Seidensticker Folly #70: Biblical “Henotheism” [?] Redux

January 31, 2021 By Dave Armstrong

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .

Bob (for the record) virtually begged and pleaded with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by 10-3-18, following massive, childish name-calling attacks against me, encouraged by Bob on his blog, he banned me from commenting there. I also banned him for violation of my rules for discussion, but (unlike him) provided detailed reasons for why it was justified.

Bob’s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. On 6-30-19, he was chiding someone for something very much like his own behavior: “Spoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, ‘Let me retract my previous statement of X’ or something like that.” Yeah, Bob could! He still hasn’t yet uttered one peep in reply to — now — 69 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.

Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 12-21-20: “I love people who can make cogent arguments against mine or point out data I hadn’t considered before. What I dislike (and ban) are $#&*%@s who . . . refuse to learn/adapt . . . ignore compelling arguments against their position, and so on.”

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

In his post, “Defending 10 Atheist Arguments (3 of 5)” (1-30-21). Bible-Basher Bob again beats the dead horse of a supposed “henotheism” taught in the Bible. Henotheism is a variant of polytheism (“many gods”), defined as “the worship of a single, overarching god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other lower deities” (Wikipedia). Bob — incredibly — claims that the Bible actually teaches this. I thoroughly corrected and refuted him twice, over two years ago now (I’ll provide those links below), but as we all know, he ignores all critiques from me (can’t be too careful!), and so goes on repeating the same tired, stupid, refuted claims (as if repeating a lie enough times magically makes it true).

In this effort, Bob is opposing Tim Barnett of the Protestant Stand to Reason apologetics ministry. Anyone but me (the one who provides a direct point-by-point rebuttal of his nonsense) . . . Bible-Basher Bob, ever the Bible expert (more than any Christian!) pontificates:

The Bible (at least part of it) imagines a world with multiple gods—not just the Israelites’ Yahweh, but Chemosh, Moloch, Marduk, Baal, and other ancient Mesopotamian deities. And these are (supposedly) real gods—the Bible isn’t saying, “Yahweh obviously exists, but those nutty Moabites worship their invented god Chemosh.” There were multiple choices for a god but no good reason to pick one as preferable over another.

If we’re taking the Bible as true, then these “other gods” were just as real as Yahweh. . . .

The first Commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me,” doesn’t say that there aren’t other gods or even that they mustn’t be worshipped! It simply says that Yahweh must be the primary god. . . .

What is clear is that the Bible evolved over time.

The book of Isaiah was written in three parts, and this chapter is in the middle piece, written in the 6^th century BCE. It’s true that verse claims God is the only god, but by this time, henotheism had been replaced by monotheism. The Bible evolved.

This claim of “biblical evolution” (in essential aspects, like the nature of God) is poppycock, and I have already refuted it:

Seidensticker Folly #20: An Evolving God in the OT? (God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, & Omnipresence in Early Bible Books & Ancient Jewish Understanding) [9-18-18]

. . . The Bible itself says that Yahweh is just one of many gods. The Bible documents the evolution of the supernatural from henotheism to monotheism, which shows that Yahweh is no more real than any of the others.

These are all lies, and I have refuted them repeatedly:

Seidensticker Folly #19: Torah & OT Teach Polytheism? [9-18-18]

Loftus Atheist Error #8: Ancient Jews, “Body” of God, & Polytheism [9-10-19]

Do the OT & NT Teach Polytheism or Henotheism? [7-1-20]

The Bible Teaches That Other “Gods” are Imaginary [National Catholic Register, 7-10-20]

Once the Mosaic Law is established, monotheism (one God and one God only) is crystal clear, and remains so throughout the Bible:

Exodus 8:10 (RSV) . . there is no one like the LORD our God. (cf. 1 Chr 17:20; 2 Chr 6:14)

Deuteronomy 4:35, 39 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. . . . [39] . . . the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. (cf. Neh 9:6; 2 Sam 7:22; 1 Kgs 8:23; Is 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5-6, 14, 18, 21-22; 46:9; 47:8; Hos 13:4)

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; (cf. Mk 12:29; Jas 2:19)

Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Psalm 83:18 Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

Psalm 86:10 For thou art great and doest wondrous things, thou alone art God.

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 44:8 …Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any. (cf. 44:6; 45:5-6, 21-22; 46:9; Mal 2:10)

And the Bible also explains beyond any doubt that the other “gods” being talked about are not real (only imagined to be by false worshipers). The Bible refers to them in the sense that they exist in other religious belief-systems: not because they exist in fact or reality. Obviously, these sorts of texts are saying that this is all these supposed “gods” are: wood and stone. They have no conscious existence. It’s classic idolatry: that the Jews were judged for again and again throughout the period of the Old Testament:

Genesis 31:19 . . . Rachel stole her father’s household gods.

Genesis 35:2, 4 So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; . . . [4] So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods that they had, and the rings that were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.

Exodus 20:23 You shall not make gods of silver to be with me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.

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

Deuteronomy 4:27-28 And the LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where the LORD will drive you. [28] And there you will serve gods of wood and stone, the work of men’s hands, that neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. (cf. 29:17; 1 Chr 16:26; Is 2:8, 20; 31:7; 37:19; 44:10, 15, 17; 46:6; Jer 1:16)

Deuteronomy 28:36 The LORD will bring you, and your king whom you set over you, to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known; and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone. (cf. 28:64: “other gods, of wood and stone”)

Deuteronomy 32:17 They sacrificed to demons which were no gods, . . .

2 Kings 19:15-19 And Hezeki’ah prayed before the LORD, and said: “O LORD the God of Israel, who art enthroned above the cherubim, thou art the God, thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. [16] Incline thy ear, O LORD, and hear; open thy eyes, O LORD, and see; and hear the words of Sennach’erib, which he has sent to mock the living God. [17] Of a truth, O LORD, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands, [18] and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone; therefore they were destroyed. [19] So now, O LORD our God, save us, I beseech thee, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou, O LORD, art God alone.” (cf. Is 37:19; 45:20)

2 Chronicles 13:9 . . . Whoever comes to consecrate himself with a young bull or seven rams becomes a priest of what are no gods.

Psalm 40:4 . . . those who go astray after false gods!

Psalm 96:5 For all the gods of the peoples are idols; but the LORD made the heavens. (cf. 97:7; 115:4; 135:15)

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

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; he prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for thou art my god!”

Isaiah 46:6 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!

Jeremiah 2:11 Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? . . .

Jeremiah 5:7 . . . Your children have forsaken me, and have sworn by those who are no gods. . . . (cf. 10:14)

Jeremiah 16:20 Can man make for himself gods? Such are no gods! (cf. 51:17)

The New Testament is no different. The existence of these “gods” is denied by St. Paul:

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” [5] For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth — as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” — [6] yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Galatians 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods;

Ephesians 4:5-6 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, . . .

Some also claim that St. John in the book of Revelation is a henotheist or polytheist. I don’t see how. The book of Revelation never includes the word “gods” a single time. Here’s what it teaches:

Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

***

Photo credit: God the Father, as typically presented with dramatic license in art (since in the Bible He is a spirit) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #69: “Difficulties” Aren’t Contradictions

January 4, 2021 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

In his post, “Stupid Christian Argument #40: Interpret Difficult Passages in Light of Clear Ones” (1-2-21; update from 7-21-16), Bob wrote:

This argument is an attempt to wriggle away from Bible verses that make God or Christianity look bad or that contradict each other. “Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones” is advice from Josh McDowell’s New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (page 48).

McDowell makes clear that difficult isn’t actually the issue—it’s contradictions that are the problem.

Nice try. McDowell is talking about biblical passages difficult to interpret. That’s altogether different from an assertion that a contradiction is necessarily present. Bob simply blithely assumes that biblical contradictions are everywhere. Hence, he starts this ludicrous article out by writing, “How can Christians maintain their belief when the Bible is full of contradictions . . .?” Imagine if I said that about atheism?: “How can atheists maintain their belief when atheism is full of self-contradictions?” I do actually believe that, and think I have demonstrated it many times, but simply saying it [to an atheist] is no argument in and of itself. It has to be proven.

And so Bible-Bashing Bob, of course, thinks he has demonstrated biblical contradictions times without number. And I myself have refuted his nonsense 68 times (this one being the 69th). Proof’s in the pudding. Any serious argument will be able to be defended against criticism. And so, of course, Bob defends his argu . . . . er, sorry, I misspoke. Bob never defends his arguments against my critiques. Does that suggest that they are strong and beyond refutation? No, not at all. Quite the contrary. Bob continues:

The mere existence of what McDowell euphemistically calls “difficult” passages is a problem that few apologists admit to. How could verses conflict in a book inspired by a perfect god, even if some argument could be found to harmonize them? If conflicting verses exist, doesn’t that make the Bible look like nothing more than a manmade book? How could God give humanity a book that was at all unclear or ambiguous?

This is shallow, unreflective thinking. I can think of a number of sound, logical reasons why such a book would exist:

1. The Bible is a very lengthy, multi-faceted book by many authors, from long ago, with many literary genres (and in three languages), and cultural assumptions that are foreign to us.

2. The Bible purports to be revelation from an infinitely intelligent God. Thus (even though God simplifies it as much as possible), for us to think that it is an easy thing to immediately grasp and figure out, and would not have any number of “difficulties” for mere human beings to work through, is naive.

