The historical case for the Christian faith begins with several relatively uncontroversial facts which include:
- Jesus was crucified
- Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea
- Two days later the tomb was reportedly found empty by some female followers
- The disciples subsequently believed they experienced literal appearances of the risen Jesus
- The disciples held these beliefs to martyrdom
- The church was born and grew out of this event
So naturally the question is: which theory best fits these facts? Or simply put, what happened? Usually several theories are listed, including:
- Wrong Tomb
- Hallucination
- Disciples stole body
- Authorities hid body
- Swoon
- Jesus' bodily resurrection
Christian apologists then state why each naturalistic theory conflicts with one or more of the historical facts, and conclude that the best theory is that Jesus really did rise from the dead. It is my contention that this case for Christian faith ignores what we know about psychology today, and that proper consideration of psychology reveals a different scenario, and a more promising question than "what happened?".
To have any shot at figuring out what happened, we must understand to our best abilities what we're dealing with. The setting is a battered people, the Jews, with a long history of slavery, desert wandering, exile, governmental chaos, now ruled and oppressed by the world power of Rome, ridden with disease, malnutrition, short life expectancy, and high childhood mortality. This people holds sacred a collection of writings which depict their history in conjunction with a monotheistic god who has made great promises, promises which have yet to be fulfilled after many centuries. Several key lines of these writings, notably of the most recently written book of Daniel, suggest a mysterious human-duality with this monotheistic god, leading many Jews to anticipate fulfillment of their god's promises through a human saviour. This saviour would physically overthrow the kingdoms oppressing the Jews and establish the reign of the kingdom of god in Judea. These expectations pertained to real kingdoms, not symbolic ones.
Now zoom in further to a handful of lower-class Jews who have left their menial jobs to follow around an unpopular religious teacher whose unique claim is rather bizarre but supposedly of the most gargantuan importance the world has ever known. The term we use to describe such a group today, and the term used by Pliny to describe Christianity in 112 AD, is "cult". In order to understand what was going through the disciples minds, we have to understand the psychology of cults.
Take the famous 1950's study by Leon Festinger, who infiltrated a Chicago cult led by one Dorothy Martin. Martin predicted the world would end in a great flood on Dec 21, 1954, and claimed to have received the information from aliens. The aliens promised to save the faithful believers by picking them up in their spaceship at midnight on Dec 20. Many of Martin's followers had taken drastic steps of devotion, including quitting school and jobs, dispersing savings and possessions, and leaving spouses. The believers sat awaiting their alien saviours that night, but midnight came and went. Now confronted by this devastating, disconfirming event, the believers had two options: stop believing and face their embarrassing stupidity, or find a way to continue believing. Fascinatingly, the latter occurred (as Festinger had predicted). A new story emerged that their faithfulness had inspired god to save the planet from doom. The cult began an aggressive campaign to convert as many people as possible, calling newspapers and taking to the streets to proclaim the miracle their faith had brought about.
So this is something we know today, that cult believers, especially those who have sacrificed much for their beliefs, can become even more fervent and aggressive after experiencing disconfirming events such as failed prophecy. A much larger example of this is the Jehovah Witness church. But lets return to our ancient Judean cult. Having left most everything behind, the followers had been following this religious teacher for a couple years now, a man who claimed to be the saviour that the Jews (some of them) expected. Their expectation was that their leader would overthrow the Roman kingdom, establish god's kingdom, and finally fulfill god's promises to Israel. Instead, their leader is executed by the Romans and their own Jewish people, as an ignominious criminal. Confronted by this devastating, disconfirming event, the Jesus followers were faced with the same two options the Martin followers faced: stop believing and face their embarrassing stupidity, or find a way to continue believing. And like the Martin followers, they too continued believing, a miraculous story emerged, and they began an aggressive campaign to convert people.
Christian apologists will say, "If they knew Jesus was really dead, why would they die for a lie? They were motivated by the truth of what they'd seen!" But modern psychology exposes a different motive, to defend beliefs that one has sacrificed greatly for. Because of this, a believer's mind is capable of developing new, even more bizarre beliefs and stories to defend prior beliefs that have been disconfirmed. And they do so with sincerity.
The Jesus cult and the Martin cult both reacted to their disconfirming event by developing a new miraculous story and aggressively proselytizing. It is my opinion that these similarities are not coincidental, but attributable to a common psychological pressure, and the stories are fictitious reactions to preserve a disconfirmed belief.
