Bible Prophecies: Jerusalem Suburbs and Conquest

Posted on by


Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe (an old-earth Creationist ministry) claims that the Bible has thousands of fulfilled prophecies, and he gives us his top 13. I find claims of prophecy particularly interesting as arguments for the truth of the Bible. Apologists often make bold prophecy claims, but they’re rarely backed up with an argument. And the argument here isn’t from an incoherent sign-carrying wacko but from the founder of a ministry that takes in $7 million per year.

Let’s continue our critique with arguments 7 and 8 (part 1 here).

7. “The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem’s nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago.”

After Israel became a modern state in 1948, “the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.”

Ross points to Jeremiah 31:38–40 for this precise layout of future Jerusalem (helpful interpretations of this unclear passage are here and here). One immediate problem is that modern scholars don’t agree on the location of most of the landmarks referred to in this passage—the Tower of Hananel, the Hill of Gareb, Goah, and so on. There goes Ross’s claim from his introduction that “there is no room for error.”

A second problem is that when you map out Jeremiah’s expanded Jerusalem, it extends the ancient walled city to the west and south, and maybe a bit to the southeast. But five of Jerusalem’s new suburbs are north of the ancient city. No, there is no connection between what Jeremiah imagined God predicting for Jerusalem and how it actually expanded.

8. Both the Old Testament and the New predict conquest and enslavement.

“The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 BC and the second in AD 70. God’s spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation.”

Fire from the sky to punish the unfaithful + Babylonian conquest

Ross cites five passages for support. First, Deuteronomy 29 has Moses cautioning the Israelites to not tolerate anyone within their ranks who worships the gods of other nations. “The Lord will single them out from all the tribes of Israel for disaster” (29:21). As with prophecy #6, this disaster is of the Sodom and Gomorrah type: “The whole land will be a burning waste of salt and sulfur—nothing planted, nothing sprouting, no vegetation growing on it” (29:22–3). Both the singling out of just the backsliders and the fire-and-brimstone punishment conflict with Ross’s view that this describes a conquest by either Babylonians or Romans.

Not only does this not fit Ross’s conquest hypothesis, but the dates don’t work out, either. The Babylonian conquest happened in 605 BCE, with enslavement happening in stages from 597–581. Moses supposedly lived long before that, but Deuteronomy was “discovered” (or planted) by King Josiah in 622*, and then it was edited over the next century. Chapter 29 (and more) were added after the end of the exile in 539 BCE. There’s not much of a prophecy when a document written after 539 BCE is accurate about something that happened decades earlier in 605 BCE.

Gathering of the tribes

Second: Isaiah 11 says that a descendant of King David will usher in a time of peace in which “the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.” It won’t be so peaceful for the countries that Israel conquers, however.

Ross cites 11:11–13, which says that, as part of reuniting Israel, God gathers in scattered people from the twelve tribes. Modern Israel does exist, but neither the prophesied supernatural peace nor Israel conquering Edom, Moab, and Ammon (roughly modern Jordan) has happened. Many Jews have indeed returned to Israel, but less than half of Jews worldwide live there.

70 years of captivity

Third: Jeremiah 25:11 says, “This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”

Let’s check some dates: Jeremiah was written in 627–586 BCE. The first captives were sent to Babylon in 597, and Cyrus freed them in 539 BCE, which is a captivity of 58 years. If we round it up to the pleasing 70 (seven is the number of completion) by saying that people returned to Judah in stages, have we finally found a prophecy that is sort of correct? Not really, since Jeremiah may have been edited after the exile.

Fourth: Hosea 3:4–5 talks about Israel enduring a long period “without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without [sacred garments] or household gods.” After this, they will return, trembling, to God.

But the exile that this anticipates is that due to the Assyrians, which completed their conquest of Israel in 722 BCE. Ross, you’ll remember, was instead referring to the Babylonians.

(The positive reference to “household gods” may be startling, especially since the Deuteronomy passage cautioned against worshipping the gods of other nations. It’s possible that at this early stage of Judaism, not only were other gods acknowledged, but some gods of limited power could be worshipped along with Yahweh the supreme god. More about Hebrew polytheism here.)

Ross’s final citation is Luke 21:23–4, which talks about the destruction of Jerusalem, but where’s the prophecy? The First Jewish-Roman War ended in 73 CE, and Luke is thought to have been written in 80 CE or later.

Ross really needs to avoid bold claims like “fulfilled to the letter.” Go back to 1 here and reread all that Ross says these passages clearly prophesy to see how badly wrong he got it.

Continue in part 4.

I prayed for freedom for twenty years,
but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.
— Frederick Douglass

.

*Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? p. 116–17.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/26/16.)

Image from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, public domain

.

