Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why I do not accept Jesus’ divinity (or anyone’s for that matter)
Happy Easter, everyone. This is my favorite pagan holiday because it celebrates fertility—and who doesn’t appreciate that? Well, maybe those who have unintentional pregnancies, but that’s an entirely different topic. For now, I’d like to focus on the Christianized version of this ancient holiday—particularly Jesus’ supposed divinity, and his mythical resurrection.
I am not certain Jesus even existed. There is no clear evidence outside Scripture, which was most certainly written by those who wanted to perpetuate the myth. A majority of biblical scholars—conservative and liberal alike—concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him. Most of Jesus’ followers were illiterate Aramaic speakers, while the authors of the gospels were educated Greeks. Therefore, we are certain the writers cannot vouch for Jesus’ existence. However, we know for certain Pontius Pilate existed because we have many outside sources to validate this—from local writings to Roman logs to physical evidence of his actual house.
If Jesus existed, we can be certain he wasn’t divine. First, there were a number of messianic claimants during this time in his particular part of the world. He was most likely just another uneducated peasant claiming the mantle of Jewish savior. Second, and most obvious, there is no such thing as “divinity”. None of his miracles can be substantiated. Nothing he did has been verified by extra-biblical sources. Most magicians and miracle workers during this time were charlatans and there is no reason to think otherwise about Jesus.
Finally, people cannot rise from the dead. It’s impossible. If he existed, was tortured, and lay in a tomb, his body was either stolen or he simply wasn’t dead and walked out. Either is more plausible than supernatural resurrection. There was no one living at that time in that part of the world to verify this event and we have no rational reason to believe it happened.
While some of what Jesus said was “good” and “moral”, we have no reason whatsoever to believe he was divine or supernatural. It’s highly likely the stories of Jesus of Nazareth were either outright fiction or embellished stories of one of many poor, radical Jewish miracle workers in the Middle East two thousand years ago.
I am not certain Jesus even existed. There is no clear evidence outside Scripture, which was most certainly written by those who wanted to perpetuate the myth. A majority of biblical scholars—conservative and liberal alike—concur that the authors of the gospels did not know Jesus personally, but merely relayed stories about him. Most of Jesus’ followers were illiterate Aramaic speakers, while the authors of the gospels were educated Greeks. Therefore, we are certain the writers cannot vouch for Jesus’ existence. However, we know for certain Pontius Pilate existed because we have many outside sources to validate this—from local writings to Roman logs to physical evidence of his actual house.
If Jesus existed, we can be certain he wasn’t divine. First, there were a number of messianic claimants during this time in his particular part of the world. He was most likely just another uneducated peasant claiming the mantle of Jewish savior. Second, and most obvious, there is no such thing as “divinity”. None of his miracles can be substantiated. Nothing he did has been verified by extra-biblical sources. Most magicians and miracle workers during this time were charlatans and there is no reason to think otherwise about Jesus.
Finally, people cannot rise from the dead. It’s impossible. If he existed, was tortured, and lay in a tomb, his body was either stolen or he simply wasn’t dead and walked out. Either is more plausible than supernatural resurrection. There was no one living at that time in that part of the world to verify this event and we have no rational reason to believe it happened.
While some of what Jesus said was “good” and “moral”, we have no reason whatsoever to believe he was divine or supernatural. It’s highly likely the stories of Jesus of Nazareth were either outright fiction or embellished stories of one of many poor, radical Jewish miracle workers in the Middle East two thousand years ago.
Monday, April 18, 2011
My email correspondence with Apologist Kyle Butt
As promised, below is the entire, unedited email conversation I had with apologist Kyle Butt. As you can see, his arguments are extremely weak and are not what I would expect from a trained apologist.
Enjoy!
Click here to read my synopsis of the correspondence -->
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle:
My name is Daniel Brown. I’m a resident of Columbia, TN and voted for your mom, but never had the pleasure of meeting her until today. (Personal info about meeting a family member of his removed.)
I met with her to speak about a certain bill making its way through the State House that I oppose. In discussion, she mentioned you’re a Biblical apologist. I was once on path to be a Southern Baptist preacher, but found myself working for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist and for the Tennessee Baptists upon graduating from Belmont in 1998. I was also a youth minister and licensed minister. I decided to leave my personal ministry and work as a graphic designer and then obtained a Masters in Communications from Norwich University.
In 2003, I decided to focus on my faith and zeroed in on a few questions that bothered me from childhood—including authenticity of Scripture, existence of God, and many other areas. After a while, I finally embraced these doubts and realized much of what I claimed to know about God, the mind of Christ, etc, could not be known. A declared myself an atheist and still consider myself a non-believer to this day.
I’ve engaged many, many pastors and church leaders with MDivs and PhDs through the years, but not one has been able to completely and fully answer my questions. I’ve never had a chance to discuss any of these with an apologist specifically. Once I heard about you, I knew I had to write and request an opportunity to ask you a few questions. If you don’t mind, I would like to begin a cordial dialog via email if possible. Who knows—I might hear something I never heard before.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brown
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Great to hear from you. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever questions you have. In my experience, it is the most productive to focus on one specific issue at a time and move on from there. So, I would suggest that you fire away any one thing that you believe militates against belief in God. I’ll look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Kyle,
Thank you for indulging me.
Simply put, my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. By evidence, I mean verifiable, material evidence that unmistakably points to a god. Either the god proposition is true or false. To be intellectually honest with myself, I must suspend judgment until I have confirmation. It can’t end there. It must be evidence that can be validated by outside sources and testable. I’m sure we would agree that a creator would have to exist in a realm to which neither of us has access. This makes determining the validity of the statement impossible. My non-belief extends into all things supernatural—ghosts, demons, angels, unicorns, and fairies. I am a materialist, simply because that’s all we can possibly know. Anything outside of that resembles imagination.
How do you personally determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you define “god” and by what means do you determine its existence? After answering that, one must make the broad leap from deism to theism. How do you bridge the gap?
Thanks,
Daniel
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for getting back to me. Are you familiar with the often used scientific concept of indirect observation?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Yes. I'm familiar with it. One example you might cite is gravity.
You can't infer something you cannot define. Gravity is defined by the rate at which things fall. It's testable. Sure, you can infer the Christian god because there is something rather than nothing, but I'll make the leap and infer a pink sock puppet as god for the same reason. This points back to my question--how do YOU determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you KNOW this inference of the Christian god is correct and my inference of the sock puppet is incorrect?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for writing back. Bear with me here. I’m not avoiding your question, I just think we need to nail this idea down early in order to move forward. So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Sure. The beauty of science is that it makes predictions, is measurable, and is testable. We might be able to infer a small bit of information here and there, but all scientists studying this hypothetical planet know that all information about it is developing and on-going. The information we gather lays the groundwork for further tests and measurable data collection. EVERY idea begins as an hypothesis. In science, these hypotheses are founded on limited information, but the end goal is to know as much about it as possible based on measurable and repeatable evidence. So, to answer your question, yes, we can "know" some basic information about the planet, but as time progresses, technology advances, and we develop a fuller picture based in reality and facts. You will never hear a scientists say, "That planet is exactly this size and if you disagree, you're going to hell." The certainty is in flux until we KNOW--and knowing is based in facts gathered. Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation--hypotheses, yes, but theories, laws, certainty, no.
Once we have a working understanding of the distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc, we can send a spacecraft to the planet. To accomplish this trip, we accumulate facts and make predictions. If we are wrong, the spacecraft will either not meet its destination and/or burn up. Indirect observation is but a small part of science.
Are you attempting to say that the entire concept of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god hangs on one small section of science called inference? That the god hypothesis is alone sufficient and requires nothing more to verify or falsify the claim? Is the goal to use a portion of the scientific method to explain god, while discarding the process of peer-review, experimentation, etc? Can you provide an example of a scientific fact/theory/law that is based entirely on indirect observation and cannot be tested or measured?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” Let me explain. The theory of evolution is built on the idea that non-living chemicals gave rise to life and that life changed into different kinds of life over millions of years. Now, do we have direct scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can change into life? If not, the theory of evolution is built on, not even an inference here, but an assumption. I think you would have a difficult time defending the idea that “indirect observation is but a small part of science” if you want to discuss the alleged Big Bang, Human evolution, life coming from non-life, etc. As to what I am trying to say about belief in God. I am saying that you can look at the things which God made, like the Universe, Human Body, Animal Kingdom, and come to legitimate truth statements about God based on what has been created. As for your final question about any theory that is based on indirect observation, Eugenie Scott, an avid evolutionists, wrote: “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Thanks for your response. Now it’s getting interesting.
