Bashing Bart: Evangelicals Erroneous Exposition of Ehrman’s Errors

[ I initially set out to write a post called Implicit Duplicity in Biblical Inerrancy. The post was going to discuss why I think Evangelical apologists are duplicitous when they downplay the importance of inerrancy in order to be a Christian.  To do so, I was going to primarily discuss Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus  and a video by William Lane Craig on inerrancy.  While writing it, I realized I had just as much to say about Strobel’s analysis of Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the Bible and Why that I decided to divide it into two posts instead of one ridiculously long post.  What follows is my second idea of a post defending Dr. Ehrman from Strobel’s criticism in his book. ]

I’ve been a fan of Bart Ehrman for a while now.  I saw him speak in person at OSU in the fall of 2008, read his book Misquoting Jesus the same year, listened to a lecture series of 24 lectures on the historical Jesus, and watched numerous lectures and debates online from pseudography, theodicy, the resurrection to the reliability of the New Testament.  I think he’s a great speaker and an astute scholar.  I enjoy reading his work, and likewise enjoy listening to him speak.  Obviously, I find it refreshing to hear a position on the New Testament which vindicated my own suppositions when I first began examining my faith.  Lastly, through him I was inspired to seek out deeper levels of understanding in the bible and ultimately to encounter a wide variety of authors and scholars on all sides of the spectrum.

For some reason the last time I went home, I decided to raid my brother’s formidable collection of Christian apologetics.  Among the books I gathered was Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus. I had thumbed through it when it first came out, but wanted to reexamine it after having become far more acquainted with both Ehrman’s work and New Testament Criticism. So what did I think about it my second time reading through it?

I was appalled.  In fact, I hardly recognized the book they were discussing as Ehrman’s.  Their characterization of it was so off that they hardly even assessed any of his actual arguments, and when they did, Daniel Wallace (the expert Strobel interviewed) conceded most of Ehrman’s views on which parts of the bible have been altered, added, or changed! (ie – the longer ending in the book of Mark, the women caught in adultery, and Mark 1:41 originally saying Jesus grew angry).

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Strobel’s mischaracterization of Ehrman

 I think Strobel intentionally mischaracterizes Ehrman’s understanding of inerrancy, his loss of faith, and his position on the variants in The New Testament.  Strobel intentionally misleads his readers in such a way to reduce the credibility of Ehrman thereby bolstering his own case.  Strobel’s goal is not to accurately interact with Ehrman’s text but rather the public’s perception, and the Christian reaction to, Ehrman’s text. Strobel is duplicitous by claiming on the back cover jacket of his book that he is engaging in “honest scrutiny” and a “no-holds barred quest for the truth about history’s most important figure.” Strobel has a bias and agenda in his book which colors his writing and obscures honest investigation.  In his introduction he indicates he is responding to the most “powerful and prevalent objections to creedal Christianity that are currently circulating in contemporary culture” and that he “could not gloss over these allegations” (Strobel, 15). Yet when he addresses Ehrman’s so called challenge, he claims he “….would have to face Ehrman’s masterfully written critique head on” (ibid, 17).  I will argue that he is actually addressing the popular perception of Ehrman’s objections that circulate in contemporary culture, and in doing so, is decidedly not facing Ehrman’s critique head on.

From the beginning, Strobel mischaracterized Ehrman’s aim and intention in the book, his reasons for leaving the faith, and what he says in the book.  Firstly, Strobel insinuates that Ehrman is biased in several places.  He (more accurately, the person he interviews, Daniel Wallace) accuses Ehrman of not only not checking his biases, but feeding them (Strobel, 72).  Later Wallace insinuates Ehrman is a “radical liberal” who starts where he wants to end up (ibid, 73).  This is incredibly ironic.  Strobel claims to be engaging in an honest investigation, and states he had to “open himself up to the possibility that they (the attacks) could legitimately undermine the traditional understanding of Christ (ibid, 15).  If this were the case, why does he only seek out to interview scholars who already agree with his conclusion? In this chapter he interviews Daniel Wallace a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.  This institution explicitly affirms the doctrine of inerrancy.  Is he really checking his own biases at the door by interviewing someone who already agrees with him? He writes “People who have searched for Jesus have often discovered exactly who they wanted to find in the first place” (Strobel, 12). Should we be surprised then that Strobel uncovers the Jesus portrayed by conservative evangelicals? Is it surprising that he ultimately discovers what he wanted to discover to begin with: The Jesus he came to believe in is the real, authentic Jesus.

Regardless, he then goes to considerable lengths to undermine the reasons why Ehrman left the faith.  In multiple places Strobel either implies or directly states that Ehrman left the faith as a result of his studies.  Furthermore, he often insinuates that Ehrman lost his faith because he stopped believing in the doctrine of inerrancy.  For instance, he says Ehrman “throws everything out” when a professor questions inerrancy, and claims Ehrman’s understanding of faith and doctrine is inverted –placing inerrancy above other doctrines such as God’s existence or Christ’s atonement (Strobel, 75).  He even goes so far as to imply (without justification) Ehrman believes if you find one error in the bible you should throw the whole thing out (ibid).  When Wallace hears this he exclaims “Good grief! What a shockingly naïve view to take!”  (ibid).  In fact, Strobel directly states that finding one apparent discrepancy in the bible “essentially wrecked his (Ehrman’s) faith” (parenthesis mine ibid, 80).

If Ehrman really believed you should throw the whole bible out because of one error, that would be a shockingly naïve view, but understandable considering the current state of fundamentalist Christianity. Nevertheless, is this a view which Ehrman subscribes to, or ever subscribed to?  Was Ehrman’s faith wrecked because of one purported discrepancy in the bible? In the beginning of his book, Ehrman gives a brief autobiography detailing his journey and understanding of the bible.  He does say that once he made that admission (of an error in the bible) “the floodgates opened” and he began to question other passages in the bible (Ehrman, 9).  A little later he indicates that his study led to a “radical rethinking” of what the bible is and its meaning (ibid, 11).  But did he lose his faith because of his study? He emphatically denies it, writing the issue that caused him to become agnostic “has to do not with the bible, but with the pain and suffering in the world” (italics mine ibid, 248).  Elsewhere, he indicates he was a “…God believing, sin-confessing, church-going Christian…” who believed “the bible contains God’s word, trustworthy as the source for theological reflection” for twenty years after his radical rethinking (Ehrman’s loss of faith).  Indeed, he goes on stating that after his radical rethinking he didn’t become an agnostic, he simply reassessed his understanding of divine inspiration and inerrancy (ibid, 251).  This certainly doesn’t sound like someone who abruptly abandoned his faith for one trivial error in the bible, held a naïve overemphasized view of inerrancy or who misplaced his doctrinal priorities.

So why then does Strobel try to paint the (fallacious and irrelevant) picture that Ehrman lost his faith as a result of his studies? He’s trying to undermine Ehrman’s credibility.  He’s trying to show that Ehrman is biased, that way we don’t take his views as seriously as we should.  He’s trying to show that we can dismiss Ehrman’s agnosticism as naïve and misguided – this way, we reduce the shock of a top biblical scholar leaving the fold. But, even if he held shockingly naïve views, and left the faith for bad reasons, what bearing this have at all on Ehrman’s actual assertions? This is nothing more than a red herring.  Even if Ehrman did these things, it’s completely irrelevant to Ehrman’s argument. In fact, it’s not only a red herring, it’s practically an ad-hominem attack on Ehrman’s credibility as a scholar as a result of his (irrelevant) theological beliefs.

Stifling the Sting: tackling textual criticism

Before addressing Ehrman’s actual contentions, he spends a sizeable chunk of the chapter trying to reduce the sting of the neophytes realization of the great task of textual criticism itself.  Strobel and Wallace denounce the often used analogy of playing the game “telephone” because textual criticism doesn’t involve oral tradition, but written tradition (Strobel, 81).  They ask us to imagine we played telephone by writing it down! It wouldn’t be a game because it’s too easy! Instead, Wallace offers up his own analogy: the Gospel according to Snoopy; a game which Wallace uses when giving seminars to college students and churches.  In it six “scribes” from the audience copy a 50 word statement and produce errors, intentionally or unintentionally.  The next day, the original manuscripts are lost, there are holes in the transmission and the rest of the group is left to figure out the originals while the silent scribes look on.  The result is almost inevitably, the original is reconstructed word for word, or almost word for word, to which the audience often bursts into spontaneous applause (ibid).  Certainly this sounds like a fun game (I know I’d play it!) and it certainly softens the sting of realizing we don’t have the originals, or copies of the originals, but does it accurately convey the transmission of the text of the New Testament? Here’s my own game: In English tell a group of people 4 different stories and have them circulate it by word of mouth for a few weeks. Tell them their goal is to convince people the stories are real. Afterwards, individually tell groups of people who have heard the stories, but not from the original people who told the stories to write down what they heard in german.  Then have many different people copy those stories in German thousands of times over the course of two years. As they copy it, have them come in contact with the different stories and then copy and combine those stories.  Then, completely destroy any copy from the first year. At the end of this ridiculously long game, get an entirely new group of people, who have never heard the stories, to try to reconstruct the original.  Afterwards, translate the original into Chinese.  Lastly, have someone fluent in English and Chinese compare the original stories.  Somehow I doubt they would be identical!  Obviously this would be nearly impossible to do, and certainly impractical! But this comes closer than either telephone or Wallace’s game does to the herculean task of reconstructing the originals (as well as translating them).  Hardly reducing the sting of the task at hand, I think this more accurate game demonstrates the almost Sisyphean nature of reconstructing the originals; a point which Ehrman argues in debate with Wallace: it’s impossible to accurately reconstruct the originals (Ehrman-Wallace Debate)

The Number and Nature of Variants

Let’s look now at one of the first (actual) contentions Strobel deals with: the number of variations in the New Testament.  Ehrman writes we have more variations in the New Testament than words in it. (Ehrman, 10).  Wallace is quick to respond pointing out the most common variation is simply a spelling error, and that the majority of the variations are insignificant (Strobel, 86, 87).  What Strobel neglects to tell his readers, leaving the impression that Ehrman is being duplicitous by leaving out this fact, is that Ehrman unequivocally states this – in multiple places! In fact, right after he says we have more variations than words, he states “most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant.  A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us today” (Ehrman 10,11).  It turns out, Strobel is the one being duplicitous! Ehrman is frank about this from the get up.  In fact, with few exceptions, I’ve been quoting Ehrman entirely from his introduction! I can’t help but wonder: Did Strobel actually read Ehrman’s book? If he didn’t, he’s certainly not conducting “hard hitting investigation” If he did, he’s being intentionally misleading to once again reduce Ehrman’s credibility.

So what does Strobel’s scholar say in regards to the other variations, however small a percentage of total variants, which scribes intentionally changed? Wallace concedes “He’s absolutely correct.  Sometimes Scribes did intentionally change the text” (Strobel, 88).  Additionally, he goes on to say they changed the texts for theological reasons to make the text look more orthodox (ibid).  I find it fascinating that after wading through 23 pages of red herring and ad hominem attacks against Ehrman, Wallace essentially agrees with Ehrman’s contention: Sometimes scribes changed the text for theological reasons. Now, to be fair, Wallace strongly disagrees that when this happens doctrines are in jeopardy.  He unequivocally asserts that he firmly believes no doctrines are in jeopardy because of this (ibid). But does Ehrman argue that entire doctrines are at stake? Does Ehrman ever assert that certain passages change a doctrine? In multiple locations Ehrman states the main thesis of the book is that in certain passages, how you resolve the textual variant affects either the meaning of the passage, or the theological conclusions you draw from them (Ehrman, 208).  Elsewhere he writes “my question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret passages of the bible (ibid, 252).  The closest he comes to asserting that doctrines are in Jeopardy is “Sometimes the meaning of a verse, a passage, or an entire book depends on which textual variants the scholar decides as “original” (ibid, 260, 261).  In fact, that last quote came from Ehrman’s own summary of what he’s trying to convey in Misquoting Jesus.  At no point does he directly assert, or even imply, that entire doctrines are in jeopardy.  Instead, he writes that the meaning of the text as it stake – a very different claim altogether.  The former claim, which Strobel wrongly attributes to him, insinuates Ehrman is writing a polemical book to dismantle Christianity or arm its detractors with the tools of textual transmission.  The latter claim is what scholars have known, and almost always agree on: sometimes scribes intentionally changed the text and it affects the meaning of that passage.  This is a very important difference that I will turn to again, at the very end.

Inauthentic Passages in the Bible

Let’s look at the two passages of greatest contention in the bible: The story of the women caught in adultery whom Jesus shows mercy, and the longer ending of the book of Mark. Wallace concedes both of these passages in the bible are also inauthentic. Wallace qualifies his dismissal of the first passage by indicating it’s not “literally authentic” but is probably historically authentic.  He clarifies stating “something may have happened with Jesus being merciful to a sinner, but the story was originally truncated in form” (Strobel, 91).  Unsurprisingly, this is very similar to what Ehrman says on the issue who indicates that it’s inauthentic, was added later by scribes, and posits an oral tradition for its origin (Ehrman 64, 65).  One must ask what then has Wallace added to Ehrman’s analysis of the story?

Likewise, the same is true of the longer ending of Mark.  Both explain why they think it’s inauthentic, and how it probably came to be added later.  Wallace, however, indicates that it doesn’t harm the resurrection at all.  Ehrman, however – remains silent on the issue (Ehrman, 68).  Ehrman’s silence speaks volumes.  He doesn’t imply that because we don’t have that longer ending of Mark the resurrection is in jeopardy, or one must view it differently.  Indeed, he hardly mentions the resurrection at all, except with the curious question: If the women left the tomb and told no one, how did the disciples learn of the resurrection? In fact, to the best of my knowledge, he nowhere calls into question the validity of the resurrection.  So why does Strobel bring up that matter in the first place?

An Angry and Scared Jesus

Again, when Strobel and Wallace discuss Mark 1:41, Wallace concurs “I think Ehrman is probably correct about the text” (Strobel 95).  In the original text it writes that Jesus grew angry when a leper asked Jesus to heal him; in contrast, most bibles write he was filled with compassion. Strobel then claims that Ehrman is making the implicit argument that Jesus isn’t God because he got angry.  When I first read Ehrman’s book, I didn’t pick up that implication, so when I reread it this time, specifically looking for clues as to why Strobel would read that, I found none. Maybe they’re there, maybe I’m missing something – but I honestly didn’t see that.  Once again, I’m inclined to think Strobel is misrepresenting Ehrman.  You can look for yourself the relevant passage is on pages 133-139.