So then, what happened in the historical events which gave birth to Christian belief, if Jesus didn't really resurrect from the dead? This question, posed by apologists, is as promising as trying to determine what Socrates did for a living. The events are simply not reconstructable, buried in time. What happened to Linda Napolitano and the eye-witnesses if she wasn't really abducted by aliens? Who knows. The more promising question is: Is the outcome of the story predictable? In the case of Jesus' followers, the answer is yes. Their bizarre miraculous story is predicted by the psychological pressures they faced, exactly as the Martin cult.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Problems with Free Will Theology
Free Will and Suffering
Christians typically use the free-will argument to address the problem of suffering: Suffering exists because we humans have the free-will to sin and cause suffering; God gave us free-will so we wouldn't be mere robots, and can freely choose to follow or disobey God; It had to be one or the other, free-will or robots.
This argument is a decent attempt to shield God from being responsible for suffering, but most people, including several Christian philosophers I've read, acknowledge that it isn't a slam dunk. The problem of suffering remains a theological and philosophical problem.
The main problem is that the free-will argument includes a rule: there can either be free-will or robotic humans. If God had to operate within this rule then he is not ultimately God, because he is subject to some external rule outside himself. If God did not have to operate within this rule, then he could have created infinite alternative rules which do not result in so much needless suffering.
Along the same lines, the apologists cosmological argument states God is the beginning of all things, the first uncaused cause. God existed "before" anything else material or non-material existed, including evil. Then God acted, performing the first cause from which all subsequent causes and effects trace. This first act eventually resulted in, among everything else, a new thing called evil. If God's original act of creation is the ultimate first cause of everything, it is necessarily the ultimate first cause of evil. To conclude that free-will caused evil is to neglect the question of what caused free-will, and specifically our particular brand of free-will.
If God is the first-cause, then everything, including evil, must causally trace back to God.
Free Will and Salvation
Christianity claims that the paramount decision facing all humans is whether or not to follow Jesus, upon which our salvation depends, and we have free-will to make that decision. The problem with this claim is that it's unclear whether Jesus really exists, which makes it unclear whether "following" him is really the right thing to do. So the decision to follow Jesus is actually a secondary issue, wholly contingent upon a guess as to whether Jesus exists. This could be forgiven were Jesus' existence largely the more rational guess, but most of the world finds the opposite is the case. Most of the world is sincerely guessing that Jesus doesn't exist, not because they will to do what is wrong, but because they will to do what is right!
Because of this, I find that "free-guess" is more applicable to the Christian view of salvation than "free-will". Let me elaborate with an analogy.
It would be like God placed all humans in a grove in the middle of an enormous forest. To exit the forest, there are a thousand paths radiating outward from the grove, each traversing different terrain, each presenting different challenges and rewards, some of which intersect other paths at various points. Each path takes a lifetime to traverse. At the end of each path is a unique exit door from the forest, which we must enter upon arrival. Nobody can see what's on the other side of the door until they themselves enter. The catch is that one of these doors leads to eternal Paradise, all the others lead to eternal Prison, and God has not clearly marked the paths.
Rather, the humans instinctively congregate into numerous feuding factions with competing ideas about which path leads to the door of Paradise, many claiming to have received this information from God. Now, it would be silly to say that God has given them free-will to choose Paradise or Prison, because he's concealed these outcomes behind a barrier of mystery and unknowing. Rather than choosing between Paradise and Prison, God has left them to guess which path goes were. If a human cries out, "Lord, I choose Paradise, no matter the sacrafice!" God responds (if not verbally, then through silence), "That's not how it works, now guess a path." and leaves him/her subject to the pursuasive power of the numerous factions. Not suprisingly, the majority of the humans end up picking the wrong path, mostly by an unlucky guess.
When an unlucky souls open a door to eternal Prison, is God to say, "This was your choice, you should have chosen Paradise. Now face the consequences of your decision"? That doesn't make any sense. The vast majority willed to choose Paradise with all their hearts, they simply didn't know which path to take and were forced to guess.
In order to have free-will rather than free-guessing in the forest analogy, the paths must be marked. Not by other fallible humans on the same journey, but by God, who alone has knowledge of where each trail ultimately leads. We must understand the decision in front of us and choose our fate accordingly. Knowing then which path leads to Paradise, we can choose to either follow that path no matter how treacherous and painful the journey, or we can choose take an alternative path because it looks temporarily easier or self-gratifying. That would be true free-will.
Despite the countless man-made signs screaming out "This Way! God Told Me!", God has not marked the path. Salvation, if there be such a thing, wouldn't plausibly depend on an ill-informed guess. The concept of free-will doesn't add much rationality to the Christian view of salvation, because the Christian view of salvation depends ultimately on a free-guess.
Free Will and the Bible
Free will is used to defend the Bible-based theory that there exists a good, omniscient, omnipotent god. In order to explain the apparent lack of this god's intervention in the world today (especially with regard to suffering), Free Will is argued. However, the Bible is a collection of stories which depict God heavily intervening in the world, thereby interfering with human Free Will. So Free Will, while used to support the Bible's theory that god exists, doesn't have much ground in the Bible's depiction of that god.
