Faith Infiltration: Jubilee Church

A few weeks ago, Flimsy and I accompanied some other local St. Louis bloggers to The Jubilee Church. Jubilee was running a series of sermons on S.E.X., so of course we had to check it out. We heard about Jubilee via several billboards in the St. Louis area featuring the words, "XXXPOSED CHURCH." The accompanying website explained that, "Contrary to popular opinion, God is not against sex—He's 100% for it! He created sex and meant for us to enjoy it. He even gave us special instructions that will maximize our enjoyment if followed, but if ignored will produce pain and hurt. This is why we have decided to set aside four weeks in our sermon calendar to address the topic of sex."

Woohoo! How could we pass this kind of thing up?

Jubilee Church (which is part of the Newfrontiers movement) is set inside a rather Spanish looking building, complete with a Spanish tile roof and stucco walls. Though the building seemed rather large, the sanctuary was surprisingly small and intimate. My guess is that it tightly held about 200 people. The congregation consisted of a racially-mixed group, most of which were around their 30's. The sanctuary had a very auditorium-like feel to it, having a center stage and bland walls that lacked any kind of religious décor or pictures on the walls.

Someone stood at the front of the stage and told everyone – as the music began - to remember that they can't do anything of their own power and can only accomplish things through Jesus by being born again. He also told the audience to open their hearts to the message and to be "set free in your thinking."

The worship team performed this song, which causes the hairs to stand on my neck even though I am not a believer. If I were a Christian I would totally be into this:




While the song went on, people lifted their hands up and held them there, singing along. It was then that I noticed a very young sign language interpreter at the front, interpreting to what appeared to be one person, who nodded along. The song ended, and a video was launched. The video (parts of which can be found here) featured the PG-13 warning before diving into scenes of St. Louisans being interviewed about sex. The interviewer asked people questions like, "Have you ever been hurt by a sexual relationship?" and people answered. Most people told stories of having negative experiences with sexual relationships. The video ended, and the sermon began.

The pastor opened by telling everyone that god is a fan of sex – in face he is The Fan of sex, because he invented it. "Culture," he said, "assumes god is a killjoy – that Christians are sexual prudes, or Ned Flanders, or judgmental." The implication, obviously, is that "culture" is wrong – Christians aren't prudes, like Ned Flanders, or judgmental.

God, the pastor explained, wants sex to occur within certain constraints: within the "blood covenant" of marriage and as the act of two souls becoming "one flesh." If you're doing it right, your marriage will be one in which companionship, passion and intimacy occurs. When we go outside this ideal, "little foxes" come in and ruin the vineyard that is a marriage. Marriage is hard – said the pastor – because a good relationship is hard to maintain, the devil hates everything that god loves, and so the devil will attempt to distort everything to keep people from experiencing god. Because life starts with and ends with a marriage (to god), god loves marriage, and the devil hates all the things god loves, the devil is obviously going to try to destroy your marriage.

Personally, I don't see any evidence that the devil is mucking things up. Instead, a lot of what I see (and even Christians agree…) is that marriage fails due to these things: lack of honesty, lack of communication, lack of intimacy, lack of trust, and jumping into marriage too early in a relationship, inappropriate expectations, etc.

Apparently last week the Pastor addressed all of the bad things that men do to muck up a marriage, and so this week he focused on the ladies. He started out by saying that ladies should not be selfish with intimacy. If a lady pretends to "have a headache" (obviously, what he meant is when women don't really feel like having sex, so they make up an excuse not to) she is being self-centered, and she needs to learn to serve and think of one-another. The Pastor explained that he was not advocating that a woman be treated like a piece of meat, just that withholding oneself for selfish reasons is one of these "foxes" he was talking about.

The problem I see with this scenario is dishonesty and lack of understanding. Most people enter into marriages with the expectation that their sexual needs will be met. If one partner is not meeting the needs of another partner, this is obviously a problem, and it is also a problem if she is not honest about why she is not meeting those needs. There are better ways to solve this than to say, "quit being selfish", though. For example: he could masturbate. He could watch porn. He and she could agree on an open relationship. He and she could work on spicing up their sex lives. They could work on issues coming between them and sex. There are a multitude of things a couple could do in this situation, so much that I could probably start a whole new blog and write about just this issue. But the pastor chose to solve it in a different way:

Instead of talking through good ways to solve a problem like this, the pastor resorted to guilt: if you selfishly withhold sex and leave your husband sexually unfulfilled, he'll probably turn to porn because men "either fight or just quit." Specifically, the pastor cautioned that, "if you refuse your husband, you are training him to quit on you."

Enter discussion about porn.

The pastor threw out a bunch of rather interesting statistic about porn at this point:

1. It's a 14 billion dollar industry. (It's probably more like a 4 billion dollar industry according to Forbes.com and The Scientist and pro-porn group the Free Speech Coalition.)
   
2. 11 thousand porn films are made a year. (This number seems actually accurate!)
   
3. There are 22 times as many porn video releases as there are movie releases. (okay, that's probably true, but each porn title sells many less copies than a movie release)
   
4. There are more porn stores in America than Mcdonalds. (Are you kidding me? Citation needed! The only one I could find that even remotely came close was this college newspaper citing that there are more strip clubs than McDonalds. Or maybe this website saying there are more strip clubs in Tampa than McDonalds. This statistic appears to have been invented by the National Coalition in an unfindable document titled, "Pornography's Relationship to Sexual Violence and Exploitation." There are 13,383 MickeyD's in the USA. Since pornography stores are not franchised, it is difficult to pin down statistics on how many there are and it looks like no one has really done it, so I am confident in saying this number was pulled out of thin air for shock value. Maybe if you combined all porn stores, strip clubs, video stores that had an "adult movie" section, any store that sold sex toys or lingerie, you might have 13,383.)
   
5. 14% of men are addicted to porn, and 6% of women are addicted to porn. ("pornography addiction" is not found in the DSM and thus is not accepted by mainstream psychology as a disorder. Thus, it has no widely accepted "diagnostic criteria." For example in a survey conducted by Christian net of its readership, "porn addiction" was diagnosed by an affirmative answer to this question, "do you struggle with looking at pornography on an ongoing basis?" They concluded that 60% of men and 20% of women were addicted to porn.
   

It really bothers me when statistics are abused like this or simply made up and passed on as fact to people who place high value on information given by authority figures. After mentioning Bible verses to support the contention that porn is bad (looking upon a woman with lustful intent is the same as committing adultery in the heart, you can't dabble into sexual sin without being burned, etc) the pastor went on to talk more about the evils of porn. He told his audience that porn use inhibits one's ability to cope with reality. It leads to aggression, addiction, depression, loneliness, and detachment. It must become more graphic in order to excite the watcher, who will seek out porn depicting younger people. Role-playing and violence toward women are the obvious step once graphic porn is no longer satisfying.

What's wrong with role-playing, exactly? If two adults in a safe, sane, consensual relationship want to roleplay, who cares? Is porn really that dangerous? How about we look at some unbiased data?

Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged "obscene") and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased.

Few studies link the availability of porn to antisocial behavior and sex crimes. Even though the rate of porn use is going up in the US, Denmark, Sweden, and West Germany, the incidence of rape is going down. It is especially going down among people aged 20-34 – those most likely to use the internet and have ready access to porn.

Rapists are more likely than non-rapists to have been punished for looking at porn. Rapists and child molesters use less porn than "normal" males. The only real environmental correlation between sex-offenders is a strict religious upbringing.

That's right. Porn use has a negative correlation between sex offenses and crimes. If you want to reduce the number of sex crimes in a given community, it is better to give people open access to porn than to make people guilty for even thinking about it.

Obviously, anything that has the potential to be used has the potential to be abused, but it makes little sense to find people who self-describe as being addicted to porn, and then extrapolate that information to claim that porn is addictive. I could probably locate 100 people who are addicted to corned beef and ask them how this addiction has affected their lives and extrapolate that corned beef is addictive.

The pastor mentioned Ted Bundy. Okay, so Ted Bundy liked to look at porn. It's disingenuous to take the actions of one sociopathic serial killer, point fingers at a single aspect of his life (he was also active in his church…) and then blame that aspect of his life for his actions unless it is obvious that there is a clear correlation. Most of the link of Ted Bundy to pornography is due to an interview that he had with James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) before he was executed.

If Jubilee church really wanted to be "not Ted Flanders" they would look objectively at pornography statistics. Instead, they believe porn is wrong and evil, and so pick and choose their information to fit in with their preconceived notions. Given the reality of pornography, this can only hurt society rather than help it. That would be the moral thing to do.

Okay! This blog post has gotten long enough. Tune in for part II later this week.

The Atheist’s Way: makes kids burn churches?

Sorry for the paucity of blog posts!

The other day I read on The Friendly Atheist and the news that there has been a recent rash of 11 church fires caused by arsonists.

This is, of course, very unfortunate. What I think is also unfortunate is the way some specific pieces of literature found in the home of the girlfriend of one of the arsonists has been handled.

