State of Protest

The New York Times recently had an op-ed about the Vatican and its new concern about how it appoints saints “Trials of the Saints.”¹ Saints, per the Roman Catholic Church, have magical powers to heal, etc. Most times, this healing happens after they are dead.

One would think that determining the actuator of a “miraculous” event, when very dead and at best now only “spirit” and therefore invisible, might be rather difficult. However, the RCC insists that it has very rigorous procedures to determine whether saint-caused miracles are “real.” In the article, Mr. Martin says that the Vatican uses “teams of doctors (not all of them Catholic) who assiduously rule out any other cause for a healing.” The Congregation for the Causes of Saints does not have the document mentioned in the article up at the time of this writing² However, an earlier document, New Laws for the Causes of Saints, states, “34. a) In the case of a cure from some disease, the Bishop or his delegate is to seek help from a physician, who is to propose questions to the witnesses in order to clarify matters according to necessity and circumstances. b) If the person healed is still alive, he is to be examined by experts so that the duration of the healing can be ascertained.³ It does not mention that any of the doctors need to be not Catholic, and I suspect, without corroborating evidence, that those non-Catholic physicians are few and far between. After this review by experts, the following occurs: “14) The Congregation examines cases of alleged miracles in the following way: 1. The Relator assigned to this task is to prepare a Position on alleged miracles. They are discussed in a meeting of experts (in the case of healings, in a meeting of physicians), whose votes and conclusions are set forth in an accurate report. 2. Then the miracles are to be discussed in the special meeting of the theologians and, finally, in that of the Cardinals and Bishops.”⁴ There is nothing that requires the Cardinals and Bishops to accept the findings of the physicians. I have yet to find any definitive information on what standards the bishops and cardinals use. I have also not found out how they determine a particular miracle can really be assigned to a particular candidate. It seems to be only determined by who the miracle-claimant said that they most recently prayed to for healing. Truly, I suppose that’s the only possible way to figure it out, without the use of a PKE meter.

We can see that there is a built in prejudice for the acceptance of saints. We see that Pope Benedict has stated that “The evidence for the causes is collected and studied with supreme care and with a diligent search for the historic truth through testimonies and documentary proof “omnino plenae,” for they have no other aim than the glory of God and the spiritual good of the Church and of all who are in search of the Gospel truth and perfection.”⁵ People with “no other aim” are indeed prejudiced in favor of the RCC. If they were perhaps claimed to have “no other aim” than the truth, perhaps one could more confidently accept what they aver.

I can agree with Mr. Martin in that the RCC must be very careful in how it presents its saints and should endeavor to be very meticulous in its examinations. However, since most “miracles” come from countries with poor health care and record keeping, how can a doctor, or any person really be assured that a miracle occurred? How many recipients of “miracles” have medical records that support their claims of imminent death? Why are there no “miracles” that have the regrowth of an amputated limb, surely not beyond the capabilities of saints who can supposedly cure horrific cancers? Why is the most stringent requirement of the beatification/canonization process the determination of witnesses to be “trustworthy” by members of the Church? If one could actually find any evidence that miracles were “serious scientific business” as Mr. Martin claims, if we could see the reports, etc., I’m sure it would be “more difficult for agnostics and atheists to disbelieve.” However, that has not happened for the last 2000+ years and I doubt it ever will.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/opini … ref=slogin [↩]
2. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr … s/csaints/ [↩]
3. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr … me_en.html [↩]
4. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ … er_en.html [↩]
5. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened … ti_en.html [↩]

I’d like to add a bit of perspective to the commentary I read the other day by Roger Severino, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The article is divided into quote boxes, my comments follow.

Legalizing gay marriage will spark lawsuits against churches ¹

Apr 7, 2008 3:00 AM (1 day ago) by Roger Severino, The Examiner

WASHINGTON - After years of litigation and debate, the California and Connecticut supreme courts are about to decide the question of marriage. If, as some suspect, the courts redefine the institution to include same-sex couples, they will have entered a minefield of unintended consequences — especially with regard to religious liberty.

The experience of legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and of civil unions elsewhere, cannot be ignored. It shows that, even with the best of intentions, legalizing same-sex marriage will seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.

This hyperbole has become all too well known in arguments that appeal to tradition. This was the same argument used in the iconic Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, where in the earlier trial, the trial judge stated:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”²

Apparently allowing races to mix in marriage would “seriously undermine the religious freedom citizens have enjoyed since the founding.”

Severino, continued:

Although the First Amendment protects dissenting houses of worship from being forced to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies against their will, that is not the end of the story — it is barely even the beginning.

Mr. Severino apparently ignores the fact that although there is an optional ceremonial and religious aspect to marriage, with regard to the state, it is a legal issue akin to a contract in the eyes of the state, covered by its laws, and that can be processed fully by a non-religious government entity such as a justice of the peace or someone else authorized to conduct a marriage. In other words, religious institutions are not required to perform marital ceremonies — these religious rituals are optional, based on the desires of the members of the respective churches.

Simply changing the definition of marriage opens the door to a flood of lawsuits against dissenting religious institutions based on state public accommodation and employment laws that prohibit marital status and sexual orientation discrimination.

Is what’s being asked for a simple change in definition of marriage, or is it a change in application of marriage? I think it’s the latter. The same way a black and white couple could live together as if married, prior to Loving v. Virginia, two men or two women could live together as if married. Loving allowed states to recognize the black and white couple as a union under law, afforded the same rights and privileges as other couples. Apply marriage more broadly and reject more tradition, and it would include same-gendered couples. As F.C. Decoste states, “Of course, if this be so — if the only arguments against same-sex marriage are sectarian — then opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage is invidious in a fashion no different from supporting anti-miscegenation laws: each is a fundamental assault on equality, and neither has any rhyme or reason beyond sectarian commitments which would foist one’s own diseased, personal morality on the whole of the polity.”³

Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

Here we embark on an interesting and, I’m sure, controversial issue — should religious institutions even have tax exemptions, or is that a violation of the First Amendment? And why should religious institutions be treated any differently than any other charitable organization that refuses to comply with government rules, and that ends up losing access to government programs? Is the adherence to religious tradition and homophobia important enough to religious institutions that the lesser of two evils is to reject government assistance?

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

And a doctor who refuses to perform a life-saving blood transfusion because it conflicts with his religious beliefs should be praised? If a person hired by a government entity has a personal problem performing an administrative task according to the rules and regulations of the government, then the person should not be an employee of the government.

It did not matter that other justices of the peace were available to do the job because, by Massachusetts law, same-sex unions were now entitled to equal treatment. A religious belief became a firing offense.

No, the belief did not become a firing offense. The manifestation of that belief by refusing to comply with a government mandate while being employed by that government became a firing offense.

It is but a small step for the state to impose this rationale on churches and other houses of worship and end legal recognition of religious marriage ceremonies that do not comply with the state’s expanded definition of marriage.

As has always been the case anyway. If a Church of Satan has a marriage ceremony, the government doesn’t have to recognize it if it doesn’t comply with state law. So, the rationale has always been imposed. Even a church recognized as an entity that can perform legal marriages doesn’t get a free pass if the person actually performing the marriage is not authorized to do so. Why should there be a special exemption for religion for anything violative of the law?

This is not the only example of what is to come. Massachusetts, like many other states, strictly regulates private adoption agencies through licensing. Historically, this has not posed any difficulties for religious institutions, but Massachusetts now demands that all licensed adoption agencies be willing to place children with legally married same-sex couples.

However, Catholic Charities, the largest private social service provider in the state, could not in good conscience place its orphan children into homosexual households. After a bitter struggle, Boston Catholic Charities was forced out of the adoption business because it refused to embrace the state’s new definition of marriage. The result was doubly tragic because both orphan children and religious liberty took the hit for this misguided attempt at equality.

It seems more like the orphan children took a hit because of Catholic homophobia and irrational adherence to tradition in not even considering the viability of a same-sex set of parents. Is it so important that the couple be man and woman that the next best option for Catholic Charities is to perpetuate the orphanhood of the children? Should the civil rights of couples be ignored for the sake of the homophobic?

Two more real-world examples illustrate the danger. In New Jersey, the city of Ocean Grove recently yanked a Methodist institution’s real estate tax exemption because it refused to perform civil unions in its outdoor wedding pavilion.

In Iowa, the Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local YMCA in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont.

Based on the ruling, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose $102,000 in government support for the YMCA’s community programs. Equal provision of benefits to all couples was not enough — only the YMCA’s explicit adoption of the state’s new definition of family fulfilled the government’s requirements.

Again, governments are effectively giving taxpayer money to religious institutions in the form of exemptions because those institutions follow government regulation. When the institutions refuse to follow government regulation, the government stops the exemptions. Are the coffers so empty that churches cannot go private and run things the way they wish? Isn’t the Catholic church one of the most wealthy entities in the entire world? So wealthy that it could feasibly ignore the lack of tax exemption, and facilitate the finding of homes for orphans, or buy out the YMCA and privatize it?

This list barely mentions the avalanche of employment discrimination lawsuits religious institutions will face, if, for example, employees at religious institutions publicly enter same-sex unions in violation of the institution’s teachings and employment policies.

Likewise, religious colleges and universities would run afoul of housing discrimination laws if they were to offer housing benefits for husband-and-wife couples but decline to do so for married same-sex partners.

Yet again, government money (which is taxpayer money) for adhering to the law. Not adhering to the law results in no government money or enforcement of the law. If churches don’t like it, they can go private.

Are we better off as a community if religious charities are forced to close their doors because the state redefines what is and is not a marriage? Are we better off if, for example, the Salvation Army is forced to close because of employment lawsuits, or if Catholic adoption agencies are forced to shutter their offices? What would such a result say about tolerating diversity and respect for religious liberty?

Lawmakers and judges need to consider all the consequences, intended and unintended, before embarking on this path.

There are plenty of non-religious charities that would be happy to take on the tasks of former religious charities that are destroyed due to their own arrogance. Respecting religious liberty is not equivalent to allowing religious institutions to do whatever they want with taxpayer money without being accountable to the taxpayers or the government. As a society, we can respect or refuse to respect religions as beliefs, but that has nothing to do with accepting the behavior of religious institutions. However, the government, the entity that takes and redistributes our tax money, is held to a higher standard. Remember, Congress shall make no law respecting….

-Procrustes

1. http://www.examiner.com/a-1324540~Roger_Severino__Legalizing_gay_marriage_will_spark_lawsuits_against_churches.html [↩]
2. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) [↩]
3. The HalpernTransformation:
   Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Society, and the Limits of Liberal Law, F.C. Decoste, http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/decoste.pdf [↩]

If all the professional football teams in the US were to be challenged to a tournament by a tiny group of out of shape, drunk guys pushing 60, and the drunk guys wanted the event to be taken seriously, you’d have an idea about what the so-called “Controversy” of Evolution vs. Young-Earth Creationism looks like to rational people. Even better is that the drunk guys are always thinking that a legendary, invisible, all-powerful giant is on their team, and declare themselves the winners no matter what actually happens during the game.

It’s overstating matters to say that there is a great debate between Evolutionist Scientists and Creation Scientists. On the contrary, nearly all working scientists operate with the understanding that the earth is billions of years old and that life follows the patterns that are best explained with the Theory of Evolution. There is no real theory (in the scientific sense of the word) in creation science. While the supposedly scientific Discovery Institute purports to defend Creation Science/ Intelligent Design/ Judeo-Christian fundamentalism, there’s not much science there. There are a few deeply misunderstood and miscalculated notions of how Nature works, and most Scientists are frankly too busy curing diseases, developing new technologies and making fascinating discoveries in the tangible world to give these notions any attention at all. This isn’t even a debate between people who believe in a metaphysical higher power and rational atheists. It’s certainly possible to believe that religion answers the why of the universe while science answers the how. For the many people who do, there’s no problem, and what’s the big fuss about anyway? Unfortunately, the people who tend to toss around the words “bacterial flagellum”, “Second Law of Thermodynamics”, and “Irreducible Complexity” are out there, and they’re working very hard to convince non-scientists that ID is anything more than tarted up fundamentalism. They are quick to confuse the Theory of Evolution with Abiogenesis (they have nothing to do with each other), and insist on attempting to debunk a theory of Evolution that has in fact evolved since Darwin took it out of the cradle and taught it to walk. Now the theory is running, jumping, and making flu vaccines (you know, for those pesky evolving viruses). For those of us who are rationalists, but are not scientists, and would like some quick and dirty ways to debate the misguided individuals who would like to cripple scientific education with superstitious censorship, help is on the way.

There are a few relatively patient rationalists on Youtube who have taken the time to carefully debunk and explain precisely how the “Creation Scientists” get it wrong. Among these members is one of my favorite, a man going by the handle “Thunderf00t”, who has a series of such videos called “Why People Laugh at Creationists”. Yes, the title is a bit hostile, but the snark is snappy and the criticism well-deserved. Thunderf00t’s videos are informative and entertaining. Here, for example, is the latest in the series. In it he deals with the an oft-repeated assertion that if the earth were really billions of years old, then the moon should be doing something insane, like crashing into us, or have crashed into us, or be shot out into outerspace or something. It’s hard to keep up with the fallacious arguments. You’ll see what I mean:

You can find this and the rest of Thunderf00t’s excellent series here

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

God: the Evidence

Come again? What “evidence”?

In religion, man is assumed to be the most important thing in the “universe”, the special project of some deity. This has lead to religion ignoring observable facts and insisting that the earth is the “center” of the universe” and indeed that everything revolves around it. This baseless assumption defined how most religions and especially Christianity interacted with humanity and our world.

The heliocentric solar system was not unfamiliar to those in ancient times, or to those from other religions. Aristarchus of Samos wrote that he was furthering the theories of Heraclides Ponticus in the third century BC.¹ Muslim scholars did work to show that the earth rotates.² However, all of these early scientists were decried by contemporaries.³ How dare they say that the earth is not the center of the universe! This slowly started to change when instruments were developed to allow us to observe our world more accurately. Galileo saw the moons revolving around Jupiter.⁴ Copernicus came up with the data and formulas to demonstrate how we revolve.⁵ We then had to acknowledge that pretty stories meant nothing when reality was knocking on the door.

When Copernicus originally revealed his theories, they were met with interest but not yet aversion. However, they met opposition 3 years later when a Dominican monk denounced them in a work that indicated that the Bible was inerrant, the absolute truth of how the universe worked.⁶ Following that, Galileo dared to reveal that his telescope supported the heliocentric model. With such an “attack” against the infallibility of the Bible, and therefore Catholic Church, that which was acceptable as an idea became unacceptable as reality.⁷ Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake for supporting Copernicus’ ideas and Galileo was convicted of heresy.⁸ Any heliocentric works were on the Vatican’s Index of Prohibited Books in 1616 and the specific books by Copernicus and Galileo were on that list until 1835.⁹

As you can see above, Copernicus did much to advance man’s knowledge of his world. In 1973, there was a celebration of the 500th anniversary of his birth.¹⁰ At this celebration, many scientific papers were presented by many of the preeminent scientists of that time. However, there was one paper presented that was not of this caliber. One of the articles in U.S. News and World Report’s special edition “Secrets of Christianity” mentions this one in its “God: the Evidence” article. One would assume that a magazine dedicated to pursuing the facts about things would have perhaps read this article over more closely, looking for facts to support the subject’s claims or making sure that questionable claims weren’t included. However, that is not the case.

This article begins with mentioning the august figures in attendance at that 1973 symposium. The author takes great pride in listing the names of Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, etc. However, it immediately insists that the “only” paper to be “remembered” from that conference was one by Brandon Carter, “Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology.”¹¹ Now, I suspect that there were many papers that were remembered from that conference. One, “Large Scale Anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background” by R.B. Partridge,¹² did much for advancing Big Bang theories.

Dr. Carter’s idea was one that many apologists attempt to use today. The idea is that the universe, with its myriad laws and constants are “perfect” for human life, or as Dr. Carter put it, “[W]hat we can expect to observe must be restricted by the conditions for our presence as observers.” This has been claimed to “prove” that God exists, because there needs to be an “intelligence” that decided it wanted humans and it then created a universe to support those humans.

The article goes even further to claim that the theories based on observation of facts, such as evolutionary theory and the heliocentric fact, “explained the tone of despair and angst that came to characterize modern culture, the desperate feeling that humankind was along and without moorings, and above all, without God.” However, the article does nothing to show how this supposedly occurred. This is an excellent example of more baseless assumptions upon which religion builds its claims.

Baseless claims like this are rife throughout the article. It is claimed that “scientists began to notice a strange connection among a number of otherwise unexplained coincidences in physics.” This “connection” is supposedly the one “overriding fact”: “Such values had been necessary for the creation of life.” Now, a fact is a very specific thing, especially in the scientific world. A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality.¹³ Because we do not know exactly what is required for the creation of life — something that creationists are quite fond of reminding everyone — it cannot be claimed that it is known for a “fact” that the constants and laws of physics are indeed required for it. The article also does not cite who these “scientists” were, which is always a sign of a claim with no evidence to support it.

The article claims that the argument of “God did it” is a “simpler way of explaining” these constants and laws than the “exotic theories” of physicists. This could be a good assumption if one also believed that fairies made shoes for people in exchange for a bowl of milk rather than the “exotic theory” that cobblers make shoes.

Dr. Carter attempted to make his idea more scientifically palatable by attempting to claim that the “coincidences” that he claimed were too many to just be that, coincidences. However, there is no way to determine how many was “too many.” He also relied on an old idea about the universe. Once, it may have been considered simply “random” by 19th century thinkers, but no scientist thinks that the universe is totally random today nor is it likely that they did even back in 1973. Also, the author of the article has attempted to claim that “Darwin’s theory of “natural selection” could no longer be taken as an exhaustive explanation for the phenomenon of life. Again, these are common mistakes by apologists, using very outdated information and presenting half-truths, since evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis as he attempts to call the “phenomenon of life.”

There are further attempts to claim that “20th century science is closer to in spirit to the vision of the Book of Genesis than anything offered since Copernicus.” Unless one takes it all completely as “metaphor” and shoehorns any definition one likes into it, it is not. If one does this, then what of the Bible is “metaphor” and what is literal? Why is one person’s “interpretation” better than another’s? The article also tries to claim that finding an origin to the universe is some kind of “scientific embarrassment” and it adds to this the lie that science agrees at all with this unsupported idea that the universe is “expressly designed for life.”

Unfortunately, this article is emblematic of many other Christian apologist arguments. They try to co-opt the terms and discoveries of science to make Christianity sound more plausible, which is especially ironic when “good Christians” didn’t believe any of this when the theories were new and had less evidence supporting them. The article attempts to say that the burden of proof is on those who don’t believe that “God did it.” However anyone knows that the person who proposes an idea is the one who must provide the proof that it is correct and none has been provided. Each scientific discovery pushes any deity farther and farther into the gaps that they try to exploit. Life is in the universe because that’s what those constants and laws just happen to allow to arise. If those constants and laws were different, we would either not be here or we would be here in a different form. The universe isn’t “perfect” for us at all. We are “perfect” for it.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [↩]
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_heliocentrism [↩]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [↩]
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo [↩]
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus [↩]
6. Rosen, Edward (1995). Copernicus and his Successors. London: Hambledon Press. ISBN 1 85285 071 X [↩]
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair [↩]
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno [↩]
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum [↩]
10. http://siarchives.si.edu/findingaids/FARU0500.HTM [↩]
11. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..291C [↩]
12. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974IAUS…63..157P [↩]
13. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact [↩]

This week in lieu of a Book Review, I’m going to share some other kinds of readings…

I live in Ann Arbor, a nice quiet college town where liberals are outspoken and reasonable people can comfortably discuss any and all controversial thoughts in public without fear of retribution. Bush supporters might disagree with me, but I think they like to feel persecuted when their mindless rotted brains see anything but highest praise for their fearful leader. I digress. I was quite pleased, though not surprised, to see one of our local events rags, Current, do a fun story for the December Issue on the pagan origins of Christmas. The free publication also highlighted several non-Christian events surrounding the Solstice.

The January edition, not surprisingly, had one of those hilariously over-the-top letters to the editor in outraged reaction. It must be rough for someone with a martyr complex and a remote stuck on Fox news to find a reason to freak out. I like to imagine the steam coming out of their ears and the one thought rattling around in those vacant heads of theirs as they wrote the following:

“BRING JESUS BACK!

We have seen in your advertising that you do not use the word “Christmas” and instead refer to some non-descript “Holiday”, even though 96 percent of all U.S. adults celebrate Christmas, and even 84 percent of those who claim to be non-Christians celebrate this religious holiday (Gallup Poll, December 2005). You use the word “Holiday” but superimpose images of Christmastime with it; you’re not fooling anyone into thinking that you’re not actually referring to Christmas. Your taking of a sacred holiday and ripping Christ’s name out of it, turning it into nothing more than a secular, pagan, materialistic occasion where the almighty dollar reigns supreme, is highly offensive. Your hatred of Christ and Christians is evident in your refusal to use His name, and we clearly see your bigotry.

We have not yet been a customer of yours, however due to your prejudicial, anti-Christian business practices, we refuse to patronize your business until you reverse your decision to discriminate against Christians.

-Allan and Jodi Fredrickson, Adrian Michigan.”

Oh, my how I laughed. That is so cute! I love it when they get all furious and illogical. I don’t know what’s funnier, their ignorance of the obvious etymology of the word “Holiday” (Holy Day, duh), the robotic obedience to sputtering windbag Bill O’Reilly, or their hyperbolic characterization of this cute lil’ townie mag as “Christ-hating”.

The editor’s response was fabulous, by the way:

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for your comments, Mr. and Mrs. Fredrickson. Hope you had a happy holiday.”

The only thing that surprises me is that a quick internet search didn’t turn up a word-for-word template of this idiotic screed. Something about the vagueness of the letter tells me that Allan And Jodi sent this letter to everyone on this list, too.

***********************************************************************

Next, here’s a nice post I ran across on LiberalAtheist: [reposted with permission] ¹ The other day I came across this page with a HUGE list of reasons a person may be a “fundy atheist”. I found it to be humorously ignorant starting with “fundy atheist”. An atheist simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. We have no set of principles we deem necessary to follow.Anyway I picked some of them from the Origins section which argues science and responded below in bold…You may be a fundy atheist if….

# You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were “all obviously designed,” yet the human body, being intricately more complex was “obviously a product of biological evolution.” It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the “fact” that it was not designed.

You’re kidding right? Man-made non-living objects like the ones you mention here are incapable of cellular replication and incapable of sexual reproduction and therefore incapable of evolving. There’s no basis of comparison. You know how when someone makes an ignorant argument and you say “You’re comparing apples to oranges”? Well you’re not even doing that…you’re comparing apples to tennis balls.

# You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

They ARE separate theories. The “Big Bang” is what is known as abiogenesis. That involves the study of cosmology and chemistry. Evolution involves the study of biology. You guys mistake that because you assume that chicken came before the egg and therefore you can’t understand the concept of the egg without the chicken.

# As a member of the Skeptic’s Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

We don’t try to silence you. You can shout your ignorance from rooftops for all we care. You’re the one that looks foolish. Evolution isn’t an “extraordinary claim”. It’s an accepted scientific theory and fact. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

# Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

Why should we care if he believed in ancient fairytales of a supernatural power or not? He’s a great scientist simply because he is credited with the discovering the theory of gravity. We don’t make any claims that he had anything to do with the theory of evolution or abiogenesis although gravity itself is related to abiogenesis. Newton just wasn’t aware of that because those theories weren’t presented til after his death.

# When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.

Go look up “atheist” in a dictionary. Atheists do NOT believe in any god or gods. We can’t blame something on a supernatural being that we don’t even believe exists in the first place. We know that cancers are caused by such things as chemical carcinogens, ionizing radiation, infectious diseases, hormonal imbalances, immune system dysfunction, and hereditary.

# You descended from apes.(Think about it.)

For someone who criticizes evolution you sure don’t know much about it. I’ll have the Scientific American field this one for me: “This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.”

If you research the subject from respected scientific sources you’d know this stuff. We share genetic markers in our DNA with every living organism on the planet. Apes and other primates are simply our closest “cousins”.

# You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)

More ignorance about evolution. Humans are not products of “chance”… it’s Natural Selection. No scientist would claim we are products of chance.

# You love to castigate Christians for being “anti-science” if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the “science” of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

Wow you sure like wearing your ignorance as a badge of honor don’t you? Ptolemy and Aristotle were mainly philosophers who liked to dabble in science. Galileo who actually WAS a scientist was condemned by the church and imprisoned because he believed the earth is round and it revolved around the sun. Science has proven his theory correct. Now over 300 years later you are trying to hinder scientific advancement by denying the evidence of evolution. Why is it the church is always dragged kicking and screaming into scientific advancement?

# You think that some guy named “Dr Dino” with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.

Who cares if he’s your front runner or just another ignorant moron? No creationist regardless of their scientific background or education will ever be taken seriously in the scientific community because their outrageous claims based on ancient texts disagree with modern scientific facts. You may as well be arguing that the world is flat.

# You claim poker-faced that “social Darwinism” and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

Eugenics is not related to natural selection. To think otherwise is just another example of ignorance. Forced breeding isn’t natural and even if it creates a stronger offspring than natural breeding there’s no telling what the ethical consequences of the practice would do in the future of the evolutionary process. It could very well be similar to inbreeding which is known to cause weaker offspring. Hitler tried to enforce this very practice with the support of the church during the Holocaust and create a “Master Race”. Such practices hinder evolutionary progress.

# You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.

We couldn’t care less if you are offended by us making our own statements, but if you are it’s actually funny because we aren’t offended by your Jesus fish… we just pity your ignorance.

# You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin’s theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

So someone’s cousin cashing in on his notoriety is evidence of a connection? Comparing eugenics to natural selection is like comparing rape to consensual sex. That’s about the only connection it shares.

# You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that “Evolution does not have moral consequences” despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.

Evolution itself doesn’t have moral consequences, but scientific advancements in genetics and biology could have scientists themselves doing research that has ethical concerns and also governments using scientific knowledge to do things that have ethical concerns with such ideas like eugenics for example. Those situations would have moral and ethical concerns, but not natural evolution left on it’s own.

# When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he’s just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

While I wouldn’t personally word it the way you just did here are you suggesting that we’re supposed to agree with everything the pope says? You’ve never disagreed with someone on one issue but agreed with them on another?

# Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don’t believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, “I didn’t throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth’s gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head…Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way.”

Wow your ignorance knows no bounds does it? First of all there is absolutely NO scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design… there’s PLENTY of scientific evidence supporting evolution. Your little rock example further shows your ignorance because such a gravitational shift could only be caused by something like the earth being knocked out of orbit or the speed of the earth’s rotation on it’s own axis changed. If the rock was affected every other living and non-living thing on the planet would also be affected and move it the same way.

# When you’re shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, “Well…at least it’s better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!”

No one has shown me my views are silly. Evolution has been proven. Abiogenesis on the other hand is still a mystery although science has some ideas. Giving up on scientific research just to assume that a supernatural “God” was responsible would be scientifically irresponsible and would hinder scientific progress.

# When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a “God of the gaps”. YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke “Evolution of the gaps” (i.e., we don’t know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)

And your point is??? Evolution has been scientifically proven. While we may not have found the “B” that links “A” and “C” together we DO know that the link is evolutionary and we aren’t giving up til we find the link. You creationists want to label it with “God” and forget about it without any further research or investigation. If you could prove it to be God without pointing to a 2000 year old bible and back it up with scientific evidence that would be different.

# You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.

Science has discovered that some bacteria has evolved from a strain that isn’t resistant to a new strain that is. This is proof of microevolution. There’s a huge evolutionary gap between a protozoa and a human being, but it’s simply millions if not billions of years of microevolutionary changes creating a more complex and environmentally adaptable species and that species evolving and adapting into another and so on until a human being evolved. Because the process took millions or billions of years it would be impossible to recreate it in a laboratory environment within one human lifetime, but we can observe the evidence in biology and in studying fossils… among other things. While we are unable to show the exact evolutionary path of a protozoa evolving into a human we can reach that conclusion based on the facts we already know about evolution.

# You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities — except creationism and/or intelligent design.

As Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace said to Napoléon Bonaparte when asked about where God fit into his equations of celestial mechanics, “Sire I have no need of that hypothesis.”

I’ll have the Scientific American field this one for me, too.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life’s history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion–that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

# You claim Creationists don’t research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.

I’ve been to creationist websites. They’re really good for when you need a good laugh. Like for instance the creationist claim that dinosaurs lived among humans and were plant eaters… Yet T-Rex had 6 inch razor sharp teeth. I’m sure he really needed those for eating grass and leaves. Modern plant eating animals don’t have the teeth of predator. Every animal that preys on another for food does have sharp teeth. Another silly creationist idea is that the earth is only about 10,000 years old which disagrees with modern science. But the toughest thing to swallow is that everything can be explained by a supernatural “God”, yet failing to explain where the god itself came from. Creationism will never be taken seriously as science by the scientific community because it hinders scientific advancement. You may as well be claiming the earth is flat.

# You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a “kook,” but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the “theory” of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie “Mission to Mars”), is a great evolutionist scientist.

He’s a great evolutionary scientist because he is credited with the discovery of DNA. Directed Panspermia is not a widely accepted scientific theory, but it IS more logical than the idea of a supernatural god creating life. If there is life on this planet it’s logically possible that there is life on another planet. Scientists aren’t actively pursuing that hypothesis of Directed Panspermia for the same reasons they aren’t pursuing your creationist theory, because there is currently no evidence of alien life just like there’s no evidence of your god.

# When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.

Because unlike creationism, evolution actually has evidence to back it up that isn’t found in an ancient text. Modern science can’t take it seriously because during the time period your bible was written humans lacked the modern technology and scientific knowledge that humans have today. Studying creationism would be like asking your great-grandfather who has been blind from birth how to search for and download music onto an MP3 player or set up and run a DVD player. Creationism is about as satisfying as a starving child would be if you handed him a plate with a sheet of paper on it that has the word “food” written on it.

# You won’t bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn’t good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.²

More creationist ignorance. Science doesn’t think that cells randomly generated from nothing. Science believes that life started by a chemical reaction.

# Engaging the “slippery slope” fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since ‘the whole bible either stands together or falls apart’. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as ‘irrelevant’.

This is because even tho we don’t know all the answers we desire to find them rather than give up and assume that God is the answer. Theology hinders the advancement of science. Beyond that you believe your bible to be the infallible omniscient word of your god. It’s a little frightening to have modern science shake the foundations of your indoctrinated religious beliefs isn’t it? If science proves their hypothesis of abiogenesis and macroevolution it would completely render your beliefs and theology obsolete. Pushing your creationist agenda isn’t about science and progress… it’s about fear. So you are all trying to discredit science to save your religion.

# You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.

The collective ignorance of the American public is hardly scientific proof of creationism. 75% of Americans are Christians and were indoctrinated from birth about the creationist fantasy. The poll doesn’t reflect the opinions of the educated scientific community. That poll would have much drastically different numbers. 99% of earth and life scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

# You think that if schools teach the Intelligent Design theory of creation,they should also teach the “stork theory” of where babies come from.

That’s called sarcasm.

# You demand that Christians study advanced evolutionary biology before making claims about natural selection. You then claim that their theological ideas, which you have never examined before, are pure nonsense.

Theology isn’t science.

***********************************************************************

And finally, have some peer pressure with cheese:Holy Crap

1. StOP made minor grammatical and layout edits [↩]
2. Ed’s note: Since when is a football game ever a 50/50 chance? Here, try an experiment: record a football game. Say, the Super Bowl. Find out which team won. Then review your recording of the game and try to spot all the “chances.” In other words, find every substantial, verifiable instance in which there was an exact 50/50 chance of something happening or not happening. If you approach it scientifically, you’ll probably find none. The reason? Factors. A field goal kick equation may start off looking like Kicker (K) plus Ball (B) equals (or does not equal) Goal (G). However, it’s easy to start adding to that equation with variables, or factors that influence the outcome. Wind direction and speed, moisture/condensation, turf/grass grip, brand of Kicker’s shoes, what Kicker had to drink the night before, whether Kicker had a cold, and the condition of the holder and the ball. Those are only a handful of the variables in a field goal kick, which is only a small part of a football game. How could anyone possibly believe there’s a 50/50 chance? Heck, even the flip of a coin, how simple it may appear, is never exactly 50/50 (especially in the hands of an expert). -Procrustes [↩]

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

“Today’s East-West dynamic began when Europe first invaded the Holy Land.”

That was the sub-heading for this article in the U.S. News and World Report. I found this set the tone for the rest of the article, which essentially set out to prove that Muslims are filled with hate and distorting reality in drawing comparisons between the Crusades and modern events.

The author states, “In the Arab and Muslim world, the Crusades have made an unfortunate rhetorical comeback.” He posits that their views have been “distorted almost beyond recognition by rhetoric and misunderstanding.” He accuses “angry Muslim nationalists” of adopting the Crusades as a “convenient metaphor.” He quotes historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, who claims the Muslims “turned the Western memory of the Crusades on its head and demonized it.” But what of the West? What of today’s Christians? After September 11^th, George W. Bush told the nation, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.”¹ When Jerusalem was captured from the Turks in 1917, British general Sir Edmund Allenby² proclaimed, “today the wars of the Crusades are completed.” Surely the author would have similar criticism for statements such as these? No, instead he insists, “Undoubtedly, George W. Bush had a different sense of the term in mind.” And as for Sir Allenby? Well, it was understandable, since the colonial powers considered the Crusaders to be their “ideological forebears.” Besides, according to the author, the Crusades weren’t very important to the Muslims before Sir Allenby’s time: “Before Europe’s colonial expansion into the Middle East, Muslim chroniclers paid little attention to the Crusades.” I see little reason to believe that anyone, from East or West, cannot plainly understand the horrible atrocities committed by Christians during the Crusades, yet according to this article, the East is primarily to blame for “demonizing” our conception of them.

The article refers to the Crusaders as “faithful,” “united under the cross” and “motivated by genuine religious feeling.” Riley-Smith is again quoted: “West European Catholics believed they could aid their salvation by fighting the infidel in the East. [Crusading is] as much a penance as fasting on bread and water.” In researching Jonathan Riley-Smith I found, unsurprisingly, that his views are greatly at odds with many other scholarly perceptions of the Crusades. He believes the Crusades were primarily a response to the aggression of Islam, and that the Crusaders were sincere and pious and demonstrated great personal sacrifice.³ The author obviously agrees when he refers to knights Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred as “deeply religious.” He claims the belief that Crusaders may have been motivated by greed or land has been overturned. Yet, the history itself tells another story.

In 1095, the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, sent his ambassadors to Pope Urban II to request help in taking Asia Minor from the Seljuk Turks. The Pope then called for the Council of Clermont, and there preached the First Crusade. Alexios met each leader personally to secure an oath that any conquered lands would be handed over to the Byzantine Empire.⁴ Yet, not one of these leaders intended on keeping their oath to Alexios. One by one, they each took the captured territories for themselves, and many of them became the leaders of these territories. Tancred actually refused to take the oath at all. So, were these knights “deeply religious” as U.S. News claims? Probably. But was their faith a replacement for greed? Absolutely not.

In one final jab at the Muslims, U.S. News purports that the industry, education, and culture that the Europeans gained as a result of their contact with the Arab world actually overshadows the atrocities they committed. He quotes Georgetown University’s John Voll: “Violent interactions were paralleled by economic and conceptual exchanges. In some ways the Crusades’ positive intellectual dimensions outweigh the negative impact.” He then quotes author Janet Abu-Lughod: “The Crusades…did integrate European travelers and traders into an ongoing world system. By stimulating an interest in the goods of the East, they had a double-back effect on the development of European economics.” U.S. News even takes these two comments a step further: “Even the Europeans’ increasing sophistication did little to redeem them in the eyes of the Muslims whose land they occupied and controlled.” I can’t think of a single reason why it should. Their families had been murdered, their holy sites destroyed, their land and homes stolen, but the author expects them to have been in awe of the Christians’ increasing “sophistication”? It’s hard for me to believe that U.S. News cannot recognize that the only people positively impacted in any way by the Crusades were the Christians, not the Muslims. For the East, the negative most certainly outweighs the positive, but that is not being considered in this article. I would implore anyone to consider the bias displayed here before giving any type of support to the U.S. News and World Report.

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html [↩]
2. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/allenby.htm [↩]
3. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html [↩]
4. A History of the Byzantine State and Society by Warren Treadgold, Stanford University Press, 1997 [↩]

The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

selected by Christopher Hitchens

$17.5o, Paperback, Da Capo Press, Perseus.

Christopher Hitchens is a truly fascinating creature. I have met him on two separate occasions, and was intrigued, impressed, repulsed and annoyed by the man both times. He is a self-described contrarian, a position which demands confidence and a perverse pleasure at the destruction of the beliefs that most people hold sacred. Even Mother Teresa’s good intentions– usually lionized as an example of sympathetic humanity– suffer under his gimlet eye. While I sometimes strongly disagree with Mr. Hitchens, I will read anything he writes, because the man thinks, and he reads. In a world filled with people who habitually struggle with incomplete, incoherent, error-ridden sentences, he is fully armed with well-reasoned rhetorical elegance and acerbic wit. Christopher Hitchens can and does out-wit most of his opponents with half a liver tied behind his flask, and he doesn’t mind us knowing it.

When I came across this collection of readings that he selected and edited, I was intrigued. When I read the table of contents, I was enthralled. Hitchens’ selections form a powerful compendium of rationalist thought and argument. This collection bears his stamp of the unexpected perspective; the readings date from Antiquity to the present day, and come from all over the world.

Each reading provids cogent arguments useful to the rational activist who spends any amount of time refuting the most common and pernicious arguments used by religious apologists. This element was somewhat expected, but deeply appreciated. Few of us have infinite patience when dealing with the 75^th iteration of the “What is Morality to an Atheist” routine, or the 195^th verse of the old anthem “Atheism is a (fundamentalist) religion”. Elizabeth Anderson takes care of the first, while A.C. Grayling the latter.

One element that was unexpected, however, was the sustaining richness of the texts. These aren’t just diatribes to read only when angry, appalled or up in arms. Those things are represented, surely, but these are also texts to be savored, accented with poetry (of all things), humor, charm and wit. Ian McEwan’s “End of the World Blues” lopes through the history of the End of the World, one hysterical prediction at a time. Some people show up and do what they’re expected to do. Thomas Hardy breaks your heart, Mark Twain makes you laugh at something infuriating George Orwell shoots straight and Penn Jillette is Penn Jillette. Less expected are appearances by H.P. Lovecraft, Percy Bysshe Shelley (refuting Deism!) and Albert Einstein, whose vaguely Deist comments have been liberally misrepresented. Salman Rushdie’s “Imagine There’s No Heaven”: a Letter to the Sixth Billionth World citizen, might alone be worth the price of the book.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. What I can do, however, is show you the table of contents:

Chapter 1: Lucretius, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Book I, Translation by W. Hannaford Brown
Chapter 2: Omar Khayyám, Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám: A Paraphrase from Several Literal Translations by Richard Le Gallienne
Chapter 3: Thomas Hobbes, Of Religion, from Leviathon
Chapter 4: Benedict De Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise
Chapter 5: David Hume, The Natural History of Religion, Of Miracles
Chapter 6: James Boswell, An Account of My Last Interview with David Hume, Esq.
Chapter 7: Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Refutation of Deism
Chapter 8: John Stuart Mill, Moral Influences in My Early Youth, From Autobiography
Chapter 9: Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Chapter 10: George Eliot, Evangelical Teaching
Chapter 11: Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Chapter 12: Leslie Stephen, An Agnostic’s Apology
Chapter 13: Anatole France, Miracle
Chapter 14: Mark Twain, Thoughts of God, From Fables of Man Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, From Europe and Elsewhere and A Pen Warmed Up in Hell
Chapter 15: Joseph Conrad, Authors’s Note to The Shadow Line
Chapter 16: Thomas Hardy, God’s Funeral
Chapter 17: Emma Goldman, The Philosophy of Atheism
Chapter 18: H.P. Lovecraft, A Letter on Religion
Chapter 19: Carl Van Doren, Why I am An Unbeliever
Chapter 20: H.L. Mencken, Memorial Service
Chapter 21: Sigmund Freud, From The Future of an Illusion, Translated and edited by James Strachey
Chapter 22: Albert Einstein, Selected Writings on Religion
Chapter 23: George Orwell, From A Clergyman’s Daughter
Chapter 24: John Betjeman, In Westminster Abbey
Chapter 25: Chapman Cohen, Monism and Religion An Old Story
Chapter 26: Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish
Chapter 27: Philip Larkin, Aubade/ Church Going
Chapter 28: Martin Gardner, The Wandering Jew and the Second Coming
Chapter 29: Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World / The God Hypothesis
Chapter 30: John Updike, From Roger’s Version
Chapter 31: J.L. Mackie, Conclusions and Implications, From The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God
Chapter 32: Michael Shermer, Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story
Chapter 33: A.J. Ayer, That Undiscovered Country
Chapter 34: Daniel C. Dennett, Thank Goodness!
Chapter 35: Charles Templeton, From A Farewell to God, A Personal Word, and Questions to Ask Yourself
Chapter 36: Richard Dawkins, Why There Almost Certainly is No God/ Gerin Oil/ and Atheists for Jesus
Chapter 37: Victor Stenger, From God: The Failed Hypothesis/ Cosmic Evidence
Chapter 38: Daniel C. Dennett, A Working Definition of Religion from “Breaking Which Spell?”
Chapter 39: Elizabeth Anderson, If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?
Chapter 40: Penn Jillette, There is No God
Chapter 41: Ian McEwan, End of the World Blues
Chapter 42: Steven Weinberg, What About God? From Dreams of a Final Theory
Chapter 43: Salman Rushdie, “Imagine There’s no Heaven”: A Letter to the Six Billionth World Citizen
Chapter 44: Ibn Warraq, The Koran, The Totalitarian Nature of Islam
Chapter 45: Sam Harris, In the Shadow of God, From The End of Faith
Chapter 46: A.C. Grayling, Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist? From Against All Gods
Chapter. 47: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: How (and Why) I Became an Infidel

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

In the 2007 special edition of US News & World Report, titled Secrets of Christianity, various references are made to ancient biblical texts.¹ These ancient texts are believed to be some of the original texts that comprise the religious books of Judaism and Christianity and provide historical information for the time period surrounding the formation of both religions. Given the significance of these works, the editors have allowed only passing references to be made to the content and context of these sources. Why do these ancient texts merit mostly passing references?

The most frequent references are made to the texts found near Nag Hammadi in Egypt and those of Qumran in Israel.² The Nag Hammadi texts are in better condition and are easier for scholars to discern their contents because they are a later edition than those of Qumran. However, the Qumran texts, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, are considered the original biblical texts leading to Judaism and Christianity.³

What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The “scrolls” consist of thousands of documents found in caves located around the Dead Sea which were discovered between 1947 and 1956 by Bedouin shepherds and archaeologists. At most, there are 12 intact scrolls; the remainder is thousands of fragments of scrolls ranging in size from nearly a full page to pieces that are as small as fingernails. There is even one piece of pottery, known as an ostracon, which is inscribed in such as a way as to merit inclusion as subject material belonging to the scrolls. Together, this library of “inscriptional materials” consists of over 800 texts (once the thousands of documents were pieced together in a reasonably meaningful way – many still have not been).

What do the Dead Sea Scrolls represent?

The scrolls, written between 250 BCE and 68 CE, are the earliest known texts forming Judaism and Christianity. The scrolls are not complete religious works, nor are they complete libraries representing either religion. Nevertheless, these works are in their original forms and not subjugated by later interpretations, which were often biased by future languages and politics.

Scholars assume the scrolls complete part of an ambiguous historical period that coincides with early Jewish history. Only about 25% of the texts are considered biblical as all of the books of the Hebrew bible are contained within the scrolls except the book of Esther (noted by Shanks to be the only book which does not reference God – which by implication was either intentionally deleted from the collection or just coincidentally missing). The remainders are considered non-biblical in the sense that they are not canonical texts of any particular bible. The texts appear to reference various genres but include hymns, psalms, legal theories, non-religious literature and more. The Dead Sea Scrolls constitute a library, just not an entirely religious library.

Why were the scrolls hidden?

In ancient times, the regions comprising much of modern-day Israel, as well as parts of Jordan and Syria, were under constant conflict and shifting political control, culminating in the eventual invasion and occupation by the Romans in 70 CE. As a result of these conflicts, it is likely that these documents were moved from more theologically important locations, such as the religious temples in Jerusalem, to the locations in the caves surrounding the Dead Sea for safekeeping. For scholars of Judaism and Christianity, the year 70 CE, the year of Roman invasion, represents a theological and historical black hole because of missing documents that would otherwise provide a smoother join to the other works that date from the same period. In essence, a library of documents was moved, hidden and later forgotten forever only to be discovered many centuries later. The scrolls became an unintended time capsule, and no one is claiming divine intervention as the source or cause of their seclusion.

Why haven’t I heard more about the scrolls?

There is so much controversy over the Dead Sea Scrolls that any usefulness they represent is potentially obfuscated by the manner in which they were obtained, controlled and interpreted.

Because of the age of the scrolls and the manner in which they were stored (many were rolled up and stored inside vases and then stored in caves until discovered), the texts were subject to the ravages of weather and time. They disintegrated into thousands upon thousands of fragments that are, even today, being reassembled by appointed scholars. For much of their known existence, the scrolls were subjected to modern abuse through mishandling and inappropriate storage, as well as transport during wars between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The scrolls continued to suffer the same problems but in different centuries.

Furthermore, the texts were first under control by Bedouin shepherds who had little knowledge of their importance. It is unknown what the Bedouin did with the first texts they discovered because some scrolls were found in the possession of Israeli antique dealers. To keep the texts from becoming further fragmented worldwide and preventing their reassembly, various groups joined to provide payment to the Bedouins as a method of securing the texts for study. For many years, various scholars and archaeologists were in possession and control of individual scrolls and rarely allowed anyone to see the contents of the scroll(s) in their possession. In the early 1990s, their hands were forced to share the contents of the scrolls when it was revealed that various non-scholars had possession of photographs which showed the details of the scroll contents. Actual physical inspection of the scrolls is still narrowly restricted and is often not possible because the scrolls have not received proper care since their discovery. The scrolls continue to deteriorate and some scrolls have become useless scraps of archaeology.

How do the scrolls relate to religion today?

First, one must ask which version of Judaism or Christianity may be impacted. These religious groups, especially the Christian ones, splintered over time and implement their belief systems differently. What impacts one may not impact another. Second, one must ask which book each of these groups uses to determine which tenets of belief to follow. The books of their bibles have been written reinterpretations of past versions and ultimately, the first interpretation of the texts of the scrolls. Every subsequent interpretation breeds a mutated set of beliefs. Religion has become a moving target.

Given the multitude of beliefs even within one branch of Judaism or Christianity, it is likely that the leaders of each belief system have no desire to have their belief systems fundamentally altered by a more accurate interpretation of the original texts. Even more recent corrections to previous interpretations have had little impact on how a particular religious belief is exercised. It is either ignored or derided. It appears that to correct interpretations of previous texts requires the formation of a new splinter version of the religion. Change comes only when change is desired.

The scrolls have little impact on today’s religions because most of the information held by the scrolls is non-biblical.⁴ The reassembled scrolls reveal circumstances that lead to the formation of Judaism and Christianity and of early religious and secular life. They reveal that many of the Christian traditions were actually Jewish traditions that continued even by identified Christians. Some traditions were later dropped by Jews and others were changed multiple times through separate Christian transformations.

Third, what level of importance can be given to documents that are so revered yet so poorly cared for? For what reason would God allow such treasured documents to be stored in forgotten places and disintegrate into nothing? These are the most important questions of all. Something as important as the original biblical texts for the religion of an omnipotent god should easily withstand the test of time. Instead, they have been largely forgotten, mishandled or guarded with the secrecy of the unknown. This situation hardly inspires one to think greatly of the importance of the scrolls to religious life, ancient or modern.

The editors of US News & World Report show little regard for what the Dead Sea Scrolls really mean for the significance of religion. Such an edition dedicated to religion should have had more than a passing reference to the most important documents of the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. While the documents may provide proof that ancient peoples believed in the Abrahamic God, and referencing the scrolls is appropriate for substantiating the source of the belief, the editors make no attempt to explore the circumstances of these ancient texts by themselves nor the potential they have to create skepticism for any of the Abrahamic faiths.

1. Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity. US News & World Report 2007, p. 7 [↩]
2. pp 8, 16. [↩]
3. Shanks, Understanding the dead sea scrolls. Random House, 1992, pp. xv, xix. [↩]
4. Shanks, xxi. [↩]

In late 2007, well in time for the Christmas season, U.S. News & World Report began having book and magazine sellers across the nation stock their shelves with a “Collector’s Edition” magazine entitled: Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity.¹

The cover indicates some of the content: The Real Jesus, Miracles, The Lost Gospels, The Three Marys, Judas, Exorcisms, The Inquisition, Apocalypse 2012?

The innards have a frightening resemblance to a Sunday school lesson book. A painting from the late 1800s depicts what the magazine calls the “traditional view of Jesus”² as he “teaches a penitent sinner about God’s mercy.”³ Despite asking the question whether Jesus actually existed (at all, or as described in scriptural accounts), the language of the articles leans heavily toward lack of doubt, often describing Jesus in ways that mingle praise, admiration, and worship. “The most fascinating of all [the biblical] figures, of course, is Jesus himself, a brilliant, witty, intensely attractive, enigmatic, and visionary man, whose life, death, and Resurrection will continue to invite either speculation, skepticism, or fervent belief.” ⁴

“Jesus may have calmed the storm in a boat like the one at left.”⁵

“Today, there is broad consensus among even the most skeptical of scholars that Jesus probably did perform feats that would have been perceived as miracles at the time.”⁶

“”There is little doubt that Jesus performed exorcisms as they were understood in his time,” says John J. Rousseau, an archaeologist. “It was just a natural thing to do for an itinerant charismatic healer and teacher… and he was not the only one to do it.” ⁷

This apparent default assumption that Jesus lived as depicted in the bible is complemented by the magazine’s continued mischaracterization of skepticism and reason. “As recently as 25 years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue [of the origin of the universe and humans] would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. The burden of proof has shifted. The barrier that modern science appeared to erect to faith has fallen. Of course, the anthropic principle tells us nothing about the Person of God or the existence of an afterlife. But it does offer as strong an indication as reason and science alone could be expected to provide that God exists.” ⁸ Yet, U.S. News fails to justify such a broad and unlikely assertion that a reasonable person today would, by default, believe in God, putting skepticism, reason, and science aside, apparently waiting for them to disprove God. The entire magazine reads as if it has chosen its authors and sources specifically based on this flawed principle.

It would not be an issue if this were a Christian publication, indicating that it was written from a Christian perspective (with an air of, but not actual, skepticism). However, this is U.S. News & World Report, which considers itself “the leader in delivering reliable information that [its] audience can act on, whether it’s voting for president or selecting a healthcare plan. [Its] credible, trusted content sets us apart—and it also propels [it] forward.” ⁹ The magazine well-known for its school rankings ¹⁰, boasts on its cover, “Rated America’s most credible print news source.”

Based on what seems to be U.S. News’ obvious pro-Christian bias in its self-proclaimed credible and trusted content, State of Protest has taken upon itself the duty to examine some of the articles in this magazine and address them in a scholarly manner to determine if U.S. News & World Report really should be calling itself “the most credible” anything when it publishes Collector’s Edition magazines such as this.

Keep an eye out for State of Protest articles headed “Secrets” for the continuation of this review.

-Procrustes

Also see:¹¹

1. Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity. U.S.News & World Report 2007 [↩]
2. p. 4 [↩]
3. pp. 2-3 [↩]
4. p. 11 [↩]
5. p. 11 [↩]
6. p. 18 [↩]
7. p. 18 [↩]
8. p. 75 [↩]
9. http://mediakit.usnews.com/brand/history.php?openNode=0,0 [↩]
10. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php [↩]
11. http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/12/13/jesus-dynasty-profiled-in-usnewsworldreport/ [↩]

Book Review: Everything You Know About God is Wrong, Edited by Russ Kick

Hello, fellow procrastinators! I have the solution to your atheist gift-giving conundrums. So far I’ve given you many suggestions for Yule gifts to spread the light of Reason to friends and family alike.

This book is not for the confirmed atheist, nor the informed agnostic. This book is for those who think they know, but don’t care to think that much about their beliefs, those who are curious but don’t care quite enough about their skepticism to really investigate, and anyone else you think would benefit from a basic primer containing the best and most obvious arguments against religion. These are the topics that get hashed out on various forums, and all of the things you’d really like everyone to know.

It’s a starting point. I’d say that, if you’re brave (or filled with the courage of eggnog and hot buttered rum), you