The problem in a “reason vs. faith” topic is we sometimes face semantic difficulties. It is more of a “what is the definition of faith you are using” kind of a problem. To escape the problem, believers seem to assert that religious faith is very different with faith per se. According to believers, faith, like reason are methods of acquiring knowledge. So there! Reason and faith are not the same but different systems. Some say that faith is above reason. Others like most theologians today accept faith as compatible with reason…but faith is…as they say, the last recourse. Everything that reason cannot explain must rely to faith. While some believers insist that reason, assist faith (liberal Christians are more into this kind of faith.)
Nevertheless, whatever is use; well…faith is still not reason.
Let me illustrate this using a theist’s own illustration. (more…)
Monday, May 23, 2011
Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society Inc
Paul K. Moser - The Evidence For God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined - Reviewed by Thomas D. Senor, The University of Arkansas - Philosophical Reviews - University of Notre Dame
2011.01.01
Paul K. Moser
The Evidence For God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined
Paul K. Moser, The Evidence For God: Religious Knowledge Reexamined, Cambridge University Press, 2010, 280pp., $25.99 (pbk), ISBN 9780521736282.
Reviewed by Thomas D. Senor, The University of Arkansas
Taking up where 2008's The Elusive God left off, The Evidence for God is Paul Moser's second book in his attempt to reorient religious epistemology. As with the earlier volume, The Evidence for God is daring and provocative. Among the important topics it deals with are naturalism, fideism, natural theology, and the role that volition plays in our ascertaining evidence of God's existence.
The book begins with a parable around which the entire monograph revolves. Imagine that you are hiking in a vast and remote wilderness area that is accessible only to hikers. To your great dismay, you discover that you are hopelessly lost: you have no method of determining either your exact location or a promising route back to civilization. The woods are filled with dangers (e.g., poisonous snakes, hungry carnivores, and potentially freezing temperatures) and you have no means of communication with the outside world. Worse still, you have only a meager supply of food and water. You've had one bit of good fortune: you've come across an old, dilapidated shack that contains a barely functional ham radio. The battery in the radio still has a bit of juice, although you doubt it will last long once the radio is turned on. In short, your situation is dire but not hopeless. What is your best bet for survival?
According to Moser, what is needed is a trustworthy guide. Merely finding maps won't get you out of your predicament since you don't know how to place yourself on them -- you don't know where you are. To increase the chances of success, the guide should be capable of interacting with you as you are making your way out of the wilderness since you will likely make a wrong turn somewhere and you'll need to be put straight.
Given your predicament, Moser claims, you've got four primary options.
Option 1: Despairing
Seeing the hard road in front of you with at best a chance of rescue, you might just decide to give up. To do this is to be a practical atheist regarding a rescuer.
Option 2: Passively Waiting
Another option is not to give up hope but to stay put and simply wait for rescue. You could just bide your time and hope to be discovered. Being reasonable, you don't believe you'll be saved but you don't disbelieve either. As such, you become a practical agnostic about a rescuer.
Option 3: Leaping
The leaping option involves picking a path or direction, following it, and hoping for the best. One might focus on the goods involved in following a trail that other hikers have trod rather than on the result of rescue. In any event, the key here is action without evidence that the action will lead to the ultimate, desired end. Moser calls one who leaps a "practical fideist."
Option 4: Discerning Evidence
As opposed to the first three options, the fourth involves rationing the available food supply and taking a hard, rational look at your situation. Within the "discerning evidence" camp, two rather different approaches may be detected:
1. Purpose-neutral discerning of evidence: look for evidence of how to best find rescue that doesn't involve or presuppose the purposes of any potential rescuer.
2. Telic discerning of evidence: look for evidence that seems purposive. For example, whereas purpose-neutral evidence might be the shapes, lines, and textures of a map of the region, telic evidence would be markings on the map by an agent with an intention to guide the lost to safety.
Moser's idea is this: humanity is lost in a figurative wilderness: here's how Moser puts it:
we all face the prospect of ultimate physical death and social breakdown. From the perspective of our species overall, our food and water supplies are threateningly low, with little hope of being adequately replenished. On many fronts, our relationships with one another are unraveling, and have resulted in selfish factions and fights. The factions and fights often involve race, religion, nationality, or economic class but they sometimes cut across familiar lines. Selfishness transcends common categories, always, of course, for the sake of selfishness. We have become willing even to sacrifice the minimal well-being of others for our own selfish ends. As a result, economic injustices abound among us, wherever a sizeable group resides. Accordingly, genuine community has broken down on various fronts, and, in the absence of a rescuer, we shall all soon perish, whether rich or poor. (12-13)
The possibility of a rescuer for humanity depends on the possibility of a being both capable and willing to save us. The primary matter of the book is to "use the wilderness parable to examine, without needless abstraction, the main approaches to knowledge of God's existence" (15).
The approaches that Moser discusses are four: nontheistic naturalism, fideism, natural theology, and his preferred "personifying evidence of God" model. Having argued against the primary claims of the former perspectives and delineating his own position, Moser concludes the book with a chapter on potential defeaters, and in particular examines the epistemic impact of religious pluralism. In what follows, I'll sketch his discussion of each of these chapters and take issue with a couple points along the way.
Chapter 1 undertakes to examine whether appeals to the findings and nature of science undermine the rationality of belief in God. If naturalism is true, and if what it is for an object to be natural is for it to be (in principle) understandable via empirical science, then there is clearly no God, traditionally conceived. But why should we think that metaphysical naturalism is true? Whether or not there are good arguments for naturalism, empirical science itself would not seem to provide them.
Furthermore, Moser argues that a thorough-going naturalism would demand that purposive explanation (i.e., explanation that appeals to the intentions or purposes of agents) be eliminated, reduced, or somehow shown to be accounted for by non-intentional, non-purposive explanations. Yet the prima facie plausibility (indeed, ubiquity) of intentional explanation makes it very hard to see how to do without it; and no good reductions are yet on the table.
Moser concludes Chapter 1 with a dilemma for what he calls "Core Scientism," which is roughly the dual claim that every real entity knowable via (a completed) science, and every epistemically acceptable way of forming and revising beliefs, is grounded in the objects acknowledged by and the methods of (a completed) science. Either Core Scientism is itself not included in the sciences or its justification depends on a proper understanding of the nature of "empirical science." If the former, then the thesis is self-defeating for it asserts that only that which is knowable or justified via science is epistemically acceptable and yet it fails to meet this condition. If the latter, then it is being laid down simply as a desideratum of the proper understanding of "empirical science," in which case it is simply stipulative and innocuous.
Moser concludes that the empirical sciences and the epistemology they employ are barriers neither to the existence of non-natural entities (e.g., God) nor to the possibility of reasonable belief about them.
In Chapter 2, Moser turns his attention in a radically different direction. If the first chapter represents the pessimism of the lost hiker who thinks there is no hope of rescue and resigns himself to his fate, the second chapter focuses on the one whose hope manifests itself in blind action. The fideist is the believer who eschews evidence and who emphasizes the importance of faith as opposed to knowledge or even justified belief. Søren Kierkegaard is the primary example that Moser offers but he also includes Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Barth in the fideistic camp. The fideist believes not just that it is in some important sense permissible for the believer to lack supporting evidence for the existence of God but that true faith requires an existential leap from a springboard other than a solid evidential base. The subjectivity of religious devotion requires a lack of objectivity; arguments and reason are the source of the objectivity that is rejected by faith.
