Book Plunge: The Christian Delusion

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 9

Link

-----

What about the Darwinian problem of evil? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We continue our look today at the Christian Delusion and this John Loftus guy, although I understand not the one who researched the nazis, is back with a chapter on the Darwinian problem of evil. There's really not much here that hasn't been said elsewhere. Just the usual stuff about nature being red in tooth and claw and such.

I am in a position to have done some thinking about this. Recently, my in-laws had to put down their dog that they had had since 2002 and I was present when it took place. It was certainly a sad event to see and my wife and I had to spend some time discussing animal suffering.

One of the favorites is the ichneumonidae. It's so common to see it that you can predict it. It's about a parasite that eats its host from the inside. Why would a good God allow this?

I recommend the reader check this link for more on this. In particular, note the part where it is described as "sent in mercy be heaven." Apparently, this creature balances out the ecology wherever it is, it grows in the host living one life as it were, it apparently kills its host painlessly, and after that it never eats another insect again.

On a side note, Loftus makes a point about saying something about a triune God sending one third of Himself. I understand that the Trinity is hard to understand, but let's not give out any nonsense. God is not divided into parts.

Loftus also quotes Christian scholar Robert Wennberg saying animals will not be compensated beyond the grave. First off, I dispute this and my interview with Dan Story on his book Will Dogs Chase Cats in Heaven is the place to go. Second, even if this wasn't the case, this would not be sufficient to charge God with wrongdoing. It implies that God owes animals or even us something.

Loftus also looks at an answer by John Hick saying Hick is a speciesist. Indeed. Most of us are. Most of us do think the species are different, unless Loftus is willing to cook up his dead relatives and have them served at fast food restaurants. Either Loftus needs to have a vegan or at least vegetarian diet or he needs to allow grandma to be on the menu at McDonald's.

When he gets to the animal afterdeath, Loftus says this does not justify their sufferings. If it did, anyone could torture any sentient being and then compensate them for their sufferings. This isn't about what anyone could do though, but about what God did, and again, God owes no animal or even human anything whatsoever. To say God must compensate us is to say that He owes us something. Still, I do hold to an animal afterdeath and I am of the opinion that all of us in eternity in the blessed presence of God will see it was all worthwhile. It's up to Loftus to demonstrate otherwise and he hasn't.

Loftus also asks a litany of questions about animals in the afterdeath. Will they live in the same habitat? Will there be mountains, oceans, deserts, etc.? Will we have animals we don't care for there? He ends saying a heaven with all creatures in it will look like the actual world.

Well, why shouldn't it?

Do we think it unreasonable that God will create Earth to be like what we are forever meant to be in? Will there be changes? Yes, but I suspect there will be a lot of similarities.

On the other hand, it's interesting to note that we are constantly told science revels in questions and encourages us to ask them so we can find out. Those same people will present the litany of questions about a religious point of view and then say to not even bother exploring. Why not explore both questions?

Loftus also says we're on this side of eternity and we want to know how the question can be resolved before we believe there is a heaven in the first place. Not necessarily. If one has independent evidence of the question of animal suffering that God is real and Jesus is who He said He was and rose from the dead, one trusts that there is an answer. If this is a critique to see if Christianity is internally consistent, it's just fine to assume Heaven for the sake of argument.

In the end, as usual, I don't find John Loftus persuasive, as he may have recently noticed. It looks like the preacher is still giving an emotional appeal without any real substance. About all that's needed is an offering and a chorus of Just As I Am.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[One Bad Pig]

Ah, yes, the good ol' "Outsider Test" chestnut. It basically asks the question "Can you convince someone that a certain belief is true if they are predisposed to reject it?" and if the answer is no, then you're supposed to conclude that, therefore, the belief must necessarily be false regardless of any other consideration. It's little more than an elaborate appeal to incredulity and one of the most ridiculous arguments I think I've ever encountered, but Loftus has always been convinced that it's pure gold.

It could be argued that Christianity passed that test with flying colors in its first few centuries. The issue today is not that people are predisposed to reject it, but have already rejected it and refuse to reconsider their stance.

[Mountain Man]

The issue today is not that people are predisposed to reject it, but have already rejected it and refuse to reconsider their stance.

