A new discussion from Jim Wilson: John 3:16 deconstructed:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

This statement may well be the most famous verse in the Bible. It has been called the “Bible in a nutshell” and the essence of Christianity summed-up in one sentence. A closer examination of this verse illustrates much of what is wrong with Christianity. To demonstrate this, I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the Christian God exists (despite all evidence to the contrary) and look at the verse piece by piece:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave…”

We know the verse is referring to Jesus but the Christian God at best only temporarily gave up his son. As is stated in the Apostle’s Creed, following his resurrection, Jesus “ascended into heaven and is (now) seated at the right hand of the Father.” In other words, God was without his son for only a brief time but knew he would get him back shortly afterwards. This can hardly be called a sacrifice on God’s part. What kind of person offers a gift but then takes it back shortly afterwards? How is it an expression of love if you take back the thing you are supposedly giving? Perhaps, a better way of putting this would be “For God so loved the world, that temporarily lent his only begotten son.”

At the same time, this is not completely accurate. God is supposedly infinite and everywhere and in control of all things so Jesus would have technically never been out of God’s possession at any point. This is not to mention that many Christians actually consider Jesus and God to be the same being. Rather than say God actually gave up a son, it would be more accurate to say he came down to earth in order to subject himself to torment. Of course, for infinite being, that views things on a scope above and beyond human understanding, the short-lived torment associated with crucifixion would be completely inconsequential. This also brings up another problem. Jesus is supposed to represent a sacrifice to God for the sins of others which puts God in the awkward position of giver and receiver. One can hardly be said to have given anything if he or she is doing both the giving and receiving.

“his only begotten Son”

Christians like to present God as a parent who lost a child on our behalf. They forget the fact that this “son” was apparently begotten specifically for purpose of serving as a human sacrifice which certainly cheapens the value of the gesture. This is not to mention that this God would certainly have had the ability to make an infinite number of sons or daughters if he wanted also very much cheapening supposed sacrifice. It also sounds like much less of a loss when we take into account that Jesus is really supposed to be God himself in a different form. This would suggest that rather actually suffer any loss God just went through a very bloody shape shift routine.

“that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life ”

Why is the supposed sacrifice even necessary? If the Christian God loved the world so much, could he not have granted everlasting life to people without fake sacrifices or brutal torture scenes? Upon closer examination Christians are actually asking us to believe that their god has sacrificed HIMSELF to HIMSELF in order to change HIS rules to save other people from HIS own wrath. This is complete absurdity.

Why should God’s judgment be so contingent upon beliefs anyway? After all, no one alive today was around during the time Jesus supposedly walked the Earth and the claims made are so unbelievable and so unsupported by evidence that there is no logical reason to believe them. It is silly to think that one’s beliefs about incidents that took place over 2000 years ago should be the basis for which people are judged. There are many much better measures of one’s character.

It is ridiculous that something like the ability to live forever would be distributed based on what people believe about a long past historic event. Of course this also overlooks the fact that people who do not believe this still get to live forever. The only difference is that the nonbelievers just get to be tortured forever in their eternal lives.

Perhaps then, John’s gospel should have put it:

“For God so loved the world, that he temporarily lent his only begotten son, which he made specifically for this purpose (and could easily made more of), so that all who are willing to believe this on the thinnest of evidence, will not be subject to the same eternal torture that God has in store for everyone else.

This is actually a much closer approximation of what Christians actually believe. Note once again that in this exercise I only assumed that the Christian God exists for the sake of argument. I actually do not believe any God exist. Furthermore I find it amazing that more people do not recognize the claims of Christianity for the moral and logical absurdity that they are.

Today, Cal Benjamin  joins the happy crew of contributors to this blog. His piece–No Hell below Us–is on the mythology of the Christian God and the possible existence of hell:

In any public statement on the subject of religion, this author insists on restating the need for good behavior. We must all try to lead the best lives we can! But that is a life-long undertaking; you can’t solve the problem merely by adopting whatever religion happens to be in the neighborhood—and then never allowing yourself to doubt it again. Mankind must be allowed to ask questions—must think instead of judging according to habit or prejudice.

The atheist position is defined too often as disbelief in “God,” as if there was only one deity to choose from. This is an error: atheists don’t believe in any gods, including the multiple versions of God that Christians have speculated on over the centuries. Atheists are even-handed in their rejection of the world’s various mythological narratives. Yet in the United States, with so many cultural roots leading back to Europe (once considered “Christendom”), it seems natural to reduce all such debates to a narrow focus on opposition to Christianity alone. And for the same reason, within the United States, atheists can demonstrate the logic of their position most clearly by giving examples of the failures of the Judeo-Christian mythos.

And the myth that’s easiest of all to refute is that of Hell.

Quite simply, it’s absurd to claim that a loving and merciful god could create everlasting torment as a punishment for us, and then not give us clear instructions on how to avoid it! But that’s precisely what obtains within the Christian tradition

The Christian apologist will object to this statement on the grounds that the Bible does provide those instructions. And yet the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly, and Christian opinion varies along with those contradictions. The fact is, in the 2000 years since Christ’s death, there has never been a time when all the world’s Christians agreed on which sacred texts were the relevant ones, which translations of those texts were the correct ones, and which interpretations represented God’s will. And in this long history of disputes (and wars and massacres and crusades), both sides always claimed to be the ones that were obeying the Bible. Who should get the blame for this sort of misunderstanding?

