McCormick--DiSilvestro Debate: The Salem Witch Trials and the Resurrection of Jesus

Last week two philosophers in the Philosophy Department at California State University in Sacramento debated the resurrection of Jesus. Atheist Matt McCormick argued that the evidence for genuine witchcraft occuring in Salem, MA in the late 1600's is much stronger than the evidence that Jesus arose from the dead in the 1st century, yet virtually no one accepts the idea that there were real witches in Salem. Christian Russell DiSilvestro argued that the best explanation for the data about Jesus from the 1st century is that Jesus really rose from the dead. He acknowledged that real witchcraft could have happened in Salem because he believes in demons and the Bible teaches that witches are real (e.g., Saul's encounter with the Witch of Endor in1 Sam. 28). Thus, he has no issue believing that real supernatural acts took place in Salem.


Debate #1 from Philosophy Department, CSUS on Vimeo.

Does God Really Want Us to Believe in Miracles?

Two days ago, I posted the slides that Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at California State University, used in his first debate with his colleague, Russell DiSilvestro. Those compared the evidence for witchcraft at Salem, Massachuetts in the 17th century with the evidence for Jesus being raised from the dead in the 1st century.

Yesterday, I posted the slides used in his second debate with DiSilvestro. These compare the reports of miracles at Lourdes with the reports of Jesus' resurrection.

Today, I post the slides used in the third debate with DiSilvestro. These show that if God really wanted us to believe in miracles, he could have provided much better evidence.I

Does god want us to believe miracles

If the above will not load for you, you can access it here.

Reports of Miracles at Lourdes and Reports of Jesus' Resurrection

Yesterday, I posted the slides that Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at California State University, used in his first debate with his colleague, Russell DiSilvestro. Those compared the evidence for witchcraft at Salem, Massachuetts in the 17th century with the evidence for Jesus being raised from the dead in the 1st century.

Today, I post the slides used in his second debate with DiSilvestro. These compare the reports of miracles at Lourdes with the reports of Jesus' resurrection.

Miracles At Lourdes

If the above will not load for you, you can access it here.

Evidence for Witchcraft in Salem compared to Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection

Matt McCormick, Professor of Philosophy at California State University, has developed the following powerpoint slides to use in the debate he had this week with Russell DiSilvestro, a colleague of his in the Philosophy Department. I think they are excellent and I look forward to seeing the videotape of the debate.

The Resurrection And The Salem Witch Trials

If the above will not load for you, you can access it here.

Dr. Matt McCormick Enters the Debate Ring

My friend, Dr. Matt McCormick, who is a professor of Philosophy at California State University Sacramento,debated Dr. Russell DiSilvestro, a colleague of his in the philosophy department at CSU. The debate on the resurrection happened on Tuesday (April 27, 2010) of last week. It was the first time for both men to formally debate the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus. I found it quite interesting and I really liked the approach that Matt toook.

Matt has one of the best atheist sites on the web. Its called, Atheism: Proving The Negative


The first part of the debate is below:

Bart Ehrman's Explanation of the Origin of the Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus

Bart Ehrman, a fellow apostate, explains how he thinks the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus originated. This makes much more sense to me than the theological statement that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Do "Ancient Biographies" Always Present Reliable History?

I was listening to the William Craig--Richard Carrier debate today and something jumped out at me. Craig argued that the gospels should be considered as real history because they are in the literary genre called "ancient biographies." I remember Craig Keener and Mike Licona making similar claims at the 2009 Apologetics Conference in New Orleans.

It is true that most scholars believe that the gospels are written in the same literary form as the "ancient biographies." Does the fact that they are written in this genre, however, demand that they be accepted as always presenting reliable history? I maintain that it does not.

