist without invoking faith. And one cannot be a
freethinker if one draws conclusions based on faith. The two are mutually
exclusive, and the FFRF is right to define a freethinker as a nontheist.
If a child tells one that he or she believes in Santa because by Christmas
morning the gifts have "magically" appeared under the tree and the cookies and
milk
have
been all gobbled up, is the child a "free" thinker? I think not. Drawing hasty
conclusions from flimsy evidence is demonstrative of acting at least in part on
the
basis of faith, an emotion that was more useful to primitive man than modern
Homo sapiens sapiens by far. It's the most egregious of all hindrances
to a rational society.
Without the intercession of faith, the statistical arguments offered by
theologians such as Swinburne are duds. They're beautiful edifices built
on foundations of wishful thinking -- all those hidden assumptions. Theists
make declarations about reality like it were going out of style!
Anyone who examines the evidence (or the lack thereof) and concludes either
that the supernatural exists or that the supernatural doesn't exist, is not
a freethinker. Such a person is a wishfulthinker. The etymologically
relevant version of atheism (similar to the popular misconception of
agnosticism, which is actually a statement about knowledge, not belief), is the
only tenable stance for a freethinker. One must be without belief on
this issue, for the "evidence" can be applied (in various restrictive ways) to
inductively "prove" the truth or falsity of theism. Such proofs are like shell
games: one must take care to watch the hidden assumptions as they get shuffled
around. It's easy to be deceived when one already agrees with the
conclusion. (Emotions cast a "fog" over the mind's ability to reason.)
The first step toward freedom of the mind is acknowledging one's ignorance and
limited capacity to know the "Truth." One must reject unhealthy desires
to find the answer to unanswerable questions. The purpose of freethought is to
make
life in the here and now better. It exists because the six-thousand-year
quest
for the inner "Truth" in the West did little or nothing to make the world a
better place. The greatest "success" of that unhealthy obsession was the
acknowledgment of its failure.
The development of science and technology has been intimately related to the
freethought movement. Thus freethought has done more for humanity in 300 years
than anything else in anytime or place has ever accomplished. Certainly
the faithful were among the ranks of the early scientific elite -- and many
still remain today -- but it's not like the human mind isn't known for its
immense ability to compartmentalize itself. Emotions exact a heavy toll on our
mental lives. Both the theist who has been brought up within a faith-based
worldview and the atheist who comes to develop an emotional need for
spirituality, both of them do the best they can to maintain reason if and when
it is mentally possible. (Fish are the last creatures to discover water. Since
our thoughts develop on the stage of our minds, we're usually the last
to discover the nature of our own misconceptions. )
Freethought is a societal movement. A freethinker vacillates in and out of the
movement perhaps many times in a lifetime -- perhaps many times during the
course
of a
day! But on looking at the big picture, the correlation between the advance of
both freethought and science is undeniable. And so too is the mutually
exclusive nature of freethought and theism undeniable despite people's
self-contradictory tendencies. (That's actually a good argument for the
non-existence of the "self." If it were to exist, it would be certainly be
consistent.)
Eric Bijaz <bijaz@philosophers.net
>
Gainesville, FL USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 21:25:05 (MST)
Jeff Lowder responds:
This response begs the question. It assumes, without argument, that all theists must base their theism on faith. However, in my essay, I gave the example of Richard Swinburne's cumulative case for theism. I see no contradiction at all between theistic belief and Swinburne's cumulative case for theism; Eric just assumes that no theist could ever hold theistic beliefs on the basis of arguments like Swinburne's. (Again, I am aware that the sort of theist I am describing may be rare, but that is irrelevant to my argument.) And it won't do to say that Swinburne's cumulative case is a "dud" because that is also irrelevant. Even if Swinburne's cumulative case is unsound, it would still be the case that a theist would be a freethinker if they based their theism on Swinburne's case and honestly considered critiques of Swinburne's case.
Jeff,
I appreciate your Freethinker article. I heard Gerald Larue discuss this a few
years
ago at a conference in Cincinnati. He wrote a book that I think is called
"Freethinkers Through the Centuries" that supports your perspective. In his
talk he pointed out that Martin Luther should rightly be considered a
Freethinker since he thought outside the box of the dogma of his day. He didn't
accept the Catholic church's authority over his own thoughts. Of course, from
my perspective, he simply thought himself into a different box.
Bill Warner <bawarner@swbell.net
>
Valley Park, MO USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 21:25:28 (MST)
Re:Must a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?
Mr. Lowder is usually well spoken. However, I think he slightly misses the mark here although I will admit that it's possibly because of brevity.
Mr. Lowder's complaint (if I understand him correctly) is that many nontheists are equating "freethinker" with "nontheist." He complains that it is merely a "distortion of language." I do agree with Mr Lowder that in a strict sense that organizations like the FFRF and CFA use the word in a slightly different meaning than is stated in their own respective definitions.
However Mr. Lowder fails to note that words change meaning and that common
meanings are usually "fuzzy." Common definitions are usually decided by usage.
The definitions stated for most words (such is what is found in dictionaries)
usually do not exactly match their usage. I don't see any evidence that
nontheists believe that Christians and other theists do not THINK FREE or are
not FREELY THINKING by virtue of this usage of the word "freethought."
(Nontheists may believe that said theists are not FREELY THINKING but it
is by virtue of things other than language usage.)
I
checked several dictionaries for definitions of freethought:
Jeff Lowder responds:
This is also excellent feedback. I agree with Mr. Laska that the meaning of words can change over time, that there are benefits to having an umbrella term for nontheists, etc. But my argument cannot be reduced to simply the claim that equating freethought with atheism is a distortion of language. There is much more to my argument than that single point. By attempting to exclude theists from adopting the label "freethinker," nontheists are implying that theists, by definition, do not think freely with respect to their theism. And the dictionaries quoted above do not deny my thesis that a theist can be a freethinker. The American Heritage definition says nothing about rejecting the existence of God; it speaks only of rejecting authority and dogma. Theists can be theists without basing their theism on authority or dogma. (This is also my response to the Merriam-Webster definition.) And I don't think the Wordnet definition supports your position, for it implies that only deists can be freethinkers and therefore excludes atheists and agnostics.
One final point. There are actually two different issues here. The first is whether a theist can be a freethinker. I've already explained ad nauseum why I think a theist can indeed be a freethinker. The second issue is whether all nontheists are freethinkers. Even if you reject the possibility of a theistic freethinker, it still doesn't follow that all atheists and agnostics are freethinkers. I've known quite a few atheists who were very dogmatic in their unbelief and many more agnostics who were persistent in their apathy about the existence of God. None of those people qualify as freethinkers. So "freethinker" is still a poor umbrella term for the nontheistic community.
This article is excellent. I should point out an inconsistency in Russell's
discussion of free thought. He seems to think the class of theistic
freethinkers is actually empty; in discussion about the appointment of a
philosophy professor at the University of Chicago Russell said that everyone
agreed that the appointee should be a Christian. Since, he said, all
philosophers of any eminence are either openly or secretly (!) freethinkers,
insisting on a Christian entailed that they would either get a nonentity or a
humbug. But couldn't they have gotten one of those Christian freethinkers?
Victor Reppert <
reppert@gc.maricopa.edu>
Phoenix, AZ USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 17:46:03 (MST)
Can a theist be a freethinker? Why not ask if a Jew can be a Nazi, if a
black
man can be a Klansman, or if up can be down? Theism and freethought are
mutually exclusive! Although many authors attempt unsuccessfully to defend
theism with various bastardized forms of "reasoning" no true, unbiased
application of reason ever has or ever will be able to demonstrate the
existence of a supernatural being (or beings). Theistic belief is dependent on
either the unwillingness to accept, or inability to comprehend, reason. However
it's justified, theism is an outdated system of belief with no basis in
reality. Regardless of how complex and eloquently stated (as in Mr. Swinburne's
case), any argument for religious belief is simply indicitive of a slavish
devotion to ancient superstitions. The very antithesis of freethought, by any
definition.