The true believer describes the Bible as the only essential word of God, and as divinely revealed to us. The task of religious instruction is said to be one that God assigned to Himself; it is said to be a necessary part of defining the relationship between God and Man. And all the aspects of this relationship—the formation of the world, the laws given unto us and our built-in tendency to break them—are said to be the design of this all-knowing, omnipotent God.

Given such circumstances—given complete control of all the variables—how could such a god have failed to communicate his intentions clearly? It can’t be simply because his mind is too vast to be comprehended by us, or because he’s allowed to work in “mysterious ways.” The essential task of religious instruction cannot be vague or ambiguous. It must be geared to our intelligence—not to His complexity. It must be accomplished in a manner that all humans can understand, or communication fails.

As a comparison, consider the utterly mundane laws for operating an automobile. On the highway, you might see all sorts of misbehavior, but the rules are specific. It doesn’t matter how many people drive as if the Speed Limit signs could be exceeded by five or six miles an hour. And it doesn’t matter how many people get away with it; you can still get a ticket for going just one mile-per-hour over the posted speed. All those rules you had to learn when you got your first driver’s license are equally specific: there are no gray areas, no excuses, and no allowances for individual interpretation. Those rules have been communicated to us in clear terms.

And yet God’s instructions have been open to reinterpretation since the very start—and not just by lay people or quirky visionaries. The Bible has been hotly and continuously debated among the religious hierarchy—among the scholars, scribes and saints. It is the text itself that allows for these multiple interpretations. It is God’s failure to communicate.

This leaves us with a Bible—an instruction manual, so to speak—that forces us to guess what God had in mind.

It bears repeating that this matter of inadequate instructions is not merely an “opinion” on the part of this author. The failure to communicate and the potential for multiple and varied interpretations of the Bible are facts found throughout the entire history of Christianity. It is the reason Constantinople suffered from gang warfare between religious sects. It is the reason Eastern and Western churches have been separate and irreconcilable for more than twelve centuries. It is the reason the highly moral Catharist movement believed that the Bible described two coexisting gods. It is the reason Luther, Calvin, Zwigli, and Huss called for religious reform (precipitating 100 years of war). It is the reason that you have dozens of versions of Christianity to choose from today . . . each of them claiming to be the one and only truth.

So, if there is a God according to the Judeo-Christian tradition, his instructions are far from clear and sufficient. And we are left with the aforementioned absurdity: He is said to have created Hell as potential punishment, but He hasn’t told us exactly what we must do in order to avoid going there.

That leaves us with only three possible explanations:

Either God is totally unfair and sends us to Hell if we happen to guess wrong.

Or God is fair and there is no Hell.

Or . . . both God and Hell are mythological.

Jim Wilson would like to query the sexually suppressed religious leaders:

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
-H.L. Mencken

This goes out to our sexually-hung up religious readers.  I’m talking about the sex-obsessed purity crowd:  The type of people who want to see a world populated by virgin twenty or thirty somethings.  I’m talking about the type who makes their teenage daughters wear purity rings and attend father/daughter purity balls where they promise to refrain from sex until marriage.  This is the crowd that pushes for abstinence only education and dreads the thought of their kid knowing how to use a condom.

My question for you is this:

If a cure for all STDs with no side-effects was discovered tomorrow and made available to all at zero cost or some new technology made it completely impossible get pregnant, or impregnate someone else without wanting to with no side effects, would you consider it a bad thing?

The answer to this hypothetical question is a resounding no!  Removing the unwanted consequences from sexual encounters would be a positive development.  Any development that maximizes personal freedom and ends negative societal consequences should be celebrated.  It is a wonderful development that birth control has so greatly reduced the risk of unwanted pregnancies and that we are able to test for STDs and cure the majority of them.

I cannot imagine any sane person disagreeing with this but apparently many do and they have a disturbing level of political clout in this country.  One organization with over a billion members worldwide is explicitly anti-birth control.  In all fairness if Catholics were better about practicing what their church preached, there would be a lot more of them.

Those who answer my question with “yes” simply cannot stand the idea of people having the freedom to violate their prohibitions.  They think that living in fear of HIV is a good thing!  They’d rather have disease and unplanned pregnancies as ammunition in the culture war they are losing.  Science will continue to remove the risks from sex and people will continue to reject Victorian sexual repression.

My question, of course, is just a hypothetical exercise.  We live in a world where sexual encounters can produce unintended consequences.  However, with care these can be avoided.  I advocate sexual freedom accompanied by personal responsibility.  People should be free to enjoy sex with other consenting adults but must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  Treat others ethically and honestly and demand the same.