Why is there conflict between faith and reason? Moser proposes that, at least for Kierkegaard, it is the content of faith that produces the tension. Faith, or at least Christian faith, is incompatible with well-grounded belief because what is believed is "inherently paradoxical, contradictory, or absurd." (101) Moser takes Kierkegaard at his word when he uses this kind of language and thinks that Kierkegaard takes the faith that he holds to be necessarily false. So the picture Moser paints of fideism is not simply the claim that religious belief without evidence is morally or epistemically or religiously appropriate, but rather the much stronger claim that reason can't have anything to do with Christian faith since the latter is contradictory (because the doctrine of the Incarnation is contradictory) and hence necessarily false.
Moser contrasts the fideistic view of faith with what he labels "Christian faith." In the second half of this chapter, and in much of the last two-thirds of the book, the discussion leans heavily in the direction of biblical exegesis rather than analytic philosophy. This is never more true than with respect to Moser's presentation of his preferred view of faith. According to Moser, the Christian view of faith is, essentially, "a willing, obedient entrustment to God that involves one's motivational heart and that therefore is inherently action oriented" (105). In calling people to faith, God seeks not only to move us cognitively and emotionally, but volitionally as well. When the believer entrusts herself to God, God works cooperatively with her to transform her from the default position of selfishness to being an expression of God's perfect love. Thus, while there is a doxastic component to faith, there is also a crucial volitional component.
The fideism chapter includes a discussion of Alvin Plantinga's Reformed epistemology, which Moser includes under the more general category of "argument-indifferent theism." Moser finds a number of things not to like in Plantinga's epistemology of religious belief. He objects that on Plantinga's view, belief in the specific claims of Christianity is "caused" by the Holy Spirit and that this is inconsistent with the New Testament perspective that faith is a gift freely offered to all who have the ability to freely accept or reject it. However, the main difficulty that Moser has with Plantinga's view is simply that it is an instance of argument-indifferent theism, and thus it does not require that the believer possess "a trustworthy truth indicator for a belief" (140).
In the end, Moser rejects fideism because he understands it to recommend an arbitrary and, in the case of the Kierkegaardian view, contradictory faith. In keeping with the guiding metaphor of the book, the best chance of getting out of the woods is not by blindly choosing a path (particularly if you can tell immediately that the path goes nowhere!) but instead by finding trustworthy evidence that the selected route will lead to safety.
Chapter 3 takes on the epistemic significance of natural theology. Moser begins the chapter with a discussion leading to the claim that God's goal is to call people into a non-coercive relationship with God that will lead to the moral development and transformation of those who heed the call. The primary problems that Moser has with natural theology are two. First, the arguments fall short of arguing for a perfectly loving God. Cosmological arguments might lead to a first cause or ultimate explanation and teleological arguments might secure intelligence, but neither of these forms of reasoning can support the claim that the intelligent cause of the universe is a perfectly loving God. Moser thinks the ontological argument fails for reasons we don't have the space to discuss. But even if it didn't have the flaw that Moser cites, he still thinks it wouldn't be adequate since the concept involved
is static in a way that the personally interactive occurrent evidence of the presence and the reality of the Jewish and Christian God is not. In particular, the evidence consisting of the content of a concept of God is not personally variable relative to the wills of humans toward God and God's will. As a result, the evidence offered in ontological arguments fails to fit with the personally interactive divine self-revelation that involves God's intermittent hiding and seeking relative to humans. (157-158)
The trouble with the arguments, then, is that they provide the wrong kind of evidence. A God who wants to enter into dynamic, personal relationships with creatures will reveal himself in a way that invites creatures to enter more deeply into the relationship. A one-size-fits-all, impersonal model of evidence is not what we should expect given what we have reason to believe are God's purposes.
In Chapter 4 we get an argument for the existence of God that doesn't pretend to be natural theology traditionally construed. After claiming that the personifying evidence would require God's altering our volitional structure (with our permission) so that we would not remain in the condition of sin that makes our default will one of selfishness and hence unreceptive to moving in the direction of "unselfish love and forgiveness toward all persons" (204), Moser offers the following argument which he claims is for him -- and presumably others who have heeded the call -- a good argument since he has reasons for thinking that the premises are true.
1. Necessarily, if a human person is offered and receives the transformative gift, then this is the result of the authoritative power of a divine X of thoroughgoing forgiveness, fellowship in perfect love, worthiness of worship, and triumphant hope (namely, God).
2. I have been offered, and have willingly received, the transformative gift.
3. Therefore God exists.
What is the "transformative gift"? Although the definition is rather robust, understanding the argument requires understanding it so it's worth the space we devote to it:
The transformative gift =df one's being authoritatively convicted in conscience and forgiven by X of sin and thereby being authoritatively called into volitional fellowship with X in perfect love and into rightful worship toward X as worthy of worship and, on that basis, transformed by X from default tendencies to selfishness and despair to a new volitional center with a default position of unselfish love, including forgiveness, toward all people and of hope in the triumph of good over evil by X. (200)
Given this understanding of the transformative gift, premise one of the argument is presumably secure: for one is not in a position to offer the gift unless one is capable of forgiving sin and is worship-worthy. But given just how propositionally rich the definition of the transformative gift is, the second premise will require significant justification (to say the least). For I'm justified in believing that premise only if I'm justified in believing the following conjunctive proposition: I have been authoritatively convicted in conscience & forgiven of sin & called into a volitional fellowship in perfect love & due to the previous conjuncts, transformed from selfishness and despair to a new volitional center of unselfish love and forgiveness, and hope in the triumph of good over evil & the one who has offered this to me is capable of forgiving sin and worthy of worship.
The argument is clearly valid; in fact, the conclusion follows from the second premise alone. The question then is how, on Moser's view, is premise two justified? Given what Moser said in response to Plantinga (and in keeping with his general epistemological predilections), he'll have to hold that there are internally accessible signs of trustworthiness in order for the belief to be justified. The belief's being reliably grounded, say, will be insufficient. So what kinds of grounds does he have for holding that premise two is true?
Moser writes:
I could plausibly argue for the cognitive well-groundedness, or trustworthiness, of premise 2 on the basis of its central role in an undefeated best-available explanation of the whole range of my experience and my other evidence. This role includes this premise's figuring in a best-available answer to the following explanation-seeking question: why is my experience regarding the supposed provisions of the transformative gift (including my evident change from default selfishness to a new volitional center with a default position of unselfish love toward all people) as it actually is now, rather than the opposite or at very least different? On the basis of my experiential evidence, the central role of premise 2 in answering such an explanation-seeking question can figure in its being well-grounded for me and for anyone else who has similar evidence. (205-6)
So premise two is to be justified by an inference to the best explanation of "the whole range" of the believer's experience and other evidence. But what precisely is the nature of the experience that is the ground of so significant an abductive inference? We get hints here and there but if we are looking for a robust, phenomenological characterization and philosophical exploration of the mode of evidence we receive and how it is that we are able to receive it, we'll be disappointed.
According to Moser, we can have "direct, firsthand knowledge of God's reality and character" by "being acquainted with (at least) God's personal and perfectly loving will" (201). But what is it to be acquainted with perfect, unselfish love? Although Moser has a fair bit to say about the point of contact and the effects of such acquaintance (e.g., the conscience is a focal point for receiving a direct divine volitional challenge, that being acquainted with such love is to be acquainted with "God's inherent personal character and thus with the reality of God" (201), that such acquaintance can noncoercively lead to one's will being changed from selfishness to unselfish love of others, etc.), we never get anything that looks like a philosophical account of the nature of this kind of evidence. To be clear, I'm not implying that we should be given enlightening necessary and sufficient conditions for when human acquaintance with the divine takes place. Nor am I suggesting that we should be provided with epistemically useful rules for determining when such acquaintance is achieved. But if we are to think that this experience is evidence for the existence of God, we need to know better how to conceptualize its evidential role.