William Mistretta <
willmistretta@hotmail.com>
Twentynine Palms, CA USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 11:44:52 (MST)
Jeff Lowder responds:
You seem to be confusing the difference between the reasons a person has a belief, and whether that belief is true. As an atheist, I agree with you that there is no evidence for the supernatural. But that's beside the point. The issue is whether a person could be a theist without basing their theism on tradition, authority, or established belief. There is simply no reason to believe that, by definition, theists can't be freethinkers. A person might believe that God exists on the basis of theistic arguments (however faulty) like the first cause argument, the design argument, the moral argument, etc. Indeed, many people are theists precisely because of those arguments. (Again, whether those arguments are any good is beside the point.) But if they base their theistic belief on those arguments (and are willing to seriously consider nontheistic critiques of those arguments), then by definition they are freethinkers.
It is not often that a short article manages to speak forcefully, clearly, and completely on a controversial topic, but Mr. Lowder's article, "Must a Freethinker be a Nontheist" does all this.
His remark that "By equating 'freethought' with atheism, agnosticism, or
naturalism, nontheists have turned the word 'freethinker' into a semantical
joke" is dead on. When I was still a theist, I would frequently run into
"freethought" organizations on campus that denied that my beliefs could, even
in principal, be the product of the same type of rational thinking process that
produced theirs. For me, this just made them look as closed minded as I and
other theists I knew were being accused of being.
I often come to www.infidels.org, and while I am often pleased with much of
what I find here, I frequently feel that the emotion-over-rationality mindset
that exists in the minds of so many believers is equally present among
nontheists. Lowder's piece, however, makes sifting through the dross
worthwhile.
Daniel
J.
Elmore <elmore_d@bls.gov>
Washington, DC USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 11:32:03 (MST)
Hurray for Jeff Lowder's essay, "Must a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?"!
Like the persons who preach and demand that we "tolerate and accept everyone" -
except, of course, those who aren't tolerant or accepting of everyone (e.g.,
Christians, Jews and Moslems who hold that homosexuality is wrong), those who
say "freethinkers" are those who think freely - unless, of course, their
thinking causes them to believe in God - do, in Lowder's words, turn the word
"freethinker" into a semantical joke.
Eric Weiss <eweiss@gte.net>
USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 11:28:46 (MST)
I was Christian for over 15 years. During that time I believed my faith was
grounded in reason, logic and the evidence. I wouldn't have believed it
otherwise.
Later on I discovered that the reason, logic and evidences for Christianity do
not hold up under scrutiny, but it is still WHY I believed in the first place.
So
here's a cheer for you. We need to be very careful in defining terms or else we
may find ourselves guilty of the same illogic that we sometimes find theists
guilty of.
Max Hebert <madmax9@home.com>
Edmond, OK USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 11:21:17 (MST)
My compliments on Jeffrey Lowder's "Must a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?" As a
recovered fundamentalist Christian, I know from experience that many believers
do their human best to be freethinkers. The confiscation of any label by
zealots can often result in absurdities such as the one this column pointed out
- that according to many in freethought organizations, freethinkers are 'free'
to be anything but believers.
Ironically, in my journey through various levels of belief, I've found similar
attitudes towards the label 'atheist.' I consider myself to be an atheist,
though I often have to argue for the 'right' to use that label in reference to
myself - not by theists but by other atheists. I am often told that I can't be
an atheist unless I'm prepared to deny any and all possibility of there
existing such a thing as a deity. I believe such exclusionary attitudes do
great harm, fragmenting a community that is already a minority in our society.
I choose to use George Smith's approach to atheism which says that the terms
'theist' and 'atheist' define a razor-edged dichotomy which split by the
operative phrase "belief in a god or gods." A theist has such a belief; an
atheist does not. Whether a person lacks a belief in a deity because they are
convinced that such a thing is a logical impossibility or simply because they
have never seen anything that persuaded them to believe such a concept is
irrelevant. The lack of belief is the one definitive quality that defines
Atheism.
Anyway, thank you for your thought-provoking and entertaining website.
Sincerely
Gilker Kimmel <gilker@aol.com>
Austin, Tx USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 08:12:43 (MST)
Bravo, Mr. Lowder! I have long languished in a sort of limbo, knowing my
theistic beliefs had merit and yet rejected by some of the more "militant"
atheists I have met. Your article "Must a Freethinker Be a Nontheist?" laid
that misconception to rest, at least in my opinion.
I have been an occasional visitor to the Secular Web, and I especially like
your work, as it usually walks the very thin line between pandering to the
theist majority and dogmatic rejection of that majority.
Once again, excellent work!
Wade A. Jessee <
acbl_newbie@hotmail.com>
USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 07:26:24 (MST)
Why is
it a problem for naturalism that natural selection has not created brains that
can do mathematical physics? Natural selection has not created brains that can
do mathematical physics. People learn how to speak and how to walk without
having
to be taught. Everybody has to be taught how to do calculus. Nobody is born
with an instinctive grasp of calculus, without having to be taught, in the way
people are born with an innate grasp of languages and walking.
But this is no more a problem for natural selection than the ability of people
to be trained to play golf or to juggle, or the ability of, say, a seal to
balance
a ball
on its nose. What advantage does natural selection give to a seal who can
balance
a ball
on its nose? Perhaps God designed circuses?
Plus, mathematical physics is the product of many, many people. Just as there
is no problem for natural selection that twenty people can lift what one person
could never lift on his own, using just his naturally evolved body, so there is
no problem in having a million brains to solve problems that one person could
not work out on his own.
Steven Carr <
steven@bowness.demon.co.uk>
Liverpool, England - Tuesday, November 30, 1999 at 02:13:57 (MST)
Dear Paul Carlson,
Jesus Christ is the son of GOD!! He lived a perfect life, died on a cross and
rose again. The power of His blood saves those who believe, repent, and are
baptized into Him (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6;3-4).
Throughout your commentary I noticed that you took many verses out of context
and perverted them to fit your argument. The Lord says if you try to take
anything away from his word He will remove you from the lambs book of life, and
if you add anything to His word, God will add the plauges upon you (Rev.
22:18-19).
I don't say this in hate, I would hope you would re-consider you philosophy
and come to the knowledge of truth. I do not belive in vengence because the
Lord
will avenge. I hope and pray you come to obey the gospel of Christ (2 Thes.
1:6-10), because He is the ONLY way to be saved. Please for your soul's sake,
obey Jesus Christ.
A
Servant in Christ,
Tim Josiah <josiah5@usa.net>
Searcy, AR USA - Monday, November 29, 1999 at 22:40:17 (MST)
I am a Mormon and was looking up stuff on Joseph Smith for a project and this webpage sounds like a bunch of baloney. Where did you get your information? Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and I can testify to that. Prayers are always answered but not always in ways you want them to be answered. You just have to listen and have the right mind. Also, just because something hasn't been fulfilled, doesn't mean it's yet to come. Joseph Smith was not a false prophet and is the greatest man as a hero literally. I don't know where you got your info. But most of the things in it are false on church doctrine.
Jasmine Burch <Chhstrpt@aol.com>
Colleyville, TX USA - Monday, November 29, 1999 at 16:01:57 (MST)
Then who performs the miracles today? I've seen a bone stuck out of arm and
when prayer to God was administered, the bone miraculously went into the arm
and not
a scar was left. What about a blind man, that had no eye, then when prayers to
God was asked, then amazingly an eye appeared!
Everyone will stand judgement before their creator...... what will you say
then?