Apparently much evidence was seized from the homes of the arsonists as well as the homes of anyone linked to the arsonists. One of the things seized was The Atheist's Way: Living Well Without Gods by Eric Maisel. This less than 200 page book has been the subject of news headlines everywhere: "Suspect in Texas Church Fires Reportedly Had Books on Atheism", Atheism books found in home of church fire suspect, "Atheist books indicated in charges of Arson."

Of course, my guess is that the main reason a headline might be written in this way is that it preys upon people's prejudices. Those prejudices being: Christians are good moral people and atheists are immoral, bad people. Christians (by the prejudicial definition) would never burn down a church, but atheists might. If you already think atheists are immoral, then headlines like these will only serve to reinforce your hatred and bigotry. Clearly, mentioning that an atheist book was found at the home of an arsonist is meant to lead the reader to believe that the books are linked to the aforementioned acts of arson. This is why we don't see headlines like, "Book on Cats found in home of church fire suspect" or, "Suspect in Texas church Fires Reportedly Had Bags of Ruffles."

What these headlines and most of the news stories associated with the arson do not mention is that 3 other books were also seized from linked homes.

If I were an investigator and I wanted to link a certain book to violence, I might read said books and see if any of the books advocate or promote violence.

I have a copy of The Atheist's Way, and can promise you that it does not advocate violence, arson, or anything other than upholding cherished values, and making your own ethics rather than parroting the ethics of someone else. The core of the book's moral philosophy is "expressing humanist values such as justice and fairness in a context of competing rights and interests, conflicting points of view, and complex circumstances." It advocates teaching moral philosophy to children by giving them the rare opportunity to think about ethics. I've also read about 20 books on atheism, and none of them advocate violence, arson, or the destruction of property. Ever. The only reason one might suspect that a book on atheism is linked to acts of arson can only be a matter of prejudice.

The other books, on the other hand, actually do advocate such violence. In these book, the main character – who is portrayed as someone readers should be as much like as possible, burns cities to the ground. He burns people to death. He explicitly commands that people be burned to death. The book also advocates praying that your enemies will burn to death.

If I were an investigator, I'd link the book that actually advocated setting buildings and people on fire to the arsonists rather than the book that advocates teaching children moral philosophy. 

So which book did these arsonists have three copies of? The Bible. In the bible, God burns cities, burns people, commands his followers to burn people, and advocates praying that your enemies be burned. This kind of thing just doesn't occur in an atheist book.

It makes me sad. Atheists are not bad people. They are not more likely to burn down a church than a theist. These headlines only serve to reinforce hatred towards people who are just people.

Cooking With The Host: Christ Crispies

Ingredients:
3 sleeves communion wafers
½ bag marshmallows (5 oz)
1 ½ tbsp margarine or butter

Supplies needed: 
1 medium saucepan
Wax paper or greased pan
Long-handled spoon

 
Directions:

Melt butter and marshmallows in saucepan over medium heat, being careful not to burn. Once marshmallows are melted, remove from heat and fold communion wafers in. Stir to coat. Allow Christ Crispies to cool for a few minutes. Using greased spatula or fingers, shape bundles of wafers into attractive mounds. Cool. Makes 15-20 treats. Enjoy with wine.

Nutritional information: Provides 50 calories, 10mg sodium, 345g blasphemy*, 10 g carbohydrates, 7g sugars. Not a significant source of piousness. 

 
*Not recognized by the FDA as a nutritional supplement.

Debate night!

Last night, my friends and I (which consisted of nearly the entire St. Louis ring of skeptical bloggers!) had a small debate night at my apartment in St. Louis. 9 People attended, and 2 groups of people debated 2 topics.

The first was a debate between Pastor Keith and War_On_Error. Their topic was "Does God Lie?" The debate dissolved into a group discussion before it finished, mostly because P. Keith and War more or less agreed! That's okay though, because instead of talking about whether or not god lies, we talked about the real point of the debate. The real point of showing that god lies (or deceives, if you are bothered by the word lie) is that people can be mistaken about what god wants. Out discussion was on whether or not it might be better (from a standpoint of convincing some people that they don't have a "special knowledge" trump card) to have a conversation about how hard Biblical interpretation is. If we can convince people that Biblical interpretation is hard, then maybe we can convince them – for example – that someone doesn't have absolute proof by mandate from their god that they should vote down civil rights for homosexuals.

Next, Saint_Gasoline and Inquiring Infidel debated the Kalam Cosmological argument, with Inquiring Infidel pretending to be William Lane Craig. While they were debating, I kept thinking that since lots of people don't know what "M-theory" and "string theory" mean in any detail, that Saint Gasoline, with all of his appeals to physics, would sound like, "blah blah blah blah" to Inquiring Infidel-Craig's more macro approach. I did think it was kind of amusing that Infidel-Craig brought up Hilbert's Hotel, calling such a notion absurd, when god is basically equally absurd, at least in the, "god is timeless, eternal, and ultra-powerful" sense. We speculated that a timeless being could not have thoughts, because thoughts entailed a time structure. Alas.

For the March debate night, Andrea_The_Nerd and I are debating gay marriage. The second debate is still up for grabs.

The debate night for April will be couples debate! Andrea and War will debate debating ("debaters are great!" vs. "debaters are wankers!") while Flimsy and I will be debating marriage ("Marriage is awesome!" vs "Marriage is for suckers!")

Also, the best part of debate night is Debate Kitteh! She decided to hang out on the lectern for the entire first debate, playfully batting at people's notes. 

Once of these days, I swear, we'll move to more public debates.

Faith Infiltration: World View Community Church, Pt 3

We're continuing our Faith Infiltration of World View Community Church, in which Flimsy and I watched a video on Sunday at a church called the 7 Mountain Mandate, led by Lance Wallnau. This is part 3 of our infiltration. Previous parts can be found here and here. You can also find more Faith Infiltrations by clicking the Faith Infiltration tab at the bottom of the page.

Today's post is particularly timely in light of the Prop 8 trials.

One of the causes that Wallnau was called by his god and in which his god "showed up" to fight is the passage of Prop 8 (the removal of laws preventing homosexual couples from having the same civil rights to marriage as heterosexual couples) in Rhode Island.

"The warfare issue is particularly important right now because there are strongholds that are not going to come down through five-fold ministry gifts, they're going to come down through the saints. And the reason is because where god is inviting us to go is someplace we've never gone –it's to the strategic recapturing of culture by the anointing of the people of god for the spheres they're assigned to have authority in, that leadership in the church for the most part does not have authority to go into. I can go speak before legislatures as I've had to do on same-sex marriage. I can sway a vote. But you know how I had to do it? I had to drop my "Pastor" title.

He goes on to say that he was called to Rhode Island to speak on the issue of gay marriage by a friend of his. He described the event as an orchestrated media event, complete with the ACLU, lawyers, protesters, a budget, a war chest, a "gay lobbyist initiative who wants to make Rhode Island the first same-sex state" with "only a handful of believers showing up". Wallnau describes his initial reaction:

"Aww man… God didn't call me to have to take on the homosexual issue. Besides, I'm not angry at anyone, I like everybody, I love 'em, I want more of 'em in my programs – my secular programs by being a Christian in a different form than they're used to anyway."

But his friend said, "Lance, it isn't like that. If you don't show up… there are Christian legislators that are saying if they don't see and hear any people with another viewpoint they have no choice". Wallnau shuffles his feet, not really wanting to be there and hoping that by the time he gets there that the room will be full. Apparently he tells himself that if his god really wants him to be there, then his god will open doors for him. He has no idea what to say, so he goes to Google and finds James Dobson's 8 points against gay marriage (Dobson has expanded this to 11 points. Guess what we're going to blog about soon!). He goes to the courthouse with his "Google talking points" and finds that the meeting room is full and the people who were not able to get into the main meeting room at the courthouse are all sitting in an adjacent room, watching the events unfold via video feed.

But wait! He has another friend at the courthouse who sneaks him into the courtroom and finds a seat for him -the seat of a guy who happened to get up to speak, leaving a chair empty. Wallnau is shoved into the empty seat. He describes how he sat there and watched as the other guy finished speaking, went to sit, and couldn't find his seat - because Wallnau took it. His friend then manages to get his name put on the list of people signed in.

Wallnau goes onto to explain what he observed while sitting in his stolen seat. He says that Christians do not understand how power works and that no one was listening to the Christians or reverends – even the Unitarian reverends who are endorsing gay marriage. He describes the senators as "checking out" whenever a Christian got up to speak. Huh? I thought his friend described the scene as having so few believers that legislators would have no choice but to support civil rights for same-sex couples. Instead, the legislators are apparently just ignoring all the believers. Interesting…

"In the social capital of influence, that means every sphere has a currency and you gotta know the currency of that sphere – you can't just go in with your currency… In the political sphere they like professors, they like any businessperson who looks like a big donor. They like people with a constituency that can influence their election. So I did a quick makeover. Because I noticed that they were knocking off those Christians fast. One woman in particular, her response to the legislatures was almost like cross-prosecuting. So I listened to all of her arguments because I was going last, so I prepared well… I readjusted my 'Google points' to go on the assault against her."

