The Secular Outpost

Apologetics class

2012-01-27T17:42:00.000-06:00

A high school senior emailed me and asked me to answer a bunch of questions, for her "Apologetics class." Here are the questions and my short replies, for amusement value:

What is the origin of the universe and man?

As physicists and biologists describe it.

What is the purpose of mankind?

We're not tools: not the sort of things that have a predetermined purpose.

What is satisfaction and how do I obtain it? (how can I be happy)

This probably does not have a useful answer applicable to everyone.

What has gone wrong with the world? (Why is there evil in the world - Why do bad things happen to good people)

The way the world works is indifferent to human flourishing or suffering.

What is the solution to the problems we face? (what happens when I fail and how do I make things right)

There is no single meaningful answer to such a question.

What is right and wrong? (is moral truth absolute or relative)

Right and wrong is due to the interests of and agreements between sentient beings.

Is there a universal moral law? (does everyone know the difference between right and wrong)

No.

What happens at death? (Where are we going when we die- How do we know and what does it look like, and if it is heaven-then how do we get there)

Life ends.

What does your faith do with the person of Jesus?

Faith?

Too bad I'm not going to get to see the canned apologetic comparisons between "faith"s designed to make Christianity the One True Faith.

South Carolina Primary Humor, Intentional and Unintentional

2012-01-24T16:24:00.001-06:00

For me the highlight of the South Carolina primary campaign was hearing Stephen Colbert speak to an overflow crowd on my College of Charleston campus. I think he is the most honest "politician" of the primary season, and he spoke both eloquently and humorously about what should be a critical campaign issue--the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision that paved the way for Super PACs as long as there is no coordination between the PAC and the candidate.

Colbert's coordination with Jon Stewart on the "Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC" shows how coordinated such uncoordinated Super PACs can legally be.

Sometimes the most effective way to change a corrupted system is to make fun of it. I heard more student (and faculty) laughs than during any other political visit. I also think people learned more about an issue than at most campaign events.

I almost always vote against rather than for a candidate. My vote on Saturday morning, the day after Stephen Colbert spoke, was an exception. I voted FOR Herman Cain, because Colbert endorsed and introduced Cain at the rally. I'm not sure if Cain understood that Colbert's endorsement of Cain was really an endorsement for Colbert, but that doesn't matter. Despite what I heard from the viable candidates in South Carolina, I walked out of my polling place with a smile on my face.

There is good and bad news about advancements in religious diversity. Before we ever had a Catholic president, many Protestants feared that Jack Kennedy would govern by his church's doctrine. He eased some concerns at a September 12, 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association when he said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

Since then, Catholic politicians haven't been grilled about their papal allegiance. Something that would have been unheard of in 1960 is for evangelical leaders to overwhelmingly endorse the two Catholic candidates in a primary.

Now for the bad news. Santorum, who received the most support from evangelicals, is no Jack Kennedy. In fact, he called JFK a radical for believing in the separation of church and state. Perhaps Santorum also endeared himself to evangelicals for his opposition to abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

Newt Gingrich, the other Catholic, won the South Carolina primary with strong evangelical support. All he seems to have in common with JFK is well-publicized, adulterous relationships. To JFK's credit, he never focused on family values. Newt sounded funnier than Colbert when he indicated that his passion for our country led him to adulterous affairs.

Newt, the pope, and evangelicals probably agree that Christianity is in grave danger by the threat of a "secular atheist" takeover of America. Just to throw in more red meat for South Carolina voters, Gingrich also worried that the country would be taken over by radical Islamists who would put us under Sharia law. Speaking as a secular atheist, I believe we want to preserve our country as one that is governed neither by Sharia nor Biblical law.

Perhaps Newt won South Carolina because of his attack on mainstream media for asking about his second ex-wife. I guess evangelicals are more opposed to liberal media than to adultery, as long as you claim God forgave you for it.

But here's the media story in South Carolina I think Newt really appreciated: key endorsements from two beauty queens, Miss Teen Powdersville and Miss Powdersville. Miss Teen said she liked Newt and would vote for him because he is a great guy, but she is only 15. Miss Powdersville liked him because he supports Christianity and he would take us back to the Bible. She couldn't think of any other issues.

And finally, my candidate, Herman (ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan) Cain, seems to have the same command of foreign policy as a former Miss Teen South Carolina.

Stephen Colbert is intentionally funny, but not the funniest person I heard during the South Carolina primary spectacle.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/herb-silverman/south-carolina-primary-hu_b_1222620.html?ref=offthebus

Christian Philosopher Michael Sudduth Converts to Vaishnava Vedanta

2012-01-21T12:43:00.000-06:00

Bill Vallicella has posted a long letter from Sudduth on his blog, describing what has happened and how. This is not the kind of thing one sees very often, so it makes for fascinating reading.

Martin Luther King and the Republican Race For Righteousness

2012-01-20T14:24:00.001-06:00

If I believed in a god, and one with a sense of humor, I would think she had a big chuckle over timing the South Carolina Republican primary for the same week the nation celebrates Martin Luther King Day.

On May 2, 2000, South Carolina became the last state to make King's birthday an official state holiday. But South Carolina also then created another official state holiday on May 10 -- Confederate Memorial Day. Prior to this legislation, state employees had the choice of celebrating the birthday of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, or Martin Luther King.

Some of our South Carolina politicians think nothing of rewriting history, even when they can easily be caught. For instance, Congressman Joe Wilson claimed that he spearheaded the effort to have King's birthday recognized. A friend of Wilson's from his state legislature days said Wilson must have been confused about which holiday he supported, which was really Confederate Memorial Day. When confronted with circumstantial evidence, Wilson said his memory must have failed him. (This is the same Joe Wilson who famously yelled "You lie!" at the country's first African-American president during a speech to a joint session of Congress.)

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul voted against Martin Luther King Day both in 1979 and 1983, when the bill passed. In one of his newsletters, Paul referred to the holiday as "Hate Whitey Day." Paul, who is viewed as the presidential candidate least likely to lie, claimed that he neither wrote nor read the newsletters that bore his name.

Martin Luther King is not the controversial figure he once was in South Carolina, with racism today subtler and less institutionally sanctioned. But in 1962, at the height of the civil rights movement led by King, the Confederate battle flag was placed atop the State Capitol by vote of an all-white legislature. In 2000, a so-called compromise moved the Confederate flag to the Capitol grounds. When the NAACP continued its boycott of South Carolina, state senator Arthur Ravenel, a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans, called the NAACP the "National Association for Retarded People." He later apologized--to the mentally handicapped for comparing them to the NAACP.

Presidential candidates are often asked what they think of this flag situation. Former candidate John McCain went back and forth about whether it was a states rights' issue or a symbol of racism and slavery. In 2008, Mitt Romney took a stronger stance, saying he didn't think the Confederate flag should be flown at all. I'll be interested to hear if he changes his mind about this, too, in time for Saturday's election.

The safest, if not the most courageous, answer for national candidates is to call the Confederate flag an issue for South Carolinians to decide. In fact, last month Newt Gingrich said at a town hall meeting, "I have a very strong opinion: it's up to the people of South Carolina." He added that he is opposed to segregation and slavery. Well, that's a relief. But I'm quite sure that Martin Luther King would disagree with Newt about what he just told a Charleston audience was the biggest domestic threat to America: "Removing God from the public arena."

In 1998, fiscally conservative Charleston County councilman Tim Scott insisted on posting a Ten Commandments plaque on the wall of County Council chambers, ignoring advice that he would lose the anticipated legal challenge. Scott insisted that the display was needed to remind residents of moral absolutes. After the plaque went up, the Charleston Post and Courier asked Councilman Scott if he could name all the Commandments. He couldn't. As expected, the court declared the display unconstitutional and handed taxpayers a substantial bill for legal costs.

Councilman Scott was not laughed off the political stage. He was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 2010, the first African-American Republican in South Carolina to serve in Congress. He is now a tea party favorite, and all Republican presidential candidates are seeking his endorsement. He is my congressional representative, though I can't say that he represents my views. I wonder what Rev. Martin Luther King would have thought about all this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/herb-silverman/martin-luther-king-and-th_b_1211604.html?ref=offthebus

New Chick tract

2012-01-20T11:14:00.001-06:00

Does Craig Demonstrate a Fallacy in Hume?

2012-01-19T13:24:00.002-06:00

A recent responder to my postings on Hume’s argument against miracles claims that Hume’s argument in Section X of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding is “demonstrably fallacious.” After a bit of coaxing, he has produced the following alleged demonstration, taken from William Lane Craig’s debate with Bart Ehrman:

”When we talk about the probability of some event or hypothesis A, that probability is always
relative to a body of background information B. So we speak of the probability of A on B, or of
A with respect to B.

So in order to figure out the probability of the resurrection, let B stand for our background
knowledge of the world apart from any evidence for the resurrection. Let E stand for the specific
evidence for Jesus’ resurrection: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and so on.
Finally, let R stand for Jesus’ resurrection. Now what we want to figure out is the probability of
Jesus’ resurrection given our background knowledge of the world and the specific evidence in
this case.
B = Background knowledge
E = Specific evidence (empty tomb, postmortem
appearances, etc.)
R = Resurrection of Jesus
Pr (R/B & E) = ?

Pr (R/B&E)=

Pr (R/B) × Pr (E/B&R)
_________________________________
Pr (R/B) × Pr (E/B&R) + Pr (not-R/B) × Pr (E/B& not-R)

Pr (R/B) is called the intrinsic probability of the resurrection. It tells how probable the
resurrection is given our general knowledge of the world. Pr (E/B&R) is called the explanatory power of the resurrection hypothesis. It tells how probable the resurrection makes the evidence of the empty tomb and so forth. These two factors form the numerator of this ratio. Basically, Pr (not-R/B) × Pr (E/B& not-R) represent the intrinsic probability and explanatory power of all the naturalistic alternatives to Jesus’ resurrection. The probability of the resurrection could still be very high even though the Pr(R/B) alone is terribly low. Hume just ignores the crucial factors of the probability of the naturalistic alternatives to the resurrection [Pr(not-R/B) × Pr(E/B& not-R)]. If these are sufficiently low, they outbalance any intrinsic improbability of the resurrection hypothesis. Bayes has the form of x/x-y which means that as the explanatory power of the resurrection tends toward 1, and as the explanatory power of the naturalistic explanations tend toward zero, then any initial intrinsic improbability can be overcome.” (Quoted from the correspondent “K-Dog”).

