Reasonable Doubt About the Resurrection

I will not be so bold as to say that I can prove the resurrection didn't happen but I will argue that it has not been proven that it happened and there is no reason to believe it happened based on the evidence. There are three other plausible hypotheses two of which are introduced in the Bible itself for what might have happened to the body of Jesus. It might have been stolen, or since Jesus was only on the cross for about six hours, he might not have been dead at all. The Koran tells us that he wasn't. Another plausible explanation is that the story of the resurrection might have been Folklore.

"Folklore whether oral or written is characterized by multiple existence and variation. The variation may be reflected in such details as different names, different numbers, or different sequences of lines" (Dundes, 7). This would also account for the different stories between Paul and the Gospels.

The argument as I understand goes like this.
Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened
Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important

Premise2: The gospels support each others testimony within reason
Warrant2: We would expect there to be variation in different testimonies.

Premise3: There is no body
Warrant3: There would be no body if he was taken up to heaven.

Premise4: People suffered and died to defend the idea of the resurrection
Warrant4: People would not suffer and die to defend if it were not true.

Conclusion: The resurrection happened.

There are strong and weak forms of evidence and argument. Testimony is regarded as weak evidence because it is based on a presumption of the honesty of the speaker. Presumptions from testimony are defeasible because they are not based on objective 'hard' evidence. They can be overturned by the introduction of new information. Corroboration can make testimony stronger. Expert witness testimony is stronger based on the presumption that the expert is in a "position to know". Objective or 'hard' evidence can make testimony stronger. First hand testimony is more plausible than second hand testimony. One way to test testimony is cross-examination. Cross-examination checks for consistency and plausibility. In a legal case, witnesses are required to swear to the truth of their statements introducing pressure on them to tell the truth under penalty of law (Walton). In the case of the Gospels, there is no clear pressure from consequences to tell the truth and the length of time from the source make it unlikely that a challenge would be issued among believers.

In the case of the scriptures, Paul (50-60CE) was the earliest account of the resurrection. His details don't match with the Gospels. Mark was second (65-80 CE), his don't match with what the other three said even if Matthew (80-100CE) and Luke (80-130 CE) copied Mark heavily to make their own. John (90-120CE) is farthest away from the incident, up to 90 years after the fact (Home). This is not corroboration, this is plagiarism and it would not have been a violation of the principles of canonization since they were not canonized yet. It is unlikely that the apostles or even eyewitnesses wrote any of the Gospels. That makes them at least second hand testimony.

Since Mark was probably not an eyewitness, he must have put his Gospel together from a source such as 'oral tradition'; stories he heard, collected and wrote down and/or other writings. He may not have realized that the major points of his resurrection story came from Daniel, especially chapter 6. The irony is that Daniel in the Lions Den is similar to Aesops Fable "The Lion and the Slave" written up to 500 years before (Aesop). Another characteristic of the Book of Daniel is that according to Tim Callahan, "in general the history in Daniel is so corrupted that it must be (written) by someone who lived much later and was unfamiliar with the specifics of a far-off time (Callahan, 335).

The points of similarity to Daniel 6 are as follows.
* The leader of a nation opposed to the spokesman for Gods people (Darius of Persia, Joseph of Arimathea)
* Yet one who reveres that spokesman (Daniel, Jesus)
* Though greatly distressed, feels obliged to place the spokesman into a pit in the ground and cover it with a stone (Lions Den, Tomb).
* An act that clearly means a permanent end.
* The Death of the spokesman is required by Law (Law of the Medes and Persians, the Law of Rome)
* The executor is reluctant to enforce it (Darius, Pilate)
* Despite reluctance and delay, late in the afternoon, both are placed in the pit
* Both are covered by a stone
* In both stories the one who put the stone in place has hope in the providence of God
* Early on a subsequent morning the pit is approached by those who care for the hero,
* Next comes joyful news
* The stone is removed
* death is miraculously overcome
* and deliverence is assisted by another entity
(Helms, 135)

Years later, Matthew and Luke evidently realized the source and modified Marks to create their own and make it match the Old Testament better. (Helms) Marks Gospel presented a problem because he had the women going to anoint the body and finding the body gone, a more plausible explanation than a resurrection would be that the body was stolen. Matthew 27:64 fixed this by having guards placed at the tomb to prevent that. This is called Redaction and typical of Folklore so this was not something necessarily deceitful.

So Paul was first, years after the fact. Mark was second even further after the fact. He said a youth told the women that Christ was risen, but they didn't tell anyone. Matthew Addresses the possibility that the body had been stolen, but changes the facts in his story to make that implausible, and changing the youth to an angel having the guards fall prostrate. Mark says that Jesus could not do miracles in home town because of their unbelief. Many of the best psychics have had that experience, especially in the midst of skeptics. Mark makes Jesus sound normal, and that his body was stolen. Mark was the closest to the event. There is no corroboration for Mark. Mark is unique. The most significant thing they agree on is that there was no body.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was on the cross for six hours or a little more. In fact, Pilate was surprised he was dead (Matt. 27). It appears to be unusual for six hours of crucifixion to kill a man. The historian Josephus wrote about pleading for a reprieve for two of his crucified friends and reports that one of them lived. Roman-style crucifixions usually resulted in the victim dying of suffocation after days. Ritual crucifixion happens in the Philippines, even in some cases using nails through the hands not resulting in death (Crucifixion). A New Scientist magazine article says that in some cases the time it takes to die could be short but overall the intent of crucifixion was torture till death and in some cases, the legs were broken to hasten death (Cross). The Bible tells us Jesus legs weren’t broken. Joseph of Arimethea went to ask for the body and got it. The Koran may be right in saying that Jesus wasn't dead yet:

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

This would explain sightings after the fact, but it is not clear if he went straight to heaven, to Galilee or if he hung out in Jerusalem for a little while. It would make sense if he went straight to Galilee (Marks version) if he survived and was making an escape.

He was in the tomb less than 48 hours. Friday evening to Sunday morning is not 48 hours. Three days is seventy two hours. They were at least 24 hours short of seventy two hours. The sign of Jonah was three days not one day and two nights. To say that Jesus was in the tomb for three days requires a bit of equivocation on the meaning of "three days".

The Gospel of Mark is similar to Daniel in the Lions den, and Daniel in the Lions den is similar to Aesops "The Lion and the Slave". The characteristics of Folklore are multiple existence and variation

Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened
Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important
Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.

Premise2: The gospels support each others testimony within reason
Warrant2: We would expect there to be variation in different testimonies.
Rebuttal: The stories are all inconsistent in the details, show signs of significant plagiarism, and were written at least a decade apart from each other. This is a characteristic of Folklore.

Premise3: There is no body
Warrant3: There would be no body if he was taken up to heaven.
Rebuttal: Jesus could have survived the crucifixion and had help getting out of the tomb. The story could also have been folklore.

Premise4: People suffered and died to defend the idea of the resurrection
Warrant4: People would not suffer and die to defend if it were not true.
Rebuttal: People suffer and die for Islam all the time.

Conclusion: The resurrection happened.

I think anyone would be justified in having a reasonable doubt about the resurrection.

References:

"Aesop". Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop

The Bible

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

"Cross Examination". 1995. Richard Forrest Nottingham. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=lw195

"Crucifixion." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

"Home".Early Christian Writings. Early Christian Writings, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

The Koran 4:157.

Walton, Douglas N. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Reasonable Doubt About the Resurrection

I will not be so bold as to say that I can prove the resurrection didn't happen but I will argue that it has not been proven that it happened and there is no reason to believe it happened based on the evidence. There are three other plausible hypotheses two of which are introduced in the Bible itself for what might have happened to the body of Jesus. It might have been stolen, or since Jesus was only on the cross for about six hours, he might not have been dead at all. The Koran tells us that he wasn't. Another plausible explanation is that the story of the resurrection might have been Folklore.

"Folklore whether oral or written is characterized by multiple existence and variation. The variation may be reflected in such details as different names, different numbers, or different sequences of lines" (Dundes, 7). This would also account for the different stories between Paul and the Gospels.

The argument as I understand goes like this.
Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened
Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important

Premise2: The gospels support each others testimony within reason
Warrant2: We would expect there to be variation in different testimonies.

Premise3: There is no body
Warrant3: There would be no body if he was taken up to heaven.

Premise4: People suffered and died to defend the idea of the resurrection
Warrant4: People would not suffer and die to defend if it were not true.

Conclusion: The resurrection happened.

There are strong and weak forms of evidence and argument. Testimony is regarded as weak evidence because it is based on a presumption of the honesty of the speaker. Presumptions from testimony are defeasible because they are not based on objective 'hard' evidence. They can be overturned by the introduction of new information. Corroboration can make testimony stronger. Expert witness testimony is stronger based on the presumption that the expert is in a "position to know". Objective or 'hard' evidence can make testimony stronger. First hand testimony is more plausible than second hand testimony. One way to test testimony is cross-examination. Cross-examination checks for consistency and plausibility. In a legal case, witnesses are required to swear to the truth of their statements introducing pressure on them to tell the truth under penalty of law (Walton). In the case of the Gospels, there is no clear pressure from consequences to tell the truth and the length of time from the source make it unlikely that a challenge would be issued among believers.