Karl Ludwig Schmidt, in The place of the Gospels in the general history of literature (German published 1923; English translation by Byron McCane 2001), writes:

Since the Gospels do represent biography of some sort, however, we need to clarify the essence of ancient biography, In Weber Votaw's opinion [The Gospels and Contemporary Biographies, American Journal of Theology 19 {1915} 45ff.], there were two types: precise, objective, historical biography; and practical pedagogical, popular biography. The latter type, which was largely confiend to antiquity, depicts and glorifies specific heroes. Popular biographies of this sort were especially plentiful during the centuries immediately before and after Christ including Xenophon's Memorabilia, Arrian's Epictetus and Philostratus's Apollonius of Tyana.(p. 3)

Skeptics have often put forth the idea that the story of Jesus was a "copycat" of the story of Apollonius. I do not wish to debate the merits of that argument right now, but simply point out that the Life of Apollonius is in the literary genre of an ancient biography and even Christian apologists would reject its miraculous stories about Apollonius. If they would reject the Life of Apollonius as unhistorical, then why not the Gospels, since they are in the same literary form?

Jona Lendering, in the introduction to the on-line English translation of Flavius Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius, writes:

In the Life of Apollonius, the Athenian author Philostratus, a sophist who lived from c.170 to c.247, tells the story of Apollonius of Tyana, a charismatic teacher and miracle worker from the first century CE who belonged to the school of Pythagoras. It is an apologetic work, in which Philostratus tries to show that Philostratus was a man with divine powers, but not a magician. He also pays attention to Apollonius' behavior as a sophist.

Arnold Meyer, in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 5 (1913, 2151ff), quoted in Schmidt (pp. 21-22) compares the gospels to the Hellenistic miracle literature which was prevalent in the first century of the Christian era. He writes:

oral traditions were collected, along with notes, letters, and documents both genuine and falsified. . . . Miracle stories were strung together, and a biography of the miracle-worker was formed, starting with the first miracle and leading to an amazing conclusion after a remarkable series of events, including healings, persecutions, accusations, and imprisonment. Even the birth of the hero was bathed in miraculous light . . . Clever conversations with friends and foes were then added, including pleas of defense before civil magistrates.

Schmidt has this to say about the 4th Gospel(p. 21):

In the Gospel of John, the miracles of Jesus are narrated, and then the signs are discussed; and in the same way ancient biographies of miracle workers also made changes, additions, and accentuations, selecting them from a virtually inexhaustible supply (Jn. 20:35; 21:25).

I can hear some apologists crying, "The Life of Apollonius does not fit the characteristics of an ancient biography." I disagree and so do the scholars I have quoted but for the sake of argument, lets say its not the typical ancient biography. Okay, how about the writings of Plutarch (46 -127 CE)? All agree that his Parallel Lives represents the literary genre of the ancient biography.

Does Plutarch always present historical facts in his biographies? Listen to Tracy Deline:

Plutarch sometimes "improved on the truth." Plutarch was still not always accurate. Aside from simple memory-related errors, such as interchanging insignificant names, Plutarch seemed to emphasize different versions of a series of events in different Lives so as to accentuate the role (or a specific characteristic) of the various men. C.B.R. Pelling (Plutarch's Life of Antony, p. 36) states that "in such cases, he was improving on the truth, and he knew it (Ancient Biography).

The following is from Biography - Ancient Biography, Medieval And Renaissance Biography, The Seventeenth And Eighteenth Centuries, The Nineteenth And Twentieth Centuries:

Many of the earliest "histories" were biographical accounts of the lives of important historical figures. Biography often has been associated with the field of history (and at times has been considered a branch of it), but distinctions between them were drawn beginning in ancient times. Whereas the writers of histories always have purported to present the truth accurately, biographers more obviously have praised their subjects or have presented them as exemplars for moral or didactic (educational) purposes. . . . The mixture of fiction with fact in biography means that it has much in common with imaginative literature.

More on Plutarch's writing style (from About.com):

Plutarch's biographies often focus on anecdotes about the subject, while omitting details of his (and it always is 'his') career that we would love to know. Although the biographies are comparatively short (mostly between 20 and 30 pages long), Plutarch cannot resist digressions on anything that catches his interest. See, for example, the digression on the Athenians? treatment of retired beasts of burden in his life of Cato the Elder. Plutarch is also very interested in omens and frequently notes prodigious events, such as monstrous births, that preceded any great battle or the death of his subject.