Consider just about any Bible story, such as Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, the prophets, the Ten Commandments, Jesus' miracles, etc. They all depict an all-powerful god intervening in our world, obstructing human free-will in some manner.
Today when Christians attempt to explain horrible realities such as Sierra Lamar's tragic abduction, they'll often say "Well, God gave her abductor Free Will." There are currently thousands of people praying that Sierra Lamar turns up alive. If, tragically, the police's suspicions prove correct and she has been murdered, many Christians will probably use similar Free Will arguments to help explain why God didn't answer their prayers, intervening and saving the young girl from her captor.
But again the Bible is full of stories of God doing exactly so: freeing the Israelites from Egypt, giving Sampson supernatural powers over his enemies, freeing Peter from prison, handing over numerous enemies in battle, promising that enemies will be crushed.
It seems unreasonable to use Free Will to defend the apparent lack of intervention of the god depicted in the Bible, when that god is depicted as intervening over and over again in dramatic visible ways.
Christians typically use the free-will argument to address the problem of suffering: Suffering exists because we humans have the free-will to sin and cause suffering; God gave us free-will so we wouldn't be mere robots, and can freely choose to follow or disobey God; It had to be one or the other, free-will or robots.
This argument is a decent attempt to shield God from being responsible for suffering, but most people, including several Christian philosophers I've read, acknowledge that it isn't a slam dunk. The problem of suffering remains a theological and philosophical problem.
The main problem is that the free-will argument includes a rule: there can either be free-will or robotic humans. If God had to operate within this rule then he is not ultimately God, because he is subject to some external rule outside himself. If God did not have to operate within this rule, then he could have created infinite alternative rules which do not result in so much needless suffering.
Along the same lines, the apologists cosmological argument states God is the beginning of all things, the first uncaused cause. God existed "before" anything else material or non-material existed, including evil. Then God acted, performing the first cause from which all subsequent causes and effects trace. This first act eventually resulted in, among everything else, a new thing called evil. If God's original act of creation is the ultimate first cause of everything, it is necessarily the ultimate first cause of evil. To conclude that free-will caused evil is to neglect the question of what caused free-will, and specifically our particular brand of free-will.
If God is the first-cause, then everything, including evil, must causally trace back to God.
Free Will and Salvation
Christianity claims that the paramount decision facing all humans is whether or not to follow Jesus, upon which our salvation depends, and we have free-will to make that decision. The problem with this claim is that it's unclear whether Jesus really exists, which makes it unclear whether "following" him is really the right thing to do. So the decision to follow Jesus is actually a secondary issue, wholly contingent upon a guess as to whether Jesus exists. This could be forgiven were Jesus' existence largely the more rational guess, but most of the world finds the opposite is the case. Most of the world is sincerely guessing that Jesus doesn't exist, not because they will to do what is wrong, but because they will to do what is right!
Because of this, I find that "free-guess" is more applicable to the Christian view of salvation than "free-will". Let me elaborate with an analogy.
It would be like God placed all humans in a grove in the middle of an enormous forest. To exit the forest, there are a thousand paths radiating outward from the grove, each traversing different terrain, each presenting different challenges and rewards, some of which intersect other paths at various points. Each path takes a lifetime to traverse. At the end of each path is a unique exit door from the forest, which we must enter upon arrival. Nobody can see what's on the other side of the door until they themselves enter. The catch is that one of these doors leads to eternal Paradise, all the others lead to eternal Prison, and God has not clearly marked the paths.
Rather, the humans instinctively congregate into numerous feuding factions with competing ideas about which path leads to the door of Paradise, many claiming to have received this information from God. Now, it would be silly to say that God has given them free-will to choose Paradise or Prison, because he's concealed these outcomes behind a barrier of mystery and unknowing. Rather than choosing between Paradise and Prison, God has left them to guess which path goes were. If a human cries out, "Lord, I choose Paradise, no matter the sacrafice!" God responds (if not verbally, then through silence), "That's not how it works, now guess a path." and leaves him/her subject to the pursuasive power of the numerous factions. Not suprisingly, the majority of the humans end up picking the wrong path, mostly by an unlucky guess.
When an unlucky souls open a door to eternal Prison, is God to say, "This was your choice, you should have chosen Paradise. Now face the consequences of your decision"? That doesn't make any sense. The vast majority willed to choose Paradise with all their hearts, they simply didn't know which path to take and were forced to guess.
In order to have free-will rather than free-guessing in the forest analogy, the paths must be marked. Not by other fallible humans on the same journey, but by God, who alone has knowledge of where each trail ultimately leads. We must understand the decision in front of us and choose our fate accordingly. Knowing then which path leads to Paradise, we can choose to either follow that path no matter how treacherous and painful the journey, or we can choose take an alternative path because it looks temporarily easier or self-gratifying. That would be true free-will.