[Editor’s note: Thank you Jim Wilson. I’d like to rant a bit now. Purity Ring balls are creepy and ineffective! The following come from HERE:

Purity Balls are a very elegant and elaborate purity ceremony. It is elaborate in that it is symbolic of a wedding. A purity ball is thrown for daughters and their fathers. The daughters come dressed in beautiful gowns and the fathers come dressed in tuxedos. It is an evening full of dancing, cake, prayer and most important, the presenting of purity rings or other purity items, such as a necklace or bracelet, by the fathers to their daughters. Fathers make a vow and promise to protect their daughters and guard their virginity. As the fathers are making these vows and promises, they present a purity ring (or other item) to their daughters. These daughters are then under their fathers guard and protection until they are married and replace their purity ring with a wedding ring. The daughters promise their fathers that they will stay pure.

 Did you know that Benjamin Franklin’s lightning rod was considered by many to be unholy because it prevented God from expressing His displeasure on people and buildings as he saw fit? In one case a preacher blamed Franklin’s lightning rod of creating the Massachusetts earthquake of 1755. Get a grip! Science has made life better for human kind. Any advance that reduces pain and suffering should be celebrated, not restricted. Religious people who prevent their daughters from getting vaccinated against a virus that causes cervical cancer are not to be respected as parents.]

Once again, Jim Wilson concedes the existence of God, paradise , and hell in order to argue: “Do you think the things being taught by Christians are fair and just?”

Imagine you are the average American Christian, or even an above average American Christian! You believe that because of your beliefs you will be eternally rewarded, while, a typical American Atheist will be punished for ever in a place far worse than any dictatorship on earth ever created. I have to ask: why?

How is it, the two of us despite our numerous similarities are deserving of such different fates. We wear similar clothing, probably made y the same manufacturers, in the same foreign factories. We most likely shop at some of the same grocery stores and eat at the same restaurants. We may listen to the same radio stations and even have some of the same favorite musicians and sports teams. We send our kids to the same schools, shoot hoops in the same local parks and golf at the same golf courses. We could very well work for the same company or have similar jobs with different companies both controlled by the same interlocking boards of directors. We both likely give to some of the same charities for the same reasons and probably do not have overly differing visions of the world we want to live in. Both of us do all we can to avoid harming others and when we do we feel remorse and try to correct whatever it is we have done. Neither of us would go about killing, looting, raping, or plundering even if we could get away with it.

We really are very much alike. Perhaps we listen to different music or vote for different politicians or one of us enjoys alcohol and the other rejects it. These same differences are found among Christians and among Atheists. In many areas, there is just as much diversity within these groups as there is between them. So I ask, what is it about my group that is so horrible that makes it deserving of eternal torture?

Christians will answer by telling me that God has every right and would be exercising perfect justice by sending me to an eternity in hell for my beliefs. This is apparently because beliefs lead to actions. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that beliefs inform actions. That is why I write for this blog but I would argue that my Humanist beliefs have made be a better person less deserving of torture. After all, my lack of belief in a cosmic justice fills me with the desire to ensure justice is done here on Earth. My lack of belief in a heaven or hell ensures that my random acts of kindness are done without expectations of reward or punishment. They say that your moral character is most clearly demonstrated by what you do when no one is looking and for me no one is ever looking. Yet, I still do all I can to be kind and helpful to others, even without the expectation that a celestial being is sitting there judging me from above.

I agree with Physicist, Steven Weinberg, who said “With or without it (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” I would change his sentiment in two ways.  First, I acknowledge that there are people who have been motivated to do wonderful things by their religion. There have been countless Christians, Jews, Muslim, Buddhists, and other people of faith whose beliefs have inspired them to show amazing acts of heroism, kindness, and humanity. At other times tough, some of these same beliefs have motivated people into engaging in horrendous acts of cruelty. Take the Spanish Inquisition or the September 11^th hijackings as just a couple examples.

I’d also change Weinberg’s quote to saying it takes religion, or something like religion, to make good people do atrocious things. After all, Maoism and Stalinism were technically atheistic movements but they had all the dogmatism of religions and to a great extent simply replaced the notion of a heavenly dictator with an earthly one. Dictatorships tend to engage in leader worship and place their leader a god-like status. This is not more compatible with the Secular Humanism I advocate, than Christianity.

I am not a murder, plunderer or dictator, nor do I have any desire to be. I live like an ordinary American, except for my lack of belief in any god. I cannot for the life of me imagine why so many people think that makes me deserving of eternal torment while other ordinary Americans apparently will be sent to a paradise. It seems rather petty of the Christian God to judge us solely on that one belief.

The more you know, the less you have to remember. When I took high school physics, I had to remember a page full of equations of motion. After I learned the Calculus, I found that I no longer had to keep the equations memorized. I could just remember the basic one and derive everything from that basic principle. This idea seems to be demonstrated over and over again in the game of Tetris. In the game, a completed row allows more room in the well. It’s a fun game and addicting. There is a related idea, though, if there is a hole in your knowledge, you’re not allowed to fill it with just anything. Gather the knowledge if you can but in any case leave it as a hole until the right knowledge is available. If you don’t know how life appeared on the planet, leave it as an unknown. It’s perfectly OK to have unknowns. Don’t stuff in an irrational, imaginary, creator from a Bronze Age mythology and then stop looking for the real answer. It doesn’t have to be about religion either. We don’t know the exact cause for autism. Unscientific “mommy sense” can’t give you the answer at least not the final answer. In the case of autism, the scientists and statisticians went back to the available data. The scientist that published the one study that indicated a connection between autism and vaccinations has been discredited for shoddy and perhaps fraudulent claims. Yet, the belief that vaccines cause autism persists despite the lack of supporting evidence and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It’s better to live with the unknown—live with the holes—truth matters.