Ehrman’s view is that the original passage in Mark portrays Jesus as angry, not compassionate.  He then offers an explanation why Jesus was angry which Wallace claims Ehrman fails to back up. (Strobel 95).  Whether or not Ehrman is right or wrong is certainly up to debate –after he’s only offering up an interpretation of the text.  Nonetheless, he does give reasons why he thinks Jesus is angry – he offers a few other relevant passages dealing with his anger, and a plausible rationale.  In the end, Ehrman’s explanation is second to his main point: “There’s a completely different feel to the story” and “Mark appears to have portrayed an angry Jesus” (Ibid, 139).

If one starts with the view that Ehrman is trying to wreck our understanding of Jesus, then he certainly failed.  If one starts with the view that a variation in the manuscript changes the very meaning of the passage, he obviously succeeded.  Strobel falsely ascribes the former view to Ehrman and succeeds in dismantling that straw-man characterization; he however has done nothing to show how Ehrman’s actual view is wrong.  Ehrman only asserts that meaning of that passage is changed with the resolution of the textual variant – and it is.

Lastly, Strobel and Wallace discuss a variation in the passage Hebrews 2:9. The relevant verse in question is whether or not Jesus died apart from God (probably original) or by the grace of God (probably altered).  Strobel indicates Ehrman insists this alters the whole meaning of the book, and flat out states Ehrman has a hidden agenda of proving Jesus isn’t God because when he died on the cross he died screaming and terrified.  Perhaps I’m just not as astute at picking up hidden meanings as Strobel is, because I read, and reread Ehrman’s relevant passage (144-149) and never picked up on Ehrman’s hidden meaning, nor did I catch where he claims it alters the meaning of the whole book.  In fact, he offers a compelling Christology in light of the original meaning.  In the context of the surrounding verses, Christ “lowered himself below the angels to share fully in blood and flesh, experience suffering and death as a human death” continuing “it is as a full human being that Jesus experiences his passion without any succor that might have been his as an exalted being.  Ironically, Wallace asserts that this doesn’t change our understanding of Jesus because the Markan passion also has Jesus crying out at his death.  Who else makes the parallel to Mark? Ehrman does at the end of his discussion of the text (Strobel 96 and Ehrman 148).

Once again, I don’t think Ehrman is trying here to radically change our total understanding of Jesus, he’s trying to change our understanding of that passage, and potentially of the book of Hebrews.  Has the textual variant put doctrines in jeopardy? No.  Did Ehrman claim it would? No. In fact, Ehrman isn’t at all commenting on the divinity of Christ, or that because Christ suffered a fully human death he wasn’t divine. Ehrman is fully aware of the orthodox view of Christ as being fully human and fully divine and therefore the passage indicating Jesus died apart from God, as both Wallace and Ehrman assert, would do nothing more to reduce Christ’s divinity than the Markan narrative would.

Doctrines in Jeopardy revisited

The one largest issue of contention in the entire chapter (which sadly only takes up about one page) is whether or not the variation affects any doctrine.  Strobel quotes Ehrman as “It would be wrong…to say –as people sometimes do, that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them…Just the opposite is the case.  Strobel then asks Wallace: “Exactly how many Christian Doctrines are Jeopardized by textual variants in the New Testament? (Strobel 88).  Notice the two ellipses (…) in that quote? What’s missing from there?  For your pleasure here’s the entire (lengthy) quote

“It would be wrong, however, to say – as people sometimes do, that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them.  We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case.  In some cases the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending upon how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was he completely distraught in death? Did he tell his Disciples they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adultress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning? Is the doctrine of the trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the unique God there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the son of God himself does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on and all of them are related to how one resolves difficulties in the manuscript tradition as it has comes down to us” (Ehrman, 207,208 emphasis mine).

I took the time to type that entire thing out by hand for two reasons: First because Strobel reproduces the bulk of it at the beginning of the chapter (p. 67-68) and secondly because it indicates exactly what Ehrman means when he says the meaning of the texts and the theological conclusions that one draws from them.  Strobel interprets Ehrman to be attacking Christian Doctrine, claiming they’re in jeopardy. But when we read the text in its entirety it’s fairly clear he simply means the theological interpretation of that particular text is changed given how one resolves a textual dispute.  Indeed, as I briefly showed –if we claim the original Mark 1:41 said Jesus was filled with compassion, we get a different picture of Jesus than one filled with anger.  Does the meaning of that text, and the theological implications we draw change with the way we resolve that particular textual difficulty? Yes! Does that completely change our understanding of Jesus.  No! Did Ehrman claim it did? No! Does Strobel imply it does? Yes!

One last note about this issue: Both Strobel and Ehrman bring up Bruce Metzger, the person whom Ehrman dedicated the book, and his mentor.  Strobel does it on the last page of the chapter, and Ehrman In the Q&A at the end of his book.  Strobel leaves the reader with a portion of his interview with Metzger where Metzger affirms that the “more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church” and that his scholarship has demonstrated to him that his faith in Jesus has been “well placed, very well placed” (Strobel, 99).  Someone asks Ehrman a question about Metzger and how their views differ in the Q&A at the end of the book.  Ehrman’s response is illuminating.  He indicates that “The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by variations in the New testament….For the most part, I think that’s true.” (Ehrman, 252).  Once again, Ehrman isn’t out to disprove Christian doctrine, nor does he think he does that.  Strobel’s indication to the contrary is misleading and puts words in Ehrman’s mouth.

Does Strobel deal with Ehrman head on?

Given how terrible Strobel’s exposition of Ehrman’s position is, I now return to one of my original questions: Is Strobel actually interacting with Ehrman and his views, or what most Christians think Ehrman says, as distilled through popular media? It’s a question on which I can only speculate. If Strobel were actually interacting with Ehrman’s book, he would have acknowledged that Wallace and Ehrman agree on far more than they disagree, change his characterization of Ehrman’s intentions in writing the book, and the reasons Ehrman left his faith.  Strobel is so blatantly biased and mischaracterizes Ehrman so egregiously that his book only serves to further stifle intellectual inquiry into these highly important matters.  If Strobel really wanted to investigate Ehrman’ claims he would have to actually address them. Instead, he spends the first 25 or so pages engaging in innuendo and insinuation dragging red herrings across the page and attacking Ehrman with ad hominem remarks.  After all the innuendo, he only addresses a straw-man understanding of Ehrman’s views.  In the few places which he directly addresses Ehrman’s actual point of contention, he concedes most of them to Ehrman.  In the most important place in which he disagrees, he misattributes Ehrman’s intentions.

If Strobel actually wanted to assess Ehrman’s “attack” on the Identify of Christ (as the subtitle of the book implies) he wouldn’t have even addressed Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus.  Ehrman’s book has very little to do with Jesus himself.  In fact, he didn’t even want to title it that.  As Strobel acknowledges (albeit, in an endnote) Ehrman wanted to title the book: Transmission Troubles, to highlight what it’s about: How the bible changed.  But Ehrman has written a book, nearly a decade earlier, about Jesus.  It’s called Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennia.  That’s the book Strobel should have addressed, because it’s the book where Ehrman argues against Jesus’ divinity, and against our understanding of Jesus as distilled through the bible, and argues for a different interpretation of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet was (obviously erroneously) claimed the world would end soon.  But, Strobel didn’t do that either.

Strobel isn’t writing this chapter to actually deal with Ehrman’s views, or to accurately reflect what Ehrman’s book is about.  If he were then he wouldn’t distort Ehrman’s views so much, but since he does, I have to ask why? In fact, I could have easily titled the post as “Misquoting Bart: The story of who changed his book and why”  So, here’s why:

Misquoting Bart: The Story of who changed his book and why

He’s doing this because he’s responding to a straw-man fear of Ehrman that Christians have.  Christians know so little about the bible and how it’s transmitted to us that they feel hoodwinked when they find out one of their favorite passages is not authentic to the bible (Strobel, 92).  Strobel writes that it’s not only a shame, it’s a “crime” how much we’ve dumbed down the church (Strobel, 94).  Likewise, Evangelicals may be on their last breaths if they don’t “repent” and are “led into proper historical research” (ibid, 97, 98).   Ehrman knows this.  In fact, he wrote his book so that lay people could find out about this.  When addressing why his book was so shocking to people when it’s old news to scholars, he indicates (and Strobel and Wallace affirm this in multiple places) that scholars, pastors and clergymen have not done a good job informing the public about these issues.  He goes on to say “readers of the New Testament have a Right to know! (this information) (Ehrman 254).  Indeed they do, and Ehrman did his best to inform them of it.  But is Strobel advancing the cause by engaging in such blatant rhetorical fallacies? Or is he just doing damage control because a book which is advancing the cause created such a stir that the faithful were unequipped to deal with it and panicked about things scholars have known for centuries?     As it turns out Ehrman wasn’t set out to unravel our understanding of Jesus after all; he was actually just trying to educate people so they would actually understand how we got the bible.  What’s wrong with that?

works cited (in case it already wasn’t obvious what I cited)
The Case for the Real Jesus by Lee Strobel
Misquoting Jesus: The Story of who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman

I also included two links.  The first to an article Ehrman wrote explaining how and why he lost his faith.  The second I included to give anyone interested to hear Ehrman articulate his own views, and Wallace’s rebuttal to them (the scholar Strobel interviewed).

Preliminary Objections (edited for clarity and brevity)

This is an edited version of my preliminary objections.  While it contains largely the same material and questions as the first, this is written in a clearer and simpler manner without the bells and whistles.  In retrospect, and with feedback from my sister, I decided that my “cute” questions and points distract and detract from the actual meaning of the post.  Likewise its form is a bit rambling and not very well articulated.  So to rectify this, I’m going to repost it in a more serious tone.  I hope that my tone remains serious without being polemical or incendiary.  Despite my allegations against Christianity, or any other view point, I always try to remain as polite as possible as every view point has a human being behind it, who no matter how erroneous, sincerely believes their view is correct and rationally justified.  Without further ado, here is my revised post.

Firstly, we have the bible taken as a whole.  As I read it, it doesn’t come across to me as a divinely inspired document.  I would assume such a document would contain profound wisdom which could not have been uttered from the words of mortals.  Instead, I find myself surprised to find excessive genealogies pertaining to one ethnicity, histories which regardless of their historical truth, teach lessons no better than Aesop’s tales or any other allegorical legend.   I would imagine the stories in the bible (fictitious or not) would be a notch above other types of stories – they certainly don’t seem so to me however.

When considering the Old Testament and its focus on the Jewish people, I don’t understand why God chose one particular people and why it’s imperative to learn about their history or relationship with God.  If the God of the Bible is the God of mankind, why did he choose to manifest himself to only one people? If he did so to all people, why did they not listen? Is there any evidence of that claim or is it simply speculator? I would imagine God would have both the power and ability to make them listen without resorting to coercive techniques.  Additionally, the bible contains many laws which we no longer abide by.  Why on earth are they still included as more than a passing historical curiosity? Likewise, why did God’s laws change if God never changes? The OT contains such bizarre laws regulating the diet of the Jews and their hygiene, seems wildly useless now.  This is more a passing curiosity than an objection, but it makes me wonder why the bible contains such historically specific laws and events if the bible is supposed to be universally applicable to all people of all times. 

The God of the Old Testament strikes me as being very different than Jesus’ supposedly loving and forgiving fatherly figure.  Some of the acts committed in God’s name in the bible are atrocious, and had they occurred today by a modern person, that person would be on trial for war crimes.  Rather than listing out such locations specifically, I’ll simply redirect you to other sources.  Many people in the past have more eloquently expounded upon these issues than I such as (here or here.) I’m sure anyone with a decent understanding of the bible would recognize these stories. 

Moving on to the New Testament, the teachings of Jesus don’t strike me as being particularly poignant.  Upon further inspection (from my last post) I think his teachings might have been revolutionary for his time, but they are, however not particularly profound.  I’m not sure if much is contained in their which has not or had not already been expounded upon by different religious leaders such as Confucius or Buddha.   For these reasons, he strikes me as a mediocre moral teacher.  I say this not to be blasphemous but simply because I would assume the son of God would be able to tell parables which are easier to comprehend, or at least instill profound moral advice which would obviously could not have been the result of man’s own thoughts.  Thus, in regards to both the old and new testament, the bible comes off as being very humanly written.  It does not strike me as being divinely inspired or inerrant.  Such things which would demonstrate divine authorship are not there.    

Even if the bible is divinely inspired, how does one properly interpret it? It seems patently obvious one cannot simply maintain the view “God says it, I believe it, that settles it!” I confess I wonder of those who claim this view, if they’ve ever actually read the bible? What does Jesus mean when he says you must hate your parents? Or to castrate yourself? Or to gouge out your eyes, or cut off your hands? (See  Luke 14:25-27, Matthew 19: 12, Matthew 18:8.) Obviously, none of these statements are to be taken literally (although apparently some have actually “made themselves Eunuch” and someone cut off their hand) but that implies you must interpret them.  I’m not raising those issues to get an exegetical account of their true meaning, but merely to demonstrate the inherent necessity of interpretation of the text.  This interpretation is predicated upon human beliefs, which are fallible.  Throughout the ages different individuals, all of whom sincerely believed God had revealed that their interpretation was correct and had reasons for believing it, have come to different conclusions regarding the bible.  Indeed, some have even killed others because their conclusion differed (for example, the early church fathers who were universalists).  It seems the holy spirit doesn’t directly mediate such doctrinal disputes, so how does one resolve them? To claim they don’t differ on any important points is mistaken.  I would reject the Christianity if it were shown that universalism is a heresy, but would be far more willing to accept it, if it were orthodox.  That doctrinal dispute is important enough to me to be potentially damned.  So how does one properly interpret the bible?

As modern science illuminates our world and reveals things to us, these truths sometimes come in contradiction with a literal reading of the bible.  This is most notably true in evolution.  Assuming both evolution and theism are true – how does one reconcile the one to the other? Why would God create 99% of the species if only to have them go extinct? Likewise, why create so many transitional forms moving to what we have now? Certainly the principle of economy is not relevant to God, but redundancies are still redundant.  Save claiming God is whimsical, I can’t see why he would do this.   Also, as a vegetarian, why did he make nature so seemingly cruel? Nature is filled with horrendous tales of animals eating each other (both cannibalism and regular carnivorous eating), killing (and eating) their young and many more.  Why make it so seemingly callous? The only explanation which I’ve heard is based upon a literal understanding of the garden of eden, one which I reject as false (talking snakes? Magical fruit? Man crafted from dirt? Women from man’s rib? Really?)   

Lastly, how do you overcome the problem of evil? I really don’t know of any great solutions to it.  Without going into detail, I don’t find any or all the solutions particularly viable.  The most often cited one, (Plantiga’s Free will Defense) does not adequately explain so called “natural” evils (hurricanes, tornadoes, disease etc).   I see no reason why God couldn’t have created a world without such things without encroaching upon our free will.  So why do we have so much natural evil? (again, I don’t think the Garden of Eden is an acceptable response.  Likewise, it’s an uneffective apologetic technique – no one who is skeptical of God would find this argument compelling). 

