Synopsis: 25 Reasons Continued ...

Reason 21

Any reasonable examination of both the canonical and extracanonical books, the Gnostics, and the formation of the canon and church councils clearly evidences the 'hand of man' in the creation of the Bible (both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament) and not the mystical Hand of God. To argue otherwise in light of all the available evidence is to embrace an act of denial verging on pathology.

SUGGESTED BOOKS

SUGGESTED LINKS

Reason 22

The Bible Contains Errors, Contradictions, Misstatements, Inconsistencies, and Incoherencies

Any rational person being completely honest with him- or herself will have no qualms with the above statement. A thorough reading of the Book of Genesis alone will expose hundreds of problems, and a complete reading of the Bible shows hundreds-of-thousands of issues. Despite nearly a half-million 'problems' in the supposedly 'inerrant' and 'inspired' Word of God, Christian Apologists see no irony in this and attempt to 'explain' the same few of these using circular reasoning, creative interpretation, deliberate silence and/or fabrication, and improper referencing of 'authorities'.

A Word About Apologetics

The modern term apologetics is derived from the Greek word, apologia, which means “to defend” or “to make a defense.” Thus, apologetics is a discipline dedicated to the defense of something. The word apologist is used to describe a person who practices or specializes in apologetics and there can be as many different types of apologetics as there are beliefs. In theory, an apologist could defend a set of beliefs about practically anything, but in practice an apologist is someone who defends a set of religious beliefs or worldview. There are Christian apologists, Hindu apologists, Buddhist apologists, Jewish apologists, even atheist apologists. Typically, when the discipline is discussed, it is most often associated with Christian apologetics. In this avenue of inquiry, when I use the term apologetics I will be referring to Christian apologetics specifically.

There are two options available to apologists in defending their beliefs: positive apologetics and negative apologetics. A positive apologetic attempts to justify a belief system and worldview somehow in terms of arguments and evidence. A negative apologetic attempts to defend against objections to that worldview, which may take on the form of a competing worldview or belief system.

An apologetic may also be defined in terms of its relative combativeness. A soft apologetic attempts to demonstrate the rationality of accepting a particular worldview. A hard apologetic is more ambitious and uses persuasive arguments to demonstrate why rejecting a particular worldview is irrational, illogical, even immoral.

The Intention of Apologetics

At first glance, it seems the intention of apologetics is to defend the Christian belief system and worldview against outside interlopers, perhaps even convince a few non-Christians to take up the faith. While apologists like to assume the front of "Defenders of the Faith" against skeptics and rational thinkers, it is not skeptics and rationalists that ultimately concern them. Apologists are really concerned that Christian believers might start listening to what skeptics and rationalists are saying and so devise arguments to convince believers (as well as themselves) why the Christian belief system is right and why the skeptics and rationalists must be wrong. In other words, apologetics is practiced for believers who might be tempted to start considering skeptical and rational arguments against the claims of Christianity. As such, the underlying intention of apologetics is to keep believers firmly tucked into the fold, to convince them their belief system is right and the rest of the world wrong, and to put a "supernatural spin" on the reasoned arguments of rationalists, empiricists, naturalists, skeptics, scholars, critics, scientists, historians, archaeologists, et al, so as to make them appear irrational, unnatural, illogical, immoral, subjective, unreliable, iniquitous, and ungodly.

Why should apologists care what non-Christian rationalists are saying and teaching? Because they're fearful believers might actually start listening to what these others are saying and start questioning the rationality of their faith. In other words, apologists have an agenda and it is to this end they most fervently strive—to defend believers from the teachings of rationalists, scientists, skeptics, and critical thinkers through the use of apologetics, interpreted doctrine, and inherited assumptions. According to the apologetic mindset, black is not necessarily black and white not necessarily white—black and white are whatever the Bible says they are and it makes no difference if it goes against common sense, empirical evidence, logical inquiry, practical reasoning, scientific findings, or the consistent mechanics of the physical world. If apologists argue that black is white only because "it's in the Bible," are apologists being honest? Have they made honest inquiries? Are they putting their beliefs first then adjusting the "facts" to fit their belief system second? Finally, are they more interested in arriving at the truth or upholding a preconceived status quo, a predetermined worldview, seeing retributive justice measured out, or a promise of heavenly reward fulfilled?