In the case of the scriptures, Paul (50-60CE) was the earliest account of the resurrection. His details don't match with the Gospels. Mark was second (65-80 CE), his don't match with what the other three said even if Matthew (80-100CE) and Luke (80-130 CE) copied Mark heavily to make their own. John (90-120CE) is farthest away from the incident, up to 90 years after the fact (Home). This is not corroboration, this is plagiarism and it would not have been a violation of the principles of canonization since they were not canonized yet. It is unlikely that the apostles or even eyewitnesses wrote any of the Gospels. That makes them at least second hand testimony.

Since Mark was probably not an eyewitness, he must have put his Gospel together from a source such as 'oral tradition'; stories he heard, collected and wrote down and/or other writings. He may not have realized that the major points of his resurrection story came from Daniel, especially chapter 6. The irony is that Daniel in the Lions Den is similar to Aesops Fable "The Lion and the Slave" written up to 500 years before (Aesop). Another characteristic of the Book of Daniel is that according to Tim Callahan, "in general the history in Daniel is so corrupted that it must be (written) by someone who lived much later and was unfamiliar with the specifics of a far-off time (Callahan, 335).

The points of similarity to Daniel 6 are as follows.
* The leader of a nation opposed to the spokesman for Gods people (Darius of Persia, Joseph of Arimathea)
* Yet one who reveres that spokesman (Daniel, Jesus)
* Though greatly distressed, feels obliged to place the spokesman into a pit in the ground and cover it with a stone (Lions Den, Tomb).
* An act that clearly means a permanent end.
* The Death of the spokesman is required by Law (Law of the Medes and Persians, the Law of Rome)
* The executor is reluctant to enforce it (Darius, Pilate)
* Despite reluctance and delay, late in the afternoon, both are placed in the pit
* Both are covered by a stone
* In both stories the one who put the stone in place has hope in the providence of God
* Early on a subsequent morning the pit is approached by those who care for the hero,
* Next comes joyful news
* The stone is removed
* death is miraculously overcome
* and deliverence is assisted by another entity
(Helms, 135)

Years later, Matthew and Luke evidently realized the source and modified Marks to create their own and make it match the Old Testament better. (Helms) Marks Gospel presented a problem because he had the women going to anoint the body and finding the body gone, a more plausible explanation than a resurrection would be that the body was stolen. Matthew 27:64 fixed this by having guards placed at the tomb to prevent that. This is called Redaction and typical of Folklore so this was not something necessarily deceitful.

So Paul was first, years after the fact. Mark was second even further after the fact. He said a youth told the women that Christ was risen, but they didn't tell anyone. Matthew Addresses the possibility that the body had been stolen, but changes the facts in his story to make that implausible, and changing the youth to an angel having the guards fall prostrate. Mark says that Jesus could not do miracles in home town because of their unbelief. Many of the best psychics have had that experience, especially in the midst of skeptics. Mark makes Jesus sound normal, and that his body was stolen. Mark was the closest to the event. There is no corroboration for Mark. Mark is unique. The most significant thing they agree on is that there was no body.

The Bible tells us that Jesus was on the cross for six hours or a little more. In fact, Pilate was surprised he was dead (Matt. 27). It appears to be unusual for six hours of crucifixion to kill a man. The historian Josephus wrote about pleading for a reprieve for two of his crucified friends and reports that one of them lived. Roman-style crucifixions usually resulted in the victim dying of suffocation after days. Ritual crucifixion happens in the Philippines, even in some cases using nails through the hands not resulting in death (Crucifixion). A New Scientist magazine article says that in some cases the time it takes to die could be short but overall the intent of crucifixion was torture till death and in some cases, the legs were broken to hasten death (Cross). The Bible tells us Jesus legs weren’t broken. Joseph of Arimethea went to ask for the body and got it. The Koran may be right in saying that Jesus wasn't dead yet:

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

This would explain sightings after the fact, but it is not clear if he went straight to heaven, to Galilee or if he hung out in Jerusalem for a little while. It would make sense if he went straight to Galilee (Marks version) if he survived and was making an escape.

He was in the tomb less than 48 hours. Friday evening to Sunday morning is not 48 hours. Three days is seventy two hours. They were at least 24 hours short of seventy two hours. The sign of Jonah was three days not one day and two nights. To say that Jesus was in the tomb for three days requires a bit of equivocation on the meaning of "three days".

The Gospel of Mark is similar to Daniel in the Lions den, and Daniel in the Lions den is similar to Aesops "The Lion and the Slave". The characteristics of Folklore are multiple existence and variation

Premise1: The Gospels are a testimony that the resurrection happened
Warrant1: We would expect testimony for something this important
Rebuttal: The Gospels were not eyewitness testimony. The Gospels have characteristics of Folklore. They could just as well be folklore.

Premise2: The gospels support each others testimony within reason
Warrant2: We would expect there to be variation in different testimonies.
Rebuttal: The stories are all inconsistent in the details, show signs of significant plagiarism, and were written at least a decade apart from each other. This is a characteristic of Folklore.

Premise3: There is no body
Warrant3: There would be no body if he was taken up to heaven.
Rebuttal: Jesus could have survived the crucifixion and had help getting out of the tomb. The story could also have been folklore.

Premise4: People suffered and died to defend the idea of the resurrection
Warrant4: People would not suffer and die to defend if it were not true.
Rebuttal: People suffer and die for Islam all the time.

Conclusion: The resurrection happened.

I think anyone would be justified in having a reasonable doubt about the resurrection.

References:

"Aesop". Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop

The Bible

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

"Cross Examination". 1995. Richard Forrest Nottingham. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=lw195

"Crucifixion." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

"Home".Early Christian Writings. Early Christian Writings, 2007. 31 Mar. 2007.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

The Koran 4:157.

Walton, Douglas N. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. University Park, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

A Double Standard for Morality?

This started out as a response to a commenter but I thought it was important enough to use as a post for an article. I noticed in the recent Loftus-Wood ‘cross-fire’ debate on the infidelguy show, that Wood seemed to be using the argument that God has a different standard for morality than us. I seem to see this argument a lot. In fact, a recent commenter seemed to be using it against John, and then when I countered it, a different commenter defended it. I wonder how can it be justified that the Abrahamic God should not be expected to adhere to the same rules that we are expected to adhere to with respect to morality.

A father that smokes and tells his son not to smoke creates a problem in his credibility. While it is true that smoking is not healthy and the son is not justified in disregarding that advice, the fact that it can be shown empirically that smoking is unhealthy supports the fathers claim and weakens the effect of the charge of inconsistency. I don't see how anyone can support the claim that God should not be expected to adhere to the same rules that we are expected to adhere to with respect to morality. I don't see how anyone can support a double standard for morality. My argument is an argument from ignorance intended to show that it is more plausible that there should not be a double standard for morality.

The only way that I can see for the believer to refute it is to say something like God is a mystery and that we can not expect to dictate what God can do. This would be a mischaracterization and an appeal to the supernatural, specifically God, but the presumption of God and the supernatural is controversial. In the case that the believer says that God is a special case, for whatever reason, would be a case of special pleading, and they would have to show why morality rules for us don't apply to God. In the end, their presumption is still that God exists and as I said before this is a weak premise in that it is controversial on two, maybe three, points.
1. that there is a god
2. that it is the Abrahamic god
3. Possibly irrelevant, but that he had anything to do with scripture.

In the case that they choose that strategy, it would be an argument from ignorance as well, but weaker because its premises are controversial. I am not suggesting that I have authority to decide or dictate what God can or cannot do, I can only say what he should or should not do using informal logic and defeasible reasoning schemes.

The exchange in the forums went as follows.

Commenter1: have you ever stopped to realize how infinitely gracious God is to not have annihilated the entire human race?

Lee: Would you say that my dogs should be infinitely grateful that I don't kill them when I get up in the morning?

Commenter2: I cant see the dog analogy as a viable one…Its an argument of proportion.

My point was that that there is a strong presumption that God shouldn't kill us therefore it doesn't follow that we should be grateful that he doesn't. For him to kill us would be immoral or criminal. There is a weaker presumption that I shouldn't kill my dog. It would be more immoral for God to kill me than it would be for me to kill my dog. I think this argument should expose the 'double standard' for morals that I see being argued by believers for humans and God. What follows is a 'dizzying' defense of that claim.

Most analogies are flawed, that is why they are a defeasible form of argument. But when analogies can be shown to be similar enough to a situation, they can be used to increase the plausibility of a position.
The dog analogy is not similar in the fact that I am not a God and my dog is not a human and I didn't create the dog.
The dog analogy works because of the relationship, not because of the proportion.