As with most discussions I have with Christians, it always turns to evolution. That’s not the discussion we were having, but I’ll indulge you briefly on the topic. We have 150 years of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. For me personally, the evidence that was most convincing was how DNA shows relatedness as evidenced by the mapping of the human and ape genomes. To deny DNA shows our relatedness to other mammals is to deny that DNA can show you are related to your father. I can provide information on DNA and other evidences outside paleontology—including the fusing of Chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, proteomic evidence, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, biochemical organization, and more—If you’d like to review it. As I mentioned in my previous email, scientific theories are predictable. Our understanding of evolution has aided in fighting H1N1 and HIV/AIDS. Evolution by natural selection is fully evidenced across multiple areas of study. With genome mapping alone, we now have clear, concise evidence that it is true. Fossil evidence is virtually irrelevant to me. I would encourage you to read, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God,” which I’m sure you probably have. Whether you accept evolution is neither here nor there to me. The people who need to accept it do and they’re busy in labs developing medicines from which you and I will benefit.
Further, you’re correct. Eugenie Scott said that. Paleontologists have not directly observed speciation in progress, because they deal with fossils. But biologists have. Would you like documentation on observable speciation?
I must correct you. You said that the theory of evolution is built on non-living chemicals turning into life. That’s actually untrue. Evolution by natural selection simply explains speciation, which IS observable. Again, I can provide peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of this. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis and we are learning more and more about it every day. There are scientists vigorously working to understand how this happened. We will know the full answer one day, but until that day, saying the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god did it isn’t a solid explanation.
We were discussing what militates my disbelief in a god. I am convinced science provides the best answers for understanding the world around us. No offense, but mentioning the theory of evolution seems to be a straw man. Even if you could provide evidence that DNA does not show relatedness, it wouldn't assist in the argument FOR the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god.
I certainly didn’t expect you to pull out the argument from design so early in the discussion. It's based on the obvious false premise that “it looks designed, therefore it is”. I can look at the exact same thing and assert that it is not designed. To what avail? You might cite the watchmaker analogy. I can refute that by showing you the factory where the watch was made, how it was made, and introduce you to the maker. This cannot be done with the universe. It’s also an example of argument from personal incredulity, because you’re claiming that because we don’t understand how something came about, it must have been created—by your particular god no less. As I stated previously, for me, I must have clear, concise evidence. I determine whether a proposition is true or false based on evidence. If none is available or is limited, I reserve judgment until I have solid, verifiable, and testable evidence.
Back to my original question, how do you determine whether a proposition is true or false? Is it merely based on revelation or something more tangible?
Again, I TRULY appreciate your time.
Daniel
-----------------------
5 Months Later
-----------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Let’s get back into our discussion. In my previous e-mail I stated: “I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” I then mentioned evolution being “built on” the idea that life arose from non-living chemicals. You “corrected” me and stated that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I’m sure you will agree that the word evolution is often used (by many of your atheistic colleagues) to refer to aspects of the world that have nothing to do with living things, such as stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, etc. So, let me then ask you, are there scientific theories about life’s origin out there? And are they based on direct observable data which shows that life actually did or has come from non-living chemicals. Once we nail down the fact, and you admit its truth, which Scott’s statement verified, that we can know things about certain entities without actually touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling them, then we will move on to your discussion of DNA, and I’ll gladly provide you with information showing that DNA and its similarity between organisms is much better evidence supporting the idea of a common designer than of common ancestry. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
------------------------------------------
My response on the same day
------------------------------------------
Kyle:
I think it's generally accepted in popular culture that "evolution" refers to evolution by natural selection, In fact, Scott's organization is almost exclusively dedicated to promoting and teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection--not stellar evolution, etc. So when you brought that up, it can be assumed you been biological evolution. If it needs to be clarified, then I've done so now.
To understand certain theories, they must be demonstrable. We can look backwards in DNA, RNA, and molecular evolution to determine how life began. We can replicate the processes by which the building blocks for life began and THAT is observable. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to observe life developing in real-time on a distant planet, but for now, replication in the lab will suffice. This is a field of study that is developing. For further reading on the topic, I refer you to one of the first experiments--the Urey-Miller experiment--and subsequent demonstrations:
--Oparin and Haldane
--Fox's experiments
--Shapiro's work on RNA replication
--and so many more.
Now we go into a more philosophical realm. The answers we will find regarding the beginning of life WILL BE natural and not supernatural. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science. I'm not willing to say as you do, "I don't know the answer, therefore my particular deity did it." That's not the answer of an inquisitive mind. I prefer to say, "there is no answers for such and such, but we are working on an answer and it won't be magic."
So, in conclusion, yes, the fundamental processes by which life began are repeatable and observable, just not in totality as you would like, because it has already occurred billions of years ago. Experimentation and direct observation of various parts of the whole theory demonstrate its truth. The theory of evolution by natural selection is more than just "a monkey turning into a man". It is a culmination of a variety of fields of study over 150 years and can be validated at numerous points throughout. One cannot argue against the whole of evolution, but must address each and every individual scientific study that form the totality of the theory. Now, I ask you for peer-reviewed, observable, empirical evidence that debunks any of this. If we are going to argue science, I want to keep this discussion in the realm of science--meaning peer-reviewed work and empirical evidence. If we are going to debate the philosophy of science, we need to keep it in the realm of philosophy--which, to me, is entirely subjective and essentially a futile endeavor.
As I stated previously, indirect observation ALONE in science is not used as it is with creationism. There are empirical studies and scientific evidence to backup any science claim otherwise, it is rejected. Provide me with a SINGLE creationist claim backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
I'm curious to see what peer-reviewed evidence you have demonstrating DNA points to a creator (which happens to be your god nonetheless).
Daniel
----------------------------------------------
December 13, 2011
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for getting back with me and thanks for updating the site. I’d like to address several of the things you mentioned. First, let’s look at the idea of peer-reviewed journals.Those of us who advocate that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe are often ridiculed by evolutionary scientists. This ridicule comes in many different forms, but one of the most often used tactics of atheistic evolutionists is to claim that creation science is simply not good science. As “evidence” that creation or intelligent design is not “good science,” atheistic evolutionists exult in the fact that the standard peer-reviewed scientific journals do not publish papers that support intelligent design. A couple of sample statements to this effect follow:
“ID [Intelligent Design—KB] advocates complain that their views are rejected out of hand by the scientific establishment, yet they do not play by the normal rules of presenting their views first through scientific conferences and then to peer-reviewed journals and then in textbooks” (Scott, 2006, p. 22).
“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).
The reasoning here is that if creation or intelligent design were scientific, then it would be included in peer-reviewed journals. Since it does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, then it must not be scientific. The problem with this reasoning is the circular process by which papers are accepted for inclusion in such journals. The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. “To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations” (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, p. 75, emp. added). Thus, if a paper even hints at something other than a “natural” explanation, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper. Creationists’ papers are not allowed in peer-reviewed journals, not because they are poorly written or documented, but because they do not offer “solely natural explanations.”
An example of this prejudicial dismissal of intelligent design material occurred in 2004. In that year, Richard Sternberg allowed a paper that presented evidence in favor of intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning what happened as a result, Sternberg wrote:
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there (2008).
Reacting to the fact that an intelligent design paper was published in the journal, The Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which sponsors the journal, wrote an official statement concerning the ordeal:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings (“Statement from...,” n.d.).
The way the council presents the matter, it seems that Sternberg did not go through the proper peer-review process. But that is not the case. The article was peer-reviewed and revised in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the “scientific standard”—in other words, because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer.
