Part 4
Discussion with Dr. Anthony Garrett, Part 4
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr Anthony Garrett
To: Steve Locks
Sent: 17 June 2000 19:50
Subject: Re: Thank you for your time
At 11:09 PM 6/15/00 +0100, you wrote:
>maybe some impression of hostility is inevitable. However, I think hostility
>towards divine commands of rape, dismemberment of pregnant women,
>killing of children and babies, cruelty to animals and (IMO) such morally
>defective beliefs as hell is quite appropriate and not something
>to be criticised for.
I never criticised you for your unbelief and would not do so. I do ask you
to remember that these things are part of a whole (that is not an apology
for them!) Where are the first two given divine *approval*?
>It is also premature to imply that you have satisfactorily answered
>questions, even to the best of your ability, and that to continue would
>merely lead to repetition.
I accept I have not satisfied you - I'm saying I have done my best,
something I alone can judge competently.
>You are quite wrong that, regarding debating Christianity << there is no
>scriptural command over me to do this. >>
>
>1 Peter 3:15 "... be ready always to give an answer to every man that
>asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
In context this clearly means: be ready to give in humility an exposition
of the faith. That is not the same thing as debating whether it is true or
not. I take my cue from scripture itself, which never debates whether God
exists but rather speaks of God.
>I really would like to get to the bottom of matters with a person of your
>intelligence, but I have no right to send more emails if you wish to end our
>conversation. I also feel guilty for engaging in debate in that I initially
>wrote to you, so any response you give me is very much a favour for which I
>am grateful, despite my strong words!
You shouldn't feel any guilt at all, as I *chose* to respond. It's just
that I doubt we would ever "get to the bottom", or even reduce it to a
comprehensive set of yes/no propositions on which we take opposite sides.
>It worries me to hear you say:
><< For a Christian to apologise for his faith is misguided, and also
>dangerous, for Jesus gave a warning to believers who act ashamed of him. >>
>
>Are you afraid of what might happen to you, what Jesus might do to you or
>not give you if you ask questions?
????
He warned about apologising for him, not about asking questions.
Best wishes
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Locks
Sent: 22 June 2000 22:27
Subject: Let's keep going then...
Dear Anthony,
I am happy to continue with any points that you wish to discuss.
<< I never criticised you for your unbelief and would not do so. >>
That is good and tolerant, but is there any chance God criticises me, and if
so, would you approve of Him since you yourself don't criticise me? Wouldn't
you then be tacitly criticising me because you would have to approve of
God's criticism of my unbelief? Criticism is putting it rather mildly, God
might send me to hell, (Mark 16:16 " ... but he that believeth not shall be
damned." [Jesus]). You would have to approve of this to the depths of your
being to make heaven tolerable for yourself.
You wrote earlier:
<< But it is also possible that you do understand the faith and simply
dislike it - including particular passages from scripture. That would be
your choice and responsibility. >>
I see a big problem with this. As mentioned before, it is hardly likely that
there are many Christians who "choose" to disbelieve in Christianity. It is
such a common misperception that people "choose" to disbelieve, that it
obviously requires more discussion.
"Choosing" to disbelieve is not what is happening according to my research.
If a person really thinks the evidence points to something being true or not
then their belief is not a choice, it is a natural and unavoidable state of
mind. I cannot help but believe that I am typing at the moment, there is no
choice in this belief. I also do not believe the world is flat, not through
choice or stubbornness, but by being convinced by the arguments and
evidence.
However, if people attempt to choose belief then they are forcing themselves
to believe something that they are to some extent dubious about and which
may not even fit easily with their perceptions of the world. This is not
honest and, if a very encompassing belief, is likely to result in
psychological tension. It may partly explain why so many ex-Christians
report a much improved mental health after leaving Christianity following
the initial shock stages of deconversion.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/quotes.html
Personally, I did not choose to disbelieve in Christianity any more than I
choose not to believe there is an invisible pink unicorn floating in the air
in front of me. I am simply no longer that credulous, and cannot force
myself to believe in Christianity when research and reflection has lead me
to the conclusion that Christian claims are not true. Neither do I find it
virtuous or responsible to make oneself believe things, even if it were
psychologically possible to believe something you don't believe!
So no, I have no responsibility for what I happen to believe. Honest belief
is something that happens to a person based largely on the knowledge and
understanding they have and how they perceive the world. I neither choose to
disbelieve in Christianity nor am I responsible for the beliefs that happen
to me. On the other hand, if others make themselves believe things, and
think that believing things is a virtue, then maybe those people are
choosing and are responsible for dishonesty.
