Author Archives: Bob Seidensticker

About Bob Seidensticker

I'm an atheist, and I like to discuss Christian apologetics.

What Is a “Real Man,” According to the Bible?

Posted on by

What makes a “real man”? We’ve all seen light-hearted rules like real men don’t cry, real men don’t eat quiche, real men don’t let other men eat quiche, and so on. James Dobson’s Family Talk site has a page that claims to have God’s rules for how to be a true man of God. The author summarizes the goal this way: “My wife and kids need a real man, not some wimpy guy that rides the ever-changing cultural tides of our times.”

Here’s that list, built on the rock of the Bible.

God’s Real Man List

  1. Real men don’t leave their wives. See Ephesians 5:25-32, Mark 10:9, Job 31:1
  2. Real men honor their wives as co-heirs. See 1 Peter 3:7
  3. Real men teach their children God’s ways (both in word and in action). See Deuteronomy 6:6-7, Ephesians 6:4, Psalm 78:5-7
  4. Real men build into the lives of other men. See Proverbs 27:17
  5. Real men don’t use their words to demean others. See Ephesians 4:29
  6. Real men don’t let their anger get away from them. See James 1:19-20
  7. Real men lead best when they love most. See Ephesians 5:1-2; John 13:34-35
  8. Real men are sacrificial for the sake of their Lord, family, and others. See John 15:13
  9. Real men are servants. See Mark 10:45
  10. Real men can show their emotions (this includes crying). See John 11:35, Matthew 21:12, Matthew 9:36

 

But why this list? Don’t forget that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). You really can’t go wrong when pulling Iron Age biblical examples into the 21st century, amirite, Dr. Dobson?

So, with that wind of certitude filling our sails, let’s look further in the Bible to see what else it says and make a new list, 10 More Traits of Real Men.

1. Real men don’t get married

The list above has at least two rules about men’s relationship with their wives, but Paul had no use for marriage:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry (1 Corinthians 7:8–9).

You can rationalize this one away by saying that Paul wrongly thought that the End was coming soon, but what’s left of your faith when you must say that the books of the New Testament are seriously wrong?

2. Real men listen to God over common-sense morality

God made some crazy demands in the Bible. Christians, what would it take for God to convince you to accept a modern equivalent of these demands?

  • Abraham accepted God’s demand that he sacrifice his son Isaac (more).
  • After discovering the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf, Moses commanded the Levites to punish fellow Israelites: “Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor,” and 3000 were killed (Exodus 32:26–29).
  • God demanded human sacrifice: “The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal” (Exodus 13:2). More.
  • God demanded that Babylon be punished, with the Israelites as executioners: “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished” (Isaiah 13:15–16).
  • God demanded genocide. He said that within the tribes that must be destroyed, “you shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy 20:16–18) and that, for the Amalekites, Israel should “put to death men and women, children and infants” (1 Samuel 15:2–3). More here, here, and here.

I realize that we’re made in God’s image and that our sense of morality should line up with God’s, but forget that. A real man does what God says, regardless of how it immoral it seems.

3. Real men know that daughters can be sacrificed

In his younger days, God wasn’t omniscient, so he had to send scouts to Sodom to verify the rumors he’d heard. Lot protected these angels from the angry mob eager to teach these strangers who’s boss by raping them. Lot is portrayed as a godly man, though he doesn’t look very godly after he offered his two virgin daughters to the mob as a rape substitute. More.

4. Real men throw the first stone if their friend or relative strays

Suppose a friend suggests that you worship another God. Now imagine that it’s your best friend, or that it’s a family member, maybe a child or your wife. How should you respond?

Forget that freedom of religion is protected by the U.S. Constitution; things work differently in the Bible’s little world.

Do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God (Deuteronomy 13:6–11; see also Deut. 32:41–2, Exodus 22:20).

Concluded in part 2.

There have been nearly 3000 gods so far
but only yours actually exists.
The others are silly made up nonsense.
But not yours. Yours is real.
— Ricky Gervais

.

Image from Victor B., CC license
.

20 Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, Rebutted (Part 2)

Posted on by

We’re looking at popular arguments against same-sex marriage (and a few that are just anti-gay). Conservative radio host Frank Turek provides most of the material. (Part 1 here.)

5. Think of the babies!

Frank has an odd but popular view of what marriage is.

The real reason governments have an interest in promoting natural marriage [is] because only natural marriage perpetuates and stabilizes society. Strong marriage laws encourage men and women to procreate and then stay together to mother and father their children.

