Infidels: Feedback : 2000 : February

Virtually every month, you see a scene like this play out:

Fundie: "Not bad, but have you read master Christian apologist Josh Bahnsen's great book God Is Smarter Than You?"

Richard Carrier: "We've already written a criticism of that book and it can be found on the Mythology page."

Another Fundie: "Oh, you guys wouldn't dare take on the anti-evolution arguments in Phillip Behe's Darwin Is Wrong And We All Know It!"

Jeff Lowder: "Well, as I point out in the Science Fiction archive, the problem with that one is that his Convoluted Intricacy concept commits the argument from incredulity fallacy."

Yet Another Fundie: "Why do you guys spend so much time trying to disprove God? You must be really frightened of Him! I know I sure wouldn't spend all this time on trying to disprove something I didn't believe in!"

James Kaleta <fsjmk@uaf.edu >
Fairbanks, AK USA - Wednesday, February 02, 2000 at 20:33:19 (MST)

Steve Thompson <thompsonsjkc@yahoo.com>
Kansas City, USA - Tuesday, February 29, 2000 at 16:26:50 (MST)

A recent US News article, though not exactly a scholarly source, provides many links to support the article. It explains that Hell is now generally considered to be eternal separation from the presence of God. And that this is not imposed by God, but rather a conscious choice of the unrepentant sinner. Only with respect to the significant value of Hell in deterring theists from breaking Church law does the fire-and-brimstone version still hold value to the clergy. In reconciling the benevolent God with what is right and just, the new version is a necessary change.

What I'm saying is that you're right, and many Christians (to include Catholics) would agree with you. Maybe address the current view in your next article.

Jason Torpy <nephilim1@hotmail.com>
USA - Tuesday, February 29, 2000 at 15:46:46 (MST) a

Richard Carrier responds:

The US News article is online as "Hell Hath No Fury."  I poke fun at it in the introduction to my feature Of Love, Brunettes, and Biology.  This "solution" not only has little scriptural basis, but it does not solve the problem at all. See Jim Lippard's remarks on Ch. 11 of his Critique of Moreland and Habermas's Immortality.  You should note that this "new" idea is not news--it has been around for decades.

Dear Infidels, Regarding the "Double-Talk" feature, I have one further observation concerning the inconsistency of the theologian's second position (i.e. that God so loves us that he accepted the sacrifice of his only begotten son as payment for our sins, in lieu of punishing us directly). The problem I have is that I am expected to abandon reason and believe in this scenario. Either my debt was paid by Jesus' sacrifice or it was not. Since I am told that my salvation depends on my enthusiastic acceptance of this event, rather than on the event itself, it is apparent that Jesus's sacrifice was incomplete. So we are not absolved of sin, washed clean in the blood of the lamb, by this so-called noble sacrifice; we are required to make the balloon payment by relinquishing our reason (and, I would argue, our free will).

Andrew Amidon <dickeman@hotbot.com>
Garden Grove, Ca USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 21:11:00 (MST) xa

Philip Kuchar responds:

 In Christianity there certainly seems to be an odd development of the idea of sacrifice, namely the requirement that the payment has to be properly "accepted" or "received" by us to take effect. Add to this the Pauline dichotomy of faith vs. works and the emphasis on grace. Now the acceptance of Jesus' payment, or our belief in a creed, can't be regarded as a "work," since then the questions of social hierarchy and justified boasting once more come in to play. If the faithful were to earn their salvation by completing the crucial mental "deed" of believing in the gospel's truth, Christianity would remain too Jewish, as it were.

In the transformation of the Christian through faith in Jesus' death and resurrection, there is a shift from the idea that the main problem is God's wrath to one where the problem lies with human sin. If God's wrath required satisfaction and a sacrificial offering could succeed, there would so far be no need for faith. But if humans were incorrigible and God's wrath were correspondingly permanent, a change would have to occur on our side before it could on God's. Specifically, we would have to take part in Jesus' humiliation, have his righteousness "credited to our account."

Whereas Jesus demonstrated his selflessness by offering his life for others, the ideal Christian shows a similar overcoming of pride simply by maintaining an over-arching faith that mocks reason at every turn. The Christian is certainly not made sinless by her faith, but she is rendered intellectually stifled. Whereas Judaism requires a heaven-bound person to perform certain kinds of deeds, Christianity demands that we enslave our minds to a God cloaked in the absurdity of a series of Church doctrines (the resurrection, the trinity, the miracles, original sin, the inerrancy of the bible, Creationism, and on and on). We can perform good deeds if we wish, but we are saved only in so far as we adopt a certain ascetic outlook involving beliefs in the depravity of our species, the folly of reason, the isolation of goodness in God, and various strange and unverifiable teachings about someone named Jesus.

Jesus' crucifixion was gory enough to satisfy a god's wrath, and many Christians do speak of the atonement in this way. But in order for God to transform humanity into his obedient children we are forced to wipe out our pride, and our reliance on reason and evidence is part of our pride. Faith is the means by which we symbolically crucify ourselves.

Mr. Kuchar: I am thankful that I chose not to pursue a degree in Philosophy, because I can see, judging by your case, that it only enables you to miss the ideas behind the simplest and most obvious truths.

Your analogy #1 is woefully deficient, and misses the point which you should have been setting up. A father (Frank) who refuses to intervene into his child's (Billy's) drug habit would indeed be doing so out of pride or neglect, but certainly not respect. And this is what God does, you say, by refusing to intervene in His children's sin habit, and letting them go to hell, whatever it might be. But God did intervene, in the person of Christ, and not just with respect but a powerful love, which is far better. It would be like if Frank decided to abuse his body and go to jail for life, just to see his son Billy lead a new life. If Billy then claimed his father did not exist and plunged back into his drug habit, how could you blame Frank for having a lack of respect? God only asks that we believe. He will respect our wish, if we don't want to believe. However, you want God to be disrespectful of your disrespect for him. You want him to disbelieve your disbelief.

Your analogy #2 is even more confused. Jesus was not just a random "someone else" who became an object of wrathful violence, but -- again -- was God himself sparing us from the punishment of our own deeds by absorbing our death sentence. It is called atonement, but you say it is a slap in our faces. You say Christ is so important to us (apparently not important enough for you to believe in him, though), that for God to allow him to be crucified for us is insulting. You miss the plain fact that the only reason Christ was important was that he WAS crucified for us. However, you somehow try take the position that God is punishing us by not punishing us, and you fault God for not wanting to enjoy your destruction. You dislike Christians for being vengeful, but you dislike God for being merciful.

Perhaps you do not understand the Bible, or what sin is, or your own self. I'd forgive you of it, if only you could understand what forgiveness meant. Hopefully you are educated enough to doubt the meaning of your Philosophy degree also.

Drew Dernavich <pad11@earthlink.net>
Bedford, MA USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 14:48:50 (MST) xb

Philip Kuchar responds:

 While I can't assure Mr. Dernavich that a Philosophy degree would necessarily be worth his time, he could evidently benefit from one of the strengths developed from reading philosophy texts, and that's the skill of carefully examining an argument. He misrepresents or misunderstands "Double-talk" at the following points of his rebuttal message:

Paragraph 2, sentence 2: In "Double-talk" I set up an analogy to show that a father's lack of intervention in his son's wrongdoing could be a matter of respect for his son's freedom and the moral justification of punishment for a violation of the law, such as his son's drug use. In claiming that the father (Frank) neglects his child out of "pride" and "selfishness" rather than "respect," therefore, Dernavich misses the point of the first analogy. The point of the first analogy is to compare the abstract (as opposed to the personal) form of respect shown by a father for his son's freedom to err and reap the unhappy consequences, with that shown by God in permitting the unrepentant sinner to suffer forever in hell.

Was Jesus' death a sign of God's "respect" for sinners, as Dernavich says (par 2, sent 4-6)? A sign of pity would be far closer to the truth. God believed that we couldn't handle the just punishment for our crimes, so he had to get a more capable fellow to act in our place. Because we are so depraved, so ignorant, so foolish, so weak, so very pitiful, God had to do the work of reconciliation that we could never accomplish.

Par 2, sent 3: In saying that I claim that God's respect is a matter of his refusal to intervene in his children's "sin habit," Dernavich misrepresents my position--evidently so he could bring Jesus' sacrificial death into the picture. The problem is that the alleged respect I discuss in "Double-talk" has nothing to do with what God may or may not do for us in the present life but concerns, rather, his sustaining of hell to satisfy the unrepentant sinner's wish (again, allegedly) to live in painful separation from God. Whatever positive value Jesus' sacrifice has, this doesn't automatically render hell benevolent since God has the option of obliterating the unsaved souls. Even if Dernavich's point were granted, that God benevolently intervened with Jesus' sacrificial death, it could still be true that God permits hell to continue out of abstract respect for freedom and retributive justice as opposed to a high regard for unrepentant sinners themselves. This is to say that Dernavich's point has no bearing on the soundness of "Double-talk's" first argument.