3. The Bible itself teaches that authoritative teachers are necessary to properly understand it:

Nehemiah 8:1-2, 7-8 (RSV) And all the people gathered . . . and they told Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses which the LORD had given to Israel. [2] And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding, . . . [7] . . . the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.

Mark 4:33-34 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; [34] he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Acts 8:27-31 “And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship [28] and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. [29] And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go up and join this chariot.’ [30] So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ [31] And he said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”

2 Peter 1:20 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,” (cf. 2 Pet. 3:15-16)

Moses was told to teach the Hebrews the statutes and the decisions, not just read them to the people (Exod. 18:20). The Levitical priests interpreted the biblical injunctions (Deut. 17:11). Ezra, a priest and a scribe, taught the Jewish Law to Israel, and his authority was binding (Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26).

4. All grand “theories” have components (“anomalies” / “difficulties”) that need to be worked out and explained. For example, scientific theories do not purport to perfectly explain everything. They often have large “mysterious” areas that have to be resolved.

Think of, for example, the “missing links” in evolution. That didn’t stop people from believing in it. Folks believed in gradual Darwinian evolution even though prominent paleontologist and philosopher of science Stephen Jay Gould famously noted that “gradualism was never read from the rocks.”

Even Einstein’s theories weren’t totally confirmed by scientific experiment at first (later they were). That a book like the Bible would have “difficulties” to work through should be perfectly obvious and unsurprising to all.

5. Many proposed “Bible difficulties” are based on illogical thinking or unfamiliarity with biblical genre, etc. Many alleged biblical “contradictions” simply aren’t so, by the rules of logic.

6. Christianity is not a simpleton’s religion. It can be grasped in its basics by the simple and less educated; the masses, but it is very deep the more it is studied and understood. Thus, we would expect the Bible not to be altogether simple. It has complexities, but we can better understand them through human study, just like anything else.

7. All complex documents have to be interpreted. When human beings start reading them, they start to disagree, so that there needs to be some sort of authoritative guide. In law (by analogy), that is the Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution might be regarded as true and wonderful and sufficient, etc. But the fact remains that this abstract belief only lasts undisturbed as long as the first instance of case law in which two parties claim divergent interpretations of the Constitution.

***

Photo credit: jc_cards (4-17-11) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #68: Atheist Fairy Tales & Dogmas

December 20, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

In his post, How Christianity Infantilizes Adults (12-20-13; update of a post from 1-13-12), Bob pontificated:

Reinterpreting events through a Christian lens can be comforting, and it patches holes in the Good Ship Christianity where reason leaks in. But this is simply a rationalization to support a presupposition, not an honest following of the evidence, and when you stop to think of what you’re actually saying, you’ll see that the reality you’ve invented not only makes no sense but is actually repulsive. . . .

[F]or someone to become an adult, that person must grow up. We leave behind wishing wells, Santa Claus, fairies, and other false beliefs as we become independent. No longer are the necessities of life given to us; as adults, we must fend for ourselves—indeed, we want to fend for ourselves. The parent who sugarcoats reality or keeps the child dependent for too long is doing that child no favors.

Reality is better than delusion, happy though that delusion may be. Hearing the doctor say, “You’ll be just fine” feels a lot better than “You have cancer,” but if I really have cancer, which one allows me to take steps to improve my future?

Religion infantilizes adults and keeps them dependent. That’s a good thing for the 100-billion-dollar-a-year U.S. religion industry, but what is best for the individual—a pat on the head or reality?

I’ve dealt with this sort of patronizing, condescending, arrogant anti-Christian bigotry many times (see my Atheism and Philosophy & Science web pages), and it’s not my present purpose. Rather, I’d like to turn the tables, as I often do in my apologetics, and submit some of the many irrational fairy tales, held in blind faith, that atheists labor under. I will be using an accepted philosophical / logical form of argument known as a reductio ad absurdum. Unless this is understood before the following is read, it’ll never be properly comprehended. But in the second portion below I explain exactly what I was trying to accomplish, and how I reasoned.

*****

Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist / materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer. The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.

Indeed, this is a profound faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists. 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 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.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent. Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Within the Atomist faith-paradigm and bubble, everything, no matter how ludicrous or utterly unlikely, makes perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Atomist that others of different, much more rational, faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever-inventive and childlike – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the unnecessary addition of mere explanation.

“Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are.

Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck adoration and awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is senseless and “intrusive.” Mere rational examination is precluded from the outset.

In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we ourselves possess and value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, self-contained, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else.

It may be (at least for certain sorts of childlike minds) an immensely enjoyable game to play, but like much of modern philosophy, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe (very unlike the Atomist) that irrational and non-rational beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance.

Yet we can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fancies and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists seek very hard to maintain those marvels, and perhaps that’s not all bad. We must be tolerant and open-minded. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan! Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.

**********

Explanatory Note for the Above

The nature of my argument above is a humorous, sarcastic version of the fabled (or notorious) reductio ad absurdum argument (in logic). What the reductio is, can be read in the (very heavy, dry, philosophical) link I just provided, or the much more popular-level page about it on Wikipedia.

The reduction was designed to force atheists to concede, that they, too, exercise a profound faith in unproven axioms, just as Christians do. Reductio ad absurdum arguments often (but not necessarily, or by nature) involve generalization, non-literal statements, exaggeration, and overstatement to make the point. All the atheist has to concede in accepting my reductio, is that they exercise every bit as much faith as any Christian, when it comes to the origin of the universe and the marvelous processes by which it came to be.

That’s it! That’s not even painful. They don’t have to give up atheism. This isn’t an argument against atheism per se. It’s a turn-the-tables argument against the notion that Christians are somehow uniquely gullible and subject to blind faith with no evidence. Bob the Bible-Basher milks that false assertion for all it’s worth (which ain’t much at all) in his paper on Christianity Infantiliz[ing] Adults.

Technically, this present paper of mine could (or should?) be described as a reductio ad absurdum argument that has elements of turning-the-tables, and heavy use of sarcasm, satire, and rhetorical exaggeration to make a point. Humor (of a tweaking / provocative sort) is fundamental to it. In the past, I have heard many boorish atheist statements (reacting to basically the same reductio arguments of mine) saying that “atheists don’t worship atoms as gods!” etc.: which showed a complete lack of grasp of the fundamentally humorous nature of my arguments.

Reductio ad absurdum (not necessarily or in essence, but often in practice) involves sarcastic exaggeration to make a point (as does the turn-the-tables methodology). This is an examination of what I believe atheism logically reduces to, even though no atheist would ever put it this way. Unless these sorts of basic characteristics of the piece are understood, it’ll never be grasped. It’s difficult for anyone to endure a strong critique of their view as it is. But it must always be realized that making arguments against positions is not “attacking” people. The equation of people with their beliefs is very common today, and is the death of good constructive discussion.

Nothing is more “magical” than believing that something came from nothing, for no reason, and created itself, with every conceivable power to endlessly create all that there is, and all because of the inherent capabilities of matter: for which we don’t have the slightest scientific or even rational explanation; therefore accept with the most blind faith imaginable: far more faith than Christians ever have exercised. The atheist has to explain (if he is curious about origins) how matter came to possess its remarkable powers by itself, with no outside source.

I don’t regard atheists as wicked or liars or “insane” simply because they are atheists. I see it as a flaw in thinking: the sincere acceptance of wrong premises and falsehoods. I have a post up where I say that atheists can quite possibly be saved (as atheists). But if so, it is because they haven’t truly known God. I don’t think atheists are stupid. They are usually quite intelligent and rational. But they are what we call hyper-rational: where reason is placed too high in the scheme of things. Reason ain’t all there is.

Of course this sort of argument will be felt by many atheists to be merely or simply insulting, because it is a hard-hitting reductio (and this is perhaps the hardest-hitting one in any of my voluminous writings), with use of sarcasm, and hits the atheist precisely where they are most vulnerable. So it comes off (to the extent that it is truly understood) as a low blow, and we see reactions in accordance with that falsely-perceived ” insult.” All reductio / turning the tables arguments are very hard for the recipient to receive. It requires a person who is very secure in their belief-system to take it and make a rational, non-emotion-based counter-reply.

Reductios involve rhetorical exaggeration. That’s why I keep saying that this mode of argument is often not understood. If one understands how the argument and the sub-idiom of language within it works, these things would not be issues, and the atheist who is offended would already understand that I’m not literally claiming all atheists are gullible children. Rather, I’m turning the tables on the usual atheist argument against us, saying in effect, “you wanna argue that we are gullible and infantile imbeciles? Well, here are some ways that such a description can just as easily be turned back on you.” In other words, you have a childlike faith that it came into existence somehow (since it is here now, and isn’t eternal, as far as scientists can tell); just not possibly by God.

My bottom line point in all this is that atheism requires as much faith as Christianity does (defined in this context as acceptance of unproven axioms or unknowns), specifically when we’re talking about theories of the origin of the universe. Since that is the case, the atheist should then be “intellectually humble” enough to acknowledge that this area is a level playing field, or a wash, as opposed to the usual hogwash about atheists being smart and scientific, and Christians against science and reason and with infantile beliefs consisting of idiotic fairy tales only.

