Prayers to Jake

Question:Can chance produce information? Is the question a Christian asked on his blog. I know I've seen it before and it's a poor argument but unfortunately he keeps inventing reasons and extra additions to show information can't come from chance. The whole argument and his question is here: http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/can-chance-produce-information/ A definitive answer to throw back would be greatly appreciated.Atheist Answer

It's been a little while, and the Crazy Australian has in fact conceded that chance can at least produce something which we recognise as information. This Australian says, good on him.

This question is a common creationist approach. The application there is that information in a genome is not seen to increase after random recombinations. The response is that new information can take the form of a decrease in data as well as an increase (my usual example is that the valuable information each week on Big Brother is who will leave the house) so a recombination, which is partly both, is definitely an increase in information.

Completely random threads of information would indeed be unlikely to come to anything meaningful. Consider that, by the way: information, as defined in a computational sense by those who wish to manipulate, compress and optimise it, need not be meaningful in any sense other than representing the data of which it is comprised.

A bit of real-world pressure makes all the difference; this is the very core of natural selection. Changes to a genome which are harmful, ambiguous or negligible tend to die out when the living beings carrying them are outbred by beings carrying directly beneficial changes. It doesn't matter what the information in the genome means as such. Only survival value is of importance, and as it happens, information coherent enough to represent blueprints for complex structures like wings and stomach acid has substantial survival value.

You know, the real answer to this question is really extremely simple. Yes, chance can produce information, if there is such a thing as information. Chance can produce anything, given the right conditions. That's what chance means.

Applied to anything real, though, the true question is, "Can chance consistently produce information?" That's a little hairier, but it's moot when applied to evolution. Natural selection is not a chance process. It mines the random element of mutation for new genetic material, but the selection itself is the original Survival of the Fittest.

It's like rolling fifty dice and only picking out the fours, fives and sixes. You're guaranteed a fairly high average score per selected die. The game of evolution is rigged in favour of life.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:What is your best come back to "you think we came from monkeys?"Atheist Answer

Well, in response to the OP, when people say such things in that manner, it usually means that they are unfamiliar with evolution in its entirety, and are employing intuitive and naive notions in order to attempt to discuss complex scientific theories. Since our intuition is often at odds with said complex scientific theories, they will run into some problems doing this. Several days ago I decided to read the mission statement of the Flat Earth Society. It was only a few paragraphs, not enough time for me to vomit, and the spelling and grammar were, um...different. Anyway, they railed on for a bit about the evil scientific conspiracy and the supposed dogmatic, quasi-religious nature of science, and then presented their argument for the Flat Earth (if the Earth is round then how come Australians stand upright? They should be upside down).

Obviously this is complete nonsense. There are no "directions" in space. The notions of "up" and "down" are meaningless. They are applied in daily life only relative to the ground on which one is standing. It is a non sequitur to say that people on the North pole should stand upright and those on the south one upside, and everyone else should stand at some slanted angle. Yet intuition tells us so. I wouldn't listen to intuition however, it's useless. Relative to the ground on which an Australian is standing, he is upright. Relative to the ground on which an American is standing, he is also upright. So is everyone else, because that is all motion and position are, they are relative concepts that are only judged in a frame of reference relative to other bodies. The argument the FES put forth above is identical to arguing that if the Earth was moving relative to the Sun at thousands of miles per second, why we do not feel this. The answer is obvious, because if we are standing on the Earth, we are travelling at precisely the same speed, and hence relative to the Earth, are not moving at all.

I picked the most ludicrous example I could find to illustrate a point. When people use intuition to try and understand scientific ideas, they will fail, and this will usually result in using childish language to attempt to mock something regarding which they have precisely zero understanding. In the irritating moving Expelled, Michael Ruse and Richard Dawins explained, in simple language that even someone with cognizance deficiences on the order of magnitude that Ben Stein possesses could understand, which is impressive. They were explaining how elaborate molecular synthesis could form on the backs of rocks, and how piezoelectricity could allow for the assembly of small scale elabore metabolism. They also explained Autocatalysis and clay theory, and the possibility of the synthesis of organic molecules in mud, or water, because of the dipole effect and the high concentrations of organic molecules. Of course, Ben Stein, who knew precisely nothing about primordial biochemistry, electrical organometallic chemistry, or molecular biology , laughed and returned to the point throughout the movie. "MUD"!! (Laughing) "ROCKS"! It was all very Hovindesque in delivery. Of course, this ridicule was all the man could muster, because he was relying on intuition and childish language to try and understand (actually, that's not true. He obviously wasn't trying to understand at all. He was trying to ridicule) something that clearly shot straight over his head. How can one present a serious critique of that which their sum knowledge total is negative (in addition to no knowledge, being in possession of disinformation)? It is incredibly easy to try and fuck up when trying to understand complicated scientific concepts. ("If Relativity is true, how come I can't go and visit my dead relatives?" ).

With respect to evolution, the problem is in some cases greatly exacerbated. There is a lot of potential for complete misunderstanding here. An equally stupid argument could be concocted by reversing the currently employed "Second Law of Thermodynamics" argument to become "If SLOT is true, how come we have all these ordered systems like biology"? One way I find that misunderstanding often springs forth is when people try to use metaphorical ideas and concepts to try and explain ideas. If the laws of thermodynamic are to be understoon in terms of "progressing towards disorder" and evolution, which despite having no implicit direction has, as a general rule of thumb, constructed more complex entities as a function of time, is creating "order", then someone naive can imagine that there is a problem. Such explanations rely on childish and metaphorical understanding of thermodynamics concepts that cannot be understood in any way whatsoever without complete familiarity with the equations. My point is, when people either try to rely on intuition, or a very meager amount of knowledge, the idea that they can "critique" a concept based on this foundation is ludicrous. THe brutal and undeniable fact is that the number of creationists who can give me a single sentence, working, accepted scientific definition of biological evolution, without consulting wikipedia, is utterly negligible.

- Deluded God
Rational Response Squad (more responses posted here)

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I've recently been assaulted by horrible videos and text-based websites claiming that certain passages of the Koran, just like Christian creationists / biblical literalistics say, conform to or are validated by modern science. Examples like in the Koran a line saying there's one force that guides everything - this is interpreted as relating to efforts to construct a grand "theory of everything". It obviously ignores the fact that such a theory might not even pan out, which is besides the point. One of the most stupid things I've seen from these Koranical literlists though is claiming that the Koran shows that they knew the Earth was round, because it says the World is "spread out like a carpet". I lay my carpet flat, but the question at the end of all this is: Is Islamic creationism as prevalent as the American Christian version? Are there as many intellectually vapid claims made? What about the Islamic arm of the Intelligent Design movement, are there Muslim schools in America and other parts of the world being assaulted by parents urging the Islamic schools to "teach the controversy?"Atheist Answer

There are passages of the Koran which do seem to refer to aspects of modern science. That's because they're vague as all get out and, as the carpet example shows, enough creative interpretation can make anything fit the old writings.

The Islamic creationist lobby is very active in certain countries, for example Turkey. Sometimes it even collaborates with the Christian creationist lobby to fight evolution. Evolution contradicts the Koran too, and even if it didn't Muslims regard the basic timeline of the Bible as accurate. They fight evolution to preserve the inerrancy of their core texts, just like the creationists we're used to.

The anti-evolution claims and arguments in Islamic creationism are interchangeable with the Christian ones. On public access TV here in Australia, a Muslim host presented a Christian creationist video with no qualms.