    So here we have my honest sincere objections to Christianity.  Once again, by objection I simply mean a supposition in the form of a question based upon preliminary thoughts and intuitions. A reason, on the other hand is a well thought out objection written as a statement).  I’m sure there are many theologically sophisticated responses to these objections; I simply haven’t taken the time to examine them.  Were I to explicate both my objections, the theological endeavors to resolve them and why I find them unsatisfying, I would call these reasons for rejecting Christianity, not preliminary objections to it.   

Cheers,

–Tim 

Preliminary Objections

(scroll down to the numbered list for a quick and dirty overview of my contentions, ignore the points, they don’t matter just like your life doesn’t matter according to atheism! Bazinga!)

Within this post I will explicate the preliminary objections which I have against Christian Theism.  Necessarily, these objections arise out of what appears, prima facie, to be problems within the Christian paradigm.  This is not to say I believe these objections are insurmountable, nor that they are without resolve.  Rather, they simply mark incongruences within either the coherence of Christian doctrine, biblical inconstancies, and largely my own presuppositions of what I imagine a universally true religion or its book would contain or proclaim.   As such, these objections are rooted within my perception of the bible and Christianity.  Only Insofar as I am accurate in my account of these claims are my contentions themselves accurate.  Thus, I do not hold these claims to be derived from any rational consideration, but rather simply from my perception which is necessarily steeped and intertwined with my upbringing in 21^st century America.  Therefore these claims should not be taken to be strict reasons against Christianity but rather a conglomeration of my feelings and perceptions of why Christianity appears to be either irrational or at least puzzling.  For these reasons I have labeled this post as “preliminary objections” rather than preliminary reasons against Christianity.  I differentiate the two defining an objection as a preliminary question or supposition in need of further explanation or research – as such, they are tentative and only ostensibly true.  A reason, on the other hand, is an objection which has been carefully formulated upon the results of sufficient research and thought and then written as a statement mounting to a criticism of some thesis or view.  To put it more succinctly, a reason is an objection which has been fully fledged and an objection is a preliminary trepidation or qualm based upon one’s natural feelings or predilections.   These objections are derived from my own understanding of Christianity as it is commonly presented or when taken at face value.  I’m certain any decent theologian could give some form of explanation or account at why these concerns merely seem problematic, but are not upon further examination. This does however beg the question, why does the bible/Christianity need some form of justification/explanation? Why is it not self-evidently true? (a supposition for which their exist a remarkable amount of responses, none of which seem nearly as compelling to me as the supposition itself, but I digress).  All of my contentions are contained in a question format.  This is not to be rhetorical, or an endeavor to try to create a trap with a “gotcha!” question.  They’re sincere and cereal.  Super. Duper. Cereal.  (my tone is not cereal, but my intent is, I promise.= )

With that said, let’s begin our examination of my preliminary objections to Christianity.  No, for brevity and for any Christians who would respond were it not for my verbosity, let’s simply enumerate my objections with a (very) brief description.  For fun, I’ll make a point system.  If you win I’ll give you a hug when I see you next.  If you lose you get a kick to the groin! (I kid….or do I?)  To get the points you must answer to my satisfaction.  If you attempt an answer and it fails my satisfaction, I subtract that many points.  You must keep track of your score, however.  Good luck!

1)      The Bible – when I read it, it simply reads like something man wrote, not God.  It contains so many pointless genealogies and what not, why? (2 pts)  I would expect the book of God to contain timeless wisdom on living the “good” life (the examined life contributing to human flourishing resulting in Eudemonia – yes I know that’s unfairly Hellenic of me so 4 pts for relating the message of the bible in a Eudemonistic fashion)

1. If it records the history of the Jews, why did God choose them? (2 pts)
2. Why did God choose a people at all? Why not he reveal himself to all humanity? (that’s a two-fer worth 7 pts  [or three if you only get one, unless you try to answer both but only get one then your net gain is -1  : (  .]
3. Why does it contain seemingly barbaric commandments which are at odds with our “civilized” morality? (4 pts)
4. If our morality comes from God and is distilled through the bible, why has our morality seemingly improved over time? (ie we don’t stone people for breaking the law) (the square root of 7)
5. Given the inherent necessity of interpretation of the bible, how does one discern which interpretation is genuine and from the holy spirit and which is deceived? (9 pts because 9 is the devil’s number – the same who deceives so many into a false interpretation).

2)      Jesus – why does he say such bizarre things? (Pi points)

1. Why is he such a mediocre moral teacher? (whatever avogadro’s number is)
2. Whatever other question I had about Jesus but glossed over (as many points as you want!)

3)      Evolution – given evolution is true (must accept that hypothesis to respond and receive points) how do you make it compatible with theism? 1 pt.

1. Why did God create the world and have 99% of the species go extinct? (add 99% of your total to your score)

4)      EEEVIIL! – how do you explain natural evil without relying upon the garden of Eden myth ( 10! Points)

1. (or) why accept the Garden of Evil as a historically true event independent of already believing in Christinaity/Bible? (666 pts.)

That’s it I think.  Happy hunting for more questions or righteous writing (phonetically alliterative, if not graphically alliterative) if you hope to respond.  Minus a million points if your response is in error because you didn’t actually read my post and derived your own (erroneous!) conclusion based upon my necessarily shortened summary.  (of course, if you get 2.1 correct and all other’s wrong you still have a positive net gain! So it’s worth the risk).

A billion points if you add up all my points correctly and exactly. Should you include that billion in your tally? I’ll never tell! That’s up to my capricious whim! Mwahaha! (a billion more if you explain why you can’t arrive at an exact answer).  2 pts per typo corrected, unless it exceeds 10, then that many points subtracted for being more of an insufferable pedant than me (no that’s not a typo, it’s an intentional error to show my disdain to the grammer gods! (as with that misspelling to)

Okie dokie….here’s the post! (only 2,220 words of substance, not bad for the 3,543 in its entirety).

Firstly, there is the bible.  Regardless of whether or not it is a historically reliable or trustworthy document, it still stands that there are many troubling passages within the bible.  Whenever I read the bible it certainly doesn’t seem to me to be a work of divine inspiration, it doesn’t contain impressive wisdom which could have only come from God.  Rather it contains seemingly pointless histories and genealogies, bizarre rules which are of no consequence to me (and likewise, apparently unnecessary to Christians), and its teachings on morality are rather uninspired and mundane.  This is of course, based upon my own contention of what a book written by God should look like or appear to be.  I would imagine a divine book would contain the keys to living the good life (eudemonia – human flourishing in accordance with our telos – not to be confused with a hedonic paradise) – the life worth living in accordance with reason and purpose.  This view is of course ridiculously steeped in Greek philosophy.  One would need to demonstrate to me why The Jewish view of life (lived in accordance and subordinance with and to the will of God) is superior to the one’s the Greeks espoused.  I guess I could be fairly accused of demanding the Judean God be more Hellenized.  I think I’m all right with that accusation however.  I suppose my contention rests upon my curiosity: if the bible is the book of God for all mankind why on earth is it so focused upon the Jews? Likewise, why on Earth did God “pick a people” why not make his revelation manifest for all peoples of the world? My first guess at a theist’s response is that God endeavored to do so but it was lost upon the rest of the world – they simply didn’t want to do with God.  This begs the question – is God really that horrible of a salesmen? Does he need a better PR agent or marketing company? I know some people who could help….   I kid of course.  However, my question really is not rhetorical.  Why would the people of the world so vehemently reject God? Contentions that people are inherently sinful or too prideful need to be supplemented with evidence to demonstrate the veracity of that subsequent thesis in order to supplement the supposition that most of the world rejected God.  Likewise, it would need to explain why there is no record of God’s endeavors to talk with all peoples.  (yes peoples is actually grammatically correct it’s not a typo –I assure you).  The only one of which I am aware is Craig’s damnable (tee hee) thesis of trans-world damnation.  That seems almost patently absurd to me.

Secondly, the teachings of Jesus seem problematic. For being not only the son of God, but God incarnate, Jesus’ teachings really don’t seem very radical or revolutionary.  I say this, fully admitting I’m so immersed within a Christian society (say what you will, but America is most definitely historically and demographically a theistic society of “enlightened” Christians –that is, Christians existing after the so-called dark ages) that Jesus’ teachings don’t seem revolutionary because I’ve heard them so often.  Nonetheless, in looking at the teachings of other great teachers (Buddha and Confucius especially) the (moral) teachings of Jesus are not particularly outstanding in my estimation.  Even if they were revolutionary for their time, they don’t seem to be particularly poignant or profound,  I’m sure I could devote an entire post to examining the teachings of Jesus when compared to other figures, but I’ll suffice it to say his moral teachings really aren’t very unique or inspired.  The response to this contention (from my mother) is that Jesus was not primarily a moral teacher, but was rather a savior.  This, however, necessitates further examination of this whole “savior” business which would require more digressions than I am comfortable with – which is a lot mind you.

As an example of Jesus’ mediocre teachings, when I read Jesus’ parables (insofar as they are accurately contained with the bible) I often find myself confused.  One would hope that the teachings of the son of God would be more universal and easily understandable as opposed to being so steeped in first century Agrarian culture. Apparently, I’m not alone the book Gospel Truth by Russell Shorto makes similar contentions, tentatively concluding Jesus’ parables should be likened to a Zen Koan.  I find this bizarre and to be at least a radical departure from mainstream understanding of Jesus’ teachings.  Why then friend, my fellow hypothetical interlocutor, does Jesus speak in such bizarre ways? Why did God intentionally choose to obfuscate his meaning to others? Considering the answer has dire implications for the salvation of many mortals, why do it?  Is his profundity lie in the  difficulty of ascertaining its meaning? Or is he just a bad teacher?

Let’s turn to the Old Testament: The God of the old-testament certainly doesn’t seem to be very congruous with the God of the new-testament.  The God of the old-testament is a jealous, wrathful vindictive tribal God.  Indeed, the old testament even explicitly states that God is a jealous God.   I’ve never understood why God is jealous and rationalizations of those passages as God being jealous because it’s for our own good as god is the only object properly worthy of our worship and worshiping any other being or entity or what not would only undermine our ultimate well-being seems very ad-hoc.  It simply seems that God is jealous and endeavoring to explain his jealousy as actually not only a good thing, but also good for us seems to only be an ad hoc argument used to lessen the bizarreness of God’s jealousy.  But, I digress (I’m not too worried about this one being answered, it’s more of a passing curiosity than anything else).  God’s commitment to commandments of killing whole peoples (there it is again!) seems well, barbaric by our standards.  This of course, begs the question – why do God’s supposedly universal and timeless standards seem so steeped in ancient codes of conduct which are now obsolete?  Likewise for the laws of the Jews – these laws seem very outdated and irrelevant.  This harkens back to a previous question – why choose a people? Why give such bizarre laws? Why give laws which are only applicable for a period of time? If they are only applicable to a particular people for a particular time, why not say so. Certainly the interpretation of Jewish law has important political consequences for today’s world – if some laws are outmoded why do we cling to one’s pertaining to homosexuality?

This brings me to my next point, which is more philosophical in nature (as opposed to biblical or historical).  I concede that it’s definitely difficult to be a moral realist who believes in objective, independent morality without being either a Platonist or a theist.  That’s fine.   So then, if one wants to believe that there exist independent objective standards from which we derive our morality, it (the morality) must exist itself as an abstract object (ie a platonic form) or is somehow rooted in God.  This is fine and all, but makes me wonder:  if it comes from God as Christians contend, and God instilled it through our consciousness and distilled it through the bible, why, by Zeus, do the proclamations of the bible seem so outdated, outmoded, and frankly barbaric?  Contra Craig, I’m not attempting a red herring from his “moral argument” by confusing moral epistemology and ontology with moral semantics.  I’ll concede his argument hypothetically, but raise the issue: why then does God make such barbaric commandments of stoning people left and right in the old testament if we aren’t to do so today? Also, why did his views change (which is impossible assuming God is immutable.  (which means he’ll never shut up! Get it?  Im-mutable.  Cannot be muted? No? damn.)).

Another point of contention is the proper methodology of hermeneutics.  While I recognize there are entire courses offered on this topic, and I have never taken one and am thus woefully ignorant on the topic, nonetheless I have a concern. Namely, how does one go about properly interpreting the bible? It seems patently obvious one cannot simply glean eternal truths by reading the bible simply and directly, deriving ones conclusion from a face value understanding of the text.  Certainly issues of both historical and literary contexts are incredibly important.  I’ve encountered many folks who think that all one has to do is take the meaning of the bible at face-value.  This is very problematic.  Take for instance, Jesus’ teaching that if you do not hate your mother and father, you do not love him.  Is Jesus advocating hating ones parents?  A face value interpretation would seem to indicate so.  This rendition, however is patently absurd.  Far more likely, Jesus is making an analogy stating something along the lines that one’s love towards Jesus should be so exceedingly great that by comparison you must “hate” your parents.  In short Jesus is utilizing figurative speech, specifically hyperbole. Of course, to determine that one cannot simply look at the face value teaching or meaning of the text but rely upon his or her own intellect and thoughts to determine the meaning.  In short, you have to interpret the text. (This entails bumper sticker theology maintaining “God said, I believe that settles it” is woefully inadequate).  There are many more passages than this which also require such interpretation.  One, which I touched upon in a previous post is the problem of the creation story, to rehash:

As it is written, on the first day God creates light and separated it from darkness calling the light “day” and the darkness “night.” He say that it was good, and the first day occurred.  This pattern of events continues with God separating waters, creating land, creating seed-baring plants, then fish and birds of the course of the next few days.  Problematically, the fourth day is when God creates the sun and other celestial objects.  As we now know, the existence of day and night is predicated upon the existence of the sun and the earths location relative to the sun.  There cannot be day or night or even “days” without the existence of the Sun.  What then is this light that God created? I once spoke with my grandfather about this issue, and assuming I understood him correctly, he inferred that the light must refer to the light of God itself.  Why on earth did he come to this conclusion? It’s certainly not within the bible itself.   Nor is it problematic given a pre-modern or non heliocentric understanding of day and night.  Thus, this problem only arises to the modern mind.  Positing that the light must have its origin in God is a post hoc justification only necessitated upon modern science.  Nowhere does the bible indicate that the light simply means “God himself.” Certainly other passages equate God with light, but they also equate Lucifer with light.  Perhaps the light is Lucifer? He is, after all, the light bearer? (I’m being factious in this claim, trying to point out how my contention seems really ad hoc to a Christian, but the claim the light is God is equally ad hoc to a non-theist). Nonetheless I’ll assume that is what the biblical author(s) meant when writing that passage.  But, to arrive at this understanding one must do so by means of interpretation.  A simplistic bible reading based solely upon the apparent face value meaning of the text is not sufficient for reading the bible, lest one want to slip into absurdities and unnecessary problems.  Certainly, Augustine was aware of this and did not believe such simplistic readings are necessary or even adequate.  Why then, can’t more Christians be like Augustine then! Ha-rumph!