That's what I mean by "predisposed", though perhaps it's not the correct word.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 10

Link

-----

What do I think of Robert Price's chapter? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter in John What's-his-name's book is by Robert Price. I find it interesting to know that Loftus has no problem tying himself in with Jesus mythicists. At any rate, this is largely a chapter written in reply to Boyd and Eddy's The Jesus Legend.

That is a wonderful book, but I find a problem with a chapter like this. I am not going to go and read the book again, which I read at the library, just to know about Price's response. Those who have not read the book will find themselves disappointed. It's much the same with Avalos responding to Copan and Carrier to Stark. Why not present your argument on its own?

So a few points to touch on. Price asks "If someone says he saw Uncle Mel alive again after his cremation, will you believe him?" Well if you mean just seen, why not? Many people do experience individual grief hallucinations of their loved ones. I have a great aunt who has seen her dead husband at least one time. If the only claim we had with Jesus was one or two people saw him alive after He had died, it would be nothing. That is not what we have.

Now Price goes on to say what if you were introduced to Uncle Mel. You would be skeptical. Of course, Price leaves out that you could do some fact checking. You could take a picture and ask people if this is really him. You could ask Mel some things that only he would know. Can you be skeptical? Yes. I am saying that my worldview does not require me to rule it out.

Even if it was true, how is that a problem for a Christian? We believe God can raise someone from the dead. If you're a naturalist of some sort, then this is not an option so of course, it is presented as a ridiculous option. This is what I call presuppositional atheism. "No one would believe this claim and we know this claim is nonsense because of atheism, therefore no one should believe this other claim like it in Christianity."

He also says Boyd and Eddy will not go further beyond miracle claims to read Christian theology into a claim. If it happened, to say it was a revelation of God in say, raising Jesus from the dead, that would require faith. Price says this mockingly, but it's absolutely right. History could show you Jesus died on a cross. It cannot demonstrate alone Jesus did it to die for the sins of the world and that grants forgiveness.

In the same way, being convinced Jesus rose from the dead is not the same as being convinced one must trust Him as savior and Lord. Look at someone like Pinchas Lapides, a Jewish scholar who was convinced Jesus was resurrected, but He did not become a Christian. The trust in what that act means does require faith.

Price also has something about how modern academia tends to discount third world experiences since those people are superstitious, while Boyd and Eddy go on to argue that they weren't all as credulous as we make them out to be. They are exactly right in this. When people say we know that dead people don't rise or that virgins don't give birth (And I do affirm the virgin birth), we are not saying anything they did not know.

It is ridiculous to say we know better because of modern science. Ancient people buried their dead and they had laws about adultery and paternity because they knew dead people stay dead and it takes sex to make a baby. These aren't exactly grand discoveries of modern science. It's not as if people were having sex for thousands of years and then modern science came along and said, "Whoa! This is actually where babies come from!"

Price also asks about 2nd-3rd century synagogues with zodiac signs. Not knowing for sure when these were occupied, we could just as easily say that these were after the attack on Jerusalem and were desecrated by the Romans. Price doesn't supply any information about these synagogues so it's hard to tell.

Price also asks if the followers of Lubavitcher Rebbe who was a Jew who was said to have risen from the dead and was the Messiah would have really borrowed from the Christians. Why not? If they want to say their figure is the Messiah, they need to top the reigning Messiah figure.

Price also says the crown jewel of oral tradition, Kenneth Bailey, was trumped by Theodore Weeden. Unfortunately for Price, I dealt with this in my review of Ehrman's Jesus Before the Gospels.

Well yes, Weeden did critique Bailey. In turn, James Dunn critiqued Weeden. Dunn is no slouch in the area. He has a Ph.D. and D.D. from Cambridge and wrote the book Jesus Remembered. (A book cited only once in the bibliography) Dunn’s critique is awfully biting showing the numerous flaws in Weeden’s critique even saying on page 60 that “So, when he sets up a KB story in contrast to or even opposition to the ‘uncorrupted original account’ of the event being narrated, TW is operating in cloud cuckoo land at considerable remove from the realities which KB narrates.” It’s a shame Ehrman did not avail himself of this. For this reason, I think Bailey’s model still suffices and is an excellent example.