"This is what the lord told me to do. He said, 'Don't tell 'em you're a pastor. Practice social capital. Go in and out of their world where they are.'"

"Now it just so happens that our church had the largest daycare in the state of Rhode Island, of which I am – by virtue of my role as a pastor – the uh, official president of the daycare. I also know I figured calculating-wise that we had at least, oh, a number of graduates that come through our daycare– a hundred a year, two hundred and we've been doing it for ten years – I figured I represented 10,000 radiuses of people that had family members in our little Rhode Island area because we had the largest daycare, so I sat down and said:

"'thank you very much. I realize it's very late and I appreciate your patience. I think I'm the last person so I'll make this really quick. First of all, as you look at me I want you to realize that I represent 10,000 people who vote for you. I am the president of a large daycare in the state of Rhode Island.'

"All of 'em leaned in like 'okay we got somebody now where's he going' and I proceeded to do the talking points. I had no idea how inflammatory the rhetoric of some of these talking points is. As I hit the fact that there is no statistical evidence to support the fact that same-sex marriage is going to be helpful but I have evidence from the Danish experiment which says that divorce has gone up 65%... Are we a culture that can endure reducing the status of our children to lab-rats in a vast sociologic untried experiment? At which point lesbians in the back shrieked in manifestations. I'm serious. They were screaming… they were freaking out that I was referring to kids that they wanted to adopt as lab-rats. I had no idea the words would have that kind of power.

"I saw smiles on the faces of all the legislatures that looked at me and said, 'that was sufficient'… you should know that it is 65%. Though you should know that at least 62% of most statistics quoted in public are spontaneous… 65 sounded good to me.. As I'm walking out the corridor…a legislature was saying 'put that in the [news] paper'. I gave them the talking points to go in and vote it down by a margin of 2 votes… I didn't even know what I was talking about. But I had Google and a cause. That was all I needed.

Wallnau's ultimate point is this:

I made the adjustment… If believers would think in terms of social capital, If we would start to raise up the next generation to link anointing, revival, the supernatural and the prophetic with the invasion of culture in spheres they have a passion for through the acquisition of social capital, we could take a nation within a generation. It will not come by the methodologies that we have assumed would work in the past. I am a little freaked out that there is no consensus on this within the body of Christ, that there will even be a debate over it. But this is the way power works and we are naive if we do not understand it.

Be wise as a serpent! Did he say serpent? Well I am glad Jesus said it because I wouldn't want to put it that way. Be shrewd as the devil and as innocent in motive as a lamb. Be wise in the adaptation of means to ends.

I chair the Fringe Science Committee of the Skeptical Society of St. Louis and am assistant organizer of the St. Louis Atheists – these groups have about 500 members between them. I have had over one hundred thousand unique visitors to my blog since it started. Wallnau claiming that he represents ten thousand voters is equivalent to me saying that I, Ziztur, am vice-president of a large nonprofit science organization and represent half a million voters. The population of the city in which his church is located is only 79 thousand! 

I don't represent half a million voters. I'm not vice-president of a large nonprofit science organization. To say as much would be a lie. Yet here we have someone basically bragging (it might be a touch difficult to read "bragging" into this without the audio) that he loves gays, so he snuck in to a courtroom with statistics pulled off the ever-accurate Google, lied about who he represented, gave statistics that by his own admission he had not verified as accurate because of the hasty way in which he had found them, and made a really ridiculous argument all in the name of preventing the homosexuals he loves so much from having equal civil rights. He did this, and then takes credit for swinging a vote in favor of his position. He tells his nodding audience that they should invade culture. Not because they have the facts on their side, but because their god has anointed them.

The "lesbian screaming" comment I find quite hateful. How did he know they were lesbians? He doesn't. He uses the term in order to be derogatory and to dismiss people for having a legitimate emotional expression to what is probably the most inane argument against civil rights I have ever heard.

Saying that if we do social change X, we are treating children like lab-rats is not an argument against social change X, because it can be used as an argument against any social change. What, abolish slavery? Well then we'd be treating our kids like lab rats! Desegregate schools? Why would we treat our kids like lab rats? De-institutionalize kids with disabilities and integrate them into the classroom? Our kids would be lab-rats! Stop performing female circumcision on young girls? We don't know the consequences of that vast sociologic untried experiment!

What if we lived in a society in which people were not allowed to marry or adopt children if the couple had different religious beliefs? Would Christians shriek and scream if someone argued that we should deny them the right to adopt because if we did, we'd be treating children like lab rats? The people in the audience shrieked and screamed because Wallnau's lab-rat comment was hateful, bigoted and discriminatory. He is saying that we should deny people civil rights because we don't fully know the consequences of granting them. We've never fully known the consequences of granting people civil rights until we've already done it. This is coming from the same guy who claims that all legitimate liberation of people and nations is due to prayer – yet he is actively fighting to withhold liberation and making an argument that could be made by anyone who intends to deny rights to people.

Believing that you've been anointed by god to take nations is an echo of the crusades and every single act of religious warfare throughout history. If you're anointed, then there is no argument – no room for rational discussion, no room for evidence, no room for critical thinking, no room to question that you might be wrong. You've effectively shut down and dehumanized your opponents. Believing you are anointed gives you the ability to rationalize away oppression, tyranny, or taking people's lives and freedoms.

This is why atheists and nonbelievers stand up to religion. This is why we care about your belief in god. We have seen people's lives and freedoms stamped out in the name of religion long enough.

I can't find this Danish study that supposedly shows the divorce rate has gone up 65%. I can, however, actually fact-check rather than just saying, "hey, this sounds good for my position, so who cares if it is true!". Divorce rates are higher in states that ban gay marriage. Marriage has increased while divorce has decreased in Scandinavia. Wallnau's agenda and belief system is more important than actual facts.

The last point that Wallnau makes is that he has not actually given people the complete key to seeing "obscene amounts of wealth". In order to see this wealth we have to understand that

"God wants to give Jesus his inheritance. Because Jesus died for more than souls. He died for nations. The actual assignment is to go make disciples of nations… Jesus is going to have nations given to him and god the father is going to bankroll the enterprises of people who give his son what he wants him to get. God is going to bankroll enterprises for those who are engaged in giving Jesus his inheritance. God is going to bankroll the enterprises of those people and organizations who make it their mission to give god what he wants – and he wants his son to have his inheritance!"

As Flimsy and I are sitting her watching this presentation, I wrote, "War Room" in my notebook and showed it to Flimsy. He nodded. I felt like a spy. We're the other side. We're the culture that this man is advocating invading and taking with lies and deception. I cannot say for sure what exactly the congregants at this church thought of this presentation, but I can only assume – given that no objections were raised – that they largely agree. There was some talk afterward about social capital and how to get people on the "outside" to listen, and taking on only one wrong in the world at a time instead of all of them. Taking on one problem instead of many is great advice. Utilizing social capital is also good advice. Using lies and deception is not. good. advice.

I can tell you now that using lies and deception, coupled with a fervent insistence that you've been anointed to invade and destroy the culture so that you can be rewarded with "obscene wealth" by god himself when you give Jesus his "inheritance" isn't going to work. When people lie, we do not trust those people. When people advocate infringing on the rights of others while simultaneously undermining fact and science, we will call those people out.

I can understand wanting to change the world. The world is a screwed up place, and it needs to be changed. I also agree that one needs to understand how to speak the language of the opposing side. But "speaking the language" does not mean failing to check your facts or being deceptive. If you need to resort to actively ignoring facts, perhaps you're fighting for the wrong side. Can you imagine what it would be like if we held private atheist meetings in which we advocated telling legislators that married Christian couples were 79% more likely to shoot their children than atheists or homosexual couples? What if we advocated toying with facts to promote our agenda? We'd be rightfully called evil and immoral. I've always said that people can believe whatever they want so long as they are not infringing on the rights of others or undermining science. Wallnau is doing both.

Even though I absolutely do not agree with the material presented on the DVD, I still have to thank the folks at World View Community Church for being nice and allowing a couple of atheists to spend a few hours as spies in their war room. I have to wonder what they thought of us being there. Usually I like to believe that Christians and atheists in a way want the same things out of life, but I am not sure if that is true in this case. Regardless, we appreciate the chance to engage in dialogue.

3H1P: morality of witnesses

3H1P is a blogging project wherein three heathens (Ziztur, Flimsy and Petter) and one pastor (Keith) answer questions posed by readers of the blog and discuss various issues related to religion, philosophy, science, etc. If you have a question that you'd like to see answered by 3H1P, ask it in the comment box. We promise we'll probably get to it. The following comment is asked by Lord Runolfr, a long time reader/commenter of this blog (he even wrote a guest post here, just because he felt like it). It is answered (sort of) by Ziztur. I say sort of because I didn't really answer it. Instead, I pondered…


There was a very serious crime a few weeks ago, right around Hallowen:
a high school girl was assaulted by a gang outside of a dance. I
remember hearing it discussed on a talk radio show while I was driving
through Birmingham.

