In his book The Case for Christ Lee Strobel compares the techniques used in criminal cases to resolve the veracity of alleged events with how we can do the same for the events described in the Bible. One of the running themes throughout the book is how, for example, eyewitness testimony has been crucial in many criminal cases to convict the perpetrators. This way he tries to give credence to the (alleged) eyewitness testimony documented in the Bible.
This comparison, however, fails on many points. One specific point, closely related to this theme, where this completely fails is that Strobel completely ignores the significance of contradictory testimony.
There's a reason why police, when interrogating suspects who might have collaborated in perpetrating a crime, will keep them separate: So that they won't get their story straight. In other words, if the suspects give contradictory statements, that will be a strong indication that they are lying.
At the very least, contradictory testimony puts the trustworthiness of all the testimony into question.
Many of the events in the gospels that Strobel tries to justify via eyewitness testimony is actually contradictory between the gospels. For example the events of what happened when the women went to Jesus' tomb are contradictory in all the gospels.
If we follow Strobel's rationale regarding eyewitness testimony, what this tells us is that the whole story is suspect and not very trustworthy. Most certainly a very weak case.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Applying the moral argument to God himself
I think there's a question that seldom gets asked from apologists (who advocate the argument from morality):
"Is God a moral being?"
If they advocate the moral argument (ie. the notion that morals somehow exist independent of humans and have been "created" by something) and they answer "yes" to that question, the argument becomes circular. If God is a moral being, then said morality has to, according to their own argument, exist independent of God and have been created by something else.
If God is not a moral being, then how can he even dictate morality to others? Wouldn't morality thus be by definition subjective, something that God came up with?
The whole problem with this entire argument is that it's self-contradictory. The core problem is that it assumes that morals have to somehow been "created" for them to "exist." As if they were some kind of immaterial entities floating out there that something created and can manipulate like they were objects or something.
The actual situation is that morals are simply a function of how living, thinking beings work. A side-effect. An emergent behavior of simple physical laws acting on complex mechanisms. They are not any kind of entities that exist independent of us, floating somewhere out there affecting our brains. They don't have to "be created" by anything.
"Is God a moral being?"
If they advocate the moral argument (ie. the notion that morals somehow exist independent of humans and have been "created" by something) and they answer "yes" to that question, the argument becomes circular. If God is a moral being, then said morality has to, according to their own argument, exist independent of God and have been created by something else.
If God is not a moral being, then how can he even dictate morality to others? Wouldn't morality thus be by definition subjective, something that God came up with?
The whole problem with this entire argument is that it's self-contradictory. The core problem is that it assumes that morals have to somehow been "created" for them to "exist." As if they were some kind of immaterial entities floating out there that something created and can manipulate like they were objects or something.
The actual situation is that morals are simply a function of how living, thinking beings work. A side-effect. An emergent behavior of simple physical laws acting on complex mechanisms. They are not any kind of entities that exist independent of us, floating somewhere out there affecting our brains. They don't have to "be created" by anything.
"I used to be an atheist like you"
"... then I took an arrow in the knee." (Sorry, I just had to.)
Seriously, though, it seems to be a rather common tactic among many creationists, apologists and street preachers when they engage in an one-on-one conversation with an atheist, that they claim that they were atheists as well, but then they studied what Christianity had to offer and came to the logical and rational conclusion that it makes the most sense.
From a non-insignificant amount of experience I can tell that in many cases this is a lie, or at the very least a deliberate twisting of the truth. The majority of secular people who become believers in Christianity as adults did not, unlike these people claim, do it because of studying Christianity and all other points of view and coming to the rational conclusion that Christianity must be true and everything else false. No, in the vast majority of cases people become believers not because of rational decisions but because of emotional reasons. It's only afterwards (sometimes even years afterwards) that they try to rationalize it.
In many cases when you actually start talking with them and what they (allegedly) used to believe before they converted, you will find out that they were not, in fact, acquainted at all with skepticism, logic, science and the scientific method. You will quite quickly get the impression that rather than having studied all sides thoroughly and impartially, this person was simply proselytized and given a biased and narrow point of view, and this person believed it. They will commonly present all the stereotypical misconceptions about atheism, skepticism and science (as well as the different branches of science dealing with biology and the history of the Universe and life.)