The responsibility issue lies in investigating ones beliefs. One can choose
to investigate but cannot honestly, or morally, "choose" what to believe.
I wrote:
>... divine commands of rape, dismemberment of pregnant women ...
You replied:
<< Where are the first two given divine *approval*? >>
"Approval" is your word, but according to the bible there are divine
commands in the verses I gave previously. Commands (even if not "approved")
are bad enough, but how a god does not approve of his own commands requires
some explaining!
Regarding the first two:
Rape:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a
man."
"Save (virgins) for yourself" hardly means something merciful to these
warriors who have just been killing boys etc.
Dismemberment of pregnant women:
Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have
rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones
will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open."
Even if one horrifically granted that "rebelling against God" should justly
result in a massacre, why are foetuses to be punished? Again, would you use
the "because they rebelled against their God" defence at a war crimes
investigation? Would you have done this if you were one of Moses tribe? If
you thought God told you to kill boys, sucklings, little ones and hamstring
horses, would you do it or would you start to wonder if it really is a
"good god" giving these commands?
I used to wonder just how awful the bible god has to be before some
Christians would notice that something is up. My time on the ex-Christian
mailing list taught me that some Christians are so deeply wrapped up in
Christianity that nothing would have shown them how immoral some bible
passages are. Until the perceptive ability dawns to see baby massacre as
wrong, even for a god, then there really is no hope for compassion. After
all, some people really do perform such deeds, and are able to rationalise
it as just to themselves. However, the perceptive ability to recognise how
awful this is can and does eventually fully dawn for some people, so there
is a point in discussing it. I find it hard to believe you would feel this
massacre was justified if you watched it happening with your own eyes.
"the Lord says ... kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and
sheep, camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:3) etc.
Under what circumstances is a divine command to do this good? Do you believe
2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness"? Do you believe that the bible really is "God's word"? If so,
why and how do you believe the bible God is good in the face of such
passages?
How are divine commands to kill sucklings etc. good for instruction in
righteousness? Imagine I was a doubting Christian asking such a question to
my church elders. As I said, some people have left for precisely this
reason.
<Begin Quote - from the ex-Christian archives>
On the other hand, my friend's grandmother had been a Christian for over
65 years, and we converted her in one evening. A record to be sure,
but it was so easy because she valued her own judgement over the
comforts of the Christian religion. With her, it all started when Troy
(my friend, her grandson) mentioned something about God ordering
the death of babies. She said "there ain't no such thing like that in the
bible." We showed her, and she was shocked. To her, morality is
more important than faith, and after 65 years of Christianity, she
said "Why I had no idea, I can't believe I have been worshipping this
shit all my life." [....] The quote was 1 Samuel 15:2-3
<End Quote> http://rabendary.tesp.com/ex-tian/ex-tian.htm
To further illustrate the extent of the lack of moral insight of the bible,
in Deuteronomy 22:20 etc. we are told that if a man marries a woman,
and she isn't a virgin, she is to be stoned to death. (Note no stoning for
non-virgin husbands). In the same chapter, we are told that if a man
rapes a married woman, he is to be stoned. However, if he rapes an
unmarried woman, he has to marry her and pay her father 50 pieces
of silver. So, in the first of these last two cases he isn't stoned for
violently violating a woman, it is because he dishonoured his fellow
male (i.e. the punishment is a function of her marital status!) If a woman
is not married and is raped, the man's punishment is that he has to then
marry (and hence presumably provide for) the woman he raped. How
she feels about spending the rest of her life with her rapist is not even
considered!
Is God really able to do anything at all and still be thought good by a
Christian? If so what meaning is there to "good" for Christians? If I
suggested that maybe the universe was created by a malevolent being
who set about to confuse his creation and engineered a horrific system
(easy to miraculously anaesthetise himself on a cross) whereby millions
would be tortured for ever whilst the others praised Him for eternity for
His divine justice and love, how could one distinguish this wicked being
from the Christian god? What a power trip for such a being! Does
"anything go" for the Christian god and is he beyond reproach or criticism?
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/2/2front96.html
<< I accept I have not satisfied you - I'm saying I have done my best,
something I alone can judge competently. >>
You put me at ease by explaining you choose to write back to me, and while
you continue writing, you obviously think you do have more to say. One is
sometimes not the best judge of ones own abilities, hence peer review,
teaching etc. Rather than merely accept your low judgement of yourself, I
would like to test it by my asking more questions and probing further and
see if you have anything to say. But there is more that makes me dubious.
I am not baiting you here, rather it is a serious question which may show
that Christianity is more uncertain to Christians than they admit. Have you
really nothing to say about why you have not given away all your money to
the poor (Luke 18:22, surely you must have a reason), why "The Lord said to
Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Joshua 11:6), why "the
Lord says ... kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep,
camel and ass" (1 Samuel 15:3) etc.?