Does Craig demonstrate that Hume’s argument is fallacious? A couple of things to note: First, Hume does not employ Bayes’ Theorem in the presentation of his argument; it is expressed informally, and the Bayesian framework is imposed by later interpreters. Second, Hume does not directly address the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in “Of Miracles,” though his instance of an imagined report of the resurrection of Elizabeth I may be a coy allusion. Hume’s argument is about miracle claims in general and not a specific critique of the resurrection apologetic of the sort promoted by Craig.

Craig’s argument is that the likelihood of the evidence for the resurrection given the naturalistic alternatives to resurrection (i.e., given that the resurrection did not occur and given background information) might be so low as to counterbalance an extremely low probability of the resurrection given only background. In other words, p(E/~R & B) might be so very low, that even a very low p(R/B) might be overcome and the resultant p(R/E & B) might wind up very high (given, as seems reasonable, that p(E/ B & R) is not too low). Craig’s charge is that Hume simply ignores this possibility. This, presumably, is the demonstration of the claimed fallacy.
Does Hume ignore such a possibility? Even if Hume does, do we have to? That is, might we not adopt a neo-Humean argument against miracles that does consider what he failed to note?

Again, Hume is not specifically addressing claims about the resurrection, so to twit him for not taking into consideration specific evidence for the resurrection is obviously unfair. Well, then, does Hume consider, in general terms, the possibility that testimonial evidence for a miracle might exist even if the miracle did not occur? If we express it in formal terms, does Hume consider what values p(E/~M & B) might take, where E is the evidence for a miracle claim, M is that claim, and B is background? Well, he surely seems to. To take one succinct passage:

"When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened (p. 149; from the edition by Antony Flew, Open Court, 1988)."

I think that a natural way to interpret this passage is that Hume is recommending that we consider that the testimony for a miracle might well exist even if the miracle did not occur, i.e., that p(E/~M & B) might not be low, because the testifier was either a deceiver or a victim of deception. How might we get miracle reports even when the reported miracles did not occur? The reporter might deceive or be deceived, and if we consider either probability not to be too low, then we will consider p(E/ ~M & B) not to be too low in that case.

In general, as I noted in an earlier post, Hume considers that the “knavery and folly” of humans is such that miracle reports are often likely even where no miracle has occurred. Further, if this is Hume’s claim, it is obviously right, as, indeed, everyone who is not totally credulous will admit. No rational person believes more than a small fraction of the myriad miracle reports that infest historical records and tales. Even some evangelical scholars now doubt some biblical miracle reports (one, Michael Licona, was recently fired for doing so). Clearly, then, miracle reports do frequently arise when no miracle has occurred.

Suppose, though, for the sake of argument, that Hume did not devote enough attention to the possibility that the evidence for a miracle might be very low given that the miracle did not occur. Do we modern-day neo-Humeans have to make that same mistake? No. We can simply revise Hume’s argument to take p(E/~M & B) into due consideration. And we do. Specifically, we can and do address the likelihood that there would be the given testimonial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus even if Jesus did not rise. We can and do judge p(E/~R & B) to not be terribly low—certainly not nearly low enough to counterbalance the very low background probability, p(R/B), that we rationally assign.

So, the above claim that Hume’s miracle argument commits a demonstrable fallacy amounts to nothing. The argument demonstrates only the perennial tendency of Hume’s critics to attribute to him a weaker argument than the one he makes.

How Would Jesus Vote? Christian Politics in the State Of Lost Causes

2012-01-17T17:04:00.001-06:00

Christianity and many other religions are sometimes described by category, rather than by denomination, as conservative, liberal or cultural. To that, I would add a fourth category: political Christian, i.e. a candidate for public office who feels the need to profess deeply held Christian beliefs.

In my home state of South Carolina, Governor Nikki Haley was raised as a Sikh, and became a Christian prior to running for public office. When she first became a gubernatorial candidate, her website said, "I believe in the power and grace of Almighty God." She later felt the need to change it to "My faith in Christ has a profound impact on my daily life. Being a Christian is not about words, but about living for Christ every day."

A cynic might say, "Maybe it's also about winning elections."

Her predecessor, former governor Mark Sanford, had sex with his "soul mate" in Argentina, which he mistook for the Appalachian Trail. After being caught, he held a press conference in which he apologizedto his spiritual advisor and to people of faith across South Carolina. Implicit in his apology is that people of faith are expected to be more moral than people without faith. What seems clear to me is that politicians who continually proclaim their faith are likely to be more hypocritical than those who don't.

I watched with some sympathy when Mitt Romney, a Mormon, ran unsuccessfully for president in 2008. My sympathy was not for his political positions, but because surveys showed the main thing atheists like me and Mormons have in common is that a significant number of Americans wouldn't vote for either of us, no matter how qualified the candidate.

In trying to explain how reasonable Mormonism is, Romney said on the June 5, 2006 Charlie Rose show, "The most unusual thing in my church is that we believe there was once a flood upon the earth, and that a man took a boat and put two of each animal inside the boat, and saved humanity by doing that." Romney essentially said that his holy book is no more preposterous than the holy books of other candidates. I think he has a point.

Here is a brief history of non-religious freedom in South Carolina. The 1778 State Constitution stated, "That the Christian religion is the true religion" and "The Christian Protestant religion shall be deemed, and is hereby constituted and declared to be, the established religion of this State." That was updated in 1868 to its present form, "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being."

Of course, this more "tolerant" version is still unconstitutional, since Article VI of the U.S. Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office. So I assumed this was just an anachronism, and could easily be changed. I was wrong. To challenge this unconstitutional provision, I wound up running in 1990 first as a gubernatorial candidate, and then applying to be a notary public, since atheists were prohibited from holding any public office. It took eight years and a unanimous verdict of the South Carolina Supreme Court to state the obvious, that no religious test for public office may be applied, not even in South Carolina.

While atheists are now eligible for any office in South Carolina, the South Carolina Constitution can only be amended by a referendum in which the majority of voters approve the change. This is not likely to happen any time soon. It took a referendum in 1998 for South Carolina to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the State Constitution. Even then, 38% of South Carolinians voted against allowing blacks and whites to marry, though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that states could no longer prevent interracial marriage.

My state wasted about $100,000 trying to keep me from becoming a notary public. Most of the political leaders in South Carolina, and the lawyers advising them, knew they wouldn't prevail legally. Yet, those same politicians showed that they would rather waste time and money on a lost cause than risk the wrath and lose the votes of the state's well-organized religious right. South Carolina is known as a state that fights lost causes.

I'm planning to cast a write-in vote in the Republican primary for fellow Charlestonian Stephen Colbert. He's a Christian with a sense of humor about his faith, and he doesn't use his faith to pander for votes in South Carolina. Please check the presidential scorecard of the Secular Coalition for America.

I wish Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Santorum and Perry would learn that marketing their faith for political gain might just be sending some voters running to support the "none of the above" candidate, Stephen Colbert.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/herb-silverman/how-would-jesus-vote-poli_b_1205316.html?ref=offthebus

Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 14

2012-01-17T00:12:00.005-06:00

The Fourth Gospel plays an important role in determining the probability of the claim that Jesus died on the cross.

Two of the key injuries allegedly inflicted upon Jesus are documented only in the Fourth Gospel:

1. Jesus' hands and feet were nailed to the cross.

2. Jesus was stabbed in the chest with a spear while on the cross.

None of the Gospels state that Jesus was nailed to the cross when they describe the crucifixion. They just say that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion does not necessarily involve nailing the victim to a cross. It only requires that the victim be attached somehow to a tree or a stake or a cross.

Only the Fourth Gospel specifically mentions nails in relation to the crucifixion, and the reference occurs not in the crucifixion scenes but in the resurrection scenes where Jesus allegedly appears to his disciples in Jerusalem after the crucifixion.

So, if the Fourth Gospel is historically unreliable in relation to the details of the crucifixion and the details of the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus, then the case for the death of Jesus on the cross is significantly weaker than most Christian believers and Christian apologists think it is.

According to the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, the Fourth Gospel is very unreliable, and there are very few details in this Gospel that are historically true or even probable. The scholars of the Jesus seminar color John 19:26-37 black, meaning: "This information is improbable. It does not fit verifiable evidence; it is largely or entirely fictive." (The Acts of Jesus, p.37).

The concluding comment on this passage is clear:

Aside from the notice that some of the women were present at the crucifixion in v.25, the Johannine version of Jesus' death, like other gospel versions, is the product of imagination laced with scriptural allusions. Black is the correct color. (The Acts of Jesus, p. 439).

So, according to the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, the spear-wound incident in the Fourth Gospel is probably fictional rather than historical.

A similar negative verdict is given on the Doubting Thomas story in the Fourth Gospel, which contains the only specific reference to nails in any of the Gospels. John 20:19-29 is colored black by the Jesus Seminar scholars:

Although claims have been made for the Thomas story as an independent tradition, the Fellows were inclined to regard it as a late and fictional tale. (The Acts of Jesus, p.488).

Thus, in the judgment of the Jesus Seminar the passages of the Fourth Gospel that provide important details about the crucifixion that, if true, would make the death of Jesus on the cross probable, are themselves probably fictional. If we follow the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar, then the details and stories of the Fourth Gospel are generally dubious, and the specific passages in the Fourth Gospel that support the above two key claims in support of view that Jesus died on the cross should be rejected as unhistorical.

However, Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics tend to have a negative view of the Jesus Seminar scholars as being overly skeptical about the historical reliability of the Gospels.

Many Evangelical and Catholic believers think that the Fourth Gospel was written by John the apostle, who they think was an eyewitness to the crucifixion and to the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus to his disciples. So, from their point of view, the above mentioned passages from the Fourth Gospel provide us with eyewitness testimony supporting the two key claims about the wounds inflicted upon Jesus.

Many Evangelical NT scholars, unlike most Evangelical Christian believers and most Christian apologists, do not hold the traditional view that John the apostle is the author of the Fourth Gospel.