Despite the countless man-made signs screaming out "This Way! God Told Me!", God has not marked the path. Salvation, if there be such a thing, wouldn't plausibly depend on an ill-informed guess. The concept of free-will doesn't add much rationality to the Christian view of salvation, because the Christian view of salvation depends ultimately on a free-guess.
Free Will and the Bible
Free will is used to defend the Bible-based theory that there exists a good, omniscient, omnipotent god. In order to explain the apparent lack of this god's intervention in the world today (especially with regard to suffering), Free Will is argued. However, the Bible is a collection of stories which depict God heavily intervening in the world, thereby interfering with human Free Will. So Free Will, while used to support the Bible's theory that god exists, doesn't have much ground in the Bible's depiction of that god.
Consider just about any Bible story, such as Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, the parting of the Red Sea, the walls of Jericho, the prophets, the Ten Commandments, Jesus' miracles, etc. They all depict an all-powerful god intervening in our world, obstructing human free-will in some manner.
Today when Christians attempt to explain horrible realities such as Sierra Lamar's tragic abduction, they'll often say "Well, God gave her abductor Free Will." There are currently thousands of people praying that Sierra Lamar turns up alive. If, tragically, the police's suspicions prove correct and she has been murdered, many Christians will probably use similar Free Will arguments to help explain why God didn't answer their prayers, intervening and saving the young girl from her captor.
But again the Bible is full of stories of God doing exactly so: freeing the Israelites from Egypt, giving Sampson supernatural powers over his enemies, freeing Peter from prison, handing over numerous enemies in battle, promising that enemies will be crushed.
It seems unreasonable to use Free Will to defend the apparent lack of intervention of the god depicted in the Bible, when that god is depicted as intervening over and over again in dramatic visible ways.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Death - Motivation for Belief
A year has passed since my deconversion, and I feel I'm beginning to better understand the motivation for belief in Jesus. For many people, belief must provide something that non-belief doesn't offer. Until recently, I'd always believed and so couldn't make the comparison.
My latest understanding has come through contemplating death, which can be very depressing. If death is the end, then the following brief list is true:
Upon death,
* I can no longer enjoy the people I love and cherish. I'm unaware of them, thoroughly severed from them forever. I am dead to them and they are dead to me.
* I cannot participate in the lives of my descendants, whom I've worked so hard for. I can't share in their hopes, joys, successes, or struggles.
* Everything that matters to me will no longer matter to me.
* Everything I've worked for will be gone from me.
* I have not even memories to ponder.
* All experience ceases. There is no me. I don't exist and have no awareness that I ever did.
If that's the truth, I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck the truth."
If that's the truth, it may still be better to believe something else.
The above list is unacceptable to many people's minds, and understandably so. It's bleak. It's at odds with the innate optimism that countless studies have identified in the human species.
Optimism gives us motivation to put forth effort and take potentially beneficial risks. Optimism not only improves our health, but has helped our species evolve. Optimism says my future will be better than my past. The list says that my future is ultimately void.
Optimism is a vital quality, and must be maintained. If the above list destroys my optimism, then I'm much better off rejecting the list regardless of whether or not it's true. Having decided that the list is unacceptable, what alternative belief should I replace it with? Well, I'd turn to a belief that offers hope, that motivates me to behave the way I think is right, a belief I can have in common with others, and a belief which values an intellectual basis rather than being unabashedly delusional. In this context, Christianity is a great option.
I'm convinced that rejection of the above list (or the likes) is the most common basis for turning to belief in Jesus, much more common than being won over intellectually by the arguments of Christian apologists. I am convinced that the primary effect of Christian apologetics is not to persuade non-believers, but to reassure believers that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. It is the fear of death and need for optimism which first motivates us to believe, and apologetics which help us feel like our belief is not a mere psychosis, especially given the intellectual attacks from the outside.
In the absence of such a motivation to believe, I don't think Christian apologetics alone would hold sway with many people. To those who aren't otherwise motivated to believe, the proposition of an ancient human deity sounds silly, and the supporting arguments offered are uncompelling. But given the motivation of rejecting the above list, the proposition is appealing. One can look for the merit in the argument rather than the loophole, and take the affirmative side: Yes, Jesus rose and gave us eternal life!
So it is not my mission deconvert people. Even if religion is simply the "opium of the masses", let's not forget that opium is a highly effective pain reliever. Death is a disease we all have, and knowledge of our impending death is a very painful symptom. Religion can be a great treatment. The tough part for me is balancing condoning religious belief and opposing the nastier effects of belief like bigotry and excessive absurdity.