In a Skeptics of Tucson meeting a few months back the subject was “What is your gris gris?” The idea came from Penn Jillette. He’s a very outspoken Atheist and Skeptic. In fact, being the louder, bigger part of the Penn & Teller duo some say he’s outspoken on just about everything he believes in. A “gris gris” according to Penn is that ONE thing you might hold back from your Skepticism. It’s like the uber-skeptic that carries the “lucky” coin or has some other irrational belief. So what? It’s an interesting concept and probably true for most people and no big deal. But, what about the irrational belief that comes from belonging to a given group?

A few days back, I suggested that there should be a discussion about limiting the magazine capacity of firearms. It was on the heels of the Aurora tragedy where a 100 round magazine was used. There were some commonalities with our own Tucson shooting tragedy that happened in January 2011 in that there was a high capacity magazine involved. Most of the feedback came from a couple of libertarian leaning and “gun nut” readers that ANY discussion of ANY type of gun control was definitely off the table as they accused me of being a knee jerk reactionary. Seems to me, that their reaction was to hold their hands over their ears and say “la, la, la.”

Also a few days back in another blog entry, I pointed out an inconsistency in an impassioned speech delivered by Jamy Ian Swiss at the annual The Amazing Meeting held in Las Vegas. Judging from the response to the speech, the crowd was with Jamy on not being OK with excluding Christians from the ranks and also agreed that those that have a problem with vaccinations are to be universally shunned. It seemed a bit inconsistent to me but the New York magician received a standing ovation from the crowd.

On yet another blog post, I pointed out that there is a large segment of the population that feels justified in blaming Evolution and Atheists for every evil thing that ever happens. We’ve been blamed for hurricanes, shooting sprees, earthquakes, droughts, and rampant fires, to name a few.

In these cases, the argument is over before it started:

• If the government is involved, then it’s bad.
• If someone disagrees with the groups belief, it’s OK to say “Screw Him” and
• if something bad happens , blame the a group you don’t agree with.

Ideally, the FreeThinker can put aside the stock beliefs and evaluate the world free of the preconceived notions. The best we can hope for is that we at least understand ourselves and our own prejudices. I realize that it is more difficult to be critical of those that we generally agree with.

It’s easy to read a book that you agree with. Have you ever read a book from the “other team?” Oh sure, some of us read the Bible but how about reading a book on Applied Kinesiology such as Force vs. Power by Dr. David R. Hawkins? I read this book because someone gave it to me and I thought it might be a great subject for a Skeptics of Tucson meeting. I read it. It was hard to get through it but I did and we had a good meeting on the subject. I tried to do a double blind test as described in the book and posted a video of the test. It wasn’t surprising that in a room full of Skeptics that I couldn’t get the test to work. I couldn’t even get a baseline. Fortunately a believer posted his own blind test and I was able to use it at the meeting. I have to thank the poster for being so honest about something that he really wanted to believe in. I reviewed the book on Amazon. I gave it a fair review but the one comment received said that I didn’t have an open mind and that’s why Applied Kinesiology doesn’t work for me. What tripe! Something that is true should be able to withstand the doubter’s skepticism and besides I DID take the time to read the book, the reviewed DIDN’T take the time to consider the points I made in the review. It is another case of the argument being over before it starts. The reviewer believes what Dr. Hawkins is selling, so there can be no discussion to the contrary.

No matter where you are currently, there can always be discussion or there can be no progress. Reevaluation of current positions held is not the end of the world. Honest, fair communication is always welcomed. Ever start to make a point and have the person you’re talking to start shaking his head before the point has been presented? I don’t care for it myself. To me it’s as if the person has clapped his hands over his ears and starts saying, “la, la, la.” When someone holds an unalterable belief, rational or irrational, strictly because of group identity it’s the same thing. There are many ideas that are held by Penn Jillette that I don’t agree with but when a caller with a persuasive argument changed his mind on his radio program, my respect for the man increased significantly.

Keeping an open mind is the same thing as being willing to change one’s mind and Skepticism isn’t about what we believe but how we get to believe.

In this part of Dr Stephen Uhl’s story, he leaves his comfortable, secure life. This is a tough time but he gets help from an unexpected source. While Dr. Uhl’s transition was smoother than expected, he is fully aware of what others face and now supports the Clergy Project. The Clergy Project has over 300 current members and there is no way of knowing how many other religious leaders are wrestling with intellectual, ethical, philosophical and theological issues but are stuck with the only job that they know. The Clergy members support each other in coping with cognitive dissonance and understand the feelings of being stuck and fearing the future. Religious leaders often need help looking for new careers and telling their families. By communicating with others in similar circumstances there are advantages such as sharing useful resources and getting support when it becomes necessary to leave the ministry.