Evangelical NT scholar Rodney Whitacre tries to break the bad news to naive Evangelical Christians by putting a positive spin on his more skeptical view of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel:

We will dive in at the deep end with some of the most difficult questions. The answers to these questions will not affect our respect for this material [the Fourth Gospel] as inspired scripture, but they will give us an appreciation for the wondrous complexity of its production, very much analogous to God's working in the realm of nature. (John, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, p.13-14)

George Beasley-Murray, another Evangelical NT scholar, also gives his readers a bit of a heads up at the beginning of his introduction to the Fourth gospel:

There was a time when the subject indicated by the above title ['The Origin of the Fourth Gospel'] would have been considered superfluous; for the tradition was unquestioned that the Gospel was composed by the apostle John on the basis of his own memories, with no other assistance than the prompting of his friends and colleagues to set down in writing his recollections of Jesus. The question of authorship, however, is not so simple; the answer has to take into account evidence relating to other sources of information about Jesus and considerations that arise from the book itself.
(John, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 36, 2nd edition, p.xxxv)

In the IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, the Evangelical NT scholar M.M. Thompson, opens the section on the authorship of the Fourth gospel with objections to the traditional view of the authorship of this gospel:

The Gospel itself comes to us anonymously, as do all the Gospels and, in fact, much ancient literature. The title 'According to John'...is derived from the tradition that the Gospel was written by the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. This tradition has been challenged for the following reasons: (1) The evidence of the earliest sources and church fathers...is deemed ambiguous, inadequate, wrong, legendary or polemical. (2) Those statements within the Gospel which might allude to its authorship...are also ambiguous and perhaps even point away from authorship by one of the Twelve. (3) The content of the Gospel suggests that it was not written by an eyewitness or by one of the twelve disciples of Jesus.
('John, Gospel of', IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.369)

After reviewing the relevant evidence, Thompson suggests a fairly skeptical conclusion on the authorship of the Fourth gospel:

A common understanding of the Beloved Disciple is that he is a person who heard and followed Jesus, although he was not one of the Twelve. That there clearly were such persons is obvious from the rest of the NT (Acts 1:21-26). He exercised a role of leadership in one group of early Christian congregations, probably gathering a circle of disciples around him. One (or more) of his disciples wrote the Gospel, but who this author is remains unknown to us. He preserved, shaped and interpreted the witness of his master, the Beloved Disciple, who had in turn interpreted the teaching of the Master himself. (IVP Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p.370).

Rodney Whitacre rightly shows respect for the views of the great Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown concerning the authorship and composition/revision history of the Fourth Gospel (see John, IVP NT Commentary, p. 14-27).

Brown initially argued that John the apostle was the ultimate source behind the Fourth Gospel, but that the Gospel went through five stages of development and revision, thus allowing for a good deal of additions and alterations of the original oral traditions/sources. Whitacre notes that Brown later concluded that 'the Beloved Disciple' the original source behind this gospel, was not John the apostle. In Brown's view, the Beloved Disciple was an eyewitness, but was not John the apostle, and was not the author of the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist or author, in Brown's view, was a prominent preacher in the Johannine community, who used traditions from the Beloved Disciple to formulate his own sermons which he also wrote down, and this document went through editing and revisions, including a final revision that was done by someone other than the evangelist.

Whitacre settles on a more conservative view than Brown, but still does not fully support the naive traditional view:

I will refer to John as the author not in the sense that he necessarily wrote it all as it stands, but in recognition that it is his witness that is presented here and that he at least caused it to be written (21:24). (John, p. 21)

Beasley-Murray, on the other hand, opts for a more thoroughly skeptical view of the authorship of the Fourth gospel:

The Beloved Disciple is not a member of the Twelve, nor a well-known person in the early Church.

The Beloved Disciple is not the author of the Gospel-neither of chaps. 1-20 nor of chap. 21.

He [the Beloved Disciple] is the prime source of the traditions about Jesus in the Johannine circle.

As with the Beloved Disciple, so with the Evangelist [the author of the Gospel]: we do not know his name.
(John, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 36, p. lxxiii-lxxiv)

There are, of course, Evangelical NT scholars who still support the traditional view that the apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel, but skepticism about the traditional view is not limited to the liberal scholars of the Jesus Seminar. Many prominent Evangelical NT scholars also question and sometimes outright reject the traditional view of the author and composition of the Fourth gospel.

The Parsons Test of Biblical Literalism

2012-01-13T11:26:00.002-06:00

A number of posts and commentaries recently have argued that even conservative Christian apologists have now largely abandoned the old-fashioned literalist view of scripture. I am still not sure. I don’t know how deep or broad their skepticism is. Hence I offer the following Parsons Test of Biblical Literalism. It is, of course, a completely unscientific test that I made up just for fun. Still, I would be very surprised at many scores of much less than 40 from our evangelical interlocutors. I would also be interested to see how many give low credibility scores to the first eight passages and high ones to the last two. In that case, I would be interested in hearing the reasons for the difference.

INSTRUCTIONS: After each Biblical passage (5 from the OT, 5 from the NT) rate your assessment its degree of certainty or uncertainty of occurrence according to the following scale:

1: Definitely did not happen/Extremely improbable.
2: Somewhat improbable.
3: Maybe happened; maybe not/Can’t say/No opinion.
4: Somewhat probable.
5: Definitely happened/Extremely probable.

1: But the Lord ordained that a great fish should swallow Jonah, and for three days and three nights he remained in its belly (Jonah 1:17).

2: And so the Lord God put the man into a trance, and while he slept, he took one of his ribs and closed the flesh over the place. The Lord God then built up the rib, which he had taken out of the man, into a woman (Genesis 2:21-22).

3: And into the ark with Noah went one pair, male and female, of all beasts, clean and unclean, of birds and of everything that crawls on the ground, two by two, as God had commanded (Genesis 7:8-9).

4: He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel and as he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him saying, “Get along with you, bald head, get along.” And he turned round and looked at them and he cursed them in the name of the Lord; and two she-bears came out of a wood and mauled forty two of them (II Kings 2: 23-24).

5: So the sun stood still and the moon halted until a nation had taken vengeance on its enemies…The sun stayed in mid heaven and made no haste to set for almost a whole day (Joshua 10: 13).

6: When he [Jesus] reached the other side, in the country of the Gadarenes, he was met by two men who came out of the tombs; they were possessed by devils, and so violent that no one dared pass that way. “You son of God,” they shouted, “what do you want with us? Have you come here to torment us before our time?” In the distance a large herd of pigs was feeding; and the devils begged him, “if you drive us out, send us into that herd of pigs.” “Begone!” he said. Then they came out and went into the pigs; the whole herd rushed over the edge into the lake, and perished in the water (Matthew 8: 28-32).

7: At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in tow from top to bottom. There was an earthquake, the rocks split and the graves opened, and many of God’s saints were raised from sleep; and coming out of their graves after his resurrection they entered the Holy City, where many saw them (Matthew 27: 51-53).

8: Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him and led them up a high mountain where they were alone; and in their presence he was transfigured; his clothes became dazzling white, with a whiteness no bleacher on earth could equal. Then they saw Elijah and Moses with him, and there they were, conversing with Jesus (Mark 9: 2-4).

9: Early on Sunday morning while it was still dark, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb. She saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance…(John 20: 1).

10: As they were talking about all of this, there he [Jesus] was standing among them. Startled and terrified, they thought they were seeing a ghost. But he said “Why are you so perturbed? Why do questionings arise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see; no ghost has flesh and bones as you can see that I have (Luke 24: 36-40).

Does Hume Commit a Fallacy?

2012-01-10T12:53:00.003-06:00

One respondent to my previous post, “The Gospels and Critical History,” in addition to the usual bluster and bombast, manages to offer a few interesting arguments. He had this to say about Hume’s miracle argument from section 1o of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:

"As for Hume's beautiful argument; it is demonstrably fallacious. Hume had an excuse because probability calculus hadn't been fully developed in his day, but we now know that what Hume forgot to factor was the probability that if a miraculous event didn't happen, then we should have the evidence that we do. For example, the report of the winning lottery pick is an extraordinarliy [sic] improbable event, but the improbability that we should hear that number reported if it weren't really the winning lotto pick is even higher. So, in terms of the resurrection, what is the probability that we would have the evidence of the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples [sic] belief if the resurrection actually didn't happen? Well, if that improbability is high enough, it outweighs any initial improbability. Why think there is any initial improbability to begin with? If there aren't any conclusive arguments for atheism (which there aren't), then an agnostic wouldn't believe that miracles have a high intrinsic improbability. As for Fogelin's book, I think he fell very short of refuting Earman's argument. For example, Fogelin doesn't interact with at least three fundamental arguments Earman raises: the epistemic significance of multiple witnesses, for example, or Hume’s neglect of the voluminous literature from the deist controversy, or the notorious passage on the Indian prince.

The first of these in particular is of the utmost importance. John DePoe has shown how just 10 witnesses can have the effect of overcoming a prior improbability of a million to one, with a posterior confidence of .9999!"

When you assert that something is “demonstrably fallacious,” it would be helpful to include the demonstration, but I cannot find one here.

Since Hume’s argument is not expressed in the probability calculus, let’s set out a simple Bayesian framework to make things clearer. M is the claim that a given miracle has occurred (the bodily resurrection of Jesus in this instance), T is the assertion that a given body of testimonial evidence exists, and K is the conjoint assertion of all relevant background knowledge. Hence, the probability that M has occurred given T and K [p(M/T&K)] is given by Bayes’ Theorem (note: I have trouble getting math to properly display in this medium, so please bear with me):

p(T/M&K) x p(M/K)

p(M/T&K) = --------------------------------------------
p(T/M&K) x p(M/K) + p(T/~M&K) x p(~M/K)

Now the respondent’s argument is that Hume failed to consider how improbable it must be that we would have all of the evidence for the resurrection—the empty tomb, the postmortem appearances, the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, etc.—if the resurrection did not occur. In other words, Hume allegedly failed to note how small must be the likelihood p(T/~M&K). If it is extremely unlikely that we would have the testimony for the resurrection if the resurrection did not occur, then this degree of improbability could be great enough to overcome the initially very low initial probability of the miracle—p(M/K).

