Hell is not a pleasant subject. Add to that the fact that I know almost nothing about it, and I have two good excuses not to talk about the subject, if I can help it.
Now, though, our friend Hector Avalos has produced a book called The Bad Jesus in which he apparently argues that teaching on hell makes Jesus bad. No, according to one friendly reviewer, it reveals Jesus as a "moral lunatic."
I was foolish enough to challenge this fellow, Ben. So now I can say "ben there, done that." And yes, the temperature does seem to rise ever so slightly . . . Next time, shall we not and say we did? But you know where liars go . . . No, not the campaign trail!
Anyway, here's the review from Amazon, and some of the following exchange. Those who know more about hell, feel free to correct any misunderstandings I display:
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Monday, November 16, 2015
Christianity gets Jerry Coyne "monologuing"
(Note: originally posted on Amazon.) A couple years ago, I debated the sociologist Phil Zuckerman in California on whether Secular Humanism or Christianity offered the greater hope for humanity. The church where the event was held did not immediately put the debate on-line as they had promised. Jerry Coyne wrote as follows:"This is why this form of Christianity is inimical to democracy. I can’t imagine Zuckerman, myself, or any other debating atheist refusing to allow the debate to be aired—no matter how bad our performance was."
Friday, November 13, 2015
Thoughts on Another Islamic Mass-murder
* Why didn't Barack Obama deal with these guys when they were a few hot-shots with guns running around in the desert? By running away from war (except with Republicans), Obama has given us more war. But first, airliners bombed, theaters in Paris shot up, and families in tears. * Obama says Ben Carson doesn't have the foreign policy experience to be president. He could hardly do worse. Above and beyond knowledge or even experience, a good leader needs wisdom.
* A Facebook friend posts that Muslims in America might be afraid and ashamed after this, so we should be kind to them. We should be kind. "Speak the truth in love," not a la Trump. But I see no reason for Muslims in America to fear: there was no violent backlash against Muslims in the US after 9/11, and there's no reason to expect one now. Actually Muslims have far more often been violent against innocent non-Muslims in the US.
* As for shame, I think anyone who calls Mohammed a prophet, half of the creed of Islam, should feel shame. Mohammed killed four times as many innocent people on a single day, as did these terrorists in Paris. And there was no one to comfort their families, who were made slaves and concubines. It is a shameful thing, to so highly honor a tyrant, a murderer, a torturer, and a slave-trader. (Though of course not a rare thing, in the West or here in China. Here's looking at you, Chairman Mao.)
* How foolish the Germans and some other Europeans were, to allow hundreds of thousands of young Muslim men to pour across their borders.
* Why do we not also mourn the Nigerians whom Boko Haram abducts and murders? The Pakistani Christians who are terrorized? The Iraqi, Syrian, and Egyptian Christians who are murdered or driven off their ancient lands?
* "Leading from behind." What a concept. And we see the results, Barry Chamberlain. Those guys did not need to become so powerful.
Maybe our next president can be the kind who leads from in front, and shows at least as much genuine hostility towards our enemies as he does to our allies and the opposing party.
* The struggle between radical (traditional) Islam and the rest of the world doesn't look like dying out any time soon, unfortunately. It has lasted 1300 years so far: we might as well dig in for the long haul, and plan for generations to come. A Christian renewal of the West would be welcome not only for its own sake, but for the sake of world civilization.
Friday, November 06, 2015
History of Science trips up Matthew Ferguson.
Matthew Ferguson writes:
"Leave it to an apologist to call a pineapple smooth, an omniscient mind simple, and the discovery of science a Christian achievement."
I don't know what pineapple Ferguson is referring to, but one doesn't need to "leave it to apologists" to credit Christians for inventing modern science, since one finds scientists like Paul Davies and historians like Allen Chapman (Oxford) and David Landes (Harvard, to name a couple off the top of my head) saying a fair deal along those lines, as well. The modern inventors (or reinventors) of science were, in fact, mostly Christians, and to a large extent pious Christians, so at least in that sense, the comment above is uncontroversially true.