If atheists didn’t falsely convince themselves that they have no faith (belief in unproven axioms) at all, then they wouldn’t get so angry when the obvious is pointed out (all thinkers accept unproven initial axioms, somewhere . . . ). I am not literally claiming above that atheists would consciously say they believed in “gods.” Of course they will not say that. My argument was that how they view atoms and cells, in effect, is every bit as “godlike” as what we say about our God. How atheists view matter is very much like how we view God’s creative aspects. And so, in the humorous reductio vein, that is expressed as “believing in atom-gods and cell-gods.” Atheists (generally speaking) need to lighten up! It’s satirical humor. Have they never read satire?; never watched Saturday Night Live or read the Harvard Lampoon or watched Monty Python?

Both belief-systems entail evidence and faith. It’s untrue that Christianity is all faith, and atheism all rationality. Both systems have both. We have a lot more in common than either side usually realizes. Some Christians (a very small amount of those who are educated and “thinking” Christians) are fideists or anti-intellectual, but implying that all are or that it is a system of blind faith, pure and simple, is sheer foolishness and a straw man as high as Mt. Everest.

Atheists mock us for believing in God as the Creator [I’m not talking about creationism, but God as Creator, regardless of the method He may have used; which may have been evolution], as a silly, infantile fairy tale with supposedly no “evidence” whatsoever. But having ruled out God, how does the atheist explain the universe coming into being? Virtually all atheists I have discussed such things with, said “I don’t know.” Now if they say they don’t know, they still believe that the universe is here and came about somehow, so that is a sort of faith, just as ours is, unless they want to deny that the universe exists, or argue that it is eternal, contrary to presently accepted cosmology. My piece was a sarcastic treatment of what I believe are difficulties in materialism, and ironic similarities to some Christian beliefs, and also to those of ancient polytheists.

***

Photo credit: Lalelu2000 (8-14-15) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #67: Atheism’s Logical End: Nihilism

December 10, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob reiterated and rationalized his intellectual cowardice yet again on 10-17-20: “Every engagement with him [yours truly] devolves into pointlessness. I don’t believe I’ve ever learned anything from him. But if you find a compelling argument of his, summarize it for us.” And again the next day: “He has certainly not earned a spot in my heart, so I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he’s frustrating to talk with. Again, I evaluate such conversations as useful if I can learn something–find a mistake in my argument, uncover an error I made in Christians’ worldview, and so on. Dave is good at bluster, and that’s about it.”

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

In his post, “About Atheists’ Empty Worldview . . .” (12-9-20), Bible-Bashing Bob takes up this question:

“Atheism’s Empty Soul” is a recent article from Alan Shlemon of the Stand to Reason ministry. Shlemon tries to slap some sense into those hard-hearted atheists by showing the inevitable, grave consequences of their worldview. Shlemon informs us that the atheist worldview, seen correctly, is nihilism, the view that life is meaningless.

Something always seems to be off when someone tells me that I haven’t assembled the components of my worldview correctly, but that they’re happy to educate me about how that would look.

Bob is obviously oblivious to the extreme irony of his last sentence above: seeing that he expends tremendous energy daily seeking to poke holes in the Christian worldview: always seemingly believing that he knows more about the Bible and Christianity than almost all Christians do . . .

Atheists, does “empty and devoid of meaning” sound like your life?

First of all, Shlemon’s article was much more about logical progression, as opposed to claiming “all / many atheists are in fact, nihilists.” He does, however, claim that “Several atheists who have been candid with me have told me life is ultimately empty and devoid of meaning.” That’s not insignificant and can’t be dismissed as of no relevance whatever. Those atheists did give that report about their life. But the gist of his argument (as it has been of mine throughout the years, as I will document below) is the following logical point:

That doesn’t mean they can’t feel happy, follow a set of morals, or believe their life is significant in some way. . . .

Perhaps the most egregious consequence of naturalism is nihilism . . .

Nihilism . . . flows logically from naturalism . . . [my italics]

Since it is primarily an argument about logical reductions or consequences, it follows that not all atheists in fact (for many and complex reasons) will report that they are nihilists or feel as if nihilism is the true state of affairs. Therefore, it’s irrelevant for Bob to appeal to atheist’s stated outlooks. The argument is much more subtle and nuanced than that. Bob does show that he kinda-sorta gets it by stating, “the atheist worldview, seen correctly, is nihilism . . .” And he actually (surprisingly) concedes the entire argument, too:

The key word here is “ultimately,” and, yes, an atheist’s life has no ultimate, cosmic, eternal, or objective meaning.

Very true, and this logically leads to the philosophy of nihilism. But Bob softens this by immediately adding: “But does the Christian’s? They claim their lives have ultimate meaning, of course, but they need to show their work.” That’s a separate discussion, of course, and I and many other apologists, theologians, and philosophers are more than happy to discuss it from where we sit. Right now the topic is whether atheism logically leads to nihilism. Bob even adds:

He says it’s fine to criticize a worldview by showing that it’s incoherent or contradictory internally, and I would add that it’s fine to show where a worldview collides with the facts of reality.

We Christians readily agree on both counts, and assert that atheism massively suffers from both problems.

Show me that a sizeable fraction of atheists feel that life is meaningless. Nihilism certainly doesn’t describe my life philosophy. As with the “life [for an atheist] is ultimately empty and devoid of meaning” claim above, atheists should consider whether nihilism describes their lives.

Here again, Bob falls into a mere sociological discussion of what is; as opposed to a logical / philosophical discussion of what conclusion arguably follows — as a matter of logical reduction or progression — from a particular set of premises. He’s confusing two different discussions.

I have written many times about this idea that atheism logically and consistently leads to nihilism. It’s what I believe, and have believed for as long as I can remember. Here are some of my thoughts on the topic from four of my articles;

I am talking about the ultimate logical implications of atheism, regardless of how one subjectively reacts to them. The very fact of objectivism and subjectivism (assuming one grants both as realities) allows the possibility that the atheist is not subjectively facing the objective logical implications of atheism (which I maintain are nihilism and despair).

People of all stripes do this all the time. We all are able to make it through life and be reasonably happy (at least on a surface, superficial level) because we are all masters at (the great majority of the time) not thinking about the truly important things in life. I do it; you do it, we all do. We all concentrate on this movie coming up, on that hot date, on the latest U2 or Van Morrison album (two of my favorites), on this new opportunity or hobby, etc. So the fact that most atheists are fairly happy, fulfilled people (like Christians or Buddhists or Zoroastrians or Druids) is of little relevance to my overall point in this discussion. (The “Problem of Good”: Great Dialogue with an Atheist: (the Flip Side of the Problem of Evil Argument Against Christianity) + the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism [Part Two] [vs. Mike Hardie], 6-5-01; this is, by the way, my very favorite dialogue out of the more than a thousand I’ve participated in)

I’ve devoted my life as a Christian apologist to showing that there are indeed many many such rational considerations, and that non-religious / atheist alternatives are ultimately irrational and incoherent (leading to existential despair and nihilism), . . . (Is Christianity Proof-Free Belief & “Ridiculous”?, 4-13-17)

I do contend (as a general proposition) that a serious Christian commitment will lead to a more fulfilled, purposeful, meaningful life than it would have been otherwise; also, that — again, as a general proposition –, atheism leads to less of those things, up to and including a nihilistic despair that the entire universe is ultimately meaningless. How that works out in specific cases is exceedingly complex, and there will be a million exceptions for a thousand reasons. That’s why I’m only speaking very broadly (i.e., sociologically). I’m not addressing individual cases (including Anthony Bourdain). (Social Science: Religion Leads to Lower Suicide Rates, 6-9-18)

I have contended for 37 years now, . . . that rejection of Christianity and God will lead in the end to despair, [ultimate] meaninglessness, and nihilism. It may take many years to finally hit home, because human beings are great at diversions and covering up, but it will end there.

It’s loving on our part to say this to non-believers. We have something to share with them: not out of felt superiority or spiritual arrogance or naivete, but out of love. We share about the blessings of God because we have experienced them ourselves, and want others to experience them, too: as many as possible.

I feel so much for people who are in despair, or struggling every day to get through life. I’ve been there. I deal with depression in my family every day and have, most of my life. I went through one very severe, clinical period of depression for six months in 1977. It was truly a period of hopeless, existential despair and agony and torment. I have never had it since (I became an evangelical Protestant and devoted my life to Christ as His disciple in the middle of it). But I’ve been constantly around it.

My entire family (six people) has struggled with serious depression at one time or another, and so I am very concerned about it. . . .

I think Christianity (yes, including all its moral teachings and precepts) clearly plays a role in providing hope and meaning. (Christianity, Depression, Peace, Comfort, Hope, & Joy, 6-9-18)

***

Photo credit: Lars_Nissen (2-11-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #66: Biblical “Evidence-Less Faith”?

December 9, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

In his post, Faith, the Other F-Word? (2 of 2) (11-25-20, and recycled, as so often, from an earlier one dated 7-13-16), Bible-Basher Bob states:

What does faith mean? Does it mean belief firmly grounded in evidence? That’s the definition in vogue among many conservative apologists (and discussed in part 1). But there’s another definition that is also popular.