First off, Frank seems confused about cause and effect. Children are important to society, but give credit where it’s due. It’s sex that makes babies, not marriage. Two people might barely know each other but still start the baby-making process in five minutes, which has very little to do with what we think of as marriage.

Second, Jesus is portrayed in the Bible as the metaphorical husband married to the church. The ideas of joy, love, and protection are used when discussing this marriage, never making babies. Frank needs to explain why his definition is at odds with that in the Bible.

Third, it’s true that government makes laws that protect and encourage stable families. However, there’s a lot more to marriage than just children. For example, society makes laws about divorce, spousal abuse, care of elderly, taxes, control of assets when a spouse is imprisoned or incapacitated, the definition of common law marriage, inheritance, and more that affect marriages with or without children.

Fourth, Frank now has a fun slogan: “it’s not bigotry—it’s biology!” Don’t blame him; we’re bound by the realities of nature. But if it’s all about the biology, wouldn’t you expect to see this biology made plain in marriage vows or in the state’s marriage certificate? The silence screams volumes.

Let’s be consistent about the children. If marriage is all about making and raising children, then don’t offer marriage to straight couples who don’t or won’t or can’t have children. Give a willing couple five years, say, and if they don’t produce, yank the marriage license. Or consider another example: my wife and I won’t be making any more children, so do we deserve to still be married?

If you’re okay with childless straight couples, then be consistent and support gay couples with no interest in children. And if your focus is on the children, support the 40,000 children in California living with same-sex parents, prohibited until recently from getting married.

Frank again:

Children raised in biological two-parent homes tend to do better and cause society much less trouble than children raised in other situations

We probably describe the perfect household in a similar way, but just because we prefer a home with loving parents, financial security, a safe neighborhood, excellent schools, and good job opportunities doesn’t mean that that exists for every child. But if children’s environment is truly a concern, why not focus on what we all agree degrades that environment—urban decay, poverty, drugs, domestic violence, gangs, and so on? Why does Frank focus solely on the sex of the parents? I’m beginning to suspect that this concern for children is just a smokescreen.

And let’s not be too quick to rank mom-and-dad households over households with same-sex parents. One study came to the opposite conclusion. That doesn’t resolve the issue, but Frank’s assumption that same-sex households are significantly worse is at least debatable. Anyway, that’s irrelevant—if a woman got divorced, has custody of her child, and is now a lesbian (to take one example), the argument “But your family would be better with a man” is irrelevant.

And I’m surprised at Frank’s preference for biological parents. Doesn’t that undercut adoption as the conservative solution to unwanted pregnancies?

6. Homosexuality is harmful!

Don’t blame Frank for the facts of nature, he says. He reminds us that babies only come from male/female sex (which is clumsy sleight of hand to make us think that the topic is sex rather than marriage).

And then this:

I didn’t make up the fact that we all have desires we ought not act on, regardless if we are born with those desires.

He expands on this idea:

If you are born with a genetic predisposition to alcohol, does that mean God wants you to be an alcoholic? If someone has a genetic attraction to children, does that mean God wants you to be a pedophile? . . .

For the sake of civilization, we all need to restrain our destructive behaviors.

Sure, we have desires we shouldn’t act on—harmful ones. The problem for Frank’s argument is that he does nothing to argue that homosexual desires are harmful.

Continued in part 3.

It’s all about the children.
— what no marriage vow says

.
(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/7/15.)

Image credit: Joost Assink, CC
.

Science and Christianity: A Dangerous Mixture

Posted on by

What is the overlap between science and Christianity? Let’s contrast an old-school theologian’s approach to science with what passes for an honest following of the scientific evidence today.

Old school approach

Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest and cosmologist, suggested that the universe is expanding before there was any measurement of it, and he proposed what became the Big Bang theory. Years later, in 1951, the pope celebrated the Big Bang as scientific support for God’s declaration in Genesis, “Let there be light.” Science was providing evidence for Christianity!

Lemaître soon corrected the pope, so the story goes, arguing that it’s unwise for Christians to mix science and religion. He was making a “live by the sword, die by the sword” argument: if you embrace science when it can be used to point to God, consistency demands you also admit every place where science argues against God. These would be, for example, where science provides natural explanations well supported by evidence that make God unnecessary. Scientific conclusions can change, he argued, so don’t imagine that a pleasing result is immoveable granite on which you can build your Christian worldview.

Modern apologists

Evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, and more apparently didn’t get the memo. Unconcerned about the consequences, they eagerly point to science-based arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Design Argument, and the Fine-Tuning Argument. The last thing they would do is say, “If you show my scientific claims to be false, then I will no longer believe.” (They don’t even say, “If you show my scientific claims to be false, I won’t use them anymore”!) For them, scientific claims are, like Donald Trump’s associates, celebrated when useful and discarded like a used tissue when not.