Hector Avalos (The End of Biblical Studies, p. 120) has this to say about Plutarch:

Consider also the case of Plutarch, the Greek historian, whose biography, title Ceasar, forms another of the most quoted sources for the assassination story. Plutarch has a separate biography, titled Brutus, for one of the alleged conspirators. However, these two biographies don’t always agree on important details. In Caesar (66.4), Plutarch says that a man named Decimus Brutus Albinus delayed Antony’s entrance into the senate-house, where the assassination is said to have taken place. But in Brutus (17.2), Plutarch says it was a man named Trebonius who detained Antony.
According to C.B.R. Pelling, who is a meticulous empiricist, “It is possible that Plutarch has deliberately distorted the narrative in Caesar by transferring the act to D. Brutus: such techniques are not unknown in his work” (Plutarch’s Method of Work in the Roman Lives, Journal of Hellenic Studies 99 {1979}: 79). Pelling presents examples where Plutarch provides contradictory dates for events, as well as cases where Plutarch attributes speeches to Antony and Cassius that were attributed to Casesar in other passages.

Another clear example of an ancient biography is Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars . The website About.com has this to say about Lives of the Caesars

It covers the lives of Julius Caesar and the first 11 emperors, from Augustus to Domitian. . . .It concentrates on the personal lives of its subjects, and their more interesting peccadilloes, which is probably why it has survived. How much is fact and how much is just gossip and rumour is difficult to say.

Suetonius, in the Life of Vespasian (7.13), claims that the Emperor once cured the blind and the lame through the power of of the god Serapis. I wonder is Christian apologists such as Craig or Licona accept this claim as historical fact?

Dale C. Allison in his book Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet writes concerning the general reliability of sacred biographies:

Hagiographical traditions and sacred biographies written by the devotees of a founder or religious savior are notoriously unreliable. Tradents gather what they can and concoct what they cannot gather, often reaping what their founder did not sow. The result is that everywhere history coalesces with myth....Once we doubt, as all modern scholars do, that the Jesus tradition gives us invariably accurate information, unvarnished by exaggeration and legend, it is incumbent upon us to find some way of sorting through the diverse traditions to divine what really goes back to Jesus. (p.1-2)

I am sure more examples could be produced but this is sufficient to show that the ancient biography genre does not always record genuine history. For Craig to argue, as he does in the debate with Carrier, that just because the gospels are in the literary form of the ancient biography they must be accepted as presenting real historical facts is flat wrong.

My Observations on the D'Souza-Loftus Debate

I have finished listening to the entire two hour debate between Dinesh D'Souza and John Loftus on the subject, Does the Christian God Exist.

Most reviewers of the debate, including those who agree with John's position, have said that John lost the debate. I would agree if we are talking about the technical rules of debating. Dinesh presented his points more clearly and more emphatically than John. John's overall presentation was weak and somewhat disorganized. He failed to challenge many of Dinesh's points and rebuttals. However, I think this was due to the fact that Dinesh is an experienced debater and a polished speaker. As I reflected upon the specific arguments that Dinesh and John gave, however, I believe John is the clear winner on substance.

Below is my summary of the debate along with my comments (in bold). I have only listened to the debate once, and while I tried to take good notes, I may have missed some things or placed them in the wrong place. With that caveat, here is my summary of the debate.

Opening Statement from John Loftus:

Dinesh will argue that belief in the Christian God is possible no matter how unlikely. I call it the "Dumb and Dumber" Defense from the movie with the same title. In the movie, Jim Carrey is told by a girl that he has one chance in a million of getting her. Carrey is excited, and says, "well then I do have a chance." Loftus says that the likelihood of the Christian God existing is about the same as the chance Carrey has of getting the girl.

While I basically agree with John's point, I would not have used the "Dumb and Dumber" reference as it seems that you are calling Dinesh and Christians dumb. That just serves to turn the audience against you from the very beginning.

1. Loftus argues that our religion is largely determined by where we are born. He says that if Dinesh had been born in an Arab country, he would likely be defending the Muslim God tonight instead of the Christian God. Loftus maintains that people tend to follow the religion which is dominant in the culture in which they are born and reared.

This point is indisputable but could have been phrased more carefully. Dinesh and probably some of the audience thought John was saying that the geography was the determining factor rather than the indoctrination provided by the child's parents and culture.