"A growing slogan has emerged in apologetics attempting to salvage the need for ancient superstitions in a modern world:
No, the antecedent from Carrier is more general:
"As the story now goes, not only has Christianity never been at odds with science and never impeded it in any way, but it was actually the savior of science, the only worldview that could ever make science possible. And that’s why the Scientific Revolution only ever sparked in one place: a thoroughly Christian society."
For the cause of defending "good scholarship," notice the seriousness of the sins Ferguson commits against scholarship here.
It is remarkably sloppy "scholarship" to begin such a harsh critique with a pronoun that seems to be directed at one set of arguments from one writer, but is actually referring to a general criticism with which it is not at all identical!
Schmidt, in fact, does not say here that Christianity "never impeded science in any way." On the contrary, he is making a specific positive historical claim. The difference is like that between saying, "An apple aided Newton in discovering the nature of gravity," and saying "apples never hurt anyone." The incoherence of Ferguson's critique grotesque.
Furthermore, Carrier's generalized argument, the one Ferguson agrees was wrong, was specific about praising Christianity as a necessary cause of science. But Schmidt merely says "belief in God," which would include Islam, Judaism, many forms of Hinduism or Confucianism or Taoism, at least potentially. Whether Schmidt is right or wrong, anyone who fails to differentiate the two arguments, is a wretched scholar, at best. (If we grant that dishonesty is worse than stupidity and carelessness.)
Either way, no one who plays this sort of a game should speak of someone else's "slight academic competence and responsibility.' Those qualities appear less than slight, here.
And the funny thing is, Ferguson later argues in precise contradiction to the article by Carrier that his post is largely written to praise:
"I also write this blog because I find one of the premises in this slogan to be so flawed that it needs to be addressed: apologists are often so imbued with a religio-centric worldview that they actually believe that the Pagan Greeks would have based their interest in science on their religion, as if one’s religion is their primary motivation for studying the natural world."
Yet in that very chapter of The Christian Delusion, Carrier also writes:
"Most intellectual polytheists believed in a Creator who had intelligently ordered the cosmos, that this order could be discovered by the human mind, and that such discovery honored God. Scientists like Galen and Ptolemy were thus motivated to pursue scientific inquiry by their religious piety . . . " (407)
How silly of those Christian apologists who think religion is so darn important that it might have actually inspired the ancient Greeks in how they explore and understand the world! Read this chapter from Richard Carrier, an objective (heh) expert in the ancient history of science, and don't listen to what those unscholarly apologists have to say.
Uh-oh. Don't tell me Richard Carrier has gone native?
Some days I think defending Christianity against the sort of critics it faces these days is Just. Too. Darn. Easy. All one has to do, 90% of the time, is read their sources more carefully than they do themselves.
"Leave it to an apologist to call a pineapple smooth, an omniscient mind simple, and the discovery of science a Christian achievement."
I don't know what pineapple Ferguson is referring to, but one doesn't need to "leave it to apologists" to credit Christians for inventing modern science, since one finds scientists like Paul Davies and historians like Allen Chapman (Oxford) and David Landes (Harvard, to name a couple off the top of my head) saying a fair deal along those lines, as well. The modern inventors (or reinventors) of science were, in fact, mostly Christians, and to a large extent pious Christians, so at least in that sense, the comment above is uncontroversially true.
"A growing slogan has emerged in apologetics attempting to salvage the need for ancient superstitions in a modern world:
“Belief in the rationality of God not only led to the inductive method but also led to the conclusion that the universe is governed rationally be discoverable laws. This assumption is vitally important to research because in a pagan or polytheistic world, which saw its gods often engaged in jealous, irrational behavior in a world that was nonrational, any systematic investigation would seem futile.”"Specialist in ancient science, Richard Carrier, had only this to say at such a patently false statement:
-Alvin Schmidt, “Science: Its Christian Connections” (pg. 221)
“This is not only false in every conceivable detail but so egregiously false that anyone with even the slightest academic competence and responsibility should have known it was false. Which means it’s advocates, all of whom claim to be scholars, must either be embarrassingly incompetent, perversely dishonest, or wildly deluded.”What is Carrier talking about? What does his first word, "this," refer to? Is he rebutting Schmidt? Is he even rebutting the argument Ferguson cites from Schmidt?