A natural thought is that such acquaintance involves perceptual or at least quasi-perceptual experience. Yet except for his frequent use of "acquaintance," Moser gives no reason to think this -- there is no discussion of perception or even of mystical religious experience which might be at least quasi-perceptual. How we can have knowledge by acquaintance (as opposed to description) without having perceptual contact with that which is known is not addressed and is, to my mind, problematic.
Here is another interpretation of the experiential evidence that figures prominently in Moser's religious epistemology: the experience is the recognition of the change in one's volitional center. One sees that one is now inclined toward love for others rather than selfishness. One's will has been altered for the better in ways that seem to be unnatural -- at least in the sense that my natural default position has been moved away from selfishness and toward perfect love. This volitional change is in need of explanation and the best explanation is that it is the result of my having received the transformational gift.
Although there is no doubt that this recognition has a role to play in Moser's defense of premise two of his argument, it can't be all the experiential ("personifying") evidence that the believer has. For if it were, there would be no inclination to call a mere recognition of a volitional shift an "acquaintance" with God. This surely implies, as Moser says elsewhere, "direct, firsthand" experience of God. And if it were the only role that experiential evidence plays, then premise two will not be justified. For it surely can't be reasonably argued that my noticing a surprising change for the better in my will by itself justifies the belief that I have been offered and received the transformational gift (recall that it entails the sizable and robust conjunction described above).
Despite a long and interesting discussion of the theological and biblical account of the nature of, and challenges to, volitional change, we never do get an epistemologically illuminating discussion of acquaintance and of the personifying, experiential evidence that one gets as one positively responds to the divine offer.
The Evidence for God's concluding chapter tackles the primary potential defeaters for the justification of premise two: the problems of evil and of religious diversity. Although there is no room here to discuss the details of this chapter, I will say that Moser's discussion of diversity (which takes up most of the chapter) is bold, innovative, and nuanced. While defending a version of exclusivism, Moser argues that a God of perfect love could not make belief a requirement of salvation, and that one might yield to God's transforming call de re and fail to form any beliefs about having yielded to God or even about the existence of God.
Moser's book is an interesting read that furthers his agenda in the epistemology of religious belief. If Moser has in mind making this work a trilogy, I would suggest that he use William Alston's book Perceiving God as a model: that is, I'd like to see him lay out more explicitly the epistemology of personifying evidence and tie it in with modes of evidential justification with which we are all familiar.
Some Fundamental Logical Fallacies of Religion | Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society Inc (PATAS
Generally speaking, religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, rituals, ethics or mores that often involves deep devotion to god or gods or higher plane of existence; it also emphasises the concept of transcendent or supernatural reality that is supposedly beyond the grasp of understanding or reason. Religion purports to explain existence and the meaning of life or afterlife for that matter. Religion can be very formal, organised and dogmatic, such as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, religion can also be highly individualistic in nature or may claim to be not religion at all but purports to be “personal relationship” with the divine.
Here I will try to briefly examine some of the fundamental logical fallacies of religion. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that is based on incorrect inference (either inductive or deductive). It may either purposely done to persuade people or it may be unintentionally committed due to insufficient facts or capacity to reason. Logical fallacies divert attention from the main issue, which is the validity of conclusions. I do not want to delve too much on the premises or try to be exhaustive in their epistemological implications. I will just list and try to define some of the logical fallacies that I think most religions purposely or unintentionally commit.
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick) – This is the argument based on fear or appeal to the emotion. This type of argument permeates most religions. The main strength of this fallacy in persuading people relies on the fear of the unknown or the fear of punishment. For instance, Christianity uses the threat of eternal suffering in HELL to convert people and maintain discipline among followers. In short, “believe in our god or else he will deep-fry your ass!” Hinduism, on the other hand, has the concept of karma. Those who are fearful to return as worms in their next life will surely try to behave. Of course, the opposite of this type of argument is the appeal to reward. Example: “Be converted to our religion and you will receive the gift of eternal life, power to heal the sick, speak in tongues and other super powers.”
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) – Most people are naturally sympathetic about the suffering of others. Ironically, one significant reason for the success of converting people to Christianity during its infancy was the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians. Many pagans were converted because they saw the resilience and steadfast dedications of the early Christians in spite of their sufferings, which included enduring several types of horrible tortures, executions, humiliation and disenfranchisement. The concept of a suffering Christ who willingly (albeit, temporarily) gave up his life is a moving story that can make some faint-hearted cry or cringe.
3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) – Most religious people and even atheists are contented with arguing their positions based on the appeal to ignorance. Basically, it is reasoning that relies on the incompleteness of knowledge or evidence and using this to assert that a concept or assertion is false because it does not have sufficient evidence. Conversely, it also purports that if a concept or assertion is not absolutely certain to be false, then it must be true. Hence, the phrase, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Taken in the context of the belief in god, how can you prove that god does not exist if you do not have all the knowledge?
4. Argument Based on Unfalsifiability – The error in this type of argument is committed when a claim or assertion cannot be falsified or tested to be true. Almost all of the arguments of all religions fall under this category. Hence, most religious people are contented on accepting their religion as true on the grounds of faith, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely the claims might be. For example, how can you falsify the zombies in the story told by Matthew?
Matthew [27:52] “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose; [27:53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
5. Argumentum Ad Hominem – Simply put, this argument is based on attacking the personal characteristic of an individual. In the Christian religious context, humans are considered as sinful and unworthy of salvation. Hence, Christians should really be grateful and worship Jesus for saving them with his redemptive blood. The fallacy is committed here because of the effort to demean people who are otherwise good. It intends to demoralize people and make them feel guilty and worthless, hence, more pliable for brainwashing.
Romans [3:23] “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.”
Psalm [14:1] “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. they are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.”
Republished from http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/
Some Fundamental Logical Fallacies of Religion | Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society Inc (PATAS
Generally speaking, religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, rituals, ethics or mores that often involves deep devotion to god or gods or higher plane of existence; it also emphasises the concept of transcendent or supernatural reality that is supposedly beyond the grasp of understanding or reason. Religion purports to explain existence and the meaning of life or afterlife for that matter. Religion can be very formal, organised and dogmatic, such as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, religion can also be highly individualistic in nature or may claim to be not religion at all but purports to be “personal relationship” with the divine.
Here I will try to briefly examine some of the fundamental logical fallacies of religion. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that is based on incorrect inference (either inductive or deductive). It may either purposely done to persuade people or it may be unintentionally committed due to insufficient facts or capacity to reason. Logical fallacies divert attention from the main issue, which is the validity of conclusions. I do not want to delve too much on the premises or try to be exhaustive in their epistemological implications. I will just list and try to define some of the logical fallacies that I think most religions purposely or unintentionally commit.
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick) – This is the argument based on fear or appeal to the emotion. This type of argument permeates most religions. The main strength of this fallacy in persuading people relies on the fear of the unknown or the fear of punishment. For instance, Christianity uses the threat of eternal suffering in HELL to convert people and maintain discipline among followers. In short, “believe in our god or else he will deep-fry your ass!” Hinduism, on the other hand, has the concept of karma. Those who are fearful to return as worms in their next life will surely try to behave. Of course, the opposite of this type of argument is the appeal to reward. Example: “Be converted to our religion and you will receive the gift of eternal life, power to heal the sick, speak in tongues and other super powers.”
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) – Most people are naturally sympathetic about the suffering of others. Ironically, one significant reason for the success of converting people to Christianity during its infancy was the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians. Many pagans were converted because they saw the resilience and steadfast dedications of the early Christians in spite of their sufferings, which included enduring several types of horrible tortures, executions, humiliation and disenfranchisement. The concept of a suffering Christ who willingly (albeit, temporarily) gave up his life is a moving story that can make some faint-hearted cry or cringe.