My latest understanding has come through contemplating death, which can be very depressing. If death is the end, then the following brief list is true:
Upon death,
* I can no longer enjoy the people I love and cherish. I'm unaware of them, thoroughly severed from them forever. I am dead to them and they are dead to me.
* I cannot participate in the lives of my descendants, whom I've worked so hard for. I can't share in their hopes, joys, successes, or struggles.
* Everything that matters to me will no longer matter to me.
* Everything I've worked for will be gone from me.
* I have not even memories to ponder.
* All experience ceases. There is no me. I don't exist and have no awareness that I ever did.
If that's the truth, I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck the truth."
If that's the truth, it may still be better to believe something else.
The above list is unacceptable to many people's minds, and understandably so. It's bleak. It's at odds with the innate optimism that countless studies have identified in the human species.
Optimism gives us motivation to put forth effort and take potentially beneficial risks. Optimism not only improves our health, but has helped our species evolve. Optimism says my future will be better than my past. The list says that my future is ultimately void.
Optimism is a vital quality, and must be maintained. If the above list destroys my optimism, then I'm much better off rejecting the list regardless of whether or not it's true. Having decided that the list is unacceptable, what alternative belief should I replace it with? Well, I'd turn to a belief that offers hope, that motivates me to behave the way I think is right, a belief I can have in common with others, and a belief which values an intellectual basis rather than being unabashedly delusional. In this context, Christianity is a great option.
I'm convinced that rejection of the above list (or the likes) is the most common basis for turning to belief in Jesus, much more common than being won over intellectually by the arguments of Christian apologists. I am convinced that the primary effect of Christian apologetics is not to persuade non-believers, but to reassure believers that Christianity is not anti-intellectual. It is the fear of death and need for optimism which first motivates us to believe, and apologetics which help us feel like our belief is not a mere psychosis, especially given the intellectual attacks from the outside.
In the absence of such a motivation to believe, I don't think Christian apologetics alone would hold sway with many people. To those who aren't otherwise motivated to believe, the proposition of an ancient human deity sounds silly, and the supporting arguments offered are uncompelling. But given the motivation of rejecting the above list, the proposition is appealing. One can look for the merit in the argument rather than the loophole, and take the affirmative side: Yes, Jesus rose and gave us eternal life!
So it is not my mission deconvert people. Even if religion is simply the "opium of the masses", let's not forget that opium is a highly effective pain reliever. Death is a disease we all have, and knowledge of our impending death is a very painful symptom. Religion can be a great treatment. The tough part for me is balancing condoning religious belief and opposing the nastier effects of belief like bigotry and excessive absurdity.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Apologists 'Failure to Disprove' Defense
I've seen professional debates where the Christian wins the crowd, and I've personally had lengthy debates where my reasoning didn't seem to make a scratch. How do Christians stay afloat in a sea of strong opposing arguments?
From watching numerous debates, I've noticed a common tactic. In response to a strongly reasoned argument against the credibility of Christian beliefs, the Christian shows (rightfully) why the argument fails to disprove his Christian beliefs. The Christian is absolutely correct, the atheist's argument did not disprove Christian beliefs. The Christian thus deems the argument a failure, the debate rolls on, and the crowd is impressed by the intellectual robustness of Christian belief.
But what just happened?
While it appeared persuasive, the Christian has simply fallen back on the fact that no belief (true or false) can ultimately be disproven, whether it's belief in Jesus or mermaids. I call this type of defense the "failure-to-disprove" defense. While sometimes hard to recognize, the failure-to-disprove defense has a couple common signatures:
For example, let me apply the failure-to-disprove defense to support the existence of Santa Claus. Watch the scenarios I invent to maintain my prior belief in Santa Claus despite the onslaught of reason:
Santa-skeptic: "You say Santa is fat, and yet he fits down tiny chimneys."
Santa-believer: "Well, he has extraordinary contortion powers of course. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... His home cannot be seen at the North Pole."
Santa-believer: "Have you searched every inch of the North Pole? Besides it's probably underground. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "Even underground, it would be detectable by thermal sensors."
Santa-believer: "Well, again, Santa is no ordinary being. He's fully spiritual in addition to being human. His house isn't necessarily detectable by unbelievers in the physical realm. That'd obviously make things too easy for those who want on his "nice" list out of selfishness. Your argument completely fails to disprove Santa."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... How can he possibly visit every house in one night?"
Santa-believer: "Again, he's extraordinary. And besides, I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe he could have his elves help out. Just because you can't fathom it, that does nothing to disprove my beliefs."
Santa-skeptic: "I know for a fact that my childhood presents came from my parents."
Santa-believer: "But how do you really know that? You can't absolutely know that. Parents have typically lost their Faith in Santa and wouldn't believe even if they saw him or his gifts. And besides, I wouldn't put it past Santa to work through unbelieving parents, instead of his elves, to deliver exactly the gifts Santa had in mind for the believing child. Your argument fails."
