August 11, 2020

August 11, 2020 By

Case Study of the Saying, “Heresy Begins Below the Belt”

The above saying expresses the notion that sexual urges and drives and acts (i.e., outside of heterosexual marriage and procreation) run contrary to a theology that defines many of them as intrinsically immoral. Therefore, the person who enjoys these thoughts and acts tends to want to reject the theology rather than their own chosen sexuality. And so they wander off into heresy because of this.

Perhaps the classic expression of this mentality is the famous statement of the English writer and philosopher Aldous Huxley (1894-1963): author of almost fifty books; most notably, Brave New World (1932) and The Doors of Perception (1954). Coincidentally, he died, along with President Kennedy, on the same day that Lewis did. In his 1937 collection of essays, Ends and Means, Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever. [my added italics]

In reading the highly regarded biography of Lewis by his friend George Sayer, entitled Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times (Harper & Row, 1988), I was surprised to learn that young Lewis (around the ages of 13-15) lost his initial Christian faith — according to Sayer’s account — because of falling into a regular practice of masturbation. This, and what Huxley describes, support my long-time contention as an apologist, that loss of faith and apostasy far too often (if not usually) occur as a result of non-rational processes and urges, rather than Christianity failing the test of serious intellectual examination. Sayer writes on page 31 of his book:

He began to masturbate. One can only imagine the sense of guilt he felt. . . . The habit caused him more misery than anything else in his early life.

Of course, he struggled against it, but the agony of the struggle intensified the sense of guilt. He resolved fiercely never to do it again, and then suffered over and over the humiliation of failing to keep his resolution. His state, he tells us, was that described by Saint Paul in Romans 7:19-24: “. . . for the good that I would do, I do not: but the evil that I would not, that I do. . . . I delight in the law of God . . . but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind. . . . O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

He prayed, too, and, because his prayers were not answered, he soon lost his faith. . . .

To attain psychological balance, he had to suppress his strong feelings of guilt, a feat he accomplished by rejecting Christianity and its morality. He went in for bravado, blasphemy, and smut, startling and shocking the boys who knew him best.

I’d like to analyze the “philosophical / apologetic” ramifications of this for a moment. I can imagine an atheist or one otherwise skeptical of Christianity (or particularly of Catholic Christianity) saying, “well, how can you blame young Lewis? After all, he sincerely resolved to end his practice, which he [wrongly] felt to be wrong, and sincerely prayed to God for aid in that resolve, and God [assuming for the sake of argument that he does exist] failed him. Is that not, then, God‘s fault, rather than his own?”

Like so many “armchair” garden variety atheist arguments (real or so-called), this one appears only at first glance to have weight and force. As a matter of indisputable fact, there are a number of seriously addictive or obsessive behaviors that human beings willingly begin and fall into, only to find later on that they are in “bondage”, would like to cease, and alas, cannot. Usually at first, it’s not understood that the behaviors will become so controlling and addictive.  But once one is caught by the behavior, it’s very difficult to escape.

But whose fault is that? Is it God’s or the person who began the journey into the behavior? I would contend that it’s the latter, and that recourse to blaming God is simply blame-shifting. One can imagine many addictions, whether it is, for example, pedophilia, or smoking cigarettes, or various drug habits, or wife-beating, or gluttony, or rampant sexual promiscuity. Even intrinsically good things can become addictive and destructive; say, for example, that a man wants to read books or do gardening all day long, and as a result, neglects his duty to make a living.

We start these things and then in foolish pride, we want to blame someone else when it’s clear that we are engaged in unhealthy, destructive behavior. God is one such misguided target, because we can always convince ourselves that “God ought to enable me to stop if I ask Him.” Therefore, if He doesn’t do so, we can say that He is either weak or nonexistent. It’s a variation of the old “problem of evil” objection to Christianity.

On the other hand, I am certainly not denying altogether that there is such a thing as divine grace or power to overcome sin and evil. St. Paul tells us that “I can do all things in him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13, RSV) and that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (Rom 8:37). I and virtually any serious Christian have experienced this help many times, and indeed, highly successful groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous presuppose that it exists in order to help alcoholics stop drinking.

So I’m not discounting that per se. What I’m saying is that it is unreasonable to demand that God (an omniscient Being infinitely higher than we are, and therefore, obviously often inexplicable to us as a result, as we would be to an ant) do what I want right now; under the pain of being rejected or disbelieved if He does not. God is under no obligation to perform any given miracle or to answer any and every prayer. He does what He does in His own time, for His own inscrutable reasons and providential purposes, and Christianity fully understands this. Biblical prayer is not automatic and unconditional, as I explained to two atheist apostates (Seidensticker and Madison).

The same Bible that contains the above verses also includes the book of Job, in which a most righteous (“blameless”) person terribly suffers for seemingly no reason. The same Paul who wrote those verses, had God turn down his request to remove a “thorn in the flesh” from him. God is not a magic wand or our own personal sock puppet, to maneuver as we will.

All this becomes simply a pretext for a rejection of God that was already present in kernel form. “Either God does X or I’m through with Him!” It’s kindergarten spirituality and rationalization of self-excess or an exaggerated sense of pseudo-“freedom.” It’s the initial sin of Adam and Eve and the devil: choosing their self-will over God’s. Aldous Huxley (admirably) admitted that this was what he was doing.

And I think that young C. S. Lewis (assuming Sayer’s opinion is correct) was doing the same thing, and that it’s irrational and unreasonable, for the reasons stated. Lewis later explained how and why masturbation is immoral (see below).

Related Reading

Masturbation: C. S. Lewis Explains Why it is Wrong [10-28-19]

Masturbation: Thoughts on Why it is as Wrong as it Ever Was [3-14-04 and 9-7-05; abridged, edited, and slightly modified on 8-14-19]
*

Masturbation Remains a Grave Sin (Debate w Steve Hays) [1-6-07; links added on 8-13-19]

Martin Luther Condemned Masturbation (“Secret Sin”) [6-2-10]

Masturbation & the Sermon on the Mount (Talmudic Parallels) [10-18-11]

Biblical Data Against Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment: a Concise “Catholic” Argument [3-7-14]

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment [National Catholic Register, 5-30-17]

Masturbation: Gravely Disordered According to Catholicism [8-16-19]

Biblical Hyperbole, Masturbation, & Intransigent Atheists [9-3-19]

Debate: Masturbation Okay in Moderation or Intrinsically Wrong? [10-31-19]

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*
*
***

Photo credit: original dust cover for George Sayer’s 1988 biography on C. S. Lewis [Amazon book page]

***

April 14, 2020

April 14, 2020 By

Studies in Flew’s Justification of His Change of Mind and the Predictable Reaction of Atheists

[Antony Flew’s words will be in blue]

***

For a prior overview about Flew’s importance in the world of philosophy and the resurgence of theism in those circles, see Dr. Phillip Blosser’s blog article (filled with links to interesting related materials), Former atheist, Antony Flew, now believes in God. See also his page on infidels.org, which gives several links to older papers.

The flurry of stories on this topic which were prevalent in the media around 9 December 2004, were typified by the following, in the Guardian Unlimited:

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God [link from The Guardian now defunct]Thursday December 9, 2004 10:01 PM

By Richard N. Ostling

AP Religion Writer

NEW YORK (AP) – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God – more or less – based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives.

“I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.”

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification,” based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

. . . biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?” . . .

The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine . . .

[Here is what he wrote, in his now-online letter: “Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.“But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”]

. . . if his belief upsets people, well “that’s too bad,’‘ Flew said. “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”. . . Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

The Sunday Times of Britain (12-12-04) took a similar view, in its article, Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all, by Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale:

One of the most renowned atheists of the past half century has changed his mind and decided that there is a God after all . . . Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, is keen to repent. “As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done,” he said yesterday.But he is unlikely to proclaim his faith from a pulpit. He is still not a Christian and dismisses the conventional forms of divinity as “the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam”. He also stands by his rejection of an afterlife.

. . . Darwin’s theory of evolution does not explain the origin and development of life to Flew’s satisfaction. “I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature,” he said.

Flew finds the conventional explanation that life arose out of a complex chemical brew or primordial soup “improbable”. So he is emulating Socrates and “following the argument wherever it leads. The conclusion is — there must have been some intelligence”.

His volte face is all the more remarkable given his vehement denial of internet rumours in 2001 that he had renounced his atheism. His response was entitled: “Sorry To Disappoint, but I’m Still an Atheist!”

The latter article (8-31-01), however, reproduced on The Secular Web, contains fascinating tidbits that go far beyond the usual atheist party line. For Flew wrote:

[I]t can be entirely rational for believers and negative atheists to respond in quite different ways to the same scientific developments.We negative atheists are bound to see the Big Bang cosmology as requiring a physical explanation; and that one which, in the nature of the case, may nevertheless be forever inaccessible to human beings. But believers may, equally reasonably, welcome the Big Bang cosmology as tending to confirm their prior belief that “in the beginning” the Universe was created by God.

Again, negative atheists meeting the argument that the fundamental constants of physics would seem to have been ‘fine tuned’ to make the emergence of mankind possible will first object to the application of either the frequency or the propensity theory of probability ‘outside’ the Universe, and then go on to ask why omnipotence should have been satisfied to produce a Universe in which the origin and rise of the human race was merely possible rather than absolutely inevitable. But believers are equally bound and, on their opposite assumptions, equally justified in seeing the Fine Tuning Argument as providing impressive confirmation of a fundamental belief shared by all the three great systems of revealed theistic religion – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

. . . In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.

I’ve been contending for years that theism is at least as reasonable a position as atheism, particularly in the context of attempts to interpret Big Bang cosmology. It is very nice to observe one of the world’s leading atheists “concede” or agree with this (when he was still a card-carrying atheist). Many atheists have no toleration whatever for the eminently reasonable (and, I think, rather obvious) position which holds that theists (not Christians: one subset of the larger group, involving many more tenets and presuppositions) are at least as reasonable and epistemically justified as atheists — wholly apart from the opposite conclusions that each party arrives at.

For them, Christians and even theistic philosophers must be seen as simpletons and ignoramuses (or reasonable facsimile thereof), caught in a medieval belief-system and hopelessly behind the times. Not so, said Flew, over three years ago.

The best source at present to learn about Flew’s newly-adopted opinion (from his own words), seems to be an interview by evangelical Protestant philosopher Gary R. Habermas; subsequently published in the Winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi: the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, considered one of the best journals of philosophy of religion in the world. The article notes that Habermas “has debated Flew several times.

They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God . . . Over the next twenty years, Flew and Habermas developed a friendship, writing dozens of letters, talking often . . .” Furthermore, the introduction states that the interview “took place in early 2004 and was subsequently modified by both participants throughout the year.” Habermas’ words will be in green; Flew’s still in blue:

. . . I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?

Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

. . . [you commented] that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.” . . . You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did you find most persuasive?

I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

So you like arguments such as those that proceed from big bang cosmology and fine tuning arguments?

Yes.

. . . when I was in college, I attended fairly regularly the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis’s Socratic Club. In all my time at Oxford these meetings were chaired by Lewis. I think he was by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club.

Although you disagreed with him, did you find him to be a very reasonable sort of fellow?

Oh yes, very much so, an eminently reasonable man.

. . . So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

. . . If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?

Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on. I suppose that does imply creation “in the beginning.”

. . . In your view, then, God hasn’t done anything about evil.

No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it.

. . . I still hope and believe there’s no possibility of an afterlife.

. . . you have also written to me that these near death experiences “certainly constitute impressive evidence for the possibility of the occurrence of human consciousness independent of any occurrences in the human brain.”. . . Elsewhere, you again very kindly noted my influence on your thinking here, regarding these data being decent evidence for human consciousness independent of “electrical activity in the brain.” If some near death experiences are evidenced, independently confirmed experiences during a near death state, even in persons whose heart or brain may not be functioning, isn’t that is quite impressive evidence? Are near death experiences, then, the best evidence for an afterlife?

Oh, yes, certainly. They are basically the only evidence.

. . . So you think that, for a miracle, the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is better than other miracle claims?

Oh yes, I think so. It’s much better, for example, than that for most if not of the, so to speak, run of the mill Roman Catholic miracles.

. . . You have made numerous comments over the years that Christians are justified in their beliefs such as Jesus’ resurrection or other major tenants of their faith. In our last two dialogues I think you even remarked that for someone who is already a Christian there are many good reasons to believe Jesus’ resurrection. Would you comment on that?

Yes, certainly. This is an important matter about rationality which I have fairly recently come to appreciate. What it is rational for any individual to believe about some matter which is fresh to that individual’s consideration depends on what he or she rationally believed before they were confronted with this fresh situation. For suppose they rationally believed in the existence of a God of any revelation, then it would be entirely reasonable for them to see the fine tuning argument as providing substantial confirmation of their belief in the existence of that God.

. . . What do you think that Bertrand Russell, J. L. Mackie, and A. J. Ayer would have thought about these theistic developments, had they still been alive today?

I think Russell certainly would have had to notice these things. I’m sure Mackie would have been interested, too. I never knew Ayer very well, beyond meeting him once or twice.

Do you think any of them would have been impressed in the direction of theism? I’m thinking here, for instance, about Russell’s famous comments that God hasn’t produced sufficient evidence of his existence.

Consistent with Russell’s comments that you mention, Russell would have regarded these developments as evidence. I think we can be sure that Russell would have been impressed too, precisely because of his comments to which you refer. This would have produced an interesting second dialogue between him and that distinguished Catholic philosopher, Frederick Copleston.

In recent years you’ve been called the world’s most influential philosophical atheist. Do you think Russell, Mackie, or Ayer would have been bothered or even angered by your conversion to theism? Or do you think that they would have at least understood your reasons for changing your mind?

I’m not sure how much any of them knew about Aristotle. But I am almost certain that they never had in mind the idea of a God who was not the God of any revealed religion. But we can be sure that they would have examined these new scientific arguments.

C. S. Lewis explained in his autobiography that he moved first from atheism to theism and only later from theism to Christianity. Given your great respect for Christianity, do you think that there is any chance that you might in the end move from theism to Christianity?

I think it’s very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if it did happen, I think it would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully orthodox form: regular religious practice perhaps but without belief.

I ask this last question with a smile, Tony. But just think what would happen if one day you were pleasantly disposed toward Christianity and all of a sudden the resurrection of Jesus looked pretty good to you?

Well, one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.