Bible Prophecies: Crucifixion, Cyrus, and Babylon

Posted on by

Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, an old-earth Creationist ministry, claims that the Bible has thousands of fulfilled prophecies. We’re critiquing his top 13. Keep in mind that Ross has a doctorate in physics, so he’s no dummy . . . well, at least not in physics.

Let’s continue with part 2 (part 1 here).

4. Psalms and Zechariah both predicted the execution of Jesus.

These books described the crucifixion and correctly stated that no bones would be broken (not true of many crucifixions).

Ross gives three Old Testament references.

  • “[Yahweh] protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken” (Psalm 34:20). This is a psalm of praise, and one of the many good things God does is protect his favored people from injury. How is this a prophecy, let alone a flawless prophecy of the crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement of Jesus?
  • “They will look on me [that is, God], the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son” (Zechariah 12:10). In this chapter, God is listing what he will do to protect Judah from enemies. The only suggestion of the passion narrative is the word “pierced.”
  • Psalm 22 is the final citation. I’ve discussed that in detail, but in brief, Psalm 22 is about the woes of Israel, portrayed metaphorically as an abused man. There are as many elements of the psalm that can’t be shoehorned into the crucifixion narrative as there are parallels, hardly what we’d expect from the “100% accurate” prophecy of a god.

It’s ridiculous to imagine that these feeble connections to the Jesus story are anything but imagined, especially when Ross claims that the chance of the Bible saying what it does in this instance without this being a fulfilled prophecy is 1/1013. Where is the resurrection? Where is the explanation for Jesus’s sacrifice?

5. Isaiah predicted that Cyrus would destroy unassailable Babylon and free the Jewish exiles.

“Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.”

Ross cites three verses from Isaiah (44:28, 45:1, and 45:13) in which God declares that Cyrus is his anointed, who he will help to “subdue nations”; Cyrus will command that Jerusalem be rebuilt; and Cyrus will set free the Jewish exiles held in Babylon without demanding a ransom.

These verses are so glowing and accurate that it’s almost like Cyrus became the champion of the Jews and then they honored him (and gave the credit to God) by writing this account. And that’s indeed what almost surely happened. Isaiah the prophet lived in the mid- to late-eighth century BCE, and he only wrote the first 39 chapters. Chapters 40–55 were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, and the final version of the book was only completed around 70 BCE.

6. Babylon was said to be indestructible, and yet both Isaiah and Jeremiah accurately predicted its ruin.

To see why Babylon was considered so formidable, just look at its size. It was 196 miles square and enclosed by a double wall, each of which was 330 feet high and 90 feet thick. “These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travelers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material.”

Let’s pause and consider the size of these fortifications. Take Paris’s Arc de Triomphe, and stack another on top. That’s roughly the height and thickness of this wall. Now make it 196 miles long, and then make a second identical wall. That would be a big construction project now, and this was the sixth century BCE.

Wikipedia gives Babylon’s maximum area at 2200 acres, which could be enclosed by a wall just seven miles in circumference. We actually have several contemporary estimates of the size of Babylon’s fortifications, some far more modest than the dimensions Ross cites.

Ross can’t be faulted for inaccurate reporting from ancient historians, but he can be for highlighting data he likes without even acknowledging the contradicting evidence.

Ross points us to Isaiah 13:17–22, which does indeed declare that God will overthrow Babylon and that Babylon “will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations.” Jeremiah 51:26 and :43 repeat that Babylon will be “desolate forever.” But, once again, when we read the verses closely, we find that Ross hasn’t told us the whole story.

  • God will destroy Babylon “like Sodom and Gomorrah” (Isaiah 13:19). Unlike prophecy #5, there is no mention of God using Cyrus as his tool. God will personally destroy it in Sodom-and-Gomorrah fashion—that is, with fire and brimstone. Where’s the evidence of this?
  • It also states that on this terrible day when God opens his can of whoop-ass on Babylon, “The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light” (Is. 13:10), and the land will be made desolate and the sinners destroyed. “I [God] will punish the world for its evil, the wicked for their sins.” The destruction of Babylon is highlighted, but this is just a part of a worldwide (or at least regional) judgment.
  • When will all this happen? Isaiah 13:22 tells us: “[Babylon’s] time is at hand, and her days will not be prolonged.” But if Isaiah wrote this part of the book before 700 BCE and Cyrus took Babylon in 539 BCE, Ross must explain the delay.
  • Jeremiah 51 also makes this bold prediction: “The sea will rise over Babylon; its roaring waves will cover her.” Didn’t happen. Babylon is hundreds of miles from the sea and about 35 meters above sea level. Ross could argue that this was hyperbole, but to maintain his claim that “the Bible is 100% without error,” he enters dangerous territory. He has given himself permission to decide himself what’s literal and what’s figurative.
  • Both Isaiah and Jeremiah were edited after Cyrus, so they’re not even reliable historical accounts.
  • Babylon would never again be inhabited? Wrong again. Cyrus didn’t destroy Babylon but used the city, as did the next king, Darius the Great. The New Testament even refers to “The church that is at Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13).

