109. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM SHIFTED BURDEN OF PROOF
(1) You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

(source)

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake.

The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches (4.4 by 1.2 metres) bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ.

“We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud,” Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday….

Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390. Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business.

But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth. Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.

They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face.

The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries.

There’s more information about it here. The only thing I’m surprised about is that someone didn’t do it earlier.

Oh wait… they did.

One of the standard arguments we hear for the historicity of the resurrection is the martyrdom of the apostles. Would the followers of Jesus really have sacrificed themselves for a lie?

The argument has a number of weaknesses. One of the greatest is the fact that all the details of this martyrdom comes down to us through tradition, and we have no way of knowing when the traditions originated. They may be early or late, literary or historical.

Acts gives a few stories, like the stoning of Stephen (Act 8:54-60) or the death of James, brother of John (Acts 12:1-2), but nothing of the deaths of the major apostles. The first mention we get of the deaths of Paul and Peter come from First Clement, one of the first popular works of the community, dated between 90-140 CE. But the story is extremely vague, told to fit the theme of jealousy:

There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance.

After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found notable pattern of patient endurance. (1 Clem 5:4-6, Lightfoot)

Pullquote: There may also be a kernel of history about the execution of the apostles — or there may not. We just don’t know.

Notice there are no details. As far as we can tell from this text the two chief apostles may have died of old age. And what sort of jealousy are we talking about here? The jealousy of the Jews is one traditional answer. The jealousy between their rival factions is another guess. But maybe it was a more prosaic kind of jealousy.

Consider the apocryphal Acts of Peter, dated to the last half of the second century. Look at what is has to say about the persecution of Peter:

And a certain woman which was exceeding beautiful, the wife of Albinus, Caesar’s friend, by name Xanthippe, came, she also, unto Peter, with the rest of the matrons, and withdrew herself, she also, from Albinus. He therefore being mad, and loving Xanthippe, and marvelling that she would not sleep even upon the same bed with him, raged like a wild beast and would have dispatched Peter; for he knew that he was the cause of her separating from his bed. [...]

And whereas there was great trouble in Rome, Albinus made known his state unto Agrippa, saying to him: Either do thou avenge me of Peter that hath withdrawn my wife, or I will avenge myself. And Agrippa said: I have suffered the same at his hand, for he hath withdrawn my concubines. And Albinus said unto him: Why then tarriest thou, Agrippa? let us find him and put him to death for a dealer in curious arts, that we may have our wives again, and avenge them also which are not able to put him to death, whose wives also he hath parted from them. (Acts of Peter, XXXIV, MR James)

Peter is executed for convincing women not to marry or have sex. The same theme is found in the apocryphal Acts of Andrew, with Andrew being executed for coming between a woman and her fiancee. The Acts of Paul has a similar story, with Paul being imprisoned for preaching that maidens shouldn’t marry. Paul isn’t executed until much later, when he mouths off to Emperor Nero.

Is this the sort of jealousy to which First Clement refers? The jealousy of a man spurned by his betrothed? I’d guess not. These three noncannocical works all date last half of the second century, and probably represent the arguments that were going on at the time. These stories may only tell us that there was a faction of the community that considered celibacy extremely important, and so they wove that theme into their traditions about the apostles.

There may also be a kernel of history about the execution of the apostles — or there may not. We just don’t know.

Related Post: Martyrdom Does Not Establish Truth

1. We should believe the Bible because Christ believed the Bible.
2. We should believe the Bible because it accurately explains and powerfully changes our lives.

As far as arguments go, I’m afraid I must classify both as terrible.

Christ Believed It

Pullquote: Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we.
Aaron Menikoff

Regarding the first point, Menikoff says:

Such reasoning may sound circuitous or circular. It is not…. If Jesus Christ is trustworthy, then His words about the authority of the Bible should be trusted as well. Christ is trustworthy and He trusted God’s Word. So should we. Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God. With faith in Christ, you cannot help but believe the Bible is God’s Word.

So we should believe the Bible is a reliable guide to the truth about Jesus… because Jesus believed the Bible? Sounds like a circular argument to me. And even if it could be shown that Jesus thought the Bible was reliable, what Bible would he be referring to? Certainly the New Testament wasn’t written when Jesus was alive, so he can’t be referring to that, which is the topic of discussion. We’re asking if the New Testament can be trusted about it’s extraordinary claims about Jesus — you can’t answer it by saying the Jesus of the New Testament trusts the Old Testament, therefore we know we can trust the New Testament. Only a believer could swallow that kind of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to repeat it, insisting it’s not circular.

Menikoff may want the logic to not be circular, but wishing doesn’t make it so. You can’t make logical fallacies go away simply by closing your eyes and insisting they don’t exist.

It’s Life Changing!

Pullquote: People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.

In my experience there is only one argument that remains for why people believe in the Bible and Christianity — the argument from personal experience. This is known as a “testimony” and evangelism classes teach proselytizers to use them because “they are the one thing that cannot be argued against.”

Which is true, in a way. There’s no reason to argue that a person didn’t have an experience. People of all religions — and even those of us who are not religious — have life-changing experiences. It’s part of being human.

But they don’t always interpret their experiences rationally. A person may have stopped drinking a bottle of vodka a night, but that doesn’t mean Jesus had anything to do with it. They might claim that at first, saying “I once was a drunk, until Jesus picked me up out of the miry clay and changed my life. Thank you Jesus!” Yet if you dig a little deeper, it ends up there is a lot more to the story — usually you’ll find they had the help of a substance abuse program, a new community of friends to help keep them accountable, and/or a new-found religious obsession to take the place of their old addiction.