Leaving aside the crime itself and how the criminals should be
treated, the host expressed his outrage at the fact that there were a
dozen or more witnesses to the crime who did nothing about it. Their
inaction left him completely flabbergasted.

If it's morally wrong for people who are witnesses to a crime to do
nothing whatsoever to stop it, what about God?

If...
1) You believe God exists, and
2) You believe God has the power to intervene in human affairs, and
3) God is aware of essentially everything happening on Earth, and
4) You believe that taking some kind of action to stop a horrible
crime in progress is the morally correct thing to do,...

... then why consider God any sort of moral authority when He
routinely allows horrible crimes to occur without taking any action?

-Lord Runolfr

Admittedly, this question is not one I can really answer. The idea of some god as a moral authority does not make sense to me (and before someone says: "saying that something does not make sense is not a good argument", know that I am not using "this doesn't make sense" as an argument. I've written about god being a source of morality many times on this blog) Morality should be decided by the application of reason to reality. My personal leanings regarding morality are fairly close to the natural ethic explained by Jeff Schweitzer in Beyond Cosmic Dice: Moral Life in a Random World. I find the whole idea of there being a personal god who allows horrific suffering on earth and who does nothing about it to be morally bankrupt. Why wouldn't he stop a 3 year old boy from being tortured, raped and murdered? Why would he let an infant with eczema suffer in horrific pain until death while her parents fed her homeopathic remedies? Saying that we're judging the actions of said god with our fallible human morality is a cop-out, placing god squarely in the realm of you-can't-question-land.

I think that this question of god's morality is interesting, but I think an equally intriguing question is this: what caused people to react in this way – to see a crime and do nothing about it?

For a little bit of background, here is a link to the story. Basically, during a homecoming dance, a girl was gang-raped and assaulted by high-schoolers. She was not only raped, but other students stood by and did nothing, laughed, and recorded the incident on their cell phones. My guess is that the teenagers who were involved in this indecent acted in the way they did due to several factors. Reports said that the victim struggled to fit in at school, which very likely meant that she was dehumanized, mocked, or bullied before this incident. In-group bullying is a high problem in high schools – remember high school? If a teen involved considered calling for help, they would have risked being similarly treated. When I was in high school, a group of teenage boys tied up a friend of mine with jump ropes during gym class, so I can see how that type of behavior could be magnified in more hostile situations. There is also the bystander effect, which is a phenomenon in which individuals do not help in an emergency situation because there are other people present. Teenage brains are a work in progress.

I would agree that taking action to stop a horrible crime in progress is the moral, ethical thing to do, and I also think that it is possibly morally wrong to fail to intervene when witnessing a horrible crime. The wrongness of non-intervention depends in the specifics of the crime, and we could debate for eons about whether or not crime X in situation Y warranted intervention, and of what kind. Obviously, there are some actions that are currently criminal that are in a moral gray area where some people believe they are morally wrong and others do not. I, for example, would not intervene or report the crime of someone smoking marijuana, because I do not feel that it is immoral to smoke marijuana, even though I recognize that such activity is a crime. I would absolutely intervene if I were witness to someone throwing a newborn baby in a dumpster. Obviously, there is also the trouble of putting oneself at risk of being injured if one intervenes or reports a crime. Would I intervene on behalf of someone being mugged at gunpoint? Perhaps not directly for want of my own safety, but I would certainly report such a crime.

Of course, if god existed and god had the power to intervene in human affairs, that god would be under no threat of negative repercussions or injury, so that god would be without excuse. Sure, we could blather on about free will and such, but is free will so important that a god would rather a man rape and murder a young girl than temporarily suspend the free will of the murderer to prevent the girl from suffering?

Taking Offense

Yes, this liberal atheist loves his country, and, in part, here's why.

This week, the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clearly and unambiguously dismissed the UN's proposed anti-blasphemy resolutions.  It was stated without reservation that there is no right to not be offended by opinions that differ from your own.

At rock bottom, America understands that Freedom of Religion means the freedom to both believe and to blaspheme.  Sure, some people just don't seem to get it, especially on the right wing of politics.  Take this recent dust-up over a bit on "Curb Your Enthusiasm," a show on HBO:



You can imagine how some Christian groups, particularly the Catholic League and even the Council on American-Islamic Relations are in an uproar over this, but they're not the only ones.

I often listen to Fox News pundits for a laugh.  The three I usually catch, in the morning, on my lunch break, and in the evening if Ziztur and I go anywhere are Jamie Allman, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage.  All of these have ranted in the days following this show about, basically, "How dare people offend Christians."

Why do people react like this?  Do heathens like us get offended like this?  What could we even compare this to?  Sketches of Charles Darwin portrayed as an ape?  No atheist I know cares about a comedic mockery of any public figure, even people we greatly respect.

I'd like to think that a majority of Americans comprehend this.  It's pretty simple, people - nobody has a right to go their whole lives being unoffended.  If somebody mocks your beliefs or opinions, explain how they are mistaken.  Don't just react in a shocked way and expect people who disagree with you to keep quiet.  That may work on some, but keep in mind that there are plenty of people (like Ziztur and I) who will just mock you all the harder for it.  And passing legislation against offending people's most ridiculous beliefs is pretty damn close to social evil.

Faith Infiltration: Creation Museum Pt.6

For those of you who don't visit here every day, Flimsy and I (along with a few of our friends) visited the Creation Museum a few weeks ago. This is a series of blog posts outlining some of the interesting things I found there.

A poster near the beginning of the Creation Museum sets up the museum's version of how all of this complexity in living systems came to be. The people of Answers in Genesis actually believe in evolution in a way, while insisting through and through that they don't. A good example of this is the poster below, which shows the difference in "human reason" vs "God's Word" in explaining the complexity we see:

The important part of this poster is at the bottom:

Here, the poster makes the claim that human reason has produced this idea of the tree of life – with all of life arising from simpler and simpler organisms, something they characterize as "molecules-to-man evolution". The God version looks more like an orchard than a tree, with god creating ill-defined "kinds" and then populations of those "kinds" evolve into various species. AiG claims that it is not possible for one population of "kind" to evolve into another "kind", but fails to explain why, aside from resorting to their god.

The problem is this: what if we DID observe a "kind" evolving into another "kind"? Let's pretend for a moment that somehow, a population of dogs is documented to evolve into cats over a period of 60 years. I am confident that creationists would not abandon their position. Rather, they would claim that this instance of "kinds" evolving into other "kinds" is a miracle – not evidence of evolution. I would agree – evolution does not work like this, and so if in a period of 60 years, we documented a population of dogs changing into cats, I would seriously have to rethink my own position on evolution.

If a population of dogs evolved into some animal that is not so drastic as dogs-evolving-into-cats, the creationist could simply claim that the animal has changed a lot, but has not changed "kinds".

Creationists also like to claim that evolution is unscientific because we cannot "go back into the past" and directly observe "molecules to man" evolution. We also cannot "go back into the past" to observe creation. If you think this is adequate criteria for discounting evolution, then you must apply the same standards to your alternate idea.

No matter what we observe or what evidence we gather, the people at the creation museum will have an excuse or a goalpost to move. They have already moved the goalpost in the creation evolution debate. In the past, creationists simply asserted that speciation could not happen because it was not observed. Once we provided examples of speciation, the goalpost was moved to "kinds". Now, AiG clearly has a model in which evolution occurs – within the mechanismless ceiling of "kinds". If we directly observed that this ceiling did not exist, it would be a miracle, or a fraud, or not proof that god did not create "original" kinds, or god working in some other way. As such, it is unfalsifiable. AiG already claims that the evolution we see today is "not proof" of evolution before recorded history, but if we were able to observe "molecules-to-man" evolution over a short period of time, a creationist could still claim that this is "not proof" that "molecules-to-man" evolution is what actually happened. Really, observation does not matter, an excuse can always be made. This makes it nonscientific. In science, one must have a hypothesis, and that hypothesis must be falsifiable.

Faith Infiltration: Creation Museum Pt. 5

I've been very photographic lately on this blog after a long lull of texty blog posts. This is part 5 of a series of blog posts documenting my visit to the Creation Museum. You can find previous posts by clicking the "intelligent Design" label at the bottom of this post.