The difference is that there is no equivalent to the Intelligent Design movement in Islamic creationism. While some of the arguments aren't religious in nature, there's no attempt to present creationism as a secular scientific theory. There's a far more honest and direct effort to defeat evolution and replace it with the Koran's version of events.

This is not surprising as church-state separation isn't always a constitutional issue outside of the United States. Turkish school curricula are under direct religious assault, as in many countries. There's no need for such contingency campaigns as "critical analysis of evolution" and "teach the controversy". Those only came about in America when the initial Intelligent Design movement was blocked in court. Intelligent Design itself was only conceived in 1987 when Christian creationism in schools was ruled unconstitutional.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:Here's a sample of the many different ways in which the same basic question is posed: How did all the beauty around us come to be? How did intelligent people come from monkeys, or oranges, or sludge, or nothing at all? How did life begin if the chances of the necessary proteins assembling was one in ten to the power of hundreds? (The next one's taken from an actual wall poster:) How can anyone witness a sunset and not believe in God? Why is there any order to the universe? Why are the fundamental constants of the universe tuned so that matter, and humans, can exist at all? How is it that we live, and live in such a wonderful world, if it all came about by chance?Atheist Answer

From the development of the eye to the beauty of a waterfall to the exact value of the gravitational constant, theists may claim that anything natural with any quality to it whatsoever must have been deliberately crafted with humanity in mind. This is the Argument from Design.

Even if it were correct, it's a terribly egotistical way of looking at the world. And even if it were proven to be correct, no religion would have any basis upon which to claim that the designer or creator was its particular god or gods.

The basic answer to the argument from design is that there is no substantive evidence for it and therefore 1. to assume design in the presence of alternative theories supported by substantive evidence is putting one's head in the sand and 2. to assume design even in the complete absence of alternative theories is an argument from ignorance.

Beginning with evolution and the development of intelligent humans, there is a huge amount of geological, genetic and observed evidence to support the currently held view of the "tree of life". Evolution of subspecies is observed all the time, and contrary to a common objection whole new species have been seen to emerge, and recently. (This article on speciation has some examples.)

Contrary to another creationist talking point, there are tons of known transitional fossils. Contrary to Kirk Cameron, these don't look like half of one animal joined to half of another (like his famous Croco-duck). They're more like what you get if you morph a whole picture of one into a picture of the other, but stop halfway.

To dismiss evolution as a useless series of random changes is an argument from personal incredulity, which is a type of argument from ignorance. It's also wrong. The mutations are random, but only the beneficial mutations tend to be passed on by sheer survival and procreation skills. Evolution doesn't just try random things and get it right every time, it tries everything and goes with what works. It's like trying to hit a dartboard by spraying the whole wall with a machine gun. You'll miss a lot, but you'll hit it too.

Intelligence came about because at every stage in the development of primates, the ones who are just that little bit smarter than everyone else will always have the advantage. Over millions of years, it all adds up. Along with this comes morality (since good deeds are often rewarded), an appreciation of beauty (since it helps if what's pleasing to the eye is usually not diseased, poisonous or dirty) and emotions (to motivate us to do what's helpful to us and others).

Going back to the origin of life, abiogenesis as it was called could have occurred by a number of different chemical processes. So far scientists have used electricity (lightning) and a replica of the ancient atmosphere to create amino acids, which are pretty close. With a whole world full of chemicals being blown and washed into each other and billions of years to work, there was ample time and material for the components of the first replicating organism to slowly accumulate. The huge odds against this often given by folks like Hoyle generally assume that they all had to come together at once, which they didn't. Once one little bit of DNA was off and running, evolution and exponential growth took over.

Before we tackle the whole universe at once, let's consider Earth. Someone might claim that God put Earth exactly where it needed to be relative to the Sun so that liquid water and therefore life could form. We now know, however, that there are a lot more planets out there, and probably huge numbers of undiscovered ones. It's not that Earth was placed where liquid water could form. Rather, liquid water only forms on planets of the right temperature and Earth happened to fit the bill. Lots more planets might. This is called the anthropic principle: places aren't made for humans, humans just have a chance of turning up in hospitable places. Even on Earth there are many places we can't survive, like inside volcanoes and kilometres under the sea. So, we didn't emerge from there. Big surprise.

The largest design claim has to do with the fundamental constants of the universe. Six major ones are usually mentioned: those pertaining to gravity, electromagnetism, spatial dimensions and other less famous concepts. As is repeated endlessly, the slightest difference in any of them might result in matter being unable to form or stay together. This is the "fine-tuned universe" argument.

The problem is that even if this is true, there could still be other values of the constants which support matter. Perhaps instead of changing one or two slightly, you need to shift four of them by a huge amount. Considering that some of the constants could even be negative, you've got an infinite six-dimensional sample space in which to test hypothetical universes. We may never know whether our values are the only valid ones. Or, we may stumble upon another valid combination and that'll be the end of this argument.

Besides, the anthropic principle applies again if you consider the theory of a multiverse. If there are multiple (perhaps infinite) universes each with its own set of constants, of course we're going to turn up in the universe with a friendly combination. Other life forms may be thriving in universes where we wouldn't last for a second, and understanding how would require us to re-learn physics from scratch.

Contesting the argument from design is hard work, because to be most effective you need to know the going theories for whatever phenomenon is in question. I've tackled the most common ones, but be prepared for just about anything useful or pretty to be presented as direct evidence for gods. Then you need only find out where it really came from.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:This is the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, in the form of the popular Kalam Cosmological Argument: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. Following on from that, the cause of the universe must have been eternal and therefore without cause. Besides being eternal, this Uncaused Cause must have been all-powerful and all-knowing, as it literally created everything else. It must be God.Atheist Answer

I've answered this argument a lot on this site, but I think it deserves a summary question. My aim is make this a reference for any subsequent "origin" questions.

The Cosmological Argument or Argument from First Cause is the proper form of the common argument that the universe must have been deliberately created, and you can't get "something from nothing". It predates Christianity, as Plato and Aristotle had their own versions.

That's the first issue with the argument: it only attempts to prove the existence of a Creator. It is therefore a deist argument, so when a theist uses it to prove a specific god with no further logic it's a step too far. Keep an eye out for this.

The basic premise that everything finite requires a cause is the least controversial part, but even this isn't rock solid. Possible exceptions are found in quantum mechanics, where particles move about in a probabilistic fashion. Until observed, a particle may be anywhere in a small area, and in a sense is everywhere in the area. When you observe it, it picks one spot and stays there. This is of course a gross oversimplification, but the point is that there's no known force moving the particles around. There may actually be no cause as such, and the universe may be far more spontaneous than we think.

Even "something from nothing" is plausible according to a related theory that "nothing" is really a quantum foam from which matter may emerge. This is purely theoretical at the moment (it makes mathematical sense, but there's not much physical evidence), but it's worth remembering that science is actually considering ways like this in which matter could just pop out of "nothing". It can't be dismissed entirely.

Causality may also be irrelevant if time wasn't linear at the beginning, if it had a beginning. An effect must follow its cause, but this is meaningless if chronological order hasn't settled down yet.

The universe is widely regarded by lay people (who aren't young-earth creationists) to have begun with the Big Bang. This may seem counterintuitive - how can something be created by an explosion instead of destroyed? - but it was no ordinary explosion. All the matter and energy in the universe was compressed into a singularity, a point so small it had no volume at all. (Absurd as this sounds, it happens today with large amounts of matter in the centres of black holes.) Then it expanded outwards, and it's still expanding to this day. Once the matter was in that singularity, nothing was created or destroyed, only distrubuted.