Now, I’m happy and delighted to give Bob credit for at least noting in his first part that the Bible has passages about “evidential faith” or “reasonable faith” or faith and reason considered together as parts of the whole picture. But then he goes on to erroneously assert that there is another biblical motif that supposedly contradicts this:

Faith definition 2: belief held not primarily because of evidence and little shaken in the face of contrary evidence; that is, belief neither supported nor undercut by evidence. This would be a belief that can’t be shaken by a change in evidence (such as, “I won’t give up my faith in Jesus for any reason”). Evidence for one’s belief can be nonexistent, or it can actually oppose one’s belief (as in blind faith), or evidence can simply be insufficient to firmly ground the belief.

What he describes is blind faith, or technically, fideism, and there are indeed some Christians who espouse this. But they have never been in the mainstream, and (most importantly), I would contend that the Bible itself doesn’t teach it, as I have written about several times:

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Passionate Defense of Religious Truths: The Biblical Data [6-4-07]

The Certitude of Faith According to Cardinal Newman [9-30-08]

Dialogue on Reason & Faith, w Theological Liberal [1-19-10]

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science [8-1-10]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields [8-20-10]

Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists [10-9-15]

Implicit (Extra-Empirical) Faith, According to John Henry Newman [12-18-15]

On Mystery & Reason in Theology [4-5-16]

Is Christianity Unfalsifiable? Is Empiricism the Only True Knowledge? [5-6-17]

Apologetics Doesn’t Mean Being Sorry for Your Faith [National Catholic Register, 6-6-17]

Reason, Science, & Logic Not the Exclusive Possessions of Atheists (7-24-17)

Dialogue with Atheist: Are Christians “Unscientific”? [5-27-19]

Apologetics = Anti-Faith or Absolute “Certainty”? (Or, “Does Christianity Reduce to Mere Philosophy or Rationalism?”) [7-5-20]

Seidensticker Folly #44: Historic Christianity & Science [8-29-20]

See many more articles along these lines on my Philosophy & Science and Catholic & General Christian Apologetics web pages.

Again, let’s start with the Bible to find support for this evidence-less faith:

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. . . . And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him (Hebrews 11:1–6).

Then Jesus told [Doubting Thomas], “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.” (John 20:29)

The Hebrews passage has no need of evidence, and the statement of Jesus celebrates those who believe despite a lack of evidence.

This reasoning takes insufficient account of the relevant data of context and of related cross-referenced verses. The author of Hebrews states: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (11:1, RSV). This is one aspect of faith, which is different from reason but not opposed to it: neither logically nor in the biblical / Hebraic worldview.

Atheist scientists believe in things “not seen” just as every Christian does: for example, they believe in, for example, dark matter: at the moment a very mysterious thing indeed, yet scientists are sure it makes up “approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total mass–energy density” (Wikipedia). It “has not yet been observed directly.”

It’s deduced from other empirical evidence, but then that’s exactly how Christian faith is also. Scientists have not (and likely cannot ever) observe the moment of the Big Bang when the universe began. Yet they believe in it. They can have an “assurance”and “conviction of things not seen.” Therefore, this clause in Hebrews is not antithetical at all to reason or empirical observation. To make out that it is is simply illogical and an improper interpretation.

“. . . whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists” (Heb 1:6). This may sound at first sight like blind, raw, unaccompanied faith, apart from reason, but it’s not so, either. St. Paul in Romans 1 grounds such faith in reason and observation:

Romans 1:19-20 (RSV) For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;

Hebrews 11:3 closely echoes the thought of Romans 1:19-20: “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” This is a primitive, basic form of the argument from design, or teleological argument: one of the classic theistic proofs. Even if one disagrees with it, they can’t deny that it is an argument of some sort of reason, and not merely blind faith. God revealed Himself in His creation. This is more than ever true today: the more we learn about the marvels of the universe and of the even more amazing microscopic world.

Even Albert Einstein thought it was self-evident that there was design in the universe, brought about by some sort of “God” (in his own opinion, a pantheistic one, but still a notion far from atheism). And philosopher David Hume, who is thought to have demolished this theistic proof, accepted one form of the teleological argument. They’re basically expressing what Paul did in Romans 1.

So Hebrews 11 fits together with Romans 1 insofar as the former says that we “must believe that” God “exists” and the latter says that we can’t help believing this by simply observing the universe and the nearby material world. This is why the vast majority of people in the world and in world history have been religious. It’s the default position.” People have to unlearn it.

The rest of the Book of Hebrews is not at all averse to the world of observable reasons to believe in Jesus Christ and Christianity. It starts out with the incarnation of Jesus (chapter 1), then states that “God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit” (2:4). That’s observable stuff: like the miracles of Jesus and His resurrection and post-resurrection appearances. Even atheists call for wondrous miracles that they claim would theoretically prove His existence. Well, God has done that and continues to do so. But if the atheist doesn’t see it himself or herself, they refuse to believe it, and no amount of credible testimony can sway them.

Hebrews 13:6 refers to Jesus’ resurrection, which was compelling evidence for the more than 500 people who saw Him alive after He died: “the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus . . . Thus, there is no evidence that the Book of Hebrews, understood as a whole, has “no need of evidence.”

As for Doubting Thomas, this is no proof that Jesus was averse to such “apologetic” evidence, either, since (we must remember), Jesus decided to appear after His death specifically to Him, in order to prove the point to him. His statement about faith does not wipe that out. He was simply making the point that there was enough evidence already to believe that He was the Messiah and God incarnate. There is the evidence tied into faith, and there is a demand for evidence that goes beyond what is necessary. Jesus was concerned with the latter. I wrote elsewhere about Doubting Thomas:

Christianity requires belief in a number of things difficult to grasp and accept, but we accept them based on the authority of revelation. Doubting Thomas didn’t believe that Jesus could rise from the dead, even though Our Lord had often predicted it in the presence of the disciples. He had to see it for himself.

It is striking how Jesus is merciful and understanding enough to appear for Thomas’ sake. He knew his faith was weak, and so He offered a little “extra” to help him along. Thomas had an overly empirical mindset (he had said he had to put his finger in Jesus’ side, then he would believe: John 20:25). So Jesus, condescending to the limitations of the overly skeptical mentality, allowed him to do that (20:27).

This results (rather dramatically) in Thomas calling Jesus “God”: one of the most remarkable instances of proclamation of the divinity of Jesus in the New Testament (20:28). But after all this, Jesus nevertheless says, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” (20:29). He came to Thomas because he was weak, but at the same time He made it clear that this would not be the norm, and that believers would have to exercise faith and not demand empirical proof.

And in another paper I observed:

He came back in one of His Resurrection appearances precisely to persuade Thomas. Thus, it is hardly a proof of supposed Christian “blind faith” to cite this story. Quite the contrary: the whole point of that story was to show that there is such a thing as excessive demands for proof (which Jesus and Paul talk about a lot), not that proof itself is unnecessary or frowned-upon.

The purpose of most of Jesus’ miracles (including, ultimately, His own Resurrection) was also to give testimony to His claims to be God, which is hardly a ringing endorsement of “blind faith” either, but rather, empirical evidence right before people’s eyes (much as atheists are constantly demanding today).

Dialoguing with an atheist about miracles, I stated:

Jesus performed miracles, too. But He also stated:

Matthew 12:38-40 (RSV): Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.” [39] But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. [40] For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Mark 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? . . .”

The sign of Jonah was referring to His Resurrection. But of course, many refused to believe in Jesus even though they saw Him perform many miracles. They denied that they were from God:

Mark 3:22-26 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el’zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” [23] And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? [24] If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [25] And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. [26] And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.

So these miracles you demand before you will believe, weren’t good enough for these people. They simply dismissed them, just as many dismissed the Resurrection when it happened, coming up with many idiotic theories to try to rationalize it away.

Jesus is not opposed to observable, empirical evidence at all. He stated that His Resurrection would be the prime example of this. He only condemns the excessive demands for proof all the time. It’s like one spouse in a happy marriage asking a million times if the spouse loves him or her. At some point we must believe in faith a thing that has been demonstrated over and over. That‘s what Jesus is saying. And so the New Testament sums up this attitude of Jesus in the following manner:

Acts 1:3 To them [the apostles] he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

Jesus habitually used reason and logic in His discourses, including even socratic method. So did St. Paul. The New Testament describes him not just as preaching the gospel, but also as “arguing” with Jews and Greeks alike (Acts 17:2; 17; 18:4, 19; 19:9; 24:25).

Of course, Bob isn’t swayed by any of the evidences for God, which is why he is an atheist:

[T]he data is in for God, and that hypothesis fails for lack of evidence, just like the leprechaun and Zeus hypotheses. . . . If God exists, he’d be happy to see me challenging empty Christian claims.

He challenges, makes manifestly ridiculous comparisons to Zeus and leprechauns, an apologist like me defends the Christian and biblical views, and then Bob ignores that, since he only wants to preach atheism, and has no interest whatsoever in interacting with Christian apologists unless he feels that he can make them look dumb and stupid. No dialogue ever really takes place. If he can’t answer particular challenges, on the other hand, he ignores and flees for the hills, as he has done with me for over two years: ignoring now 65 of my refutations of his fallacious, ignorant treatments.