3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) – Most religious people and even atheists are contented with arguing their positions based on the appeal to ignorance. Basically, it is reasoning that relies on the incompleteness of knowledge or evidence and using this to assert that a concept or assertion is false because it does not have sufficient evidence. Conversely, it also purports that if a concept or assertion is not absolutely certain to be false, then it must be true. Hence, the phrase, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Taken in the context of the belief in god, how can you prove that god does not exist if you do not have all the knowledge?
4. Argument Based on Unfalsifiability – The error in this type of argument is committed when a claim or assertion cannot be falsified or tested to be true. Almost all of the arguments of all religions fall under this category. Hence, most religious people are contented on accepting their religion as true on the grounds of faith, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely the claims might be. For example, how can you falsify the zombies in the story told by Matthew?
Matthew [27:52] “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose; [27:53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
5. Argumentum Ad Hominem – Simply put, this argument is based on attacking the personal characteristic of an individual. In the Christian religious context, humans are considered as sinful and unworthy of salvation. Hence, Christians should really be grateful and worship Jesus for saving them with his redemptive blood. The fallacy is committed here because of the effort to demean people who are otherwise good. It intends to demoralize people and make them feel guilty and worthless, hence, more pliable for brainwashing.
Romans [3:23] “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.”
Psalm [14:1] “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. they are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.”
Republished from http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/
'Logic is the bane of theists." Fr.Griggs
Some Fundamental Logical Fallacies of Religion | Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society Inc (PATAS
Generally speaking, religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, rituals, ethics or mores that often involves deep devotion to god or gods or higher plane of existence; it also emphasises the concept of transcendent or supernatural reality that is supposedly beyond the grasp of understanding or reason. Religion purports to explain existence and the meaning of life or afterlife for that matter. Religion can be very formal, organised and dogmatic, such as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, religion can also be highly individualistic in nature or may claim to be not religion at all but purports to be “personal relationship” with the divine.
Here I will try to briefly examine some of the fundamental logical fallacies of religion. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that is based on incorrect inference (either inductive or deductive). It may either purposely done to persuade people or it may be unintentionally committed due to insufficient facts or capacity to reason. Logical fallacies divert attention from the main issue, which is the validity of conclusions. I do not want to delve too much on the premises or try to be exhaustive in their epistemological implications. I will just list and try to define some of the logical fallacies that I think most religions purposely or unintentionally commit.
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick) – This is the argument based on fear or appeal to the emotion. This type of argument permeates most religions. The main strength of this fallacy in persuading people relies on the fear of the unknown or the fear of punishment. For instance, Christianity uses the threat of eternal suffering in HELL to convert people and maintain discipline among followers. In short, “believe in our god or else he will deep-fry your ass!” Hinduism, on the other hand, has the concept of karma. Those who are fearful to return as worms in their next life will surely try to behave. Of course, the opposite of this type of argument is the appeal to reward. Example: “Be converted to our religion and you will receive the gift of eternal life, power to heal the sick, speak in tongues and other super powers.”
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) – Most people are naturally sympathetic about the suffering of others. Ironically, one significant reason for the success of converting people to Christianity during its infancy was the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians. Many pagans were converted because they saw the resilience and steadfast dedications of the early Christians in spite of their sufferings, which included enduring several types of horrible tortures, executions, humiliation and disenfranchisement. The concept of a suffering Christ who willingly (albeit, temporarily) gave up his life is a moving story that can make some faint-hearted cry or cringe.
3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) – Most religious people and even atheists are contented with arguing their positions based on the appeal to ignorance. Basically, it is reasoning that relies on the incompleteness of knowledge or evidence and using this to assert that a concept or assertion is false because it does not have sufficient evidence. Conversely, it also purports that if a concept or assertion is not absolutely certain to be false, then it must be true. Hence, the phrase, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Taken in the context of the belief in god, how can you prove that god does not exist if you do not have all the knowledge?
4. Argument Based on Unfalsifiability – The error in this type of argument is committed when a claim or assertion cannot be falsified or tested to be true. Almost all of the arguments of all religions fall under this category. Hence, most religious people are contented on accepting their religion as true on the grounds of faith, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely the claims might be. For example, how can you falsify the zombies in the story told by Matthew?
Matthew [27:52] “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose; [27:53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
5. Argumentum Ad Hominem – Simply put, this argument is based on attacking the personal characteristic of an individual. In the Christian religious context, humans are considered as sinful and unworthy of salvation. Hence, Christians should really be grateful and worship Jesus for saving them with his redemptive blood. The fallacy is committed here because of the effort to demean people who are otherwise good. It intends to demoralize people and make them feel guilty and worthless, hence, more pliable for brainwashing.
Romans [3:23] “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.”
Psalm [14:1] “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. they are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.”
Republished from http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/
'Logic is the bane of theists." Fr.Griggs
Some Fundamental Logical Fallacies of Religion | Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society Inc (PATAS
Generally speaking, religion can be defined as a set of beliefs, rituals, ethics or mores that often involves deep devotion to god or gods or higher plane of existence; it also emphasises the concept of transcendent or supernatural reality that is supposedly beyond the grasp of understanding or reason. Religion purports to explain existence and the meaning of life or afterlife for that matter. Religion can be very formal, organised and dogmatic, such as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, religion can also be highly individualistic in nature or may claim to be not religion at all but purports to be “personal relationship” with the divine.
Here I will try to briefly examine some of the fundamental logical fallacies of religion. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that is based on incorrect inference (either inductive or deductive). It may either purposely done to persuade people or it may be unintentionally committed due to insufficient facts or capacity to reason. Logical fallacies divert attention from the main issue, which is the validity of conclusions. I do not want to delve too much on the premises or try to be exhaustive in their epistemological implications. I will just list and try to define some of the logical fallacies that I think most religions purposely or unintentionally commit.
1. Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick) – This is the argument based on fear or appeal to the emotion. This type of argument permeates most religions. The main strength of this fallacy in persuading people relies on the fear of the unknown or the fear of punishment. For instance, Christianity uses the threat of eternal suffering in HELL to convert people and maintain discipline among followers. In short, “believe in our god or else he will deep-fry your ass!” Hinduism, on the other hand, has the concept of karma. Those who are fearful to return as worms in their next life will surely try to behave. Of course, the opposite of this type of argument is the appeal to reward. Example: “Be converted to our religion and you will receive the gift of eternal life, power to heal the sick, speak in tongues and other super powers.”
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (argument from pity or misery) – Most people are naturally sympathetic about the suffering of others. Ironically, one significant reason for the success of converting people to Christianity during its infancy was the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians. Many pagans were converted because they saw the resilience and steadfast dedications of the early Christians in spite of their sufferings, which included enduring several types of horrible tortures, executions, humiliation and disenfranchisement. The concept of a suffering Christ who willingly (albeit, temporarily) gave up his life is a moving story that can make some faint-hearted cry or cringe.
3. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (appeal to ignorance) – Most religious people and even atheists are contented with arguing their positions based on the appeal to ignorance. Basically, it is reasoning that relies on the incompleteness of knowledge or evidence and using this to assert that a concept or assertion is false because it does not have sufficient evidence. Conversely, it also purports that if a concept or assertion is not absolutely certain to be false, then it must be true. Hence, the phrase, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Taken in the context of the belief in god, how can you prove that god does not exist if you do not have all the knowledge?