2. Loftus argues that Christianity is not unique in its enormous growth or positive influence on society. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world today. They all think that their religion is a positive influence on society. Hindus think the same. Shintoists think the same, etc.

True

3. Loftus argues that showing that something is consistent with a belief in the Christian God is not the same thing as proving that the Christian God exists. For example, he expects Dinesh to use the "big bang" theory to argue for the Christian God. The fact is that Muslims could use the same argument. So the argument does not prove anything relative to the existence of the God Christians believe in.

True

4. Loftus argues that the Bible demonstrates a superstitious, pre-scientific understanding of the world. For example, the Bible presents a donkey that talks, DNA being changed by viewing peeled sticks, Egyptian magicians changing sticks into snakes, etc. No educated person today would believe such things really happened.

True, but some Christians who admit there are some errors and myths in the Bible, still hold on to their Christian faith. They would argue only fundamentalists accept everything in the Bible as literally true.

5. Loftus argues that a belief in the Christian God is based on historical evidence and that history is very weak in evidential value because it is subjective and biased.

Once again true but not presented in a clear way that would be easily understood by audience. Could be taken to mean that we cannot know anything about history. John alluded to some author that has written on this subject but he should have quoted the author and formulated a clear argument.

6. Loftus argues that if the Christian God really existed, He would have condemned slavery, female subjugation, and the killing of people who have a different religion. He would have made doctrines over which Christians have spilt each other's blood, such as the doctrine of the eucharist, unambiguously clear. Instead, he left it vague even though he would have known that it would be a major point of contention among his followers.

Excellent point and one that should have been driven home time and time again.

7. Loftus argues that the problem of evil negates the existence of the Christian God. He says that a loving parent would not give his child something that he knows can cause harm. He says that even though God knew that giving man free will would produce enormous suffering, he did it anyway. He compares a mother giving a razor blade to a two year old. If that toddler hurts himself or someone else with the blade, its the mother who is at fault.

Another excellent point which should have been restated when Dinesh failed to answer it.

Opening Statement from Dinesh D'Souza

Dinesh says he is "baffled" by John's opening statement. He says that we are here to debate facts and John has given us "argumentum diarrhea." He says that Loftus is "just whining." He says John needs to make specific arguments against the Christian God.

I find Dinesh's comments insulting and condescending. I also think that John did make some specific arguments against the Christian God which Dinesh just ignores. John would have been better served to enumerate his arguments and restate them in the conclusion to his opening statement but this does not permit Dinesh to just ignore them.

Dinesh then responds to John's first point by saying that the argument about where someone is born being determinative of what they believe is the "genetic fallacy." He says that he was born in India, a Hindu country, yet by choice became a Christian. He says that if someone was born in Oxford, England instead of Oxford, Mississippi, that person would be more likely to believe in evolution. Does that have anything to do with whether evolution is true or false? No, it doesn't. Thus, John's argument is irrelevant.

Dinesh is flat wrong about John's argument being a genetic fallacy. I have discussed this in a previous post.

Furthermore, I think Dinesh is being disingenuous when he says he was born in a Hindu country, yet became a Christian. My understanding is that Dinesh was born to Christian parents in India. That changes everything. At 17, he came to the USA. This is where John could have been clearer in his argumentation. Its not the geography of where someone is born as much as it is the religion of the parents to which he is born.

Dinesh does not address any of the other points made by John but rather begins to make his positive case for the existence of the Christian God.

1. Dinesh argues that Christianity has a better explanation of the ultimate questions of life than does science. He says that science has "no clue" to the following questions:
a. Where did we come from?
b. What is the purpose of life?
c. What is after death?

Of course science doesn't touch on these philosophical questions. It is not the domain of science. Just because religions have answers to these questions does not mean they are the right answers.

2. Dinesh argues that the universe had a singular beginning and thus must have had a cause. He says nature could not have produced itself because at the time of the big bang, there was nothing. He says that the Hebrew Bible recognized this truth, because it teaches that "first there was nothing and then there was something." This something, i.e., the universe, was caused to exist by the Christian God.