I'm not sure why exactly they try this "I use to be an atheist too" tactic. Perhaps in the naive hope that they will give the impression that they somehow relate to the other person and convince them that they know and understand their perspective (when in fact they don't, especially if the other person is an experienced and well-studied skeptic who knows all the tricks in the book that apologists use.)
Seriously, though, it seems to be a rather common tactic among many creationists, apologists and street preachers when they engage in an one-on-one conversation with an atheist, that they claim that they were atheists as well, but then they studied what Christianity had to offer and came to the logical and rational conclusion that it makes the most sense.
From a non-insignificant amount of experience I can tell that in many cases this is a lie, or at the very least a deliberate twisting of the truth. The majority of secular people who become believers in Christianity as adults did not, unlike these people claim, do it because of studying Christianity and all other points of view and coming to the rational conclusion that Christianity must be true and everything else false. No, in the vast majority of cases people become believers not because of rational decisions but because of emotional reasons. It's only afterwards (sometimes even years afterwards) that they try to rationalize it.
In many cases when you actually start talking with them and what they (allegedly) used to believe before they converted, you will find out that they were not, in fact, acquainted at all with skepticism, logic, science and the scientific method. You will quite quickly get the impression that rather than having studied all sides thoroughly and impartially, this person was simply proselytized and given a biased and narrow point of view, and this person believed it. They will commonly present all the stereotypical misconceptions about atheism, skepticism and science (as well as the different branches of science dealing with biology and the history of the Universe and life.)
I'm not sure why exactly they try this "I use to be an atheist too" tactic. Perhaps in the naive hope that they will give the impression that they somehow relate to the other person and convince them that they know and understand their perspective (when in fact they don't, especially if the other person is an experienced and well-studied skeptic who knows all the tricks in the book that apologists use.)
Sunday, June 23, 2013
The argument from morality is just outright strange
I have written about this subject before, but I just can't help but to find the argument from morality extremely strange.
The reason for this is that I have lived all my life in northern Europe, and I have a lot of experience on Christianity here (and the many denominations of it here), for over 30 years, and I have never, not even once, heard this argument being presented.
It wasn't until I started watching videos and reading blogs from American skeptics that I first heard this argument, and heard that seemingly this is a very popular argument among religious people in the United States, who seemingly think that it's an extremely good one.
When I first heard the argument, it sounded extremely silly. I have several good friends who are devoted Christians, and when I told them about this argument, they found it a strange argument as well (as incredible as that might sound to Americans.)
The truth is that this argument is basically completely non-existent in Europe, and most people, even devoted Christians, who hear it find it strange (at least if they are smart enough to understand it.) Or at least that has been the case for a long time. (Unfortunately it seems that in later years American creationism and apologetics is getting foothold in European Christians, and their nonsense is starting to spread here as well. You still don't hear this and other equally silly arguments here much, but I have the impression that they are steadily getting more popular.)
The major reason for this is, I think, because something like 85% of northern Europeans are secular. (Similar numbers are true for many other European countries as well, but the percentage tends to become smaller the more south we go.)
Many American Christians live in a social bubble where they can pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist. They get to keep this false notion that the only thing stopping the country from sinking into total chaos is because the majority of people are Christians. In other words, most people behave in a socially acceptable manner because they are Christians, and atheists are a very small minority, and thus cannot cause much trouble because all the Christians are keeping them in check. Thus they can easily come up with silly arguments like "atheists have no moral values, and have no problem in killing, raping and pillaging, because they don't believe in a higher authority."
The situation is completely different here. Being secular/atheist is the norm, the majority position. You can quite safely assume that the average person is secular. Being deeply religious is the exception, the odd-one-out. And quite clearly society keeps going as normal and has not sunk into total chaos and destruction. Therefore the argument in question would just sound silly because it's clearly just not true. That's why not even Christians present it. It would be like "huh? What the hell are you talking about?"
This is why it just keeps sounding really silly when I keep hearing this argument being made over and over mostly by American apologists and creationists, as if it were some kind of good and convincing one.
