Whenever a Christian asks atheists a series of questions intended to stump, all the questions turn out to be rather shallow. For example: "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" We all had fun answering Ray's questions, now let's see how you fare amongst these inquiries.
1) How can there be something instead of nothing? (Not why, but how)?
2) You know you exist (I think therefore I am), but how can you be sure others exist?
3) Can an objective reality truly exist in an existence interpreted or conjured by the mind?
4) How can evolutionary theory account for pre-cellular organic material mutating into stable organisms given the fragile nature of nucleic acids?
5) If all possibilities occur in a quantum universe, will you ever die?
6) What do you believe is the biological basis for consciousness?
7) What is humanity's ultimate place in the universe millions of not billions of years from now?
8) Knowledge can be derived from a near infinite number of sources. Why do atheists tend to gravitate toward scientific reasoning? How can you ever be sure scientific reasoning is the best or only way to address a problem?
9) Why haven't we found intelligent life outside of the solar system yet?
10) Which came first, thought or intelligence?
------ EDIT ------
"Please don't answer "yes" or "no." Explain why.
I'm not going to give you definitions. I purposefully did not so you would have to figure things out like the meaning of 'intelligence' for yourself."
Showing posts with label questions for christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label questions for christians. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Questions for Christians: The Resurrection (part 1)
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. You may post your answers here, or answer them privately, at your discretion. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time (and possibly our bandwidth). At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you answer these questions publicly, with the intention of being a teacher instead of a learner, then please don't bother doing so here. These questions are for your educational benefit.
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
The next two or three posts will deal with the most critical of all Christian doctrines: the Resurrection of Jesus. This is the alleged event that purportedly proved that Jesus was correct in the things he said. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul himself purportedly said, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Although it's not Saturday, I'm going to limit myself to one single question today -- partly because my time today is limited, and partly because this is the perhaps the most important question on the subject and I want to give Christians extra time to focus upon it:
1. Can you tell us what happened on Easter?
Dan Barker, an evangelical minister turned outspoken atheist, issued what he calls the Easter Challenge to Christians. The challenge is simple: taking all the details from the six seperate Resurrection narratives in the New Testament,
Barker challenges Christians to, "without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened."
Sounds simple, right? Well, Barker first issued this challenge in 1990, and as of this writing (2008), it remains unmet. Many Christians have addressed the challenge, and a few have made attempts at meeting it (you can probably find one or two on the internet), but not a single one of them succeeds in constructing a single plausible narrative without omitting one or more Biblical details and/or contradicting one or more extant narratives in the Bible. In other words, there is no sequence of events that is consistent with the reports of all the New Testament writers.
You might think that this doesn't matter, that what's important is that the writers agree on the major details -- for instance, they all agree that Jesus appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection. But as Barker says,
Then, too, witnesses to a car accident, or to another person's life such as Lincoln or Julius Caesar, didn't purportedly receive divine inspiration or ghostwriting when delivering their accounts. The gospel writers and Paul purportedly did. One would therefore expect a harmony in their accounts, commensurate with the importance of the message and the infallibility of the divine being in question. In other words, one would expect perfection. But we don't have it.
Can you succeed where 18 years of Christians have failed? If not, then you are forced to concede that the Resurrection accounts are not inerrant -- and what does that say about the story as a whole? If people disagree, then they can't all be right -- but they can all be wrong. Isn't it possible that you are wrong about the Resurrection?
To be continued . . .
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
The next two or three posts will deal with the most critical of all Christian doctrines: the Resurrection of Jesus. This is the alleged event that purportedly proved that Jesus was correct in the things he said. Without the Resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul himself purportedly said, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14).
Although it's not Saturday, I'm going to limit myself to one single question today -- partly because my time today is limited, and partly because this is the perhaps the most important question on the subject and I want to give Christians extra time to focus upon it:
1. Can you tell us what happened on Easter?
Dan Barker, an evangelical minister turned outspoken atheist, issued what he calls the Easter Challenge to Christians. The challenge is simple: taking all the details from the six seperate Resurrection narratives in the New Testament,
- Matthew 28
- Mark 16
- Luke 24
- John 20-21
- Acts 1:3-12
- 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
Barker challenges Christians to, "without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened."
Sounds simple, right? Well, Barker first issued this challenge in 1990, and as of this writing (2008), it remains unmet. Many Christians have addressed the challenge, and a few have made attempts at meeting it (you can probably find one or two on the internet), but not a single one of them succeeds in constructing a single plausible narrative without omitting one or more Biblical details and/or contradicting one or more extant narratives in the Bible. In other words, there is no sequence of events that is consistent with the reports of all the New Testament writers.
You might think that this doesn't matter, that what's important is that the writers agree on the major details -- for instance, they all agree that Jesus appeared to the disciples after the Resurrection. But as Barker says,
I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said (an) auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.
Luke says the post-resurrection appearance (to the disciples) happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! (...) Something is very wrong here.
Then, too, witnesses to a car accident, or to another person's life such as Lincoln or Julius Caesar, didn't purportedly receive divine inspiration or ghostwriting when delivering their accounts. The gospel writers and Paul purportedly did. One would therefore expect a harmony in their accounts, commensurate with the importance of the message and the infallibility of the divine being in question. In other words, one would expect perfection. But we don't have it.
Can you succeed where 18 years of Christians have failed? If not, then you are forced to concede that the Resurrection accounts are not inerrant -- and what does that say about the story as a whole? If people disagree, then they can't all be right -- but they can all be wrong. Isn't it possible that you are wrong about the Resurrection?
To be continued . . .
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Questions for Christians: The Nativity
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. You may post your answers here, or answer them privately, at your discretion. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time (and possibly our bandwidth). At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you answer these questions publicly, with the intention of being a teacher instead of a learner, then please don't bother doing so here. These questions are for your educational benefit.
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
These questions concern the Nativity, the purported birth of Jesus. This is also where we'll start getting into the realm of Biblical contradictions. At this point, some Christians will no doubt crack their knuckles and chuckle, "Let me at 'em. I love reconciling contradictions." By all means, take your best shot. Then ask yourself two questions: First, does my explanation make sense, or am I grasping at straws here? Second, would it even be necessary if this book really were written or inspired by God himself?
1. Who was Joseph's father?
The author of Matthew says it was Jacob, the author of Luke says it was Heli. Which is correct?
This is one of the more commonly known contradictions, and there are several answers for it. One is that Jacob was Joseph's natural father, Heli was his adopted father. Another is that one book actually listed Mary's father instead of Joseph's, as that may have been a custom at the time. Still another is that Heli was Jacob's last name!
So yes, you can certainly think of possible explanations for these contradictions. But can you think of actual ones? Not all of these explanations can be correct. Which is correct, and how do you know?