I conclude that I still hold Boyd and Eddy in great regard. There are a number of things that I actually do like about Price. His approach to the historical Jesus is not one of them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

Time to take on Carrier!

Link

-----

What do I think of Richard Carrier's case against the resurrection? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Richard Carrier's chapter is here. Remember readers that when you read Richard Carrier, it's appropriate to have fitting music playing. I recommend this little tune.

Carrier starts by appealing to Herodotus and some miracles contained in his accounts. The problem is he never states where in Herodotus these miracles occur. I had to do some of my own looking and such to see where he was talking about.

Anyway, he talks about the Temple of Delphi defending itself with animated armaments. If you read this, you would probably think of these glowing weapons rising up as if held by ghosts and swinging at the opponents who were approaching. Not really. Let's see what book eight has to say.

The other division took guides, and proceeded towards the temple of Delphi, keeping Mount Parnassus on their right hand. They too laid waste such parts of Phocis as they passed through, burning the city of the Panopeans, together with those of the Daulians and of the Aeolidae. This body had been detached from the rest of the army, and made to march in this direction, for the purpose of plundering the Delphian temple and conveying to King Xerxes the riches which were there laid up. For Xerxes, as I am informed, was better acquainted with what there was worthy of note at Delphi, than even with what he had left in his own house; so many of those about him were continually describing the treasures- more especially the offerings made by Croesus the son of Alyattes.

Now when the Delphians heard what danger they were in, great fear fell on them. In their terror they consulted the oracle concerning the holy treasures, and inquired if they should bury them in the ground, or carry them away to some other country. The god, in reply, bade them leave the treasures untouched- "He was able," he said, "without help to protect his own." So the Delphians, when they received this answer, began to think about saving themselves. And first of all they sent their women and children across the gulf into Achaea; after which the greater number of them climbed up into the tops of Parnassus, and placed their goods for safety in the Corycian cave; while some effected their escape to Amphissa in Locris. In this way all the Delphians quitted the city, except sixty men, and the Prophet.

When the barbarian assailants drew near and were in sight of the place, the Prophet, who was named Aceratus, beheld, in front of the temple, a portion of the sacred armour, which it was not lawful for any mortal hand to touch, lying upon the ground, removed from the inner shrine where it was wont to hang. Then went he and told the prodigy to the Delphians who had remained behind. Meanwhile the enemy pressed forward briskly, and had reached the shrine of Minerva Pronaia, when they were overtaken by other prodigies still more wonderful than the first. Truly it was marvel enough, when warlike harness was seen lying outside the temple, removed there by no power but its own; what followed, however, exceeded in strangeness all prodigies that had ever before been seen. The barbarians had just reached in their advance the chapel of Minerva Pronaia, when a storm of thunder burst suddenly over their heads- at the same time two crags split off from Mount Parnassus, and rolled down upon them with a loud noise, crushing vast numbers beneath their weight- while from the temple of Minerva there went up the war-cry and the shout of victory.

All these things together struck terror into the barbarians, who forthwith turned and fled. The Delphians, seeing this, came down from their hiding-places, and smote them with a great slaughter, from which such as escaped fled straight into Boeotia. These men, on their return, declared (as I am told) that besides the marvels mentioned above, they witnessed also other supernatural sights. Two armed warriors, they said, of a stature more than human, pursued after their flying ranks, pressing them close and slaying them.

Feel free to read it for yourself here.

It's not inconceivable also to think of lightning bolts and powerful waves coming at this time as well. This could be interpreted as the temple defending itself. It doesn't mean that's what was happening. One could agree with the phenomena without agreeing with the explanation.

What about an olive tree that grew a new shoot?

I will now explain why I have made mention of this circumstance: there is a temple of Erechtheus the Earth-born, as he is called, in this citadel, containing within it an olive-tree and a sea. The tale goes among the Athenians, that they were placed there as witnesses by Neptune and Minerva, when they had their contention about the country. Now this olive-tree had been burnt with the rest of the temple when the barbarians took the place. But when the Athenians, whom the king had commanded to offer sacrifice, went up into the temple for the purpose, they found a fresh shoot, as much as a cubit in length, thrown out from the old trunk. Such at least was the account which these persons gave.

And that's it. How exactly is one to fact check this kind of thing? Beats me.