All I am endeavoring to do is to establish that, not matter what your belief on the infallibility or inerrancy of the bible, some form of interpretation is required.  The question then comes, to what extent does one utilize the seemingly face value meaning and one which requires some interpretation? What principle could one elucidate to determine how to go about reading the bible.  I’m not saying that this is in intractable issue or that it renders finding any meaning in the bible impossible, just that it necessitates interpretation and poses problems for folks who endeavor to simply “read” the bible.  How then, should on proceed to understand and read the bible? Why does God not settle these matters via an incontrovertible text or by using the “holy spirit” to mediate such claims?  Every one reading the bible is assured and assures themselves through the holy spirit they have the correct interpretation.  How does one discern who is being deceived and who is genuine?

In leaving the realm of the bible and history, let’s turn our discussion towards modern issues.  If one accepts evolution and theism, how does one explain the fact that 99% of the species God created are now dead? Certainly efficiency isn’t an issue for a being of infinite powers, but that doesn’t change the fact God created/allowed 99% of all species whom have ever wandered the earth die out.  Why? Why create the world in such a way as to indicate that it is the result of natural selection when it has been guided by God?  Certainly does not seems parsimonious to say the least! It’s in fact a bit gratuitous!  If, as some moderate theologians maintain, God guided evolution to result in our creation, why did it have so many unnecessary twists, turns and contingencies? To put it shortly – how does one reconcile evolution and the doctrine of special creation together? Certainly one can adhere to the bible and take it seriously without being a young-earth creationist or anything like that, but how does one go about doing that?

Lastly, there’s that pernicious perennial problem of evil.  For brevity, let’s suppose I accept the practically platitude response that Free will explains the existence of atrocities and “horrors.” What then, accounts for natural evils –natural disasters and the like.  Considering I reject the garden of Eden as ever historically happening, what response is there? Or, if you want to posit the garden of Eden, why believe it exists apart from trust in the bible?

That’s all folks! Ready…set….PHILOSOPHIZE!  ZOOOOOOOM!!!

Cheers,

–Tim

(I’m fine with reading very long responses, and would enjoy a well thought out response from an intelligent Christian.  Here’s looking at you Will!)  = )

“How could a Good God allow suffering” a review of Timothy Keller’s chapter in his book

Timothy Keller’s chapter on “How could a God allow suffering?”

By all accounts I should love this book.  The man who wrote has the best name in the world – Timothy (think of all the famous Timothy’s – Timothy Leary, Timothy McVeigh, Tiny Tim, this guy, Timmay… and that’s about it) and is a presby! As added icing on the cake, he looks strikingly like Peter Singer on his picture on the back! I love Pete! So, by all accounts I should like him. 

Unfortunately, I found his arguments far too simplistic to be of much use.  This is the type of popular apologetic which Christians so readily advocate “skeptics” read when trying to answer tough questions.  As a Christian, these arguments seem pretty solid. If you already accept the basic framework of Christianity, but are having doubts about some particular issue, his arguments can pacify your doubts.  Unfortunately, if you are actually a skeptic –it won’t do much for you.  His characterizations of the questions are straw men, and his responses equal part itchy and fluffy, and readily break in half when too much pressure is applied.  I will, however, concede that he does utilize excellent sources for his books.  A cursory glance through his notes at the end of the chapter reveal he’s very well read (or his editor is at least) –he always utilizes good Christian philosophers – Plantinga, Hick, Swinburne, Alston, Moreland etc).  This is a step above a lot of other popular Christian works which simply cite C.S. Lewis as their go to guy (Francis Collins did that in his book. When he said he came to faith because of Lewis’ book Mere Christianity and the moral argument, I rolled my eyes and didn’t read much further). 

A note on his rhetorical strategy

Keller spends the second half of the chapter discussing how Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross show how God loves us and evil is ultimately redeemed through Christ. As a matter of rhetorical point, it makes me wonder the audience to whom Keller is writing.  I don’t know whether Keller intends this book to be read by Christians or “skeptics.” Judging by his argumentation style, I can’t help but wonder if he’s writing for a Christian audience.  Here’s why: If you question the existence of God because of the problem of evil, I don’t see how invoking Jesus’ death and resurrection will help the matter that much.  This only creates more questions and problems about the historicity of the New Testament, the historical evidence that Jesus exists, that the resurrection narrative is accurate, that Jesus was resurrected, etc.  Not that any or all of these questions are insurmountable, but I don’t know of a single skeptic who although rejecting God accepts Christ’s resurrection! Invoking Christ to solve the problem of evil may be convincing to a Christian, but to a non-theist or skeptic is accomplishes very little.  This is one of the reasons why I believe Keller is writing for and to Christians.  There is nothing wrong with this, but it does not make for an effective tool of apologetics if one is writing to skeptic! Likewise, if it is intended for Christians to read, for Christians to advocate atheists read it is ridiculous – the rhetorical style and points will fall upon deaf ears.  Notwithstanding my suspicions regarding Keller’s audience and rhetorical strategy let us look at his actual characterization and response of the argument from evil.  Because over half of his chapter is about the suffering Christ and redemption (the chapter is 12 pages long, and 8 of those pages deal with the death of Jesus and redemption) I shall only deal with the first four that actually attempt to deal with the problem of evil.   

Keller’s misconstrual of Mackie’s argument, and its problems

His construal of the argument of evil is rather simplistic and lacks precision.  He merely explains that most folks largest contention against Christianity is the existence of suffering in the world saying

“some find unjust suffering to be a philosophical problem, calling into question the very existence of God. For others it is an intensely personal issue. They don’t care about the abstract question…. they refuse to believe in any God who allows history and life to proceed as it has.” (Keller, 23). 

His construal of Mackie’s case against God is this:

“If a Good and powerful God exists, then he would not allow pointless evil, but because there is much unjustifiable, pointless evil in the world, the traditional good and powerful God could not exist” (Keller, 23). 

Unfortunately, I don’t have Mackie’s book in front of me to determine if this account is accurate or problematic.  It strikes me as problematic: I read through his book in college when writing an essay on the principle of sufficient reason in the cosmological argument (an essay, which I now concede is readily above my head ). So, I’m left with determining Mackie’s actual argument by relying upon his famous Essay “Evil and Omnipotence” found here. 

In paraphrasing Mackie’s construal of the problem Mackie claims the three premises “God is omnipotent; God is wholly Good; and yet evil exists are both essential tenents for a theologian to hold and also contradictory. He concedes the contradiction does not arise immediately and that further premises or perhaps quasi-logical rules connecting good, evil and omnipotent together are necessary.    

Keller seems to imply Mackie is claiming the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of pointless evils.  He’s not.  He’s claiming the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of evil itself.  Adding the qualfier “pointless” is probably done as a response to Plantinga’s famous critique of Mackie’s argument (which occurred 20 years later!). Discussing pointless Evils is more of an attribute of the more modern inductive or evidential arguments from evil.    Although I don’t have the book in front of me, certainly his essay doesn’t give mention to “pointless evils” or give the more contemporary evidential formulations found by William Rowe or Paul Draper.  It does however, make me wonder about Keller’s credentials by citing Mackie for his formulation of the argument from evil, especially considering his notes indicate his understanding of Mackie’s book is from a second-hand summary (Keller 263, note 4).  From my exposition of the problem, It seems Keller’s understanding of Mackie’s argument is mistaken. 

In addition to misconstruing Mackie, he also omits what I think and mentioned as the most striking refutation of the “logical problem of evil” by Plantinga as found in his book (and elsewhere) God evil and Necessity.  I’m not alone in thinking it, this was what my philosophy professor indicated in class when we covered it. Notwithstanding his praise William Rowe (who wrote one of my textbooks for  my philosophy of religion class and is, as he states a “friendly atheist”) indicates “granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God” (quote from wikipedia on it).  I point this out because Keller ignores the important difference between the two.  Furthermore, Rowe advocates the evidential argument from evil which Keller mis-attributes to Mackie.  If he’s going to discuss Mackie, and he wants to show why Mackie is mistaken he could start off with quoting the person who is most famous for advancing the actual argument which he examines!  Likewise, he shouldn’t mention Mackie if he’s not even going to address Mackie’s actual argument.  His lack of understanding the problem is seriously flawed.  Furthermore, he never differentiates between those two arguments or between so-called “moral evil” and “natural evil.” His either lack of knowledge of these distinctions or omission of them indicates he is not qualified to discuss this issue.  Hell, I wrote this entire essay in one morning before showering!    

Keller’s actual account of the problem and his response

Keller’s construal of the problem of evil is far too simplistic and a straw-man.  He makes no distinction between the logical problem (which it could be rightly said has had serious blows to credibility by thanks to Plantinga) and the evidential problem.  Furthermore, he doesn’t even attempt to resolve problem regarding natural evils.  His response is rather dismissive and not satisfying to a skeptic.  To a theist I imagine however,  his response would seem adequate and would seem to demonstrate that the argument rests upon just as much faith as theism does and is therefore no more or less probable than theism.  I think this account is seriously flawed, so let’s look at it together. 

Keller (erroneously) claims that Mackie’s thesis holds the implicit premise that “if evil appears to be pointless to me, then it must be  pointless” (Keller, 23 italics original) He contends this is fallacious reasoning because just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God would do something does not mean there isn’t one.  Claiming believing that requires “blind faith of a high order!” (ibid). 

He then goes on to discuss Plantinga’s “no-see-ums” illustration which runs like this: Imagine you look in your tent for a St. Bernard but don’t see one.  You then have good reason to believe that there is not a ST. Bernard in your tent.  Imagine you go in your tent looking for a ‘no-see-um’ a tiny insect which can hardly be seen.  The fact you have not seen one does not thereby demonstrate that there are no-see-ums in your tent, because afterall, even if there were you probably couldn’t see one! (I find it amusing he cites Plantigna here, but not earlier in the book). 

Afterwards he goes on to explain that the “argument against God doesn’t hold up, not only to logic but also to experience”  (Keller, 24).  He then gives several illustrations of times in which an individual went through a time of immense and intense suffering or hardship and afterwards was made stronger, more resilient, or somehow gained insight or wisdom as a result of the hardship.  Although he fails to mention it, this is similar in presentation and style to John Hicks’ “soul making theodicy.” Considering he cites Hick elsewhere, I wonder why he didn’t cite Hick and this theodicy here? His examples provide adequate illustration and anecdotes for instances in which God “uses” evil for the purpose of “soul-making” (If I understand it properly, God utilizes the evils which naturally result from humans free will, in order that we become more refined and better humans).  An account of Hick’s soul making theodicy can be found here.  (I know I’m biased, but if I’m able to cite these sources just using a quick google search, why can’t he?)

Keller concludes if you can be mad at a powerful and transcendent God for not stopping evils, you then have a God powerful and transcendent enough to have good reasons for allowing those evils to continue on. 

My analysis of his response and its problems

Keller’s response contains two parts (neither of which are original to him).  Here’s my construal of his arguments

1)      We lack sufficient cognitive capacities to discern whether or not God is justified in allowing evil to occur (see: Human epistemological limits)

2)      The existence of Evil may serve some greater good of which we are not entirely aware (see Hick’s soul making theodicy above). 

I really don’t like this first argument.  In terms of a conceptual analysis of God, it always bothers me that God would give us the capacity to ask questions for which he does not give us the capacity to find answers.  He allows the world to be such a place so that the evidence at least seems to indicate he is either impotent or apathetic, when it actuality we’re just not smart enough to know why he did what he did.   This type of reasoning is akin to invoking “God is mysterious.” While this may be the case, it certainly isn’t intellectually satisfying and does nothing to explain God’s rationale.   Why would God set up the world in such a way to indicate he is impotent or apathetic, when in actuality he isn’t? Is God setting up a stumbling block for our belief in him? Keller does not deny that the existence of evil is at least incongruent or apparently in tension with belief in the traditional God, but merely states that we can’t and don’t know why God would do what he does.  That doesn’t resolve the issue! That’s like saying although it seems like God doesn’t exist because of all the evil, it only seems that way.  In actuality it isn’t that why.  Oh, well why not? We don’t know, we just know God has his reasons (but refuses to share them or grant us the capacity to understand them).  I struggle to understand why God would do that.  Lastly, in regards to this “no-see-ums” business, I think the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate that rationale for why evil happens are more akin to no-see-ums than to St. Bernard’s.  Why would such rationale be inscrutable or indiscernible to us? It’s up to the theist to demonstrate this.  Keller simply asserts this. Without reason to think the rationale that the explanation for evil is akin to no see-ums I see no reason to accept that argument.   

His second rationale is in a sense a rejoinder to my response: it seeks to give accounts of evils which God had reason for permitting. I suppose if he can demonstrate that there exist apparent cases of evils which seem pointless, but actually serve some good or result in some greater good.  It could follow that if it can be done in certain cases using only our finite and faulty reasoning, then perhaps with God’s infinite and perfect reasoning, other evils may have their explanation.  This implies that all evil really serves a purpose, and is in fact not evil, but only seems evil. I think has two interesting implications.  Firstly, it raises the question – does God cause the evil (as divine providence would indicate) so that we can have a greater good come from it? If so, it makes God to blame for the evil.  This means if an instance of evil were found which resulted in no greater God, God would be at fault for this. Secondly, if not and God merely uses the evil, which is the natural result of some agent’s free will, does this make God a utilitarian? Does God use the ends to justify the means? In other words, does the end result of some greater good occurring justify using some evil to obtain it? Personally, I struggle to believe in a God who is a utilitarian and for whom the ends justify the means.  Secondly, I feel (although I can’t put a reason on why just yet) this conception of God is incongruent with the God of the bible.  Further research is necessary for me to determine this though.    