My life was changed by Christianity. It has also been changed by books I’ve read and experiences I’ve had. One of my favorite books is East of Eden by John Steinbeck, which powerfully describes human nature. Does that mean it’s divinely inspired because it gives insight into our common struggles? Of course not — it’s just a good book.

The Bible is a myth — a sweeping narrative that tries to explain the human condition. Some people (including myself at one time), find it speaks powerfully and provides a framework for understanding the world. It’s a superstitious framework, but it’s better than nothing. For people who are wandering aimlessly, have trouble being moral, or are in a time of crisis, it can be a stabilizing influence. And I’m glad it works for them!

Yet people have the same experience with the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, and others. Does that mean we must take them all to be reliable guides to truth and their holy prophets? If so, then what truth should we believe — they all contradict each other!

These arguments will not convince someone who is searching for truth. His points will get head nods from the choir, but they are not challenging or persuasive to a skeptic. He’s talking in a different epistemological language that unfortunately makes us talk past each other.

Menikoff already knows his arguments fail. That’s why he says, “Without faith in Christ, you will not believe the Bible is the self-disclosure of God.” In other words, you have to already believe the Bible is reliable to know it’s reliable — which doesn’t help any of us who question it’s reliability.

But who needs facts, when you can stick your head in the sands of faith?

The arrogance of the radio host reminds me of my own not too long ago. He’s talking to Hitchens like he’s a 7 year old kid who has never heard the basic Jesus pitch.

I thought Hitchens answered pretty well, except for the last question — Hitches does not disbelieve in God because he wants to live the way he wants to, he does it because of the lack of evidence. It just plays into their little self-righteous game to answer that kind of question positively.

I also wish Hitchens would have turned the tables a bit. You can ask someone if they’ve broken any of the rules of the Koran, and then get them to agree that according to the Koran, Allah should send you to hell for breaking his laws and not being a Muslim.

But that doesn’t further anyone’s argument, because it hasn’t been established that Allah exists, that the Koran was written by him, or that there is a hell. And it’s the same with the Bible.

Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant posted this video featuring a dialogue about atheism. The religious participants offer trite arguments concerning atheism’s supposed intolerance. At 1:57, a religious think tank commenter drudges up Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao as evidence for the purported terror associated with atheism. This exceedingly simplistic and reductionist argument belies the actual basis of these totalitarian systems and its parallels to the Church and religious fervor.

While the dictators mentioned were all non-believers, their intellectual basis and central objectives differ markedly from the scientific and logic-based atheism most common today. The historic argument for atheism’s noxiousness almost always points to Communist leaders and their regimes. In this case, the aforementioned dictators fit the criterion. Each led a violent and suffocating brand of Communism that resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. The argument seems to mirror the atheist argument against religion, using institutions like the Gulag as proxies for the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Why the Argument Fails

Yet, the religious argument fails for two reasons. First, the primary motivations differ in the two cases. Religious uprising and violence are explicitly caused by religious texts and/or the relevant interpretation of these scriptures. Religious zealots act “in the name” of religion, using supernatural justification for their actions. Contrastingly, while Communist regimes did support atheism, none of their actions could derive from some universal laws of atheism. Atheism exists as merely a lack of belief, not as a moral or social guide. Thus, it’s inconceivable that a lack of belief could dictate one’s actions, especially in regards to violence. Communist leaders were motivated by political power, not the edicts of a moral system that atheism doesn’t even espouse.

Second, the religious argument falsely depicts Communism as an atheistic system in the same mold as modern atheism. The link between atheism and Communism is tenuous at best. The purveyors of Communism didn’t arrive at disbelief through rational thought, reasoned analysis, or scientific rumination. Rather, they promulgated disbelief in order to subvert the most powerful opposing institution to the State: the Church. To define Communism as a godless system is to misrepresent the motives and underpinnings of their government structure. It wasn’t about ultimate truth, it was about ultimate State power.

This spurious characterization of Communism as an atheistic system belies its’ dominating faith-based aspects. The familiar structures of the Church and religious belief are all present in Communist systems. In fact, one could easily define it as a religion, wherein “thoughtcrimes” replace sin, denigration of individualism exists as a proxy for the sin of avarice, omniscience of the State as proxy for God’s presence, indoctrinating constituency with “faith” in the State instead of faith in the Church/God, revising historical events replacing the flexibility of Biblical interpretation as justifying almost any action, and the cult-like worship for dictators replacing God-worship.

These societies were not based on secularism as defined by Dawkins and other atheists. Communism was defined by adherence to a pervasive and suffocating governing body, much like religion. Faith was simply transferred from unseen, intangible powers into the hands of an opaque State regularly engaging in duplicity.

The religious argument using Communist dictators fails because the underlying premise of Communism’s secularism is undoubtedly false. Instead, it proves that undying faith and fanatical obedience to any authority is ultimately harmful.

OneSTDV is an unabashedly honest blogger at OneSTDV

Our friend Deacon Duncan has been steadily demolishing the apologetic work I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek. One of his recent entries (X-Files Friday: So Who Cares?) had to do with G&T’s claims for prophecy found in the OT, specifically Psalm 22.

DD does his usual excellent job of showing the flaws in the apologetic argument, but it’s amazing how weak the argument was to begin with. I think that G&T find themselves caught in a trap that was created by Christian history.

Hidden Meanings

Pullquote: Each text had a surface meaning, but also one or more cryptic meanings that had to be ferreted out with time and study.