 You can learn more about Dr. Uhl’s book HERE or you can find the audio version for free on iTunes or HERE.

In June 1967, I left my monastic family and friends at Marmion. Many of the friends are still unforgettable. After all, I had lived closely with most of this group of men for 17 years. The attitude of Abbot Gerald, an intelligent gentleman to the end, was rather touching. Shortly after I had signed his proffered form promising “not to sue” for whatever cause, he surprised me. Without any hint or suggestion from me, he opened his office safe and handed me an impressive amount of cash to help me get started in the real world. Frankly, I have always felt that this bright Ph.D. summa cum laude would have jumped at the chance to follow me to independence and freedom if he had been 10 years younger and if he had not enjoyed so much organizational power and comfort. (I think the same is true of many Catholic bishops in powerful and cushy positions.)

Thanks to helpful friends, I really was not nearly as needy as Abbot Gerald had feared. Besides, as an experienced teacher with more than a master’s degree, I had already signed an attractive contract with an outstanding suburban school district. I never went hungry.

I did have some lonely times. In fact, I visited Marmion to see old friends several times. However, I sensed an underlying discomfort in some of the monks and clear disapproval in others, so I soon stopped those trips from Des Plaines to Aurora, Illinois. Besides, my work and increasing social interests gradually filled my life; this made the final steps of my divorce from Marmion less painful than the initial ones.

Dr Stephen Uhl, a former Catholic priest, is now an Atheist and supporter of FreeThought Arizona and other secular organizations. In his book, Out of God’s Closet he describes his experiences. This is the part of his tale where things start to unravel. This is the time when he started questioning the proofs that shored up his apparent knowledge that God existed. He realizes that he longer knows or feels he can know, based on St. Thomas’s time honored “proofs.”

I enjoyed most of the next ten years teaching religion, mathematics, and counseling at Marmion Military Academy. During the week, I worked with the high school youngsters. On weekends I engaged in pastoral work in a variety of northern Illinois parishes. I believed that I was doing the will of God and that helping others do the same would eventually win heaven for me as well as for those I thought I was helping. I gave no reason to anyone to doubt the sincerity of my faith. But the outcome of this varied decade of learning and growth surprised me and disappointed many friends and family who had more conventional expectations of me.

At about 34 years of age, a snag developed. One morning during private meditation in the abbey chapel, I chose to analyze the intellectual proofs of God’s existence. I had done this many times before without meaningful incident. On this fateful morning in 1964, I had an insight that struck me perhaps as forcefully as the reported “lightning bolt” that struck Paul of Tarsus from his high horse. It wasn’t really that exaggerated, of course, but it was a deeper insight into this matter than I had ever admitted before.

I saw clearly how Saint Thomas’ strongest proof fell short of proving God’s existence; it was based on an unwarranted assumption. (I will deal much more fully with the inadequacy of Saint Thomas’ causality proof in the next chapter.) Note that the Catholic Church taught dogmatically that pure reason, clear thinking, unaided by faith, could logically prove God’s existence. That fateful insight into Saint Thomas’ unwarranted assumption laid the foundation for personal upheaval while loosening the underpinnings of my faith in the Church and in the very existence of God.

Over the next two years, I would gradually develop from a strong believer who performed in a manner consistent with my beliefs into an agnostic who was no longer sure of the faith system I had learned so early and so thoroughly. Those two years included consultations with a wide variety of reputedly wise persons as well as tumultuous private meditations and internal arguments. These discussions and arguments convinced me that I no longer believed as a credulous child.

Outside of matters of faith, I had always taken pride in being logically and intellectually directed rather than emotionally driven. I had drunk my faith with my mother’s milk. Now I faced a challenge I had never envisioned: how could I be true to my intellectual self while doubting mother’s faith and the church I was so marked to serve? I continued to preach purely moral sermons. It was still comfortable for me to teach how to “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” I simply avoided sermons on dogmatic matters of faith.

But horrible hypocrisy besieged me when I acted as though I believed what I said at mass as I pronounced those formerly awesome words of consecration: “This is my body…; this is my blood…” Though the long hypnotic spell of faith had been broken for me, I still needed to play the hypocrite for several months in early 1967, so I could end the academic year’s duties responsibly and without public scandal. Once I had admitted to becoming a sincere agnostic, I had to divorce myself from the monastery, a wealth of good friends, the Church, and religion. This divorce process, like most divorces, was not as simple and painless as it might have been.

It may be possible to discuss the Aurora tragedy without getting into the mine infested trench lines of current politics. There are facts and observations that rise above the politics and can form a common basis of discussion. At least, that’s my hope. Let’s dedicate this blog entry to that effort. The idea came from a column in the Silicon Valley Mercury News: Aurora Theater shooting: Gun sales up in Colorado since tragedy. The article states that it is not unusual for gun sales to climb after a shooting tragedy and cites the reaction us Arizonans had after Gabby Giffords was shot here in Tucson. Let’s stay rational about this situation and find some agreements before running for the barricades.