What Apologists Say
While several issues regarding apologetics will be discussed elsewhere, a succinct apologetic "warning label" is offered here. When reading apologetics it is advisable to keep the following always at the forefront:
  • The apologist has an agenda, plan, intention, and ulterior motive for the statements being made and for statements NOT being made. The apologist will reveal some things, obscure some things, and deliberately conceal other things that either detract from or might refute their arguments.
  • Apologists like to write books in a question-and-answer format which at first glance looks like a legitimate way of doing things. After all, some of the questions they ask are of valid concerns—If God is loving, why is there evil and suffering? If God is forgiving, why is there an Eternal Hell? Is God worthy of worship if He kills innocent children? If God created the Universe and all life on Earth in six-days, why does the evidence of science point so strongly an ancient cosmology and evolution? etc. However, upon further examination you might note that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of more 'interesting' questions the apologists are conveniently forgetting to add into their question-and-answer game, real questions that call the very legitimacy of biblical accounts into play. Initially, these might include simple bible inconsistencies, biblical fatal flaws, bible absurdities, questionable bible guidelines, immoral godly behavior and failed prophecies, bible atrocities, illicit biblical behavior, bible contradictions, and several thousand cases of biblical errancy small and large. Secondly, a deeper discussion of any of the following might be considered despite the apologists' characteristic silence, harried brush-offs, or hurried denials: the assimilation and evolution of the Genesis creation story from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite myths (e.g., Enuma Elish), the assimilation and evolution of the Genesis Adam, Eve, and Trees of Life and Knowledge story from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite myths (e.g. Adapa And The Food Of Life), the assimilation and evolution of the Noah (e.g., from Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, even the Greek Deucalion) and the Flood story from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, and Canaanite myths (e.g., Epic of Gilgamesh), the assimilation and evolution of the Tower of Babel (confusion of tongues) story from earlier Sumerian and Babylonian myths (e.g., Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta), the assimilation of Elohim-Yahweh from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugartic, and Canaanite myths (e.g., El/Elohim and Yam/Yaw/Yah/Yahu/Yahweh), and so many others all of which I will be examining in much more detail throughout these 'Reasons'.
  • Irregardless as to what argument the apologist is making, he-or-she is doing so for purely subjective, interpretive, psychological, emotional, political, or ideological reasons. Any statement the apologist makes is tempered by these reasons even if he-or-she denies it (in which case the extent of denial becomes a reasonable barometer of his-or-her sense of "self-honesty").
  • All apologists defer to presuppositions and make assumptions. Read each statement an apologist makes and try to determine its inherent assumption. If an apologetical statement boldly commands what God wants for you, how you should behave (e.g., "A wise person will continually seek the Glory of God and an unwise person will not"), or what the future will hold, realize that assumptions and presuppositions are being made, sometimes several in a single sentence. Make note of these assumptions and try to determine if they are sound, logical, valid, or rational. In many cases, apologetical statements rely only on a series of assumptions and by themselves have no inherent validity or concrete evidence.
  • Remember: Simply because a statement can be made that is grammatically correct and has proper syntax it should not be inferred automatically to be valid, meaningful, or even coherent. In the course of their arguments, apologists are typically guilty of reification (hypostatization) even though most are unaware of it. This is a common language error and occurs when abstract, unknowable, metaphysical, or unprovable concepts are discussed as if they were concrete, perceptible, and self-evident things. Reification is encountered most often when literary objects found only in the interior world of words are treated as if they are viable and existent constructs in the exterior world at-large. These may include angels, demons, sea monsters, ghosts, miracles, talking animals, fairies, spirits, and gods.
  • Many apologists will quote from the Bible to prove their point, because they fervently believe the Bible to be the Word of God. Please note this belief is also an assumption based on a linked chain of other assumptions. Though apologists will deny it, they use the Bible to "prove" the Bible and this is circular reasoning. Try to determine the type of assumptions being made whenever the Bible is quoted as "proof" of something. If this assumption relies on a previous assumption, then try to determine its type, and so on backward through the chain. In some cases, the top-level assumption is the result of ten or more previous assumptions all linking one to the other. See if you can work your way back to the bottom-most assumption and try to determine its veracity and motive.
  • All of us make assumptions. The person interested in truth for truth's sake realizes this and will deliberately and critically examine his-or-her assumptions to determine whether they are "honest" assumptions based on probability, carefully analysis, and the proponderance of evidence, or else assumptions that are inherited, ethnocentric, enculturated, anticipative, or untested. Are the assumptions the apologist is making "honest" assumptions or are they impelled by something else? Try to determine the underlying motives of all the assumptions being made—your assumptions, my assumptions, and the apologist's assumptions. Is truth the deciding factor? Faith? Belief? Fear? Wishful thinking?
  • Ultimately, try to determine what is more important to the apologist: truth (even if it proves harrowing, uncomfortable, or unpleasant), telling the truth (even if it means admitting weaknesses, ignorance, assumptions, second-guesses, hopes, wishes, and fears), belief (even if it means a denial, rejection, or distortion of clear evidence), or faith (even if it means belief in a complete and total assumption, in what can never been proven, analyzed, witnessed, touched, measured, disclosed, in other words, the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"). If the apologist admits to putting his-or-her belief or faith above truth or seeking the truth, then it is advisable to treat with suspicion anything that apologist might say.
  • Finally, would apologists be so adamant in defending their faith and continue to love Jesus/Yahweh so much if Jesus/Yahweh suddenly had a change of heart and decided to send everybody to Eternal Hell anyway, including them? (And, yes, God can change his mind or have second thoughts. See Genesis 6:6, Exodus 32:14; Numbers 14:20; Isaiah 15:35; 2 Samuel 24:16) It is my position that as long as one being is threatened with Eternal Hell then Jesus/Yahweh is not worthy of defense, love, honor, or respect. I suspect that the apologists' need to defend their faith so rigorously stems from (1) their own fear of death and need for assurances that not only will they survive biological extinction but will be rewarded in the process, and (2) the desire to savor a hearty helping of Christian revenge as retributive justice is meted out and the "wicked" (including all non-Christians, scientists, evolutionists, skeptics, truth-seekers, and atheist/agnostics no matter how honorable) properly punished an eternity for their short lifetime of sins.
It never ceases to amaze me that even into the twenty-first century, with all the information that we have available to us from archaeology, history, comparative religion, mythology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, literature, science, even biblical research, that otherwise intelligent people would rather narrow their focus inside the "box" of faith and simply believe rather than explore all the available information in order to determine what is and is not literally the truth. So indoctrinated (enculturated) by family upgringing, cultural traditions, and social mores, most people causally, almost off-handedly, accept what their particular religious communities inform them to be true (as if any system of belief based on invisible "faith" has any bearing on truth at all), then spend a great deal of time either defending this "truth" or trying to convince themselves of this "truth" while continuing to neglect all other evidence that's freely available "outside the box".

