Daylight Atheism > Ten Questions to Ask Your Pastor

< Previous: Who Says You Can't Disprove God?

Ten Questions to Ask Your Pastor

The New York Times recently ran a depressing article about the obstacles faced by public school science teachers. I don't envy teachers their job, as important as it is: between surly and unruly students, cash-strapped school districts, incompetent administrators, and the regimented, monotonous teaching needed to drill classes for standardized testing, they have more than enough to deal with. But this outrage may surpass all the others: religious students who have been programmed by their parents and churches to reject evolution and any other branch of science that infringes on their sacred superstitions.

The last question on the test Mr. Campbell passed out a week later asked students to explain two forms of evidence supporting evolutionary change and natural selection.

"I refuse to answer," Bryce wrote. "I don't believe in this."

The article mentions "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution", a tract written by the Moonie creationist Jonathan Wells, as one that some religious students are bringing to class. The National Center for Science Education has done a superb job answering these questions and unpacking the deceitful assumptions built into them (and the Talk.Origins Archive has a more in-depth response), so I won't spend my time on that. I have a different idea.

If the creationist churches are prepping teenagers with arguments against science, I think it's only fair that they get a taste of their own medicine. I think there should be a list of questions for Sunday-school students to ask their pastor - questions that cast light on the unsavory parts of Christian theology and raise the difficult, uncomfortable issues that most religious leaders prefer to avoid. Here are my suggestions for a list. I've done my best to raise issues that aren't often addressed by apologists, or to phrase questions in ways that aren't as susceptible to stock answers. If anyone has alternatives or additions, feel free to suggest them.

1. Why is God called loving or merciful when, in the Old Testament's stories of the Israelite conquest, he specifically orders his chosen people to massacre their enemies, showing no mercy to men, women, even children and animals?

2. Does it make sense to claim, as the Bible does, that wrongdoing can be forgiven by magically transferring the blame from a guilty person to an innocent one, then punishing the innocent person?

3. Why does the Bible routinely depict God as manifesting himself in dramatic, unmistakable ways and performing obvious miracles even before the eyes of nonbelievers, when no such thing happens in the world today?

4. Why do vast numbers of Christians still believe in the imminent end of the world when the New Testament states clearly that the apocalypse was supposed to happen 2,000 years ago, during the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries?

5. Why do Christians believe in the soul when neurology has found clear evidence that the sense of identity and personality can be altered by physical changes to the brain?

6. If it was always God's plan to provide salvation through Jesus, why didn't he send Jesus from the very beginning, instead of confusing and misleading generations of people by setting up a religion called Judaism which he knew in advance would prove to be inadequate?

7. Since the Bible states that God does not desire that anyone perish, but also states that the majority of humankind is going to hell, doesn't this show that God's plan of salvation is a failure even by his own standard? If this outcome is a success, what would count as a failure?

8. Why didn't God create human beings such that they freely desire to do good, thus removing the need to create a Hell at all? (If you believe this is impossible, isn't this the state that will exist in Heaven?)

9. Is it fair or rational for God to hide himself so that he can only be known by faith, then insist that every single human being find him by picking the right one out of thousands of conflicting and incompatible religions?

10. If you had the power to help all people who are suffering or in need, at no cost or effort to yourself, would you do it? If so, why hasn't God done this already?

70 Comments

On question five, I found your essay on the ghost in the machine very well done. I just think it's amazing, to consider all the facts that people readily accept, apparently without noticing that it either deals serious damage to, or right out refutes, their professed belief in a soul. Perhaps excluding scientologists, I haven't encountered anyone who had a problem believing that these little molecules--adrenaline, caffeine, alcohol, methamphetamines, antidepressants--can have huge effects on a person's thinking and behavior. Nor have I found anyone who refused to believe that a person could experience amnesia after a bad head injury, or that lobotomies do not severely change a person. But at the same time, it will never occur to these people to question the exisetence of the soul; it's just taken as a given, no matter what other ideas show up.

Comment by: Maria | September 6, 2008, 12:22 pm

Thanks, Maria!

As Carl Sagan observed, the history of the human species is a series of great demotions. The first was the Copernican revolution, demoting Earth from the center of the universe to one planet among many. The religious conservatives fought against this for a long time, but for the most part, they've come to accept it. The second was the Darwinian revolution, making human beings just one species among many, rather than the apex of creation. The religious conservatives, for the most part, have refused to come to terms with this and are still fighting against it. The third one, I think, is going to be the neurological revolution - the one that shows our mind is the result of physical causes, rather than the product of a supernatural soul. For the most part, religious conservatives haven't even felt this blow yet. But I think, when its full force is recognized, it's going to be the most decisive one of all. The knowledge that the mind is a physical phenomenon strikes directly at religious belief, far more so than evolution or heliocentrism do.

Incidentally, I'm a Binghamton alum. Good to see a fellow Bearcat. :)

Comment by: Ebonmuse | September 6, 2008, 1:20 pm

In hindsight, I now believe that the problem of neurology and of brain damage affecting behavior, which was brought to my attention in a high school Psychology class (mainly through discussions about aphasia), was probably the first or second step on my path to atheism. Realizing that brain structure plays such a pivotal role in behavior, thinking, perception, etc. is probably, as you said, the most crushing blow yet to the idea of a soul or a God who gave humans souls.

I still remember the hours I spent trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance. I knew I had a soul, that I would live on after death (leading to terror-filled nights when I dreaded Hell), but here was evidence, really good evidence, that there was no soul. My brain went into rationalization overdrive, but it didn't last. Had I read your essay on the Ghost in the Machine, I would probably have left theism even earlier.

Comment by: Leum | September 6, 2008, 1:49 pm

I have mixed feelings about what you have written. As a Christian believer who has no problem with evolution or the Big Bang, it kind of drives a wedge into me. On one side is the part of me that believes that science gives us an understanding of the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to now.

But on the other side, the article digs into some of the basis of Christianity, which hurts and leads me to wonder if the article could drive away a potential ally in opposing the infiltration of religion and politics into science.

Also, I would question what value this would have to an expected audience of Christians would don't believe in evolution. The more conservative Christians I know (including some in my denomination) would look at the tone of the questions and dismiss it, literally throwing it in the waste basket. Thus, it would have no influence on them or what they believe.

Unlike more open-minded thinkers like me, those with unshakable strongly held beliefs are unlikely to actually take in your points and maybe alter their beliefs with benefit of a different perspective.

I could go on to explain how some of your points don't impact my faith, as I don't depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible and my understanding of God is not bounded by the linear understanding of time that humans experience. But, let me instead say that science should be science and politics and religion should have no place in the scientific method.

Comment by: John Burckardt | September 6, 2008, 1:57 pm

Hello John,

On one side is the part of me that believes that science gives us an understanding of the evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to now.... But on the other side, the article digs into some of the basis of Christianity, which hurts and leads me to wonder if the article could drive away a potential ally in opposing the infiltration of religion and politics into science.