-The Christian Delusion (pg. 400-1)
No, the antecedent from Carrier is more general:
"As the story now goes, not only has Christianity never been at odds with science and never impeded it in any way, but it was actually the savior of science, the only worldview that could ever make science possible. And that’s why the Scientific Revolution only ever sparked in one place: a thoroughly Christian society."
For the cause of defending "good scholarship," notice the seriousness of the sins Ferguson commits against scholarship here.
It is remarkably sloppy "scholarship" to begin such a harsh critique with a pronoun that seems to be directed at one set of arguments from one writer, but is actually referring to a general criticism with which it is not at all identical!
Schmidt, in fact, does not say here that Christianity "never impeded science in any way." On the contrary, he is making a specific positive historical claim. The difference is like that between saying, "An apple aided Newton in discovering the nature of gravity," and saying "apples never hurt anyone." The incoherence of Ferguson's critique grotesque.
Furthermore, Carrier's generalized argument, the one Ferguson agrees was wrong, was specific about praising Christianity as a necessary cause of science. But Schmidt merely says "belief in God," which would include Islam, Judaism, many forms of Hinduism or Confucianism or Taoism, at least potentially. Whether Schmidt is right or wrong, anyone who fails to differentiate the two arguments, is a wretched scholar, at best. (If we grant that dishonesty is worse than stupidity and carelessness.)
Either way, no one who plays this sort of a game should speak of someone else's "slight academic competence and responsibility.' Those qualities appear less than slight, here.
And the funny thing is, Ferguson later argues in precise contradiction to the article by Carrier that his post is largely written to praise:
"I also write this blog because I find one of the premises in this slogan to be so flawed that it needs to be addressed: apologists are often so imbued with a religio-centric worldview that they actually believe that the Pagan Greeks would have based their interest in science on their religion, as if one’s religion is their primary motivation for studying the natural world."
Yet in that very chapter of The Christian Delusion, Carrier also writes:
"Most intellectual polytheists believed in a Creator who had intelligently ordered the cosmos, that this order could be discovered by the human mind, and that such discovery honored God. Scientists like Galen and Ptolemy were thus motivated to pursue scientific inquiry by their religious piety . . . " (407)
How silly of those Christian apologists who think religion is so darn important that it might have actually inspired the ancient Greeks in how they explore and understand the world! Read this chapter from Richard Carrier, an objective (heh) expert in the ancient history of science, and don't listen to what those unscholarly apologists have to say.
Uh-oh. Don't tell me Richard Carrier has gone native?
Some days I think defending Christianity against the sort of critics it faces these days is Just. Too. Darn. Easy. All one has to do, 90% of the time, is read their sources more carefully than they do themselves.
Rice Terraces in the fall in Southern China
I've been wanted to post these photos from my visit to the Longji (Dragon Spine) rice terraces in Guangxi Province three weeks ago, but had logistical problems. Anyway, the place was amazing! But take a look and see.
 |
| Hiking up the mountain from the village where I stayed. This is nearly the last of the fall rice harvest. |
 |
| Isn't this bewitching? High on the mountain, the rice terraces march down into a fairy land of bamboos and autumnal grasses. The steepest parts of the slope are given over to grasses. |
 |
| The wooden (fir, I think) homes are constructed with pegs rather than nails. I rented a room for $13 a night. Smelled nice inside, but there was a huge spider in the passage to the bathroom. |
 |
| I stayed in a hotel much like these houses, to the right. This field was being harvested the day I left. |
Monday, October 12, 2015
Newton, Watt, and Lamaitre meet a fly in a bar . . .