Jesus loves you!
Melinda Fred <mdfred@juno.com>
Jefferson, Mo USA - Monday, November 29, 1999 at 12:40:10 (MST)
Farrell Till responds:
How about providing some documentation for this? Who were these people? Where can I go to see them? What physicians can I contact for verification that this "miracle" happened? And how do you know that "everyone will stand judgement before their creator"? Without begging any questions or assuming the inerrancy of the Bible, can you provide me with any real evidence that anything like this will happen? Jesus has been coming soon all of my life, and I am now 66. All of these predictions turned out to be wrong. Why should I think that you know any more than all of the others whose predictions of impending judgment have failed? And if he does come, I will say, "How did you expect me to believe that anything like this was going to happen when you gave no reliable evidence that it would?" Indeed, how could someone who is dead and who may not have even existed possibly love me?
It seems to me that the editor did more grasping for straws in this response
than Hatcher did in the referenced text. The problem with the editorial reply
from the standpoint of an outsider who does not frequently read these articles
is that much lashing out was done without any actual argumentation. Although
there seems to be an over-use of references in some of Hatcher's "Till Is
Batting Around .250 on Daniel", some of this may be due to limitations of the
medium (HTML). Were one to read a good book on the issue, one might find a
foot/endnote number next to the comment "... was speaking of years". The
numerous references would then be in shortened form as a footnote, with full
works referenced at the end of the book.
Hatcher made some excellent points that were clouded by having to skim over
dozens
of names of books and their authors, but the points still exist. A response to
such a text ought not to be "referencing without an argument is a fallacy" (not
a quote from Till) but rather a counter-argument.
Indeed, using too many references is never, in my academic and scientific
experience, considered a bad thing. The more authoritative people who support a
given view, the better. It would be considered plagiarism to write out the
argument for the (arbitrarily:) twentieth time when others have given it and
can be cited instead. Hatcher's, again, was not the most impressive article in
terms of writing ability but nor may this one be. Till's response was simply a
minimalistic one to refute (without any arguments) Hatcher's own response.
It might be notable that I am both a computer network and operating system
consultant and a conservative Christian theology student and my views may, I
should hope, reflect both my scientific mind-set and my religious persuasions.
Michael T. Babcock <
mikebabcock@pobox.com>
Peterborough, ON Canada - Sunday, November 07, 1999 at 23:32:05 (MST)
i don't have time to show you the truth for all of your verses, but i
will
show you a few things that you must have overlooked: you guys sure hate God,
saying
he commits homisides,like Uzza in 1 Chronicles that God killed Uzza for trying
to save the ark from falling, which indeed was a good dead, (but) you must have
overlooked that God had strictly commanded that no one touch the ark, and so
Uzza was struck dead. God says it is important for us to obey Him (completely)
in all things---even when we don't understand why he directs us in certain
ways. He told Uzza "NOT" to touch the ark, which simply means that if Uzza had
obeyed God in the first place he wouldn't have been struck dead. God didn't
punish him for doing a good deed guys, he punished Uzza for disobeying him.
And
about David and Bathsheba: First of all you left a few things out:
David's little crimes were, - LUST, Adultury, or an "little affair", MURDER OF
Bathsheba's husband-Uriah,that ain't a little crime guys! and about the kid,
yes that is a sad thing, but the bible does tell us that We will suffer for our
parent's sins, but the good news about God is if we ask for him to break those
generational chains brought by our parents, he will heal us and we won't
suffer.
No
matter how bad this sounds, it didn't say the child suffered in there, don't ad
all of those adjectives guys, they make alot of lies. And by the way the kid
went to heaven. FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON
THAT WHEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH(IN HELL), BUT HAVE EVERLASTING
LIFE (IN HEAVEN), guys you need Jesus, or you will go to hell, but I don't want
you to, and neither does God, there were reasons for all of those punishments
that you called "homisides" or murders, God warned all of these people, and yet
they disobeyed, God didn't murder them, he punished them after warning them, No
matter how much you may hate him for who knows what, he still loves you, all
GOOD gifts come from heaven, all sickness and death comes from the enemy(Satan)
who believe me doesn't love you, he wants you dead. you can hate me for this
letter, It don't matter to me, but all this hate you guys demonstrate shows how
much you need Jesus, and that's what I want you to know. Now you have been
warned, so don't say God didn't warn you now, he will either welcome you on
Judgement day or fcondemn you ( to hell) , THE COICE IS YOURS. GOD BLESS!
Troy
Edin
<edin@blackduck.net>
Blackduck, MN USA - Tuesday, November 02, 1999 at 22:26:15 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Satan: "Ah! Uzzah! Glad to have you! Burn, baby, burn!"
Uzzah: "Wha...whoa, how'd I end up here? Last thing I remember, I instinctively lunged to protect my Lord's sacred arc, and then...oh, damn! He killed me for that? What a bastard!"
Satan: "Yeah, but that's tough geebies for you. I just love this God fellow. He sends people down here for all kinds of stupid reasons. Uzzah, meet Gandhi. You can join him in the flaming pool of wormsnot over there and chat for a few millenia, assuming you can choke down the pain and stench long enough to converse at all."
Gandhi: "What are you in for, my good friend?"
Uzzah: "I accidentally touched a box."
Gandhi: "Damn! That's even stupider than why I'm down here!"
Uzzah: "What's that?"
Gandhi: "I advocated peace through nonviolent protest, and the universal love of humankind, and risked my life on numerous occasions to win the freedom of millions of my fellow countrymen, but forgot to believe in some guy called Jesus."
Uzzah: "Huh? Who's Jesus?"
Gandhi: "Long story."
Uzzah: "You mean I had to believe in some guy named Jesus and let my God's favorite box crash to the ground in order to avoid this place? That wasn't in the rules God gave us. Boy, I shouldv'e split town long before this box fiasco and lived it up--since I was doomed from the start it seems!"
Gandhi: "Well, yes. But I have always found a personal contentment with having realized my ideals and stood for them even unto death, and no matter how much the worms chew my flesh, I will never be conquered by your wicked and cruel demonlord Jehova. There is no greater joy, even in your god's heaven."
Uzzah: "That sounds groovy. I know what you mean. Jehova can't be at all a nice guy if he will execute me for touching a box, even though I didn't have time to think, and give me no mercy or dispensation for having had good intentions and been stuck in an impossible situation, and then send me here to suffer for eternity for a petty crime--I mean, I didn't even hurt a soul!"
Gandhi: "Too bad he never listened to my arguments for compassion and nonviolence. Instead he cruelly employs torture and violence to execute his every whim, even to enforce trivial rules. One wonders what he really cares about--the feelings of others or his own ego. Why else would a man even give a damn whether people believed in him? And what sort of monster obsesses about this to the point of torturing endlessly everyone who doesn't believe in him? I still can't figure out why he's supposed to be better than this Satan fellow here. Hey, who's that?"
St. Peter: "It's St. Peter."
Uzzah: "Who?"
Gandhi and St. Peter: "Long story."
Gandhi: "What are you doing down here?"
St. Peter: "Oh, I just got bored. I woke up with my head on the Book of Life, all covered in drool. It only has a couple of pages in it anyway--heaven is like a ghost town. Every now and then I like to come down and have a hot tub and chat with all the decent folk. Keeps me sane."
Gandhi and Uzzah: "Amen!"
Thanks
to
Martin for making AFI (Argument From Incoherence) clear. I found Nielson of
Moreland vs. Nielsen just a bit too exotic to understand. AFI (philosophical
version)is too easily refuted. God [hypothetical], doesn't have to learn how to
swim because God creates water, arms, legs, bodies and therefore knows already
how
these thing work, being their creator. Perfection is not additive. God must
have the best knowledge, not the sum total of all categories of knowledge. To
insist
on that is simply nonsense. To use my favorite example, we insist that pilots
practice their skill because we expect humans to be fallible. God would know
all
about both swimming and flying without doing anything requiring a body. Guys:
come up with something better! As for AFI (biblical evidence version), I must
leave that up to you all.