First, as John already pointed out, there is not agreement among scientists on cosmic singularity. As a matter of fact, Stephen Hawking, whom Dinesh cites as his authority on this matter, has since changed his mind. In A Brief History of Time (p. 53), Hawking writes:

"So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe-as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account."

It would have been good if John would have nailed Dinesh on this misrepresentation of Hawking.

Second, the Hebrew Bible does not say that "first there was nothing and then there was something." Dinesh makes an assertion but provides no scriptural evidence. Furthermore, if Dinesh is claiming that the Bible is being true to science in this case, then why isn't it in other places, such as the day the sun stood still in Joshua? The Christian apologist cannot "have his cake and eat it too."

3. Dinesh argues that the universe is finally tuned and that if any of the laws of the universe were even slightly different than they are, no life would exist. He says this demands belief in a God who cares for us.

While Dinesh is right about the fact that the laws of the universe could not be changed and life still exist, this does not argue for the Christian God. In fact, it does not even argue for a God at all.

Dinesh pauses to mention that he is arguing for the Christian God on the basis of secular reason not divine scriptures.

He is arguing for a deity but nothing in his argument demands the Christian deity. Furthermore, many Christian apologists would say that Dinesh has already "sold out" by placing secular reason over divine revelation as his ultimate authority. That is because they realize that if reason is the ultimate authority, then Christianity is not true.

4. Dinesh argues that things in the world are not the way they ought to be. He says that all of us can imagine perfection but we are not able to attain to it. He says that no religion but the Christian religion solves the problem "from the top down." Man cannot reach up to perfection but the Christian God can reach down and bring us to perfection.

I found this argument to be quite vague. Because we can imagine perfection does not mean that it has to exist. Furthermore, if the Christian God is lifting mankind up to his level, he is doing a pretty poor job of it. In addition, other religions have means for individuals to reach perfection. I fail to see how this argument does anything to prove the God of the Christians exists.

5. Dinesh argues that there is strong historical evidence that Jesus existed and that he was raised from the dead. He says that the historical evidence that Jesus existed is far greater than the evidence that Socrates existed, yet no serious philosopher or historian today doubts that Socrates really existed. He says there are four historical facts upon which the majority of scholars agree: a. A man named Jesus lived in 1st century; b. This man Jesus was crucified; c. This man Jesus was buried in a tomb; d. This man Jesus was seen alive by both believers and skeptics three days later.

These ideas are plagiarized from William Craig. First, these 4 things are not historical "facts." They are reports that purport to be historical. I would accept these 4 things as probably historical if you were to change letter d. to read: This man Jesus was reportedly seen alive three days later but the reports were written by his own followers many decades after the event supposedly happened.

6. Dinesh argues that the universe requires an explanation.

Okay, but that does not mean that we know what the explanation is and it certainly doesn't demand that we postulate the God of the Bible as the only viable explanation.

7. Dinesh argues that the existence of a moral law demands a lawgiver.

This is an assertion without any proof. Why does morality demand a supernatural being? Dinesh does not say. Why would a moral code demand the Christian God? I really tire of this argument because the morality displayed in the Bible is inferior to the morality of civilized people today. If the Bible was written by the moral lawgiver, then why does it demonstrate such a poor morality itself?

Rebuttal by John Loftus

1. Loftus mentions brainwashing and says that Dinesh and Christians are brainwashed as much as Muslims.

While this may be true, although I would prefer to say they have been indoctrinated, it is not productive to bring up in a debate. It sounds insulting and condescending and turns the audience against you.

2. Loftus argues that history is subjective and is therefore very weak in terms of evidence.

I agree but Loftus does not substantiate his point. He should have formulated a specific argument.

3. Loftus argues that Christians accept the conclusions of science in every area except those where it contradicts their holy book. He mentions that "cosmic singularity" has been refuted by Victor Stenger.

This is an excellent point that I think needs to be driven home more forcefully. Christians trust medical science when they get sick. They trust aeronautical science when they get on a plane but when science contradicts anything in the Bible, they take the Bible over science. Regarding Stenger, John again fails to cite the specific argument that Stenger makes. Just saying that an author has refuted something without citing the author is not a good argument.