After returning from the Exile, the Judeans had a problem. Since they had been deprived of the Temple, the focus of their religion had shifted more towards their sacred texts. But their texts were loaded with people behaving badly. The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomic Histories seemed to have been written as a national epic, which explained how Israel and Judah had come into existence. The returning Judeans now needed answers to different questions: What does it mean to be an Israelite? How now shall we live?

They found answers in an ingenious way: by assuming that God had hidden meanings behind the obvious meanings of the text. Each text had a surface meaning, but also one or more cryptic meanings that had to be ferreted out with time and study. Thus was born the image of the Jewish sage, pondering the cryptic meanings of the Torah in search of new wisdom.

By the time of Christianity, the Hellenic world had developed similar techniques. The Greeks had spent centuries trying to reinterpret their myths into something other than the divine soap operas they appeared to be. So Zeus was not actually a randy monarch, but a symbol representing a divine reality that could not be described.

Early Christianity inherited both of these traditions, and it needed them for two reasons. First, because finding these hidden meanings gave them clues to the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Second, because the ancient Roman world was very conservative and suspicious of new religions. By tying themselves to the scriptures of the ancient Hebrews, Christians could depict themselves as the fulfillment of a very old religious tradition.

Surface Meaning

Pullquote: In an attempt to get away from the hierarchy, Martin Luther jettisoned the idea of hidden meanings.

This belief in the hidden meanings of scripture was essential to early Christianity, but it later became a problem. Hidden meanings always seem to multiply. You find a meaning, he finds a meaning, they find another meaning still. How do we decide who’s right? The ancient Jewish scholars used argument and reasoning to come to rough consensus. Catholic theologians seemed to do much the same, backing the current consensus with the authority of the church.

When Martin Luther wanted to break away from the Catholic church, he argued that we didn’t need these structures to find the meanings of the text. He argued that the Bible was clear and obvious in it’s intended meaning, and that the believer did not need scholars to interpret things for him. In an attempt to get away from the hierarchy, Martin Luther jettisoned the idea of hidden meanings.

The Trap

Pullquote: It’s a limp argument, but it’s the best they can do with both their legs caught in the trap of hidden meanings.

This set a trap for later apologists like G&T. The hidden meanings of the OT are still vital to many Christians, as seen in the usual statement that the OT predicts the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But good Protestants have to argue that these predictions are obvious and clear, which they never are.

We see the end result in Deacon Duncan’s post: a shifting argument that requires the reader to accept that the similarities are “amazing.” Duncan easily dismantles this claim. G&T shy away from the very idea that their interpretation is not the only meaning of the text, but quickly sidle back with an “even if” argument. It’s a limp argument, but it’s the best they can do with both their legs caught in the trap of hidden meanings.

Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.

1. If necessary, use this space to explain any unique or unusual beliefs your sect has about the nature of your god, heaven, hell, the Bible, the Holy Spirit/Ghost, Satan, or other theological matters.
2. Explain why your god’s only son had to die so we can go to magic happy land when we croak.
3. Explain why I should believe that your god is all-good when the only real information we have about him is the Bible, which clearly describes him as both good and evil. (See Isaiah 30:32, Luke 14:26, Numbers 31:17-18, Matthew 10:34, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 18:8, Deuteronomy 20:16, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 32:27, Isaiah 45:7, Psalms 52:5, Luke 22:36, and Jeremiah 18:11 for a small sample of Biblical passages which describe Jehovah as having an evil morality at times).
4. Explain why, when racism is clearly wrong, Jesus was clearly a racist (see Mark 7:25-29). NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that racism is morally acceptable.
5. Explain why, when discrimination against women is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports the oppression of women. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2:11-15. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that discrimination against women solely on the basis of sex is morally acceptable.
6. Explain why, when slavery is clearly wrong, the Bible clearly supports slavery. Answering this question entails refuting 1 Peter 2:18. NOTE: under no circumstances will I believe that slavery is an acceptable way to structure an economy.
7. Explain why, if your god loves us all, more than half of us are going to Hell after we die. Specifically, refute or explain the following words of Christ, as presented in the New Testament: “Many are called but few are chosen,” and “Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way that leadeth unto salvation, and few there be that find it.” If your god loves all of us, couldn’t he find a better way?
8. Explain what type of offense could possibly justify eternal, unbearable torture in Hell; if your sect does not believe in Hell, then refute every passage in the Old and New Testaments which describes Hell (such as 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 20:15). (Do not exceed 100 words.)
9. Explain why possession by demons and/or other evil spirits was common during the time of Jesus, but hardly mentioned at all in the Old Testament, and apparently has been explained completely away today by things such as epilepsy and schizophrenia.
10. Explain why original sin exists. Why should I be eternally tortured for something that a pair of naked fruit-munching simpletons did in a garden over six thousand years ago? If you believe that children are born stained because they were conceived sexually, explain why I would be punished for something my parents did by your merciful and just god. If this does not apply to your sect, explain why.
11. Explain why getting dunked in or sprinkled with water will prevent me from being eternally tortured for the actions of the naked fruit-munching simpletons mentioned in #10.
12. Explain why some people (James, Peter, Paul, Thomas, etc.) should get convincing physical proof of miracles, while the rest of us are supposed to take these happenings on faith.

There are 153 questions like that. Genius!