The reason for this is that I have lived all my life in northern Europe, and I have a lot of experience on Christianity here (and the many denominations of it here), for over 30 years, and I have never, not even once, heard this argument being presented.
It wasn't until I started watching videos and reading blogs from American skeptics that I first heard this argument, and heard that seemingly this is a very popular argument among religious people in the United States, who seemingly think that it's an extremely good one.
When I first heard the argument, it sounded extremely silly. I have several good friends who are devoted Christians, and when I told them about this argument, they found it a strange argument as well (as incredible as that might sound to Americans.)
The truth is that this argument is basically completely non-existent in Europe, and most people, even devoted Christians, who hear it find it strange (at least if they are smart enough to understand it.) Or at least that has been the case for a long time. (Unfortunately it seems that in later years American creationism and apologetics is getting foothold in European Christians, and their nonsense is starting to spread here as well. You still don't hear this and other equally silly arguments here much, but I have the impression that they are steadily getting more popular.)
The major reason for this is, I think, because something like 85% of northern Europeans are secular. (Similar numbers are true for many other European countries as well, but the percentage tends to become smaller the more south we go.)
Many American Christians live in a social bubble where they can pretend that the rest of the world doesn't exist. They get to keep this false notion that the only thing stopping the country from sinking into total chaos is because the majority of people are Christians. In other words, most people behave in a socially acceptable manner because they are Christians, and atheists are a very small minority, and thus cannot cause much trouble because all the Christians are keeping them in check. Thus they can easily come up with silly arguments like "atheists have no moral values, and have no problem in killing, raping and pillaging, because they don't believe in a higher authority."
The situation is completely different here. Being secular/atheist is the norm, the majority position. You can quite safely assume that the average person is secular. Being deeply religious is the exception, the odd-one-out. And quite clearly society keeps going as normal and has not sunk into total chaos and destruction. Therefore the argument in question would just sound silly because it's clearly just not true. That's why not even Christians present it. It would be like "huh? What the hell are you talking about?"
This is why it just keeps sounding really silly when I keep hearing this argument being made over and over mostly by American apologists and creationists, as if it were some kind of good and convincing one.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Argument from eloquence
It's an interesting psychological phenomenon that people will more easily believe a person who speaks in a very eloquent and understandable manner, no matter how false this person's claims are, as long as they are at least remotely plausible and believable (without putting much thought on it.)
This is, in fact, how most of religions, conspiracy theories, different forms of denialism, blatant historical revisionism and other such things are so successful.
When an actual scientist or historian delivers a lecture, it tends to be dry, plodding, filled with tedious (but necessary) facts, many of which can easily go over the head of the average listener. Also, in average, the average such lecture tends to be outright boring and uninteresting to the average person because it has nothing that would pick their curiosity.
However, when an eloquent conspiracy theorist, creationist or other such person delivers a lecture, they know how to raise interest and curiosity about what they are saying. They know what to say and how to say it, and how to deliver it in a manner that's easily understood. They are basically playing with human psychology (many of them without even consciously knowing it.) Their listeners will on average not check facts, will not check if what's being said is actually true, and will not have the education and background to recognize dubious claims and fallacious arguments when they are presented.
With this you can convince the average layman of almost anything. People have been convinced in this manner of the most ridiculous things that go against all available evidence and experimentation.
This is, in fact, how most of religions, conspiracy theories, different forms of denialism, blatant historical revisionism and other such things are so successful.
When an actual scientist or historian delivers a lecture, it tends to be dry, plodding, filled with tedious (but necessary) facts, many of which can easily go over the head of the average listener. Also, in average, the average such lecture tends to be outright boring and uninteresting to the average person because it has nothing that would pick their curiosity.
However, when an eloquent conspiracy theorist, creationist or other such person delivers a lecture, they know how to raise interest and curiosity about what they are saying. They know what to say and how to say it, and how to deliver it in a manner that's easily understood. They are basically playing with human psychology (many of them without even consciously knowing it.) Their listeners will on average not check facts, will not check if what's being said is actually true, and will not have the education and background to recognize dubious claims and fallacious arguments when they are presented.
