Monthly Archives: May 2015

Video From 5/20/15 Debate at WWU

Posted on by

Let me give the final bits to the debate last week.

Here are the opening remarks of my partner, blogger, author, and psychologist Valerie Tarico.

I prefer to listen to debates like this as audio only. If you’re like me, here is the audio (62MB), though the audio quality is better in the video.

Other posts about the debate:

Here’s the video. Note that the quality goes up to 1080p (use the settings gear in the bottom-right to adjust).

I pray a simple prayer every morning.
It’s an ecumenical prayer.
Whether you’re Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu,
I think it speaks to the heart of every faith.
It goes “Lord please break the laws of the universe
for my convenience. Amen.”
—  Emo Philips

Debate Results!

Posted on by

We played to a packed house last night—about 550 people, including some friends who made the long drive up from Seattle. I don’t know what the special sauce was that made it happen, but Western Washington University had lots of students interested in the debate question, “Does God Exist?” They seemed a lot more engaged than that they were there just for extra credit.

I gave more information about the debate here. I expect to have access to the video in a few days and will make that available when I do.

The debate

The debate went as I suspected, with our Christian opponents avoiding the typical arguments that I hear from the conservative Protestant apologists—the Moral Argument, Design Argument, Transcendental Argument, Ontological Argument, Argument for the Truth of the New Testament, Fine Tuning Argument, Argument from Prophecy, Cosmological Argument, Who Would Die for a Lie? and so on.

I’ll let the debate video speak for itself, but let me give a quick summary of the Christian side. This presumably is a Catholic vs. Evangelical thing, but our opponents were pretty easy to agree with. To give you a flavor of what we were up against, here are some of their points:

  • Proofs for God don’t work
  • “God” has many definitions, and the God who scolded Saul for not killing enough Amalekites is not my god.
  • God is that whisper of something important in life; God is behind the wonder you see in a Hubble telescope image.
  • God is a mystery. Don’t think you have him figured out.

You can imagine how an atheist would object to some of this, but at least the Christian position wasn’t strident. The Catholic church meddles ineptly in some social issues (abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriage, for example) but that is mercifully a subset of the problems caused by some fundamentalist Protestants.

My debate approach is always to give some challenging arguments for atheism, preferably arguments that they are unlikely to have heard before. I’ve explored a couple of dozen in this blog, and the ones I picked for this debate were:

  1. Historians reject the Bible story
  2. Mormonism beats Christianity
  3. Because there’s a map of world religions
  4. God has no impact on reality

The results!

The debate used Oxford voting, which means that votes were taken before and after. The audience could decide between Yes God exists, No God doesn’t exist, and Undecided. The audience began with 18% undecided and the rest 3:1 in favor of God. Afterwards, some of the Undecideds had migrated. The official result was a 2% increase for the Affirmative (God exists) side and 3% for the Negative side. Go team!

If one believes that there is an omnipotent deity,
one can therefore believe absolutely anything else,
for everything else is thereby made possible.
— Descartes by A.C. Grayling

Christians Move the Goalposts When They Can’t Win Honestly

Posted on by

Christian apologists often bring up unresolved scientific questions and usually conclude with, “Well, if you can’t answer that question, Christianity can! Clearly, God did it.”

Consider questions like: Why is there something rather than nothing? What came before the Big Bang? Why does the universe look fine-tuned for life? How did life come from nonlife?

If you can’t answer those, the Christian can.

Admittedly, there is no scientific consensus on these questions. But a century ago, Christian apologists pointed to different questions if they wanted to put science in the hot seat: Okay, Science, if you’re so smart, how could heredity be transmitted from just one tiny cell? What causes cancer? Where did the universe come from?

And centuries before that, the questions were: What causes lightning? Plague? Drought? Earthquakes?

But not only is science the sole discipline that has ever provided answers to questions like these—real answers, I mean, not made-up ones—increasingly only science can uncover the questions. That is, the apologist pretends to inform science of questions that science discovered itself.

