John Loftus Nails 30 Theses to the Door of Evangelical Christianity

My friend and follow apostate, John Loftus (author of Why I Became An Atheist and editor of The Christian Delusion), has put together 30 Theses that evangelical Christians must believe if their religion is true. While he has some way to go to get to Luther's 95 Theses, I think these are sufficient to show any reasonable person that it just doesn't make sense to believe the Bible and be an evangelical Christian. If one wants to believe, fine, but please acknowledge that it takes a surrender of the intellect to do so.

1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.

4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win--which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.

5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it's argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.

6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.

7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.

8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.

9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.

10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.

11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.

12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.

13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today's historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.

14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.

15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.

16) That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.

17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.

18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.

19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.

20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.

21) That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.

22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the "Son of Man" reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.

23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don't even see God's care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his "perfect will." Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.

24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.

25) That although God's supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God. As SilverBullet recently said: “...the lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn't be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were "revealed". Sure, its possible for a god to reveal himself in an inspired book, and throughout history, in ways that are indistinguishable from the work of human minds and human minds alone. But how probable does that seem to you?”

26) That although it's claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he's trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don't believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.

27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn't matter. God is good. Death doesn't matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God's goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple.

28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world, and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!

29) When believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is an evil to be avoided....Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. And yet they maintain Christianity is reasonable.

30) The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher's god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.

The Christian Delusion: Chapter Twelve--At Best Jesus Was A Failed Apocalyptic Prophet

In chapter 12 of The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, the editor, John Loftus, returns to write a chapter entitled, "At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet." Loftus maintains that even if one assumes that the canonical gospels are historically reliable, the portrait presented of Jesus is one of a failed prophet. He predicted the end of the age within the generation of his initial followers and it did not happen, thus proving that he was not from God (much less God himself).

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 states: You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken(NIV).

Loftus shows that while the historical Jesus scholarship has come to a number of different conclusions, the dominant view that is held today is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. This view first popularized by Albert Schweitzer in 1906 (The Quest of the Historical Jesus)has been defended in the current day by such eminent NT scholars as E. P. Sanders (The Historical Figure of Jesus), Dale Allison (Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet), Bart Ehrman (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium), and Paula Fredriksen (From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus).

Apocalypticism (i.e., the idea that God would visit the earth, destroy his enemies, raise the saints, and establish his kingdom) was prevalent in the Jewish culture into which Jesus was born. Loftus writes:

We see Jewish apocalypticism everywhere stemming from such texts as Isaiah 24-27, Daniel, Zechariah 9-14, parts of I Enoch, Sibylline Oracles, the Testament of Moses, 4th Ezra, 2nd Baruch and the Apocalypse of Abraham. The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves show apocalyptic elements in them, especially the War Scroll, where there is a war between the “children of the light” and the “children of darkness” in which God intervenes in the seventh battle and the Sons of Light are given their victory. So in this contextual milieu it’s not difficult at all to think Jesus believed and taught what others did in his day. In fact, this is what we would expect to find (pp. 318-19).

The synoptic gospels open up with the ministry of an apocalyptic prophet, John the Baptist, who was preaching that judgment was at hand, the wrath of God was about to be unleashed, and the Kingdom age was at hand (Mark 1:15; Matt. 3:1-12; Luke 3:16-17). Jesus identified with the message of this prophet by being baptized by him. Then Jesus began preaching the same message of John (Matt. 4:17).

Jesus' use of the title "Son of Man" is a clear apocalyptic reference from Daniel chapter 7. It is his favorite way to refer to himself throughout the Synoptic gospels. He tells the Sanhedrin at his trial: You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62). In the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13), Jesus foretold the end of the age and told his disciples that they would be alive to see it happen: I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30; cf. Matt. 10:23; 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27).

When we come to the writings of Paul, it is obvious that he believed he would live to see Jesus return, raise the believers, destroy the wicked and establish a kingdom (1 Thess. 4:15-5:4; 1 Cor. 15:51-52). As a matter of fact, he told the Corinthians that the time was so short, it would be better for them not to marry or give their daughters in marriage. He wrote:

What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away (7:29-31).

But Paul died, the Corinthians and the Thessalonians died, and all the believers since that time have died. Was Jesus then wrong? The NT scholar James Dunn thinks so: Jesus had entertained hopes which were not fulfilled. There were "final" elements in his expectation which were not realized. Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events (Jesus Remembered, p. 479 cited by Loftus, p. 325).