How did the matter get in there? Was the Big Bang the true beginning, or a continuation of something else? We haven't a clue. A god is one hypothesis. Other universes, with their own separate systems of time and space, are another. The quantum foam is an outside chance. Who knows what else we haven't thought of.

I like the idea of a multiverse, an eternal group or series of universes setting each other off. It's got one up on gods because it's multiple instances of a known object. We know there's at least one universe (this one), while we don't have a single example of an established god. If you see a huge cabbage patch where the whole crop's been eaten, and you find one fat little rabbit in the corner, do you assume that Bigfoot must have done most of the damage? No, you wonder where all the other rabbits are hiding.

The theory of expansion and contraction, of many Big Bangs and Big Crunches, has fallen apart recently with the discovery that the expansion of the universe is apparently accelerating. That means it will never return to the singularity, and it is not cyclical in the way we thought. That doesn't stop it from being cyclical in other ways, for example stretching until it tears a hole and then draining out to somewhere else.

The point is that if you do accept that everything finite must have a cause, something must be eternal. Either it's the universe/multiverse, or it's a god. There are many theories, and potentially many more, which allow for an eternal universe which needs no cause. Therefore an eternal god is not the only option, and anything which says so is a poor attempted proof of its existence.

- SmartLX

Note: The argument that a god created the universe based on the universe's nature, order, awesomeness, etc. is not related to causality. It's the Argument from Design, which is next on the GBA hitlist.

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:There are many forms of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. The following is Wikipedia's optimal modern description, in the form of a reductio ad absurdum: 1. God is that entity than which nothing can be greater. 2. The concept of God exists in human understanding. 3. God exists in one's mind but not in reality. 4. The concept of God's existence is understood in one's mind. 5. If God existed in reality, it would be a greater thing than God's existence in the mind. 6. The final step to God's existence is that God in reality must exist. Atheist Answer

The Ontological Argument strikes me as the equivalent of trying to win a lawsuit on a technicality. It's a full-blown a priori attempted proof which assumes only that a perfect being is conceivable. I won't argue this point, because although definitions may differ everyone gets some image in mind upon hearing the phrase "perfect being".

The thrust of the argument is that it's greater and more perfect to exist than not to exist. Since God in theory is the greatest and most perfect thing ever, He must exist.

The most obvious problem is that the argument is not the least bit specific about which God exists. Even if the argument were unassailable and the existence of a god were proven, we would still know absolutely nothing about the god's identity or nature. Jumping immediately from the existence of a god to the existence of your god is an unsupported assertion.

If you really wanted to be annoying, you could argue that since the argument can be used to prove the existence of multiple mutually exclusive gods (say, the God of Abraham and Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrian faith) it's obviously a flawed argument. The theist reply is of course the above point that the argument makes no comment on the god's identity and most religions just have the wrong guy, but it's a good way to make people think.

The real problem is the premise that to exist in reality is greater and/or more perfect than to exist only in the mind. Something which doesn't exist isn't more perfect than something which does, but it isn't less perfect either. It has no qualities by which this can be judged. An apple which doesn't exist isn't red, but neither is it purple. Therefore it can't be redder or less red than a real red apple.

Existence isn't a property as such either. Even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily be a positive property, or something a perfect being must have. Something destructive like an earthquake might be better if it didn't exist.

There are plenty of objections along these lines by a great many people, the most famous being Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant. As stated in the question, there are also a great many rephrasings of the argument which try to circumvent these objections.

The net result is that major apologetic organisations have advised that the Ontological Argument in its current forms does not stand up to scrutiny, and other arguments like the Transcendental and Cosmological Arguments (the favourites) should be used instead.

That doesn't stop a lot of YouTubers from reciting obscure forms of the Ontological Argument and expecting them to be invincible. Look it up, and enjoy the logical knots both sides get themselves into when discussing it.

I always worry when someone uses this argument, because it may mean a few things. Maybe they don't think people have the intelligence to fully comprehend such a complex-sounding argument and will accept it by default. Maybe they haven't read the objections and don't expect anyone to look them up. From a big-picture perspective, they're using a less well known argument thinking it will take people by surprise, not considering that it's less well known for a reason. It just plain doesn't work.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I'm aware of the difference between a "weak" atheist (does not believe there is a god) and a "strong" atheist (believes there is no god), and I also know the meanings of the terms "agnostic" and "gnostic" as they relate to atheism. I have read and been told many times that the two spectra are equal and parallel, as in an "agnostic atheist" is essentially a "weak atheist", and same for the other terms. However I'm not sure that this is right. If agnosticism is the view that the absolute truth / existence of god(s) is inherently unknowable, doesn't that leave room for an agnostic to also be a strong atheist? Even though it seems irrational in print to hold beliefs about what I believe is unknowable, I simply can't help the fact that I believe no gods or any supernatural entities have ever existed, yet also believe it's something that we can never be certain of. So my question is, are these spectra in fact NOT parallel, or is it a contradiction to call myself an "agnostic strong atheist"? Thanks, godless gurus!Atheist Answer

Good question. After reading up on this I reckon I've stuffed it up at least once. I think I need to bring in yet another division to make good sense of it all: implicit and explicit atheism.

An implicit atheist is what I previously thought of as a weak atheist (my main mistake): someone who has not even thought about belief in gods. Very young children, some mentally challenged people and possibly some remote tribespeople would be implicit atheists.

An explicit atheist has thought about it, and has taken a position. That makes every self-identified atheist of any kind an explicit atheist (obvious also from the basic definition of "explicit").

A strong atheist is one who positively believes that there are no gods. A weak atheist is any atheist who is not a strong atheist, including implicit atheists. That means anyone who leaves room for the possibility of gods is a weak atheist.

A gnostic atheist believes it's possible to know whether gods exist, and obviously has decided that none do. Every gnostic atheist is plainly a strong atheist. However, not every strong atheist is a gnostic atheist.

An agnostic atheist accepts that we do not know, and possibly can never know, whether gods exist, but does not believe that they do. By contrast an agnostic theist or agnostic spiritualist does believe in something supernatural but accepts that it is unproven and unidentified. "Agnostic strong atheist" is not necessarily an oxymoron, because you can believe there are no gods despite accepting that you can never know for sure. This is no worse than believing in God in the absence of decent evidence. Congratulations, your preferred label is valid.

(To show you how confusing this can get, I'll admit that the last two paragraphs are a second draft. First time around, I came to the opposite conclusion! It was because I wrongly assumed that all strongs are gnostic just because all gnostics are strong.)

Take me for another example. While you are explicit, agnostic and strong, I'm explicit, agnostic and weak. I don't think it's impossible to know whether gods exist, but I don't think we currently do know. I'm not prepared to believe that there are no gods, although that's my opinion, but I certainly won't believe in any until substantive evidence becomes available. I'm open to God, gods or no gods, but I know which seems most likely.

So when a theist asks me, "How can you believe absolutely that there is no God without any evidence?" I can truthfully say, "I don't." (You, Goodnight, might have to think a bit more if asked the same question. As an exercise, would you please tell us how you would answer? I'm curious now.)

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I don't add "weak", frankly because nobody wants to be a weak anything. I find "agnostic" captures most of the same meaning anyway. Near enough is good enough.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I may have found the holy grail that shuts them up! Ask who was king james and how did that version come to be? very few have a clue and the few that do dont want to talk anymore. could you please give a short history of HENRY V111 <serial killer> started his version. a book they say is the word of gODD hmmm I guess history isnt taught in sunday schoolAtheist Answer

Here's the Wikipedia page on the King James Version of the Bible.