But Hume explicitly mentions several reasons why we might have the testimony for miracles even if the miracles had not occurred. We today, knowing much more about psychology, can provide many additional reasons. In part II of section X, Hume notes:

"…The passion of surprise and wonder, arising from miracles, being an agreeable emotion gives a sensible tendency towards the belief of those events, from which it is derived. And this goes so far, that even those who cannot enjoy this pleasure immediately, nor can believe those miraculous events of which they are informed, yet love to partake the satisfaction at second-hand or by rebound, and place a pride and delight in exciting the admiration of others.

With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travelers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast [i.e., a fanatic], and imagine he sees what has no reality; he may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world for the sake of promoting so holy a cause; or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstance, and self-interest with equal force."

In general, Hume attributes the generation of false testimony for miracle claims to the “knavery and folly” of mankind. In particular he notes, what is simply undeniable, that humans love hearing and passing on tales of the marvelous, and that when the “spirit of religion” synergizes with that natural appetite for the wondrous, then all sorts of wild stories can take wing.

Today we have copious experimental evidence showing just how easily eyewitnesses are misled and how easily false memories are created. It has been repeatedly shown how predispositions bias perceptions, that is, how easily we will “see” what we expect or want to see instead of what is there. We can watch these things as they happen (I have). Experimenters can induce false memories on the spot, and once spurious memories are created, it can be very hard to disabuse people of them. Could testimony about the empty tomb and the postmortem appearances have arisen even if Jesus was not resurrected? Of course it could have, and it does not even take much imagination to see how it might have happened. Could the disciples have come to believe that Jesus was resurrected even if he was not? Of course they could have. And such things happen all the time.

People go on TV claiming to have been abducted by aliens. These reports are often specific about time, place, and circumstance and often include a great deal of detail. I have met people, to all appearances mentally stable, who claim to have seen demons, healing miracles, or Bigfoot (the first was almost certainly a case of hypnopompic hallucination; the second had very likely been misled by a simple magic trick; the third I don’t know). Of the eleven “special witnesses” of the golden plates from which Joseph Smith Jr. supposedly translated the Book of Mormon, eight testified that they had not only seen but handled the plates. Innumerable people have seen ghosts and many famous people, like Hitler, Amelia Earhart, and Elvis, were repeatedly and independently spotted by “eyewitnesses” after their deaths. Detailed, explicit testimony from sane, honest, and intelligent people for miracles, monsters, paranormal happenings, and prodigies of all sorts can be compiled ad nauseam (see the past 35 years of back issues of Skeptical Inquirer). Is there any reason, any reason at all beyond special pleading, for thinking that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth were immune to the sorts of influences that have led untold numbers of people to concoct such reports? I simply defy anyone to show that they were.

Well, why begin with the assumption that miracles are extremely improbable, i.e., why assign p(M/K) such a low order of probability? It is important to remember that in Hume’s day, as in ours, miracle claims are often adduced as part of an apologetic enterprise. Apologetics is generally intended not just an exercise in self-justification for believers, but an attempt to take the battle to unbelievers and to meet them on their own epistemic turf. In that case, if you are trying to show me that a miracle has occurred, you have to address my priors, not yours. If you only meet your own burden of proof, my response will be a shrug and yawn. How low can I reasonably put my priors for the occurrence of an event that I regard as physically impossible, like resurrecting a dead body? Well, pretty much as low as I like. If I want to put it at one in a million, I can put it at one in a million. Show that I can’t. Prove that this would be unreasonable. If you can’t (and you can’t), then that is the burden of proof you have to meet: one in a million.

OK, well can’t the testimony of multiple witnesses overcome even very low initial probabilities, even one in a million? Not necessarily. Depending on the circumstances, 10 alleged witnesses or 500 might not be enough. Indeed, there are circumstances where many witnesses make for poorer, less credible testimony than a single witness. The 19th Century classic by Charles Mackay Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds showed how easily members of groups can reinforce each other’s delusions and credulity. Bandwagon effects most definitely occur in groups and here also psychological experiments have demonstrated how easily and effectively individual perceptions are warped by the perceptions of groups. Mob psychology is a poor basis for miracle claims.

Again, you can watch as these phenomena occur. About twenty years ago a woman in Conyers, Georgia claimed to experience Marian apparitions on the thirteenth of every month. When the thirteenth fell on a Sunday, huge crowds would gather to hear her report of the banal “revelations.” A skeptical friend attended one of these and, as she watched, members of the crowd, playing on each other’s excitement, were testifying that the sun was spinning and dancing in the sky, as was reported at the Fatima Marian apparitions. In the meantime, she had a telescope with a solar filter trained on the sun, demonstrating to anyone who would look that the sun was not dancing or spinning about the sky.

To assure the credibility of multiple alleged witnesses, their independence is a vital condition. We have to be sure that different witnesses did not influence each other and did not come under a common influence, otherwise what looks like many witnesses might really be just one. But even multiple instances of independent testimony might be worthless. Suppose that dozens of reports of independent sightings of the Kardashians start to flow in from shoppers at upscale malls and boutiques. Good evidence that your city is suffering a Kardashian invasion? Not necessarily. Suppose that you know that the Society of Kardashian Impersonators is currently holding a convention in town. In that case, you will rightly dismiss even dozens of independent Kardashian sightings. (BTW, I heard someone say that if the world does end in 2012, at least we will be rid of those goddamned Kardashians)

Further, if there are many independent testimonies, how do we deal with the inevitable differences between them? How different may such testimonies be and still be counted as good evidence? If three witnesses independently say that they saw Smith commit the crime, but Smith’s attorney demonstrates substantial discrepancies in their testimony (One says that Smith had an accomplice; the other two said he acted alone. One says that Smith held a knife; the other two say a gun. And so forth.), shouldn’t this plant a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors?
The upshot is that the conditions under which multiple alleged witnesses constitute good evidence are really quite complex and need to be spelled out in detail. Still, Hume himself recognized the value of multiple independent witnesses who give consistent testimony. He imagines an paradigm case:

"…suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that, from the first of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days: suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: that all travelers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain…"

Even philosophers, says Hume, should receive consistent reports from so many independent witnesses as true, indeed certain.

Now suppose that we were to suggest to Hume that maybe the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus approximate this ideal case. I imagine that at first he would raise a quizzical eyebrow, but then relax into a placid smile and mildly remark, “Why, sir, I perceive that you do but jest.”

Question about the Templeton Foundation's $3M Grant to Biola University

2012-01-09T01:31:00.000-06:00

The blog Why Evolution is True commented on the Templeton Foundation's decision to award a $3,030,000 grant to Biola University to setup a "Biola University Center for Christian Thought."

Stereotypes about Christian institutions of higher learning aside, I received my undergraduate degree from a Christian university. I met a lot of bright students and professors there who certainly seemed to think deeply about the "big questions." If asked, I would have described it, like many other Christian universities, as a "Center for Christian Thought." Isn't that, ahem, the whole point of a Christian university? If so, why does Biola need a "Center for Christian Thought"? I'm sure that Biola would say there was plenty of Christian thought at Biola before the creation of this center. So what, then, could it mean for Biola University to create a "Center for Christian Thought"?

Perhaps, once the Center is up and running, they could think about this.

The Gospels and Critical History

2012-01-05T14:40:00.003-06:00

I follow with interest some of the debates posted on SO concerning the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives. Christian apologists often accuse skeptics of approaching those narratives with an unwarranted degree of skepticism that assumes the falsehood of those narratives until and unless they meet unreasonable standards of proof not imposed on other ancient testimonies. For instance, they say that skeptics raise no quibbles about the general historicity of the accounts of Thucydides, Suetonius, or Tacitus, but impose a much stricter standard on Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In particular, skeptics are accused of adopting a “post-Enlightenment” bias that automatically rejects miraculous accounts, such as the resurrection narratives, without due consideration of their actual historical support.

In my earlier post, “Hume’s Beautiful Argument,” I defended the Humean conclusion that skeptics are abundantly justified in imposing an especially heavy burden of proof on miracle reports. Robert J. Fogelin’s excellent A Defense of Hume on Miracles (Princeton, 2003) provides more detailed support of Hume and rebuts his two most notable recent critics, John Earman and David Johnson.

The broader claim that skeptics employ an invidious double standard in evaluating Gospel accounts is false in many instances. For instance, my attitude towards the Gospel narratives is precisely the same as my attitude towards those of Herodotus. Though I think that Herodotus is very broadly accurate (e.g. there was a Battle of Marathon; a Spartan king named Leonidas did lead the defense at Thermopylae; a citizen named Themistocles did lead the Athenian defense) I do not hesitate to doubt many of his stories when the evidence seems against them (e.g. modern military historians, such as Richard A. Gabriel, question Herodotus’ account of Athenian tactics at Marathon). Other of Herodotus’ tales, like the one about the king who was so proud of his queen’s beauty that he showed her off naked to his servant, seem just a bit (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) too good to be true. Likewise, with the Gospels, I see no reason to doubt that there was a wandering rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth who did and said some of the things attributed to him and who was executed by the Roman authorities sometime around 30 C.E. On the other hand, as with Herodotus, when a Gospel tale seems unlikely to me, I doubt it. No double standard.

The claim that skeptics employ a double standard is also hypocritical. It is apologists themselves who set the reliability bar much higher for the Biblical stories. Conservative Christian apologists do not merely claim that the Gospel accounts are broadly reliable or true in outline. Again, skeptics could easily concede that much. Conservative apologists, even when they are not strict infallibilists, maintain that the Gospels are true in detail, not merely in outline. Precisely how much of the detail is taken as literally true differs from writer to writer, but if an apologist doubts too much he risks repudiation (or worse) from his colleagues (SO recently carried the story of professional apologist Mike Licona who was fired for casting doubt on passages in Matthew). Hence, apologists themselves hold the Gospel narratives to a much higher standard of historical reliability than we expect from, say, Herodotus. Skeptical scholars can hardly be blamed if they do hold Biblical texts to the same high standards of historical accuracy as the apologists.