Six prophecies down and seven to go—who thinks they’ll get any better? Continued in part 3.

See also: 8 Tests for Accurate Prophecy and Why Bible Prophecies Fail

Every cake is a miraculous fulfillment
of a prophecy called a recipe.
— commenter RichardSRussell

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/21/16.)

Image credit: U.S. Geological Survey, public domain
.

Bible Prophecies: Fulfilled or Failed?

Posted on by

Reasons to Believe is an old-earth Creationist ministry, which means that they accept science’s age of the earth but reject evolution. They claim that science supports the Bible and that “the Bible is 100% without error.”

Hugh Ross of RtB says that there are thousands of accurate biblical prophecies. From those, he has picked out 13 to highlight in “Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible.”

Let’s see if 13 is a lucky number for Dr. Ross.

Prophecies in the Bible

He begins:

Approximately 2,500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2,000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. . . .

Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 102000. (emphasis added)

I love it when apologists rely on volume over accuracy. “Uh, okay I know that most of these UFO reports are crap, but if we say that each has just a one percent chance of being accurate, when you consider the enormous number of them, this is very strong evidence!”

Uh huh. Does the same logic make astrology accurate, too?

Ross again:

The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21–22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God’s prophets, as distinct from Satan’s spokesmen [by this he means mediums and clairvoyants such as Jeanne Dixon or Edgar Cayce], are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error.

Ross cites a passage from Deuteronomy, but I notice that he excluded the preceding verse, which demands death for any false prophet. He’s claiming that all of his prophecies came true perfectly, so consider the upcoming critique to see how he does. Ross says that there is “no room for error”? We’ll return to that claim uncomfortably often to check.

1. The book of Daniel predicts the crucifixion of Jesus.

Daniel predicted that the Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, that the Messiah would be killed, and that the second destruction of Jerusalem would follow. “Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ.”

“Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.”

I’ve written at length about the various interpretations of Daniel. Christians have several, so Ross would get pushback from other Christians who believe in a contradictory interpretation.

I’ll let that earlier post discuss the details of what Daniel says, but note that the Bible doesn’t record a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, it records four of them.* Apologists pick the one that best serves their calculations and hope no one notices the others.

The interpretation that best fits the facts has the book written, not by Daniel in the sixth century BCE, but by an unknown author around 167 BCE. The atonement and the end of the world were expected in about 164 BCE. (More.)

I would say more about the probabilities assigned to each individual prophecy, but there’s not much to say. Ross justifies these values with little more than that they come “from a group of secular research scientists.” Presumably, Ross wants the fact that they’re not Christian to show that they’re objective, but without their work, these numbers are based on nothing.

How would you even assign a probability to this one given that there’s a plausible and completely natural explanation? There was no fulfilled prophecy, so the calculation is meaningless.

2. The prophet Micah names Bethlehem as the birthplace of the Messiah.

Matthew 2 says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and cites the relevant verses in Micah 5 as prophecy. But since Matthew had read this “prophecy,” this makes him an unreliable source to report the fulfillment of that prophecy.

There is even a scholarly term for this error, vaticinia ex eventu, which means “prophecies after the event.” It’s like saying, “I predict that it will be sunny yesterday.” That may be correct, but it’s hardly a prophecy.

What does it say about the Bible’s historical reliability when historians need such a term? This is the kind of error that Christians would spot in an instant in a claim from another religion, and yet Christians like Ross either don’t notice or have a different standard for their religion’s prophecies.

Ross is right that Micah refers to Bethlehem as the birthplace of someone important:

Though you [Bethlehem] are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel. (Micah 5:2)

However, we must read it in context. Micah was written when Assyria was attacking both Israel and Judea. This “ruler” would be the one to lead the fight against the invaders:

[You] will deliver us from the Assyrians when they invade our land. . . . Your hand will be lifted up in triumph over your enemies, and all your foes will be destroyed. (Micah 5:6–9)

Does this sound like any part of the gospel story? You still want to pretend that this “ruler over Israel” is Jesus?

This “prophecy” is also given a probability of chance fulfillment of 1/105, which is ridiculous when the natural explanation is obvious and the supernatural explanation doesn’t even fit.

3. Zechariah predicts that “the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver.”

The prophecy is fulfilled when Matthew records that very payment made to Judas the traitor.

Actually, Zechariah 11:12–13 laments that God is unappreciated by the people of Israel. There is nothing about a Messiah or betrayal. And then when Matthew 27:3–10 attempts to connect the Judas/30-pieces-of-silver story with the prophecy, it gets the prophet wrong and names Jeremiah instead.