Sincerely,
Ernie Sparks <
erniesparks@hotmail.com>
Portland, OR USA - Friday, November 26, 1999 at 03:05:07 (MST)
Dear Mr. Lowder and Associates,
I am
just now reading the Lowder-Fernandes debate text. Would it be possible in a
future debate to have the naturalist take an affirmative position and the
theist take a negative position? For example, 'Understanding the Universe and
Making Rational Moral Decisions Require No Divine Beings'. I don't know whether
this would square well with the wishes of both Infidel and Biblical Defense
groups. Theists always seem to come off sounding like frustrated evangelists,
and naturalists/atheists always sound like carping critics, or defense
attornies that are always shouting 'Objection! Immaterial and irrelevant!' I
ask this because I am temperamentally disposed to be optimistic and cheerful,
while my friend tends to be temperamentally pessimistic and cynical; yet I line
up somewhat on your side and he on the side of the theist.
I also wonder if it would be possible to have an initial metadebate or
colloquium on terminological and methodological issues, like evidence, proof,
necessity, infinity, scientific and moral categories of language and thought.
This might help to establish positions in advance, so the real debate can move
forward without getting bogged down in these protocol issues.
I hope
my suggestions are not too unwieldy to give a try.
Sincerely,
Ernie Sparks <
erniesparks@hotmail.com>
Portland, OR USA - Thursday, November 25, 1999 at 13:16:14 (MST)
I
noticed something about the Lowder-Fernandes debate that upsets me. I see this
all the time on atheist web pages. Why do you only include posts praising
Lowder, the (I'm assuming) atheist? As atheists, we all brag about how
open-minded we are and how its those narrow-minded religious nuts who censor
information. Why don't the same rules apply to us?
It wouldn't kill a tree to post something critical of Lowder or positive of
Fernandes. Try to be a little more open-minded in the future
Steve Nielson <
fucmaroo@imap3.asu.edu>
Mesa, AZ USA - Monday, November 15, 1999 at 19:29:41 (MST)
Jeff Lowder responds:
The web page in question was an advertisement on a secular web page. I fully expect that Fernandes will have similar endorsements of his performance when he advertises the tape through his organization. I have sent review copies of the videotape to a couple of theistic philosophers; so far they have not reviewed the tape. So it is not like we are exactly suppressing theistic reviews of the tape anyway. Thanks anyway for your interest in the videotape.
I actually have a question in reference to the article, "Humanism and the
Ignorant." My question is this; What books were the 'fundamentalists' wanting
to burn. I think that is very important to the cause. I feel that there might
be a slight misrepresentation. I am currently enrolled in college. At this
college the President is a leading fundamentalist and Texan. We are reading
many of the works from Plato, Aristotle, Dante, and many other classical
authors and post-modern authors. So my question is specifically what books are
they wanting to ban?
I will also ask do these books represent the truth acurately.
If I
have misunderstood anything, my apologies, I was just curious as to what books
they
were trying to ban. Thankyou!
Doug Ald <
guitclass@apologetics.com>
Raliegh, NC USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 13:59:32 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Bill Edelen's editorial does not refer to any specific case, nor to all fundamentalists, nor does it say anyone wanted to burn books. The article merely responds to "some" fundamentalists who call for the removal of certain works of "great literature" from libraries, and compares this with Nazi book burning. For a list of the books some fundamentalists (and others) have tried to have removed from libraries, see Books That Have Been Challenged (compiled by the Christian Science Monitor). Fundamentalists are not alone. Afrocentrists and feminists and other special interest groups have made similar attempts.
In response to the article about humanism being misinterpreted, I must offer
my agreement, and disagreement. I agree that Christians have the wrong ideas
about humanism, probably due to the fact that many Christians have thought bred
out of them and follow blindly like sheep.
I don't believe, however, that Jesus actually existed. I think that he was
merely
an ordinary human teacher who made a difference in a few people's lives. Over
the course of generations he was assigned divine properties stolen, I might add
from earlier pagan sources such as Horus, Buddha, and Krishna. The religious
figure that was the teacher doesn't even have the same name he did when he was
alive. Considering the superstitious dread the ancient Jews had in naming the
name of their God, it is highly unlikely that a Jewish family would name their
son "God Saves," which is what the name Jesus means.
I think people need to put their salvation in each other's hands, and not in
some fictitious divinely appointed savior. Maybe if we tried to help one
another in the here and now, and not in the hereafter, maybe we can be saved.
If we stopped preaching, and started teaching, healing, feeding, clothing and
housing everyone on the planet, maybe then, could we finally begin to live.
Mick Whitaker <mick85204@yahoo.com
>
Mesa, AZ USA - Saturday, November 20, 1999 at 14:56:34 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Jesus was a very common name at that time--it frequently appears as the name of historical persons in inscriptions, papyri and literature. The historian Josephus identifies at least four men by that name. There could well have been one by that name who started a religious movement which eventually became Christianity. I think it is sufficiently credible that a Jesus who had a man named Peter in his entourage, and who may have had a brother named James, was crucified under Pontius Pilate for some crime, and that much legend and distortion followed this, obscuring the facts greatly. It is still possible that Jesus is a fiction for the very reason you allege (the name's meaning as "savior" suggests the name is symbolic), but this is not automatically more credible than historicity, and is even compatible with it (a real Jesus may have adopted the name for the same reasons).
In resonse to Humanism and the Ignorant:
Humanism is a double-edged sword. On one hand, we can go with the fuzzy, feel
good definitions that value humankind above all else. If a policy or action
furthers human well-being, freedom, and intelligent inquiry, all is well. This
line of thinking embraces all of humanity and the belief that every life can be
made
into something worthwhile.
On the other hand, sometimes the pursuit of human well-being, freedom, and
intelligent inquiry calls for draconian measures in regards to humanity owning
up to personal responsibilities and the eschewing the welfare state--or in
doublespeak, there may be some collateral damage to the unwashed masses. In
reality, not all lives can be turned into something worthwhile, and sometimes,
these lives diminish the quality of life for others.
I hesitate to call myself a Humanist because I do not believe in coddling
humanity to the nth degree. Humanity cannot thrive in a world of 6+ billion
people who are all fighting for their share of increasingly meager resources.
To
thrive physically, intellectually, and materially, humanity must start
encouraging people to think for themselves and fend for themselves--and quit
enabling the dregs of society to flourish.
I know this sounds harsh and unfeeling, but to what ends do we feed all the
hungry third world children just so they can reproduce more third world hungry
children? We can rail about hunger being an issue of power and politics and
that our technology is capable of feeding the world--but the reality is that
power
and politics is not going away and technology will not make it go away. The
same issue arises with generational welfare families--it might be the humane
thing to do to take care of single mothers and such, but is it in the best
interest of humanity? I would argue that it is not--and that "Humanism" is at
best a vague term.
If Humanism is to be a philosophy that offers humankind the best of all worlds,
then we have got to expect humans to rise to the occasion and earn the best of
all worlds. We all know there is no free lunch--yet Humanism appears to support
the idea that people should be given free lunches. Compassion is all well and
fine in certain cases--but it has led to a nasty Catch-22. Instead of moving
towards
a
society of equals, we are encouraging the creation of an underclass with
diminished brain power and potential--and the existence of such an underclass
gives us reason to feel like warm and fuzzy Humanists--and our warm and fuzzy
actions create the underclasses.... The parade of addled minded idiots and
weak-minded morons grows longer every year--and to a certain extent, it is the
fault of Humanism that such is the case be it Secular Humanism or the
humanistic, mythical teachings of Jesus.