For that matter, have you considered this explanation: that the Bible was written by mere humans, for their own purposes, and that God was not involved?
2. When was Jesus born?
This is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled. The author of Luke claims that Jesus was born during a census ordered by Caesar Augustus, which we know for a fact took place in 6 CE. The author of Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, whom we know died in 4 BCE. Thus, Matthew and Luke disagree on the dates by at least ten years. Which of them is wrong? What does that say about the Bible?
3. Why did Mark not know of the virgin birth?
Mark, we know, was the earliest gospel written. The authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as source material to a great extent. If something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, why did Mark not at least mention it? (The same can be asked for John.)
4. Did Mary and Joseph believe the angel?
In Matthew, the angel tells Joseph that Mary's child will save people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, that he will be caled the Son of the Most High, and will rule on David's throne forever. Mary appears to have believed this, as later in the story, she tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her blessed because of the child that will be born to her.
That being the case, why did Jesus complain (Mark 6:4-6) that he received no honor among his relatives and in his household? Perhaps more seriously, why did Mary and Joseph try to take custody of Jesus because they thought he had lost his mind (Mark 3:20-21)?
5. Why does the author of Matthew cite prophecies which do not refer to Jesus?
The virgin birth is the most popular prophecy Matthew cites, but in the original Hebrew, that verse (Isaiah 7:14) says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a virgin.
Another example: the author of Matthew quotes a prophecy saying that Jesus would be called out of Egypt, and states that his family fled from Egypt and then returned to fulfill this prophecy. But the verse (Hosea 11:1) clearly refers to the Israelites of the Exodus led by Moses, not the Messiah.
With the slaughter of the innocents it gets even worse -- not only does the original verse (Jeremiah 31:15) refer to the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, but we know to a historical certainty that the fulfillment event Matthew writes about, Herod's ordering the killing of all male children two years old and younger in the region of Bethlehem, never happened. Such a monstrous crime would have been reported by many historians, particularly Josephus, who took pleasure in listing Herod's many crimes in detail. Yet neither he nor any other historian makes any mention of it.
Couldn't it be that the author of Matthew, whom we know was an evangelical and trying to persuade people of Christianity's truth, simply made these things up? Don't today's evangelicals do that all the time?
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
These questions concern the Nativity, the purported birth of Jesus. This is also where we'll start getting into the realm of Biblical contradictions. At this point, some Christians will no doubt crack their knuckles and chuckle, "Let me at 'em. I love reconciling contradictions." By all means, take your best shot. Then ask yourself two questions: First, does my explanation make sense, or am I grasping at straws here? Second, would it even be necessary if this book really were written or inspired by God himself?
1. Who was Joseph's father?
The author of Matthew says it was Jacob, the author of Luke says it was Heli. Which is correct?
This is one of the more commonly known contradictions, and there are several answers for it. One is that Jacob was Joseph's natural father, Heli was his adopted father. Another is that one book actually listed Mary's father instead of Joseph's, as that may have been a custom at the time. Still another is that Heli was Jacob's last name!
So yes, you can certainly think of possible explanations for these contradictions. But can you think of actual ones? Not all of these explanations can be correct. Which is correct, and how do you know?
For that matter, have you considered this explanation: that the Bible was written by mere humans, for their own purposes, and that God was not involved?
2. When was Jesus born?
This is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled. The author of Luke claims that Jesus was born during a census ordered by Caesar Augustus, which we know for a fact took place in 6 CE. The author of Matthew claims that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod, whom we know died in 4 BCE. Thus, Matthew and Luke disagree on the dates by at least ten years. Which of them is wrong? What does that say about the Bible?
3. Why did Mark not know of the virgin birth?
Mark, we know, was the earliest gospel written. The authors of Matthew and Luke used Mark as source material to a great extent. If something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, why did Mark not at least mention it? (The same can be asked for John.)
4. Did Mary and Joseph believe the angel?
In Matthew, the angel tells Joseph that Mary's child will save people from their sins. In Luke, the angel tells Mary that her son will be great, that he will be caled the Son of the Most High, and will rule on David's throne forever. Mary appears to have believed this, as later in the story, she tells Elizabeth that all generations will consider her blessed because of the child that will be born to her.
That being the case, why did Jesus complain (Mark 6:4-6) that he received no honor among his relatives and in his household? Perhaps more seriously, why did Mary and Joseph try to take custody of Jesus because they thought he had lost his mind (Mark 3:20-21)?
5. Why does the author of Matthew cite prophecies which do not refer to Jesus?
The virgin birth is the most popular prophecy Matthew cites, but in the original Hebrew, that verse (Isaiah 7:14) says that a "young woman" will give birth, not a virgin.
Another example: the author of Matthew quotes a prophecy saying that Jesus would be called out of Egypt, and states that his family fled from Egypt and then returned to fulfill this prophecy. But the verse (Hosea 11:1) clearly refers to the Israelites of the Exodus led by Moses, not the Messiah.
With the slaughter of the innocents it gets even worse -- not only does the original verse (Jeremiah 31:15) refer to the Israelites about to be taken into exile in Babylon, but we know to a historical certainty that the fulfillment event Matthew writes about, Herod's ordering the killing of all male children two years old and younger in the region of Bethlehem, never happened. Such a monstrous crime would have been reported by many historians, particularly Josephus, who took pleasure in listing Herod's many crimes in detail. Yet neither he nor any other historian makes any mention of it.
Couldn't it be that the author of Matthew, whom we know was an evangelical and trying to persuade people of Christianity's truth, simply made these things up? Don't today's evangelicals do that all the time?
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Questions For Christians: Saturday 8/9
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. You may post your answers here, or answer them privately, at your discretion. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time (and possibly our bandwidth). At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you answer these questions publicly, with the intention of being a teacher instead of a learner, then please don't bother doing so here. These questions are for your educational benefit.
A couple quick notes: First, I went back through the "Questions..." posts and added the "questions for christians" label to them all, so that people can find them with relative ease. I'll also be taking this weekend to cross-post the series to my own blog at intervals. (Hey, did you know I have a blog of my own? http://www.silentdave.net)
So it is Saturday, and I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to make it a tradition to just post one question on Saturday, something random that occurred to me throughout the week, perhaps, or something that doesn't really fall into any particular category that I intend to do in the near future. Tomorrow it should be business as usual, but today we'll give the Christians a bit of a day off. (The logical choice for that "day off" would perhaps be Sunday, I know, but I'm choosing Saturday. Sunday is when Christians go to church, which is a Christian immersion environment, and will thus have the effect of memetically reinforcing their existing belief framework. Nothing I can do about that, but when they do come home after Church, I want to not-so-gently remind them that, yes, reality is still out here.)