If in hindsight “God did it” was a foolish response to the questions of previous centuries—the cause of lightning and disease, for example—why offer it now? Why expect the results to be any different when every single one of the last thousand natural mysteries have been unraveled by science rather than with the Bible? Why would the Christian think that today might be his lucky day? Wouldn’t it be wise to learn from the past and be a little hesitant to stake God’s existence on the gamble that science will finally come up short?

What’s especially maddening is science-y apologists like William Lane Craig putting on an imaginary lab coat and ineptly fiddling with beakers and turning dials, playing scientist like a child playing house. He imagines himself strutting into a community of befuddled scientists and saying with a chuckle, “Okay, fellas, Christianity can take it from here” and seeing them breathe a sigh of relief that the cavalry has finally come to bail them out of their intellectual predicament. He imagines that he can better answer questions that his discipline couldn’t even formulate.

This reminds me of the fable about Science scaling the highest peak of knowledge. After much difficulty, Science finally summits and is about to plant his flag when he looks over and sees Theology and Philosophy sitting there, looking at him. “What took you so long?” one of them says. “We’ve been here for centuries.”

Uh, yeah, Theology and Philosophy can invent claims, but Science does it the hard way—it actually uncovers the facts and makes the testable hypotheses. It gets to the summit step by careful step along the route of Evidence rather than floating there on a lavender cloud of imagination and wishful thinking. Religion is like the dog that walks under the ox and thinks that he is pulling the cart.

Religion will deserve more respect when it begins to teach us new things about reality like science does every day.

To the Christians who think that science’s unanswered questions make their point, I say: make a commitment. Publicly state that this issue (pick something—abiogenesis or the cause of the Big Bang or fine tuning or whatever) is the hill that you will fight to the death on. Man up, commit to it, and impose consequences. Say, “I publicly declare that God must be the resolution to this question. A scientific consensus will never find me wrong or else I will drop my faith.”

If the Christian fails to do this (or rather, when he fails to do this), he then admits that when his celebrated question du jour is resolved, he’ll discard it like a used tissue and find another in science’s long list of unanswered questions. He admits that his argument devolves to, “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God.” He admits that this is just a rhetorical device, stated only for show, rather than being a serious argument.

He’ll just move the goalposts. Again.

In science it often happens that scientists say, 
“You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,”
and then they actually change their minds 
and you never hear that old view from them again. 
They really do it. 
It doesn’t happen as often as it should, 
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. 
But it happens every day. 
I cannot recall the last time something like that 
happened in politics or religion. 
— Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/28/12.)

Image credit: grassrootsgroundswell, flickr, CC

Upcoming Debate: Does God Exist?

Posted on by

debateIf you’re in the greater Seattle area, you may want to attend an upcoming debate on the topic “Does God Exist?” The organizers recently had to find a new venue because the original 400-seat lecture hall would be too small, so it should be a lively evening.

The debate will use a two-on-two format, like that used by Intelligence Squared debates. Each of the speakers will make a 10-minute opening. Next, in the same order, a 3-minute rebuttal. There will be Q&A, with the moderator asking questions submitted in writing by the audience. And finally, two minutes each for closing remarks.

Oxford voting will be used, which means that votes (Agree, Disagree, or Undecided) will be taken before and after. The change in the tally will determine the winner. (To please the audience, I’ll have to be on my best behavior!)

Opponents

My partner on the negative side of the question will be psychologist Dr. Valerie Tarico. A former evangelical, she explores her own past and the way out in Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light. Her excellent video series “God’s Emotions” puts God on the couch to see why God (or the marionette known as God) acts the way he does. Her knowledge of psychology, important to understanding so many aspects of Christianity, will be a great compliment my more argumentative style.

Our two opponents are from Seattle University, a Jesuit institution. Dr. Mark Markuly is the Dean of the School of Theology and Ministry, and Rev. Mike Raschko Ph.D is a professor of Catholic Systematic Theology.

Details

Date and Time: Wednesday, May 20 at 7:30pm

Location: Performing Arts Center (PAC) Concert Hall, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA (directions)

It will be recorded, and I’ll make a link available as soon as I get it.

