Behold Religion in the 21st Century

This week, religious people committed an unspeakable atrocity in Boston.  Other religious people immediately described the act as "godless."

I've had enough.

I am, at least for the time being, suspending all online activities related to religion, including this blog.  I have decided that those who promote religion are no longer worth engaging in dialog, and they are deserving of nothing but scorn.

I'm happy to defend your right to have your religion; I just don't want to hear about it.  Religion simply has no place in reasoned discourse in the 21st Century.

As Christopher Hitchens pointed out, there is no benefit that religion provides society that cannot be achieved without it. 

Keep your religion to yourself.  I don't even care enough to talk about it any more.

This solves a big mystery for me

Great euphemism over at American Vision:

A fetus is a "pre-born baby."  That explains why Christian activists care more about fetuses than actual living human beings: we're simply pre-dead corpses.

All atheism is "McAtheism"

Confusing piece from Graham Veale that conflates YouTube sound bites with some of the in-depth writing on religion by folks like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.  I'll select a few points to respond to:

"The result was what Chuck Colson labelled ‘McChurch’³ . The Christian message was sliced down to easily digestible portions. The nutritional value of the church’s message was neglected in favour of more appetising nuggets with mass appeal. We believe that in the 21st century many atheists are making the same mistakes that evangelicals made in the late 20th century. It is this general ‘dumbing down’ for mass appeal that we label ‘McAtheism’."
How do you "dumb down" the belief that no gods exist?  That's about as digestible a portion as you get.

"Maher is incredibly ill informed — his film inexplicably states that there is no historical evidence for Jesus,"
Oh, is there?  Let's see it.

The result of these three movements — online atheistic communities, the literature of ‘New Atheism’ and iconoclastic satirists — has been what we call ‘McAtheism’. McAtheism is marketable, popular with the young, and fun. It is also ill-considered, wilfully ignorant and on the rise. McAtheism has no time for complexities, for once careful thought enters the equation the product ceases to be fun."
He's really suggesting that reading the works of the "New Atheists" detracts from the use of careful thought?  The "ill-informed" charge is pretty ironic, if so.

"As an illuminating example, the ‘Problem of Evil’, once the bedrock of atheism, is not central to McAtheism."
It's not central to atheism at all.  It's irrelevant to the belief that there are no gods.

"Feelings are central to McAtheism, arguments are peripheral."
No atheist is required to make a single argument.  If religious people can't show evidence for the existence of gods, atheism results by default.

"It is an attempt to give atheism a mass appeal by avoiding serious thought and dialogue."
What attempt has the author made to engage in such dialogue?  This is an easy conclusion to reach when you're not even trying to make the connections you're saying "McAtheism" lacks.

"What is it about your faith that offends them so very much?"
In my case, it's your desire for it to have special treatment under the law.

"What merits such ill-considered ridicule?"
The fact that your beliefs are ridiculous.

"We should not answer in kind, with marketing campaigns and sound-bites of our own."
Sounds good.  I'm sure Christian activists everywhere will quickly abandon billboards, TV commercials and YouTube videos, on your advice.

"McAtheism answers mankind’s deepest questions with witticisms and clichŽs. If the Church can have the courage to whisper God’s answers to anyone who will listen, God’s kingdom will continue to grow."
Criticizing the use of cliches with a big fat cliche.  Well done.

There's just nothing to this "McAtheism" thing.  What they're talking about is plain old atheism, which has not changed in and of itself.  What has more and more young Americans are finding it appealing.  Since people like Veale can't wrap their heads around the fact that society is starting to wise up to religion's bogus claims, they have to try to minimize it with goofy labels.  Tough luck, fellas; atheism's here to stay.

Source Analysis: "Scientific Racism, Militarism and the New Atheists"

Murtaza Hussain published a rambling piece on the Al Jazeera website that is one big exercise in bald assertions, misrepresentation and argument from analogy.  The whole point of the piece is to discredit the "New Atheists."  To his credit, he links out to lots of sources.  Let's have a look at them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Hussain uses this entry to establish that atheism has a history of "scientific racism."  However, the entry doesn't support that; it merely states that phrenology was "accused" of promoting atheism.  No real connection.

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/diafwt_ratsism.htm
http://pat.tamu.edu/journal/vol-1/thompson.pdf
http://www.ferris.edu/htmls/news/jimcrow/question/nov05.htm
http://www.messynessychic.com/2012/03/02/the-haunting-human-zoo-of-paris/
These are also intended to establish his premise, but they don't even mention atheism or atheists at all.  So still nothing.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-defends-islamic-barbarians-twitter-comment-89304/
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/seymour261105.html
Hussain cites these two sources but then immediately backs off on them, saying they're not representative.  Okay, then his inclusion of them is dishonest; it's an obvious attempt to provoke a reaction.  This isn't a rational argument Hussain is making; it's anti-atheist propaganda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_End_of_Faith
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/honesty-the-muslim-worlds-scarcest-resource
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxjBjRnhUqA 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam/
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
Now we get into the only areas of potential legitimate criticism of one of the New Atheists, Sam Harris.  Great.  So how do these things tie back in with his earlier points?  Does the author refute what Harris is saying?  No, he doesn't; he simply tosses them out there as if to say "See? Bad!"  Hussain's refusal to engage, refute or address the quotes he's providing actually supports Harris's claims about dishonesty among Muslims, at least with regard to its activists.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.320848557944963.100715.184731454890008&type=3 
Here Hussain references peaceful protests by Muslims to refute the idea that all Muslims are evil.  However, he has failed to establish that the New Atheists believe that, rendering this a red herring.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sam_Harris/Shadow_God_TEOF.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3141t.html
Here's the only actual parallel we've seen Hussain try to draw so far, saying that Harris's ideas are an "echo" of George Fitzhugh's.  However, Fitzhugh is not an atheist, at least not that Hussain establishes.  Given that he was a 19th-century Southerner, my money's on his being a Christian.  Do Hussain can't even hit the target when he does finally decide to shoot at it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html
From this source, Hussain pulls a quote from Harris stating that Muslim outrage tends to be on theological grounds.  He then fails to refute that idea, and moves on.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
This is thrown in for sheer shock value, never bothering to establish the percentage of those deaths that came at the hands of atheists.

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Scientific_Racism_in_Modern_South_Africa.html?id=C4m8Vc2rWyYC
Here's a link to a book about South Africa; we have no idea why.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/
This is quote-mining, since Harris is lamenting the fact that only fascists seem to have sensible policies, not supporting it.

http://uaf.org.uk/2013/01/golden-dawn-activist-arrested-for-athens-racist-murder/
Here's a link that says "recent murders" but documents only a single murder; the article never mentions atheists or atheism.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/443257/20130307/golden-dawn-immigrants-soap-oven-greece.htm 
http://reducetheburden.org/scientific-racism/
References to atheism in either of these?  None.

So what Hussain has done is said, "Here's a bunch of bad stuff.  Here's a bunch of bad stuff.  Therefore, atheists are bad."  No connections drawn, no refutations of the points criticized; he's just throwing against the wall and hoping enough sticks to outrage his readers.

And look at the sources he's using!  oodegr.com?  messynessychic.com?  Christian Post, for fuck's sake?  This piece would get laughed out of any serious intellectual discourse.

But that's okay with Hussain.  Critical thinking and analysis is not the point here; this is pure, unadulterated propaganda.  This is designed to provoke an "Atheists bad!" gut-level, emotional response.  It's irresponsible and shameful.

Hussain ends with this gem:
"Just as it is incumbent upon Muslims to marginalize their own violent extremists, mainstream atheists must work to disavow those such as Harris who would tarnish their movement by associating it with a virulently racist, violent and exploitative worldview."

Okay, yeah.  You go talk to those Muslim terrorists, I'll go talk to Sam Harris, and we'll see who commits the next suicide bombing.