Why didn't Christianity cease to exist then, since their founder's prophecies failed to occur? Because the early Christians did what other cults with failed prophets have done, they reinterpreted their prophet's words (see Leon Festinger, When Prophecies Fail).E. P. Sanders writes:

…his followers preached that he would return immediately—that is, they simply interpreted "the Son of Man" as referring to Jesus himself. Then, when people started dying, they said that some would still be alive. When almost the entire first generation was dead, they maintained that one disciple would still be alive [John 21:23]. Then he died, and it became necessary to claim that Jesus had not actually promised even this one disciple that he would live to see that great day (Historical Figure of Jesus, p. 180 cited by Loftus, p. 332).

Later books in the NT reveal the dilemma faced by the followers of Jesus. Loftus states:

By the time the pseudonymous 2nd letter to the Thessalonians was written at the end of the first century to reassure Christians that Jesus would indeed return, unlike some who thought he had already done so (2:1-2), and unlike others who quit their jobs to wait for it to happen (3:6-15), additional signs must take place first. A rebellion must take place and “the man of sin” revealed who will “exalt himself over everything that is God” (2:3-12). And although the power of this “man of sin” (or anti-Christ) is already at work in the world, he is being held back until the “proper time” when he will be revealed and later destroyed when Jesus returns in glory.

By the time the even later second-century pseudonymous epistle of 2 Peter was written scoffers were mocking the Christian claim that Jesus would return. These things were an embarrassment to the church of that day. The answer given was that with the Lord, “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness…the day of the Lord will come like a thief” (2 Pet. 3:3–10). . . . This is just what apocalyptic movements do with the prophetic texts when their prophecies fail. They use what has been aptly described as “secondary exegesis” (ala Dale Allison) to reinterpret them, and this is exactly what we see in the New Testament (pp. 332-33).

This reinterpretation of the prophecies of Jesus has continued throughout Church History. Today, there are a multitude of various eschatological positions held by Christians. As Loftus points out:

One way to observe whether a theory is in crisis is to note how many versions of that theory there are. When it comes to Christian eschatological theories there are Historicist, Preterist, Futurist and Idealist versions of it. Specific millennial theories include premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Then there is dispensational premillennialism with pre-mid-and post-tribulational rapture theories, even though there is no room in the New Testament for the idea of a rapture separated from the final eschaton. There also are partial and full preterist views. There are so many questions and disputes between Christians over this issue that the evidence seems clear: attempts to harmonize the statements in the New Testament are a failure. Christians misunderstand what is going on in the New Testament writings themselves. The authors were reinterpreting these prophecies just like every failed doomsday cult has done in order to survive as a community (pp. 333-34).

So, what is one to conclude from this evidence? I think one has to conclude that Jesus predicted the end of the age along with all of its apocalyptic grandeur to occur within the first generation of his hearers and it did not happen. Thus, Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet in a long line of failed prophets who have predicted the end of the world.

The Christian Delusion: Chapter Four--The Outsider Test for Faith Revisited

Today, I continue my review of The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails (ed. John Loftus). In chapter four, John Loftus, a former evangelical preacher and apologist, describes his Outsider Test for Faith (OTF). John first explained this test in Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity.
Loftus opens the chapter by saying: The most important question of all when it comes to assessing the truth claims of Christian theism (or religion in general) is whether we should approach the available evidence through the eyes of faith or with skepticism (p. 81). He lays out his rationale for employing skepticim based on the following:

1) Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage.. . .
2) Consequently, it seems very likely that adopting one's religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree. . . .
3) Hence the odds are highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false.
4)So the best way to test one's adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths. (p. 82)

What John is calling for in the OTF is for a person to step outside of his particular religious belief system and attempt to honestly evaluate it as he would any other belief system. In other words, one must pretend that he is not a Christian, that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and that Jesus is not the Son of God. Given those premises, then the individual should examine the Christian faith to see if it is a reasonable thing to believe.

One way to do this is to be willing to read critiques of the Christian faith by skeptics and nonbelievers (p. 86) This will force one to look at his faith as outsiders do. Another way is to do as Julia Sweeney of SNL fame did, put on No God Glasses and try looking at the world as if there were no God (p. 88). See if the world looks the same without God as it does with God. If it does, then consider the possiblity that there just might not be a God.