With this you can convince the average layman of almost anything. People have been convinced in this manner of the most ridiculous things that go against all available evidence and experimentation.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Perfection of the Bible, and apologetics
While it's not a universally held belief among all Christian denominations, it's nevertheless a good majority of them that claim the perfection and infallibility of the Bible. In other words, the Bible is the perfect word of God, without flaw and error.
The concept of the Bible being perfect is in drastic contradiction with the very concept of apologetics.
When talking about Christianity, "apologetics" means, basically, three things:
If you need fallible humans to gather bits and pieces scattered all over the place into a coherent and clear whole, from a book that's allegedly inspired by a perfect God, a book that is itself allegedly perfect, then that sounds to me like anything but perfect. If the Bible were perfect, it would already be easily understandable without the help of thousands of scholars and apologists (who can't even agree among themselves.)
Likewise if some message in the Bible is in such a metaphorical or poetic form that understanding it requires heavy interpretation, that also speaks of it being far from perfect. A perfect doctrine ought to be written in such a clear and unambiguous way as to minimize all possible mistaken interpretations. Writing things in vague metaphors is deliberately asking for it to be misinterpreted. Either God is incompetent or deliberately trying to cause confusion.
More blatantly, the very need for apologetics to explain away contradictory descriptions speaks loudly against the Bible being perfect. It doesn't even matter whether these contradictions can be rationally reconciled or not; the very need for such reconciliation is enough to show the imperfection of the text.
Many Christians will claim that there are no such contradictions. This is a lie (and quite hypocritically Christians seem to have no problems in lying when defending their faith.) What they really mean by "there are no contradictions or errors" is "all contradictions can be explained away in a manner that satisfies me." Reconciling contradictions does nothing to remove the fact that the text contains them.
Let's take an example: There are two stories about what Judas did after he betrayed Jesus. One says that he was repentant an hung himself, the other does not say he repented and he instead was eviscerated. One says that he threw the money he got into a temple, while the other says he bought a field with the money. Apologists try to reconcile these two completely different narratives by trying to merge them somehow. Regardless of what they try to do, the very need to do this is a clear indication that the text is not perfect. A perfect text would not have such contradictions and would not need such apologetics.
The concept of the Bible being perfect is in drastic contradiction with the very concept of apologetics.
When talking about Christianity, "apologetics" means, basically, three things:
- Forming a coherent and consistent doctrine of the Christian religion from the different parts scattered all over the Bible.
- Interpreting and explaining passages that are unclear, metaphoric, poetic, prophetic, or otherwise not trivially understandable.
- Reconciling apparent contradictions and differences between different parts of the Bible, especially those describing the same event, or the same tenet of the Christian doctrine.
If you need fallible humans to gather bits and pieces scattered all over the place into a coherent and clear whole, from a book that's allegedly inspired by a perfect God, a book that is itself allegedly perfect, then that sounds to me like anything but perfect. If the Bible were perfect, it would already be easily understandable without the help of thousands of scholars and apologists (who can't even agree among themselves.)
Likewise if some message in the Bible is in such a metaphorical or poetic form that understanding it requires heavy interpretation, that also speaks of it being far from perfect. A perfect doctrine ought to be written in such a clear and unambiguous way as to minimize all possible mistaken interpretations. Writing things in vague metaphors is deliberately asking for it to be misinterpreted. Either God is incompetent or deliberately trying to cause confusion.
More blatantly, the very need for apologetics to explain away contradictory descriptions speaks loudly against the Bible being perfect. It doesn't even matter whether these contradictions can be rationally reconciled or not; the very need for such reconciliation is enough to show the imperfection of the text.
Many Christians will claim that there are no such contradictions. This is a lie (and quite hypocritically Christians seem to have no problems in lying when defending their faith.) What they really mean by "there are no contradictions or errors" is "all contradictions can be explained away in a manner that satisfies me." Reconciling contradictions does nothing to remove the fact that the text contains them.