A Big Thank-You

Many thanks to everyone who clicked through to my April Fools blog post.  But even more thanks to everyone who DIDN'T!  You see, I got a lot of "praise Jesus" and advice on what to do from here, which means that people only saw what I posted and didn't bother to read what I linked to.  I think that's telling.  It goes a long way toward explaining why sites like Christian Post get away with posting sensationalistic headlines that the bodies of the articles don't actually support.  Apparently, for many Christians, you only need to read enough to decide you agree with it, rather than get all of the information and think critically about it.

We Have We Learned from American Vision

Over at the American Vision website, they have a signature approach to apologetics (by which I mean the doomed attempt to provide a rational basis for something that requires faith).  It consists of three elements:

1) Assume the Bible is 100% true, but only in exactly the way you interpret it, and get butthurt when someone asks you to support that idea.  When you do provide support, use only circular logic and documents that don't actually back up what you're saying.  Since this is pretty standard for apologetics, it's the next two elements that really set the website apart.

2) Lie.  Lie about atheists to their faces and to anyone who will listen.  Tell them what they believe, even when they express the exact opposite, and pretend they've said things they never did.  Because, really, what better way to promote the belief in a loving God that to be dishonest in the most ridiculous and offensive ways?

3) Repeat this mantra, over and over:
Atheism makes no claim about morality
therefore
Atheists have no "basis" for morality, except what they get from Christians [I really wanted to explore the reasoning behind this idea, but no one could provide it. -DVDB]
therefore
For atheists, nothing is right or wrong
therefore
Atheists cannot say anything is wrong
therefore
Atheists believe that lying, stealing and genocide are right.

Two glaring issues here...  The first is one I've pointed out before; you can substitute any belief that says nothing about morality, and the "logic" would still hold up:
The belief that the earth goes around the sun makes no claim about morality
therefore
People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no "basis" for morality...  and so on.

Second, even if you could honestly get from the start of that process to the end (which you can't), the final conclusion violates the premise only two steps earlier.  That is, if nothing is right or wrong for atheists, then you CANNOT conclude that atheists believe that lying, stealing and genocide are right!  So they can't even keep from violating their own bogus logic!

Since I've been banned from commenting there (adding another trophy to my case), all further thoughts on that website will be related on this blog.  I look forward to seeing if they come up with anything new.

Responding to Jeff Paschal

In today's News-Record, Jeff Paschal took on "new atheism" and is so often the case, offered no support the claims he makes in defense of religion.

Here are a few of his points:

"Talk-show host Bill Maher produced an entire movie, “Religulous,” devoted to deriding religious faith of any kind. During a “Tonight Show” appearance with Jay Leno, Maher proclaimed, “Faith is the lack of critical thinking.” This haughty assertion was not challenged by Leno or the studio audience, and television viewers were simply left with Maher’s final words."
So challenge it.  How does believing something without evidence constitute critical thinking?  We don't know, because Paschal, given an opportunity to defend that idea, chooses not to.

"While decrying the dogma of religions, these new atheists themselves demand rigid adherence to their own dogma that, as Haught summarizes, “there is no God, no soul, and no life beyond death, ... nature is self-originating, ... the universe has no overall point ... and all causes are purely natural and can be understood only by science. ... Faith is the cause of innumerable evils and should be rejected on moral grounds. ... Morality does not require belief in God, and people behave better without faith than with it.”"
These are, of course, not atheist dogmas.  While individual atheists may or may not believe any point mentioned, there is nothing in the definition of atheism that requires such.

"The new atheists reduce and define faith as mere credulity, rather than a direction of the heart, the commitment of one’s being to the Holy. They seem to be ignorant of any scholarly criteria for the interpretation of the Bible or other holy texts."
Great, so what are they?  Again, Paschal fails to tell us.  He criticizes atheists for missing things but then can't articulate what those things are.

"But they establish their own criteria for how something must be judged to be truthful or not, namely it must be something provable by science."
Not really.  We'd just to see evidence that any gods exist.

"But can you scientifically prove such things as love, beauty, wisdom and eternity?"
There's evidence that those things exist.  Except maybe eternity; Paschal fails to explain what he means by that one.

"And while ostensibly discarding God, the new atheists unwittingly retrieve God as they lift up their own “absolutes” and notions of what is “right” and “wrong.”"
Support for this idea?  None given.

"But if we are going to judge all religion by its misuse by some, then we should also judge all atheism by its abuses as well, e.g., Communist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Stalin in the Soviet Union, etc."
I don't judge religion by its misuse.  But if Paschal wants to count bodies, I'm game; I don't think he'll like the results.

"The answer to faith practiced oppressively is faith practiced with its true intent: love of God, people and God’s world."
Ah, so those people are not TRUE Christians.  This is the definition of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

"Many Christians, for example, believe that in Jesus, God experiences suffering, evil and death, and ultimately overcomes them all to redeem the universe. The resurrection of Jesus on Easter Sunday is evidence of that."
No it isn't, since there's no evidence that the resurrection happened.

"Nobody can prove the existence of God, and nobody can disprove the existence of God, either."
Right, which is why we reject the idea until evidence supporting it can be provided.  The default position is skepticism.  I can't prove Odin exists.  You can't prove that he doesn't.  So we reject the idea, pending evidence.

"But atheism has other questions to answer. A core one is: Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Atheism makes no claim about something and nothing.  But invoking God to answer that question doesn't answer anything; it merely changes the question:  Where did God come from?

"“Just as believers in a beneficent deity should be haunted by the problem of natural evil, so agnostics, atheists, pessimists and nihilists should be haunted by the problem of friendship, love, beauty, truth, humor, compassion, fun. Never forget the problem of fun.”"
Why are those things problems?  Atheism doesn't postulate a god who hates fun, and it isn't accurate to lump them in with pessimists and nihilists.  Also, he quote arrogantly assumes that Christians have cornered the market on these things (just like they did back in the Middle Ages, huh? Wooooooooo!)

"Atheism must also be puzzled by people such as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whose commitment to justice flowed from his knowledge of Jesus and the prophets of the Bible."
King was also heavily influenced by Ghandi.  Are you suggesting the Hindu gods exist as well?

"Faith has an answer: God."
It just offers no reason for that answer.  If it did, it wouldn't require faith.

Responding to Randy on Morality

This is a response to a post by Randy on his blog, on my views on morality:

Thank you for your comments and questions.

It should be noted that I've published an update to my views on morality at this location.  You might look over that and see if it changes anything in your response.  The main revision is that I've conceded that my view of morality is in fact subjective, but then, by the same criteria I'm using, so's everyone's.  This includes you; since you pick and choose which parts of the Bible to follow and which ones to reject, your morality is no more objective than mine.

Followers of the Bible like to hold it up as an infallible moral guide for all humanity for all time, written by an all-knowing, all-powerful deity.  However, if this were true, every follower of the Bible would have the same view of morality, which they clearly don't.

I can hear you now:  It's because we're imperfect humans who, with our limited capacities, are unable to discern with complete precision what God expects from us.  But if God were all-powerful, he could have made these expectations crystal-clear in such a way that even the most imperfect human could understand them.  The fact that he didn't do that is a failing on the part of God (or would be, if he existed).

So until you get God's instructions right, your morality is no more objective than mine is.  Let me know if there's anyone you think has it perfect, so we can examine their beliefs.

On the points you've made:

"Suffering is kind of the basic bad thing."
"Where did we get the idea that respect for private property is a moral principle? "
"Shiftless bums, fundamentalist Christians, NY Yankee fans, do we really care about all their suffering the same way?"
To all of these points, I say: You don't agree?  Please explain how your view of morality differs.

"We hate sexual morality because it might cause somebody somewhere to suffer by denying themselves certain pleasures."
I should have been more clear that I meant inflicting suffering on others.  If you want to suffer yourself, go for it; I have no problem with that.

"Is this really a moral dilemma? That would see to be a weakness of a moral system if that is really true. Defending your wife is clearly the moral thing to do."
Is it fair to say, then, that you believe pacifism is immoral?  Doesn't that put you into conflict with Jesus's "turn the other cheek" teaching?

"Why isn't he asking whether legal pot or illegal pot causes less suffering?"
I have; it doesn't.  Suffering hasn't increased in any area that's legalized it.