SUGGESTED BOOKS

SUGGESTED LINKS

Reason 23

What Is Critical Thinking?

"Broadly speaking, critical thinking is concerned with reason, intellectual honesty, and open-mindedness, as opposed too emotionalism, intellectual laziness, and closed-mindedness. Thus, critical thinking involves: following evidence where it leads; considering all possibilities; relying on reason rather than emotion; being precise; considering a variety of possible viewpoints and explanations; weighing the effects of motives and biases; being concerned more with finding the truth than with being right; not rejecting unpopular views out of hand; being aware of one's own prejudices and biases, and not allowing them to sway one's judgment."

~ Daniel Kurland, I Know What It Says...What does it Mean?-

SUGGESTED BOOKS

SUGGESTED LINKS

Reason 24

What is Science?

The definition of science poses some problems for people. Everyone seems to have an idea of what science is, but actually articulating it proves to be difficult. Doing so, however, is necessary to understand what science really is and what science is not. Understanding science is, in turn, necessary because of its incredible power and influence in modern society. Ignorance about science simply isn't a viable option. The classical definition of science is simply the state of "knowing"—specifically theoretical knowledge as opposed the practical knowledge. In the Middle Ages the term "science" came to be used interchangeably with "arts," the word for such practical knowledge. Thus, "liberal arts" and "liberal sciences" meant basically the same thing.