I think we can all agree that buying a gun after such a tragedy isn’t an insane thing to do and it probably won’t have a negative effect on gun violence. Assume the common reaction after such an incident is to arm oneself. If I were to use myself as an example, I’d probably buy a pistol unless I was reacting to a rash of home invasions then my choice would be a 12 gauge “home protector.” Personally, I’d buy a pump because just the sound is unique, well known, and so intimidating.

So far, we’re all good with that I hope. In order to simplify the discussion and focus on the most recent situation, let’s concentrate on the tragedies outside the home like the one in Aurora. I’ll include a discussion of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and talk about the differences first, then the similarities, and finally a common observation.

In Aurora the gunman didn’t have a specific target as far as we know, while in Tucson Jared Loughner was specifically after Representative Giffords. The suspect in Aurora, James Holmes, used multiple weapons, wore protective gear, and used gas in the attack. Jared used a single Glock pistol with an extended magazine and no protective gear. His attack was in the open, in broad daylight and direct.

There were similarities too. Both men acted alone and made preparations for the attack. They both used legally obtained weapons not commonly used for protection or hunting. Both shooters used a large capacity magazine: Jared’s Glock had a 30 round magazine while James’ had a 100 round drum magazine on his assault rifle. He also carried a pair of 40 caliber Glock handguns and a shotgun. The attacks were quick and the suspects were captured almost immediately. In both cases, many people died. Jared is responsible for 6 deaths and 13 wounded and in the Aurora tragedy 12 died and there were a total of 70 people injured.

What about the common observation that an additional gun in the theater would have saved lives? Here is a video that tries to make that point. Cute! In our own Tucson tragedy there was at least another gun on the scene and the owner of the gun came very close to using it on the person holding Jared down. He didn’t because he saw that the gun’s slide was back and empty—good eye! Things happen quickly and decisions being made by armed citizens could have deadly irreversible consequences. What is needed then are trained armed men to counter the threat but that hasn’t always worked out either. President Reagan was surrounded by the elite armed Secret Service yet Hinckly was able to shoot him in his rib cage before anyone could react. Lynette (Squeeky) Fromme got a .45 pistol within range of President Ford in 1975 and he was similarly protected. Sara Jane Moore got a shot off at President Ford 17 days later. Armed men at the scene, even well trained armed men, are not always the answer. It’s obvious, almost trivial to assume that the tragedies here in Tucson and in Aurora would not have happened if no one had been armed. Here is a COMIC that sums things up. Advocates of gun control have all but lost. Nothing changed after Gabrielle Giffords was shot and nothing will change as a result of the Aurora tragedy, except perhaps for the increase in gun sales. The issue is radioactive, and emotional to the point where there can be no meaningful discussion. I have to ask, however, could we at least consider limiting the lethality and fire power? We already do have some limits. There are already caliber limits and restrictions on owning automatic weapons. Is the slope so slippery that we can’t at least restore the restrictions on magazine capacity?

Here is a review of the book by Jim Wilson. It should be noted that Jim went to the effort to actually read the book. While it is difficult to read a book from “the other camp,” I think it is more useful to get information about the book from someone who has actually read it. You can get plenty of opinions about it HERE but most haven’t looked between the covers. This review is thorough and fairlylong. I thought about running it in parts but it’s probably best to put it all together and those that are interested in the review can read it all in one sitting.

I don’t have enough faith to believe Geisler and Turek are being honest.

Conversing with theists about their religious beliefs and why I reject them is an enjoyable activity. I’ll gladly read any books anyone suggests and share my opinions of them if they are willing to review material I suggest. Recently, a Christian friend of mine suggested I read his copy of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler, with a forward from David Limbaugh (Rush’s brother).

The book’s title is absurd. It does not take faith to reject a claim, since disbelief should be the default position for any claim until evidence is presented. We are born without a belief in God and lacked a belief until indoctrinated by parents. Even then, doubts remain. The authors choose to throw the word faith around very sloppily. They claim that any world view requires faith. For example pg. 27 states that skeptics have faith that skepticism is true and agnostics have faith that agnosticism is true. Atheism, skepticism and agnosticism are not belief systems. Skepticism is a method of determining what beliefs are true through inquiry. Atheism and agnosticism are single issue positions-one dealing with belief, the other with knowledge. The only thing all Atheists have in common is that they do not believe in a god. The authors however conflate Atheism with what some call “strong Atheism.” Atheism is a lack of belief in a God or gods while “strong Atheism” is a belief that no God exists. Many high profile Atheists including Richard Dawkins choose not to identify with the latter.

Chapters 1-2

The authors paint a bizarre paranoid picture of an America populated with postmodern zealots, liberal radio hosts, and college professors who deny that any reality exists. They seem to believe that most Atheist and Skeptics share this view that there is no such thing as truth. This as a straw man attack there are few, if any, Atheists, Skeptics, or college professors who shared this view. For example on Page 37, the authors state “Contrary to what is being taught in many public schools, truth is not relative but absolute”. To my knowledge, there are no public schools that specifically teach that truth or reality is relative. The authors conflate the idea that we have a very limited ability to know anything to a level of absolute certainty with the idea that no reality exists. These are two very different concepts. Atheists and Skeptics agree that we have a limited ability to know anything with certainty but know that there is a reality. Also, the authors repeatedly propose the idea that an absolute truth exists with the idea that an absolute universal morality exists without justification. Page 40 features a good example of this.