First of all, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in Christianity, or any religion, and this article, like others I've written, is meant to explain why. As you'll learn if you read my site or those of other modern atheists, we believe that the threat of creationism exists largely because society has internalized the idea that no belief born of religious faith should be seriously challenged or debated. This presumption of unearned respect for religious beliefs is precisely what has given creationists a foot in the door and enabled them to make the gains they have. I believe society is better off in the long run if all ideas are open to critical scrutiny.

Second, I want to talk about this "driving away a potential ally" business. Are you saying that you can't work together with people on issues where you find common ground, if you and those people disagree on other issues? Is your laudable support for science dependent on the rest of your beliefs going unchallenged, such that if an atheist criticizes your religion, you'll abandon your support for evolution and head straight into the arms of the creationists? I don't believe that for a second. I'm happy to work together with moderate theists on areas where we do agree - are you similarly worried about them driving me away if they speak out about why they believe in God?

Also, I would question what value this would have to an expected audience of Christians would don't believe in evolution. The more conservative Christians I know (including some in my denomination) would look at the tone of the questions and dismiss it, literally throwing it in the waste basket. Thus, it would have no influence on them or what they believe.

I'm well aware that there are many believers who will refuse to read or listen to anything that challenges their faith. That's unfortunate, but there's nothing I can do about it, and I certainly don't believe that it constitutes a reason for me not to speak my mind. In any group of people, there will be some who are willing to listen to a different perspective, even if many aren't. Those are the ones I'm targeting.

I could go on to explain how some of your points don't impact my faith, as I don't depend on a literal interpretation of the Bible and my understanding of God is not bounded by the linear understanding of time that humans experience. But, let me instead say that science should be science and politics and religion should have no place in the scientific method.

That's good to hear. But I think most of the ten points I've listed here apply equally to all varieties of Christianity, particularly 2, 5, 6, 8 and 10.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | September 6, 2008, 2:37 pm

I think these two pages are somewhat relevant to what you were talking about, Ebonmuse: (1) Quintessence of Dust (2) Egnor's machine is uninhabited by any ghost.

I wouldn't say your questions aren't without attempted answers, but in total they seriously challenge any believer to think holistically and try and actually understand what they believe. That's an important catalyst for open-mindedness, setup for confrontation with personal beliefs, and ultimately a seed of doubt. Good idea!

Whenever I walk past the Sunday school session rooms at my mother's church, I feel bad about their indoctrination. I really hope kids' natural curiosity and uninhibited minds can in some small way detect the lies they're being spoon-fed.

Comment by: Brad | September 6, 2008, 3:39 pm

The third one, I think, is going to be the neurological revolution - the one that shows our mind is the result of physical causes, rather than the product of a supernatural soul. For the most part, religious conservatives haven't even felt this blow yet. But I think, when its full force is recognized, it's going to be the most decisive one of all. The knowledge that the mind is a physical phenomenon strikes directly at religious belief, far more so than evolution or heliocentrism do.

I'm not nearly as optimistic. :-(

The fundies will never be swayed by any evidence whatsoever; neuroscience will join biology, cosmology, etc. in the list of evil, godless sciences perpetrated by untrustworthy Hell-bound atheists.

As for the moderate Christians, just as they reacted to heliocentrism and evolution by declaring the geocentric parts of the Bible and the Genesis stories as metaphorical allegories from which moral lessons are to be distilled, further evidence demonstrating the material basis for the mind will be rationalized away by moving the goalposts. The "soul" will be redefined as a magic component that God magically instills into humans (at conception, naturally), that magically works with the physically-based mind somehow, and that magically separates from the mind at death, to be sent to Heaven or Hell.

In other words, those theists that pretend to care about evidence (as opposed to the flat-out "La-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" crowd) will take refuge under the cover of unfalsifiability, just as they always have when presented with contradictory evidence.

Comment by: Kevin DeGraaf | September 6, 2008, 4:22 pm

I would suggest that the Darwinian revolution was actually the third great demotion. The second was the demonstration, thanks to spectroscopy and parallax measurements, that the sun was just one out of millions of stars. The effect on the world-view of educated people must have been great, yet for some reason the religious fanatics never (as far as I know) attacked it to the degree that they attack the other demotions you mention.

Comment by: Stephen | September 6, 2008, 4:22 pm

The more conservative Christians I know (including some in my denomination) would look at the tone of the questions and dismiss it, literally throwing it in the waste basket. Thus, it would have no influence on them or what they believe.

If I may add to Ebon's reply, it's true that many Christians are as John describes them. I used to be one. And yet, here I am today, an atheist. Why? Because, although words like Ebon's would have had no affect on me directly, the kind of thinking they reflect is becoming more and more a constituent of the atmosphere of this planet. They wouldn't have worked on me, but they did work on people I knew: people I would listen to.

Therein lies the value of Ebon's work and that of others. The more this kind of thinking pervades society, the more society as a whole pulls back from religious fundamentalists, leaving the Fundamentalists isolated and stranded. Then you can bet they'll notice. Indeed, they are noticing. And when they notice it starts to affect them in spite of themselves.

Comment by: mikespeir | September 6, 2008, 4:32 pm

As for the moderate Christians, just as they reacted to heliocentrism and evolution by declaring the geocentric parts of the Bible and the Genesis stories as metaphorical allegories from which moral lessons are to be distilled, further evidence demonstrating the material basis for the mind will be rationalized away by moving the goalposts. The "soul" will be redefined as a magic component that God magically instills into humans (at conception, naturally), that magically works with the physically-based mind somehow, and that magically separates from the mind at death, to be sent to Heaven or Hell.

Except that neuroscience doesn't just kill the idea of a soul during life, it also seriously challenges the idea of existence without a brain. Liberal Christianity was able to survive heliocentrism by claiming it didn't matter, evolution by calling Genesis a metaphor, but the only way it can survive neuroscience is to call the soul a metaphor, and that more or less destroys the whole point. Once Christianity is left with nothing but metaphors, it isn't really that different from atheism.

But maybe I am being too optimistic. When I still believed I tried to do the whole "magic component" deal, but it was too difficult to resolve the problem, so I just called it a mystery. That doesn't mean that everyone who considers the problem will be unable to come up with a more satisfying resolution.

There is another way out of the problem, one that, from what I understand, is used by Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. They say that after death nothing happens until God physically resurrects everyone at the Day of Judgment. This escapes the problem quite nicely, but may not be too appealing to Christians who see Revelation as allegory.

I also wonder if neuroscience will ever become a part of the general knowledge in the way evolution has. Neuroscience is so much more obscure and complex than evolution, so it's easier to dismiss it or claim that there's no need to teach it in public schools. Really, it's only in psychology classes that any attention is really paid to the brain, and psychology is not, as far as I know, required by most US schools. And until enough non-scientists are aware of the implications of neuroscience, there won't be a third/fourth demotion of God in the public eye.