I had a Pastor once who said something to his congregation that caused me to think in these terms. He asked: What if there were no God, would our worship service look any different than it does today ? He didn't say it to cause people to doubt their belief in God; he said it because to him most Christians lived as practical atheists, i.e., they lived as if there were no God. He was trying to get his congregation to "practice the presence of God." However, it had a different effect upon me. As I pondered the question, I had to admit that the church service would be no different whether God existed or not.

In the last half of the chapter, Loftus deals with objections to his OTF. I will mention a couple of these objections. One put forward by Norm Geisler in his review of John's first book (WIBA) is that skepticism is self-defeating. Geisler maintains that if one takes the position of skepticism, then one would have to be skeptical about their skepticism and could never be certain that its the right approach. To me, Geisler's objection is misguided because he is playing word games. Of course by definition, a skeptic is not going to be certain. But is certainty the goal? There are precious few things, if any, in life that we are certain of. The goal is not certainty but it is a belief that can be justified. Skepticism should be the default position, if learning is to take place. Science is based on skepticism. One needs to test as objectively as possible the data to arrive at a reasonably certain conclusion.

Another objection put forward by Alvin Plantinga is that one cannot really transcend his culture in order to objectively evalutate it. Plantinga is correct. Total objectivity is never possible. People cannot totally divorce themselves from their prior experiences and knowledge. However, even though total objectivity is not acheivable, one can strive for it. One can honestly attempt to look at things as an outsider would and apply the same investigative criteria as one would to a different belief system. All Loftus is calling for is an honest attempt.

I agree with Loftus that people typically do not believe in their religious system for rational reasons. They were born into it, or adopted it because it was the dominant view in their culture, or some emotional event in their life forced them to seek shelter in a faith system. If people are willing, and unfortunately most are not, to honestly examine their religious beliefs, they will most likely conclude that they have been deluded. As one author said: When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours (Stephen Roberts).

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.

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.

Norman Geisler's Review of John Loftus' Book

Dr. Norman L. Geisler was one of my heroes when I was a believer. One of the first classes that I took as a Bible college freshman was Bibliology. The textbook for that class was A General Introduction to the Bible (co-authored by William Nix). I literally cut my theological teeth on Geisler’s exposition of the doctrines of revelation, inspiration and inerrancy. I learned how an evangelical believer should think about the development of the canon and the transmission and translation of the Bible. When I became a Bible college professor myself, I used several of Geisler’s books in my classes. I used his Christian Apologetics as one of the required textbooks in Apologetics. I used his Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (co-authored by Paul Feinberg) and Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logic as assigned reading in my Philosophy classes. While, of course, I did not agree with everything he wrote, I had tremendous respect for his scholarship and the clarity in which he communicated. So, when I found out that he had done a critique of my fellow apostate John Loftus’ book , I could not wait to see what he said.

The review is entitled: FROM APOLOGIST TO ATHEIST: A CRITICAL REVIEW , Norman L. Geisler, Ph.D., Christian Apologetics Journal , Volume 6, No. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 93-109.

Geisler begins by throwing some kudos to John’s work. He states: “ … it is a thoughtful and intellectually challenging work, presenting arguments that every honest theist and Christian should face. Indeed, some of his criticisms are valid” (p. 94). The only example, though, of a valid criticism that Geisler mentions is John’s critique of William Craig’s “witness of the Holy Spirit” as a self-authenticating evidence of the truth of Christianity. To me its not surprising that Geisler mentions Craig since they are members of rival schools of apologetics. Its always good to throw a jab at one of your rivals. (I find it fascinating that Christian apologists cannot even agree on the best way to try to defend Christianity. There are multiple approaches each with their own devout followers. See Five Views on Apologetics, edited by Steven Cowan. At least one of these schools, the presuppositionalists, accuse the other schools of not really given honor to the Bible.) Nevertheless, Geisler does acknowledge that John’s work is “intellectually challenging.”

My biggest criticism of Geisler’s review is that he maintains that John left the faith because of sin and rebellion not because of genuine intellectual doubts. He says that it is noteworthy that John first step away from God involved moral failure and “Then, he began to doubt God’s word” (p. 97). I am not surprised that Geisler would have this view. Conservative Christians maintain that failure to believe in God is never due to the head but always to the heart. My former pastor used to say this and he would quote Psalms 14:1 to prove it. “The fool hath said in his heart (and by implication not his head), there is no God.” Bob Jones Sr. (who is revered at BJU in way something like Hindus revere their spiritual gurus) had a saying: “If a man will give God his heart, God will comb the kinks out of his head.” For the conservative evangelical Christian it is all about sin. They cannot believe that someone may have honest doubts about God and the Bible (at least not after they have been given all of the pat answers by the Christian apologist—at that stage its only rebellion).

