Author: Nick Peters

Loftus has argued many things and in reply to some comments, I will say this. It seems that the outsider test has been thrown out quickly and we are instead judging the ancient times by our modern times.  I will state again that I do not see anything that causes me to doubt the historicity of the accounts and it will take more than repeating the claims.

Now let’s move on to this one. This is a fun one to deal with. We’re going to check page 112 first where he does define superstition. Readers of my blog should know by now that I’m quite big on defining terms. This is the definition which we are told is from the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.
Superstition, a belief or practice generally regarded as irrational and as resulting from ignorance or from fear of the unknown. It implies a belief in unseen and unknown forces that can be influenced by objects and rituals. Magic or sorcery, witchcraft, and the occult in general are often referred to as superstitions (see Occultism). Examples of common superstitions include the belief that bad luck will strike the person in front of whom a black cat passes or that some tragedy will befall a person who walks under a ladder. Good luck charms, such as horseshoes, rabbits’ feet, coins, lockets, and religious medals, are commonly kept or worn to ward off evil or to bring good fortune.

In general, superstitious practices and beliefs are most common in situations involving a high degree of risk, chance, and uncertainty, and during times of personal or social stress or crisis, when events seem to be beyond human control. The question of what is or is not superstitious, however, is relative. One person’s beliefs can be another’s superstitions. All religious beliefs and practices may be considered superstition by unbelievers, while religious leaders often condemn unorthodox popular practices as a superstitious parody of true faith. (Last paragraphed emphasized by Loftus)

I think it’s quite important that the last part is emphasized. By the definition alone, any religious belief would be superstitious, but if that religious belief is true, we can’t really say it is superstitious. I disagree though when he says that while it’s hard to define what superstitious means, there are beliefs that modern educated people say are superstitious and that’s enough.

I believe this is simply begging the question in favor of the moderns. G.K. Chesterton warned us about throwing out what he called “The Democracy of the Dead.” I will contend that this is a strong move in atheism today to break free of all that is in our past so to loose our shackles from God as it were.

Also, we can say there are modern and educated people who do believe in God. I doubt Loftus would question someone like Francis Collins as being uneducated and unmodern, and yet there is a strong Christian theism there. One wonders if he would also say the same thing about his former mentor, William Lane Craig? Is Craig uneducated?

That having been said, let’s look at the world Loftus describes. Please note readers that this is a very long chapter in the book and I do not think I can do justice if I try to squeeze it all in to one post. I am a busy guy as well and I have other things in my life going on, but I do what I can to get this blog every night. I would rather break the chapter apart and deal with it that way than just gloss over most things, especially since I think this is one of the key points.

Now Loftus also makes the claim about comparing science to such practices as rain dances or blood-letting for exorcisms or people who base things on palm reading. I’d point out that the biblical worldview condemns that also. In fact, many of the things that can be seen as superstitious today were seen as superstitious by the writers of Scripture. The only one I’d except is prayer because I do believe God does respond. I don’t think this is the kind of thing you can test though as God is not obligated to respond as he seems to be with rain dances.

Loftus points out that Israel is condemned for engaging in the cultic practices of the nations around them. Since these beliefs were able to lead Israel astray, how do we know that the beliefs of the Israelites themselves weren’t superstitious?

Let it be noted that in Scripture, God places a clear stance on these practices. He not only condemns them, but he promises to condemn Israel if they do the same thing. We must look at the beliefs of Israel by themselves rather than just saying “They were an ancient people so they were wrong.” I don’t think Loftus is doing that, but that must be stated.

What were these beliefs involving? Things like child sacrifice, fertility cults with prostitution, bestiality, etc. In the case of an event like a fertility cult, I think many of us can see the drive that would get Israel to fall into that.  Sadly, there is a parallel with our own culture today. We have a society that often sees sex as the highest good and anything for sexual pleasure. Abortion is running rampant, which is our child sacrifice. I consider our case worse though. The ancients sacrificed children for the favor of the gods at least. We sacrifice them today for the favor of ourselves in convenience and in an age where Christianity has shown us true morality.

Let’s start with some differences then between the beliefs of the Israelites and those of the pagans.

First off, priestesses and goddesses played a big part in pagan religion. In Israel, this is strangely absent. (For the record, when I say Israel, I mean Israel if properly following the law of Moses. I know about the worship of the Queen of Heaven in Jeremiah and other such practices.)

Secondly, sexual rituals were also important in these religions, but such rituals were entirely condemned in Israel.

Thirdly, the gods and goddesses were seen as localized. In Israel, YHWH was seen as Lord of Heaven and Earth.

Fourthly, idols were essential to pagan worship. In Israel, idols were forbidden.

Now let’s move on to what Loftus says. He says we don’t believe in gods of various objects. Very good. Neither did Israel. They believed in one God of everything.  He also says that we don’t see omens in events like eclipses, droughts, storms, floods, and earthquakes. Good. Neither does a biblical worldview.

One that must be disagreed with is sickness as demon possession. There are many healings even in the gospels that take place that have nothing to do with demons. Some did. Now the question is, does that mean they were nonsense? That must be established. I do realize that it’s not a common thing in Western civilization. Such doesn’t surprise me either.

As for eclipses also, it’s interesting to note that philosophy first began with an eclipse. It was when Thales predicted an eclipse of the sun that the Greeks began to really dig into philosophy. Of course, Thales did this based on records from other civilizations. The ancients were studying these things after all. The Greeks did not take them as a bad thing. They saw that they showed the nature of the world.

Let’s look at a few Old Testament examples that are given though.

The first is the Tower of Babel and having it reach to Heaven. Now could some have believed they were reaching the gods? Yes. Let’s consider another reason for building a tower though. The people had just overcome a flood and they were told to go out into the world. Instead, they were building a tower so they could outlast a flood and not have to go out into the world.

Loftus also points out that the original writers would never see a triune concept in the statement saying “Let us.” I’m somewhat surprised that someone with seminary degrees would postulate that as an argument. I don’t think anyone would claim that they did. This was the Jewish way of seeing Scripture by the rabbis though in finding great truths in the verses that might not have been intended by the original author but did not contradict him either.

As for the beasts in Job, I don’t have a clear opinion either way on which one of them they are. I can see Leviathan as the crocodile, but the nature of the behemoth is still up for debate.  As for the mythical beasts slain by God, I do believe these are poetic accounts describing God as being Lord over all contenders and not treating them as realities just like Dante wrote about Greek characters in his inferno without believing they were real.

Next comes Moses and Aaron with the magicians. It is said that the magicians are not surprised by what they do, but let’s look at the beliefs. What about the snakes? It would seem possible that the Egyptians did handle snakes in such a way that they did carry them as if they were staves. It wasn’t a creation of life in this case as it was for Moses.

The turning of water to blood was not necessarily supernatural and we don’t know the means the magicians used. Such an occurrence of the water taking on that tint has happened before. The calling of frogs is not the creation of new life either but getting frogs to come from elsewhere. Again, the methods are not given.