Par 3, sent 1: Dernavich misses where I make the point that the identity of the sacrificial offering is completely irrelevant to whether God's motivation in desiring a sacrifice was one of mercy or wrath (see "Double-talk," par 13). If God had raised a common squirrel to some glorious state and sacrificed that squirrel for our sake, I would still say God would have been motivated by wrath not forgiveness. My point is that in wanting pain for our sin God would not have exercised forgiveness. It doesn't matter if God himself was the one feeling the pain so long as his pain was genuine. (And I would have my doubts about whether Jesus' pain could have been genuine or unmitigated by various forms of selfless pleasure such as relief, confidence, anticipation, exhilaration and joy.)

Some further points of criticism: God's respect for our disbelief should involve his awareness of the insufficiency of the evidence for his very existence, let alone for the claims made in the Bible about his plan for our salvation. This sort of respect couldn't be equated with God's regarding our disbelief "disrespect" of God, contrary to Dernavich (par 2, sent 9). If atheism were reasonably justifiable, it couldn't be said of the atheist that she "disrespects" God, just as it can't be said of those who disbelieve in Santa Claus that they "disrespect" the jolly old man.

Contrary to Dernavich (par 3, sent 5), Jesus' importance couldn't have rested entirely with his crucifixion, since what would have enabled Jesus to die for others and given his death immense sacrificial value was his prior importance, or more specifically his life of perfect obedience to God. At the very least, here I haven't overlooked a "plain fact."

As for the meaning of forgiveness, I think we must go elsewhere for the lesson. There was no forgiveness in Jesus' death. The payment was made in full, and God has indirectly punished with feelings of guilt and inadequacy everyone who has persuaded themselves of the atonement. Forgiveness means giving up the desire to punish or pardoning from further punishment. Neither occurred due to Jesus' death.

Kudos are in order for the clear thinking demonstrated by Mr. Kuchar in this article. As a former christian, I believe that christians never allow themselves to step back and clearly think about these doctrines. The first step in my personal deconversion was losing my belief in the reality of eternal punishment in hell for unbelievers. The "loving" father who uses the most inhuman threats to keep his children in line! What a disfunctional family is Christianity!

Steven N. Smith <snsmith@flash.net>
Albuquerque, NM USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 08:45:51 (MST)

The arguments you gave were great. But I believe it's going to used ONLY by atheists to fight theists with logic. One tends to forget, though, that it's a complete waste of time to use logic with theists. So, no matter how logical your arguments, it won't do anything to unconvert Christians because they'll just use their faith to keep bad thoughts away.

José Moreira da Silva <moreira@dasilva.com.br>
Sao Paulo, SP Brasil - Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 16:06:32 (MST)

Omikrom Seti < omikrom_seti@gnt.net>
Ft Walton Beach, Fl USA - Tuesday, February 29, 2000 at 13:42:35 (MST)

Fellow Freethinkers: I don't believe anyone who knows about Pat Robertson, his mentality, and his cult of brain-dead believers would be the slightest bit surprised at his comments. Mr. Robertson is a classic narrow minded religious bigot. I wish the media would print more of his crap to show what a knucklehead he really is. There are many afflictions that plague mankind; some are random, and some are chosen. Mr. Robertson has chosen the self-inflicted degenerative disorder of perpetual ignorance.

Dennis Fox <jazzfannnn@elpaso.net >
El Paso, Il USA - Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 10:17:57 (MST)

Robertson's phone message was a dispicable attempt to besmirch two good men.

R. Neil Rotter <Rotter@nyct.com>
NYC, NY USA - Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 11:10:49 (MST)

Pat Robertson wont be happy till he has a Christian theocracy.  He is sick man and needs help.  Ican only hope everybody can see through his bigoted views.

ED Kohler <ELK1937@aol.com>
Flushing, MI USA - Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 08:21:22 (MST)

Your Pat Robertson article was right on the money. I think Pat's day has come and gone in America. His organization is a stridently anti-choice, gay-bashing, and race-baiting bunch of bigots who has no business dabbling in politics...unless of course they'd like to renounce their tax-exempt status and do it right. More power to Warren Rudman for whatever he said!

George Bush had better be careful about aligning himself with this type of people unless he wants to suffer the same fate as his predecessors who did. Pat Robertson does NOT speak for the American people...

Mark Henry < mark@htc.net>
Columbai, IL USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 10:18:54 (MST)

I do have one question, however. This article, like so many others, states that Christians were responsible for destroying the Library of Alexandria. I am curious as to what evidence there is for this, as I haven't seen an attribution to it anywhere. This statement seems to fall under the "everybody knows" category, and what "everybody knows" sometimes just isn't so. I would appreciate references to the validity of this claim.

Peggy Kurilla <kurilla@home.com>
Las Vegas, NV USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 21:47:41 (MST) b

Richard Carrier responds:

The apology is available at the Vatican website.  But the fate of the library of Alexandria is exceedingly complex.  One place to start is the short and quite readable book by Luciano Canfora, The Vanished Library: A Wonder of the Ancient World (1987). I will only be brief here, since there are so many complexities I must omit.  The sources are in Canfora, but the key source in the Christian case is Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in the late 4th century.

First, there were at least two libraries.  The original library attached to the Musaeum was expanded a century later by co-opting a nearby temple of Serapis as an extension, and in addition there were large numbers of books being stored in warehouses, although these, being near the docks, are conjectured to have been copies designated for sale or return to other sources, and not actual holdings of the library.  We know that some 40,000 scrolls (roughly 2000 books) were burned accidentally by Julius Caesar when the docks and storehouses caught fire after ships were set alight.  But this is too small a number of books, and the location nowhere near the Serapeum or the Musaeum, to have been the "library" of Alexandria.  A fanciful story that the pagan emperor Caracalla burned the Musaeum "because Aristotle poisoned Alexander the Great" is not only absurd, but for various reasons is understood to be a confusion with the event under Julius Caesar.  It is possible that the sieges of Alexandria by Aurelian and later by Diocletian damaged the libraries, but we have no real evidence of this.

It was in 391 AD when the Christians went on what was by then a regular anti-pagan pogrom in Alexandria and toppled and set on fire all the pagan temples, among which was the Serapeum, containing 600,000 scrolls (roughly 30,000 books).  The original library in the Musaeum, being within the fortified palace complex, was unharmed by this event, but the destruction of the books in the Serapeum was certainly a devastating loss.  However, the unquestionable end of the entire library is the fault of Islam: shortly after 641 AD, when the Muslims took Alexandria, Caliph Omar ordered all the books which did not agree with the Koran to be used as fodder for the furnaces that heated the city's 4000 baths.  Only Aristotle was spared.  The mass of books was so great, we are told, that the baths were supplied with heat for six months.

Besides the catastrophic destruction of the libraries (there were many others in the world--at Rome, Pergamum, Athens, etc., with smaller collections, which were closed or neglected and eventually destroyed by war or accidental fires during the Christian centuries), just as devastating to history was the neglect of books altogether.  Christians generally only preserved books which had been established as school texts, or which agreed with Christianity, or could be used against paganism.  The rest were left to rot and disappear.  Exceptions were just that: exceptional cases when a wealthy patron or scholar wanted a particular text preserved or a copy made and then kept it in an out of the way place, leaving us today with one or two manuscripts--and those often poor or incomplete (consider the huge gaps in what survives of Tacitus and Polybius, the two greatest of all Roman historians, as a testimony to Christian apathy and carelessness with regard to books that did not sell the faith).

The effect of these 1000 years of Christian ignorance was the loss of well over 90% of all the titles that we know existed, including over one hundred thousand works of history, philosophy, poetry, drama, and science (and who knows how many more titles there were, which did not get mentioned in any of the surviving few books). And it is not only the poor or marginal authors who were lost: huge sections of Livy and Polybius, important pieces of Tacitus, several books of Suetonius, every book written by Democritus and Epicurus (of which there were hundreds--some of the books of Epicurus are now being recovered from the ashes of Herculaneum, buried in 79 AD), all the hundreds of histories written in the three centuries before the Common Era, almost all of the encyclopedia of Celsus and the history of Ammianus...the list goes on and on.  Indeed, the emperor Claudius wrote so many hundreds of books that he established his own wing of the library in the Musaeum to contain them.  Little did he know his entire life's scholarship would heat the baths of ingrates.

Mr. Murphy's "The Apology of John Paul II" enumerated the crimes of the Church as well as Bertrand Russel could have done. His polemical style right up to the climax was well informed--and more to the point--gave me a very satisfying rush of righteous indignation. The bigger question is whether any institution (let's say the American Humanist Association) with the monopoly of the Catholic Church would be any less corrupt.