"If a majority feel something is so immoral it should be illegal then that is enough whether their opinion comes from the majority religion or not. I do feel respecting minority rights is important but there is a limit. Where that limit should be set is something that should be decided democratically."
I only agree to a point.  I've heard democracy described as two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  Part of the beauty of the American system is that the courts protect the rights of minorities.

Since I've taken the position that morality is subjective, I expect that you will probably come back with a defense of objective morality.  If so, please establish that such a thing exists in the first place; then we'll have something to compare with the subjective morality I believe everyone has.

I've decided to ask Jesus to be my Lord and Savior

April Fools!

Thanks for helping make this my most-read blog post ever!

An Amusing Set of Questions

Stumbled upon this particularly goofy set of questions for atheists.  Why not?  I'll bite...

"Do you take pleasure in telling lies or are you just so gullible that you believe any anti-religious lie you hear?"
Neither.

"Are you only capable of mimicking and copying arguments you heard from Dawkins and other atheists?"
No.

"What’s the reason that you continue to use racist atheists as viable sources, celebrate racist atheist biologists and racist/atheist countries?"
Unsupported premise.  The sources are not specified.

"Do you have any independent mind of your own or ability to question what other atheists say or think?"
Yes on both.

"Why do you consider any criticism of atheists, atheistic arguments, or atheistic beliefs as “trolling” but not consider condemning, ridiculing, or making fun of religion as “trolling”?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why have you intentionally remained silent in opposition to racism but not silent in opposition to Intelligent Design, Creationism, and many other things?"
False premise.  I don't.

"Why do you value high IQ as being worth more than contributions?"
I have no idea what this question is asking.

"Why do you discourage belief without evidence, intuition, and originality?"
I'm not sure why someone would want to believe something without evidence, and I'm not sure how the questioner is using the other two terms.

"Why are you an anti-science fanatic who strongly opposes free and open criticism, scrutiny, and questioning?"
False premise.  I'm strongly pro-science.

"Who do you hate more, Jews or Muslims?"
False premise.  I don't hate anyone who hasn't earned it.

Well, that was constructive...

More Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at the list of questions for atheists on the "Who Is He?" website...

"How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that the universe has a "high degree of design."

"How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?"
Lots of mythology is based on real people, places or events.

"Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that "no Bible prophecy has ever failed."

"How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?"
False premise.  Neither Jesus nor crucifixion are mentioned in Psalm 22.

"How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?"
False premise.  No units of time are given in the passages in Daniel.

"How could any mere human pinpoint the precise birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?"
False premise.  The term "Messiah" does not appear in Micah.

"How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?"
Unsupported premise.  The given odds are not established.

"How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?"
False premise.  The verse refers to someone named Immanuel.

"How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?"
Unsupported premise.  This information about copied manuscripts has not been established.

"In what sense was Jesus a "good man" if He was lying in His claim to be God?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as "the Good Book"?"
False premise.  Only Christians regard the Bible this way.

"Did you know that the Bible has been the number one bestseller almost every single year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?"
False premise.  Best-seller lists did not exist in 1436.

"If God does not exist, then from where comes humanity's universal moral sense?"
It evolved from the need to live together in societies to survive.

"If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?"
False premise.  A human being's molecular structure is not random.

"Can you explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal, or how order could have ever resulted from chaos?"
I cannot, because I am not an expert in the required fields.  However, I could direct the reader to sources on the topics.

"If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men (Jesus' disciples) have been willing to face death for what they knew to be a lie?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence and characteristics of the people mentioned in the question have not been established.

"How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and society to this day?"
Assuming the question refers to Jesus, unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?"
Not enough information to answer; the thinkers in question would need to be specified.

"Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and dead, have been men and women of great faith?"
No.

"If time never had a beginning, but rather goes backwards infinitely or has gone through an infinite number of cycles, then how is it possible that we are here today?"
Unsupported premise.  Whether or not time had a beginning has not been established.

"How can something as small as a brain understand extremely complicated aspects of the universe, even though it is (supposedly) just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrical signals?"
I am unqualified to answer questions on neuroscience, but I would be happy to direct the reader to sources.

"But at the same time, this brain can’t create another brain like itself, so how can nature, that has no brain, create a brain?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that nature "creates" has not been established.

"Everyone knows Mount Rushmore was the result of intelligent design. Do you think the human body is the result of intelligent design?"
No.

"When you look at a lot of creatures such as zebras, turtles, butterflies, bees, lady bugs, leopards, etc., you will notice amazing color patterns designed into them. Who came up with those?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that they had to be "come up with" by a "who" is unsupported.

"Does nature have a “taste” in colors, and does it know which colors go together nicely?"
No.

"How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible complexity of its essential components?"
False premise.  The idea of irreducible complexity has been debunked.

"How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?"
"How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with naturalism and the Law of Entropy?"
Thermodynamic laws and entropy only hold true in closed systems.

"How come there are some things on our planet seem that they are especially designed for us? For example, the 2 most comfortable colors are blue and green , which happen to be the color of the sky and most of the nature around us."
False premise.  Those things do not seem designed at all.

"Who chose those colors to be there , before earth even existed?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that those things require a "who" to choose them.

"Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's holy books, contain such detailed prophecies of future events?"
Unsupported premise.  It has not been established that anything in the Bible describes a future event.

"Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively true that "all things are relative?""
False dichotomy.  It has not been established that these are the only two options regarding truth.

"Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness to submit to Him?"
No.

"Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of meaning and purpose?"
Yes.

"How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian believers down through history?"
Not enough information to answer; the believers in question would need to be specified.

"Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered in an intelligible and credible manner?"
False premise.  They have not.

"What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?"
Not enough information to answer; sources would need to be specified.

"Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of such worldwide attempts has not been established.

"Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?"
Unsupported premise.  This fact has not been established.

"How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty centuries?"
Unsupported premise.  Evidence is not provided.

"If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place at His tomb?"
"If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?"
"If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?"
Unsupported premise.  The historical accuracy of these accounts his not been established.

"How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?"
False premise.  The cited passage contains no such testimony.

"If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own self-delusion, why didn't He show evidence of lunacy in any other areas of His life?"
Unsupported premise.  The existence of Jesus as a real person has not been established.

"Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad experience with an imperfect church or a misunderstanding of the facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?"
No.

"How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?"
False premise.  The Bible is not one unified message.

"Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable, how does the theory of "evolution" amount to anything more than just another faith system?"
False premise.  Evolution does not describe how life originated, only how it diversified.

"What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?"
If by "theological awareness," you mean belief in some sort of deity, there are evolutionary hypotheses to account for the development of religious beliefs, with varying degrees of support.  I can direct the reader to sources if desired.

"If every effect has a cause, then what or who caused the universe?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that the universe is the effect of a cause has not been established.

"How do you explain the thousands of people who have experienced heaven or hell and have come back to tell us about it?"
Unsupported premise.  The idea that people have experienced heaven or hell has not been established.

"How do you explain the countless people who have received miracles from God?"
Not enough information to answer.  The people and "miracles" in question would need to be specified.

"Is there any evidence that would satisfy you and persuade you to become a believer, or are you just going to believe what you WANT to believe?"
I would absolutely believe in any god if compelling evidence could be provided.

Stripping God Down

In a Fox News blog post, Johnnie Moore makes the tired argument that atheists are religious, but he has strip away much of the definition of God in order to do it:

"Religion certainly includes an idea of a God under whom man is inherently subservient, but religion also governs the belief system undergirding the way people think about, and live, their lives.  It tells them who their authority is and it informs their values and behavior."

To illustrate his point, he says:

"First, they have a functioning God under whom they are subservient (normally it’s science or rationality, but mainly themselves), and that idea of God informs the way they live and interpret their lives. It informs their biases and determines their values, and governs any sense of morality or ethics they adhere too, or ignore."

Christians, is this really how you want to define God?  Anything to which you're subservient and thus compels you to make value choices?

By this definition, you employer is God.  Your employer has authority over you, and you have to make choices in line with making him or her happy.  You might want to stay up late watching TV, but being at work the next day requires you to do the ethical thing and go to bed instead.