I also find it amusing though that Loftus says that whether this happened or not is not the question. It’s entirely the question. If this happened, then we cannot at all say it is superstitious. Are we going to start saying that people who acknowledge reality as it happened are superstitious?

Let’s also note when the magicians recognized the finger of God which leads me to think what I think about the other events. That is when we have life coming from non-life. Sadly, even with supernatural activity, Pharaoh does not repent.

Now we are in the Exodus and the people have rebelled and made the golden calf. Loftus asks how they could after seeing what happened in Egypt.

It’s really quite simple. They would have come up with a way to explain it away. The human mind is exceptionally skilled at doing it, especially on the atheistic side. Loftus says “If I had been there, I know I wouldn’t.”

That remains to be seen….

It’s interesting that Loftus admits there was strange natural phenomena going on in the land at the time. (Yep. Having the firstborn all die unless the blood of a lamb was on the door is completely natural.) Also, the plagues did not happen in a “Blam! Blam! Blam!” fashion. They were separated by quite long periods of several months between the plagues.

Next we are told about Balaam being told to curse the Israelites. I find this amusing as the Bible never says that curses have such power. Now Balaam did bless them, but he was simply affirming what God had already said he would do. It would be nice to see the evidence that the biblical author really believed that because someone made a curse, it was ipso facto bound to happen.

When the Israelites blessed their children, it was because God was speaking through the patriarchs giving them divine revelation of what was to come. When the fig tree died because Jesus cursed it, it was because Jesus is the Lord of life and is capable of taking that life. There is nothing that says because X blesses Y or X curses Y, then Y will be blessed or cursed in Israelite culture.

The next is the so-called sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. However, I have stated in writing about the God Delusion that this would have been for temple service. After all, no priest of Israel would have taken a child and burnt her on the altar.

With that, it is getting late here and I believe I shall continue this more tomorrow.

Today, we’re going to be looking at what’s called the Primeval period as we continue going through John Loftus’s book “Why I Rejected Christianity?” This is one of the most questioned parts of the Bible and Ravi Zacharias has said that when dealing with young skeptics, it often boils down to these chapters.

Now some of this has been covered so I’d like to look at the points he raises about scientific problems.

The first is that death is described in science as something natural to plants, animals, and human beings. It was not the result of a particular act.

Actually, I agree. I don’t think physical death was introduced in the fall of man. I think spiritual death was. I believe death was going on in Eden and before Eden.

Next are mythical elements like the serpent talking, the long lives of the patriarchs, and the tree that can give eternal life. Unfortunately, this is all just question-begging. As for the long lives, there is attestation that Sumerian rulers had reigns that supposedly lasted an extremely long time. The others aren’t a problem for people who believe in the supernatural.

Next is the disturbing idea that brothers married sisters to produce children. Yeah. That happened at the beginning because there wasn’t much other choice for a mate. Now that proves what exactly?

The next is that the origin of the races is not explained in Genesis. I simply have one question. Why should it be?

The next two deal with objections to a global flood. As I believe in a local flood, I see no reason to answer such.

Next comes the tower of Babel. The point here is that it depends on when the Tower of Babel is dated to. I date the flood to be extremely late.

The next is the passage about angels cohabiting with angels to produce children is rejected if that is meant. I agree, hence, I do not interpret it that way.

And finally, of course, the age of the Earth being different, but seeing as leading Hebrew exegetes interpret the text in an OEC manner, I have no problem.

After this, there are various views given. I have given mine and it is the one I am standing by so let us move on to other points.

The complaining about Cain is the same as always. “The writer should have said brothers and sisters instead of anyone.” Apparently, the modern worldview thinks the ancient worldview just isn’t smart enough to fill in the blanks. Also, there’s complaining about Cain building a city instead of a house. Well why not? He didn’t want to live in isolation and if men were living a long time, might as well build an extensive project since you’ll be living in exile with your family.

I see nothing in here to make me doubt the historicity of the account.

On to the flood….

Of course, I’ll only be dealing with new stuff. First is the claim that the accounts contradict in having things repeated twice. Actually, this is common in Hebrew writings and the flood account is a chiastic account as well. As for the animals, there were 7 pairs of clean and just one pair of unclean. I don’t see the contradiction Loftus is speaking of.

Lastly though is the comparison to Gilgamesh. Let’s note some things. The ark in the biblical account could actually float. The ark in Gilgamesh could not. In the Genesis account, the period of flooding and receding is quite reasonable. In Gilgamesh, the world is flooded in six days and the water recedes in one. The story of Gilgamesh ends with the hero getting immortality. In Noah, the hero gets drunk and shamed.

Criterion of embarrassment is quite important.

Tomorrow, we start covering the superstitious world of the Bible. This one could require multiple parts.

Much of this has been covered in our review of Richard Dawkins’s book. However, there is some that hasn’t been dealt with. I get concerned at the beginning when we hear what God would probably do. This is a concept that always concerns me. It’s the man saying “If God did this, he would do it this way. God didn’t do it this way. Therefore, he does not exist.” This is something seen in some evolutionary arguments with “A creator would not design it this way.”

Now Loftus believes in the Big Bang apparently. We agree. I believe in it also. I just simply ask what is the cause of the Big Bang. I find it fascinating to here “Maybe this created matter” or “Maybe that created matter.” It seems anything is done to avoid intelligence and reason behind the universe. (I actually find hearing multiverses being postulated quite confirming of my faith.)

I agree with Loftus on the age of the Earth and how astronomy is rooted in Christianity in the sense that there is the belief in laws of nature in an orderly universe. I say this with all due respect to my YEC friends. I have several of them and this is an area I just choose to not debate on because it’s not worth dividing over. I’m more interested in dealing with the common enemy of naturalistic evolution. I won’t comment on any arguments against the YEC interpretation in the book though unless they bear some relevancy to the atheist/theist debate.

The main objection Loftus brings up is day four with the sun being made after the plants. This is nothing new though. Aquinas knew about this in the past as I’m sure did the earlier commentators. This could be one reason Augustine even argued for an instantaneous creation. However, I would refer the reader to the work of Gleason L. Archer on Genesis 1. A good reference is a book called “The Genesis Debate.” Archer is one of the leading commentators in Hebrew and argues that the word used for made is in a tense that indicates that it had been made prior. I am not an expert on Hebrew, so I urge the reader to track down those who are as I do.

I would also point out the mention of the second account of creation. Loftus sadly holds to the JEPD theory. That will most likely be covered later on, but I find it amazing that later commentators noticed “contradictions” in the accounts that Jews did not notice for centuries nor did Christians. Genesis 1 is more general. Genesis 2 is specific focusing on the garden and preparing the reader of the fall in Genesis 3.

Now are there similarities between Genesis and other creation accounts? Yes. The differences are what matters though and Loftus’s source of Paul Copan is entirely correct. I would definitely urge the reader to pick up a copy of “That’s Just Your Interpretation” by Paul Copan. (Copan’s books are quite excellent.)

Tomorrow, we shall look at primeval history and science.