In fact, the shoe is on the other foot. It is the Christian apologists who routinely make unwarrantable assumptions about the composition of the Gospels. Apologists frequently attribute to the Gospel writers aims, methods, and resources more characteristic of modern critical historians than of First Century writers of apologetic and confessional literature. The Gospels are vehicles of proclamation (the “Good News”) written in narrative form and with an undisguised apologetic and evangelistic agenda (e.g. John 20:31). The differences between such writings and any specimen of modern critical history are vast and obvious. Yet we are told that the Gospel writers were in frequent consultation with the eyewitnesses, who would not have allowed fabrications or alterations to enter the text. We are told that these authors were fact-checkers, critical evaluators, and sticklers for accuracy, as a modern historian would be expected to be.

Really? Let’s try a thought experiment: What would a contemporary account of Jesus have looked like had it been written by a historian with the resources, aims, and methods of a modern critical historian? Let’s imagine then that around C.E. 60, when Peter and other eyewitnesses would still have been alive and vigorous, a skeptical but sympathetic historian decided to get to the bottom of this Jesus business and write the definitive account. Let’s make the anachronistic supposition that he would have had the objectives and resources and would have employed the methods of a well-supported modern critical historian. For instance, let’s imagine that he had a generous travel budget, research assistants, access to documents and public records, and ease of travel and communication similar to what a modern historian might enjoy. How would he have proceeded?

He would have begun by trying to find as many eyewitnesses as possible to interview. He would have carefully recorded these accounts verbatim, insisting that his interviewees report only what they personally witnessed and not allowing them to pass along hearsay, surmise, or inference as fact. He would have tried to interview any of the surviving former disciples, as well as Mary Magdalene and any other of Jesus’s followers or associates that could be found. He would be especially interested in interviewing James, the brother of Jesus, and any other siblings or relatives he could locate. If possible, he would track down some of the “500” who supposedly saw the risen Jesus at once and try to get a clear account of the exact circumstances (Was Jesus on a stage or a hilltop so that everyone could get a good look at him? Did you all know Jesus personally so that you could be sure to identify him correctly? And so forth). Particular efforts would have been made to interview non-Christians such as Roman or Jewish officials from the prefecture of Pontius Pilate or the Sanhedrin at the time of Jesus’ trial.

After collecting several dozen interviews, these accounts would have to be judiciously compared, their discrepancies noted (and there are ALWAYS discrepancies between eyewitness accounts), and their points of independent agreement highlighted. Naturally, he would have to consider the trustworthiness of the individual witnesses, such as their state of mind or mental health and whether they had axes to grind or personal agendas. For instance, Jesus was said to have driven seven devils from Mary Magdalene, perhaps indicating that she was not a person of stable personality, and this would influence our evaluation of her testimony. The eyewitness testimony would then be compared to public records and any available writings, such as official documents, the “Q” compilations, the letters of Paul, and any other accounts or memoirs.

Our critical historian would be particularly careful to inquire into the exact circumstances of miracle claims, particularly those relating to the resurrection. Who, precisely, were the witnesses? What exactly did those who claimed to encounter the risen Jesus see? What were the precise details of time, place, and circumstance? Did the supposed witnesses really see Jesus as they saw him in life, or were the appearances of a visionary or hallucinatory nature? Do the witnesses substantially agree, or do their accounts diverge in major ways? Were the witnesses independent or did they influence one another or both fall under the influence of a third party?

Once all of the data had been compiled, organized, and evaluated, and the work composed, what would he finished product be like? The sources would be front and center and abundantly documented in the form of extensive footnotes. The standards used to evaluate those sources would be made clear. Conclusions would be cautious and qualified carefully vis-à-vis the evidence. Stringent efforts would be made to sort fact from the fictitious accretions that inevitably creep in due to the fallibility and creativity of memory and the universal tendency of eyewitnesses to “see” what they want or expect to see. Good historians recognize that eyewitnesses, far from being a guarantee of accuracy, often are sources of bias or error. Further, the times and places of all key events would be specified so far as possible. Discrepancies and inadequacies in the evidence would be carefully noted, and alternative interpretations recognized.

Now, of course we do not know what our imaginary historian would have concluded, but it should be abundantly clear that his product would be very different from the Gospel records. Unlike our critical historian, the writers of the Synoptic Gospels cite no specific sources or eyewitnesses at all (John is an apparent exception). Luke, in his opening address to Theophilus, assures his reader (1:2-3) that he has carefully gone over “..the traditions handed down to us by the original eyewitnesses and servants of the Gospel.” Yet we are told nothing about who these original eyewitnesses were or what they said. Indeed, Luke refers not to the original eyewitnesses themselves, but to the “traditions” handed down from them. It is not clear at all whether Luke has interviewed any of the eyewitnesses himself or whether he has gotten second-hand or third-hand reports of what they said. He tantalizingly mentions (1:1) “many” other writers who have drawn up accounts of these events, but he neither quotes nor cites any of these. Basically, Luke is just saying “trust me” to his reader. The difference between Luke’s and a modern critical historian’s treatment of sources could not be plainer, and Luke is the most “scholarly” of the Synoptics. The authors of Matthew and Mark cite no sources at all, and certainly offer no clear indication that they themselves were eyewitnesses (As we have noted, Luke admits that he was not an eyewitness. Apologist P.B. Ewen in her book Faith on Trial, Boardman & Holdman, 1999, argues that each Gospel is an original and independent witness. I offer an extended rebuttal in chapter 3 of Why I am not a Christian, available on the Secular Web).

The Gospel of John, on the other hand, refers to an eyewitness in two verses, 19:35 and 21:24. And just who was this alleged eyewitness? Well, we are not told exactly but he is referred to obliquely as “the disciple whom Jesus loved (21:20).” Tradition came to identify this beloved disciple as John the son of Zebedee. OK, so does one Gospel at least record the testimony of an eyewitness?
There are some very odd things about the two passages of John that cite an eyewitness. The Gospel appears to draw to a solemn conclusion at the end of chapter 20. Chapter 21 looks like a later addendum and 21:24 sounds like the strained effort of a latter-day author who is trying just a bit too hard to make a case for the apostolic authorship of the Gospel. Verse 24 makes a very strong claim:

It is this same disciple [i.e. the “disciple whom Jesus loved”] who attests what has here been written. It was in fact he who wrote it, and we know that his testimony is true.

Again, the author here is protesting just a bit too much, and he thereby betrays anxiety over the question of the book’s apostolic authenticity.

Verse 19:35, on the other hand, is part of a larger pericope, verses 31-37, that tells the story of the soldier who pierced Jesus’ side and recounts the (highly symbolic) flow of both blood and water from his side. As the commentators of the New English Bible note (p. 135):
In the blood and water Jn. perceives a deep theological significance see (7:38-39; 1 Jn. 5. 6,8); he intends this as a symbol of the gift of the Spirit, or, possibly, of baptism.

The point of the invocation of the eyewitness here appears to be to authenticate the occurrence of this highly theologically significant (though medically impossible) event. What we have here then does not look so much like an authentic original witness, but a post hoc attempt to validate a prior theological commitment.

Still, some reputable biblical scholars, and not just fundamentalist “scholars,” have regarded the Gospel of John as containing material originally transmitted orally by the apostle John to his followers, who at some point wrote down this testimony (or their memories of it). For the sake of argument, let’s accept this claim. Nevertheless, the book bears clear evidence of having been composed in several edited stages (see Smalley, pp. 374-375, The Oxford Companion to the Bible) before being published in final form by the Johannine community at Ephesus (around 90-100 C.E. according to the editors of The New Oxford Study Bible). Hence, whatever nuggets of authentic and reliable information John imparted had to pass through several hands and it is just not clear how much of the final product rests on that testimony. Further, the recollections of a single eyewitness are highly fallible and subject to numerous biases and distortions. This is why critical historians compare and contrast the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses to compensate so far as possible for the fallibility of individual memory.

Even conceding the apostolic origins and broad reliability of the Gospel of John, there are many reasons for doubting the details of its account. For one thing, in the Synopitcs, Jesus’ speech is terse, pithy, and given to the employment of parables and striking similes. In John, Jesus speaks in verbose dialogues and disquisitions. While John may have recorded the gist of these discourses, it is highly unlikely that he has gotten them verbatim. Memory just does not work that way (see John Dominic Crossan’s brilliant discussion of oral traditions and the foibles of memory in chapters 3 and 4 of his The Birth of Christianity, Harper, 1998).

Worse, some of the most important events recorded in the Gospel cannot have been witnessed by John for the simple reason that he was not present when these allegedly occurred. Verse 19:38 begins the story of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus and how they acquired Jesus’ body and prepared it for burial by wrapping it in linen and applying spices. John could not possibly have witnessed any of this, and there is no indication of how this information was obtained. Also, John did not witness the alleged encounter between the resurrected Jesus and Mary Magdalene recorded in 20:11-17. He was not there. Verse 10 tells us that the disciples went home after viewing the empty tomb, leaving Mary there.

Here is what the Gospel says happened next: Mary was standing there weeping when she looks into the tomb and sees two angels. They ask her why she is weeping and Mary, who seems not the least fazed or surprised at having a conversation with two angelic beings, says “they have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Mary then turns around and sees Jesus, but for some unstated reason does not recognize him and thinks that he is the gardener. Not mentioning the two angels she has just talked to, she asks the “gardener” where Jesus’ body might be. Jesus calls her by name and she recognizes him. Jesus then tells her not to touch him but to go his “brothers” and tell them that he is ascending to the Father. Thus, the only basis for this bizarre story is what John, maybe many years later, recalled as having been said to him by a possibly deranged woman in circumstances that were, to say the very least, highly unusual.

But what about the other appearance stories that John records? The most detailed of these is recounted in chapter 21, but, as we noted, this chapter appears to have been a later addendum. Whether it is or not, we really have no idea whether any of the appearance stories go back to John’s original testimony or whether they are later accretions. The latter is more likely. The original text of the Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel, promises a post-mortem appearance but contains no such accounts. But if the author of the earliest Gospel knows of no such appearance stories, this makes highly suspect the detailed accounts found in the later Gospels. By the time the Gospels were set down in final form Christians were involved in fierce controversy with orthodox Jews, who dismissed their tales of a resurrected rabbi. The detailed appearance stories likely arose to deploy against such critics. The most famous of the appearance stories in John, the appearance to the doubting Thomas, seems to have been composed both to assure believers of the post-apostolic age that Jesus was indeed physically resurrected, and to condone such believers for having faith though, unlike Thomas and the other apostles, they have not seen the risen Jesus.