Let's take an example: There are two stories about what Judas did after he betrayed Jesus. One says that he was repentant an hung himself, the other does not say he repented and he instead was eviscerated. One says that he threw the money he got into a temple, while the other says he bought a field with the money. Apologists try to reconcile these two completely different narratives by trying to merge them somehow. Regardless of what they try to do, the very need to do this is a clear indication that the text is not perfect. A perfect text would not have such contradictions and would not need such apologetics.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Inconsistencies with the Roman census
Chapter 2 of the gospel of Luke tells us the following:
However, while this is a known historical fact, this passage actually heavily contradicts this in a rather drastic manner. It says that Joseph went to Bethlehem because he belonged to the house and line of David. Not because his residence was in Bethlehem.
If the fact that Joseph's permanent residence was not Bethlehem but Nazareth is unclear, Luke himself confirms this a few verses later:
The other contradiction is with the historical fact that Roman censuses required everybody to return to their permanent residence. There's absolutely nothing in history that would indicate in any way that the census would require anybody to move to the town of a very distant ancestor (in this case an ancestor of over a thousand years prior.)
The most likely explanation for this contradiction is that, very probably, there were two widespread but conflicting myths by the time that the gospel of Luke was written. The first was that the promised messiah would be born in Bethlehem (there are indications that Jewish rabbis had this interpretation at that time). The second was that Jesus was being called "Jesus of Nazareth". (In those times it was common practice to "surname" people by either their father's name or the town they were born, in order to distinguish them from other people with the same name.)
Therefore the author of the gospel had a dilemma: Jesus had to be born both in Bethlehem (due to the interpretation that the promised messiah would be born there) and also in Nazareth (because that's what Jesus was widely referred to.) Therefore he concocted this clever way around the dilemma: Write that Jesus was physically born in Bethlehem (due to the alleged sensus) but his "official childhood residence" was in Nazareth (so that his "surname" would make sense.)
Using a sensus as an excuse for Joseph and Mary to be in Bethlehem at that precise moment seems to be pretty sloppy, though. There are myriads of less contradictory reasons why they could have been there.
(Of course I'm talking from the narrative point of view here. The entire story is most probably completely fictional.)
Such censuses were indeed performed in ancient Rome, and they did indeed require for people who were not located at their regular place of residence at the moment to return there for the census.In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
However, while this is a known historical fact, this passage actually heavily contradicts this in a rather drastic manner. It says that Joseph went to Bethlehem because he belonged to the house and line of David. Not because his residence was in Bethlehem.
If the fact that Joseph's permanent residence was not Bethlehem but Nazareth is unclear, Luke himself confirms this a few verses later:
39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.There are two blatant contradictions here. One is in the text itself. Verses 3 and 4 say "and everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David..." Then verse 39 says: "they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth." In other words, Joseph went away from his own town to Bethlehem, even though the census required everyone to go to their own town, as stated by the text itself.
The other contradiction is with the historical fact that Roman censuses required everybody to return to their permanent residence. There's absolutely nothing in history that would indicate in any way that the census would require anybody to move to the town of a very distant ancestor (in this case an ancestor of over a thousand years prior.)
The most likely explanation for this contradiction is that, very probably, there were two widespread but conflicting myths by the time that the gospel of Luke was written. The first was that the promised messiah would be born in Bethlehem (there are indications that Jewish rabbis had this interpretation at that time). The second was that Jesus was being called "Jesus of Nazareth". (In those times it was common practice to "surname" people by either their father's name or the town they were born, in order to distinguish them from other people with the same name.)
Therefore the author of the gospel had a dilemma: Jesus had to be born both in Bethlehem (due to the interpretation that the promised messiah would be born there) and also in Nazareth (because that's what Jesus was widely referred to.) Therefore he concocted this clever way around the dilemma: Write that Jesus was physically born in Bethlehem (due to the alleged sensus) but his "official childhood residence" was in Nazareth (so that his "surname" would make sense.)
Using a sensus as an excuse for Joseph and Mary to be in Bethlehem at that precise moment seems to be pretty sloppy, though. There are myriads of less contradictory reasons why they could have been there.
(Of course I'm talking from the narrative point of view here. The entire story is most probably completely fictional.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)