I am also not surprised to see that Geisler actually questioned the genuineness of John’s conversion. He says: “ In summation, one can place question marks on both his ‘conversion’ and ‘deconversion.’ Given the legalistic context, one can question whether or not he really understood the grace of God” (p. 108). Those within my old theological camp (fundamental Baptists) did not believe that most Church of Christ people were truly saved. They thought that the Church of Christ folks (whom they called Campbellites) had added works to grace because of their insistence on baptism as a requirement for salvation. They also felt that the Church of Christ belief that one could lose one’s salvation actually meant that they denied salvation by grace to begin with. A Calvinistic Christian cannot accept the notion of a truly regenerate person falling away. Again to quote my former Pastor: “A faith that fizzles at the finish had a fatal flaw at the first.”

For this reason, Geisler does not give much credence to John’s arguments against Christianity. He says: “The discussion here need not be long for several reasons. First, his unbelief was not initiated by reason, as he admits. Rather, it was his rejection by friends and the lack of Christian love. Second, there is nothing really new here that has not already been answered elsewhere” (p. 100). This confirms what I said above. Many conservative Christians believe that they have all the answers to every question ever raised against the Christian faith. All one has to do is buy their book and presto, they will have all the answers too. If you disagree with their answers, its because of your sinful and rebellious heart.

Geisler maintains that John’s problem with Genesis and science can be answered by “high school level apologetics” (p. 100). While I am no scientist, I have read somewhat widely on evolution and “creation science” and I know that the subject is far more complex than Geisler is acknowledging. He believes that he has refuted evolution by stating: “Red, white, and blue confetti dropped from an airplane will never produce the American Flag on your lawn” (p. 100). Don’t we all wish that the matter was that simple?

The fact is that evolution, while not essentially at odds with conservative Christianity (see the gap theory, theistic evolution, and progressive creationism), is at odds with Geisler’s fundamentalist view of the Scripture. Thus, he seems ready to dismiss the whole subject with his simplistic example of dropping confetti from an airplane.

Geisler says that John’s best argument against God is the argument from evil; but he says it can be dismissed due to circular reasoning. “For how can one know God is ultimately in-just (sic )for allowing evil unless he knows what is ultimately just (sic). And how can he know there is an ultimate standard of justice (i.e., absolute moral law), unless there is an absolute Moral Law Giver” (p. 101)? Here again, it seems to me that Geisler is way too simplistic in dismissing the argument from evil. Common sense and observation tells you that there are many injustices in the world (not caused by man). Hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and many other types of natural disasters kill and maim young children (not to mention adults) on almost a daily basis around the globe. Children contract cancer and other horrific diseases each day due to no fault of their own. Geisler’s answer to this dilemma is that we will understand one day that these things were really for the best. In the meanwhile, we have to just trust God. Frankly, that is also the teaching of the book of Job and consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture. Don’t be surprised, however, if those who do not have a prior commitment to the truth of Scripture find this argument unconvincing and unsatisfying.

In dealing with Loftus’ “Cumulative Argument” against Christianity, Geisler responds: “First, the atheist, weighs the specific evidence differently than the theist, and his bias affects the way he weighs it. What Loftus views as improbable (say, the resurrection of Christ) is because of his bias against miracles, not because there is not highly probably (sic) historical evidence that it happened, which there is” (p. 101). I have to guess that Geisler has a blind spot here. A man as intelligent as he is ought to recognize that he comes to the same evidence with bias. No one is truly objective. No one interprets any evidence outside of their particular world-view. Now you can argue whether or not the world-view is correct but you cannot operate outside of one in some type of imaginary neutral land. Geisler is just as biased in favor of the resurrection and miracles as Loftus is against them.