What's special about Saturday in the Christian tradition? Nothing in particular, except that it happens to be the only full calendar day which Jesus purportedly spent dead -- the story is that he died on Friday evening, and was "resurrected" the following Sunday morning. I'll be dealing with that death and "resurrection" soon enough, but first let me ask this:
1. Why do Christians say that Jesus rose from the dead after three days, when it was, in fact, a day and a half?
Kind of a "light and fluffy" question, I know, but hey -- it's Saturday!
A couple quick notes: First, I went back through the "Questions..." posts and added the "questions for christians" label to them all, so that people can find them with relative ease. I'll also be taking this weekend to cross-post the series to my own blog at intervals. (Hey, did you know I have a blog of my own? http://www.silentdave.net)
So it is Saturday, and I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to make it a tradition to just post one question on Saturday, something random that occurred to me throughout the week, perhaps, or something that doesn't really fall into any particular category that I intend to do in the near future. Tomorrow it should be business as usual, but today we'll give the Christians a bit of a day off. (The logical choice for that "day off" would perhaps be Sunday, I know, but I'm choosing Saturday. Sunday is when Christians go to church, which is a Christian immersion environment, and will thus have the effect of memetically reinforcing their existing belief framework. Nothing I can do about that, but when they do come home after Church, I want to not-so-gently remind them that, yes, reality is still out here.)
What's special about Saturday in the Christian tradition? Nothing in particular, except that it happens to be the only full calendar day which Jesus purportedly spent dead -- the story is that he died on Friday evening, and was "resurrected" the following Sunday morning. I'll be dealing with that death and "resurrection" soon enough, but first let me ask this:
1. Why do Christians say that Jesus rose from the dead after three days, when it was, in fact, a day and a half?
Kind of a "light and fluffy" question, I know, but hey -- it's Saturday!
Friday, August 8, 2008
Questions for Christians: The Ethics of Jesus
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. You may post your answers here, or answer them privately, at your discretion. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time (and possibly our bandwidth). At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you answer these questions publicly, with the intention of being a teacher instead of a learner, then please don't bother doing so here. These questions are for your educational benefit.
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
These questions deal with the ethical system set out in the Bible -- specifically in the New Testament. I could, if I so desired, devote an entire post or two to asking you about the atrocities committed by the God of the Old Testament, either directly or by commanding his human followers, but there seems to be little point -- being a Christian, you are probably accustomed to making excuses on God's behalf. Instead, I will be asking about the ethics that God, via Jesus, wants you to abide by.
1. Have you sold everything you own, and distributed the money to the poor, in order to follow Jesus (Luke 18:22)?
If so, whose computer are you using to read this post? If not, why not?
2. Do you hate your family, and yourself (Luke 14:26)?
Note that this verse isn't instructing you to love your family and yourself less than you love God, or to make them a lesser priority than God. That verse is instructing you to literally hate your family and yourself. Do you think that's good advice for anyone to follow? If not, why does Jesus command it? If so, what does that say about your humanity?
3. Do you think evil should be resisted?
If so, why did Jesus command you not to resist evil (Matthew 5:39)? If not, if you think evil should be allowed to occur unresisted, doesn't that make you morally neutral at best?
4. Is Ray Comfort in danger of hell?
Matthew 5:22 states that whoever calls someone a fool is in danger of Hell, and Ray Comfort is rather famous for meeting that qualification. You cannot object that it is the Bible, not Ray, that is calling people fools -- name-calling by proxy is still name-calling.
5. What positive intellectual virtues did Jesus preach?
The closest thing to a teaching on intellectualism that Jesus himself purportedly taught that I have been able to find is a negative one: he based his entire message on faith, and said that you won't enter Heaven unless you become like children (Matthew 18:3). Did Jesus have anything positive to say about critical thinking?
6. Where in the gospels does Jesus preach against slavery?
Or do you believe, as does Jean Gasho-Musuka, that slavery is perfectly acceptable if done in a "godly" way?
7. Where does Jesus preach against rape?
8. Against war?
9. Against racism?
10. Against discrimination?
Some Christians, having failed to find such explicit teachings in the gospels, state that they're all encapsulated in the "Love Your Neighbor" commandment. In the first place, however, this idea is scarcely original to Jesus -- and in the second place, the Jesus depicted in the gospels was not shy about explicitly denouncing other immoral actions, actions as minor as name-calling and failure to be doubly charitable than asked. Why would he not explicitly preach against issues of so much greater moral import?
11. How can a person who honestly believes that God does not exist fulfill what Jesus purportedly called the greatest moral commandment, namely to maximally love God?
Apologists such as Ray Comfort will tell you that no such person exists, that anyone who says they believe that God does not exist is being dishonest, or just "pretending." However, that thesis is flatly contradicted by overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary, and for that reason is rejected even by most Christian philosophers and theologians. So how can certain people be moral, or even try to be moral, when they don't believe that the being they're supposed to maximally love even exists?
This is one in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
These questions deal with the ethical system set out in the Bible -- specifically in the New Testament. I could, if I so desired, devote an entire post or two to asking you about the atrocities committed by the God of the Old Testament, either directly or by commanding his human followers, but there seems to be little point -- being a Christian, you are probably accustomed to making excuses on God's behalf. Instead, I will be asking about the ethics that God, via Jesus, wants you to abide by.
1. Have you sold everything you own, and distributed the money to the poor, in order to follow Jesus (Luke 18:22)?
If so, whose computer are you using to read this post? If not, why not?
2. Do you hate your family, and yourself (Luke 14:26)?
Note that this verse isn't instructing you to love your family and yourself less than you love God, or to make them a lesser priority than God. That verse is instructing you to literally hate your family and yourself. Do you think that's good advice for anyone to follow? If not, why does Jesus command it? If so, what does that say about your humanity?
3. Do you think evil should be resisted?
If so, why did Jesus command you not to resist evil (Matthew 5:39)? If not, if you think evil should be allowed to occur unresisted, doesn't that make you morally neutral at best?
4. Is Ray Comfort in danger of hell?
Matthew 5:22 states that whoever calls someone a fool is in danger of Hell, and Ray Comfort is rather famous for meeting that qualification. You cannot object that it is the Bible, not Ray, that is calling people fools -- name-calling by proxy is still name-calling.
5. What positive intellectual virtues did Jesus preach?
The closest thing to a teaching on intellectualism that Jesus himself purportedly taught that I have been able to find is a negative one: he based his entire message on faith, and said that you won't enter Heaven unless you become like children (Matthew 18:3). Did Jesus have anything positive to say about critical thinking?
6. Where in the gospels does Jesus preach against slavery?
Or do you believe, as does Jean Gasho-Musuka, that slavery is perfectly acceptable if done in a "godly" way?