To that end, some Humanists have fallen right into the trap set by
Christianity--a trap which attempts to rein in human brilliance, human
achievement, human grandeur, by claiming that every life is a valued life and
every life must be catered to. In some cases, Humanists are just as sadistic as
Mother Teresa when they advocate stringing along miserable lives.
The answer to this situation will not be pretty, but the sooner we honestly
evaluate it, the better. I fully understand I probably stand alone in my
opinions, and I offer them here to give others something to think about. Is
Humanism--as it is currently displayed--really in the best interest of
Humanity?
Keri Farnes <kerridwen@hotmail.com
>
Richard Carrier responds:
This is a cute Randian tirade which deserves an equally acidic response. Like most Objectivist philosophy in my opinion, your argument ignores reality, over-generalizes the facts, and accuses entire, ambiguously-identified groups of having certain outrageous attitudes that it is more likely none of them really possesses. How is it, for example, that you know "not all lives can be turned into something worthwhile"? I'm sure you have a stack of scientific studies backing up that claim? Such strawman polemics seem to be the forte of the Objectivist crowd. Where exactly do you find any humanist literature which advocates "coddling humanity to the nth degree" or anything of the kind? Name one humanist who has ever said 6 billion people on Earth is okay, or that we must hand-feed everyone and expect nothing in return. You will have a hard time finding one--because everyone I know is ardently pointing up how disastrous this population size is, and is advocating the reduction of the population through the dissemination or increased availability of birth control technologies (a little, crucial fact somehow missing from your tirade), and the institution of economic reforms which will allow humanitarian debts to be repaid.
Indeed, every humanist I know believes that work is an essential part of human happiness. And all humanists of my acquaintance agree that "we have got to expect humans to rise to the occasion and earn the best of all worlds," so your attempt to pretend they do not advocate this is, at the very least, charming. And never mind, I guess, that adequate nutrition and decent education through childhood is absolutely essential for any human to rise to any occasion or earn or accomplish anything. But who needs to discuss reality when we have a dogma that tells us The One and Only Truth, so we no longer have to bother looking or doubting ourselves? Oh wait--all humanists are against such self-stifling and blinding dogmas. So maybe you are right--you are not a humanist after all.
I wanted to comment on the article "Humanism and the Ignorant" by William
Edelin.
I wholeheartedly agree with this all too brief piece. Something that further
proves the humanism of the prophet Jesus was a statement he made concerning the
inclusiveness of the prevailing religion of the day. "In my father's house are
many mansions." I think this more than anything else, gave rise to his
conviction and sentence to death by the high Jewish court for sedition.
Had he not wanted to include the common rabble of the Jewish world in what the
leadership saw as a narrowly defined baileywick, he would have been left alone.
His humanism led directly to his death.
Unfortunately, our humanism is probably going to lead many of us to the same
end, before the evil of the religious right is defeated.
Thanks for your time,
Terry Gabriel <
tgabriel@bellsouth.net>
Raleigh, NC USA - Friday, November 12, 1999 at 06:02:04 (MST)
First of all, please do not print my name and address, as I fear
persecution from Nazis, KKK, and criminally malicious cultural warriors.
[Edelen]'s article, "The Death of Matthew Shepherd", echoes the mythic
murderer, Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?" I answer with, "Do you have the
ability to say or do ANYTHING to reduce persecution of
gay/lesbian/bi/trans-gendered people? And can you improve people's
understanding of the many motivations behind the choice to love the same gender
in this culture?"
The Donn Day hater of same-sex relationships thinks she/he is righteous, and
that the victems of gay-bashing are unrighteous, suffering justice from "God",
or
"God's tools". They don't want to interfere with "God" killing/torturing people
to death for "sins". Because the Christian bible says that "God" killed people,
or ordered their killing, the natural assumption is that "God" is still doing
his own killing, or causing someone to do it for him. The laws in the "Old
Testament" were presumably relaxed a little in the food department, but upheld
in the sex department, according to letters of "Paul". So, assuming the
Christian bible is "The Word of God" (because it says so), one may reason to
the conclusion that one should either kill "the abominations to God", or at
least
not interfere with what might be "an act of God".
There
are different ways to look at responsibility for our "cultural atmosphere". The
Chinese put it this way: "Society prepares the crime; the criminal merely
commits it." For example, each person can influence our culture to reject
hate-engendering propaganda, and to treat people more as individuals. You are
not responsible for the commission of your ancestor's crimes, or your fellow
Christian's crimes, but you are responsible for influencing similar potential
criminals not to commit crimes out of hate and fear based on stereotyped
portrayal of gays, Jews, Christians, atheists,...(or name any group in which
you
might be stereotyped). Another example: you may not be responsible for throwing
down litter, but if you love cleanliness and beauty for the Whole, you will
pick up at least what litter you can conveniently pick up.
It is important to teach everyone that there are different motivations and
different lifestyles for each individual gay, lesbian, bi, or transgendered
person. All sexual beings are born with an undifferentiated erotic response
which
can be trained according to the stimulation presented, and environmental
factors. Many gays choose gay relationships based on rejection of gender
stereotyping, a form of sexist culture. Many gays are choosing freedom from
sick sexist culture that demands that men be strong and aggressive, and women
be weak and stupid in order to be socially accepted.
Although the Christian bible has some parts that suggest a collective social
responsibility, it still hampers reasonable responsibility with blind belief in
"God's" prejudice against gay love and sex.
X
Tuesday, November 09, 1999 at 07:17:12 (MST)
I will pray for you poor poeple who have no idea how lost you are. I
can't believe how this day in age, there are still those of you who will only
accept the Word of God if it suits you. You take what you want and the rest is
just trash for you. I really hope that if you are so open-minded to all this
new thought and what not, you would also be open enough to really listen to
what the Lord is saying to you through His Word. Thank you for allowing me to
share my views.
In His Love,
Ericka Leon <
MujerMaravilla79@aol.com>
Victorville, CA USA - Monday, November 08, 1999 at 10:49:21 (MST)
In a recent artical called "Homophobics and Leviticus", William Edelen
wrote
"On the CNN show 'Equal Time' recently, the homophobic Oliver North ranted and
raved
and foamed at the mouth about gays and lesbians and how God's 'word' in
Leviticus calls them 'sinners'".
The program "Equal Time" is on the MS/NBC network.
This kind of mistake tends to detract from the message's truth.
Also I do not believe that Billy Graham teaches that the Bible is 100%
accurate. Lumping him in with Dobson and Robertson is a little unfair.
Robert Foote <rfoote1202@aol.com>
Seattle, WA USA - Saturday, November 06, 1999 at 12:12:29 (MST)
dear Mr. Edelen,
I would like to respond to your article about the homophobic leviticus:
- first of all: the Bible is archaic, yes, but certainly not superstitious and
ignorant
- all
the
rules
and commandments in the Bible have consequences when broken, but the punishment
of
second death in hell does not directly come from these sins. When king David
commited adultery with Betsheba, God did not send him to hell, but God gave his
families over to trouble.
- the punishment of the second death in hell falls on those whose names are not
in the Book of Life. This means those who do not accept the Messiah and be
faithful to God, for those who have never heard of Christ, the Bible stated
that if they, in their heart, obey their conscience to obey God, they shall be
saved.
- the laws in the book of Leviticus are binding to those whose faith is
Judaism. Christ came to perfect the law, and thus the Christian follow this
perfected law. This does not mean that God's law has been imperfect in a point
in history, the laws in Leviticus is perfect for "stiff-necked people". The
reference "stiff-necked" is in no way anti-semitic, but how God describes the
generation to who He gave the law.
Thank
you very much.