Rebuttal by Dinesh

1. With regard to John's charge of brainwashing, Dinesh counters by saying that the vast majority of people in the world believe in God, so if John is right, virtually the whole world is brainwashed.

Saying the majority of the world believes in God is argumentum ad populum and is not a valid argument. The whole world used to believe the earth was flat too.

2. Dinesh says science is on his side and refers to a list of 200 of the greatest scientists from history who believe in God. He says that with regard to science, "Loftus is lying." Dinesh claims that "cosmic singularity" is an established fact and cites Stephen Hawking. He says that when atheists don't know how to explain something they chant: "quantum".

Dinesh is being disingenuous again. Yes, many scientists in the past believed in God but most today do not. Dinesh should have mentioned the dates when these "200 greatest scientists" lived. With regard to "cosmic singularity", it is Dinesh who is stating a falsehood. Hawking has repudiated "cosmic singularity" and Dinesh either knows that or should know it. Its the Christians who insert "Goddidit" for anything they can't explain. To say that atheists chant, "quantum" is not a parallel. There is scientific evidence for "quantum physics" and there is none for God.

Cross Examination

Dinesh refers to near death experiences as proof of the after-life. He rejects the "dying brain theory" that scientists have proposed because he says that if the person's brain were dying, how would you explain the fact that the person is functioning normally now.

I can't believe that Dinesh does not see his own contradiction here. If the person's brain were dead (as Dinesh claims), and not just dying (as science claims), then its even more incredible that the person is functioning now. Not only was his dead brain brought back to life but it was healed of any damage.

Furthermore, even if the NDE's are true, they don't prove the existence of a God, much less, the Christian God.

Dinesh argues that Christianity is the only religion that accepts another religion as being entirely true, namely, Judaism.

How this is supposed to prove that the Christian God exists is beyond me.

Dinesh says that Catholics and Protestants disagree mainly on just one doctrine, the nature of the eucharist. He says they agree on 99% of core doctrines.

That is blatantly false. Protestants disagree with Rome on the authority of the Pope, the sufficiency of the Bible, the plan of salvation, and a host of other matters. Either Dinesh is ignorant or he is intentionally being deceptive.

Dinesh argues that John's point that the disagreement among religons cancels them all out is not valid.

I agree with Dinesh here. John's point has some merit but would need to be stated in a different way.

Dinesh argues that Jesus' moral teachings is what makes him great. His teachings if followed would make everyone's life better. He says this is a big problem for the atheists to answer and it always disarms them. He goes on to say that Jesus never hurt another person and is a good role model.

Some of the teachings reportedly said by Jesus are in fact good, practical principles for living. Others are completely impractical and would lead to utter disaster if practiced. As far as Jesus never hurting anyone, that may be true of his first advent but Christians claim he is coming back again and then he will hurt a lot of people.

Dinesh argues that the existence of hell is sufficient refutation of the idea that the after-life is a result of "wish fulfillment." He says that if the afte-life were simply the invention of those who want a pleasant existence after death, then the idea of hell would never have developed.

First, as stated above, even if there is an after-life, it does not prove the existence of a God much less the Christian God. Second, hell is easily explained under the idea of "wish fulfillment." Those who want a pleasant existence in eternity want their enemies and oppressors to experience the opposite, thus the invention of hell. Virtually everyone who believes in an after-life believes he or she will be going to heaven. Its only their enemies who will be going to hell.

My Conclusion

After careful reflection on the specific arguments presented by Dinesh, I did not fine a single one with any merit. He basically has no argument at all. John did have some good arguments but they were not always stated clearly and emphatically. John would have been better served to select his three or four top arguments and keep restating them against any rebuttal offered by Dinesh.

In conclusion, let me say that I am not claiming that I would have done a better job against Dinesh. Its easy to sit back as a Monday morning quarterback and point out others mistakes and shortcomings. I applaud John for his efforts and I think that on the matter of substance, he won the debate.

Another Misguided Argument from Dinesh D'Souza

In yesterday's post, I pointed out Dinesh's mistake in saying John Loftus was guilty of the genetic fallacy. Once again, the entire debate is not available yet on line and I have only heard a few clips. In one clip, Dinesh says that atheists, such as John, must have an ulterior motive in not believing in the Christian God.