I really don’t expect this time to be any different. So I ask: “which is more impressive and indicative of a robust confidence in the plausibility and reasonableness and factuality of one’s position: dealing with opposing views in great detail, point-by-point, and precisely showing how they fail and how one’s own viewpoint is superior, or preaching to the choir and ignoring anyone who dares to disagree?” Which of those two approaches suggests (oh, the irony!) blind faith more than the other?

Yes: it’s Bob‘s approach that has more blind faith than anything I believe or defend, because he puts himself into a bubble and allows no one who disagrees in: lest they show how ludicrous Bob’s beliefs are, after being closely scrutinized. That’s the very definition of the sociological “true believer”: impervious to any outside critique, and wrapped up in the pretense that in fact, there are none; that one’s own position is absolutely invulnerable to any imaginable criticism.

***

Photo credit: The Incredulity of St Thomas, or The Rockox Triptych: central portion (bet. 1613 and 1615), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Seidensticker Folly #65: “Hear No Evil, See No Evil . . .”

November 25, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

Today’s critique is a case study in a person who is utterly unwilling to be instructed (certainly not by one of us lowly, ignorant Christians!). I observed Bob railing about supposed unresolvable contradictions in Ten Commandments accounts in the Bible, in one of his comboxes. In this instance, a Christian (“Scooter”) was there trying to talk sense into Bob, who would have none of it. Undaunted, he simply kept up his pitiable anti-Bible polemics and rhetoric:

Read Exodus 34. This is Moses getting the second set of tablets (remember that he smashed the first set).

Ex. 34:28 says: “Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.”

After you’ve done that, tell us what you’ve found. (11-20-20)

Scooter: I note that quite often your responses suffer from the “I’ve got my mind made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” syndrome. So I encourage you to read Deuteronomy 5 again that debunks the idea that there were 2 different sets of Commandments. (11-21-20)

As Greg noted, don’t whine to us about who has his mind made up.

Ex. 20 and 34 have two very different sets of 10 Commandments. Or is God’s holy word something that you don’t bother reading or understanding?

The Documentary Hypothesis very neatly explains this and other conflations of two stories in the Bible (Flood, Creation, and others). (11-21-20)

Scooter: The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Read Ex.34 verse one very carefully. (11-21-20)

[W]hen you read the 10 Cs in Ex. 34 and compare that with “the words that were on the first tables” in Ex. 20, you find two very different sets of commandments. (11-21-20)

Since you refuse to address my point about the 2 incompatible versions of the 10 Commandments in the same book of the Bible, I’ll assume that you agree that it’s a problem.

As for the Documentary Hypothesis, it has been tweaked, but the core idea is unchanged: the Pentateuch that we have is the mixing of a number of different traditions. If you want to attack this, give me a reference. (11-22-20)

Happy to oblige:

Documentary Theory of Biblical Authorship (JEPD): Dialogue [2-12-04]

Silent Night: A “Progressive” and “Enlightened” Reinterpretation [12-10-04; additionally edited for publication at National Catholic Register: 12-21-17]

Documentary Theory (Pentateuch): Critical Articles [6-21-10]

“Higher” Hapless Haranguing of Hypothetical Hittites (19th C.) [10-21-11; abridged 7-7-20]

C. S. Lewis Roundly Mocked the Documentary Hypothesis [10-6-19]

The Bible states:

Proverbs 1:22 (RSV) How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 13:16 In everything a prudent man acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly.

Proverbs 15:14 The mind of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly.

Proverbs 26:11 Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly.

Sirach 21:18 Like a house that has vanished, so is wisdom to a fool; and the knowledge of the ignorant is unexamined talk.

2 Timothy 3:7 who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

This is Bob’s problem. He won’t accept any instruction or even clarification from Christians. He knows all. He knows better than Christians (even scholars) who have devoted their lives to studying and understanding the Bible. He thinks that he’s virtually infallible (judging by his constant words and actions), when it comes to the Bible and Christian theology, even though he himself at least honestly admitted (2-13-16): “My study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I’m researching at the moment.” How impressive . . .

I thoroughly refuted his “two contradictory sets of Ten Commandments” schtick over two years ago: Seidensticker Folly #16: Two Sets of Ten Commandments? A person who was confident of his positions and interested in open-minded, interactive dialogue would have welcomed such an opportunity.

But because Bob refuses to learn anything about the Bible (or read or respond to any of my 65 critiques), he simply repeats his same old stupid errors. He has no interest whatsoever in constructive dialogue. This is (to put it very mildly) not an impressive or constructive intellectual “place” to be. The true thinker is always willing to dialogue, be corrected, and learn. It’s the blind leading the blind. Bob offers up yet more slop on almost a daily basis, and his sycophants and cheerleaders sop it up, no matter how noxious or toxic his “stew” is.

All we Christian apologists can do is offer reasonable counter-explanations and refutations and shake our heads at the silliness and sheer impervious irrationality of what goes on on a regular basis at Cross Examined and many other anti-theist “bubble” venues like it (such as John Loftus’ Debunking Christianity site).

***

Photo credit: paulbr75 (8-30-18) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Seidensticker Folly #64: A Saved Dahmer & Damned Anne Frank?

November 24, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

Looking over one of Bible-Basher Bob’s notorious comboxes (cesspools of anti-Christian bigotry and ad hominem blitzes) today, I ran across this statement of his:

Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer converted in prison, so when he died (violently, in prison), he went to heaven. Anne Frank (unrepentant Jew) went to hell.

Praise the Lord. (11-23-20)

He had repeated this mantra eight days earlier and then asked: “Do Christians ever stop to think of the Frankenstein of a religion they’ve created?”

And again on the same day:

I listened to a Christian podcast where 3 or 4 pastors were discussion the case of a father whose 20-something son had just died. So problem 1 is the son has died. But problem 2 is that the son hadn’t accepted Jeebus and so, by the father’s own religion, was now broasting in hell. And the pastors were trying to figure out what consoling words they could offer while sticking to the “everlasting torment” line.

Sometimes Christianity makes things a lot worse.

I’ve often noted how lies and falsehoods are easy to spout: often able to be expressed in a tiny soundbite or slogan short enough to be a nice fit for a bumper sticker or t-shirt.

So Bob threw out this insulting “meat” to his echo chamber: knowing that (almost certainly) no one would challenge it, and that all will be united in a blissful unity, in despising the intellectual bankruptcy of what they erroneously think is mainstream Christianity. To refute it, however (as the reader will soon see), I have to go into at least some depth about Catholic and Protestant theology of salvation (soteriology) and document how the view he spews is far out of the mainstream. And in doing it — if history is any guide — I know he will likely never read it, or if he does, he won’t respond or be corrected (if he continues his behavior of the last two years and three months: ignoring 63 of my critiques).

But I plug away because it’s important to refute lies and falsehoods like this, in order to try to prevent as many as possible from believing them. At any rate, it takes far more ink to effectively refute a lie than to state the lie. Another commenter (Michael) in the same combox wrote:

These are echoed by lots of real people. Obviously, the many Jews who died in the Holocaust (who didn’t become Christians). Plus the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoss. He converted to Catholicism and repented prior to being hanged. According to their doctrine, he’ll reach Heaven eventually. Now, at least they are more generous and say that “righteous” non-Catholics can be saved too. Evangelicals like Ray don’t. Young Anne Frank and so many more? Damned. Yet they say atheism is bad…

I’m saved from insanity at least by Michael acknowledging that Catholics teach “that ‘righteous’ non-Catholics can be saved.” Thank you, Michael. I think Bob might actually know that, too. To be as fair as we can be towards him, it is true that this combox was in response to a Protestant evangelical minister, and so that was probably the view he had in mind. Yet atheists have a bad habit of constantly making out that fringe fundamentalist Christian views represent the whole.

I have written about the possibility of atheists being saved, according to pretty clear biblical teaching:

Are Atheists “Evil”? Multiple Causes of Atheist Disbelief and the Possibility of Salvation [2-17-03]

New Testament on God-Rejecters vs. Open-Minded Agnostics [10-9-15]

In a nutshell, the Bible teaches one thing, and denies another:

1) One is judged by what they know and how they act upon it.

2) We don’t (and can’t) know the eternal fate of individuals.

Salvation is brought about by the grace of God and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross for the salvation of the human race (or at least those who believe in Him, having become acquainted with the gospel). This is true whether one is aware of it or not. So nothing I clarify here is to be thought of as a denial of that fact: held in common by all Christians.

There are all sorts of complexities involved in the application of salvation. I address them in many papers on my Ecumenism and Christian Unity page, in the section entitled “Salvation ‘Outside’ the Church / Religious Liberty.” It’s very clear that Catholicism allows for the possible salvation of many many individuals who have either not heard the gospel or have not become members of the Catholic Church. To save space, I simply refer the reader to my papers on that topic.

I’m presently much more interested in showing that mainstream Protestantism doesn’t teach such a crass view as Bob suggests, either. I am already familiar with the expressed view of John Calvin: who is the founder of a large portion of Protestantism, which calls itself Reformed, or Calvinist (including Presbyterians, some Baptists, and some of other denominations as well). He denied that we could know for sure who is of the elect (i.e., would eventually be saved and go to heaven):

[W]e are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect – that is for God alone, not for us, to do . . . (Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV. 1. 3.)