7. Where does Jesus preach against rape?
8. Against war?
9. Against racism?
10. Against discrimination?
Some Christians, having failed to find such explicit teachings in the gospels, state that they're all encapsulated in the "Love Your Neighbor" commandment. In the first place, however, this idea is scarcely original to Jesus -- and in the second place, the Jesus depicted in the gospels was not shy about explicitly denouncing other immoral actions, actions as minor as name-calling and failure to be doubly charitable than asked. Why would he not explicitly preach against issues of so much greater moral import?
11. How can a person who honestly believes that God does not exist fulfill what Jesus purportedly called the greatest moral commandment, namely to maximally love God?
Apologists such as Ray Comfort will tell you that no such person exists, that anyone who says they believe that God does not exist is being dishonest, or just "pretending." However, that thesis is flatly contradicted by overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary, and for that reason is rejected even by most Christian philosophers and theologians. So how can certain people be moral, or even try to be moral, when they don't believe that the being they're supposed to maximally love even exists?
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Questions for Christians: The Bible and Science
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. You may post your answers here, or answer them privately, at your discretion. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time (and possibly our bandwidth). At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you answer these questions publicly, with the intention of being a teacher instead of a learner, then please don't bother doing so here. These questions are for your educational benefit.
This is the first in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
This set of questions deal with what the Bible has to say about scientific facts, facts which have been discovered in the intervening centuries since the Bible was written, and which one would not expect the author(s) to be aware of -- assuming they were merely human, and not divine or divinely inspired. The list itself is quite brief, but please see the notes at the bottom.
1. Why does the Bible state (Isaiah 11:12, 42:5, Job 28:24, Jeremiah 10:13, 31:37, Matthew 4:8, Revelation 1:7, 7:1) that the Earth is flat and/or that all of it can be seen from a particular vantage point, when we know for a fact that the Earth is spherical?
2. Why does the Bible state (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5) that the Earth does not move, when we know for a fact that it does?
3. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 1:16-17) that the Earth already existed when the Sun and stars were created, when we know for a fact that stars came into existence long before the Earth did?
4. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 1:11-19) that plants were created one day before the Sun, when we know for a fact that plans could not have survived before the Sun existed?
5. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 1) that life was created over a span of a few days, when we know for a fact that life developed over a period of hundreds of millions of years?
6. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 3:14, Isaiah 65:25) that snakes eat, or will eat dust, when we know for a fact that they don't?
7. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 7:19-20) that there was once a flood that covered the mountains of all the Earth, when we know for a fact there was no possible place for that much water (at least half a billion cubic miles!) to come from or go to?
8. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 11:6-9) that the languages of the world were all created at once, at the Tower of Babel, when we know for a fact that languages evolved over a great deal of time at many seperate locations on Earth?
9. Why do the figures given by the Bible (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:45-46, Deut. 7:1) place the total population of Palestine at the time as over 21 million, when we know for a fact that it was never anywhere near that figure?
10. Why does the Bible state (Leviticus 11:6) that hares chew their cud, when we know for a fact that they don't?
11. Why does the Bible state (Leviticus 11:13,19, Deut. 14:11,18) that the bat is a bird, when we know for a fact that it is not?
12. Why does the Bible state (Numbers 22:28-30) that a donkey spoke, when we know for a fact that donkeys can't speak?
13. Why does the Bible state (Joshua 10:12-13) that the Sun stood still in the sky, when we know for a fact that such an event is impossible?
14. Why does the Bible treat unicorns (Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9-11, Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, Isaiah 34:7), cockatrices (Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, 59:5, Jeremiah 8:17), dragons (Deut. 32:33, Job 30:29, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 13:22, 27:1, 43:20, Jeremiah 9:11, Micah 1:8), satyrs (Isaiah 13:21, 34:14) and flying serpents (Numbers 21:6, Deut. 8:15, Isaiah 14:39, 30:6) as real animals, when we know for a fact that they are mythical?
15. Why does the Bible state (Matthew 2:16) that Herod had every child under the age of three in the region killed, when we know for a fact that no such massacre ever happened?
16. Why does the Bible state (Matthew 27:52-53) that dead bodies emerged from graves and walked around in Jerusalem, when we know for a fact that "zombies" are impossible?
Some notes on the above questions:
This is the first in a series of "Questions..." posts that deal with the Bible, the scriptural compilation that constitutes the conceptual framework of the Christian faith. If you were ever a Christian, chances are you've read some of the Bible. If you are still a Christian today, chances are you haven't read all of it.
This set of questions deal with what the Bible has to say about scientific facts, facts which have been discovered in the intervening centuries since the Bible was written, and which one would not expect the author(s) to be aware of -- assuming they were merely human, and not divine or divinely inspired. The list itself is quite brief, but please see the notes at the bottom.
1. Why does the Bible state (Isaiah 11:12, 42:5, Job 28:24, Jeremiah 10:13, 31:37, Matthew 4:8, Revelation 1:7, 7:1) that the Earth is flat and/or that all of it can be seen from a particular vantage point, when we know for a fact that the Earth is spherical?
2. Why does the Bible state (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5) that the Earth does not move, when we know for a fact that it does?
3. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 1:16-17) that the Earth already existed when the Sun and stars were created, when we know for a fact that stars came into existence long before the Earth did?
4. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 1:11-19) that plants were created one day before the Sun, when we know for a fact that plans could not have survived before the Sun existed?
5. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 1) that life was created over a span of a few days, when we know for a fact that life developed over a period of hundreds of millions of years?
6. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 3:14, Isaiah 65:25) that snakes eat, or will eat dust, when we know for a fact that they don't?
7. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 7:19-20) that there was once a flood that covered the mountains of all the Earth, when we know for a fact there was no possible place for that much water (at least half a billion cubic miles!) to come from or go to?
8. Why does the Bible state (Genesis 11:6-9) that the languages of the world were all created at once, at the Tower of Babel, when we know for a fact that languages evolved over a great deal of time at many seperate locations on Earth?
9. Why do the figures given by the Bible (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:45-46, Deut. 7:1) place the total population of Palestine at the time as over 21 million, when we know for a fact that it was never anywhere near that figure?
10. Why does the Bible state (Leviticus 11:6) that hares chew their cud, when we know for a fact that they don't?
11. Why does the Bible state (Leviticus 11:13,19, Deut. 14:11,18) that the bat is a bird, when we know for a fact that it is not?
12. Why does the Bible state (Numbers 22:28-30) that a donkey spoke, when we know for a fact that donkeys can't speak?
13. Why does the Bible state (Joshua 10:12-13) that the Sun stood still in the sky, when we know for a fact that such an event is impossible?
14. Why does the Bible treat unicorns (Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9-11, Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10, Isaiah 34:7), cockatrices (Isaiah 11:8, 14:29, 59:5, Jeremiah 8:17), dragons (Deut. 32:33, Job 30:29, Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 13:22, 27:1, 43:20, Jeremiah 9:11, Micah 1:8), satyrs (Isaiah 13:21, 34:14) and flying serpents (Numbers 21:6, Deut. 8:15, Isaiah 14:39, 30:6) as real animals, when we know for a fact that they are mythical?