Comment by: Leum | September 6, 2008, 5:25 pm

EM,

I say "amen, brother" on questions 4 & 7 :)

If anyone has alternatives or additions, feel free to suggest them.

You might consider augmenting question 8 with an attendant difficulty. How did creatures created good sin?

Comment by: MS Quixote | September 6, 2008, 5:42 pm

Your questions are great ones, but the biblical-minded will always find fluffy excuses and reasons of their own. You won't get serious answers. I've tried often. People seem to know in their deep reptile brains that it's all a scam, but they've been raised on bible-thumping and guilt and asking Jesus for things. They occasionally get them too. I have no idea how to get people from believing mythology except for patience in emphasising science, evolution and rational explanation all we can. Religion is a disease cured by sunlight. The depressing thing is that people enjoy being misled. They are afraid of the truth of mortality.

Comment by: Peter | September 6, 2008, 6:58 pm

Much as I sympathise with your motives, you're wasting your time (which I suspect you're fully aware of). The kind of kids who can be brainwashed into asking the creationist questions are psychologically unable to process contradictory information. If you manage to persuade a single creationist student to even read your questions, let alone address them to one of their "authorities" I'll be massively impressed. 'taint going to happen. Depressing as that conclusion is, you need to read:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

and what we all need to do is start figuring out how we deal with a world in which at least one third of the species is literally "beyond reason". It really is a much much bigger problem than a battle over education - though that is obviously important. This is a battle for the soul of humanity.

Welcome to the final war...

Comment by: Harry Stottle | September 6, 2008, 7:01 pm

> Why does God choose "progressive revelation" instead of full, complete revelation? Isn't this unfair?

> Why is it the Christian's obligation to spread the word to the rest of the world, and not God's?

> Why doesn't God actually talk to us? Why must he communicate in barely detectable ways? (If he personally communicates at all.)

> Why doesn't prayer work, when the Bible promises it should?

> Why aren't Christians doing bigger miracles than Jesus, when the Bible predicts they would?

> How does a believer discern what to have faith in?

I'll add more of mine later.

Comment by: Brad | September 6, 2008, 7:20 pm

I find the "driving away allies" odd. Haven't such nay sayers heard that politics make odd bed fellows? If the Soviet Union, UK and the US could get along for 4 years to win WW2, I'm sure "moderates" can sway enough of their arrogance to get along with atheists. It isn't aboutplatablity though- it is about forcing the atheists to shut up.

Needless to say, atheists find it intensly insulting.

Comment by: Samuel Skinner | September 6, 2008, 7:22 pm

I'd like to toss in my comment that I as well hang my head and sigh when I hear about stuff like this and the "were you there?" or "how do you know?" kind of brainwashing. Also, I too found number 7 very refreshing as a question I've never thought of or seen before. As for number 10, however, I can already hear them responding with the usual denials about how God has helped people by sending them the Bible and Christ and offering them Heaven, and that suffering in this life doesn't actually matter and only leads to better times after death, etc. If I can suggest another one that I like to ask believers: How can God be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time? If he knows everything that has happened and will happen, how can he not be restrained from acting in any way contradictory to what he knows, which would only prove himself wrong? It's just a spin on fate v. free will, and I don't know, maybe it's old and tired, but I always get a kick out of stumping people with it.

Comment by: André Phillips | September 6, 2008, 7:24 pm

A couple new questions I would propose:

1. How do you know that what mwe know as "reality" is indeed real? How do you know that your whole perspective of reality is indeed reliable and not just an illusion?

2. Why does your religion have so many things in common with "heathen" belief systems (trinitarian being, blood sacrifice, magical thinking, etc...)?

3. Upon what basis should I accept the reality of the "god" of your religion, but not those of others? What evidence do you have for your "god" that others lack?

4. If their is only one "truth," why is their so much diffision within the faith (not to mention outside of it...) as to just what that "truth" is?

Comment by: Christopher | September 6, 2008, 9:01 pm

Christopher, I think your #1 isn't well-aimed at Christianity or religion in general. Solipsism is for the philosopher. Now some more of mine:

> Why is the Bible unclear on the requisites for salvation? Isn't that an important point to communicate?

> Is God the author of confusion or isn't he?

> Which ten commandments are the ten commandments?

> Why didn't God outright condemn slavery? Didn't he have to save his chosen people from the evils of slavery?

> Why does God have a chosen people? Isn't that absurd?

> Why should we believe Jesus literally rose from the dead?

> How did the apostles die? Shouldn't this be recorded better if they were so important?

> Why doesn't the Bible or God provide clear answers to divisive doctrines in Christianity?

> Doesn't God desire our understanding of his Word enough to use unambiguous diction?

> Why is there no forty year gap in Egyptian history as prophesied in Ezekial?

> Why is the Bible composed of the books it is? Why was the canon disputed? Why are there apocryphal texts at all? How do you know the Bible, as is, isn't incomplete or have a blasphemous addition to it?

> Why does God go to the lengths he does to hurt and kill innocent people? (God: 2,000,000+; Satan: 10)

> Why are women regarded inferior so much in scripture? Why doesn't God correct his people on these biases?

> Why is faith a virtue? Why is skepticism a vice?

> Is it okay to divorce or isn't it?

> What is the point behind sacrifices?

> Why is the Earth indiscriminately placed within a vast universe?

> Why did the human come about through evolution, having to suffer through 100,000+ years of high mortality rates, low age expectancy, horrible quality of life, et cetera?

> Why doesn't God believe in equal opportunity?

> Why is God concerned about humans? What was the point in creating us, rats in a maze?

> Why is there unnecessary suffering?

Well, that makes 21 questions right there. I paraphrased a lot from James Bucker's article Tough Questions for Christianity.

Comment by: Brad | September 6, 2008, 10:35 pm

Great list of questions. I'll print and keep in my wallet!

You might want to add one about the relative nature of religious morals with respect to non-literal interpretations of the bible. Or, you could mention Euthyphro's paradox. That's a good one for faith-heads to comprehend.

Comment by: hb531 | September 6, 2008, 11:06 pm

Spelling: "division" - sorry about that...

Comment by: Christopher | September 6, 2008, 11:34 pm

Good post, Ebon. You kicked off things with some good questions. Many of the additional commmenters' questions have been good too. This will be a good page to bookmark.

Comment by: the chaplain | September 7, 2008, 9:35 am

I know this isn't your point, but... fail the kid. No one lets you get away with saying "I don't believe in giant white whales."

Comment by: The Ridger | September 7, 2008, 11:03 am

I agree, Ridger. The purpose of a class is to teach you a subject matter and test your understanding of the material presented. There should be no test of what you actually believe, only that you understand what you're given. If a student refuses to take the test then they give up their chance to prove their comprehension, and should be given no credit.