Oops. So much for the Bible being 100% without error, as Ross claims.

Zechariah refers to a potter, not a potter’s field; nevertheless, Ross sees that as an important parallel between Zechariah and Matthew. But the New Testament isn’t even consistent internally. Look at the two stories of the last hours of Judas (Acts 1:18–19 vs. Matthew 27:4–8) to see that they’re incompatible.

  • Who possessed and spent the thirty pieces of silver? Acts says that Judas bought a field with the money. Matthew says that Judas returned the money to the priests, which they declared tainted, and they bought the field.
  • How did Judas die? Acts says that he died from a fall, while Matthew says that he hanged himself.
  • There is a “Field of Blood” in both stories. Why was it named that? In Acts, it was named this because Judas fell and died in it. In Matthew, it was because it was bought with the blood money.

The probability given here is 1/1011, which is ridiculous when, yet again, this is a prophecy after the fact and the claimed connection simply isn’t there.

Ross said that Bible prophecies have “no room for error.” That’s a good criterion, but in that case, these are not Bible prophecies.

Continued in part 2.

See also: 8 Tests for Accurate Prophecy and Why Bible Prophecies Fail

You’re telling me that the best an all-powerful god can do
is to create these one-off miracles that leave no trace whatsoever
of having been performed?
Where’s the wine? Drunk.
Loaves and fishes? Eaten.
The healed sick? Dead and buried.
The risen Lazarus? Re-dead and re-buried.
The risen Jesus? Invisible in heaven.
These are all “the dog ate my homework” miracles.
— commenter Kevin K.

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 9/19/16.)

Image from NOAA, public domain

*The Old Testament has four decrees for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, each with a different date (Ross’s calculations use the third one):

  • Decree of Cyrus: 538–536 BCE (2 Chronicles 36:22–3)
  • Decree of Darius Hystaspes: 521 BCE (Ezra 6:6–12)
  • Decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra: 458 BCE (Ezra 7:11–26)
  • Decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah: 444 BCE (Nehemiah 2:1–8)

.

Final Thoughts from the Soft Theist

Posted on by

This is a guest post from Miklos Jako, the author of the video that started this exploration into spiritual-but-not-religious thinking. For the introductory post, go here.

Miklos endured the skeptical gauntlet with patient comments, and for that he deserves the last word in this conversation.


I’ve appreciated this opportunity to exchange ideas with atheists from the perspective of a “Soft Theist.” Host Bob Seidensticker has described Soft Theism as “Christianity without the baggage.” However, to be clear, it is not liberal Christianity. I actually reject Jesus for many reasons. I do not think he was a transcendently wise man but rather a religious extremist who constantly overstated for the sake of impact, at the expense of truth.

I describe soft theism as a belief in the probability of a general God not tied to any particular religion. A belief in some great intelligence behind the universe. A more credible God than the Christian one. A non-intervening God. No answered prayers. No miracles, other than the miracle of life itself. No dogma, other than the need to be a good person.

The closest approximation to it in real life would probably be Unitarianism: Be a good person and then believe whatever makes sense to you, including atheism. Soft Theism is not a truth claim, but a subjective assessment on the probability of a God, where one does not decide to believe, or not believe, but settles on a percent probability, whether it’s 10%, 40%, 60%, or 90%, and lives with that. The word “soft” in soft theism is there for a reason.

Here is my assessment of the discussion we had:

The discussion confirmed my conviction that one’s position depends very much on one’s starting point, on one’s worldview to begin with. If you start with a scientific worldview, almost invariably you will conclude there is no God, because you want evidence. If you start with a more spiritual/emotional worldview, you will conclude there may well be a God, because lack of tangible evidence is not a defeater for you.

The discussion also confirmed my suspicion that theists and atheists have innately incompatible ways of thinking, and that coming to some synthesis is almost impossible. For example, to a theist, the universe is evidence for God, obviously. But to an atheist, the universe is just the universe, obviously.

I regard the beauty of a tree as “soft evidence” for God; the atheist regards such soft evidence as no evidence, it’s just magical thinking. I was asked what would be the difference between “magical thinking” and “soft evidence”? I responded that magical thinking would be, “If I pray hard enough, God will save my child from this illness.” Whereas “soft evidence” is seeing a beautiful tree, or experiencing a wonderful relationship, and thinking there might well be something more than the ordinariness of life, and scientific explanations.

I find the mystery of why things should work, to be a reason for positing a God. The atheist regards figuring out how things work is enough. Once you’ve got A, B, C, and D understood, you don’t need God to make it work. Whereas, I think it’s more plausible that God makes everything work, through the laws of nature he created.