As you can see, the Santa skeptic can never win. The believer is deeming every anti-Santa argument a failure, because each one ultimately failed to disprove his belief in Santa Claus. Well, unfortunately for the believer, failure-to-disprove doesn't change the fact that each anti-Santa argument was quite good, and ultimately on-point.
For a real-life example, see William Lane Craig employ the failure-to-disprove defense against Peter Atkins here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
Atkins makes a couple decent arguments against Christianity (though he's extreme in his view of what science can account for), namely:
The failure-to-disprove tactic is seldom necessary for truthful propositions. For example, I'd never need this tactic if I was trying to convince a skeptic that France is a real place. I'd never need to resort to saying "your argument fails to disprove my proposition that France exists." To do so would be to neglect the wealth of actually-potent arguments and evidence that is available.
The failure-to-disprove tactic is low-quality because it can be used equally to support any silly belief. The tactic reveals nothing about the potency of the opponent's argument, as every argument ultimately fails on some level. When someone relies on the failure-to-disprove tactic, they're unwittingly placing their belief on a reasonableness level with Santa Claus, as the same tactic is used to support both beliefs. Either they're neglecting the better arguments that could be made, or there aren't any better arguments for their belief.
From watching numerous debates, I've noticed a common tactic. In response to a strongly reasoned argument against the credibility of Christian beliefs, the Christian shows (rightfully) why the argument fails to disprove his Christian beliefs. The Christian is absolutely correct, the atheist's argument did not disprove Christian beliefs. The Christian thus deems the argument a failure, the debate rolls on, and the crowd is impressed by the intellectual robustness of Christian belief.
But what just happened?
While it appeared persuasive, the Christian has simply fallen back on the fact that no belief (true or false) can ultimately be disproven, whether it's belief in Jesus or mermaids. I call this type of defense the "failure-to-disprove" defense. While sometimes hard to recognize, the failure-to-disprove defense has a couple common signatures:
- Imaginatively inventing some scenario (usually involving the supernatural) in which one's questionable beliefs are not disproved despite the strength of an opposing argument.
- Appealing to epistemological limitations, "how do we really know anything for sure?!" to avoid disproof.
Either way, the defense boils down to the fact that the argument failed to ultimately disprove the belief. This fact can be used equally to support Christianity, atheism, Heaven's Gate, and Santa Claus.
For example, let me apply the failure-to-disprove defense to support the existence of Santa Claus. Watch the scenarios I invent to maintain my prior belief in Santa Claus despite the onslaught of reason:
Santa-skeptic: "You say Santa is fat, and yet he fits down tiny chimneys."
Santa-believer: "Well, he has extraordinary contortion powers of course. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... His home cannot be seen at the North Pole."
Santa-believer: "Have you searched every inch of the North Pole? Besides it's probably underground. Your argument fails."
Santa-skeptic: "Even underground, it would be detectable by thermal sensors."
Santa-believer: "Well, again, Santa is no ordinary being. He's fully spiritual in addition to being human. His house isn't necessarily detectable by unbelievers in the physical realm. That'd obviously make things too easy for those who want on his "nice" list out of selfishness. Your argument completely fails to disprove Santa."
Santa-skeptic: "OK... How can he possibly visit every house in one night?"
Santa-believer: "Again, he's extraordinary. And besides, I'm not a fundamentalist, I believe he could have his elves help out. Just because you can't fathom it, that does nothing to disprove my beliefs."
Santa-skeptic: "I know for a fact that my childhood presents came from my parents."
Santa-believer: "But how do you really know that? You can't absolutely know that. Parents have typically lost their Faith in Santa and wouldn't believe even if they saw him or his gifts. And besides, I wouldn't put it past Santa to work through unbelieving parents, instead of his elves, to deliver exactly the gifts Santa had in mind for the believing child. Your argument fails."
As you can see, the Santa skeptic can never win. The believer is deeming every anti-Santa argument a failure, because each one ultimately failed to disprove his belief in Santa Claus. Well, unfortunately for the believer, failure-to-disprove doesn't change the fact that each anti-Santa argument was quite good, and ultimately on-point.
For a real-life example, see William Lane Craig employ the failure-to-disprove defense against Peter Atkins here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco
Atkins makes a couple decent arguments against Christianity (though he's extreme in his view of what science can account for), namely:
- Science is able to explain things that religions attribute to God
- Humans have desparate motives for belief in God (ie fear & hopelessness)
The failure-to-disprove tactic is seldom necessary for truthful propositions. For example, I'd never need this tactic if I was trying to convince a skeptic that France is a real place. I'd never need to resort to saying "your argument fails to disprove my proposition that France exists." To do so would be to neglect the wealth of actually-potent arguments and evidence that is available.