Throughout the early chapters of the book, Geisler and Turek display a great disdain for academia which makes sense as many young people lose the beliefs they were raised with after beginning post secondary education. After all, “distance, discovery, and diversity are devastating to dogma” as Matt Dillahunty the host of the Atheist Experience television program once stated. Much of this is an attempt to relate to the books a target audience that is not well educated. It’s not for Skeptics versed in apologetics but believers looking for comfort in their beliefs. For example on page 46, the authors describe us as living in a time when tolerance “means you’re supposed to accept every belief as true.” I do not know of anyone who holds this view of religious tolerance and the fact that the authors portray this as being within the realms of mainstream intellectual thought in this country is dishonest. The authors are perfectly happy to play to the values and ignorance of ordinary American Christians who are convinced that their country is under siege by Atheist and liberal intellectuals, set on denying their rights and the even the existence of reality.

A good example of appealing to the intended audience of Christians looking for reassurance in their beliefs can be found on page 24, where the authors describe what they present as the best objections to Christianity. They lump them into categories, which include 1) intellectual objections, like the problem of evil (which has never been adequately answered) and 2) objections from scientists, and 3) emotional obstacles like Christian exclusivism, the doctrine of hell and church hypocrisy, and volitional objections like an unwillingness to change lifestyles. They overlook problems like the absurdity of the Christian world view. For example, Christians belief in an all-powerful all-benevolent being that uses blood sacrifices as a means of bestowing forgiveness, and chooses to become one of these blood sacrifices in order to save other people from his own wrath. Then there is the problem that most of us have no way of distinguishing the claims Christianity from the claims of the thousands of other religions that exist today. The authors try to help us make this distinction, but it is my opinion they fail to show us that Christianity is any more supported by evidence than any other religion.

The book centers on a 12 step syllogism and the various chapters each attempt to justify the author’s acceptance of one of the premises, ultimately building up to the conclusion that the Christian world view is correct. The arguments for the first postulate fall short. They attempt to demonstrate their argument with statements like “the truth is, there is no truth are self-contradictory”, however this does not prove that their first premise “The truth about reality is knowable”. It is highly probable that there are many true things about reality that humans do not have the capacity to know and will not for the foreseeable future.

Chapter 3

After dedicating the first two chapters to combating the notions that reality is relative, the authors attempt to prove the existence of a theistic god. Their first piece of evidence is that science claims the universe came from nothing. This is completely inaccurate. The Big Bang Cosmology suggests the universe as it exists today expanded from a more concentrated initial state and continues to expand. I challenge anyone reading this to find one piece of scientific literature that claims the universe exploded from nothing. All literature I have come across on the subject has clearly stated that we do not know what state the universe was in prior to the Big Bang, so it is pure speculation to assume that it was nonexistent and came from nothing.

Then there is the problem that sometimes things appear to come from out of nowhere when they really did not, anyone who has attended a magic show can attest to this. Kyle Williams’ review of the same book points out that even if their claims about cosmology were taken at face value, it would only prove that the time—space universe came from a realm outside of this reality (as string theory suggests). We are not justified in assuming that this realm consists of a god or to assert anything about this realm. Making any assumptions about what caused to this universe to spring forth from another dimension amounts to an argument from ignorance.

Also in this chapter (page 90) the authors present the Kalam Cosmological argument as a refutation of the idea that universe existed infinitely. The argument is structured as such:

1. An indefinite number of days has no end.

2. Today is the end of history (history being a collection all days).

3. Therefore, there are not an infinite number of days before today.

Frighteningly enough this faulty syllogism argument is described as being rationally inescapable, in the book. It is flawed in that today is not the end of history and days undoubtedly continue to come after today. There is no reason why more distinct days cannot be added to an infinite set of days. One possibility is that it would still be an infinite set of days with just another distinct day that was not previously there. Another possibility is that there could be an infinite numbers of days in the past with a finite number of days in the future, or that there are finite days in the past and infinite days in the future. It is also possible that the nature of time is such that the notions of days or time as we know them today may not make sense in a pre-big bang universe.

Chapter 4

In this Chapter the authors to explore the idea that because the universe has so many precisely defined constants that make life possible it must have been the result of an intelligent creator. One objection is that the constants exist to making life as we know it possible. Under different circumstances living things could be quite different. Biology shows that life evolved to suit the environment that it exists in. I have heard arguments like these compared to the water in a puddle believing that the low spot that forms the puddle was created specifically for it (which is why the puddle is shaped perfectly to the contours of the water it contains). One has to consider the possibility that the universe is not tweaked to allow life to exist, but life as we know it is well suited to existing on this remote planet in this remote corner of the universe. Instead of examining this possibility the author uses a straw-man argument by claiming that Atheists typical rebuttal is to use a multiple universe theory. The authors choose to try to debunk this argument rather than examine the possibility that life was formed here through natural processes and is suited to the conditions it evolved in.