No omnipotence.  No omnipresence.  No supernatural element.  No Scriptures...  THIS is how you define God?

Amazing how you have to water Him down to make this bogus argument about atheists.

Relying on the Gospels

I do love it when apologists pretend to be experts on information sources, as Eric Metaxas did in a recent Christian Post article.  For the record, it's unclear whether Metaxas is an expert in anything, since the bio page on his website fails to mention his degree.

In his article, Metaxas meekly tries to provide support for the idea that the Gospels are reliable sources.  His whole piece is based on a false premise, and he offers exactly two arguments to back himself up:

"But what if the Gospels are indeed what they claim to be? Eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?"
False premise.  They never claim to be that.  They aren't written in the first person, and even if you believe every word of them, they describe numerous events that the author could not have been present for, like the temptation of Jesus in the desert, as well as the resurrection itself.  So Metaxas is defending the idea that they are something that they aren't, even with the most literal reading.

Here is the entirety of his support:
"If the young church wanted to make up a rosy propaganda piece about its leaders, they would not have painted the picture of Peter as a coward and the other disciples as consistently clueless!"
False dichotomy.  He's saying that if they aren't propaganda, then they're true.  And the best he can do to argue against their being propaganda is to suggest that he'd have written them differently if they were?

"Or take the role of women in the Gospel of Mark. They were the first to discover the empty tomb. But in the Jewish and Roman worlds, women couldn't serve as witnesses in court! So there's no way Mark or any of the gospels would rely on their testimony-unless, of course, the women really were eyewitnesses and what they said really happened."
But if the Gospel authors wouldn't have relied on their testimony, then it wouldn't matter whether that testimony was true or not!

Apologists everywhere are going to have to do a lot better than that if they want to convince those of who really are experts on the reliability of sources.

Thoughts For Young Men is Banned

The conversations with Thoughts For Young Men, on this blog and on American Vision, have been very stimulating for me; they’ve been at times fun, at times challenging.  They’ve even compelled me to revise my views on some issues, and for that, I give him credit.

So it’s profoundly disappointing to see him take everything that he’s learned about my views and lie about it to pretty much anyone who will listen.  The comments on this blog and on American Vision contain lots of examples, and I try to point them out when I see them.  But this was the last straw for me:

Thoughts For Young Men had, ironically, brought up Hitler in a conversation about the supposed moral weaknesses of non-religious people.  I had stated categorically my belief that what Hitler did was morally wrong.  I further stated that I believe people who think Hitler’s actions are morally right are wrong as well.  And this is how he restated that for the readers of American Vision:

“Don’t get me started again about how you think that what Hitler did was okay”

That really is about the most blatant, offensive lie someone could tell about my view of morality.

Thoughts For Young Men apparently believes that American Vision is a safe place to slander me in such a way.  So he can just stay there.

No further comments from Thoughts For Young Men will be approved on this blog.

If you’re interested in more of what Thoughts For Young Men has to say, he has two websites; I don’t know what’s on them, since I’m not:

http://thoughtsforyoungmen.com/
http://www.theinconsistentatheist.com/

So long, Thoughts For Young Men; it’s been good to know ‘ya.

Shame on Me

...for not spotting the glaring flaw in this whole Bible-as-evidence argument sooner.  Think of the time and energy I could have saved.

The argument hinges on one of three premises:
1) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, it must be true.
or
2) Since the Bible says a few things that can be shown to be true, the whole thing must be.
or, a combination of the two:
3) If something in the Bible can't be disproven, then it's possible.  Since the Bible says a few things that are true, anything it says that is possible must also be true.

The trouble is, all of these are false premises.

Whether or not something cannot be disproven is irrelevant to its veracity.  Consider the following claims:
a) My first name is Billy.
b) My first name is Bob.

Since I don't reveal my true identity, you cannot disprove either claim.  However, either one could be true.  It's possible that neither are true.  It's possible that both are true, if my name is Billy Bob.

So who cares if a claim can't be disproven?  The fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

As for both of the other premises, the fact that Bible might get one thing right doesn't mean that it's right on anything else. Jerusalem exists, but that doesn't mean that God does.  Athens exists, but that doesn't mean that Zeus does (even though Homer mentions both).

The fact remains that in all of the above cases, there's still no positive support provided for any claims.

So you know what, I'll play along...  I concede that it's possible that every single thing the Bible says is true.  I'll even go further:  I concede that it's possible that every single story ever told about all of the gods humanity has ever believed in (over two thousand in all) is true.

But the fact that something is possible doesn't make it true.

So, with that in mind, when someone can show me why I should believe anything in the Bible is true (and not just possible), I'll be happy to do so.

CARM Questions for Atheists

Thought I'd have a shot at Matt Slick's questions for atheists on the CARM website:

"How would you define atheism?"
The belief that no gods exist.

"Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?"
False premise; I act according to what I believe, but I believe many more things than just "there is no God."

"Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?"
False premise.  God has no existence to work against.

"How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?"
"How sure are you that your atheism is correct?"
Same answer to both: I am thoroughly convinced.

"How would you define what truth is?"
That which can be demonstrated to be accurate in the real world is true.

"Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?"
Because no one claiming any gods exist have been able to support that claim with evidence.

"Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?"
I would not use either term to describe myself.

"Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview?  Why or why not?"
It is only a worldview to the extent that it is a belief that people share.

"Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?"
I am only antagonistic to Christians who work for special treatment under the law for their religion.

"If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?"
I never believed in the Christian god.

"Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?"
"Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?"
"Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?"
Same answer to all three: Not necessarily.

"Must God be known through the scientific method?"
As opposed to what?

"If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?"
If this immaterial god had any interaction with the material world, there would be material evidence for that.

"Do we have any purpose as human beings?"
"If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?"
We only have that purpose which we choose to undertake.

"Where does morality come from?"
The need to live together in societies.

"Are there moral absolutes?"
"If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?"
I do not believe there are moral absolutes.

"Do you believe there is such a thing as evil?  If so, what is it?"
I use the word evil merely as an adjective to describe very bad actions.

"If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?"
My conscience.

"What would it take for you to believe in God?"
Compelling evidence.

"What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?"
I'm not sure, but an all-knowing god would know.

"Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?"
By definition of the word evidence, it would need to be verifiable.

"Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer?  Why?"
Not enough information to answer the question.  Safety of a society is not determined solely by religious beliefs.

"Do you believe in free will?  (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion)."
Yes.

"If you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?"
No.

"If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time?  If not, why not?"
"If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?"
I recognize that evolution is a fact, but we do not currently have enough information to know if the universe will expand forever, or if the outcome you're asking about is possible.

Answering Bodie Hodge

I always find it telling that Christian activists post a bunch of questions for atheists on websites that don't allow us the opportunity to respond.  I'll address a recent set of questions from Bodie Hodge below.

"Are you tired of all the evil associated with the philosophy of atheism—Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on?"
False premise; atheism isn't a philosophy.

"Even if they claim to believe in the God of the Bible, they are not really living like a true Christ follower (who strives to follow God’s Word), are they?"
Sure they are.  If they say they think Christ is divine, they're a Christian.

"Do you feel conflicted about the fact that atheism has no basis in morality (i.e., no absolute right and wrong; no good, no bad?)"
If you mean "that atheism makes no claim about morality," then no.  It doesn't bother me that morality has nothing to do with belief in gods.

"Are you tired of the fact that atheism (which is based in materialism, a popular worldview today) has no basis for logic and reasoning?"
If you mean "that atheism makes no claim about logic and reason," then no.  It doesn't bother me that those things have nothing to do with belief in gods.  Materialism, by the way, is not part of the definition of atheism.

" Is it tough trying to get up every day thinking that truth, which is immaterial, really doesn’t exist? "
False premise; I believe in truth.

"Are you bothered by the fact that atheism cannot account for uniformity in nature (the basis by which we can do real science)? "
No, since it doesn't claim to.

"Why would everything explode from nothing and, by pure chance, form beautiful laws like E=MC2 or F=MA?"
False premises; the Big Bang wasn't an explosion from nothing, nor do things in nature happen by chance.