He says that atheists are just in rebellion against the rules that the Christian God has established. In other words, they don't want to be under the authority of the Christian God, so they try to convince themselves and others that this God does not exist.

I really tire of this argument. I get it all the time from Christians. The implication is that anyone who does not believe in God must be immoral.

First, Christians certainly do not have a monopoly on ethical behavior. All one has to do is read history to see the terrible things that have been done in the name of the Christian God. This immoral behavior continues today (for example, priests molesting children, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals involved with homosexual prostitutes and illegal drugs while preaching against both, a megachurch Pastor having sex with his parishoners, etc.). In addition, having been on the inside of Christianity, I saw little difference in the morality of Christians and the morality of unbelievers. So, if one is looking for an excuse to "sin," he certainly doesn't have to become an atheist to do so.

Second, I have known many unbelievers in the Christian God who live very moral lives.

Third, the Christian God himself, seems to be less than moral. He has no problem killing toddlers and infants in the Old Testament. He has no problem sending people to an eternal hell for not believing in him, etc. He has no problem today allowing earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. to devastate whole populations.

Fourth, the implication is that there can be no real intellectual reasons for unbelief. That is condescending and patently absurd.

(Here is an excellent spoof on how Christians like Dinesh think.)

Dinesh goes on to say that if someone doesn't believe in something, he should just walk away from it. Why should atheists care if some people believe in God (For an excellent post about why we should care, see this blog)? Dinesh says: I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion.

His analogy is is ridiculous. Belief in unicorns, assuming there really is anyone who believes in them, has not caused the damage to society that belief in God has. Have people been tortured and executed because they didn't believe in unicorns? Has the advancement of humanity through science been hindered because of a belief in unicorns? Have millions of dollars on elaborate temples, cathedrals, and churches been wasted because of a belief in unicorns? Do those who believe in unicorns have a political agenda? I could go on and on.

Once again, I have not heard the entire debate but what I have heard at this point makes me wonder how anyone could think that Dinesh won the debate. His arguments and analogies are unsound.

Debate--Dinesh D'Souza vs. John Loftus

On Tuesday night, Feb. 9th, Dinesh D'Sousza and John Loftus debated the existence of the Christian God at the University of Illinois. The full debate is not yet available on line but there are some clips on Youtube.

In one of the clips, Dinesh attempted to answer John's argument that people tend to adopt the religion into which they were born. John argues that if you were born in India to Hindu parents, you are likely to follow Hinduism. If you are born in Saudia Arabia to Muslim parents, you are likely to adopt Islam. Similarly, if you are born in the U.S., you are likely to be a Christian. John's point is irrefutable. Statistics easily confirm it. So, how does Dinesh respond?

He argues that John is guilty of the genetic fallacy , the idea that an argument is wrong based on the origin of that argument. Dinesh says that if you were born in Oxford, England as opposed to Oxford, Mississippi, you would be more likely to believe in evolution. If you were born in New York as opposed to New Guinea, you would be more likely to believe in Einstein's theory of relativity.

There are so many problems here, I hardly know where to begin.

First, John's argument is not an example of the genetic fallacy. An example of the genetic fallacy would be that an argument originating from a bad source must be bad or conversely, an argument originating from a good source must be good. For example,

(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
Therefore:
(2) The tooth fairy is real.

(1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
Therefore:
(2) Eugenics is a bad thing.

John is not saying that Hinduism is bad because India is bad or that Christianity is good because the U.S. is good. He is simply making the socially scientific observation that people are most likely to adopt the religion of the culture in which they are born.

Second, Dinesh's example is not analogous to John's. The theory of evolution is something that can be investigated and repeated. It has been established as a scientific fact. The overwhelming number of scientists believe in evolution. The same is true of Einstein's theory of relativity. Religion, however, is not something that can be investigated scientifically. Religion is based on faith (as shown in my previous posts). There is not an overwhelming consensus around the world among educated folks that any one religion is true such as there is with evolution or Einstein's theory of relativity.