Science

I think some things may never be understood by science, like why things grow, why the heart keeps beating for a lifetime, why bodies heal. Why life, intelligence, consciousness should emerge. I suspect that consciousness may never be adequately understood. Awareness of the material world, is of a different nature than that world. The atheist thinks that whether science eventually figures it all out or not, we have chemistry, biology, and physics for explanations, no need for a God.

Soft theism accepts whatever valid science says. But it does not view science as ultimately explanatory, or capable of giving answers to spiritual/emotional issues. As one person noted, if a grand Unified Theory of Everything is ever formulated, it won’t help him decide about his love life. Agreed. That’s my perspective, that a big part of life exists outside of science.

I made the claim the science has a built-in defeater against God because it is forbidden to invoke God as an explanation for any phenomenon, and is allowed only to reach the verdict of “not demonstrated.” Atheists disagreed, but we finally got on the same page in agreeing that there is not a hard and fast rule; it’s just that it’s the implicit philosophy of working scientists, because studies have never concluded yet that God is an explanation.

Going in Circles

Atheists repeatedly insisted that “We don’t know” is the proper answer, and that I should admit I don’t know. My response: Why are you saying that?! I have repeatedly said, “I don’t know.” In fact, I can give you some stats. I did a quick word search, and in the first 12 installments here I have been advised to admit I don’t know at least five or six times, and I have responded that “I don’t know” at least eight or nine times. The word “soft” in soft theism embodies the very concept of “I don’t know”!

The circularity here reminds me of a scene in Mel Brooks’s Blazing Saddles movie. The governor’s assistant says, “OK, the meeting is adjourned. Oh, I’m sorry Governor, you’re supposed to say that.” “Say what?” “The meeting is adjourned.” “It is!?” “No, you’re supposed to say that.” “Say what?” “The meeting is adjourned.” “It is?” “No, you’re supposed to say that.” “Say what?” “The meeting is….”

Here’s my atheist blog version of that: “The honest response on the God question, is ‘We don’t know.’” “I don’t know, I’m just speculating.” “You can’t just speculate; you have to give some evidence.” “I don’t have any hard evidence.” “Then you’re just speculating; you don’t know.” “I don’t know. I’m just speculating.” “You have to give some evidence.” “I don’t have any hard evidence. I’m just speculating.” “Then you don’t know. You’re just speculating….”

Telling Me Stuff I Already Know

Atheists kept telling me what I already know and already agree with, yet somehow regarded this is an argument against my position. One gave an eloquent description of the progress of science, almost as though I were not aware of it. I agree that science has a magnificent history. I know that. I agree with that. Or tells me that the further reaches of science (the quantum world, cosmology) do not make common sense to us living here in middle earth. I know that. I agree with that.

Another wrote that God’s hiddenness is “not an indictment of science or nonbelievers, it’s an indictment of God’s choice to remain hidden.” I responded, “You’re informing me of something I already know and agree with. I’m not indicting science or nonbelievers! And yes, God’s hiddenness is an indictment of God! He should have given us more evidence of his existence. (Bertrand Russell)”

Attitudes / Differences

Many atheists viewed me as making truth claims, and not just offering an opinion. I think one reason for this is that in discussing anything, if I constantly have to qualify my remarks with “I think,” “in my opinion,” or “it seems to me,” that gums up the writing. So, it seemed more a truth claim than it actually was. Plus, atheists are used to the Christian attitude of “We have the Truth,” and so assumed more of an attitude than was actually there on my part.

We disagreed on the standards of evidence for philosophy versus science. I felt that the standards for philosophy are much lower and do not require the same degree of hard evidence.

Many atheists viewed my approach as classic “God of the Gaps” thinking. But I maintained that I do not appeal to God for any of millions of scientific issues, except for where I think science will never reach an answer, such as origins of life, and consciousness.

Atheists think I am interpreting mundane things as spiritual realities. Yes, I am. I regard life, as miraculous. A life-force is not mundane to me. It is a powerful, incomprehensible reality to me, that life should exist.

We did agree that morality is properly a practical issue rather than an intellectual one. And we agreed that the problem of evil is a very strong argument against God.

I found the atheists on this blog very intelligent and educated. But also prone to contempt. I was described as “nasty” and “sneering.” I do not know what they are talking about. On the contrary, they were the ones who used the words “disingenuous,” “idiot,” “stupid,” “daft,” “ignoramus.” Not me. I did express my conviction that atheists are blinkered by science, and they found that, per se, insulting. I thought that many of the commenters spoke with contempt and ridicule as a matter of course. And I am baffled as to why they think this helps their cause. Bob Seidensticker, the host, incidentally, was appropriate. He strongly disagreed with me but did not find it necessary to add gratuitous insults.

Conclusion

I certainly did not expect to change any atheist’s mind here. As I noted at the start, I expected them to say, “He’s just making all this stuff up.” But I hoped they would also conclude, “Well, at least his version of God is not as harmful as traditional ones.”