"Do you feel like you need a weekend to recoup, even though a weekend is really meaningless in an atheistic worldview—since animals, like bees, don’t take a day of rest or have a weekend?"
False premises.  Time off from work is certainly meaningful.

"So why should atheists?"
Why should any human?  Because it's nice not to have to work seven days a week.

"Why borrow a workweek and weekend that comes from the pages of Scriptures, which are despised by atheists?"
False premise; my employer didn't say anything about Scriptures when I was offered my schedule.

"And why look forward to time off for a holiday (i.e., holy day), when nothing is holy in an atheistic worldview?"
Because it's time off from work.

"Do you feel conflicted about proselytizing the faith of atheism, since if atheism were true then who cares about proselytizing?"
False premise; faith and proselytizing are religious concepts.

"Are you weary of looking for evidence that contradicts the Bible’s account of creation and finding none?
False premise; I'm not.

"Do the assumptions and inconsistencies of dating methods weigh on your conscience when they are misrepresented as fact?"
False premise; dating methods confirm one another.

"Where do you suppose those missing links have gone into hiding?"
Missing links from what to what?

"In fact, why would an atheist care to live one moment longer in a broken universe where one is merely rearranged pond scum and all you have to look forward to is . . . death, which can be around any corner? "
False premises; I'm a human being who looks forward to lots of things.

"I invite you to reconsider..."
I politely decline until such time as you can provide evidence to support the claims that you make in your invitation.

Bible contradictions...

...are really not the central issue in why the Bible is not considered reliable information.

The issue is that it was written thousands of years ago by people who had no understanding of even the most basic facts about the world around them.  They didn't know that microorganisms cause disease, or the the world is spherical and orbits the sun, or that humans have only existed for the merest blip on the time scale of the universe.

The Bible is mythology, the attempt by primitive humans to make sense of things by casting them in terms of angry deities and protector gods.  In that sense, the biblical god is no different from the gods of the Greeks, Egyptians or Sumerians.

What it comes down to is this:  Why should we believe a word the Bible says?  If something in the Bible is true, it can be shown to true without using the Bible.  If Jesus walked the earth at all, why are there no other records of him?  If hundreds of people witnessed a dead man come back to life (which would be pretty big news), why did that not find its way into any other historical accounts?  If the Egyptians have one of the best-documented histories of any ancient civilization, why do they have no record of ever taking the Hebrews as slaves?

Whether or not the Bible is false is not the issue; the issue is that it can't be shown to be true.  It must be assumed to be true, to be taken on faith.  Why should we do that?

The answer to the contradiction involving the age of Jehoiachin goes as follows:  The Bible gives two different ages for when he became king because he became king twice.  Great!  Did we discover historical records confirming that he became king twice, thus putting to rest the idea that one of the Bible passages might simply be wrong?  No.  We say that he MUST have become king twice because the Bible MUST be true.

Apologists will not accept the possibility that the Bible might be slightest bit wrong on anything; they just assume it's always right, for no reason.

I'm not willing to assume that.  I don't give the same benefit of the doubt to the Koran or to Homer or to Norse mythology.  Why should I do so with the Bible?

You want me to believe that any idea expressed in the Bible is true?  Demonstrate that it's true.

Contradictions

I've been told there are no contradictions in the Bible; only different perspectives of the same event, all of which are true.

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

Definitions

I couldn't help noticing that Thoughts For Young Men has not defined a single term that I've asked him to define.  From here on out, I'll be asking for a definition on every claim that he makes.  Failure to provide the definition will result in a claim being treated as unsupported and thus refuted.

I will continue the conversation on evolution when the term "kind" is defined.

I will continue the conversation on the accuracy of the Bible when the terms "rabbit" and "cud" are defined.

I will continue the conversation on knowledge when the term "basis" is defined.

All comments on these subjects from Thoughts For Young Men will be blocked as refuted claims until this information is provided.

Even once these definitions are provided, any equivocation of them will render the claim refuted until a source supporting the definition can be cited.

Unhappy about the rules?  Tough.  It's my blog.

Observation

This is a big enough deal that I'd like to give it its own post.

Information gets from the real world into our brains through the senses.  We observe.  Is there really any doubt about this?

For Christians, is the information about God simply beamed directly into your brain by God himself?  If so, why is there a Bible that requires you to use your senses to read it?

Can we finally agree once and for all that we can obtain no information about the real world except through observation?

Wrapping up the Threads

Thoughts For Young Men,

I'd like to use this thread to give you an opportunity to make any additional claims or arguments that you haven't made yet; my hope is to consolidate the conversation so that we're not chasing each other around all of the other threads.  I'll use the comments section of this post to respond to any comments you make on others, and I'll redirect you from those to this one.  Just trying to clean up the conversation threads for the sake of clarity.

Please do be advised that the rule forbidding the repeating of refuted claims is in effect.  If I've refuted it, and you've provided no reasonable response to the refutation, the claim is dead and will blocked.

Patience Expired

Comment moderation is being activated for this blog.  All comments will now be reviewed before being posted.  Comments guilty of any of the following will be blocked:

1) Ad hominem attacks.  Personal insults directed at me will not be tolerated.

2) Threats, no matter how veiled.  No more "You're going to hell comments."  Even if you believe that I am, comments like that serve no useful purpose.  Same with "God will judge you" and similar things.

3) Repeating refuted claims.  I would call this the "Thoughts For Young Men Rule" if I wasn't still creeped out by the pedophile connotations of that name.  Even the most cursory examination of my recent exchanges with this person shows a pattern of making the same bogus claim over and over, and I'm sick of it.  It's a waste of time.

Make your claim and support it.  If I refute it, you're welcome to address my argument doing so.  But until you can overcome the objection, you don't get to keep claiming the same thing.

I want this blog to be an exchange of ideas.  But as soon as we're going round in circles, the conversation's over.

Lie

That's going to be my responses to anything you're dishonest about from here on out, Thoughts For Young Men.  You have nothing further to contribute here.  Move on.  You're a miserable excuse for a human being who is nothing more than a waste of space, mentally masturbating to his god fantasy.  You're no longer a source of entertainment for me.

Today's Liar for Jesus: Christian Post editors

Lie:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheists-misquote-palin-bible-remarks-in-texas-billboard-refuses-to-apologize-91204/

Truth:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/04/atheist-group-apologizes-for-misquoting-palin-but-defends-billboards-intent/

Be sure to check back often to see if CP ever retracts or corrects that story.

Huh?

Bizarre letter to the editor in the Toronto Star recently; makes you wonder if they have any standards at all for accepting such letters...

The author takes on someone for DARING to suggest that an atheist head up Canada's religious freedom agency, although it's a given that only religious people are fit to lead an office devoted to secularism.

But the really weird part is the double contradiction in the final two paragraphs.  The author cites a definition of religion that includes worship in something supernatural, then accuses atheists of worshiping their own intellect, which ISN'T supernatural.

She closes by wanting someone who DOES believe in something supernatural (confirming that atheists don't) in the office in question.

I'm even more amazed that a newspaper would print a letter with such glaring stupidity than I am that someone is that stupid to begin with...

Thought For Young Men, You're Done

It has now come to the point that you are simply going over the same arguments again and again without contributing anything new to the discussion.  I've addressed every single objection you've made, and you keep trotting out the same things over and over.  You're picking out one word or sentence to criticize while ignoring the rest.  You're continuing to intentionally mischaracterize my views or claim that I haven't explained things that any reader can see that I have.  You're simply spinning your wheels now, and doing so dishonestly.

Keep lying about things we've discussed, and I'll keep pointing out the lies.

If you have any arguments that you can make and rationally support, you're welcome to do so. 

My view, however, is that if you were capable of doing so, you would have by now.  All you've offered are logical fallacies and dishonest attacks on things we've already been over.  You might as well quit wasting both our time and move on. 

Knowledge

I seem to be answering some of the same questions about knowledge multiple times, so I thought I'd try to bring them together under one heading.