Here is another example of the "human reason" and "God's word" dichotomy that permeates the museum:

The text is a little hard to read from the picture, so here is what it says:

Starting with Human Reason	Starting with God's word
The Utahraptor lived in the Early Cretacus world about 125 million years ago – evolved through millions of years of change	The Utahraptor lived in the pre-Flood world about 4,300 years ago – God made the beasts of earth (Genesis 1:25)
Caught in a flooding river – died in the normal course of events	Caught in the Great Flood – And the Lord said, "I will destroy… man and beast…, for I repent that I have made them." (Genesis 6:7)
Dried out on a river bank – dried out in the sun	Floated on Flood waters – And all the flesh died that moved upon the earth (Genesis 7:21)
Slowly buried by river sediments – slowly buried and gradually fossilized	Suddenly buried in the Global Flood – The world that was then, being overflowed with water, perished (2 Peter 3:6)
Exposed in the present – revealed by millions of years of erosion	Exposed in the present – Speak to the earth and it shall teach you. (Job 12:8)

So, "human reason" seems to clearly be starting from the null hypothesis and moving toward a tentative conclusion based on the evidence we find. "God's word" is a starting point of the Bible, retrofitting evidence so that said evidence does not contradict what the Bible says.


Most people reading this blog will understand how ridiculous this is. In the event that I am not preaching to the choir, let me illustrate why this is an inappropriate way to approach evidence with an analogy.

Starting with Human Reason	Starting with the Lisu Holy Book
The Utahraptor lived in the Early Cretacus world about 125 million years ago – evolved through millions of years of change	The Utahraptor lived in a reef in the pre-Flood world – dinosaurs lived in reefs.
Caught in a flooding river – died in the normal course of events	Killed by an orphaned brother and sister with a golden hammer and silver tongs – given to them by a golden bird
Dried out on a river bank – dried out in the sun	Thrown onto a river bank by the children – along with fish
Slowly buried by river sediments – slowly buried and gradually fossilized	Buried quickly - by one of the 8 suns and 6 moons shot down by the children.
Exposed in the present – revealed by millions of years of erosion	Exposed in the present – by ancestors of the children

You could pretty much take any creation myth and, starting from that myth, force fossil evidence to fit it. The Lisu creation story might sound like a tale used by another culture to explain origins, but objectively it is equally fanciful as the Biblical creation myth. This is why we need to begin with the scientific method ("human reason") and then look at the evidence as objectively as possible. What the creation museum does is essentially pit the scientific method against the Bible, insisting that the scientific method is something akin to an "arbitrary guess". To a believer, "God's word" is infinitely better than some "arbitrary guess". Evidence does not matter, because it can simply be redefined, ignored or marginalized in favor of an "innerant" holy book. A believer in Lisu mythology could similarly ignore or redefine evidence in favor of their mythology. In this way, the faith of an individual or organization can become historical "fact".


To put it yet another way – a forensic investigator and his assistant are at the scene of a murder. Who is more likely to arrive at the truth: the forensic investigator, who makes no assumptions about the nature of the crime, or the assistant who "knows" before he enters the crime scene that his neighbor perpetuated the murder, and his only evidence is that his pastor told him his neighbor was an atheist sinner with no morals? The assistant can look at the crime scene and say, "it does not matter that the murder weapon was a gun and my neighbor does not own a gun. He borrowed it. It does not matter that my neighbor has an alibi because he was at a local atheist meeting – he just committed the crime before the meeting. The investigator using evidence to date the time of death is wrong, because that dating method makes too many assumptions.

We can't find his fingerprints or DNA evidence anywhere at the scene, but that's no matter because he could have worn a full body suit, the clever fox. Your standards of evidence are based on human reason, but my evidence is based on the word of my pastor and the word of God, who says nonbelievers are evil. Your human reason will lead you in the wrong direction because it's just an arbitrary guess".

Insufficient Christianity: Done!

This is it! The last Chapter of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

In the last chapter I compared Christ's work of making New Men to the process of turning a horse into a winged creature. I used that extreme example in order to emphasize the point that it is not mere improvement but Transformation. The nearest parallel to it in the world of nature is to be found in the remarkable transformations we can make in insects by applying certain rays to them. Some people think this is how Evolution worked. The alterations in creatures on which it all depends may have been produced by rays coming from outer space. (Of course once the alterations are there, what they call 'Natural Selection' gets to work on them: i.e. the useful alterations survive and the other ones get weeded out.)

I don't know about you guys, but I honestly have no idea what Lewis is talking about here. Some people think evolution worked by applying rays from outer space to animals to transform them? What the hell? Is he talking about mutations caused by UV light? Did people think this in 1944? Lewis goes on to explain that most people know about evolution (as an aside, he mentions that some educated people disbelieve it. I wonder why he specified that some educated people disbelieve it, especially given that he seems to accept evolution) and that some people wonder what the "next step" in evolution is. Clearly, even though we can speculate, we really cannot say for sure what the "next step" might be in a general sense, because natural selection is so complex and our capacity to predict the path of evolution is limited by our imaginations and knowledge of future events. If we were to guess the trajectory of an evolutionary path, we could easily be wrong. Lewis claims that we're missing the point of evolutionary paths entirely because the "next step" has already taken place, going in a direction we could not have imagined to the point that some of us don't even realize that it is the "next step" at all. That next step is Christianity:

Now, if you care to talk in these terms, the Christian view is precisely that the Next Step has already appeared. And it is really new. It is not a change from brainy men to brainier men: it is a change that goes off in a totally different direction - a change from being creatures of God to being sons of God. The first instance appeared in Palestine two thousand years ago. In a sense, the change is not 'Evolution' at all, because it is not something arising out of the natural process of events but something coming-into nature from outside. But that is what I should expect. We arrived at our idea of 'Evolution' from studying the past. If there are real novelties in store then of course our idea, based on the past, will not really cover them. And in fact this New Step differs from all previous ones not only in coming from outside nature but in several other ways as well.

So Lewis believes Christians are essentially more evolved than non-Christians. They are the "next step". They are the "new humanity". Clearly, from the paragraph above, this is supposed to mean that Christians are "better" than non-Christians. They are humans 2.0. They are akin to "superman" or "having more armor" or in general being greater. Lewis goes on to say that this spiritual evolution to the new humanity of Christianity is not quite the same as evolution by natural selection for several reasons:


1. It doesn't happen via sexual reproduction. You can't pass Christianity down genetically.


2. Organisms do not have a choice to "evolve", but people can chose to become spiritually evolved. "Progress was, in the main, something that happened to them, not something that they did. But the new step, the step from being creatures to being sons, is voluntary. We can, if we please, shrink back; we can dig in our heels and let the new Humanity go on without us."


So people who are not Christians are being left behind while humanity goes on without them. This certainly sounds a lot like the Indigo and Crystal children movement. It must be nice to feel like you're on a higher plane and have such a bright and awesome light compared to the dim and less worthy life of a nonbeliever. People who aren't Christians are lower creatures simply by choice. We choose not to have "progress".


3. Jesus was the first human who was a spiritually evolved version of the new humanity. 


4. Evolution to the new humanity of Christianity took place really quickly. Two thousand years is nothing compared to the entirety of the history of the universe. Every time it looks like Christianity is dying, it's not: "(Never forget that we are all still 'the early Christians.' The present wicked and wasteful divisions between us are, let us hope, a disease of infancy: we are still teething. The outer world, no doubt, thinks just the' opposite. It thinks we are dying of old age. But it has thought that very often before. Again and again it has thought Christianity was dying, dying by persecutions from without and corruptions from within, by the rise of Mohammedanism, the rise of the physical sciences, the rise of great anti-Christian revolutionary movements. But every time the world has been disappointed. Its first disappointment was over the crucifixion. The Man came to life again. In a sense - and I quite realise how frightfully unfair it must seem to them -that has been happening ever since. They keep on killing the thing that He started and each time, just as they are patting down the earth on its grave, they suddenly hear that it is still alive and has even broken out in some new place. No wonder they hate us.)"


To say that "they" hate Christianity simply because it is popular is an incredibly simplistic and naive understanding of how the world works. Lewis sounds like a hockey fan cheering for his favorite team. Raa raa raa we're #1! They hate us because we are so awesome! We can't be beat! Look how they try to knock us down but we just spring right back up! Also, Christianity would be nowhere without the crucifixion! The crucifixion is supposed to be the whole reason Christianity is so cool – because Jesus died for our sins. That was supposedly god's plan all along. 


5. The stakes of new humanity are higher because if an organism "falls back on earlier steps", the maximum it can lose is life, but if we fail to be Christians we will lose our eternal life which is infinite.

On this view the thing has happened: the new step has been taken and is being taken. Already the new men are dotted here and there all over the earth. Some, as I have admitted, are still hardly recognisable: but others can be recognised. Every now and then one meets them. Their very voices and faces are different from ours; stronger, quieter, happier, more radiant. They begin where most of us leave off. They are, I say, recognisable; but you must know what to look for. They will not be very like the idea of 'religious people' which you have formed from your general reading. They do not draw attention to themselves. You tend to think that you are being kind to them when they are really being kind to you. They love you more than other men do, but they need you less. … They will usually seem to have a lot of time: you will wonder where it comes from. When you have recognised one of them, you will recognise the next one much more easily. And I strongly suspect (but how should I know?) that they recognise one another immediately and infallibly, across every barrier of colour, sex, class, age, and even of creeds. In that way, to become holy is rather like joining a secret society. To put it at the very lowest, it must be great fun.