  Notwithstanding my contentiongs against Keller’s two points, all of Keller’s examples of evils are of 21^st century Americans for whom life is not so bad.  Yes, disease, death, financial distress are all really stressful and certainly could be construed as evil.  But it’s not too hard to imagine how such things can actually make you stronger after overcoming them.  This is hardly any different than a life coach or motivational speaker telling us not to view obstacles as challenges inhibiting us, but chances to rise above the occasion and become stronger! I think these so-called evils don’t really get to the heart of the inductive argument from evil.  When I read Rowe’s accounts of pointless evils, or Draper’s examples of evil in nature, they do not give as examples such every day woes.  I can only imagine Keller includes these because his audience is composed of 21^st century American’s and their preoccupation with their lives.  This of course, is creating a straw man construal – no atheologian whom I know advances such seemingly trivial examples of “pointless evils” Furthermore, many America’s view God as a magic genie who can grant them wishes.  When he refuses to grant us a wish, people become dismayed and wonder why God can allow such evil to occur.  While I’m being hyperbolic and overly dismissive of real people’s challenges, I’m doing so because these examples are some of the weakest examples of cases of possible pointless evil.  I know of no atheologian who would advance such examples as evidence.  I am left contending one of two things about Keller’s use of such examples: either he uses weak examples that are straw-man construal of actual contestants for pointless evil, or he tries to demonstrate that in cases which initially seem problematic further analysis/observation shows a reason for their existence, and so perhaps reasons exist for tough cases (as I mentioned earlier).  Personally, I think it’s a straw-man construal based upon his inadequate explanation and presentation of the argument itself as well as my reasons below:

The examples which Keller advance are all instances of difficult times in people’s life which turned out for the good, or somehow strengthened the individual giving them (as he says) “insight, character and strength.” There are, however many cases in which I contend it is impossible to find such “silver lining” as some would say.  These are the types of examples which people consider “pointless evils.”  Keller would have been wiser to indicate this and claim that if we can find rationale for some instances of evil using our limited cognitive capacities, it’s at least possible God, given his infinite cognitive resources, could have a reason for allowing some evils to occur.  Since he didn’t, I conclude Keller’s examples are just straw men.  Here are some examples of real instances of “pointless evils”   

 A child born in Africa with AIDS in abject poverty to parents who die shortly thereafter. Or, a child who dies not long after birth? How exactly is this child “made better” through its suffering? God either caused this to happen (which at least appears to be evil) or simply allowed it to happen as a natural consequence of human actions.  In the case of the latter, there seems to be no good which can result from it.  Is God trying to teach a lesson to the other people who see this child? If so, this implies God thinks the ends justify the means.  A claim which, I for one, am not comfortable with. 

Let’s look at another example. What of a young child tortured, raped, and then killed.  Imagine that no one ever caught the killer, he never repented, the body was never found and no one knew of the event.  What good results from this? 

Here’s a third: Imagine deep in a forest, a young deer gets caught in a forest fire and becomes badly burned and mangled.  She is unable to move, severely burned and in a lot of pain.  No human comes across this creature to save it, or to witness it.  No one is aware it happens.  The deer suffers in intense agony for three days before it finally dies through a combination of its wounds, starvation and dehydration.  What good comes of this? What greater evil is incurred as a result of stopping this from occurring? What good is prevented from obtaining  by having the doe die over the course of three days? Could God simply not have killed the doe instantly to prevent such atrocious agony? Out of principle, why would it matter if God intervened upon the doe’s behalf to alleviate its pain.  Doing so would not affect any humans or their awareness of free will and belief in an orderly regulatory universe.  So, why do it? (This a paraphrase of the pointless evil which Rowe advances in one of his essays reconstructed purely from my memory).

These four examples are more representative of the types of examples with an advocate of the inductive argument would utilize.  Furthermore, the inductive argument doesn’t attempt to prove God doesn’t exist, but rather that the existence of God is improbable considering the existence of pointless evils.  This sort of nuanced approach however, is not considered by Keller.   

Also, what of those who die in natural disasters? Keller mentions the Indian Tsunami of 2004 and does not thing to directly mention how God could “make good” from this suffering.  He only implictly relies upon the argument that we aren’t smart enough to know why God would do it.  I have no idea whatsoever how allowing any natural disaster can someone create a greater good or be justified.  Keller, gives us no reason either.  Sadly, it isn’t that there is no reason, or that no one has advanced a reason, indeed there are several accounts of it.  One states that such disasters are the result of super-natural creatures’ free-will, another that natural law necessitates such things happening (see Plantigna for the former, and D’souza for the latter).  Both arguments are weak, but I will not go into why I think that is, but will address it in a subsequent post.  Keller remains silent upon this challenging issue however.      

In short, Keller does absolutely nothing to touch upon evils of great magnitude.  His blatant omission of such challenging cases is a straw-man construal of the problem I believe.  If we were to give the simple cases as examples of how with our limited reasoning God could “make good” smaller evils and infer unknown reasons could explain this much more challenging issues, he should have explicitly stated so.  He does not.  I conclude his presentation of the argument is deeply simplified to the point of being so weak it does not solve the problem which it sets out to resolve! It’s not as though there aren’t better explanations, or even better formulations of his bad explanations, he just doesn’t rely upon them.  I’m not sure if he’s just not aware of them, or thinks his reasons are sufficient.  Either way, it doesn’t bode well for his credibility to me. 

Evil and Suffering may be Evidence For God

                  Following what I conclude is a weak and lackluster response to the problem of evil, Keller contends that the existence of evil is actually evidence for God.  Keller relies upon several lengthy quotes from both Lewis and Plantinga regarding the necessity for God in order for there to be grounds justifying the belief in “justice” or a sense of “fair play.” 

            For brevity, I’ll skip why I think Keller misconstrued Lewis’ quote (as that would necessitate reprinting Lewis’ quote, then summarizing Keller’s analysis and subsequently refuting it which would be too much of a digression) and simply assess the conclusion Keller arrives at from those two quotes. 

            Although I concede that I think to be a moral-realist necessitates either a belief in some form of universals (such as a plato) or belief in God, I don’t think this makes meaningless moral claims or the existence of morality in humans.  Keller makes two separate claims and conclusions which I have issue with (honestly, in two sentences he makes such unjustified claims that it necessitates me examining both of them. I wish he used better reasoning!)

Conclusion one: It is wrong for atheists to judge the natural world to be unjust, unfair and horribly wrong because this presupposes the existence of some super-natural standard by which you judge right and wrong.

Conclusion two: It is unfounded for the naturalist to believe people ought not “suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression” for the same reasons as above.

Keller makes these conclusions in one paragraph and likewise lumps them together as one conclusion.  I take issue with this.  I think that they are separate claims which merit two different analyses. Let’s look at each in turn:

Were an atheist to contend the natural world is “unjust/unfair/horribly wrong” he would presuppose the existence of some super-natural standard from which to judge it based upon a presupposed belief in a God from whom such a standard is derived.  This is not problematic however.  If an atheist made such a claim, he would be doing so on the basis of demonstrating an inconsistency within the Christian paradigm.  That is, within the Christian framework there is a problem in holding the views that God exists, created the world in the way that it is (full of strife, suffering, disease, famine and injustice) and there is justice in the world.  All the atheist is doing is simply pointing out an inconsistency in the Christian framework which needs resolving.  He does not actually have to maintain the natural world  is actually injust.  Just that, given the same standards for which we base human justice upon, the natural world does not exhibit such justice.  I readily concede there is no justice in the natural world and as such the appearance of horrible evils such as animals killing each other (for food or whatnot), Tsunamis ravaging countries, droughts destroying crops resulting in widespread famine is not evil per say.  That is, I am not implying that tsunamis and droughts are themselves agents of evil, but rather they are the result of natural laws which as a consequence cause great suffering to humans.  The great suffering to humans is what is evil; not the natural forces themselves.  Thus the natural is not, itself, injust.  But, the consequence done to humans are injust.  One does not need presuppose a higher order of justice for one to think famine and death are evils.  One merely needs to believe that human suffering is something which is better avoided than not if possible.  (I think an analysis of the justification of such a reasoning and the existence or morality apart from God is a completely separate issue which needs to be addressed in its own right. I will briefly do this in the second comment).  In short his claim that the atheist is judging the natural world is injust is misguided both in terms of why an atheist would say that, as well as whether atheists actually hold such a view (I for one don’t).  

Let’s look at the second conclusion, which falls prey to similar objections as well.  Can a “naturalist” make the claim that it is “wrong” for people to suffer and starve to death?  Personally, I think morality (when properly defined) is compatible with an evolutionary account of the origins of humans (see Peter Singer’s the expanding circle for further reference).  Without delving too deeply into the secondary issues, I think we can construct a satisfactory account of how it is a naturalist can claim it is wrong for people to suffer.  Firstly, I would make some qualifiying claims.  When stating an action is wrong, I don’t mean to ascribe to it the property of “wrongness” – I’m not a moral realist  (at this point at least).  Thus, I don’t think morality is an actually existing property.  So, claims such as “abortion is wrong” do not imply that “abortion” somehow has the property of wrongness in the same manner which the statement “my dog is brown” implies that my dog has the property of brown-ness (which she does).  Rather, something different is meant by “wrong” such as unpleasant or undesirable.  Thus the statement it is wrong for humans to suffer is equivalent to the claim “it is unpleasant or undesirable for humans to suffer.” This provides a plausible and alternative reading of what “wrongness” is without having to rely upon God.  I don’t think examining meta-ethical claims and resolving disputes about the existence of morality is necessary here.  All one needs to do is explain why it is, given we are evolved creatures, humans have some conception of “right” or “wrong” or some implicit belief in justice.  I readily concede that humans do have such an implicit assumption that certain actions are “unfair” or “unjust” I disagree however, that we derive our assumptions from a super-natural standard ultimately grounded in God.  Without going into too much detail (which sadly means being imprecise and vague) humans have a sense of right or wrong as a result of our evolution.  As Singer states in the opening of the expanding circle “Human beings are social animals.  We were social before we were human”  (Singer, 3).   Due to this fact, we exhibit basic forms of altruism.  Living in groups necessitated this for our survivial. This type of altruism is found within other species of animals as well.  This altruism rises from three evolutionary mechanism: Kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and group altruism.  These mechanisms led to inherent tendencies towards altruistic behavior in humans. This is the foundation of ethics.  As Singer states “Ethics starts with social animals prompted by their genes to help (see above mechanisms) and to refrain from injuring selected other animals” (Singer, 91).  As humans lived in groups, such altruistic tendencies to refrain from harming another were simply the result of these three mechanisms and can be readily explained by evolution and likewise applied to many non-human animals.  As our capacity to reason increased, as well as with the onset of language our ability to articulate and to reflect upon many events in the past led to our ability to create social rules governing behavior.  It therefore became necessary to justify certain actions.  Such as, I cannot say I can take nuts from someone else because it helps me, but they can’t take nuts from me, because I lose.  If I want to gain help from others (which would increase my fitness) I must occasionally give up nuts in order that I may later get more nuts (an entirely fictitious example, as who on earth would want to get more nuts in the first place? Yuck!) From here we have basis for at least the golden rule.  With the advent of reason, many philosophical systems articulating why we have right or wrong are able to take place.  Humans, in short have an inherent tendency towards altruism, coupled with our capacity to reason we instill certain values and rules in our young (possibly even genetically over the course of tens of thousands of years) which give rise to feelings of “justice” and “injustice”  For these reasons we are able to use such language even if there is not actual referent to which we speak when we say “just or unjust” My account of the origin of ethics is obviously overly simplified.  For a further exposition, see Singer’s seminal work on it.  It’s a wonderful and interesting read.   In conclusion, a naturalist can indeed speak of the existence of “justice” without thereby implicitly recognizing the existence of divine standards of morality. 

In conclusion, Keller misunderstands the atheist motivation for claiming why the (natural) world appears to be unjust, and secondly most atheist probably don’t believe the natural world actually is unjust.  Even with this concession (the natural world appears unjust, but this is illusory) an atheist is not mistaken for thinking some form of wrongness has been incurred against the humans for whom such disasters strike.  Secondly, a perfectly acceptable account of “justice”  (or more accurately, our sentiments regarding its existence) exists apart from belief in God as explained through biological ethics.  Keller is mistaken to conclude that the argument from evil actually gives reason to believe that God exists. 

Overall Conclusion

            Keller’s chapter on the problem of evil is over simplistic.  His construal of Mackie’s understanding of the argument is mistaken, his lack of distinction between the logical and evidential problem of evil demonstrates he is either ignorant of such a distinction or is intentionally constructing a straw man argument.  Furthermore, he lack of distinction between “natural evil” and “moral evil” gives more reason to believe his account of the argument is a straw man.  Secondly, his response is also over simplified.  Claiming we simply can’t know is deeply unsatisfying and raises questions about how God created us.  His omission of acknowledging classic instances of pointless evils demonstrates his lack of knowledge upon the relevant literature (ie – Rowe’s Bambi example) as does his omission of Plantinga’s classic refutation of the logical argument from evil.   For reasons listed above, his attempts to claim the argument from evil is reason to believe in God fail as well.  Thus I am left deeply unsatisfied by Keller’s account of the existence of suffering in the world and its compatibility with God. 

Lastly, I don’t know if I am justified in suspecting that Keller’s intended audience is Christian in nature or not.  If it isn’t, his rhetorical points are certainly questionable ( I certainly wouldn’t have written the book that way if I were writing such a book), and if it is, Christians are mistaken in touting it as a great demonstration and justification of the rational foundation for one’s beliefs.  Perhaps they would do better to advocate reading Craig’s book “Reasonable Faith.”  Granted, Keller is writing for a poplar audience, and Craig is writing a textbook for seminary students.    As such, I’m really not surprised Keller’s arguments are weak and over simplistic.  Such is what you will find if reading or engaging with popular literature. 

None of my analysis is to say that the problem of evil is usolvable, or that there are good explanations out there, just that this explanation is not particularly good (or well thought out, or well-articulated). I think it is a terrible problem that such answers as those given by Keller are touted in the Christian community as being persuasive.  Anyone who wants to claim having good reason to be a Christian should seriously seek justification elsewhere.  It has bothered me, and continues to bother me how incredibly ill-informed many Christians are regarding their faith and its rational justification.  I wouldn’t be nearly as upset if Christians did not seek to incorporate their religious beliefs into political practice, or attempt to convert me to their faith.  For Christians to be redeemed in my mind one of two things must occur (either is fine with me) either Christians need to stop evangelizing (at least to me) and give up their faith as a justification for any political discourse, or they need to actually get an education in religious studies.  Churches are doing an abysmal job preparing Christians  to be apologists or to maintain a rational justification of their faith.  Confirmation classes should not merely be glorified Sunday school, nor should they simply reiterate doctrinal issues – they should prepare students to truly understand what it means.  I could go on and on, but I’ll stop it there before I start ranting too much.  Likewise, I’m liable to become overly zealous and make silly claims like “you shouldn’t be allowed to be confirmed in the church unless you are capable of reasonably articulating your faith and its justification” of course, that’s a bit fascist and rude, so I shouldn’t go that far.   Suffice to say, Timothy Keller is not the answer to Christianity’s need for good Christian apologetics (neither is Lee Strobel for that matter). 