When a Christian says that we should be grateful that God lets us live, that sets up the relationship. In theory, God created us, he is more powerful than us, he has control of whether we live or die, we should thank him for our daily bread (which creates the presumption that he has some control over it), and we should thank him that he lets us live.

When I say that my dog should be grateful that I let him live, In reality, I did not create him (negative analogy), I am more powerful than him (positive), I am in control of whether he lives or dies (pos.), he should thank me for his food (pos.), and he should thank me that I let him live.

The discrepency in my analogy (that I did not create the dog), is actually a negative for the believers argument. Here's why. I should have used my son instead of my dog, because it would have been more appropriate but I didn't think about it. In a way, I created my son, or at least I was a catalyst for his existence.

Here is the rough hierarchy for that analogy, dog < son < me < God. For me to kill my dog is less criminal than for me to kill my son, therefore, I should be expected to be less likely to kill my son than my dog. Therefore, to say that my dog should be happy that I let him live has more force than to say to my son that he should be happy that I let him live, and it should have less force to say that I should be happy that God lets me live. It should be less likely that God would kill me than I would kill my son. Therefore, if God were to kill me, it would be more criminal / immoral than if I were to kill my son, or my dog. If I injected God into the equation, it would have more force to say that I should be happy that God lets my dog live, less force to say that I should be happy that God lets my son live, less force to say that I should be happy that God lets me live. I know that in reality, my son and I should be equal in Gods eyes, but like I said, analogies are defeasible. So for me to kill my dog would be less criminal than for God to kill me, and therefore it would be more criminal for God to kill me than for me to kill my dog, therefore there is a stronger PRESUMPTION that God shouldn't kill me therefore it can be EXPECTED that God shouldn't kill me, therefore it doesn't follow that we should be grateful that God doesn't kill us because there is a strong presumption that he shouldn't kill us because it would be criminal or immoral, more so than if I were to kill my dog.

A Double Standard for Morality?

This started out as a response to a commenter but I thought it was important enough to use as a post for an article. I noticed in the recent Loftus-Wood ‘cross-fire’ debate on the infidelguy show, that Wood seemed to be using the argument that God has a different standard for morality than us. I seem to see this argument a lot. In fact, a recent commenter seemed to be using it against John, and then when I countered it, a different commenter defended it. I wonder how can it be justified that the Abrahamic God should not be expected to adhere to the same rules that we are expected to adhere to with respect to morality.

A father that smokes and tells his son not to smoke creates a problem in his credibility. While it is true that smoking is not healthy and the son is not justified in disregarding that advice, the fact that it can be shown empirically that smoking is unhealthy supports the fathers claim and weakens the effect of the charge of inconsistency. I don't see how anyone can support the claim that God should not be expected to adhere to the same rules that we are expected to adhere to with respect to morality. I don't see how anyone can support a double standard for morality. My argument is an argument from ignorance intended to show that it is more plausible that there should not be a double standard for morality.

The only way that I can see for the believer to refute it is to say something like God is a mystery and that we can not expect to dictate what God can do. This would be a mischaracterization and an appeal to the supernatural, specifically God, but the presumption of God and the supernatural is controversial. In the case that the believer says that God is a special case, for whatever reason, would be a case of special pleading, and they would have to show why morality rules for us don't apply to God. In the end, their presumption is still that God exists and as I said before this is a weak premise in that it is controversial on two, maybe three, points.
1. that there is a god
2. that it is the Abrahamic god
3. Possibly irrelevant, but that he had anything to do with scripture.

In the case that they choose that strategy, it would be an argument from ignorance as well, but weaker because its premises are controversial. I am not suggesting that I have authority to decide or dictate what God can or cannot do, I can only say what he should or should not do using informal logic and defeasible reasoning schemes.

The exchange in the forums went as follows.

Commenter1: have you ever stopped to realize how infinitely gracious God is to not have annihilated the entire human race?

Me: Would you say that my dogs should be infinitely grateful that I don't kill them when I get up in the morning?

Commenter2: I cant see the dog analogy as a viable one…Its an argument of proportion.

My point was that that there is a strong presumption that God shouldn't kill us therefore it doesn't follow that we should be grateful that he doesn't. For him to kill us would be immoral or criminal. There is a weaker presumption that I shouldn't kill my dog. It would be more immoral for God to kill me than it would be for me to kill my dog. I think this argument should expose the 'double standard' for morals that I see being argued by believers for humans and God. What follows is a 'dizzying' defense of that claim.

Most analogies are flawed, that is why they are a defeasible form of argument. But when analogies can be shown to be similar enough to a situation, they can be used to increase the plausibility of a position.
The dog analogy is not similar in the fact that I am not a God and my dog is not a human and I didn't create the dog.
The dog analogy works because of the relationship, not because of the proportion.

When a Christian says that we should be grateful that God lets us live, that sets up the relationship. In theory, God created us, he is more powerful than us, he has control of whether we live or die, we should thank him for our daily bread (which creates the presumption that he has some control over it), and we should thank him that he lets us live.

When I say that my dog should be grateful that I let him live, In reality, I did not create him (negative analogy), I am more powerful than him (positive), I am in control of whether he lives or dies (pos.), he should thank me for his food (pos.), and he should thank me that I let him live.

The discrepency in my analogy (that I did not create the dog), is actually a negative for the believers argument. Here's why. I should have used my son instead of my dog, because it would have been more appropriate but I didn't think about it. In a way, I created my son, or at least I was a catalyst for his existence.

Here is the rough hierarchy for that analogy, dog < son < me < God. For me to kill my dog is less criminal than for me to kill my son, therefore, I should be expected to be less likely to kill my son than my dog. Therefore, to say that my dog should be happy that I let him live has more force than to say to my son that he should be happy that I let him live, and it should have less force to say that I should be happy that God lets me live. It should be less likely that God would kill me than I would kill my son. Therefore, if God were to kill me, it would be more criminal / immoral than if I were to kill my son, or my dog.If I injected God into the equation, it would have more force to say that I should be happy that God lets my dog live, less force to say that I should be happy that God lets my son live, less force to say that I should be happy that God lets me live. I know that in reality, my son and I should be equal in Gods eyes, but like I said, analogies are defeasible.So for me to kill my dog would be less criminal than for God to kill me, and therefore it would be more criminal for God to kill me than for me to kill my dog, therefore there is a stronger PRESUMPTION that God shouldn't kill me therefore it can be EXPECTED that God shouldn't kill me, therefore it doesn't follow that we should be grateful that God doesn't kill us because there is a strong presumption that he shouldn't kill us because it would be criminal or immoral, more so than if I were to kill my dog.

Miracle Watch March 23 - 26, 2007

I have a google news alert for miracles. I've been doing this for years, now I want to share it with you. This is an attempt to find instances of miracles. If Christians are right, and God provides without asking and they have seen at least one prayer answered, then with information at our fingertips, in this day and age, I could conceivably find up to 2 Billion instances of miracles in my lifetime.

This is based on the fact that statistics from the World Book Atlas (corroborated on some other internet demographics sites) show that there are around 2 billion Christians in the world. I am going to assume that I can only find one tenth of that, just for the benefit of the doubt. That would mean that I could find up to 1,923,077 a week over 20 years.
Man Overboard Story
Critic
He seems to be the only one that thinks it is a miracle, and a news critic faults abc news for getting the facts all messed up. ABC is in a ‘position to know’ and has an implied responsibility to get the facts correct. If ABC news, who says they put high value on credibility, and has advanced communication capabilities, can’t get the facts right, can we really trust people without such a vested interest and not it a ‘position to know’? For example, the Gospel writers?

Weeping Jesus
A couple of paintings with Jesus weeping blood, some say it
could also be red paint running because of the humidity.

Weeping Madonna
The priest said “Indeed, even after hurrying over to check out what was happening at the Heroldsbach hostel, the local priest, Rev. Dietrich von Stockhausen, still wasn't prepared to immediately believe
what he was seeing. "When heaven wants to give us a sign," he said, "then it will be one that we can understand. It won't be such a vague one, and one that is so easy to manipulate."
That’s what I keep saying! Yet every Christian I know says they have seen prayer answered or God providing without asking, but I just can’t catch one!

Boy and his slab
He spent two hours under a slab of concrete that ‘came out of nowhere to fall on him’. He was able to wriggle enough to be able to breathe.

Face of Jesus in the Ultrasound photo
To me, it looks more like a pirate.

Motorcycle Wreck
I think the glory should go to the ambulance team who worked their butt off to keep her alive.
“In the ambulance while enroute to the JCL trauma center, Graff
lost her pulse and went into cardiac arrest due to massive bleeding
from her aorta. Paramedics Dorrance and Thomas and SW Ambulance
paramedics Jennifer Hoffman and Robert Arnott continued aggressive
compressions until arriving to an awaiting trauma team.”