Travis Hardin <travishardin@mindspring.com>
Huntsville, AL USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 19:47:54 (MST)

Dear John Patrick Michael Murphy, Your questions are poignant. But why not just wait for the Pope to speak and
save some breath on those questions he does address instead of passing them to me? I don't have answers, just more questions. You remind me of Andy Rooney. "The Pope has a big hat. Why is that? Will it keep his head warm?"

Harry Joyner <HJoyner36@aol.com>
Charlotte, NC USA - Monday, February 28, 2000 at 17:36:42 (MST)

I say the pope should put all of his apologies on the internet for everyone to access, and open the Vatican to display the church's teachings as a museum dedicated to mythology. It's not going to happen, of course, and, as usual, nothing significant will happen, other than adding to the Great Myth. The Catholic Church is, in my opinion, an anachronism, the last remnant of the Roman Empire.

Chuck Henry <woodchuk@kwjz.fanz.net>
Shoreline, WA USA - Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 22:52:23 (MST)

This is right on the money! The church has always managed to twist its apolgies until they aren't really apologies at all. I'm sure John Paul II's will be no different. Besides, apologizing really doesn't do much for the thousands who were burned, racked, and otherwise mutilated, does it? There is no getting around the fact that the only reason the church does not employ such brutality today is because it no longer has the legislative power it once had. You can bet that if it were still within his power to force people to believe or die otherwise, John Paul II would make use of that power.

Scott Collie <colliehome@aol.com>
reidsville, nc USA - Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 15:23:26 (MST)

Having been raised in the Catholic Church myself, I was very pleased to see Mr. Murphy expose numerous atrocities of the Church that the Pope will probably try to "sweep under the rug" or ignore completely. That the Catholic Church is one of the "top 10" murderers in all of human history is beyond doubt, and how that murderous institution can hold itself out as a "moral guidepost" is beyond rational comprehension.

I only wish Mr. Murphy had presented a more complete list of the murders, tortures and atrocities commited by the Catholic church. (Perhaps Mr. Murphy could provide a follow-up article with documentation of the atrocities, to counter the inevitable denials of "we didn't do that"?)

Doug Newman <kdoug@bluegrass.net>
KY USA - Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 15:02:57 (MST)

Aaron Grow < fatherdaddy@hotmail.com>
Fresno, CA USA - Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 19:41:23 (MST) c

Richard Carrier responds:

I agree, though many physicists here do not. I plan to write an article on this issue for the Secular Web sometime soon, if nothing else to stir up debate. Stay tuned.

While I must agree that the chance for discovery of intelligent alien life is incredibly small and that the chance of cross communication between human and alien is even smaller, I must vehemently disagree with your stance that the project is worthless. I understand that your field of study focuses on immediately useful knowledge but much of science does not. For instance, why should we be interested in long dead cultures and civilizations? I would put the chance of communicating with the dead at about zero. The answer is that it interests us. The knowledge of whether or not life, and especially intelligent life, exists elswhere is incredibly fascinating even if they can't provide insight into anything.

Steve Young < steveevil@home.com>
San Diego, CA USA - Saturday, February 26, 2000 at 19:39:36 (MST)

Though I found your article well written and also agree with your scientific reasoning, I could not agree with your conclusion. Your basis for life on earth was realistic with the facts known to us today, but I do believe our earthly science has far exceeded our beyond-earth science. A thousand years ago we all "knew" what scholars of the time believed to be beyond earth and to think a thousand years later we have figured it all out is very naive and arrogant. You may have made a good guess and are correct, we are alone in the vast space of infinity or our small minds are not yet capable of comprehending what may be right in front of us right now. I believe "proof that" and "proof that not" have yet to be proven and may never be. We just don't know.

Bo Smallwood <happy2nt@yahoo.com >
Pasadena, TX USA - Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 20:09:09 (MST)

Mr. Pfalzner's creditials are certainly impeccable, he obviously is well trained in the scientific method. That's why I'm somwhat surprised with his conclusion that the SETI effort is misplaced or misguided. The size of the universe, the number of galaxies (not to mention the potential number of planets) seem to bode well for at least a probable repeat of our success here. The problem of course is the distribution of those planets. He is certainly correct that odds of meaningful communication are slim. Obviously if the civilization we make contact with is 300 million light years away, it would be difficult to establish a meaningful relationship. However, I choose to hope that perhaps we'll make contact with a civilization within a 50 - 150 lightyear range. (Slim chance, I know, but not impossible.) That gives us at least a shot at meaningful communication. Additionally, even if we just confirm an alien signal far outside that range, we have accomplished more than if we had not tried.

I certainly agree that Prof. Tough's assessment of alien contact is overly optimistic. I would be very happy to get a half dozen signals legitimately worth investigating in the next 100 - 200 years. To get a positive signal and send a response in the next 1000 years would make me ecstatic. I whole heartedly agree with Mr. Pfalzner that we should "cherish, preserve, and treasure our home in the universe..." I just think we can do that and roll the dice and, just maybe, get a signal.

David Pohlod <pohlodoae@aol.com>
Colorado Springs, CO USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 18:02:11 (MST)

Strange as it might seem, given that I am an active Christian believer, I agree with almost everything (the lone exception being that I don't think that man came about by a random series of biochemical processes) in Paul M. Pfalzner's article about the futility of the SETI project and the search for extra-terrestrial life in general. His points against the folly of the search, given the astronomical odds against it being fruitful and the very real possibility that even if some life were found, we would most likely be unable to communicate with it, are uniformly well made and provide a welcome contrast to the recent sermonizing in National Geographic on the same topic.

I recognize that the article was intended to be succinct; still, I would have liked to have seen more of Dr. Pfalzner's analysis as to exactly why the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence is so popular, even to the point where vast amounts of funds have been wasted on the SETI project. Given that there is no evidence whatsoever for any type of life not located here on the planet earth, what exactly is the reason that so many people are still looking for it?

SETI will someday, perhaps soon, go the way of the philosophers' stone. Until then, inquiry into the motives for continuing such a project may do much to help us to understand ourselves, especially how we see ourselves with respect to the universe as a whole.

Respectfully,

Mark Joseph <markcharnljoseph@hotmail.com>
Granada Hills, CA USA - Saturday, February 19, 2000 at 13:35:43 (MST)

I would like to respond briefly to Paul Pfalzner's article "Is Anybody Out There?"

I agree with most of what he says. Forget about "The UFOs are here" mentality. It is patently obvious that the UFOs are not here. Nobody from Alvin Tofler to Arthur C. Clarke ever predicted the future even remotely. They were off by miles. Even Verne! Due to the vastness of our galaxy, never mind the Universe in total, the chances of their being some artifact or probe from some advanced civilisation is practically zero. Chances are vanishingly small that life certainly did not evolve anything remotely like us anywhere else in the Universe.

However, it seems obvious to me that life, in some shape or form, did evolve. We surely cannot be the only planet on which this phenomenon occurred. To think so is arrogant in the extreme. Remember Copernicus? Remember Galileo? Remember Hubble?

Whether we like it or not, we are not the only intelligent lifeform in the galaxy. And because mathematics and science are addressing the same Universe, if we are to have any hope at all of contact it must be by using these methods. At least until somebody discovers a way to travel faster than light, and even though it might be feasible, at present it looks like a non-starter.

It is right to cherish our home planet and we should not look to the skies for "something" to come and solve all our problems. However, it is one of man's greatest impulses to want to know. "Is anybody out there?" must be one of the greatest discoveries yet to come. To imply that we should stop looking is the stifle the human spirit. And without that, we simply won't survive, whatever the answer.

Regards

Fergal MacAlister <fergal.macalister@siemens.ie>
Dublin, Ireland - Thursday, February 17, 2000 at 02:01:48 (MST)

It seems to me that Pfalzner might be a bit confused as to what SETI's goals actually are. SETI isn't looking for humanoid life, or for a conversation with broadcasting intelligence. It's just looking for a signal which denotes intelligence. Translation of that signal and the possibility of a reply are distant, distant considerations when compared to the primary goal of basic detection. And I wouldn't call it quixotic. Sure, the project's huge, and it's looking for something tiny, and sure, the chances of finding that tiny thing are themselves miniscule, but the rewards of success are tremendous, and the effects of such a discovery ARE worth thinking about, despite Pfalzner's mischaracterization of such thinking as 'quixotic'. By quixotic, does he mean that SETI should give up, a lost cause? This is ridiculous. You don't give up looking for something just because it's hard to find. The difficulty is part of what makes it science.

I'm also confused by the Pfalzner's statistics. He seems to take "50% chance in 10 years" to mean that there must be a 100% chance in 20 years. This isn't true at all. If there's a 50% chance of an occurrence in 10 years, then there will be a 50% chance of an occurance in 100 years, or in only 1 year. It's the same as flipping a coin, which is what I suspect Sagan was implying when he quoted the figures.