We must thus consider both God’s secret election and his inner call. For he alone “knows who are his” [II Tim. 2:19] . . . except that they bear his insignia by which they may be distinguished from the reprobate. But because a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his church, whose foundation is his secret election. It is not sufficient, indeed, for us to comprehend in mind and thought the multitude of the elect, unless we consider the unity of the church as that into which we are convinced we have been truly engrafted. (Inst. IV. 1. 2.)

Of those who openly wear his badge, his eyes alone see the ones who are unfeignedly holy and will persevere to the very end [Matt. 24:13] – the ultimate point of salvation. (Inst. IV. 1. 8.)

It is . . . not our task to erase from the number of the elect those who have been expelled from the church, or to despair as if they were already lost. It is lawful to regard them as estranged from the church, and thus, from Christ – but only for such time as they remain separated. However, if they also display more stubbornness than gentleness, we should still commend them to the Lord’s judgment, hoping for better things of them in the future than we see in the present. Nor should we on this account cease to call upon God in their behalf . . . let us not condemn to death the very person who is in the hand and judgment of God alone; rather, let us only judge of the character of each man’s works by the law of the Lord. While we follow this rule, we rather take our stand upon the divine judgment than put forward our own. Let us not claim for ourselves more license in judgment, unless we wish to limit God’s power and confine his mercy by law. For God, whenever it pleases him, changes the worst men into the best, engrafts the alien, and adopts the stranger into the church. And the Lord does this to frustrate men’s opinion and restrain their rashness – which, unless it is checked, ventures to assume for itself a greater right of judgment than it deserves. (Inst. IV. 12. 9.)

The election of God is hidden and secret in itself . . . men are being fantastic or fanatical if they look for their salvation or for the salvation of others in the labyrinth of predestination instead of keeping to the way of the faith which is offered them . . . To each one, his faith is a sufficient witness of the eternal predestination of God, so that it would be a horrible sacrilege to seek higher assurance. (Commentary on John 6:40; in Francis Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, New York: Harper & Row, 1963, 270)

Let us, then, keep this in view above all other things, that it is no less insane to crave for other knowledge of predestination besides that which is given us in the word of God, than if one wanted to walk over inaccessible rocks or to see in darkness. (Inst. III. 21. 2.; in Wendel, ibid., 270-271)

This is highly significant, and immediately disproves Bob’s characterization of even Calvinists. Calvin’s view is in no way compatible with a notion that Jeff Dahmer definitely was saved and went to heaven because he expressed repentance in jail, while Anne Frank was definitely damned and went to hell because she was a Jew. We simply don’t know.

The website Christianity.com offers the relevant article, “How Can I Know If I am One of the Elect?,” by Dave Jenkins (a Baptist). It offers the same view as Calvin, and is utterly contrary to Bob’s caricature:

In the Gospel of John, the Apostle John teaches that Christ alone perfectly knows the hearts and minds of all people (John 2:24-25). Being the incarnate God, Jesus’ knowledge of all men’s hearts is not limited, like our finite minds. Since Jesus is Lord, He alone perfectly knows all those who have true saving faith. Since we are finite, we cannot know the genuine state of anyone’s heart besides our own.

Some may profess faith and persevere until their deaths. Other professing Christians later fall away, revealing that they never had genuine faith in Christ alone, to begin with (1 John 2:19). However, not all of those who profess faith genuinely possess it and will not be revealed until the Lord Jesus returns in the visible church (Matthew 13:24-30).

Martin Luther (the founder of Protestantism and of Lutheranism) expressed in several ways the lack of an absolute certainty of salvation, of even a serious, professed Christian. It would follow all the more so that we cannot know the ultimate fate of anyone else, either. Luther wrote:

The Christian . . . needs to entertain anxiety as to how he shall endure steadfast to the end. There is where all fear and anxiety are due. For while he assuredly is given to possess full salvation, it may be somewhat doubtful whether or no he will steadfastly retain it. Here we must walk in fear. . . . Should temptation force him to lose his confidence, grace also will fail. (Sermon for the Sunday After Christmas; Galatians 4:1-7, 1522)

Do not be moved by Zwingli’s argument concerning the certitude of faith, for he speaks of faith from hearsay and imagination, and not from any experience. It is possible, nay, it happens every day, that in some of the articles of faith we are strong, in others weak. Moses, the man of great faith, was weak at Meribah, and all the children of Israel were weak in the faith that they would receive food and drink, though by faith they had overcome Pharaoh, with many miracles. (Letter to Gottschalk Crucius, 27 October 1525)

Neither the baptizer nor the baptized can maintain his position, for both are uncertain of their faith, or at least are in constant peril and anxiety. For it happens, indeed it is so in this matter of faith, that often he who claims to believe does not at all believe; and on the other hand, he who doesn’t think he believes, but is in despair, has the greatest faith. So this verse, “Whoever believes,” does not compel us to determine who has faith or not. . . . Who has it, has it. One must believe, but we neither should nor can know it for certain. (Concerning Rebaptism, Jan. 1528)

I was the editor of a collection of John Wesley quotations (The Quotable Wesley). Wesley was a lifelong Anglican, but in effect became the founder of Methodism. And he taught the same thing:

It is an assurance of present salvation only; therefore, not necessarily perpetual, neither irreversible. (Letter to Samuel Wesley; 10 May 1739)

We know not how far invincible ignorance may excuse. ‘Love hopeth all things.’ . . . we allow there may be very many degrees of seeing God; even as many as are between seeing the sun with the eyelids closed and with the eyes open. (Letter to Mr. Richard Tompson; 2 Feb. 1756; citing an earlier Methodist conference from 2 August 1745)

Touching the charity due to those who are in error, I suppose, we both likewise agree, that really invincible ignorance never did, nor ever shall, exclude any man from heaven. And hence, I doubt not, but God will receive thousands of those who differ from me, even where I hold the truth. (Letter to “John Smith” [probably one of the Archbishops of Canterbury, Thomas Herring or Thomas Secker], 25 June 1746)

Do you think these words mean, “he that believes” at this moment “shall” certainly and inevitably “be saved?” If this interpretation be good, then, by all the rules of speech, the other part of the sentence must mean, “He” that does “not believe” at this moment “shall” certainly and inevitably “be damned.” Therefore, that interpretation cannot be good. (The Perseverance of the Saints; c. 1746)

That all Christians have an assurance of future salvation, is no Methodist doctrine: and an assurance of present pardon, is so far from causing negligence, that it is of all others the strongest motive to vigorous endeavours after universal holiness. (Second Letter to the Author [Bishop Lavington] of “The Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared”, 27 Nov. 1750)

This covers, then, the views of the Calvinist, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist sectors of Protestantism: from (mostly) the most prominent persons of those traditions. One can readily see that the false “assurance” and “knowledge” entailed in claiming to “know” for “certain” the eternal destiny of another, whether proclaimed (or genuine) Christian or not, is presumptuous folly, no “knowledge” at all, and not taught by mainstream Protestant Christianity; nor is it taught by Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

It’s intellectually dishonest to present a view that might be expressed by a tiny fringe, fanatical portion of a belief-system, and present it as if it is the deliberate and certain conclusion of the greatest theologians of said systems (i.e., supposedly the “mainstream” or broadly what Christianity as a whole asserts). It’s an outrage, and we Christians need to speak out against it and refute it. I have done so. This is just one of hundreds of such scurrilous lies on Bible-Basher Bob’s site, which is why I have responded to and refuted him now 64 times.

***

Photo credit: Anne Frank (1929-1945): German-Dutch Jew, author of the famous Diary of a Young Girl and victim of Nazi butchery [public domain / Smithsonian Magazine]

***

Seidensticker Folly #63: Answer Comfort But Never Armstrong?

November 24, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

I have noted Bob’s bizarre and irrational intellectual cowardice when dealing with my critiques on at least four occasions:

Atheist Bob Seidensticker Ain’t Afraid to Debate, and I Am? Really?! [10-3-18]

Atheist Bob Seidensticker: Intellectual Coward (My 32 Critiques) [7-20-19]

Seidensticker Folly #43: Intellectual Cowardice & Hypocrisy [8-28-20]

Seidensticker Folly #46: Ridiculous 5-Minute Exchange (Atheist Neil Carter Promptly Banned Me During the Discussion on His Blog) [8-30-20]

Today I was struck by his absurd double standards, in repeatedly addressing a Christian apologist that he appears to have an equally low opinion of, compared to yours truly. Yet he replies to him and has utterly ignored my 62 refutations as of this date. There are only so many ways to explain such a discrepancy. I think many readers would conclude the same thing I do.

His four-part series in response to the New Zealand minister and evangelist Ray Comfort was originally posted in July 2016 and has now been posted in installments in November 2020 (one / two / three / four). Note how even the titles immediately express Bob’s opinion that Comfort is flat-out not “honest”: “Fat Chance: Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists.”

So let’s do a quick run-down of Bob’s opinion of Comfort’s intellectual prowess (right or wrong — I’m not addressing that, and it’s not my topic –; I’m merely recording Bob’s view for the record):

In the third installment, he calls Comfort “an obnoxious moron” and refers to “how little he understands the issues he talks about.” He gets more and more scathingly insulting as the article proceeds:

Ray keeps using his simple platitudes, . . . He’s been corrected by the best—Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and other biologists have pointed out his errors. And yet he pops back up like a Weeble with the same stupid arguments. . . .