Here's a very quick version: Henry VIII of England had the Bible translated into English for the first time (before that, it was in Latin) while establishing himself as the head of what would become the Church of England. James VI of Scotland (also James I of England; same guy, different numbers for each country he ruled) later commissioned his own English version which was as non-controversial as he could manage but did have a few bits geared to support his own divine right to rule. (Charles I later relied unsuccessfully on this divine right when on trial for high treason, and was beheaded.)

The KJV (for short) is special because there are those who believe it's the only accurate and reliable translation, over and above even the original texts in Hebrew and Greek. (Remember that the people in the New Testament would have spoken Aramaic.) There appears to be no solid basis for this belief except for the fact that the KJV is really very well-written.

Pointing out the human origins of the Bible and its different versions is always a good way to make Christians think and examine the sources of their beliefs. It's hardly a skeptic's Holy Grail, however, because many Christians simply declare that God guided everyone even remotely involved in the writing, editing, translation, publication and distribution of the particular Bible they use. Same goes for any holy text before or since. It's never just a bunch of stuff some person wrote, it's always divinely inspired if not actually written by gods.

Quick comment on the questioner's handle: it's not necessarily Hell for you if you're wrong, only if you're wrong and some religion with a Hell is right. Even then you might get off in some cases.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I have a co-worker that has completely swallowed some gloom and doom predictions, by someone named Ronald Weiland. I am not yet armed with enough wording to debate him. This so called prophet has some books predicting the end time on his web site at the-end.com Can anyone help? Thanks!Atheist Answer

For reference and example, folks, here's part of the blurb for Weinland's book 2008 - God's Final Witness:

"From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording."

This really is straight from Revelations 10. John hears seven "thunders" say something, but as he's about to write it down an angel tells him not to; they'll be revealed instead when the world ends.

Revelations 10 is a really dangerous passage because it leaves a hole in the prophecy. Doomsayers like Weinland can predict or declare anything and then claim that it goes in the hole. It's satisfying in the same way as fitting a middle piece into a jigsaw puzzle, and so it's more readily acceptable to some. It makes narrative sense that an "end-time prophet" would be given some new information which was withheld 2000 years out from doomsday. It's a nice story.

Debunking Weinland isn't like debunking predictions by Nostradamus. Much of what Nostradamus said has come true because he said things which were so vague you could interpret any modern event as matching one of them. Weinland is easier to nail down than that, given the short time frame of his predictions.

He's said for instance that the United States will collapse before the end of 2009. Therefore all you have to do to call his bluff is wait 22 months. You don't really have to wait that long though, because he's made a great many interim predictions for this year. That's what 2008 - God's Final Witness is all about.

As for arguing with a believer right now, just ask what Weinland has successfully predicted so far. If he does claim a correct prediction, is there any evidence that he actually predicted it ahead of time or is it possible that he's taking credit after the fact? What reason or precedent does your co-worker give for believing this guy? If it's just a matter of faith, then it really is blind faith.

I recommend you read up on a few other doomsday predictions, especially the famous case of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They went through half a dozen Tribulation dates before they stopped setting new ones as the old ones passed. Each time some reason was "found" why the previous date was a misinterpretation of scripture and prophecy.

Encourage your co-worker to make a list of things he expects to have happened by the end of 2008, and give you a copy. As the year wears on, offer to compare notes. Keep score; every time he pushes a prediction off to 2009 or later (for any reason) is a point for you, and every prediction that he can convince you has come true since he made the list is 10 points for him.

If he goes for it, chances are he'll concede a few points to you at first, expecting the first fulfilled prophecy to put him ahead. Later on he'll be less and less likely to mention the list at all. Don't rub his face in it, just let him learn that no amount of human religious authority guarantees the accuracy of a prediction.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I thought this would be a good question that deserves an answer more intelligent than one I could give. What could be the consequences, both for scientists and the rest of humanity, if Intelligent Design gets pushed through to the schools and children finish their schooling firm believers in everything being done by a "supernatural entity" that is "liek totally not God lol roflcopter"? Examples that come to mind are an entire generation of "scientists" and "biologists" that don't understand why the flu virus keeps changing, or why the fly spray formula needs switching every certain number of years. What do you see as the consequences for the world if re branded creationism gets pushed on kids as real science? (Notice I don't dare to hope that, having been "taught the controversy", a large number will choose evolution, since evolution only gets to them at schools and worship of their BFF InvisiMan gets thrown at them from friends, parents, churches, less-than-intelligent political leaders...).Atheist Answer

Firstly, "teaching the controversy" or "critical analysis of evolution" is literally teaching Intelligent Design.

There is no fully developed theory, as Philip E. Johnson has admitted:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

ID really only consists of a series of arguments against evolution, the default conclusion of which is a designer. Teaching the controversy allows all of these arguments to be aired. Only the designer's identity is left out, but it's pretty darn obvious.

The world won't fall apart if a generation of people, and even scientists, dismiss or never learn evolution. Even in cases like flu vaccine updates, doctors would keep doing what they're doing because it works. They'd just come up with different reasons why it does, as in, "God works it like this." Nothing supports a theory like evidence which the theory itself was changed to match.

The true consequence is that we would lose our insight. We can apply proven techniques and technologies and rationalise however we want, but if we don't understand the true reasons why they work then we can't refine them or make any new ones except by trial and error. We stagnate.

As Ken Miller has suggested, a country which sacrifices scientific understanding to maintain its beliefs falls behind the rest of the world. He's terrified that this will happen to America. I worry too, but I do think some hard data showing the country's slipping technological superiority would spur some patriots to give science a shot in the arm. I hope it isn't needed of course. Anyway, I'm Australian.

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I am not a christian but I want to know or at least have a theroy that is believeable because some of these don't work. Evolution is kind of interesting but in my science class we learned about the second law of thermodynamics where everything is heading towards a higer state of entropy so how are animals getting more complex? wouldn't that disprove that law? The big bang theroy is kind of weird also something about how a void exploded and the earth was created but how can nothing explode? and if there was something there why is it that when it explodes microbes and trees and cells were created? that is very unlikely math can't really show the possibility of that happening and the last time I saw an explosion things were destroyed. How can I really believe in those things. and the The nebula hypothesis is kind of believeable but how did plant's come around because you need seeds to create plants and even then how can animals come from it? every way I look I only see signs of a god but that sounds like bs too I mean if there was a god why would he allow things like world war two? I am very confused. please answer as best as you can if I try and debate it is only so I can find the truth.Atheist Answer

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed system must increase. The Earth by itself isn't a closed system; the Sun provides it with energy by increasing its own entropy by huge amounts via fusion reactions. That means that entropy in another part of the system can decrease without breaking the Second Law.

I've explained it more thoroughly here, but just think about it for a second. If order and complexity could never increase anywhere, you couldn't build anything, arrange anything or form a coherent thought. There must be a way.

It's unlikely that what exploded in the Big Bang was a total void. It was the entire current universe squashed into one tiny dot. We don't know how it got there; maybe it came from another universe, maybe something compressed the universe into a dot, or maybe it really did pop out of "nothing". That last one isn't quite as silly as it sounds, because some quantum theories actually do allow for it by positing that "nothing" is really a sort of quantum foam of potentiality.

We don't really know that the Big Bang was what created everything; we're just mostly sure that everything there is was in the Big Bang. It might have all existed forever, and just spent a bit of time squashed into the dot.

Thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion is a bit too simple. An explosion destroys things around it; since everything was in the Bang itself, there was nothing around it to destroy. Once all the debris was floating free, gravity brought some of it back together to form rocks and stars. Stars create vast amounts of entropy, so any rock receiving energy from a star is part of its closed system and a certain amount of order and complexity is free to emerge there. This is how microbes were able to come about (though it's not exactly how they came about; that's a bit more complicated).

Plants actually evolved from seagoing creatures. Once the oceans were teeming with ultra-primitive life, masses of it was bound to wash up on the shores of Pangaea (the single pre-drift continent). Most of that organic matter would have died, but a tiny fraction of organisms would have been able to use their existing abilities to sink safely into the sand or soil, and stick one piece up to get some sunlight. It was natural selection in all its glory; if you throw enough different kinds of crap at the wall, something is bound to stick.

Go ahead and reply with your objections if something still doesn't seem feasible. Don't worry about ticking us off. That's what we're here for.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:well i live in a very catholic oriented environment. I live in a country where one has freedom of religion but does not have freedom from it. There is no separation of church and state, and apparently no separation of church and school since i study in private catholic academy A few years back i was afraid of telling others that i was an atheist. I thought they would think differently of me, but a year ago, i felt comfortable telling that i am an atheist, and i still feel that comfort up to now. The thing is most of my classmates are catholics. out of the 299 students in my batch there are only 3 who are atheist. exposing my self as one makes others ask alot of questions. the usual response i get are, "so you hate god?" or "you worship the devil", some give me a weird stare, but the most often response i get is "WHY?". Well i do have my reasons of being an atheist and for myself but whenever i am asked why i am an atheist; i cannot answer. Maybe because i think that others might find my reason offensive. The main reason why i am an atheist is that i find the concept of religion flawed. How do i explain this to catholics without offending them? i really want to explain my side to them, but i want to avoid having a debate at all cost. i don't want to have an argument especially if it becomes personalAtheist Answer

Correction: there are only 3 in your batch who are openly atheist. A little public exposure of atheism might bring more out. I bet they're just as scared as you.

There's no way to say that you think another person's belief system is without basis so that he/she can't possibly take offence. The very existence of atheists is a slap in the face to some people. On one forum I met a fellow who always put 'atheists' in quotes, to imply we're really something else.

You have to remember, and let people know, that you are not criticising them personally. It's only the religion you've rejected. You don't want to offend people, so that means you're fully aware that your reasons are not intended to offend. If someone does take offence, you should take them to task and explain why that was not your intention. An argument is much easier to lose if the point you concede is that you're not being insulted.

You might have to brave a few short debates at first just to find out what kind of arguments are being thrown at you. After that, you can have some short replies ready to shut them down when they are used again. Just having short, simple answers to common arguments says to the world that you really have thought about this, you've made an informed decision and reciting a few platitudes at you won't have any effect.

A few examples:

"So you hate God?"
"How would I hate God if I don't think He exists? That's like hating Darth Vader." (insert other fictional characters at will)

"You must worship the Devil."
"If there's no God, how could there be a Devil?"

"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
"No, I can't. But I don't see any good reason why He must."

"Why don't you believe in God?""
"There's no available evidence." (There might be follow-up questions, but you know why any of the things they'll bring up are not evidence.)

"If you're wrong, you'll go to Hell."
"If I'm wrong, there are a zillion possible gods to worship and I've got almost no chance of picking the right one."

"So where did the universe come from?"
"I don't know. Nobody does. God's one answer; there might be others."

"Atheists just want to do what they like without being called to Judgement."
"If that's true, why aren't I out stealing and killing? Why am I still being a good person?"

Get the idea? A short statement which not only refutes the argument but makes it sound a little bit misguided. There are comebacks to all of the above, but once you've established that convincing you would take some work you can simply say that you'd appreciate it if they respected your conclusion of atheism the way they'd expect you to respect their faith in Catholicism. (Personally I don't know why faith in itself deserves respect, but they think it does.)

If some people still want to engage you and bring you back to the fold, why not point them to websites like this one? Firstly it will likely have instant answers to much of what they would have said to you, and secondly it will show them that you have your own community behind you and they're not just up against one person.

I honestly don't think you can avoid some confrontations coming out as an atheist in such a staunchly Catholic community. The best thing is to tough it out and learn how to make them as short as possible without insulting people. Those who take offence for no good reason will do so no matter what, so don't think you're not still a nice person if it happens.

Good luck.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I recently sent out a bulletin through RRSChicago refering to a funny skit by atheist comedian Jamie Kilstein the skit, and Jamies Blog containing the video, used the words: "little angry, pinch-faced Christian" in the description so I used it in the bulletin. I received the e-mail below from an atheist in response and had to shake my head as the past few months of discussions of how diverse atheist thought-processes are came rushing at me: Her E-mail: "As Atheists we have to work harder to fit into society. Fanatical Christians are accepted easier.... I want to be part of a positive group.. not one in a pissing contest with Christians. "little angry, pinch-faced Christian" Atheist Answer

My E-mail response:

"Actually we aren't in a pissing match , we are searching for a way to communicate our views with theists that push their faith / belief into society; Schools, government, neighborhoods... Chamber of commerce meetings.

It just so happens that we live in the USA and christianity is the majority religion. You said it yourself, we have to work harder to fit into this society and the fact that fanatical christians are accepted easier has to have yourself asking if that is fair and why?

The Rational Response Squad uses an "in your face" "catch your attention yet?" type of marketing. Does that mean every single one of us in the squad agree on every single point? NO. As with any group dynamic, it takes all kinds. Within the Rational Response Squad there are what I would consider "hardcore atheists" and "warm and fuzzy" atheists. We all work together within one of the most *diverse in personality* atheist groups in America. There can't be just ONE way to stand up to religion.

Thanks for the time you took to respond! Maybe some day atheists can actually work together instead of against one another! I would pray for that but, well, you know."

************************

My intention while being part of the group of RRS affiliates is to target "agnostics" and atheists that have 'heard' the RRS are *hardcore crazy atheists that are mean and angry*. (and yes I have been told this) I targeted agnostics when setting up my friends list so that I could slowly expose them to the RRS and what we have to offer in the way of community and information. I expected to have the biggest push-back from them. However, so far the biggest challenges presented have been by those that consider themselves atheist. Every e-mail I get from the nay-sayers actual fuels me to continue to push the message that Jake passed on a few weeks ago: "There is no ONE way"

-Renee
Rational Response Squad Chicago
Reposted from my blog on RRS
Jamie Kilstein

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I recently started my own blog at http://healyhatman.blogspot.com/ . I got a bit of readership by being linked to from a Christian blog, and am being inundated with requests that I go read all sorts of historical 'evidence' for Jesus and the like. Admittedly my blog is pretty crap at the moment, the post post being written in anger at another theist who apparently had no problem with locking up rape victims that got pregnant and forcing them to give birth, or putting them in jail for 15+ years for murder if they got an abortion. Can you give me some of the following: Tips to make my blog better, such as writing tips. I used to write a great blog, filled to the brim with great metaphors for feelings and the like. Links to CREDIBLE websites, publications and journals that I can give to send the theists to when asked "what proof do you have" for things like the non-existence of a biblical jesus, historical evidence for the fictitious nature of the bible, evidence for the atrocities committed in the name of religion. And anything else you think will help me :) Because currently my writing is fairly on the side of useless and my content is offensive instead of enlightening :) However I mean it when I say in there that I hate religion. It's dangerous, useless, a tool of fear. Thanks :)Atheist Answer

Welcome back to the world of blogging. You realise of course that an explicitly anti-religious blog will expose you to a multitude of people each of whom thinks they know exactly what will change your mind.