Shortly after I became a Christian, I saw a book about Jesus at the library. I couldn’t get enough of Jesus, so I brought it home and began reading. Excitement turned to horror as I realized it was arguing there was hardly any evidence that Jesus even lived, much less was a miracle-working god who rose from the dead. I was appalled. But I was also a little shaken. I never realized someone could question the existence of Jesus. Could my new found belief be wrong?

After much prayer and counsel, I decided to stop reading the book. I was convinced it was Satan trying to attack my faith, and I took that as evidence my beliefs were correct — if Satan was trying to convince me I was wrong, then I must be right!

I didn’t have any doubts about Jesus for another decade.

I was a fool.

Doubt Can Be Scary

Doubt can be frightening for a believer. It can be so frightening that some people suppress any doubt, no matter how much counter evidence they are presented with.

But you’re different, aren’t you? I know that because you’re reading this essay. You know you’ve been wrong in the past, and now you are beginning to question some things about your faith. You’re not as certain as you used to be.

Perhaps you’ve been scolded about your doubt. People of faith rarely look at doubt as an opportunity — instead, they see it as a danger. That’s why they talk about ”battling” doubt. They fear it. They tell you to pray to God and ask him to remove your doubts, to read your holy book until you believe it again, and to learn to doubt yourself instead of “God” (by which they mean whatever they teach about him).

Pullquote: Doubt shouldn’t be feared and battled. If we love truth, it should be embraced.

You’re not stupid. You realize that would be brainwashing yourself, just like people do in every other religion. What you want is evidence. And that it is lacking is causing you to doubt.

You are being given an opportunity that few believers get. You are actually searching for truth. While many say they are searching for truth, really they are searching for an experience, a community, and/or comfort. And that’s why you’re different — you want the truth, even if it’s not what you want to hear.

Doubt shouldn’t be feared and battled. If we love truth, it should be embraced. Here are 10 ways a truth-seeking theist can embrace doubt.

1) Accept that doubt can be good.

Doubt is not evil — it is a tool for discovering truth. That you are doubting is a good sign. It means you’re thinking critically and not simply accepting things because someone says so. As Peter Abelard said, “By doubting we come to questioning, and by questioning we come to truth.” If we love truth, we must embrace doubt.

The only reason to fear doubt is if you fear truth. Fundamentalists of all stripes fear doubt. Is this a coincidence?

2) Be open-minded.

You don’t want to defend faith — you want to believe whatever is true. Seek the truth, no matter where it leads you.

When people speak, listen. When others challenge your beliefs, consider they might be right. In other words, be humble. There’s no reason to think we’re right about everything, so why act that way?

3) Learn to love truth, not being right.

Truth is beautiful. Unfortunately, none of us possess the entirety of truth. That’s why we see arrogance as a vice — nobody likes a person who think they are always right. We all know people like this. Don’t love being right and telling others they are wrong — love seeking the truth. This requires humility and skepticism.

By doing these things, you’ll be well on your way to embracing and using doubt instead of fearing and repressing it.

4) Learn to ask and consider hard questions.

People of faith fear hard questions. That’s one of the worst things about faith.

Hard questions lead us closer to truth. It helps us break out of false paradigms and shows us inconsistency in our logic. Hard questions should be encouraged and embraced — not feared or condemned. If those around you don’t want to think through hard questions with you, perhaps that is a sign you’re asking the wrong people for answers.

5) Look for historical and/or experimental evidence for claims of your religion or philosophy.

Look especially for evidence for supernatural claims. If this evidence is not accepted by any scholars outside your religion, then chances are it’s not reputable. Now ask yourself if you would accept a different religion’s supernatural claims with this kind of evidence. Bonus points if you look into evidence for other popular religions.

6) Pray to your god for a week. Then choose another and try again.

You probably have some doubts about prayer. Fortunately, there is a way for you to know if your God answers prayers or not. Follow these directions:

1. Pray to your god for a week. Make your requests specific and something that could only come about through supernatural intervention. I’m not talking about getting a front row parking spot, which happens to us all every now and then. I’m talking about regrowing limbs, people coming back from the dead, walking on water — things that are impossible on our own.
2. Keep a record of all your requests and mark the ones that were answered (if any).
3. Next week, pray just as fervently to a different god (like Baal or Zeus) and keep track of your requests.
4. Then the week after, don’t pray at all — but still write down your requests.

Does prayer to your deity really work? The evidence (or lack there of) will be before you.

7) Read your holy book.

Yes, read your holy book, but also look at it from a viewpoint of an outsider. Then read up on the history of the book from secular scholars. Ask yourself if this book is really written by God, when history shows it to be written by mere men.

Have you read any other holy books? If not, now is the time to learn about them. Every religion has millions of followers who believe it is the only true religion, and that their holy book(s) are inspired by God. What makes yours any different?

8) Find other doubters.

When you start embracing doubt, you’ll discover many fairweather friends — they love and support you when you think like they do, but when you start questioning, they begin to back away. Forget these “friends.” Seek out those who are comfortable with doubt and view it as a friend instead of a foe.

If you can’t find any locally, there is a thriving community online. Participating in blogs, forums, and social networking can be helpful to doubters.

9) Read widely.

Pullquote: Read other subjects and expose yourself to different viewpoints. You can only be better for it.

There’s nothing like reading other perspectives to encourage doubt. That’s how I began having serious doubts about my Christian beliefs. First, I began questioning whether the Bible was accurate about the age of the earth. Then it was about if it was right about how animals was created. Then it was Adam and Even. Then Noah’s Ark. I kept going from there. But it all started out from reading outside my perspective.