15. Why does the Bible state (Matthew 2:16) that Herod had every child under the age of three in the region killed, when we know for a fact that no such massacre ever happened?
16. Why does the Bible state (Matthew 27:52-53) that dead bodies emerged from graves and walked around in Jerusalem, when we know for a fact that "zombies" are impossible?
Some notes on the above questions:
- Carl Sagan defined a "fact" as an idea which has been so well-established by the available evidence that to deny it would be intellectually perverse. All of the above facts do, by that definition, qualify as facts. None of them are in any serious dispute by the global community of scientists and/or historians. You may have been told otherwise by your fellow Christians -- especially with regard to evolution and the age of the Earth -- but if so, then I'm afraid you were simply misled.
- If your response to any of the above is that the verse(s) in question is/are meant metaphorically, then first of all, how do you know this? Second, if you concede that those verses do not have the meaning of the literal reading of the words, then how do you know that the verses regarding salvation do have the meaning of the literal meaning of the words? What if they, too, are metaphors?
- If your response to any of the above is that the verse(s) in question is/are taken out of context, then please explain how the context of the verse(s) changes the meaning.
- If your response to any of the above is that the verse(s) in question is/are the result of a copying or translation error, and that the original verse(s) said something entirely different, then please tell us (a) what the original verse(s) said, and (b) how you know this.
- If your response to any of the above is that the event described in the verse(s) was a one-time miracle, then please bear that response(s) in mind when you read my forthcoming "Questions..." post regarding miracles.
- If your response to any of the above is that you have the personal experience of God and/or Jesus that the verse(s) in question is/are literally true, then please bear that response(s) in mind when you read my forthcoming "Questions..." post regarding personal experience.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Questions For Christians: Heaven
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time and our bandwidth. At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you plan to post a comment with the intention of deliberately being a teacher, instead of a learner, then please don't bother. These questions are for your benefit.
Today's questions concern Heaven, the place where the "saved" will purportedly go after death to live with God and Jesus in eternal bliss for all eternity. There are a number of different conceptualizations of heaven, depending on the Christian sect you adhere to, so one or more of the questions below will not apply to you. But most of the questions will apply to most Christians.
1. How is Heaven ultimately any different from Hell?
The Buddhists believe that the time between incarnations of fully enlightened Buddhas is incredibly vast -- so vast that they have invented picturesque metaphors to describe them. One of the more popular ones is this: Imagine a mountain, greater than Everest. Imagine that, once every thousand years, a bird comes along and sharpens its beak on that mountain, then flies away, leaving the mountain alone for another thousand years. Try to imagine the amount of time it would take for that bird to wear away the rock of the entire mountain.
The Buddhist epoch is an absurdly long time -- but it is not forever. Heaven, according to the Christians, is forever. That means, no matter how arbitrarily long you make the metaphor -- say, the amount of time it takes for the bird to wear away all the rock of all the planets in the entire universe by sharpening its beak every thousand years -- you will still be spending your days and nights doing nothing but praising God!
Perhaps there will be things to do other than praise God -- commune with fellow "saved," perhaps play board games, write and perform plays, perhaps other activities we presently cannot even conceive of. But remember, we're talking about forever. Whatever form you'd take after death, you'd still be a finite being given an infinite period of time. Eventually you'd run out of things to do. Eventually you'd tire of the bliss. How could you stand it? Wouldn't you start to long for the tortures of Hell, just to get away from the monotony?
2. Is there free will in Heaven?
If people in Heaven do have free will, then they would have the freedom to sin. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga wrote that people with the freedom to sin will necessarily choose to actually do so on occasion -- I do not agree with Plantinga on this issue, but let's say that he's right. That would mean that, eventually, there would be sin in Heaven. What happens to people in Heaven who sin? Are they kicked out? That would mean that someday Heaven would completely empty out, with the entire human race ending up in Hell, leaving God all alone with whatever celestial beings he created -- which would defeat the purpose of creating humanity in the first place, wouldn't it? On the other hand, are they allowed to stay? What, then, would be the point of earthly existence and salvation and all that?
If people in Heaven do not have free will, however, then they would be, in the words of some Christian apologists, "mindless robots." Would God desire communion with such beings for eternity? If so, why not have created mindless robots to begin with?
Let's say that Plantinga is wrong, however, that people can somehow be caused to never sin and still have free will in a significant sense. But why, then, did God not cause people on Earth to be in that state? Can you find any non-arbitrary answer to this problem?
3. How is heaven fair?
Many if not most evangelists believe that attainment of Heaven is awarded by grace, that it is a gift of God, and that he alone decides who receives it and who doesn't. Most evangelists also believe that some people receive Heaven and some receive Hell. How is that fair? If Heaven truly is a gift, and not earned entirely on merit, wouldn't a loving father gift the gift to all his children?
4. Could you really be happy in Heaven with loved ones in Hell?
Suppose you arrive in Heaven only to discover that your parents, your siblings, your spouse, your children, your friends, all the people that you ever loved, having failed to "make the grade" as you did, are now in Hell, where they will be tortured forever, by decree of the God with whom you now get to live with for all eternity. Would you be sad? Angry?
If so, how is that compatible with the eternal bliss that Heaven entails? If not, if God arranged matters so that you would not feel sadness or anger or the state of affairs, how would you still be you? How could you cease to care when your caring for these people is a core aspect of the person you are on Earth, and still be you? Wouldn't you be an entirely different person? Wouldn't the you that existed on Earth have, for all purposes, ceased to exist? What, then, is the point of promising salvation, when the promised reward will not be given to you, but to someone else?
Moreover, if you are aware that if in spite of your best efforts your loved ones wind up unsaved, and that you will then cease to care about them as you do today, and you don't have a problem with that . . . wouldn't that make you ultimately uncaring about your loved ones? As an atheist, I would have a huge problem with that -- doesn't that make me a more caring person than you?
5. Can you prove that a single person is in Heaven right now?
The central message of Christian evangelism is God's promise that he will award Heaven to those who . . . whatever. Repent, or accept Jesus, or stand on a soapbox, or whatever is necessary for this to happen. (The concept of salvation will be addressed in a future "Questions" post.)
Yet no Christian I have ever spoken with has been able to point to a single person and say, "See? God has kept the promise he made to that person!" Can you do so? If not, how do you know that such a promise, even if made in the first place, will be kept?
Today's questions concern Heaven, the place where the "saved" will purportedly go after death to live with God and Jesus in eternal bliss for all eternity. There are a number of different conceptualizations of heaven, depending on the Christian sect you adhere to, so one or more of the questions below will not apply to you. But most of the questions will apply to most Christians.