I could not find the story of the mare giving birth to a hare in Herodotus, but it is there. Others have referred to it. Apparently, it took place in the Persian camp and was received as a bad omen.

Finally, a whole town saw a resurrection of cooked fish, it took awhile, but I found it.

Then, it is said by the men of the Chersonese, as one of those who guarded them was frying dried fish, a portent occurred as follows,--the dried fish when laid upon the fire began to leap and struggle just as if they were fish newly caught: and the others gathered round and were marvelling at the portent, but Artayctes seeing it called to the man who was frying the fish and said: "Stranger of Athens, be not at all afraid of this portent, seeing that it has not appeared for thee but for me. Protesilaos who dwells at Elaius signifies thereby that though he is dead and his body is dried like those fish, yet he has power given him by the gods to exact vengeance from the man who does him wrong. Now therefore I desire to impose this penalty for him,--that in place of the things which I took from the temple I should pay down a hundred talents to the god, and moreover as ransom for myself and my son I will pay two hundred talents to the Athenians, if my life be spared." Thus he engaged to do, but he did not prevail upon the commander Xanthippos; for the people of Elaius desiring to take vengeance for Protesilaos asked that he might be put to death, and the inclination of the commander himself tended to the same conclusion. They brought him therefore to that headland to which Xerxes made the passage across, or as some say to the hill which is over the town of Madytos, and there they nailed him to boards and hung him up; and they stoned his son to death before the eyes of Artayctes himself.

So we have some fish placed on a fire and they leap a bit. Nothing indicates that they came back to life. Nothing indicates they were not cooked like normal. This is hardly a resurrection. It's interesting that Carrier didn't say where all of these can be found or state what they originally said himself.

Carrier says that if someone was asked about them, they would say these things don't happen because they don't happen today. No. I wouldn't. You don't need to be a scientist or have modern science to know that horses give birth to horses for instance. It's amusing to hear him say tree limbs don't grow back entirely after a single day.

Let us all rejoice people that we have centuries of scientific research. That's all it took to realize that. Those stupid people back in the time of Herodotus obviously believed that they could.

Or they didn't and they recorded it because they knew this isn't what normally happens and would count as a miracle of some sort. It's really sad that Carrier thinks you need modern science to know this kind of thing. It's as if you would expect a scientist to run out of a lab in the 1800's and say, "I have made a brilliant discovery! It takes sex to make babies! The virgin birth (Which I do affirm) must be false!"

Note if I am presented with stories like this, I am skeptical, but I am also open. I do not rule stories out before examining the claims because they disagree with my worldview. I leave that to atheists. Some stories would be harder to check than others. Suppose the story of a hare giving birth to a mare. How do I verify that? Do you show me the mare and the hare? How am I to know that one came from the other? This is hardly on par with the resurrection.

Carrier goes on to tell us that the Gospel of Peter was widely accepted in the second century. Hardly. It was popular largely among one community and that was it. It didn't last long. Again, no source is given on this.

Carrier looks at Matthew 27:51-54 and asks why no one reported the earthquake or the walking dead. With the earthquake, why should everyone have reported it? We don't know how big the earthquake was and how far it would have been felt. With the walking dead, we don't know what really happened. The text is really vague at this point. Were these just spirits? Were these bodies? What happened to them? This would be a small group in Jerusalem most likely and if they disappeared, skeptics would not be able to come and check and would not take the original story any more seriously than Carrier does.

Carrier later talks about hearing all of these claims and wanting to put an end to the pompous rhetoric. (Yes. The irony is dreadfully funny.) Now with all of this research he says and a PhD in ancient history, no one can say he doesn't know what he's talking about. Well, don't be too sure of that. For my purposes, I have learned to pretty much fact check Carrier on everything he says.

Carrier tells us that Paul reveals early Christians were hallucinating on a regular basis and outsiders thought they were lunatics. The reference is 1 Cor. 14, but the whole context is about speaking in tongues and saying that if people hear a language they don't know, they will say they are mad. He leaves out that if they hear the secrets of their own heart poured out in their own language, they will say that God is really among the Christians. Details. Who needs them? He also says the book of Revelation is an acid trip. Real professional scholarship here.