There is so much I have asked that is very basic. I find it very hard to
believe that an intelligent person does not have an opinion on this.
I quoted:
>1 Peter 3:15 "... be ready always to give an answer to every man that
>asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
You replied:
<< In context this clearly means: be ready to give in humility an exposition
of the faith. That is not the same thing as debating whether it is true or
not. I take my cue from scripture itself, which never debates whether God
exists but rather speaks of God. >>
Well, I initially enquired why you became a Christian and you refused to
explain, which is your right (I am not condoning scripture). I know what
your "hope" is, I wish to know the "reason" for it though. To explain why
you have such "hope" is surely more accurate than interpreting this passage
to mean "an exposition of the faith." To merely state what Christianity is
claimed to be does not explain why somebody believes it to be true or why
anyone else should believe it. A mere "exposition of the faith" turns
Christian exegesis into a school R.E. lesson.
You previously advised me that doubters should take their questions to
elders, whereas now you are saying that Christians should only expound the
faith (which is hardly answering my questions or assuaging doubts). It is
again very easy to find Christians who disagree with you over this.
Glenn Miller, of the famous "Christian Thinktank" at
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ , heads his site with 1 Thessalonians
5:21 "Critically examine everything: hold on to the good." Miller certainly
thinks that every question should be tackled and has a wide Christian
readership and admiration. He has engaged in lengthy learned debates with
critics and does not shy away from "gut-wrenching questions," as he calls
them. I wrote to him last February about the asymmetry of conversion and he
is planning a response.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/glennmiller.html
There are plenty of other examples like this if you want me to list some of
them.
Scripture does seek to persuade that God exists rather than merely assume
the Christian god's existence. Paul says in Romans 1:20 "For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead
so that they are without excuse." That sounds like he is trying to use the
argument from design, or possibly the cosmological argument or the argument
from religious experience (he is not very clear), to persuade that doubters
have no reason for disbelieving in God's existence. Paul also goes to some
length to persuade people of evidences for the resurrection in other
passages. At various points he criticises people's behaviours and attempts
to persuade them to act differently etc. We are not party to the other side
of the conversation, but for Paul to argue against beliefs and practises of
others sounds pretty much like "debate" even if not formal.
There is also the story of Baal versus God lighting a fire (1 Kings 18:19
etc.). That sounds like a vigorous demonstration of who exists and who does
not, rather than a mere assumption or just "speaking of God."
<< I doubt we would ever "get to the bottom", or even reduce it to a
comprehensive set of yes/no propositions on which we take opposite sides. >>
Perhaps "get to the bottom" was an over optimistic phrase of mine. At
another point I said, "I merely wish to investigate, to seek, and to get as
deep into the big questions as possible" which is more realistic.
Nevertheless it certainly is possible to get very far indeed as I have
already pointed out. I have many examples of very intelligent Christians who
debated and discussed at length and found that the argument certainly did
not go round and round. e.g.
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/email/ex-tian/Ed_Babinski.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/beyond_born_again/intro.html
I do not know what << even reduce it to a comprehensive set of yes/no
propositions on which we take opposite sides >> means exactly but it sounds
rather sterile and not the all-encompassing search that I am after. Even a
little reflection and new insight (on both sides) would be good.
You say << an argument not settled in over 2000 years was unlikely to be
settled in the timescale of my reading. >> However, as I have discussed, the
argument very often is settled. Arguments are accepted or not by
individuals, institutions notoriously hang on for longer but even they
change their positions. Even modern fundamentalists are a long way from
Martin Luther's view of the world, and as for the C of E....
There are still communist parties around the world, generations after Marx
and Engels; does this mean that there is no point arguing over whether
communism is the way to live? Even more pertinent for yourself, the
argument over creationism is still not settled for many even since
Darwin, but you still think it an argument worth discussing.
Concluding that Christianity is false (or true) and even changing ones
opinion generally takes some years, rather than "over 2000." The argument
is far from pointless and is often settled in the time-scale of people's
reading. Ironically it is a lack of reading of critical material that often
seems to keep Christianity going - that's the asymmetry of conversion!
<< I have thought about them, but I find that beyond a certain point the
debate just goes round and round and meanwhile life must go on. >>
Possibly for your personal past experience, although I wonder if you are
doing yourself an injustice. However, often and for many people these
discussions are more decisive. Whilst you reply to me then it looks like the
debate is not going around and around, it looks rather that you have more to
say and I have more to reply to. I am quite happy to put your statement to
the test and see how far we get, which as far as I am concerned is something
of an experiment.