Adot Hariman Setiadi <
soldier_20@hotmail.com>
Petaling Jaya, KL Malaysia - Monday, November 01, 1999 at 03:38:12 (MST)
I'm not so sure that you will accept this quotation, but this is just a quick
thought:
Dr. Arthur Conklin, once a biologist of Princeton University, wrote: "The
probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the
probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print
shop."
We know that human beings can't create something from nothing. We may construct
things, invent things, put things together, make things work, but with all our
wisdom, we have never brought into being from scratch even the smallest spear
of grass or the tiniest toad or the simplest flower.
It is beyond man's comprehension to understand the workings of God. Einstein
once
said we only use 10% of our brain, how then can we comprehend the outreaches of
the universe. To say there is no God is limiting our own existence.
James Edward <iconic71@hotmail.com
>
Allentown, PA USA - Monday, November 22, 1999 at 07:20:44 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Claims such as Conklin's are not reliable, see e.g. Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?. Quentin Smith 's view is that "life did not begin as an accident, but as a process necessitated by the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe. There was no chance and no improbability involved in this deterministic causal process. The initial conditions of the universe are themselves mathematically necessitated by the wave function of the universe, as has been widely discussed since 1983. There is no 'chance', there are no 'accidents' and there is no possible 'place for a Creator', as Stephen Hawking has argued." This may or may not be true, but you and I must both admit it is possible.
Likewise, when it comes to human creations you should hold your horses--creatures genetically-engineered from scratch are only a generation away. As it is, computers are acting with greater and greater intelligence. Even cruise missiles possess and act with the intelligence of bees. These are incredibly complex devices--yet still not as complex as what you call "the simplest flower" (there is nothing at all simple about a flower). Yet the complexity of human machines has been growing exponentially for centuries--it is thus not a matter of what we can't do, but of what we will eventually be doing given enough legwork (and a reason to do it).
Quentin Smith reports that "the physicist Alan Guth of M.I.T. argued in 1989 that human beings can create a universe (that would detach from our universe like a bubble from a larger bubble) by compressing 20 tons of matter to the size of a proton, which would then explode in a big bang, forming another universe. If true, this would be evidence that if our universe was created, it was probably created by intelligent organisms by a perfectly understandable scientific procedure." It is also Smith's position that "If one understands all of contemporary science, one eventually realizes that there are no 'mysteries' left that could be explained by the 'God' of a two-thousand year-old, out-dated, world-view." That is, the mysteries that remain about the universe are not any more explicable when positing a God than they are otherwise.
By the way, you should double check your Einstein quote. Not only was he not a neurophysiologist, and not only is any neurophysiology that would have been known to him now fifty years out of date, the claim itself happens to be scientifically false, and I would be immediately skeptical that Einstein ever said it. It is well established that we use 100% of our brain. Different parts are in use at different times, but there is not one cubic centimeter that goes unused; indeed, new memories and skills involve the addition of new synapses to already-existing neurons, not the new use of previously "unused" neurons.
The limits of our knowledge or ability are not relevant to what we are entitled to believe right now. There may be ways to travel faster than light, yet we are not entitled to believe this is possible until we have a convincing proposal before us. Likewise, there may be some god-like something in the universe, but we are not entitled to believe there is, or even what its properties or intentions are, until we have evidence. See my essay on Proving a Negative. There is nothing limiting about atheism--our universe is already unlimited and awesome and endless in the depths to which it can be explored and studied, even before we posit a god. Indeed, a god adds little to the grandeur of existence.
Your argument sucks. You are an atheist and don't know what you are talking
about. Someone should have you burned and crucified
Kellie McCormack <Laarzz@aol.com>
Hamilton, N.J. USA - Sunday, November 21, 1999 at 18:25:05 (MST)
Regarding the Scripture which says "the earth is fixed and cannot be moved"
- can
you demonstrate (scientifically or otherwise) this statement to be false?
Stuart Hatch <mshatch@hotmail.com
>
UK - Sunday, November 21, 1999 at 17:20:41 (MST)
Don Morgan responds:
My material does not use the term "fixed." The wording that was used is: "1SA 2:8, JB 38:4, PS 104:5 The earth has a foundation and cannot be moved." In any case, physics tells us that the earth is subject to movements of small magnitude (the Earth, for instance, is steadily decelerating due to gravitational friction from the moon). Astronomy tells us that the earth revolves around its own axis and that it orbits the sun, and that collisions with very large objects like comets or asteroids could change either motion.
Just
a quick response to the first few "Biblical Absurdities" listed by Donald
Morgan:
It seems Morgan forgot to prefix this list with "the Bible, as no one actually
believes it" since in my experience of Christianity, there are very few persons
who
would believe the text in the way it is presented. For instance:
"Where did God dwell before ... heaven and earth?" This is an absurd question.
If one were to read the Bible, one would find "God is Spirit" and has no
physical form to dwell in (leaving the incarnate Jesus out of this for the Old
Testament's sake) and therefore the necessity of having a place. If one
understands God as good Christian scholarship does, he has very little to do
with a "being" in a "place" although such terms are sometimes used for the sake
of communicating to personkind.
The pluralistic Gods comment isn't absurd, its just a fact. Why is it on the
absurdities page? If it's an attempt to refute Judaism's belief in the
existance of only one God, make a page of Judaism's absurdities, not the
Bible's.
And finally, in the interest of brevity, a note of scholarship: Yes, everything
created was supposedly good to eat. This doesn't mean that hemlock or
nightshade existed. Cross-reference "the fall" of Adam and Eve and the creation
of thorns, etc. Note the recurring theme in the Bible of "all nature" being
affected by sin, not just persons. This is the Biblical explanation.
Michael T. Babcock <
mikebabcock@pobox.com>
Peterborough, ON Canada - Monday, November 08, 1999 at 01:27:15 (MST)
Don Morgan responds:
No, I didn't forget to prefix the list of absurdities with "the Bible, as no one actually believes it." The fact is that Christians must, of necessity, believe at least some of the Bible. Some believe more of it, and take it more literally, than others. But just about everything important that Christianity believes is either based on and/or reflected in the Bible. My frame of reference was rather, a frame of reference which was much more prevalent in Christianity in times past than it is now. Liberal Christianity has (and I think that out of necessity) taken a much less literal view of the Bible in more recent times.
With regard to the nature of the biblical God: Yes, one can find in the Bible that God is spirit. One can also find that he has form, that he took part in a wrestling match, that he ate solid food, that he was seen. In other words, you choose to focus on only one aspect of God's alleged nature, ignoring that which makes my point. Furthermore, if nothing existed before creation, if what God is alleged to have created was created from nothing, then in whatever form he existed, God would have existed nowhere or in nothingness.
With regard to the pluralistic God comment: What is and is not absurd is, of course, somewhat a matter of opinion. Personally, I think it absurd translate in the singular what should be translated in the plural. I think that this may have been done to accord with the fact that both Judaism and Christianity are said to be monotheistic. You are free to think otherwise, of course. Keep in mind that Judaism's "Bible" is the Old Testament, and specifically "The Law" or "Torah." Like it or not, Christianity inherits some of Judaism's absurdities inasmuch as the Bible of Christianity incorporates the "Bible" of Judaism.
With regard to hemlock and nightshade: You say, "Yes, everything created was supposedly good to eat. This doesn't mean that hemlock or nightshade existed." Yours is an ad hoc, god-of-the-gaps argument. This kind of argument can be used to "explain" almost anything. The fact is, however, that if hemlock and nightshade exist at all, then according to Christian theology they must have been created by the God of the Bible. Inasmuch as the Bible details no creation other than that referred to in Genesis, and inasmuch as God is alleged to have said--without qualification--that all plants and trees which yield seed are given to us to eat, and inasmuch as we know that such is not the case, there is an absurdity here so far as I am concerned. You are free to think otherwise, of course.
