Evid3nc3

If you haven't, please watch YouTube user Evid3nc3's brilliant series on his deconversion from Christianity. It is so thoughtful and honest, if you also used to be a Christian, you will really appreciate it.

Watch the series here.

A Quick Guide of Creationist's (Incorrect) Claims

http://img.gawkerassets.com/post/8/2012/12/neanderthal2-278x225.jpg

I thought I would pass this article along. It's a quick read, and targets many of the wrong beliefs that creationists (especially the young-earth variety) have.

Read it here.

A Conversation With My Pastor, Part 4

Here is the fourth installment in the ongoing email conversation between my former pastor and myself. 

Lance -

I am very glad you took the time to reply. I know how busy you must be, and writing something like you did is not done on a whim. It required deep thinking, and care, and both are evident in what you wrote. Please know that nothing you have said has offended me, or even approached what might be considered an insult.

I feel that I must apologize for the length of this. There are just so many ideas and things to say about them that I have a hard time being succinct. I am finding our conversation very interesting and enlightening, and hope it continues. I hope you feel the same.

A Conversation With My Pastor, Part 3

I have been posting a series of emails between my former pastor any myself, discussing my unbelief. Last week, I posted part 2. Here is the 3rd installment:

If you are new to this conversation, I recommend you start with part 1.

Lance's reply:

Eric - 

Hey buddy. Clearly my plate has been full if it took me a billion years to get back to you. I’m very sorry about that, but I knew you understood. I wanted to set this email aside until I had a quiet moment. Well, give months later I got one, unfortunately it’s short. But here I am in a Starbucks, reading what you wrote and pondering.

A Conversation With My Pastor, Part 2

Last week, I posted the first in a series of emails between myself and my former pastor. Here is my response to his email:

Hey Lance, thanks for responding in the manner that you did. "Coming out" to you was difficult, and while I didn't really think you would ostracize me, I am relieved nonetheless. 

I do not mind you asking questions about my change of mind, but I should be clear right off the bat: I am not "assured" there is no god. No one, who really thinks about it, can actually claim to be assured that there isn't. It's not possible to prove. With that said, let me spell out what I actually do think a little more clearly.

A Conversation With My Pastor, Part 1

Update: Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 have been added.

Back in December 2011, I was thinking about the church atmosphere that I grew up in. I realized that the open, honest and loving group of believers I grew up with was something I always took for granted. I could have just as easily been brought up in a backwards fundamentalist community, where skepticism and free thinking are actively discouraged, so I am grateful of my roots.

A central figure in my developing spiritual life was my pastor, Lance. He was charismatic, genuine, honest, and accepting. He's the kind of person that makes you feel like you could tell him anything, and he wouldn't judge you. He's a teacher, but also a listener. He never reacted to questions or challenges, he simply answered them. He is, in a word, a Christian.

Is this a good answer? What do you think?

A twitter conversation I recently had with a christian apologist, Brett Kunkle, has been featured on his ministry's website for their weekly apologetics challenge. We were talking about morality, and whether it was objective or not. Brett was claiming that objectivity of moral values (It's wrong to torture babies for fun, no matter if anyone agrees with it or not) is self-evident. I was objecting to the use of moral intuitions or gut feelings as evidence that there actually are objective moral values in reality. I claim that this connection between what we intuit and what is actually real is not clear cut, at least when it comes to our moral sense.

Part of their challenge format is a video answer given by Brett a few days after the readers have chewed on it a bit. Today Brett released his answer to my objection. What do you think? Did he adequately answer the question that I posed:

"Why would the fact that I intuit something to be true be considered evidence that it really is true?"

Please read my original objection here. The discussion of my challenge (with clarifications) at STRPlace is here. Reading those will make my objection seem clearer, and save me time walking newcomers through the finer points. Thank you for reading, and please feel free to leave your thoughts about this in the comments!

I'm Sorry For Being Homophobic

I used to be a christian. I also used to think being gay was an abomination. There is no coincidence there, it is because of the first thing that the second thing happened. I really took what the bible said about homosexuality to heart, and more or less despised gay people. Moreover, I saw them as enemies, not as human beings that were related to me in the most profound sense.

Christians, can you help me answer this?

This is not a new question, but I have been unable to find a good answer for it. I wonder if you can help me find it. You don't have to answer in your own words if you don't want to, but perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

If Adam and Even did not know good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, how could God hold them morally responsible for their evil? 

Imagine Adam and Eve having no concept of right and wrong. Imagine them not even comprehending the idea that disobeying God was "wrong" but obeying him was "right." Do we hold or pets morally responsible for the "wrongs" they commit, even though they don't have a clue that what they do is considered wrong?

God said to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because they would die if they did so. (Gen 2:17)

The serpent later questions them about what God said would happen if they ate of it, and said that they "will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen 3:1-5)

They later eat the fruit and their "eyes were opened." (Gen 3:7) They realized they were naked and they felt shame and hid from God.

After all this, God is recorded as saying, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Gen 3:22)

From the biblical account, it seems clear to me that before they ate, only God knew good and evil. So Adam and Eve did not know good and evil until they disobeyed God and ate. That means they did not know that to disobey God was morally wrong. How could God justify this permanent, world-changing, eternal punishment for a crime that the perpetrators didn't even know they were committing?

This is not a post that is meant to be sarcastic or mocking in any way. This is a genuine challenge I am seriously curious about. Thank you.

Scary Christian School "Science" Textbook

A friend of mine shared this link, and it is scary! Read what this christian textbook says about how we can know things, and how science works. These poor children are being taught this garbage.