Third, the reason that someone born in Oxford, Mississippi or New Guinea might not believe in these scientific theories is simply because its more likely that the persons born in those two places have less education than those born in Oxford, England or New York. On the other hand, the reason why someone born in Saudia Arabia is likely to be a Muslim is because of the dominance of that religion in that culture. In addition, while John's contention is easily demonstrable by statistics; Dinesh's rebuttal is not. It is simply an ad hoc argument intended to divert attention (red herring fallacy) away from the real issue.

Some have said that Dinesh won the debate. That may be true based on the technicalities of scoring a debate but its not true based on the substance of what was said (at least not what I have heard up to this point). Dinesh is a polished speaker and an experienced debater. He knows how to sway an audience. Oratory, however, is not a substitute for valid arguments.

My Discussion with the Priest and the Rabbi

On this past Monday, I was on 97.1 FM Talk Radio in St. Louis. On the Dave Glover show, he has a regular segment called The Priest and The Rabbi. On Monday I was invited to give the skeptic's viewpoint on the existence of God. As is the case with talk radio, you really don't have much time to make an argument. It is more limited to soundbites. You can listen to the podcast here. The date is Oct. 26th and the discussion begins on the middle segment of the three hour show and continues over to the last segment.

The priest really had little to say during the show. His major point was that he believed the death of Christ was not a payment for sins but rather a demonstration of the love of God. This is the theory proposed by Peter Abelard in the 12th century in reaction to Anselm's satisfaction theory. It is usually called the Moral Influence Theory.

While I could not go into detail on the program, I think this view is even more problematic than PST. First, because it still has to explain away all of the many passages in the NT which clearly teach that Christ died in our place as a substitute for the penalty we deserved as sinners. Those who hold this theory have to excise much of the NT on this subject. Second, how does Jesus being executed as a criminal show us that God loves us? I don't get it. God loves us so much that he allowed the wicked Romans to nail his Son to a cross and die in a most excruciating manner. If that shows love, then its not the kind of love I am interested in emulating. In addition, it certainly doesn't show much love for his only begotten Son. The priest said that God did not bring this about, the Romans did. But once again, you will have to explain away many passages of Scripture which say clearly that this death was planned "before the foundation of the world" by God himself.

If you say, well, it shows us how much Jesus loves us, I still don't get it. By placing himself in a position (he knew that going into Jerusalem at the time of the Passover was going to be very dangerous for him) whereby he would be executed shows love? I think it shows stupidity. How does Jesus placing himself in a situation where he gets tortured and killed show us God's love? That is a strange kind of love.

The rabbi, who was more conservative than I expected, takes the Torah as the divine revelation of God. I asked him, if it is a revelation from God, why does God order the killing of whole groups of people including women, children and even infants. You can listen to his response and my answers on the podcast but I think his position is extremely weak. Basically he said that if God did it, it must be right. But then he contradicts himself by saying that man only know morality because the Torah teaches it to him. Yet some of the things that the OT God does are clearly unjust and even immoral by the standards of western morality which is supposed to be based on Judeo-Christian principles. So, I guess its a case of do what I say not what I do?

In addition, the rabbi argued that he believes in the God of the Jews because of unbroken, person to person tradition dating from the time of the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. I responed to him that if that is his reasoning, then he ought to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, because there were reports of eyewitnesses who saw a resurrected Jesus and who passed along those stories all the way down to us today.

He argued that the difference between what happened at Mt. Sinai and what happened on Easter morning is simply the number of people who were eye-witnesses. He maintained that 600,000 Jews (the whole nation)saw what happened at Mt. Sinai, whereas only a few supposedly saw a resurrected Jesus. My response was that if the Jews really did see what happened at Mt. Sinai as recorded in the Torah, its passing strange, that they immediately began to worship a golden calf as they waited for Moses to come back down from the mountain. I think if I had just seen indisuputable proof that God exists, the last thing I would do is make an idol and start worshipping it. I think this made him a little angry (he later sent me an email apologizing for calling me ignorant).

So all in all, it was an enjoyable discussion for me and if you are interested in hearing it, you can go to the website mentioned above.