One of the fun (but time-spendy) activities I participate in, as academic director of a small international department in China, is to write stories for my students, using vocabulary from articles or books they are reading. That's the origin of this little story (thus some of the particular vocabulary it uses), but I think you might find it amusing. It also has something to say about hubris, reminding me of Pascal's words on the greatness and fragility of man.
"Several great scientists and inventors were sitting by a fireside in a bar, drinking from a kettle of tea, and quarreling over whose discoveries were the greatest.
"'I discovered gravity,' said Isaac Newton. 'Everything on Earth and in Heaven depends on gravity. Gravity keeps planets circling the sun. Gravity makes clocks and other pendulums move. When you lay the foundations of a cathedral, you have to think of me, or it will all fall over."
"James Watt replied, 'Not bad! But I discovered a power that can overcome gravity! Locomotives run on the power of steam that is created when you boil water. Steam thus allows engines to take people across deserts and continents, and up mountains against the pull of gravity.'
"'And where did the materials for steam engines, along with cathedrals, come from?' Asked Father George Lamaitre. 'Chandeliers, the lid of this tea kettle, the bones of whales, the bark of trees, the iron and nickel at the core of the Earth - all of it came from the Big Bang, which I discovered. And probably gravity, too, and the hydrogen that turned into water and makes steam.'
"Just then a fly landed on James Watt's tea cup. He swatted the fly, spilling tea on Newton. Newton stood up and showed Watt. The table fell over with a crash.
"'And what about me?' Asked the fly. 'While these mighty men lecture on physics and argue who has the most influence, who thinks of us insects? We start wars with a buzz. We kill millions by spreading disease, keeping humans out of whole areas of the Earth. After all, we are the mightest of them all.'"
"Several great scientists and inventors were sitting by a fireside in a bar, drinking from a kettle of tea, and quarreling over whose discoveries were the greatest.
"'I discovered gravity,' said Isaac Newton. 'Everything on Earth and in Heaven depends on gravity. Gravity keeps planets circling the sun. Gravity makes clocks and other pendulums move. When you lay the foundations of a cathedral, you have to think of me, or it will all fall over."
"James Watt replied, 'Not bad! But I discovered a power that can overcome gravity! Locomotives run on the power of steam that is created when you boil water. Steam thus allows engines to take people across deserts and continents, and up mountains against the pull of gravity.'
"'And where did the materials for steam engines, along with cathedrals, come from?' Asked Father George Lamaitre. 'Chandeliers, the lid of this tea kettle, the bones of whales, the bark of trees, the iron and nickel at the core of the Earth - all of it came from the Big Bang, which I discovered. And probably gravity, too, and the hydrogen that turned into water and makes steam.'
"Just then a fly landed on James Watt's tea cup. He swatted the fly, spilling tea on Newton. Newton stood up and showed Watt. The table fell over with a crash.
"'And what about me?' Asked the fly. 'While these mighty men lecture on physics and argue who has the most influence, who thinks of us insects? We start wars with a buzz. We kill millions by spreading disease, keeping humans out of whole areas of the Earth. After all, we are the mightest of them all.'"
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
I'll come to your freethinker meeting and PROVE the Resurrection for $145!
A scholar named Richard Miller wrote a book earlier this year proposing a supposedly "new" theory on how that delusion about Jesus rising from the dead arose. It involves our friend Romulus, legendary founder of Rome. The book costs $145.
Here's an interesting and well-written review from Amazon, by one Simon Albright, which predicts that the book will excite frenzied and worried opposition from the ranks of Christians. Then following that, my somewhat shorter response.
Here's an interesting and well-written review from Amazon, by one Simon Albright, which predicts that the book will excite frenzied and worried opposition from the ranks of Christians. Then following that, my somewhat shorter response.
Friday, October 02, 2015
Sam Harris Saves the Atheist World from Sin.