And you know what? Maybe one of them will. You might read a comment or an article which, try as you might, you cannot fault and must accept as a good reason to believe in a god. I hasten to add that this is REALLY unlikely if you fully analyse what you read.

I encourage you to read as much of the theist-suggested material as you can, because it'll be useful to familiarise yourself with the common arguments and good analysis practice. Also, if something has you stumped we want to know about it.

Like the RRS did long ago, you've stepped on a hornet's nest by expressing doubt on the existence of Jesus, even only as a man. The most common view is that enough extra-Biblical sources mention him within a century of his death for it to be likely that he was at least based on a real person. Apologists fight tooth and nail to defend the supposed evidence.

Rook Hawkins is our resident historian who has thrown himself at that evidence hard, and his answers here are joined by plenty of other writings on the RRS main site. Otherwise, a good place to start is the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus, and especially the links at the bottom.

As for links to other documentation, try searching Amazon and your local library. Amazon will have ready-made reader critiques of controversial books, and the library will of course let you read them for free. Have a browser window open as you read, so that you can check facts as you go.

My advice for improving your writing is simply to read. Read similar blogs to understand the style and the audience, read fiction to fuel your creativity and read the news to learn brevity.

Finally, decide what the main purpose of your blog is. What do you want people who read your blog to do? This will drive your writing and your research. Work it out.

Best of good fortune in your endeavours.

- SmartLX

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:I thought I read somewhere that Jesus was mentioned in one of the books by Josephus, doesn't this prove he was a historical person?Atheist Answer

Far too often apologists and evangelicals bring up Josephus as a source for a historical Jesus. This is a continuing error among scholars, and it is fueled by secular scholars who are either persuaded by pseudo-scientific evaluations of the texts, or for reasons dealing only in their presuppositions, such as those discussed above. The Testimonium Flavianum is generally brought up by both apologists and historical Jesus questers more than any other document. Although other supposed mentions of Jesus exist, the subject, so as to not seem as if an Argument from Silence is the only means at which one can attain the position held in this book, will be limited to the Testimonium due to its importance and scope of usage. For this reason, included here in this section is a specific refutation towards the use of this passage, as will be provided ample evidence for its entire dismissal as an interpolation.

Arguments for the interpolation of this passage consist of the following: (1) Problems of textual conformity between manuscripts, (2) peculiar placement in the text, (3) odd use of Josephan language, (4) the use of pro-Christian language, (5) lack of mention specifically in any other earlier Christian source including Justin Martyr and Origen, (6) the earliest attestation we have, that of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical Histories, he places the Testimonium after Josephus’ account of John the Baptist, and finally (7) Eusebius has an alternate version of the text himself in another work.

The problems of conformity of the manuscripts are a huge deal, although generally not touched upon by dissenters of the Josephan controversy over the Testimonium. The first attestation to this passage is found in the forth century, and even then it seems to not have been set in stone, as Steve Mason cites that Jerome (p. 230) had a different version of the transcript in his Lives of Illustrious Men, and in the 10th century yet an additional manuscript is found in Agapius (ibid.). But it doesn’t stop there, as Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch quotes another variant text in the 12th century. So many alterations exist. Mason asks, “Where did such equivocal versions of Josephus’ account come from?” (p. 231) And not least of all, the fact that there are alternative translations which exist from Robert Eisler and John P. Meier spark additional questions. Why are there no copies of Josephus before Eusebius in the fourth century for scholarship to adequately translate? Perhaps Christians didn’t feel the need to preserve it beforehand, and that should raise additional red flags.

The peculiar placement of the text is additionally odd. Looking at the text from a distance, without really comparing the accounts of the context around the Testimonium, it may seem possible that it fits. It does deal with Pilate, that is for sure, and certainly it contains accounts of followers of a cult, referred to as a “tribe,” that Josephus didn’t hold to, much like those of the cult of Isis he discusses a section down. But further examination reveals a troubling reality. After Pilate arrives in Judea, Josephus follows with two incidents; (a) Pilate allows the Roman images into Jerusalem during the night, and (b) Pilate’s use of temple funds to build an aqueduct. Immediately following the Testimonium, (c) Josephus discusses the destruction of the temple of Isis and the crucifixion of Egyptian priests, (d) Jews are expelled from Rome because of Jewish troublemakers, and (e) Pilate destroyed the Samaritan movement and their settlement at Gerizim. Mason states that, “Like a tourist negotiating a bustling, raucous Middle-Eastern market who accidentally walks through the door of a monastery, suffused with light and peace, the reader of Josephus is struck by this sublime portrait.” (p. 227) Events (a), (b) and (e) involve incidents that look unfavorably upon Pilate, but the Testimonium blames the fiasco of the crucifixion not on Pilate—who seems more like a puppet being played—but on the “denunciation by the leading men among us.” Every single event save for the Testimonium in Antiquities 18 is described as some form of outrage or uprising, yet there is no tumultuous event here, no uprising to speak of. Overall, Mason makes the observance that “he is pointing out the follow of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers,” (ibid.) yet in the Testimonium, Josephus speaks highly of Jesus and his followers, a stark contrast to the rest of the context. Finally, Josephus starts the section concerning the Isis temple as “another outrage,” for which George A. Wells and others have argued both events (b) and (c) to have originally been adjacent, leaving the probability for the Testimonium to have been inserted later.

The debate over the language of the Testimonium has been all over the place, to say the least. The hard fact is, however, that the passage reeks of Josephus but in a completely bizarre manner and at the same time seems to resemble normal Christian apologia. Mason cites several words and phrases which seem Josephan until considered in context; that being “doer (poietes) of wonderful deeds,” “they did not cease,” “he was perhaps the Christ (Christos)” and “tribe (phyle) of the Christians.” The use and language of these words does not fit into the normal Josephan style, and even in the case that they were Josephan in style they would not fit into how Josephus used the terms, they are missing further explanation, or would make little sense to his intended audience; the Greeks and Romans who would be fully unaware of the meaning behind “Christ.” In the same manner, the high regard in which he holds Christ, even in the regard that our earliest attestation, Eusebius, has him being referred to specifically as Christ is downright ridiculous. Not only is the language reflective of a Christian apologist in the forth century, but it doesn’t sound like something a first century pious Jew would write, especially in the context that Josephus was writing in (Jewish apologetics).

Silence is golden except when one is trying to prove their God existed, and then one should want to be as loud with information as possible. Yet early Christians seemed to be loud on everything except the Testimonium, which would have been completely revolutionary in terms of evidence in the early Christian centuries, especially against Trypho, Celsus and Prophyry. Yet strangely the reader of the polemics against these pagans seems to be missing the Testimonium, even though they cite from Josephus over and over again. Mason writes that “Origen expressed his wonder that the Jewish historian ‘did not accept that our Jesus is Christ’,” (p. 229) which is accurate. But there is more troubling information to consider here. That nowhere does Origen ever cite or attempt to cite anything remotely close to the Testimonium is damning. Instead one only sees reference to James, in which Origen seems to have recalled that Josephus referred to Jesus as “the one called Christ.” It is odd that this appears only in Origen and not before. For example, this passage is never brought up by Justin Martyr in his dialog with Trypho. What else is odd is that out of the blue you have Ananus killing James. The apologist would have one believe that he killed James because Jesus was his brother, but what purpose would that have served? Instead, looking at the context another probability possibility itself, and seems to be the more probable.