4. Argument Based on Unfalsifiability – The error in this type of argument is committed when a claim or assertion cannot be falsified or tested to be true. Almost all of the arguments of all religions fall under this category. Hence, most religious people are contented on accepting their religion as true on the grounds of faith, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely the claims might be. For example, how can you falsify the zombies in the story told by Matthew?
Matthew [27:52] “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose; [27:53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
5. Argumentum Ad Hominem – Simply put, this argument is based on attacking the personal characteristic of an individual. In the Christian religious context, humans are considered as sinful and unworthy of salvation. Hence, Christians should really be grateful and worship Jesus for saving them with his redemptive blood. The fallacy is committed here because of the effort to demean people who are otherwise good. It intends to demoralize people and make them feel guilty and worthless, hence, more pliable for brainwashing.
Romans [3:23] “For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.”
Psalm [14:1] “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god. they are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that doeth good.”
Republished from http://much-ado-about-nothing-homar.blogspot.com/
'Logic is the bane of theists." Fr.Griggs
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Gullibility 101: What is Gullibility? What Sorts of Beliefs are Produced by Gullibility and by Being Gullible
One might wonder whether it really matters if people are gullible and believe so many things without or despite contrary evidence. Even if the evidence and arguments against some of these beliefs are incontrovertible, so what? Clearly these beliefs serve some sort of need in people, otherwise they wouldn’t be so popular. Whether people derive pleasure or comfort from them, why not let them be? Why insist on critical, skeptical evaluations which make believers feel anxious and insecure?Such points might have more merit if gullibility never did any harm and baseless beliefs never had any real impact outside the belief itself. The truth, however, is that habits of gullibility cannot be restricted to just a few isolated beliefs in a person’s life. If a person develops a habit of accepting claims without requiring commensurate evidence and reason to back that claim, then such habits of thinking will necessarily influence their approaches in areas like politics and social policies — and this affects us all.
Even if we set this aside, however, gullibility can still have negative effects for believers themselves and it’s justified to be concerned about this. Belief in the efficacy of untested medicines, especially those relying on “faith,” can prevent a person from obtaining reliable medical treatment in a timely fashion. False beliefs about stars controlling one’s destiny can prevent one from trying to take personal responsibility for what happens to them. False beliefs matter because truth matters, and gullibility matters because the only reliable method for consistently arriving at the truth, or at least closer to the truth, is by relying upon science, reason, and logic.
Austin Cline ,atheologian, has so much to say at his -email! He posts clearly.He credibly dissects arguments.
So, please subscribe to the newsletter!
And you might post there and even reply here to his argumentation.
Please, shine here!
Gullibility 101: What is Gullibility? What Sorts of Beliefs are Produced by Gullibility and by Being Gullible
One might wonder whether it really matters if people are gullible and believe so many things without or despite contrary evidence. Even if the evidence and arguments against some of these beliefs are incontrovertible, so what? Clearly these beliefs serve some sort of need in people, otherwise they wouldn’t be so popular. Whether people derive pleasure or comfort from them, why not let them be? Why insist on critical, skeptical evaluations which make believers feel anxious and insecure?Such points might have more merit if gullibility never did any harm and baseless beliefs never had any real impact outside the belief itself. The truth, however, is that habits of gullibility cannot be restricted to just a few isolated beliefs in a person’s life. If a person develops a habit of accepting claims without requiring commensurate evidence and reason to back that claim, then such habits of thinking will necessarily influence their approaches in areas like politics and social policies — and this affects us all.
Even if we set this aside, however, gullibility can still have negative effects for believers themselves and it’s justified to be concerned about this. Belief in the efficacy of untested medicines, especially those relying on “faith,” can prevent a person from obtaining reliable medical treatment in a timely fashion. False beliefs about stars controlling one’s destiny can prevent one from trying to take personal responsibility for what happens to them. False beliefs matter because truth matters, and gullibility matters because the only reliable method for consistently arriving at the truth, or at least closer to the truth, is by relying upon science, reason, and logic.
Austin Cline ,atheologian, has so much to say at his -email! He posts clearly.He credibly dissects arguments.
So, please subscribe to the newsletter!
And you might post there and even reply here to his argumentation.
Please, shine here!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Towards humanism. | Fr. Griggs
My network of blogs give my argumentation in combination and permutation. Perhaps, that way people can fathom better the arguments.
Towards humanism. | Fr. Griggs
My network of blogs give my argumentation in combination and permutation. Perhaps, that way people can fathom better the arguments.
Towards humanism. | Fr. Griggs
Study,please Albert Ellis's " The Myth of Self-Esteem" for a naturalist-humanist staement on our human nature. This book and Robert Price's " The Reason-Drivwn Lidw" underscore how to have that more abundant life.
Amd read and post at that other blog http://fathergriggsy.wordpress.com.
Towards humanism. | Fr. Griggs
Study,please Albert Ellis's " The Myth of Self-Esteem" for a naturalist-humanist staement on our human nature. This book and Robert Price's " The Reason-Drivwn Lidw" underscore how to have that more abundant life.
Amd read and post at that other blog http://fathergriggsy.wordpress.com.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
YouTube - Daniel Dennett on William Lane Craig
Craig ever obfuscates! But then, he's a theologian!
YouTube - Daniel Dennett on William Lane Craig
Craig ever obfuscates! But then, he's a theologian!
Meet Bart Ehrman: A One-Man God Fraud Squad | | AlterNet
April 30, 2011 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?Join our mailing list:Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Nearly half of the New Testament is a forgery, according to a world-renowned Bible scholar whose new book fingering the forgers is making evangelical Christians as mad as — well, hell.
"Bart Ehrman has waged war on Christianity for years. This is just his latest salvo," snaps a FreeRepublic commenter. "Bart himself is a forgery. More of his usual tragic, groundless, infantile, bigoted narcissism enslaved to the father of lies, mammon ... a willful subtle prevaricator ... a disgusting, arrogant hack. God have mercy on his benighted soul," rages another at the Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth blog.
Ehrman is used to it. The University of North Carolina religious studies professor stoked evangelical ire with his previous bestsellers The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed and Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. He's doing it again with Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (HarperOne, 2011).
"When Bart D. Ehrman and all his so called 'scholar' friends are long gone, Jesus Christ will still be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to whom EVERY KNEE will one day bow. Friends — repent," pleads a Daily Mail commenter.
Ehrman knows where they're coming from. He used to be one of them.
As an undergrad at Chicago's Moody Bible Institute in the mid-1970s, Ehrman was "an extremely zealous, rigorous, pious (self-righteous)" evangelical who followed the school's draconian rules — no smoking, drinking, card-playing, dancing, movies, or beards — because Bible verses seemed to support them. Unlike most college students, unlike nearly all young Americans, Moody students didn't question authority.
When you take the Bible literally, you don't subvert dominant paradigms.
Such bullet-proof belief "was comforting," Ehrman says now, "because we thought we had a corner on the truth and that we were right and everybody else was wrong. And these were eternal truths, so they were going to bring us eternal life and everybody else was going to hell. It's very comforting to think you're always right."
Studying for his PhD a few years later at Princeton Theological Seminary, poring over each part of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, the born-again young scholar remained "passionate about my studies and the truth that I could find." But what he found instead were errors. Contradictions. Self-defeating arguments. Historical inaccuracies. And worse.
"The New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament, where the problems are even more severe) was chock full of discrepancies. ... I wrestled with these problems, I prayed about them. ... Eventually I came to realize that the Bible not only contains untruths or accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies."
Lies. Not just fact-twisting fabrications but the composition of entire books by obscure authors who claimed to be the Apostles Peter and Paul and other spiritual celebrities but weren't.