The Council alluded to a resolution on ID issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That resolution was adopted in October of 2002. In that resolution, the AAAS stated: “Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of ‘intelligent design theory’ as subject matter” (“AAAS Board...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.
Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.” The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
{“AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://www.aaas.org/news/
Next, let’s consider your question about DNA that points to a Creator. SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).
What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:
Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).
We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.
Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).
It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being. [Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.); “Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/
Good to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-------------------------------
December 20, 2011
Normally I respond more quickly. I've been trying to finish up several year-end projects. Thanks for the essay and I appreciate your renewed interest in the discussion.
Enjoy!
Click here to read my synopsis of the correspondence -->
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle:
My name is Daniel Brown. I’m a resident of Columbia, TN and voted for your mom, but never had the pleasure of meeting her until today. (Personal info about meeting a family member of his removed.)
I met with her to speak about a certain bill making its way through the State House that I oppose. In discussion, she mentioned you’re a Biblical apologist. I was once on path to be a Southern Baptist preacher, but found myself working for the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist and for the Tennessee Baptists upon graduating from Belmont in 1998. I was also a youth minister and licensed minister. I decided to leave my personal ministry and work as a graphic designer and then obtained a Masters in Communications from Norwich University.
In 2003, I decided to focus on my faith and zeroed in on a few questions that bothered me from childhood—including authenticity of Scripture, existence of God, and many other areas. After a while, I finally embraced these doubts and realized much of what I claimed to know about God, the mind of Christ, etc, could not be known. A declared myself an atheist and still consider myself a non-believer to this day.
I’ve engaged many, many pastors and church leaders with MDivs and PhDs through the years, but not one has been able to completely and fully answer my questions. I’ve never had a chance to discuss any of these with an apologist specifically. Once I heard about you, I knew I had to write and request an opportunity to ask you a few questions. If you don’t mind, I would like to begin a cordial dialog via email if possible. Who knows—I might hear something I never heard before.
Sincerely,
Daniel Brown
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Great to hear from you. I’ll be glad to discuss whatever questions you have. In my experience, it is the most productive to focus on one specific issue at a time and move on from there. So, I would suggest that you fire away any one thing that you believe militates against belief in God. I’ll look forward to it.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Kyle,
Thank you for indulging me.
Simply put, my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence. By evidence, I mean verifiable, material evidence that unmistakably points to a god. Either the god proposition is true or false. To be intellectually honest with myself, I must suspend judgment until I have confirmation. It can’t end there. It must be evidence that can be validated by outside sources and testable. I’m sure we would agree that a creator would have to exist in a realm to which neither of us has access. This makes determining the validity of the statement impossible. My non-belief extends into all things supernatural—ghosts, demons, angels, unicorns, and fairies. I am a materialist, simply because that’s all we can possibly know. Anything outside of that resembles imagination.
How do you personally determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you define “god” and by what means do you determine its existence? After answering that, one must make the broad leap from deism to theism. How do you bridge the gap?
Thanks,
Daniel
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for getting back to me. Are you familiar with the often used scientific concept of indirect observation?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Yes. I'm familiar with it. One example you might cite is gravity.
You can't infer something you cannot define. Gravity is defined by the rate at which things fall. It's testable. Sure, you can infer the Christian god because there is something rather than nothing, but I'll make the leap and infer a pink sock puppet as god for the same reason. This points back to my question--how do YOU determine whether a proposition is true or false? How do you KNOW this inference of the Christian god is correct and my inference of the sock puppet is incorrect?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for writing back. Bear with me here. I’m not avoiding your question, I just think we need to nail this idea down early in order to move forward. So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Sure. The beauty of science is that it makes predictions, is measurable, and is testable. We might be able to infer a small bit of information here and there, but all scientists studying this hypothetical planet know that all information about it is developing and on-going. The information we gather lays the groundwork for further tests and measurable data collection. EVERY idea begins as an hypothesis. In science, these hypotheses are founded on limited information, but the end goal is to know as much about it as possible based on measurable and repeatable evidence. So, to answer your question, yes, we can "know" some basic information about the planet, but as time progresses, technology advances, and we develop a fuller picture based in reality and facts. You will never hear a scientists say, "That planet is exactly this size and if you disagree, you're going to hell." The certainty is in flux until we KNOW--and knowing is based in facts gathered. Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation--hypotheses, yes, but theories, laws, certainty, no.
Once we have a working understanding of the distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc, we can send a spacecraft to the planet. To accomplish this trip, we accumulate facts and make predictions. If we are wrong, the spacecraft will either not meet its destination and/or burn up. Indirect observation is but a small part of science.
Are you attempting to say that the entire concept of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god hangs on one small section of science called inference? That the god hypothesis is alone sufficient and requires nothing more to verify or falsify the claim? Is the goal to use a portion of the scientific method to explain god, while discarding the process of peer-review, experimentation, etc? Can you provide an example of a scientific fact/theory/law that is based entirely on indirect observation and cannot be tested or measured?
D
-----------------------------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” Let me explain. The theory of evolution is built on the idea that non-living chemicals gave rise to life and that life changed into different kinds of life over millions of years. Now, do we have direct scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can change into life? If not, the theory of evolution is built on, not even an inference here, but an assumption. I think you would have a difficult time defending the idea that “indirect observation is but a small part of science” if you want to discuss the alleged Big Bang, Human evolution, life coming from non-life, etc. As to what I am trying to say about belief in God. I am saying that you can look at the things which God made, like the Universe, Human Body, Animal Kingdom, and come to legitimate truth statements about God based on what has been created. As for your final question about any theory that is based on indirect observation, Eugenie Scott, an avid evolutionists, wrote: “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Thanks for writing.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-----------------------------------------
Thanks for your response. Now it’s getting interesting.
As with most discussions I have with Christians, it always turns to evolution. That’s not the discussion we were having, but I’ll indulge you briefly on the topic. We have 150 years of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. For me personally, the evidence that was most convincing was how DNA shows relatedness as evidenced by the mapping of the human and ape genomes. To deny DNA shows our relatedness to other mammals is to deny that DNA can show you are related to your father. I can provide information on DNA and other evidences outside paleontology—including the fusing of Chromosome 2, endogenous retroviruses, proteomic evidence, DNA sequencing, pseudogenes, biochemical organization, and more—If you’d like to review it. As I mentioned in my previous email, scientific theories are predictable. Our understanding of evolution has aided in fighting H1N1 and HIV/AIDS. Evolution by natural selection is fully evidenced across multiple areas of study. With genome mapping alone, we now have clear, concise evidence that it is true. Fossil evidence is virtually irrelevant to me. I would encourage you to read, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins’ book, “The Language of God,” which I’m sure you probably have. Whether you accept evolution is neither here nor there to me. The people who need to accept it do and they’re busy in labs developing medicines from which you and I will benefit.
Further, you’re correct. Eugenie Scott said that. Paleontologists have not directly observed speciation in progress, because they deal with fossils. But biologists have. Would you like documentation on observable speciation?
I must correct you. You said that the theory of evolution is built on non-living chemicals turning into life. That’s actually untrue. Evolution by natural selection simply explains speciation, which IS observable. Again, I can provide peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of this. What you’re referring to is abiogenesis and we are learning more and more about it every day. There are scientists vigorously working to understand how this happened. We will know the full answer one day, but until that day, saying the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god did it isn’t a solid explanation.
We were discussing what militates my disbelief in a god. I am convinced science provides the best answers for understanding the world around us. No offense, but mentioning the theory of evolution seems to be a straw man. Even if you could provide evidence that DNA does not show relatedness, it wouldn't assist in the argument FOR the Judeo-Islamo-Christian god.
I certainly didn’t expect you to pull out the argument from design so early in the discussion. It's based on the obvious false premise that “it looks designed, therefore it is”. I can look at the exact same thing and assert that it is not designed. To what avail? You might cite the watchmaker analogy. I can refute that by showing you the factory where the watch was made, how it was made, and introduce you to the maker. This cannot be done with the universe. It’s also an example of argument from personal incredulity, because you’re claiming that because we don’t understand how something came about, it must have been created—by your particular god no less. As I stated previously, for me, I must have clear, concise evidence. I determine whether a proposition is true or false based on evidence. If none is available or is limited, I reserve judgment until I have solid, verifiable, and testable evidence.