Overall, I'm unclear as to Pfalzner's point. What is he saying? That most futurists are wackos? That there's too much of a credible X-Files culture out there? Sure, that's probably true; but does it even need saying? SETI isn't futuristic, and that's why I'm trying to defend them. Even if Pfalzner wasn't trying to lump SETI in with the futurists, he surely did a bad job of characterization, and he probably confused a lot of people. Is he saying that SETI is the ultimate cargo cult, or that it's the object of the cult?

Once again, I think that the author is dead wrong in his categorization of SETI as quixotic. If we want to know if intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Galaxy, what other way is there to know? It's almost certain that it will never come here to find us, robots or not. We have to listen for it. That's all SETI ever hopes to find out, and it doesn't put forward false hopes of "we WILL find something". They know as well as anyone that it might be tomorrow, or it might be never. Sure, most likely never, but that's missing the point, the alternative: it might be tomorrow. I apologize for my melodrama.

A. Haun <ahaun@utk.edu >
USA - Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 23:53:02 (MST)

Edward Unger < e.unger@worldnet.att.net>
GA USA - Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 23:06:06 (MST)

Consider... NASA, with all good intent, put a 100 watt transmitter and a nice parabolic antenna on the most recent Martian probe. The antenna didn't open, so, instead of getting roughly 132 kbit/sec from the red planet, we were reduced to a pathetic 0.1 kbit/sec from a tiny, backup "broadcast" antenna.

The parabolic antenna was supposed to focus the 100 watts of energy specifically at the earth, where huge (100 sq. meter) antennas would listen for the signals. The frequency of transmission was chosen to be in a particularly low noise band. Etc.

Now, of all the frequencies available, what are the chances that a little green alien civilization is actually SENDING signals our way, on purpose, so that we might pick them up? The random TV and Radio broadcasts that such a civilization may be making simply will not be distinguishable from noise, BECAUSE it is not being beamed our direction.

A little math shows that something on the order of 10E-18 joules per bit is required just to detect a bit above background noise. A transmitter on Alpha Centauri, ~4ly away would require more than 12 million megawatts, POINTED in our direction by an antenna 100x more focused than the Martian Explorer (good antenna), in order for us to receive, oh, 10 bits of information per second with our 100+ sq. meter antennas.

Now, we're hunting far and wide, only giving each star a few minutes of wide-band observation. What's the chances, folks? ZILCH! (further, in an independent 'test', it was shown that the SETI programs that are running on the world's computers didn't even detect the Martian Lander data bits when it was interspersed anonymously into the SETI data.)

Bob Lynch < rlynch@lynchmarks.com>
Berkeley, CA USA - Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 16:50:24 (MST)

G. Wesley Bennett <Covert407@aol.com>
Erie, PA USA - Monday, February 14, 2000 at 19:22:51 (MST)

I must disagree with the good professor on the likelihood of contact with extra-terrestrial intelligences.

He cites the 'impossible problem of estimating the probability of such life having evolved and, if so, having resulted in conscious intelligent beings and, if so, having developed highly sophisticated technology and, if so, wishing to communicate, and, if so, not having become extinct before we are able to receive their signals....'

This is one 'impossible' problem that has been quite thoroughly investigated, notably by the same Dr. Drake mentioned in the article. He has strung together all of the conditions necessary for communication, including the happenings listed above, and several others, and he and many other scientists have attempted to estimate the various probabilities. (The framework is known as the Drake equation.) The current best estimate is that our own galaxy contains, at any given moment, approximately the same number of technological, communication-interested species as the number of years that such a species will continue in that condition. So if an average techno-species survives for 100 years before becoming bored of transmitting (or before destroying itself or its environment), then the current estimate would put 100 of those civilizations, on average, in our galaxy at any given time. This seems like a large number, but our galaxy is 250,000 light-years across, and contains 100 billion or so stars, so many that a great many unlikelihoods can be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the sample.

I would also take issue with his quotation from Mr. Simpson about evolution being irreproducible -- there are many instances on Earth, most notably in marsupials, of parallel ["convergent"] evolution, in which two species which are only distantly related come to a similar solution to a common problem. It's why dolphins are shaped similarly to fish, and there's no reason to think that another, unrelated biological chain on a distant world wouldn't produce some of the same solutions that evolution has created here -- the eye, the leg, and even the conscious brain.

Thus, I think the outlook for communication is much brighter than Dr. Pfalzner would suggest:

• Intelligence has proven to be a powerful adaptation on our planet, and it is reasonable to assume that this would hold elsewhere as well

 
• Most of our human societies have, at points in their history, been interested in exploration, communication, and even conquest, so it seems reasonable to assume that such extroversion is a typical competitive adaptation

 
• We can be fairly sure that we're looking in the right place -- travel is ridiculously expensive on a stellar scale, so alien intelligences can be expected to transmit instead

 
• We can expect a radio signal, since photons (being massless bosons) are the cheapest known particles to produce and send

 
• And since the E-M spectrum is very noisy in some areas, but has a few quiet bands, it is these bands of clarity on which the SETI researchers are focussing their search.

If there is even a small chance of receiving a communique from a band of fellow-travelers out there, it seems to me a most tragic mistake to miss it simply because we weren't listening.

Paul Thorman, Jr.
Cincinnati, OH USA - Monday, February 14, 2000 at 09:22:20 (MST)

We won't begin to know the answer, unless we start looking. Maybe nothing will wash onto our shore, but if we're lucky, we might catch a glimpse of the people on the other islands.

William Brinkman <wbrink@xnet.com>
Bolingbrook, IL USA - Sunday, February 13, 2000 at 21:09:40 (MST)

I just read "Is anybody out there?" and enjoyed it quite a bit. My only comment on the negative side is that it seemed completely negative towards even contemplating life on other planets, as if the fact that the pursuit is remote makes it valueless. The pursuit itself has led to technological advances that may not ever give up the ultimate prize, but that aid us as a species in other ways.

Jim  X <jammybrice@yahoo.com >
LA, ca USA - Sunday, February 13, 2000 at 20:14:24 (MST)

Greetings. As one who visits this site on rare occassion, I'd like to know about how many e-mails do you receive from Christians who attack your arguments emotionally and about how many attack them Christianly, and with intellect? I was simply curious.

Also how is the reaction to the Transcendental Argument for God's existence going?  I believe it was TANG, if my memory serves me correctly. Thank you and read C.S. Lewis' Till We Have Faces : )

David T. Young < Reepmouse@juno.com>
Franklin, TN USA - Saturday, February 26, 2000 at 11:16:17 (MST) d

Richard Carrier responds:

You might be confused between TAG and TANG: see our section on the Transcendental Argument.  Lately the quality and respectfulness of critical Christian e-mail has risen in relation to the past.  But the ratio is still at least 2:1 in favor of threats and pleas and the vacuous "I'll pray for you."  By the way, still the number one argument, which I hear at least ten times a month if not more, is some form of Pascal's Wager .

William Alexander Hamilton Jr. <bill@fiber.net>
Placerville, Ca USA - Saturday, February 26, 2000 at 03:18:50 (MST) e

Richard Carrier responds:

If only that were all Christ said, I would agree with you.  Unfortunately, we receive monthly threats and absurd assertions, and declarations of our ignorance or stupidity, almost all in the name of Christ, and commonly attached to numerous ridiculous claims of what Christ is about or what he said or did.  At the same time we receive almost as many thank-you notes for having helped people learn to trust reason, to enjoy learning and secular values, and also to find out the truth on some issue or argument.  Both these facts are a definite proof that we are needed, not only to help others in ways we wanted to be helped before we created this site, but also to fight the anger-feeding irrationality that passes for religion among a great many people the world over.  Almost everything written here began with a question, usually a question asked again and again by countless people, and thus we answer these questions and post the answers for all to see.  Consider where you last visited before you sent this feedback: Is Mormonism true?  This is a question many of our authors, and the authors of the books we advertise, have been asked many times.  Why should you object if they answer what they have been asked?  If you really believed all there was to Christ's teaching was to love eachother, you would have no objections to our site: it is love of our fellow humans which drives us to rescue them from error and ignorance, and to help them find truth and freedom, and achieve above all a trustworthy and profound happiness without living a lie.

Your article, "Reading 'Riting and Revenge", was great. I had been doing reasearch for a paper, and this article helped greatly. Everything you said I agreed with, especially concerning religion and violent entertainment. I myself am not of any particular religion, yet friends of mine who are devout Christians have more prejudices, say more curse words, and can be overall meaner than I am. I constantly try to help people everyday...and simply out of the goodness of my heart. The words "church going family" or "church going person" are constantly used in the news as a way of saying that they were good people, yet these people they're reporting on have commmitted crimes. They seem to use those words to make you think that it's inconceivable that a "church going person" could ever do something wrong. In fact, I have watched several shows where the "church going person"'s reason for murder was that "God hates fags" or "God didn't want different races to mix." All in all I think that going to church doesn't make you a good person at all, it's what you believe and how you act that determine how good a person you are.