This is always a fascinating topic to talk about. Galileo? What exactly happened? Now there are some things we agree on. We agree that Aristotle had been practically canonized at this time. We agree about it being also rooted in Ptolemy and we agree that Aristarchus had taught heliocentricism eventually.

On to disagreement.

The church had been for some time observing the planets and had their own observatory. Galileo was accepted in some areas immediately. When he pointed out that there were moons around other planets, this was accepted. It was his heliocentricism that was the problem and it was not for the church first but for the secularists.

These wanted the church to interfere for Galileo was messing with Aristotle and they did not like that. The church was more reluctant though. They were willing to have heliocentricism be stated as a theory and at this point, we must say that hindsight is always 20/20.

We do not have heliocentricism proven today. The only reason we accept it is that it is simpler. Now I believe it’s true, but it is not proven. There were also still difficulties with the theory that were from Aristotle and these were not answered until the 19th century. It is unfair of us to look and say today that it is true so it should have been accepted.

There was also the problem of egos. The pope and Galileo both had huge egos. One concern of the church was that Galileo was a layman and he was starting to comment on theology. The scientists of the day were to speak on science and the theologians were to speak on theology.

Galileo was wanting immediate acceptance instead of gradual acceptance. It didn’t help matters that he wrote a dialogue where the Pope was pictured as a simpleton. Galileo was tried for heresy and left in house arrest. He died in pleasant surroundings though with his friends.

Did the church make some mistakes? Yes. Egos got in the way and this was largely politics that was using religion. One thing that has to be stated though is that both sides were Christians. Galileo died a devout Christian who believed that the Scriptures could not error but our interpretation of them can. (This can also remind Christians to not get tied in to an interpretation of Scripture. Augustine warned about that years ago.) To be fair though, the secularists need to learn to not be so tied to a philosophy in how they deal with science. Aristotleanism was a problem also.

So what is the relationship to be between science and religion?

Methodological naturalism is often said to be the best way, but why? Imagine if we said we are going to study with methodological theism? Why should we automatically assume one philosophy? If naturalism is false, then methodological naturalism will lead to a dead in. If we can find a naturalistic explanation for something, well and good, but we cannot assume there is always one. (Especially questions like the origin of the universe.)

Loftus speaks of how also theologians should not speak out on matters of science. To this, I agree, excepting of course those theologians who do also have degrees in science such as Alister McGrath. However, this sword should cut both ways. Why is it that the theologian is not to speak authoritatively on science, but the scientist can speak authoritatively on theology? (Such as The God Delusion)

Loftus also makes a point about scientific ways to test religious claims. This one is quite nonsensical. There are other ways to test a belief system rather than the scientific method? (Can we scientifically test to see if religions can be shown to be accurate by the scientific method?)

As for the God of the Gaps idea, it needs to be realized that this was first critiqued by Christians. In fact, the term “God of the Gaps” was an insulting name given to it by Methodist lay preacher Charles Coulson. Readers know my opinion is that if evolution is true, well it’s true. It sure doesn’t damage faith in God in anyway.

Now Loftus also wants us to accept that science sets the limits of what we believe. Not at all. Science tells us what to believe about the material world. Science says nothing about ethics. It cannot tell you about the laws of logic. It cannot tell you about mathematics or philosophy or theology.

And as for saying Carrier disagrees with how science arose, the reference to check in this case is Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason.” Alfred Whitehead is a non-Christian who has stated that Christianity is what gave rise to scientific progress. The ancients saw a cyclical universe with no need of progress. Christianity saw time as going somewhere and linear progress taking place. They saw a rational world that could be discovered and used to bring glory to God.

One more thing to note. Loftus says that one thing we know is how babies are made. The problem is that the ancients knew this as well. Anybody want to guess why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary? It’s quite simple. She was pregnant, and he knew what it took to get a girl pregnant, and he knew he hadn’t done that. The ancients didn’t know all we knew today, but they knew enough.

More of these ideas will be commented on in later chapters.

Readers. I am thankful that we have a short chapter tonight. My evening has been spent with events here involving the Zeitgeist movie. My friend, the webmaster at preventingtruthdecay.org, a link you can see here, has information and many more links on this movie for those who have some questions. I’ve been out late discussing it with a skeptical friend.

I suspect I’ll pass out at work tomorrow.

So tonight, it’s on unanswered prayer. I think we can all relate to this one. Loftus starts out with talking about a prayer he prayed regularly for the conversion of Elton John. That hasn’t happened yet of course, but we all know about praying such prayers. For conversions, I pray regularly for the conversion of Richard Dawkins. Readers know I have been doing a research paper on him and I think I genuinely like the guy and I would love to see him convert.

Of course, I’ve prayed for other things. I’ve prayed for a special lady to come into my life who will be my wife. I’ve prayed for a better job with more income that I enjoy. I’ve prayed for the conversion of a good friend I have here who is an atheist. I’ve prayed that my family will have an easier time with their finances. (This is also in case any of you want to know some areas where I’d like prayer as well.)

These haven’t happened yet, but I still pray.

Loftus says early on that a recipe for disaster would be to give us just whatever we ask for. As soon as I see this written though I think, “Then what is the problem of unanswered prayer?” (For the record, when we speak of this, I take it to mean having a prayer request not answered in the affirmative. I would say that we have prayers answered either yes, no, or not yet.)

I also don’t think the arguments given on verses like Matthew 7:7 and John 14:13 are convincing. Matthew 7 talks about persistence in prayer so it can’t be a one-time event and it is understood in the social context. You would get what you want if you were asking for that which was in God’s will. As for the Johannine passages, look through that Upper Room discourse. You’ll also find that it promises suffering to those involved. God wasn’t giving a blank check and some bad things were going to happen.

The first inadequate reason Loftus gives is that of how we say they are unanswered. The Word of Faith is one example. I will gladly condemn such a movement as well so there’s no argument there. The second is that some are answered no. I really don’t see how this is a problem as Loftus has said that it would be chaos if God gave us whatever we asked for. The last is that they may be answered but not the way we want. Loftus himself ends by saying that while it may be true that God gives what is best, that does not mean he gives exactly what we asked him.

It really makes me wonder when I see that kind of statement where the problem is.

Another objection is sin in our lives. Now while we are justified of our sins, this does not mean that God is unaware of sins that we are dealing with and when our hearts are not fully consented to his. Of course, we may never reach that point this side of eternity, but there are times when we’re farther away than others. Sin, then, is a proper reason for God to not grant our requests.

The second is selfish motives. I will grant that much of what we do is for selfish motives, but not all. I think we have a problem with selfishness as well. It is not wrong to consider yourself. It is wrong when done at the needless expense of others. If looking out for yourself was a sin, we wouldn’t go to the grocery store or go to jobs. We also find Paul telling some that they should marry if they have strong desires. In other words, your desire is a fine reason to marry. It is my conviction that the church has advocated a level of selflessness that Christ never taught.

Are there some selfish motives though that won’t be answered? Yes. I believe the criteria I have mentioned is what is covered. Does that mean we know definitively? No. I do not see how this is a problem though. We are told to pray without ceasing regardless and if God is not obligated to answer our prayers as we want and when we want, it is not proper to complain when he doesn’t.