Atheists and I do have a common cause in opposing Christianity. I hope people visit my website. http://www.confrontingbelievers.com/ I have videos of my informal debates with a wide variety of Christians and ex-Christians.

Thank you to Bob for hosting this exercise and for appreciating the value of Soft Theism, not as a valid belief system, but as a better, less harmful one than Christianity. A lot of people see reasons for leaving Christianity, but do not feel comfortable going all the way to atheism. Soft Theism is a good middle ground.

God does not make good sense to me, but makes better sense than no God. I agree with the opinion that believing in God is absurd, but not believing in God is even more absurd.

Maybe theists have over-active imaginations. Maybe atheists have under-active imaginations.

.
Image from Aamir Suhail (free-use license)

Soft Theism: Final Thoughts

Posted on by

What a marathon! Over the last couple of months we’ve spent 21 posts with close to 30,000 words dissecting a long video about soft theism. I think it’s been worth it, and the nearly 4000 comments from readers suggest that it’s been engaging for them as well. I thank all readers for their time and the commenters for their participation. (Read part 1 here.)

I also want to thank Miklos Jako, the video’s author, for enduring the spotlight. If he wanted a higher profile and a frank critique of his ideas, he got it. I’ve now had the last word over twenty times, and he has accepted my invitation to a last word of his own with a guest post giving his evaluation.

What is soft theism? And how is it better than Christianity?

Soft theism is theism in that it imagines a god that cares about and engages with our world. It’s unlike deism, which imagines a god who created our world but doesn’t engage with it. And it’s unlike Christianity in that it’s not burdened with the clearly mythological Yahweh with his violent Bronze Age morality.

I described it this way in the first post: “Take Christianity and pare away the Bible, a couple of dozen ecumenical councils, church tradition, a long history of political meddling, and fear of science, and what’s left? Jako calls this Soft Theism.” Imagine Christianity without the unpleasant baggage.

I was drawn to this topic because it’s a fresh approach to religion. It’s also timely. The rise of the Nones—those who don’t identify with any religious denomination—is one of the biggest news stories within American religion from the last twenty years, but only a minority of these Nones are atheists. Most have spiritual beliefs, just not the conventional ones. This series has been our opportunity to take a deep dive into one representative worldview.

I’ve pulled from the posts in this series some of the key ideas. I’m sure I’ve missed some from Jako and others in the comment discussions. Feel free to add anything important in the comments to this post.

Science can’t answer the ultimate questions

Jako argues that we have a gap that science will never fill. He accepts all the marvelous things science has taught us about reality (refreshingly, that includes evolution) but points to the meta question: what explains science? Does its remarkable record not need an explanation? And suppose science explained everything in the universe. That still leaves unanswered, what explains the universe itself?

The infinite-regress problem

And even if science takes it a step further back—say, by explaining our universe as a tiny part of a vast multiverse—where does it end? Whatever scientific explanation you come up with, no matter how elegant or mind-blowing, is susceptible to the demand, well, what explains that? It’s the child’s dreaded “Why?” given in response to science’s every answer. Jako resolves this with God to eventually terminate this series of questions. The buck has to stop somewhere, right?

Maybe not. Common sense is not especially useful at the edge of understanding. If a smart and determined mind could answer these questions from first principles, Aristotle would’ve done so 2300 years ago. Discoveries at the frontier of science offend our common sense, but evidence backs up the science, not the common sense. Our common sense was tuned for a middle world. It’s untrustworthy in the world of the very small (quantum physics) or the very large (cosmology).

Jako is careful to remind us that he’s neither a scientist nor a science denier, just someone interested in reality’s ultimate questions. He’ll say, “It seems to me, . . .” being careful to not claim any evidence pointing to his conclusions and wondering if science’s winning streak will end somewhere.

But there’s no “therefore” there. If Jako wants to remind us of science’s unanswered questions and offer supernatural answers, that’s fine, but all he has is a lack of answers, not positive evidence.

And he can’t resolve the regress problem when his own “God did it” solution just raises more questions. Who is this “God”? What are his properties, and how do you know? Has he been around forever, and, if so, why did he decide to create our universe 13.8 billion years ago? And so on. These are questions only resolvable by (dare I say it?) evidence.

What’s the rush? If we have a question and don’t know the answer, let’s be honest and say so. “God did it” just replaces scientific questions with theological ones.

Science: the only game in town?

Jako insists that atheists lean too much on science. He doesn’t have evidence for his position, but that’s okay, he says, because he makes no scientific claims. Instead, he lives in the domain of philosophy.

But you can’t have it both ways—you either make a convincing case by providing evidence, or you ignore the demand for evidence with the justification that you aren’t making a scientific claim. This Philosophy can be a refuge for those who have no evidence but at what cost? Evidence is important if you want to make a convincing case.