Miracle Watch March 23 - 26, 2007

I have a google news alert for miracles. I've been doing this for years, now I want to share it with you. This is an attempt to find instances of miracles. If Christians are right, and God provides without asking and they have seen at least one prayer answered, then with information at our fingertips, in this day and age, I could conceivably find up to 2 Billion instances of miracles in my lifetime.

This is based on the fact that statistics from the World Book Atlas (corroborated on some other internet demographics sites) show that there are around 2 billion Christians in the world. I am going to assume that I can only find one tenth of that, just for the benefit of the doubt. That would mean that I could find up to 1,923,077 a week over 20 years.
Man Overboard Story
Critic
He seems to be the only one that thinks it is a miracle, and a news critic faults abc news for getting the facts all messed up. ABC is in a ‘position to know’ and has an implied responsibility to get the facts correct. If ABC news, who says they put high value on credibility, and has advanced communication capabilities, can’t get the facts right, can we really trust people without such a vested interest and not it a ‘position to know’? For example, the Gospel writers?

Weeping Jesus
A couple of paintings with Jesus weeping blood, some say it
could also be red paint running because of the humidity.

Weeping Madonna
The priest said “Indeed, even after hurrying over to check out what was happening at the Heroldsbach hostel, the local priest, Rev. Dietrich von Stockhausen, still wasn't prepared to immediately believe
what he was seeing. "When heaven wants to give us a sign," he said, "then it will be one that we can understand. It won't be such a vague one, and one that is so easy to manipulate."
That’s what I keep saying! Yet every Christian I know says they have seen prayer answered or God providing without asking, but I just can’t catch one!

Boy and his slab
He spent two hours under a slab of concrete that ‘came out of nowhere to fall on him’. He was able to wriggle enough to be able to breathe.

Face of Jesus in the Ultrasound photo
To me, it looks more like a pirate.

Motorcycle Wreck
I think the glory should go to the ambulance team who worked their butt off to keep her alive.
“In the ambulance while enroute to the JCL trauma center, Graff
lost her pulse and went into cardiac arrest due to massive bleeding
from her aorta. Paramedics Dorrance and Thomas and SW Ambulance
paramedics Jennifer Hoffman and Robert Arnott continued aggressive
compressions until arriving to an awaiting trauma team.”

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are built on a faulty premise

This may be old news to some, but maybe not to others, so here goes!
A valid conclusion is tied to the truth or plausibility of its supporting premises. The truth of the three Abrahamic religions is tied to the presumption that scripture is true.
Premise: The Bible tells us about God.
Premise: The Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, God.
Premise: The Bible must be true.
Conclusion: God Exists.
The faulty premise that I am talking about is the proposition that the various religious scriptures came from Divine Inspiration. To say that "God exists and all we know about him comes from the Bible and the Bible comes from God, therefore it is true" is circular reasoning, AKA begging the question. The argument begs us to accept the presumption that God Exists in order for the propositions to be true.

If we accept the proposition that the Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, then we must necessarily presume (already believe) that (1)God exists, and that (2)scripture came from him and Scripture must be correct because it came from God. These are two unstated premises that the argument depends on. The critical questions in this argument are "how do we know that God exists" and also "How do we know the Bible came from God". Since it doesn't follow logically to say that we believe in God because the scriptures tell us that they came from God and the Scriptures tell us about God, then we need "corroborating evidence" to support the conclusion that God exists. To support a claim such as this I presume would be an easy matter since the preponderance of evidence should overwhelmingly support the creator. I would suppose that a careful analysis of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran would reveal a preponderance of evidence supporting their validity. But in fact this is not the case.

As I understand it, in these three faiths, the scriptures are considered Divinely Inspired. To avoid linguistic confusion, we need to define what "inspired" means. To the faithful, I think we can say that they believe that "Inspired" means more or less by "Revelation from God”, but in another context, the term "inspiration" means more or less the “motivation to describe or portray" an idea. We can be motivated by Godor we can be motivated by the Idea of God.

If we stipulate that the Scripture came to us through divine inspiration/revelation, then we would expect it to have some characteristics of documents that came from one mind, assuming that God only has one mind. And we can check to see if these characteristics exist. We can check for consistency and continuity. For example if a Dan Brown novel contained inconsistencies such as exist in the gospels regarding the 'empty tomb' (only because Easter is around the corner, but you can insert your own example here), I don't expect it would be a bestseller. I expect people would not take it seriously since it would lack consistency and continuity.

And if we stipulate that the scripture came to us through ideological inspiration then we would expect other types of characteristics consistent with documents that were the result of many minds, such as the types of inconsistencies and problems of continuity that we all know exist in the Bible.

What is needed is some corroborating evidence that lends support to the idea that a God exists and he had an active part in the creation of scripture. We need something besides the Bible. Lets look at some characteristics of the Bible and think about what they may mean.

- Generally speaking, over the years churches have more and more assumed the position that the effective understanding of the Bible comes from interpreting it as metaphor. For example, I have heard devout protestant Christian ministers say that the Bible is not a "science book" or "a History Book" in response to the criticism that there are inconsistencies in these areas.

- Forgive me for dredging up a tired example, the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his belief in the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the Sun. This was later demonstrated through science to be the case as we all know. I would not have expected the creator to have been so ambiguous about this.

- The Laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are likewise minimized and rationalized away as only being applicable in a different time. Some of them were insightful, some of them common sense (Deut.23:12-14) but I expect that a God, rather than saying that excrement should be buried outside camp because it is indecent and he would turn away from them, I expect a God would have explained that there were properties of excrement that were dangerous and life threatening. Maybe an introduction to germ theory. In fact, in all cases where Christians and Muslims point to this or that as evidence that God gave advanced knowledge of this or that, It could have been done better. These days, we explain science to children better than God did to his beloved.

- Slavery was supported in large part by Jesus' advisement to slaves to obey their masters. Logically, I don’t see why slavery would be permissible in those days and not now if Jesus advocated it.

- The faithful concede that there necessarily must be copyist errors in the Bible to explain some difficulties. I would have expected that the alpha and the omega would have wanted his word as error free as possible and would have been able to make that happen, even across languages. Maybe he could have made a holy language, which was perfect that would have preserved everything perfectly.

- Archeological discoveries in the Near East and specifically in Ugarit of documents that were written about and in praise of other Gods pre-date the Bible scriptures which paraphrase or match verbatim. It seems that some of the Biblical scriptures were borrowed. It seems that the story that I grew up with, that David wrote the Psalms and Moses wrote the Pentateuch, can't be true. Is this still being taught in Sunday school?

Internal inconsistencies exist, regarding all sorts of things including the most important event in the history of mankind. The resurrection of its Savior, God incarnate. And all this from scripture that were supposedly given to us by inspiration or revelation from one mind.

The discussion above does not support the claim that scripture was the revelation from one mind, but more neatly supports the assertion that scripture was the result of many human minds through ideological inspiration. The closer you get to the original documents, the less likely it is that scripture was the product of one supernatural mind, through human beings. It was put together out of lots of little pieces written at different times and places and is similar to other writings from other times and places from other cultures. And It is clear that those authors did not write them with the intention of them being put into one volume. Scripture is, in a word, Folklore; In two words, Oral Tradition. As John W. Loftus said "the Bible debunks itself".

So, if we concede that the scriptures are not the product of God, then we really don't know anything about God, including if he exists or not.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are built on a faulty premise

This may be old news to some, but maybe not to others, so here goes!
A valid conclusion is tied to the truth or plausibility of its supporting premises. The truth of the three Abrahamic religions is tied to the presumption that scripture is true.
Premise: The Bible tells us about God.
Premise: The Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, God.
Premise: The Bible must be true.
Conclusion: God Exists.
The faulty premise that I am talking about is the proposition that the various religious scriptures came from Divine Inspiration. To say that "God exists and all we know about him comes from the Bible and the Bible comes from God, therefore it is true" is circular reasoning, AKA begging the question. The argument begs us to accept the presumption that God Exists in order for the propositions to be true.

If we accept the proposition that the Bible comes from Divine Inspiration, then we must necessarily presume (already believe) that (1)God exists, and that (2)scripture came from him and Scripture must be correct because it came from God. These are two unstated premises that the argument depends on. The critical questions in this argument are "how do we know that God exists" and also "How do we know the Bible came from God". Since it doesn't follow logically to say that we believe in God because the scriptures tell us that they came from God and the Scriptures tell us about God, then we need "corroborating evidence" to support the conclusion that God exists. To support a claim such as this I presume would be an easy matter since the preponderance of evidence should overwhelmingly support the creator. I would suppose that a careful analysis of the Tanakh, the New Testament and the Quran would reveal a preponderance of evidence supporting their validity. But in fact this is not the case.