Lemaître said that a scientific foundation demands a commitment. If a scientific conclusion were a part of his religious foundation, then his faith should be shaken if that conclusion were overturned. His solution: don’t make it part of your foundation. Contrast that with modern apologists’ solution, which is to discard any no-longer-helpful foundational claims and hope no one notices. In fact, the science never was part of the foundation of their beliefs—their foundation is unfalsifiable. They just trot the science out and hope that someone else would make it part of their foundation.

I see two possibilities. One is that these modern apologists agree with Lemaître that these scientific arguments shouldn’t support their own Christian belief (despite pushing those arguments on others). The other possibility is that there’s some cognitive dissonance in which they simultaneously take support from the scientific arguments while making their own faith unshakable if those arguments later fail.

Lemaître was consistent—these arguments didn’t support his faith, and he discouraged anyone from pushing them on others. Ah, for the old days. . . .

Consistency for apologists?

Apologists throw puzzles at atheists like “What caused abiogenesis?” or “What caused the Big Bang?” or “How can you explain the fine tuning of the universe?” Scientists have tentative answers (such as “We have intriguing ideas but nothing definite,” “Quantum events like the Big Bang don’t need causes,” and “The multiverse,” respectively), and when the consensus becomes strong enough, the apologists will ignore those puzzles and look for more. But being an apologist means never having to say you’re sorry, and they never let evidence against their position ruin their day. Their belief is unfalsifiable, and they have a secret weapon: cherry picking the scientific evidence to support their preconception.

As science pushes into new frontiers, there will always be new questions, but then their position becomes, “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God.”

If Lemaître refused to support his faith with scientific arguments, I don’t know if he relied instead on nonscientific arguments like “the Bible has many manuscript copies” or “the resurrection is supported by much historical evidence” or the Shroud of Turin. I’m guessing not since historic evidence could be undercut just like scientific evidence (for example, by the argument that Mormonism makes a far better historic case than Christianity). Comparing him to modern evangelicals, Lemaître would look like a quaint throwback, though one who was gratifyingly consistent.

I wouldn’t find a faith-only argument compelling, but then the science-based arguments aren’t compelling either, especially when apologists make clear that they don’t build their own faith on them. If they don’t, why should I?

Science is a harsh mistress, and Lemaître was careful to stay on her good side. Evangelical apologists want to turn her into a prostitute.

See also:

As far as I can see, such a theory [as the Big Bang] remains
entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.
It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being.
— Father Georges Lemaître, originator of Big Bang idea

.
Image from Jayson Hinrichsen, CC license
.

Could You Help with My Next Book?

Posted on by

Do you have any connections within the publishing industry?

I’ve finished the manuscript for my next book. Unlike my last two books, which were fiction, this is nonfiction. My next step is to get a literary agent. If you could make an introduction or recommend anyone, that would be an enormous help.

I’m targeting a Christian audience with the book, though atheists and “Nones” should also find it compelling. Here’s my pitch:

If Christianity is true, it can stand a little critique. 2-Minute Christianity: 50 Big Ideas Every Christian Should Understand tells you the other side of the story, what you didn’t learn in Sunday school. Fifty brief chapters, two pages apiece, introduce you to arguments for and against Christianity, the plot holes in favorite Bible stories, and evolution of belief documented in the Bible itself.

This is the conversation that others are having about Christianity. If you’re an open-minded Christian, these are 50 big ideas you need to understand.

The goal is not to deconvert anyone but simply to educate. Anyone who reads this short book will be better educated about how Christianity came to be than most Christians.

The layout of the book should be a selling point. Take a look at some of the topics here, here, and here.

If you can connect me with a literary agent who might be interested in this project, please contact me at the email address below. Thanks!

.

Revisiting Hitchens’ Challenge

Posted on by

Christopher Hitchens (1949 – 2011), a well-known atheist orator, had a moral challenge for Christians: identify a moral action taken or a moral sentiment uttered by a believer that couldn’t be taken or uttered by a nonbeliever—something that only a believer could do and an atheist couldn’t. He said that he had been given no credible answer.

Amy Hall from Stand to Reason (Greg Koukl’s ministry) thinks she is up to the challenge. Let’s take a look.

1. Hitchens misunderstands the theist’s point

[Hitchens thinks the Christian is saying] that without God, we couldn’t know right from wrong, when the actual objection is that there wouldn’t be any right or wrong

Where’s the problem? As I read Hitchens, he was responding to the assumption that being a Christian provided some moral advantage. (And, according to Christianity, it does: “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin” (1 John 5:18).)