Too often we only read from authors we already agree with. I remember once, when debating with some doorstep Mormons I asked, “Don’t you guys ever read outside your own religion?” Their reply was, “Why should we, when we know we have the truth, and others are still looking?”

Narrow reading will only confirm what you already believe. If we’re always right it wouldn’t be a problem. But who of us are right even 50% of the time? As Dale Carnegie said:

If you can be sure of being right only 55 percent of the time, you can go down to Wall Street and make a million dollars a day. If you can’t be sure of being right even 55 percent of the time, why should you tell other people they are wrong?

Reading people on our side is satisfying, but why not branch out a little? Read other subjects and expose yourself to different viewpoints. You can only be better for it.

10) Always ask yourself, “How do I know that?”

Pullquote: The more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary evidence there must be in order to believe it.

This is a powerful question because it gets at the root of belief. On matters of religion, you will probably find there is nothing to stand on but “faith.”

Here’s an example of how a thought conversation can go when asking yourself this question:

I believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
…Hang on a minute. That’s an impossible event. How do I know it really happened?

Well, the Bible says so.
…That’s true. It does say Jesus was born of a virgin in the later gospel accounts, though not the earlier ones. How do I know the later accounts can be trusted about such an extraordinary claim — made almost a century after it was claimed to happen? Are there any contemporary witnesses? Is there any positive evidence for it?

No, but it’s in the Bible, and God himself wrote it. That’s amazing evidence, isn’t it?
…Well, maybe. But how do I know God wrote it?

Hmm. The Bible says God wrote it, but that’s what all holy books say. So that’s not a very good reason, is it?
…Afraid not.

Unless a belief has positive evidence, then it usually isn’t worth believing. And the more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary evidence there must be in order to believe it. By asking “how do you know that?,” the burden of proof is put on the asserter.

When the answer comes down to “faith,” there’s a problem. Why put your faith in one belief over another? Based on faith alone, why believe in a god at all, much less a very specific version of him? What are the chances you are actually right about such a belief, especially since there is no evidence?

So doubt isn’t something to fear. It isn’t something to repress and fight against. It is something to be embraced. It is a powerful tool to find truth, and I hope you’ll use it.

* * *

So here’s my story and subsequent conversations with whoisyourcreator.com. After a return trip along Interstate 5 in Southern Oregon, I noticed a billboard along the side of the freeway with the caption ‘Are they making a monkey out of you’?:

Having some higher education basics of science in biology, chemistry, and other related fields under my belt, I couldn’t help resist the urge to check out this website. When I did, I checked out the site and was blown away by the misrepresentation of science they were displaying.

So I decided to contact them with a non-confrontational email to see how they would respond. Here’s the initial contact last year:

I was driving north on I-5 over the holidays and saw a billboard advertising your site. I’ve briefly looked around so it had me doing some initial individual research.

I’m curious to know if your site addresses the following:

This video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

and this information:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.htm

and

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/journey.html

Thank you,

Shad

Surely they would have at least respected the findings and material provided by the National Geographic? They are a respected organization and have been around for quite some time. It took quite some time to get a response. Well, the response was not what I expected:

Good Morning!

In regard to your comment, please consider helping your fellow evolutionists with a description of how evolution works!!!

Thank you and may you have a very blessed day,

Julie

This was an answer? A crass insult and complete avoidance of addressing what I presented to her? So I wrote back:

Hello Julie,

First, I would like to thank you for taking nearly two weeks to respond to my inquiry.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for making an assumption as well as jumping to the conclusion that I am an evolutionist. I was born and raised a Christian.

Thirdly, I would like to thank you for not answering my original question.

Additionally, it was kind of you to group me blindly and associate me with something I question just how much or little you know about.

The information I was looking at and specifically asking you about was with regard to genetic DNA based research that essentially builds out the human race ‘Family Tree’, which coincides with the Bible’s view of where we came from. The film and site talk about DNA markers passed down from Father to Son that was used track human movement around the world. I am interested in knowing how people (there’s over 6 Billion of us) scattered across the globe. I don’t think cars, buses, and planes did the job prior to their invention earlier this century.

I was hopeful to discover something intellectual and eye opening from your feedback. I received neither.

Good Day.

I didn’t really expect a reply after that, but she decided to do so anyway:

Shad,

Please accept my sincere apology for how I responded to your email. Yes, I did jump to conclusions and it was inexcusable, rude, and a poor witness for the Lord. (The time issue was related to research that had to be done within a timeline. When you emailed originally, I was not responding to any outside inquiries.)

I found the Genographic Project interesting, but I would like to refer you to www.answersingenesis.org for your inquiry as I haven’t done any research in that specific area.

Thank you for holding me accountable and may you have a very blessed day.

In Christ,

Julie

Holy Crap! ANSWERSINGENISIS? You’ve got to be kidding me! This gal that was covering topics in the field of Genetics on her website, and yet she was referring me to a site away from her own — pawning me off to a site that was a clear laughing stock in the scientific community? You’ve got to be kidding me. Why not defend what you are doing on your own website?

I wrote a couple more emails to her asking for her feedback on other material, but she never responded. Even with those emails I refrained from lashing out on her and just let the whole thing fade into the background.

Well, since having had that discussion, it had been eating away at me. So I continued researching and reading and watching documentary films in an attempt to erode my lack of knowledge on the immensity of Evolution. I had known of the topic all of my life, but not to the depth that I was now pursuing. Up to that point, I hadn’t really paid attention to the debate that was going on around the country regarding this topic. I had no idea that people were so passionately against this. Not because I lived in a cave mind you, but just simply do to the fact that I focused my life on other areas of interest. I was also disappointed as to how we as Americans were perceived outside of the United States on the matter of Evolution. The shear immensity of the problem boggles the mind.