How do we know things?

We learn things (that is, come to know them) by using our senses and our brain.  We observe things and draw rational conclusions based on these observations.  Things that are true can be shown to be true; that is, they are confirmed by repeated observations.  When we have sufficient confidence that something is consistently true, we say that know it.

This is not to say that we claim 100% certainty, however.  For example, we observe that the sun rises in the east.  Repeated observations confirm that this happens every morning.  It's possible that the sun could rise in the west, but this would violate everything we have learned over the generations about the laws of physics.  So it's extremely likely that the sun will always rise in the east; we can say this will a very high degree of confidence.  Our degree of confidence is so high we are comfortable saying that we KNOW the sun will always rise in the east.

If you do not agree with my framing of knowledge and how we know things, please offer an alternative conception, along with any objection you may have.  That way, we can compare the two conceptions to see which better addresses the objection, and makes the most sense in general.

Incest

I have to admit that I don't really see anything morally wrong with incest, as long as it's between consenting adults.  If you want to sleep with your brother or sister, I personally find that really really icky, but whatever.  Just as long as everyone is of legal age and agrees to it willingly, why not?

Just don't ask me to join you.

The Bible, by the way, appears to tacitly condone incest.  If everyone on earth is descended from the same two people (Adam and Eve) or the same family (Noah's), then incest had to have happened in the first few generations.  Right?

Bestiality

I've been asked to comment on whether I think bestiality is moral or immoral.  This (like incest) came up in a conversation about homosexuality, which makes it a red herring, since the topics have absolutely nothing to do with each.  Nonetheless, I thought I'd offer my views.

I believe that bestiality is wrong because animals are not consenting adults.  You're raping the poor creature, which ranks up there among the worst kinds of animal abuse I can envision.  That's wrong.

While I agree that such a thing should be punished, I do think the Bible takes the punishment a little too far.  If I remember my Old Testament correctly, the perpetrator is to be executed; I don't necessarily think the crime warrants that.

The Old Testament also says the animal is to be killed as well.  That's a bit harsh on the poor traumatized sheep, don't you think?

Why is the Bible Not Evidence?

To borrow a choice of words from Aron-Ra:

Because it's flat out wrong about damn near everything.

The Bible makes lots of factual claims about the natural world, and a great many of them can be shown to be incorrect.  For example, we know that the world is not flat (Isaiah 40:22), is not encased in a firmament (Genesis 1:6-8),  and does not sit immobile on a foundation (Psalm 104:5), just to name a couple of examples.

Or, to put it another way, the Bible is NOT inerrant.

So there is no reason to believe anything simply because the Bible says so.  If any claim that Bible makes is true, that claim could be verified by means or sources independent of the Bible.

Pornography Source Analysis

Part of my job as an information science professional is to teach people how to evaluate the quality of information sources.  I have a particular interest in bias, misinformation and disinformation.  Which why I love Christian Post so much.  Let's have a look at a recent article of theirs on pornography for a lesson in what to look for in assessing information quality.

The first thing to look for is foundational bias.  That is, is the source writing from an objective point of view, or is there a going to be a fundamental bias to everything that it produces?  It can be demonstrated that Christian Post has a very strong bias against issues that run counter to the conservative Christian ideology, and that Christian Post is not above being dishonest in its coverage of these issues.  For example, CP has been known to manipulate numbers, cover only one side of a story and perpetuate hoaxes.  So from the outset, we know that there is a bias at work; it stands to reason that the slant of this story will go against pornography and that we should be on the lookout for dishonesty.  On the basis of this bias alone, we can expect that this article will not a reliable information source.

The next thing to do is ask who wrote this article and to determine if she qualifies as an expert on the subject she's writing about.  Christian Post does not provide a biography for Karen Gushta, nor does she have a Wikipedia page.  A search of the top one hundred academic databases shows no results for her, which means that she has no work published in any mainstream academic journals or news outlets.  Her LinkedIn page shows that she has a degrees in Education and Christianity.  However, this article touches on sociology, psychology and business, which are areas in which she has no formal training.  Accordingly, we can count on it to be reliable only if its claims about those subject areas are well-sourced.

Now let's look at the claims themselves, as well as what sort of support is provided for each.

Claim#1: 9 out of 10 children have "been affected" by pornography. 
Affected how?  We're not told.  The article then changes to the claim to 9 out of 10 children have seen pornography on the internet.  So the article misleadingly equates seeing pornography with suffering some sort of effect because of doing so.  In addition, that statistic is sourced to Donna Rice Hughes in the February issue of World; a complete citation is not given, making it difficult for the reader to track down the source to verify it.  The source turns out to be this interview, in which Hughes simply makes the claim as a bald assertion with no support or source given.

So Claim#1 is both unsupported and guilty of equivocation.

Claim#2: Pornography is readily available.
Claim#3: Pornography "looks for" viewers.
Claim#4: The porn industry makes $13 billion per year.
These claims are all attributed to Doug Carlson, and we are given another incomplete citation (bpnews.net, 5/17/2012), again making the reader work harder than necessarily to verify the source.  It turns out to be this opinion piece, which cites no sources in support of those claims.

So Claims#2-4 are unsupported.

Claim#5: Pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children.
We again get an incomplete source (ProtectKids.com), but the claim is lifted verbatim from this page of that website, as are the next two claims.  However, there are two issues with that source:
First, the web page claims that its information comes from studies.  However, look at the citations given at the bottom of the page; they are both books.  So ProtectKids is not providing the sources it's claiming to use.
Second, even if the paragraphs were properly sourced, they don't support the claim being made.  The first paragraph states the cause of acting out against other children to be either molestation or pornography.  We have no way to know which, since we don't know which studies the data comes from.  The second paragraph does not even describe acting out against other children at all.

Since the source is clearly being dishonest, claim#5 is unsupported (and, in fact, being lied about).

Claim#6: Exposure to pornography shapes attitudes and values.
This claim has the first of the two problems that the last one did; it claims to get its information from studies but instead cites a book (in fact, the same book).

Since we're seeing exactly the same kind of misdirection as we did with claim#5, claim#6 is also unsupported.

Claim#7: Exposure to pornography interferes with a child's development and identity.
At least this section has the honesty to state that it's citing Dr. Victor Cline's book.  However, books are not subject to the peer review process, so anyone can claim anything they want to.  If Dr. Cline really had lots of evidence to support his claims, it would be available in the peer reviewed literature.  However, a search of that literature turns up nothing written by him.  In fact, the only article that mentions him characterizes him as a censorship advocate who lacks empirical support for this claims. [Tedford, T. L. (1978). UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS? THE REASONS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TWELVE WHO FAVOR CENSORSHIP. Free Speech Yearbook, 9156]  So it's fair to say that Cline's claims should be taken with a sizable grain of salt.
Toward the very end of this section of the web page, we find an honest-to-goodness citation of a real live peer-reviewed article... from 1982!  You'd think that if internet porn were as harmful as the Christian Post article implies, they'd have been able to find a single article since the rise of the internet that supports that idea.

Claim#7 is partially supported at best, by sources that are either not timely or are of questionable reliability.

Claim#8: Two boys claim to have been harmed by pornography.
...as though we can draw conclusions from a sample size of two.  In addition, we have no way to verify these claims, since they are merely anonymous anecdotes.  The are presumably drawn from this web page, which cites as its only source that prestigious bastion of scholarly research, People Magazine.

Claim#8 is unsupported.

Claim#9: Obscene pornography is illegal.
This claim is drawn from the same Donna Rice Hughes interview as Claim#1, and it is exactly the same sort of bald assertion, with no law cited or other support offered.

Claim#9 is unsupported.

Claim#10: The Obama administration has not filed any new charges against purveyors of adult pornography.
The source cited is this Politico article.  It debunks the claim at the very end, stating that charges were in fact filed against John Stagliano, who was acquitted.

Claim#10 is false.

Claim#11: Kids can access pornography because so few adult film producers are prosecuted.
This claim is sourced to a 2010 interview the Donna Rice Hughes gave to Truth in Action Ministries.  However, it cannot be verified because the interview is no longer accessible on that organization's website.