Back to my original question, how do you determine whether a proposition is true or false? Is it merely based on revelation or something more tangible?
Again, I TRULY appreciate your time.
Daniel
-----------------------
5 Months Later
-----------------------
Hey Daniel,
Thanks for writing. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Let’s get back into our discussion. In my previous e-mail I stated: “I appreciate your discussion and the way that you have put some things, but I must disagree with your statement: “Scientists do not build entire theories and laws on inference and speculation.” I then mentioned evolution being “built on” the idea that life arose from non-living chemicals. You “corrected” me and stated that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. I’m sure you will agree that the word evolution is often used (by many of your atheistic colleagues) to refer to aspects of the world that have nothing to do with living things, such as stellar evolution, cosmological evolution, etc. So, let me then ask you, are there scientific theories about life’s origin out there? And are they based on direct observable data which shows that life actually did or has come from non-living chemicals. Once we nail down the fact, and you admit its truth, which Scott’s statement verified, that we can know things about certain entities without actually touching, tasting, seeing, hearing, or smelling them, then we will move on to your discussion of DNA, and I’ll gladly provide you with information showing that DNA and its similarity between organisms is much better evidence supporting the idea of a common designer than of common ancestry. Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
------------------------------------------
My response on the same day
------------------------------------------
Kyle:
I think it's generally accepted in popular culture that "evolution" refers to evolution by natural selection, In fact, Scott's organization is almost exclusively dedicated to promoting and teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection--not stellar evolution, etc. So when you brought that up, it can be assumed you been biological evolution. If it needs to be clarified, then I've done so now.
To understand certain theories, they must be demonstrable. We can look backwards in DNA, RNA, and molecular evolution to determine how life began. We can replicate the processes by which the building blocks for life began and THAT is observable. Perhaps, one day, we will be able to observe life developing in real-time on a distant planet, but for now, replication in the lab will suffice. This is a field of study that is developing. For further reading on the topic, I refer you to one of the first experiments--the Urey-Miller experiment--and subsequent demonstrations:
--Oparin and Haldane
--Fox's experiments
--Shapiro's work on RNA replication
--and so many more.
Now we go into a more philosophical realm. The answers we will find regarding the beginning of life WILL BE natural and not supernatural. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science. I'm not willing to say as you do, "I don't know the answer, therefore my particular deity did it." That's not the answer of an inquisitive mind. I prefer to say, "there is no answers for such and such, but we are working on an answer and it won't be magic."
So, in conclusion, yes, the fundamental processes by which life began are repeatable and observable, just not in totality as you would like, because it has already occurred billions of years ago. Experimentation and direct observation of various parts of the whole theory demonstrate its truth. The theory of evolution by natural selection is more than just "a monkey turning into a man". It is a culmination of a variety of fields of study over 150 years and can be validated at numerous points throughout. One cannot argue against the whole of evolution, but must address each and every individual scientific study that form the totality of the theory. Now, I ask you for peer-reviewed, observable, empirical evidence that debunks any of this. If we are going to argue science, I want to keep this discussion in the realm of science--meaning peer-reviewed work and empirical evidence. If we are going to debate the philosophy of science, we need to keep it in the realm of philosophy--which, to me, is entirely subjective and essentially a futile endeavor.
As I stated previously, indirect observation ALONE in science is not used as it is with creationism. There are empirical studies and scientific evidence to backup any science claim otherwise, it is rejected. Provide me with a SINGLE creationist claim backed up with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
I'm curious to see what peer-reviewed evidence you have demonstrating DNA points to a creator (which happens to be your god nonetheless).
Daniel
----------------------------------------------
December 13, 2011
Hello Daniel,
Thanks for getting back with me and thanks for updating the site. I’d like to address several of the things you mentioned. First, let’s look at the idea of peer-reviewed journals.Those of us who advocate that an Intelligent Designer created the Universe are often ridiculed by evolutionary scientists. This ridicule comes in many different forms, but one of the most often used tactics of atheistic evolutionists is to claim that creation science is simply not good science. As “evidence” that creation or intelligent design is not “good science,” atheistic evolutionists exult in the fact that the standard peer-reviewed scientific journals do not publish papers that support intelligent design. A couple of sample statements to this effect follow:
“ID [Intelligent Design—KB] advocates complain that their views are rejected out of hand by the scientific establishment, yet they do not play by the normal rules of presenting their views first through scientific conferences and then to peer-reviewed journals and then in textbooks” (Scott, 2006, p. 22).
“Most telling, perhaps, is intelligent design’s near total failure to make any headway in the peer-reviewed publications that are the gateway to scientific success” (Wexler, 2006, p. 94).
The reasoning here is that if creation or intelligent design were scientific, then it would be included in peer-reviewed journals. Since it does not appear in peer-reviewed journals, then it must not be scientific. The problem with this reasoning is the circular process by which papers are accepted for inclusion in such journals. The scientists in authoritative positions have established their own preconceived definition for science. “To be scientific in our era is to search for solely natural explanations” (Hewlett and Peters, 2006, p. 75, emp. added). Thus, if a paper even hints at something other than a “natural” explanation, it is rejected as “unscientific” regardless of the facts or research presented in the paper. Creationists’ papers are not allowed in peer-reviewed journals, not because they are poorly written or documented, but because they do not offer “solely natural explanations.”
An example of this prejudicial dismissal of intelligent design material occurred in 2004. In that year, Richard Sternberg allowed a paper that presented evidence in favor of intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Concerning what happened as a result, Sternberg wrote:
In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there (2008).
Reacting to the fact that an intelligent design paper was published in the journal, The Council of the Biological Society of Washington, which sponsors the journal, wrote an official statement concerning the ordeal:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer...was published at the discretion of the former editor Richard v. [sic] Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.... The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science...which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings (“Statement from...,” n.d.).
The way the council presents the matter, it seems that Sternberg did not go through the proper peer-review process. But that is not the case. The article was peer-reviewed and revised in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The article did not cause a stir because it did not pass the review process. It caused a stir because it did not meet the “scientific standard”—in other words, because it advocated the possibility of an intelligent Designer.
The Council alluded to a resolution on ID issued by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That resolution was adopted in October of 2002. In that resolution, the AAAS stated: “Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of ‘intelligent design theory’ as subject matter” (“AAAS Board...,” 2002, emp. in orig.). This simply means that if any book, article, or paper has anything about intelligent design in it, do not publish, promote, or condone it in anyway.
Thus, it is clear that the oft-repeated accusation against creation science’s lack of peer-reviewed papers is seen for what it is: an intentional exclusion based, not on the merits of the paper, but on the agreed-upon, but false, definition that true science entails only “natural explanations.” The scientific establishment’s stance is similar to that of a child who forms an exclusive club, one of the stipulations for membership being that all members must be “extremely smart.” The child then includes in the by-laws the statement that all smart people should think that he (the founding member) is always right. Thus, he concludes that those who do not think he is always right are not smart. Then, he proceeds to malign those not in the club based on the idea that they are not smart. And as proof that they are not smart, he states that it is obvious they are unintelligent because they are not members of his club. In reality, his motivation for castigating those outside his club is simply the fact that they disagree with him, which is the same motivation that propels the evolutionary establishment to reject all creation science articles. You will not see articles advocating intelligent design in the majority of peer-reviewed journals, not because the findings are unscientific, not because they fail to provide evidence and proof of their conclusions, but because they are not atheistic and evolutionary.
{“AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://www.aaas.org/news/
Next, let’s consider your question about DNA that points to a Creator. SETI is the acronym that stands for the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. For some time prior to 1981, the Federal Government pumped millions of dollars into the construction of high-tech satellites overseen by NASA that were designed to scan the skies in an effort to detect messages, codes, signals, or signs from intelligent life forms on other planets. In 1981, however, federal funding for this program ceased, but this roadblock in the search for alien intelligence did not stop the program. Currently, the Planetary Society stands as the major player in the SETI project. Thousands of volunteers all over the world have put their desktop computers to work, equipped with a program that filters information and radio signals from satellites. These computers are looking for patterns in signals that would suggest the existence of intelligence in outer space. Such prestigious institutions as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have joined the search. In the past, renowned scientists like Carl Sagan adamantly pushed for the funding and expansion of the SETI project (McDonough, 2004).
What, then, are these scientists and volunteers hoping to find in the data collected from their satellites, observation equipment, and computer analyses? They are hoping to find patterns or codes in radio or laser signals that contain some type of communication from an extraterrestrial intelligence. On the Planetary Society’s Web site, under the heading of Frequently Asked Questions, the question is posed: “How could we possibly understand signals from another civilization?” The answer given to this question is:
Even though we and an alien civilization would not have a language in common, there are ways to communicate that should be understandable to intelligent beings. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, and astronomy contain fundamental laws that provide a common “language” throughout the universe. Television pictures are a way of communicating that do not even require a common language to understand (“Frequently Asked Questions...,” 2001).
We can see that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other “fundamental laws” would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc.
Suppose we were to send a man to the moon, and tiny floppy discs started falling to the moon’s surface. Upon inspection of these discs, the astronaut discovers they contain intricately coded information. Suppose further that he is able to decipher this code. Upon doing so, he discovers that the instructions contained in the code, if followed precisely, would produce a machine that could convert sunlight and minerals into food edible by humans and animals. Such an amazing find would receive world-wide recognition to say the least. And there would be no doubt that these discs had originated from an advanced intelligence. Yet, this hypothetical lunar scenario has a terrestrial equivalent.
In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins purports to show how life in this Universe could have evolved over millions of years. He claims to present information that shows that complicated life forms such as humans could have arisen from non-living substances by tiny, gradual steps over eons of time. In chapter five, he begins a discussion on DNA, and attempts to explain how such amazing codes of information could have arisen through natural processes. In his introduction to that chapter, however, he makes a startling admission that, to the honest reader, is impossible to explain in terms of naturalistic evolution. He discusses a willow tree that sits in his garden, shedding its “cottony” seeds through the air, to the ground and the passing water in the canal. In his discussion of the seeds, he explains that each seed contains DNA that, if allowed to grow, will produce another willow tree. He then explains briefly some of the coding capabilities of DNA and the instructions found in it for growth. Referring to these seeds and the DNA they contain, he makes the following statement: “It is raining instructions out there; it’s raining programs; it’s raining tree-growing, fluff-spreading, algorithms. That is not a metaphor, it is the plain truth. It couldn’t be any plainer if it were raining floppy discs” (1996, p. 111).
It is ironic, is it not, that the very coded mathematical information that, if found on the Moon, would be hailed as proof for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence, when found on the Earth, is viewed by many as the product of a mindless, multi-million-year random process. How is it that such prestigious academic institutions such as Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley spend thousands of man hours and millions of dollars searching the skies for mathematical codes, radio signal patterns, etc.? And yet when they find such patterns, in biological, terrestrial organisms, they attribute them to non-intelligence. The logical implication in this situation continues to be missed by many of the major players in the scientific community: if complex coded information is found anywhere in the Universe, it proves that it was put there by a superior intelligence. If such is not the case, why waste time scanning the skies for these patterns? Dawkins’ book attempts to explain away this implication when it comes to coded information found on Earth, but it fails completely. Such an obvious, logical implication cannot be explained away. In truth, the coded information found in the DNA of living organisms points overwhelmingly to the fact that these organisms were design by an intelligent Being. [Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watchmaker, (New York, NY: W.H. Norton and Co.); “Frequently Asked Questions About the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence,” (2001), [On-line], URL: http://www.planetary.org/html/
Good to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Kyle Butt
-------------------------------
December 20, 2011
Kyle,
Either you don’t understand the scientific process or you’re playing dumb. You and I both know that if creationism were supported by repeatable scientific processes, testing, and empirical data, it would be included in these prestigious journals.
I can’t believe you actually cited the weak paper by Meyer. Yes, I’m aware of the story. Wasn’t there a movie about it called “Expelled”? Don't hold me to that. I didn't see it. Let’s not rehash what’s in popular circulation, please. I’m also fully aware of how Sternberg was supposedly railroaded. Sternberg worked with Meyer exclusively going entirely against accepted editorial practices. I’m glad he was rebuked and I support it. They were obviously being deceptive to get the paper published published. Am I hearing you correctly that you support such behavior? As for the paper itself, it contained no independent research or lab results. It was nothing more than a review of others’ work. The scientific community and I want to see hard results that can be replicated in labs and tested. Please address this particular comment and do not veer around it.
Here’s my follow-up question: Can you cite ANY work that has been conducted in labs or otherwise to further the “work” conducted by Meyer in 2004? Have creationists just been sitting on their hands this whole time? Scientists work despite controversy if they are passionate about a subject. Where is the body of work or are Meyer, Sternberg, and you going to whine for 8 more years about Meyer’s pathetic piece of garbage? Can you cite other supposed-scientific papers being submitted as we speak or is this it for you?
Nice SETI strawman, by the way. You didn’t remotely answer my question correctly. I want evidence, not philosophizing. So, I’ll ask my question again: Can you cite PEER-REVIEWED EVIDENCE demonstrating DNA points to a creator? That’s really all I want from you at this point.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Brown
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Unconditional Love
Is there one instance in the Bible where God did something good without asking for anything in return?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Come, let’s reason together (Isaiah 1:18)
In my former life, I wanted to be a Christian apologist. Seriously and don’t laugh. Christian apologetics is the attempt to offer a rational explanation for the faith. Apologists seek to defend the faith against objections through public lectures, debates, books, and websites. The idea is to argue that Christianity is reasonable and evidence-based, but requires metaphysical considerations. That caveat is where my contention lies. A common argument is God exists, and man can know that God exists, by means of revelation, both in nature and through the Bible. This field has sprouted many famous apologetes, including St. Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Ravi Zacharius, Josh McDowell, Hank Hanegraaff, and Lee Strobel.
I’ve argued with plenty of Christians—laypersons and pastors alike—but I have never had an opportunity to debate a full-fledged apologist. Recently, I was meeting with my State House Representative, Sheila Butt, and she told me her son, Kyle, is an apologist who has written numerous books. He currently works at Apologetics Press, a publishing house established in the 70s and based in Montgomery, AL. He publicly debated Dan Barker, president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2008.
I asked for his email address and wrote him that afternoon, introducing myself, and giving him some background information about my upbringing in the church. Kyle posited the first question, “What militates against belief in God?” Perfect starting point, I thought. I responded immediately explaining that all we have is the material world and we need clear, testable, measurable evidence within this realm to demonstrate a god’s existence. We don’t have that, therefore I reserve judgment on whether there is or isn’t a god. I followed up with a question as to how he personally determines whether a statement or proposition is true or false. No answer.
Next, he introduced the concept of indirect observation asking,
I asked for his email address and wrote him that afternoon, introducing myself, and giving him some background information about my upbringing in the church. Kyle posited the first question, “What militates against belief in God?” Perfect starting point, I thought. I responded immediately explaining that all we have is the material world and we need clear, testable, measurable evidence within this realm to demonstrate a god’s existence. We don’t have that, therefore I reserve judgment on whether there is or isn’t a god. I followed up with a question as to how he personally determines whether a statement or proposition is true or false. No answer.
Next, he introduced the concept of indirect observation asking,
“So, using the concept of indirect observation, we could agree that we could know some things about an item or entity without ever having direct contact with that entity. For instance, we could know how big a planet is that circles a distant star by measuring the wobble of the star and using our knowledge of gravity to infer the planet’s mass, etc. Are we on the same page here?”
I explained that indirect observation is but one component of science. Scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on inference alone while religion does. In science, indirect observation can be used at various stages, but ultimately we must have testable, measurable evidence if we are to send a spacecraft to the hypothetical planet. We wouldn’t dare send the craft without having exact measurements of distance, gravitational pull, mass, surface temperature, etc. The beauty of science is that it’s predictable. Sure, it’s fun to speculate or infer an intelligent agent as a source of creation, but ultimately you have to define this entity and it has to be testable and measureable if it interacts within the material world.