Also one last point. The "experts" in the recent school masacres have all been adults. Why don't they try asking kids what the problem is? We would probably have a better idea of what's going on than 40 and 50 year old "experts" do.

Kim Hathaway <Hathaway@HiWAAY.net>
USA - Friday, February 25, 2000 at 21:44:08 (MST)

Brian Stone < bstone@pigseye.kennesaw.edu>
Kennesaw, GA USA - Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 15:22:54 (MST)

Glenn Branch <branch@hotbot.com>
Oakland, CA USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 22:00:54 (MST)  f

Richard Carrier responds:

You are very observant, and this is a nice addition.  I consider Quine and Kripke's position to be indefensible.  Indeed, I consider both to be very poor philosophers in the grand history of philosophy--you have no doubt noticed my preference is for Ayer and the ancient Skeptics (whose linguistic theories are too neglected today).  Quine simply fails miserably in his attempts to show analytical philosophy "bankrupt."  I do plan some day to publish something on this matter, but this is so minor an issue relative to what is occupying me at the moment that it will not appear for some time.  At any rate, these philosophers' opinions are not worth mentioning in a brief reply whose conclusion would remain unchanged even if I took a Quinean/Kripkean perspective.

I understand what you mean in point (3), since you are coming from a careful study of the 20th century philosophical thought that I would say 80% of our readers know little about.  What you call a confusion is instead a text written for a broader audience.  For I actually regard the question of "meaning" (and thus meaninglessness) differently than my predecessors like Ayer, specifically because it has led to pointless linguistic confusions--confusions directly responsible for Quine's wrong turn (and Wittgenstein's).  Since I believe philosophy should be entirely accessible and understandable to everyone, not just those who specialize in philosophy, I try as much as possible to stick to what everyone means when they speak a word or turn a phrase: and any statement which refers to something that can neither be experienced nor even imagined, under any circumstances, hypothetical or real, is something that everyone will naturally call a meaningless statement.  Since a self-contradictory statement (which includes compound statements formed to partly or completely describe a system of statements), when taken as a whole, refers to nothing that can be experienced or ever imagined by anyone, it is de facto meaningless.

As to point (4) I'm not sure what you are saying, and I fear since you were not sure what I was saying, we will only talk past each other if I address it.  Maybe it will help you to know this: I believe that even an omniscient being would still face a distinction between analytic and synthetic truth.  The only difference is that such a being would automatically know all the consequences of every statement and thus would instantly detect whether any system of statements contained a contradiction and exactly what that contradiction was (such a being would never have to learn math, for example: it would always know the answer to every mathematical question, as easily as we know that 1 + 1 = 2 without having to count our fingers).  But when it came time to ascertain whether any system of statements actually, correctly described the real world, this being would suffer the same Gödelian dilemma of never being sure it was not the victim of a Cartesian Demon or some similar undetectable error in its self-certainty of omniscience.  The difference would only lie in this creature being able to assure itself with far more access to information than we will ever have, but its certainty will never be absolute except with regard to analytic truth, just as with us.

On point (5) I can find no specific instances of the alleged confusion.  I treat the Latin as Latin, and thus as a prepositional phrase.  When appended to "analytic" or "synthetic," these terms are treated as substantives, i.e. adjectives implying the noun "knowledge."

Thanks again for this excellent feedback.

I also would like to let you know that I have been doing a research paper on the subject of school prayer and school violence. During my research I have found a large amount of evidence to support the theory that returning prayer to schools would reverse the trend toward violence in schools and prevent future incidents such as Columbine.

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land . II Chronicles 7:14

John Rea <John.A.Rea >
Terre Haute, IN USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 20:37:49 (MST) g

Richard Carrier responds:

You did not indicate which essay you are responding to, and you give no examples of the alleged "attacking of Christians." But even from what I can deduce, you are not making sound arguments here: First, Jesus is not praying in that passage, but teaching , and he is teaching how to pray, in a private place, on his own time and money, outside the city, where only those who chose to hear him had to.  That has nothing to do with public school prayer: all secularists agree that the right to pray in private places, such as churches and homes, is a fundamental right that should never be interfered with.  Indeed, all secularists agree that even in public places people have the right to pray: so long as it is private and personal, and does not compel others to participate, or lead a government official to endorse one religion, or religious view, over another.  Second, when it came time for Jesus to practice what he preached--when he actually prayed (instead of teaching others how to pray)--he actually prayed in private (26:36-45).  Third, you are right that Jesus' point was that prayer should be a personal communion with God, not a display of religiosity--but that is exactly why prayer should not be forced on anyone, such as requiring it of a school class where all can see and show off how Christian they are (or mark for condemnation those who refuse to participate in this hypocrisy), nor should prayer be publicly broadcast on highschool PA systems.  Jesus would certainly have found this precisely the hypocritical display he was opposed to.  Prayer should be private and personal.  Anything else is a temptation to sin, just as you note, as well as an offense against the free will of others.

As to your research paper, we might like to see it--if it is well-written and well-sourced, we may even consider publishing or linking to it, while also asking others to publish responses.  If this interests you, submit the finished paper to infidel@infidels.org.

João Bracourt <brek@clix.pt>
Portimão, Portugal - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 20:17:08 (MST) h

Richard Carrier responds:

I must say with all candor, after reading this, I find it hard to believe that you really know what love is.  You sound like a monk who insists that the printing press, by leaving too many idle hands in the monastery, "is very improductive," or a brood who declares, based on his experience riding roller coasters at amusement parks, that a ride on the space shuttle would surely be "no big deal."

First, if you had paid close attention, I let slip that I was discussing love not just of human beings, but of abstractions like your career (and we could add things like our nation or even life itself--everything encompassed in my essay by the phrase "someone or something," which you evidently missed).  And if you subtract love of all these kinds from your life, I'd really like to know what you would have left to live for.

Second, loneliness is a major cause of pain in people's lives, which real love certainly cures.  Without regular kisses and hugs to keep me working tirelessly toward some great goal, I would inevitably grow depressed and burn out (as I did several times when I was single).  And take it from me: compared to my life as a single man, who every night dreaded looking forward to yet another Herculean labor of winning the attention and affection of a mate, my life is now a dream.  Thousands of hours of my time, which were once wasted in endless and frustrating courting rituals and romantic fishing expeditions, are now devoted to better things.  And instead of throwing our time and money down a hole, we are now building capital in something that is ours.

Third, you need to get out more.  I don't know what women you have been hanging out with, but far from putting my goals aside, my goals have become easier to achieve now that I have a loyal and trusted companion to help me get by and to keep me encouraged.  I can count on my wife, and she on me, in ways that even the best of "mere" friends would eventually find burdensome, but which only make our lives closer and more successful.  When one of us suffers the loss of a job, or an injury or illness, or an increase in work that requires neglecting other important duties, the other is always there to pick up the slack.  And with our combined incomes and talents, we have together accomplished things that neither of us would ever have achieved alone.

Last, and hardly least, the love I feel and receive really makes me happy.  Very happy.  This is why I would readily compare it to my love of life, of philosophy and history, of film, and so many other things that fill my life with meaning and joy.  The love of a woman is no less than any of this, and a precious addition to it all.  It makes me sad that you remain oblivious to this, but then too many people do.

To a certain extent it is certainly true that our (to a large extent) sexual preferences and desires are determined genetically, i.e. by our biology. But I think it's also important to take into account socialization, the process by which we assume our roles as Women & Men (the social genders) and our respective roles in society. We also learn (amongst other things) to love, to "feel what is expected of us" in most situations. We should grieve when our close ones pass away, we should feel compassion and guilt. I am convinced all of these things are "socially contracted memes" to an extent, that is, we learn this through our social heritage. And as such, sexuality, in the human form, is one part genetic heritage and one part cultural heritage.

The cultural aspect of our identities are almost never scrutinized in the popular media (or in any media for that matter). Our identities as Men or Women (apart from our obvious physical state as belonging to one sex or the other) seem almost too "given" to be questioned or scrutinized. It is the traditional view, and as such love, sex and the "natural" order of things are what the "news"-papers are striving to consolidate, by use of dubious results from pseudoscience and muddled argumentation to support a selling story.

Pär Karlsson <feinorgh@hotmail.com>
Karlskoga, NA Sweden - Monday, February 21, 2000 at 13:08:04 (MST) i

Richard Carrier responds:

We shouldn't go too far in crediting nurture over nature.  I think if you look you will find studies of emotions in animals that support a genetic or at least non-socialized basis for emotions, even for guilt, compassion, and mourning: these seem the inevitable reactions to the physical effects upon our brains of error, loss, and the sounds or sights of comrades in pain (and in our unique case, the sentient awareness of the concept of comrades in pain).  I think it is only the way these emotions are expressed or reacted to that is socialized in us, besides the effect experience, education and learning have on what evokes emotion in the first place.  Likewise, a lot of things that appear to be cultural artefacts in gender differences could well be genetic: as just one example, estrogen causes vulnerability to emotionality, testosterone causes vulnerability to violent impulses, and although both men and women share these hormones, they do not share them in the same proportions--thus, their emotional lives will be different by their very nature.  But beyond this qualification, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Manie Mulder <maniem@hq.iscorltd.co.za>
Pretoria, RSA South Africa - Sunday, February 20, 2000 at 10:46:12 (MST)  j

Richard Carrier responds:

It is impossible for any religion or philosophy to ignore sociology and biology--to talk about one inevitably entangles you in the others.  Indeed, religion is a sociological phenomenon, and philosophy concerns itself with analyzing the meaning and deriving the consequences of all facts, including the scientific.  And consider what is quite clear in our statement of purpose: "Our mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself," and an essay explaining the appropriate understanding and significance of love within that worldview is right up our alley, since "We want to uphold the dignity of humanity and to encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise," and "to affirm life, purpose, and beauty."

It has been said that "Love makes fools of us all." In this case Richard Carrier's wife can rest assured that her husband loves her very much. Drunk with "love," the author has fallen into a trap that every human trips upon at some point. We all try to make ourselves out to be more that we really are. Souls, karma, and fate are just a few of the perceived extentions in humatity that are used to explain and define the unexplainable. The author cannot explain that he was more than just attracted to his wife, he is in love with who she is; like attraction to anything other than physical attributes calls for divine mystical conditions such as "love." The author is simply attracted to many of his wife's attributes, whether the be emotional, physical, or intellectual. These remain basic attractions, much like his attraction to her hair color. But feeling that this attraction is above simple biological function, the author must bound them together and define them with an all encompassing flowery term; enter "love." Although many factors, both genetic and environmental, determine each attraction, they are nothing more or nothing less than intensified versions of the kind of attraction you had to your mother's nipple as an infant.

Chris Montgomery
Tampa, FL USA - Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 20:03:22 (MST) k

Richard Carrier responds:

You have essentially repeated exactly what my article said.  Apparently, you didn't understand it.  The only mistake you make here is in assuming that it makes sense to say that a complex thing is "nothing more" than a simple one.  A human is nothing more than a collection of single-celled organisms.  Does that mean there is no difference between a human and a collection of single-celled organisms?  Hardly.  Organization is everything my friend.  Love is indeed an attraction-perception, differing from reflex attraction in only one respect: the depth of its complexity and therefore the complexity of both the object of attraction and the brain system capable of recognizing it.  But like a human body, which differs from a mass of cells in only the one respect of its extreme complexity of organization, this difference makes all the difference in the world--for it is the difference between thought and mindlessness.  Likewise, this same gulf of difference between an inborn reflex attraction and a complex psycho-socially learned attraction is the difference between urge and love.

Travis N. Cox <travis@csonline.net>
Franklin, PA USA - Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 12:08:30 (MST)

As a fellow romantic, I enjoyed this article. While I know that my reactions to the opposite sex are biologically determined, there is something very different going on between me and my wife. We have been together ten years and are still very much in love. I think it is also important to say that it was my wife's love that gave me the ability to leave religion behind. When I found what real love was like, the fake kind no longer held power over me. What I was looking for in god, I found in my wife.

Jeff Kindle < kindlefamily@yahoo.com>
Trenton, NJ USA - Sunday, February 13, 2000 at 08:51:50 (MST)

Thank you.

Monica Reighard < elijah37_29@hotmail.com>
e. moline, Il USA - Sunday, February 06, 2000 at 19:48:19 (MST) l

Richard Carrier responds:

I am not sure what you want to know.  The words are not overly precise. The word stauros (staurous is the accusative plural form) means any stake driven into the ground, and was commonly used to refer to a T-shaped structure (usually not a cross exactly) used for propping up vines and then adopted for executing criminals (probably because such punishments began with Roman agricultural slaves, and the vine props were already handy for the task).  The word xylon means any beam of wood cut for use, and most often has the connotation of horizontal structures, unlike stauros which usually refers to vertical structures.  Although occasionally as a metaphor it refers to living trees, this was not its standard meaning.  In criminal contexts, the xylon was a stock or cross-beam to which a criminal was bound and then dragged or run through the street, or anchored somewhere, for instance on top of a stauros.

Theoretically, the "T" to which Jesus was affixed would have consisted of a stauros already in the ground, which would be reused, and then Jesus would be bound, arms wide, to a heavy xylon which he would then carry to the place of execution.  There, corpses would be removed from the numerous stauroi, and Jesus would be hoisted up onto one of these by the xylon to which he was bound, and the tip of that stauros would be inserted into a slot in the bottom of the xylon, forming a T-shape. We have some evidence that his ankles might have been nailed to the stauros, and then the nail or flesh pulled free when he was removed.  Whether he would have been nailed to the xylon, or only bound to it, is unknown.  The few external accounts we have suggest that criminals were bound to it, but that doesn't rule out nailing in addition.  At any rate, the single words stauros or xylon, though technically referring to specific pieces of this arrangement, were often used to refer to the whole structure as well.  Hence either can be translated as "cross" (though one should perhaps envision it as a T and not a t).

Look at the solace that following the core teachings of Jesus have brought to millions. Your point is, it seems, that some of Jesus' followers "marketed" his teachings to people who were used to and apparently needed to see works of supernatural power, with a veneer of what the compertitors were selling. Perhaps they guiled the lily or did not understand that they were untrusted with one. But let's not throw the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water.

Sean Quinn <STQ3040@AOL.COM >
Succasunna, NJ USA - Sunday, February 06, 2000 at 00:04:19 (MST) m

Richard Carrier responds:

If we suppose this is a correct assessment of what Jesus actually taught (or was thought to have taught), and I am not so sure (though we have published a book here that makes a good case for it, cf. Thomas Sheehan's The First Coming), then Jesus was neither original nor alone in advocating it.  Similar thinking, in various forms at the time, lay at the heart of every major school of philosophy since Pythagoras, and could be found in many cults which predated Christianity, especially the syncretic Graeco-Egyptian worship of Isis.  However, Christianity appended to this attempt at solace a dogmatic, superstitious, and tyrannical creed--no matter how much this might not have been what Jesus wanted, it happened nevertheless, and nothing Jesus said or did prevented it.  The result was a spiritual step backward, not forward.

But the point of my essay was not that some of Jesus' followers marketed Christianity via miracle-propaganda--I in fact never mention Jesus' followers, much less what they were or thought they were doing.  Instead, my essay is about the credibility of witnesses, and what they were all-too-ready to believe uncritically.  That could well include Jesus' followers.  Thomas Matthews, whose book I cite in that essay, does make a good case for the argument that the miracles of Jesus were deliberate elements of advertising for the cult, and successful at that (his argument is from art, but could easily be supplemented by a study of early Christian literature), but this does not entail that this was actually a conscious device--the Christians may have simply believed these stories, and believed Christianity as a result, and were therefore ready to tell others.  This is the usual path of thought contagion.

In the end, given all the excellent and far superior philosophies born in antiquity, the teachings of Jesus can very well be thrown out as inferior and redundant.  Everything he taught was taught more ably, more clearly, and more wisely by others in his day.  Consider, for instance, Musonius Rufus.

BTW I have very much enjoyed your website particularly your humor page and your activist page.

Thank you for listening.

Brigid Moonwater <brigid@alittlewitchy.2ndmail.com >
Bay Area, Ca USA - Wednesday, February 23, 2000 at 15:44:45 (MST)

If you actually believe yourself ( James Still ) that we Atheists should not be somewhat arrogant and with an in-your-face attitude toward these so called "I have better morals than you" Christians, hell we better sit in the back of the bus! I in no way advocate violence. Intellectually I can debate any religion, but sometimes the arrogant Atheist inside does show itself. So what if I roll my eyes? So what if I tell a Christian to go to hell? It is their place of torture, not mine!

As an outspoken Atheist, I am an American citizen. I respect the Constitution of the United States of America. I understand that religion is recognized under the 1st Amendment. But I also know that the time has come for the respect to be given in return. After this happens, maybe we will not need the "arrogant Atheis."

William Koch < heretic7@earthlink.net>
Lancaster, PA USA - Monday, February 21, 2000 at 21:43:09 (MST)

Brandi Lopez < Bndlopez@cs.com>
Pleasant Grove, UT USA - Saturday, February 19, 2000 at 17:26:20 (MST) xc
 

Richard Carrier responds:

On the issue of "roundness," see related item in the January feedback along with the reply.  Where does the Bible mention the earth revolving around the sun?

Regarding Donald Morgan's "Jesus was a hypocrite": I once went through the Sermon on the Mount comparing what Jesus was preaching with what he did or what would have normally have occurred around him had he done what he preached. In cases where a common, everyday example could be shown or alluded to such as almsgiving (of any kind not just in secret), not being judgemental, avoiding a contention by being agreeable, praying in secret (he prayed publicly often and when not doing so was quite public about going off alone and did not go into or out of any prayer closet), giving an Offering (not to mention reconciling beforehand), none are shown in the Gospels -- a rather strong argument from silence. I've debated several knowledgable Christians on the matter, quoting chapter and verse, and their response is "Duh, I dunno" or "You're the hypocrite!". They cannot even offer up a substantive rebuttal.

Regards and fine job Donald.

Steve Blake <sbdeja@my-deja.com>
CA USA - Saturday, February 19, 2000 at 16:52:57 (MST)sun?) xd

Don Morgan responds:

 I appreciate your feedback to the Internet Infidels web site. My little treatise on the hypocrisy of Jesus deals with what is allegedly recorded of his behavior, but you bring up another very good point, i.e., the behavior that he could have and should have engaged in--but seems not to have.

Andy England < gtr1963@msn.com>
Leeds, AL USA - Thursday, February 17, 2000 at 10:10:37 (MST) xe

Don Morgan responds:

Your disgust with my claims is paralleled by my disgust of claims about the validity and worth of the Bible, but neither your disgust nor my disgust addresses the issue of whether the Bible does or does not contain absurdities. Had you been raised in, say, Iran, your faith in God would likely be equally deep and true, but what you believed about God and the Bible would likely be quite different.

It is always interesting to me how willing Christian apologists are to make the accusation that we've never read anything on the subject without bothering to first check it out. Yes, I have read the Bible. I studied the Bible for many years, attended numerous Bible studies, was personally discipled by my pastor, was on the Board of Elders of two different churches (at different times), and was the Chairman of the Christian Education Committee at a satellite church associated with a very well-known Bible church. I have read extensively both the kinds of books that you mention and those that are critical of the Bible. It is not as if I don't have a pretty good handle on what the Bible consists of, and I say that it contains some fact and some fiction. But It most definitely is not "truly accurate."

You say that the "New Jerusalem (The city in Heaven) is the one described as being 1500 square miles." Inasmuch as that city is where the inhabitants of heaven will allegedly reside, does it make a significant difference whether we discuss the city or heaven itself? Does the fact that this heavenly city is to be inhabited by 144,000 virgin men not pose a problem for you? (It does for me inasmuch as Iam not a virgin and inasmuch as it is likely that there would already be 144,000 virgin male inhabitants).

You say that you "have many books about skeptic professionals searching and finding, through archaeology and text that the Bible is true." A subscription to Biblical Archaeology Review proved to me that such assertions are untrue--as did a reading of Archaeology of the Bible by Magnus Magnusson and Archaeology in the Holy Land by Kathleen Kenyon.

You say "God speaks to us through this book." According to Muslims, God speaks through the Quran. According to Mormons, through the Book of Mormon. According to Seventh Day Adventists, through the writings of Ellen White. God's alleged message seems to be inconsistent. You also say "It is not for us to question if it is right or wrong." But if this principle were followed universally, we would still be in the Dark Ages and under the thumb of the Pope. Then you say "only God can speak to [me] to see that it is true." But "God" doesn't seem to speak even to god-believers with a consistent message. Scholars are proving the Bible true? No, scholars have proved some parts of the Bible true and some parts false. And by the way, rather than 10,000 years, some creationists believe the Earth is only about 6,000 years old given that more than one Biblicist puts creation in 4004 BC.

I have rejected Christianity as out of touch with reality and as unworthy of my faith, but the fact is that I was taught when I was a Christian that "once a Christian always a Christian." That would make me a Christian-Atheist, and that is as absurd as the Bible.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

I have to disagree with inclusion of nightshade as a poisonous plant. Though the plant itself may be poisonous to eat.
Many useful heart medications have been derived from this plant. Therefore it should be considered as a useful plant even though it must be processed to be of benefit to mankind. The medications derived from deadly nightshade include:
digitalis glycosides, digoxin, and digitoxin. These drugs have helped thousands of people with heart problems.
The most common usage is for heart failure, but these medications are also used for atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia, supraventricular tachycardia, and paroxysmal atrial tachycardia. I hope that you find this information useful for further study.

Regards,
C. "StratCat" Ferguson <stratcat@wwbbs.net >
Bmt., TX USA - Tuesday, February 01, 2000 at 04:17:49 (MST)  xf

Don Morgan responds:

 Every plant and tree which yield seed are allegedly given to us by God as good to eat--with emphasis on "eat." Though it "must be processed to be of benefit to mankind," at the time that the verse in question was penned, there was no such process.

Dan Bravender < k97db02@kzoo.edu>
Grand Rapids, MI USA - Thursday, February 17, 2000 at 22:20:58 (MST)

Ben Zou <benzou@worldnet.att.net>
Wildwood, MO USA - Thursday, February 17, 2000 at 20:43:25 (MST)

I have read your article. All those that have read it are liars. I like your article.

pobox1429@netzero.net

This is my e-mail address. Do you believe me?

Sulaiman Solano < pobox1429@netzero.net>
Brownsville, TX USA - Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 22:51:43 (MST)

Oh sorry, I forgot-- it is too logical to teach logic at school -- and we can't have that happening! What next, female voters?! Logic has no place in our society -- just like atheists and those pink doughnuts that have purple on the inside. Well, that's it for now. I hope this article finds you well, and if you disagree with me -- I hope a small clove of garlic bonks you on your head -- as illogical as that may sound . . . no really, I would like to hear everybody's feedback on this out there!

Cheers,

Ivan Kovac <ivan@student.usyd.edu.au>
Sydney, NSW Australia - Monday, February 14, 2000 at 05:06:22 (MST)

JCS <leatherank@aol.com>
chicago, IL USA - Saturday, February 12, 2000 at 04:32:04 (MST)

Why isn't this taught in every school? This is far more important than learning geometry proofs or who fought at Waterloo. Why are we more concerned with test scores than we are with teaching young people to think?

Excellent essay!!

Mark Wenneborg < norteno@famvid.com>
Springfield, IL USA - Friday, February 11, 2000 at 08:04:24 (MST)

Cristy Hurk < hurkhurk@hotmail.com>
USA - Thursday, February 17, 2000 at 17:33:45 (MST)

Dear all,

This is a short comment, possibly made by many other people, and addressed not at one specific author or feature on the web site, but at the entire concept of this website. As such I don't expect this to be printed, but it's worth a try I think. [note from the editor: this does address a specific feature on the web: our "about" page.  It is thus well within our guidelines, and rather interesting, too].

Would someone mind explaining to me how the Secular Web can call itself "the most comprehensive freethought web site on the Internet" when its mission statement is "to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism," etc.

Surely defending and promoting ONE worldview and ONE worldview only is not really conducive to free thought? In fact (in my humble opinion) it is distinctly reminiscent of religious bigotry.

Gordon Crossley <gordon_crossley@bigfoot.com>
York, England - Wednesday, February 16, 2000 at 10:08:39 (MST) re1

The Internet Infidels Respond:

If the promotion of one worldview is inconsistent with freethought, then it follows that only those who promote or follow multiple worldviews are freethinkers. Yet, everyone subscribes generally to only one worldview in their daily lives (Christian, Moslem, Jew, atheist, and so on) so your definition would seem to preclude anyone from being a freethinker, which is clearly absurd. Let me relieve the source of your confusion. There are many worldviews among people. To be a freethinker is to make up one's mind about religious matters without the pressure of family, society, or dogma. If one has arrived at a worldview (be it Christianity, Zen Buddhism, or atheism) without the pressures and conformities of religious institutions then that person is both a freethinker and an adherent of a single worldview. Now what is so complicated about that? At any time a person who thinks freely is in an excellent position to change his or her worldview, even to reject it altogether and embrace another. Many Christian writers to these feedback pages love to throw stones at us simply for being who we are. But those same people howl indignantly when we point out that they too subscribe to a single worldview. And many of those refuse even to consider other points of view. Suddenly when Christianity is brought up, we're no longer talking about worldviews but "Truth"--which illustrates the old saying that if you can't debate the merits of a case then change the subject!

And in line with the very spirit of freethought, you will notice that we publish or link to all substantial, quality critiques of any religion or worldview, including metaphysical naturalism.  In fact, if you know of any that we've missed (that say anything not already said here), let us know.  We publish or link to all rebuttals of our works, and have even published a few features by Christians and people of other faiths.  We also link to all other freethought organizations of any kind.  This certainly makes us the most comprehensive freethought website in the world.  Even though we take a position on the side of secularism and metaphysical naturalism, worldviews different from ours get far more press here than they would collectively get anywhere else.   And our own reasoned position is not dogmatic, but is a consequence of taking freethought where it has led us--if we are wrong, it is the result of ignorance and error, which is exactly why we are all so active here: there is no better way to test ourselves for important mistakes in our reasoning or gaps in our knowledge than to publish our views and challenge others to criticise them.  And to save our critics time, they can peruse everything we have learned and thought so far, and thus see first if it is not they who are ignorant or mistaken, or whether they really do have something to say that we haven't heard and refuted before.  If that is not freethought, then I don't know what is.