Claim#11 is unsupported.

Claim#12: Sexting is prevalent among high school students.
To its credit, the article cites a peer reviewed article to back up this claim (even though it only provides a partial citation, once again forcing the reader to hunt the source down).  The cited article does say exactly what the article claims is does.  While Cole Moreton's name is misspelled (reflecting CP's usual editorial standards), the Telegraph article also supports the point being made.

Claim #12 is SUPPORTED.

Claim#13: Prosecuting companies in control of pornographic websites would "clean up" the internet.
This claim is likely false, since the overwhelming majority of online pornography is legal on First Amendment grounds.  However, since Patrick A Trueman, who is making the claim, offers nothing to back it up, we'll settle for saying that...

Claim #13 is unsupported.

Claim #14: Children can be protected from pornography by following the three suggestions given by Donna Rice Hughes.
No evidence is offered to back up the idea that these suggestions are effective.

Claim #14 is unsupported.

So for all of the bluster about what a scourge pornography is, the article could back up exactly one of its fourteen claims.  Yes, sexting is prevalent, which is a problem.  But this article is not about sexting specifically, it is?  The purpose of this article is to roundly condemn all of pornography as harmful.

The article utterly fails to make even a marginally convincing case.  Instead it relies on anecdotes, bald assertions, dodgy "experts," outdated studies and flat-out dishonesty to elicit an emotional "oh my, we must save the children" response from gullible Christian parents.  It is an excellent study in disinformation.

But then, we would expect nothing less from the pious folks over at Christian Post, wouldn't we?

Morality Update

There's a question that's been eating away at me for the past few days, and it has caused me to realize that I must concede a point with regard to morality.

Is morality objective or subjective?

It has been my position that morality is objective, because it is always based on happiness and suffering.  However, how people conceive of those ideas changes over time and varies by culture; those conceptions are subjective.  So I had concluded that morality is itself objective, but is subjectively applied.

But the question is:  Is that a useful distinction?

As you no doubt know, I believe that philosophy is useless if it cannot be empirically verified.  So the question becomes: How does morality, in my understanding, manifest itself in the real world?

Since it does vary over time within a culture, and among cultures at any given time, I must concede that, for all intents and purposes, morality is subjective.  Since this contradicts my previous claims, I have no option but to admit that I was incorrect on this issue.

This begs the question of whose conception of morality is the right one.  Well, if morality is subjective, then there is no right one.  Everyone must work out as individuals what they believe to be right and wrong, based on their own consciences.  To borrow an idea from Nietsche, each individual is his or her own moral authority.

However, humans have to live in societies to survive.  As a result, we have to work out rules for what individuals are and are not allowed to do; these take the form of laws.  So while individuals are free to do as they please according to their own sense of right and wrong, they are completely responsible for the consequences of their actions, including any societal or legal repercussions.

So that's what I've come to on this.  It's never easy to revise one's beliefs based on new information, but it's important to continue to examine and understand why we believe what we do.

A personal aside to Thoughts For Young Men:
If you're inclined to consider this a victory, please do.  It was your line of questioning that caused me to re-examine how I felt on this issue, ultimately resulting in my changing my tune. 

Well played, sir, and thank you for that.

More Atheism Misunderanalyzed

The liars for Jesus over at Atheism Analyzed have outdone themselves in terms of rambling nonsense in their latest post.  It starts off with the usual already-refuted claims about atheism and morality, then throws in a couple of non sequiturs about elitism and totalitarianism.

But then it really rambles.  See if you can count the completely unsupported claims about atheists and hate speech; I mean, really, not a single concrete example.

We then conclude with a list of bullet points ranting about liberals that have absolutely no connection to anything about atheists.  The only atheist even mentioned is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a victim of threats far worse than whatever hate speech they're talking about.

I mean seriously, what the hell?  Just when I thought these dishonest boneheads couldn't get any less coherent.

Absence of evidence

Let's say, hypothetically, that I presented you with the following story:

I have a dragon.  He lives in my garage.  He is invisible and is completely undetectable by any means.  However, I can attest to the fact that he exists because I have had personal interactions with him.  I am just not able to demonstrate his existence to you. 

Do you believe that my dragon exists?  Why or why not?

Latest Gay Marriage Lies from Christian Post

We haven't had a good CP article full of falsehoods about gay marriage for a while; thank goodness for this piece from Jennifer Thieme!

"True conservatives support limited government, and they understand that there are other institutions which serve to limit government power. Two of these institutions are the natural family..."
False.  The government subsidizes both straight marriage and having children with a wide range of legal and financial benefits.

"...and religion."
False.  The separation of church and state prevents religion and government from influencing each other.  Or at least, it would, if Christian activists weren't constantly pushing for special treatment under the law for their own religion.

"In order to accommodate gay couples into the institution of marriage, all gendered words are removed from the law, words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father. These are replaced with gender-neutral words such as partner, party, applicant, and parent."
This is the beginning of an extended three-paragraph tautology.  The argument is basically that if we allow gay people to get married, gay people will be allowed to get married.  Well, yeah...  That's the idea.

"Some on the left will ask: "How does gay marriage harm YOUR marriage?" The answer is quite simple: traditional marriage will cease to exist as a public policy."
Does that mean the government will no longer allow straight people to get married, or no longer subsidize straight marriages?  No?  Then it still doesn't affect YOUR marriage at all.

"Does marriage exist without sex?"
Plenty do.

"Do we really believe that it will be a good thing to eliminate traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Why not, since that won't harm anyone's marriages?

"What will society look like after a generation has passed without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Better.  More people will be allowed to get married and raise children in that environment, and the law will finally treat gay and straight couples equally.

Questions for Atheists

I went through recently and answered a few more of those "questions for atheists" lists, if anyone's interested in commenting:

http://emach.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/10-questions-every-intelligent-atheist-must-answer/
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2012/06/20-questions-atheists-struggle-to.html
http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/10-questions-for-atheists/
http://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/questions-to-ask-an-atheist/
http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/the-atheist-challenge/

The Problem of Evil Isn't the Problem

One of the central issues that Christian theologians have been wrestling with since the Middle Ages is the Problem of Evil.  It is based on three assumptions about God:

1) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2) God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
3) God is omnibenevolent (all-good).

If all three of these assumptions are true, why does evil exist in the world?

However, I don't think this is the central issue with those three assumptions.  The Bible itself suggests that they can't all be true, regardless of the place of evil in the world.

Let's assume for the moment that God exists, and that the Bible presents an accurate representation of his character.

The only way to heaven is through faith.  This implies that the most important thing in the world to God is that you believe in him and believe that Jesus is divine.  If you do not, you are condemned to eternal punishment.

The conflict with the three assumptions comes not in the existence of evil, but in the existence of non-believers.

Does God not know how to convince them he exists?  Then he's not omniscient.
Is God incapable of convincing them he exists?  Then he's not omnipotent.
Is God unwilling to convince them he exists?  Then he's not omnibenevolent.

I think the Bible provides a clear answer to at least one of those questions.  Regardless of omniscience or omnipotence, God is clearly not good.  In the Old Testament, he sanctions slavery, genocide and the abuse of women and children.  In the New Testament, he offers vicarious redemption, the truly twisted idea that I can wrong you and SOMEONE ELSE can forgive me for that, whether you do or not.

There is no problem of evil; there is no problem of non-believers.  The Bible resolves the issue quite clearly.

Today's Liar for Jesus, Bryan Taylor

I had to share this comment thread as a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as the Chewbacca Defense.  Basically, you make as much noise as you can and pretend that you're having a conversation.  Here are the elements of this fallacy illustrated by Bryan Taylor on that thread:

Tell everyone they're wrong while making no coherent arguments of your own.
Refuse to define any of your terms, so that you can make up their meanings as you go.
Demand and challenge sources from others, but for God's sake, don't provide any.

It really is the height of dishonesty.  It's the intellectual equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears and running around in circle yelling.

Luckily, Bryan Taylor will never get far enough in any academic discipline to hold any sort of intellectual influence.  Except maybe theology, where the standards are lower.

