Table of Contents
Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist)
Contact the fools - How you ca contact the us
Opposable Thumbs
Hello Frank,
You continue to raise interesting questions.
<< If I understand your reply correctly, it's that we can't trust the bible because it's full of contradictions and an all knowing God would/could not do that. Therefore, logically, the bible was not written by God. I am not at odds with you on this. >>
You partly understand me, but response to religion is more varied than this one part. It is fundamentalist Christians who think this way, and errancy certainly appears to be a problem for plenty of them, as is obvious from some of the deconversion stories from ex-fundamentalists and the terrible upset over biblical errancy that is evident on errancy newsgroups etc.
As you should know from my site, personally I was not a fundamentalist and did not expect the bible to be inerrant (the Ontario Consultants on religious tolerance website at http://www.religioustolerance.org/welcome.htm makes this very obvious). I left Christianity for other reasons and the issue of inerrancy was not part of my deconversion, unless the discrepancy between the idea of a loving and just god and the biblical portrayal of hell is an errancy issue. Many Christians claim it is not, as hell is a plain fact that I should face! (e.g. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/9.html) That aside, I never have felt that the bible should be a document without contradiction. I viewed it as a human production with reflections on people's experiences and thoughts of the divine. See my "testimony" on this at my site. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/why.html
Maybe you'll ask why I bring errancy up at all then? Historically I mainly discuss errancy because Christians bought it up with me and I responded. My initial website was just my testimony plus a few links to similar stories. Your "favourite bit" (my "Crazy stuff from the bible") was a bit of side issue for me initially. It is intriguing how much this obviously is an issue for many Internet Christians though as they frequently pick up on it, as do others whose association with Christians is mostly with fundamentalists, like I guess yours is. Liberal Christians are quite a different bunch from my experience and encouragingly sometimes even write to me thanking me for writing honestly and openly about my feelings. See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/bob_reed.html for example.
I am far more interested in the psychological impact of deconversion than errancy issues. I want to help people like I was to cope with what can be a very lonely experience as I mention in my website intro. That's why I mostly link to information about others in similar circumstances, which is just what I would have been fascinated in reading at the time of my deconversion. However my site gradually prompted increasing email from Christians and it is they who shook arguments out of me in response to their concerns, (see http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/ashley_coogan.html) and it appears that many of their concerns are to maintain that the bible is without flaw. Since I found those discussions interesting I dwelt on it a bit - like I did rather vigorously with Dr. Garrett. (See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/1.html etc.)
Ironically it was Christians challenging me to see how perfect the bible was that made me notice even more deeply just how bad it really is. I very much recommend the excellent heart felt testimony by Richard Carrier on this just published on the secular web. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html
Likewise despite previous researches I was challenged to "explain away" the resurrection and my huge debate ensued starting at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jordan.html It is there that you can see that I welcome having my supposed flaws shown for all to see on the Internet. I encouraged my debate partner to put up his own website which he duly did at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/. He soon descended into a strong mockery of me at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/locks2.htm which gave me a chance to see what some of what my critics are thinking and respond to it. I find this a useful exercise for sorting out my thoughts, although very time consuming.
If you wish to lampoon me as a "blind fool" on your website then you are welcome to do so. However, I would ask for reciprocal website links and also links to our conversations which I will publish on my site if you and/or I think they are worth showing to the public.
<< Then you turn your attention to "human mistakes". This, I believe, stems from the fact that "contradictions" in the bible must be "human mistakes". >>
Yes, I think so, and always have. As I say, I think errancy is a problem for inerrantists, not all Christians. However, this may partly be because plenty of Christians do not read the whole bible, just like I didn't, and just assume that it is full of lovely verses based on the passages that are picked out in liberal sermons and warm friendly bible studies (speaking from my experience!) It is moderately easy for a liberal Christian to live with contradictions in the bible if such a Christian believes, as I did, that the bible was written by "fallen" humans (I mean fallen in a metaphorical way since I was not a fundamentalist). But it becomes much harder to remain a Christian once you become convinced that the bible teaches cruelty as I mentioned before (and in my testimony) and as Richard Carrier expresses so eloquently at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/carrier.html
<< I am not at odds with you on this either, although some people do intentionally contradict themselves from one moment to the next in order avoid getting pinned down (so to speak), or justify one's actions, or save face, or whatever. And the bible writers obviously did do this at times too. >>
I'm not too sure really how obvious any of the writers' motivation is. You could be right, but I really don't know. However I think errancy is a pretty hard position to defend for the bible given its content. At least I'm far from convinced the bible is inerrant! But then, even as a Christian I knew there were inconsistencies, but I was not the kind of Christian to be bothered about such things. I always have thought the bible was a human document - but that didn't stop me believing in the Christian God (or at least *a* version of the Christian God, as it appears Christians make diverse claims for what constitutes necessary beliefs about their god!)
<< And the whole "evil God" in the bible is a part of this too because it is a huge contradiction. >>
That seems to be so to me. God is claimed to be loving and just by Christians and yet his portrayal in the bible is far from this. Some Christians attempt to interpret this "love" and "justice" in what appear to me to be very tenuous and disturbed ways in order to save face for their god. As I discussed with Dr. Garrett, I take J.S. Mill's line on this who said: "I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go." See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/feedback/garrett/3.html
<< But then you switch tracks and say, (If I "goof up" it doesn't necessarily follow that "atheism is false."). You see, you have now completely abandoned "contradictions" when concerning yourself and focused soley on "mistakes". >>
I don't think you have understood me. I make this point on my site as well (how much of it have you read?) There is a difference between me contradicting myself and a god contradicting itself. A god (or at least the God Christians make claims for) should be able to avoid contradictions or else he invalidates his supposed perfection. I, however, may have a contradiction in my argument without invalidating what I stand for. My contradiction (assuming I have one) may mean that what I am arguing for is false but not necessarily so. It may only mean that I personally have used a fallacious argument, whilst the facts of the world are unaffected by my misapprehension of the true connection between premise and conclusion or even of what the true premises are.