Ray, what do you call someone who makes a mistake, has it corrected by a reliable authority, and then deliberately repeats that mistake? You [call] him a liar. . . .

Does it worry you that you lie? Or maybe you have some rationalization like it’s okay to lie for Jesus or you can lie as long as you ask for forgiveness afterwards.

Bob continues his ranting in part 4, with this preface: “I’ll wrap up with a few more claims from the book that I can’t let stand without rebuttal.” Oh, the pathetic irony! And:

I can understand Ray’s motivation, though—it’s a lot easier to simply make statements like this and ignore that whole evidence-and-good-arguments thing. What a hassle that is. . . .

As for Ray’s pig book, I’m amazed that he can consider this mindless and insulting tract to be an evangelistic tool.

Okay! Now, the obvious question is: if Ray Comfort’s book is so “mindless and insulting” and he is an “obnoxious moron” who understands “little” regarding what he is writing about, with “stupid arguments” that amount to him being a relentless “liar” and having a leading characteristic of ignoring “evidence-and-good-arguments”, then why does Bob bother responding to him at all: let alone with four lengthy screeds?

And if he responds to a person he has such a rock-bottom opinion of: why does he utterly refuse to reply to my critiques: which now number 62? He seems to hold Ray Comfort in even less regard than he does me. He wrote about me on October 17 and 18, 2020:

Every engagement with him devolves into pointlessness. I don’t believe I’ve ever learned anything from him. . . . I will pass on funding his evidence-free project. Like you, I also find that he’s frustrating to talk with. . . . Dave is good at bluster, and that’s about it.

That’s not too bad, all things considered. You would think, since Bob literally pleaded with me in emails to engage in May 2018 and later specifically challenged me, almost months later, on 8-11-18:

I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?

. . . that he would be delighted to have a golden opportunity to refute my critiques and counter-arguments. He wasn’t forced at gunpoint to say that. He voluntarily did. I started my “Seidensticker Folly” series the very next day: which is a systematic refutation of Bob’s anti-theist and anti-Christian / anti-Bible arguments. The series now numbers 62 installments, and as of this date (after two years and three months), not one peep in reply has been heard from Bob. It’s crickets and ZZZZzzzzz all-around (except for the obligatory personal insults if anyone brings up my name). Yet he will write and repost a four-part response to a guy he thinks is “moron” and “liar” and obviously a clueless idiot on many fronts, who habitually makes (so Bob sez) “stupid arguments.”

I think there is only one reasonable and quite plausible explanation for this. He thinks he can provide a good and convincing reply to Comfort but he must not think so as regards my critiques: or else he would respond to me, too. We can’t be too careful in debate about whom we choose to wrangle with.

I’m in very good company, as to being a recipient of insults from Bob. Dr. William Lane Craig is widely considered (by theists and atheists alike) one of the very best philosophical defenders of theism. But that doesn’t stop Bob from trashing and bashing him in all sorts of ridiculous ways:

unhealthy relationship with facts and evidence . . . sloppy thinking [in the title] . . . dark and tangled recesses of the thinking . . . bizarre reply . . . He ignores the problem, assumes that he is right, and then shapes the facts to fit. . . . The mental masturbation continues. . . . It’d be a pain to have to, y’know, do all that research and stuff. I mean, who’s got the time? Using reason would be inconvenient, so let’s not. . . . drunken reasoning . . . So much for apologetics to raise the intellectual content of the conversation. (7-21-14 / reposted on 3-23-18)

His potshots sent my way are veritable high praise compared to this! When you discover this masterpiece on Google (I did by simply searching “Craig is” on his site), the little blurb (first one up) reads: “William Lane Craig is the insane gift that keeps on giving, a cornucopia of crazy. Let’s look at more of the nutty thinking . . .” The description for another post dated 7-29-14 is: “World famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig is well known for his hilariously inept defense of the savage excesses of his God . . .” On 5-7-19 he said of Dr. Craig: “ I suppose if Craig is smart he knows what he is peddling is false. It’s a living for him.”

You get the point. Filthy lucre . . . (which certainly can’t explain away my 39 years of apologetics: the last 19, full-time, as a profession). Yet Bob replies to Dr. Craig over and over and over. Granted, he should, because of Dr. Craig’s academic stature. But we see what he thinks of him. Yet that doesn’t stop him from repeatedly replying to his arguments. I should be short work next to Dr. Craig, right? One would think so. I’m a nobody in the overall scheme of things . . . But Bob has chosen to utterly ignore me. One might say, “well — completely aside from the disputes — , he obviously dislikes you personally.” Yes, I’m sure that’s true. I’m not overly fond of him, either. But doesn’t it seem obvious that he also greatly dislikes likes Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig on a personal level? So that won’t fly (like the pigs), either.

If you, dear reader, have a better explanation of his Utter Silence as regards Yours Truly, please do let me know. I think it’s because I systematically dismantle his arguments in a way that opponents usually don’t do (influenced by my socratic leanings and literally 39 years of debates and apologetics). I believe he simply doesn’t know how to process that, let alone attempt a reply. After all, Christians are never supposed to get the better of atheists in any argument, so he concludes that in fact it hasn’t happened in my case because it’s impossible.

See how the [circular reasoning] mentality works? Thus, he chooses to make out that I have absolutely nothing to say — no arguments whatsoever –, leading to him fleeing for the hills and acting like he has no time at all for someone so supposedly stupid and content-less as I am. Bishop “Dr.” [???] James White: the anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist apologist, has also used precisely this tactic for about ten years with me (as have several other anti-Catholics). It only makes him look like a pompous ass and a coward: just as in Bob’s case. They’re not doing themselves any favors. But Bob wants to lecture others about supposedly lying to themselves and being intellectually dishonest? Spare me.

***

Photo credit: [public domain / Creazilla]

***

Seidensticker Folly #62: Bible & Personhood of Fetuses

November 10, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Atheist and anti-theist Bob Seidensticker, who was “raised Presbyterian”, runs the influential Cross Examined blog. He asked me there, on 8-11-18: “I’ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I’ve ignored on one or two of those posts?” He added in June 2017 in a combox: “If I’ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I’ve mischaracterized them.” Delighted to oblige his wishes . . .

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

The following is a critique of Bob the Bible-Basher’s article, “Abortion: Does the Bible Say When Life Begins?” (11-1-20).

Does the Bible say that life begins at first breath? If so, that strengthens the pro-choice argument. . . .

[A]ctor and political commentator John Fugelsang, . . . attacked the popular Christian claim that life begins at conception with this tweet:

Well don’t tell God [that life begins at conception], bc the Bible says Life begins at First Breath. . . .

Fugelsang is probably referring to this verse from the Garden of Eden story: “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). . . .

Breath is central to the Genesis idea of life. In the verse above, “the man became a living being,” is literally translated as, “the man became a breathing creature.” Breath is roughly synonymous with life.

Not only does the Bible say that the “breath of life” is what living things have, it’s what they don’t have when they die. This is what the dying animals during the Flood lost: “Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died” (Gen. 7:22). Another example is from the Canaanite genocide: “But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive” (Deuteronomy 20:16). One commentary says, “Breath is understood to be essential to life; and that when the breathing stops, life ends.” . . .

“You formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13). . . .

First, “knitted” (Strong’s #05526) is more literally “wove,” as would be done with a protective screen or fence woven from branches, and by implication it can mean to fence in, cover, or protect. Yes, it’s important for a fetus to be in a protective womb when it is developing, but this simply acknowledges the gestation process. During that process, you aren’t you, but (with luck) you will be by the end.

The fallacy here is thinking that breath is all there is to a living being — the totality of its “living principle” — , or that the Bible supposedly states that. The Bible simply notes the obvious fact that a living person breathes and that a dead person ceases to breathe. But does this logically deny or preclude other factors such as brain waves and a heartbeat? No.

Breath (logically) cannot be the only criterion of what constitutes a living person, by the simple fact that there are instances of non-dead people not being able to breathe:

1) a person who has the breath temporarily knocked out of him.

2) a person who temporarily can’t breathe due to an obstruction in their throat.

3) a person who needs a ventilator in order to breathe (or in the old days, a lung machine).

4) a person in the process of drowning, who is not breathing; or afterwards on the shore when they are still not breathing, but are revived.

None of these people cease to become persons during these times when they can’t breath. Therefore, personhood cannot be determined solely by breathing. The Bible is very phenomenological in its language. It observes that living people breathe: as a general proposition, which is true, as far as it goes. But this doesn’t preclude other attributes of a living person.

If I say, for example, “all baseball pitchers are able to throw a baseball,” I state a true and universal statement regarding baseball pitchers. But I have not exhausted all that they have to do to pitch with any success. They also have to 1) control the ball (i.e., throw strikes, and try to throw down and away, inside and outside, etc.), 2) be able to throw fast, 3) be able to throw a curve ball, and 4) be able to combine different pitches, to fool batters.

Likewise, if I say, “all persons who are alive breathe” I haven’t exhausted all that is true about them; most notably, that they must also have brain waves and a heartbeat.

Bob wants to play games with Psalm 139:13, but neglects to see the obvious presupposition that the Bible is obviously equating the preborn person with the person who continues to grow before birth and is eventually born, since the writer, King David, refers to “my inward parts” and “you knitted me” and “my mother’s womb.”

It’s simple logic:

1) I am “me.”