The next is lack of faith and here Loftus reveals more about himself on how we feel guilty if our prayers don’t get answered. Maybe I’m the exception, but I don’t. I had a friend who passed away a couple of months ago of AIDS. I had prayed and she didn’t recover. It doesn’t mean I felt guilty. I just trusted that God’s will had happened and he had taken her home to free her from the suffering.

While Loftus says we cannot have childlike faith any more, I disagree. We just focus on ourselves too much instead of looking to God. It could be though that many of us have killed the good child side to us. There is a bad child side which Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 13, but I think there is a good child side that looks at the world with wonder. Readers know I am quite strong on wonder and I firmly believe atheism kills wonder.

It is interesting that in speaking of the guilt, Loftus says he blames the Christian faith.

Hmmm. I blame Pop Christianity. If there is a position I think dangerous today, it’s this Pop Christianity that believes we are getting messages from God and tries to treat Jesus as a buddy-buddy figure. We need to get back to seeing Jesus as the sovereign Lord of the universe and we don’t approach him like we do our best friend.

The fourth is that it isn’t God’s will. I agree with that and contrary to Loftus, I don’t think we need to know God’s mind on a matter necessarily to pray. We should just pray and then say that we will leave it with him. Prayer is giving our input, but there is no requirement that God has to act according to our input.

Another point is that surely God wants people to be saved. I agree. However, I think he wants them to be saved because they want to be saved. He is not interested in simply showing his existence to give intellectual consent. God is not a means to knowledge. Our quest must end in him. He is not the means to stifling our curiosity in an area. God is there for those who seek him. He is not trivia. He is personal.

The next is that it must be within God’s power and here I agree. If two sports teams playing against each other are praying that they win, well both of them aren’t going to get a yes. If two different guys are praying for the heart of the same girl, they’re not both going to get her.

The next is that we are not told we will have our prayers answered in our lifetime. Again, I wonder why the problem. Do I wonder sometimes why my prayers seem unanswered? Some. I just trust God though and I do believe it is entirely possible to do that as I have said.

Seventh is that some prayers will just go unanswered. Loftus gives the example of praying for death to go away. That won’t be until the new kingdom. I could say imagine praying that pre-marital sex would be moral for you so that you can do as you wish with your girlfriend. Imagine praying that the Law of Noncontradiction would be null and void. These prayers will go unanswered. It doesn’t matter how much or how sincerely we pray. These are not going to change.

The eighth is because of free-will. What about prayer for skeptics? I think this is a fine point and something is worth noting. While I pray that hearts be receptive, I think we should pray something else. We should pray when talking to non-Christians what the apostles prayed. They prayed that their words would be well-spoken and that they would be bold. When praying for conversion, they focused on their presentation more than the receptiveness of the lost person. We need to pray that we will have the right words to say and do our part in studying and learning so that we can be ready when the time comes. Tonight gave me just such an example as impromptu I had to answer a range of questions on a litany of topics.

In some closing thoughts, Loftus says that it is extremely hard to come to the throne of God as Hebrews 4:16 says even if we don’t know what to pray which Romans 8:26-27 tells us to not worry about. I agree. Especially for guys, it seems that prayer is difficult. I think Paul saw the same thing in writing to the Philippians on telling them to praise God and not be anxious. They were to focus on the good things. Prayer is hard for us and many of us need to learn how to do it.

Second is why should we pray for things? Shouldn’t God do them if they’re the right things? Pascal answered this by saying prayer gives us divine causality. God does what he will do knowing what we will pray in advance. It could be that some things happen, and the Bible would support this, because people prayed.

Thirdly, it’s not just petition. There is also praise, thanksgiving, and intercession. Indeed, these are the kinds of things I think I focus on when I pray. My prayers often seem to turn into long thoughts on who God is and what he is like. It is a time to discover the God that I believe in.

There are two more things to cover. The first is scientific testing of prayer. I’ve never really been convinced by this aspect, although Michael Sabom in his book “Light and Death” speaks of a study done that might be different. I don’t think we can submit God to this though as he is a person and not obligated to act in any way.

The second is the question of why God doesn’t heal amputees. My first thought is that we don’t know that he doesn’t. My second is that God won’t do this just because people want to see if he can. In fact, it could be that such a challenge would make it that God won’t respond. He’s not wanting people to come just because they see miracles, but because they truly want to see him.

Tomorrow promises to be interesting. It’s on the lessons of Galileo, science, and religion. Stay tuned readers!

Before I start this section, I want to make a clarificiation on the title. We can too often think of the teleological argument as really being the method that was used to bring something about. This is why evolution can cause a scare amongst many. Now I don’t believe in evolution (And I am speaking of macroevolution of course), but it is not because I am a creationist. One could believe in design and believe in evolution simply by saying that evolution was the method of design that God used.

Teleology refers to the final cause of something. That is the why for which a thing was made. What is the Telos of a hammer? Is it to drive in nails. What is the telos of my car? It is to get me from place to place? What is the telos of a human being? It is to bring glory to God. Loftus wants us to look at two places so we’ll see what we get from there. They are cosmology and biochemical complexity.

The first one has the anthropic principle to shown design. This can be called the Goldilocks principle. The universe is just right for us. There are so many factors built into our universe that if some of them were off by just an inkling, then we would not be here. As far as I know, everyone who studies the subject concedes this. For a Non-Christian look at just life on Earth, see the book “Rare Earth.” For a Christian perspective, see “The Privileged Planet.”

Loftus says that the atheist reply is that it’s not surprising for if it was otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. Unfortunately, this is a fallacious way of viewing things. Consider the example in what has been called the Shooter’s Fallacy by such writers as Dinesh D’Souza.

You have been sentenced to execution for a crime and you are tied to a stake. Before you is a row of sharpshooters with high-powered rifles aiming right at you and waiting for the command to shoot. The command comes and you hear all the guns go off. You open your eyes and see several holes behind you and all around you, but you have not been hit once. You shut your eyes again as all the gunmen cock their rifles again and the command is given and the same thing happens again.

The commander unties you for the time being while he figures out what is going on and a friend of yours who has come to attend your execution says “Lucky break eh?” He will think you crazy if you say something like “No it wasn’t! Of course I’m still alive! They all missed me!”

That’s exactly what the lucky break is though. You should not be here to observe what is going on but you are. It is the same with our universe. The odds of our being here are simply astronomical and we haven’t even got to our existence yet. We’re just talking about the possibility of life arising here.

The response comes from Richard Carrier about why we have the God we have. Why not some other one if theism is true? This is the kind of response that just floors me. The God we have is one of absolute perfection who is pure actuality and thus, he cannot be changed in anyway. If he could be more perfect, he would not be God. If he changed, he would not be God.

It is also a fallacy to describe him as an ordered being. God is not ordered as we observed when going through the God Delusion. He is simple in his essence. We also cannot speak of God having a reason. If anything, God is his own reason. He cannot be given a reason by another for that would be giving him a final cause from outside himself and that would mean he is not God.

Carrier also says that we can get order from chaos for you can roll the dice and eventually get the rolled order of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. This would simply be 1 in 6 to the sixth.  That would be the same as one time out of 46,656 times. Rest assured, those are not the odds you want to bet on next time you play Monopoly.

This is not the same as predicting order though. If we knew the laws of physics and all the variables, we could tell how a roll of dice would come out each time. What Carrier is suggesting though from this end is extremely implausible. It also doesn’t explain how the laws of nature that are capable of producing this order got here in the first place.

Richard Dawkins is also cited as saying that out of billions of planets, one of them will have life on it. Really? How come? If it’s something that’s bound to happen, it’s quite interesting that we haven’t found another one yet. There are some criteria a planet must have before it can be life-sustaining and so far, those criteria have only been met on one planet. It’s the one I’m typing this on.

Of course, maybe we just need more universes which is suggested next. I don’t see how this makes things easier. To avoid having God to explain one universe, we’re going to posit a potentially infinite number of universes? Yep. So if one is hard to explain, it makes it easier to explain if you just increase the number.

Now I’m open to the idea of a multiverse. I just don’t see any evidence of it. I find it fascinating though that in order to avoid the idea of God, we have to posit something else entirely. It seems too often that science has turned into a method to avoid God. When it has reached that point, we are no longer doing science but philosophy.

Loftus also wants us to think about what is beyond our universe. What lies outside of it. He posits calling it the VOID. The VOID is nothing and it is infinite for it has no end. Is there any law in the VOID that prohibits something coming into being without a cause? Do we know the properties of the VOID? Could there be up to an infinite number of universes?

I think this is simple to clear up. The VOID is nothing. What are the properties of nothing? Nothing. How far does nothing reach? Not at all because it’s nothing. How could it even be infinite for it sure isn’t reaching into this universe. Let’s remember what Aristotle said about nothing. “Nothing is that which rocks dream about.”

Now though, we get to biochemical complexity. Loftus is right in speaking about the astronomical odds of life arising by chance with the references from Chandra Wickramasinghe on the odds of forming an enzyme. I actually believe the odds of it contrary to Loftus are 1 in 10 to the 40000th. Either way, it is entirely astronomical as anything beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th is considered an impossibility.

The counter is given that rarity is not proof of anything. The odds of getting a perfect bridge hand are less than 1 in 600 billion. Still, if one got it, they would not conclude that they had not been dealt that hand because it is so improbable. However, 1 in 600 billion is far smaller than the odds of life.

However, what of the rarity of life here? There are many many many factors more involved than simply a deal of the cards. In fact, imagine that you got the perfect hand dealt to you twice in a row. Are you going to think “Ah. That’s odd.” Instead, won’t you be thinking that the dealer is tricking you somehow?

Rare events happen, but the more unlikely they are, the more we should notice. Something astronomical so much so that we have to invent ideas like seedlings from space (The idea that our life was seeded by life from another planet which makes you wonder where that life came from) in order to explain it is not the same as a perfect hand.

Also, this assumes that everything is entirely physical. There is still the problem of consciousness. If you try to explain it somehow arising from matter, you no longer have materialism. instead, you have panpsychism. Unfortunately, the holders of such a view as far as I know have not yet told where these inherent immaterial properties came from.

The example is given that it could be that parts are introduced which are initially advantageous but then develop an essential property. We would need to see such an example first. However, the question still arises at how the basic parts got there, which is what the 1 in 10 to the 40000th equation is about.

The other explanation is to picture a monkey and see how long it’d take it typing at a computer to type out the entire King James Bible. Cesare Emilani says the odds are 1 in 26 to the six millionth power. Don’t wait around. However, he suggests that there could be a control, which he calls the environment, which wipes out any wrong letter. With that, the Bible will be produced in 2.5 years.

The flaw is obvious. Where’d the control come from and how is it controlling? It is making evolution have a goal in mind but naturalistic evolution has no goal in mind. It simply does what it does. This is the same mistake critics have said about the program Richard Dawkins’s uses in the Blind Watchmaker.

Naturally, Richard Dawkins is cited speaking on how improbable a designer would be. We’ve already stated that this is a category fallacy in discussing Carrier and in an earlier review of Dawkins. God is simple in nature and thus  is not designed. It is amazing that Dawkins makes these statements without consulting the theologians on what they really believe.

The objection is also made about poor design, but this is fallacious as Cornelius Hunter says in “Darwin’s God.” Hunter tells of how there was an idea of creation around at the time of Darwin and how that included things being perfect when the book of Job speaks of God not giving the ostrich a lick of sense.  Job 39:17. The idea that everything has to be perfect is not an idea that I see taught in Scripture for this creation.

John Hick speaks then about the odds of anything happening. The odds of my being formed as an example are great because just the right sperm and egg at just the right time have to come together. However, the odds of someone being formed when a sperm and egg come together are quite good. If you wanted me exactly again, you probably would not get it, but you will get something. Take a pile of gravel sometime. There is nothing odd about having one, but having one the way it is is unlikely to be recreated if someone kicks it down.

The main question is not answered though. How did things get here to begin with?

The chapter then goes on with the argument of Richard Dawkins of the ultimate Boeing 747. This is accused of question-begging. Not at all. Theists say that all that begins to exist has a cause. If the universe could be shown to be eternal, we’d gladly say it doesn’t need a cause. Why do we believe in an eternal something? Because there has to be something eternal and God so far is the best explanation. (We also have other reasons for believing this God has revealed himself. Granted the teleological argument alone won’t get you to the God of Scripture, but it is a start.)

Unfortunately though, the chapter ends with the Problem of Evil and saying that God is implausible for that. However, we must take this argument on its own merit. Does the argument for God’s existence from the teleological stance meet with any difficulties that aren’t answered? I haven’t seen any. It doesn’t mean we can explain everything, but the God hypothesis does have the most explanatory power. When we get to evil, we’ll examine it as well.

That concludes tonight. The next chapter to cover will be the next one in the book on unanswered prayer.

If anyone has ever listened to Christian apologist William Lane Craig, they undoubtedly know about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I find this an extremely powerful argument. I can tell you where I was when I first heard it from J.P. Moreland and when I heard it, it was simply on the point of the possibility of transgressing an infinite. I heard it on an audio tape while driving and I can remember the whereabouts of where I was and how it hit me at what a powerful argument it was.

Today, we have more reason to believe it. In the time of Aquinas, he was open to the possibility of the universe somehow being eternal. Today, I do not think that theory could be easily defended. With Big Bang Cosmology going on, we can rest assured that the universe had a beginning.

Some of my readers might be Young-Earth Creationists. I am not. Now you might argue then that you don’t believe in a Big Bang. Learn the argument anyway. Why? When you debate the atheist, while you may not believe in the Big Bang, it’s quite likely that they do and so you can say, “By your own system, the universe had an origin.”

The first set presented by Loftus is the five ways of Aquinas. Now it’s a shame he doesn’t go into detail on these five ways. I will take the first one at this point and let the readers look up the others from there as I do not want my blog to be too lengthy. The first of the five ways is the argument from motion.

Now when people think of this, and Loftus is right in clarifying what it is, they usually think of a chain of dominoes and how there has to be a first pusher to get the whole chain moving. You cannot have an endless chain of cause and effects. Why? Because you would have an infinite chain then and you could not reach where you are at for you would have had to have completed an infinite chain of causes and effects, but an infinite chain cannot be completed by nature.

I do think that kind of argument is valid, but that is not the argument of Aquinas and Loftus knows this again. Aquinas is arguing about taking the idea of something like a gear. That gear is turning and above it is another gear and above that another gear and so on. All of these gears are in perpetual motion.

Aquinas would tell you that it would not suffice to have the chain of gears have a giant gear at the top as if that explained everything. The gear itself has to be moving. What causes the big gear to move? The cosmological argument then in Aquinas is looking to explain the whole system of motion and how it must have an unmoved mover who is outside of the chain and not part of the chain and that mover everyone knows as God.

It’s important to keep something in mind when considering the Five Ways. There are some Christians that condemn them for they do not take you directly to the God of the Bible. No. I grant that. However, Aquinas grants that also! His point is not to take you to the God of the Bible. His point is to take you to the God who is there and he will show through further arguments that it is the God of the Bible.

The critique of this argument and the type offered by Craig is that it doesn’t necessarily get us to a personal cause. I contend that it does. Every action that takes place is either the cause of a thinking agent or of a non-thinking agent. Let’s suppose for instance that I’m watching a TV show and all of a sudden the screen goes out.

What caused that? A power outage. What caused that? A pole went down. What caused that? A tree fell on it. What caused that? A break in the trunk. What caused that? Lightning caused it. What caused that?

Does it seem clear that we can keep asking that question over and over? Now let’s have the same scenario again.

What caused that? My roommate was trying to shut the power off in his room and flipped the wrong fuse.

Thats it.

As soon as we have a personal cause, we can stop asking the questions. Now we can ask why the personal cause did what it did, but we are then talking about the agent’s motive and in an entirely different category. In “God in the Dock”, a collection of C.S. Lewis essays, Lewis illustrates this brilliantly in the essay called “The Laws of Nature.”

Loftus also contends though that many physicists contend that the universe is ball-shaped. What theists are doing is taking a rule true inside the ball and applying it to what is outside the ball. Things could be very different outside the ball.

I really get amazed when people go to great lengths to make arguments like this.

These aren’t laws of nature we’re talking about that we can easily imagine being changed as it happens in science fiction all the time. (However, I do not think we can accurately show it as I believe there are great ramifications if the laws of nature are to be changed in anyway.) This is about causality. We know of nothing that comes into being without a cause and we know the universe came into being.

We can say all we want that things are different outside the universe, but we don’t know. We can posit multiverses all we want, (Which we don’t know about either and at this point are more along the lines of philosophy than science) but we just don’t know. (I’ll also add that as we’ll discuss later, the multiverse does nothing against the argument of God’s existence. In fact, it strengthens it.

Hick is then quoted as saying that someone either accepts the universe or God as a brute fact. I will contend that God is more reasonable as God is not bound by time, he is not physical, he is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics, and he is not changing so therefore is pure actuality.

Now there is the question given also of why something exists instead of nothing, but it seems that nothing worth commenting on is really raised. For now, I will contend that the cosmological argument still stands. We will continue to deal with other arguments as we continue the blog.

This is a long section of the book and it is a topic I enjoy discussing so I have no desire to squeeze it all into one blog. Loftus tells us early in this chapter why he and other atheists do not believe in God. The first idea is that it is incoherent. As Loftus says, “There is simply too much intense suffering in this world for there to be a good creator.” (p. 86) This will be dealt with when we get to the chapter on the Problem of Evil.

The next complaint is that it inhibits scientific progress (Even though Christian theism historically has been the main motivator of it), creates class struggles, (Does it, or do people who misuse Christianity do it?) sexism, (Even though it has been one of the main reasons women are considered equals today ontologically.) racism, (Even though the same applies to the races as to women.) mass neurosis, (This one I’d really like to see the documentation for.) intolerance, (I’d like to see the definition) and environmental disasters. (Which one?)

Of course, as Loftus says and rightfully so, all of these don’t really matter in light of the one question, “does God exist?” Loftus, and I agree, says that if he exists, then if Christianity is true and it is a crutch for the weak, then it is because we need a crutch. If God exists, then the acts of people like Sartre (And I’d include Loftus. He leaves himself out.) are downright rebellion.

So let’s look at the arguments.

The first is the Ontological argument. I’m probably a rarity in the Christian community, but I do like this argument. It’s one I think about often. It seems that for anyone who studies the issue seriously, this is one of those arguments you just can’t ignore. Either it’s embraced wonderfully it seems or it’s cast aside as nonsense. Still, everyone seems to know that there’s something odd about it. The following is a link to a brief description of the Ontological Argument of Anselm.

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2007/entries/anselm/#ArgPro

There is also this from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ont-arg.htm

Now I would recommend the reader at least learn the argument because from here on, I’m going to be assuming a basic understanding.

The first question will be do any of the ideas of God contradict? An example is given of omnipotence and omniscience. However, this is just a reference. Without anything solid being given, we cannot make a statement. Loftus points us to Kenny’s book “The God of the Philosophers”, but it would have been nice to have seen an argument.

In discussing open theism briefly, we are brought to the point of realizing we believe in a timeless and spaceless being. This is presented as an unintelligible, but good grief why? While I cannot comprehend it, I do not see it as unintelligible, and I’m not even sure what he really means by that. I see the laws of logic as timeless and spaceless. I see the objective moral law as timeless and spaceless. Why not God?

The objection is raised about Anselm’s fool. Would the greatest being a fool can think of be the same as a philosopher or an Einstein? How about even God himself?

My thought though is that I don’t think that’s Anselm’s main point. He’s saying that we know that there is some idea of a greater being than we can conceive. This ultimately reaches a greatest that we can conceive. Even if we do not know all about this being, we know that God is from it. Now we may not be yet to the Trinitarian God, but that wasn’t the point of these arguments in the medieval period. They were simply to get to God.

Now we have the question from John Hick about what to say to an Easterner. My reply would be that the ONE as they would call it, would be personal instead of non-personal as in Eastern religions. I would then take them to Scripture and other evidences to show the kind of God I believe in.

Hick also speaks of Plantinga’s work on this and says the same could apply to a being of maximum evil. I don’t believe this approach would work though seeing as evil is a lack and we cannot speak of a being having an ultimate lack of good. Such a being could not exist as to ultimately lack good would be to ultimately lack existence.

My opinion? The ontological argument I think has some merit and it’s worth discussing. Even if you don’t accept it, there’s still something to be learned from it. Tomorrow, we’ll go into the Cosmological Arguments.

We’re not going to cover chapter 5 here as it deals with faith and reason and there’s very little there that is arguing against Christianity. I do have a few comments in my copy of the book in that section, but I want to stick as much as I can to the topics that go against the Christian faith directly. The next chapter then is the one on the Christian illusion of moral and rational superiority.

Let us begin with rational superiority. Now we all know that each of us has times of doubt. Sometimes, this is about rational issues. If that is the case though, then usually when the doubt is answered successfully, it goes away. However, rational doubt can often be a hider of emotional doubt. This is where you encounter the doubter and as you probe his questions, you find emotional reasons underlying them.

Now there is a list of thinkers who have denied Christianity supposedly on rational grounds. It is my understanding that Paul Vitz has written about such thinkers in “Faith of the Fatherless” and shown the underlying emotional issues. (It is a book that I have ordered and look forward to reading when it arrives.)

Is Christianity a matter of the rational alone? Not for most of us. Many of us do have emotional reasons involved. Thats why we speak of the rational and emotional problem of evil. I contend that if you were truly rational, you would be a much better Christian and if you weren’t a Christian, you would become one.

It’s worth noting also that Christianity has a basis for rationality.

Let’s move on to moral superiority.

The argument presented is that Christians will say that atheists have no justification or motivation for being moral. Now I will grant that there could be some personal motivations and there could even be some justification in that an atheist wants to be good. A lot of atheists are really good people and a lot of Christians sadly aren’t.

I will contend though that atheism has no basis for a morality whereby goodness is established. If that isn’t there also, this will lead to the Problem of Evil no longer being a problem. From the Christian perspective, it is a problem that needs to be answered. If there is no evil though, there is no problem.

When Loftus chooses to argue against the divine command theory, I have no problem. I do not hold to that view so I see no need to defend it. However, when we get into the natural law theory, then that is something that I will address. The question boils down to how we know that God is good.

The best way I can think of is to say that God is pure actuality. This also explains that he never makes a choice to be good. Any “choices” God makes are eternal choices that he’s eternally choosing and eternally acting on. If you pray today and God answers your prayer, that is because God has been eternally hearing your prayer and eternally choosing to answer it.

Also, we can see Augustine’s description of the definition between good and evil. Evil is a lack of that which should be there. A rock cannot see, but that is hardly an evil as a rock is not supposed to see. If you have a man who is blind though, then that is considered an evil as the eye is meant to see. Aristotle would even say that you can’t call an eye that can’t see an eye.

Now take that eye that can’t see and take away the evil of it not being able to see and what do you have? You have a better eye. However, take away all that is good in it and what do you have left? You have nothing. Removing evil always makes the good that is there better. Removing good always leaves you with nothing.

In case anyone thinks they have a killer caveat, let me go on and defeat it. This even applies to the devil.  You take away all the evil of the devil and you are left with a beautiful angel. You take away the good and you have nothing. What good is there? Existence is good, intellect is good, and will is good. They’re just all used in a wrong way.

Goodness, by this standard would be pure existence with no lack of what should be there. God lacks no power. He lacks no knowledge. He lacks no wisdom, beauty, truth, fellowship, etc. You cannot improve on him in anyway. He is perfect goodness. He is that which is desired for its own sake. Nothing else experiences existence like God does.

Now someone like James Rachels will be quoted who will say that if natural law theories are true, it means “That the religious believer has no special access to moral truth. The believer and the nonbeliever are in exactly the same position. God has made all people rational, not just believers; and so for believer and nonbeliever alike, making a responsible moral judgment is a matter of listening to reason and following its directives.” (p. 64)

I wouldn’t have a problem with that.

Now Loftus thinks that this is his point. However, there is a difference between the atheist and the theist on this. The Christian theist does have a basis for the rooting of the natural law. Does the atheist? There have been many attempts, but so far, none have worked. They all root themselves on foundations that they cannot back.

While it is brought up about Christians doing awful things, this should hardly be news. We all know that we are fallen and that the church hasn’t been the best in the past. This is also done contrary to the teachings of Christ. When atheism reigns and reigns by the sword persecuting Christianity, is this in contradiction to the “teachings of atheism” or not? How is someone like Stalin being inconsistent with atheism?

Now when he talks about the motivation for Christians, two are mentioned. The first is that Christians are good because they think that they’ll fry in Hell. The other is that God will just forgive them. I’ll go on and say that both of these are not the best motivators. For the first one, I think that can be a start to get to the kingdom, but it should not stay that way. The second is taking advantage of God.

The motivation to do the good is simply because it is good and this brings glory to God when we do this.  To claim the others as the motivations for Christians does not really tell us about Christians. Instead, it seems to tell us more about Loftus. The actions that he condemns, I will more than happy be ready to condemn. It is a shame, for instance, that Christians have long affairs.

This gets us to the problem though for atheism. An atheist can say they have a basis to be good, but what is good? It will not work to borrow the answer from Christianity and then use it against Christianity. Atheism must come up with its own basis totally apart from a theistic view. The lack of such has been revealing.

So why is there moral and rational superiority? There’s a simple reason. It’s rooted in a perfectly moral and rational God.

I have recently read the book by John Loftus called “Why I Rejected Christianity.” Unfortunately, it is definitely lacking. Seeing so much in here, I decided I’d start writing a review of it. This will take my time, but it is important that we learn to engage the ideas of the other side.

Now the book starts off with several autobiographical notes. However, I have decided for my own reasons to skip those parts. Instead, it’s better if we move right on to the argument. The first part that is given is the Outsider Test. This relies on what Loftus describes as one’s “Sociological and cultural background.” (P. 40)

The point for Loftus is that Christianity from the outside looks untrue. That is not the case from the inside though. From the inside, it seems entirely true. The question is though that how can one choose any religion if from the outside, they all seem to lack any plausibility.

Of course, it’s probably hoped you’ll run with that assumption…

Hmmm. Shall we name some names? Let’s see, the early church consisted of people from either a Jewish background or a pagan background or a God-fearing background. Apparently, 3,000 people were able to choose a new faith at Pentecost. Apparently, the apostles all chose a new faith and apparently, the churches founded all consisted of people that chose a new faith.

Could it be that maybe they found the faith plausible?

Oh! Well, that was then! How about now? The ancients might, but anyone else?

Frank Morrison converted after trying to disprove the resurrection. Simon Greenleaf converted after a student told him to test the gospels with all the legal skill he had. The famous illusionist Andre Kole converted after being challenged to disprove Christ’s miracles. J. Budziszewski converted because of the Problem of Evil. C.S. Lewis is one of the most famous conversion stories. Alister McGrath writes about converting in college.

All of these converted because they thought the faith gave the rational answers. Could it be that a faith can look plausible from the outside? Also, let us suppose that a faith was not plausible. Does that mean atheism by default? We’ll have to go through and see if the arguments for atheism hold up. After all, if you reject Christianity because it seems implausible, there is no sense holding to atheism if it is implausible.

We are also given the great line that believers are atheists to all other religions. Atheists just add one more religion.

It’s really saddening that people still use lines like this as if that says anything.

Oh. Let me guess. We hold that religion because it’s true? We reject the others because they’re false. Yeah. That’s it. (Ironically, I could say that believers are skeptics of all other worldviews. It doesn’t show that one religion is true or false. It’s just simply stating that if X is true, all non-X is false.)

Now we are told also that an outsider should come assuming that their religion is false and be like one with on intellectual affiliation with them at all.

Well, I suppose you could just forget everything you think is true about your religion and then approach it and ask if it is true. Or, you could just simply do what anyone else does and read all the arguments one can and make rational decisions and if you encounter a strong argument against your belief, then study it and see if it is true or not.

Excuse me then if I remain skeptical of the outsider test.

Now we have to show the bias supposedly the idea that if you are born in Saudi Arabia, you’ll be a Muslim and if in Thailand a Buddhist and if in America, it’s quite likely that you’ll be a Christian.

I get the feeling that this is supposed to prove something….

Interestingly, it seems to be only the atheists that are the exception. (John Hick is noted but I think we can find an akin relationship with pluralism.) It is the atheists who have risen as they have seen that all religions are false. In the same way, the Pluralist though has seen that all religions have a piece of the truth. (Without telling us how they know that.)

If only the rest of us were as great as the “brights.”

Now on page 41, we are told that if we were born in Saudi Arabia or Iran, we’d be Muslims.

Geez. Couldn’t be because that’s the law of the land could it? Ever heard what they do with apostates over there? Religious freedom is hardly a value. Now granted one might be more likely to hold to a worldview if born in another area, but it doesn’t speak of the truthfulness or lack thereof and it’s just as easy to investigate something that you believe is true.

Furthermore, from what I know of myself and fellow Christians, the hardest questions are the ones we think of. They are not the ones the skeptics give us.

Now we are told that if we lived in the first century, we would believe that God sent illnesses and disasters to punish people for their sins.

Even though Christ argued against such a view and the book of Job argues against such a belief. Where do these people come up with this stuff?

Of course, there’s the usual tirade about the Middle Ages with murdering witches, torturing heretics, and removing infidels from Jerusalem.

It makes me wonder how many works on history of that time period have actually been read….

It’s especially amusing when slavery is brought up. Hmmm. No mention about the Muslims with that one. No mention that Clovis II and his wife Bathilda were instrumental in ending it in the Christian Middle Ages due to the teaching that they found taught in the Bible.

Next on page 42, we are told of the DPT and the DVT. The DPT (Dependency Thesis) states that “Morality is not a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions.” The DVT (Diversity Thesis) states that “Moral practices and beliefs do in fact vary from culture to culture and at different times in history.”

Please note that this is said while all the while telling the biblical culture that they were wrong. This cultural relativism if held will only end in moral relativism. If moral relativism is held…

Well, no such thing as the Problem of Evil anymore….

Now the same is done to religion by Loftus. The RDVT (religious dependency) states “Religious faith does in fact vary from culture to culture and at different times in history.” and the RDPT (Religious Divesrity) states that “Religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree.”

Well, it obviously has to be because if rational judgment were being used, no one would choose a religion…

Now the outsider test is said to have a greater degree of force because there’s no empirical tests to determine if a religion is true.

Riiiiight. All Christians shun empirical facts about the world and think they have no value. Now I have nothing against empirical data. I’d use data like the fine-tuning of the universe and the resurrection of Christ. I’d also use philosophical data like the moral law and aesthetic value as well as the consistency of theism along with experiential data like how the Christian life can be lived out well and how it makes a difference when applied.

Loftus then tells us that we should forgo our presuppositions and approach the text. We should adopt the presupposition of skepticism.

Odd. I wanted to simply adopt the presupposition that I am skeptical of skepticism and see how well skepticism held up. He also suggests that believers should read books like his and have them read at church groups.

I suppose that’s one way of increasing sales.

However, I agree. Believers should read the other side. I think they should see just how weak opposing arguments are. I think they should be read at church groups so churches can discuss them and answer them together.

Now we are next told that our initial experiences should be questioned when coming to investigate our faith.

Odd. I don’t remember Heaven opening up when I converted. I’ll grant that while I came as a child, I later became an adult and investigated my faith. I wanted to see if my life meant anything and found that it did. I only got greater confirmation when bringing arguments to the other side and finding them lacking.

I love the quote from Michael Shermer about how we take the data and select that which conforms with what we believe and throw out the rest. He states that “all of us do this, of course, but smart people are better at it.”

Of course all of us do this! (I suppose that would include the atheists)….

Odd though. I don’t recall doing that.

I recall taking obstacles against my faith and looking at them and seeing if they hold up and if they don’t, what is the truth from the theistic perspective?

The next quote is from Robert McKim stating “We seem to have a remarkable capacity to find arguments that support positions which we antecedently hold. Reason is, to a great extent, the slave of prior commitment. Michael Shermer adds that smart people can give intellectual reasons for beliefs that they arrived at for nonintelligent reasons.

I’m sitting here wondering if I really need to comment. Why should I not think McKim and Shermer are really the ones committing what they’re guilty of? Of course, Loftus is clear on the presumption of skepticism since there are so many claims and no empirical foot can be found to match them as if in a Cinderella story.

I wonder if the skepticism foot fits or the atheism foot fits…

Of course, this assumes that no religious worldview fits. I do not take that. I see much evidence of the God I serve in the things I observe with my senses.

Now we are told we can’t use the Bible. We must remember that it comes from an ancient and superstitious people.

Let’s hear it for that cultural relativism eh?

We’re also to be skeptical of any miracle claims in the Bible just as we supposedly are of miracles in other faith traditions.

Ya know, maybe it’s just me, but I’m not skeptical of miracles happening in other religions. I don’t believe all of them, but it’s not because they’re in a different religion. Why should I be skeptical of miracles? Why not be skeptical of the position that says that miracles cannot happen?

Next we are told that if God is true, he will make a religion that can pass the Outsider Test.

Ah yes. If there is a God, he will meet the demands of the skeptics. It’s cute isn’t it?

Now Loftus wants an explanation for the rule of religious beliefs. Why do they dominate in some areas?

Well geez, I can explain Muslim nations quite easily.

I can also explain that most parents do teach their children what they believe and in America, these beliefs are commonly held and passed on without thought. (You know, like the belief that the ancients though the Earth was flat or that there’s a war between science and religion.)

I just invite people to investigate. If you have good reasons for holding the Bible is true, there’s no reason to just abandon them. Sure. Feel free to see if they hold up.

We are also told that the test is to overcome the luck of being born possibly in the right belief. Of course, the test between the faiths is based entirely on luck.

Seems strange to me, but when I argue with a Muslim or a Buddhist, it’s always about what we believe and how it corresponds to reality. It’s not about what we were born believing.

The last thing I wish to comment on is how we are told that the skepticism of all religions and metaphysical positions (Hmmm. All metaphysical positions? Would that include Sagan’s statement on the Cosmos?) leads to agnosticism and that in turn leads to atheism.

Thomas Huxley disagreed. There’s no reason why agnosticism should really lead to atheism and it requires a metaphysical leap to get there either way.

Well, that is the section on the Outsider Test. We shall continue more as time goes by.