As a response to the article "Was Hilter an Atheist or a Theist?, and More Importantly, Who Cares?", as the author indicated that there are dangerous secular philosophies, I though that it would be interesting to mention Creativity. Creativity is a "socio-ethical system" that despises blacks, Jews, and whoever else they consider to be "mud races" (a disgusting slur).
However, what makes Creativity relevant to a discussion of dangerous secular philophosies is that it is philosophically oppossed to Christianity. They call Christians "hypocrites and liars", and bring out the Inquisition and persecutions of Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, etc. as their case against Christianity. Creativity does not believe in God or worship anything. Their FAQ states "We do not believe in the supernatural, in spooks and a second world outside of the existing universe. We believe a skeptical and inquiring mind is no vice. Being gullible and superstitious is no virtue". Creativity prides it's reliance on science by calling science "organized common sense".
However, though I mentioned how the followers of Creativity are non-theist, in
the spirit of fairness that the author of "Was Hitler an Atheist or a Theist?"
conveyed, I am not trying to imply that all or even most atheists or agnostics
are racists. In fact, reading the Secular Web, I've come away with the feeling
that you are pretty enlightened. I am not trying to imply that because some of
the things that Creativity says dove-tails with some of what you have said that
you
would agree with Creativity's white supremacist ideas.
John Mc Donagh <
jmcdonag@assumption.edu>
Milton, MA USA - Sunday, November 21, 1999 at 13:37:37 (MST)
This message is for Richard Carrier. I was wondering what your motivation
was in writing your essay "Why I Don't Buy The Resurrection Story." Did you
grow up with Christianity (or some branch thereof) constantly being crammed
down
your throat, and it just never seemed right to you? Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Mike Banks <fremd@hotmail.com>
Fremont, CA USA - Friday, November 19, 1999 at 17:56:35 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
My motivation is simple: people kept asking me why I didn't believe in the resurrection until I got fed up with repeating myself and just wrote an essay, so I could point these people to it and save myself the bother. After the original essay was posted, compiling my responses to dozens of e-mails and other questioners, there were several people who kept picking at various details or claiming I missed something, and thus to answer their questions the essay grew to several times its original size. That is what caused me to write it and what continues to cause me to revise and add to it.
In response to your other questions: Did I grow up with Christianity constantly being crammed down my throat? Not at all. Did Christianity just never seem right to me? No, it never has--and that is why I am not a Christian.
I've
read
many articles written by Joe Nickell, and I'm absolutely amazed at the
intensity with which he dismisses any possible miraculous explanations for
unexplained phenomena. He attacks any religious claim, especially a Catholic
one. Makes one wonder just what his real motive is in all his driven skeptical
dissections. He also blatantly includes some false information with his
opinions, and tailors his character sketches to make the purported visionary or
miracle receiver look like either a fool or a psychologically needy hysteric.
He may mistakenly believe that the public majority is positively influenced by
this anti-religious approach to analysis. But it flies in the face of what most
people will admit -- with some things, there just simply is no scientific or
rational explanation. Most of us are not afraid of or try to vehemently attack
the "mysterious". But on a more positive note, I must admit that Mr. Nickell's
publications actually increase my faith in God. How could I say this?
Well, it's a mystery! In ending, I would just like Mr. Nickell to know that I
have
been praying for him for several years now. Who knows - God works in mysterious
ways!
J. Jacobson <BBead777@aol.com>
Davie,
Fl USA - Thursday, November 18, 1999 at 18:29:21 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
You have not pointed out any specific examples for any of your claims. Please do so. There is no value in a vague, impressionistic and subjective criticism like this.
I know that I am responding to an outdated article, however, in my research on right winged political interest groups I have come across your article concerning Focus on the Family. I have to say that Christopher Ott does indeed have an ability to manipulate words and situations into working for his own self-interested viewpoint.
I do not understand and will never understand how in the world people like you can so blatantly deny God. There are people in this country who are trying to do good, and it is people like you who are tearing down the walls of morality and virtues in order to preserve your perverse ideas of freedom, which cannot and do not exist without the presence of God. I think you need a reality check. I think you need to do some sincere soul searching, because I know for a fact that you are not fully satisfied with your life and if you choose to constantly deny that God exists and that there are actually people in this country who do believe in him and who are trying to help other people to realize Him and what He can do for every individual.
It is amazing what He has given me and if you were to trust in him, you would
be
amazed
at what He has in store for you also. It is the truth. If you are looking for
true intelligence, you need to look towards Him and not your scientific
mumbo-jumbo that is and always will be, for as long as we all shall live, a
theory. God on the other hand, will be proven if you trust in Him, because if
you do, you will live forever and you will see Him. For now, I have faith, but
soon,
not necessarily by some sudden boom or flash of lightening, God will reveal
himself in a physical sense to me and to you also if you choose to believe.
One more point before I go: You do not have any basis to accuse Focus on the
Family and James Dobson of being cult-like. If you listen to his radio show,
you will see that he is preaching God's word, not his own. It is the scientists
who
teach evolution and other anti-God theories that are preaching their own word.
Take a look at how much money they get.
Kristy Taylor <karsti12@hotmail.com
>
Athens , GA USA - Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 22:58:22 (MST)
Richard Carrier responds:
Christopher Ott is a writer for Salon Magazine, whose article is a newswire item. I cannot speak for him. But we are not "tearing down the walls of morality and virtues" but are in fact fighting for the reverse (see my essay on What Atheists Ought to Stand For). As for the mistaken notion that God is necessary for any of this, see my essay "Does the Christian Theism Advocated by J.P. Moreland Provide a Better Reason to be Moral than Secular Humanism?," and the "Third" point in my critique of " Beck's Argument for God," and our other essays on the "Moral Argument and Divine Command Theory."
Since you have never met Mr. Ott or myself or any of us here, you destroy your own credibility when you claim to "know for a fact" that we are dissatisfied with life. We are not. Indeed, I know of no one among my colleagues here who is unhappy. To the contrary, we find life to be a very fulfilling and spiritual experience, and your failure to understand this is the very mark of the dangerous and shameful ignorance which disappointingly plagues a great many Christians. The irony is that you think it is we who need a reality check. Maybe someday you will see the irony--until then, you will go on living inside your bubble of illusions, continuing to "know for a fact" things you know absolutely nothing about. I am curious, indeed, just how much money you think "the scientists who teach evolution and other anti-God theories" actually make. I think you would be surprised at how little it really is. Indeed, I will bet a dollar a doughnut Dobson rakes in at least twice as much as even a well-paid biologist. But just as you would not regard that as any kind of evidence that he is wrong, so must you agree that what biologists get paid has nothing to do with the truth of what they say either.
The article about James Dobson's Focus on the Family from Salon was quite
interesting.
I do not listen to the Focus broadcasts, but I did when Mr. Moegerle was still
there back in the early eighties. I plan on reading his book just as soon as I
can find a copy.
The author of the article was so biased in his reporting that he comes across
as
shrill and fearful himself. Even if we disagree with some of the Focus ideals,
in particular with James Dobson's political fervor, it is a very far reach to
accuse him of some right-wing conspiracy. The man takes no pay from Focus and
receives no royalties on his more recent books. He is a volunteer at Focus,
like
most of the people who work there. To encourage a person to act on his beliefs
is no threat to society. On the contrary, we should all live what we believe.
I think that the polity of this great country offers each of us a voice, and
that we should not fear those that are opposed to ours. Get involved, vote, and
try to persuade others to your way of thinking. End the end, those who are the
most diligent in doing so, will have their way. To try to scare the Salon
readers into believing that Dr. Dobson is some kind of monster is acting in the
same manner that the author is accusing the Focus people of behaving.