Modern dictionaries are a bit more specific than that and offer a number of different ways in which the term science can be defined:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Methodological activity, discipline, or study. An activity that appears to require study and method.

For many purposes, these definitions can be adequate, but like so many other dictionary definitions of complex subjects, they are ultimately superficial and misleading. They only provide the barest minimum of information about the nature of science. As a consequence, the above definitions can be used to argue that even astrology or dowsing qualify as "science."

Distinguishing modern science from other endeavors requires focusing in particular on its methodology—the means by which it achieves results. Fundamentally, then, science can be characterized as a method of obtaining reliable—thought not infallible—knowledge about the universe around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it happens.

The knowledge is reliable because it is continually tested and retested—much of science is heavily interdependent, which means that any test of any scientific idea entails testing other, related ideas at the same time. The knowledge is not infallible, because at no point do scientists assume that they have arrived at a final, definitive truth.

The knowledge involved is that about the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened. This latter point is an important factor because it is only through knowing why events occur that we can predict what else might occur in the future.

Science can also at times be characterized as a category or body of knowledge. When this is how the term is used, the speaker usually has in mind just the physical sciences (astronomy, geology) or biological sciences (zoology, botany). These are sometimes also called "empirical sciences," as distinguished from the "formal sciences," which encompass mathematics and formal logic.

Finally, science is often used to refer to the community of scientists and researchers who do scientific work. It is this group of people who, through practicing science, effectively define what science is and how science is done. Philosophers of science attempt to describe what an ideal pursuit of science would look like, but it is the scientists who establish what it will really be.

FROM: ABOUT.COM

What is the Scientific Method?
How Is It Used And What Does It Do?

Science is effectively defined by the method which actual scientists use in order to make discoveries and generally produce knowledge about the universe around us. It is this method which distinguishes the scientific process from other, generally less successful, attempts to produce knowledge about the world. Therefore, understanding science requires understanding how the scientific method works.

What is described here is, to be honest, an ideal—actual scientists do not always follow the description here perfectly, but the practice of science is nevertheless often close to the broad outlines of the ideal. It is important, however, to understand that neither the reality nor the ideal is some special or magical mental process unavailable to non-scientists.

The scientific method involves a combination of induction and deduction, each feeding back upon the other. The first part, known as the Method of Induction, is the process by which we take particular information from our senses and attempt to produce general statements about our world. For example, when we observe that fire consistently burns our fingers, we can conclude fire is generally too hot to touch.

The deductive aspect of the scientific method moves in just the opposite direction: it involves taking a general principle about the world and deducing what will or should happen in some particular instance. Thus, working from the principle that fire is too hot to touch, we can deduce that putting our foot in a fire will cause burns and pain.

Because the scientific method involves a feedback loop of induction and deduction, it often isn't possible to determine where any particular process has started—this is, in fact, one place where the practice and ideal diverge. Nevertheless, a common starting point is used here in these six steps:

1. Observation  

Some aspect of the world is observed by us and we arrive at new knowledge. This information might be obtained through any or all of our senses, and it may come to us either through our intentional efforts or accidentally.

2. Repetition

Not much can be done with a single observation (usually); thus, more observations are necessary before proceeding further. Often these new observations are obtained deliberately as part of an effort to confirm or refute the initial observation in step #1. Our observations are often stated in the form of a question or problem, for example: In situation S, why does X always occur?

3. Induction

After arranging and considering our observations, we attempt to create some general principle which both describes what happened and, more importantly, explains why it happened. This principle should ideally be framed as broadly as possible and is generally called a hypothesis.

4. Deduction

Now that we have what we hope is a general principle which accurately describes and explains things which happen in our universe, it is time to do some tests to see if we are correct. This is accomplished by creating predictions—these are phrased as statement in the form "if principle P is true, then event E should occur or fact F should be true."

5. Testing

Once we have predictions, it is time to go out and actually see what we find by collecting more observations. We try to determine if some fact (F) is already true about the world or if some event (E) occurs or can be caused to occur.

6. Induction (again)

After we produce more observations, it is time to take another look at the general principle we formulated earlier. If our predictions were true, then our hypothesis has been made stronger. According to some, once this successful testing has been repeated multiple times, the hypothesis should be called a 'scientific theory.' We now might want to start looking at making our theory broader so that it can account for more diverse phenomena.