Geisler goes on to say: “If miracles are possible (which they are in a theistic universe), then their probability depends purely on the reliability of the documents. And the Gospel documents are reliable. In summary, there are more NT documents, earlier documents, more documents [doesn't this sound redundant-my comment] by more contemporaries and eyewitness testimony, more historically and archaeologically confirmed than for any other events of the ancient world. Hence, it is highly probable that Jesus did the miracles contained in the NT and rose from the dead to confirm his claim to be the Son of God” (pp. 101-102). To argue that the large number of ancient copies of the NT somehow guarantees that the miracles contained in those copies must be true is a huge jump in logic. Would the existence of a large number of copies of the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Hindu Veda guarantee that the miracles described in those books were true? Geisler mentions archaeologically confirmed Scripture. Has archaeology ever confirmed that a miracle mentioned in the Bible actually took place? I am not aware of any such discovery. Archaeology may confirm some historical references in the Scriptures but that is a far cry from proving that the miracles took place.

Geisler tries to water down John’s claim that historical studies can never prove the Bible beyond a reasonable doubt by saying: “Probabilities leave room for some doubt but not necessarily always a reasonable doubt. And high probabilities do not leave room for any reasonable doubt, though there is always room for possible doubt in historical arguments” (p. 102) To me, this seems like mental gymnastics. Doubt is doubt and for some it will be reasonable doubt and for others it will not. Geisler seems to be assuming some imaginary objective arbiter here. John’s point was simply that historical evidence can never fully prove the Bible to be true and I think he is right.

Geisler continues: “It too can be a cumulative case where one probability is built upon another until the whole argument for Christianity is so highly probable that it is beyond all reasonable doubt” (p. 102). If that is the case, then the only thing keeping the whole world from converting is their lack of knowledge. If somehow, Geisler and his apologists could get their evidence in front of everyone, the whole world would believe (except for those who are willfully rebellious). Excuse me if I think this sounds a little bit arrogant.

Geisler takes John to task for saying that “ancient standards [for eyewitnesses] are pathetic in comparison to today’s standards.” Geisler replies: “This is simply false. Indeed, many legal experts have examined the New Testament eyewitness testimony and found it more than sufficient” (p. 102). Geisler’s “many legal experts” consists of a 19th century apologist-lawyer, Simon Greenleaf, and a 20th century theologian-lawyer, John Montgomery—this hardly constitutes “many legal experts.” The fact is that you can find a lawyer that will defend just about any known position. The testimony recorded in the Gospels is by and large second and third hand which would be dismissed in a court of law as hearsay. And that is ignoring the fact that the Gospel records were written decades after the events took place when memories have a tendency to fade and stories can be embellished. In any case, there is certainly no opportunity to cross examine the so-called eyewitnesses and that alone would nullify their testimony.

Geisler next calls John’s “God-of-the-gaps” argument faulty. Just because science is explaining more and more (leaving less room for God), there is no need for the Christian to worry, according to Geisler, because miracles by definition are irregular, non-repeatable events and as such can never be examined by empirical science. Thus, miracles such as the resurrection are safe from the prying eyes of science. Geisler goes on to argue that only forensic science can be used to test the unobserved and unrepeated events of the past. He writes: “Here one must depend on the principles of causality and uniformity. Events (even past ones) had a cause (causality). And the present is the key to the past (uniformity). Hence, the kind of causes that produce a certain kind of event in the present should be posited for these same kind of events in the past. Some of these events demand intelligent causes” (p. 103). Essentially, Geisler is presenting the cosmological and teleological arguments. While these arguments do have some weight in my opinion, they are far from certain. Whatever the case, what he says does not refute the fact that science has eliminated the need for supernatural explanations of cause and effect phenomena in a host of areas. Whereas people in biblical times had supernatural explanations for many natural phenomena (such as demon possession for epilepsy), most people today living in a post-Enlightenment world know that those explanations are not valid.

Geisler also criticizes John by saying: “… one of the weakest links in his case for atheism is his failure to provide any real positive evidence for God’s non-existence… "(p. 104). Here Geisler is guilty, in my opinion, of the classic fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. It is not the atheist’s responsibility to provide positive evidence against God. The burden of proof lies on the one who is making the assertion that God exists. It is the theist’s responsibility to provide positive evidence for God. The atheist’s only responsibility is to refute the theist’s positive evidence.