The order of Chapter 9 is as follows: (1) Ananus takes the high priesthood away from Josephus by order of Agrippa. (2) Ananus seems to have not been very patient, a member of the sect of the Sadducees, he felt the need to flex his muscles so, (3) while Albinus—the new procurator of Judea sent by Caesar after the death of Festus—was yet enroute, (4) he arrested James and some companions and (5) brought forth accusations against him. (6) He then had them stoned. (7) Citizens who felt James was just and upright sent out for Agrippa while others met Albinus on the road. (8) Agrippa removed Ananus from the High Priesthood and gave it to Jesus, son of Damneus. James, in the context of the chapter, is said to be “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”

There seems to be two possible solutions for this, and both seem adequate in light of the evidence. First, it seems more accurate that Josephus is here referring to Jesus, son of Damneus. Among our first solution, consider the passage is authentic with absolutely no tampering; even Mason agrees that the use of Christos in this fashion seems more appropriate as it is a nickname rather than a title. (p. 228) Mason suggests that titles were common among first century Jews because of the lack of common names in use. Jesus here is nicknamed “anointed.” Jesus son of Damneus did in fact get selected to be the High Priest, in which he would have been anointed for the position which the scripture commands in Exodus 29:9 and 1 Samuel 10:1, and thus his nickname would apply. This example gives too much credit to the originality of the text, however, and although it certainly is possible that this section of the text could be authentic, it is still doubtful considering the list of early Christians who would have had no problems tampering with it. In the Greek, the text for Antiquities 20.9.1, 200 is as follows (translated here from the Koine):

“When Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”

It is odd that this verse is considered to be authentic completely, especially considering the almost nonchalant nature of Josephus’ discussion of James, as if he wasn’t the subject at all. Instead, it seems that Jesus was the subject of this verse specifically, which is why his name is brought up at all. What other reason would Josephus have to discuss Jesus in relation to James? How does Jesus fit into this discussion, especially if he was already dead which oddly enough is never mentioned in the text? Nowhere does Josephus say “Jesus who was called Christ, who had been crucified by Pilate.” Jesus doesn’t even get discussed in past tense in any way; in fact it could be argued that it seems as if Jesus is still alive when James was put on trial. These oddities lead to the position that Jesus son of Damneus is the Jesus who is the brother of James, who is being tried by Ananus.

This is even more anomalous then, that Origen notes that James is to blame for the fall of Jerusalem instead of Jesus, as he writes (emphasis added):

“Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.”

It should be obvious to those who would read this that Origen only knew of this passage in Josephus, and perhaps the only reason why he even considered it to be in regards to Jesus was that he had copies of Luke, and also of Paul which he would have read as being the same James. It does not even appear as though Jesus was called “the Christ” in this passage, but rather Origen simply interpreted it at this time to mean Jesus Christ. This should lead to some consideration as to how much Origen really read of the text in Josephus’ Antiquities. He certainly did not know of the Testimonium, as he never refers to it, where it would have been valuable to do so. Moreso the passage here in Antiquities 20 does not seem to mean what many think it does, and probably didn’t receive its final stature until either right before or immediately after Origen, but certainly before Eusebius. This can be witnessed in that Eusebius himself doesn’t seem to have a completed interpolation either, and perhaps even he had received a slightly reworked text before reading it himself.
Consider that, while returning to the list concerning the Testimonium, Eusebius’ understanding of the text is exactly the next subject to be discussed. For Eusebius quotes the Testimonium as if he didn’t know where it fit. He suggests for example that the passage of Jesus is found after the passage of John the Baptist, which is erroneous to the manuscripts we have today. Mason writes that “even at Eusebius’ time the form of the Testimonium was not yet fixed…in fact...[it] remained fluid.” (p. 230) Not only does it seem to be fluid, but Eusebius seems to have an alternate reading of the text—or perhaps he is altering it even more himself—in Demonstratio Evangelica 3:5 below:

"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate (c) condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed."

This is a very damning case for Eusebius and his Testimonium. What is worse is that all seven of these problems, with the addition of the James passage, make Josephus’ testimony hard to take seriously. The Testimonium appears completely nonexistent prior to the forth century, and even then we don’t have any manuscript evidence until after the tenth century. And all the manuscript data we do have conflict with each other in ways you shouldn’t expect to find, especially among the same people! Admitting these problems as well as the fact that many, albeit not near a consensus, in the scholarly community have suggested the complete removal of the Testimonium, Mason suggests that a complete interpolation seems unlikely. It is hard to believe that somebody can truly feel this is the case after looking over the evidence, and one has to wonder if there are any additional motivations in wanting the text to be authenticated. However, suffice from ever gaining that knowledge one can only hope that Mason can provide some sort of sound evidence for his claims. He does put forth a few reasons why such a complete interpolation would not seem likely. (1) He claims that Christian copyists were “quite conservative in transmitting texts.” (p. 232) His evidence for this point is that (a) there seems to be no other suspicious tampering in Josephus and that, (b) no evidence exists in Philo which would also have been helpful to their cause. Mason states, “But in the case of Philo and Josephus…one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal altercation.” (ibid.)

But Mason’s claims here are dubious, and full of pseudo truths. For starters, his final claim that one is hardpressed to locate any “serious” scribal altercations is hard to take seriously, as he is discussions a very serious scribal altercation in his very paragraph! Indeed, the whole reason why Christian scribes were conservative is because to interpolate more would be to cause additional problems. In fact, it is probably the reason why textual critics did not find more than just one paragraph, as had the interpolators used any additional space it would have made copying the rest of the manuscript much more difficult, and perhaps they would have even run out of room. This is why when we see interpolations they are minimal, and not extensive. For example, we do not see the Gospel narratives fully embedded in Josephus precisely because such a thing would be difficult for an interpolator to accomplish while still recalling the other two full books he would have to copy.

Bart Ehrman shows how this is impossible due to scroll length. Papyrus scrolls—basically glued-together sections of papyrus sheets—seldom measured longer than 35 feet in length due to convenience. Thus, authors, and later those copyists who would transmit the texts onto fresh scrolls later—would generally separate long works into “books,” each accommodating one scroll. Josephus’ Antiquities was made up of 20 such books, so the scribal interpolator would need to be conservative in order to avoid running out of space. This is perhaps why textual critics see small interpolations in the Gospels, such as 1 John 5:7, and not whole sections of text, at least not until much later when the cost of codifying made it cheaper to transmit texts.

Indeed, it seems that when Christians started using Codices as opposed to scrolls, it would have become much easier to interpolate a selection of text. It would have cost significantly less than interpolating a scroll—Ehrman recounts that in terms of value one would save up to 44% by having something copied in Codex form as opposed to Scrolls—and even more so when the Christian copyists started using parchment sheets instead of papyrus leaves. Such a change from papyrus to parchment made copying texts onto both sides of a sheet much easier to accomplish than using the sheets of papyri, in which the direction of the fibers made transmission difficult and annoying.

This would explain then why we don’t really see an interpolation until after Eusebius, after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Not only was the use of Codices more popular as is discussed by Eusebius concerning the fifty copies of the scripture to be Codified by the order of Constantine, but the fact that there were now whole groups of professional scribes focused on transmitting texts just for Christians, something that probably was state sanctioned if Constantine were commanding it. Prior to this time, it would probably still have been too expensive for the Christian to pay for a copyist to transmit the texts in this great a number, and additionally we know many of the early Christians were slaves, criminals, women and their children, who would probably not have had the means at interpolating any specific passages themselves.