Something convinced you to become a Christian. Even if this was a religious
experience you will have believed this to be veridical enough to have faith
in, rather than it being some idle thought. To be persuaded by something is
a form of argument.
If Christianity is false in its divine claims, and truth lies outside of it,
would you want to be a Christian? For my part, if Christianity (or another
religion) is true then I would want to follow that true path. Before anyone
asks me to make the "sinners prayer" remember that I, and others, have
spent a lot of time doing such things in our pasts and that until we have
any reason to suspect that Christianity is the true religion we also have
to pray to all the other gods we don't believe in. Even if I work through
all the possible gods and religions alphabetically, (Aeolus, Aether, Aethon,
Aglaia, Allah, Amphitrite, Ananke, Anteros, Apatis, Apeliotes, Aphrodite,
Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Astraea, Astraeus, Ate, Athena, Atlas,
Atropos, Aura, Baal, Bacchus, Bia, Boreas, Caliope, Carpo, Chaos, Charis,
Charites, Charon, Chloris etc. etc. ) it may still be a while before
reaching the Christian bible god. I don't think Christianity would be of
special interest to me if it wasn't in my culture and personal past.
A great deal of what I ask goes unanswered in your replies. I have little
doubt that you have more native intelligence than I and can think these
questions through. You previously told me that those with questions should
take them to their elders. If these elders refuse to or cannot answer
difficult questions then since it has been legal to air such questions for a
while now (unlike most of Christian history), this could be another reason
why Christianity may continue its decline. Indeed it is laughable, if not so
tragic, that you state that the truth of Christianity is an argument not
settled in 2000 years. The "truth of Christianity" has largely been
maintained by powerful churches and religious states with ruthless
persecution and murder of heretics. There were people trying to discuss it,
but freedom of thought is a relatively new phenomenon. Death for heretics
and atheists is rare now, persecution is more psychological and religious
people save their killing for other religious people. It was once seriously
debated whether there even is such a thing as an atheist, but now there are
many millions and we are pretty obvious. The Arch-Bishop of Canterbury
recently stated that he thought Christianity could be a dead religion in the
UK within a generation (though, I doubt that) and a recent large BBC poll
once again found a dramatic decline in religious belief over a few years.
<< Those Christians who do not hold the same view as me do not generally
interpret the relevant scriptures differently; they mostly just ignore them.
>>
I think that might be a contentious claim amongst Christians, but I'll leave
it for the meantime, because by your own admission you cannot now ignore
scriptural passages:-
1) 1 Thessalonians 5:21
2) How do you reconcile a scriptural approach to the bible and a belief in a
good god with divine commands to kill babies and animals etc? (e.g. 1 Samuel
15:3)
3) Why do you not obey Luke 18:22?
You said earlier:
<< all of the arguments I have encountered I have pondered on. >>
So what are your thoughts as you ponder these questions?
<< A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is who the bible says he
is and accepts his authority. Such people are still free to ignore what
Jesus says but it is inconsistent to say the least, and to them I would add
that it is dangerous and foolish. >>
The problem is different interpretations of so-called "clear" bible
passages. There are many different interpretations of "who Jesus says
he is" and much else besides. Hence the different Christian sects and
denominations, heretics and inquisitions etc. and even unbelievers.
Those Christians you disagree with, you may claim are unscriptural.
They will also claim you don't understand. Remember not to call anyone
"foolish" though.
"But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
(Jesus) Mat 5:22
See http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/babble.html#fool
I wrote:
>It worries me to hear you say:
><< For a Christian to apologise for his faith is misguided, and also
>dangerous, for Jesus gave a warning to believers who act ashamed of him. >>
>
>Are you afraid of what might happen to you, what Jesus might do to you or
>not give you if you ask questions?
You replied:
<< ???? He warned about apologising for him, not about asking questions. >>
It still looks to me that some Christians are worried Jesus is going to hurt
them if they do something he disapproves of. You said << to ignore what
Jesus says ... is dangerous >> So what are you afraid of if you ignore "what
Jesus says" ?
Could you explain what you mean here by "apologising?" I have asked some
very basic questions that you have not answered. This does not necessarily
need to involve any "apologising." The general term for defending Christian
dogma is "apologetics," I trust this isn't causing confusion, which you have
already engaged in.
Sorry for another massive email. If you want to respond, why not put me on a
"slow burner?" I have other low frequency correspondents like this with whom
I have interesting conversations. It also avoids eating too much into each
others time and gives more thinking space.
Regards,
Steve
----------------
Leaving Christianity: www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html
Continued here.