Cheers,

Tim

Why Atheists Annoy me and Should keep Silent

This is my rant against the majority of (vocal) agnostics and atheists, especially ones who seek to convert Christians.  It’s motivated by two reasons 1)the atheistic allegations which I shall address are personally offensive as they imply I’m wasting my time endeavoring to read scholarly accounts of theism. 2) Agnostics and atheists brand themselves as being intellectually superior to their Christian components, and I frankly find that annoying.  This is as close to engaging in religious polemics that you’ll find me.  I’m usually content to remain moderate and quiet.  However, I’ve had a little more coffee than usual today.  Enjoy.  = )

For reasons which shall be explored later in a subsequent post, I take the subject and matter of religion seriously.  Indeed, probably far too seriously.  I suppose as an agnostic I could be likened to a cryptozoologist who, despite not actually believing in the existence of such animals, nonetheless spends a significant amount of time studying them.  This analogy is actually not that inaccurate – I don’t believe in Nessie or bigfoot, but if I had cable I would definitely watch every special they ever had on such magnificent beasts.  I digress.  Because of how seriously I take religion, I am dismayed at the rhetoric which a number of atheists (both public ones and  ones whom I know personally) take towards religion (hereafter by atheist I mean any one leaning towards a secular persuasion regardless of their self-identification as agnostic, free-thinker, humanist, secularist, bright, etc) denouncing it as simplistic and irrational, and as such its adherents equally simplistic and irrational.  Indeed, it further vexes me when an atheist makes the claim “there is no reason to believe God exists!” Such a blasé   statement lacks the careful thinking which atheists claim to possess.  Firstly, this argument can be easily refuted by giving any reason to believe in God, no matter how bad.  The atheist then must modify his/her claim that “there is no good reason to believe God exists.” I would hope that atheists believe the adjective good is implicit in their claim, but from the vast majority of atheists whom I have encountered, I don’t think this is the case. Atheists say this remark with such passion and conviction, if one had absolutely no background in apologetics, he/she would easily conclude that, there literally is not one reason to believe God exists.  When I ask them what he/she think of a typical reason a theist might give, they usually shrug their shoulders and espouse a straw-man understanding of an argument, and its equally weak refutation.  I think this is because they are simply parroting the views espoused by the new atheists.  Dawkins’ explication of the classical arguments given for theism are so patently simple they are absurd! Likewise, when I first became agnostic/atheist and read Barkers losing faith in faith, his explication of the traditional arguments were equally simplistic.  Thankfully, I can count on Mackie to give a more nuanced refutation to such arguments, and Rowe to give a thorough and erudite examination of the classical arguments (most notably, the cosmological argument) but how many atheists have read Mackie’s “the miracle of theism” or Rowe’s “The cosmological argument?” None whom I’ve met. 

It greatly irks me when the level of research an atheist does to the question of God’s existence is simply to examine the cursory arguments of the so-called “new atheists.”  If one were to make such an unequivocal claim that God does not exist he or she should adequately acquaint himself with the arguments for God’s existence!  One should not read the biased accounts of atheists, but read the firsthand accounts of actual theists.  Furthermore, he/she should not settle for the shoddy scholarship of Lee Strobel, Timothy Keller or anyone in the popular consciousness – dig deeper! Read an actual account for theism from a respectable author – Craig, Plantinga, John Hick, etc.  If you are going to examine a philosophical argument for God’s existence, then read a philosopher, not a journalist!

Furthermore, embedded within the claim “there is no good reason to believe God exists” lays the implicit assumption that any argument advanced is incoherent, inchoate or obviously false.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  All three of the classical arguments for God’s existence (ontological, teleological and cosmological) contain a valid form.  That is, were the premises to be true, the conclusion would necessarily follow.  In fact, the only reason I didn’t say that all three arguments are valid is because most atheists can’t differentiate between a valid argument and a sound one (to be fair, most theists can’t either)! Thus, were the atheist to revise his argument to be “there are no valid arguments that prove God exists” he would still be mistaken! Furthermore, the premises for the arguments for the existence of God are at least prima facie plausible.  It takes more than a cursory glance to ascertain where they run amuck! Indeed, even in the notorious ontological argument demonstrating where precisely it goes astray requires a fairly subtle understanding of ontology and epistemology (see Kant’s critique that existence is not a predicate).  Despite the fact that even most theists I know think the ontological argument is fishy, aptly demonstrating why it is fishy is challenging.  For an atheist to shrug his/her shoulders and reply “I don’t know why it’s wrong, it just seems wrong” is no different than a theist to say “I don’t know why I believe in God, it just seems right!” Such atheists are exhibiting the same lack of critical examination that they so deplore in theists!

It seems for the atheist to remain within his or her epistemic rights s/he is left with the much more modest claim “There exist several valid arguments to prove the existence of God which contain prima facie plausible premises, ones which I, for whatever reason, have qualms with and as such deny” Even this claim is problematic, however. 

When most folks think of proof they think of a mathematical demonstration that, were one to hear it, they would immediately assent to its veracity.  I don’t think such proofs exist in philosophy at all.  Likewise, the same could case could be made for science, which to my knowledge does not rely so much on deductive reasoning as inductive reasoning and as such can only make probabilistic claims, not absolute claims of mathematical certainty.  Furthermore, such atheist are implicitly adopting the epistemic standings of the logical positivist with their verification principle, a view which has not only fallen out of vogue, but is considered particularly problematic by most philosophers.  I lack the philosophical and historical knowledge to give an account of this, so I shall remain silent upon it.  I suppose one could look up logical positivism and the verification principle if he or she is so inclined.

Any philosophically inclined theist (and therefore one worth reading) would know this and therefore not claim to be able to “prove” that God exists, but rather be able to give sufficient reason to believe God exists, or that it is at least more plausible than not that he exists.   An atheist is now left making the claim “There exist valid arguments which purport to give reason to believe the existence of God is more plausible than not, which contain prima facie plausible premises, ones which, I, for whatever reason have qualms with, and as such deny” I think this claim is much more reasonable to make.  It is, despite its lovely alliteration, a bit pedantic and prolix.  I would much rather be accused of being a pedant than impetuous, however.

As the majority of atheists whom I’ve encountered are not as well versed in philosophy or theology as I, and yet still reject God/Christianity, I can’t help but be mischievous and wonder if they denounce God based upon their own encounters with Christians, or perhaps their reflection upon the existence of evil and its apparent incompatibility with God, as opposed to a thorough exploration of the literature! If this is so, their view is not based upon careful reflection and thought, but an emotional reaction to their personal encounters with religion! This is hardly different than a theist who assents to Christianity based upon their own sentiments and experiences.  To be honest (and not a hypocrite) I know I denounced religion based upon the inadequacies of my childhood church to properly answer my concerns and skepticisms. Eventually I concluded if I could not find a satisfactory answer, there was none! Therefore, there is no God! This claim, I later realized, was premature.  There is a vast amount of scholarship and literature on my questions and theism which I have, and am still, going through.       

I understand why the atheist makes such claims.  I know I used to.  After I left religion I used to be just like that! I thought as a young freshman I had heard all the arguments for God’s existence and denied them all! I could fearlessly proclaim “there is no reason to believe God exists!” Indeed, I did upon many occasions.  I my defense I was an impetuous youth.  Of course, when I got down to the business of really wrestling with the arguments for the existence of God, and not retorting with such claims as “yeah, well who created God!?” I realized I had my work cut out for me.  Indeed, I have taken it up myself to reexamine the classical arguments for the existence of God.  Thus far, in examining the teleological argument I have written over 5,000 words on it.  Most of the words, I think, are in vain as they are based upon my ignorant understanding of divine simplicity and the rationale for it.  I’m currently seeking to rectify this.  Whatever I uncover will be incorporated into my thoughts. 

Really examining these issues is hard.  It’s time consuming.  It requires a great deal of thought, and pretty good background knowledge in philosophy.  If you are going to be a vocal critic of religious belief, then it is necessary I think.  If you are going to claim to seek the truth, it’s necessary.  If you want knowledge, it’s necessary.  If you want to really know whether or not God exists, it’s necessary.  If you are content saying “I don’t know” then when matters of religion arise your response may only be “I don’t know.”  If a theist presents you with an argument for God’s existence and asks your opinion then you must say “I don’t know.”  If you want to engage with a theist and try to uncover the truth of the matter, then you must research and learn.  I understand most people don’t have the time or patience to do so, and thus will not.  But then you are not free to make such ostentatious claims as “There is no reason to believe God exists” and furthermore should not make strong claims regarding religion at all!     

I claimed to be agnostic for such reasons as above, and still do.  Really researching the arguments for the existence of God is hard and time consuming.  The popular reasons for God’s existence are too simplistic and fall prey to easy criticisms.  The more subtle accounts are nuanced and complicated.  I’m unfortunately in a challenging position –to answer the questions and contentions I have about God necessitates a deeper level of thinking and scholarship than which I am currently capable.  If I seek the truth, then I must press on.  Of course when my caffeine high leaves me I’ll be happy to follow Wittgenstein’s advice on that which you don’t know, you must remain silent.  I hope the atheists whom I malign will follow suit, however.  

Cheers,

–Tim 

(Look forward to many more posts upon the topic of religion in the future from me! Also, I shall be getting a blog soon and will host my posts on it.)  

Reassessing Christianity Part II: How I shall examine the evidence

I imagine this post shall be far briefer than the last one. In contrast to what I perceive and have experienced as the bulk of either popular apologetics or regular folks endeavors to convert me, I do not intend to examine the credibility of Christianity by beginning with Jesus, the bible or any of its creeds. Instead, I’ll simply start with the basic belief in God.  Roughly and somewhat inaccurately put, why should I start with the alleged claims of the son of God when I see no sufficient reason to believe in God himself? That is, it seems rather backwards to me to begin with the character of Jesus and work my way backwards towards God.  Many apologists whom I have encountered do so.  I imagine they do so because their audience probably already subscribes to a belief in God, and indeed their characterization of God is most likely largely derived from the intellectual and cultural underpinnings of Christianity.  Many folks belief in God as an infinitely loving fatherly figure certainly owe their beliefs to the rise of Christianity.  It’s ironic how many people implicitly hold explicit Christian beliefs while they themselves do not call themselves Christians.  I do wonder if for the majority of Americans, if they openly read and considered apologetics books if they would become Christians.  Those Americans who contend that Jesus was a good teacher, or a moral man, but was not the son of God, those who claim the bible has great stories in it and great teachings on how to live your live, but isn’t inerrant or the inspired word of God.  Honestly, I find that drivel revolting, but that’s beside the point!

   For such an audience as this, I imagine starting with the character of Jesus makes good sense – after all, if you already believe in God, and believe in God as (roughly) characterized by the bible, you’re already half way there.  Calling such folks “skeptics” is a bit of stretch however.  The majority of popular apologists whom I have encountered seem to make arguments which are coherent within the framework of a Christian or nearly-Christian perspective but do very little to sway someone for whom the underlying suppositions of the Christian paradigm have no meaning.  As such, I see the merits of utilizing such a rhetorical framework, but I myself will not be following in a similar vein.  Instead I’ll start by examining some of the traditional arguments for God’s existence.

This begs the question what constitutes a compelling case (argument) for God’s existence? What type of verification or rationale will I accept as being, well acceptable?  Without delving too deeply into my class on epistemology and my weak knowledge of logical positivism, I suppose this is a good spot to discuss what I constitute as “proof” or evidence for God’s existence.  Some atheists demand that a completely knock-down air tight argument be presented which none can refute, and all will ascent to its truth upon hearing its presentation.  I’m not going to do that for two reasons.  One, throughout all of the classes I took in philosophy I never once heard an argument which everyone agreed with.  Hell, there are even skeptics regarding Descartes Cogito, and skeptics regarding the possibility of one ever having knowledge.  If it’s nearly impossible to establish based upon reason alone the existence of the outside world (that is, utilizing simply deductive arguments whilst simultaneously doubting everything which you can doubt) I can’t imagine rationally “proving” the existence of God (when used in this very specific framework).  Firstly, I don’t think this marks a complete failure for philosophy, I don’t think humans are inherently rational critters, and our reason is certainly going to be faulty from time to time.  As such, I think attempting to establish anything purely by reason is a vain endeavor. Rather, it is better to utilize reason in addition to observation and empirical data. Secondly, he implicit rationalization for demanding such a high proof undoubtedly comes from the epistemic holdovers of the logical positivists and their so-called verification principle. This principle roughly states something like “something is true if and only if it is necessarily true (analytically true) or empirically verifiable. Any analytically true statement is a tautology, a statement in which the truth of the predicate is contained within the truth of the subject.  Here’s a classic example: all bachelors are unmarried men.  The truth of this statement can be confirmed if we examine the definition of the words.  A bachelor is, by definition an unmarried man.  As such, we can substitute “unmarried man” for bachelor.  Thus, the first statement is logically equivalent to saying “all unmarried men are unmarried men.” This is a tautology and is necessarily true.  An empirically verifiable claim is a claim which can be established through observation.  Thus, if a statement is neither analytically true, or verifiable it is meaningless.  This renders all claims about ethics, religion, aesthetics etc as meaningless.  I think many people implicitly hold this view.  If someone asks you “oh yeah, well prove it!” The probably either me, demonstrate with mathematical certainty the truth of the statement, or use empirical evidence.  If the latter two things cannot be done, it’s simply a matter of opinion.  This means ethics and religion are merely matters of opinion which no one can prove.  I think this is false for two reasons. I think there is truth to such matters whether or not we can settle it once and for all through reason alone.  Our reasoning powers are not perfect, and our cognitive faculties are subject to being mistaken, so it would not be a stretch to think we could err from time to time.  Perhaps we can never have everyone agree that God exists, or does not exist.  This does not mean that God exists only insofar as you believe he does! Either there is an actually existing referent for the word “God” or there is not! God’s existence is not contingent upon one’s beliefs! That’s absurd.   I can’t imagine God existing for some individuals, but not for others. I think similar arguments can be made for morality, but we’ll leave it at that.  Secondly, I can’t help but speculate that individuals who hold such views as those above, do so because of their implicit epistemological belief.  In regards to the verification principle, it has been said (by whom, I’m not sure to be honest, if you know – please tell me) that if one were to use the verification principle to determine if the verification principle is true, then it would turn out to be a meaningless claim.  It’s certainly not an analytic statement that “something is true if and only if it is analytic or empirically verifiable.  Likewise, one cannot verify this empirically.  Ergo, such a claim is meaningless.  For these two reasons, I do not think it is necessary to provide a “proof” as some request.   I believe giving sufficient reasons are arguments is good enough.  These arguments may not be perfect or flawless, but are convincing enough to justify belief in God.