This sounds a lot like the Indigo and Crystal child movement. Christians are recognizable by their stronger, quieter, happier, more radiant voices and faces. This whole paragraph is simply ridiculous: imagine if I said this about atheists, or gay people, or any other group for whom I wanted to explain my favor for. Lewis goes on to explain that even though these superior Christians are easy to recognize by their obvious awesomeness, they are not all the "same". They are all totally unique, unlike non-Christians who all fade into the background of sameness and dullness. As an illustration, he says

I will try two very imperfect illustrations which may give a hint of the truth. Imagine a lot of people who have always lived in the dark. You come and try to describe to them what light is like. You might tell them that if they come into the light that same light would fall on them all and they would all reflect it and thus become what we call visible. Is it not quite possible that they would imagine that, since they were all receiving the same light, and all reacting to it in the same way (i.e. all reflecting it), they would all look alike? Whereas you and I know that the light will in fact bring out, or show up, how different they are. Or again, suppose a person who knew nothing about salt. You give him a pinch to taste and he experiences a particular strong, sharp taste. You then tell him that in your country people use salt in all their cookery. Might he not reply 'In that case I suppose all your dishes taste exactly the same: because the taste of that stuff you have just given me is so strong that it will kill the taste of everything else.' But you and I know that the real effect of salt is exactly the opposite. So far from killing the taste of the egg and the tripe and the cabbage, it actually brings it out. They do not show their real taste till you have added the salt. (Of course, as I warned you, this is not really a very good illustration, because you can, after all, kill the other tastes by putting in too much salt, whereas you cannot kill the taste of a human personality by putting in too much Christ. I am doing the best I can.)

He goes on to say that Christians are super unique and awesome and they got that way by letting go of their pitiful selves and letting Christ overcome them:

It is when I turn to Christ, when I give myself up to His Personality, that I first begin to have a real personality of my own.

Oh, so non Christians don't have personalities of their own. I hope I don't need to explain why I think this idea is filthy, bigoted, and dangerous. Dehumanization 101.

At the beginning I said there were Personalities in God. I will go further now. There are no real personalities anywhere else. Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most 'natural' men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints.

The bigotry at this point is almost pouring out of Lewis' ears. To Lewis, I have no real self. I am a monotonous sheep, not unique and different and awesome like Christians. 


Lewis spends the rest of the chapter talking about how we have to completely give ourselves up to Christ in order to find our real selves. In order to save our life, we have to lose our own live, our personal ambitions, our favorite wishes. Here is his last thought:

Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.

THE END

Basically, a Christian can look at an atheist and see, "only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin and decay" if he really believes the same things Lewis believes. It really makes me sad that my life could be summed up in this way regardless of the evidence to the contrary that my life is fulfilling and meaningful. It makes me sad that people can believe things like this about another human being, simply because of their lack of a belief in Jesus. I am a human being, and I am not living a less worthy life because I don't believe in Jesus. 


I hope that Flimsy and my analysis of Mere Christianity has been helpful to you, whether you're an atheist, a theist, or something in between. If you're a theist, please read Lewis' words from the perspective of an atheist. If you cannot possibly see that Lewis is advocating a bigoted version of Christianity that is unsupported by evidence or logic, pretend he is an atheist explaining "Mere atheism" and telling you that your life is meaningless unless you give up your belief in god. Pretend that every time I have pointed out a bigoted statement, Lewis is making that claim about you or your beliefs. Perhaps then you might come to understand our perspective. When people start to believe that they are better than everyone around them, it can and has easily lead to the mistreatment of others. Really, we're all the same people. We all have a story to tell. These divisions brought about by religious belief might make people in a particular religion feel better about themselves. People should not view themselves are more evolved, more enlightened, closer to perfection, and unfathomably more awesome than those around them due to their religion or the connection they think they have to god. This belief does not make the world a better place – it serves to divide and to justify treating people as less than equal. Not only can this line of thinking lead to injustice and inequality, but it has led to injustice and inequality. 


Mere Christianity Online

Fallacious: bifurcation

Let's go through another of Dr. Lisle's "fallacies" on Answers in Genesis, a fallacy Lisle calls, "bifurcation". Once again, this is a great example of, "how to commit fallacies without realizing it" and unfortunately for Lisle, the fallacy-committing is right out in the open.

A person commits the fallacy of bifurcation when he or she claims that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities—when, in fact, there is a third option. For this reason the fallacy is also known as the either-or fallacy and the false dilemma.

Not quite. Bifurcation – more commonly known as the false dilemma, is an unsound argument in which the premise is false due to logical reasons. It typically takes this form:

1. Either P or Q
   
2. P
   
3. Therefore not Q
   

The premise, either P or Q, is logically sound if it is a contradictory proposition – only exactly one can be true. It is logically unsound if the propositions are contrary – that of the two propositions, at most one will be true, but both could be false. We'll use Lisle's example, "either the traffic light is red, or it is green". Lisle says that this is obviously false, because the light could be yellow.

In fact, this is not the only option – the light could be yellow. Or, the lights could be malfunctioning, and none of them could be on. Or, someone could have replaced the yellow bulb with a purple one. Or… you get the point. The example above is an example of confusing a contradictory proposition with a contrary proposition. If we said, "the light is either red or not red" we would have a logically sound contradictory premise.

As another example, Lisle says:

A more realistic example is this:

"Either you have faith or you are rational."

This commits the fallacy of bifurcation, since there is a third possibility: we can have faith and be rational. In fact, faith is essential in order to have rationality (e.g., to make sense of laws of logic).

It is unclear from this context whether or not this is an example of a fallacy. What does Dr. Lisle mean by "faith"? Whether or not this is a fallacy is entirely contingent on that definition. I tried to find a place in which Lisle defines faith, but instead only found articles about how logic can't exist without the Bible. So by "faith" does he mean, "trust in the Bible"? I don't really know. 

If I define "faith" as, "persistent belief without evidence and despite contrary evidence" then there is no fallacy if we're talking about some specific belief. Rational people do not persist in belief even in the face of contrary evidence.

At the same time, I know a lot of people who are rational about some things and apply standard of evidence to other questions besides that of their god, and so these people can be said to both have faith and be rational. Once again, when left without context, we cannot say one way or the other whether or not this is a fallacy. But, I suppose I can buy that it is.

"Either the universe operates in a law-like fashion, or God is constantly performing miracles."

This is also fallacious because a third possibility exists: the universe operates in a law-like fashion most of the time, and God occasionally performs a miracle.

Assuming that "miracle" is defined as "When god causes the universe to not operate in a law-like fashion" than I can buy that this is a false dilemma.

Sometimes the origins debate is framed as "faith vs. reason," "science or religion," or the "Bible vs. science." These are all false dilemmas. Faith and reason are not contrary. They go well together (since all reasoning presupposes a type of faith).

Lisle has not demonstrated that reasoning presupposes faith, and thus I do not find that this premise supports his conclusion that these are false dilemmas.

Likewise, science and religion (the Christian religion to be specific) are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it is the Christian system that makes sense of science and the uniformity of nature. Likewise the debate should never be framed as "the Bible vs. science," since the procedures of science are fully compatible with the Bible. In fact, science is based on the biblical worldview; science requires predictability in nature, which is only made possible by the fact that God upholds the universe in a consistent way that is congenial to human understanding. Such predictability just wouldn't make sense in a "chance" universe.

Holy crap, did you see that false dilemma there?

"Either god upholds the universe in a constant way, or science can't work"

Granted, it's implied, but since Lisle says, "The fallacy of bifurcation maybe more difficult to spot when the person merely implies that only two options exist, rather than explicitly stating this," it sees okay to point out implied instances of the false dilemma.

The whole rest of the paragraph is entirely unsupported by anything. The Bible says a lot of things that are not compatible with science. I think one of my favorite examples of Biblical science is in Genesis, when Jacob puts spotted sticks next to his flock of cattle and causes spotted or striped offspring because his flock was forced to look at the sticks:

Genesis 30:37-39 - "Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."

I agree that science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive, but parts of the Christian religion are mutually exclusive to science. Is Lisle saying that both science and the Bible require predictability in nature? I would contend otherwise – god breaking the laws of nature means that in the biblical worldview, nature is not predictable. God could at any time cause something contrary and unpredictable to happen.

"The Bible teaches that 'in Christ all things hold together.' But we now know that the forces of gravity and electromagnetism are what hold the universe together."

This is an example of the fallacy of bifurcation because the critic has implicitly assumed that either (1) God holds the universe together, or (2) gravity and electromagnetism do. However, these are not exclusive. "Gravity" and "electromagnetism" are simply the names we give to the way in which God holds the universe together. Laws of nature are not a replacement for God's power. Rather, they are an example of God's power.

So, either the laws of nature are a replacement for god's power, or they are examples of god's power? I smell another false dilemma.