If he has a reliable new route to the truth that doesn’t rely on evidence, he must demonstrate this approach by actually uncovering something new so that we can all see its value. But if he’s not claiming anything new and is only playing the jester, asking the tough questions that the rest of us may be ignoring, then “Philosophy” is just an important-sounding label to hide the fact that all he has are questions, not evidence. That doesn’t make his position worthless, just commonplace.

The value of naturalism

We’re to believe that science, the discipline that has gotten us this far, is spent. We must now rely on spirituality and philosophy, the disciplines which to this point have answered no puzzles at the frontier of science. In fact, they’ve taught us nothing at all about reality. This makes even less sense when we remember that spirituality and philosophy didn’t even come up with the questions. But we’re to turn to them for the answers?

If we don’t know, I suggest we say that instead of “God did it.” The God hypothesis is a solution looking for a problem.

The lack of value in philosophy

A naval commander will tell us that a ship in a harbor is safe, but that’s not what ships are for. The same bold attitude applies to ideas. The extent to which you are able to stay safe, hidden behind Philosophy’s skirt, is the extent to which your ideas are irrelevant. Bring them out in the open so they can be criticized and tested (yes, with evidence).

You tell us that you don’t need to—or intend to—provide evidence for your statements. Okay, but then what good are they? “You haven’t proven me wrong” is hardly sufficient grounding for a worldview. And if all you have are provocative ideas, that doesn’t take us very far.

Homeopathic religion

The homeopathic parallel illustrates the limitations of Soft Theism. A homeopathic “medicine” starts with a poison and gradually dilutes it down to nothing, but that’s as far as it can go. It no longer has a bad component (poison), but that does nothing to give it a good component (actual medicine with proven therapeutic value).

Soft theism is homeopathic religion. The bad stuff from a familiar religion like Christianity with its Bronze Age morality, barbaric god, and Bible verses that support slavery, genocide, and more has been reduced to zero. Less bad stuff is a great improvement, but there’s no actual good there—no wisdom from an omniscient god, no new science or technology to vault us to a more equitable society, and so on. It compares well against Christianity, but it’s still manmade.

Christianity 2.0

But that may be soft theism’s superpower. As a supernatural worldview, I find it no more convincing than Christianity or any other theistic worldview, but it’s much less dangerous. There are no zealots eager for the End Times or science deniers who reject evolution or climate science as there are in Christianity.

We’ve made little progress in showing Jako that his soft theism is no better grounded than Christianity, but there may be bigger fish to fry. While he probably hasn’t made any atheist converts, he’s also interested in sharing his ideas with Christians. Imagine if soft theism made inroads among those who now embrace the most toxic forms of Christianity. If people need answers or comfort, a homeopathic religion provides a much safer version.

I wish him Godspeed there.

Conclusion: Final Thoughts from the Soft Theist

In another time and place
he would have been called prophet.
— epitaph on comedian Sam Kinison’s grave

.

Image from Valentin Salja (free-use license)
.

Soft Theism: Suffering and Heaven

Posted on by

We’re responding to an imaginary dialogue that explores Soft Theism, which is basically Christianity without the unpleasant baggage. Can jettisoning Christianity’s crazy bits make it acceptable? Read part 1 here.

This is post 21 in this series, the final critique of the soft theism dialogue. We wrap up with suffering, heaven, and the clash of the toughest arguments from soft theism and from atheism.

The role of suffering in this life

Soft Theist: Absolutely, agreed, I can see some suffering as necessary, to develop character, but not the excess of suffering that some people go through.

Cross Examined Blog: So where does that leave us? God isn’t particularly benevolent but does care about us, sort of. He’s omnipotent and omniscient, he’s set up some sort of afterlife where justice is handed out, and he wants us to behave well. And we’re back to invented properties on a Dungeons & Dragons character sheet!

As for developing character in humans, this is unnecessary. Show me an outcome reachable through life’s ordeals, and I’ll show you an outcome God can achieve through magic (explored in more detail here).

Atheist: I’ve heard Christians say, “Suffering teaches us to love one another.” Fine, but, again, the excess is not justified.

Right—from a naturalistic standpoint, we often have little choice about adversity, but we can find the silver lining. (You seem to be waffling about whether we should expect perfect actions of any sort from God.)

Yeah. Yeah. I talked to William Lane Craig, and he made the defense that we are cognitively limited, so we cannot possibly know the greater good that the immediate suffering might eventually bring about. That we can’t know that God does not have a morally sufficient reason for apparent evil. That maybe the purpose of an innocent child’s death might not emerge for hundreds of years.