That aside, the notion that Christian scribes were always conservative is truly bunk. Especially when one considers the Old Russian copies of Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, where there seem to be several interpolated passages attesting to Jesus. In refutation of Mason’s claim that “Christian copyists were quite conservative,” George A. Wells writes, “This seems to overlook the considerable interpolations…in the Old Russian translation of The Jewish War, and there are extensive Christian interpolations in other Jewish writings of the period, now known as the OT Pseudepigrapha.” (p. 51-52) For a complete viewing of these manuscripts, Frank Zindler has an informative article on the Old Russian manuscripts in his work The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (2003), p. 60-71.

In the end it must be concluded that there is not a single reason to accept any part of the Testimonium, indeed any reference to Jesus in Josephus should be looked at skeptically and avoided as any use for evidence of a historical Jesus. To accept the Testimonium is to cherry pick the translation, the text variant and the church father one likes the best, and nothing more. This is not the means to attaining honest research and certainly should not be considered good scholarship.

I will not be answering comments here, please reply to this entry at the following link: Jesus on Josephus

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |

Question:This question is in two parts: (1) What languages are the oldest copies of the books of the Bible found in, and (2) what language is it believed to be originally written in? I would also like to know why many different books of the bible were written in different languages originally.Atheist Answer

I’ll do my best to answer your question as precisely (and concisely) as I can. It is said that historical and literary critical scholarship “is wissenshaft, not metaphysics.” That stands true for this article. I say that because these questions are not easy to answer and involve a little bit of scholarly elbow grease to really understand. First and foremost, there is no definitive answer to either of these questions (which we’ll get into), and all the information that we have is really evidence of how much we don’t know, not how much we know. So, when compiling the answers to these questions, scholars will generally be a little liberal with their speculations and more often then not they are answering with ‘Bible-colored glasses’—especially if you look at any monograph or historical critical book before the 1970’s. But, luckily for us and all literary critical and historical critical scholars everywhere, scholars finally started to remove those ‘Bible-colored glasses’ (See my new introduction to my book posted here).

Archaeological evidence and new methods of textual criticism has lead many scholars to reevaluate what they had originally thought about the dating and authorship of Biblical texts. For several hundred years, scholars had assumed the authenticity of the Bible narratives themselves, leading many to falsely assume that the original composition of the majority of the Bible was in Hebrew and Aramaic, leaving only the New Testament (for the most part) room to have been written in Koine, or common, Greek. But recently the authorship and composition dates have been challenged, and a new, more probable conclusion on these issues has led some scholars to question the composition language of the texts, most specifically in the Old Testament. Additionally, new finds at Qumran have allowed for a great deal of revisionist thinking on scribal methods and composition language. And finally, with fresh new perspectives on Diaspora life for both Jew and Gentile, these new revisionist ideas started to fit in more broadly to the conclusions of composition language, no longer allowing scholars (specifically on the conservative side) to take this vital subject for granted.

What is now being argued, specifically by the Copenhagen school, and the incredibly brilliant scholarship of Philip R. Davies, is that the original composition was not even in Hebrew, as was previous thought, but rather it was written in Greek. This revolutionary thinking is based on a lot of very fine research, and fits in quite well with the socio-cultural settings of Hellenistic Jews. Since we do not have any copies of the Old Testament, at least in the vein of a collected group of works such as the Torah, prior to the Hellenistic Age, and so many Jews during the Hellenistic period used the Septuagint, it leaves Davies conclusions in a very compelling position. It was assumed for a long time that the composition of the Greek Old Testament was ordered by a Greek King during the period to add to his extensive library, which is part of the reason many scholars in earlier decades believed that the Greek translation came later. But this story was eventually discovered to be a product of Jewish fiction. What we know from that period is that so many Jews wrote fictions (like the story above about the Greek King), and they did so writing them in true Hellenic fashion; that is, they wrote them in Greek.

To be clear, that is not to say that these traditions did not exist prior to the Hellenistic Age, Thomas Thompson has provided a good case for (and now the majority of Old Testament scholars agree) the dating of these traditions to the Persian period (538-323 BCE roughly), but up until the Hellenistic age, these stories were not compiled or written down. Because of the new government sponsored school systems called Gymnasium, many elite Jews and wealthy Jewish families who were politically sealed with the Greek rulers, were permitted (as citizens) to attend school and receive formal training in the art of literature composition, rhetoric, and philosophy. Part of this schooling was very dependant on using older narrative models to teach basic grammar. Using these literary models is a process called imitatio or imitation—a form of mimetic learning and eventually authorship. The foundational models used by practically all schools were the Homeric epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey. With these Greek epics, one can clearly see the parallels found in Old Testament literature, and why so many Hellenistic Jews played with this model when writing many of the dozens of pseudepigraphical and deuterocanonical books. Even Josephus and Philo play with the themes of this Greek model when writing their own ‘histories’ of the Patriarchs and other Old Testament figures.

So, with all of this in mind, the Torah, some of the Prophetic books, and many of the wisdom books were probably originally composed in Greek, and later adapted for Jewish settlements and villages in both the Greek polis’ and the chora (rural areas in Egypt), as well as other Diaspora settings where these settlements are not fully or mostly Hellenized and still communicated in Aramaic. There are perhaps some narratives that were originally composed in Hebrew, such as 1 Maccabees, Ester (although it seems more likely composed originally in Greek, the debate continues), Ecclesiastes (although some debate on this continues, the dating ranges from the fifth – third centuries BCE), and some of the prophetic books. Virtually all of the deuterocanonical books of the Hebrew Bible were not written in a Semitic language but rather in Greek.

Additionally, New Testament scholarship had for a very long time thought that the original composition of some of the Gospels (if not all of them) was in Aramaic, reflecting eyewitness authorship which no longer is assumed. Today, it is understood that the Gospels are not the works of eyewitnesses writing on historical events, but also literary creations composed by anonymous authors with very different motivations. The Gospel narratives, like many of the Old Testament literature, were written in Greek. All of Paul’s letters and the various pseudonymous epistles and Revelations were also written in Greek. And probably most of the Gnostic literature found at Nag Hammadi were also originally composed in Greek, and then later copied into Coptic – the language we currently have most of them in today (although some Greek fragments remain for some of them). The language adaptation of the texts reflects the adaptation of the interpretation by the authors of other narratives. It is all relative, and represents the times and culture of the day.

These phenomena may seem strange to those who believe the scriptures to have been authored by the names represented as their titles. But it is also important to keep in mind that there was no “canon” of scripture. The concept of “canon” was not yet developed, so the nature of reinterpretation, creation and development was not limited to what was considered “inspired” – it was all considered to be inspired. It was just not considered inspired by what churches today believe it to be. People wrote and rewrote the text in the language that reflected their communities. There was no “orthodoxy” of Jewish doctrine, that concept did not exist for another few hundred years. Even today I would hesitate to say there is one unified doctrine, especially in light of the hundreds of Abrahamic religious sects; from Judaism with its hundreds of sects, to Christianity with its tens of thousands of sects, with Islam and the interpretation of the Quran. There was never a ‘unified orthodoxy,’ nor will there be. Everyone interprets and copies the texts into their own languages, and still to this day interpret them based on their own understandings and their own communities needs, politics and demographics. This has always allowed for the continuation of redactions, reinterpretations and expressions of both ones faith and their religious texts.

In the end, it will depend greatly on the faithful to one day understand this fact, that there is no absolute answer, and there never was, and certainly the authors of the Bible didn’t believe there to be. The sooner those who believe understand this, the sooner we can all progress as a society.

The best,

Rook Hawkins

Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | |