Infidels: Feedback : 2000 : March

From the Editor: Greetings humans!  You may have noticed that in mid-June of this year we radically changed the way feedback gets done.  Instead of a laborious editing process, we now use a live-action message board, with fewer rules and quicker response time (see the new feedback).  However, this left a backlog of three and a half months.  To catch up to speed and retire the old system, only very basic editing was done of these intervening months.

I found Mr Brown's report piece on Falung Gong surprisingly superficial and inaccurate. Many of the lies of Li Hongzhi and the wrongdoings of his cult are omitted. The whole piece read like a thinly veiled attack on the PRC leaders instead of a serious discussion. The lack of solid arguments, the nonchalant tone -- such as the use of "uncool" and "Mao Tse-tung hair club for men" -- and the lack of evidence (not to mention his own exaggerations) doesn't help lend credence to Mr. Brown.

Then again, maybe Mr Brown is just being satirical, or even ironical. It is hard to tell.

Felix Luk <decipher@hknet.com>
Hong Kong - Friday, March 31, 2000 at 00:27:53 (MST)

Tom Gernatt <tgernatt@rsandrews.com>
Atlanta, GA USA - Thursday, March 30, 2000 at 20:23:43 (MST)

J. E. Hill responds:

 Just to clarify my position: I think creation should be taught...along with the myriad of other creation stories...along with a Bible as literature course...along with the texts of other religions...along with critical thinking courses...along with philosophy courses. I can only wonder what the reaction and clamor would be if our public schools tried to offered a course in the Philosophy of Religion that explores atheism, agnosticism, materialism, proofs and disproofs for the existence of God, and etc., as well as exploring other mainstream religions.

I agree we should present the 'facts' of both evolution and creationism if you are referring to a philosophy of science or political science course. Just not in a biology, chemistry, physics or natural science class. How much more open and objective can that be? Unfortunately, this is not what the creationist' camp wants or will settle for. If they cannot have creationism taught subjectively in science classes, they don't want it (or evolution) taught at all. Especially objectively in a comparative environment.

The 'equal time' argument ignores one very important element. Philosophy is not an equal to Science and vis-versa. The difference is, should creationism be taught as science, in our public schools, when it cannot withstand even the most modest peer review from the mainstream scientific community? This places creationism in the theological school, not the scientific school.

Mr. Gernatt's last sentence is really the coup de grace of the argument. You have evangelical teachers and administrators that would just relish to push their religious agenda to our public school children. And, given the opportunity, they have done just this. This is in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment and my right to teach my children about religion as I see fit. Not the state.

I agree with J.D. Hill's opinion that school science curriculum should not be based on opinion polls but on scientific merit and I think evolution has a lot of scientific merit including the growing evidence in DNA comparisons. However, the theory of evolution is not without its problems in the evidence field. Some problems include the inexplicability and apparent non-repeatability of the origin of life, the low frequency of beneficial mutations, the relatively short period of time in which many species suddenly appear in the fossil record, the mathematical improbability of such continuous evolving changes, the apparent irriducible complex nature of many microcellular processes, the discovery of few transition fossils, and others. If there are creditable weaknesses to even a well regarded scientific theory then these can be acknowledged in the class room. I think that the conservative religious community in the U.S. would be less hostile to the teaching of evolution in public schools if biology teachers were encouraged to be less dogmatic in their presentations on the topic.

Rick McKinney <rickmckinney@hotmail.com>
Gaithersburg, MD USA - Sunday, March 26, 2000 at 08:17:13 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You are inadvertently buying too much into Creationist rhetoric.  First, the problem of the origin of life is not a problem for the fact of evolution, which is the observation of growing variation and diversification of life forms from common preceding forms over time, nor a problem for the theory of natural selection, which aims to explain this observation. Even if God himself caused the origin of life, evolution by natural selection could still be entirely true.  Second, the low frequency of beneficial mutations actually matches the evidence very well--for contrary to Creationist rhetoric, it usually (but not always) takes a fairly long time for a change to occur. What Creationists misunderstand is that when a beneficial change finally does occur, it very rapidly (in geological time) propagates throughout a population (see for example my criticism of Schroeder).  The claim that such cumulative changes are improbable is also refuted in my essay "The Odds of Life Evolving by Chance" while the "irreducible complexity" argument is inherently fallacious, for it begs the very question whether a system's components had previous functions individually before their functions united and then evolved in conjunction from that primitive unity (see also Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No! A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity).

The "paucity" of transition fossils is also a non-argument: the vast majority of species that ever lived did not die in those peculiar and rare circumstances that generate fossils, and of those few that did, the vast majority have not been (and likely will never be) found, given that much of the Earth is covered with people, concrete, and tilled fields, and--relative to other sciences--hardly any resources are being spent to find and recover fossils.  And despite all that, we still have numerous transitional specimens.  It would be as absurd to expect us to find all of them, as it would be to expect us to find the autograph original of Homer's Iliad.  This is all the more so since in periods of rapid change, which correspond to identifiable changes in climate, species can go through several transformations in small populations before spreading widely in a stable form.  As a result, the vast majority of species are maximally adapted and thus not transitional--transitions that are not maximally adapted quickly evolve or die out, and thus their members are proportionately fewer in numbers than members of a maximally adapted species.

The absence of significant objections, and the abundance of converging positive evidence, makes evolution by natural selection one of the best and most successful scientific explanations of historical phenomena ever proposed.  Plate tectonics and stellar evolution are the only others in that category that are to my mind comparable in the extent of evidence and predictive success.

J.E. Hill is right that curriculum shouldn't be decided by polls, but his essay disregards another important implication of the poll: it shows that the advocates of teaching creation science are a classic case of a "vocal minority" successfully calling the shots. Possibly the most important number in the poll is found in the questions on intensity. Of respondents who think only "creation science" should be taught, __70%__ state that the issue is very important to them, while of those who think only evolution should be taught, only about half as many (I'm writing from memory but anyone can check the figures) say it is very important to THEM. Meanwhile, about half of all people polled said they had never heard of creationism -- which means they might not recognize it when it's pushed in their school districts.

The poll results offer hope to anyone who cares about science education and wants to DO something about it.

Molleen Matsumura <mmatsumura@infidels.org>
Berkeley, CA USA - Saturday, March 25, 2000 at 01:42:46 (MST)

J. E. Hill responds:

 Ms. Matsumura makes a good (and true) point here and I am grateful she brought this to my attention.

I couldn't agree more with J. E. Hill's assessment of the validity of using polls to determine what should be taught in our schools. The criterion for making these decisions should be the reliability of the science involved. If curricula were decided by popular vote, I shudder to think what would pass for knowledge---particularly, if the relics of the "Moral Majority" should become in fact a majority!

Johnny Lynch < jcl@freedomtothink.com>
Mt Juliet, TN USA - Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 19:52:00 (MST)

Mr. Hill's points are obviously sound, but I think his concern is excessive. I consider it unlikely that an "evolutionist" (for lack of a better term) would use this poll as the basis of a "more popular = better science" argument; more likely we would use it to kick the proverbial legs out from under a creationist attempting to use such an argument.

To put it another way: Until now, when creationists insisted that The People(TM) want creationism taught in science class, our response has always been (as my high-school physics professor used to put it), "True but irrelevant." Now, we have the luxury of being able to respond, "Irrelevant -- and false."

Scott Bigham <dsb@vnet.net>
Durham, NC USA - Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 17:44:06 (MST)

Related to the poll made of Evolution vs. Creation, I personally believe that both evolution and creation should be taught completely objectively. The idea of the school system is for children and young adults to take what they have learned, develop, and grow into free-thinking adults. It is not the job of the school system to force onto the children of today the beliefs and arguments of the past. Creation can not be necessarily taught from a completely objective standpoint in the classroom as a science, since it is not a strictly scientific theory (unlike Darwin's theory of evolution). The idea of teaching both sides of the argument is for the child to learn both sides and, along with any relegious beliefs they have, to decide on their own what they believe. It is not that job of the teachers and schoolboard to make up their minds for them.

Jason William Heckard <lilnukboy>
Goose Creek, SC USA - Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 13:11:26 (MST)

As a teacher (English) I feel very strongly about the subject of Evolution in the classroom. I would have strong issues with anyone who advocated that creationism is as valid a theory as evolution. This is sheer nonsense. I feel for those who desperately cling to the mysticism rather than accept the truth, but school is a place for education and should remain secular and neutral. Were I a science teacher who was told I had to teach creationism, I would simply tell my students this: "If you want to know more about creationism, go to to the experts on the subject at church, this is school, not church." I would not be bullied into teaching something that is against my conscience. They can have my job first, I'll turn my mind to something else.

Jeffrey Brown < tanstaafl28@hotmail.com>
Las Vegas , NV USA - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 19:13:38 (MST)

I don't think it is so much that evolution is the "best" science for our being here, I think most people want to believe that a devine being had something to do with it. As a devout agnostic, I cannot support the belief in a devine being unless I see, hear, touch etc... one, but try to keep an open mind. Children of the past lived in fear and faith, and today we have become more aware of the world because of the internet, TV, radio and other communications media...our society has come to know about "other" possibilites. I cannot rule out that MAN created god in his own image because [he] needs a god if for anything else to make sense of the world or believe there has to be a better place. It is not the "opinion polls" that we should be careful of, it is religion and religious beliefs. The fear that a devine being might smite us to eternal damnation or [hell] as many believe seems to outweigh any other reasonable explanation as to why so many hold it near and dear to their hearts. Don't be surprised to find that people who answer an opinion poll are not [aware] of the facts or did not form an "educated" opinion. Most people have faith that the world will evolve the way it should either with the god of the bible or by faith in fellow man. They are forever linked. As for creationism being taught in public schools, I say no. In church sure, that is where it is widely known and/or believed in anyway. I personally don't want or need a god or creationism, but if others do, so be it...but keep it in the churches.

Omikrom Seti < omikrom_seti@gnt.net>
Ft Walton Beach, Fl USA - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 07:01:58 (MST)

To the idea that an opinion determines what is taught in school, I am not only appalled that a large part of the population takes this seriously. This finger wagging in the wind politically only guarantees to further erode the school system. I would hope that any issue such as creation would be discussed seriously. That all sides be allowed to present material. By definition, it means that all counter points of view would be discussed. So enters all the other different views of creation versus no creation, this will not occur. Therefore, the teaching of creation pseudoscience will be defeated.

That is how I helped a friend approach the problem of a Bible as Literature class. He pointed out the different books of theology that were being slighted. Also, he showed the higher works about the various points of view concerning the canon of Christian Mythology. Needless to say, the course was dropped. I can only hope that we will be as creative when the Creation Bandwagon comes to our town and state legislature.

David M. Bagley <mbagley@vvm.com>
Killeen, Tx USA - Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 17:37:44 (MST)

What Pope John Paul II did was tremendously courageous. The Pope apologized on behalf of all Catholics. That doesn't have to be referred to as "apologized" in quotation marks. What makes you assume that this is insincere? He did not have to do this. The easiest thing anyone can do is just be critical and accusatory. Looks like you are an award winner in that category.

Chip McDonald <chipmcd@safetync.org>
Charlotte, NC USA - Thursday, March 30, 2000 at 19:40:56 (MST)

Jan Brazill responds:

 Perhaps the Pope was indeed sincere in his apology. That does not mean it was complete. He seems to be aware of the sins of his predecessors, but totally indifferent to his own sins--sins which are harmful, needless and simply an expression of his power play to insist that the world live by his religious convictions.

I am not a Catholic. I readily object to the concept of papal authority as well as its equivalent in the secular realm. Your comment that "the authority of the Catholic Church and that of John Paul II is maintained at the expense of worldwide suffering" is erroneous, naive and void of creditability. This is a tried, centuries old, straw man tactic, used by anarchist, unenlightened secularist, political organizations and other extremist as a means of absolving themselves of any of these realities of life. Your none too subtle remark of the herd mentality of those within Catholicism are continually refuted in surveys conducted both within the denomination (see Catholic sociologist Andrew Greeley) and by secular organizations such as CNN, USA Today and the Harris (Poll) Organization.

I work in the field of public health and am actively involved in various aspect of epidemiology (which, by the way, is based on the principle of causality, i.e. that nothing happens by chance). My forte is in the area of STD/HIV Prevention, conducting field investigations, data compilation and analysis, and formulating strategies for disease intervention and eradication. Prior to undertaking the role of a field investigator, I adhered to many of the perceived atrocities of religious organizations of which you enumerated to in your article. But these prejudices became apparent when I had to leave the confines of my safe and warm intellectual hub to work with, as we politely say, "at risk populations." This is the playing field in which budding humanists suffer a high rate of mortality with the remainder fleeing back to their safe havens of academia and/or become cynical of their utopian convictions. As they drive off in their Volvos listening to "All Things Considered" and hoping to reach a safe haven before the sun sets, they usually pass, without noticing the little nondescript "missions" within these "high risk communities."

Here you find the true Saints (oops, I mean faith based organizations). Men and women, providing shelter, food, and other forms of assistance to these "case groups" (another euphemism of the trade) in a true "non-judgmental" atmosphere, funded and staffed by true Christians.

Here you see the young men and women who used condoms, but now are pregnant and/or HIV positive, some with full blown AIDS. These are individuals, who by their own admission, had earnestly followed the precepts expounded by the self-acknowledged experts in the field of HIV/STD, that if an individual is regularly tested for HIV and always wears a condom, regardless of your lifestyle and aspirations, the risk of disease and/or pregnancy is nil (referred to in the trade as "two acres and a mule"). Then, lest we forget, the CDCâs recent proclamation that HIV can be transmitted orally (a fact known for years and suppressed, in part, to avoid the perception that the agency was trying to dictate morality by associating risk with behavior).

If you perceive me as some sort of conspiracy theorist, let it be known that I have been with the National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention for almost a decade. Just because my colleagues and I perform the research and provide the data, we have little or no control over its outcome. Being a funded agency, we never bite the hand that feeds us. Keep a watch out for the report on the (un)-effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of STD/HIV. While I defend your right of expression, I challenge your use of unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims such as that "Many of the 78,000 deaths a year from illegal abortions could have been prevented with contraceptives. By not allowing the use of condoms, the Church contributes to the 2.5 million deaths each year from AIDS and the 5.8 million who become HIV Positive. Family planning would reduce pregnancy-related death and illness. Increased child-spacing alone could decrease infant mortality by up to one-third in some developing countries." I have heard these and similar statistics made before, but when challenged, there existed no creditable data (using academic and professional standards) to substantiate these claims. And to be fair, such tactics of changing the decimal place is used with the same frequency as your nemesis on the other extreme of this philosophical plane.

I thank you for allowing me a platform to express my views and observation.

E. < topical2@msm.com>
USA - Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 11:25:18 (MST)

Jan Brazill responds:

 Allow me to respond to points individually.

You say: "Your comment that 'the authority of the Catholic Church and that of John Paul II is maintained at the expense of worldwide suffering' is erroneous, naive and void of creditability. This is a tried, centuries old, straw man tactic."

Read Papal Sin, a book just released, by Garry Wills. Chapters 5 and 6 provide a detailed look at the conferences leading up to Humanae Vitae and show that both Paul VI and John Paul II opposed changing the Church's opposition to birth control because it would destroy the Church's authority. The book reports that one priest asked, "What then with the millions we have sent to hell if these norms were not valid?" Since the withholding of birth control does cause suffering to women, children and families, and since the Pope's influence on this subject is felt worldwide, I believe my statement is valid.

You say: "Your none too subtle remark of the herd mentality of those within Catholicism are continually refuted in surveys conducted both within the denomination (see Catholic sociologist Andrew Greeley) and by secular organizations such as CNN, USA Today and the Harris (Poll) Organization."

I cannot find a reference to herd mentality anywhere in my article. I am well aware of the many educated Catholics use birth control in spite of church teachings, but the fact remains that the official church doctrine is to deny contraceptive coverage whenever officials can affect policy. Remember back in 1991when the National Conference of Catholic Bishops threatened President Clinton's health care plan if he included abortion? The health care plan failed. They continually influence our Congress to stop funding family planning both here and abroad. A Vatican representative attends all United Nations conference, arguing against family planning and sex education.

You say: "Here you see the young men and women who used condoms, but now are pregnant and/or HIV positive, some with full blown AIDS."

Yes, I realize that condoms are not always effective, and true, the disease can be transmitted in other ways Condoms should never be touted as the perfect solution, but frankly, I never heard that they were--certainly not by Planned Parenthood. Still, to oppose their use and to contribute thereby to even one death is sinful--which I say of the Pope. What is shameful, in my opinion, is that his opposition is based on the fact that using a condom might prevent a birth in the case of heterosexual sex. What of the women and babies affected by the disease transmitted in an unprotected sexual act? They account for many of the deaths in Africa, as highlighted on television recently. I was surprised in Spain to find outspoken opposition to the Pope because he had preached against condoms when he went to Africa.

You say: "I challenge your use of unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims"

The figures I used were corroborated by several sources. Statistics change, as they are taken at different times, but there is general agreement among organizations expert in that field. The logic prevails regardless of the exact numbers--wherever used, family planning reduces the number of deaths from unsafe abortions, and it lessens mortality rates of both mothers and infants. It improves maternal and child health and it allows for economic prosperity when family size can be controlled. The benefits are enormous. To deny those benefits because of an archaic religious idea represents true sin!

As an ex-Catholic whose split with the Church was occasioned, in no small part, by the Church's stand against contraception, I read Jan Brazill's commentary, "A Cafeteria Pope", with great interest.

What concerns me about the Church's stand in this (and other) matters, however, is not that the Church irrationally concludes that contraception is against God's law (as the Church interprets it). That is the Church's perogative, just as it was my perogative to reject the Church's teaching on that issue, and leave the Church. What offends me deeply, however, is the Church's official insistence, as exemplified by its own "contribution" to UN population control conferences and the lobbying efforts of US bishops, that the Church's standards regarding contraception must be enforced by legal fiat and other coercive means on non-Catholics as well. One of the benefits to leaving the Church is that I now have the freedom to follow my own unfettered conscience in regards to such matters. What right has to Church to compel me to submit to their moral teachings by fiat of secular law when it could not convince me of the truth of their moral teachings by rational means?

Len Cleavelin <leonard@inlink.com>
St. Louis, MO USA - Monday, March 27, 2000 at 11:14:23 (MST)

Jan Brazill responds:

 Thank you! I, too, am offended. I hope you joined the postcard campaign against the Vatican's privileged position in the U.N. by accessing www.seechange.org.

Your very latest opinion piece on the Pope was very interesting. I agree with quite a bit of it, although I'm not quite as vitriolic towards the Pope myself. Perhaps I should be, but I have a soft spot for  touch elders with failing health, probably because my father was one.

Jim Brice <jammybrice@yahoo.com >
LA, CA USA - Sunday, March 26, 2000 at 15:15:01 (MST)

Jan Brazill responds:

This elder, however, uses his position to insist that his precepts be followed by the entire world. Most elderly mellow in their old age, becoming more compassionate, but the Pope only becomes more adamant about his beliefs. This is a sin of egotism that I hope future Popes will recognize.

With regard to the 'Fernandes-Martin' debate on the existance of a God. I am always interested in reading articles on this debate although I don't claim to understand all the words you guys use in yours. I would like to share with you something my younger brother said a few years ago.

He asked me "Dave the girl in church said that God is everywhere is it true?"
"Of course it is" I said
"And she also said that he's always watching us, is that true?"
"Yes that is true"
"She said that He knows everything, is that true as well?"
"Yes of course it is, why would she lie to you?"
"Well it's just that if He knows everything, then why does he bother watching us??"
I couldn't think of an appropriate answer!!

Ok, so it's not as impressive as your debate but I liked it.
Congrats gents, you have certainly given me something to look into and research further.

Yours,
David Butt <davidbutt@hot-toast.com >
Glasgow, Scotland UK - Wednesday, March 29, 2000 at 16:39:57 (MST)

This is from the article about morality ot equalling reigion, and vice versa:

Carrying this further, pick any number of behaviors and practices, such as prayer to saints, required confessions, baptism,
polygamy, jihads or circumcision, and try to make them all apply to all religious moral codes. Obviously, it can't be done. But it
follows, then, that religious moral codes are themselves relative. In one set of circumstances, Judaism, an action is absolutely
immoral. In another, Lutheranism, it is not. I have just defined relative values.

I believe that the author has confused man-made traditions with religious practices....yes, Jews MUST be curcumcised, and Christians MUST be baptised, however, they ARE to be unique practices, to set them (those practicing that particular religion) apart from the rest of the world. What IS the same in all religions is a love and respect for the respective God, god, or goddess, that is translated to the way that the individual interacts with the world, and other human beings around them.

Kristy Henderson <frissy@cybergal.com>
Phoenix, az USA - Wednesday, March 29, 2000 at 09:11:38 (MST)

Judith Hayes responds:

 Respective gods?! There either is or is not One True God out there. Is it the God who inspired Joseph Smith of Mormon fame? Or the Jehovah of the Jews who has not yet sent a Savior? Or Allah, the God of Islam? Or the God who speaks through the Pope in Rome and DID send a Savior? Or Brahma, the main God of the Hindus? These are all different Gods, with MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE characteristics; yet they are all said to "exist" today, which is an impossibility. If one of them is truly the One True God, then the others cannot exist. So, which is the "real" God?

I find TANG quite satisfactory, for the most part. However, I believe the case for the independence of logic from God can be strengthened with the following.

Many(if not most) Christians will agree with the idea that "God creating a rock too heavy to lift" is a logically impossible thing, and therefore it should not be expected that God could do it. This statement has the assumption "God is dependent on logic" built-in. If God really was independent of logic, there is no reason that he couldn't do a logically impossible thing. Therefore, it seems to me that God must be dependent on logic, or there is something he cannot do.

Braxton Thomason <brax@ieeecs.ece.utexas.edu>
Austin, TX USA - Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 10:02:36 (MST)

Michael Martin Responds:

 I agree that logic must be independent of God. TANG is addressed to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG in which God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God. How many Christians hold this view I don't know but it may not be as easy as Mr. Thomason believes for Christians to reject it. It would mean that God does not create everything exclusive of Himself. This is not something that many Christians find easy to accept.

Richard Carrier made a minor blunder in his response to a creationist's standard drivel, in the December 1999 feedback. He wrote that after 50,000 to 100,000 years, all the carbon 14 has decayed to carbon 12. That is incorrect. Carbon 14 doesn't decay to carbon 12, but instead to nitrogen 14.

John Morrison <johnm@alumni.caltech.edu>
Houston, TX USA - Tuesday, March 28, 2000 at 07:21:00 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You are absolutely correct.  I should not confuse a proton with a neutron.  Thank you!  I have amended the text.

I find it somewhat ironic that in his criticism of Thomism and neo-Thomism in the Catholic church, Chrucky makes use of Aristotelian logic and syllogistic "dogma" to counter theirs, despite the fact "Catholism" will use anything including these "to propagate the faith".

He speaks of dialectical materialism as "dogma" as well, and I suspect as I have read some but not all of the "infidel" feedback, this is based on some version of Karl Popper's "philosophy" (non-falsifiability, etc.) of science, which was a cold war reaction and later revised because it dismissed not only Marx, but Freud and yes, Darwin.

Catholic and Christian apologists use syllogism and symbolic logic to prove "god" exists, you attempt to use the same to disprove. A proper dialectical materialist and historical materialist analysis is more useful. Religion as a whole only serves the dominant class at any historic period and is negated when it becomes a fetter to the mode of production. Religion is a specific form of social consciousness whose characteristic feature is a fantastic reflection in peoples minds of external forces dominating over them, this reflection is where earthly forces assume unearthly forms.

To presume one can merely "negate" the idea of god without negating the material basis for a "need" for a "god" is folly.

Ted McCray <praxis9@idt.net>
Altadena, CA USA - Monday, March 27, 2000 at 18:20:17 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Karl Popper wrote his primary work on positivism in 1934.  The Cold War did not begin until 1947.  Besides that error, your argument seems to be vacant.  Maybe you can explain your point?

I agree that the posts should be abolished altogether. Not only does the post violate the seperation of church and state, but congress is bigoted in it's approach in only appointing representatives of Christianity.

Brent Wright <wright_brent@yahoo.com>
Toledo, OH USA - Monday, March 27, 2000 at 10:36:26 (MST)

The House chaplain fiasco is a perfect example of how hyppocritical American politicians are! Barry Lynn is right--- the chaplain's job is purely political! The article enlightened me to something new, also. I was not aware that there was a Senate chaplain---at a budget of $277,000 per year!!! That makes the total cost for the two chaplains $413,000 annually. Where are all the conservatives---who are mostly Christians---constantly yammering about "smaller government?"

American Atheists said it best recently: "Abolish both chaplains!"

John Kiel <liberal@tcon.net >
Indianapolis, IN USA - Sunday, March 26, 2000 at 17:35:02 (MST)

Why does the Congress need any chaplain, Catholic or Protestant, in the first place? The government is dangerously close to violating the establishment clause with this chaplaincy issue. Senators and Congressmen and -women are perfectly within their constitutionally guaranteed rights if they wish to pray about any given issue upon which they are called to vote, but let them do it privately and without the assistance of a taxpayer-supported cleric who does not necessarily represent the religious views of all Catholics, let alone all other believers, and especially us nonbelievers!

Scott Collie <colliehome@aol.com>
Reidsville, NC USA - Sunday, March 26, 2000 at 08:47:33 (MST)

I was an agnostic when an unexplainable occurrance happened to me. I was home with an I.V. line in my chest so that I could administer antibiotics (after a major infection for which I was hospitalized). I had Trigeminal Neuralgia, a severe facial pain disorder, for which many choose suicide as the cure. I was going to cut the I.V. line in a suicide attempt. First I needed to check that the line was still in the vessel. To do this I had to pull back liquid into the syringe. If it was red, it was in the vessel, clear, it had become dislodged. Mine was pale pink.

The E.R. doctor could not explain it. The line could not have been both in the vessel and outside it. By the next morning, when I went to see my surgeon and had backed off from my suicidal intentions, the liquid was red and clearly in the vessel. Her only explanation was "Gremlins."

There is no medical explanation. If the line, for instance, had two holes, one leading to the vessel and one outside, the liquid would have remained pink. To that time (and I did not come to my faith until 5 to 6 years later, having nothing to do with that incident but rather, through thought, debate, and education) I was Jewish in my faith (very slightly, by birth, not belief.) and converted to Christianity 3 years ago.

A year and a half ago, I was again prepared to kill myself, due to my facial pain. I had a bottle of pills in my hand when I felt compelled to do a self-hypnosis. I did not know why but I came into the force I felt. In trance, the words came into my mind that my brain had forgotten that my trigeminal nerve had been burned, cut, and electrocuted. My brain needed to be reminded of that. This is not the known way to approach pain via hypnosis. It is normally done by addressing the pained area/inducing psychogenic anaesthesia.

Nonetheless, when I came up from trance 20 minutes later, my pain was completely and totally gone. My neurosurgeon, neurolosist, reconstructive surgeon, and the head of the hypnotherapy clinic at a major university hospital have all agreed that the only explanation is that I was given a miracle. As one said, "God touched her."

I believe this occurred so that I could put forward a different way of approaching severe pain through a noninvasive process. I believe miracles occur for this reason. God wants us to to learn from them and spread that information. I have remained painfree since then, something that never happened after 11 brain surgeries. What happened to me is a fact that cannot be explained, nor explained away. Miracles do happen, whether you are a 'believer' or not.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your writings.

Carol Levy <leejcaroll@aol.com>
Lansdale, Pa, USA - Monday, March 27, 2000 at 08:54:16 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Did you try asking a doctor if your vessel had been perforated?  Your own fiddling might have pulled the needle back into the vessel (indeed, it may even have perforated the vessel in the first place).  That would explain the change from pink the first time and red the second.  And hypnosis, like meditation, is as far as I know a recognized and successful method of pain control.  The effects you describe are not only believable, they are even more so knowing that you had surgeries--any one of them might have actually rectified the somatic lesion, while the pain continued psychosomatically.  Since it only takes any significant and relevant psychological event to cure psychosomatic illness (placebo therapy is known to work quite well--so well, in fact, that all medical studies must use double blind controls to filter out this effect), the story as you tell it requires no miracle at all.  See, for example, Edward Shorter, From Paralysis to Fatigue: a History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era (1992).

The whole point of Christ's resurrection, we are told, was to pay the sin debt for all humanity that was incurred by Adam. But if there is no evidence that this event ever happened, then all the talk about empty tombs, post-resurrection appearances, and the like is totally irrelevant. Even if a compelling, air-tight case for a miracle in first-century Palestine were possible, we would still have no reason to accept Christianity!

Are there any authors you know of who have dealt with this subject?

Michael Mallory <harbucks@webtv.net>
Tarzana, ca USA - Monday, March 27, 2000 at 01:54:32 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Not that I know of.  But Christianity can still be true on an allegorical reading of Genesis.  There does not have to be an actual "Adam" for sin to be inherent in man's nature, for instance as a result of an inevitably rebellious "free will."  This in fact was the kind of position taken by Saint Augustine, and adopted by many Catholics today.

Ah, so be perfection the enemy of the merely great.

Ernie Sparks <erniesparks@hotmail.com>
Portland, OR USA - Saturday, March 25, 2000 at 16:43:42 (MST)

I just got through viewing your wonderful page called "Biblical Inconsistencies" I LOVED it.! But I did find one fault with it among others, but I would like to address just one of them: You said that the Name "Barachiah" or "Barachias" does NOT appear anywheree in the Old Testament. This is not so. Turn your Bible to Zechariah 1:1 there it is. This is interesting because Jesus was referring to Zechariah's father when he mentioned the name Berachias. It just looks like Jesus mistook Zechariah the prophet for the Zechariah in Chronicles. Very interesting. Just thought I would inform you on this Keep up the good work

Mike Price <manoftruth@hotmail.com >
San Antonio, Tx USA - Saturday, March 25, 2000 at 13:52:14 (MST)

Don Morgan responds:

Mike, thank you for your feedback. I'm glad that you liked my material.

You are correct that the name "Berechiah" [note spelling] appears in Zechariah 1:1. On the other hand, I am correct that the name "Barachiah" or "Barachias" (as used in Matthew 23:35 by the ASV, NRSV, Darby, and KJV translations) does not appear in the Old Testament, at least not in any of the eight Bible versions that I checked.

It should be noted that 2 Chronicles stands last in the order of books in the Hebrew Bible and what Jesus and/or the author of Matthew apparently had in mind was the slaying of prophets from first to last. But Jesus and/or the author of Matthew confused Zechariah the son of Barachiah (or with Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. As the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible puts it: "The presence [in Zechariah 1:1] of the phrase 'son of Berechiah' is due probably to a scribal confusion with the son of Jeberechiah in Isaiah 8:2, with whom Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-22) is also confused in Matthew 23:35. ... The identifying words [in Matthew 23:35] 'son of Barachiah' (not in Luke 11:51) probably were mistakenly added to the text of Matthew at an early date because of confusion over which Zechariah was meant."

I don't know about you, but I expect greater accuracy from a book which was allegedly inspired by a perfect, omnipotent god and which allegedly records the words of the second person of the Godhead.

Regards,
Don 

Lucas < ljb43@unix1.ccac.edu>
Sewickley, PA USA - Friday, March 24, 2000 at 21:23:12 (MST)

James Still responds:

Welcome to the Secular Web Lucas! You're not lost, just conditioned by decades of needless polarization and uncritical atheistic assumptions about biblical criticism and philosophy. Not too long ago, in North America and the UK at least, to be an "atheist" meant that Jesus was a total myth, that religious people are confused at best and devious at worst, and that atheism was a higher state of consciousness. These old guard assumptions seem totally naive today to us youngsters. One of our goals here at the Secular Web is to challenge paradigms -- theistic as well as atheistic -- and to delve critically into arguments at a much deeper level than is typically done on the Internet. Most web sites are mere cheerleaders for a narrow cause but the Secular Web publishes a wealth of arguments and counter-arguments on all sides of an issue. We do this because we hold to this crazy notion that our readers don't want spin doctoring or indoctrination, but rather they want good information with which to make up their own minds about religion, metaphysics, faith, and philosophy. For the record, an atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of God. There is no contradiction for an atheist to argue for the existence of a historical first-century rural preacher in Palestine whom his followers considered to be the Messiah. It's high time that we nonbelievers took our own advice and began to question even our own long-cherished assumptions. Only by constantly reevaulating our claims and revisiting them from time-to-time can we edge closer to the truth.

William Edelen's take on the Ten Commandments is perfectly on target. I truly believe that the vast majority of people clamoring to have these rules place in our public schools do not understand that they were never meant to apply to non-Hebrews. I find the "Thou shalt not covet" commandment particulary interesting in that it says you may not covet another man's slaves. Note, it does not condemn the practice of slavery (the Bible actually condones the ownership of people as property). The commandment simply says you may not desire the slaves owned by someone else. The Ten Commandments are no guide at all for a modern society. I rely heavily on II as a voice of reason and rationality. Thanks for all your good work!

Robert Nevin < robertnevin@hotmail.com>
Brooklyn, NY USA - Friday, March 24, 2000 at 06:59:55 (MST)

Wow, hit the nail on the head.

John Notol <Notoldto@yahoo.com>
Twentynine Palms, CA USA - Monday, March 20, 2000 at 12:58:35 (MST)

While I found your Jury interesting, my answer to Christianity is a simple yet insistent demand for proof. Their own apostle Thomas set the standard by refusing to believe until he had physical proof. If there is anything to be gleaned from the bible it is that real Christians are to be known by their undeniable miraculous acts that presumably reflect their special relationship with their god. Anything less and they are at best unfit to preach.

Jay Hamm < swarm@warpcore.provalue.net>
Stillwater, Ok USA - Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 11:21:27 (MST)

Just Wondering...

Where is your rebuttal to the "Who Dies for a Lie?" Section of Evidence that Demands a Verdict?

Steve Hoffman < stevometer@mailcity.com>
Gurnee, IL USA - Saturday, March 18, 2000 at 21:35:27 (MST)

RE: Theism.

I am writing my comments for only one reason, that is to express myself against the "Lack of Hope" that emanates from your view/beliefs. Your beliefs, as I understand them, having read I & II, is that essentially, if one can not see, feel, touch, sense, or hear one cannot affirm that it exists. If I have fairly stated your position, I encourage you to continue reading, otherwise I have no reference point from which to continue. However, if we/or anyone with opposing view ever should come upon a frame of reference that we can both agree, then my comments should be worth reading.

1. Definition of Faith. The assurance of things hoped for and not yet seen.

Let me re-state my understanding. According to the Humanist Manifesto I, First: "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." Your opening remarks make it clear to me that you are dealing with "the facts of (y)our contemporary life demonstrate(s)."

1. Contemporary means, according to Webster, - "living in the same period of time." Since humans "truly" do not live much beyond a hundred years then I take it to mean that you are relying upon only the sum experiences of your existence on this earth.

2. Facts, according to Webster - 2. a thing that has actully hapened or that is really true; reality; actuality; truth [fact as distinguished from fancy].

If we can continue with these definitions for the most part, then I might have something to say, otherwise consider this as dross.

Since no one can say that we were around when the first human came into being, however he came into being, then your "facts" are up for "scrutiny", are they not? We can say the same for creationists. Since none of them were around when "God" created the world. How can they make such a statement? So for anyone to state that man came from "creation" or whether he "just came into being" is truly speculation on either part. After all each person can only, truly rely upon the experiences of their contemporary lives. Humanists can no more assert that man evolved than Religionists can assert that God created man. Because both are in the same boat, neither were around to record any event. Our genealogy will confirm that! Neither any of us today can truly distinguish "fact from fancy".

For now I stop.

Rober Maloney <paulabria5@cs.com>
Fairfield, Oh USA - Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 10:44:33 (MST)

Michael Martin Responds:

 My main thesis was that the theistic arguments at best do not prove what they claim to prove. For example, the Argument from First Cause at most proves a first cause or causes but not God. The relevance of Mr. Maloney's comments to my thesis is obscure. Mr. Maloney's comments seem to suggest that he thinks that nonbelievers can believe only what humans have experienced since they have been on Earth. But this is nonsense. They can believe in many things besides this including the Big Bang. What they reject, among other things, is the theistic argument from a Big Bang to a theistic God. Here is where my paper is relevant. Such arguments prove at best that the Big Bang had a cause or causes but not the cause was the theistic God.

I enjoyed your article very much but I suppose I have some issues with your deterministic viewpoints. Why do you put so much stock in it? The trend in the social sciences today (especially sociology) is that socialization plays the larger role in making us who we are. This certainly is no new idea by any strecth of the imagination. Pragmatic thinkers such as William James tackled the ideas of biodeterminism in the 19th century (the same biodeterminism that led to the eugenics movement, Social Darwinism, and perhaps some of the most striking social and human rights atrocities in the 20th Century). The entire sociological paradigm of symbolic interactionism arose mainly as a rebuttle to the determinist arguments that ran wild in the 19th century. Since then, sociology as a whole has moved more and more towards explaining human beings as being socially constructed and then detailing what aspects of our being is socially constructed and how. You touch on this notion briefly when you attribute your initial attraction to brunettes as a key reason for your attraction to them now, but seem to ignore it totally in other parts of your article. I suppose my real question (as stated above) is why you are a determinist? Are you familiar with symbolic interactionism, and if so what are your thoughts on it? Other than that, good job.

Gabriel Sanchez <sanch1g@cmich.edu>
Mt. Pleasant, MI USA - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 18:47:08 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

I quite agree with you (see my replies to the previous month's feedback on this article), and dedicate a fair bit of my article to that very point ("the authors give only scant attention to environmental causes" and "my opinions on physical beauty were decided by biology and upbringing," etc.).  However, this has no effect on determinism.  One's environment is no less deterministic than their biological pedigree.  Even if Quantum Mechanical indeterminacy is metaphysically random (which is not likely in my opinion, and probably never provable), even this becomes just another external force determining the future course of events.  However, it remains important and true that environmental determinism is significantly different in nature and meaning than biological determinism, including the essential fact that the former involves the action and interaction of human thought (the very element that scientists try to describe with concepts like "symbolic interactionism").

You have done a great job.  Thankyou for the long hours that preparing this website must have taken. I would like to point out a possible error in "Argument From the Bible." Under "6. Factual Errors," I found the following entry:
 

"(22) According to Joshua 10:12-13, the sun stood still in the sky. The author probably thought of the sun as going around the earth, but even if we take it to mean that the earth suddenly stopped rotating on its axis, objects would have been hurled off by the centrifugal force, which didn't happen. Hence, the account is erroneous."

The effect is certainly true, but the reference to "centrifugal force" is, strictly speaking, inacurate. It is momentum, not some force, that leads objects to flying off a spinning object. Any good introductory physics text should provide a better explanation than I can muster here.

This is a minor point, but I feel that it is important to be scrupulously accurate when engaged in these sorts of discussions. Keep up the good work!

Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
Department of Biology
Concordia University
Montreal, PQ Canada - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 14:31:25 (MST)

I have to disagree with the author that Americans have any special tendency to romanticize "hobos and bums." This is a near universal quality of humans, and hardly new. Alexander the Great said "Were I not Alexander, I would want to be Diogenes." Of course, he didn't actually give up his life to become an ascetic. But there is a common human desire to lead a simpler life. People in every age expressed desires to go back to a simpler time. But usually, people do not act on these desires. They may feel that they aren't truly free to do so, or they may be unwilling to give up what they would need to to have this "simpler" life. Many people think they would like to give up the rat race... just as soon as they get that cheese...

Rob Lent <Antiwolf@USFamily.net>
Minneapolis, MN USA - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 10:32:08 (MST)

The apologies of the Catholic Church are tokens only. I would be more impressed if they actually did something. Some of the people who the Pope is apologizing for are saints. If the Catholic Church wants me to take this apology seriously, they need to clean house. They can start by going through the list of saints, and de-canonizing those who committed atrocities. Otherwise, this apology is a token only, that barely scratches the surface.

Rob Lent <Antiwolf@USFamily.net>
Minneapolis, MN USA - Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 10:13:42 (MST)

I think the Pope can't say he's sorry for all the things the world has done, but he has picked a specific topic that touched everyone's life in one way or another and chose to apologize for his group for not doing well and keeping quiet. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" is what I always say, but that might not apply to all circumstances, especially this one. I'd just like to leave that sit on your brain for a while now.

Amandia Peitz <ice_woman444@yahoo.com>
Cole Harbour, NS Canada - Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 18:26:26 (MST)

Will it really make any difference what he says? The Catholic Church will continue as always, Hypocrites to the end of time, their crimes can only be put right by the dissolution of the ediface they have built for themselves. But alas this will never happen as the Cardinals, etc., don't want any diminishment of their assumed power. They are the real criminals. Those in their preistly garb,who daily commit crimes against humanity in the name of god, must be brought to acount, before the laws of man.

Rod Hudson <anng@wn.com.au>
Broome , W.A Australia - Sunday, March 19, 2000 at 08:09:47 (MST)

I am a conservative Episcopalian.  I agree with much of this article, but I think it is overstating matters to lay the Less Developed Nation's population & hunger ills at the feet of the Vatican. The problem largely stems from better health care and sanitation, which has lowered infant mortality. LDN birthrates have always been high, and in many LDN cultures, condoms or abortions are a tough sell. Besides, wouldn't the proper Atheist position be that 'if LDN folks are dumb enough to follow the Pope's wishes, then they and not he are ultimately accountable for their ill-advised actions'? I have much more of a problem with assasinations than I do with bad family planning theology.

Secondly, as a pro-life libertarian (after Doris Gordon), I would say a woman has a right do do as she wishes with her body, certainly, but not with a genetically distinct person who lives in her body.  Finally & on a personal note, I think it's always hard to apologize for the sins of our 'fathers'. As a white person, I've never had much ability to apologize for slavery, and I imagine that his Holiness isn't real ate up about the Great Library at Alexandria....

GS
USA - Saturday, March 18, 2000 at 00:38:06 (MST)

About the comments that you did of the Pope, I really don't have anything against you or your comments but I think that when he apologized he ment for everything because he could of  said it in the long way but I think the the point was the apology and he has been the only Pope to do that, it would have been worse if he hadn't said it--so why be against that man if he is apologizing?  Even though I'm not Catholic or something like that I think he did somethig I wouldn't have done.

Sandra Ma < sandra_ma48@hotmail.com>
Rochester, NY USA - Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 15:51:11 (MST)

Meanwhile the Pope has give his apology, and I have following comment: As a product of a Jesuit School, I have always been amazed how the teachings of a third rate prophet have been successfully hijacked by a malevolent organization.  The church as an organization has had an incredible impact on the development of mankind.  I personally hold the church responsible for at least 500 years of delay in scientific development.  They have changed our timeline all continuously, and they still keep on doing it for no reason whatsoever except for self perpetuation.

This old (but infallible) idiot (the Pope) apologized for the mistakes over the centuries, but we should refuse, as too late and not enough, and not complete.  At the same time he is still indirectly responsible for uncontrollable pollution by not allowing birth control, and thereby causing this world to slowly smother.  The narrow mildness, arrogance and selfishness of these people is mind boggling, and all done in the name of brotherly love and it will eventually kill us all. Organized religion in all its forms is the scourge of this planet and if the devil exists, he surely would be behind this. Its a curse.

On another subject, I have to say, that in Europe, to us (and that's 30 years ago) the Bible was always sold as mainly full of allegoric stories to make a point, but not to be taken literally, and creation science (which by definition should not be called science), was never even mentioned. Creation as per the bible was only mentioned in religion classes, and that is where it belongs. It is therefore for us very difficult to understand that there can even be an argument about this kind of a thing in the most advanced nation of the world.

Hey, guys, wake up. These young earth idiots cannot be serious. What is their motivation or are they really that incredibly dumb??

M. Liedts <mliedts@pacific.net.hk>
Hong Kong, China - Thursday, March 16, 2000 at 01:37:20 (MST)

[Also RE: Vatican to seek forgiveness for past sins]

It is good to see Pope John Paul II apologize for the sins of the church in the past. This is a step in the right direction for the Catholic Church. The church treatment of heretics has always been an interesting topic when you come from a Huguenot or Calvinistic ancestry like I have. Christ teaches us forgiveness but he says nothing about forgetting what others have done wrong. It is a shame that it took so long, and lawsuits pending, to bring the Catholic Church out to admit what were considered horrific acts on humanity. US investigators during World War II reported an estimated 47 million dollars, stolen from the Jews, were being held in the Vatican City. Will the persecuted ever see justice by returning the money?

Kevin W. DeWitt < mrhuguenot@hotmail.com>
Oh USA - Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 21:09:11 (MST)

The following statement is made: "...like the mad monks led by Saint Cyril, the patron saint of arsonists, who burned the Great Library at Alexandria, destroying 600,000 volumes of knowledge of the ancient world--the greatest property crime of all time."

What is the source of this statement?

Jerry D. Cain Jr. < jcain@netwalk.com>
columbus, oh USA - Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 14:50:27 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

I will be writing an article for the Secular Web on this very matter. Stay tuned.

In response to the Pope's apology, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with the body of the work... although, sadly, I believe that you have only scratched the surface of the Church's atrocities.

Thomas W. Ohlrogge <bloodstone99@earthlink.net>
lorado USA - Sunday, March 12, 2000 at 02:40:56 (MST)

The author probably forgot to mention the famous french "saint" of the middle age, saint Louis. The main motives of his "sanctity" was persecution agains jews, robbery, murder. The product of his theft was sent to the catholic church, and as a reward, he became one of the famous "saints", up to now worshiped all over the world. This crazy and neurotic man made sex with his own wife only when he wanted to get her pregnant. He used to say that sex is dirty. If Pope John Paul where sincere and honest with his apologise, he would certainly exclude this dirty saint from the catholic church, and excomunicate him.

Afonso Amorim <afonsoamorim@hotmail.com >
Recife, PE Brazil - Thursday, February 07, 2036 at 00:00:47 (MST)

What I find amazing is with all this knowledge of the atrocities caused by religion that people will still support it. There always seems to be an irrational answer about "God's will" and people are content with it.

I was an x-tian for a few years, and even preached on the street corners of this town and the city of Atlanta. It was when I read about all the horrible things that this god commanded people to do that I decided that God was evil. I ended up looking for God elsewhere. Years came and went and I never found a god. It is now twenty years later and I am a certified atheist and proud of it. I take every opportunity to question people's beliefs but more importantly to make them question them. I almost always lose. How does one combat irrationality with common sense? They are so conditioned.

A collegue at work (who is studying to be an Angelican priest) told me, "You are right. But I still have to believe." *Sigh* Even when one shows the truth, people will most likely turn to their blind fear and superstition.

Anyway, keep up the good work. It is nice to know there are others out there like me who want to keep informed but more importantly, help us inform others of the harm their faith is doing.

Thank you,

Randy < rll1961@hotmail.com>
Lawrenceville, GA USA - Tuesday, March 07, 2000 at 10:27:38 (MST)

Is it not obvious to you what Protestants have been saying for centuries; Roman Catholicism has nothing whatever to do with the Bible.

Mary <9905191c.1999@student.gla.ac.uk >
UK - Tuesday, March 07, 2000 at 09:50:01 (MST)

In Response to "The Apology of John Paul II"...

I could not agree more with this piece. I have always found the Catholic Church (and, of course, the rest of the entire religious population that I am familiar with) deplorable in their ability and obvious desire to maintain that certain smugness and righteous attitude while at the same time aware of, and often times directly responsible for, so many of the utter atrocities that plague our "civilization". No, 50 pages could not come close to enough space to record their sins, let alone author any sort of (feeble) apology.

As evidence to support my claim, I think the world needs only to be reminded of the nearly 400 years it took the Vatican to issue a reversal of its excommunication sentence of Galileo Galilei. Call me a radical, but I believe that when a person attempts to explain the world logically and unbiasedly, it would be nice for them to not have to wait until their dead corpse has been reduced to archaeological remains before being granted a pardon by their church.

Warmest Regards,

Ried Crowe <nwgamstarfamily@mindspring.com>
Powder Springs, GA USA - Sunday, March 05, 2000 at 04:42:20 (MST)

How many deaths, estimated total, are directly attributed to the Catholic church as first cause? How many deaths by indirect or second cause? I've tried to calculate the millions, and it ran into the hundreds of millions. I wish to obtain a more accurate number than the 250 million estimate I came up with.

thanks!

Oberon <oberon@flashcom.net>
seattle, wa USA - Saturday, March 04, 2000 at 13:07:59 (MST)

When are you going to apologize?

Leslie W < flykite7@aol.com>
Nashville, Tn USA - Thursday, March 02, 2000 at 14:24:10 (MST)

Murphy seems happy to add imagined charges to the very real faults of the Catholic Church.

I will make only one point. He claims St Cyril destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria. No classicist seriously entertains the idea that there were ever 600,000 books or even rolls in the library but that sort of exaggeration is common to polemicists like Murphy.

The library itself was burnt down by Julius Caesar according to Livy (quoted by Seneca) and Plutarch. This was, of course, before Jesus was born and so difficult to blame on Christianity. By the time the city was Christian it had suffered many more calamaties. The event to which Murphy is indirectly refering is the destruction of the Temple of Sephoris in about 390. There was a library attached to this and it might well have suffered the same fate (the sources aren't clear on this). He is wrong to say St Cyril was responsible but I can understand his purposes are better served by making a saint the perpertrator. In fact it was his predecessor, not-a-saint Theophilius who destroyed the temple.

In an earlier piece on Bruno, Murphy claimed Christians had systematically destroyed millions ancient texts. This is simply a myth and I would be interested to hear what his sources are. Only a late and ficticious report about the Emporer Jovian has come to my notice apart from the Sephoris incident.

Surely the ethics of Internet Infidels require that it puts forward articles that are true and if the writer has too poorer knowledge of history to know truth from fiction his work should not be included. Luckily the advisors of the Pope are much better informed than the likes of Murphy.

James Hannam <bede@bede.co.uk>
London, UK - Thursday, March 02, 2000 at 10:44:45 (MST)

You're dead-on right about the horrors committed by the Catholic Church in the name of God. But cut JP2 some slack, willya? At least he's trying. One thing at a time.

And these horrors are not unique to the church. Let's not forget about the atheist or pseudo-humanist or something-ist purges of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China. Governments suck, no matter what their religious basis. They tend to murder and kill people who stand in the way of their goals, whatever they may be. Christians may not be any closer to perfect than us humanists, but aren't really any farther away either.

I'm very pleased JP2 is willing to do this. I'll be saddened if he thinks that's the end. I see it as a beginning....a start on getting these pointless ethnic, religious, and moral conflicts among humanity put to bed forever. If you lose sight of this and stick to flipping him smug attitude, you're NOT helping!

Chuck Kincy <ckincy@aa.net>
Seattle, WA USA - Wednesday, March 01, 2000 at 12:36:12 (MST)

I am writing in response to the article regarding the pope's upcoming (though probably already done with) apology for the crimes of the church. I would first like to establish the fact that I am not christian myself, but am agnostic, tending strongly towards atheist. With that in mind, I simply want to say that I believe the article was unfair. You can't possibly expect one man (after all, the pope is only human, yes?) to apologize for the crimes of all the members of the largest religion in the modern world, and possibly the most criminal of all time, particularly if this man has committed none of these crimes personally. He has taken it upon himself to apologize for what he feels were terrible wrongdoings on the part of the church, and for that we might as well be thankful. Why should he bother apologizing at all? It seems that he just wants to gain a little respect back for his(?) institution which he realizes has a not-so-perfect track record. Cut the man some slack, eh?

Troy DuJardin <InGod@tsuroyu.8m.com>
CA USA - Wednesday, March 01, 2000 at 02:48:01 (MST)

What a terrific piece! You couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to see how things "really are." My only experience in this area was when a "psychic" was in town at a convention. As I approached her booth, she greeted me with "and how may I help you?" and I grinned and said "Are you kidding? I don't know. I thought you'd know!". A good time was had by all.

Treesa Lindley <beingatree@aol.com>
Fayetteville, AR USA - Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 10:00:51 (MST)

I'm a tax payer too and I think it should be the persons choice if they want to pray in school or any where .. you should be aloud to pray in schools, that is where all the problems in schools has come from, not being aloud to pray how can one take away your choice, if you choose not to pray that is your lost, but I will pray for you anyway because god wants me too.  Please help get prayer back in schools .. thank you.

Sarah Brown <ladybugbaby7@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 09:59:50 (MST)

J. E. Hill responds:

 Ms. Brown is confusing the right of individual students to pray in our public schools and the act of organized, coercive, state sponsored prayer. Students can and do have the choice to pray, organize religious groups, and read their Bibles in public schools as long as it is not disruptive, occurs during non-education time, and does not molest or harass others. If she contacts me at 4hill@usa.net I will be happy to send her a copy of the Secretary of Education's pamphlet the "Statement on Religious Expression in Public Schools."

I will take issue, however, with Ms. Brown's statement that, "...(t)hat is where all the problems in schools has come from, not being aloud (sic) to pray...." Students spend less that 20% of their time in school. I would suggest most of the problems that occur in our schools have their origin in the other 80% of student time spent outside of the school day. I was going to mention Matthew 6:5, but thought not.

[Mr. Hill is a 10 year school board member and currently chairman of the board of a public school district in rural Washington State.]

I appreciate your article that questioned and redefined the term "free thinking". As an educated, reasoning deist and independent thinker, the common misuse of the term has baffled me. The implication of freedom of thought is almost denied by mistaken popular opinion.

My experience has taught me that mainstream Americans believe us to be left of center, unbelieveable and radical. I like to point out our founding fathers, heroes that were, too, free thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine. My experience has also been strong denial of these facts. But of course, my opponent hasn't given it much research or THOUGHT!

Tree Ryan <beingatree@aol.com>
Fayetteville, AR USA - Tuesday, March 21, 2000 at 09:49:05 (MST)

I was taught that the word 'gospel' was derived from the two Old English words Godas Spel or God's words. Please correct me and reply to my email if I am wrong. Thank you.

Leonard Ong <asvani@pacific.net.sg >
Singapore, Singapore - Monday, March 20, 2000 at 03:13:00 (MST)

I just wanted to quick respond to the article on Columbine...and Cassie. I dont see what the problem is that she stood up for what she believed in, she was given a test that all of us would want to pass, but none of us would want to take. (Michael w. Smith, This is your Time).  I don't know why people are so against loving Jesus...look at how he loves us. Please write me a short note.  I'm not in for a fight...just curious.  I just found this place cause I'm writing a speech. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that who so ever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Thanks,
Sarah Stokes < kgkid@earthlink.net>
Sacramento, CA USA - Sunday, March 19, 2000 at 21:03:37 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Stephen Welch already makes your point--there was no problem.  But as far as we see it, even if Jesus existed, he is certainly dead (see our writings on the Historicity of Jesus and the Resurrection).  So he isn't able to love us.  And whether we are for or against or indifferent to whether you or anyone loves Jesus depends entirely on just which image of Jesus you have in mind (see our section on the Character of Jesus and Richard Carrier's essay on Musonius Rufus ), and what you mean by love.

Your "Evolution and Devolution of the Bible" is very interesting. I have seen things like that before, and I have always found them to be great food for thought. It seems to me that you have missed the bigger picture though, as seems to me for all thinking that is along the same lines. I am confident that things are much broader than you have encompassed in your article, and much higher than you have looked. I have always found this to be true of my own thinking, and every time I turn around, I see an enormous expanse of information that I had been oblivious to right under my nose becuase I had felt that I was right on the top of it all already. No, I will not try to go into detail about this here, I just wanted to give you some space, because I think you are cramped in the box the first box to come along that seems to you to be the biggest one possible (since it's the biggest one you have yet seen). A bad way to convince yourself of the wrongness of anything that you have come to view as small because of the small way it has been conveyed by smaller minds.

M. E. Mack <pnpmacknam@uswest.net >
Portland, Ore USA - Saturday, March 18, 2000 at 09:48:33 (MST)

To Whom It May Concern,

I realize you must be very busy and backed up with the feedback, but if anyone should get the time (particularly Richard Carrier), I would appreciate a response to my following three questions.

1) How does one justify reasoning without using reasoning, i.e. without begging the question? I realize this has been brought up before, particularly in the debate with Theodore Drange, but I have yet to see a response justifying it.

2) I have recently found out through the grape vine that Sylvia Browne, that lady who goes on Montel Williams as a psychic, has founded a new religion. I'm curious what you think of her, particularly her "psychic powers" as I've heard some people say.

3) Finally, and most importantly, it seems that, at least through psychological studies, religious affiliation produces more happiness than despair, contrary to what it seems a lot of people say on here. This isn't to say that the religion is true of course, but it appears that worldwide people are happier, at least according to studies, if they are part of a religious system. While I don't have the studies sitting here while Ii write this, Ii'm sure the person reading this has heard of them. If not, I could find them for you to justify my claim. But, assuming you have, what do you think of this?

Sincerely,

Christopher Peck < peckypooh1@aol.com>
Marlton, NJ USA - Friday, March 17, 2000 at 22:19:59 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

Your first question was asked and partly answered in January Feedback.  You are essentially asking "What reason do you have to trust reason?"  And the answer should be obvious--reason leads to successful predictions, unreason does not.  On the second question, dime-a-dozen quack psychics are not my area of interest.  You should get well acquainted with CSICOP publications before falling for any stage tricks.  In general, I have little respect for woowoo New Age blather.  Even when it has something useful to say it is obfuscatory and deceptive.  The rest of the time it is plain falsehood and nonsense.  On the third question, tell me exactly which studies you are talking about.  I can't address mere allusions to imprecise claims.  In general, I have never encountered such a study that was properly done according to standard statistical protocols.  For instance, they almost invariably fail to control for other factors such as social life and philosophy.  I think it is fairly well established that people who live more social lives also live happier and longer, and whether society is sought at church or elsewhere is statistically irrelevant.  Likewise, I suspect that anyone who believes in something, as opposed to being apathetic and confused, will be much better off emotionally, and again whether that "something" is a religion or a nontheistic philosophy will almost certainly be irrelevant.  And the bottom line is that I have never seen a study that actually analyzed the happiness and health of atheists, much less measured distinctions between mere apathetic unbelievers and nontheists who actively subscribe to a philosophy and are members of one or more freethought organizations.  You should get our message clear: we are not simply advocating unbelief, but the adoption of some entire philosophy of life--as is clear to anyone who reads our about page.

Dear sir(s),

After reading the Judiasm and Jewish apologetics page, I did not find what Ii was looking for specifically, though I did find the page thorough and well done.  I was posed with a seemingly good question the other day and have had a bit of trouble responding to it.  Perhaps you could be of assistance.  It relates to the giving of the second set of stone tablets containing the ten commandments to Moses at Sinai.  In Exodus 20 Moses received the first set, and more often referred to, of the 10 commandments.  He, in rage, of course, broke those tablets, so in Exodus 34, he returns again at God's bidding, to receive a seemingly identical copy.  Yet the scriptures record them differently...

In Exodus 34:1 (I am using the New Iinternational Version of the Christian Bible, since the question was posed from that text), God speaks to Moses and says, "chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke."  However, Exodus 34 gives a very different rendering of these commandments.  I am a bit confused.  Perhaps the translation I am using is not stating what God said accurately?  Can you help?

As well, I am looking for other sites that would help me to become more knowledgable as to defending the Old Testament from a Jewish perspective. As you may have figured from my terminology and diction, I am a Christian (i.e., I do believe Jesus of Nazareth is the messiah).  If you know of other sites which offer apologetic defense resources of the Hebrew scriptures, can you point me in that direction?

Thank you so much for your time.

Jeff Witty <fisherofmen@hotmail.com>
Prince Edward Island, Canada - Friday, March 17, 2000 at 19:58:05 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

They are different. It is not a mistake in the translation. I don't know any websites of the kind you are asking for--but would love to hear about them if you or anyone come across some.

The giant tree was used to represent King Nebuchadnezzar, and the seven times were used to show that Nebuchadnezzar would come to understand that someone higher was ruiling.  So it shows rulership.  It then comes to represent the supreme
rulership of God, in its relationship to our earth.  In Ezekiel 21:25-27 at the the time Zedekiah was ruling he was told "lift off the crown, this will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no one's until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him."  So
in other words Zedekiah would have the crown taken from him and the crown would be given to that which it belongs to. So since the tree represents rulership and this scripture tells us that the rulership would be taken away and would be kept for the one who has the right to rulership this means that there would be some time between when Zedekiah would have rulership, since he was the last king of Judah, and another king would stand up and be ruler. If you look throughout history no other king of Judah would stand up.

The book of Hebrews, 10:12,13, brings out that Jesus sat down at the right hand of God and waited until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet. When the time came for Christ to begin to rule, God told him: "Go subduing in the midst of your enemies." In Revelation it brings out that Jesus fought Satan and cast him down to the earth. So you can see at the same time that Jesus became king and cast Satan down to the earth what world wide event took Place. Well we know that During 1914 World War I started so we can see Satan started to attack the earth "Woe for the earth and for the sea for the Devil has come down to you."  If you don't believe me how can you explain the exactness of the 7 times matching the time when world war I began. It showed that Satan was cast down and started the First of two catestrophic wars. Jesus obviously did not become King before this time because when he went to Heaven he sat at his father's right hand and awaited the time when Satan would be put as a stool for his feet. I thank you for taking the time to listen to my response.

History Buff <lowshark@aol.com>
Stafford, TX USA - Friday, March 17, 2000 at 18:32:55 (MST)

Concerning John Murphy's on Hitler and Catholicism: There are some factual mistakes. Corporal punishments in schools were FORBIDDEN when Hitler came to power; there were NO PRAYERS in schools before and during Hitler's reign. I know. Hitler came to power in 1933. I started school at the age of six in Duesseldorf, Germany, in 1932. That's how I know that there WAS corporal punishment in schools in 1932, but NOT in 1933.

Heinz W. Puppe <hwp1641@unix.tamu.edu>
College Station, TX USA - Friday, March 17, 2000 at 07:16:46 (MST)

I read your article concerning "Hate Radio" and I am not quite sure what the point is. I certainly don't support the views of hate mongers, however I just as strongly oppose the idea of abridging freedom of speech. I know what is proper and moral---the problem is that some of the less enlightened don't always agree. I guess that the real answer lies in teaching our children the virtues of tolerance and justice. We might even do something so hokey as setting an upright example for the youngsters to follow. We could even go to the extreme of practicing what we preach--where will it all end? My point in this diatribe is that the real answer to garbage spewing hate mongers is a well educated, engaged and moral populance. Decent people don't need to fear the ideas of idiots.

T.P. Lee <hrtlake@execpc.com>
Hartford, Wi USA - Wednesday, March 15, 2000 at 21:12:43 (MST)

After finding two out of the three fatalities I read on the fatal flaws page to be flawless, with the third being somewhat
doubtful, and none of the three seeming fatal, I can't help but wonder what exactly it is that the author wants us to judge on for ourselves. It may be that the cases get stronger towards the end of the page, but this quick scan hardly showed any problem, never mind anything fatal.

Kindest regards,
Peter Hans van den Muijzenberg <desperado@free.hls.nl>
Sneek, Frl. The Netherlands - Wednesday, March 15, 2000 at 15:30:44 (MST)

Don Morgan responds:

Peter, thank you for your thoughtful feedback.

What I want readers to judge for themselves is whether the flaws mentioned are fatal to the claim that the Bible was inspired by a perfect, omnipotent god. It seems obvious to me that a perfect, omnipotent god could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than to "inspire--or even allow--someone to write that that there is no fear in love but we are nevertheless supposed to both fear and love God, that He purposefully gave out bad laws, that He sometimes deceived his own prophets, that He deceives the wicked, that Jesus would return in all his power while some of his listeners were still alive, and that a believer can handle snakes and/or drink poison without suffering harm. You don't have to agree, of course.

Regards,
Don 

"...clear thinking cannot avoid the conclusion that there is close to zero chance of any humanoid beings out there, and even less of ever having meaningful communication with alien forms of life."  Yes, but clear thinking also cannot avoid the conclusion that this chance is not equal to zero, since we know of one example (humans on earth).

It's hard to do a cost-benefit analysis of SETI. The only known quantity is the cost (public or private funds) of conducting the search. The other unknowns could be nearly infinite (bad or good). In my mind the most likely outcomes in the next billion years of humanity are (in no particular order):

1. We don't contact aliens, and humanity destroys itself.
2. We don't contact aliens, but eventually reach a level of technology/knowledge beyond our wildest dreams anyway.
3. We do contact aliens, they save us from destroying ourselves and provide us with technology/knowledge beyond our wildest dreams.
4. We do contact aliens, they perceive us as a threat, and humanity is destroyed by the aliens.

Personally, I'm watching the skies, but I'm not getting a stiff neck from it.

Brian Trial < Brian.Trial@us.bosch.com>
Farmington Hills, MI USA - Wednesday, March 15, 2000 at 10:34:43 (MST)

Having read Paul M. Pfalzner's article on SETI, I am puzzled. He gives the chance of evolution happening again as near zero. This would be the chance of evolution happening in the first place. With such a low level of probability, shouldn't evolution be looked at more critically, that is, can it explain everything?

For one thing, what we now know from microbiology shows that evolution cannot explain the origin of life, the coming together of the first living cell. The cell has such an unbelievable complexity that it would be unreasonable to claim it just happened. This is the idea behind SETI: if signals with a pattern to them can be found, we can be sure there is intelligent life in outer space. This was shown in the movie "Contact", based on Sagan's book. It also showed a plan for a spaceship, sent from outer space. With that plan no one could doubt the existence of intelligent life out there.

Yet, a living cell has a plan vastly more complex than that of the spaceship. Can anyone doubt that the cell is the result of intelligence? It is not only doubted, it is categorically denied. How can it be claimed that a plan for a spaceship is a sign of intelligence while disallowing that claim for the cell? This does not seem to be an act of reason. It seems rather to be an act of the will, using reason to try to justify the choice. Can someone explain?

Dan McNeill <himself@rma.edu>
USA - Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 09:09:36 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You are reasoning from an advanced life form to draw conclusions about the most primitive possible life form.  That is an invalid analogy.  The first life is unlikely to have even been DNA-based (RNA is more likely, and PNA is even more likely still), much less resembled any kind of existing cellular life form.  Moreover, Pfalzner's argument is not that life could not have formed elsewhere, but that it could not likely, wherever formed, evolve to produce an intelligent species capable of transmitting signals into space.  After all, if there are a billion worlds with life, and the odds of intelligence evolving from any existing life in the known lifetime of the universe were a billion to one, then there will likely be only one example (which would be, a deductio, us).  However, we know too little to come to any conclusions about the odds, and in this respect I do not believe Pfalzner's position is any more (or less) tenable than those who think it  likely enough to justify SETI.  No one knows.

Enough of this nonsense about extraterrestrial life forms hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and say "Hi, neighbor"! All of these New Age romantics, with their goings on about waiting for the "Space Brothers" to arrive, are giving the Futurism movement a bad name.

It is the opinion of this observer that the human community is better off moving out into space on its own, instead of sitting around hoping that E.T. will miraculously arrive to show us a better way. Besides that, in the eyes of some Cosmic Entity of higher intellect, we've got to look like a bunch of small-town yokels, too scared (or incompetent) to leave the cottage and visit the city. If E.T. is really out there watching, I doubt he's going to want to drop in and visit any time soon.

Of course, the whole argument of whether Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is out there at all is purely academic. Adherents to the New Age concept of E.T.I. are no better than the religious barbarians who continue to proclaim that we're too stupid to solve our own problems, but there's a Big Brain in the sky that will show us the way if we just have faith.

Faith is fine, folks, but there comes a time when you must stop hoping and start doing.

Joshua Ryman <jlryman@kansascity.com>
Independence , MO USA - Sunday, March 12, 2000 at 21:13:29 (MST)

I've read Mr. Pfalzner's article and would like to say that not all SETI supporter's should be considered as member's of a cargo cult. Due to the fact that the law's of nature are the same everywhere, I tend to think that intelligence would show up, sooner or later, in any enviroment. What's wrong with wanting to communicate with other children of the universe, not to save us, but just to share our thought's? Radio signal's are cheap and SETI is mostly privately funded,and even if it was supported mainly by taxes, isn't it a more noble cause than building bomb's?

Randy Bowersock <cindyandrandyb@aol.com>
Marietta, OH. USA - Sunday, March 12, 2000 at 05:51:18 (MST)

How would we know how close we are to discovering ETs? We may be much closer than we think. "We" meaning both parties coming into contact. Perhaps they will warp here tomorrow after catching the first episode of "I Love Lucy" drifting past probe MW-846393275. I'm glad we can (in this discussion at least) set aside the possibility that they HAVE been here or STILL are here.... :)

How likely are the "contact in this century" predictions, indeed? As for the chances of planetary conditions: Drake's equation, inherently very vague, interpreted by modern cosmological data, seems to be making some real suggestions. The Milky Way has been deemed to be particularly large and verdant, and we've already discovered several (possibly) "class M" planets not in our solar system. And there are BILLIONS of galaxies in our universe, let alone what, if anything, is outside it or parallel to it.

While the planetary possibilities are recently looking better than ever, this says nothing of the exponentially-increasing capabilities generally occuring in advanced species, and tendencies surely common to all intelligent life forms. Making our communications easy to recognize/decipher was our first concern, and surely they'd be as prudent with theirs.

I wouldn't expect ETs to be just like humans, but I have always thought it fairly reasonable to assume similar evolutionary stages and even specific features given a set of environmental conditions (gravity + land = legs, weather + exposure = skin, etc.).

It has been well-argued that evolution is not genetically linear, but that it is increasingly affected by a "usage factor" accompanying increasing mental capacity. Furthermore, technology (not just genetics) proceeds exponentially with every civilization.

I also hypothesize that anything advanced enough to leave its own planet will have vestiges of greater facility than that of an insect, and that none which can travel these "distances" will have any problems communicating with us in our own languages.

I hope I'm not too wishful in thinking that a certain degree of sociality (even friendliness) is unavoidable for survival in a high-technology civilization, whether or not people think "friendly humans meet friendly aliens" makes a smashing movie. Rather, I think we'd be swapping alien jokes well into the next millenia. Actually, let's burn some of those movies while we can.

Life doesn't just sit idly by. It grows a mind, outsmarts its environment as much as possible, benefits from taking part in a thriving society, joins internet debates, realizes the chances and benefits of contact, and finds a way to break the time/space "barrier" like it broke the others.

We are indeed entering a golden age -- or critical mass if we goof up. I reason that humans are flexible enough to deal with nearly anything we've yet conceived. My running fantasy is that we'll join a collective that will escape thermodynamics and invent our own non-entropic universe. Don't scoff; it might have happened already. A bit lofty, but who knows what could happen in a billion MORE years? :)

In closing, I owe my deepest thanks to scientists, epistemologists, and philosophers working to unify and apply our knowledge to better ends... and my most vehement curses to the corporate and religious zombies holding us back from enlightenment for their temporary comfort.

[Justin Miller is an infidel philosopher, a software engineer and gamer, and lots of other things not incredibly pertinent here]

Justin Miller <dyad8@yahoo.com>
Cincinnati, OH USA - Friday, March 10, 2000 at 23:48:34 (MST)

According to some links I chased up at alife.org, life possibly arose from chemicals having the property that they tend to assemble copies of themselves in earth's primordial soup. These chemicals were complex enough to support mutation (ie, small changes would not nessesarily deactivate their replicationg), and here we are.

If we want to meet aliens, maybe our best bet might be to make them ourselves. I'd like to see a project to find a batch of chemicals that will do something similar in, say, the atmosphere of Venus. Some weird silicon and sulphur compounds.

Of course, we'd have to wait for a while before these chemicals developed intellgence enough to have anything interesting to say.

Paul Murray < pmurray@bigpond.com>
Canberra, ACT Australia - Thursday, March 02, 2000 at 21:37:25 (MST)

This concerns the search for extrateresial intelligent life.Even though SETI has not so far found any evidence to support the theory that intelligent life exists elswhere in the universe we must remember that space is so huge as to be inconceivable that somewhere in all that vastness of space and time no other intelligent beings have evolved,we merely haven't found the evidence,perhaps we missed them,they evolved lived then became extinct or they may be too far away in space and time for us to detect their presents-yet.Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Do we realy want to contact aliens?have we so soon forgotten what our european ancestors did to the alien peoples they "discovered"? We could suffer the same fate as the indiginous people did,enslavement,disease,death or worse-as experimental subjects or even as food,perhaps we would be wiser to keep our "mouths" shut and remain undiscovered by aliens if they exist.

Sheila l.chambers <sheilach@earthlink.net >
Sunnyvale, CA USA - Thursday, March 02, 2000 at 16:46:02 (MST)

Re: "Scrutinizing Propaganda," by J. E. Hill

This article, while detailed and essentially accurate, doesn't scrutinize propaganda to the level of which I'd hoped. While definitions are important, I think it's also necessary to discuss methodology. I'll give you an example of what I'd call upper-hand propaganda (or captive-audience propaganda).

Years ago, I watched a based-on-a-true-story movie surrounding a young man who'd been indoctrinated into a non-Christian cult. Later on, his parents had him abducted from the cult and deprogrammed. However, the method of the man's conversion to cult beliefs needs scrutiny. This is how it worked.

The man and other young people like him were invited to a free weeklong "retreat." During their stay, these invitees were fed a special diet which lacked certain nutrients necessary to the decision-making process. Also during their stay, the invitees were woken at odd hours of the night to attend surprise fellowship sessions. During these sessions, believers would recite a litany of reasons why the cult was a good cult. By the end of this week, invitees were exhausted (sleep-deprived) and malnourished -- a captive audience for cultists who held the upper-hand -- and the final conversion process, more often than not, succeeded.

Now, consider the Christian missionary sent to an area of the world plagued by famine. Famine victims spend all of their waking hours pursuing their own survival and the survival of their families. They are both exhausted and malnourished. Then, the missionary shows up offering food, medicine, etc. -- with the proviso that they be allowed to feed victim souls with the word of God. There are some victims so poor, so exhausted, so malnourished, that someone holding out food to them could convince them the Wizard of Oz was God if they chose to say so.

In short, while it's important to define propaganda, it's also important to know "how it ticks" in order to recognize it for what it is.
 

J. Alec West < j@alecwest.com>
Portland, OR USA - Monday, March 06, 2000 at 00:36:54 (MST)

In response to your article on logical fallacies called "Scrutinizing Propaganda," a couple of comments come to mind. It is always good to encourage sound thinking, especially in the area of religious debating, when emotions often run high. Perhaps the article will spawn more reflective and sensitive engagement on the issues. On the other hand, it is necessary to recognize and admit that simple appeals to logical principles are not going to end the disputes. That is, logical principles will not constitute neutral ground for theological dialogue. The way logic is used and understood is always based in a personâs axiology, which is in turn based upon a presupposed metaphysical system.

In other words, logic is used out of a preconceived conception of reality. If both parties, atheists and theists, are sensitive to this, there is real opportunity for meaningful dialogue. If they are not, both will continue talking past one another declaring, "straw-man!"

Thanks,

Franz Kline < franzkline@mail.com>
USA - Saturday, March 04, 2000 at 14:53:45 (MST)

This must've been an extremely accurate poll huh? I mean they asked over 1500 people what they thought about it so it must've been representative of the entire country. It's no secret that we live in a secular society where freewill is the word and Christ is a fashion faux pas. You've only brought up the obvious, so what was it you were looking to gain? Your loyal band of atheistic enthusiasts raising arms in victory? Give me a break. You claim to give "both sides of the story", and yet this is not the case at all. 79 percent of the same people that were polled believe the Bible's account of creation should also be taught as an alternative. What's that mean? People want to make their own choice as to what they want to believe....not have it force-fed to them as it is in our hideous public school system. I realize that you are an atheistic website so you will support atheistic views, but please don't claim to give equal time to both sides of the coin because that's hogwash.

P.S. To fellow Christians who haven't got a clue: stop yelling at everybody that they're headed for hell. It's tacky and not at all the way that Christ has commissioned us as Christians to spread the Good News of His Resurrection

Thanks
Tommy <tconley@usit.net>
Memphis, TN USA - Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 06:12:42 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

I don't recall anywhere where we claim to give "equal time" to both sides (especially since there are far more than two sides).  We publish rebuttals to all works that we publish, and link to several major competitors.  Even that is a lot more than most theist sites do.  As for the poll's accuracy, you should read some introductory textbooks on statistics--a random sample of 1500 people will give a very accurate prediction of the views of an entire population of any size--this has been scientifically proven.  The one trick is that the sample must be random, which professional agencies are usually very good at ensuring.  There is also the matter of what precisely was asked in the poll--wording is crucial.  And what is the point of the poll?  To show that the "Moral Majority" is not in fact a majority, and that in this country, which is a democracy and whose legislators are elected by the majority, the majority wants evolution in classrooms.  Creationists could admit that and then argue for a change anyway, but this is not what they usually do--instead, they falsely represent themselves as a popular movement that they are not.  And I, too, think a world religions course--and philosophy courses--should be mandatory, where things like Creationism can be taught as a worldview (one among many) rather than the present state of science.  Finally, public schools do not teach children to believe anything--they only teach them what they have to know.  Why creationists are incapable of understanding the difference is beyond me.  You do not have to believe in evolution in order to learn about it.  That schools must teach it only means that students, even those who don't believe in it, must at least know the theory and understand its basis.  The reason is obvious: no voting citizen or responsible consumer can be prepared to understand the leading issues in biological science without at least understanding evolution, and a student who wishes to pursue any biological science, including medicine, must have a sufficient background in the field of biology in order to be prepared for college-level study.  It would thus be immoral of schools not to give their students this vital knowledge--whether they want to believe in it or not is not the school's concern. In contrast, no equally-compelling case can be made for requiring students to know and understand creationism--not only because there are hundreds of different "creation theories" and no valid reason for picking and choosing.

A few short comments on your recent article 'The Appeal of Incarnation'. The author I feel sometimes overstates his case. The comment "we get sick according to the rules of biology and chemistry" for instance is overly reductionist; it is possible to get sick (and well) through our minds as well (hence placebo drugs).

As an Australian his comments on the One Nation party (by now all but defunct, it must be said) are incomplete. Historically the prejudice against the aboriginal people was supported by scientists as well as mystics.

Pauline Hanson's recent success (and failure) was also due to a reaction against the hiddeness and deceit of party politics, a reaction that occurs in other Western countries as well. Such a negative drive cannot sustain itself or maintain any real unity, and so it was with the One Nation, which has splintered and devoured itself and is now little more than a historical footnote.

Michael Wilson <kmwn9@woolworths.com.au>
Sydney, NSW Australia - Monday, March 13, 2000 at 19:35:10 (MST)

Reasons that one may pursue atheism:

1). When there is no God there is no reason for moral responsibility, save the lower standards of morality set forth by government which can be met from purely selfish motives.

2). Though much of life is mostly about how one perceives it, one may have had genuinely experienced many bitter circumstances and events. And rather than fight the One who has the power to intervene and prevent such things from occurring it is easier to disbelieve His existence. Many psychologists attest to the fact that divorce is much more bitter than the death of a loved one because the one who is absent is still living. In a similar vein, when it comes to a relationship with God, atheism is a convenient avenue to take.

3). Peace is another incentive to the atheistic way. It is promising, but is ultimately found to be like "clouds without rain" (Jude 1:12). It is reasoned: no God, no sin; no sin, no guilt; no guilt, peace. So God is reasoned out of life's picture and peace is reasoned in. This is unlike the true peace that Christ gives that rules in your heart and transcends all understanding Colossians 3:15; Philippians 4:7).

4). Some "intellectual" circles will not gladly welcome or accept theists. So in order to "progress" and move into a higher realm of learning and education one will adopt the (anti-God,) "no-God" doctrine.

5). Despite the general revelation of wonderfully designed nature and God's special revelation of the Bible, one may, through lack of better teaching and understanding, believe in the "goo-to-the-zoo-to-you" nonsense of evolution and be unable to reconcile that belief with one in God. (Sadly, since one rejects the general revelation, God will not open his heart to further special revelation, that his heart may believe and be saved.)

6). Disbelieving the existence of God hurts God. Having this in mind, it can be the result of "God in the hands of an angry sinner."

Theophilus Kellin <Theophilus_K@hotmail.com>
Elizabethton, TN USA - Monday, March 13, 2000 at 14:24:24 (MST)

Richard Carrier Responds:

You forgot (7) one finds no good evidence for the existence of any god, and (8) one is already content and happy with life and thus has no need of a pick-me-up feel-good belief in any god.  These are in fact the most common reasons.  The first five you give are rare, and the last is fake: (6) for instance cannot produce atheism, since it requires believing there is a God to hurt.  (3) entails a grand ignorance of what real atheists actually feel, and a blithe arrogance about your own state of being in relation to others not like you.  I am unaware of (4) being a problem, since there are many theists in all intellectual circles, and even if you wanted to conceal it, it is not even necessary to actually be an atheist, only to not discuss theism, or even to pretend your an atheist.  I have never met either sort of person.  (5) entails that God is a petulant child, and I should hope you would give him more credit than that.  (2) is ironic because recent studies show divorce is less common for atheists than the average, but more common for theists--and to the central point, even if a shocking experience leads one to question certain assumptions, it does not entail that what you then conclude isn't true.  Finally, (1) has never been an obstacle: theists clearly have no problem doing