I realize this is Craig’s point and not yours, but let’s explore this claim. So there might be a particular good centuries in our future that is only achievable if a child dies today? To quote Wayne from the movie Wayne’s World, “Yeah—and monkeys might fly out of my butt.” (I apologize for that powerful philosophical broadside, but some ideas so stupid that they need the big guns.)

There is no reason to believe (1) that a child dying today will bring about a net good that’s only apparent centuries in the future and (2) God has no other way to accomplish this. Point 2 is impossible, since God can achieve that future goal through magic. And the claim “But this might be true” is a terrible reason to believe anything. I might be a cleverly disguised alien to whom you must give your life savings or I’ll destroy the world, but that’s not the way to bet.

But, I think Craig is just grasping at straws. Sure, there’s instances where great evil brings about a greater good. But, do you really think children dying has a good overall effect??!! It’s clearly excessive evil, not instructive evil.

. . . Hah. I’m reminded of a David Letterman joke. He says the 1906 San Francisco earthquake caused massive destruction for the city, but . . . on the positive side . . . bowling scores were never higher.

(Because all the bowling pins fell, I’m guessing.)

Ha ha. . . .

Soft Theism’s toughest problem vs. atheism’s toughest problem

So, isn’t the Problem of Evil a knockdown argument against God!?

Yes . . . I think it is . . . But . . . I think the infinite regress argument is a knockdown argument FOR God. And I find that argument a stronger one, because I see no possible rebuttal to it, by my lights anyway. Whereas, for the Problem of Evil argument there is a possible answer, not a good answer, but a possible answer.

But your position is full of regress problems. The atheist proposes the multiverse as an explanation for our universe, and you ask where the multiverse came from and propose God as the better explanation. But this just brings up more questions: where God came from, what his properties are, and so on. You complain about an answer that only kicks the can down the road, but how are you immune from the same criticism?

The atheist proposes physical causes to explain how you raised your arm, and you wonder what started that chain of causes. Your suggestion that some supernatural element of free will is at the beginning again raises questions about where that came from.

Where does human intelligence come from? Your answer: from a higher intelligence. Where does beauty in our world come from? Your answer: from a greater beauty. These are more regressions.

God and heaven

[And that possible answer to the Problem of Evil] is?

That . . . IF there is an afterlife of ultimate justice and happiness, then that outweighs the evil we experience in this life. Mathematically, any number, no matter how large, over infinity, makes that fraction . . . approach . . . zero. Likewise, any suffering, no matter how great, compared to an infinity of happiness in an afterlife, amounts to nothing.

You’ve said that the Problem of Evil is the atheist’s most powerful rebuttal, and you’ve responded by suggesting that God is just a dick. Unlike Christians, soft theism has the flexibility to drop the claim of God’s omnibenevolence, and that’s a smart move.

You’re saying here that however unjust or cruel life is on earth, when you average it out with an (unevidenced) perpetual heaven, life’s cruelty becomes insignificant. That’s true, but God still was immoral in letting us suffer on earth when any goal he had for us could’ve been reached without suffering. Here again, “God is a dick” gets you out of that jam. (Christians aren’t so lucky, because they can’t jettison God’s omnibenevolence. Their use of this averaging-of-pain argument is what I’ve labeled Stupid Argument Christians Should Avoid #25a.)

But you’re not off the hook yet. By your thinking, the same guy is in charge when we’re enduring a shitty life on earth and when luxuriating in bliss in heaven. Why would God suddenly be motivated to create a beautiful heaven for us when you’ve admitted that he doesn’t care enough to do that for us on earth?

Another problem is that you’ve not clearly defined the afterlife. Do I even want it? You put ultimate justice at the top of your list for heaven’s features, but that’s not what I’d put. Maybe the Norse or Spartans would put honor at the top. The 72-virgins crowd seems to want hedonism at the top. So, sure, put justice at the top of the list for your heaven, but remember that you’ve given no more evidence for your heaven than the Pastafarians have for their heaven with its beer volcano, stripper factory, and fluffy ponies.

Well, that’s just speculation.

Yeah, but it IS a logical theoretical answer to the Problem of Evil. Whereas, in my mind, there is NO theoretical answer to the infinite regress problem . . . other than . . . God. So that’s the bottom line for me—the infinite regress argument FOR god, outweighs the Problem of Evil argument AGAINST GOD.

Signing off

Well . . . we see things differently. I found this conversation frustrating, but . . . also fascinating. I’m glad we engaged.

Yeah, me too. Thanks for your thoughts.

I’ll add my thanks to Miklos Jako for allowing us to put his ideas about soft atheism through the atheist gauntlet and the commenters who debated the issue by contributing 3000 comments.

Next: My concluding remarks

Nature never deceives us;
it is always we who deceive ourselves.
— Jean Jacque Rousseau.

.

Image from William Murphy (license CC BY 2.0)
.