As I understand it, in these three faiths, the scriptures are considered Divinely Inspired. To avoid linguistic confusion, we need to define what "inspired" means. To the faithful, I think we can say that they believe that "Inspired" means more or less by "Revelation from God”, but in another context, the term "inspiration" means more or less the “motivation to describe or portray" an idea. We can be motivated by Godor we can be motivated by the Idea of God.

If we stipulate that the Scripture came to us through divine inspiration/revelation, then we would expect it to have some characteristics of documents that came from one mind, assuming that God only has one mind. And we can check to see if these characteristics exist. We can check for consistency and continuity. For example if a Dan Brown novel contained inconsistencies such as exist in the gospels regarding the 'empty tomb' (only because Easter is around the corner, but you can insert your own example here), I don't expect it would be a bestseller. I expect people would not take it seriously since it would lack consistency and continuity.

And if we stipulate that the scripture came to us through ideological inspiration then we would expect other types of characteristics consistent with documents that were the result of many minds, such as the types of inconsistencies and problems of continuity that we all know exist in the Bible.

What is needed is some corroborating evidence that lends support to the idea that a God exists and he had an active part in the creation of scripture. We need something besides the Bible. Lets look at some characteristics of the Bible and think about what they may mean.

- Generally speaking, over the years churches have more and more assumed the position that the effective understanding of the Bible comes from interpreting it as metaphor. For example, I have heard devout protestant Christian ministers say that the Bible is not a "science book" or "a History Book" in response to the criticism that there are inconsistencies in these areas.

- Forgive me for dredging up a tired example, the Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his belief in the Copernican theory that the earth revolved around the Sun. This was later demonstrated through science to be the case as we all know. I would not have expected the creator to have been so ambiguous about this.

- The Laws of Deuteronomy and Leviticus are likewise minimized and rationalized away as only being applicable in a different time. Some of them were insightful, some of them common sense (Deut.23:12-14) but I expect that a God, rather than saying that excrement should be buried outside camp because it is indecent and he would turn away from them, I expect a God would have explained that there were properties of excrement that were dangerous and life threatening. Maybe an introduction to germ theory. In fact, in all cases where Christians and Muslims point to this or that as evidence that God gave advanced knowledge of this or that, It could have been done better. These days, we explain science to children better than God did to his beloved.

- Slavery was supported in large part by Jesus' advisement to slaves to obey their masters. Logically, I don’t see why slavery would be permissible in those days and not now if Jesus advocated it.

- The faithful concede that there necessarily must be copyist errors in the Bible to explain some difficulties. I would have expected that the alpha and the omega would have wanted his word as error free as possible and would have been able to make that happen, even across languages. Maybe he could have made a holy language, which was perfect that would have preserved everything perfectly.

- Archeological discoveries in the Near East and specifically in Ugarit of documents that were written about and in praise of other Gods pre-date the Bible scriptures which paraphrase or match verbatim. It seems that some of the Biblical scriptures were borrowed. It seems that the story that I grew up with, that David wrote the Psalms and Moses wrote the Pentateuch, can't be true. Is this still being taught in Sunday school?

Internal inconsistencies exist, regarding all sorts of things including the most important event in the history of mankind. The resurrection of its Savior, God incarnate. And all this from scripture that were supposedly given to us by inspiration or revelation from one mind.

The discussion above does not support the claim that scripture was the revelation from one mind, but more neatly supports the assertion that scripture was the result of many human minds through ideological inspiration. The closer you get to the original documents, the less likely it is that scripture was the product of one supernatural mind, through human beings. It was put together out of lots of little pieces written at different times and places and is similar to other writings from other times and places from other cultures. And It is clear that those authors did not write them with the intention of them being put into one volume. Scripture is, in a word, Folklore; In two words, Oral Tradition. As John W. Loftus said "the Bible debunks itself".

So, if we concede that the scriptures are not the product of God, then we really don't know anything about God, including if he exists or not.

Happy St. Patricks Day! Leprechauns Exist!

This is a short discussion about argument fundamentals using an example of a debate about the existence of Leprechauns inspired by the Loftus-Wood debate and St. Patricks day. Its also relevant to blog discussions.

Arguments consist of premises and conclusions. They can also be linked, where conclusions of individual arguments make up the premises of a 'global' argument. Some of the 'local' arguments that can make up a 'global' argument are arguments from Sign, Analogy and Cause just to name a few. Each of these have strategies associated with them that can be used to challenge them effectively, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. For more information on these concepts, check the references section of this document.

Step one in a critical discussion is to agree to principles of behavior before you start. I recommend something like van Eemeren and Grootendorsts "Rules for a Critical Discussion". They say things like 'remember you may be wrong', 'don't use personal attacks', 'stay relevant' etc. If the one participant uses a personal attack or tries to avoid answering the question and goes off on a tangent, a charge of lack of relevance is warranted. Stay focused to avoid being distracted by these diversionary tactics.

Step two is to agree on the premises of the discussion. If the existence of Leprechauns entails evidence, then that is one place to start. You can both begin to present your evidence. And remember, there is no shame in being wrong. It's character building.

Are Leprechauns plausible, is an easier position to argue from either viewpoint because it entails using defeasible reasoning to argue whether it is likely or not that Leprechauns exist. Arguing about the fact of their existence is more difficult from the point of view of the principle of Burden of Proof. If a proponent says that something exists, and the respondents says something like 'show me the body', the proponent can always say that not all possibilities of discoveries have been exhausted. This has the weight of presumption in its favor because of the efficacy of the scientific method in fields such as the sciences (medicine, physics etc.) law and technical maintenance (electronics, automobile etc) and others not listed. The scientific method presumably works for these fields and showing that it doesn't will be a struggle for the respondent. Proponents and respondents must always be open to new information to avoid holding untenable conclusions.

The most tenable viewpoint is that because of the preponderance of evidence (positive or negative), Leprechauns either are likely or not likely to exist. There is a valid reason to doubt that Leprechauns exist beyond a reasonable doubt because of the preponderance of negative evidence regarding Leprechauns. The respondent, however, cannot show that they do not exist because the respondents definition of reasonable doubt will not be the same as the proponent believer. There is a popular phrase that goes "You can't prove a negative". This is counterintuitive but logically it depends on your requirement and acceptance of evidence.

When involved in a discussion about whether or not Leprechauns exist, the strongest arguments for the respondent in a discussion like this will come from the principle of "Negative Evidence" and "Negative Proof". One reason for this is because it will account for the 'moving goalpost' type of arguments typically found in this type of critical discussion. If the proponent tries to use equivocation (changing a previously stipulated definition or properties) or demand more evidence than is reasonable (impossible precision), the respondent can show that since they both agree that the existence of Leprechauns entails evidence, that there is no evidence where there should be or of the type there should be and therefore the preponderance of Negative Evidence (lack of evidence or evidence that suggests another cause) makes their existence reasonably implausible. In order to get around this the proponent must claim that evidence is not relevant (as in the case of faith), in which case there can be no discussion and they have disqualified themselves by getting caught in a contradiction or somehow try to disqualify the negative evidence, possibly by equivocation. Good luck with this argument in a community of Leprechaun believers, especially if their local economy or their well-being depends on it.

What follows is an analysis of the argument of the proponent. The argument is laid out using the Toulman argument model where the validity of the conclusion is supported by the premises and the premises are supported by the warrant of data. The warrant is like a the bridge between the data and the premise. Each of the properties of the support for the conclusion are labeled with a 'P' a 'W' and a 'D'.

The proponent says that Leprechauns exists and the respondent has doubt about this claim.

The proponent says that Leprechauns exist because there exists a valid presumption
P: There are documented cases in the past of Leprechaun sightings.
W: That the documents are reliable testimony and necessary if not sufficient to support the conclusion
D: newspaper article that John smith saw a Leprechaun on such and such day
D: newspaper article that Jill brown saw the evidence of Leprechaun visitation in her house.
Argument from Tradition, more or less.

P: There exists a cultural belief that Leprechauns exist.
W: All these people wouldn't believe if it weren't true. They can't all be wrong.
D: Collectively all these people have reasons to believe
D: A lot of people believe that fire burns, and in fact it does
Argument from Popularity.

P: We can see the effects of leprechauns in our environment
W: If Leprechauns exist, we should see their effects since we presuppose they are doing things
D: Unexplained things happen all the time, especially things that have been determined to be characteristic of Leprachauns
Argument from Cause.

P: There exists an artifact of a Leprechaun pipe
W: Leprechauns are known to smoke pipes
D: the artifact is in the museum
Argument from Sign.

P: There is independent evidence of leprechaun like beings in other cultures, even if descriptions vary.
W: Since there is independent evidence in other cultures, it creates a presumption that supports the evidence in this one.
D: In the Appalachians there beliefs in magical beings that live in the mountains
D: In Nordic cultures, there are beliefs in magical beings called Trolls.
Argument from Precedence.

P: Leprechauns are like foxes. They clever, quick and can hide easily
W: Leprechauns are clever and hard to catch.
D: Foxes are considered to be clever and hard to catch.
Argument from Analogy, inherently weak and easy to refute.

P: Leprechauns are supernatural beings making them difficult to find
W: Leprechauns would use their powers to their advantage.
D: The supernatural factors exist because no one has proved that they don't
Argument from Ignorance.

P: Leprechauns are supernatural beings making them difficult to understand
W: Because of their supernatural abilities it makes their world view impossible for us to understand because we cannot possibly share their perspective because we are not supernatural.
D: Supernatural factors exist because no one has absolutely refuted evidence suggesting that they do.
Argument from Ignorance

Laid out like this, it is easy to see where to start with the argument. In a face-to-face discussion with people that are not familiar with structured discussion, it is much harder. The warrant and the data are rarely presented without a request, but to challenge the argument effectively, they must be revealed. The concept of the "unstated premise" is similar to the warrant, and you must look for these as well. It usually constitutes figuring out what is inferred, or what factors a statement depends on but has not been addressed so far.

The respondent should challenge the conclusion by rebutting the premises of the proponent using critical questioning according the strategy most effective for the type of argument that is being refuted. In the process of rebutting the premises of the proponent, it is usually necessary to challenge the warrant and the data. Sometimes the warrant is valid but the evidence is not. The respondent should avoid making claims where possible for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that it is preferable to shift the burden of proof to the other party. Many logical fallacies do this very effectively. The second reason is that whoever asks the questions is in control of the discussion.

The respondent should try to get the proponent to commit to statements that support the respondents conclusion. In doing so, the respondent can get the proponent to make contradictory claims, it which case the proponent must retract or commit to an untenable conclusion. For example, getting the proponent to commit to the premise that in the case of four witnesses of a robbery, there will be four conflicting stories that agree to some degree. The respondent can use this to point out that testimonial evidence is weak compared to other forms and an example of this is the "telephone game" that children play. Another example is to get the proponent to admit that in cases where there was a strong presumption in favor of the supernatural, it was later proven that there were natural causes. Such is the case with schizophrenia and Germ theory.

References:
Toulman, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press

Walton, Douglas N. 1995. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum

Walton, Douglas N. 2005. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Argument from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press.

Damer, T. Edward. 2004. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. 5th ed. Wadsworth Publishing

Freeley, Austin J. 1993. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company

http://casuallogically.blogspot.com

Happy St. Patricks Day! Leprechauns Exist!

This is a short discussion about argument fundamentals using an example of a debate about the existence of Leprechauns. Its also relevant to blog discussions.

The Promise of Prayer

Prayer should be the intersection between the natural and the supernatural. This is a critical discussion comparing and contrasting the promises of prayer in the bible, our expectations and our observations. I use the first person, using myself, or my former Christian persona as an example.

Here were my presumptions:
- The Bible is the revealed word of God through a collection of mostly anecdotes. The only evidence I have for that is tradition and the belief of the majority of others in my community of believers and also the precautionary principle as demonstrated by Pascals Wager.

- I am told that prayers work by a large community, and have anecdotal evidence to support the claim. Also the anecdotal evidence supports what the Bible says about prayer. The bible says the following about prayer.
A. * 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
B. * Psalm 145:18,19 "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him. He will also hear their cry and save them."
C. * Proverbs 15:8b "…The prayer of the upright is His delight."
D. * Isaiah 45:11 "Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel…ask of Me of things to come concerning My sons; and concerning the work of My hands, you command Me."
E. * Isaiah 65:24 "It shall come to pass that before they call I will answer; and while they are still speaking I will hear."
F. * Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to Me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know."
G. * Mark 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them."
H. * John 14:13,14 "And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name I will do it."
I. * John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire and it shall be done for you."
J. * John 16:23,24 "…Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you…ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full."
K. * Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helps our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
L. * 1 Peter 3:12 "For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to his prayers."
M. * 1 John 5:14,15 "Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him."

Anecdotal evidence is regarded as weak and defeasible.

In the list above, of which may not be all inclusive, only A, B, G, H, I, L and M have qualifiers that could justify an unanswered prayer. It would seem that all the bases are covered.
- A. conditions are "humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways".
- B. conditions are "He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him".
- G. conditions are "believe that you receive them".
- H. conditions are "whatever you ask in My [Jesus] name", which is an added qualifier, different from the old testament.
- I. conditions are "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you".
- L. conditions are " righteous".
- M. conditions are "according to his will".

I would like to point out that there is no comprehensive list anywhere in the bible that talks about the conditions of prayer. I think that is an oversight that I would not expect if the Holy Spirit was responsible for the text through the ages.

So what is the point of prayer?
I think it is the method that god provided to us to interact with him. It is a point of intersection between the natural and the supernatural. It would seem to be a good place for a test. And if it is meant as the method that god provided to interact with us, I think that I could reasonably expect god to want to participate. Since he knows how we think, he would know that this would give us confidence about our relationship. Relationships are more successful when we know we can trust our partner. And in fact, unless I am remembering wrong, our relationship with Jesus is supposed to be the perfect example of a marriage. Since this is the case we should be able to show that intercessory prayer works. However in at least ten studies, it didn't (Power of Prayer, American Heart Journal). If the testing method is alleged to be faulty, then I think it is the responsibility of Christians to set up a double blind test with the participation of non Christian experts with a protocol that is agreeable to everyone to show that prayers work.

So lets say that Christians set up a test as described above and that out of 1000 studies, some numbers of prayer work. And in the control group, the same thing happens. The results are inconclusive. This seems to be the typical outcome in scientific prayer studies (suspect or not). In the control group, some reasons this could be are the test protocol is invalid or has been compromised, god was skewing the odds for some reason, or that chance is just as effective as prayer. If we assume that god is skewing the odds for the reason that he won't permit us to test him, that would seem to mean that it is impossible to test prayer and the only reliable way of knowing that prayer works is to maintain the sanctity of the intent and look at the personal interaction. We could keep our own prayer log. But in this case, we can expect god would know and once again skew the odds. Therefore we can't use any empirical method to test prayer. But since it seems to work sometimes, it is evidence of a miracle. And the investigation into the odds of how likely it would be to turn out the same way to due to chance is given no thought.

Empirical studies have shown that the following are likely to be true, and sufficient to use as presumptions in research.
- People are naturally terrible at estimating probability.
- People are naturally terrible at perceiving and interpreting probabilistic data.
- People "remember the hits and forget the misses"
- People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it is believed by the larger group.
- People will change their evidence based viewpoint if it contradicts the viewpoint of the group.
- People overestimate the degree of belief in others.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.
- People are likely to use the precautionary principle as illustrated by Pascals Wager in minimizing risk.

These schemes of reasoning are detailed in the books such as the ones I have read "How We Know What Isn't So" by Thomas Gilovich, and to a smaller degree Daniel OKeefe's "Theories of Persuasion" and Robert Cialdini's "Influence". Cialdinis "six weapons of influence" depend on a couple of them. These are common patterns of reasoning that can be identified and predicted. In fact they are used effectively in Politics and Advertising and they explain the persistence of the existence of the "rumor mill".

There is a concept called "Negative Evidence", "Negative evidence is the absence of evidence that might reasonably be expected to be found were the issue in question true" (Freeley, 113). There is another concept known as "Ockhams Razor". Ockhams Razor states that when given the choice of options for an explanation, the one that is less complicated or depends on less variables is more likely to be correct. Using the data contained in the books listed above and my personal experience with prayer, I think a simpler hypothesis to explain prayer is that it is a myth.

So lets stipulate for a minute that I am an amateur and that reading a few biased books doesn't mean anything with regards to the truth of the lord. With this stipulation in place I would like some expert to explain my recent experience.
My 86 year old grandmother was a model of righteousness in her church community. Without getting into it here, only condition M fits her circumstances, it which case it was gods will that she die a slow, painful and humiliating death from cancer in the face. The intercessory prayer of her church community had no noticeable effect. This is the personal prayer experience of a community of presumably righteous Christians. This is the way I predicted it would happen based on probability. Why not answer the prayers and let her die in her sleep and get around the suffering?

I have no reason to believe in supernatural factors with regards to my prayers or "my walk with god". And I assert that no one else does either. If they do, I'd like to see them because a world with a loving god in it manipulating things for the better is something that I would be interested in.

References:
American Heart Journal. Intercessory Prayer.


"anecdotal evidence." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. Answers.com 11 Mar. 2007.

Freeley, Austin J. 1993. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company

Cialdini, Robert. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston. Allyn and Bacon.

Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So. New York. The Free Press: A division of Macmillan, Inc.

Holy Bible.

"Ockham's razor." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 11 Mar. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor

Okeefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion Theory and Research. Newbury Park, California. Sage Publications.

Power of Prayer. New York Times.

The Promise of Prayer

Prayer should be the intersection between the natural and the supernatural. This is a critical discussion comparing and contrasting the promises of prayer in the bible, our expectations and our observations. I use the first person, using myself, or my former Christian persona as an example.

Here were my presumptions:
- The Bible is the revealed word of God through a collection of mostly anecdotes. The only evidence I have for that is tradition and the belief of the majority of others in my community of believers and also the precautionary principle as demonstrated by Pascals Wager.

- I am told that prayers work by a large community, and have anecdotal evidence to support the claim. Also the anecdotal evidence supports what the Bible says about prayer. The bible says the following about prayer.
A. * 2 Chronicles 7:14 "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
B. * Psalm 145:18,19 "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him. He will also hear their cry and save them."
C. * Proverbs 15:8b "…The prayer of the upright is His delight."
D. * Isaiah 45:11 "Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel…ask of Me of things to come concerning My sons; and concerning the work of My hands, you command Me."
E. * Isaiah 65:24 "It shall come to pass that before they call I will answer; and while they are still speaking I will hear."
F. * Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to Me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know."
G. * Mark 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them."
H. * John 14:13,14 "And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name I will do it."
I. * John 15:7 "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire and it shall be done for you."
J. * John 16:23,24 "…Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you…ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full."
K. * Romans 8:26 "Likewise the Spirit also helps our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."
L. * 1 Peter 3:12 "For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to his prayers."
M. * 1 John 5:14,15 "Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, he hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him."

Anecdotal evidence is regarded as weak and defeasible.

In the list above, of which may not be all inclusive, only A, B, G, H, I, L and M have qualifiers that could justify an unanswered prayer. It would seem that all the bases are covered.
- A. conditions are "humble themselves and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways".
- B. conditions are "He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him".
- G. conditions are "believe that you receive them".
- H. conditions are "whatever you ask in My [Jesus] name", which is an added qualifier, different from the old testament.
- I. conditions are "If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you".
- L. conditions are " righteous".
- M. conditions are "according to his will".

I would like to point out that there is no comprehensive list anywhere in the bible that talks about the conditions of prayer. I think that is an oversight that I would not expect if the Holy Spirit was responsible for the text through the ages.

So what is the point of prayer?
I think it is the method that god provided to us to interact with him. It is a point of intersection between the natural and the supernatural. It would seem to be a good place for a test. And if it is meant as the method that god provided to interact with us, I think that I could reasonably expect god to want to participate. Since he knows how we think, he would know that this would give us confidence about our relationship. Relationships are more successful when we know we can trust our partner. And in fact, unless I am remembering wrong, our relationship with Jesus is supposed to be the perfect example of a marriage. Since this is the case we should be able to show that intercessory prayer works. However in at least ten studies, it didn't (Power of Prayer, American Heart Journal). If the testing method is alleged to be faulty, then I think it is the responsibility of Christians to set up a double blind test with the participation of non Christian experts with a protocol that is agreeable to everyone to show that prayers work.

So lets say that Christians set up a test as described above and that out of 1000 studies, some numbers of prayer work. And in the control group, the same thing happens. The results are inconclusive. This seems to be the typical outcome in scientific prayer studies (suspect or not). In the control group, some reasons this could be are the test protocol is invalid or has been compromised, god was skewing the odds for some reason, or that chance is just as effective as prayer. If we assume that god is skewing the odds for the reason that he won't permit us to test him, that would seem to mean that it is impossible to test prayer and the only reliable way of knowing that prayer works is to maintain the sanctity of the intent and look at the personal interaction. We could keep our own prayer log. But in this case, we can expect god would know and once again skew the odds. Therefore we can't use any empirical method to test prayer. But since it seems to work sometimes, it is evidence of a miracle. And the investigation into the odds of how likely it would be to turn out the same way to due to chance is given no thought.

Empirical studies have shown that the following are likely to be true, and sufficient to use as presumptions in research.
- People are naturally terrible at estimating probability.
- People are naturally terrible at perceiving and interpreting probabilistic data.
- People "remember the hits and forget the misses"
- People like stories and are willing to give the teller of the story the benefit of the doubt about the truth of it.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it comes from someone they like.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it is believed by the larger group.
- People will change their evidence based viewpoint if it contradicts the viewpoint of the group.
- People overestimate the degree of belief in others.
- People are more likely to believe a story if it fits with what they already believe or want to believe.
- People are likely to use the precautionary principle as illustrated by Pascals Wager in minimizing risk.

These schemes of reasoning are detailed in the books such as the ones I have read "How We Know What Isn't So" by Thomas Gilovich, and to a smaller degree Daniel OKeefe's "Theories of Persuasion" and Robert Cialdini's "Influence". Cialdinis "six weapons of influence" depend on a couple of them. These are common patterns of reasoning that can be identified and predicted. In fact they are used effectively in Politics and Advertising and they explain the persistence of the existence of the "rumor mill".

There is a concept called "Negative Evidence", "Negative evidence is the absence of evidence that might reasonably be expected to be found were the issue in question true" (Freeley, 113). There is another concept known as "Ockhams Razor". Ockhams Razor states that when given the choice of options for an explanation, the one that is less complicated or depends on less variables is more likely to be correct. Using the data contained in the books listed above and my personal experience with prayer, I think a simpler hypothesis to explain prayer is that it is a myth.

So lets stipulate for a minute that I am an amateur and that reading a few biased books doesn't mean anything with regards to the truth of the lord. With this stipulation in place I would like some expert to explain my recent experience.
My 86 year old grandmother was a model of righteousness in her church community. Without getting into it here, only condition M fits her circumstances, it which case it was gods will that she die a slow, painful and humiliating death from cancer in the face. The intercessory prayer of her church community had no noticeable effect. This is the personal prayer experience of a community of presumably righteous Christians. This is the way I predicted it would happen based on probability. Why not answer the prayers and let her die in her sleep and get around the suffering?

I have no reason to believe in supernatural factors with regards to my prayers or "my walk with god". And I assert that no one else does either. If they do, I'd like to see them because a world with a loving god in it manipulating things for the better is something that I would be interested in.

References:
American Heart Journal. Intercessory Prayer.


"anecdotal evidence." Wikipedia. Wikipedia, 2007. Answers.com 11 Mar. 2007.

Freeley, Austin J. 1993. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making 8th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company

Cialdini, Robert. 2001. Influence: Science and Practice. Boston. Allyn and Bacon.

Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn't So. New York. The Free Press: A division of Macmillan, Inc.

Holy Bible.

"Ockham's razor." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. Answers.com 11 Mar. 2007. http://www.answers.com/topic/occam-s-razor

Okeefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion Theory and Research. Newbury Park, California. Sage Publications.

Power of Prayer. New York Times.

Mugger punches 101-year-old woman on video

• Man breaks woman's cheekbone as he punches her twice, takes purse
• Attack captured by a surveillance camera in apartment building lobby
• Police think same man mugged 85-year-old woman for $32

"God saved my life," she said.

That's one way to look at it.

video:
text:

My Deconversion Story

I deliberately tried to keep this to under five minutes reading time.

I grew up in a more or less religious background. I Attended church occasionally and also at Christmas and Easter like a lot of other people. One of my grandfathers was a Baptist preacher. My other two grandparents formed a church about sixty years ago that has grown into something like a mega-church today. About fifteen years ago I got serious in the church and went Baptist Fundamentalist. My reasoning was that since God exists, and he wrote the book, then I should accept my responsibility to have a relationship and assumed the Bible must necessarily be the literal word of God. With this literal viewpoint in mind I got involved in all sorts of conundrums relating to theology and comparing my observations to the way I understood the world should and does work and the way god is described to work and the promises it allegedly made to us.

In an attempt to reconcile problems that I noticed, I started to study the Bible, apologetics and lexicons very hard. I became a staunch apologist, and I could quote chapter and verse like a pro. But I kept running into these people that had really good points about why I was wrong, but I just minimized it using 1 Corinthians 2:14 which supports the idea that because they don't have the holy spirit they can't understand. But even that poses a problem in logic that I didn't bother to reconcile. I just didn't know enough to deal with their questions so I kept studying deeper. I was told that I should go to seminary and seriously considered it, but I wasn't motivated to figure out how to do it.

The more I studied the harder it was to take the Bible literally, so I started sliding into the more metaphorical style of belief. At this point I reconciled the question of how do you know what is metaphor and what is not by believing that praying and the holy spirit would solve that problem. And to take my mind off those kinds of problems, I got involved in "Spiritual Warfare". Having read a book about Earl and Lorraine Warren in my youth called "The Demonologist" and "The Exorcist" I was sure that this kind of thing really went on, and I was going to get in the fray. I sought out Wiccans and people I was convinced were being bothered by an evil spirit and tried to "help" them. In the midst of all this I had some personal crises that convinced me that the demons were fighting back. I prayed and prayed to no avail, and started to try to think of a time when I could say that a prayer actually worked. I couldn't think of many and I started to think that maybe I was just being forsaken like Jesus in the last minutes. I heard from well meaning people that God won't give you anything you can't handle. Well, that meant that I was not devout enough for his tastes or that I was too weak. I didn't buy into either option. After I got to where I couldn’t take it anymore I made a deal with God that he should leave me alone, and I would leave him alone. I was betting it all on my acceptance of Jesus and my baptism to keep the door open, but my advocate days were over.

While I was 'floating through life' I saw the odd news story with the person saying "God saved he/she/me/it from dying or anything worse happening". From my perspective it made more sense for God to have prevented it if he was going to do anything about it all. Away from the Rhetoric of Church, some questions came to mind. Some of them from the church days and some from comparing my observations to how I understood the world was supposed to work with a God around. It didn't add up. Since I am a network engineer and electronic technician, I had some rudimentary critical thinking skills. I began to reflect back on my walk with God, and I realized that my experience in the Church and personal relationship with God was a lot like chance or luck. Not being interested in pursuing that line of reasoning seriously, I just let it go.

After Sep. 11, the Islamist fundamentalists started saying that God answered their prayers, I was wondering why he didn't answer the prayers of the people stuck in the WTC before they collapsed, or the people in the planes, or any reasonable prayer that I ever had in my life. This idea about prayer that "God answers in his own time, sometimes the answer is no, you can't test prayer or God" didn't fly with me anymore. So I decided to apply the same kind of logic, reasoning and research necessary to troubleshoot electronics and networks to reconcile this question of "Why does it seem to me that my personal experience with God was so much like depending on Luck."

I went back to studying the Bible but this time I wanted to know where the Bible came from and this time I was going to use secular and academic texts. I wanted to resolve some obvious problems in the Bible that weren't adequately addressed in my mind and so I studied physics, biology, archeology, psychology, informal logic, and reasoning. My first milestone was to discover that God didn't work the way that everyone thought he did. Why was that? I stumbled onto Robert M. Price's Bible Geek podcast and he said something that sounded like "the Old Testament is a collection of Sumerian and Babylonian Myths". I decided that was a plausible hypothesis so I decided to validate it. I have concluded to my satisfaction that most likely the Bible is a compilation of Near Eastern myths. I am sure the Bible was put together over time through socio-political pressures in the near eastern region in an attempt to establish an identity for a community of people that wished to be unique. The implications are that it puts the Bible on equal footing with all the other scriptures in the world, which means that we don't really know anything about God including if it exists or not. Once I realized that I became interested to know how this could go on for so long. That is when I bought the book "Why People Believe Weird Things" and learned about "Skepticism".

Skepticism is a nice buzz word, but I don’t ascribe to being a member of the skeptical movement or a 'Bright' because I am not comfortable with what I consider oversimplified ideals of schemes of reasoning, persuasion and deception. I won't get into it here, but in looking into how people reason including how to influence, persuade and deceive them, it is easy to see how religious belief has gone on for so long. But now I am confident that I have an understanding of what went on with me and is going on with other people. I want to help them answer some of those questions that cause them cognitive dissonance and to be mentally uncomfortable.

References:
Here is list of study material in an amazon.com list that represents what I have studied over the past fifteen years:



Here is link to a researcher that has assembled the information about the origins of Israel in a lay person friendly readable format in his series of Books. He's not the only one in this field, but he has done a good job putting the material in books that non-archaeologists can understand.



If you do a tiny bit of research on the Old Testament. You will find that it is the Hebrew Bible which came about from oral traditions and various historical documents. Now look up the definition of Folklore. Now click here and read this and think about it for a little while

My Deconversion Story

I deliberately tried to keep this to under five minutes reading time.

I grew up in a more or less religious background. I Attended church occasionally and also at Christmas and Easter like a lot of other people. One of my grandfathers was a Baptist preacher. My other two grandparents formed a church about sixty years ago that has grown into something like a mega-church today. About fifteen years ago I got serious in the church and went Baptist Fundamentalist. My reasoning was that since God exists, and he wrote the book, then I should accept my responsibility to have a relationship and assumed the Bible must necessarily be the literal word of God. With this literal viewpoint in mind I got involved in all sorts of conundrums relating to theology and comparing my observations to the way I understood the world should and does work and the way god is described to work and the promises it allegedly made to us.

In an attempt to reconcile problems that I noticed, I started to study the Bible, apologetics and lexicons very hard. I became a staunch apologist, and I could quote chapter and verse like a pro. But I kept running into these people that had really good points about why I was wrong, but I just minimized it using 1 Corinthians 2:14 which supports the idea that because they don't have the holy spirit they can't understand. But even that poses a problem in logic that I didn't bother to reconcile. I just didn't know enough to deal with their questions so I kept studying deeper. I was told that I should go to seminary and seriously considered it, but I wasn't motivated to figure out how to do it.

The more I studied the harder it was to take the Bible literally, so I started sliding into the more metaphorical style of belief. At this point I reconciled the question of how do you know what is metaphor and what is not by believing that praying and the holy spirit would solve that problem. And to take my mind off those kinds of problems, I got involved in "Spiritual Warfare". Having read a book about Earl and Lorraine Warren in my youth called "The Demonologist" and "The Exorcist" I was sure that this kind of thing really went on, and I was going to get in the fray. I sought out Wiccans and people I was convinced were being bothered by an evil spirit and tried to "help" them. In the midst of all this I had some personal crises that convinced me that the demons were fighting back. I prayed and prayed to no avail, and started to try to think of a time when I could say that a prayer actually worked. I couldn't think of many and I started to think that maybe I was just being forsaken like Jesus in the last minutes. I heard from well meaning people that God won't give you anything you can't handle. Well, that meant that I was not devout enough for his tastes or that I was too weak. I didn't buy into either option. After I got to where I couldn’t take it anymore I made a deal with God that he should leave me alone, and I would leave him alone. I was betting it all on my acceptance of Jesus and my baptism to keep the door open, but my advocate days were over.

While I was 'floating through life' I saw the odd news story with the person saying "God saved he/she/me/it from dying or anything worse happening". From my perspective it made more sense for God to have prevented it if he was going to do anything about it all. Away from the Rhetoric of Church, some questions came to mind. Some of them from the church days and some from comparing my observations to how I understood the world was supposed to work with a God around. It didn't add up. Since I am a network engineer and electronic technician, I had some rudimentary critical thinking skills. I began to reflect back on my walk with God, and I realized that my experience in the Church and personal relationship with God was a lot like chance or luck. Not being interested in pursuing that line of reasoning seriously, I just let it go.

After Sep. 11, the Islamist fundamentalists started saying that God answered their prayers, I was wondering why he didn't answer the prayers of the people stuck in the WTC before they collapsed, or the people in the planes, or any reasonable prayer that I ever had in my life. This idea about prayer that "God answers in his own time, sometimes the answer is no, you can't test prayer or God" didn't fly with me anymore. So I decided to apply the same kind of logic, reasoning and research necessary to troubleshoot electronics and networks to reconcile this question of "Why does it seem to me that my personal experience with God was so much like depending on Luck."

I went back to studying the Bible but this time I wanted to know where the Bible came from and this time I was going to use secular and academic texts. I wanted to resolve some obvious problems in the Bible that weren't adequately addressed in my mind and so I studied physics, biology, archeology, psychology, informal logic, and reasoning. My first milestone was to discover that God didn't work the way that everyone thought he did. Why was that? I stumbled onto Robert M. Price's Bible Geek podcast and he said something that sounded like "the Old Testament is a collection of Sumerian and Babylonian Myths". I decided that was a plausible hypothesis so I decided to validate it. I have concluded to my satisfaction that most likely the Bible is a compilation of Near Eastern myths. I am sure the Bible was put together over time through socio-political pressures in the near eastern region in an attempt to establish an identity for a community of people that wished to be unique. The implications are that it puts the Bible on equal footing with all the other scriptures in the world, which means that we don't really know anything about God including if it exists or not. Once I realized that I became interested to know how this could go on for so long. That is when I bought the book "Why People Believe Weird Things" and learned about "Skepticism".

Skepticism is a nice buzz word, but I don’t ascribe to being a member of the skeptical movement or a 'Bright' because I am not comfortable with what I consider oversimplified ideals of schemes of reasoning, persuasion and deception. I won't get into it here, but in looking into how people reason including how to influence, persuade and deceive them, it is easy to see how religious belief has gone on for so long. But now I am confident that I have an understanding of what went on with me and is going on with other people. I want to help them answer some of those questions that cause them cognitive dissonance and to be mentally uncomfortable.

References:
Here is list of study material in an amazon.com list that represents what I have studied over the past fifteen years:



Here is link to a researcher that has assembled the information about the origins of Israel in a lay person friendly readable format in his series of Books. He's not the only one in this field, but he has done a good job putting the material in books that non-archaeologists can understand.



If you do a tiny bit of research on the Old Testament. You will find that it is the Hebrew Bible which came about from oral traditions and various historical documents. Now look up the definition of Folklore. Now click here and read this and think about it for a little while