2) If I refer to myself before I was born as “me”, it must refer to the same person.

In other words, if a = b and b = c, then a = c. It’s one of the most basic rules of logic (called the transitive law):

1) Preborn baby [A] = “me” [B] (as referred to by a person [C] after they are born, referring to himself as a preborn baby).

2) The same person [C] may refer to himself after he or she is born as “me” [B]

3) Both A and C = “me”; therefore, they are equal to each other. It’s the same person before or after birth.

Bob opines: “you aren’t you, but (with luck) you will be by the end.” On what basis can he say this? It has to reduce to a purely arbitrary line, as to when he begins to exist. Pro-lifers make the obvious scientific (genetic) observation that a person’s entire collection of DNA is present at the moment of conception. After that, only time and nutrition are needed for that fetus — from the beginning — to grow into a human adult. It’s the same person all the way through. There is no point other than conception that can objectively and without sheer arbitrariness be called the point at which Person X began.

But that is Bob providing his own philosophy. The argument in his paper, however, ultimately has to do not with his own views, but about what the Bible says about the beginning of human life and human personhood. It’s easy to show that the Bible regards the preborn person as a person, indistinguishable in essence from a born person. I already showed how Psalm 139:13 presupposes this, by very basic logic. But there are more passages along these lines:

Genesis 25:21-22 (RSV) And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived. [22] The children struggled together within her; . . .

“Children” in 25:22 is the Hebrew word ben (Strong’s word #1121). This is referring to the twins, Jacob and Esau. The same word is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament to refer to children who are born. Therefore, the Bible regards preborn and born children as the same in essence (“children”). If a = b and c = b, then a = c.

Numbers 5:28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she shall be free and shall conceive children.

“Children” here is the Hebrew word zera (Strong’s #2233). It has the meaning of “descendants” in Genesis 9:9; 12:7; 13:15-16; 15:5, 13, 18; 16:10; 17:7-9 (see all 230 instances). Obviously, then, there is no distinction made between preborn and born persons. The Bible doesn’t play the game that so-called “pro-choicers” do of calling preborn persons a different name, to try to pretend that they aren’t persons (often fetus: which is simply Latin for “little one”). “Descendants” is the translation of zera used in the RSV in Numbers 9:10; 13:22, 28; 14:24; 16:40; 25:13.

Judges 16:17 And he told her all his mind, and said to her, “A razor has never come upon my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. . . .”

Ruth 1:11 Have I yet sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?

Job 3:3 . . . “A man-child is conceived.”

Job 31:18 (for from his youth I reared him as a father, and from his mother’s womb I guided him);

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Isaiah 49:1, 5 . . . The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name. . . . And now the LORD says, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, . . . (cf. 44:2,24)

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.

Tobit 4:4 Remember, my son, that she faced many dangers for you while you were yet unborn. . . .

Wisdom 7:1 I also am mortal, like all men, a descendant of the first-formed child of earth; and in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh,

Sirach 49:7 . . . he had been consecrated in the womb as prophet, . . .

2 Maccabees 7:27 . . . I carried you nine months in my womb, . . .

Luke 1:15 . . . he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Luke 1:36 And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; . . .

Luke 2:21 And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Romans 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,

Galatians 1:15 . . . he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace,

The same outlook is present in the above passages.

I rest my case. As usual, Bob doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about, when it comes to the Bible. He ought to leave it to the experts, and shut up about it, for his own good.

***

Photo credit: Esau and Jacob, by Matthias Stom (fl. 1615-1649) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Seidensticker Folly #61: Catholic Censorship: Justified? Unique?

November 6, 2020 By Dave Armstrong

Guest Post by Paul Hoffer

Bible-Basher Bob’s words will be in blue. To find these posts, follow this link: “Seidensticker Folly #” or see all of them linked under his own section on my Atheism page.

*****

The following is a critique of a portion of Bob’s article, “Yeah, but Christianity Built Hospitals!” (4-22-20; update of 2-6-16). It was written by my friend Paul Hoffer.

Christianity had an uneasy relationship with any ideas that didn’t directly support the Church. The 1559 Index Librorum Prohibitorum listed books by 550 authors that were prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church, though prior lists had prohibited books almost since the beginning of Christianity. The list is a Who’s Who of Western thought and included works by Sartre, Voltaire, Hugo, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Hobbes, Spinoza, Kant, Hume, Descartes, Bacon, Milton, Locke, and Pascal. The List was abolished only in 1966.

Sadly, Mr. Seidensticker does not share with his readers why the works were banned. One has to wonder if he has ever bothered to research why the books were put on the Index. Here is what I could find out:

Jean-Paul Sartre was an atheist and an existentialist who believed that hell was other people and that all life was obscene. That is a pretty good reason to argue that his works were injurious to morality. I have read several of his works in a Catholic high school and in college, including No Exit and The Flies: that epitomized his philosophy.

By the way, there is such a thing as Christian Existentialism that states the universe is not irrational, but merely paradoxical; said paradox is resolved in the union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ. This is considered acceptable in terms of the Catholic faith.

Francois-Marie Arouet, aka Voltaire, was a French historian and an ardent foe of the Catholic Church. His view that the Church needed to be destroyed was the foundation of both Freemasonry and the French Revolution. Several of his works were banned because they were actually obscene. For example, Candide promoted bestiality and lascivious acts. Not only did the Church ban it, but the US government also did too under its pornography laws in the early 20th century.

Two of Victor Hugo’s works were banned: Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They were banned because they were deemed critical of the Church and promoted Republicanism, which was associated with Voltaire’s ideas. They were removed after that view became politically acceptable. Some of Alexandre Dumas’ works, in contrast, were banned because they portrayed priests doing extremely immoral things.

In the case of Copernicus, the Church actually did not ban his book on heliocentric theory until 1616 when Protestants used the Church’s acceptance of it to attack it as being anti-Scriptural. Unfortunately, the Church put it on the list for 200 years to deprive the Protestants of a weapon against the Church.

Kepler, a Lutheran, had his books banned, for reasons similar to Copernicus in the 1600s. They were not banned because he believed in heliocentrism, which the Church actually accepted.

Galileo’s works were originally banned, but between 1716-1835, the ban was lifted. They were not banned because they taught heliocentrism as a theory. They were banned because he claimed heliocentrism was an infallible fact (he was wrong, of course, as the sun is not the center of the universe). [Dave: see more about Galileo’s faulty views of scientific method and supposed “certainty”]

Thomas Hobbes’ works were not banned by the Catholic Church because of any scientific reason. He insisted that the state had the right to subjugate religion and that the state could use religion to control people. He was opposed to the Church’s independence from the state. His books were also burned by the English government and his fellow philosophers.

Spinoza, an excommunicated Jew, had his books banned because he claimed that the Law was fake, the human soul dies with the body, and that God only exists as a philosophical concept.

Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was banned because it denied the Holy Trinity and argued that Jesus was not God, but a human being of moral perfection. Teaching heresy is a pretty good reason to ban the faithful from reading a book.

David Hume’s works were banned because he also denied the Trinity and argued that one can not know anything of God by studying creation (which is contrary to the doctrine of the Church). [Dave: actually I discovered that Hume — often falsely thought to be an atheist, whereas he was a deist — actually accepted a version of the teleological argument, or argument from design]

Rene Descartes’ works were banned because they were thought to smack of deism: the view that God created the universe as a mechanism, and that we are merely extensions of that mechanism (to be fair, he was a faithful Catholic).

Francis Bacon was an anti-Catholic Anglican who encouraged laws that persecuted the Catholic adherents in England. He also claimed in the banned writing that we cannot use our reason to know anything about God (which was contrary to the doctrine of the Church).

John Milton’s Paradise Lost was banned by the Church for the simple reason that it made Satan the hero of the story and portrayed God as the bad guy who rigged things so make sure Satan could never win. He was also a rabid anti-Catholic and used the book as a vehicle to claim that many of the Church’s teachings actually were Satan’s. Ironically the first time I read the whole book was taking Masterclasses at the Catholic Seminary and School of Theology.

John Locke’s works were not banned because of his political philosophy or because he was anti-Catholic (they should be tolerated but should not have equal rights as other citizens), but because the banned works denied the Trinity, and that Christ was fully divine and fully human (Locke expressed Arian-like views), as well as the validity of Scripture as God’s revelation (he believed that God revealed Himself to prophets but when they wrote down what God revealed to them was merely derived and could be in error).

Blaise Pascal’s works were banned because they were seen as supporting Jansenism, a Catholic heresy [Dave: many — if not most — historians now believe that Pascal did not actually accept that heresy]. They were not banned because of any scientific or philosophical reasons.

To say that the Church was anti-intellectual is false. There are lots of reasons to ban books. Schools and universities do it all the time. Conservative ideas are banned as a matter of course on most college campuses. Are schools like Harvard and Yale anti-intellectual? Or does Mr. Seidensticker only criticize the Church for protecting the faithful from ideas that could lead them astray? Those works were not banned because they didn’t directly support the Church. They were banned because it was perceived they had something in them that denied Church teaching. It is laughable for someone to complain about censoring people’s works when they do not even know why they were censored in the first place.

***

Photo credit: Voltaire (1694-1778) – French writer, historian, and philosopher, painting (c. 1725) by Nicolas de Largillière (1656-1746) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***