Only Faith in God can Fulfill Man's Deepest Needs.

Many times I have heard people refer to the fact that their faith met their human needs more than an atheistic worldview ever could. But is that reason to believe it?

The idea that atheism "can't answer man's deepest needs" as evidence against it is just silly to me. First of all, I think that man's deepest needs are not impossible to meet if you don't believe in a god. But even if it was, why would that be evidence for or against either side?

Only if you presume that the property of being able to "meet man's deepest needs" is a necessary condition for the truth of a worldview does this make sense to you. But why think that? There could be in fact many emotional, "spiritual," and physical needs that we just cannot ever fully meet. But where is it written that we humans are guaranteed such fulfillment in the first place?

Why do so many people seem to think that the existence of some sort of human desire or yearning means there must be something out there that satisfies that desire?

Believers in God: What is the most personally convincing evidence/argument/reason you have for belief that God exists?

 No judging here, just collecting information. Please reply in the comments. Be nice!

Belief in God is not Stupid

When talking about religion with someone who believes differently than you, it is very easy to get frustrated because they don't see things the same way. You try and make your point as clearly as you can, as reasonably as you can, but still they just don't “get it.” You may, after a while, begin to formulate reasons in your mind as to why this other person just doesn't understand you. You figure that they must not be listening to what you are really saying, or they are just plain stupid, because everyone who is reasonable and familiar with the evidence (like you are) will obviously come to the same conclusion as you, right?

How Open-Minded Are You?

Nearly all of us think that we are open-minded, rational, unbiased, thoughtful people. We follow the evidence wherever it leads, and we listen to reason. When new evidence comes to light about something that we already hold an opinion on, we believe that we will process it in an unbiased way. This is hardly the case.

Christopher Hitchens: I Will Miss You.

I haven't posted anything in over a year. With the death of Christopher Hitchens, I have been inspired to again watch all the videos I can find of him on youtube and other sites. It is powerfully clear to me that the world is now, without him, greatly diminished. Luckily, his writings and spoken words remain, and many people can still benefit from them. He has played an important role in my life, and I will miss him immensely.

I thought I would include a transcript of his closing remarks in a debate he had with William Dembski in 2010, as I think his words here are especially poignant.

"The discussion about what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble, what is pure, and what is true could always go on. Why is that important, why would I like to do that? Because that's the only conversation worth having. And whether it goes on or not after I die, I don't know.  But I do know that it's the conversation I want to have while I'm still alive. Which means that to me, the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having.

I want to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like enough yet. That I haven't understood enough, that I can't know enough, that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom - I wouldn't have it any other way. And I'd urge you to look at those of you who tell you - those people who tell you, at your age, that you're dead till you believe as they do - what a terrible thing to be telling to children.  And that you can only live by accepting an absolute authority.  Don't think of that as a gift - think of it of a poisoned chalice, push it aside however tempting it is, take the risk of thinking for yourself.  Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way.  Thank you."

If you want to watch this bit, click here.

Does the Universe Have a Purpose? Debate Analysis

Perhaps you have watched the panel debate that took place last month in Mexico that pitted Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Matt Ridley against William Lane Craig, David Wolpe, and Douglas Geivett.  The proposed question of the debate was, "does the universe have a purpose?"  It seemed an important topic, with important figures on both sides, so I thought I would give my thoughts on it.  You can watch the debate here.

New Symphony of Science: A Wave of Reason

John Boswell from symphonyofscience has posted a new music video promoting reason, skepticism and science.  This could be the best one yet.  Watch, listen and enjoy.  Be sure to visit his site!

New Humanism Ad Campaign

Richard Dawkins appears in this tv spot that will be appearing on several networks very soon.  There are currently two other spots available to watch on considerhumanism.org.  The campaign features readings from holy books about various issues such as women's rights, violence, slavery, intelligence and homosexuality, and contrasts it with what humanists think.  You will find that what the humanists think is very much in line with what most thinking people think about morality and values.  The contrast between the ancient world's ideas and today's values is a stark one.

The ads are designed to make people consider the source of these holy books.  Do the values contained in the Bible or Koran seem like they were breathed from a perfectly moral god?  I think most will find that the ideas and morals found in holy books clash with our moral intuitions.  Apologists no doubt deal with these "problem verses" in effort to make them sound less repugnant, but the honest thinker should wonder why, if god himself inspired the entire thing, would he have the authors write down such dated thoughts in the first place?  It seems more likely that ancient people wrote what is contained in holy books, and their prejudices and morals of the day inspired them - not god.

The official site also has various ads that can be printed and distributed by the inspired free-thinker.  Print some out, work with the humanist club at your school or in your community to spread the word.

I Want Your Input!

I thought it would be an interesting task to make a comprehensive list of what Christianity asks its believers to accept, but seem incoherent and backward to people not raised in it.  A couple examples of what it would be:

Christianity asks us to accept:

• Our ancient ancestors were told to not eat a fruit, but did it anyway, and now every person who has ever lived since then is sinful and fallen from God.
• Everything, including humans with our many defects (and vulnerabilities) were created by a perfectly all-powerful, all-knowing, and infinitely far-reaching being, and he said it was "good."
• This same being, being infinitely powerful and knowing, cares about what job we get.

I am still compiling and will soon be lining up scriptural citations for the applicable ideas.  Let's see if I still remember my Bible!

This is where I need your help.  Can you think of some interesting things that Christianity (or just the Bible) asks its believers to accept?  I am looking for doctrines, historical and scientific claims, moral imperatives, etc.  Please list them in the comments section of this post or email me at doubtingeric(at)gmail.com.  Thanks!