On the flip side, I agree with Ebonmuse that research papers should include a sworn statement that the author(s) stand behind the reasoning and evidence they present in any paper. (See The Curiously Postmodern Modern Apologists.)

One more idea I have to add to this article: ask your pastor how Christian dogmas apply to some extreme situations. For example, small children who die of a disease after a few years of living. How are they saved? How is their situation fair? And what about people who get brain damage and get their personality changed? What about people with amnesia who can't even hold a thought, and can't remember anything new? How will they be able to accept Christ? How come people people win sports tournaments, get job promotions, win the lottery, and receive political office because of God's grace, but poor impoverished people aren't given special help outside of human efforts? How come prayer heals some people but never amputees?

Comment by: Brad | September 7, 2008, 12:45 pm

And what about people who get brain damage and get their personality changed?

That's always a good point, Brad. How can a person repent of his sins when he can't remember them and when he is, in fact, an essentially different person from the one who committed them? Of course, some Christians will come back with Original Sin and say that, because we're born in sin, personal sins are almost beside the point. But that's a different subject--and a different problem for Christianity.

Comment by: mikespeir | September 7, 2008, 1:13 pm

Here's one in the form of a two-parter:

1) Was the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ a bad thing or a good thing for humanity?

2) If the answer is "good," why aren't Judas and Pontius Pilate designated as major saints?

Comment by: terrence | September 7, 2008, 2:10 pm

terrence's point uses the Greater Good theodicy, that bad things happen in order to make various good things happen. So it could be stated:

If one believes in the Greater Good theodicy, then Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate had done humanity a great service, and were thus heroes instead of villains.

And now for some questions:

Why did Jesus Christ forbid name-calling yet do it himself?

Why did he decree that you ought to love your enemies, but turn around and foam at the mouth at scribes and Pharisees and a certain fig tree?

Why did he fail to practice what he preached, despite claiming that doing so was such a big sin?

Why was he so angry at a certain fig tree for not being in season for figs when he was hungry? If he was God, and he could conjure up some bread and fish, then why not some figs?

Why was he so anti-family?

Comment by: lpetrich | September 7, 2008, 2:33 pm

Hi Adam,

First time commentator here, but long time lurker. Most of the time, I'm too harried to actually think up and write comments, and your usual commentators are usually spot on anyway, so I feel like I would be fairly superfluous. But I feel like slacking a bit this morning :) . First, I've loved your essays on the ebonmusings site and think you are pretty much right on target. I may have some minor quibbles here and there, but nothing that really damages any of the arguments you've made, many of which I wish I'd thought of :) . I've given the address to your site to a few Christian relatives to check out, but haven't heard back from them concerning it yet. :)

But on to the main topic of this posting. Of course I agree with the principle ideas. One of the ideas being fleshed out in the comments is related to your excellently written "Ghost in the machine" essay on how the physical brain is the foundation of our personality, etc. I agree this is a revolution that undermines the common Christian ideas concerning dualism. However, as far as a revolution that changes the mindset of Christians...I remain skeptical. The origins of personality is a complex issue, as is how the brain itself works and relates to the development of personality. The problem that I see (and I could be wrong) is that most people unfortunately do not think that deeply. Dualism, from their point of view, is such an ingrained and "common sense" concept, that it is simply not questioned. Now, "man didn't came from monkeys"...hey, that's simple enough to rally around.

One of your commentators mentioned that a resurrection makes the concept of the soul possibly unnecessary anyway. Should the physical basis of personality (beyond the enhancements already noted in the comments) gain notice in the popular discussion, this is certainly an argument Christians could make in an attempt to defend their faith. An omnipotent god could resurrect whoever he/she/it wants in whatever state is desired (Tipler touches on this in his "Physics of Immortality".). Now, since the personality can change over time, most significantly with brain damage, one might ask which personality gets resurrected (similar to your "..Ghost.." arguments). Perhaps there is a buffet style resurrection where one gets to pick and choose whatever one wants. But given the dependency relationships in personality development, and the fact that making choices requires some personality to begin with...sheesh..I'm glad I don't have to be the guy defending such nonsense.

Just thought I'd throw in my 1 cent (not adjusted for inflation). Thanks for all the hard work in putting together all those essays. Keep 'em comin'!

cheers,
Tim

Comment by: TimJ | September 7, 2008, 4:12 pm

1. Why did Jesus deliberately conceal his teachings from those who were not yet his followers? (Matthew 13:10-13)

2. Given Matthew 13:10-13, why don't Christians attempt to keep unbelievers from reading the Bible?

Comment by: Leum | September 7, 2008, 9:27 pm

Hello, Tim!

I think the overwhelming correlation between aspects of the physical brain and aspects of the mind are not so easy to casually dismiss, even by a lay person. Once major neurological concepts come into popular knowledge, these facts cannot lay dormant in the back seats of people's minds. "Scientific materialism" will only grow more acknowledged by people as science advances in this direction.

If dualism was true, then the soul should be much more independent of the brain than we see. The brain should be expected to act as the medium, not the full machinery. If a theist tries to make up some buffet-style resurrection theory, they still haven't explained away neuroscience. In fact, under such a theory, they would be conceding the fact there is no unchanging soul.

Comment by: Brad | September 7, 2008, 11:29 pm

Hey Brad,

Well, I totally agree with your arguments concerning dualism and I do hope you are correct in your prediction that the overwhelming correlation 'twixt brain and mind will be too much for the casual observer to ignore. Lately though, I've been somewhat underwhelmed by people's critical thinking skills (especially during last week :) ). Still, there's always room for hope. Humanity has, up to this point, actually made pretty good progress technologically and morally speaking. But there does seem to be quite a vocal bunch who would love to drag us back into the dark ages. But in any case, your last sentence corroborates my somewhat obscurely stated point. Even if the soul were, let's say, "conceded away", one fallback argument that Christians could make (I'm not saying its a good one :) ) is that the soul is unnecessary anyway because a physical resurrection somehow fixes everything. I don't know of anyone actually making that argument yet, with the possible exception of Tipler (old book though and I don't know if he's thrown that argument out since).

Going back to the original topic though (some great questions already posted), here's my own meager contribution off the top of my head that I'll just toss out there:

1) If you had the choice in a military battle of having God on your side, or having iron chariots, which is the better choice?

2) What did Moses see when God showed him his "backside"?

3) What happened to all the resurrected saints at the time of Jesus's cruxifiction/resurrection?

4) Is infinite punishment for finite sin just?

5) Why was it fair for God to kill a guy who accidentally touched the Ark of the Covenant when trying to keep it from falling over? (I remember reading that as a good Christian kid and thinking, "O.K. What the hell was that all about?").

6) If we are the crowning achievement of God's creation, what is the vast majority of the universe for (most of which can not even be seen with the naked eye)?

7) Why see a doctor when you are sick when according to James, "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up"? Why not some useful medical advice?

8) General..but any question about dismantling any of the so-called prophecies of Jesus mentioned in Matthew (virgin birth, called out of Egypt, etc.) is pretty trivial (and left as an exercise to the reader :) ).

cheers,
Tim

Comment by: TimJ | September 8, 2008, 2:19 am

I liked the idea of "tasting their own medicines" as well as the point that we should remove the internalized idea that any belief rooted from religious faith are not to be challenged.
I think I can respect a personal choice of faith -- at the personal level, period. That does not stop one from challenging it, openingly debating it or debunking it -- though I know most friends of mine dreaded the idea of debating Christianity with me -- because the process really hurts them, and to some extent the relationship.
Of course, we should really work towards de-throning religious faith from the altar and in the end, stop its teaching in schools (at my part of the world, church found elementary and high schools teach the Bible as a subject!!)

Comment by: Virginia | September 8, 2008, 4:52 am

Reading the NY Times article, I found I almost gushed out my tea upon reading this:
In a stormy public comment session, Mr. Campbell defended his fellow writers against complaints that they had not included alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design.

His attempt at humor came with an edge:

“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”

Comment by: Virginia | September 8, 2008, 7:22 am

Let's give Jesus a break on the fig thing. They're kind of disgusting unless in the form of Newton dipped in milk, and even then only if Oreos aren't available

Comment by: terrence | September 8, 2008, 10:34 am

Why does God have only one Son (and god so loveed the world blah blah)?

Why can't he make another one (impotence?) and send him down here to do some good work?

What happened to all the people who died before Jesus was killed? Or those who never heard of him? Heaven? Hell? Somewhere in between?

If they were sent to heaven (because they didn't know about original sin), wouldn't it make more sense to not spread the good news and then everyone will go to heaven regardless?

Why was God so scared of the Tower of Babel? Is heaven really attainable through bronze-age building techniques?

Job get credit for not abandoning God when things get tough. Big deal, at least he was still alive! What is up with killing all the rest of the family!? They weren't in on the bet!

More later...

Comment by: corsair the pirate | September 8, 2008, 10:42 am

I DID ask my (youth) pastor #1. I got a really stern look and a response like "You believe in the Bible or you don't."
I also asked why King David, that wretched liar, got to kill Uriah the Hittite after committing adultery and was let off the hook while god killed an innocent baby. Boy, I tell ya', they don't like questions like that.

Funny thing, I asked my best friend at that time the same questions, he just condescendingly said, all these notes (in my bible) and questions, don't mean anything. He completely brushed aside the issue and added "I believe because I believe." Anyone else here ever hear that bullshit answer!?

As for evolution. I didn't believe in "macro" evolution even in college (majoring in Biochemistry!) But, if I saw a question on a test having to do with evolution, I answered it according to what I'd studied. No big deal. It's a theory that I thought was wrong. I didn't feel the need to assert that TheWorld change its ways on the basis of my faith. I knew I had nothing much else. Though, I did challenge my prof with the old 2nd law of thermodynamics, ONCE. LOL!

Comment by: Polly | September 8, 2008, 12:19 pm

Here's a question to ask: What "loving" god would allow such things as menstruation, childbirth, and mental illness to exist?

Comment by: Judy | September 8, 2008, 12:29 pm

We must never cave in to the idea that simply because some people are going to find these points objectionable that we must not express them. Yes, many Xians may toss this list into the trash--but some will not. We *know* this happens, because many of us were once as they are. Imagine a world in which everyone second-guessed expressing their thoughts with "Wait, I might upset someone, I'd better keep my mouth shut." That would get us precisely nowhere. Fundy Xians haven't been afraid of offending poeple when screaming and yelling about persecution and how we're all going to hell and the world's gonna end for lo these 2 millenia; why should we atheists be shy about giving them a little grief now and then?

Comment by: Will E. | September 8, 2008, 12:42 pm

I agree with The Ridger and Brad. If a student leaves a question blank, their teacher has to mark it just as wrong as if he'd given an incorrect answer. Especially when said teacher has explicitly said, "I don’t expect you to 'believe' the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks. But I do expect you to understand it.'” If this Bryce character then decides to spout irrelevant statements about his "beliefs", of course he fails the class! Where is the controversy here?

On a separate note, I thought this was hilarious: “We see lizards with different-shaped tails, we don’t see blizzards — the lizard bird."

Clearly one of Mr. Campbell's colleagues needs to catch up on the last 140 years' worth of news: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#History_of_discovery She better get crackin'.

Comment by: DamienSansBlog | September 8, 2008, 2:26 pm

Xianity, like all religions and cults, builds in a firewall that helps even the weakest believer deflect criticisms and questions. I'm sick of debating this, frankly. They just need to be told under no uncertain terms that their mythology, superstition and folklore are wrong. Period.

Comment by: nfpendleton | September 8, 2008, 3:13 pm

To add on to Judy's ideas, we can point to the fact we live in a World in Shadow.

Pendleton, I say find a middle road between preaching and debating. We should explain atheism to people, so they can understand. We don't need to tell them to believe what we believe, and we don't have to fight for recognized intellectual victory. What we do need to do is fight for freethought.

Comment by: Brad | September 8, 2008, 5:07 pm

A question I had many years ago, and don't see often is - What kind of sacrifice did God make if he knew his 'son' was going to be resurrected and was destine to be his right-hand man?

Comment by: Dr. X | September 8, 2008, 10:01 pm

A question I had many years ago, and don't see often is - What kind of sacrifice did God make if he knew his 'son' was going to be resurrected and was destine to be his right-hand man?

No kidding. Hey, I've got a deal for you. You'll be beaten and flagellated and crucified in the most painful way possible, but the perk is that you'll only be dead for three days, and omnipotent for all eternity after that. Damn, I'd take that deal as it stands right there, the whole saving of all mankind would just be a side benefit!

Comment by: ex machina | September 9, 2008, 10:38 am

More questions can be found in HI-larious fashion- get on youtube and type in "Sunday Heroes" - the one on Lazarus is great...

"So, am I immortal now?"

Comment by: terrence | September 9, 2008, 11:14 am

As an atheist I agree with everything that was listed and how God is really not as holy as many thought. However, there is one thing that was forgotten, if God loves us all, then why does he continue to label gays and lesbians as sinners. Gays and lesbians have committed no crime against them except trying to engage in marriage. As far as I am concerned I condone the homosexual community to marry and live joyful lives together without anyone's approval but their own. It is funny that in the military gay men are more prevalent as Arab translators which are rare since the Army keeps discharging them. In conclusion, Christianity must not continue to preach this because our nation is a free society and do not condone such discrimination.

Comment by: Edgardo Peregrino | September 9, 2008, 5:24 pm

Ebon --

Excellent as usual. The question about a merciful god might be made sharper by referencing eternal Hellfire, or at least a decade-long struggle with cancer -- or why cancer even exists.

But at the bottom, the real question is: how can a Perfect God create imperfect creation? Isn't "perfection" actually the result of the perfect Agent, and not a quality of said Agent? In other words, it would seem to me that our imperfect world points -- at very best -- to an imperfect God.

In short: "How can God be perfect when he created imperfect man?" Or, if you really want to poke 'em in the eye: "Doesn't a perfect carpenter [heh] build perfect cabinets? This'un's pretty crooked."

Comment by: Thumpalumpacus | September 9, 2008, 6:25 pm

Thumpalumpacus
To take this perfection thing to its logical foundation: if God is perfect, and if he inspired the Bible, how can there be ANY questions regarding what is written there? A perfect writer (inspirer) produces a flawless, unquestionable document by definition.

Comment by: Jerryd | September 9, 2008, 9:12 pm

Thumpalumpacus and Jerryd, it is conceivable that a "perfect" being -- however you choose to define the term -- could create something less perfect than they are, or that a perfect work can become less perfect over the course of time. The Christian notion of "The Fall" is an example of the latter, while the Jewish concept of "tzimtzum" is an example of the former.

The real question is whether there is evidence of a perfect being...which of course there is not.

Comment by: DamienSansBlog | September 10, 2008, 10:17 am

"Science SEEKS the truth, Religon claims to HAVE the truth and in the end TRUTH is simply what you believe to be true."

James Nacy II 1999

What Chrisitans and other religons need to understand is in the scientific world THEORY means exactly that! "Its the best explanation we have right now"

Athiests need to realize Faith cannot be broken by fact. "

The Easiest answer for both Athiests and Christians is to go to the core beliefs of what each of you believe in and seperate them from each other. As a Christian for those of us who have read the bible, need to STAY OUT OF SCIENCE and POLITICS! Nowhere in any part of the Bible does it tell us to pickett or bash down ANYTHING! Really Christians, come on, its not OUR job to oppose Embryonic research, or abortions! If you are a man of Science, this could prove useful for a varity of life saving cures, as a Christian, you can deplore it, but it could not have been written more clearly "Let the Rightous be Rightous still, let the Evil be Evil still" or maybe "Let the Wheat grow with the tares util the Harvets" How ever you want to cut it, if your a Christian, Christ plainly tells you it is NOT your place to Judge others, thats his job. Christ NEVER went into the Helenistic schools of learning for the Jewish people built by the Greeks to tell them not to learn what they were teaching from Greek education, he went to the Synagouges and taught the RELIGIOUS people of the day. If the Christians are right, they will make merry at the White Thronw Judgement as all the Scientists are cast into the lake of fire. If the Scientists are right, they will make merry as they cure Cancer, revelutionize space tarvel and all the other wonders of science. So I suggest this, Chrisitians, preach your gospel, if those people do not except it, shake the dust from your feet and move on, you did your duty. Athiests, leave the Christians alone, they arn't hurting you. If it makes a man feel better to get up in the morning and feel he is in the favor of the Divine Creator God, and it helps him lead a more productive life, why try and ruin it for him, it dosent profit you at all. So, if the Christian community wants there kids to be taught something different then what the public schools are teaching, then make your own schools and teach WHATEVER YOU WANT! Its no wonder our country has fallen in Science Education. This is a country of free speach and freedom to believe in whatever religon we want or not to at all, this works BOTH WAYS! I am not opposed to even offering Bible classes in public schools as electives or the like to prep students bound for Theology based colleges . Its only fair, but STAY OUT OF THE SCIENCE DEPARTMENT. In other words "THE BEST WAY FOR US TO GET ALONG IS TO WORK TOGETHER TO STAY APART FROM EACH OTHER."

Comment by: James | September 15, 2008, 3:54 pm

James,

Athiests, leave the Christians alone, they arn't hurting you.

If that were true, I'd be more than happy to leave them alone. Problem is, it's simply not true. There are religious groups that are trying to dominate all others, as you decry in the upper portion of your comment. Beyond that, some religious folks take us into war because god told them to, and that affects all of us. We have homages to god on our currency and in our pledge of allegiance and that negatively affects us. Xians are trying to overturn abortion rights, teach creationism in schools, etc, and that hurts us. So, yeah, Xians are hurting me and everyone else in the country - not all Xians are doing this, mind you, but enough.

So, if the Christian community wants there kids to be taught something different then what the public schools are teaching, then make your own schools and teach WHATEVER YOU WANT!

Who was this aimed at? Xians already have parochial schools, so are you telling atheists to make schools? That would be a ridiculous notion.

Comment by: OMGF | September 16, 2008, 7:17 am

"Recientemente él New York Times publicó un deprimente artículo sobre los obstáculos a los que se enfrentan los profesores de ciencia en las escuelas públicas. (...) Pero la indignación de Mayo superan por mucho todas las anteriores: estudiantes religiosos que han sido programados por sus padres e iglesias para rechazar la evolución y cualquier otra rama de la ciencia que incomoda sus sagradas supersticiones"

http://www.ateosmexicanos.com/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=35

Great post Adam.

Comment by: Juan Felipe | September 16, 2008, 11:34 am

Hi Ebon,

I don't come around here much, and I don't want to be perceived as a troll or an annoyance, but today I came across this post and have to ask you something.

You wrote, "The knowledge that the mind is a physical phenomenon strikes directly at religious belief, far more so than evolution or heliocentrism do."

How so? It seems to me your argument is, "Since man can explain the physicalities of such things, this is evidence against the existence of God."

To clarify - prod neuron X, Y or Z in the subject's brain and I agree you'll get a change - but I don't see how any of this removes or refutes God, or the possibility that consciousness transcends death.

Explaining how some process transpires is not the same as explaining why, if a reason "why" even exists.

Comment by: cl | September 17, 2008, 5:50 pm

To clarify - prod neuron X, Y or Z in the subject's brain and I agree you'll get a change - but I don't see how any of this removes or refutes God, or the possibility that consciousness transcends death.

cl, I think you're making a considerable effort to miss the forest for the trees here.

My point was not in reference to the fact that individual neurons are material objects, but that the mind as a whole demonstrably arises from their collective functioning. By inflicting certain, specific types of brain damage on a person, you can cause predictable changes to their identity and personality. By altering the physical structure of the brain, you can change a person's beliefs, desires, or preferences. You can provoke a person to change their religious beliefs, or lose them altogether; you can destroy the sense of self-control, of judgment, of social consciousness, or of the ability to tell right from wrong.

This is just what we would expect on the hypothesis that the mind is a purely physical phenomenon. It is inexplicable on the hypothesis that the mind is, in whole or in part, a supernatural phenomenon not dependent on the brain. And this, in turn, undermines one of the most central tenets of most religions: the claim that human beings have a soul that survives the death of the body. It also removes any reason we might possibly have for believing that a mind can exist without a body, which is a conclusion that bears directly on the hypothesis of God's existence.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | September 17, 2008, 7:29 pm

Well, I wouldn't call the effort considerable, but..

I agree with your first paragraph completely. But when you say, "It is inexplicable on the hypothesis that the mind is, in whole or in part, a supernatural phenomenon not dependent on the brain."

That's where I disagree. It may not be inexplicable to you, and that (to me) is no grounds to reject the potentiality of a potential "supernatural" component to the human mind. It's similar to creationists who reject the potentiality of evolution because it's inexplicable to them, or because it doesn't jibe with what they think God could / should / would have done.

To clarify, I'll say that so long as we're in a body, mind is dependent on the brain. Further, even if there is a "supernatural" (I hate that word) phenomenon behind the mind, this would not conflict with your assertions here. In other words, I guess I'm saying I think you present a false dichotomy.

I'm simply saying that the facts you point out, that we can alter behavior by prodding neurons for example, do not support the conclusion that consciousness cannot exist outside of a physical brain.

They do support the conclusion that our thoughts and our brains are inextricably intertwined.

Comment by: cl | September 17, 2008, 7:43 pm

To clarify, I'll say that so long as we're in a body, mind is dependent on the brain.

So you agree with me that any aspect of consciousness can be altered or terminated by destroying the corresponding part of the brain. I believe that, given this starting point, it's a straightforward inductive conclusion that the total destruction of the brain results in the total destruction of consciousness.

Or take it another way. Let's say we enumerate all the various regions of the brain, labeling them A through Z, and all the various aspects of consciousness, labeling them A' through Z'. We're agreed that when you destroy brain region A, you remove aspect of consciousness A'. Destroy brain region B, and you remove aspect of consciousness B', and so on. Given these facts, I conclude that when all brain regions, A through Z, are destroyed, then all aspects of consciousness, A' through Z', are destroyed as well. But in your case, although you agree with every individual step of this reasoning, you disagree with the conclusion. That belief does violence to basic principles of logic.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | September 17, 2008, 7:58 pm

Within this domain, we have empirically observed that the mind is dependent on the brain. As Ebonmuse shows, this means it cannot "survive" death, although technically there's no contradiction with logical or empirical facts in the idea that it is resurrected after death in some other domain. There's also technically no contradiction in the idea that a Teapot orbits in the Asteroid Belt.

If there's some kind of "black box" component to the mind, we have yet to see it in any way. And shouldn't all the other known components in the mind - identity, personality, cognition, memory, mood, etc. - be very religiously significant? Either these aspects of the mind have no religious bearing in salvation and afterlife, or there should be important religious implications for mere physical processes. Both of these mutually exhaustive hypotheses are damaging to religious belief. In the end, neuroscience strains religious belief.

Comment by: Brad | September 17, 2008, 9:39 pm

Ebon, you say, "Given these facts, I conclude that when all brain regions, A through Z, are destroyed, then all aspects of consciousness, A' through Z', are destroyed as well." Again, I don't have much a problem with that. When you remove / terminate region A, B, C or whatever, of course there's going to be a physical effect. Kill brain regions A-Z and of course my consciousness will cease - does that mean it ceases forever? My argument is that these facts do nothing to 'disprove' or even confront the idea that our consciousness can transcend death. All your proving is that within this domain, changes in brain chemistry alter consciousness to one degree or another, and I say so what?

What I don't see is how any of that poses a threat to religion or God or whatever. You and Brad argue that neuroscience strains religious belief, but I find the argument unconvincing. Tell me why. Tell me what current neurological findings contradict the idea of God, or the possibility of consciousness transcending death?

I think Brad unintentionally echoed my argument when he said, "...technically there's no contradiction with logical or empirical facts in the idea that it (consciousness) is resurrected after death in some other domain."

His statement sits perfectly well with your argument, too.

Comment by: cl | September 17, 2008, 10:24 pm

Kill brain regions A-Z and of course my consciousness will cease - does that mean it ceases forever? My argument is that these facts do nothing to 'disprove' or even confront the idea that our consciousness can transcend death.

What do you mean by saying that consciousness can "transcend" death?

I think it's well established that consciousness is dependent on the proper functioning of the brain, and that there is absolutely no reason to believe in any aspect of consciousness that can persist past the physical dissolution of the body. That alone is sufficient to disprove a belief - the existence of a non-corporeal, rational soul that can be separated from the body, and more generally, the existence of such a substance as "spirit" - that is fundamental to most of this planet's major religions. If your belief is sufficiently different from theirs that it's not affected by this argument, then please feel free to explain in more detail what you're proposing.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | September 18, 2008, 12:22 am

That "consciousness is dependent on the proper functioning of the brain" does not directly support your conclusion that "There is absolutely no reason to believe in any aspect of consciousness that can persist past the physical dissolution of the body."

IMO, nothing in this post or thread supports that conclusion; as stated it's an unfalsifiable construct.

Comment by: cl | September 18, 2008, 1:18 am

That "consciousness is dependent on the proper functioning of the brain" does not directly support your conclusion that "There is absolutely no reason to believe in any aspect of consciousness that can persist past the physical dissolution of the body."

IMO, nothing in this post or thread supports that conclusion; as stated it's an unfalsifiable construct.

Two words: "Occam's Razor."

Comment by: Alex Weaver | September 18, 2008, 2:14 am

Ebon,

I wasn't sure where to put it, and didn't see a link to email you on the original page, but I have taken a stab at your essay titled, "Theist's Guide To Converting Atheists."

It's currently the top post on my blog, and thank you for letting me express myself here.

Alex,

and your point?

Comment by: cl | September 18, 2008, 2:35 am

... there is absolutely no reason to believe ...

But there's still a logical possibility (just like with hovering pasta), and that is the point cl is making. (I intentionally made this point, cl. Don't read past my words.) It is still unreasonable to believe it, by parsimony (to echo Alex).

What I don't see is how any of that poses a threat to religion or God or whatever. You and Brad argue that neuroscience strains religious belief, but I find the argument unconvincing. Tell me why. Tell me what current neurological findings contradict the idea of God, or the possibility of consciousness transcending death?

How does it strain religious belief in God? I'll just quote Ebonmuse's essay A Ghost in the Machine:

For example, why would God create an immutable soul-nature and then make it subject to the changeable and imperfect nature of a fallible material body, and judge it for the actions committed by that body? Why do we even need such bodies, if at best they can only allow the true nature of the soul to shine through unaltered, and at worst obscure it? Are we to believe that, for example, in a person with Capgras syndrome, their soul recognizes their parents and friends and wants to respond with love and affection, but is prevented from doing so by the flawed brain which instead instructs their body to angrily denounce them as impostors? This raises the question of in what sense the soul can be said to control the body at all. Even in people without neurological disorders, the desires of a flawed material body can compel the soul to commit sins: greed, gluttony, lust, anger. Under materialism such conditions make perfect sense - we are our bodies - but no theist yet has explained God's rationale for imprisoning our souls in bodies and holding them responsible for the uncontrollable irrationalities of those bodies. As the Christian Gospel of Matthew says in verse 26:41, "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." Exactly.