According to Ehrman, individuals falsely claiming to be Paul wrote Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Equally bogus, Ehrman charges, is the premise that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else in the Bible — or anywhere, ever, because as a poor hick fisherman raised in rural Palestine, Peter was almost certainly illiterate.
Researchers estimate the literacy rate of Roman-era Palestine at only 3 percent. Ehrman surmises that in rural areas, where most residents "would scarcely ever even see a written text," it might have been as low as 1 percent.
"Peter probably didn't write anything. Paul, on the other hand, was educated. Unlike Peter, he didn't come from some one-horse town in Galilee." Thus, Ehrman says, seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul "were probably written by Paul."
Who wrote the rest? And who's behind the Bible's other forgeries, which Ehrman estimates at a whopping 12 of the New Testament's 27 books? And that doesn't even include oodles of counterfeit apocrypha. Ehrman says these materials were not merely discovered unsigned way back when and then mistakenly, well-meaningly, attributed to saints:
"The books we are talking about are by authors who lied about their identity in order to deceive their readers into thinking that they were someone they were not. The technical term for this kind of activity is forgery."
Writing painstakingly with reed pens on papyrus scrolls, ancient sneaks signed the fruits of their labor with other men's names, leading Christendom to base its beliefs and behaviors on these fibs for the next two thousand years. But why?
Not, as motivates modern forgers, for money or fame. Ancient "books" weren't mass-produced, thus couldn't become bestsellers. While forgery wasn't illegal then, it was frowned upon. Forgers, if exposed, faced public shame. Yet some braved that risk as a means of hawking their agendas: doctrine that the devout would devour if declared by Matthew or Luke but dismiss if propounded by a random guy named Flavius.
It's relatively easy to fool illiterate hordes.
"If people are literate, they can recognize writing styles. But if you can't read or write and you can only listen to writings read aloud" — which was mainly how Christianity was practiced in its first few centuries — "it's hard to do the kind of stylistic analysis" that scholars employ when comparing suspected forgeries with their alleged authors' known works, searching for inconsistencies in grammar, diction and dogma.
While some ancient impostures are deft, in other cases "it's like you're reading Mark Twain and then all of a sudden you're reading T.S. Eliot," Ehrman says.
Forging holy books in an effort to save souls "is in one sense a noble cause, because it's not for self-aggrandizement, it's not for advancement, and it's not for money. It's because these people had something they thought was worth hearing. It's just sad that they had to lie about it. And some of these forgeries are really dangerous, which is a good reason to point out that they're probably forged. Their ramifications are devastating."
For example, the First Epistle to Timothy — attributed to Paul, although Ehrman insists it's forged — forbids females from becoming pastors or even speaking aloud in church.
"Because of what happened in the Garden of Eden, First Timothy says women are easily deceived, so they should stay silent and submissive and pregnant."
This dictate is still followed today by conservative evangelical congregations who believe that Paul wrote it, "when in fact it was a forger writing under Paul's name twenty or thirty years later — someone who was tired of hearing women speak up in church."
When Ehrman attended Moody Bible Institute, female students weren't permitted to take classes in preaching. Those classes were male-only, thanks to First Timothy.
Ehrman's no longer a born-again. He's now an agnostic.
"My evangelical faith couldn't hold up to rational inquiry. I stayed a Christian for many years, but a liberal Christian. The story of Christ was something I wanted to live by. When I became an agnostic fifteen years ago, it wasn't because of all the scholarship. It was because of the problem of suffering, and the question of how a powerful God could exist in a world like this."
Faked scriptures warning us to speak the truth: Some liars lie for what they say is our own good. Parents assure their children that people are kind. Spouses never confess those one-night stands. Is it sometimes okay to lie? In Forged, Ehrman argues that hearing the truth might be a human right.
"Maybe children have the right to know what parents honestly believe. ... Maybe it is better for our elected officials to come clean and tell us the truth, rather than mislead us so as to be authorized to do what they desperately want," he wrote in a passage that he says was inspired by "George Bush and this whole business of the war in Iraq with Colin Powell telling one lie after another."
He wasn't the first and won't be the last.
"From the first century to the twenty-first century, people who have called themselves Christians have seen fit to fabricate, falsify, and forge documents, in most instances in order to authorize views they wanted others to accept," Ehrman writes.
If both the Old and New Testaments are full of fibs and forgeries, then what of other so-called holy books?
"People always ask me that question about the Koran," Ehrman says. "Out of concern for my personal safety, I don't say a thing."
However, he doesn't hesitate to say: "The Book of Mormon is completely made up."
By whom?
"Joseph Smith, I assume. Whether he was completely self-deceived or crazy or just a lying bastard, I don't know. It's one of those three, probably."
Maybe someday he'll take that up with Glenn Beck.
Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, most recently The Scavenger's Manifesto (Tarcher Press, 2009). Read more of Anneli's writings on scavenging at scavenging.wordpress.com.
Dr. Paul Kurtz's book has more information about that execrable anthology! Yet advance theologians still nonor the anthology! Also study what Miklos Yako notes in " Confronting " Believers."
Meet Bart Ehrman: A One-Man God Fraud Squad | | AlterNet
April 30, 2011 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?Join our mailing list:Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Nearly half of the New Testament is a forgery, according to a world-renowned Bible scholar whose new book fingering the forgers is making evangelical Christians as mad as — well, hell.
"Bart Ehrman has waged war on Christianity for years. This is just his latest salvo," snaps a FreeRepublic commenter. "Bart himself is a forgery. More of his usual tragic, groundless, infantile, bigoted narcissism enslaved to the father of lies, mammon ... a willful subtle prevaricator ... a disgusting, arrogant hack. God have mercy on his benighted soul," rages another at the Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth blog.
Ehrman is used to it. The University of North Carolina religious studies professor stoked evangelical ire with his previous bestsellers The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed and Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. He's doing it again with Forged: Writing in the Name of God — Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (HarperOne, 2011).
"When Bart D. Ehrman and all his so called 'scholar' friends are long gone, Jesus Christ will still be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to whom EVERY KNEE will one day bow. Friends — repent," pleads a Daily Mail commenter.
Ehrman knows where they're coming from. He used to be one of them.
As an undergrad at Chicago's Moody Bible Institute in the mid-1970s, Ehrman was "an extremely zealous, rigorous, pious (self-righteous)" evangelical who followed the school's draconian rules — no smoking, drinking, card-playing, dancing, movies, or beards — because Bible verses seemed to support them. Unlike most college students, unlike nearly all young Americans, Moody students didn't question authority.
When you take the Bible literally, you don't subvert dominant paradigms.
Such bullet-proof belief "was comforting," Ehrman says now, "because we thought we had a corner on the truth and that we were right and everybody else was wrong. And these were eternal truths, so they were going to bring us eternal life and everybody else was going to hell. It's very comforting to think you're always right."
Studying for his PhD a few years later at Princeton Theological Seminary, poring over each part of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, the born-again young scholar remained "passionate about my studies and the truth that I could find." But what he found instead were errors. Contradictions. Self-defeating arguments. Historical inaccuracies. And worse.
"The New Testament (not to mention the Old Testament, where the problems are even more severe) was chock full of discrepancies. ... I wrestled with these problems, I prayed about them. ... Eventually I came to realize that the Bible not only contains untruths or accidental mistakes. It also contains what almost anyone today would call lies."
Lies. Not just fact-twisting fabrications but the composition of entire books by obscure authors who claimed to be the Apostles Peter and Paul and other spiritual celebrities but weren't.
According to Ehrman, individuals falsely claiming to be Paul wrote Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Equally bogus, Ehrman charges, is the premise that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else in the Bible — or anywhere, ever, because as a poor hick fisherman raised in rural Palestine, Peter was almost certainly illiterate.