He pounced on my statement that scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on indirect observation. Like any good Christian, he brought up evolution commenting that the theory is built on indirect observation, which is entirely untrue. He cited Eugenie Scott’s quote from Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Classic quote-mining. It’s almost as if he reached into a grab bag of evolution quotes and hurled what he thought was the best one. Fortunately, I anticipated this sort of standard response and explained that she’s entirely correct. Paleontologists CAN’T observe evolution, because they deal with fossils. However, biologists HAVE observed speciation many times. It’s well-documented and I offered to provide documentation. My subsequent email took him to task on evolution, where I explained that DNA specifically shows relatedness and common ancestry of all life. The fossil argument is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on whether I accept evolution as fact or not. Because of DNA, to deny we are related to apes is to deny we are related to our fathers. Fossils are merely icing on the cake these days, because it further validates the magnificent scientific truth.
He pounced on my statement that scientists don’t build entire theories and laws on indirect observation. Like any good Christian, he brought up evolution commenting that the theory is built on indirect observation, which is entirely untrue. He cited Eugenie Scott’s quote from Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, “Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.” Classic quote-mining. It’s almost as if he reached into a grab bag of evolution quotes and hurled what he thought was the best one. Fortunately, I anticipated this sort of standard response and explained that she’s entirely correct. Paleontologists CAN’T observe evolution, because they deal with fossils. However, biologists HAVE observed speciation many times. It’s well-documented and I offered to provide documentation. My subsequent email took him to task on evolution, where I explained that DNA specifically shows relatedness and common ancestry of all life. The fossil argument is irrelevant to me and has no bearing on whether I accept evolution as fact or not. Because of DNA, to deny we are related to apes is to deny we are related to our fathers. Fossils are merely icing on the cake these days, because it further validates the magnificent scientific truth.
After my last email educating him on evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, DNA, and paleontology, I haven’t heard back. It’s been eight days and I suspect I won’t hear anything else. My repeated question as to how he personally determines the truth of a statement/proposition was left unanswered. So much for “rationally defending the faith”. I appreciate him being a good sport, but I expected so much more. Oh well, on to the next one.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Debate with an up-and-coming apologist
I'm having a friendly email debate with a Christian apologist and author of numerous books. He has publicly debated a prominent atheist before a large audience. The video of his debate is available on YouTube, but I don't want to spoil the results. So I'm waiting to reveal with whom. Having a good discussion--so far. Details as I have something to report.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Creationist Politicans
This is a copy of a letter I sent to several Republican TN State Representatives regarding HB 368--an anti-evolution bill. After the letter, see the response I received from one of the Reps.
---------------------
Dear Distinguished Representatives:
I appreciate the work you’re doing to lower taxes and keep the federal government at bay. I’m proud to have Republicans in control, but as I expressed this morning, the Republican take-over has become bittersweet. I wanted to take this opportunity to share my objections to HB 368.
The issue of evolution is something in which I have had profound interest in recent years. I was raised a Southern Baptist and was devout. I’m a licensed minister, worked as a youth minister, and even worked for the Tennessee Baptist Convention in Brentwood and the Southern Baptist Executive Committee in Nashville. So, there’s no doubt what I was RAISED to BELIEVE. However, I have researched this topic extensively and know it quite well.
Let’s not mince words. This bill seeks to bring creationism into the classroom. Unfortunately, neither creationism nor Intelligent Design has met the rigorous standards set forth in science. There are absolutely NO peer-review articles on the topic that have met the muster to be included in scientific journals. I’m familiar with all the creationist writers, have read their books, and understand their arguments completely. They’re just not up to par. Evolution on the other hand has over 150 years of rigorous testing and evidence to support it as fact. In fact, evangelical Christian Dr. Francis Collins, who was partially responsible for mapping the human genome, was critical in showing me the fact of evolution. To deny DNA shows the relatedness of all living creatures, one would have to deny DNA shows I am related to my father. It’s the same science. There is a mountain of evidence I could show you, but I won’t bother doing it here. If you have interest, I’d be more than happy to show you the work that has been done.
This bill is bad law, because a PA court ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005 and the Bush-appointed judge whole-heartedly agreed that Intelligent Design is creationism in disguise. If we allow teachers to teach this unsubstantiated pseudo-science, ANY teacher of ANY religious affiliation can teach his/her view of creation. Creationism is just as unsubstantiated as some Eastern religion that says the universe was birthed by a pink cow in space. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to ridicule Christianity, but I am saying that it is clearly not science and has no place in the classroom--something ALL Republicans should agree with.
To create an atmosphere where teachers are encouraged to teach pseudo-science will dumb-down our students and will be a grave mistake for the future of Tennessee. I beg you to oppose this bill and keep non-science out of the classroom.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Daniel A. Brown
---------------
Response from Rep. Richard Floyd. All punctuation is as he sent it:
Dear Mr. Brown,
May I suggest that you might want to go back and read the book of Genesis one more .Thank our awesome God and His wonderful Son ,Jesus, that I was able to miss your professors.
Because He Lives !!!
Rep. Richard Floyd"
Friday, March 25, 2011
A Letter to Pastor Livengood
I recently attend FBC Columbia, TN and you'll see my entry about the experience here. I wrote the pastor pointing out flaws in his church and sermon and have received no response. So I figured I'd make the letter public since I've received no response in 16 days. Enjoy.
-------------------
Dr. Livengood,
My name is Daniel Brown and I am a former member of First Family, a former employee of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee, and a former Christian. I graduated from Belmont, after transferring from Union as a religion major. I worked as a youth minister for four years and preached occasionally while in college. Ultimately, I changed my major to design communication and used my degree to work for the Tennessee Baptist Convention and for the now-defunct Cooperative Program Development Division of the SBC.
Around 2003, I decided to become self-employed and use my free-time to research my faith deeper—delving into the origin of Scriptures in particular. I resurfaced with a rational approach to religion and decided the Scriptures couldn’t be authenticated and the miracles couldn’t be remotely validated. Thus, I denounced the church, Christianity, and Christ and now claim to be a rational, free-thinking, truth-seeking individual. Solid, irrefutable evidence is king. If a philosophical statement cannot be demonstrated as true or false, I suspend judgment. Therefore, the “God exists” claim is meaningless to me. However, I must say I thoroughly enjoy discussing religion with educated Christians.
I decided last week to begin visiting churches again on a regular basis to see if anything has changed in the way the Gospel is presented. Yours was the first church I’ve visited in over seven years.
There were several items that disturbed me about your sermon. First of all, you began with a direct assault on science, philosophy, and education in general. You praised the foolishness of the message of Christ, but did nothing to add a sense of validity to it. I hoped for some sort of paradoxical truth that would tie up the loose end, but nothing was offered. Repeating the mantra that “the message of the Cross is foolish” doesn’t make it a good position. It only reinforces the non-thinking required to be a Christian.
You invited the college-age students to seek you out for advice on how to process new information they receive in school. You made the typical, unlettered, 1970s Christian claim that “they (whoever THEY is) dated this-or-that to be several million years old when it’s only 30 years old” or something along those lines. You cited no source and made a wild, deceptive claim thinking no one would call you out on it. This is disheartening considering your level of education. Scientists use a variety of dating methods to verify each date claim made—Uranium-lead dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Samrarium-neodymium dating, potassium-argon, argon-argon, fission track, optical, luminescence, thermoluminescence, and many more. A quick Google search would provide you with this info. I am appalled by your complete negligence with this statement.
The church service did nothing to change my perspective on the church and was everything I expected. By the way, only one person spoke to me the entire time and he specifically said he didn’t know if I was a member or a visitor. You might want to work with your people on that.
I apologize if I’m coming off as irritated, but I am growing weary of Christians spreading false information. I expected to hear things I disagreed with, but not outright attacks on critical thinking, science, and rational thought.