The failure-to-disprove tactic is low-quality because it can be used equally to support any silly belief. The tactic reveals nothing about the potency of the opponent's argument, as every argument ultimately fails on some level. When someone relies on the failure-to-disprove tactic, they're unwittingly placing their belief on a reasonableness level with Santa Claus, as the same tactic is used to support both beliefs. Either they're neglecting the better arguments that could be made, or there aren't any better arguments for their belief.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Pulling the Plug on Noah's Flood
I used to believe that Noah's Flood was a true story. It had to be, because it's in the Bible. If the Flood didn't actually happen, the Old Testament's truthfulness is hurt. Since the New Testament writings depend completely on the Old Testament's truthfulness, they'd go down with it. For example, Jesus himself likens his second coming to Noah's Flood:
- Luke 17:26-27 And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it shall be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
So Christians have a strong motivation to defend the truthfulness of the Old Testament, including Noah's Flood. But, did the Flood actually happen?
With a little Googling, one quickly gets the impression that today the Flood story is on par with the flat-Earth theory. From perusing the scientific evidence (I'm not a scientist!) it seems the summary is this: a global flood would have utterly devastated the Earth in detectable ways, but the Earth clearly shows a lack of such devastation.
We all saw the destruction wreaked by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Imagine how much greater the destruction of a global flood. Not only because it affects the whole planet, but the amount of water battering each location is over a mile deep instead of only a few feet. It would have destroyed all Earth's delicate structures, so that today there would be no delicate structures older than the flood date.
But Earth does have many delicate structures which are older than the Noah story, such as polar ice-caps, coral reefs, stalagmites, and even trees. Most critically, Earth's geologic column and fossil column show a lack of global flood devastation. Earth's strata is precisely in-tact throughout the time-scale when a global flood would have certainly churned it up. Creationists have come up with several "rapid growth" theories to account for the apparent old age of these structures, and to account for the existence of multiple human races (funny that creationists require evolution to defend the flood). It's clear they're committed to their religious conclusions here, not following the evidence.
Geological failings aside, the Noah story makes no sense logistically. Did polar bears swim/travel to the middle East to board the ark, and then swim to Canada afterward? What did carnivorous animals eat on the boat? How did animals from all different climates survive together in one climate for several months? Climate controlled cabins? There's an awful lot of magic involved if Noah's flood actually happened.
My favorite part is, after pulling off the extraordinary feat of keeping all the animals alive on the ark, Noah immediately burns some of them for God, who "smells the soothing aroma" and decides not to destroy things so much anymore.
Many Christians today have acknowledged the implausibility of a global flood, and have resorted to saying it was probably a large local flood. However, the whole premise of the Bible story and the language usage clearly doesn't gel with a local flood. Quoting the Bible:
- Gen 6:6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth...
- Gen 6:17 And behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything in which is the breath of life, from under heaven, everything which is on earth shall perish.
- Gen 8:19 And the water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth; and all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
- Gen 7:23 ... only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
- Gen 8:17 "Bring out with you every living thing... that they may breed abundantly on the earth..."
As the story goes, God promises to never again flood the earth. If Noah's flood was indeed just a local flood, God has broken that promise many times now. I think there's no escaping that the Bible tells of a global flood.
I've also heard Christians say that many ancient civilizations have reports of a massive flood. However, these reports obviously pertain to a local flood, otherwise those civilizations would not have survived to write about it. Again, I think the Bible story clearly depicts a global flood.
- God(s) was displeased with man
- God(s) decides to send worldwide flood to kill all living creatures
- God(s) knew of one righteous man
- God(s) ordered this righteous man to build a wooden ark
- The ark was to be multi-storied, sealed with pitch, and have one door
- The righteous man, a few other people, and a sample of all the animals boarded the ark
- A great rain flooded the land and covered the mountains
- The righteous man sent out birds to detect dry land, and the third bird was successful
- The ark landed on a mountain
- The people exited the ark and offered burnt sacrifices to God(s), who smelled the aroma
- God(s) express a changed attitude toward the flooding
- The righteous man is blessed
Christians are aware of the problem that the Epic of Gilgamesh poses, and have made fairly humorous efforts to address it, such as this effort from the Institute for Creation Research (quotes taken from http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh)
- "...these two flood accounts, it has been generally agreed that there is an obvious relationship."
- "Dating of the oldest fragments of the Gilgamesh account originally indicated that it was older than the assumed dating of Genesis."
- "The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version."
- "Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological."
So Noah's Flood story is incompatible with science, logistically silly, requires accepting all sorts of weird theology like God being sorry he created man and being soothed by the smell of burning animals, and is a retelling of older Sumerian mythology. I think the only sound conclusion is that Noah's Flood never happened.