1. How is Heaven ultimately any different from Hell?
The Buddhists believe that the time between incarnations of fully enlightened Buddhas is incredibly vast -- so vast that they have invented picturesque metaphors to describe them. One of the more popular ones is this: Imagine a mountain, greater than Everest. Imagine that, once every thousand years, a bird comes along and sharpens its beak on that mountain, then flies away, leaving the mountain alone for another thousand years. Try to imagine the amount of time it would take for that bird to wear away the rock of the entire mountain.
The Buddhist epoch is an absurdly long time -- but it is not forever. Heaven, according to the Christians, is forever. That means, no matter how arbitrarily long you make the metaphor -- say, the amount of time it takes for the bird to wear away all the rock of all the planets in the entire universe by sharpening its beak every thousand years -- you will still be spending your days and nights doing nothing but praising God!
Perhaps there will be things to do other than praise God -- commune with fellow "saved," perhaps play board games, write and perform plays, perhaps other activities we presently cannot even conceive of. But remember, we're talking about forever. Whatever form you'd take after death, you'd still be a finite being given an infinite period of time. Eventually you'd run out of things to do. Eventually you'd tire of the bliss. How could you stand it? Wouldn't you start to long for the tortures of Hell, just to get away from the monotony?
2. Is there free will in Heaven?
If people in Heaven do have free will, then they would have the freedom to sin. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga wrote that people with the freedom to sin will necessarily choose to actually do so on occasion -- I do not agree with Plantinga on this issue, but let's say that he's right. That would mean that, eventually, there would be sin in Heaven. What happens to people in Heaven who sin? Are they kicked out? That would mean that someday Heaven would completely empty out, with the entire human race ending up in Hell, leaving God all alone with whatever celestial beings he created -- which would defeat the purpose of creating humanity in the first place, wouldn't it? On the other hand, are they allowed to stay? What, then, would be the point of earthly existence and salvation and all that?
If people in Heaven do not have free will, however, then they would be, in the words of some Christian apologists, "mindless robots." Would God desire communion with such beings for eternity? If so, why not have created mindless robots to begin with?
Let's say that Plantinga is wrong, however, that people can somehow be caused to never sin and still have free will in a significant sense. But why, then, did God not cause people on Earth to be in that state? Can you find any non-arbitrary answer to this problem?
3. How is heaven fair?
Many if not most evangelists believe that attainment of Heaven is awarded by grace, that it is a gift of God, and that he alone decides who receives it and who doesn't. Most evangelists also believe that some people receive Heaven and some receive Hell. How is that fair? If Heaven truly is a gift, and not earned entirely on merit, wouldn't a loving father gift the gift to all his children?
4. Could you really be happy in Heaven with loved ones in Hell?
Suppose you arrive in Heaven only to discover that your parents, your siblings, your spouse, your children, your friends, all the people that you ever loved, having failed to "make the grade" as you did, are now in Hell, where they will be tortured forever, by decree of the God with whom you now get to live with for all eternity. Would you be sad? Angry?
If so, how is that compatible with the eternal bliss that Heaven entails? If not, if God arranged matters so that you would not feel sadness or anger or the state of affairs, how would you still be you? How could you cease to care when your caring for these people is a core aspect of the person you are on Earth, and still be you? Wouldn't you be an entirely different person? Wouldn't the you that existed on Earth have, for all purposes, ceased to exist? What, then, is the point of promising salvation, when the promised reward will not be given to you, but to someone else?
Moreover, if you are aware that if in spite of your best efforts your loved ones wind up unsaved, and that you will then cease to care about them as you do today, and you don't have a problem with that . . . wouldn't that make you ultimately uncaring about your loved ones? As an atheist, I would have a huge problem with that -- doesn't that make me a more caring person than you?
5. Can you prove that a single person is in Heaven right now?
The central message of Christian evangelism is God's promise that he will award Heaven to those who . . . whatever. Repent, or accept Jesus, or stand on a soapbox, or whatever is necessary for this to happen. (The concept of salvation will be addressed in a future "Questions" post.)
Yet no Christian I have ever spoken with has been able to point to a single person and say, "See? God has kept the promise he made to that person!" Can you do so? If not, how do you know that such a promise, even if made in the first place, will be kept?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Questions For Christians: Morality
First, the usual disclaimer: the purpose of these posts is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. My ultimate goal in asking these questions is to have you deconvert from Christianity. If you are not open to at least the possibility of that happening, then I suggest you not respond to these questions, as that will be a waste of your time and our bandwidth. At the same time, I am open to the possibility of learning a thing or two about Christianity along the way -- but if you plan to post a comment with the intention of being a teacher, instead of a learner, then please don't bother. These questions are for your benefit.
The following questions have to do with morality and goodness in Christian theism.
1. How do you define the word "good"?
You almost certainly know a human whom you would call good -- let's call him John -- and if you are a Christian then you certainly think that God is good. What I'm looking for in this question is a definition of the word "good" such that, using that definition, the sentences "John is good" and "God is good" would both be true sentences. (If you happen to believe that no human being at all is "good," then feel free to substitute a sentence such as "John tries to be good" or "John has good qualities about him.")
2. How do you define the word "just?"
3. How do you define the word "loving?"
Same caveats as above: I'm looking for a definition of these words as they're used to describe both John and God.
4. Is murder wrong because God says it is, or does God say murder is wrong because murder is wrong?
This is a variation of an old argument called the Euthyphro Dilemma, named for the titular character in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, against whom it was first used. The dilemma is this: if murder is wrong because God says it is, then morality is a function of God's commands; thus, if God were to command that murder is right, then that would be true. This means that it is possible for murder to be right, whereas objective morality necessitates that murder is always wrong, thus God's existence is incompatible with objective morality. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because murder is wrong, then God is deriving that moral fact from an independent standard, which means that an independent moral standard exists against which God himself can be judged -- and by any rationally defensible standard of morality, that judgment is far from favorable.
It does no good to respond that morality is dictated by God's unchanging nature, as that only pushes the question back a notch: is murder wrong because God's nature says it is, or does God's nature say murder is wrong because murder is wrong? (You cannot say that God's nature qua God's nature necessarily exists in the absence of a particular sort of ontological argument for God's existence, a sort which has never been offered, still less proven.)
Nor can you say that there is no causal relationship, as "murder is wrong" is a moral fact, and any given fact can only have three possible relations to an intelligent being: it is created by that being, discovered by that being, or unknown to that being. Number three would not be an option with God, obviously, so either God created "murder is wrong" or he discovered it. So I ask again: Is murder wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it's wrong?
5. Should we stone to death anyone who works on the Sabbath?
The Bible's answer is yes, we must. Do you think that is right? If by circumstance it fell upon you to actually carry out the stoning, would you be willing to go through with it? If not, why not?