"You must not really believe that God is going to answer your request for healing; otherwise you would not have gone to the doctor."

The implicit false dilemma here is that either the doctor will help the person or God will. But why can't it be both? God can use human actions as part of the means by which He accomplishes His will.

One point for Lisle.

On the other hand, in some situations there really are only two options; and it is not fallacious to say so. "Either my car is in the garage, or it is not the case that my car is in the garage" commits no fallacy. When Jesus states, "He who is not with Me is against Me" (Matthew 12:30, NAS), He has not committed any fallacy because God is in a position to tell us that there is no third ("neutral") option. (An attempt to be neutral toward God is sinful and, therefore, non-neutral.)⁷ The key to spotting fallacies of bifurcation is to watch for cases when only two options are presented (either explicitly or implicitly) and to consider carefully whether or not there is a third possibility.

…

…?

…!?

Oh! So whatever god says is right, even if it seems to be an example of a false dichotomy, because god is in a position to tell us that there are no other options. There are other options: your god is a Bronze Age myth. Sorry, but logically this is a fallacy, even if your god says it's not. You really can't just declare immunity from logic because god says so. Why does the other option have to be "neutral"? Have we established that "neutrality" toward god is a sin? How about an infant, who has no concept of god yet? Is that infant "against god"? What about people who have never heard of the Christian religion?

I officially declare myself to be perfect and always right. I say that you either have faith or reason. I am in the position to say so because this is my blog. So there. What, I can't claim this because I'm not god? Actually, I am god. Just try to disprove it.

Insufficient Christianity 31.1

Holey smokes, after a week-long hiatus from our refutation of C.S. Lewis (so near the end of his book, too) we're finally back. For those of you not in the know, Flimsy and I have been training our skeptical eye on C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, a book heralded by many Christians as a great example of Christian apologetics. If you'd like to read our previous chapters, click on the "C.S. Lewis" label at the bottom of the page.

This is chapter 31 of Mere Christianity, in which Lewis writes about how when you become a Christian, the Christian god will help you become a better person. According to Lewis, god does say that he will not help you unless you're perfect – he will help you all right, and by helping you he will bring you closer to perfection. The Christian god only intends to help you become perfect and he will help you with nothing else.

Because of this, Lewis says his god is like a dentist – fixing all of your mouth when you've only got a toothache in one tooth:

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment.

So, god gives you the "full treatment" for things like masturbation, and as such you cannot be expected to get away with any bad things – even if you think you're getting away with it, god intends to fix you. Because of this Christianity is really difficult and also has the associated cost of letting god "get this job through". God does not care what kind of suffering you have in life – the goal is perfection in heaven, and so if you let him, god will do everything he can even if it makes your life miserable at times.

What bothers me about this is that life in this case ends up not being particularly important for life's sake – life is important because your behaviors during life will result in eternal glory or eternal punishment. This reminds me of all the educational opportunities denied to Flimsy when he was a child for the goal of hiding him from reality to increase his chances of remaining "saved".

I know I have a lot of Christians who read this blog, so let me put it this way: You're not a Muslim. In many Muslim societies, women are treated like chattel and forced to cover almost their entire bodies in order to keep them pure. To a Muslim, eternal life is more important than being able to freely dress and converse with men with whom you are not related. Should women be denied these rights in favor of the "life" after death? If the answer is some variation of, "no", then you understand how I feel when children are denied any opportunity at knowledge, intellectual pursuit or ethical freedom.

The rest of this chapter is about how god will be pleased with your feeble attempts at perfection and so the goal of perfection should not discourage you. God, however, wants us to desire to be like saints, because even if we cannot actually achieve that goal, the desire can help motivate us to behave. No particular arguments are given, rather we're simply told that whenever illness, money troubles, or new types of temptation come along, it is because god is disappointed with us and wants to "force us up to a higher level". If we don't understand why god is doing this to us, it is our fault for not understanding things:

That is why we must not be surprised if we are in for a rough time. When a man turns to Christ and seems to be getting on pretty well (in the sense that some of his bad habits are now corrected), he often feels that it would now be natural if things went fairly smoothly. When troubles come along - illnesses, money troubles, new kinds of temptation - he is disappointed. These things, he feels, might have been necessary to rouse him and make him repent in his bad old days; but why now? Because God is forcing him on, or up, to a higher level: putting him into situations where he will have to be very much braver, or more patient, or more loving, than he ever dreamed of being before. It seems to us all unnecessary: but that is because we have not yet had the slightest notion of the tremendous thing He means to make of us.

In the end, if we really let him, God will make us awesome:

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were 'gods' and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said.

This last paragraph reminds me of that movie and social movement The Secret. If a Christian sees someone having illness or money troubles, can't they conclude that their troubles are not due to circumstance but due to god being angry at them? Is this why my friends who use wheelchairs have all had the experience where a Christian approached them and told them that if they just believed hard enough, prayed the right ways, or acted in a way that pleased god/Jesus, they would be able to walk again? Are there people who walk around and think that those who are unfortunate are unfortunate due to their own sinfulness and immorality?

Lest you think I am jumping to conclusions where no conclusions are warranted, here is a quote from a very famous Youtube Christian, VenomFangX:

"Many people have been bringing to my attention, they feel somehow considered by amputees. You're gonna run into a lot of these, and you gotta be aware of them, and you gotta be able to call it for what it is. So if you don't recognize them as amputees, they could probably throw you for a loop. But when you recognize them for what they are, they're just like, 'Are you joking?' Okay, let me show you an example. I can grab a box: I don't deserve to die. You've been separated from your arm in the first place. You deserve death and the loss of your arms. Amputees don't deserve their arms, they deserve to die; that's what the Bible teaches. Why should God heal amputees? He's the one who allowed you to lose your arm in the first place! So here's the real question: Why do people lose their arms? I'm just gonna take a stab at it and see what I can do. Now, I cut off my arm. So why doesn't God heal amputees? 'Cause they don't deserve their arms. They deserve to die; that's what the Bible teaches. Sorry if you don't like that! Jesus said if you're even angry with someone, you're a murderer in your heart!"

Now, obviously many theists do not believe that people who are ill or having troubles in their life are having those troubles because they deserve them. But, this kind of thinking presented by Lewis can easily cause people to excuse human injustice or other negative situations under the rationalization that those situations are in place because god is disappointed. Think hurricane Katrina.

Mere Christianity online

Fallacious: appeal to authority

I just love Dr. Lisle's series on logical fallacies over at Answers in Genesis because they are perfect examples of how some people can completely misunderstand fallacies while simultaneously making both the fallacy as inanely described and the actual fallacy as correctly described. I'm going to go over each and every one of the fallacies in his list and dismantle his treatment where dismantling is deserved. Today we're going to discuss the "Faulty Appeal to Authority".

I thought that fellow blogger Bing over at Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes did a delicious job with his treatment of this particular piece of Lisledrivel*, so I am not going to reinvent the wheel – merely expand upon his treatment and bring up a few points I think he missed (probably for the sake of not having an extensively long blog post). First, Lisle defines "faulty appeal to authority".

The faulty appeal to authority is, in a way, the opposite of the ad hominem fallacy. Whereas the ad hominem fallacy denies a claim based on the person making it, the faulty appeal to authority endorses a claim simply based on the person making it. Essentially, the faulty appeal to authority is the argument that a claim is true simply because someone else believes it.

This is not quite correct. In philosophy literature, there is such a thing as an "appeal to authority" fallacy. A "faulty appeal to authority" is a very uncommon way of phrasing this, and I could not find this particular fallacy phrased this way in any of my fallacy websites or books on logic.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy in which someone makes the argument that a particular proposition is correct because the proposition is given by a source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The argument goes like this:

1. Source A says P
   
2. Source A is authoritative
   
3. Therefore P
   

Appeals to authority are quite important in informal logic because individuals cannot be experts on all things. Instead, we rely on the judgment of individuals who are experts in their particular field. The problem arises when an "expert" is not actually an expert in the field for which the claim is being made, or if the argument is treated as deductive logic, i.e. source says p, source is an authority, and therefore p must be true. In other words, an appeal to authority is a fallacy if the "authority" is not actually an authority in that area or if the authority is treated as infallible. Citing an actual authority on a given subject makes the proposition more likely to be true but does not guarantee its truth. An appeal to authority can never guarantee that a claim is true, but if the authority is a legitimate expert on the subject then it can make the claim more likely to be true.

The basic structure of the argument is this:

Bill believes X.

Therefore, X is true.

Of course, it is almost never stated this explicitly. Often, the person to whom the appeal is made is considered highly esteemed for one reason or another. But the truthfulness of the claim at issue is not necessarily relevant to the popularity of the individual making the claim.

Actually, Lisle is missing a necessary part of the basic structure of this argument/fallacy – Bill's status as an authority, or the second premise in my example above.

In the origins debate, the faulty appeal is often to someone who is considered an expert on a particular topic—a scientist or perhaps a theologian. For example, "Dr. Bill has a PhD in biology, and he believes in evolution." The unstated conclusion is that evolution must therefore be true or is at least likely to be true. But such an argument is fallacious. After all, we could equally point out that "Dr. Dave also has a PhD in biology, and he believes in biblical creation." The fact that other experts on the topic draw the opposite conclusion should reveal the vacuous nature of the evolutionist's argument.

It is unclear from the context of this argument that the unstated conclusion is that "evolution must therefore be true". To cry fallacy before the conclusion is given is to assume the conclusion before one is made. If the arguer in this case claimed, "Dr. Bill has a Ph.D in biology and believes in evolution, therefore evolution must be true", then one could claim that this is a fallacy. Otherwise, the statement is just that – a preposition. For all we know, the arguer intended to go on to say, "therefore some biologists believe in evolution". To cry fallacy before an argument is made is to jump the gun. It's really too bad that, "assuming the conclusion of an argument before the conclusion is given" isn't a fallacy.

Another example would be this:

"Jim has a doctorate in theology, and he says it's okay to believe in evolution and the Bible."

Again, we could certainly find many qualified theologians who would state the exact opposite. While it is okay to consider what a theologian has to say about the Bible, it is infinitely more important to consider what the Bible actually states!

The problem with this is that people disagree on "what the bible actually states". What Jim says about the Bible appears in this instance to be considering what a theologian has to say about the Bible. Again, we're given no conclusion, so without that context we cannot assume that the person mentioning Jim intends to say that because Jim believes in evolution and the Bible, that evolution and the Bible are more likely to be true or are irrefutably true.

If an expert on U.S. law claimed that the Constitution does not contain the phrase "We the people," would that make it so? We could easily refute his claim by simply reading from an actual copy of the Constitution. The fact that he is an expert does not override the evidence.

I think part of being an "expert" on U.S. law involves knowing the first words of the Constitution. Though, I will grant that what people say, whether experts or not, does not override evidence.

Next, Lisle explains that not all appeals to authority are faulty, and says that it is legitimate to consider the opinion of an expert. Obviously, I agree with this, but here is where Lisle continues to divorce himself from actual logic:

1. Appealing to an expert in an area that is not his area of expertise. Our hypothetical Dr. Bill may indeed have a PhD in biology—and that qualifies him to say something about how organisms function today. But does knowledge of how things work today necessarily imply knowledge of how things came to be? This is a separate question. The experiments Dr. Bill has done and the observations he has made have all taken place in the present world. He has no more direct observations of the ancient past than anyone else today.¹ The question of origins is a history question that deals with worldviews. It is not really a biology question, and, so, Dr. Bill's opinion on the topic of origins isn't necessarily any more qualified than any other opinion.
   

There is also a very important footnote here, "For some reason, it is common for people to think that paleontologist and geologists study the past. But this is not so. Rocks and fossils exist in the present (otherwise we wouldn't have access to them). Although there is nothing wrong with speculating about past events (e.g., how fossils or rocks formed) and then testing the plausibility of such models with experiments in the present, we should keep in mind that the past is never actually observable or open to scientific investigation

Okay. For some reason it is common for people to think that historians and theologeans study the past. But this is not so. Historical documents, the Bible, and all of its associated artifacts, scrolls and what-not exist in the present. The past is never observable or open to scientific investigation. Therefore, if biologists are not qualified to say things about origins, neither are theologians or historians qualified to say things about origins.

Truth has nothing to do with people's worldviews, and the question of origins is most emphatically not a question of history (which by Lisle's own argument is unreliable) or worldview. If I come home from work and find a large pile of dog shit on the floor, I don't need history and worldview to come to the conclusion that it was my dog, alone in my apartment all day, who shat on my floor rather than a shitgoblin. I can use inductive reasoning to arrive at the most probable conclusion.

1. 
   
   
   Failure to consider the worldview of the expert and how this might affect his interpretation of the data. We all have a world-and-life view—a philosophy that guides our understanding of the universe. When we interpret scientific and historical evidence, we use this philosophy to draw conclusions.² The fact that Dr. Bill believes in evolution means that he is predisposed to interpret the evidence in a particular way. (My point is not to fault him for this; everyone has biases. Rather, we should simply be mindful of what his biases are). A creationist with the same credentials might draw a very different conclusion from the same data. So, while I may put confidence in what Dr. Bill says about the structure of a particular protein that he has studied under the microscope, his bias against biblical creation means it would be unwise for me to trust his opinions on questions of origins.
   
   

   Footnote: "Some evolutionists might claim that they have no philosophy—that our interpretations of evidence should be "neutral" and unbiased. But this is a philosophy in and of itself, albeit a very bad one since it is self-refuting."
   
   

   
   
   

I'll just quote Bing here: "The truth of the matter is independent of what the researcher's beliefs about it are. Either something did happen or didn't happen. The difference between the scientific worldview and that of Answers in Genesis is science starts with a null hypothesis, gathers evidence, comes up with the best explanation and then tests it again, discarding what doesn't work and keeping what does. You write articles complaining about how scientists are playing unfair because they are pantsing you."

The scientific method and skepticism are not worldviews. They are tools. Bill probably also has a "bias" against any of the other religious creation stories. Similarly, I suppose we should fault Dr. Lisle for having a bias against Native American creation stories. A creationist who believes in Biblical creation means he is predisposed to interpret evidence in a particular way. A creationist has a bias against evolution, so that means it would be unwise for me to trust his opinions on questions of origins.

The point is this: how did the biologist arrive at his conclusions about evolution? Hopefully he arrived at them using the scientific method.

How exactly is interpreting evidence using the most neutral and unbiased eye self-refuting? No explanation is offered.

1. Treating a fallible expert as infallible. We should also keep in mind that even experts do not know everything. They can make mistakes even in their own field. Some new discovery may cause a scientist to change his mind about something that he thought he knew. So, at best, appealing to an expert yields only a probable conclusion. It would be fallacious to argue that something definitely must be true simply because a (fallible) expert believes it.
   

I've never met a scientist who treats the opinions of any expert as infallible. This is a deliberate strawman. I do, however, meet creationists who treat the Bible, theologians, or their pastor as infallible. Also, the fact that the body of science is amenable to new evidence is an example of the strength of science, not a weakness. Imagine where we would be if science were unchangeable.

Lisle is absolutely correct that appealing to an expert leads only to a probable conclusion, but this is true about everything – there are no guarantees.

Of course, if the expert had knowledge of everything and never lied, then there would be no fallacy in accepting his statements as absolutely true. In fact, it would be absurd to not do so under those circumstances. The Bible claims to be such an infallible source—a revelation from the God who knows everything and cannot lie.³ Thus, there is no fallacy in appealing to Scripture as absolutely authoritative. Some evolutionists have mistakenly accused creationists of committing the faulty appeal to authority on this very issue.

See how Lisle commits the fallacy of the appeal to authority here? This is quite ironic. Just because the Bible claims to be an infallible source does not mean it is, any more than Bill claiming to be an infallible source means he is an infallible source. We have not "mistakenly" claimed that this is an appeal to authority – it is a primary example of the appeal to authority – treating a fallible expert (the Bible) as infallible.

Another type of faulty appeal to authority is the appeal to the majority. This is when a person argues that a claim must be true simply because most people believe it. But, of course, just because a majority of people believe something does not make it so. History is replete with examples of when the majority was totally wrong. Truth is not decided by a vote, after all.

Creationists do this all the time. I really wish Lisle would provide examples of when creationists commit fallacies alongside "evolutionist" fallacies.

The appeal to the majority is often combined with the appeal to an expert—an appeal to the majority of experts. Evolutionists often commit this double-fallacy; they try to support their case by pointing out:

"The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. (Therefore, evolution is very likely to be true)."

However, simply adding two fallacies together does not form a good argument! Again, we could point to many historical examples of cases where the scientific consensus was dead wrong. Yet, people

As with a single expert, it is not fallacious to consider the opinion of a group of experts. However, as before, we should consider whether they are qualified in the issue under investigation, be mindful of their worldview and biases, and keep in mind that they are fallible people with finite knowledge.

So in other words, we should ignore the majority of experts if they disagree with the ultimate authority figure – my particular brand of god. Who cares if they start with the null hypothesis, gather information, test, come up with the best hypothesis, repeat, repeat, repeat, change their minds if different evidence is presented which is sufficient to contradict prior conclusions. They are unqualified because they are ignoring the infallible Bible. Is Lisle really making this argument? Yup:

I believe that God gave people different interests and is pleased when they study hard and develop expertise on some aspect of His creation. It is commendable to esteem the opinion of experts, provided that we are discerning and never regard fallible human opinions above (or equal to) the authoritative Word of God.

*I will also throw in a few ad hominems just for fun. In case you're reading this Dr. Lisle, the ad hominems make for more entertaining reading. Screaming that they are not a logical argument is pointless. This is like me saying, "There is a cat." And you saying, "A cat is not a verb!" It will not make you look more intelligent or learned.