Thus, I intend to examine the existence of God in terms of (rough) probability.  I don’t intent to use any formal probabilistic logic or drop any baysian epistemology in these posts.  Largely, because anyone who knows what they are talking about will certainly see that I know nothing of what I’m talking about.  But, thankfully a thorough and clear understanding of all aspects of philosophy is not a prerequisite for searching for the truth.  So, my goal with examining the arguments for the existence of God is to increase my own “prior probability” for his existence.  This could prove useful later down the line.  For instance, when examining the probability of the miraculous rising of Jesus Christ, no matter how convincing any arguments are, if I reject theism as being inherently improbable, any natural explanation of the resurrection will necessarily usurp any supernatural explanation.  Thus, if certain arguments lead to the credibility of belief in some form of a deity, the probability of the resurrection necessarily goes up.  I think that the conjunction of several different arguments, as well as the historical evidence for the bible could possibly serve to tip the probabilities of God towards his favor.  I suppose if it is more probable than not that God exists, whether or not one believes in him would then be, to some extent, determined by how much faith one needs in order to believe in God.  (for example, say there’s a 51% God exists.  Is this sufficient to conclude God exists and believe?  Do you need “49% faith” to believe? Could it be our heuristics are mistaken and the probability could be shown to be lower in light of further evidence? What probability is necessary for one to believe? Is it 60%? 75%? 90%? I think that’s a matter of individual discretion).

So, in short I’ll be looking for argument to establish the existence of God.  These arguments don’t have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, but should be sufficient to justify his existence.  To be more precise, the argument needs to be valid and at least contain prima facie plausible premises.  Upon further examination of the premises, they should be found to either demonstrate the best explanation for something given different competing hypotheses, be more probable than the alternative or the negation of or be able to be demonstrated to be true by some other means (such as empirical verification or analytically true).  If I find this, and have no strong objections against either the structure (validity) or the veracity of the principles, I’ll conclude that the argument is true.  This would warrant belief in whatever conclusion it comes to (I know of no arguments which conclude “therefore Christianity is true” or “therefore God, as espoused by the bible, is true)

My next post shall be a preliminary explanation for what qualms I have with Christianity.  It’s based more about my feelings than my reasoning.  I’ll make claims that, based off my own beliefs and biases make Christianity seem to be false.  Here’s a sneak peak: When I read the bible, or the teachings of Jesus they certainly don’t seem to be divinely inspired.  It reads a lot more like the writings of man than of God.  So, that’s the type of argument I’ll have in the next post.  Until then,

Cheers,

–Tim

Reassessing Christianity Part I

For whatever reason, I’ve decided to reassess and reinvestigate the arguments for Christianity.  I’m going go through and examine what the rational justifications for Christianity are.  While some may contend it is a vain endeavor, as Christianity is a religion and therefore based upon faith and thus not reliant upon reason, the vast majority of Christians whom I have encountered have at least in principle claimed that Christianity can be rationally verified.  Why, after the entirety of my adult life have I decided to take a second look at Christianity when I renounced it as a youth? To be honest, I’m not sure what compelled me to reexamine it.  I remember for some reason (probably actually having free time) I decided to start looking at the cosmological argument again in some detail (via the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) which compelled me to reassess its merits.  While doing so a plethora of other interesting issues illuminated my mind, and my introspective quest was off! However, before beginning with my examination I think it would be beneficial to do three things: 1) give an account of my own religious background to serve as a backdrop for my current thinking and perspective and 2) to explain my means for assessing Christianity and how I shall relay this to you.  3) give an account of my current qualms with Christianity (independent of any criticisms regarding particular apologetic arguments or strategies).  For the sake of brevity (which is laughable considering this post is over 2500 words) I’ll contain my thoughts to the first preliminary account.  I’ll leave the latter two for subsequent posts. 

            Let us begin.  I was born and raised as a Christian in a Presbyterian home.  While the vast majority of Presbyterians (at least those of whom are affiliated with PCUSA) are a rather liberal lot, my parents could be more closely called as evangelical Christians.  I know this, because I asked them a few weeks ago. As best as I can I will attempt to accurately describe the faith which I “inherited” from my family.  It could very well be that I misrepresent their views, but this is my recollection of their faith at least insofar as it came across to me as a youngster growing up. 

 As evangelical Christians my parents believe (and I suppose endeavored to instill) the essential tenants of the Christian faith are (as):

1.God is the creator and sustainer of the universe he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.  He is infinitely loving and just. His essence is three parts:

• God the father (creator of the universe)
• Jesus the only begotten son of God, and God incarnate
• The holy spirit (Ghost)

2. God Created the universe as described in the book of genesis, with allowances for a non-literal interpretation of the word day.  As such, evolution is incorrect and (although I vehemently disagree) “true” science substantiates this fact that evolution amounts to nothing more than a “theory.”

3. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God written by man but divinely inspired by God.

4.  Jesus Christ is the son of God and God incarnate.  He came to earth to save us from our sins.  He died on the cross and rose again on the third day. 

5. Mankind is inherently sinful. Because of the fall of man any human endeavors to achieve salvation are moot which establishes the necessary for divine intervention.

6. Because God loves us so much he sent his only son to die for us so that whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

7.  Jesus is the only way to heaven. 

            I took these matters very seriously.  It was (and remains) obvious that Christianity means quite a lot to my parents.  Furthermore, I can happily attest that they do their best to embody the love of Christ and exemplify the life of love and service exemplified by Christ both to myself and to others.  While I certainly don’t agree with their beliefs, I can definitely state that (at least to them) their religion plays a large role in the way they live their lives.  I don’t think it’s their religion – I think they’re just good foks.  But I digress.  This isn’t about them.  It’s about me.  Anyway…

From a very young age I took the faith which I had inherited from my parents and did my best to practice it, well, religiously.  = ).  When I was a third grader I decided to read the whole bible from start to finish.  I reasoned to myself, if I believe that God wrote this book, if the creator of the entire universe wrote a book and I am able to read it – I darn well better try!  So, I embarked upon reading the whole bible.  Honestly, I was pretty diligent about it.  I didn’t stop due to laziness or even boredom (although the “begets” are quite tedious I must say).  I stopped because of what I read.  I vividly recall reading the passage of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis and being completely disturbed.  Honestly, what upset me wasn’t the fact God destroyed entire cities (after all, if they’re bad guys that’s what good guys do, or so I reasoned) that bothered me.  I was however, bothered that God turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt because she looked back upon the smothering cities.  Her curiosity got to her, she looked back thereby disobeying God and BAM! a pillar of salt.  But you know what? That didn’t even bother me that much, it simply scared the be-jesus out of me (be-jesus, incidentally is Jesus’ evil identical twin who attempts to come in you to tempt you to do e-vil).  What bothered me came before that.  After Abraham and God finish arguing if Sodom and Gomorrah are worth saving, God sends some angels to Lot (Abraham’s cousin) to warn him of the impending doom.  When the angels come to town, the townsmen see the angels going into Lot’s house.  The townsmen come up and ask Lot “who are those men who came into your house? We want to have sex with them.” 

The second I read that I freaked out.  What on (as my mom says) God’s green earth is angel sex/rape doing in the bible? I didn’t even know what sex was.  I didn’t understand any of the mechanics of sex and wasn’t even aware of any type of male-male penetration.  I was nine.  I can still palpably recall (and even feel) the gut-wrenching wave of shock, fear and disgust which punched me in the stomach.  Nonetheless, I kept reading.

Lot, not wanting his angel friends to be raped, offers his daughters up instead.  I literally slammed the book shut and walked away.  I couldn’t take it. 

I find it very interesting that people commended me reading the bible at a young age.  Not a single soul admonished me for doing it either, nor did anyone warn me that there are parts of the bible which may be challenging to read and I should read it with an adult or ask an adult if I get “confused.”  Yet, this isn’t an isolated case of revolting things in the bible which I read.  The story of Noah’s daughters getting him drunk and then sleeping with him (ie –having sex) to make babies was also disturbing  Although there are many more, and even websites devoted to them, it would be too much of a digression to continue. If your kid ever begins independently reading the bible, closer monitor them.  The bible is not wholly appropriate for little ones. Seriously though, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah kind of did scar me.  These, however are not obstacles to having faith necessarily, however to a nine year old they certainly are confusing!

Nonetheless, I pressed on with my faith.  I chalked up my scare to being a side effect of my age.  I figured the uncomfortable things which I read as a child would make sense as an adult.  Aside from the angel-rape incident, I really did just that.  Sometime later in my life (7^th grade I believe) I decided once again to try to read the bible.  I decided to start with the new Testament instead.  I succeeded.  In 7^th grade I read the whole new testament.  In all honesty, aside from the gospels, the majority of what I read didn’t make too much sense to me. Paul rambled on and his language and grammar was far too pedantic for my hormonally charged 14 year old self.  The book of Revelation was pretty weird and made almost no sense to me.  I did, however enjoy Revelation 21 to the end, I believe.  I think the biblical account of heaven fascinated me.  I had all these preconceived notions of heaven and wondered how they stood up to the bible. The oddity of Paul and apocalyptic visions aside, I still had odd qualms with the book – even the gospels and the character of Jesus.  I read things which, while not traumatizing, certainly did not make sense and seemed incongruent with the popularized image of Jesus.  Here are three examples:  

1.  When Jesus goes to the Money-changers and goes postal on them (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15).  I know that he felt they were desecrating his father’s holy temple and made it a “den of thieves,” but it did seem wildly out of character with at least the cultural understanding of Jesus which I had gleaned from life in Oklahoma.  Notwithstanding that apparent tension, it still didn’t seem to mesh with my understanding of the fruit of the spirit (which incidentally, in a Gameboy game of my childhood (spiritual warfare) you use to shoot at people who, instead of dying, pray and become “saved” – yes I did have Christian videogames as a kid and they. Were.  AWESOME!).  Afterall, don’t they include patience? Gentleness? Self-control?  Didn’t he just say in Matthew 5 that the meek shall inherit the earth? Perhaps not a contradiction, but it creates a least an apparent tension between Jesus’ actions and teachings. 

2. Jesus cursed a fig tree for not baring fruit out of season.  Need I say more?  That was just odd (Found directly after both passages a few verses down).  Why on Earth would he command a fruit tree be withered? Furthermore, Mark indicates it wasn’t even the season for figs! My hypothesis: Jesus was hypoglycemic, his blood sugar dipped and he became irritable.  In all sincerity, I just read a sort of exegesis on the passage found here: (http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/646-why-did-jesus-curse-the-fig-tree) I don’t want to spend much time analyzing this passage as my four examples simply serve to indicate challenging passages I had with the bible at a young age.  To be honest, his exegesis comes off as very ad hoc, with a very strong element of interpretation.  There is no obvious reasons within the text to come to the conclusion which he comes to.  Furthermore, his analysis seems far more relevant were this text and story believed to be a symbolic legend or story (as opposed to an actual historical event) when he claims “Jesus Christ acted as a…..deliberative highly instructive warning…” That conclusion seems far more apt if he said “Mark’s story indicates a highly instructive warning to the Jewish people which was not heeded.” For Jesus to destroy a tree as a symbolic gesture warning of the impending doom of the Jewish temple which was seen solely by his disciplines (the text gives us no reason to believe others saw it, or if they did that they would understand its significance) is rather odd, and honestly, seems pointless.  But, I digress – at the time it struck me curious, and it still does today.   

3. When Jesus healed a demon possessed person and talked with the demons who asked him to send them to a pig (Mark 5:11-13 (read the chapter until there for full context).  Jesus complied, the demons went to a herd of 2,000 pigs who then ran off of a cliff and drowned.  Really Jesus?  Really? Quite frankly, that offends me.  Why on earth did he listen to some demons and agree to kill 2,000 swine which weren’t legally even his (excuses claiming that as the son of God everything is his are preposterous, he still destroyed that poor man’s livelihood!) I think it telling that after the fact the people around Jesus asked him to go away; clearly, they were not fans of this son of God who killed thousands of pigs!

These examples are not intended to create any theological debates of the character  (or sanity) of Jesus.  I’m just recollecting my own thoughts regarding passages which stood out to me as being a bit odd.  Granted, I know that it’s entirely possible that God, transcending any cultural ties, could possibly write something which may offend my culturally derived sensibilities.  I also have probably heard several explanations or justifications of them, or their meaning in context.  My point isn’t to find errors or difficult spots in the bible –simply to mention passages in the bible which seemed strange to me.  I point this out for two reasons. 1) To show that even at a young age I had doubts about the bible and Christianity (actually one of my first memories was asking my mom, (right before a bath, mind you) who created God?) and 2) to demonstrate that I was a dedicated, even zealous, Christian in my youth who sought to read and seriously study the scripture.    

As I grew older and matured, I started seeking interpretations and explanations for my questions and qualms about the bible and Christianity.  Having loved the Chronicles of Narnia as a child, I began to read other works by Lewis (notably, the Great Divorce and Screwtape letters).  I also read pieces of Max Lucado (for some reason I couldn’t stand his drivel, can’t tell you why however) and a variety of other Christian apologists.  For the sake of brevity I’ll suffice it to say I continued to take my faith seriously but as I got older I started having more and more questions about Christianity as it had been presented to me as a youth.  Namely  issues such as assessing the historicity and reliability of the bible, determining knowing how, apart from the bible, we know Jesus existed, why is there so much evil in the world, is the bible really the word of God, could it have mistakes or problems in it, why is Jesus the only way to heaven, how can a loving God send people to heaven, etc etc.  I suppose slowly but surely, whether correct or incorrect, the foundation of my faith faltered.  As I recall, I would begin to examine an assumption I held which I felt certain was sufficiently justified by religious scholars and examine it myself ultimately concluding that I was mistaken in my views.  For awhile I tried to maintain a liberal form of Christianity which denied several important aspects of orthodox faith.  Although such religious communities exist, and probably thrive in many places, Bartlesville was surely not one of them.  Eventually after hearing time and time again that if I held such beliefs then I couldn’t readily call myself a Christian, I decided to renounce the title as well.    

As I continue to question I began to explore other religions, most notably Buddhism.  I read probably 5 or 6 books on Buddhism in high school and greatly enjoyed what I learned about it.  As I continued to explore I read different Christian apologists and books. I’m sure some of these books I read after I had “officially” stopped calling myself a Christian, and others as I began to, but I honestly can’t recall which I read when.  I do recall reading Lee Strobel and his Case for Christ, Case for a Creator, Case for Easter, Case for Faith books, Josh McDowell and his “evidence that demands a verdict (also I later found an online chapter by chapter refutation of it) some book called “more than a carpenter” and who knows what else!