He goes to the 1 Cor. 15 passage about learning the Gospel and says Paul received it from no man but it came through a vision. Strangely, the world of scholarship has not been convinced and more are inclined to think this is the language of oral tradition. When we hear about the vision Paul had, I don't think it's the content that was revealed, but that the truth of it was confirmed. It's up to Carrier to show this is a hallucination if that's his claim.

When we get to the Gospels, we hear about added parts like the woman caught in adultery and the long ending of Mark. Carrier tells us these were snuck in by dishonest Christians. How is this known? That they are later additions is not really questioned. That the people who did it were dishonest and snuck it in is beyond what we can really establish. It's possible, but Carrier needs to show it. Perhaps this is just a comment made by dishonest atheists.

Carrier also says we know masses of people hallucinating can believe they're seeing the same thing. No examples are given. Perhaps he means Marian apparitions. I am suspicious, but Carrier needs to show these are hallucinations. It's awfully easy to say that if multiple people have a religious experience of some sort then it must be a hallucination. It's a great way to make sure your position is never challenged.

Carrier also talks about their expectation that the world was about to end soon. Perhaps some did, but as an orthodox Preterist, and there's plenty on this blog about that, I don't think this is what's going on. Again, Carrier gives no references.

Carrier also says that for people being willing to die, if you stood by your story even in death you would gain honor. Perhaps, but why would one want the honor of this group anyway? This is not explained.

Carrier then says he has known enough 'Liars for Christ' to make this possible. This is quite amusing. Read any criticism of Richard Carrier by any professional scholar and you will see how Carrier responds. "Liar, didn't read, didn't understand." These are par for the course for Carrier and is why many of us just don't take him seriously any more. (That whole going polyamorous and embracing mythicism deal didn't help either.)

About Paul, Carrier appeals to Paul having guilt and said that Paul had grown to despite the Jewish elite he was serving as a nobody under played a part. Evidence of this? None given. It's just a story made out of thin air, but as we can expect, his atheist audience will believe it entirely.

Carrier then says if Jesus really was a God and wanted to save everyone, He would have appeared to the whole world? Why? He wanted to answer a trivia question? Are we to think Carrier would believe such a story 2,000 years later anyway? Carrier gives a remarkable defense though of how he knows this is true.

"If I were God, I would appear to everyone and prevent any meddling with my book, and since I can't be cleverer or more concerned for the salvation of the world than God, this must be what he would do, too." Yes. Remember what Carrier said earlier about people being pompous? Obviously, Carrier is the peak of being clever and knows this is the very best idea and God couldn't have a better one. If you looked up narcissist in the dictionary, Carrier's picture should be next to it. It's hard to imagine someone with more of an ego. Even more than the editor of this volume, John what's-his-name.

You can stop listening to Yakety Sax now.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 12

Link

------

Is Jesus a false prophet? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

If you have been following the blog for the past couple of weeks, you've probably recently noticed that I'm reviewing a book by John.....what was his name again?....Loftus! That's it! In today's look, he's taking on one of my favorite topics! Was Jesus wrong about when He would return?

No.

Glad we got that taken care of. We can move on to......oh? You want more? Okay. We'll see what John actually said.

Loftus says at the start that he will argue that even if the NT is somewhat reliable, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet in the line of other Old Testament prophets. So far, so good. We are completely in agreement. It's the next portion where he goes wrong where he says Jesus was wrong about the Son of Man not coming within His generation as predicted. On this, we thoroughly disagree as I think that Jesus came exactly when He predicted because I do read Him as an Old Testament prophet whereas Loftus puts on His fundamentalist glasses and reads Jesus that way.

One notable problem in this passage is when we take passages like the Olivet Discourse found in Matthew 24, Loftus never offers any interpretation of the passages. There is no detailed exegesis. It's more along the lines of "Look at this passage. Seems clear doesn't it?"

Maybe it does, but maybe what is clear to us is not clear to them. Suppose I said, "In the skirmish that took place last night, the opposing side was massacred entirely by the victorious champions." I could be writing about a major battle that took place somewhere in the world, or I could be writing about a sporting event.

Jesus did indeed preach the Kingdom of God. The difference was most of His contemporaries would think that Israel was going to be overthrowing Rome and having a literal kingdom like David. Jesus taught something different. He wasn't interested in overthrowing Rome, but in overthrowing sin.