It is abundantly clear, then, that none of the Gospel accounts is at all like what a modern critical historian would write. A critical historian would try to make it plain just where the eyewitness testimony ends and where surmise, conjecture, or hearsay begins. With the Gospels we just cannot say. The Gospel writers all have big theological and apologetic axes to grind, and the ideological tail consistently wags the evidential dog. Of course, critical historians also can have ideological agendas, but the evidence has to be front and center or their colleagues will not listen to them. Critical historians try to draw a coherent account from the heterogeneous and often discrepant sources. The gospels narratives do not agree on some of the most vital information. For instance, the details of the resurrection accounts differ widely from Gospel to Gospel.

Now it could well be that, as apologists have often asserted, the discrepancies about what happened on Easter morning are inconsistent only to the extent that you would expect from eyewitnesses who had experienced very unusual events and who were in highly emotional states. OK, but a critical historian would interview as many of the supposed eyewitnesses as possible, compare contrast and evaluate, and try to piece together a consistent and coherent account. As the Gospel accounts stand, all we can really say is that Mary Magdalene, and possibly some other women whose identities are not clear, went on Easter morning to a tomb that they thought was Jesus’ and found it empty. Did they go to the right tomb? How did they know where Jesus was buried? (The Gospels, anticipating this objection, insist that they did see where Jesus was buried. Sounds to me like they were engaging in after-the-fact CYA.) Was Jesus buried in a tomb at all? The vast majority of crucified criminals were tossed into mass graves. How do we know that the stories about Joseph of Arimathea are reliable? How do we know that these stories are not pious legends invented by later Christians ashamed at the actual, dishonorable treatment of Jesus’ body? If Jesus’ body were placed in an honorable tomb, how do we know whether someone might have removed the body overnight? A modern critical historian would try to give us solid, well-evidenced answers to these questions, but with the Gospels we can only surmise.

What really happened after Jesus’ execution is one of history’s enduring mysteries. The best accounts we have, the canonical gospels, were put in their final forms long after the events they describe, and even if they do contain information going back to eyewitnesses, the final authors and editors were of a later generation and thoroughly mixed that original witness with later tradition and interpretation. The Gospel authors do not tell us what sources they draw upon and make no effort to compare and evaluate those sources. Matthew and Luke freely plagiarize Mark, which shows that their use of other source materials must have been similarly uncritical. The Gospels have undisguised apologetic, theological, and evangelistic agendas, and these agendas clearly shape the narrative. Much material of an undeniably legendary or fictitious nature has worked its way into the accounts (see Randall Helms, Gospel Fictions, Prometheus Books, 1988), once more indicating an uncritical approach to sources. The Gospels are inconsistent with each other; indeed, the best evidence against the reliability of the Gospel of John is the testimony of the Synoptics. In short, for anyone who wants a clear picture of what happened, especially concerning the resurrection and the postmortem appearances, the Gospels are a mess. Consequently, many of the things we would most like to know will remain forever elusive.

Horia George Plugaru's Argument Against the Abundance Theory of Creation

2011-12-29T00:00:00.000-06:00

The Internet Infidels just published a new essay by Horia George Plugaru in the Secular Web's Kiosk, "Why the Abundance Theory of Creation Fails." From the opening paragraph:

How can God be both a perfect being and the creator of the universe? Doesn't the fact that he created the world imply that he had a need or want? Otherwise, why would he bother creating anything at all? But then, if he had a need that implied the existence of the universe in order to be fulfilled, it seems he is not perfect: he lacks something. But by definition, a perfect being could not lack anything. So if the universe exists, God is not perfect, so God does not exist.

LINK

Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 13

2011-12-27T17:32:00.013-06:00

I am examining the implications of the following supposition:

JAW = Jesus was alive and walking around on the first Easter Sunday.

This supposition is asserted by most Christian apologists as a key claim in support of the resurrection of Jesus. Another key claim made by Christian apologists concerns the alleged crucifixion of Jesus:

JWC = Jesus was crucified on Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday.

All four Gospels agree that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem on Friday of Passover week by order of Pontius Pilate (Mark 14:12-15:47, Luke 22:7-23:56, Matthew 26:17-27:62, John 13:1-13:30 and 18:1-19:42).

Since none of the Gospels was composed by an eyewitness to the trial, crucifixion, or burial of Jesus, and since the Gospels were apparently not based directly on eyewitness testimony, but were based on oral and written traditions of unknown origins (unknown to us), and since the Gospels were composed about four to six decades after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and since the primary motivation of the authors was to promote Christian faith (which includes the belief that Jesus was crucified), we cannot be certain that (JWC) is true. At best, we can conclude that it is very probable that (JWC) is true.

Perhaps Jesus was crucified, but not on Friday of Passover week, or perhaps Jesus was killed on Friday of Passover week, but was not killed by being crucified (e.g. he died as a result of scourging and so was not hung up on a cross), or perhaps Jesus was not killed on Friday of Passover week because he was never crucified – the crucifixion being a legend or a mistaken inference of Jesus’s original followers.

Nevertheless, since we have no evidence of any alternative to the crucifixion story found in all four Gospels, the most likely scenario is that (JWC) is true. I think it is reasonable to assign (JWC) a probabilty of .9 (nine chances in ten of being true, given that Jesus was an historical person--which follows from the supposition of (JAW) ), and thus the probability of (Not JWC) would be .1 (one chance in ten that one of the other alternatives is true).

In proposing a probability of .9 for the truth of (JWC), I am taking into account not just the NT evidence, but also the non-Christian historical evidence (see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, p.49) from Josephus (Antiquities 18:63), Tacitus (Annals 15:44), Lucian of Samosata, (The Death of Peregrine, 11-13), and the letter of Mara Bar-Serapion.

Antiquities by Josephus
Josephus does not claim to have witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus, nor does he claim to have interviewed any eyewitnesses of the crucifixion of Jesus. We simply don’t know what his source was for this information, but it was probably third- or fourth-hand hearsay:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895. Antiquities 18:63)

Josephus completed Antiquities in the early 90s, about six decades after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, and it was composed in Rome, not in Palestine. Since the Gospel of Mark was composed about 70 CE, and Matthew and Luke were composed in the 80s CE, the synoptic Gospels were already in circulation among Christians before Josephus composed Antiquities, so he may simply be echoing stories about Jesus that circulated among Christian believers in Rome.

Furthermore, scholars have concluded that the text of the passage from Josephus was altered by Christian copyists, so it is uncertain exactly what the passage said about Jesus in the original version written by Josephus, although it is likely that Josephus mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus in the original version (see The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas, p.192-196).

Finally, Josephus does not specify the time and place of the crucifixion.

Annals by Tacitus
Tacitus does not claim to have witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus, and since he was born in 56 CE and the alleged crucifixion would have happened about 30 CE (if it did happen), Tacitus could not have been an eyewintess. Nor does he claim to have interviewed any eyewitnesses of the crucifixion of Jesus (and given the date of composition of Annals, it is very unlikely that he would have had access to any eyewintesses--people rarely lived to 60 years old, let alone 100 years old). We simply don’t know what his source was for this information.

Tacitus composed his Annals in about 115 CE., about eight decades after the alleged crucifixion, and almost five decades after the composition of the Gospel of Mark. Tacitus writes about the presence of Christian believers in Rome, so it is entirely possible that his information comes from Christians or from Romans who were familiar with Christian beliefs.

Furthermore, Tacitus gets two things wrong is his one sentence about Jesus:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. (Complete Works of Tacitus. Tacitus. Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb. Sara Bryant. edited for Perseus. New York. : Random House, Inc. Random House, Inc. reprinted 1942. Annals 15:44)

Jesus’s name was not ‘Christus’. The word ‘Christ’ is a title– meaning ‘Messiah’ – which was bestowed upon Jesus by his followers. Also, Pilate was a prefect not a procurator (Jesus, The Final Days by Craig Evans and N.T. Wright, p.3-4). Also, Tacitus does not say that Jesus was crucified, nor does he give a specific time and place for the execution of Jesus, although he does suggest ‘Judea’ as the general location.

The Death of Peregrine by Lucian of Samosata
This passage is from a speech about the life and death of a Cynic philosopher Peregrinus Proteus made by an unnamed person/character:

“It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. (The Passing of Peregrinus, 11, by Lucian of Samosata. Translated and notes by A.M. Harmon, 1936, Published in Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press.)

Since Peregrinus committed suicide at the Olympic Games in 165 CE, this satire written by Lucian must have been composed between 165 CE and the death of Lucian (sometime after 180 CE). Suppose this satire was written about 170 CE, in that case this passage was composed about fourteen decades after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. Since Lucian was born around 125 CE, he obviously could not have been an eyewitness to the crucifixion of Jesus.

By the time Lucian was 10 years old, the year was about 135 CE, so any eyewitnesses of the crucifixion of Jesus would have been dead by then. Thus, Lucian never interviewed an eyewitness of the crucifixion. Nor does Lucian provide any indication of where he got this information, other than that he heard it in a speech about Peregrinus (but the speech may well be purely a rhetorical device, and not an actual speech given by an actual person).

By the time that this satire was composed (around 170 CE), the synoptic gospels had been in circulation for about one century. So, it is entirely possible that this speech in a satire about the philosopher Peregrinus simply draws on the widely held Christian belief that Jesus had been crucified.

Furthermore, the speech does not specify the time and place of the crucifixion of Jesus, other than giving the general location of ‘Palestine’.

A letter by Mara Bar-Serapion
A Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion wrote a letter from prison to his son “sometime between the late first and third centuries A.D.” (The Historical Jesus, p. 207):

What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished…the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. (Christian Origins by F.F. Bruce, p. 31, quoted in The Historical Jesus, p.207-208).

Since this letter might date to the second or third century CE, it might well have been composed one or two centuries after the alleged crucifixion, in which case the author could not have been an eyewitness and could not have interviewed an eyewitness of the crucifixion.