What do you do if you hate theism and want to blame it for most of the world's ills? But unfortuantely, people who share your own view of God just got done murdering a hundred million innocent people, enslaving a couple billion, and destroying the priceless cultural heritage of China (just for starters)? You might try Tweeting as Sam Harris just did: Sunday, September 27, 2015
Arrogant Ehrman, Error-Plagued Ehrman
If skeptical Jesus studies is a Good Cop, Bad Cop routine, then someone like Richard Carrier may appear in the role of Bad Cop, while Bart Ehrman is cast as his opposite number. Personally, I think Marcus Borg or John Crossan played the part more convincingly. But one can't deny that Erhman often comes across as soft-spoken and reasonable, or that he has piled up a mount of original books in Jesus scholarship, that have made him something of a star in this field. Or, perhaps, puffed up like a balloon. A balloon that has been huffed and puffed beyond its tensile capacity, and is ready to burst.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Did Jesus Really Liberate Chinese women? Response to Patrick and Loren.
Two frequent visitors, Patrick and Loren, expressed questions and doubts yesterday about my on-going series claiming that Jesus and the movement he inspired have liberated "billions" of women around the world. I appreciate the challenges, which will allow us to look more closely at a few interesting details. So here's my response.
I. Patrick: "What do you mean by 'liberation'? I didn't see any definition listed so it is difficult to tell what is or isn't a good example of women being liberated outside of the examples you presented. When you discuss a woman who is liberated what would her status be in that society with family and the society around her once she is liberated?"
I. Patrick: "What do you mean by 'liberation'? I didn't see any definition listed so it is difficult to tell what is or isn't a good example of women being liberated outside of the examples you presented. When you discuss a woman who is liberated what would her status be in that society with family and the society around her once she is liberated?"
Timely Slogans for Every Candidate
(Note: lower-tier candidates, please call direct for volume discounts)
Hillary Clinton:
"Because Charm, Truthfullness, Kindness, and Concrete Positive Achievements aren't Everything."
"Make me President, and I promise I'll obey the Law."
"You can Never have enough Spare Body Parts!"
"Frankenstein was the Real Feminist: Stop the War on Women!"
"Yeah, right. So you tell me what were you doing on the night of September 11, 2012!"
"Yes I am human! See! This is a smile!"
Donald Trump:
"The Brokest Country Ever, a Real Estate Heir who went Bankrupt Three Times: What Could Go Wrong?"
"Elect a President who will be as rude to America's enemies, as he is to Female Reporters and Ex-Wives."
"Isn't it time EVERYONE hate America?"
"Because America needs more Vulgarity!"
"Facts? Yeah, well you're ugly!"
"Don't Vote for those Inauthentic Phonys! Elect the Real Deal!"
Berry Sanders:
"Because Taxes are Still way too Low!"
"Why Shouldn't We Follow Europe Down the Drain?"
"Twenty Trillion in Debt? Let's try throwing money at the problem!"
"We Need Our Grandkids' Money More Than They Will!"
"Obama was a reactionary!"
"Where has Socialism ever not worked?"
Joe Biden:
"Because you know I'll get a paycheck from you, anyway."
"Stand up, America, and take a bow! Don't be shy! What are you doing in that Wheelchair after Eight Years of Obama-Biden, anyway?"
"My Party Went to Philadelphia and all they got was this Lousy Political Hack!"
"Because we ran out of Democrats!"
Ben Carson:
"Why Don't We Elect Some Nice Guy at Random and See What Happens!"
Jeb Bush:
"No, Seriously, This Really is 2016!"
Carly Fiorina:
"Come on, Guys. You KNOW you've always wanted a Strong Woman to Boss You Around."
"So NOW why would anyone vote for Hillary?"
Lindsay Graham:
"My good friend John McCain came in second, didn't he? That's not bad, in such a Big Country!"
Bobby Jindal:
"Let's Count Votes from ALL the World's Democracies, This Time!"
Marco Rubio:
"Don't Blame Me Just Because I'm a Freshman Senator, Too!"
"Hey, it worked for the Democrats!"
"You know you want Florida!"
John Kasich:
"You WANT my State! You NEED my State!"
Chris Christie:
"Not Nearly as Rude as Donald, Plus I Ran a State!"