I hope you aren’t too put off by my email and I’d love to engage you in further discussion.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Brown
PO Box 1331
Columbia, TN 38402
der_hammerman@yahoo.com
Monday, March 21, 2011
The (Ir)Relevant Church
Another week, another church. This week I visited Hope Presbyterian Church, a mega-church located in the suburbs of Memphis, TN, with an average weekly attendance of 7,500. As expected, it is full of wealthy, white families with a few black folks scattered here-and-there for good measure. After navigating the expanse of minivans and SUVs and dodging families with the standard 2.5 children, I made it into the front door. Once inside, I ran the gauntlet along the corridor where parishioners were dashing between vending machines and coffee kiosks to stock up before the big show.
Inside the sanctuary, I made my way to the 7th row for the best view. The show started promptly at 11:15am. The music was a good mix of contemporary and traditional songs, but was essentially a 30-minute concert starring the zombie-like choir and various musicians—from guitarist to drummer to saxophonist. When the music team finished, there was a customary offering and the pastor, Dr. Craig Strickland delivered his sermon. His homily was the third part of a seven-part series titled, “Seven Words from the Cross”. In the series, Dr. Strickland is lecturing on the seven comments Jesus made while hanging from the cross. By the way, these comments by Jesus are not consistent across the four gospels, but that is neither here nor there. Last Sunday, he discussed “love” citing John 19:25-27, where Jesus says to his Mother, “Woman, here is your son (John the disciple),” and, “Behold your mother,” speaking to John of Mary. He goes on to explain that loving your family and treating fellow believers as family is a good thing. The entire sermon was pleasant and non-judgmental. Because of its lack of substance, I won’t bother with further analysis.
This entire experience is a shining example of why Christianity is wrong and evil. Contemporary Christianity is deceptive. Believers focus on sweet and loving passages by Jesus and Paul, while ignoring the genocide and rape sanctioned by their god in the Old Testament. They emphasize Jesus as a loving, humble servant who only wants to save you from his vengeful father who seeks to cast you into eternal torment. The moderate, touchy-feely version of this religion legitimizes all the fringe denominations, which lie to children as a means of propagandizing them and psychologically and emotionally abuse them.
The truth is Christianity is VERY judgmental and preaches the wicked message of an afterlife of eternal torture to the gullible masses. This experience did nothing but expose the shallowness of contemporary Christianity. Christianity is an evil enterprise that seeks to perpetuate and “make relevant” a dim-witted proposition for financial gain and power.
Church website: www.hopepres.com
Friday, March 18, 2011
What's your favorite argument for the existence of God?
I've seen plenty of arguments and none are strong. This is a list I found and LOVE it. It's hilarious. Which is your favorite? Check it out:
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
A Visit to the Asylum
Until this past Sunday, I had not sat through a church worship service in over seven years. After considering a number of churches for this adventure, I decided to attend First Family in Columbia, TN. About twelve or so years ago, this particular church—otherwise known as First Baptist Church—decided to build a large complex on Pulaski Highway south of town. After nearly sixty years on the corner of High St. and West 8th St downtown, the church left an enormous empty facility and a large parking lot where several historic homes once stood. This action demonstrated their arrogance and disregard for the neighborhood and lack of financial and environmental stewardship, but I digress.
The experience at First Family was as one would expect—mind-numbing, overly-repetitive praise music and a sermon full of the standard rhetoric with a spattering of conceited applause and AMENs. The pastor made the usual religious pleas and wisecracks to elicit an emotional response from the crowd. I was left wondering what had happened and how could I regain the hour I lost.
Before the service began, one person who happened to be sitting directly in front me spoke and shook my hand saying, "I don't know if you're a member or not, but hello." No one spoke to me for the remainder of the service—including during the time when everyone is encouraged to speak to their “neighbor”. I suppose I didn’t appear neighborly enough despite being dressed for the occasion with a sports coat and a genuine smile.
The first thirty minutes was a prolonged performance by a female who I would assume is the music minister. I don’t know her name, because it appears in neither the bulletin nor on the web site. There were the standard sing-alongs, but no one in the crowd seemed to be familiar enough with them to heartedly participate. The lyrics were convoluted and ludicrous. One of the seemingly never-ending praise songs had the chorus “There is a fountain who is a King.” What the hell? Having grown up in church, I unfortunately know what this means, but to an average person off the street, it would seem utterly ridiculous.
After a parade of various ministers speaking about goings-on in the church, on-stage walks Dr. Steve Livengood, the senior pastor. His sermon “Perfect Nonsense” was mindless drivel. I sat through the entire sermon asking myself if this preacher is seminary-educated. Turns out he has a doctorate—from where I don’t know. I would assume from one of six, fine Southern Baptist seminaries. Despite the “Dr” in front of his name, Pastor Steve offered a homily that lacked substance and bordered on rambling.
From the title, you may have the gist of its content. As you would expect from an evangelical, Pastor Steve criticized secular education, science, and abortion. Citing I Corinthians 1:18-25, he praises the absurdity of the message of Christ. Verses 22-23 say “Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” There is nothing profound or meaningful in this verse. It’s merely stating the obvious. The pastor reiterated this concept of foolishness many times as if that somehow adds truth and meaning to the message of Christ. I waited with baited breath for some profound argument with a twist of paradoxical truth only to be left wanting. Somehow in the twisted world of Christianity, foolishness and absurdity trumps intellect and rational thought.
In my opinion, the church has simply created a problem of sin and disobedience to their god, assembled what they consider to be a solution, and is now trying to reconcile all of this with more mumbo-jumbo. Pastor Steve says that those seeking an answer simply don’t understand the remedy god has put forth. In other words, the foolish ones are not those accepting the absurd message of Christ’s redemption, but those seeking truth and knowledge.
He goes on to attack philosophy and science. In a portion of the sermon directed at college students (of which I’m sure there aren’t many in this particular church), he tells them that if they are taught something in college and it doesn’t coincide with Scripture to reject it. He goes as far as to say that they may contact him via email or phone if they are confused. No doubt he will set them straight as to what to believe and how to filter contemporary scientific facts through the lens of an ancient, unauthenticated book of myths. This is the epitome of indoctrination, propaganda, and deceit. Not only has this church ruined the minds of children, they continue spreading ignorance and misinformation when the children are young adults.
In keeping with the standard evangelical Christian message, Pastor Steve reiterates the claim that humans are born corrupt and in need of salvation. The performance ends with the usual Christian mantra, “How do I know all of this? The Bible tells me so.”
This experience was beyond disappointing. The musical performance was mediocre, the sermon was elementary and lacking any true substance and the people were less than inviting. I give the full experience a D-.
The church's website is www.thefirstfamily.org.
Friday, February 25, 2011
God exists
The statement has been used flippantly throughout history. The concept of god is undefined, paradoxical, and unverifiable/falsifiable. It should be discarded as a philosophical proposition until there is ample scientific evidence and at least a clear definition of what god is. Let’s examine this problematic assertion.
Defining God
To assert a god exists, we must develop a definition of “god” upon which everyone can agree. A daunting task, I know. To some, god is everything. To others, god is outside everything. What does it look like? How big is it? Is it good, bad, or both? Did it create everything or only some of everything? Did it create nothing and only exists to manipulate what is already there? Did the universe exist before it and was created by some larger being? If so, what created it? Is it the god of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Native Africans, aboriginal Australians, or some other tribe? Is it many gods or one? Is it infinite or finite? Can it mate with humans as described by the Greeks and the Christians? Has there been, is there now, or will there ever be a human who can speak definitively about this god and its true nature? How do we determine his/her credibility on this topic of god? We cannot use a holy book to answer these questions, because we must first establish which holy book is accurate and which author is credible. There are many more questions, but these will suffice to demonstrate the breadth of what we don’t know about deities. Once the answers to these questions have been established, we can then wrestle with the basics regarding its possible existence. As we can see, obtaining clear, concise, and factual answers to these questions is an audacious task.
The God Definition Paradox
To most religious folk I’ve encountered, their god is a paradox. It created everything yet was not itself created. It created the laws of the universe, yet is not subject to these laws. As per Christian tradition, their god is loving and kind in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, he is jealous and blood-thirsty. They claim to maintain a relationship with it and communicate with it, yet have never physically seen or heard it. It cannot be examined in the known world yet supposedly operates in it freely and openly. As these paradoxes demonstrate, there is no clear agreement on the nature of god.