Loftus also says the disciples would understand that the sign of the coming Son of Man was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. This would fit in with Mark 9:1 about some will not see death before they see the Son of Man coming in power. It is not about the Transfiguration as it is not a strong prophecy to say some people will be alive about a week later or so.

Loftus is also correct that generation does not mean race. After all, the Jews were convinced they would never pass away. It most certainly refers to the contemporaries of Jesus. I agree entirely.

Paul does write some about the day of the Lord, but I don't think he's writing about the Olivet Discourse. He wrote mainly about the return of Christ. One clue to this is Paul mentions in 1 Thess. 4 and 1 Cor. 15 a resurrection. You can look high and low throughout the Olivet Discourse and you will not find the resurrection in there. Seems like a detail Jesus would have mentioned.

Not only that, but in Matthew, Jesus refers to Daniel. Daniel spoke about the coming of the Son of Man. What direction was the Son of Man going? He was going to the throne of YHWH. He's going up. He's not coming down.

Did Paul think the resurrection would happen in his time? Not necessarily. He says, we, but what else could he say? If he says they, he means that he knows the return won't happen in his time, but he doesn't know that. We is a nice editorial word to use. Any of us who are alive who are in Christ will meet the Lord when He returns.

Some statements Loftus sees as eschatological I don't. Jesus says to not worry about the future. That's good advice anyway, but it makes sense in an age without safety-deposit boxes. Jesus says to not bury your own father but follow now. Quite likely, the father was still alive and kingdom duties have to come first. Jesus was not going to talk about fulfilling careers and working for a living. That wasn't his emphasis. Those are also ideas that work in an individualistic society, but not in the one Jesus was in.

I am puzzled though that if Loftus thinks this is a failed prophecy and Matthew was written "decades after Mark" why would Matthew include what was a failed prophecy? Would that be an encouraging example to skeptics? Would Christians proudly share that Gospel?

In all fairness, Loftus does mention Preterist views. At least he's ahead of Bart Ehrman here who in his book, which I have reviewed, nowhere mentions Preterism. Still, just a mention is not that big of a difference. It could be worse because Loftus knows about this reply and yet he never interacts with it. He never responds to the detailed exegesis of Christians like Demar or Gentry or others who hold to this interpretation.

He does say Wright is a full preterist who denies a future resurrection. I would certainly like to see a source for this claim. Loftus names people like Demar in speaking about theocracy, but he doesn't interact with their interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

In conclusion, I advise readers to look up material on Preterism, some of which is on this blog. Loftus didn't leave me concerned at all in his writing. He's just grasping for anything he can to avoid Christianity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 13

Link

-----

What is the relationship between Christianity and morality? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

David Eller returns this time in yet another chapter of John.....Loftus's...sorry, briefly forgot who he was, book. This time it's to argue that Christianity does not provide the basis for morality. Immediately, I'm wondering who is saying it does.

Morality is something that is discoverable from nature alone. Now there is no doubt that Christianity has been a great incentive for morality and the life of Jesus has provided a powerful example. Christianity did bring about a moral revolution, but it was not by suddenly grounding something, but by revealing what was always there to begin with.

Of course, it's hard to see how Eller can argue about anything with morality since in this chapter he says that goodness is completely relative. If so, then let us drop any idea of having a good society. We might think it's good while someone else out there doesn't. Who is right? No one.

If this is the case and morality isn't about goodness, what is it about then? Is it about doing what one ought, but why ought someone do anything? What is the foundation for all of this?

Eller also says that by religion killing and hating and warring are often moral. I see no basis for the second, but sometimes, the others were commanded. When evil people rise up, then sometimes the only way to remove them is by force. If someone seeks to take my wife's life while I am there, I will kill if I have to.

Eller says that killing witches may be good for society, but it isn't for the witches. By this kind of standard, let us get rid of the prison system. After all, locking up murderers where they can't escape might be good for society, but it isn't for the murderers. I would even disagree with that. Put them in a place where they can do less harm and that is for their good as well.

Eller then goes with Michael Shermer's definition of morality. It's about doing what is right or wrong in the context of the rules of a social group. Of course, this is just moral relativism at the social level. Which society? The Southern Baptist Convention? Stalinist Russia? Vatican City's? Nazi Germany's? Why should we choose any such society and not go our own way?