Researchers estimate the literacy rate of Roman-era Palestine at only 3 percent. Ehrman surmises that in rural areas, where most residents "would scarcely ever even see a written text," it might have been as low as 1 percent.
"Peter probably didn't write anything. Paul, on the other hand, was educated. Unlike Peter, he didn't come from some one-horse town in Galilee." Thus, Ehrman says, seven of the 13 epistles attributed to Paul "were probably written by Paul."
Who wrote the rest? And who's behind the Bible's other forgeries, which Ehrman estimates at a whopping 12 of the New Testament's 27 books? And that doesn't even include oodles of counterfeit apocrypha. Ehrman says these materials were not merely discovered unsigned way back when and then mistakenly, well-meaningly, attributed to saints:
"The books we are talking about are by authors who lied about their identity in order to deceive their readers into thinking that they were someone they were not. The technical term for this kind of activity is forgery."
Writing painstakingly with reed pens on papyrus scrolls, ancient sneaks signed the fruits of their labor with other men's names, leading Christendom to base its beliefs and behaviors on these fibs for the next two thousand years. But why?
Not, as motivates modern forgers, for money or fame. Ancient "books" weren't mass-produced, thus couldn't become bestsellers. While forgery wasn't illegal then, it was frowned upon. Forgers, if exposed, faced public shame. Yet some braved that risk as a means of hawking their agendas: doctrine that the devout would devour if declared by Matthew or Luke but dismiss if propounded by a random guy named Flavius.
It's relatively easy to fool illiterate hordes.
"If people are literate, they can recognize writing styles. But if you can't read or write and you can only listen to writings read aloud" — which was mainly how Christianity was practiced in its first few centuries — "it's hard to do the kind of stylistic analysis" that scholars employ when comparing suspected forgeries with their alleged authors' known works, searching for inconsistencies in grammar, diction and dogma.
While some ancient impostures are deft, in other cases "it's like you're reading Mark Twain and then all of a sudden you're reading T.S. Eliot," Ehrman says.
Forging holy books in an effort to save souls "is in one sense a noble cause, because it's not for self-aggrandizement, it's not for advancement, and it's not for money. It's because these people had something they thought was worth hearing. It's just sad that they had to lie about it. And some of these forgeries are really dangerous, which is a good reason to point out that they're probably forged. Their ramifications are devastating."
For example, the First Epistle to Timothy — attributed to Paul, although Ehrman insists it's forged — forbids females from becoming pastors or even speaking aloud in church.
"Because of what happened in the Garden of Eden, First Timothy says women are easily deceived, so they should stay silent and submissive and pregnant."
This dictate is still followed today by conservative evangelical congregations who believe that Paul wrote it, "when in fact it was a forger writing under Paul's name twenty or thirty years later — someone who was tired of hearing women speak up in church."
When Ehrman attended Moody Bible Institute, female students weren't permitted to take classes in preaching. Those classes were male-only, thanks to First Timothy.
Ehrman's no longer a born-again. He's now an agnostic.
"My evangelical faith couldn't hold up to rational inquiry. I stayed a Christian for many years, but a liberal Christian. The story of Christ was something I wanted to live by. When I became an agnostic fifteen years ago, it wasn't because of all the scholarship. It was because of the problem of suffering, and the question of how a powerful God could exist in a world like this."
Faked scriptures warning us to speak the truth: Some liars lie for what they say is our own good. Parents assure their children that people are kind. Spouses never confess those one-night stands. Is it sometimes okay to lie? In Forged, Ehrman argues that hearing the truth might be a human right.
"Maybe children have the right to know what parents honestly believe. ... Maybe it is better for our elected officials to come clean and tell us the truth, rather than mislead us so as to be authorized to do what they desperately want," he wrote in a passage that he says was inspired by "George Bush and this whole business of the war in Iraq with Colin Powell telling one lie after another."
He wasn't the first and won't be the last.
"From the first century to the twenty-first century, people who have called themselves Christians have seen fit to fabricate, falsify, and forge documents, in most instances in order to authorize views they wanted others to accept," Ehrman writes.
If both the Old and New Testaments are full of fibs and forgeries, then what of other so-called holy books?
"People always ask me that question about the Koran," Ehrman says. "Out of concern for my personal safety, I don't say a thing."
However, he doesn't hesitate to say: "The Book of Mormon is completely made up."
By whom?
"Joseph Smith, I assume. Whether he was completely self-deceived or crazy or just a lying bastard, I don't know. It's one of those three, probably."
Maybe someday he'll take that up with Glenn Beck.
Anneli Rufus is the author of several books, most recently The Scavenger's Manifesto (Tarcher Press, 2009). Read more of Anneli's writings on scavenging at scavenging.wordpress.com.
Dr. Paul Kurtz's book has more information about that execrable anthology! Yet advance theologians still nonor the anthology! Also study what Miklos Yako notes in " Confronting " Believers."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Rationalist Griggsy: March 2011
Viewers, study these article and respond here. Check out Rationalist Griggsy and those other sites.
Here is enough to get even fundamentalists to start thinking!
Only 10 more shopping days ’till the Apocalypse - Los Angeles atheism
Check out http://www.inquiringlynn'sposterous.posterous.com to see what Inquiring Lynn adumbrates about this article and faith-healing and such!
Yeshua didn't return in his hearers' time[ whislt he contradicted himself that none knew when]. Yet, generation after generation people predict the apocalyspse and - then rationalize why it didn't happen.
It won't happen, as that cult leader is forever dead!
Oh, forget that drivel over the Mayan calendar!
Do you know of other apocalyptic groups now or in the past?
Only 10 more shopping days ’till the Apocalypse - Los Angeles atheism
And si it goes forevermore! Faith doth that to people!
Sure most relgious people don't go in for that goofiness, which is endemic to Christinsanity since Yeshua himself preached that we'd retun in the time of his listeners[ and contradicted himself that not even he knew when]. Believers have far-fetched outs for that return.
Our schools need to teach children about such historical nonsense impartially. And it needs to further the critical skills needed to overcome intellectual scams.
Inquiring Lynn also objurgates, contemns and condemns faith- healing not only as misleading and someimes dangerous but also as an intellectual scam. We have no knowledge that Yeshua had any follow-up on his purported healings. Why, we have no knowldge that he did them! They, if hapened, were mere magical or - psychosomatic.
Nohing divine could ever happen to cause miracles of any kind! Whenever we skeptics investigate any miracles, they are always natural, even outright frauds.
People use the pareidolia of seeing divine intent and design when only natural causes and patterns occur.as Lamberth's argument from pareidolia notes. They just have to have a superior being to frame their lives! They just have to have a superior being to love them. They just have to have a superior being- their use of faith- to get them through bad times.
No God as we thorough empiricists find has any influence in the Cosmos. That's the empirical argument, which is the all-embracing naturalist expression of the presumption of naturalism, which supernaturalists ever have to overcome to adduce evidence for God.
The presumption of rationalism calls on us to use reason and empiricism- facts- in framing our lives. Therewith, we can avoid those apocalyptic ever-current outbursts and to get real medical attention.
Inquiring Lynn calls on government to make it criminal to have faith-healings and exorcisms as they can lead to harm and to death.This does not abridge the freedom of religion and actions but goes to the real criminality of practicing " medecine" without a license with well-known outcomes1
That man in the finds himself happier but torn about the purported left behind people. Yes, placebos do that for people!
We all need to use reason and facts to frame our lives! Letting religious hooey frame them is ever intellectually false and sometimes harmful.
Yes, the evils done in the name of Allah and Yahweh or any other divinity irks me greatly, but Inquirign Lynn finds that religions are the emotional and intellectual scams and -sometime monetary ones of he ages!