Geisler says that John’s “Outsider Test” is self-defeating. (A favorite term of Geisler’s I have noticed in reading his books over the years.) “. . . if one should have the presumption of skepticism toward any belief system, especially his own, then why should Loftus not have the presumption of skepticism toward his own atheistic beliefs? The truth is that the outsider test is self-defeating since by it every agnostic should be agnostic about his own agnosticism and every skeptic would be skeptical of his own skepticism” (p. 105). I fail to see the problem here. Yes, one should be skeptical of their own skepticism. They should try to see their world view as someone outside of their particular belief system would see it. They should read those from opposing world views and talk to people from different cultures and religions. By doing so, it will shed light on the true weaknesses of their particular system of thought (whether that system be evangelical Christianity or atheism).

Geisler believes that being skeptical of one’s views is somehow not a good thing. He says: “Advanced skepticism should only be used when one has advanced evidence or good reasons to disbelieve that the event really did not happen. Otherwise, one should come with an open mind to the question” (p. 107). Geisler seems to be arguing for assuming something to be true until its proven false whereas Loftus is saying to assume something to be false until its proven true. In my opinion, more advances in human thought and understanding are made by following the latter methodology. It seems to me that people are more naturally inclined to follow the first methodology and just believe what the people around them believe. It’s the ones who are willing to question the status quo that wind up making new discoveries and who find new ways to understand the world.

Finally, Geisler accuses John and all atheists of being biased. “The truth is that the only way the atheist or skeptic can even compete on the playing field of religious truth is to load the dice or stack the deck. Most often this is done by assuming either metaphysical or methodological naturalism” (p. 107). I guess evangelical Christians are the only ones who are truly unbiased. Does Geisler not recognize his own bias in favor of supernaturalism? I would agree with those of the competing school of apologetics known as presuppositionalism who maintain that the notion of neutrality is a myth (for example, see Greg Bahnsen). No one is completely objective. No one views the world free from any bias. It is impossible. The first step to achieving some level of objectivity is to recognize your own biases. Geisler does not seem to have done this.

All in all, I cannot say that I am surprised by Geisler’s critique. Knowing evangelical Christianity as I do, I could have almost written the essay for him. Evangelical Christians are certain about what they believe, often to the point of failing to recognize that when it is all said and done, it's still just a belief. They may be right and I may be wrong. I am willing to admit this and they are not. I don’t know if it’s the particular type of psyche that is drawn to dogmatic religion that explains this mentality or if there is some other explanation, but it seems to be common place among evangelicals.

More Problems with the Penal Substitutionary Theory

My fellow apostate, John Loftus (Th.M., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and owner of the blog, http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/) in his book: Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity, has a chapter (19) in which he critiques the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement (pp. 344-350). Even though it’s a brief treatment of the subject, I think he makes some excellent points.

He writes: To say that my sins are an infinite wrong because they are committed against an infinite God, and thus demand an infinite punishment, seems mistaken for several reasons.

In the first place, does justice really demand this must punishment? . . . What picture of God lays behind this view of justice—a caring father or an aloof vengeful medieval potentate? Jesus describes God as the former, a caring father” (Matth. 6:9-15; Luke 15:11-32) . Jesus himself said, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’” (Matt. 9:13). (p. 346)

I think this is a good point. The PST view seems to accentuate the differences between the Father and the Son. The OT God definitely comes across as an angry, vengeful, deity that constantly needs to be placated. He destroys the earth in Noah's day, he wipes out the innocent first-born children in Egypt, he orders the Caananites annihilated (including children), he orders the Amalekites annihilated (including children), he is jealous of any other god, even though supposedly he is the only true God, etc. He orders homosexuals, adulterers, and rebellious children to be executed. He seems to care about the Jews but not the other peoples of the world.

Now contrast that with the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels. Jesus comes across as loving, peaceful, and concerned for all peoples--Samaritans, Jews, Gentiles. He shows compassion and love towards the sinners of his day--harlots, tax collectors, etc. He is against vengenance; he freely forgives without first demanding a sacrifice to placate himself; he is humble; he is gracious, all the things that the OT God is not. PST accentuates this view by making the Father an angry old deity that has to see blood before he is willing to forgive. Jesus being the gracious fellow that he is agrees to shed the blood that the Father demands.