I also now see this story for how disgusting it really is; it's a story of the intentional suffocating of all life. It teaches us of a murderous god who is very disappointed with us and appeased by death and the smell of burning flesh sacrifices. And this is what Christians are teaching children in Sunday schools, using cute cartoons.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Atheist Blogroll
Eyes Open has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Judgement Day, May 21, TODAY! You laugh?
I'm sure you've all heard about Harold Camping's prediction that the rapture will occur tonight, May 21, at about 6pm. His multimillion dollar Oakland CA based radio station, Family Radio, claims they have infallible, absolute Biblical proof, 100% guaranteed, no plan B. A million dollar billboard campaign has posted over a thousand Judgement Day billboards. "Project Caravan" has been traveling in decorated RVs proclaiming the end. It appears as though Camping has convinced hundreds, maybe thousands of believers worldwide, many of whom have made drastic preparations for the end. One man, Jeff Gonzalez, quit his job at Intel. One couple, Jessica and Eddie Ramos, quit their jobs, pulled their life savings out of the bank, and pulled their children out of school.
Quote from Camping:
"How can anyone dare to dispute with the Bible concerning the absolute truth that the beginning of the Day of Judgment together with the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011?"
http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/ip_en.pdf
Quote from a Camping follower:
"I'm positive that the same question (what if you wake up on May 22?) was asked of Noah, and all those who asked that question perished for unbelief."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZgOm6PsO4k
Most Christians hold Camping and his following to be nutty fanatics, even a cult. But this is a dissonant position, because Christians believe that the foretold events themselves are indeed going to happen, just not necessarily on May 21.
For example, Dr Wayne Grudem says, "And then what will happen on May 22 will be this, he'll (Camping) say 'whoops, I got the math wrong, let me recalculate' and then he'll set another date. It'll go on probably until he dies. Unless (begins to grin) Jesus does come back, which could happen any day."
Grudem's last statement seemed, to me, intellectually disconnected from his previous thoughts. It's as though a different person started talking, or he was suddenly speaking from a different motive. Regardless, what he does indicate is that it's not the predicted events that Christians consider nutty, it's just the predicted date.
Or is it? Can a date trigger such a gut feeling of laughter? I contend that the knee-jerk response of humor and disbelief that most Christians (and non-Christians) feel toward Camping's prediction reveals how superficially they believe in the Rapture and Judgement Day. These Doomsday events are doctrinal items which most Christians merely nod to, not real expectations which shape their behavior. It's not the date which makes Christians laugh, it's the Doomsday events themselves.
If a seismologist predicted a major earthquake on May 21, he/she wouldn't be laughed at nearly as much. This is because people genuinely expect that earthquakes will happen. Christians don't genuinely expect that Doomsday will happen; if they did, Camping's prediction would not incite the dismissive reaction it does. At least that's my prediction, laugh all you want!
Quote from Camping:
"How can anyone dare to dispute with the Bible concerning the absolute truth that the beginning of the Day of Judgment together with the Rapture will occur on May 21, 2011?"
http://www.familyradio.com/PDFS/ip_en.pdf
Quote from a Camping follower:
"I'm positive that the same question (what if you wake up on May 22?) was asked of Noah, and all those who asked that question perished for unbelief."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZgOm6PsO4k
Most Christians hold Camping and his following to be nutty fanatics, even a cult. But this is a dissonant position, because Christians believe that the foretold events themselves are indeed going to happen, just not necessarily on May 21.
For example, Dr Wayne Grudem says, "And then what will happen on May 22 will be this, he'll (Camping) say 'whoops, I got the math wrong, let me recalculate' and then he'll set another date. It'll go on probably until he dies. Unless (begins to grin) Jesus does come back, which could happen any day."
Grudem's last statement seemed, to me, intellectually disconnected from his previous thoughts. It's as though a different person started talking, or he was suddenly speaking from a different motive. Regardless, what he does indicate is that it's not the predicted events that Christians consider nutty, it's just the predicted date.
Or is it? Can a date trigger such a gut feeling of laughter? I contend that the knee-jerk response of humor and disbelief that most Christians (and non-Christians) feel toward Camping's prediction reveals how superficially they believe in the Rapture and Judgement Day. These Doomsday events are doctrinal items which most Christians merely nod to, not real expectations which shape their behavior. It's not the date which makes Christians laugh, it's the Doomsday events themselves.
If a seismologist predicted a major earthquake on May 21, he/she wouldn't be laughed at nearly as much. This is because people genuinely expect that earthquakes will happen. Christians don't genuinely expect that Doomsday will happen; if they did, Camping's prediction would not incite the dismissive reaction it does. At least that's my prediction, laugh all you want!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)