If, however, our predictions were not successful, then we must consider what went wrong. Possibilities include: our theory was mistaken and we need to reformulate it; our deductions from the theory were mistaken and we need reconsider our understanding of it; or finally, our experiments were flawed and we need to try again.

Notice that all three of those possibilities are, in fact, theories which might explain some observed phenomenon: the failure of our experiments to confirm our original theory! So, figuring out which of them is correct will involve going through the above process and using the scientific method all over again.

Hopefully it is clear from this description that this method is ordered and that the given order is important. If you hypothesize before observing and stating a problem then you are not really being scientific; and you obviously can't test a hypothesis unless you have a hypothesis to test. Moreover, this is an iterative process: testing frequently will provide new information even if the hypothesis fails the tests. If the testing stage fails, you may go back and refine the hypothesis, or go back to analysis to reconsider the problem, then progress forward through the stages again.

Sometimes you may go back to the observation stage from the induction stage if you discover that stating a clear solution to the problem is difficult. Thus it is possible to move backward through the process as well as forward. Moreover, the process can be hierarchical: each stage of the process may involve using the scientific method to solve sub-problems or related problems. So, while the overall process is fairly simple, there can be a great deal of detail and complexity in its operation.

If all of the above sounds too difficult to grasp, rest assured that in reality it's not. As a matter of fact, the scientific method is only a formalized description of what people do every day. It is not too far wrong to say that the scientific method, even when described technically, amounts to systematized common sense. To see how and why, consider the following example, used by Tim M. Berra in his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism. First will be the simple description and second will be the formal description:

  1. You walk into a room in your house and flick on the light switch, but nothing happens. You flick it a few more times to make sure it isn't working and then go get a replacement bulb. After you put it in, you find that it still doesn't work. Looking around at the other electrical appliances in the room, you don't see any of them working either, so you go down to the basement to check the fuse box.

  2. You walk into a room in your house and flick on the light switch, but nothing happens. At this point, you have an observation: the light isn't coming on. Immediately you form a hypothesis: the connection isn't making proper contact. You predict that, if this hypothesis is true, then it may be possible that it will make a connection with further attempts, so you try the switch again several times.

Unfortunately, your experiment does not produce the results you hoped for, thus your prediction fails. Your experiment was valid and your understanding of the principle is probably valid, so you have to go all of the way back to the beginning to try a new hypothesis: the bulb is burned out. If that is true, then replacing the old bulb with a new one should produce light, so you go to fetch a new bulb.

Once again, your experiment fails; once again, your experiment and your understanding of your hypothesis were probably valid, so you need yet another theory. Looking around, you make the new observation that nothing else in the room is working, so you theorize that the power to the room must be interrupted. You also predict that, if this is true, you will find evidence of that in the fuse box, so you go down to the basement to check.

Both of the above are descriptions of the same series of events, with the latter simply being much more explicit about the background processes which we are almost always unconscious of. The scientific method is more formalized and explicit than how we proceed in our everyday lives, because first, it is important that nothing be missed accidentally, and second, it is important that others be able to replicate our steps in order to determine whether or not our results are valid.

It is also worth noting where this practice diverges from the ideal—for example, a hypothesis is formulated after a single observation rather than after several. Although multiple observations are preferable, sometimes just a single observation or even just a single idea is enough to begin the process of formulating hypotheses to test. There are no absolute requirements as to what we need before we start theorizing about what happens in our world.

FROM: ABOUT.COM

SUGGESTED BOOKS

SUGGESTED LINKS

Reason 25

The science speaks for itself. The evidence is undeniable unless one is preconditioned to put his or her faith in magical or supernatural explanations. Who wrote the Book of Genesis? Was its author a 'witness' to the supposed Act of Creation? If not, then the available science must speak for itself since the other claims are based on something less than hearsay—mystical 'visions' or interior 'revelations' that owe nothing to reality or the workings of the material universe.

SUGGESTED BOOKS

SUGGESTED LINKS

Previous Page

Return to Top

Copyright © 2007 by Craig Lee Duckett. All rights reserved
LAST UPDATED: June 25, 2007
June 25, 2007