The author does not claim to be an eyewitness to the crucifixion, nor to have spoken to an eyewitness of the crucifixion. Nor does the writer indicate how or where he obtained this information. Once again, this might well be third- or fourth-hand hearsay, even if the letter was written at the end of the first century.

There are other problems with this passage. First, Jesus was not a King, and the writer does not name ‘Jesus’ or mention ‘Christ’ or ‘Christians’, nor is there any specification of the time and place of the execution of the ‘wise King’. Thus, it is unclear whether it is really Jesus of Nazareth that is in view here.

Furthermore, there is no mention of crucifixion, only execution.

Finally, the writer is wrong about the death of Pythagorus and other facts: “…some of Mara Bar-Serapion’s material concerning Athens and Samos is quite inaccurate.” (The Historical Jesus, p. 208). So, the writer of the letter is not a reliable source of historical information.

This letter may well date one or two centuries after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, makes a vague claim about the execution, not crucifixion, of a 'wise King' of the Jews, which may or may not be a reference to Jesus of Nazareth, occurring at an unspecified time and place, along with other historical claims about major figures which are innacurate. This is pathetic as historical evidence for (JWC).

To be continued…

Tyler Wunder Has Joined The Secular Outpost!

2011-12-27T12:17:00.001-06:00

I'm pleased to announce that Dr. Tyler Wunder has joined The Secular Outpost! Here is a short bio he provided to me for this announcement:

I received my PhD in Philosophy from Boston University; my dissertation was a critique of Alvin Plantinga’s Warrant trilogy. My publications are: “Anti-Naturalism and Proper Function” [Religious Studies 44(2)], “Critical Study of James K. Beilby’s Epistemology as Theology: An Evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s Religious Epistemology” [Philo 10(2)], and “Critical Study of Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief” [Philo 5(2)]. I have also given an interview for the podcast Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot, titled “Why Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology Fails” (episode 72—October 2010).

Presently I am working on an article related to Plantinga’s latest book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, as well as a book, loosely based on my dissertation, which defends the Great Pumpkin Objection against Reformed epistemology. I teach philosophy, including the philosophy of religion and formal logic, at a university in Ontario, Canada, and live with my wife, Sylvia Bryce-Wunder, and our rabbit Sweety.

Dr. Wunder has also written two pieces for The Secular Web: "An Inquiry into Davis' Account of the Possibiliy of Rational Belief and Rational Scepticism in the Resurrection of Jesus" (1998) and "Review of Warranted Christian Belief" (2002).

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Wunder!

Has Christmas become too secular?

2011-12-24T13:47:00.000-06:00

No. Christmas officially became a secular holiday on June 28, 1870. That's when President Ulysses S. Grant declared December 25 a legal holiday, along with January 1, July 4, and a day to be determined for Thanksgiving. We were founded as a secular country under a godless Constitution (no mention of God or Jesus), where freedom of conscience is guaranteed for all people. Just so there is no doubt about President Grant's intent, in his seventh-annual message to Congress on Dec. 7, 1875, he said: "Declare church and state forever separate and distinct; but each free within their proper spheres."

Christians may certainly celebrate Christmas religiously. Early Christians made up a story about a savior born on December 25, a myth that originated in the winter solstice festivals of ancient civilizations. Mithras, a Persian savior-god, had a sizable following in the Roman world and his birth was celebrated on that day. By appropriating the day for the alleged birth of Jesus, Christians could more easily convert pagans.

Individuals are free to focus on whomever they view as the reason for the season: Jesus, Rudolph, or Santa. My personal preference is a Santa who wants us to be good for goodness's sake, without fear of eternal punishment for not believing in him. From Rudolph we learn that it's OK to be different, and to stand proud even if others laugh at you. And though Jesus primarily wants us to give glory to God, I like it that he also asks for "Peace on Earth and goodwill toward men."

What a wonderful world we would have in any season if we followed these three lessons: be good, accept diversity, and strive for peace. I wish this holiday season would bring us closer to such important secular principles. Unfortunately, the Christmas season has become increasingly divisive.

A manufactured "War on Christmas" by some Christians now forces people to choose between wishing a "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays." It's ironic that stores are boycotted when the emphasis is on the Happy Holidays phrase, implying that the true meaning of Christmas for religious people must be "shopping." In fact, because of the pagan origin of Christmas, some early American colonies prohibited the celebration of Christmas. That might have been the original war on Christmas.

Whether we celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, HumanLight, or any other holiday, my wish for this and all seasons is that we strive for peace on Earth and goodwill toward all humans.

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/has-christmas-become-too-secular/be-good-accept-diversity-and-strive-for-peace

Tom Flynn, the Anti-Claus

2011-12-24T02:40:00.000-06:00

Should non-believers celebrate a secular version of Christmas as a sort of winter holiday? According to Tom Flynn, the answer is "no." If you haven't heard of Flynn, he is the Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism, editor of Free Inquiry, and the author of The Trouble with Christmas. (As Flynn points out, his book makes an excellent holiday gift!)

Flynn was touring the U.S. speaking to atheist groups on the topic, "The Trouble with Christmas." (He calls his tour the "Anti-Claus Tour 2011.") With considerable humor, Flynn presented the history of the Christmas holiday we have today in the U.S. and the UK, which he attributed to DWAMQs ("Dead White Anglo Males.... and a Queen"), including Charles Dickens and Queen Victoria.

Flynn argued there are parallels between holidays related to Osiris and Mithras, on the one hand, and Jesus, on the other. (For example, Mithras' birthday was believed to be December 25, whereas the gospels do not mention Jesus' birthday.)

Flynn presented six of his top ten reasons against parents teaching their children about Santa:

1. To perpetuate the Santa Claus myth, parents must lie to their children.
2. To buoy belief, adults stage elaborate deceptions, laying traps for the child's developing intellect.
3. The myth encourages lazy parenting and promotes unhealthy fear.
4. The myth harms children's moral and emotional development and damages family dynamics.
5. The myth promotes selfishness and acquisitive attitudes among children.
6. Children may not enjoy the Santa Claus drama as much as parental nostalgia suggests.

Flynn urged secular humanists to respond to the "Christians' birthday festival" by being "conspicuous in sitting it out and sitting out contrived secular alternatives" like the Winter Solstice and HumanLight. In his words, "If we are not Christians, we are not pagans either." A practical consequence of this position, as Flynn sees it, is that secular humanists should not wish other people "happy holidays" because "many people are not celebrating any holidays at all."

The question-and-answer period was interesting: Flynn seemed to receive a friendly but skeptical response from the atheist audience, if the questions were any indication.

I have mixed feelings about all of this. I agree with Flynn that parents should not lie to their kids about Santa. But what about celebrating Christmas or, as he calls it, "contrived secular alternatives" like the Winter Solstice and HumanLight? I celebrate a completely secular version of Christmas purely as a family tradition, but I can understand why other non-Christians might feel very differently. For the same reason, I do not celebrate Winter Solstice or Human Light: they mean nothing to me. I can understand why some nonbelievers feel the need to create a secular holiday alternative, while others (like Flynn) see no reason to celebrate any holidays.

I guess I am just a "holiday subjectivist."

Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 12

2011-12-23T15:24:00.008-06:00

I have previously examined the implications of the supposition that (JAW) is not the case:

(JAW) Jesus was alive and walking around unassisted on the first Easter Sunday.

Now I'm going to start looking into the implications of the supposition that (JAW) is the case.

There are many ways to divide up the logical pie, but I propose to analyze(JAW) into eleven different logical possibilities:

Acronyms for key claims related to Jesus’s alleged resurrection:

JAW = Jesus was alive and walking around on the first Easter Sunday.

JWC = Jesus was crucified on Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday.
BWJ = ‘Badly Wounded Jesus’: DSW and JSS and HAF and SAD.
DSW = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus received a deep spear wound to his chest (i.e. the tip of the spear penetrated at least 3” deep, measured perpendicular to the surface where the spear entered his chest).
JSS = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus was severely scourged (i.e. the wounds from the scourging were such that there was at least a .8 probability that Jesus would die in the next 24 hours if he received no care for the wounds).
HAF = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus’ hands and feet were nailed to a cross.
SAD = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus remained suspended on a cross all day (i.e. for seven to eight hours, from approximately 9am to 5pm).
DOC = On Friday of Passover week, just before the first Easter Sunday, Jesus died on a cross (i.e. his heart stopped beating for at least five minutes).

Finding Reason in the Season

2011-12-21T13:58:00.001-06:00

I once believed in miracles because my parents told me they were true, but even then I recognized that all miracles were not created equal. The Hanukkah miracle of a light burning for eight days instead of just one paled in comparison to the Pesach miracle, when a God decided to “pass-over” the houses of Jews and kill the firstborn Egyptian male in each home along with the firstborn cattle (Exodus 12:12). Hanukkah, of course, while a major holiday in this country, did not become one for theological reasons. It is celebrated so Jews don’t feel left out when others get Christmas presents. Jewish children traditionally receive a present every day for eight consecutive days. So take that, Christians, I used to say to myself.

Though Hanukkah trumped Christmas at home, not so in my public elementary school. My grandmother would usually begin a conversation with me by asking what I had learned in school, and she seemed delighted by whatever I reported. One exception occurred before Christmas, when I answered her question by singing “Silent Night.” I didn’t know what a “virgin” or a “holy infant” was, but I noticed an unexpected frown on my grandmother’s face. Since my family didn’t want to appear “un-American,” they wouldn’t have thought of complaining about Christianity being promoted in school. But they were especially upset when I learned “Silent Night” in German. After the Holocaust, all things German instilled fear in our family.

Most Christians who are willing to accept the evidence for the Earth revolving around a stationary sun are also willing to acknowledge that a savior born on December 25 is a made-up story. Christmas has its origins in the winter solstice festivals that most ancient civilizations observed. Mithras, a Persian savior-god, had a sizable following in the Roman world and his birth was celebrated on December 25. By appropriating this day for the alleged birth of Jesus, Christians could more easily convert pagans. Because of this pagan origin, some early American colonies prohibited the celebration of Christmas. That might have been the original war on Christmas.