Second, if God became incarnate to relate to us, then why can’t he also see what sin is from our perspective, as a finite offense from partly good and partly bad human beings? We intend no infinite wrong against God when we sin. God should know this, especially since it’s claimed that he related to us by being one of us. (Loftus, p. 346)

John is right. The NT teaches that Jesus became one of us. He shared in our humanity. He was, as the author to the Hebrews, says: This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same temptations we do, yet he did not sin. (Heb. 4:15)

According to evangelical theology, Jesus became fully man. He was a human being in the full sense of the word, only he never sinned. He was tempted though, and whether you believe in the peccability or the impeccablity of Christ, you must maintain that the temptations were real. He felt them in the same way we feel them. He therefore knows, as John said, that when we sin as human beings, we generally are not focused on deliberatley rebelling against God. We don't sin in order to strike out at God. We sin because we are weak at times. we give in to momentary pleasures that result in long term pain. We are proud and treat other people as inferior to us or we are greedy and manipulate ways and people to get more and more. All of these are sins but they are really the result of doing what we think at the time is best for ourselves. They are not deliberate rebellious acts focused against God. Jesus being fully human should have known this.

Third, did Jesus really suffer an infinite punishment for our sins? . . . if every person who ever lived deserved to be slapped in the face just one time, then the equivalent of sixty billion slaps would surely amount to more punishment than Jesus physically endured. . . . .if we were given a choice to suffer as Jesus did or else be cast in hell for eternity, we would all choose to suffer as Jesus did (Loftus, p. 346).

John is simply dealing with the physical portion of Jesus' suffering and not his spiritual suffering. From that standpoint, he is correct. PST teaches that Jesus suffered the exact amount of suffering or even more suffering than each individual sinner would in an eternal hell. As John points out, if you or I had the option to pay for our sins by being crucified and dying in a few hours (Jesus did not even suffer as much as most of the other folks who were crucified in his day) or suffering eternal hell, it would be a no-brainer. We would choose to be crucified.

John argues: In the fourth place, in order for someone to be forgiven, why must there be punishment at all? We know of victims who have forgiven their assailants even though they have never been punished . . . .If the cross was needed to pay the punishment for my sins, then how can God really be a forgiving God (pp. 346-347)?

I agree with this as shown by my earlier posts on PST Eliminating True Forgiveness. Forgiveness, which is a virtue, is letting go or dismissing a wrong done against you without exacting any payment or punishment. God apparently cannot do this. He can only "forgive" you if someone else makes the payment or takes the punishment in your place. Then he "forgives" you. In my opinion, that is not true forgiveness. It is getting even. It is getting reimbursed. It is getting recompensed.

Fifth, even if punishment is needed . . . . then how does punishing Jesus help God forgive us? This Christian theory says God himself bore our punishment on the cross in Jesus. This means the divine way to forgive us when we sin against him is to turn around and punish his Son? If you see me along the roadway and beat me to a pulp, the divine way to forgive you is to turn around and beat myself up all over again, or my son? . . . . It doesn’t make any rational sense at all (Loftus, p. 347).

I agree. The whole idea of God punishing his innocent Son in order to forgive guilty men makes no sense. If that is the model of "forgiveness" that man should imitate, then what a crazy, bizarre justice system we would have.

John concludes his chapter on PST by saying:

Even though I have not considered all of the atonement theories here, none of the ones we’ve considered actually makes sense of the supposed atonement offered to God on our behalf, in Jesus. And given nearly two millennia of theological discussions, I’d venture to say there never will be a cogent, well-argued theory that can ever pass muster in the future either. I think the whole idea of Jesus dying for my sins to restore me to God is built upon the beliefs of a superstitious ancient world, where gods and goddesses were pleased with sacrifices, whether they were human or animal ones. This ancient world is long gone now, and it’s time to give up believing in an incarnate God who offered a sacrifice for us on the cross to atone for our sins (Loftus, p. 349).

John is right. Theologians have had 2000 years to try to explain what happened when Jesus died on the cross. They have come up with a half-dozen or so theories, none of which is really adequate, as the continued intramural debate among Christians on this matter proves. If they haven't been able to figure it out in 2000 years, they probably never will.

I also agree (and I plan a series of posts on this in the future) that the whole concept of a sacrifice appeasing the wrath of gods was widespread in the ancient world, not only animal sacrifices but also human sacrifices. It was part of the superstitious mentality of that period in world history. It is rarely practiced in the civilized world today (with a few exceptions, see http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21531). The overwhelming majority of people in today's world recognize that sacrificing animals, much less people, to stave off the wrath of a god is pure superstition. Yet many of these same people, without thinking it through, accept the human sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the means by which the wrath of their God (Jehovah) is appeased (propitiatied is the biblical word--1 John 2:2). Does anyone besides me see how inconsistent that is?