Can we verify/falsify the proposition?
If we were to be lucky enough to settle on a definition of god, we could then determine if the aforementioned proposition is true or false. It must be verified to maintain any relevance in reality. This proposition is metaphysical, but is stated as fact within the realm of reality, therefore it should be subject to testing within the natural world. Our only tool for determining the validity of a proposition is the science method, which requires the subject to be present in natural form. This is impossible, because deities are conveniently invisible.
Faith as a means of verification
I’ve posed these questions and objections to religious people before and their ultimate response is always, “one must have faith” or “I know my version of god is correct (I know that I know)”. Faith cannot answer these questions. In which version of god do I place my faith? Faith in this instance is not faith in the concept alone, but faith in the messenger and faith that he is credible to deliver an accurate and truthful message. Faith only raises more questions and does nothing to validate god claims.
Even if we could establish a coherent definition for god and could verify its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the work of determining which god is correct and determining its will and purpose for us will have only begun. Discussing the concept of god is an entertaining exercise, but outside of that, it offers nothing positive and meaningful to our lives. Being convinced there is a god and that one can mystically hear its voice or know its will is a dangerous endeavor that transforms seemingly good people into propagators of lies and willing accomplices in the systematic corruption of children.
Defining God
To assert a god exists, we must develop a definition of “god” upon which everyone can agree. A daunting task, I know. To some, god is everything. To others, god is outside everything. What does it look like? How big is it? Is it good, bad, or both? Did it create everything or only some of everything? Did it create nothing and only exists to manipulate what is already there? Did the universe exist before it and was created by some larger being? If so, what created it? Is it the god of the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, Native Africans, aboriginal Australians, or some other tribe? Is it many gods or one? Is it infinite or finite? Can it mate with humans as described by the Greeks and the Christians? Has there been, is there now, or will there ever be a human who can speak definitively about this god and its true nature? How do we determine his/her credibility on this topic of god? We cannot use a holy book to answer these questions, because we must first establish which holy book is accurate and which author is credible. There are many more questions, but these will suffice to demonstrate the breadth of what we don’t know about deities. Once the answers to these questions have been established, we can then wrestle with the basics regarding its possible existence. As we can see, obtaining clear, concise, and factual answers to these questions is an audacious task.
The God Definition Paradox
To most religious folk I’ve encountered, their god is a paradox. It created everything yet was not itself created. It created the laws of the universe, yet is not subject to these laws. As per Christian tradition, their god is loving and kind in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament, he is jealous and blood-thirsty. They claim to maintain a relationship with it and communicate with it, yet have never physically seen or heard it. It cannot be examined in the known world yet supposedly operates in it freely and openly. As these paradoxes demonstrate, there is no clear agreement on the nature of god.
Can we verify/falsify the proposition?
If we were to be lucky enough to settle on a definition of god, we could then determine if the aforementioned proposition is true or false. It must be verified to maintain any relevance in reality. This proposition is metaphysical, but is stated as fact within the realm of reality, therefore it should be subject to testing within the natural world. Our only tool for determining the validity of a proposition is the science method, which requires the subject to be present in natural form. This is impossible, because deities are conveniently invisible.
Faith as a means of verification
I’ve posed these questions and objections to religious people before and their ultimate response is always, “one must have faith” or “I know my version of god is correct (I know that I know)”. Faith cannot answer these questions. In which version of god do I place my faith? Faith in this instance is not faith in the concept alone, but faith in the messenger and faith that he is credible to deliver an accurate and truthful message. Faith only raises more questions and does nothing to validate god claims.
Even if we could establish a coherent definition for god and could verify its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, the work of determining which god is correct and determining its will and purpose for us will have only begun. Discussing the concept of god is an entertaining exercise, but outside of that, it offers nothing positive and meaningful to our lives. Being convinced there is a god and that one can mystically hear its voice or know its will is a dangerous endeavor that transforms seemingly good people into propagators of lies and willing accomplices in the systematic corruption of children.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Try Harder
Religion is a virus.
I run into a lot of Christians who would agree with that statement. “My faith is not a religion,” they say. In the 90s, Christians decided to play semantics to draw new converts who were traditionally critical of religion and church. This happened along with pastors trading in their suits and ties for Hawaiian shirts and the introduction of guitars and drums into mainstream church services. At this point, the church also dropped the tiny bit of intellectualism it had for a new, non-judgmental, post-modern emotionalism. Yes, this helped to draw in new members, but there remains a greater dearth of critical thinking in the church than ever before.
This movement toward the contemporary church model has left believers intellectually empty and defenseless against the renewed attacks on their faith. When I was a Christian, I rejected this contemporary movement and felt church was lacking something. I moved my membership to a traditional church in hopes that I could find more “meat” in Christian training. It helped even less. When I turned 30, the transition began for me. Until that time, I had been a devout Southern Baptist—having worked for the denomination for 10 years. The decision was made to truly examine my faith—to dig deep and understand as much as I could about the origins of Scripture. It wasn’t long before I realized how little could be substantiated. “Faith” was no longer enough to fill the gaps of evidence.
As time progressed, I ultimately rejected Christianity. Since that time, I have immersed myself in further study of the origins of Scripture, studying Islam and other religions, and catching up on philosophy and science—biology, DNA, mapping of genomes, the theory of evolution via natural selection, astronomy, physics, neuroscience, and so on. By playing the devil’s advocate, I was able to weed out my wrong beliefs.
Now, I find myself arguing with puny Christians—not only weak in their faith, but mind-numb and ignorant. Their arguments are sophomoric and reveal lack of introspection. By posting a simple anti-religion quote on Facebook, I can draw in the weakest of them. Their arguments—whether theological or pseudo-scientific—are unfounded, and quite frankly, embarrassing to read.
I have a word of advice for Christians—try harder. Play the devil’s advocate with yourself. Read material you wouldn’t otherwise read. Think critically. Question your faith. Stop living in a fog of ignorance. This is the only way you will grow as a person and live a full and fruitful life.
I run into a lot of Christians who would agree with that statement. “My faith is not a religion,” they say. In the 90s, Christians decided to play semantics to draw new converts who were traditionally critical of religion and church. This happened along with pastors trading in their suits and ties for Hawaiian shirts and the introduction of guitars and drums into mainstream church services. At this point, the church also dropped the tiny bit of intellectualism it had for a new, non-judgmental, post-modern emotionalism. Yes, this helped to draw in new members, but there remains a greater dearth of critical thinking in the church than ever before.
This movement toward the contemporary church model has left believers intellectually empty and defenseless against the renewed attacks on their faith. When I was a Christian, I rejected this contemporary movement and felt church was lacking something. I moved my membership to a traditional church in hopes that I could find more “meat” in Christian training. It helped even less. When I turned 30, the transition began for me. Until that time, I had been a devout Southern Baptist—having worked for the denomination for 10 years. The decision was made to truly examine my faith—to dig deep and understand as much as I could about the origins of Scripture. It wasn’t long before I realized how little could be substantiated. “Faith” was no longer enough to fill the gaps of evidence.
As time progressed, I ultimately rejected Christianity. Since that time, I have immersed myself in further study of the origins of Scripture, studying Islam and other religions, and catching up on philosophy and science—biology, DNA, mapping of genomes, the theory of evolution via natural selection, astronomy, physics, neuroscience, and so on. By playing the devil’s advocate, I was able to weed out my wrong beliefs.
Now, I find myself arguing with puny Christians—not only weak in their faith, but mind-numb and ignorant. Their arguments are sophomoric and reveal lack of introspection. By posting a simple anti-religion quote on Facebook, I can draw in the weakest of them. Their arguments—whether theological or pseudo-scientific—are unfounded, and quite frankly, embarrassing to read.
I have a word of advice for Christians—try harder. Play the devil’s advocate with yourself. Read material you wouldn’t otherwise read. Think critically. Question your faith. Stop living in a fog of ignorance. This is the only way you will grow as a person and live a full and fruitful life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)