When greeted with "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays," I used to mumble, "Same to you." Since some vocal Christians now claim that the latter salutation is a “War on Christmas,” I wonder when I hear “Merry Christmas” whether it is meant to be a friendly greeting or a challenge in this war. Too bad we seem to be moving further from my wish for all seasons: peace on Earth and goodwill toward all people.

Peace and goodwill don’t necessarily mean agreement with all points of view. The holiday season has now become a time to celebrate freedom of expression through billboards and buses, where some atheists have been known to equate the myth of God with that of Santa Claus. I think this comparison is unfair—to Santa. Santa doesn’t ask children to worship him or to put love for him above love for other humans. He asks only that we “Be good for goodness’ sake,” an idea that makes a lot of sense and has appeared on several humanist billboards.

While atheists and humanists typically spend December holidays with family, we often like to celebrate as a community at this time of year. My local secular humanist group in Charleston holds an annual HumanLight (http://humanlight.org/) “Winter Solstice” potluck dinner and used book auction, with proceeds going to worthwhile community causes. This has become a bittersweet occasion for me in the last several years.

Former dentist Bill Upshur, a founding member of our group, was one of the finest people I’ve ever known. He knew how to live, and how to die with courage and grace. When he learned he had terminal esophageal cancer, he continued to be active as long as possible. He believed, at age seventy-seven, that he had lived a full life. The only time I saw him choke up was when he talked about leaving his beloved wife Jane alone.

Knowing in 2007 that he didn’t have long to live, Bill told me he wanted to donate $20,000 to the Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry. He devised an unusual plan to make the donation. Typically books at our auction go for no more than $10. Bill and I engaged in a fake bidding war for Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. It started with incremental bids of a dollar or two, then soared to $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, and ended with Bill’s winning bid of $20,000. I had informed nobody, including my wife Sharon, who became increasingly alarmed by my extravagant bids.

When I told Richard Dawkins, he wrote a wonderful note to Bill, which I read to him in the hospital a week before he died. Richard said, “I hope you will not think me impertinent if I say you are my kind of guy. You now possess the most expensive copy of The God Delusion in the known universe. Thank you for all you have done for secular causes.” My last memory of Bill was his broad smile after hearing Dawkins’ words.

We make a special point to remember Bill at each annual winter solstice celebration. He was a real person and I will always associate his sense of humor and voice of reason with this holiday season.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/finding-reason-in-the-season/2011/12/21/gIQAv5lg9O_blog.html

Links and News -- 19-Dec-11

2011-12-19T03:59:00.000-06:00

Housekeeping

"Secular Outpost Revamped"

Ex-Apologist favorably mentions recent changes at The Secular Outpost.
[Editor's Note (Lowder): Thanks!]

"The Skeptic Awards 2011"

The Skeptic Magazine plans to give awards for several types of skeptical activity, including "Best Blog."
[Editor's Note (Lowder): Please consider voting for The Secular Outpost!]

Miscellaneous

"Bellingham Lectures in Philosophy of Religion"

These lectures, which will be streamed online, will include talks by Jeffrey Schloss and Michael Murray on evolutionary theories of religious belief and natural evil in a fine-tuned universe.

"Schieber's Objections to the Kalam Argument" by John Danaher

"PhilPapers Survey Results"

Among all respondents, 72.8% accept or lean toward atheism. Among general philosophers of science, that number rises to 77.6%. For philosophers of probability, it is 78.9%. For philosophers of religion, however, 72.3% accept or lean toward theism, while 19.1% accept or lean toward atheism.
[Editor's Note (Lowder): Nothing surprising here, except perhaps that as many as 19.1% of philosophers of religion accept or lean toward atheism.]

"A Bayesian Approach to Absent Evidence Reasoning" by Christopher Stephens

Abstract: Under what conditions is the failure to have evidence that p, evidence that p is false? Absent evidence reasoning is common in many sciences, including astronomy, archeology, biology and medicine. An often-repeated epistemological motto is that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Analysis of absent evidence reasoning usually takes place in a deductive or frequentist hypothesis-testing framework. Instead, a Bayesian analysis of this motto is explored and it is shown that, under plausible assumptions about the nature of evidence, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

"Air Force Academy Dogged by Anti-Christian Pressure" by Baptist Press

When Are Supernatural Claims Worth Investigating? Should We Want Atheism to be True?

"Intimation of Elsewhere Ignored" by Maverick Philosopher

The author argues that nonbelievers who have a mystical or religious experience should find those experiences worth investigating.
[Editor's Note (Lowder): I agree with Maverick Philosopher.]

"God and Wonderdad: A Final Discussion of Antitheism" by Randal Rauser

The author argues that all of us ought to hope that theism is true.
[Editor's Note (Lowder): I think Rauser's analogy is excellent and I agree with the point he makes.]

Atheism and Public Relations

"Yep, This Will Make Everything Better" by Hemant Mehta

The author criticizes American Atheists' Dave Silverman for his rather tactless post on Facebook about Islam and Mohammed.
[Editor's Note (Lowder): I agree with pretty much everything in Mehta's post.]

Do Some Atheist Philosophers Criticize a Straw Man Version of Cosmological Arguments?

"Meta-Sophistry" by Edward Feser: among other things, Feser claims that "certain atheist philosophers ritualistically" misrepresent cosmological arguments for God's existence by suggesting they rely upon a premise which says, "Everything has a cause." Using that article, that article's combox, and linked articles, we can summarize the purported violators as follows:

Alleged examples of this error in articles published in the Secular Web, including Theodore Schick, Dan Barker, and Adolf Grünbaum: see here
Alleged examples of this error in articles published elsewhere, by such authors as Daniel Dennett, Robin Le Poidevin, Graham Priest, Michael Martin, Bertrand Russell, Simon Blackburn: see here
[Editor's Note (Lowder): I haven't taken the time to investigate Feser's claim.]

Louise Antony's NYT Editorial on Good without God

2011-12-18T18:05:00.003-06:00

LINK (HT: Ex-Apologist)

The Definition of Atheism, the Anal-Retentive Defense of Etymological Purism, and Linguistic Relativism

2011-12-18T14:18:00.001-06:00

Back when I was the moderator of the USENET newsgroup alt.atheism.moderated, I used to debate the definition of atheism and I used to defend the atheism as the lack of belief position. I'm persuaded, however, by Ted Drange that by default we should define our terms in a way which matches ordinary usage. Ordinary usage of the word "atheism" is that it means the belief that God does not exist. I see no benefit whatsoever to the proposal that nontheists should spend their limited time on trying to convince people both that (a) atheism is rational and (b) that they should use the word atheism in a different way, as opposed to merely focusing on (a).

Read more »

Recent Discussion of My Old List, "How to be an Atheist Apologist"

2011-12-18T02:14:00.003-06:00

I haven't been a regular, active participant on message boards for years, but I recently decided to participate in the thread at Rational Skepticism about my 2006 post, "How to be an Atheist Apologist." The topics we've discussed include:

Is the concept of an "atheist apologist" even coherent or is just a contradiction in terms?
Where was the sarcasm in my post? Was there any sarcasm in my post?
Introduction to basic terminology in Bayesian confirmation theory, e.g., prior probability, explanatory power, etc.
Whether the prior probability of theism is equal to that of pastafarianism (the Flying Spaghetti Monster), Invisible Pink Unicorns, Santa Claus, leprechauns, ghosts, etc.
My Bayesian fine-tuning argument for God's existence and the multiverse objection to fine-tuning arguments (plural)
Historicity of Jesus
The definition of atheism, the anal-retentive defense of etymological purism, and linguistic relativism vs. objectivism

The discussion board thread may be found here; my comments start here.

Argument Against the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 11

2011-12-17T23:59:00.027-06:00

A key claim made by Christian apologists who defend the resurrection goes like this:

(JAW) Jesus of Nazareth was alive and walking around unassisted on the first Easter Sunday.

This claim is either true or it is not. In posts 7 through 10 of this series, I have been examining the implications of the supposition that (JAW) is not true. This supposition appears to represent five different logical possibilities, as illustrated in the following diagram.

JIM = Jesus is a myth.

JA = Jesus was alive on the first Easter Sunday (for at least part of the day).

JW = Jesus was walking around on the first Easter Sunday.

JB = Jesus was born before the first Easter Sunday.

JWA = Jesus was walking around with assistance on the first Easter Sunday.

JD = Jesus was dead on the first Easter Sunday (for the entire day).

The five logical possibilities are as follows:

1. (JAW) is not true, because Jesus is a myth (JIM).

2. (JAW) is not true, because although Jesus was alive on the first Easter Sunday (JA), Jesus was walking around with assistance on the first Easter Sunday (JWA).

3. (JAW) is not true, because although Jesus was alive on the first Easter Sunday (JA), Jesus did not walk around on the first Easter Sunday (Not JW).

4. (JAW) is not true, because Jesus was not alive on the first Easter Sunday (Not JA), because Jesus was dead (all day long) on the first Easter Sunday (JD).

5. (JAW) is not true, because Jesus was not alive on the first Easter Sunday (Not JA), because Jesus was not born prior to the first Easter Sunday (Not JB).

I have argued that each one of these five suppositions would tip the balance against the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. So, if one supposes that (JAW) is not true, then it would be more reasonable to reject the claim that Jesus rose from the dead than to accept this claim. Given that (JAW) is a key claim made by Christian defenders of the resurrection, it is only reasonable to expect that the rejection of (JAW) would logically lead to skepticism about the resurrection of Jesus. I have merely confirmed this reasonable expectation to be true.

The next phase of my dilemma might not be so favorable to skepticism. In the next few posts, I will suppose that (JAW) is true. Since this is a key claim made by defenders of the resurrection of Jesus, and a central point of contention between Christian apologists and skeptics, one might reasonably expect that supposing (JAW) to be true would logically lead to belief in the resurrection of Jesus. But I will do my best to argue that this reasonable expectation is false, and that in supposing this key claim to be true, one is still driven to the conclusion that it would be more reasonable to reject the claim that Jesus rose from the dead than to accept this claim.

Christopher Hitchens RIP

2011-12-16T15:08:00.001-06:00

Dear Bleaders,

I wrote a little essay on Christopher Hitchens and the meaning of life and death for the Ottawa Citizen called "For Atheists This Life is Enough." Maybe have a look? Maybe tell me what you think.

x Jennifer