A related question:
5a. Do you think that human slavery is morally acceptable if done in accordance with the Bible?
At least one poster on the Raytractors blog, Jean Gasho-Musuka, has stated that it is indeed morally acceptable (why not, she said, as we are all slaves to Christ anyway). Do you agree? Do you believe that human slavery is never morally acceptable?
These final two questions pretty much speak for themselves:
6. Who is more moral, the person who does good because of the threat of punishment, or the person who does good in spite of no such threat?
7. Who has more incentive to be moral, one who believes that the slate will eventually be wiped clean and all will be forgiven provided you repent, or the person who believes there is no cosmic forgiveness, and that you and your descendants will be stuck with whatever mistakes you make?
The following questions have to do with morality and goodness in Christian theism.
1. How do you define the word "good"?
You almost certainly know a human whom you would call good -- let's call him John -- and if you are a Christian then you certainly think that God is good. What I'm looking for in this question is a definition of the word "good" such that, using that definition, the sentences "John is good" and "God is good" would both be true sentences. (If you happen to believe that no human being at all is "good," then feel free to substitute a sentence such as "John tries to be good" or "John has good qualities about him.")
2. How do you define the word "just?"
3. How do you define the word "loving?"
Same caveats as above: I'm looking for a definition of these words as they're used to describe both John and God.
4. Is murder wrong because God says it is, or does God say murder is wrong because murder is wrong?
This is a variation of an old argument called the Euthyphro Dilemma, named for the titular character in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, against whom it was first used. The dilemma is this: if murder is wrong because God says it is, then morality is a function of God's commands; thus, if God were to command that murder is right, then that would be true. This means that it is possible for murder to be right, whereas objective morality necessitates that murder is always wrong, thus God's existence is incompatible with objective morality. On the other hand, if God says murder is wrong because murder is wrong, then God is deriving that moral fact from an independent standard, which means that an independent moral standard exists against which God himself can be judged -- and by any rationally defensible standard of morality, that judgment is far from favorable.
It does no good to respond that morality is dictated by God's unchanging nature, as that only pushes the question back a notch: is murder wrong because God's nature says it is, or does God's nature say murder is wrong because murder is wrong? (You cannot say that God's nature qua God's nature necessarily exists in the absence of a particular sort of ontological argument for God's existence, a sort which has never been offered, still less proven.)
Nor can you say that there is no causal relationship, as "murder is wrong" is a moral fact, and any given fact can only have three possible relations to an intelligent being: it is created by that being, discovered by that being, or unknown to that being. Number three would not be an option with God, obviously, so either God created "murder is wrong" or he discovered it. So I ask again: Is murder wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it's wrong?
5. Should we stone to death anyone who works on the Sabbath?
The Bible's answer is yes, we must. Do you think that is right? If by circumstance it fell upon you to actually carry out the stoning, would you be willing to go through with it? If not, why not?
A related question:
5a. Do you think that human slavery is morally acceptable if done in accordance with the Bible?
At least one poster on the Raytractors blog, Jean Gasho-Musuka, has stated that it is indeed morally acceptable (why not, she said, as we are all slaves to Christ anyway). Do you agree? Do you believe that human slavery is never morally acceptable?
These final two questions pretty much speak for themselves:
6. Who is more moral, the person who does good because of the threat of punishment, or the person who does good in spite of no such threat?
7. Who has more incentive to be moral, one who believes that the slate will eventually be wiped clean and all will be forgiven provided you repent, or the person who believes there is no cosmic forgiveness, and that you and your descendants will be stuck with whatever mistakes you make?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Questions for Christians: Hell
This post is the first in a series I am planning, the purpose of which is to pose questions to Christians who come here (or go anywhere, for that matter) with the intent of converting us to Christianity, but also with an open mind about their own faith. I won't pretend that my ultimate goal isn't to have you deconvert from Christianity, but forget about that for now; each post for the time being will focus on a particular aspect of the Christian faith that the Christian would benefit from reconsidering.
We'll start with the following four questions about the doctrine of Hell, that being a place where the wicked and unrepentant will be tortured for all eternity after death. If you don't believe that Hell exists, or is such a place, then these questions won't apply to you -- but they will apply to most evangelical Christians.
1. How do you know that Hell exists?
Being an atheist, I don't believe that the Bible is completely true, or even largely true, so citing the Bible as evidence that Hell exists won't work on me. If the Bible is the only thing you have to go with, however, then our next discussion can focus on whether the Bible can be considered reliable evidence for anything at all.
Obviously -- at least I hope you find it as obvious as I do -- the fact that a large number of people might believe in something isn't proof of anything. Nor are near-death experiences of such a place, as these have been explained as processes of the physical brain. So how do you know Hell even exists?
2. How can Hell possibly be moral?
How can an all-loving God allow, still less create, a place of eternal torture? Doesn't torturing, or threatening to torture, a person indicate that you hate them, rather than love them and want a relationship with them?
Some apologists say that God doesn't send people to Hell, rather we send ourselves through sin. In the first place, however, we did not create Hell, God did, so this doesn't answer why God would deliberately create a place of eternal torture for those who disobeyed him. (Some will say that Satan, not God, created Hell -- but even if that unlikely scenario were the case, the fact remains that God seems to have no problem in making use of the place.)
In the second place, nobody ever chooses to be tortured. Ask any waterboarding victim if he chose to undergo that procedure. (Journalist and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens did voluntarily undergo the procedure, for the sake of an article he was writing -- he confirmed that it was indeed a form of torture, and that he would never do it again.) Ask any political prisoner if they would choose to be tortured. They never make that choice -- even in disobeying their captors, knowing that torture would be the result; that is not tantamount to choosing to accept torture, as the captors simply do not have the moral right to do that. Hell is flat-out immoral in any human sense of the word.
Would you respond, then, that Hell, while immoral by human standards, is moral by God's standards? If you allow that human and divine moral standards can diverge so widely, then you must also concede that other things which we consider immoral might be considered perfectly moral by God. Such as lying to humans. Such as telling us that we'll be saved if we accept Jesus and so forth, when he in fact has no intention of saving us, but intends to throw everyone, Christian and atheist alike, into Hell. Along with Hell, Christians can't provide any evidence that a single person is currently in Heaven. So the question remains: How can Hell possibly be moral?
3. How can Hell possibly be just?
This is a separate question from the above: it refers to the justice, or lack thereof, in subjecting a person to infinite punishment for finite crimes. If a person's only crime is jaywalking, you don't give him the punishment that you would give to a mass murderer; that would be gross injustice. With humans, every crime we could possibly commit, against man or God, is finite, and therefore merits finite punishment. But Hell is forever. It is infinite punishment. How, then, can it be a just punishment for any crime humans commit during our lives?