[In theology,] expertise is demonstrated
not by mastering knowledge about the divine,
but mastering speculations that other people have made about the divine.
As ex-preacher Dan Barker likes to say,
“Theology is a subject without an object.
Theologians don’t study God;
they study what other theologians have said about God.”
— Jerry Coyne

Image credit: Wonderlane, flickr, CC

Christian Book of the Year? A Diet Book.

Posted on by

Christian book of the year Rick WarrenThe Evangelical Christian Publishers Association announced its book of the year. For 2015, it was a diet book, Rick Warren’s The Daniel Plan.

Warren’s goal

Warren says that he was inspired to focus on diet while baptizing overweight parishioners a few years ago. He challenged his congregation, enormous in both weight and number, to get healthier. They lost a total of a quarter of a million pounds.

And now he is promoting a new diet inspired by the Old Testament prophet Daniel.

What does Daniel say about diet?

The book of Daniel mentions diet twice. It begins with Daniel and his companions sent as captives from Judah to Babylon to serve in the court of king Nebuchadnezzar. They were offered the same food as the king ate, but Daniel asked for just vegetables and water instead. Their guard feared for his own safety—if these Judeans looked unhealthy, the king would blame him—but Daniel challenged him to a test. They would eat this simple diet for ten days, and the guard could judge. After the test, they did looked better, as promised.

Years later, Daniel had another diet encounter. Chapter 10 says that he fasted for three weeks because of a distressing vision he had been given. This was a no-luxuries fast, not a no-calories fast (“I ate no choice food; no meat or wine came to my lips”).

This fast had nothing to do with health, since it was either involuntary from mourning or aimed at spiritual purification, though you’ll find 3.5 million sites on google using the search phrase “Daniel fast.”

What does Rick Warren say about diet?

If we follow Daniel’s lead, we’ll be vegans, eating only vegetables. Warren’s medical advisors unsurprisingly ignored that. Meat is still on the menu, and the diet emphasizes fruits and vegetables, organic and unprocessed food, exercise, and a support group.

Warren says that Jesus cared about more than getting people into heaven; he cared about their health as well. In an interview at the book launch in 2013, Warren quotes John 3:16, about God giving Jesus to the world.

It’s a generosity verse. I say you can give without loving, but you cannot love without giving. If you want to become a loving person, you have to learn to give. You spell love G-I-V-E.

Okay, I get it. Americans are overweight. They eat unhealthy food. Warren is a giving person in an influential position, and he wants to do something to help. If he can wrap a diet in a tasty Christian coating, he can do some good.

I’m beginning to like this idea.

So let me anticipate Warren’s approach. He’ll get some nutritionists to create a healthy and sustainable diet, he’ll give it a Christian spin, he’ll make the diet freely available from his web site, and then he’ll use his influence to highlight the project. Maybe he’ll make it available as a free ebook.

Why let profit get in the way of so important a project? Remember, this is the guy who famously reverse-tithes (giving 90% to the church and keeping 10%, rather than the other way around) because of sales of his enormously popular The Purpose Driven Life.

The Rick Warren plan

Wrong. Warren’s The Daniel Plan is not a giveaway. It’s a book, available in a handsome hardcover edition on Amazon for just $13.98. Or as a CD for the low, low price of $9.05. Or Audible for $11.95. Or Kindle for $7.99. Buy one or buy them all!

But don’t stop there. There’s also the study guide ($10.79 paperback and $7.75 Kindle), meant to be used with the DVD ($18.92). And don’t leave without buying the journal ($12.52 hardcover or $9.75 Kindle). And what diet program would be complete without the cookbook? That’s $18.96 hardcover or $11.99 Kindle. There’s also a 365 Day devotional, a “Jumpstart Guide” to get you going, and campaign kits to help launch the program in a church. And there’s a workout CD with workout shirts, Spanish translations, and books by lots of other opportunistic authors.

So perhaps instead of “You spell love G-I-V-E” as the guiding principle, the Warren strategists figured that a book combining religion and diet would be a financial marriage made in heaven.