Eller in the end says morality is nothing more than the human desire to appraise behavior and set up standards of appraisal. From there, we get into the way different religions view morality. Fascinating to be sure, but not really relevant to the overall claim.

Eller does say that he does not believe morality is in any way real or objective. Well, I guess Christianity obviously cannot be the basis for morality since there is no morality to be the basis of. I wonder also why Eller means then by saying that even killing and warring and hating can be seen as moral. Why not?

He also brings up the Euthyphro dilemma. Why do atheists keep doing this and ignore that Aristotle took the challenge on and just went out and defined what goodness is? I suppose reading is just hard for some

He also says that morality would be better off if it got rid of religion, but how can that make sense? How can something be better if it's not objective or even real? How can there be any sort of improvement?

He also says the danger is religion takes it out of human hands. If anything, that's the positive. Take morality and put it in the hands of humans and tell them there's no higher authority for them to answer to and you have a nightmare situation coming up. Those men will themselves become gods. Eller says that this move will empower us to be the ones that decide. That is exactly what concerns most anyone concerned about an authoritarian system.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 14

Link

----

Was atheism the cause of the holocaust? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter of John.....what was his name again.....oh yeah! Loftus! In this chapter, we are looking at Hector Avalos responding to Dinesh D'Souza. Again, I was not going to go through D'Souza again just to respond to Avalos which is something quite bothersome about the book. You can read several chapters responding to works that you might or might not have read but you don't necessarily have access to. Why not just make the case on your own and tangentially touch other critics who respond?

This time, we're talking about the holocaust. Was atheism responsible for it? I'll say outright, no. I don't think Hitler was an atheist. Could he have had some ideas friendly to atheism? Sure, but he was not an atheist and he was not a Christian either. He was something else entirely.

Avalos starts by talking about Stalin and saying he wasn't killing for atheistic reasons. Of course, dynamiting churches must have been purely accidental. The thing about Stalin is what he did was entirely consistent with atheism. There is not a single tenet of atheism that Stalin violated by murdering millions of his people.

Avalos also says Communism is a collectivism that was practiced in the early church. However, this was practiced in only one community and when people sold and gave to the cause, they could keep part of what they had for themselves. It was also completely voluntary. No one forced them to give.

Avalos also talks about the couple that died for lying. What they were doing was actually more honor-grabbing. They were wanting to look like people who gave all they had without doing so, intentionally shaming the church. The judgment was swift to show that sin is still treated seriously in the early church. Note also Peter didn't do the deed himself.

Avalos does rightly point out that Positive Christianity played a role in the Nazi regime. This Christianity was a really anti-Semitic version that made Marcion look friendly by comparison. It is in no way representative of Biblical Christianity at all.

Avalos says that this movement represents a reinterpretation of Christianity, which explains the 25,000 denominations today. Even some Roman Catholics are acknowledging that that number is a myth. However, if we have a version of Christianity show up that is far and away from any connection to the church historical, we can have just grounds for questioning it.

I really don't plan on responding to much else in this chapter because I am not an expert on Hitler and his stance. I also don't think it makes much of a difference in the long run. Christianity depends on the resurrection of Jesus and even if Hitler said he was a Christian, regardless of what all he did, that doesn't change Christian truth. It could be an interesting point to discuss, but let's not get ignore that Christianity does not depend on this.

Those interested in more should listen to my interview with J.P. Holding on his book Hitler's Christianity.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Apologiaphoenix]

Chapter 15

Link

-----

Was Christianity responsible for modern science? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We're finishing up our look at John....John...John....Loftus! That's it! John Loftus's book! Anyway, for this last chapter, we have Richard Carrier brought back again. (Keep in mind, for Carrier, it's important to have the Richard Carrier theme playing while reading anything he says.)

Anyway, Carrier is writing about how Christianity is not responsible for modern science. Of course, he still hasn't responded that I've seen to Tim O'Neill's work at History for Atheists. This time, Carrier is responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible for the rise of modern science.