Some Christians say that, because the crimes are committed against an infinite being, they are of infinite magnitude. However, a defining characteristic of a crime is that it causes harm, either directly to its victims or indirectly to a society -- thus, humans can never commit a crime against God, as finite beings can only inflict zero or negligible harm on an infinite being.
Another unjust aspect of Hell is the impossibility of release; even if a person repents in Hell and is genuinely sorry for what they have done and is prepared to accept Christ, the vast majority of Christian sects teach that there will be no release for them. We are told that God will accept any sincere repentance from someone on Earth, regardless of what prompted it -- why would the same not apply in Hell? There can be no non-arbitrary answer to this question. So once again: how can Hell possibly be just?
4. Why is Hell necessary?
Why did God feel the need to create such a place in the first place? (Those who say that Satan, not God, created Hell, see above.)
The common answer here is that God has no choice, that he is incapable of existing in the presence of sin, and that Hell is the only metaphysical alternative to his own realm. But if that answer is true, then God is not God. Because God is, by definition, all-powerful -- he can handle the problem, quite literally, any way he wants to.
God could extinguish souls rather than subject them to torture. He could create another metaphysical realm, something like Earth, and keep them there until they get it right. He could simply forgive them unconditionally, snap his fingers (so to speak) to "cleanse" the soul of sin, and admit them into Heaven. To deny that God is capable of any of these things is to deny that God is all-powerful, thus to deny that God is God, and hence to admit that you are an atheist.
The only reason I can think of for God to create and/or make use of a realm such as Hell is because he is sadistic and enjoys the suffering of others. But, of course, this is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving God. So I ask again: why is Hell necessary?
If the Christian wants us to take the concept of Hell seriously, as something more than an evangelistic tactic to try to coerce us into becoming Christians, then the very least he or she must do is provide satisfactory answers to all four of these questions. To my knowledge -- and I have studied philosophy of religion intensively for over a decade -- this has never been done. If you are able to do it, you would be the first. Do you think you can do it? Or do you think you had better rethink the whole Hell thing?
We'll start with the following four questions about the doctrine of Hell, that being a place where the wicked and unrepentant will be tortured for all eternity after death. If you don't believe that Hell exists, or is such a place, then these questions won't apply to you -- but they will apply to most evangelical Christians.
1. How do you know that Hell exists?
Being an atheist, I don't believe that the Bible is completely true, or even largely true, so citing the Bible as evidence that Hell exists won't work on me. If the Bible is the only thing you have to go with, however, then our next discussion can focus on whether the Bible can be considered reliable evidence for anything at all.
Obviously -- at least I hope you find it as obvious as I do -- the fact that a large number of people might believe in something isn't proof of anything. Nor are near-death experiences of such a place, as these have been explained as processes of the physical brain. So how do you know Hell even exists?
2. How can Hell possibly be moral?
How can an all-loving God allow, still less create, a place of eternal torture? Doesn't torturing, or threatening to torture, a person indicate that you hate them, rather than love them and want a relationship with them?
Some apologists say that God doesn't send people to Hell, rather we send ourselves through sin. In the first place, however, we did not create Hell, God did, so this doesn't answer why God would deliberately create a place of eternal torture for those who disobeyed him. (Some will say that Satan, not God, created Hell -- but even if that unlikely scenario were the case, the fact remains that God seems to have no problem in making use of the place.)
In the second place, nobody ever chooses to be tortured. Ask any waterboarding victim if he chose to undergo that procedure. (Journalist and outspoken atheist Christopher Hitchens did voluntarily undergo the procedure, for the sake of an article he was writing -- he confirmed that it was indeed a form of torture, and that he would never do it again.) Ask any political prisoner if they would choose to be tortured. They never make that choice -- even in disobeying their captors, knowing that torture would be the result; that is not tantamount to choosing to accept torture, as the captors simply do not have the moral right to do that. Hell is flat-out immoral in any human sense of the word.
Would you respond, then, that Hell, while immoral by human standards, is moral by God's standards? If you allow that human and divine moral standards can diverge so widely, then you must also concede that other things which we consider immoral might be considered perfectly moral by God. Such as lying to humans. Such as telling us that we'll be saved if we accept Jesus and so forth, when he in fact has no intention of saving us, but intends to throw everyone, Christian and atheist alike, into Hell. Along with Hell, Christians can't provide any evidence that a single person is currently in Heaven. So the question remains: How can Hell possibly be moral?
3. How can Hell possibly be just?
This is a separate question from the above: it refers to the justice, or lack thereof, in subjecting a person to infinite punishment for finite crimes. If a person's only crime is jaywalking, you don't give him the punishment that you would give to a mass murderer; that would be gross injustice. With humans, every crime we could possibly commit, against man or God, is finite, and therefore merits finite punishment. But Hell is forever. It is infinite punishment. How, then, can it be a just punishment for any crime humans commit during our lives?
Some Christians say that, because the crimes are committed against an infinite being, they are of infinite magnitude. However, a defining characteristic of a crime is that it causes harm, either directly to its victims or indirectly to a society -- thus, humans can never commit a crime against God, as finite beings can only inflict zero or negligible harm on an infinite being.
Another unjust aspect of Hell is the impossibility of release; even if a person repents in Hell and is genuinely sorry for what they have done and is prepared to accept Christ, the vast majority of Christian sects teach that there will be no release for them. We are told that God will accept any sincere repentance from someone on Earth, regardless of what prompted it -- why would the same not apply in Hell? There can be no non-arbitrary answer to this question. So once again: how can Hell possibly be just?
4. Why is Hell necessary?
Why did God feel the need to create such a place in the first place? (Those who say that Satan, not God, created Hell, see above.)
The common answer here is that God has no choice, that he is incapable of existing in the presence of sin, and that Hell is the only metaphysical alternative to his own realm. But if that answer is true, then God is not God. Because God is, by definition, all-powerful -- he can handle the problem, quite literally, any way he wants to.
God could extinguish souls rather than subject them to torture. He could create another metaphysical realm, something like Earth, and keep them there until they get it right. He could simply forgive them unconditionally, snap his fingers (so to speak) to "cleanse" the soul of sin, and admit them into Heaven. To deny that God is capable of any of these things is to deny that God is all-powerful, thus to deny that God is God, and hence to admit that you are an atheist.
The only reason I can think of for God to create and/or make use of a realm such as Hell is because he is sadistic and enjoys the suffering of others. But, of course, this is incompatible with the existence of an all-loving God. So I ask again: why is Hell necessary?
If the Christian wants us to take the concept of Hell seriously, as something more than an evangelistic tactic to try to coerce us into becoming Christians, then the very least he or she must do is provide satisfactory answers to all four of these questions. To my knowledge -- and I have studied philosophy of religion intensively for over a decade -- this has never been done. If you are able to do it, you would be the first. Do you think you can do it? Or do you think you had better rethink the whole Hell thing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