And if you want to argue that morality exists only because God put it there, that needs some evidence. You’ve provided none (more on Christians’ inability to defend objective morality here).

2. The Challenge is unanswerable

This is a clever observation: if Hitchens the atheist is the judge of the Hitchens Challenge, the Christian can’t win because he decides what is moral.

There might be certain acts that only theists would recognize as being moral. Atheists, not recognizing those acts as being good, would not attempt to do them as moral acts.

The first problem is that this undercuts another popular Christian apologetic argument. What’s wrong with Hitchens as judge—don’t you say that morality is objective? If morality is objective (defined by apologist William Lane Craig as “moral values that are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not”) and we humans can reliably access those values, Hitchens or any honest atheist would be as good a judge as anyone.

Since it is logically impossible to give an answer that will satisfy Hitchens, he may as well ask us to draw him a square circle and then declare himself the winner when we fail. In the end, his challenge is nothing but a rhetorical trick, and it should be exposed and dismissed as such. Hitchens should never get away with even asking it, let alone demanding we give him an “acceptable” answer in order to defend theism.

I’m reminded of the lawyer’s maxim, “When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.” There’s a lot of table pounding here along with the demand that the Challenge be dismissed as inadmissible.

The resolution is simple: insist that objective, unbiased third parties must judge this Challenge. Easy.

As it happens, there is an answer to Hitchens’s question—one that seemed obvious to me immediately—and it illustrates perfectly the problem with the challenge. The highest moral good a person can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign God—to love Him with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength. Not only will no atheist ever do this, no atheist can do this.

That’s the pinnacle of morality? It’s an odd definition of morality that has nothing to do with doing good to living beings, but I guess Christians can define their dogma as they choose. And that’s the point: this is dogma specific to Christians. Our objective, unbiased third party judges would reject this. (More on how praise applied to God makes no sense here.)

Now it looks like it’s you who’s playing the rhetorical trick.

Let’s return to the Challenge. Hitchens is simply saying that Christians can claim no moral high ground over atheists and that Christianity brings nothing moral to the table that wasn’t already part of social interaction. God pretends to generously gives morality to humans, but it was theirs all along, like Dorothy’s ruby slippers.

Concluded with one more Christian response in part 2.

If there is a God,
He will have to beg my forgiveness.
—  written on a wall in
Mauthausen concentration camp

.

Image from mari lezhava, CC license
.

10 Commandments (for Atheists)

Posted on by

The authors of the 2014 book Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart: Rewriting the Ten Commandments for the Twenty-first Century sponsored a competition for a new set of atheist Ten Commandments. Here are the winners:

  1. Be open minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
  2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
  3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
  4. Every person has the right to control over their body.
  5. God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
  6. Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognise that you must take responsibility for them.
  7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
  8. We have the responsibility to consider others including future generations.
  9. There is no one right way to live.
  10. Leave the world a better place than you found it.

.
We could tweak the wording, swap out a few, or maybe add a few more (what’s magical about ten?). Overall, though, I think it’s a great list.

But not everyone was pleased. At Glenn Beck’s The Blaze, conservative commenters objected in various ways, and I waded through hundreds to get the major themes. I didn’t notice any Christian commenters applaud the general idea. Instead, they all dug in their heels in various ways.

As I go through these categories, I’ll respond only briefly, but feel free to add your own comments.

Quibbles. Some complained that they aren’t all commands—numbers 3, 4, and 5, for instance. Some are similar and could be combined—6 and 8, for instance. One commenter asked, “What is the penalty for violating these ‘Ten Suggestions?’” (I doubt he wants to go there. The Old Testament gives death as the punishment for almost all of the original ten.)

Some of this is subjective—for example, what does it mean to leave the world a “better” place?

And that’s the problem when using the format of immutable laws from an absolute dictator as a structure for enlightened advice. Fair points, I’d say, but they (deliberately?) avoid the issue. As for the concern about subjectivity, yes, we may have different directions we’d like society to move in. Welcome to the real world.

Defiant or petulant. One commenter winsomely said, “I seem to like the original version, atheist can kiss my @ss!” Another: “They don’t seem to get that their way of life is so illogical even though they claim to be such superior intellects.”

If you’re frustrated but have no concrete complaint, I suppose this is what you’re left with. I get empty “You’re wrong! And also stupid!” comments of this sort regularly at this blog.