Grow up.
Viva la difference!
Wanda Stults <stults7@moment.net>
Wimberley, TX USA - Monday, November 08, 1999 at 13:24:38 (MST)
I could not agree more heartily with your article. I cannot understand
why the media would refuse to print the entire article, although not printing
atheist letters to editors is typical. I want to support Ventura, and I even
sent him a supportive email, but he is not running for President -- he is
supporting Donald Trump. I cannot see myself voting for Trump, but I surely
could
for Ventura. The only problem is that the chances for a third-party
Presidential candidate actually being elected are very slim, and I truly do not
want George Bush in the White House so I am in a dilemma. Nonetheless, of all
the people who might possibly run, I would choose Jesse Ventura.
Merilyn Brunner <miladymib@aol.com
>
Concord, CA USA - Thursday, November 11, 1999 at 22:54:59 (MST)
Since Politicians and other public figures constantly express their
religious views, then why, conversely, can not anti-religous views be expressed
as well? I think people need to remember a little thing called free speech!
Joshua Wittig <azmodan6@hotmail.com
>
Kitchener, Ont Canada - Tuesday, November 02, 1999 at 17:08:11 (MST)
Steve Petersen's counterpoint to Ms. Matsumura's article failed to
acknowledge her criticisms. Indeed, Mr. Petersen's displayed a tendency to make
non-sequitur arguments. Governor Ventura's right to express his religious
criticisms was never threatened and what Ventura said had nothing to do with
maintaining a secular government. Respect for and adherence to
non-establishment principle should be just that, based on valuing
non-establishment on its own merits, not based on opinions against organized
religion or religious beliefs.
Mr. Petersen seems to be strongly influenced by over-generalizations as
exemplified by his claims that the anti-abortion movement is a right-wing and
Catholic plot to control government and that prostitution is a product of
religious based inhibitions. Governor Ventura's 'crutch for weak-minded people'
is a similar over-simplification with the additional attribute of being
scurrilous. As the Governor of Minnesota, Ventura could have expressed the same
opinion with more consideration for his religious fellow citizens, for example
he could have said that organized religion tends to attract people who feel
they obtain strength in numbers. Governor Ventura's offensive coarseness is not
explained away by placing it in the context of his opinions on prostitution
which
has no logical connection to his controversial quote about organized religion.
The Governor's proper dismay at witnessing some religious institutions and
their representatives seeking and obtaining money from poor people is not a
rational explanation for a sweeping rejection of "organized religion" since we
all should know that substantial differences exist between denominations with
regard
to fund raising ethics and we all should know that political, secular
charitable, and commercial institutions can be, and sometimes are, just as
unscrupulous or non discriminating when seeking money.
There is a middle ground between Ms. Matsumura's opinion that no defense of
Governor Ventura was called for and Minnesota Atheist's refusal to acknowledge
that the general outcry for an apology from Governor Ventura for his offensive
language was appropriate: We can defend Governor Ventura for the substance of
his comment while unequivocally criticizing his use of inflammatory adjectives.
The failure of the Minnesota Atheist ad to criticize the Governor's
non-thoughtful choice of words suggests that the advertisement authors'
judgment was compromised by their resentments over the double standard that the
ad pointed out. If we let such resentments over-rule our better judgment we are
letting our resentments defeat us and our judgments will consequently become
unworthy of us. All things anti-religious are not automatically worthy of
defense and anti-religious views should not be associated with, let alone be
equated with, non-establishment. Creating such a false association will do more
to undermine non-establishment than to defend it. Mr. Petersen and all
atheists, particularly those prone towards being more anti-religious, should
keep in this mind.
M. Gold <matt@tidalwave.net>
USA - Monday, November 01, 1999 at 20:51:04 (MST)
Not only atheists, but all who understand the danger of state religion
must support Ventura. Not only support him, but aid him to communicate better;
in this era of sound bites, he has to think how his statements will sound when
deconstructed. A governor has a pretty bully pulpit himself; if he publishes
his
goals
for his state, if he asks for ideas to correct badly-constructed regulation, he
can at least make his state the center for intelligent debate, if not yet
intelligent legislation.
And, who knows? Perhaps his example will give Christians the courage to stand
up and speak out.
Lee Burwasser <lee46b@gateway.net
>
Landover, MD USA - Monday, November 01, 1999 at 09:10:36 (MST)
About Jesse Ventura's comments, I stand behind him 100%. He is right,
organized religion is a problem that is anti-democratic and anti-human-rights.
He is being persecuted because his opinions go against what the
ignorance-mongers want. I stand behind him, knowing very well that my voice
alone will not go far, but I still do, since I want to contribute what I could.
Religion should never be a controlling power, and organized religion exactly
represents that controlling aspect of religion.
Asser Hassanain <ahassanain@yahoo.com
>
London, ON Canada - Monday, November 01, 1999 at 08:39:29 (MST)
I found your "Biblical inconsistencies" to be rather elemental and
trite. They are very easy to answer and show either a small intellect, someone
who
can't read or reason, or someone with a chip on their shoulder.
I also don't understand how you get "X" to stand for "Chris" in your bigoted
term "xtianity." My brother-in-law is named Chris. Do you have something
against him also? I guess that is one of your "INFIDEL INCONSISTENCIES"? ROFL!
I guess
I don't understand what you boys are trying to do. Do you really get any
shmucks that actually give you money? You sound worse than any Pentecostal
preacher I've seen on TV by tapping your tin cup out on the corner. HA HA
HA!!!!
Do you keep track of your donor dollars and post them on your web site?
I didn't enjoy your site much, but it is pretty comical. Are you guys for real
or just
a group of bored high school kids?
Patrick McGuire <PDMac38@aol.com>
Fort Smith, AR USA - Tuesday, November 09, 1999 at 08:17:49 (MST)
Don Morgan replies:
Answering only that portion of your feedback which applies to my material: Inconsistencies are rather elemental to the Bible, that is true. Some are difficult to answer, however, and have perplexed even Christian scholars for centuries. The inconsistent genealogies given for Jesus provide one such example. In addition, your assertion, "... and show either a small intellect, someone who can't read or reason, or someone with a chip on their shoulder," does not exhaust the possibilities, therefore it represents a reasoning error. There are many individuals who do not fall into any of the categories which you mention and who see the many inconsistencies in the Bible. I have known personally at least a few Christian scholars of giant intellect who nevertheless see at least some serious biblical inconsistencies.
Thanks for an informative and valuable website. A minor correction: in
reference to 2 Chronicles 13:17 in the absurdities section of your excellent
Biblical demolition job (for which many thanks) you mention that 500,000 dead
in a battle exceeds any battle of WW II (true) and go on to say that this
approaches the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear attacks. This
is erroneous. There were at most 180,000 prompt fatalities (in toto) and fewer
than 30,000 subsequently due to burns, disease and radiation poisoning.
So half
a mill dead Midianite-rapists looks like even more of a fish story.
David Gillies <root@www.intacglobalinvestments.com>
San
Jose, Costa Rica - Sunday, November 07, 1999 at 20:28:53 (MST)
Don Morgan replies:
Thanks you for your comments and corrections. Your figures are probably more nearly correct than were mine with regard to the number of deaths which resulted from the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My immediate sources give rather divergent numbers, from a low of 75,000 dead to a high of 400,00. But you are correct that the total is less than 500,000. 2 Chronicles 13:1 gives the number of men in Abijah's army as 400,000 and the number of men in Jeroboam's army as 800,000. According to 2 Chronicles 13:17, the ensuing battle allegedly resulted in 500,000 deaths in Jeroboam's army alone. Surely there must also have been deaths in Abijah's army. Given your correction, the numbers in the cited verses in 2 Chronicles are all the more absurd.