Chapter 5

In chapter 5 the authors are dishonest and rely on the ignorance of their intended audience. The authors are intelligent, well educated men and it takes very little time to find refutations of many of this chapter’s claims on the Internet. To believe that the authors are not dishonest, I’d have to assume that they are simply ignorant of basic biology. The authors try to argue against naturalistic abiogenesis in favor of the biblical creation story. They frequently refer to people who accept natural explanations for the origin of life on earth as Darwinists, a term that implies that these ideas are accepted on the authority of Charles Darwin and not in the wealth of discoveries in Genetics, morphology and paleontology that took place after Darwin’s death. Also this confuses the concepts of evolution and abiogenesis, which are actually two different ideas.

On page 115, the authors claim that evolutionists believe that a fully formed amoeba or something like it was spontaneously generated in a little pond somewhere on earth. This is a gross oversimplification. There are many theories of abiogenesis, but none of them claim anything like this. First we know that the earliest life would have to be far more simplistic than something as complex as amoebas and their development from inorganic matter would have to have happened gradually not spontaneously. Only after gaining the ability to self replicate would the proto-life forms begin gaining the complexity associated with living things as we know them today. We also know that organic molecules are able form in a wide variety of environments, including those in space. If self replicating organic molecules are able to form, then there is no reason why they could not gain more complexity and give rise to life as we know it.

On page 95 the authors ask the question of what one should make of a diamond studded Rolex watch found on the beach. Shouldn’t we assume it was created and not the result of natural processes and can this become pared to the complexity of living things? We can accept that the Rolex was created by intelligent beings, because we know how they are made; we can go to Rolex factory and see the watches get assembled. We cannot do this with living things or universes. If living things and the natural world were all created by an intelligent designer, then why would one be inclined to see the watch as being different from its surroundings? The authors would have to view all objects on the beach the same way they view the watch. Page 120 features a photo of Mount Rushmore and with a label pointing out that the faces carved into were put in place by an intelligence. Adjacent to this picture is a photo of the Grand Canyon which they label as being natural. However their view does not make a distinction between natural formations and one created by an intelligence, since they believe all things in the natural universe were in fact created by an intelligence.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6 features the author’s attempt to dismiss the validity of evolution. On page 140 the authors ask, “The question if there is no God, why is there something instead of nothing?” and claim that atheists have no answer for this. This may be the case, but we generally do not claim to have an explanation to this question. Theists however present the unsatisfactory response that a supernatural being decided there should be something instead of nothing. One could just as easily ask “if Theists are correct, why is there God instead of nothing”. Using God does not answer the initial question.

Like most contemporary apologists, they acknowledge that changes occur to create diversity within a single species (which they term micro-evolution) however they reject the notion that one species can be transformed into another genetically different species. However, nowhere do they specify what it is that prevents small changes from accumulating into larger changes, except for the claim that mutations are nearly always harmful. This is false since the majority of genetic mutations are neutral, but beneficial mutations have been observed (as in the case of bacteria developing resistances to chemical, which the authors acknowledge on page 141). Perfieto’s 2007 study on E. coli bacteria in fact found that 1 in 10 functional mutations were actually beneficial. In humans genetic mutations have been identified that make the bones of individuals stronger, prevent heart disease and resistance to certain viruses and bacteria. We now know of a mutation: CCR5-delta 32 that makes individuals resistant to the AIDS virus. Another has been identified that allows some Tibetan people to be especially adept at coping with high altitudes. Mutations are actually quite common. On average each human zygote has around 128 genetic mutations.

In the section on “Genetic limits,” the authors argue that we have never seen a new species created, because there is a limit on the type of genetic change that can be done through natural selection. However, they neglect to tell what the limit is. They also fail to mention that we have in fact observed the formation of new genetically distinct species through natural and artificial selection. For example there species of Cichlids (a diverse family of freshwater fish) that are indigenous to parts of Lake Malawi that did not exists prior to the nineteenth century. There are species of Mimulus plants that exist in only in the tailings of copper mines, which are adapted specifically to tolerate the high sulfur content of the tailings. The London Underground also has a distinct species of Mosquito that exists only there. In addition to this, there are cases of similar species that are partially isolated geographically that have limited ability to interbreed as evolution predicts. There are also ring species, which are similar species that can interbreed with variations in immediate geographic proximity to each other but cannot interbreed with variations further up or down the spectrum.

The author argues that the variations within the beaks of the finches observed by Darwin were seasonal. [editor’s note: Jim let me jump in here with some “earth shattering” information. At the equator where the Galapagos Islands lie and where Darwin’s Finches are found, there are no seasons!] While it may be is true that populations of finches with different beak types fluctuates with weather patterns it, is false that this accounted for the variety of beak types that existed in the first place. In fact Darwin observed 15 distinct species of finch with beaks adapted for specific ecological niches. One again the Geisler and Turek almost certainly would have to done enough research on this topic to know the claim they are making is invalid but they choose not to care.