If I am meant to be a perfect being and make a contradiction then I am not a perfect being. If I am a human and make a contradiction then I have argued incorrectly. The truth of the world is completely unaffected by my ability to apprehend it or describe it.
For example I might contradict myself when attempting to prove that the square root of 2 cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. However that does not mean that my claim that "the square root of two cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers" is false. The big difference for a god is that if that god exists and said certain statements then if the statements are in contradiction then it is likely that they were not made by a real god. (Unless that god is capricious which I doubt is a characteristic Christians would agree is part of their god). However I can freely talk nonsense without my claims being false, merely my actual arguments themselves (if fallacious) are not to be trusted. My conclusions could still be true though and if so there should be alternative reasons why. All this assumes for the sake of argument that the contradictions you perceive both are actual contradictions and if so are actually fatal to being valid criticisms of Christianity. (As I have already said I do not deliberately "argue for atheism" merely criticise Christianity which I do not think is not the same thing despite your claim that it is. That is something we might discuss later).
So in summary, the things I (or anyone) might believe can still be true even if I (or they) were to use a false argument. You demonstrate this yourself by claiming atheism is true whilst simultaneously claiming too many other atheists use incorrect arguments! Remember, you wrote: << This is the problem with my beloved atheism today - too many self-described atheists being inconsistent! >>
Do you agree with me now?
I said in my previous email: "I don't personally see atheism as a "system of thought" anymore than my staunch belief in a non-cheesy moon is a system of thought. If someone comes up with a daft explanation of why the moon is not made of cheese (e.g. because all the cheese was used to make the sun, whilst contradicting himself by also saying there is not enough cheese to make a moon and simultaneously claiming the sun is more massive than the moon etc. etc.) then I am not going to be alarmed."
Do you agree that there is a fallacy in your statement: << Nobody trusts one's conclusions if the logic is flawed ..... On the opposite side of the coin, we trust someone else's conclusions because their logic is sound >>
Should nobody then trust my conclusion that the moon is not made of cheese?
All the cheese was used to make the sun, which is more massive than the moon and therefore even if you took all the cheese from the sun there would not be enough to make the moon out of cheese. QED the moon is not made of cheese. You did say "Nobody trusts one's conclusions if the logic is flawed." Can you see that it is actually your logic that is flawed here?
If not then you must not trust my conclusion that the moon is not made of cheese.
So, does this make you distrust my conclusion about the non-cheesy moon or is it merely that I have used an erroneous argument and my invalidly reached conclusion has left me correctly believing that the moon is not made of cheese?
Obviously you will have a better reason for believing that the moon is not made of cheese. So I hope that you can see that your argument is not symmetrical - i.e. an errant Christian god is a flawed concept whilst any human using false arguments means nothing stronger than they have not used the correct arguments! If the bible is the Christian god's dictation, as inerrantists seem to think, then Christianity can fall for them on biblical errancy. I see no reason why we should expect humans to be inerrant. There merely has to be a good argument, not that everyone with web access is able to think clearly! Even more than this though, even if all arguments failed, that would still not prove the impossibility of a sound argument being possible.
On the opposite side of the argument do you trust this following logical argument since you claimed "we trust someone else's conclusions because their logic is sound." All pigs can fly, Porky is a pig, therefore Porky can fly.
Let's sort this first issue you raise first before going onto other matters as I can't manage too many long emails at the moment, and it is frustrating to let things go unresolved.
Later I hope to show that I really do not think that I am making the double standards you accused me of later in your email or that I have really made contradictions. As I say, hopefully we will get to all this later. I encourage you to read more of my website where I think you will find some of your accusations about me are unfair, let alone impolite. I hope you will read the links I give in the course of these emails too or otherwise some of my points may not be understood very well. Remember you are writing to me for my opinions - so you'll have to read these resources properly before I am likely to want to put more work into subsequent replies. See what happened to Mark McFall!
On this note you wrote: << Your reply was copious and I appreciate the time and effort. >>
As I said, if you want really do appreciate my time and effort and want to keep my attention you will have to be civil and drop remarks like the following: << And now you have gone and flushed it down the toilet. You have really messed it up for the rest of us. Steve (if that is your REAL name?!), I am going to have to ask you to turn in your "atheism membership card" and remove your site immediately. >>
Do you think someone can drop atheism and believe something they don't? What have I already told you about the nature of my non-belief? What did I discuss with Dr. Garrett on this?
If I am seen as mere sport for your website then that is something I don't appreciate, or have time for. On the other hand if you are civil and can drop the above tone with me then I am happy to continue - it's up to you. From the feedback I get to my website most people are relieved to find a website where the owner tries hard to avoid ridicule. You should read this on my site:- http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/jreply2sup/polemics.html
I may also put our conversations on my website or weave them into a future FAQ since you are not the first to raise these issues. (I had a series of very long similar emails a while ago that I would like to upload eventually - but I need to edit out the general chat that got interspersed).
Best wishes,
Steve ( - yes that is my real
name).
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html