Comment by: Brad | September 18, 2008, 9:07 am

Also, cl, I gave a brief comment on your site. You might be interested in checking it out.

Comment by: Brad | September 18, 2008, 1:23 pm

Jesus healed a leper and a blind man. He cast out evil spirits, from one man and raised one dead child from the dead.

Jesus was God or the Son of God.

Why not cure leprosy and cataracts. Why are mental hospitals full and dead children stay dead.

In the light of his supposed omnipotence why are Christians satisfied that he did so little; how far would medicine have advanced if scientists were so timid.

Comment by: Mike Cleverley | October 9, 2008, 7:40 pm

Great questions! A nice, concise selection of issues. Thanks for doing this.

Comment by: Neece | October 9, 2008, 9:28 pm

Am I missing something? Are you seriously suggesting that neuroscientists can explain how the physical workings of the brain translate into conscious thought, memory, creativity? To imply that just because we know what the destruction of a structure results in change in behavior means that every brain function can be physically explained I find unconvincing. I'm not saying that one day these might be understood, but what we know today does not necessarily prove a purely mechanistic understanding of behavior, morality, etc...

Comment by: Jay | October 10, 2008, 12:55 am

Jay,

I don't think anyone is suggesting we have the brain understood that well yet. What's being claimed is that because consciousness can in principle be explained mechanistically it has the edge on dualistic "explanations," which cannot be proved or disproved even in conjecture. At the very least, in light of this, no one can insist we buy into dualism, given the evidence before us.

Comment by: mikespeir | October 10, 2008, 7:09 am

Very quick answer because I don't have time to do an extensive bible study. Many of these questions can be easily answered by correct Bible exegesis. Do you know how to properly interpret sacred scripture? Quick answer....probably not. Have you studied theology?, ancient languages?, sacred scripture? How are you on early Church history? Do you even know how the bible came to be? I've been working at all of this for the past 1.5 years at a Catholic Seminary (the Catholic church did produce the bible so why not learn how to read the book properly by asking the church who produced it) I also have a degree in medical science. I can tell you there is a LOT more involved in correct Biblical exegesis than merely taking passages out of context and interpreting each of them literally. Each passage of scripture has to be put into correct historical context. You also have to consider the author and the types of literary devices used. Fundamentally, you have to put all this ...and much much more... together to get to the heart of what that particular author of that passage of that book of the bible was trying to convey. Then this is put into context of the whole bible. Then there multiple 'senses' of scripture meaning that each passage may convey meainings on different levels (literal, spiritual and so on). There is also a LOT more to Theology than God created everything and be nice to people. In studying Theology you are also schooled in subjects such as philosophy and logic. All this nonsense about Science and Faith being in opposition to each other is such garbage. Certain popular atheists keep trying to argue this old and tired fallacous argument. Nothing I have learned in my studies at the seminary has caused me to abandon my knowledge in science. Please. That's such a tired argument.

I cringe when I see these so called stumper questions from atheists concerning theology or Sacred Scripture. BTW, these questions are nothing that a 1st year Theology student or seminarian couldn't answer. The problem is that most of you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Theology or Sacred Scripture. If you did, then there wouldn't be lists like this. I know you hate hearing that but swallow some pride and admit the truth. You aren't going to understand a Chemistry book without ever having taken a science class. If you are going to attack the Bible or Catholicism or Theology, attack it for what it really teaches and WHY it teaches any particular thing. The way Christianity is portrayed by popular atheist apologists and like minded people is so far off from the truth it's no wonder people make lists like this. Study some theology or learn how to interpret scripture the way it was meant to be interpreted. You may want to ask the Church who produced the bible.

Comment by: passing through | October 10, 2008, 3:49 pm

Passing through,

I suspect you've already "passed through" and we won't see you again. That's convenient for you, because, frankly, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Speaking for myself, I was a Christian from childhood until I was 48. I taught the Bible for years. Implications of questions like these caused me to abandon my faith. I'm hardly alone here. We've heard from the best apologists Christianity has to offer, not just first year seminary students, and remain convinced that they're kidding themselves. To be blunt, if you see shallowness here, the shallowness probably resides within yourself. You're simply not grasping the deeper implications.

Comment by: mikespeir | October 11, 2008, 11:18 am

Thanks to Passing Through I've come up with a couple:
Why does

Each passage of scripture has (have) to be put into correct historical context.

?
And why do

You also have to consider the author and the types of literary devices used

?
You'd think an omnimax god would have been less ambiguous surely?

Comment by: Steve Bowen | October 11, 2008, 3:40 pm

Passing Through, first you say that to correctly study the Bible we have to study context and history as well. I agree with this wholeheartedly. We only differ in our conclusions on this matter. I don't think, as Steve Bowen here says, that we have to rationalize God's alleged actions and teachings based upon the history surrounding the Israelites, though. We have to be open to the possibility that the Hebrews just had an invented god they worshiped.

In studying Theology you are also schooled in subjects such as philosophy and logic. All this nonsense about Science and Faith being in opposition to each other is such garbage.

But faith is independent of evidence and reason. You can have faith in true or false things just the same! To discern what to have "faith" in, you have to do some free-thinking based upon empirical evidence and rational reason. If you just go where your heart leads you, you're believing based upon wishfull-thinking. If you think the Catholic Church has a good intellectual standing and so we should trust it, then that is believing based upon authority.

I cringe when I see these so called stumper questions from atheists concerning theology or Sacred Scripture. BTW, these questions are nothing that a 1st year Theology student or seminarian couldn't answer.

So you cringe because of our ignorance? You may not have time to do "extensive Bible study," but if these questions could be answered by a year of study in theology (which you say you have), then why not answer them here? We atheists have been told time and time again that we are stubborn and ignorant, but you have not provided answers for these questions. I do not agree we are ignorant. Many of us, like mikespeir apparently, were heavily involved in religion, theology, and Bible-study for quite some time before doubting and deconverting. You might be interested in reading some of Ebon Musings, or even better yet, presenting it to the Catholic Seminary so that we can get real answers.

Questions 1,3,4,6,7 are based on correct Biblical interpretation and agree with Christianity's theology. The other questions utilize more than just the teachings - they correspond to facts of reality that are contradictory to or suspiciously unexplainable by Christianity. Like I said before,

I wouldn't say your questions aren't without attempted answers, but in total they seriously challenge any believer to think holistically and try and actually understand what they believe. That's an important catalyst for open-mindedness, setup for confrontation with personal beliefs, and ultimately a seed of doubt.

Comment by: Brad | October 11, 2008, 4:23 pm