Atheists are hypocritical. Sure, you atheists will follow rule #1 and alter your beliefs … “unless it points to God.” You’ll follow #2 and reject that which has no evidence … “unless it’s what you think is true.” You’ll follow the scientific method … “only if it fits [your] agenda.” Summing up, “These sound like liberal commandments for others, not for themselves.”

Are atheists imperfect? Of course. But I see none of the hypocrisy that they imagine. I strive to follow these rules and would encourage those in my life to point out where I fall short.

Atheists are arrogant. “My primary argument with atheists is that they are so arrogant as to not consider that there may be a higher power than themselves.”

I’m happy to consider that. In years of searching, I’ve found negligible evidence, but I continue to seek out good arguments in favor of Christian claims.

Your list is incomplete. “Not a single word against killing, stealing, diddling someone else’s spouse, catting around while your spouse isn’t looking, being greedy or being excessively prideful. So basically, ‘Anything Goes!’”

You need commandments to be reminded not to kill someone? Anyway, #7 (“Treat others as you would want them to treat you and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated”) covers that. “Anything goes!” is neither the point of this list nor the philosophy of any atheist I know.

Where are the absolute consequences? “What happens if you break these atheist commandments? You go to not-hell? What’s the punishment? I see no reason to follow any of these if there is no God.”

“What is the incentive to be good when evil is more fun and profitable?”

Penn Jillette had a great response:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine.

I’ve yet to see any compelling argument for objective morality (that is, moral claims that are true whether anyone believes them or not). There are lots of enthusiastic and confident claims, but no good evidence.

Anyway, there are plenty of consequences right here. Society imposes legal or social sanctions for poor behavior. Atheists happily acknowledge the obligations they have to their family and friends. Christians who think that they’d rampage through life without God to constrain them hasn’t thought this through.

Atheists wouldn’t worry about God unless they knew he existed! About nativity displays on public property: “I would have no problem if I had neighbor who worshiped turnips, and put up a yearly display. I wouldn’t try to prohibit his freedom to do so. Why are atheists offended by religious displays? I suspect they, deep down, know and refuse to acknowledge the Divine Designer.”

So atheists are really all believers? Nope.

As for nativity displays, I don’t know why the War on Christmas® is that big a deal (except for Fox News ratings, I mean). I have no problem with a neighbor who puts up a yearly display for turnips or Jesus, just don’t do it on government property. Show respect for your Constitution. Why is this hard? The separation of church and state that prevents Christian-only displays on public property also prevents only Muslim prayers in your kids’ classrooms.

It’s all the atheists’ fault. “Back in the 60’s before prayer was kicked out of school and the teachers had a copy of the 10 Commandments on her board you never heard of any kids killing kids.”

Not really. When you look at social metrics, you find that belief is inversely related to social health. The godless Scandinavian countries embarrass the U.S. with statistics on lifespan, divorce, life satisfaction, murder, and so on.

10 atheist commandments? Must be a religion. “Funny how the supposed sect of the nonreligious has to make their ‘thoughts and beliefs’ in a form that parallels another religion.”

“If they’re trying to make themselves not a religion they’re a doing a terrible job at it.”

It’s quite a stretch to call anything within atheism a religion when atheism is a rejection of supernatural claims. As to the logic of this project, it looks to me like a reasonable and interesting challenge to take the constraints of the well-known 10 Commandments and see what it would look like if reason and evidence were the guiding principles.

Other commenters looked down their noses at Humanist chaplains and atheist church services, but there is no inconsistency. Take chaplains and church, remove the supernatural, and what remains can be useful.

Double down on Christianity. “To believe in a non belief.. So sad for them to believe that when we die, there is nothing. I choose Heaven.. These people have lost all hope.”

“You Atheists are starving. Like petulant children who stomp their feet because they resent the thought of someone being ‘in control’ other than they, themselves.”

No evidence here, just Bible quotes, Christian theology, an opportunity for proselytizing, handwaving about how great heaven will be, and Pascal’s Wager. In short: Christianity, just because.

There is more—atheists love abortion, atheism = communism, Stalin was an atheist—but you get the idea.

(I’ve written more about the Ten Commandments: about their irrelevance to modern society, how the ten that we’re familiar with aren’t the correct ten, and about an American Atheist monument put up in response to a Ten Commandments monument on (you guessed it) public property.)

Christianity has 45,000 denominations. Christians can’t even figure out their own Bible.

The intellectual and emotional energy it takes
to figure out how God fits into everything
is far greater than dealing with reality as it presents itself to us.
— Ryan Bell (“Year Without God” blog)

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 1/2/15.)

Image credit: Hartwig HKD, flickr, CC

.