While researching, I was amazed to learn what we as a species have discovered through our research and efforts. I was also amazed to discover how the scientific field of Evolution affected other fields of science and even spawned new fields, and how all of these fields became interlaced and supported one another. It was incredible.

After a year and a half of self-imposed and self-paced learning, along with conversations with family and friends (a whole other story), the gnawing memory of my discussion with Julie finally got to me. At this point, I was too far gone with the knowledge of my discoveries to let it sit idly any further.

I wasn’t sure if Julie was still working there, but decided to write back regardless. Notice the subject line modifications that ensued…

Subject: now I know

Greetings to the staff of ‘Whoisyourcreator.com’,

It’s been a while since I last made contact to your organization. Initial contact led me on a knowledge search.

I’ve since visited references you provided including that of Answersingenesis.com, the Discovery Institute, and other sites of similar stature.

I’m simply writing to say ‘Thank You’ and let you know by sharing with you the information I’ve discovered, your organization more than any other entity has been the primary factor in the shedding my faith. Keep up the good work as there is no doubt countless others have and will continue to do the same based on your efforts.

Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Origins the Series (currently 5 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&feature=PlayList&p=0696457CAFD6D7C9&index=0&playnext=1

Foundational Falsehood of Creationism (currently 17 videos )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&feature=PlayList&p=126AFB53A6F002CC&index=0&playnext=1

Why do people laugh at creationists? (currently 30 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=0&playnext=1

From Big Bang to Us — Made Easy (currently 14 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=0&playnext=1

Schools version of the Made Easy series (currently 8 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uihNu9Icaeo&feature=PlayList&p=100500E4C9404405&index=0&playnext=1

Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism (currently 32 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&feature=PlayList&p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87&index=0&playnext=1

Bias Bingo: How Cognitive Bias Generates Belief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXxJJfX3Nk

Me VS God (currently 5 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2HxZXuTb8Y&feature=PlayList&p=6939AD265B8BDB65&index=0&playnext=1

Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity (currently 5 videos)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk&feature=PlayList&p=5975FF2FEECF90D3&index=0&playnext=1

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911

and many many more.

Peace

I was sincere. The knowledge of science and philosophy I had acquired could no longer contain me within the chains of Christianity. After reading Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, along with watching “History of Disbelief” by Jeremy Miller, and a very long list of other material, my perspective did a complete 180.

But the internal struggles along that journey are a different story.

A couple days later, I got a response…

Subject: To the blind

Thank you for the email with your update.

While I am in no way encouraged by your professed Humanistic faith, I am encouraged by knowing that God is just, yet loving. He will judge you one day, yet He will forgive you if you believe and ask, even if it’s in your final breath.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power
and Godhead, so that they are without excuse”
- Romans 1:20

“It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this, the Judgment.”
-Hebrews 9:27

May God open your eyes to His Truth, Shad, so that you may walk with sight.

In Christ,

Who Is Your Creator

I wasn’t surprised by this response. I was bothered by the “Humanistic faith” reference because during my studies, I read a lot on the topic and became a fan of the philosophy — thanks Sam Harris. I was also rather irked at the passive-aggressive manner with the subject line tripe.

That attitude was enough, so I started to unload…

Subject: To the uneducated

To whomever,

Changing the subject line in your last email to insult me failed. At the very least, I honor you with a taste of your own medicine.

I spent over 30 years of my life adamantly studying the bible including being baptized by my Southern Baptist Preaching Grand Father. This study revealed failure across the board to provide answers to question to an intellect a supposed God provided me.

It’s sad that when someone raises questions, many of which have wonderful and beautiful natural explanations that directly contradict biblical statements, those ignorant of how those explanations work dismiss the explanations on the simplistic and childish nature that such information goes against what they deeply believe. I believed as you for too long. Defending one’s faith despite information to the contrary that reveals truth does immense harm.
I could throw scripture and verse back at you. But I see this as a useless endeavor. I’ve actually read the bible – fully – dozens and dozens of times. Save your time.

I’m no longer scared of ‘judgement’ because I’ve shed the cloak of fear. So please spare me the contrivance.

What your website and so many others like it are doing are making numerous and false claims against multiple fields of science which we as a human species have fought for so long and hard to acquire. Your site attempts to dismiss that hard work, or at the very least undermine it. It is profoundly discouraging. This is deception and the last time I checked, deception was not something that Jesus approved of. Your website is out of date, out of context, and lacking of scientific expertise in nearly every field of science. ESPECIALLY Genetics.

It’s like watching a train wreck unfold.

Are you actively protesting US Government support of Genetic information contrary to what you’ve attempted to explain on your website? (http://www.genome.gov/)

There’s more: http://genomics.energy.gov/

If you actually take the time to view the videos I sent, you’ll understand more clearly why I just made these claims against your website. Fortunately, ignorance is curable. Willful ignorance is however not.

I suggest browsing through PUBMED: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/. It will keep you occupied for a while. Your selective use of PUBMED to mine for articles that support your claims is deception, and the worst kind.

Why are you not providing reliable sources of information on your website such as the Genome project? What you’re website is basically saying is that every field of science in every country on the planet is wrong. That’s quite an assessment on your part. Instead of attempting to prove evolution wrong, why not attempt to put your money where your mouth is. Here’s a recent challenge. Do this, and you’ll become quite wealthy: Challenging the Discovery Institute to Discover.

In closing, there’s no debate concerning evolution any more. This is a non-debate. But this discussion like so many others has me sharing with you one of my favorite quotes of all time:

“I’m struck again by the irony that spaceflight – conceived in the cauldron of nationalistic rivalries and hatreds – brings with it a stunning transnational vision. You spend even a little time contemplating the Earth from orbit and the most deeply ingrained nationalisms begin to erode. They seem the squabbles of mites on a plum.”
Carl Sagan – The Pale Blue Dot.

I recommend ‘Genome’ – by Matt Riddley The audio version of this book is quite exquisite.

If you were to pick only one of the video series I mentioned, please watch “Foundational Falsehood of Creationism”

I can’t believe that you’re using ‘Panda’s Thumbs’. Are you serious?

Peace

The rant made me feel better to get those things off my chest. It’s difficult to communicate with people that haven’t taken the time to simply read at least a portion of the information that’s available, when they sit there arguing against material that they haven’t taken the time to learn anything about, simply rejecting it prior to ever having spent any time even looking at it.

Most refusals to look at the material are based on an unwillingness to venture anywhere near their belief system of what they don’t know, or assume to know.

They wrote back…

Subject: I’ll still be praying …

1. You can go through all of our pages, including the ‘Genesis Account of Creation’ and see that 99% of our quotes come from evolutionary-based scientific research:
- ‘Origin of the Universe’ uses quotes from NASA, MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, Vienna University of Technology, TalkOrigins … to name just a few.
- ‘Genetics’ page uses quotes from UCLA, Biology-Direct, University of Wisconsin, Science Magazine, International Journal of Astrobiology, Princeton, Cat Institute, Renal Physiology, etc.

(Note that many of the ScienceDaily.com and Physorg.com links that we use are taken from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ , but re-written in article form – by evolutionists – for easier reading.)

2. Since you believe that these are NOT qualified organizations, please include your list of ‘qualified’ research organizations.

3. In regard to ‘quote-mining,’ please submit just one example of how we distorted the findings and then we can enter into an actual debate. Otherwise, it’s your opinion.

4. I’m not sure about your reference to ‘Panda’s Thumbs’, but I suspect that you are referring to the pro-evolution blog that we cited somewhere as an example. See http://pandasthumb.org/ as you most likely will enjoy it.

5. Because you obviously prefer philosophy over empirical science, we suggest you check out this site as it will be more to your liking:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/philosophy-of-science

6. Since you are familiar with the Bible, you know that faith is from God, not from our own understanding. If you found hypocrisy in the your previous church, that is exactly why our faith is based on the perfection of Jesus … not His followers. Our flesh will not be redeemed until death so, while we progressively sin less, the battle with the flesh is still fierce.

I will be praying that He opens your eyes so that you may find peace and forgiveness from Him, instead of the hurt and hatred that your emails reveal.

As much as you may try, you can’t will Him out of your life, Shad.

“For Yours is the kingdom the power and the glory, forever and ever.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHdB-cBwfcQ&feature=related

Who Is Your Creator

What I recognized immediately was that this person was using the same style of argumentation that was employed on the discussion forum where she had been completely eviscerated on every occasion. What’s sad is that she didn’t even realize to the extent she had been made to look like an utter fool. The reference to the Panda’s Thumb was an oversight on my part as I still had – fresh in my mind – the material ‘Of Panda’s and People’ from the Dover trial (see the NOVA clip). Just the word ‘Panda’ on her website had me laughing. I later learned it was PandaThumb.org.

At this point I’d had enough. How could someone that not only knew where to obtain scientific material on Evolution, abuse it to such an extent, yet continue to identify themselves as a Christian? I was pissed. So I let them have it.

Response to #1.
You are quote mining from these sources – or more to the point, you are scavenging through these sites and cherry picking articles, and removing context of a myriad of related material to each item you reference. That is what is called QUOTE MINING. This is deception. Deception is a lie. Lying is breaking one of the 10 commandments. This demonstrates not only willful ignorance and a clear lack of education from any one of these institutions, but a complete dismissal of the mountain of information to the contrary of what you present. This behavior is deplorable.

Response to #2.
I did not say that these universities and government organizations are not qualified research organizations. What I said was “Your website is out of date, out of context, and lacking of scientific expertise in nearly every field of science. ESPECIALLY Genetics.” This means that by the actions taken on your website, you clearly do not employ actual scientists to provide to you explanations and context of the material you spend time quote mining for.

Response to #3
See item #1 above. Additionally I offer to you the first posting on this page: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/genetics.html with the statement of: “It is known that life is built from inorganic elements, but evolutionists have no explanations as how that occurs:”

You follow up that statement by QUOTING from two scientific articles, one from 1998, and the other from 2007.

You have taken the first quote from within an article, thus removing it’s context to the entire article, and making it appear as though the scientific article disputes genetics, when on the contrary, the article itself explains it. This really makes your website appear foolish and tremendously deceptive.

The second quote is lifted directly from the conclusion statement of the article from the National Institutes of Health. This again is quote mining and demonstrates that a) you didn’t read the entire article (or perhaps only the summary or conclusion), and b) you picked up a component of this article to fit your needs.

The additional problem with your actions and deceptive behavior is that you offer no information to the contrary. You do not represent a balanced approach to scientific information. You use scientific quotes in an attempt to create the false illusion of a lack of consensus within the scientific community. I don’t know if this is from ignorance or simply a failure to do a simple Google search. Up to this point, it is by all appearances an act of deception.

Despite all of the above, this information has already been discovered. But you would know that if you actually kept up on science. But you’re not a scientist, so I can’t expect that you would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Here’s the interview with Dr. Jack Szostak explaining what you’re attempting to dismiss by means of deception:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w

This is simply one example of the fraudulent behavior your website exhibits.

Anyone actually READING the articles you reference can see right through what you’re doing.

Response to #4
The Panda’s Thumb comment was regarding the book “Of Panda’s and People”, not the blog site.

Response to #5
Philosophy and Empirical Science are two different fields. I have appreciation for both. If there’s a point you’re attempting to make here, you fail to do so.

Response to #6
This item touches upon a multitude of topics in the realm of epistemology. But I’d like to make mention of the fact that science is not religion and has nothing to do with faith. You’re attempting to overlap or somehow hybridize the two, or at the very least bastardize credible science. Science only deals with what we can observe and test repeatedly and independently. Here’s a better explanation from Steven Jay Gould concerning Nonoverlapping Magisteria.

You misrepresent science and hand pick articles to make science look bad. You clearly fail to understand science, and fail to educate yourself because it conflicts with what you believe. You look for and manufacture false information on the illusion or perception of disagreement in the scientific community. This demonstrates a fear of the unknown, and an unwillingness to adjust what you’ve come to believe through scripture to the evidence that is difficult to reconcile with biblical information. Truth doesn’t care of beliefs or opinions.

You appear to have isolated yourself in a world void of information contrary to what you hold dear. Perhaps some reading from Bertrand Russell will help you out.

My eyes have been opened by the exposure of deception and misrepresentation the creationist movement exposes itself to time and time again. What you’re doing is by its very nature equivalent to practitioners of Flatearthism and Holocaust Denialists. What you fail to see is the similarities of these other two practices with your own.

Do you even have a degree from a Secular University – namely ANY that you quote mine from?

And here’s the paper from Dr. Szostak:
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Mansy_et_al_Nature_2008.pdf

Oh, while you’re praying for me, please ask for forgiveness for your sin of lying to the level you have.

Granted I could have addressed the “sources” portion of the email in a more articulate manner, but I think I made my point.

They haven’t responded.

(via)

Today’s argument for the existence of God is from Christian persecution. Believe it or not, this argument has been given from a number of Christians in the comments, though not quite as amusingly as this:

120. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (I)
(1) Someone made fun of my faith.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

121. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (II)
(1) Jesus said that people would make fun of Christians.
(2) I am an idiot.
(3) People often point that out.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

122. ARGUMENT FROM PERSECUTION (III)
(1) You atheists are mean!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

(source) ]]> http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/08/god-exists-because-christians-are-persecuted/feed/ 27 http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/04/god-exists-because-theres-no-evidence/ http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/04/god-exists-because-theres-no-evidence/#comments Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:49:26 +0000 Daniel Florien http://unreasonablefaith.com/?p=3494 Today’s argument for the existence of God is from the lack of evidence of God:

138. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (I)
(1) I believe that if God exists, there will be no evidence for his existence.
(2) There is no evidence for the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

139. ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE (II)
(1) God, if you exist, please give me absolutely no sign.
(2)
(3) Therefore, God exists.

(source)

That explanation doesn’t make sense to Bart Ehrman. In his book God’s Problem, Ehrman explains why the solution of “free will” is no solution at all to the problem of evil:

Most people who believe in God-given free will also believe in an afterlife. Presumably people in their afterlife will still have free will (they won’t be robots then either, will they?). And yet there won’t be suffering (allegedly) then. Why will people know how to exercise free will in heaven if they can’t know how to exercise it on earth?

In fact, if God gave people free will as a great gift, why didn’t he give them the intelligence they needed to exercise it so that we can all live happily and peaceable together? You can’t argue that he wasn’t able to do so, if you want to argue that he is all powerful.

Moreover, if God sometimes intervenes in history to counteract the free will decisions of others — for example, when he destroyed the Egyptian armies at the exodus (they freely had decided to oppress the Israelites), or when he fed the multitudes in the wilderness in the days of Jesus (people who had chosen to go off to hear him without packing a lunch), or when he counteracted the wicked decision of the Roman governor Pilate to destroy Jesus by raising the crucified Jesus from the dead — if he intervenes sometimes to counteract free will, why does he not do so more of the time? Or indeed, all the time?

The “solution” of free will, in the end, ultimately leads to the conclusion that it is all a mystery. (p. 12-13)

The Christian answer to the problem of evil is complex, mythical and unsatisfying. There is the continuous problem of exonerating God. Supposedly this God is a “loving father,” yet he seems to be more of an absent father. He is said to be justice itself, yet evildoers are rewarded while the virtuous suffer. To explain this, vast theologies of mystery are woven that ensnare the faithful.

The secular answer is simple and — at least to me — far more satisfying. Suffering is simply a byproduct of life. Pain is a result of nerves, which we need in order to survive. There is no sky god watching children suffer to be angry at or puzzled over. There is no comic justice or injustice — only cosmic indifference. Even if there is a god, it doesn’t appear to be anywhere around here, so we must live like there is none. There is no invisible sky daddy to come and help us.

Justice is up to humanity. We must accept the responsibility that comes with our ethical knowledge and sensitivities. If good is to be done, we must do it. If evil is to be stopped, we must stop it. Praying, worshipping, sacrificing goats, performing rituals, chanting scripture, and other superstitions do nothing to further the cause of justice.

It all depends on us. Let’s act like it.