Morality Recap

Okay, so there's been some confusion as to what exactly my concept of morality would be.  I had initially accused a few people of being dishonest in misrepresenting me on this, but I have to concede that maybe just didn't understand it.  So I apologize for being hasty in that accusation.  Allow me to lay it out; I will then be happy to take questions:

In my view, morality as objectively defined according to whether or not it brings about happiness or causes suffering.  That action is moral which increases happiness; that action is immoral which causes suffering.  This is an objective definition.

Of course, there will be some subjectivity in how happiness and suffering are determined.  In some situations, they will directly conflict with each other.  For example, if I shoot a home invader who was going to rape my wife, I have prevented her suffering but caused suffering to the the home invader.  In these situations, a moral dilemma results.

In some cases, happiness or suffering will conflict with other ideals.  For example, if I am a shiftless bum who refuses to get a job, I suffer from lack of money to buy food or pay rent.  So others might volunteer to give me money to ease that suffering.  However, compelling someone to give me money conflicts with other ideals, such as our right as individuals to do as we please with our money (that is, the ideal of private property), or the idea that individuals should take responsibility for themselves and get a job (that is, the ideal  of personal responsibility).  These situations also result in a moral dilemma.

When a person faces a moral dilemma, it is up to that person to resolve it on their own.  There are no hard-and-fast rules to dictate what should be done in each situation.  The individual must decide on his or her own and must be prepared to face the consequences of whatever they decided.  For example, if a home invader were going to rape my wife, I'd shoot him without hesitation; I would rather face the legal consequences of doing so than face the consequences of what happens to my wife if I don't.

There are also situations in which society as a whole faces moral dilemmas.  When this happens, people work together as a society to provide rules for how to resolve them.  For example, the shiftless bum could apply for welfare, and society's rules would determine if he or she meets the criteria to get it.

In some cases, our personal senses of morality conflict with society's rules.  For example, I believe that people should be allowed to smoke pot for fun if they want to.  However, as a society, we have decided that this is against the rules (in all but two states).  I have two options: follow the rules in the name of deferring to society, or break the rules in accordance with my own sense of morality.  In either case, I am responsible for the consequences, and whichever I decide, I am also within my rights to work with others in society to get those rules changed.

So the bottom line is that I believe morality to be objectively defined but subjectively applied.  I would never claim that my personal sense of right and wrong should be imposed on everyone, and I apologize if I ever implied as much.  Ultimately, the need to live together in society forces people to work together to set rules for what is right and wrong, and these rules necessarily change over time with the desires and needs of the society.  Such is the beauty of living in a society with a representative government; individuals get to participate in shaping the morality of the society as a whole.

I hope that makes more sense than how I've explained it up to this point.  I'd like to thank everyone who has challenged me on various points of this, as it forces me to make sure that my ideas are well-examined and clearly-expressed.

I welcome your feedback.

The OK Kind of Slavery

There's a slice of a conversation between myself and Thoughts For Young Men that I'd like to preserve for posterity, should he decide to challenge my view of morality in the future.  This is excerpted unedited from the comments thread on this blog post.  We're discussing slavery as described in Leviticus 25 and the taking of human beings as spoils of war as described in Numbers 31.

1. DVD BachFebruary 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM

   Ok, well, I'm not going to go back and forth with you over something anyone can open a Bible and see for themselves. Levitcus 25:44-46 explicitly allows owning another human being as property, a practice that you are refusing to condemn.
   
   I also invite anyone to read Numbers 31, in which God's followers take virgin girls as spoils of war. So this whole nonsense about it not reeeeeally being slavery is simply false.
   
   Unless you are willing to take a stand right here and condemn to practice of owning another human as property, under any circumstances, then I don't really care whether your morality is objective or subjective; either way, it's worthless in any civilized society.

   ReplyDelete
   Replies

   
   Thoughts for Young MenFebruary 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM
   Do you think it is wrong for one person to own another human being if they voluntarily agree to it? There are many reasons why someone would do so, as I have explained above. As for one person owning another human being involuntarily, I believe that is wrong as I have also explained above.
   
   Would you even be interested in an explanation of Numbers 31? Maybe not, but I'll give one for the benefit of anyone else who may read this exchange.
   
   Consider Man #1 who kills children to offer them as sacrifices as part of his religious worship. Now, suppose Man #2 comes across him while he is about to kill a young girl out in the wilderness. Man #2 puts a stop to it by killing Man #1. There is no one else around and they are in the middle of nowhere. Should Man #1 just leave the young girl alone to fend for herself?
   
   That is just like what happened in Numbers 31, except on a smaller scale. Taking in the young girls was an act of mercy and compassion. You are so committed to rejecting Christianity that you mistake compassion for cruelty.
   
   Now, back to your view of morality...
   
   Assuming you somehow find a way to resolve the issue of who decides/defines what happiness and suffering are, and how to weigh them in a given situation (which I don't believe you can), how do you know that is even the right way to determine morality? Why are happiness and suffering the defining issues? Why not something else? Your worldview is based on nothing.
   Reply
2. 
   DVD BachFebruary 19, 2013 at 5:12 PM

   Right, so you've described not one but two circumstances under which slavery is okay. I disagree with both. I think that owning another human being as property is reprehensible under any circumstances, and I believe that makes my conception of morality superior to yours. I don't really care if you believe that your morals come from God and mine come from "nothing."
   
   I invite anyone reading this to consider our two positions:
   You: Slavery is sometimes okay.
   Me: Slavery is never okay.
   And decide for themselves who's right.
   
   Just a couple of quick notes on your explanation of Numbers 31:
   1) The only reason the girls are all alone in the wilderness is that their whole families were slaughtered by the very people about to take them as slaves.
   2) Nowhere does Numbers claim that any of the girls were going to be sacrificed by the Midianites.
   3) The girls are specifically described as "plunder," and 32 of them were "offered as tribute to the Lord."

   ReplyDelete
3. 
   Thoughts for Young MenFebruary 20, 2013 at 7:35 AM

   Yes, anyone can read our comments and see what we are saying. Let me summarize our positions, since your summary is misleading.
   
   Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay (just as taking a job is okay). Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt is okay (if this law were in effect in modern culture it would have minimized the recent mortgage crisis, because not as many people would have foolishly taken on debt they could not afford, and the bankers who defrauded people would be "slaves" now instead of getting million dollar bonuses).
   
   You: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is also wrong. Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt (or for any other reason) is also wrong.
   
   Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? I understand that the terms of your employment may be more restricted. Your hours and responsibilities are more limited than if you sold yourself as a slave, but that is just a matter of degree, not a different kind of transaction.
   
   Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right? That is a logical implication from what you have argued. I know that bankruptcy is allowed as part of our legal system, but is it morally right?
   
   FYI, Biblical law allows for cancellation of debts every seven years. That would also help to minimize the debt/credit problems we have been experiencing, since lenders would know that they might not be able to collect their loan.
   
   As for Numbers 31, my example was greatly simplified, but the basic premise is the same. Maybe I overdramatized it by saying that Man #1 was about to sacrifice the young girl. In any case, the principle is still the same. The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness, and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in.
   
   As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds. This is typical Biblical language. The priests and Levites devoted their time to the service of the Lord, so the rest of the people were required to give them a portion.

   Reply
4. 
   DVD BachFebruary 20, 2013 at 8:33 AM

   "Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong."
   Which is what I said; you have to specify the kind of slavery that you oppose, because some kinds are okay.
   
   "Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay"
   Again, I disagree. If someone offered to sell themselves to me, to own for life and to be passed on to my children, I would say no and ask what's wrong with them.
   
   "Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? "
   My employer does not own me as property.
   
   "Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right?"
   Irrelevant; we're talking about slavery.
   
   "The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness,"
   Which verses of the Bible list their specific crimes? All I can see is that they worshiped a different god, which is hardly worthy of slaughter.
   
   "and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in."
   After murdering everyone they know. Some compassion...
   
   "As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds."
   And to do with them whatever they pleased.