In his review of Christian Roy Varghese’s book, The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God, Flew wrote:

I pointed out, after quoting a significant sentence from the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species, that one place where, until a satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been developed, there would appear to be room for an Argument to Design is at the first emergence of living from non-living matter. And, unless that first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically, there will still be room for a second argument to Design until a satisfactory explanation is found for its acquisition of that capacity. You have in your book deployed abundant evidence indicating that it is likely to be a very long time before such naturalistic explanations are developed, if indeed there ever could be.Our disagreements begin with any shift from the God of natural theology to the God of a Revelation.

In a December 2004 phone conversation with humanist Duncan Crary [link defunct], Flew stated:

We must follow the argument wherever it leads. I’ve never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is . . . I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god.

The Sunday Times article of 19 December 2004: In the beginning there was something (an interview by Stuart Wavell; link now defunct]) offers more fascinating information:

I’ve never thrown my weight about as an unbeliever. I’ve joined unbelieving organisations but I haven’t attacked belief.. . . My positive belief is in an Aristotelian God. Aristotle never produced a definition, but his God was not interested in human beings. He would have said that if God had really been concerned with human behaviour he would have made us behave according to his own way . . . On the Aristotelian view, the question doesn’t arise about the nature of God.

. . . I don’t want a future life. I want to be dead when I’m dead and that’s an end to it. I don’t want an unending life. I don’t want anything without end.

. . . there’s a world of difference between finding that there’s some very powerful, intelligent being in the background and finding that what you’ve discovered is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

. . . Darwin saw that there was a problem with the origin of life. It had to begin with a creature capable of producing creatures that are not always identical to their parents. It is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary, complicated creature of which we have no examples. There must have been some intelligence.

. . . I don’t consider the question of God is definitively proved. All Schroeder is saying is that all the chemical complexities that have to be dealt with are such an enormous improbability. This is not a proof but it will do until a proof comes along.

Now that we have a basic understanding of Antony Flew’s thinking, I thought it would be fun and interesting to briefly examine how atheists and agnostics are reacting to it. I am as interested in the psychology and sociology of unbelief as in the philosophy of it. I immediately predicted in my mind when I heard about Flew’s change of opinion, that many in the community of atheists and secularists and skeptics, and so forth, would immediately start to (more or less irrationally and emotionally) minimize and dismiss both his thinking process and he himself.

They would be willing, so I thought (based on my own significant experience in dialogue with them), to cast him to the wind just as quickly as they formerly thought he was an able and worthy representative of their position.

In fact, the entrenched, knee-jerk, almost intellectually reactionary position that many atheists have assumed almost requires this. A search on the Internet tonight quickly confirmed my strong suspicions. In fact, the article just cited reports the hysterical atheist reaction. Wavell writes:

With equal alacrity, the wrath of unbelievers has rebounded on Antony Flew, the philosophy professor responsible for this heresy, leaving him shaken and not very philosophical.

Flew himself complains:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you could think of. And none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

Richard Carrier, a frequent contributor to The Secular Web, in his article, Antony Flew Considers God…Sort Of (10-10-04), provides a good insight into atheist / agnostic reaction:

Antony Flew is considering the possibility that there might be a God. Sort of. Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the shortlist of “Contemporary Atheists” at About.com. So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy. After hearing of this, I contacted Antony directly to discuss it, . . . Antony and I exchanged letters on the issue recently, and what I report here about his current views comes from him directly.. . . he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal “prime mover.” It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life.

. . . Flew’s tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, . . .

. . . Flew took great care to emphasize repeatedly to me that:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms. [letter of 19 October 2004]

After presenting a fairly accurate picture of Flew’s opinions, Carrier then assumes the usual (almost obligatory) “smarter-than-thou” atheist routine and belittles Flew:

. . . he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject . . .. . . there is much to criticize in his rationale even for considering Aristotelian Deism.

Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship.

This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won’t investigate the evidence because it’s too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

This comes as no surprise at all, to anyone familiar with the dripping atheist disdain of theism and especially Christianity. Yet, to be fair to Carrier, he does present some late information (less than three weeks’ old, as of this writing) from Flew which shows that he thought some of his earlier rationale for the adoption of deism (while not sufficient to reverse his newfound belief) was flawed:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.. . . I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder . . . it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics. (Letter to Richard Carrier, of 29 December 2004)

Carrier has a field day with this information:

Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics–yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew’s method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims).

But he concedes: “Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell.”

For another subtle, but definite dig at Flew’s reasoning processes, see “Flew’s Flawed Science,” by Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics and Astronomy). The unproven and gratuitous atheist assumptions here are legion. But then, what choice does a materialistic scientist have? The universe could only have come about by other physical processes, as matter is all that there is. God and spirit are ruled out beforehand, so the materialist is confined within his own self-created box of epistemological and metaphysical premises and possibilities (and non-possibilities). Flew dared to try to step outside the “orthodox box” of scientific and philosophical materialism, so he is quickly becoming anathema.

One Internet Infidels Discussion Board will provide a representative (I’m quite sure, typical) example of atheist / agnostic spin on former hero Flew (“how the mighty have fallen”).

“JSWilkins” starts in on the ridicule, right on December 9th, when the story was breaking:

. . . his reason is surprisingly weak – he cannot conceive how DNA got going . . . the conclusion is based on an argumentum ad ignoratium. There is no logical conundrum here. It concerns me that Flew does not see this, but then he is only following the standard opinion of hard selectionists like Dawkins. But his argument is an argument from ignorance. He may find it compelling personally, but it is not compelling logically.

Jeff Lawson gives us the patented materialist circular argument:

Well, I have news for Flew: this is not science! I hate to have to espouse the scientific method, so I won’t. Suffice to say, Flew is proffering macro-level conjecture in place of sound theory. In this day and age, rational interpretation of observations must be encoded in productive theories, i.e. theories that are not only entirely consistent with a precise subset of reality but that tell us more than we knew before. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do this in spades. In comparison, Flew’s ideas are little better than the utterances of the religious: someone who claims to have ‘scientific evidence’ for his creationist ideas but in reality is about as far removed from science as it is possible for an academic to be; I suppose, after all, he’s only a philosopher.

Vinnie provides us with sanctimonious atheist dogmatism:

. . . we have to ask, is Flew a deist or does he subscribe to the absurdity presented by supernatural theism?The last argument raises the issue of an “immaterial being” (in the sense of being non-universal!) interacting with a material world. How is this notion even meaningful?

[i.e., “how could anything possibly be true in any possible world, but materialism? Nothng else can even have meaning, let alone be true”]

E. Garrett (of presumably agnostic persuasion) is one ray of light in this sad spectacle:

Carrier is all too willing to write off one of the brightest minds for our cause. Carrier has devoted his life to studying the origins of life, which those of us who have only spent 50 or so years at should strongly consider. Carrier’s comments of how Flew is forgetful, is petty at best. We all are forgetful and that doesn’t make us any less intelligent.Being that we are capable of higher thinking, let us exercise our brains. Rather than writing off such a smart man, let us spend time studying what he has to say. Read what Flew has read so that we can be a little better informed than the man that would rather insult a great thinker than to do his homework and study for himself.

mike a. is also quite refreshing:

I suggest the secularists force naturalism to either come up with a better story (good luck), or take the lead in opening the door to “other than natural” sources of intelligence (maybe this is the “metaphysical naturalism” your moderator speaks to?)–no “G” word required. The train is going in that direction anyway, as Anthony Flew recognizes. It is possible that, like religious fundamentalists, no amount of evidence will allow secularists to consider forces acting outside the observable space-time framework. Just remember that if that is the case, you don’t have an opinion–you have a dogma.

Then the “true believers” start in again with the condescension. Jehanne opines:

Flew’s “conversion” should not be surprising to those who are true materialists. It just means that “his genes” have finally conquered “his intellect”.

Vinnie concurs with what is now becoming the fashionable spin:

Flew still accepts that “neo-Darwinian evolution” occured to the best of my knowledge as well. I don’t know what the hell he is thinking. I think his genes may have finally caught up….

“macula2020” shows a bit more sophistication and suggests that the whole thing is a plot to sell books, because Flew could not be so stupid as to believe in any sort of God;

I’ll preface my syllogism with the reminder that it represents my opinion only.Although it may at first appear to be an ad hominen attack on Flew, it is not. It is simply a rational hypothesis that illuminates less transparent aspects of Flew’s announcement.

Premise 1. Flew, as an expert in critical thinking and atheistic philosophy, would not commit the fallacy of using a God of the Gaps argument to conclude that God existsPremise 2. Flew, as an expert in critical thinking and atheistic philosophy, would stimulate widespread public attention and interest by announcing his personal belief that God exists

Conclusion: Flew has announced his belief that God exists in order to generate attention and controversy.

Evidence:-Flew or his agent contacted the Associated Press newswire and NBC News via press release with this “story” on or around the same day that his new video, “Has Science Discovered God?” was released.

-every publisher and author knows that controversy sells books; not only has his video just been released, but the new edition of “God and Philosophy” is scheduled for upcoming release.

Administrator DM (former evangelical Christian) feels a need to go after C.S. Lewis, because Flew spoke so highly of him:

Lewis was, in my opinion, both a weak atheist and a weak theist in the sense that he has an extremely poor understanding of correct reasoning (as demonstrated in his book “Mere Christianity,” for example, where he commits one reasoning error after another) . . . Lewis and McDowell–especially–are lightweights when it comes to the quality of their reasoning.

Dominic Milioto brings strict ad hominem to the table:

Flew is a cop-out that’s what. Sounds to me like an old man, confronted by the end of life, making one final desparate attempt at salvation. He has little faith in future generations separating the chaff from the wheat: explaining what now is not.

“tw1tch,” on the other hand, gives us the fair-minded, charitable approach:

Huh…just read Richard Carrier’s updated article on Anthony Flew’s change of viewpoint.I must admit that I am disappointed in the tone of Carrier’s article. Here, in front of God (pardon the expression) and man, the perennial atheist…indeed the foremost thinker of modern atheism…in his twilight years simply changes his mind. Flew has probably done more for atheism, its philosophy and furtherment than any living person. In all probability, he has done more for atheism than infidels.org ever will.

That’s quite a sobering thought. Even more sobering is how, Carrier, in an almost unbelievably comical display…nonchalantly dismisses Flew’s reasoning as ‘willfully sloppy’ and levels charges against Flew of intellectual laziness. Sigh. Intellectually laziness….again, this is a man who has written more books on the subject of athiesm than Mr. Carrier most likely ever will.

Sour grapes are natural fellas. I can’t hold this against you. However, I can’t help but to think that this sheepish (and rightfully so) dismissal of Flews reasoning is more pychological defense mechanism than honest, unbiased assessment.

Perhaps he just changed his mind…no need get ugly about it.

Y.B nevertheless chimes in with more patronizing snobbery:

Erm? Sorry, but I and many others would have been like “Anthony who?” until the ID camp started spinning his “conversion”.

Richard Carrier then sophomorically responds:

Flew’s actual impact on contemporary atheism is virtually nil . . . by his own admission, Flew’s methods have sunk beneath even that of college freshmen.

So what’s the fuss about, since this is a “nobody” we’re dealing with? These guys are quick; you gotta give ’em that . . .

Nothing the least bit surprising here, to those of us who have dealt with the hyper-polemical brand of “Internet atheists.” Many atheists “in real life” (even on the Internet) are fine people, with great integrity (I have atheist friends, and have greatly enjoyed dialogues with several of them), but unfortunately, when they mass together online, the sort of insulting snobbery seen above usually predominates (even, alas, against one from their own camp until about two months ago).

But then, I hasten to add that the same sort of thing occurs in Christian circles, too, so one might say that original sin (along with huge shortcomings in both charity and logic) has been amply proven in the observation of both camps.

Atheist prejudice and condescension is far more likely to usher Flew into Christianity than any arguments by (apologist) folks like myself. You learn all sorts of fascinating things when undergoing a conversion from one thing to another . . .

***

(originally posted on 1-18-05)

Photo credit: photo of Flew’s 2008 book on Amazon.com.

***

April 13, 2020

April 13, 2020 By

This was a stimulating, challenging follow-up discussion of my post, Priest Blasphemes God (Coronavirus = Judgment?) “Heinz” commented underneath the post on my blog. His words will be in blue. Then, Stephen Howe offered a critique. His words will be in green.

*****

Ah, I totally agree with you that these conspiracy theories are neither edifying nor true. But I am also willing to see a glimmer of truth in this misled man.

Some of your counterarguments, Dave, rest on how “sensible” it is and how “the God you know” is not like that. I don’t think we can say that. And the argument, if it were good, could be used harmfully in many cases. At least I am frequently surprised how God plans and works, so I am definitely not a man to see something and know what God intended with or without it.

I find it hard to stick to a 100% extreme absolute “God never wills evil” in the human sense and then read the old testament in which rather rough ways (i.e. killing nations) are described as God’s way to make a point.

Now this whole thing is much more complicated than can be expressed with few words, but to say that a global phenomenon that kills and brings many people to ponder what God wants, is definitely not a chastisement from God is more than I can guarantee. Does the same count for WWII and robberies? We can say that God does not create them out of anger, but we cannot deny that He uses them in His plan, once we have caused them.

Just like you I do not believe that the Amazon Synod is the trigger or that the pandemic is first and foremost a chastisement. But not because I can think of a more “sensible” way how God would have done it, or because “the God I know” would not do that; but because there are plenty of infractions which are arguably worse and plenty of catastrophes that are worse. To pick two and put them into relation is as arbitrary as choosing a dark day (there are several) an earthquake (there are many) and a flood (there are plenty) and deduce that it’s the second coming of Christ (as the Bahai do) according to biblical prophecies.

Unfortunately in this case there is insult paired with the arbitrary judgement. This ranting only shows that the priest has bigger issues of dissatisfaction and he chose an ignorant and harmful way to talk about it. But as for the general “we are doing bad things” and “as a result bad things happen” message, I’m afraid that is true.

Thanks for your articulate comment and mild criticism. I love to have the opportunity to clarify and further develop my thinking.

These are huge issues. It gets into the problem of evil (the thorniest problem in apologetics and one of the biggest in theology and philosophy), and the theology of judgment. As I noted, I have written some fifteen or so lengthy papers analyzing God’s judgment in Scripture. I was referring mostly to what the Bible reveals as to how God judges. So I noted that it was usually a specific target people or person, or else an entire country. I can’t find in the Bible some passage that says that God would judge in the way that coronavirus is in effect “judging”: going after the weak and elderly, and black people and Latinos.

What I definitely do know from Scripture and personal experience is that God is loving, good, and merciful. And so, yes, I can say, based on that (with a very high degree of certitude, within the parameters of Christian faith), that it’s not in God’s nature to “judge” in the manner that this virus is killing people. That’s simply not judgment; it’s how nature acts: preying after the weak.

You also bring up complex issues of Old Testament judgments (what is always brought up). “Killing nations” is, precisely, one way in which He judges, and it’s perfectly just: these nations (as a whole; not every individual) deserved it. As an apologist, I have dealt with those kinds of things many times: usually in response to atheists who want to trash the Bible and God because of them. It took some work and effort, but I have never found their arguments insurmountable. They only sounded impressive at first (i.e., before they are analyzed and scrutinized). That’s how it often goes in apologetics.

I was not claiming here to know everything about God, or everything about any particular thing He does. Obviously not; that would be absurd and foolishly presumptuous. It was more of a “negative” argument: “I think we can know that He would not (according to how He has revealed Himself) judge in the particular way that is being claimed with regard to this virus.” That’s why I claim that this argument I have critiqued is blasphemous. It turns God into a moral monster: a sort of evil, scheming sadist. And we know that He is not that: if we accept His inspired revelation, the Bible (as I do), and the entire history of trinitarian Christian theology proper (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike).

Thanks for the reply and yes, we are definitely on the same page. But I still find that your argumentation is specific where you need it and stays vague where you need it.

You say “it’s how nature acts: preying after the weak” – and that is admittedly the way God has created nature. Some judgements in the Old Testament are:

* famine (Gen 41), not directly attributed as God’s judgement, but not humanly created either
* the plagues in Egypt (Ex 7 pp)
* a fire (Num 11)
* snakes (Num 21)
* a plague (Num 25, 8b, 9, 18e)

Now it is not specifically said, that the weak and old suffered more, but that’s how plagues and natural catastrophes work. Covid-19 is a plague probably not unlike the one that hit the Israelites until that one guy killed the other with his Midianite woman in bed.

Again, I’m not saying that Covid-19 is first and foremost a judgement and thus I’m even further away from speculating if there is a specific trigger. But from biblical examples we cannot say: ‘God would not chose a chastisement under which the weak and old suffer most’, because the weak and old – by nature – always suffer most.

But maybe you have a good argument why we can differentiate such:

We can look at a catastrophe and check if naturally weak and old are hit hardest. If so, it’s not a chastisement from God. If they are not hit, then it might be a chastisement (and we can assume – without written basis – that the biblical events were such).

Then we could classify Covid-19 as not-chastisement and the Spanish flu as a possible chastisement. But what would be such an argument? And does God really want us to argue this way?

And finally: What then is this not-chastisement in God’s plan? Is it not from God at all?

Another thought-provoking and interesting comment. Thanks! But I continue to stand by my differentiation — based on the Bible — of target-specific judgments and judgments of entire nations or regions. I have made a fairly strong argument about this, I think, in other papers of mine about judgment: including the two about judgment and coronavirus.

Other things are simply natural, and involve what we call “natural evil” (C. S. Lewis discusses it at length in his book, The Problem of Pain.) Now, indeed, that is a difficult concept in relation to God, but it falls under the category of “problem of evil” rather than aspects of God’s judgment. Natural laws are the way they are and sometimes they lead to any number of natural catastrophes. Right now, for example, we have a volcano, locusts in Africa, and coronavirus all over the world.

The biblical examples you bring up as examples of judgment simply support the case I have laid out, in my humble opinion.

1) You concede that the famine in Genesis 41 is “not directly attributed as God’s judgement.” But this is the whole point! It doesn’t have to be human-caused; it simply is, based on various cycles (such as, for example, the Dust Bowl in more recent times; though that had significant man-caused components). But it clearly was not a judgment of Egypt at all, precisely because God gave both the pharaoh (a dream) and Joseph (its interpretation) foreknowledge that allowed the Egyptians to store up and avoid the negative consequences:

Genesis 41:34-36 (RSV, as throughout) “Let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land, and take the fifth part of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven plenteous years. [35] And let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and lay up grain under the authority of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it. [36] That food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine which are to befall the land of Egypt, so that the land may not perish through the famine.”

That can hardly be considered a judgment. So it is irrelevant to our discussion. It’s a natural disaster.

2) The plagues in Egypt are perhaps the most plain biblical examples of targeted judgment: they were completely towards the Egyptians as a people, and not the Jews at all (Passover being the prime example of that within the plagues). That is as far as imaginable from the current pandemic, which shows no discrimination at all (geographically) as to where it attacks. Nor can we reasonably say it is a judgment of the whole world because the vast majority are untouched by it.There is no conceivable purpose that I can see for God to supposedly overwhelmingly judge elderly people with diabetes or high blood pressure or a heart condition, or, disproportionately, blacks and Latinos, as in New York. That makes no sense whatsoever, and is not in accord with what we know about God’s character.

It’s true that nature does go after the weak, and God created it that way, but again, that is a separate topic, not having to do with God’s judgment. When God judges an entire country, of course, as part of that, the weak and elderly will be particularly hard-hit. And many relatively innocent people die, too, because judgment of a nation is different from judgment of individuals. But in such cases, it would be clear (at least from the biblical model) that the nation was being judged.

3) Numbers 11:1-3 is clearly a judgment of the Israelites only because they “complained”: leading to the anthropomorphic “anger” of God, Who then sent a “fire of the LORD.” Then Moses prayed “and the fire abated.” That can happen, too, as when Abraham tried to intercede for Sodom and Gomorrah (but they were too wicked to be saved). Moses atoned for many sins of the Israelites, because God wanted to reveal His mercy as well as His wrath. They were again judged later in the chapter for not appreciating God’s provision of them for food (manna), and their constant craving for meat and other foods grumbling about that (11:4-6, 10, 13), so God judged them for it (11:33-34).

4) The snakes in Numbers 21 are the same thing again: the Jews complained about being freed from slavery (!) and especially about food, and so God judged them with serpents. Then He had mercy on them after they repented, by providing the bronze serpent (21:4-9). So this proves my point again: the judgment was very specifically targeted, and (most importantly, and utterly unlike this virus), targeted towards those who richly deserved it.

5) Numbers 25 is about Israel being judged for rank idolatry of the worst kind (other “gods”: 25:1-3). God was very specific even within the Israelite camp: hang the chiefs (25:4) and anyone “who have yoked themselves to Ba’al” (25:5). God again showed mercy after the righteous Israelites showed a resolve to follow His commands. This is the usual pattern throughout the Old Testament: justice and mercy both.The Midianites were judged (25:17-18, etc.) for the reasons why these other nations were always judged: they had become wicked and were corrupting Israel, particularly by means of false gods and idolatry. It’s not an unjust judgment. They deserved it: just as Israel herself was continually judged by God for disobedience and spiritual adultery.

Thus, all five of your examples strongly support my original argument, which I see no reason to modify. Thanks! I can provide many more examples (already present in my two earlier recent papers about coronavirus not being “judgment”) where God singles out sinful individuals and groups in particular for judgment. That’s particular judgment. The other kind revealed in the Bible is when nations become incorrigibly wicked and God judges them:

Isaiah 14:22-23 “I will rise up against them,” says the LORD of hosts, “and will cut off from Babylon name and remnant, offspring and posterity, says the LORD. [23] And I will make it a possession of the hedgehog, and pools of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction, says the LORD of hosts.”

Isaiah 19:17 And the land of Judah will become a terror to the Egyptians; every one to whom it is mentioned will fear because of the purpose which the LORD of hosts has purposed against them.

Isaiah 30:31 The Assyrians will be terror-stricken at the voice of the LORD, when he smites with his rod.

Isaiah 34:5, 9 For my sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; behold, it descends for judgment upon Edom, upon the people I have doomed. . . . [9] And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch.

Jeremiah 47:1, 4 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet concerning the Philistines, before Pharaoh smote Gaza.. . . [4] because of the day that is coming to destroy all the Philistines, to cut off from Tyre and Sidon every helper that remains. For the LORD is destroying the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.

Ezekiel 25:2-3 “Son of man, set your face toward the Ammonites, and prophesy against them. [3] Say to the Ammonites, Hear the word of the Lord GOD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Because you said, `Aha!’ over my sanctuary when it was profaned, and over the land of Israel when it was made desolate, and over the house of Judah when it went into exile;

God judged Sodom and Gomorrah because it didn’t even have ten righteous people in it (Abraham’s intercessions with God: Gen 18:32).

God judged the entire world in Noah’s time because “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5), and “the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. . . . all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” (6:11-12). Only Noah and his family were righteous.

See the pattern? God judges due to sin, not due to something like being old and having diabetes, or being unfortunate enough to be in an area like New York City, where the mayor and Governor acted foolishly and were very late to implement social distancing, thus causing many hundreds of deaths that could easily have been prevented.

God was going to judge Nineveh, but the people repented after Jonah preached to them, so He didn’t. That’s all God asks!

So, in summary, this was my argument: the coronavirus doesn’t fit at all into either of these biblical revelations of how God judges: either the specific scenario or wicked country / world scenario. So I maintain that it can’t reasonably be classified as a judgment from God, and if it is, that this casts such aspersions upon the nature of God that it is blasphemy. We have plenty enough biblical data about God’s judgment to know when and how He does it. It’s not just speculation.

I also wrote an entire paper entitled, “Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease?”

My own answer was “yes.” But again, when and how does He do that? Does it fit into the scenario now of this pandemic we are suffering under? No! Once again, it is specific targeting that is not the case at all with the current virus:

1) God sent boils (among the many other plagues) to the Egyptians because of holding the Hebrews in slavery (Ex 9:8-11).

2) God sent disease to the Jews when they disobeyed His commandments (Ex 15:26; Lev 26:21; 2 Chr 21:12-14), and He didn’t when they obeyed (Dt 7:15).

3) God smote wicked King Jehoram “in his bowels with an incurable disease” (2 Chr 21:18-19).

4) God judged wicked King Jeroboam “so that he was a leper to the day of his death” (2 Ki 15:5; cf. 2 Chr 13:20).

5) And wicked King Herod, who “was eaten by worms and died” (Acts 12:23).

6) And wicked Antiochus, who was “was seized with a pain in his bowels for which there was no relief and with sharp internal tortures” (2 Macc 9:4-6).

For more individual judgment passages (not necessarily disease-related), see: Jezebel (2 Ki 9:33-37), King Ahab (Jer 29:21-22), Ananias and his wife Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10) and the church in Pergamum (Rev 2:12-16).

In many other instances, disease is simply treated as natural events: unfortunate but natural. See my paper, “The Bible on Germs, Sanitation, & Infectious Diseases”.

St. Paul tells Timothy to take some wine for his stomach ailments, and has his “thorn in the flesh” (widely thought to be an eye disease), which is not due to his sin, but to prevent him from becoming prideful. Job is afflicted (with illness and maladies) even though he was “blameless” (it was a higher purpose of God, as in the following passage):

John 9:1-3 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. [2] And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” [3] Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

There are still more nuances and complexities to the whole discussion, but this is my case, and I think it is biblically a very strong one, whereas the absurd case laid out, of coronavirus supposedly being God’s judgment is bald (and self-serving reactionary) speculation, with very little Bible brought to bear, while ignoring many other Scriptures that go against the created fiction.

***

I’m not denying the points you make (I really haven’t investigated the whole Pachamama thing) but one point in particular I do question. It is regarding your assertion that if he wanted to punish the sins of a leader God would punish the corrupt leader and not his/ her followers. Don’t we see an illustration of the people suffering for the leader’s sins while the leader is unscathed, in 1 Chronicles 21:14? King David had sinned and chose plague as his punishment: “so the Lord sent a plague upon Israel, and 70,000 people died as a result.”

David himself argues as you have that God should be punishing him, not his people: “I am the one who has sinned and done wrong! But these people are as innocent as sheep—what have they done? O Lord my God, let your anger fall against me and my family, but do not destroy your people.” But that is not the way God acted in this case. Indeed we see often in Scripture that we are all interconnected as human beings and sometimes punishments for sins seem to fall upon the innocent. Leaders bear a very great responsibility for their subjects for good or ill. (We see the ‘for good’ side of the coin in the effects of Christ’s victory applied undeservedly to those who follow him)

Another example of the ‘for ill’ with King David again would be his first son with Bathsheba who dies because of his sin of adultery. Perhaps the best example of all of this influence and responsibility of a leader in a way that could seem unjust to us is with the transmission of original sin to Adam’s descendants.

My point is that I think we have to be very cautious in saying “A loving God would not do this” simply because his ways are so far above our ways that we can’t expect to always be able to predict exactly what he would do, especially in this area of whom gets punished for the sins of a leader who represents his people.

Excellent comment and a challenge. It seemed to me that you had a counter-point to my overall argument about God’s judgment that I couldn’t answer, but then I did some digging (in fellow apologists and Bible Dictionaries), and I think I have an answer that makes sense of the seeming oddities or mysteries regarding God’s judgment that you highlight. The answer is arrived at particularly by examining the cross reference to the passage: 2 Samuel, chapter 24.

2 Samuel 24:1 (RSV) Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

Why was God angry; why did He want to judge Israel? Well, it was actually only one tribe of Israel that deserved His wrath:

2 Samuel 24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning until the appointed time; and there died of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba seventy thousand men. (in 1 Chronicles 21 it doesn’t specify the tribe of Dan).

So what sins did this tribe commit? Well, we know several things from Scripture. Dan abandoned God and turned to idolatry before the time of David:

Judges 18:30-31 And the Danites set up the graven image for themselves; and Jonathan the son of Gershom, son of Moses, and his sons were priests to the tribe of the Danites until the day of the captivity of the land. [31] So they set up Micah’s graven image which he made, as long as the house of God was at Shiloh.

Their downfall was predicted far earlier, in fact:

Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent in the way, a viper by the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that his rider falls backward.

The tribe of Dan is not listed among the tribes names in Revelation 7:4-8. The reasonable explanation, from what we know in Scripture, is that it was due to this described idolatry. Their captivity under the Assyrians took place in 722 B.C. (1 Ki 12:28-30; 2 Ki 10:29). That was some 240 years after King David, but Judges 18:30 tells us that they were in bondage to idolatry the entire time. Hence, it is perfectly plausible to posit that this is why they were judged during the time of David (70,000 slain).

And that is perfectly in accord with my entire thesis, which I think is thoroughly grounded in what the Bible reveals about God’s judgment. He judges target groups of people who are particularly evil (or else entire countries that have become evil). Thus, in this instance, it was the tribe of Dan that was His specific target.

And that doesn’t fit at all with the coronavirus scenario.

[note: I went into considerably more depth on this particular matter of the 70,000 being judged, in my article (along the lines of a general “alleged biblical contradictions or difficulties”): “Why Did God Kill 70,000 Israelites for David’s Sin?”]

***

Related Reading

Taylor Marshall: Pachamama “Idolatry” Judged by Coronavirus (Yet “Antichrist” Pope Francis Walks the Streets of Pandemic-Ravaged Rome Free of the Virus . . .) [3-17-20]

Alexander Tschugguel, Taylor Marshall, & God’s Wrath [3-19-20]

Priest Blasphemes God (Coronavirus = Judgment?) [4-10-20]

***

Photo credit: The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, by Pieter Schoubroeck (c. 1570-1607) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

December 11, 2019

December 11, 2019 By

. . . with emphasis on the vexing and complex question of the  ultimate origins of matter and life

Dr. David Madison is an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University.  You can see (by the number in the title) how many times I have replied to his videos or articles. Thus far, I haven’t heard one peep back from him  (from 8-1-19 to this date). This certainly doesn’t suggest to me that he is very confident in his opinions. All I’ve seen is expressions of contempt from Dr. Madison and from his buddy, the atheist author, polemicist, and extraordinarily volatile John Loftus, who runs the ultra-insulting Debunking Christianity blog. Dr. Madison made his cramped, insulated mentality clear in a comment from 9-6-19:

[T]he burden of the apologist has become heavy indeed, and some don’t handle the anguish well. They vent and rage at critics, like toddlers throwing tantrums when a threadbare security blanket gets tossed out. We can smell their panic. Engaging with the ranters serves no purpose—any more than it does to engage with Flat-Earthers, Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, and those who argue that the moon landings were faked. . . . I prefer to engage with NON-obsessive-compulsive-hysterical Christians, those who have spotted rubbish in the Bible, and might already have one foot out the door.

John “you are an idiot!” Loftus even went to the length of changing his blog’s rules of engagement, so that he and Dr. Madison could avoid replying to yours truly, or even see notices of my replies (er, sorry, rants, rather). Obviously, I have “hit a nerve” over there. In any event, their utter non-responses (besides potshots) and intellectual cowardice do not affect me in the slightest. No skin off of my back. If I want to critique more of their material, I will. If my replies go out unopposed, all the better for my cause.

This is a reply to [certain not immediately ridiculous or baseless] portions of Dr. Madison’s article, The Christian Knack for Insulting Our Intelligence (9-1-17).  Dr. Madison’s words will be in blue below.

*****

Sometimes even Sunday school kids have the presence of mind to ask, “But where did God come from?” To which the assurance is always given, “Well, God has always been there.” But rarely do the kids—or even the adults—ever ask, “But how do you know that?” How do you KNOW that about God? Without the evidence it’s just another assumption—one of so many that derail religious thinking.

We know it like we know many things: it’s ultimately backed up by solid philosophical analysis (hundreds of historical, well-known philosophers have believed in a eternal God and offered solid reasons for it), as well as by revelation, so that one can have a reasonable and well-grounded faith.

Bertrand Russell punctured this lazy conjecture when he pointed out that it’s just as easy to believe in a universe that has always existed—as it is to believe in a god that has been around, uncreated, forever.

Yes, precisely! I was gonna make this very point before I saw this sentence. Epistemologically (well, before we bring science into it), the two propositions are about equally as strong (which is hardly a huge debating point for atheism, if it’s only equally substantiated as Christianity):

1) God (a spirit) has existed eternally.

2) The universe (matter) has existed eternally.

But the problem with #2 is that it is no longer consensus science, because of Big Bang Theory, an expanding universe, and things like entropy. A spirit like God is obviously not within the purview of science, because it deals with matter. But the creative results of such a being can be studied. Russell (like Einstein) almost certainly accepted the steady state universe before Big Bang cosmology became the consensus.

Now this fundamental question of ultimate existence and origins is quite different in nature. I wrote in an article of mine that made atheists more furious (really, more confused, from where I sit), and which was more controversial than any other I have written:

Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism.

But Christians don’t have a problem with God-just-always-was because—well, everything had to have been kicked off by a creator with a plan. That’s just common sense, right?

Yes, it’s just common sense and basic thinking rationality to assert that the universe and/or God have to be either eternal or to have originated at some point. That’s why all the atheists believed in an eternal universe, till established science (spearheaded by a Catholic priest-scientist, who submitted the Big Bang Theory, and was more advanced in his cosmological thinking on origins than Einstein was) made it virtually impossible to continue to hold such a position.

The [huge, momentous] trick is to determine which and what is true, and how it (and/or He) happened. What exists now has to be explained somehow. There is nothing the slightest bit silly about believing that God is eternal: anymore than the previous belief that the universe was eternal was “silly” and “laughable”: given the limitations of knowledge that were present when it was consensus. The cosmological theistic argument is arguably stronger than ever, in light of Big Bang cosmology.

And they look at atheists as if we’re crazy for not seeing that nature itself—with butterflies and sunsets—is proof of their god. When I hear that dodge, my word of caution is, “You don’t want to go there.” Because you have gained nothing, absolutely nothing, by giving a god the credit for “creating.”

Atheists do have quite a difficult task, in explaining a materialistic evolutionary origin of extraordinary processes, even on the cellular level, which is already almost inconceivably and inextricably complex (see, for example, the work of biochemist Michael J. Behe). Yeah, I would say that the old teleological (design) argument is stronger than ever, because we know much more about the nature of physical reality and of the building-blocks of life.

[N]o brand of Christianity has managed to let go of Loftus’ Number 8: “God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting all the evil that ever has or every will be.” 

There are many robust explanations of the problem of evil (I offer many articles about it on my blog): none ever sufficient for atheists (but then, who would expect that they would be?). They are sufficient to at least suggest to open minds that there is a plausible and coherent explanation for why evil exists and why God allows it to, due to the requirements of true free will in human beings.

Loftus adds more perspective: “Christian theism has no more credibility than Scientology, Mormonism, Haitian Voodoo, or the southwest Pacific Ocean cargo cults, because they are all based on faith.” Thus we’d like to be able to say, “We rest our case: Christianity can be flushed.” Nothing can rescue it from the realm of the wildly improbable.

This is a prime example of a manifestly “ridiculous or baseless” portion of Dr. Madison’;s article that I usually ignore. I just pout it up to show readers what I was talking about. It is it’s own refutation.

But, of course, there are those who devote their careers to the effort. In the section of the essay titled, “Defending the Faith Makes Brilliant People Look Stupid,” Loftus turns to consideration of those who have mastered the art of “double standards, non sequiturs, special pleading, begging the question, or just plain ignorance.” These are the professional apologists who, like alchemists, try to transmute “wildly improbable” into “rationally believable.” He offers a survey of the work of Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig and Richard G. Swinburne.

It’s sad that atheists like Madison and Loftus can’t comprehend an opinion different from their own (theism or Christianity) that is honestly and sincerely (and intelligently) held. I readily grant their own honesty and sincerity. I simply hold that they are dead wrong, and labor under many demonstrably false premises.  A little later, Dr. Madison characterizes William Lane Craig’s thinking as “evil . . . ugly” and indicative of  “the Christian knack for insulting our intelligence.”

This is a particularly acidic offering from Dr. Madison: one of a long line of similar ramblings, but more intense and intellectually facile and vacuous, and it deserves no more attention than I have already given it. Perhaps he had a bad hair day or an ingrown toenail . . .

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
Photo credit: [source URL] A growing black hole, called a quasar, can be seen at the center of a faraway galaxy in this artist’s concept. Astronomers using NASA’s Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes discovered swarms of similar quasars hiding in dusty galaxies in the distant universe. The quasar is the orange object at the center of the large, irregular-shaped galaxy. It consists of a dusty, doughnut-shaped cloud of gas and dust that feeds a central supermassive black hole. As the black hole feeds, the gas and dust heat up and spray out X-rays, as illustrated by the white rays. Beyond the quasar, stars can be seen forming in clumps throughout the galaxy. [public domain /Wikimedia Commons]
***
September 11, 2019

September 11, 2019 By

This is the last of my ten critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

I first ran across former Christian minister Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

Judge Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to “God” (Judg. 11:39). Was the God of the universe really pleased at that? (p. 266). 

This is at least the second time that Loftus has brought this up in his book. Scripture repeatedly states that God disapproved of such acts as abominable, evil, and wicked. It couldn’t be more clear and definite than it is. But since Loftus can’t trouble himself to discover that, I’ve collected the passages in my paper on the topic: for folks who are actually willing to give the Bible and God a fair shake (rather than cherry-pick what merely appears to support his case, and ignoring passages that don’t.

The prophet Jeremiah did not like some of the scribes, so God told him [cites Jeremiah 8:7-9]:

Jeremiah 8:7b-9a  (RSV) . . . my people know not the ordinance of the LORD. [8] “How can you say, `We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. [9] The wise men shall be put to shame, they shall be dismayed and taken; . . . 

What did God just say to Jeremiah? He said lying scribes have falsely altered the law and that there are lies in it! Jeremiah even denies God instituted the priestly sacrificial system. God says through him [he cites Jeremiah 7:22-23, omitting the first part of 7:22, which I include]:

Jeremiah 7:22-23 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. [23] But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

. . . Jeremiah “denies categorically that a command to offer sacrifice was part of the divine law at all,” [he cited Burton Scott Easton] even though in the book of Leviticus, Moses supposedly gave detailed instruction about who were to offer sacrifices, where they were to do so, and how. (p. 300)

Concerning Jeremiah 8:7-9, Pulpit Commentary explains:

Jeremiah is evidently addressing the priests and the prophets, whom he so constantly described as among the chief causes of Judah’s ruin (comp. Ver. 10; Jeremiah 2:8, 26; Jeremiah 4:9; Jeremiah 5:31), and who, in Isaiah’s day, regarded it as an unwarrantable assumption on the part of that prophet to pretend to instruct them in their duty (Isaiah 28:9). The law of the Lord is with us. “With us;” i.e. in our hands and mouths. (comp. Psalm 1:16). The word torah, commonly rendered” Law,” is ambiguous, and a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse is inevitable. Some think these self-styled “wise” men reject Jeremiah’s counsels on the ground that they already have the divinely given Law in a written form (comp. Romans 2:17-20), and that the Divine revelation is complete. Others that torah here, as often elsewhere in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:10; Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 42:4), simply means “instruction,” or “direction,” and describes the authoritative counsel given orally by the priests (Deuteronomy 17:11) and prophets to those who consulted them on points of ritual and practice respectively. The usage of Jeremiah himself favors the latter view (see Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 18:18; and especially Jeremiah 26:4, 5, where “to walk in my Torah” is parallel to “to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets.” The context equally points in this direction. The most natural interpretation, then, is this: The opponents of Jeremiah bade him keep his exhortations to himself, seeing that they themselves were wise and the divinely appointed teachers of the people. To this Jeremiah replies, not (as the Authorized Version renders) Lo, certainly in vain made he it, etc.; but, Yea, behold I for a lie hath it wrought – the lying pen of the scribes (so Authorized Version, margin).

Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers concurs:

The meaning of the clause is clear. The sophistry of men was turning the truth of God into a lie, and emptying it of its noblest meaning. Already, as in other things, so here, in his protest against the teaching of the scribes, with their traditional and misleading casuistry, Jeremiah appears as foreshadowing the prophet of Nazareth (Matthew 5:20-48; Matthew 23:2-26).

The phrase “made it into a lie: is, I think, obviously, referring to a corruption or distortion of a teaching or practice which was itself good. Hence, later Jesus cites the same Jeremiah with regard to corruption of temple worship:

Luke 19:46 “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but you have made it a den of robbers.”

Jeremiah condemned this very thing elsewhere:

Jeremiah 2:8 The priests did not say, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who handle the law did not know me; the rulers transgressed against me; the prophets prophesied by Ba’al, and went after things that do not profit.

As to Jeremiah 7:22-23, Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers states:

The words seem at first hard to reconcile with the multiplied rules as to sacrifices both in Exodus and Leviticus. They are, however, rightly understood, strictly in harmony with the facts. They were not the end contemplated. The first promulgation of the Law, the basis of the covenant with Israel, contemplated a spiritual, ethical religion, of which the basis was found in the ten great Words, or commandments, of Exodus 20. . . . The book of Deuteronomy, representing the higher truth from which Moses started (Exodus 19:5), and upon which he at last fell back, bore its witness to the original purport of the Law (Deuteronomy 6:3; Deuteronomy 10:12). Its re-discovery under Josiah left, here as elsewhere, its impress on the mind of Jeremiah; but prophets, as in 1Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:11-13; Amos 5:21-27; Micah 6:6-8; Psalms 50, 51, had all along borne a like witness, even while recognising to the full the fact and the importance of a sacrificial ritual.

In other passages, Jeremiah is clearly fully supportive of the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, including the priestly function (i.e., those who ritually offered the sacrifices:

Jeremiah 17:26 And people shall come from the cities of Judah and the places round about Jerusalem, from the land of Benjamin, from the Shephe’lah, from the hill country, and from the Negeb, bringing burnt offerings and sacrifices, cereal offerings and frankincense, and bringing thank offerings to the house of the LORD.

Jeremiah 33:18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices for ever. . . . [21] then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. [22] As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.”

Thus, our task is to interpret and understand Jeremiah 7:22-23 (which appears prima facie at odds) in harmony with those. It’s the biblical hermeneutical principle of “interpret less clear verses by more clear related passages.”

And this is pretty easy to do, simply by reading the progression of events whereby God delivered the law to Moses, and he delivered it in turn to the Hebrews:

Exodus 19:1-8 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone forth out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai. [2] And when they set out from Reph’idim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mountain. [3] And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: [4] You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. [5] Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, [6] and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” [7] So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him. [8] And all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

Note a few things about this. First of all, Jeremiah was citing by paraphrase (which was perfectly acceptable in ancient Hebrew culture), part of this passage:

Exodus 19:3, 5-6 . . . and the LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel: . . . [5] Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, [6] and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. . . .” 

Jeremiah 7:23 But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’

 

The second thing to note is the timing. This was before the law was delivered; even before the Ten Commandments were received. Therefore, it was before the time that God instructed the Hebrews through Moses, of the sacrificial system and laws. Hence, Jeremiah (far from denying anything in and of this whole process) accurately describes this particular moment in salvation history: “For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices” (7:22).

The command described in Exodus and reiterated by Jeremiah was chronologically prior to the sacrificial commands (part of the overall Law). God gave Moses the Ten Commandments two days later (see Ex 19:10-12 ff.). The Ten Commandments themselves (Ex 20:3-17) did not contain anything about sacrifices. But God introduced it at the same time he gave Moses the Commandments:

Exodus 20:24  An altar of earth you shall make for me and sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you.

Again, this was two days after the simpler and broad ethical commandment that Jeremiah cites from Exodus in Jeremiah 7:23. It’s all explained by consulting the text in Exodus which Jeremiah cited. Once one does that , the supposed “problem” vanishes. Meanwhile, as Moses was on Mt. Sinai communicating with God, the people below decided to make an idolatrous golden calf (Ex 32:1-8). Moses’ “anger grew hot”, and he “threw the tables out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain” (Ex 32:19). Thus, the people still hadn’t heard even the Ten Commandments, let alone the sacrificial instructions. But they had heard the “pre-sacrificial” command that Jeremiah referred to (Ex 19:7-8, above).

Later, the text informs us that Moses made two new tablets for the Ten Commandments and went up on Mt Sinai again (Ex 34:1-4), where he communed with God for forty days and nights (34:28), and then communicated with the people, the Law that he had received from God (which included the sacrifices: Ex 34:32; 35:1). So where’s the beef?

Once again, context (mostly, simply reading the relevant passages involved) demolishes the “higher critical” anti-scriptural bloviations of the former Christian atheists, who seem constitutionally unable to comprehend and practice simple cross-referencing and consideration of textual context. It’s embarrassing to have to point this out 7,167 times. But such is one of the repetitive tasks of the apologist, in correcting folks who “will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings” (2 Tim 4:3).

I’m honored and privileged to have the opportunity to defend God’s inspired revelation, the Bible, over against those who seek to savage it without cause or reason.

***

Photo credit: Jeremiah on the ruins of Jerusalem (1844), by Horace Vernet (1789-1863) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

September 10, 2019

September 10, 2019 By

I continue my critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

I first ran across former Christian minister Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

Loftus notes that the King James Version “used the word unicorn to refer to a beast in the Bible” (p. 263). Perhaps realizing how weak this argument is, he qualified: “at the very minimum, the King James translators were themselves believers in mythical beasts” (p. 263).

It’s irrelevant what some translators in 1611 thought. That error would be on them, not the Bible, if in fact, there is no linguistic basis for the translation. The latter is in fact the case. Bert Thompson, in his article for Apologetics Press, “Unicorns, Satyrs, and the Bible” observed:

[T]he Bible never “panders to pagan mythology” by incorrectly referring to non-existent, mythological animals as if they were real, living creatures. It is true that the word “unicorn” appears in the King James Version (nine times: Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7). . . . The editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica [wrote]:

Certain poetical passages of the biblical Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called re’em. This word was translated “unicorn” or “rhinoceros” in many versions of the Bible, but many modern translations prefer “wild ox” (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew re’em (1997, 12:129).

In volume one of his two-volume set, Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, the late infidel, Isaac Asimov (who was serving as the president of the American Humanist Association when he died in 1992), dealt with the topic of the unicorn as it is found in the King James Version when he wrote:

The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by “unicorn” is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (urus or aurochs) ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. The re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to the Asian buffaloes.

The Revised Standard Version translates re’em as “wild ox.” The verse in Numbers is translated as “they have as it were the horns of the wild ox,” while the one in Job is translated “Is the wild ox willing to serve you?” The Anchor Bible translates the verse in Job as “Will the buffalo deign to serve you?” . . .

When the first Greek translation of the Bible was prepared about 250 B.C., the animal was already rare in the long-settled areas of the Near East and the Greeks, who had no direct experience with it, had no word for it. They used a translation of “one-horn” instead and it became monokeros. In Latin and in English it became the Latin word for “one-horn”; that is, “unicorn.”

The Biblical writers could scarcely have had the intention of implying that the wild ox literally had one horn. There is one Biblical quotation, in fact, that clearly contradicts that notion. In the Book of Deuteronomy [33:17—BT], when Moses is giving his final blessing to each tribe, he speaks of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) as follows: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns….” . . . 

Dr. Asimov was correct on all counts. The word re’em does refer to the wild ox, and is translated as such in almost all later versions of the Bible. The translators of the Septuagint rendered re’em by the Greek monokeros (one horn) on the basis of the relief representations of the “wild ox” in strict profile that they found in Babylonian and Egyptian art (cf. Pfeiffer, et al., 1975, p. 83). The charge that the Bible “panders to pagan mythology” cannot be sustained, once all the relevant facts are known. 

Loftus pokes fun of the supposed literal biblical belief in “Satyrs — creatures that were half man and half goat or horse (Isaiah 13:31)” (p. 263). The same article above disposes of this charge:

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sa‘ir occurs some fifty-two times. It is related to the term se‘ar (hair), and generally means “a hairy one.” It is used, for example, to speak of the male goat that was employed as the Israelites’ solemn, collective sin offering on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16).

In two cases, however, the King James Version renders sa‘ir as “satyr” (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14). But the specific context of both passages makes it quite clear that the term is being used to refer to the wild goats that frequently inhabited the ruins of both ancient Babylon and Edom. On two different occasions in the KJV, the word is translated “demon” (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15), where it denotes a pagan god in goat form (cf. the New International Version). In regard to 2 Chronicles 11:15, respected Old Testament scholar J. Barton Payne wrote:

Far from being mythological “satyrs,” as claimed by “liberal” criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves (1969, p. 400).

It is evident once again that the Bible does not lower itself to superstitious mythology. “Satyr” is merely a translation error, not a case of “mistaken identity” wherein a mythological creature was thought by the inspired writers to be a living, breathing animal.

Loftus brings up “Leviathan” (p. 262) and “Behemoth” (p. 263) and taunts on the next page: “how can God defeat mythical beasts that do not exist?” According to New Bible Dictionary, Leviathan in Psalms 104:26 is “generally thought to be the whale.” In Job 41:1-34, “most scholars” think it is a crocodile. In other instances, the use is clearly symbolic. Smith’s Bible Dictionary essentially concurs:

In the Hebrew Bible the word livyathan , which is, with the foregoing exception, always left untranslated in the Authorized Version, is found only in the following passages: ( Job 3:8 ; 41:1 ; Psalms 74:14 ; 104:26 ; Isaiah 27:1 ) In the margin of ( Job 3:8 ) and text of ( Job 41:1 ) the crocodile is most clearly the animal denoted by the Hebrew word. ( Psalms 74:14 ) also clearly points to this same saurian. The context of ( Psalms 104:26 ) seems to show that in this passage the name represents some animal of the whale tribe, which is common in the Mediterranean; but it is somewhat uncertain what animal is denoted in ( Isaiah 27:1 ) As the term leviathan is evidently used in no limited sense, it is not improbable that the “leviathan the piercing serpent,” or “leviathan the crooked serpent,” may denote some species of the great rock-snakes which are common in south and west Africa.

New Bible Dictionary on “Behemoth” states that the word occurs nine times in the Old Testament, “and in all but one of these occurrences ‘beasts’, ‘animals’, or ‘cattle’ is apparently the intended meaning.” In Job 40:15, “the hippopotamus . . . seems to fit the description best.” The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Animals in the Bible”) agrees:

. . . generally translated by “great beasts”; in its wider signification it includes all mammals living on earth, but in the stricter sense is applied to domesticated quadrupeds at large. However in Job 40:10, where it is left untranslated and considered as a proper name, it indicates a particular animal. The description of this animal has long puzzled the commentators. Many of them now admit that it represents the hippopotamus, so well known to the ancient Egyptians; it might possibly correspond as well to the rhinoceros.

No necessary interpretation of mythical animals here . . . Loftus notes that the Bible references “dragons” (p. 263). Smith’s Bible Dictionary states concerning this:

The translators of the Authorized Version, apparently following the Vulgate, have rendered by the same word “dragon” the two Hebrew words tan and tannin , which appear to be quite distinct in meaning.

  1. The former is used, always in the plural, in ( Job 30:29 ; Psalms 44:19 ; Isaiah 34:13 ; 43:20 ; Jeremiah 9:11 ) It is always applied to some creatures inhabiting the desert, and we should conclude from this that it refers rather to some wild beast than to a serpent. The syriac renders it by a word which, according to Pococke, means a “jackal.”

  2. The word tannin seems to refer to any great monster, whether of the land or the sea, being indeed more usually applied to some kind of serpent or reptile, but not exclusively restricted to that sense. ( Exodus 7:9 Exodus 7:10 Exodus 7:12 ; 32:33 ; Psalms 91:13 )

The Catholic Encyclopedia (“Animals in the Bible”) has an excellent treatment of “dragon”:

It stands indeed for several Hebrew names:

Other places, such as Esther 10:7; 11:6; Ecclesiasticus 25:23, can be neither traced back to a Hebrew original, nor identified with sufficient probability. . . . Of the fabulous dragon fancied by the ancients, represented as a monstrous winged serpent, with a crested head and enormous claws, and regarded as very powerful and ferocious, no mention whatever is to be found in the Bible. The word dragon, consequently, should really be blotted out of our Bibles, except perhaps Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6, where the draco fimbriatus is possibly spoken of.

The word itself doesn’t have to necessarily refer to a mythical creature, and scientists at the time of the King James Version in 1611 referred to large serpents as “dragons.” Wikipedia in its article on dragons provides the etymology:

The word dragon entered the English language in the early 13th century from Old French dragon, which in turn comes from Latin: draconem (nominative draco) meaning “huge serpent, dragon”, from Ancient Greek δράκων, drákōn (genitive δράκοντος, drákontos) “serpent, giant seafish”. The Greek and Latin term referred to any great serpent, not necessarily mythological.

Loftus brings up (p. 263) another mythical creature, the cockatrice. The King James Version uses it at Isaiah 11:8 and 14:29, and Jeremiah 8:17, but this may be considered eccentric usage, not followed by modern translations, which usually translate the Hebrew, Tsepha , or Tsiphoni, as cobra or asp (Is 11:8), and viper / poisonous snake / adder (Is 14:29). Catholic apologist Trent Horn adds:

While Isaiah and Jeremiah would have been unaware of the “cockatrice,” they would have known what a tsepha‘ was. This is the original Hebrew word used in passages like Isaiah 11:8 and it simply means “snake” or “viper.” Today, most modern translations render passages like Isaiah 11:8 in this way, . . .

Again, we need not posit any mythological animals here, either. 

Lastly, Loftus mentions “Fiery serpents (Deuteronomy 8:15), and Flying serpents (Isaiah 30:6)” (p. 263). The latter is also found in Isaiah 14:29, and the former at Numbers 21:6-8. Wikipedia has an excellent article, “Fiery flying serpent” that lists all these passages and provides an altogether adequate and plausible explanation (see further source information there):

Ronald Millett and John Pratt identify the fiery serpent with the Israeli saw-scale viper or carpet viper (Echis coloratus) based on ten clues from the written sources: the serpents inhabit the Arava Valley, prefer rocky terrain, are deadly poisonous, extremely dangerous, especially painful “fiery” bite, reddish “fiery” color, lightning fast strike, leaping/”flying” strike, and death by internal bleeding. A Roman account dated 22 AD about the deserts of Arabia indicates the presence of the saw-scale viper, reporting that “there are snakes also of a dark red color, a span in length, which spring up as high as a man’s waist, and whose bite is incurable.” Other candidates include desert horned viper (and close relatives) and the desert black snake or black desert cobra.

Wikipedia, “Serpents in the Bible” / section: “Fiery serpents” provides more relevant information:

“Fiery serpent” (Hebrew: שָׂרָף, Modern: saraph, Tiberian: sä·räf’, “fiery”, “fiery serpent”, “seraph”, “seraphim”) occurs in the Torah to describe a species of vicious snakes whose poison burns upon contact. According to Wilhelm Gesenius, saraph corresponds to the Sanskrit Sarpa (Jawl aqra), serpent; sarpin, reptile (from the root srip, serpere). These “burning serpents” infested the great and terrible place of the desert wilderness (Num.21:4-9; Deut.8:15). The Hebrew word for “poisonous” literally means “fiery”, “flaming” or “burning”, as the burning sensation of a snake bite on human skin, a metaphor for the fiery anger of God (Numbers 11:1)

“In the ancient world mythical beings populated the earth. The ancients believed in . . . [he provides a huge list of mythical animals]“ (p. 263). Yes, they did. For example, Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79) was a Roman author, a naturalist and natural philosopher. He wrote the 37-volume Naturalis Historia (Natural History), which became an editorial model for encyclopedias. Book 8, devoted to land animals, contained information about legendary creatures such as the Manticore, Basilisk, and Werewolf. He opined about the second:

It is produced in the province of Cyrene, being not more than twelve fingers in length. It has a white spot on the head, strongly resembling a sort of a diadem. When it hisses, all the other serpents fly from it: and it does not advance its body, like the others, by a succession of folds, but moves along upright and erect upon the middle. It destroys all shrubs, not only by its contact, but those even that it has breathed upon; it burns up all the grass, too, and breaks the stones, so tremendous is its noxious influence.

Pliny was the first to describe a mythical animal called the catoblepas “as a mid-sized creature, sluggish, with a heavy head and a face always turned to the ground. He thought its gaze, like that of the basilisk, was lethal, . . .” Herodotus, Ovid, and Virgil all wrote seriously about werewolves. Pliny “describes the [phoenix] as having a crest of feathers on its head” and  Tacitus thought its color “made it stand out from all other birds.”

Loftus concludes this surreal section with the misguided proclamation: “What we find in the Bible is just more of the same“ (p. 263; italics his). Well, no, we do not. The ancient Hebrews (being a more sophisticated and advanced culture than say, the Greeks or Romans, who believed in all these mythical beasts), did not believe in mythical animals, as has just been comprehensively demonstrated.

Game, set, match.

I sincerely thank John Loftus for the opportunity to again defend the Bible against ludicrous charges. In 38 years of apologetics, I had never written about [alleged mythical] animals in the Bible. Now I have, thanks to his accusation. And so I’m very thankful to have demonstrated that yet another of the innumerable atheist bashings of the Bible is groundless.

***

Photo credit: [Max Pixel / public domain]

***

 

September 10, 2019

September 10, 2019 By

I continue my critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

I first ran across former Christian minister Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

The first thing we notice is that the Hebrew God is pictured with a body, just like the gods of their polytheistic neighbors. The gods of surrounding cultures had human and physical characteristics. There is no reason to suppose the Hebrews thought differently about their God fro what we read in the early parts of the Old testament. What we have in the Bible is an evolving understanding of the nature of God, so we find later statements to the contrary. In the New Testament, “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24). (pp. 259-260)

As to the “evolving God in the Bible” myth, see my papers:

*
Did the Jews ever believe that God had a body? According to Encyclopedia Judaica (“Anthropomorphism”), no:
[I]t is accepted as a major axiom of Judaism, from the biblical period onward, that no material representation of the Deity is possible or permissible. . . . 
*
The evolutionary approach to the study of religion, which mainly developed in the 19th century, suggested a line of development beginning with anthropomorphic concepts and leading up to a more purified spiritual faith. It argued, among other things, that corporeal representations of the Deity were more commonly found in the older portions of the Bible than in its later books. This view does not distinguish between the different possible explanations for anthropomorphic terms. It especially fails to account for the phenomenon common in the history of all cultures, that sometimes a later period can be more primitive than an earlier one. In fact, both personifications of the Deity as well as attempts to avoid them are found side by side in all parts of the Bible. . . . 
*
More important from a theological perspective are the anthropopathisms, or psychical personifications of the Deity. Scripture attributes to God love and hate, joy and delight, regret and sadness, pity and compassion, disgust, anger, revenge, and other feelings. Even if one explains these terms as being nothing but picturesque expressions, intended to awaken within man a sense of the real presence of God and His works, nonetheless they remain personifications. . . . 
*
Ultimately, every religious expression is caught in the dilemma between, on the one hand, the theological desire to emphasize the absolute and transcendental nature of the Divine, thereby relinquishing its vitality and immediate reality and relevance, and on the other hand, the religious need to conceive of the Deity and man’s contact with Him in some vital and meaningful way. Jewish tradition has usually shown preference for the second tendency, and there is a marked readiness to speak of God in a very concrete and vital manner and not to recoil from the dangers involved in the use of apparent anthropomorphisms. . . . 
*
There is no evidence of any physical representation of God in Jewish history (in contradistinction to the worship of Canaanite and other foreign gods by Israelites). Even the golden calves of Jeroboam represented, according to the view of most scholars, only a footstool for the invisible God. In archaeological excavations no images of the God of Israel have been unearthed. . . . 
*
Although Jews have speculated on the anthropomorphic nature of God, visible representation of the Deity was clearly forbidden by the Mosaic law.
See also my own papers: 
*
*
*
*
According to the Bible, God has arms. God has ears. God has eyes. God has hands. . . . God even has nostrils. (p. 260)
*
According to Loftus’ wooden literalism in biblical interpretation (very common among atheists), we’re to believe that the ancient Hebrews also thought God had wings (Ruth 2:12; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4), and/or looked like (take your pick), a cloud (Ex 13:21-22; 33:9-10; Num 12:5; 14:14; Dt 31:15; Neh 9:12, 19; Ps 99:7; Ezek 10:4, 18), fire (Ex 13:21-22; Num 14:14; Neh 9:12, 19; 2 Chr 7:1-4), or a burning bush (Ex 3:2-6). Even Loftus is not silly and foolish enough to believe that (I think!). So he is forced by logic to qualify his literalistic reading of descriptions of God.
*
If we read these passages in light of the ancient embodied gods and goddesses in the polytheistic surrounding cultures, it becomes clear that the Hebrews thought their god had a body, too. (p. 261)
*
This doesn’t follow. For the skeptical / atheist biblical “exegete” [cough / choke], everything is derived from surrounding cultures, and all is explained that way. It’s essentially the “anthropological” method of Bible interpretation. But Loftus is ignoring the stark difference between Hebrew monotheism and polytheism. Monotheism means what it means: one God, not many:

Deuteronomy 6:4 (RSV) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; (cf. Mk 12:29; 1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:5-6; 1 Tim 2:5; Jas 2:19)

Deuteronomy 32:39 . . . there is no god beside me . . .

Isaiah 37:20 . . . thou alone art the LORD. (cf. 37:16)

Isaiah 43:10 . . . Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isaiah 44:6 . . . I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Isaiah 44:8 . . . Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any. (46:6, 9; Mal 2:10)

Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; . . . (cf. 45:6, 22)

Isaiah 45:21 . . . And there is no other god besides me, . . . there is none besides me.

Isaiah 46:9 . . . I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

In the first commandment we read, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” They were not to worship other gods, divine beings presupposed to exist by the commandment itself. In some of the Psalms we read only that the Hebrew God is the “God of the gods” (Ps. 86:8; 95:3; 96:4,9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1). Why didn’t the text deny the existence of any other gods at this point? The Hebrews started out believing in a plurality of gods, which was progressively brought down to the belief in just one God. (p. 269)
Loftus, in his list of supposedly polytheistic Psalms, lists 96:4: “For great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; he is to be feared above all gods.” He conveniently omits the next verse, which interprets this: “For all the gods of the peoples are idols; but the LORD made the heavens” (cf. 1 Chr 16:26). Psalms 135:15-18 also explains in context the reference to “gods” in 135:5, on Loftus’ list (see the almost identical 115:3-8 below). Other Psalms (contrary to Loftus’ groundless skepticism) refer to idols which are supposedly gods, but in fact are not:
Psalms 31:6 Thou hatest those who pay regard to vain idols; but I trust in the LORD.
Psalms 40:4 . . . those who go astray after false gods!
Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols;
Psalms 106:36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them.
Psalms 115:3-8 Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. [4] Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. [5] They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. [6] They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. [7] They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. [8] Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them. (cf. 135:15-18)
Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Psalms”) states:
The dating of individual psalms poses an extremely difficult problem, as does the question of their authorship. They were evidently written over a number of centuries, from the early monarchy to post-Exilic times, reflecting the varying stages of Israel’s history and the varying moods of Israel’s faith. 
King David reigned around 1000 BC. Even this renowned secular source holds that at least some of the Psalms date back to his period. If even some of the above passages are that old, this would completely overturn Loftus’ myth about the Jews being thoroughgoing polytheists at that time and for several centuries afterwards. The Psalms are solidly monotheistic, just as the Torah is.
When other “gods” are referred to in the Old Testament, this must consistently be understood as rhetorical only, since the same Old Testament (including in the Torah) states that they are not real:

Leviticus 19:4 Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 32:21 They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their idols. . . . 

Isaiah 37:19 . . . for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone . . .

Isaiah 42:17 They shall be turned back and utterly put to shame, who trust in graven images, who say to molten images, “You are our gods.”

Isaiah 44:10 Who fashions a god or casts an image, that is profitable for nothing?

Isaiah 44:15 . . . he makes a god and worships it, he makes it a graven image and falls down before it.

Isaiah 44:17 And the rest of it he makes into a god, his idol; and falls down to it and worships it . . . 

Isaiah 46:6-7 Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship! [7] They lift it upon their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place, and it stands there; it cannot move from its place. If one cries to it, it does not answer or save him from his trouble.

Isaiah 48:5 I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you, lest you should say, `My idol did them, my graven image and my molten image commanded them.’

Habakkuk 2:18 What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies? For the workman trusts in his own creation when he makes dumb idols!

(cf. Ex 32:1-8 [golden calf] and New Testament: 1 Cor 8:4-6 [“so-called gods”]; Gal 4:8 [“beings that by nature are no gods”]) 

If the ancient Jews (in their codified religious writings) rejected polytheism, why is it out of the question that they would reject a corporeal God as well (God with a body)? They clearly went their own way. If we are to speculate about and posit supposed similarities and causative factors with regard to other cultures, we have to also take into consideration stark contrasts.
*
But Loftus also needs to seriously consider the stark, strict ancient Hebrew prohibition of all images of God. Now, if in fact they believed that God had a body (which Loftus — not understanding anthropomorphism at all — seems to think is self-evident from the Bible), why would this be? An idol would simply be a visual representation of God, just as Christians have crucifixes and statues of Jesus, as aids in worship (which we say are permissible because of the Incarnation; God became man).
*
It all seems perfectly natural and permissible to me: if that were the case. Why would there be such a strict, binding prohibition? Obviously, it’s because God was communicating that He did not have a body: that images of Him would be distortions of reality. Here are the prohibitions:
Exodus 20:4 [Ten Commandments] You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; (cf. Dt. 5:8)
*
Leviticus 26:1 You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to them; for I am the LORD your God.
*
Deuteronomy 4:16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, (cf. 4:23, 25)
As the Encyclopedia Judaica stated (above): “There is no evidence of any physical representation of God in Jewish history (in contradistinction to the worship of Canaanite and other foreign gods by Israelites).”

*

***

Photo credit: Clandestino (4-23-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

September 9, 2019

September 9, 2019 By

I continue my critiques of Why I Became an Atheist, by John W. Loftus.

I first ran across former Christian minister Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 6 is entitled, “The Lessons of Galileo, Science, and Religion” (pp. 127-145).

The amount of error in the usual atheist analysis of “science and Christianity” is so vast, and the misrepresentations and often deliberate, glaring historical omissions so innumerable, that I could literally write for a week about them. But I have neither the time nor the energy, so I will have to make a relatively limited reply. For a much different view: a thinking Christian approach to science, see my extensive web page on science and philosophy, and my book, Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies? (available for only $3.99 as an e-book).

Neil DeGrasse Tyson . . . [said] “I have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document. . . . Whenever people have used religious documents to make detailed predictions about the physical world they have been famously wrong.” (p. 132)

Atheist Bob Seidensticker, in one of his countless trashings of Christianity, taunted:

10. Germs? What germs?

The Bible isn’t a reliable source of health information. . . . physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?

Five minutes searching on Google would have prevented Bob from spewing more ignorance about the Bible. The Bible Ask site has an article, “Did the Bible teach the germs theory?” (5-30-16):

The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . [He] proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis’s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.

Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .

Had the medical community paid attention to God’s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46).

Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp. 77-78).

Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:

1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

4. Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

See also: “Old Testament Laws About Infectious Diseases.”

Seidensticker continued:

Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn’t know it, neither does religion.

That’s not true. As shown, Hippocrates, the pagan Greek “father of medicine” didn’t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.

[R]eligious beliefs are always the ones that have been forced to integrate with science, and not the other way around, so why not just admit science sets the boundaries for what we believe? (p. 134)

I just showed numerous examples regarding germ theory, disease, and medicine, that already put the lie to this broad claim. Another example that readily comes to mind would be Big Bang cosmology. The consensus among scientists before that came around was the steady state theory of cosmology (an eternal universe). Even Einstein accepted that. Then a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Fr. Georges  Lemaître (1894-1966), who was also a mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain, developed the Big Bang Theory. The Wikipedia article on him states:

He was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by a theory of an expanding universe, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble’s law, or the Hubble–Lemaître law, and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble’s article. Lemaître also proposed what later became known as the “Big Bang theory” of the origin of the universe, initially calling it the “hypothesis of the primeval atom“. . . .

At this time [1931], Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître’s theory, refused to accept that the universe was expanding; Lemaître recalled his commenting “Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable“ (“Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious”). . . .

After Hubble’s discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître’s theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.

That is all scientific work, so how does it tie into the Bible (which — we agree — is not and was not intended to be a “science book”)? Well, the Bible taught ex nihilo creation:

Genesis 1:1 (RSV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Thus, in this instance, science had to adjust to a long-held tenet of Christianity, rather than vice versa, and what John Loftus claimed above (falling into the trap of asserting a universal negative again) is a falsehood. The agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) observed about this:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (God and the Astronomers, 1978)

Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. (The Enchanted Loom, 1981)

As Richard Carrier says, “Theologians have been wrong every time so far. Why keep betting on them?” I just don’t see why we should. (p. 135).

Really? I’ve already provided several contrary examples. Loftus and Carrier need to get up to speed and to stop saying dumb things. Here’s another example that runs counter to their bigoted proclamations. Aristotle thought that time extended to an infinite past and into an infinite future. But Christian theologian St. Augustine (354-430), according to the Stanford University web page, “Spacetime Before Einstein”:

. . . put a theological twist on Lucretius’ argument for the relational nature of time in his Confessions, emphasizing that “God created the world with time, not in time”. Time came into existence along with matter, in other words — a viewpoint that interestingly foreshadows the one held by big-bang cosmologists today.

Eric Rosenfield, in his article, “An Analysis of the Concept of Time in the Confessions, Book 11 by Augustine of Hippo” elaborates:

In 1917, Albert Einstein completed work on the General Theory of Relativity, one of the rules of which states that time is fundamentally bound to matter and gravity, and that without matter there would be no time. Oddly, this concept was presaged almost 1,300 years before that when Bishop Augustine of Hippo (later St. Augustine) put forth the idea that when God created the Heavens and the Earth, he created time itself as well. Before Augustine, no one that we know of had tried to consider “time” as being something changeable, something that could start and stop; after all, we always perceive time as moving forward, and contemplating temporality as being finite or malleable seems unnatural, and the implications headache-rousing. Plato and Aristotle both regarded time as being infinite. Yet it was Augustine’s application of the methods of the principles of Grecian philosophy and reason to the Christian concept of God that forced him to arrive at his conclusions. . . .

[W]hat’s really strange about Augustine’s interpretation of the eternal nature of the Beginning is that, when taken entirely apart from the Bible, it resonates not only with Relativity (Augustine saying that for the Word to happen in time there must have been something that experiences time being roughly analogous to Einstein saying that matter and time are linked, and without one you would not have the other) but also with modern Big Bang Theory. Briefly, according to Big Bang Theory, because matter and time are so inextricably bound, when all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point it formed what’s called a “quantum singularity” in which, the math shows, the curvature of time and space became infinite. This means the Big Bang singularity exists at all times at once, in all places at once much like Augustine’s God – the singularity that created the universe is all around us, all the time, forever.

Isaac Newton was still getting it wrong some 1300 years later, according to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“Time”):

In about 1700, Isaac Newton claimed future time is infinite and that, although God created the material world some finite time ago, there was an infinite period of past time before that.

But Loftus cites Richard Carrier’s whoppers again (one of many dumb things Carrier has uttered, that he chose to include in his book):

“Christianity was bad for science, it put a stop to scientific progress for a thousand years, and even after that it made science’s recovery difficult, painful, and slow.” (p. 141)

Right. He must live in an alternate universe. I have documented “33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD”. As one example among many, both Augustine and Aquinas opposed astrology. On the other hand, many great early scientists (also Christians) were obsessed with astrology, including Galileo, Kepler, and Tycho Brahe, while Isaac Newton (an Arian) was fascinated with alchemy.

For examples of “scientific Christians” long before modern science was born, see Hermann of Reichenau (1013–1054) and Adelard of Bath (c. 1080-c. 1152). When modern science did get off the ground, of course it was Christianity that was overwhelmingly in the forefront of that. Christians or theists founded 115 scientific fields. There were at least 244 priest-scientists. And here are 152 lay Catholic scientists. 35 lunar craters were named to honor Jesuit scientists.

*

The so-called “Enlightenment” (the supposedly “reasonable” people), by contrast, murdered Lavoisier, the father of chemistry, and several other prominent French scientists and philosophers (namely, Philippe-Frédéric de Dietrich, Nicolas de Condorcet, Jean Baptiste Gaspard Bochart de Saron, Guillaume-Chrétien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes, and Félix Vicq d’Azyr). The murderous spree against scientists was later revived by the Soviet and Chinese atheist Communists.

Galileo, on the other hand (the only example of a “scientific martyr” that we ever seem to hear about) lived his life under house arrest in luxurious palaces of his supporters. Galileo and other scientists of his general time, got many things wrong, too (just as some in the Church had, in condemning Galileo’s premature overconfidence).

The Catholic Church produced modern science, including heliocentrism (formulated by the Catholic Copernicus). One (sub-infallible) Catholic tribunal at one point of our history, got science wrong (while a pious Catholic who was wrongly persecuted: Galileo, got some major things right, but also other things wrong, and another Catholic, St. Robert Bellarmine, had the more modern, accurate understanding of scientific method).

As for heliocentrism, it need not be pointed out that Nicolaus Copernicus was the key figure who changed that, and he was a Catholic cleric, and his work was enthusiastically supported by the pope of the time and the Church (though later with Galileo there were some silly things said). Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia (“Heliocentrism”) reveals that Catholics were forerunners of heliocentrism:

European scholarship in the later medieval period actively received astronomical models developed in the Islamic world and by the 13th century was well aware of the problems of the Ptolemaic model. In the 14th century, bishop Nicole Oresme [c. 1320-1382] discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa [1401-1464] in his Learned Ignorance asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that “Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.” . . .
The state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus [1473-1543] is summarized in Georg von Peuerbach‘s Theoricae Novae Planetaru (printed in 1472 by Regiomontanus [1436-1476] ). By 1470, the accuracy of observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members, was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30 years before Copernicus. . . .
Science wasn’t content to accept the notion that epilepsy was demon possession or that sicknesses were sent by God to punish people. (p. 142)
*

The entry on “Health” in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn’t solely a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob Seidensticker often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper: “According to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.”). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:

Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm ( Gen 37:25 ) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient ( Isa 1:6 ), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine ( Luke 10:34 ). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil ( 38:21 ); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual ( Mark 8:23 ; John 5 ; 9:6-7 ). Medicine is mentioned ( Prov 17:22 ) and defended as “sensible” ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative ( Mark 15:23 ); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion ( Matt 23:23 ); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . . [St. Paul: “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments”: 1 Timothy 5:23]

Luke’s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy’s weak stomach [St. Paul: “use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments”: 1 Timothy 5:23], eye-salve for the Thyatiran church’s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).

Doctors today often note how the patient’s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).

Rest assured that science is not infallible, either, and has taught atrocious things (even in the 20th century) like Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man as authentic hominid fossils (one was a hoax and the other was an ancient pig’s tooth), eugenics, and phrenology.

Albert Einstein (a sort of pantheist or panentheist) cared very little for the materialist / atheist scientific mindset:

My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. (To a banker in Colorado, 1927. Cited in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe — a spirit vastly superior to that of man . . . In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort . . . (To student Phyllis Right, who asked if scientists pray; January 24, 1936)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. (to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941)

Then there are the fanatical atheists . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres. (August 7, 1941)

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (c. 1941)

***

Photo credit: Fr. Georges Lemaître: father of Big Bang cosmology, around the mid 1930s [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

September 9, 2019

September 9, 2019 By

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 5 is entitled, “Does Morality Come from God?” (pp. 103-126).

Christians claim their moral foundation is superior to others in that their faith provides the only sufficient standard for morality. Other moral systems either do not, or cannot provide one. (p. 103)

This is simply untrue. To the contrary, we believe in natural law and conscience, and believe that it is innate in all human beings, and put there by God. St. Paul appears to teach this in Romans 2, and we have no less of an apologist than C. S. Lewis stating:

I send you back to your nurse and your father, to all the poets and sages and law givers, because, in a sense, I hold that you are already there whether you recognize it or not: that there is really no ethical alternative: that those who urge us to adopt new moralities are only offering us the mutilated or expurgated text of a book which we already possess in the original manuscript. (Christian Reflections, chapter four, “On Ethics” [1943?])

(1) The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum.

(2) Every attempt to do so consists in arbitrarily selecting one maxim of traditional morality, isolating it from the rest, and erecting in into an unum necessarium. (Christian Reflections, chapter six, “The Poison of Subjectivism” [1943])

I noted in installment #4 of this series how Lewis compiled a list of common ethical precepts in different moral / religious systems:

All religions and indeed ethical systems (whether religious or not) have great commonalities. This was a central thesis of C. S. Lewis’s book The Abolition of Man. Anyone can word-search the free online version for “Appendix Illustrations of the Tao” to find many examples of commonalities in ethics. For example, Lewis found the Golden Rule in the Analects of Confucius: “Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.”

It’s been argued that Confucianism is not even (technically) a religion, and that it is either a form of atheism, or that — for all practical purposes — an atheist could at least consistently practice it. The Wikipedia article “Confucianism” explains:

Tiān (天), a key concept in Chinese thought, refers to the God of Heaven, the northern culmen of the skies and its spinning stars, earthly nature and its laws which come from Heaven, to “Heaven and Earth” (that is, “all things”), and to the awe-inspiring forces beyond human control. . . . 

The scholar Ronnie Littlejohn warns that Tian was not to be interpreted as personal God comparable to that of the Abrahamic faiths, in the sense of an otherworldly or transcendent creator. Rather it is similar to what Taoists meant by Dao: “the way things are” or “the regularities of the world”, which Stephan Feuchtwang equates with the ancient Greek concept of physis, “nature” as the generation and regenerations of things and of the moral order.

Lewis is very widely considered the greatest Christian apologist in the second third of the 20th century. G. K. Chesterton (most would agree) filled that role in the first third. And he concurs with Lewis:

It seems to me that the mass of men do agree on the mass of morality, but differ disastrously about the proportions of it.  The difference between men is not in what merits they confess, but what merits they emphasise. Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable. (Illustrated London News, “The Proper Emphasis in Morality,” 10-23-09)

Christianity satisfied the previous cravings of mankind. (Illustrated London News, “The Neglect of Christmas,” 1-13-06)

Nobody ever disputed that humanity was human before it was Christian; . . . One of the chief claims of Christian civilisation is to have preserved things of pagan origin. (The Superstition of Divorce, 1920, chapter six)

Now, if the great Chesterton and Lewis and even (I contend) St. Paul all agree with this natural law which is universal and innate in all human beings, and enshrined in the conscience, I think we can safely say that Loftus has grossly misunderstood, if not misrepresented, this aspect of Christian belief as regards morality.

Loftus’ caricature above might apply to the fundamentalist Christianity that he (and so many other atheists) came out of, but not to the vast mainstream of thinking man’s Christianity. He would do well to better comprehend the latter, or else he should change this book’s subtitle to “. . . Rejects Fundamentalism” rather than “. . . Rejects Christianity.”

I agree (over against divine command theory) with Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland, cited in the book (p. 105): “Morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of God, not independently of God.”

In a quick potshot against the Bible’s moral injunctions, Loftus notes, “the man would be the domineering patriarchal head of the house in which a wife is to ‘obey’ her husband just like Sarah obeyed Abraham (1 Pet. 3:6).” Of course, Loftus conveniently omits the next verse: “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered” (RSV). Dr. Scott Hahn in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, comments: 

Genesis gives no indication that Abraham, for his part, lacked respect for Sarah or considered her a mere slave under his authority. . . . the weaker sex: The statement is made in reference to a woman’s physical constitution, not her moral character or intellectual ability. Because a man’s natural strength exceeds that of a woman, the husband is called to honor his bride, lest he misuse his physical advantage to intimidate or abuse her.

And as to “submission” we should also briefly consider the “classic” passage: Ephesians 5:21-29. Paul makes a general statement to all Christians:  “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21). Then after saying “Wives, be subject to your husbands” (5:22): the passage so despised by radical feminists and atheists alike, we see what he commanded the husbands to do: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” (5:25).

This is a far more difficult command. The husband has to love the wife like Christ loved, which is the royal commandment: “love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). And how does Jesus love His disciples? He washed their feet (Jn 13:5). Then He explained to them:

John 13:13-17 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. [14] If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. [15] For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. [16] Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. [17] If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. 

This is the furthest imaginable thing from a husband “lording it over his wife” or abusing her as an inferior. Jesus elaborated on this same theme:

Matthew 20:25-26  . . . “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. [26] It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant,” 

This is true Christianity: not the caricatures of the skeptic and the atheist polemicist. Loftus took his shot by citing one passage out of its overall context of biblical teaching on marriage (which I provided in a nutshell form). He knew he could get “mileage” out of it. All he sees is legalistic bondage and oppression. The true teaching, on the other hand, is a beautiful partnership (not an ugly thing), with the husband (of the two partners) having the greater responsibility to serve his wife.

Now, do Christians husbands habitually fall short? Of course; this is the human condition (it’s why we continually need grace, the Holy Spirit, the sacraments, and a Savior). But Loftus attacked the biblical teaching on marriage, and I have shown how it was unwarranted. 

Loftus soon moves onto a long laundry list of alleged characteristics of God (especially as revealed in the Old Testament), claiming that Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is a “moral monster” (section title on p. 108). It’s a full-fledged attack upon God Himself: arguing that He is evil and wicked (like Satan).

Since this sort of thing is often the “passionate heart” of much anti-theist atheist polemics (what they feel is one of their “silver bullets”), and because the portrayals are so unjust and outright twisting of biblical teachings, I would like to spend considerable time on it. Fortunately, I have already dealt in depth with many of these “anti-God” claims in other papers, and so can simply link to them, where applicable.

[T]he biblical God, Yahweh, is a hateful, racist, and sexist God . . . (p. 108)

He customarily punishes people, even babies, for the sins of others beginning in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:16-18) . . . (p. 108)

This gets into original sin, which is a long discussion, but suffice it to say that Christianity believes that the fall of man was a corporate one:

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 

We all rebelled through Adam’s disobedience (Adam represented mankind), and we all can be saved (sufficient grace is available) through Christ our savior. So in that sense it is not judging one person for the sin of someone else. When it comes to the actual sin that each person commits, Scripture makes it clear that we’re all accountable for our own sin and no one else’s:

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (cf. 2 Ki 14:6; 2 Chr 25:4)

Jeremiah 31:30 But every one shall die for his own sin . . .

Ezekiel 18:19-20 “Yet you say, `Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. [20] The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 

[H]e punishes . . . the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren of the parents who worship other gods (Exodus 20:3-5) . . . (p. 108)

I have dealt with this very passage in depth.

He even makes the parents of Jerusalem cannibalize their own children . . . (Jeremiah 19:9) (p. 108)

Jeremiah 19:9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.

Bible scholar E. W. Bullinger explains this in his 1104-page tome, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: 1898). It’s also available for free, online. He explains the linguistic factors that explain this odd verse (pp. 823-824):

4. Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do. Thus: . . . 

Ex. iv. 21. — ” I will harden his heart (i.e., I will permit or suffer his heart to be hardened), that he shall not let the people go.” So in all the passages which speak of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. . . . 

[I have written about this at some length, showing how all the passages taken together indication God’s permission, not causation]

[ . . . ]

So the A.V. Jer. iv. 10. — ” Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people ” : i.e., thou hast suffered this People to be greatly deceived, by the false prophets, saying : Ye shall have peace, etc.

Ezek. xiv. 9. — ” If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet “: i.e., I have permitted him to deceive himself.

[the previous chapter 13 describes the “foolish prophets” (13:3) who “prophesy out of their own minds” (13:2), who have “spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, ‘Says the LORD,’ when the LORD has not sent them” (13:6). God is “against” (13:8-9) “the prophets who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations” (13:9). Clearly God utterly opposes them, and 14:9 is non-literal metaphor for God allowing them to prophesy falsely]

Ezek. XX. 25. — ” Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good ” : i.e., I permitted them to follow the wicked statutes of the surrounding nations, mentioned and forbidden in Lev. xviii. 3.

Jeremiah 19:9 utilizes the same figure of speech. In similar cross-references (Dt 28:53-57; Lev 26:29; 2 Ki 6:26-29; Ezek 5:10; Lam 4:10), it’s clear that God is not in favor of cannibalism, but rather, is describing free will sinful actions of the Israelites. Jeremiah 19:9 has the same meaning, but contains the figure of speech, so it can be misinterpreted, as Loftus and other atheists have done for their purposes: not understanding this aspect of Hebrew literary genre.

Many other passages that Loftus cites in order to indict God have to do with judgment, including the death penalty in many cases regarding Jewish Law: which God as the prerogative to do. This is perfectly plausible and understandable, by the analogy of human laws and judges who enforce those laws. I’ve written about this many times:

God’s Judgment of Humans (Sometimes, Entire Nations) [2-16-07]

“How Can God Order the Massacre of Innocents?” (Amalekites, etc.) [11-10-07]

Did Moses (and God) Sin In Judging the Midianites (Numbers 31)? [5-21-08]

Israel as God’s Agent of Judgment [9-28-14]

Is God an Unjust Judge? Dialogue with an Atheist [10-30-17]

God’s Judgment of Sin: Analogies for an Atheist Inquirer [9-6-18]

Did God Immorally “Murder” King David’s Innocent Child? (God’s Providence and Permissive Will, and Hebrew Non-Literal Anthropomorphism) [5-6-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #9: Clueless Re Rebellion & Judgment [8-7-19]

David Madison vs. Paul and Romans #11: Chapter 11 (“Scary” & “Vindictive” Yahweh? / Endless Stupefied Insults of God / Judgment Explained Yet Again) [8-30-19]

Loftus argues that hell is unjust and indefensible (pp. 108-109). I’ve written about that many times, too:

Dialogue w Agnostic on Basic Differences and Hell [5-17-05]

Replies to Some Skeptical Objections to the Christian Doctrine of Hell (“Religion Is Lies” website) [5-24-06]

Dialogue w Atheists on Hell & Whether God is Just [12-5-06]

Hell: Dialogue with a Philosophy Graduate Student [12-26-08]

Dialogue: Hell & God’s Justice, Part II [1-2-09]

Can Hell Actually be Defended? My Shot … [10-7-15]

A Defense of Hell: Philosophical Explanations of its Plausibility, Necessity, and Factuality [12-10-15]

Exchanges with an Atheist on Hell & Skepticism [12-17-15]

Hell as a Deterrent: Analogy to Our Legal Systems [10-3-18]

Loftus (p. 109) goes after references to slavery in the Bible. I’ve dealt with that, also:

*
*
Loftus claims that God favors rape (p. 109). No, He does not, as I have explained: Seidensticker Folly #6: God Has “No Problem with Rape”?  On the same page, he attacks the divorce of foreign wives (Ezra 10:1-19, 44; cf. 9:1-2, 14-15). But God had forbidden this practice, due to the influence of false religions which the foreign wives adhered to (e.g., Dt 17:17, Neh 13:23-28). That‘s why they were sent away.
*
Loftus falsely claims that God commands child sacrifice (p. 110). This is sheer nonsense, which I have refuted. He cites Exodus 22:29-30 and Ezekiel 20:25-26 as supposed proofs of this. The argumentation here is among the most shoddy and embarrassing of Loftus’ long list of alleged errors and eisegesis of Holy Scripture. Amy K. Hall at the Stand to Reason blog demolishes this very argument (citing Loftus’ use of it), and shows that all that was meant was a dedication or consecration of the firstborn child to God.
*
The Ezekiel passage uses the same figure of speech seen above, in the discussion of Jeremiah 9:9, and in fact, the scholar and expert on biblical figures of speech, E. W. Bullinger, included this very passage, in what I cited from him (see above). See a long list of biblical condemnations of child sacrifice (and abortion, which is a species of that).
*
Loftus (p. 111) goes after the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac. I’ve written about it. Nor can God be blamed for Jephthah’s daughter (same page).  Loftus argues (p. 111) that the prophet Micah is advocating child sacrifice (Micah 6:6-8) . He’s not at all. Pulpit Commentary explains:
Micah exactly represents the people’s feeling; they would do anything but what God required; they would make the costliest sacrifice, even, in their exaggerated devotion, holding themselves ready to make a forbidden offering; but they would not attend to the moral requirements of the Law. It is probably by a mere hyperbole that the question in the text is asked. The practice of human sacrifice was founded on the notion that man ought to offer to God his dearest and costliest, and that the acceptability of an offering was proportioned to its preciousness. The Hebrews had learned the custom from their neighbours, e.g. the Phoenicians and Moabites (comp. 2 Kings 3:27), and had for centuries offered their children to Moloch, in defiance of the stern prohibitions of Moses and their prophets (Leviticus 18:21; 2 Kings 16:3; Isaiah 57:5). They might have learned, from many facts and inferences, that man’s self-surrender was not to be realized by this ritual; the sanctity of human life (Genesis 9:6), the substitution of the ram for Isaac (Genesis 22:13), the redemption of the firstborn (Exodus 13:13), all made for this truth. But the heathen idea retained its hold among them, so that the inquiry above is in strict keeping with the circumstances.

We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son, which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath” (ketzef) . . . indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab (2 Kings 3:26-27). (p. 111)

I dealt with this very passage when fellow Bible-bashing atheist Bob Seidensticker tried to eisegete it:

There is nothing whatsoever in the text about some supposed defeat of God (Yahweh) by a false Moabite god. . . . Nor is it proof that God turned against Israel / Judah simply because the word “wrath” (RSV) is present (KJV: “indignation”). Bob assumes that too. The Hebrew is qetseph, which is usually used of God’s wrath, but not always, and not necessarily. For example, Esther 1:18 (RSV): “This very day the ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen’s behavior will be telling it to all the king’s princes, and there will be contempt and wrath in plenty” (cf. Ecclesiastes 5:17). It can also be plausibly interpreted as the wrath of the king of Moab against Israel. The Bible refers (RSV) to “a king’s wrath” twice (Proverbs 16:14; 19:12).

The translation of 2 Kings 3:27 that Bob uses is the NET Bible: a relatively obscure translation. It’s very unusual (perhaps even singular) in that it inserts “divine” into the passage, making it definitively a case of God’s wrath against Israel. But I can’t find any other translation that does this. No one need merely take my word on this. They can consult the online pages with multiple translations of the passage (one / two) just as I did.

God’s prohibition of child sacrifice as an outrageous abomination is very clear. I found 18 passages concerning this in my paper, The Bible’s Teaching on Abortion. Jesus compared the ancient sacrifice of children to hell itself (particularly, child sacrifice to Ba’al or Molech).

Seidensticker ignored this counter-argument, as he has 34 more of my papers that respond to his arguments. Loftus gets in a dig against Jesus, implying that He was a bigot, and he employs an old atheist chestnut (these things are simply recycled over and over) that distorts a Bible passage, as usual:

[H]e also called a Syrophoenician woman part of a race of “dogs” and only begrudgingly helped her (Mark 7:24-30). (p. 123)

Mark 7:25-30 But immediately a woman, whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. [26] Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoeni’cian by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. [27] And he said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” [28] But she answered him, “Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” [29] And he said to her, “For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.” [30] And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone.

Apologists Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt thoroughly dispense of this “objection” (complete with a good dose of sorely needed humor) in their article, “Was Jesus Unkind to the Syrophoenician Woman?”:

To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy-dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.

For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” . . . Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews…. Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” . . . 

Consider that Matthew had earlier recorded how a Roman centurion approached Jesus on behalf of his paralyzed servant. Jesus did not respond in that instance as He did with the Syrophoenician woman. He simply stated: “I will come and heal him” (8:7). After witnessing the centurion’s refreshing humility and great faith (pleading for Christ to “only speak a word” and his servant would be healed—vss. 8-9), Jesus responded: “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel” (vs. 10, emp. added). . . . 

[see my related paper, David Madison vs. the Gospel of Mark #7: Ch. 7 (Gentiles) ]

What many people miss in this story is what is so evident in other parts of Scripture: Jesus was testing this Canaanite woman, while at the same time teaching His disciples how the tenderhearted respond to possibly offensive truths. . . . 

Before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was unkind and intolerant. In truth, they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

September 9, 2019

September 9, 2019 By

I first ran across former Christian minister and atheist John W. Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the problem of evil, and whether God was in time. During that period I also replied to an online version of his deconversion: which (like my arguments about God and time) he didn’t care for at all. I’ve critiqued many atheist deconversion stories, and maintain a very extensive web page about atheism. In 2007 I critiqued his “Outsider Test of Faith” series: to which he gave no response. Loftus’ biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a “brief testimony.” He wrote in December 2006 (his words in blue henceforth):

Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . . I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . . Do you accept my challenge?

I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:

If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I’d be more than happy to critique it. I won’t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . . You railed against that, saying that it was a “handout.” I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.

Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus’ website, Debunking Christianity, no less than 35 times. As of this writing, they remain completely unanswered. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison’s, till Loftus decided I couldn’t do that (after having claimed that I “hate” atheists and indeed, everyone I disagree with). I replied at length regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus’ explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this: “We know we can respond. It’s just that we don’t have the time to do so. Plus, it’s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.” He also claimed that Dr. Madison was “planning to write something about one or more of these links in the near future.” Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:

When the history of Christianity’s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.

This was underneath an article where Loftus claimed: “I’ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.” I hadn’t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly ten days later: “I cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.”

These last three cited statements put me “over the edge” and I decided to buy a used copy of his book, Why I Became an Atheist (revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover, on 8-27-07 he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book: “I challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that’s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.” His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret it), and this will be my primary project (as a professional apologist) in the coming weeks.

Despite all his confident bluster, I fully expect him to ignore my critiques. It’s what he’s always done with me (along with endless personal insults). I’m well used to empty (direct) challenges from atheists, based on my experience with Madison and “Bible Basher” Bob Seidensticker, who also has ignored 35 of my critiques (that he requested I do). If Loftus (for a change) decides to actually defend his views, I’m here; always have been. And I won’t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.

The words of John Loftus will be in blue.

*****

John Loftus’ chapter 4 is entitled, “Does God Exist” (pp. 79-102)

The atheist maintains that the material universe either popped into existence out of nothing, has always existed, is self-caused, or is just a natural brute fact arising form the laws of physics. . . . Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith claims that our universe came “from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” He argues that the universe caused itself to exist. (p. 79)

This is one of the very best arguments against atheism (simple and elegant). Even Loftus concedes on the same page that this view is “extremely unlikely — or possibly absurd.” Granted, he also thinks the view that “Something — anything — has always existed” (which would include an eternal God) can be described in the same way. But it’s quite notable and in my opinion, a huge concession in holding that atheist explanations of the existence of the universe are no more plausible or likely than the traditional Christian belief in creation of the universe (all things) by God.

Thanks, John! I’ve been making the same argument for at least 30 years: contending that both competing views of the origin of the universe (theistic and atheistic) cannot be absolutely proven, and require axioms: in effect, “faith.” Atheists routinely claim falsely and groundlessly that their view of ultimate origins is rational, “scientific,” and requires no faith, whereas ours (here it comes!) is irrational, anti-scientific (or at least non-scientific / non-empirical) and requires unsupported blind faith. Loftus cuts through that pretense, and I appreciate it. It’s a breath of fresh air. Both sides necessarily entail unproven axioms and non-empirical (purely philosophical and/or religious) starting-points.

[the classic ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments (dealt with in pp. 81-97) are far too involved to delve into for my purposes, and others do a far better job, anyway, so I will leave the defenses of these three classic arguments up to them. Loftus mostly summarizes both espousals of these arguments and criticisms of them (i.e., he does little more than “survey the literature” from a thoroughly biased atheist perspective). I agree that none of them absolutely prove God’s existence. But considered together, I think they raise many troubling objections for the atheist to consider, and that the cumulative evidences suggest that God’s existence is far more probable and plausible than His non-existence]

I’m not certain some kind of god doesn’t exist. I just don’t think so. (p. 97)

Fair enough. There is still a little door open to convince him of God’s existence, then.

[T]his [the teleological / design argument] was the same argument that convinced a possibly stroke-affected Antony Flew to become a deist before he died, after being possibly the leading atheist thinker of the last century. (p. 97)

I’ve been looking and looking, with all the search capabilities of the modern Internet, and I can’t find anything about Flew having had a stroke at all: let alone one that would affect his reasoning, so that he would become a deist. I’d love to know where Loftus discovered this alleged bit of information, and how verified it is. The closest I got was a reference in the Wikipedia article about Flew, that referenced “an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew’s intellect had declined due to senility,  . . .”

Following the link to the article (dated 4 November 2007), I see that the words “senility” or “senile” never appear in it; nor does “dementia.” It makes passing references to his “memory failing” / “his powers in decline” / “halting” diction and a mind “in decline” (he was  then 84). But all this — even if true — is far, far from alleging the serious claim that a stroke affected his philosophical reasoning ability. So where did Loftus acquire such a belief: even if it is only speculative?

The same article notes that well-known atheist Richard Carrier wrote to Flew in 2001, and that Flew replied on the 3rd of September:  “I have for a long time been inclined to believe in an Aristotelian God who (or which) does not intervene in the Universe.” He was at that time 78, so whatever “a long time” means, it is clear that the essence of his change of mind was not “before he died” (implied: right before; stroke or no). Nice try!

Thus, to uphold this hypothesis, one would have to establish that Flew suffered a stroke before whatever year his “Aristotelian god” inclination began (a “long time” before he reached age 78: so he himself stated). It doesn’t look very hopeful. But  atheists had to come up with something to discredit Flew’s newfound belief (I documented a good deal of this at the time in a discontinued paper of mine), and so Loftus gives us this nothing burger.

[following an argument from Richard Dawkins] Of course, if evolution is unguided, then God doesn’t exist.” (p. 97)

This doesn’t follow at all, and is a strikingly weak argument to make. There is no necessity that I can see for God (if He exists) to be compelled to “guide evolution.” If God is only a deist-type god, a la the “late period Flew” or David Hume (who accepted a form of the teleological argument), then by definition He would not guide it, since deism posits a God Who creates and then withdraws from any governance or supervision of His creation (His providence and sovereignty are denied). But even a full theistic and biblical God wouldn’t have to literally guide evolution (however such a thing is construed). He could simply have put the potentialities into matter that would enable it to evolve and bring about all that we see today. St. Augustine was pondering that live possibility 1600 years ago.

This God . . . had a body that needed to rest on the seventh day and was found walking in the “cool of the day” in the Garden of Eden . . . Still later, the God of the Bible was stripped of physical characteristics and became known as a spiritual being (John 4:21-24), although he may have been thought of as an embodied God when impregnating Mary . . . (p. 102)

Loftus, like probably 50 other atheists I’ve interacted with, doesn’t have a clue about biblical anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. This is part of the profoundly ignorant (almost universal) atheist misunderstanding of the many biblical literary genres and ways of expression. It’s all the more case if an atheist came out of fundamentalism, since they never understood or fully understood these factors even as a Christian.

This also gets into the related involved topics of theophanies and the angel of the Lord [see section II, part 3 in the link, and see also a second article] as God’s representative, which I have written about. It’s not likely that Loftus has much of an understanding of these matters, and the standard Christian / biblical view that God the Father is invisible: at least not from these particular out-to-sea “parting shot” statements in this chapter. We’ll see if he exhibits any better understanding of these more advanced matters in theology, as we proceed through the book.

It’s beyond ludicrous to claim that Christians ever believed that a supposedly physical God the Father impregnated Mary (best I can tell, this is what Loftus meant). In Christian belief from the start, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18: “she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit”: RSV): and a spirit is what it is. The Holy Spirit is immaterial and He has no body. So this is truly beyond the pale. Bringing about a miraculous pregnancy in Mary no more requires a “physical” God the Father or Holy Spirit than creation does. Loftus is just pulling these things out of a hat.

Lastly, Loftus is getting way ahead of himself in bringing up trinitarianism in a chapter about the theistic arguments, since virtually all Christians would readily agree that those arguments do not establish a trinitarian God (though they are consistent with that). Rather, the Holy Trinity is revealed in God’s inspired revelation: the Bible. It’s not the conclusion of a philosophical argument.

***

Photo credit: John Loftus at SASHAcon 2016 at the University of Missouri; Mark Schierbecker (3-19-16) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
Why a Christian SHOULD Vote for...
Early Christian History Matters, Why?
2
Seeing the Second Great Awakening on...
Anxious Bench
3
If God Forgives Sins Without Sacrifice,...
The Latin Right
4
Five Reasons Why People Leave Their...
The Deeper Journey
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
God is Not Dead and Standing Firm in...
What Does It Mean To 'Abide In Him'?
An Example of Modern, American Barbarism
What is Some Good Advice for Getting Involved...
Corrupted Memory Files
The True Cross
view all Family blogs