Carrier starts with his usual kind of statement. He argues that it's not only false, but it's so egregiously false that if someone has the slightest academic competence they should know it's false. Therefore, its defenders, who claim to be scholars, must be "embarrassingly incompetent, perversely dishonest, or wildly deluded."

We can all give thanks that Richard Carrier has come to provide light for those who have been wandering in the darkness of sheer stupidity. The academy missed this, but thankfully, Carrier has come to enlighten us. We all eagerly await the entire overturning of the academy with Carrier's Jesus Mythicism as well.

There are many claims in this chapter. I have no desire to go and peruse everything. Carrier has a habit anyway of getting claims remarkably wrong as we saw in our last chapter that we reviewed of his. Carrier says that Stark has been criticized by this point, but not by an expert in ancient science and Christianity. I was curious to see who Carrier had found to be an expert, but of course, he only meant himself.

I'm just more inclined to trust the editors of Newton's Apple And Other Myths About Science where the very first chapter deals with science and Christianity and who is one of the main spreaders of the myth? It's Richard Carrier! Carrier's hubris has often come back to bite him in the end so I really recommend with anything he writes, read it with extra suspicion.

So if someone is wanting a step by step examination of everything, I'm not the one to do that. I have no wish to go and track down all the references that Carrier has given. I have enough of his history to know to be entirely skeptical and I am sure those wanting more can find it.

So we conclude Loftus's book and I conclude that Loftus doesn't really have much of anything here. I was challenged to read this book by an atheist and I didn't really find anything in here that was a challenge to me. It's quite interesting, but the more I read non-Christian literature, the more and more I find how weak it is. I think of how Chesterton got reading a book, I think it was by Ingersoll, and put it down and said, "Almost dost thou persuade me to be a Christian." Sometimes, one of the best demonstrations of Christianity is seeing how its critics treat it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[One Bad Pig]

Chapter 15

Link

-----

Was Christianity responsible for modern science? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We're finishing up our look at John....John...John....Loftus! That's it! John Loftus's book! Anyway, for this last chapter, we have Richard Carrier brought back again. (Keep in mind, for Carrier, it's important to have the Richard Carrier theme playing while reading anything he says.)

Anyway, Carrier is writing about how Christianity is not responsible for modern science. Of course, he still hasn't responded that I've seen to Tim O'Neill's work at History for Atheists. This time, Carrier is responding to the claim that Christianity is responsible for the rise of modern science.

Carrier starts with his usual kind of statement. He argues that it's not only false, but it's so egregiously false that if someone has the slightest academic competence they should know it's false. Therefore, its defenders, who claim to be scholars, must be "embarrassingly incompetent, perversely dishonest, or wildly deluded."

We can all give thanks that Richard Carrier has come to provide light for those who have been wandering in the darkness of sheer stupidity. The academy missed this, but thankfully, Carrier has come to enlighten us. We all eagerly await the entire overturning of the academy with Carrier's Jesus Mythicism as well.

There are many claims in this chapter. I have no desire to go and peruse everything. Carrier has a habit anyway of getting claims remarkably wrong as we saw in our last chapter that we reviewed of his. Carrier says that Stark has been criticized by this point, but not by an expert in ancient science and Christianity. I was curious to see who Carrier had found to be an expert, but of course, he only meant himself.

I'm just more inclined to trust the editors of Newton's Apple And Other Myths About Science where the very first chapter deals with science and Christianity and who is one of the main spreaders of the myth? It's Richard Carrier! Carrier's hubris has often come back to bite him in the end so I really recommend with anything he writes, read it with extra suspicion.

So if someone is wanting a step by step examination of everything, I'm not the one to do that. I have no wish to go and track down all the references that Carrier has given. I have enough of his history to know to be entirely skeptical and I am sure those wanting more can find it.

So we conclude Loftus's book and I conclude that Loftus doesn't really have much of anything here. I was challenged to read this book by an atheist and I didn't really find anything in here that was a challenge to me. It's quite interesting, but the more I read non-Christian literature, the more and more I find how weak it is. I think of how Chesterton got reading a book, I think it was by Ingersoll, and put it down and said, "Almost dost thou persuade me to be a Christian." Sometimes, one of the best demonstrations of Christianity is seeing how its critics treat it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Yeah, G. K. Chesterton famously became a Christian after reading all the anti-theistic literature he could get his hands on.