James Still and Richard Carrier

Another patron questioned us in connection with our statement of purpose, and I have interjected my answers directly and succinctly in bold -- Richard Carrier

Before I begin, there are a few questions I'd like to ask you:

1a. Do any of the Internet Infidels believe in an afterlife?

No.

1b. If not, do you think the existence of an afterlife is possible, or even probable?

Logically possible?  Yes.  Possible given what we know?  Not at present.  Probable?  Not in our day.

2. If there is no God, and if there is no afterlife, what do you think is the purpose of life?

To live it.  To make something of it.  And to make something of it that gives something of value to ourselves and to others who share it now or are soon to follow.

Do you think there IS a purpose to life?

Yes.  Purpose is the inevitable creation of a mind.  Humans have minds.  Therefore there is purpose.  Among the variable purposes that can be conceived, the best is, by the very definition of "best," that which makes life most worth living.  What manner of life that is, is what philosophy aims to resolve.

3. If an entire society were to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ to the letter, what do you think such a society
would be like?

Which teachings?  The ones about perfecting our understanding of medicine and other technologies and sciences for the bettering of human life and wisdom, improving our education and literacy and extending them to all classes and genders, or developing our command of logic?  Or the teachings about fighting for democracy, or the abolition of slavery, or freedom of thought?  Oh wait.  Jesus didn't teach any of those things.

4a. Do you think that medical science will ever find a way to prevent the aging cycle from taking its course ( i.e. death ).

Yes.

4b. If so, do you think such a breakthrough will be accomplished in the forseeable future?

Possibly in my lifetime, but more likely near the end of the century.

5. Do any of the Internet Infidels believe in reincarnation?

No.

By the way, I consider the concept of reincarnation to not fall within the concept of an afterlife ( reincarnation would mean going on to the "next life", but not a "higher" or "lower" level of existence; spiritually speaking ).

6. Do you believe that it is possible that there is a God or a Supreme Being?

Almost anything is possible.  It is "possible" that the universe was created by a super-intelligent time-travelling cat named Whiskers.

7.You seem to want to convert all Christians to Atheism. What do you hope to accomplish through doing so?

Actually, we would be content if everyone shared our core values and our understanding of the demonstrable facts.  Whatever else they believed on faith in their own private lives is of little concern to us--so long as it does not distort their values or make them act on false or misleading perceptions.  And it is the adoption of humanistic values, and the avoidance of error, that we aim for.  Although many liberal religious creeds fall well within this goal, we believe that those who come to understand metaphysical naturalism in particular, and thus see how it is best supported by the given evidence (as we have found it to be), will in turn more readily come to understand our humanistic values and adopt them, and at the same time not be misled into error by false ideas (or even false presumptions to know what in fact we do not).  As a result, there will be a general increase in human happiness, as more people will be more keen and better equipped to solve their problems in the only way they can ever finally be solved: through reason, knowledge, industry, and action. And these benefits would be gained, and have their effect, immediately, for each who realizes them, and would increase for each with the more people who join them--even if not everyone followed along.  That is why we advocate it.

I realize that as Internet Infidels you are opposed to the concept of there being a God. However, I'm curious as to just HOW much opposed you are to this concept.  Furthermore, I was just wondering what your stance is on issues relating to God, but not neccessarily linked to Him ( i.e. life after death, spirituality, reincarnation,etc...).

There are some issues I'd like to discuss/debate with you over the internet, but before I do, I want to be absolutely sure of where the Internet Infidels stand on certain issues that may be brought up in our discussions/debates.

I'm looking forward to hearing back from you!
Have a nice day.

Ryan Rowsell <ce957685@northatlantic.nf.ca>
Grand Falls , Newfoundland Canada - Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 13:13:25 (MST)

Furthermore, I regard all your contrivances and strenuous efforts to validate evolution nothing but a pain reliever for conscience. No creationism implies no God or Supreme Being and, therefore, no ultimate accountibility. When there is no ultimate accountibility there is no reason for temporal responsibility, save the low standard of law enforcement set by man. This, my friend, is obviously the reason for your continued obstinance toward deity.

I set before you an ancient (a few decades, ha!) proposition. That is the great proposition that Christ Jesus is Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. To suppose the latter two is the assumption of terrible ignorance. Are you so presumptuous as to call Jesus a Liar, when history mocks your choice with a hideous, "I-can't-believe-it" laugh? Study human behavior. Know that the disciples of Jesus saw Jesus after his resurrection, proclaimed it in the city it had taken place, and died terrible deaths for tenaciously adhering to their eyewitness testimonies. Or are you one to charge Jesus as delusional, meaning that He is mentally unstable? His very teachings are the argument against your claim. Those teachings came from the lips of God, which continue to bring peace to followers today. He is LORD and it cannot be nullified!

Ronald P. Forrester, Jr. <seekthelord1@juno.com>
Tullahoma, TN USA - Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 12:18:53 (MST) n

Richard Carrier responds:

Your first argument is a non sequitur: honesty, however desirable for other reasons, is not required to understand or solve any problem.  Your second argument also fails: see our section on Morality and Atheism.  Your third argument has already been refuted, too: see Lord, Liar or Lunatic? by  James Still, The Trilemma-- Lord, Liar Or Lunatic? by Jim Perry , and A False Trilemma by Robert Price .  See also additional feedback below.

And your presentation of this last argument is even more unsound than usual: if "history" proves Jesus truthful, then it also proves Mormonism, Buddhism, and Islam, but that can't be: only one of the four religions can be true.  So somebody was lying--or mistaken, the fourth possibility that you failed to consider: after all, the real choices are, "lord, liar, lunatic, or fallible human ."  And we cannot merely appeal to current belief to find out who was wrong.

On the ambiguous "seeing" of Jesus and the supposed "dying of terrible deaths" see Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story by Richard Carrier .  And it does not follow that delusional people are "mentally unstable."  To the contrary, a delusional person, with or without a schizotypal personality, can behave very rationally and ordinary in every other respect apart from their mistaken beliefs or experiences: as Claridge McCreery writes in "A Study of Hallucination in Normal Subjects" (Personality and Individual Differences 2:5; November, 1996; pp. 739-747), many a psychotic has been found to be "a relatively well-adjusted person who is functional despite, and in some cases even because of, his or her anomalous perceptual experiences."  And when you claim the teachings of Jesus must be true because they "came from the lips of God" you are begging the very question at hand: whether Jesus really was speaking for any god.  But there are good reasons to doubt this: see On Musonius Rufus by Richard Carrier , as well as our section on the Character of Jesus.

Stephen Wright <swright243@rcn.com>
Worcester, MA USA - Monday, February 14, 2000 at 20:03:18 (MST) o

Richard Carrier responds:

Thankyou for the kind letter.  You can Donate with PayPal or help out in other ways.

While trying to find material for a school essay on the relevance of the ressurection for Christians today, I stumbled on your website and decided to try and use some material from it, for I am sourcing McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict in my essay. However my search failed to find any material on Chapter 10 of McDowell's Evidence: "The resurrection - hoax or history." Since without the resurrection there would be no Christianity, I was surprised that you do not appear to have written a criticism of Chapter 10. Have you either covered this chapter elsewhere or have I simply been blind in searching the website? Or was McDowell's evidence so great that you didn't want to comment on it as it would condradict everything else previously believed or written?

If you wish to give me Feedback on this it would be much appreciated and may be used in my essay.

Thank you.
Jacqueline Davie <ldavie@agrussell.co uk>
Arbroath, - Monday, February 14, 2000 at 09:56:40 (MST)  p

Richard Carrier responds:

Precisely because we want this critique to be substantially useful to scholars, and not a mere book review, we have sought academic and lay experts to respond to each chapter, and to spend a good deal of time researching their responses.  We have not been able to find anyone, who knows the necessary material, to spend the time writing a response to chapter 10.  I confess, Jeff has asked me to do it.  I am certainly qualified, but I have too many projects on my plate, and I have already addressed the principle issue of that chapter (though not McDowell's presentation of it specifically) in my lengthy essay Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story.  In addition, the matter of the rapidity of legendary development and the reliability of the Gospels as history is the subject of a book I am presently writing, although my essay Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire addresses it in part, as does my review of In Defense of Miracles. My book may yet take a year or more to complete, since I am also working two jobs and writing a dissertation.  But if the resources I have mentioned above do not rebut McDowell to your satisfaction, let me know what claim you still find in need of criticism.

I also appreciate the critique of Josh MacDowell. I have read both some of his work and some of C. S. Lewis's, and have come up with the possible explanation for the popularity of Lewis's argument. It's rather strange: as an apologist