Thus, he perforce has to be a gnu atheist!
Monday, May 9, 2011
Rationalist Griggsy: John Hick- that EverReady Rationalizer
What do you think about Fr.Meslier's argument. I that find it eviscerates all theodicies and defences!
And, besides, morality dictates for any being to put beings into good places.Pace Plato's Euthyphrpo, we do know that morality applies to any God!
And it does no good to make the begged question of God's goodness as Aristotle does!
Hick just doesn't appreciate that morality binds any God! It is not what He desires, but rather what is good for us and other animals! God's only role, were He to exist, is strictly the one of putting us into that better place!
We have no obligation to any other being per Lamberth's argument from autonomy that our very level of consciousness, in line with the U.N.' s Declaration of Human Rights and with Morgan's Canon.
Rationalist Griggsy: John Hick- that EverReady Rationalizer
What do you think about Fr.Meslier's argument. I that find it eviscerates all theodicies and defences!
And, besides, morality dictates for any being to put beings into good places.Pace Plato's Euthyphrpo, we do know that morality applies to any God!
And it does no good to make the begged question of God's goodness as Aristotle does!
Hick just doesn't appreciate that morality binds any God! It is not what He desires, but rather what is good for us and other animals! God's only role, were He to exist, is strictly the one of putting us into that better place!
We have no obligation to any other being per Lamberth's argument from autonomy that our very level of consciousness, in line with the U.N.' s Declaration of Human Rights and with Morgan's Canon.
Rationalist Griggsy: John Hick- that EverReady Rationalizer
What do you think about Fr.Meslier's argument. I that find it eviscerates all theodicies and defences!
And, besides, morality dictates for any being to put beings into good places.Pace Plato's Euthyphrpo, we do know that morality applies to any God!
And it does no good to make the begged question of God's goodness as Aristotle does!
Hick just doesn't appreciate that morality binds any God! It is not what He desires, but rather what is good for us and other animals! God's only role, were He to exist, is strictly the one of putting us into that better place!
We have no obligation to any other being per Lamberth's argument from autonomy that our very level of consciousness, in line with the U.N.' s Declaration of Human Rights and with Morgan's Canon.
Rationalist Griggsy: John Hick- that EverReady Rationalizer
What do you think about Fr.Meslier's argument. I that find it eviscerates all theodicies and defences!
And, besides, morality dictates for any being to put beings into good places.Pace Plato's Euthyphrpo, we do know that morality applies to any God!
And it does no good to make the begged question of God's goodness as Aristotle does!
Hick just doesn't appreciate that morality binds any God! It is not what He desires, but rather what is good for us and other animals! God's only role, were He to exist, is strictly the one of putting us into that better place!
We have no obligation to any other being per Lamberth's argument from autonomy that our very level of consciousness, in line with the U.N.' s Declaration of Human Rights and with Morgan's Canon.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Is God a Moral Compromiser? A Critical Review of Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?” | Religion at the Margins
Alah and Yahweh certainly are! Ah, even the God, Being Itself, is not much better as He permits evil for which no reason can possibly exist per Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven.
Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress | Ignostic Morgan's Blog
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged agnostic, faith, fideism, ignosticism, naturalism, paranormalism, rationalism, supernaturalism. Bookmark the permalink.Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress.
Faith begs the question of its subject, and thus can never instantiate Him. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the argument from ignorance!
Faith is more than just trust and embracing wholeheartedly ones God; it is the underpinning of supernaturalism with obstinancy. Alister Earl McGrath would have us think that to have faith is just to have trust, and thus trust in Him is the same as trust in science. Nay, science embraces facts whilst no facts support supernaturalism. When people doubt that He exists, others blabber, just have faith, which means that obstinancy rather than trust as one must overcome doubts with evidence as in any rational endeavor. We naturalists don’t dwell in scientifsm that view that only science can deliver. We note other rational sources of knowledge: all which depend on evidence.
Haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for not permitting other venues of knowledge, but that begs the question of those venues of knowledge. Fr. Lemaitre was right to tell the then pope not to seize upon the Big Bang as evidence for God. My fellow skeptic John L. Schellenberg errs in claiming that we naturalists also should not rely on contemporary science as it will ever change, but that is the glory of science! That is why we depend on it!
We rely on whatever knowledge that can change, because we value the truth rather than the Truth for all time!
Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, prattles that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation of everything. That supports ignosticism, because if He is neither an entity nor a person, then He cannot instantiate Himself as that explanation!
Karen Armstrong, with her apothaticism, maintains that He is neither this nor that as one cannnot explicate what He is, but thereby affriming ignosticism, because if one cannot explicate what He is, one has no case whatsoever! And I already dispose of the case for the reverse, cataphaticism !
Therefore, it seems to me, that these two and others acturally see Him as a metaphor. A metaphor for what? What we ignostics then proclaim is that that is what Paul Edwards calls a bombastic redefinition!
Neither faith nor postulation nor definition can instantiate Him!
Furthermore, it misserves people to prattle that actually they are in a relationship with what Martin Buber calls a thou [God]rather than an it. Without evidence, they only are entertaining us with an imaginary friend! All relgious experience is just people’s mental states at play! To allege that we naturalists beg the question against supernaturalists as my fellow atheist Jonathon Harrison^ does is itself to beg the question, because that assumes that indeed a supernatural power can effect natural phenomena!
We fallibilists quite openly acknowledge that we could be wrong! Nevertheless, until supernaturalism is verified otherwise, ignosticism rules.
^ Harrison, ” God, Freedom and Immortality”
Be the first to like this post.One Response to Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress
st_go({'blog':'13301168','v':'wpcom','user_id':'0','post':'32','subd':'ignosticmorgan'}); ex_go({'crypt':'UE5XaFBLcG9fMEIxUDVPemJsT1o9dFlwZCUtXytoclpxZGZKS2p1cTdjUlJabVI4Ly9walJKSlBoW3cxM0RbP1F+cG9hMTV3UTBHa1R3RyVjOEdveUQ3OUglT0FoK041TWlhZT9ZQzBvWU51alhkRVJ3STJMX3FfSWZRam1SV3QsZTk1WS9uTTJiLnI1NzUyQmt0TllMa2hOdF1PVTFMfjg5aEYsXSxPNGJ1b18raDBaOGN0TEgwc0NNd01+UkI2dnltT3VRaA=='}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('13301168',32);});
Yes, I find that theists prattle about that square circle! However we gnu atheists address HIm, Being Itself or Sky Pappy, ignosticism reveals that He means nothing factually,only meaningful semantically like dear old Santa Claus!
Please shine here and at that other site!
What do you opine?
Google skeptic griggsy to see how I value sweet retirement!
God is said to be immutable and all-loving and a personal being but, ah, those are contradictions ,because it He is immutable, nothing can affect Him, but as all-loving and as a personal being,what happens to people must affect Him!
If He is transcendent, He cannot be also omnipresent, because to be transcendent is to be only outside time and space, And if He is tanscendent, He cannot create, because only creation can place itself in time and space.
If He is a personal being, He must be in time and space to ac t, but if He is transcendent, He is again outside tme and space, and thus we see a contradiction.
If He is to act, He has to depend on laws of Nature and thus cannot be that Primary Cause that Aquinas claims that He is and cannot be the Ultimate Explanation that Leibniz claims that He is!
For all these reasons and more, we ignostics caim that perforece He cannot exist!
I’ll adduce more reasons why that is so true!
No traversing the Cosmos nor having omniscience requires themselves as this remains a fact of logic!
How might people try to overcome these objection and how might they add others?
3
3.0