While in High School I concurrently enrolled in a college philosophy course.  The first portion of that class discussed issues about religion.  In that portion I became acquainted with the traditional arguments for God’s existence; namely – Anselm’s ontological argument, Aquinas and his “5 ways” (thereby giving three iterations of the cosmological argument and a sort of philosophical foreshadowing of the teleological argument) and William Paley and his teleological argument (the watch-maker analogy). 

My Freshmen year in college I officially became “agnostic” (and then atheist) and proceeded to gobble up as much atheist literature as I could.  Unfortunately I just read pop-atheist books such as Dawkins the God Delusion, Sam Harris and his letter to a Christian Nation, Chris Hitchens and his God is not Great book, Dan Barker and his “Losing faith in Faith” book, I also read portions of an anthology of atheists essays which Hitchens comprised.  Additionally, I read through many different articles online about the historicity of Christ and the bible (I read a lot by Richard Carrier).  I had not however, encountered a more nuanced approach to Christianity. 

Subsequent to this, I took an upper level class on Philosophy of Religion.  There I further examined many of the same issues I had as a young(er) person and reexamined all of the traditional arguments for God’s existence.  This was probably my favorite class in college.  It was certainly the most informative four months of my life in regards to religious studies! It was a marvelous class and truly served to give me a good foundation in philosophical apologetics and the philosophy of religion.    

This puts me in a particularly peculiar predicament.  Unlike the vast majority of people whom I know, I’m already pretty well acquainted with both sides of the spectrum – Christianity and Atheism.  Furthermore, I also have a lot more respect for both groups.  I know Atheists can be good people, I also know Christians can be intelligent, sophisticated reasonable people capable of rational discussion.  Furthermore, I’m also decently acquainted, or at least vaguely aware of the majority of the traditional arguments raised for the existence of God, their common criticisms and the responses to those common criticisms.  Thus, when I reexamine these arguments I’ll have to really think through and think out what my thoughts are. It’s very simple to say – this argument is not compelling to me, or it doesn’t seem to be right.  Pinpointing down what exactly is problematic in an argument is far harder, however.    This is what I shall (probably vainly) endeavor to do so. 

So here I am, 23 years old, a college graduate with a degree in philosophy, decent background knowledge upon the topic at hand, and I’m ready to begin reexamining my thoughts on God and Christianty.  Should be fun.  If you’re in for the ride, look for more posts.  I will, unfortunately say very little about my actual critical thoughts on Christian apologetics until I finish these preliminary posts (there are two more left) then I’ll actually discuss arguments etc.  Cheers.

–Tim 

Why I’m not a Christian

I often keep my mouth shut when issues of religion arise – I find I’m caught in between two sorts of individuals: those who are religious and (perfectly reasonably) seek to justify their faith, and those who are not religious and seek to demonstrate faith is unreasonable.  I find myself standing between the two: I’m not particularly religious myself and have a variety of intellectual, emotional and personal reasons for not believing in Christianity or any one particular religion, and yet contrary to most non-theists I don’t despise religion, nor do I think religious people are irrational, nor religious belief itself irrational. Unfortunately, this makes most sides equally angry. 

Whenever the topic of religion arises, I try not to say too much about it.  For one I’m not a huge fan of conflict and as such I don’t want to offend anyone nor engage in some heated debate or argument – I find impromptu intellectual debate to be mostly intellectual masturbation (not that I haven’t been caught in a compromising position before).  Furthermore, I’ve noticed everyone (self included) operates with certain paradigmatic assumptions about the world and people often talk past each other and not to each other.  With this said, in order to engage me in religious discussion I would require a few rules for our discourse:

1)      I, under no circumstance will attempt to persuade you to believe differently than you do.  The second I do, please proceed to promptly slap me with a wet fish

2)      Please, under no circumstances attempt to persuade me to believe differently than I do.  The second you do, I will begin searching for some slippery seafood. 

3)      Our goal must be to simply understand each other; determine how it is given you are as equally intelligent as I, we have arrived at such differing conclusions about the nature of the universe.  How can we both be sane, rational, intelligent humans and yet disagree so strongly?

4)      The second we begin semantic squabbles which do little to further the actual issue at hand, let’s agree to take a break until we find common ground. 

More often than not I fail at all or some of these rules.  I find myself squabbling and trying to convert you.  Also, as of yet, I have failed to slap a single soul despite the many times I’ve been within my rights to do so.  Perhaps you’ll be the lucky first.  I digress.

  With this said, I’ll begin to list why I am not a Christian.  If I ever post this, let it be known this is my quirky way of journaling.  I started writing this as a way to collect my thoughts and edited it to be presentable (and hopefully entertaining) to others.  I hope to entertain more than to inform or educate. 

Here’s a typical scenario of how religious discussions often arise in my life.  (C = Christian T = Tim Tim)

C: (opens with some innocuous statement assuming I attended some church service the prior week)
T: (responds innocuously stating I didn’t actually attend some church service the prior week)
C: Well, why not?
T:Well, because I don’t often attend church.
C: You don’t go to church? Why not?
T: I suppose because I wouldn’t exactly (or approximately) call myself a Christian.
C: You’re not a believer?  How come?
T: I suppose because I don’t believe in God. 
C: You don’t believe in God why not?

And so our beautiful bantering begins.  I’ve actually had a few conversations that were almost this verbatim.  I was never really sure where to go from there.  Potential responses:

1)      I’m sorry, as the individual purporting to believe in an intangible deity to whom we cannot directly confirm its existence empirically I believe it is within your epistemic duties to give reason for your belief, not me to give reason for my nonbelief (see A. Flew)

2)      I suppose I simply don’t find the evidence overwhelming or convincing. 

3)      The problem of evil always gets me.

4)      I’m not a fan of cold weather, and would like to work on my post-mortem tan (or: I’ve always been afraid of flying, and hate heights).

These questions, are without a doubt separate from questions pertaining to the bible and to Christianity as an operating paradigm.  More often than not, these two questions are seen as inseparable.  In regards to the bible and Christian theism…..

1)      I gave a look at that good book, I think truth it mistook. 

2)      That whole old-testament thing with a wrathful god –what?

3)      Given that interpretation is inherent within any reading of a text, what tools and methodology does one use in order to interpret the meaning of the bible faithfully in such a way as to maximize your interpretation with the actual meaning of the bible.  In other words, with regard to proper methodology of biblical exegesis, how does one discern which texts are to be taken literally and which texts are to be taken metaphorically?

4)      Me no eaty meaty.  Me no eaty meaty due to ethical considerations regarding the well-being of sentient creatures and minimizing my environmental impact on planet earth.  How’s that fit in with the big guy?  After all, he’s down (and is supposedly now done) with animal sacrifice.

 

So, where does that leave me in my conversation? Honestly, a bit scatter-brained and unsure of where to begin our conversation so that it can be useful for both of us.  Here’s my thoughts as I attempt to follow up and am trying to lucidly string together a few arguments to create some semblance of coherence.

In regards to God…..

1)  (you believe in him, you prove him!)It’s simply not practical (or pleasant) to delve into issues of epistemology in polite conversation.  Didn’t you mother ever teach you manners?
2)  (No reason….)Oh dear God (pun intended).  Where do I begin? When I think of “evidence” for the existence of God I start thinking of Aquinas’ proofs, or Anselm’s ontological argument, then I jump to different contemporary tweakings with it: I start thinking of Craig and the Kalam cosmological argument, or the so-called Leibniz –Clark formulation of the Cosmological argument and Rowe’s discussion of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.  On the other hand, most people start spouting of evidence of design and modern iterations of the teleological argument, and considerations for the anthropic principle.  Too many avenues to pursue, and I’m far too ill acquainted with any of them to really discuss them. 
3) (eevvill!) That’s even worse! People always evoke free will, the limitations of our cognitive faculties, or worse: endeavor to, as one of my professors put it, baptize evil.  That is, somehow turn some “horror” into an actual good.  While this may be done with individual stories, I don’t see how it can be done with the holocaust, genocides, when I stub my toe really badly, or worse still: LMFAO.  The horror indeed! (homeless dogs always get me too, but I can grant human incompetence for that one)
4) (Hell…..no!) Actually, the orthodox doctrine of hell does seem problematic to me.  Furthermore, at times I would rather be in hell than be in the presence of a deity who allows so many horrible things to happen.  But that’s really neither here nor there.     

In regards to Christianity in particular…..

1)      Honestly, with all the theology and philosophy I’ve read – I’m comfortable with accepting certain aspects  or perhaps tenants of Christianity, or at least grant them as rationally acceptable.  But whenever I sit down to read the bible, I often find myself baffled and confused.  If God really wrote (or divinely inspired, or whatever you fancy) the bible he could use some pointers on clarity and brevity for starters.  Furthermore, Jesus’ allegories are often so steeped in 1^st century agricultural culture I find myself grasping at straws to decipher its practical importance to me.  (Jesus did say faith is like a mustard seed, which I have never seen. Perhaps why I have so little.  …Unless mustard seeds are those little things on hamburger buns in which case I have a lot of faith in my belly!) 

2)      (OT wrath) Yeah, I really struggle to understand how God can command genocides, infanticide and use capital punishment via stoning as his go-to-punishment.  Eesh.

3)      (biblical interpretation) Most Christians are lost on this one.  Especially as they don’t believe interpretation is required for a reading of the bible.  Even the most ardent creationist must account for the discrepancy between God’s creation of light on day one, the creation of the sun on day three, and of course the possibility of their being day and night when day and night is contingent upon the existence of the earth and the Sun.  In order to make sense of this with our modern knowledge, it is necessary to do a bit of extra-biblical interpretation.  Which is fine.  But, if you grant it in one case, it follows that at least some of the bible requires interpretation, even passages which prima facie are seemingly straightforward, thus my question still stands (well, it actually slouches, but its posture has never been impeccable)

4)      (veggie tales!) I do wonder how one could adopt a vegetarian lifestyle given the operating principle of biblical Christianity.  But, I’m sure it’s possible and coherent for one to do so, I’ve just never researched the topic.

So, there we have it! A very scatterbrained, non-sensical account of why I’m not a Christian.  In summary: when I was open and looking for answers the Christian accounts of what I wanted to know were either 1) unsatisfactory or 2)far beyond my puny comprehension (see Plantinga’s Modal formulation of the Ontological Argument, or Rowe’s account of the epistemic foundation for the Principle of Sufficient Reason).  The vast majority of the responses to my doubts which are easily obtainable seem inadequate to me.  When I delve deeper into the professional peer reviewed journal of Christian Philosophers I often find myself ill equipped to properly understand or “deal with” their eloquent arguments.  As such, I remain in the middle between theists and atheists. I have respect and admiration for religion and religious people, but I myself am not one.  Theists don’t know why I can believe their views to be rational without assenting to them, atheists don’t know how I can view their beliefs as rational.  Perhaps this post can shed some light upon the situation.  Cheers. 

–Tim 

Tim’s Tavern

Welcome to my tavern, named in honor of Meador Manor, my old physics teacher’s blog.  I love alliteration, and totally copied his idea of last name +dwelling place.  Thank you, Mr. Meador for inadvertently allowing me to steal it.  His blog is also hosted here and contains some wonderful  photos of hikes around the Oklahoma area, I hope to visit some of his hikes in my free time.  This is a forum for expressing my ideas and letting out my philosophical ponderings, as my mind meanders and wanders wondering about this wonderful world.  I’m sure it will be a bit pedantic and often didactic.  Occasionally I’ll rant or ramble, but I’ll seldom split an infinitive. While my topics may be contentious, I hope that I don’t come off as too pretentious.  I tend to be verbose, but I’m seldom morose.  I always try to inject humor in my writing to squelch any fighting.  I like to think it’s exciting and fun, but I’m sure I come off as dumb.

While every person possesses his private philosophy, philosophy should not occur in a vacuum.  Rather, philosophy should promptly and proudly proceed to the public forum.  Of course as often happens in discourse, many men often become overly excited at ideas.  For this reason I think it is necessary to explain my motivation for crafting this blog.

1)      I like to write and enjoy hearing the sound of my keyboard click and clank.

2)      I’ve often noticed my opinions differ than those of my peers ( I view it as inherent in my sinister nature, I confess – I’m a lefty) and hope I can reasonably articulate how one could arrive at a view contrary to their own.  As an agnostic vegetarian resident of Oklahoma, I often find myself at philosophical odds with many people despite my best effort not to do so.

3)      While I like to pretend I possess preternatural prowess of profundity pertaining to my philosophical proclivity and predilection as well as my pensive ponderings; I merely have a penchant for the pretentious.

4)       I sincerely hope that by writing I can help my readers have a greater tolerance for ideas differing from one’s own.  I think it’s human to dehumanize those who differ from us, and I hope to give a humanity to views which are often unpopular (ethical veganism and secular views)

5)      Be as intellectually honest with myself and my reader as I can

Here’s what my goal is not to do:

1)      Anger or annoy people

2)      Convert anyone to whatever my view is.

I’m sure it can easily be inferred that I (at least think) I’m humorous.   Occasionally, my writing will exemplify this while at other times I’ll adopt a more serious tone (although I’ll seldom be somber).  From time to time I’ll post something which has a tongue in cheek tone.  This is more of an endeavor to make my sister laugh than anything else.  In fact, to be honest when I write with her as my audience in mind, and hope to make her laugh. You must forgive me then, for my incessant alliteration, she’s always found it endearing.  Or so I hope, if not I need to seriously revise my writing style.

With this prolix prolegomena complete, let me introduce my first topic of thought: Religion.  My first post (which actually started my idea to create a blog, and 10,000 words later on the topic of religion I’ve decided I evidently feel the need to explicate and articulate myself) is a tongue in cheek explanation of why I’m not a Christian.  I think I started writing it after reading through Does God Exist? the account of the debate between “atheist philosopher” (aka evil incarnate) Kai Neilson and Christian (aka – the good guy) J.P. Moreland.  I wanted to think through why I don’t believe in God, and come up with a concise response were someone to inquire into my disbelief.  I was naïve.  My endeavor to create a concise response has spawned my 10,000 word and counting reflection on religion.  Suffice to say if you ask me why I’m not a Christian/Don’t believe in God, I probably just say “ooh, I don’t know, just this or that… you know.”   Instead of explaining why, I wrote a tongue in cheek account of why I’m not a Christian, and what I might say/want to say when someone asks me that but never say because I’d rather not get into a lengthy discussion or debate about it, or stir up conflict.  I don’t like disagreeing with people in person.  I’d much rather use a pen and pad of paper (technically, I use a keyboard but there’s no alliteration in that, so I lied).   

So, this is my blog. I hope it’s amusing to you.  If not, it’s at least amusing for me to write.  So long as my blog is amusing for me to write I’ll probably keeping writing it.  Hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoy writing it. = )

Cheers,

–Tim