I expected to see a diet packaged as a Christian directive. Instead, it’s a lucrative franchise masquerading as a Christian charity.

The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, 
who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door, 
and deny Him by their lifestyle. 
That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
— Brennan Manning

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/2/13.)

Image credit: Tony Alter, flickr, CC

You Say Miracles Happen? Show Me.

Posted on by

In an interview on the “Christian Meets World” podcast, Dr. Gary Habermas talked excitedly about the evidence for miracles. He claimed that eight million Americans have had near-death experiences. And if you’re open to this evidence, why not that for the resurrection of Jesus? They’re the same afterlife, after all.

Habermas cited Dr. Craig Keener’s Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2011), in which are documented hundreds of recent miracle claims. Some miracles have MRI evidence documenting the before and after medical conditions. In one instance a spleen was surgically removed but then reappeared after prayer. Habermas guesses that there are 100 million miracle reports from around the world.

When Habermas debates atheists and brings up this evidence, famous atheists have no comebacks. They’ll handwave but have nothing better than, “Well, people report crazy things.”

These are bold statements that Habermas is making. Provocative statements. In fact, I feel a challenge coming on.

I publicly challenge Drs. Keener or Habermas to pick their favorite miracle claim and submit it for public analysis.

Gentlemen: out of the hundreds of claims in this book or the millions of claims worldwide, take your best-evidenced claim for a miracle. This wouldn’t be something that’s a known puzzle for modern science (cancer that went away for no obvious reason, for example) but something that science says can’t happen—maybe an amputated limb that grows back. Forget the hundreds of claims; bring the evidence for just your best one.

I see four possible outcomes of such a public critique.

1. The evidence is not researchable. Not all of the evidence exists or it’s impossible to access, or for some other reason a complete story can’t be put together. Maybe records have been destroyed, red tape prevents them from being accessed, the documentation is written in Turkmen or Quechua or some other difficult foreign language, or witnesses are inaccessible or deceased.

2. The evidence crumbles. In this case, we have a complete story, but the evidence isn’t sufficiently reliable. We can’t be sure that records weren’t deliberately tampered with or memories haven’t faded. Maybe we have the statement of just one person without corroboration or a claim from someone without the relevant qualifications (a layman making a medical diagnosis, for example). Maybe human error can’t be ruled out (inadvertently putting the x-ray from patient X into the folder for patient Y, for example).

3. We find a plausible natural explanation. That story about the spleen that was removed and then reappeared? Spleens can grow back. Amputated limbs that regrow? There have been such claims—the 1640 “Miracle of Calanda” is one example—but, as Skeptoid has shown, natural explanations are sufficient to explain the evidence for this claim. Or the “Miracle of Lanciano,” another with a natural explanation. Near-death experience? Science understands much of what happens as the brain becomes starved of oxygen (see Scientific American, Popular Science). Prayer that stopped an epidemic? I reported on one such claim (“Claims that Prayer Cures Disease”), but the epidemic had run its course by the time prayer started.

Any plausible natural explanation defeats the miracle claim.

4. We have a complete case, and natural explanations are less plausible than a miraculous explanation. This is the happy outcome that Habermas expects.

After public analysis of the Best Claim, I predict that we would see outcome 1, 2, or 3. And once we do, my next prediction is that Messrs. K. and H. will drop that claim like a used tissue and burrow through their files for another one.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Over and over. “Oh, you don’t like that claim? Not a problem—I got plenty more.”

As with UFO sightings, lots of crappy evidence doesn’t equal a little good evidence. It’s just a big pile of crappy evidence.

Gentlemen, I encourage you to respond to my challenge. You know how to reach me. That you spend your time writing books and giving interviews aimed at fellow believers convinces me that you know the evidence won’t stand up to scrutiny. Science hasn’t been convinced in the past, so why imagine it will now? No, the miracle claims are just superstition with a brittle coating of science.

Messrs. K. and H. assure the public 
their production will be second to none.
— The Beatles, “Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite”

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/26/12.)

Image credit: JOPHIELsmiles, flickr, CC