"Obama Ate Broccali! Time for a Change!"
Scott Walker:
"Doh!"
Hillary Clinton: "Because Charm, Truthfullness, Kindness, and Concrete Positive Achievements aren't Everything."
"Make me President, and I promise I'll obey the Law."
"You can Never have enough Spare Body Parts!"
"Frankenstein was the Real Feminist: Stop the War on Women!"
"Yeah, right. So you tell me what were you doing on the night of September 11, 2012!"
"Yes I am human! See! This is a smile!"
Donald Trump: "The Brokest Country Ever, a Real Estate Heir who went Bankrupt Three Times: What Could Go Wrong?"
"Elect a President who will be as rude to America's enemies, as he is to Female Reporters and Ex-Wives."
"Isn't it time EVERYONE hate America?"
"Because America needs more Vulgarity!"
"Facts? Yeah, well you're ugly!"
"Don't Vote for those Inauthentic Phonys! Elect the Real Deal!"
Berry Sanders:
"Because Taxes are Still way too Low!"
"Why Shouldn't We Follow Europe Down the Drain?"
"Twenty Trillion in Debt? Let's try throwing money at the problem!"
"We Need Our Grandkids' Money More Than They Will!"
"Obama was a reactionary!"
"Where has Socialism ever not worked?"
Joe Biden:
"Because you know I'll get a paycheck from you, anyway.""Stand up, America, and take a bow! Don't be shy! What are you doing in that Wheelchair after Eight Years of Obama-Biden, anyway?"
"My Party Went to Philadelphia and all they got was this Lousy Political Hack!"
"Because we ran out of Democrats!"
Ben Carson:
"Why Don't We Elect Some Nice Guy at Random and See What Happens!"
Jeb Bush:
"No, Seriously, This Really is 2016!"
Carly Fiorina:
"Come on, Guys. You KNOW you've always wanted a Strong Woman to Boss You Around."
"So NOW why would anyone vote for Hillary?"
Lindsay Graham:
"My good friend John McCain came in second, didn't he? That's not bad, in such a Big Country!"
Bobby Jindal:
"Let's Count Votes from ALL the World's Democracies, This Time!"
Marco Rubio:
"Don't Blame Me Just Because I'm a Freshman Senator, Too!"
"Hey, it worked for the Democrats!"
"You know you want Florida!"
John Kasich:
"You WANT my State! You NEED my State!"
Chris Christie:
"Not Nearly as Rude as Donald, Plus I Ran a State!"
"Obama Ate Broccali! Time for a Change!"
Scott Walker:
"Doh!"
Saturday, September 19, 2015
"Jesus is the Answer" -- even on the SAT.
You may remember the old slogan, "Jesus is the answer." Maybe it comes from a song by Larry Norman. The usual response was, "to what question?" But perhaps that misses the point. Maybe one thing that makes Jesus uniquely the answer, is the plurality of questions to which his life, teachings and works provide the best answer.
I was thinking about this the other day when I was teaching my students how to take the written part of the SAT test. I ask them to develop a number of stories, especially true stories and histories, that they can draw on to support their answers to the SAT prompt. Normally, I good SAT essay is 400 words or more, providing a clear intro, two or so supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion, in 25 minutes -- pretty hard for Chinese young people to write, so they need help in preparation. So I told them I'd limit myself to just two or three supporting examples -- "Jesus, contemporary Chinese or American society" -- and try to write full essays in half the time. And they could choose the question for me to answer at the last moment.
I was thinking about this the other day when I was teaching my students how to take the written part of the SAT test. I ask them to develop a number of stories, especially true stories and histories, that they can draw on to support their answers to the SAT prompt. Normally, I good SAT essay is 400 words or more, providing a clear intro, two or so supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion, in 25 minutes -- pretty hard for Chinese young people to write, so they need help in preparation. So I told them I'd limit myself to just two or three supporting examples -- "Jesus, contemporary Chinese or American society" -- and try to write full essays in half the time. And they could choose the question for me to answer at the last moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)