The silver problem...
Fred Titanich gets my appreciation for his dedication. I might add that since a cubic foot of silver weighs 628.3636 pounds, to have 32,543 pounds per square foot loaded into the temple, the silver would have to be piled 51.79 feet high. Given that the temple was only 43.75 feet high, it would take a miracle to get that much silver into the edifice, not even counting the gold, bronze, iron and the huge number of personnel.
(Neil Slater, 17910 W. Spring Lake Drive SE, Renton, WA 98058 e-mail, agnostical@msn.com)
Editor's Note: No dyed-in-the-wool inerrantist would let a little matter like this shake his faith in the unbelievable. This problem was pointed out in an internet forum that I participate in, and some biblicist came to the rescue with an "explanation." The temple had a basement, and that was where most of the gold and silver was kept.
See how simple it is to prove biblical inerrancy?
Winnie the Pooh...
Your lighthearted but surgical anatomization of the Wholly Babble reveals the so-called "Good Book" to be exactly what it is, i. e., an amiable screed that provides moral uplift for homicidal maniacs, willful ignoramuses, and pocket-lining politicians. Fortunately for me, I've never had any use for the gospels. I've known Winnie the Pooh as my personal savior for over 64 years. With just a little pot of honey as a think-offering, you can know him too.
(John Carver, 10517 Oklahoma Avenue, Chatsworth, CA 91311)
Editor's Note: I think I detected a bit of sarcasm in Mr. Carver's comments, but as long as people continue to cling to ridiculous superstitions that should have died long ago, their holy book will continue to be ridiculed by rational people who can see the absurdity in claiming that it is "the inspired, inerrant word of God."
On one point, I disagree with Mr. Carver. I would call the Bible a tiresome screed, because it is tedious to read. I wouldn't bother to study it were it not for the number of people who almost worship it. I haven't used the word "bibliolater" in quite a while, because so many Bible believers complained about being accused of worshiping a book, but the more I debate inerrantists, the more it seems to me that "bibliolater" is an appropriate word to describe their attitude toward the Bible. As for its being an "amiable screed," I just can't see much amiability in a book that glorifies a bloodthirsty tribal god who would order the massacre of children and babies and who has decreed the eternal damnation of people who just sincerely cannot believe in biblical nonsense.
Is Bradford a scientist? Please don't refer to Dr. Michæl C. J. Bradford as a scientist. A scientist would be ashamed to have published what he writes. Dr. Bradford is an engineer not a scientist.
Engineers have a completely different outlook from scientists. Scientists thrive on uncertainty and ambiguity engineers want certainty and clarity. Scientists work to expand the boundaries of knowledge engineers apply scientific knowledge to develop new technology. Early scientists were called natural scientists because they rejected supernatural causation as they still do.
Engineers have a book they turn to when confronted with problems in Dr. Bradford's field it's the "Chemical Engineers' Handbook," which is more than 1000 pages long scientists have no such book, since scientific knowledge is always changing. I'm not surprised Dr. Bradford is a Christian, since in the Bible he has a book he can turn to that also gives him the answers.
I'm also not surprised that Dr. Bradford, an engineer, believes the burden is on atheists to disprove the existence of God. That is not science. Scientists must prove something exists. In their research scientists adopt the minimum number of hypotheses and discard any which prove to be unnecessary. Discarding God as an unnecessary hypothesis was the beginning of science.
(Ross F. Firestone, Ph.D., 188 Mary Street, Winnetka, IL 60093 e-mail, rffphd@interaccess.com)
Editor's Note: Whether an engineer should be considered a scientist or not is really unimportant, because people in all areas of science have indicated an inability to apply to religion the same rationality that they apply to science. I have somewhere in my paper files a list of people with Ph. D. degrees from various prestigious universities, such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Sanford, etc., who have written apologetic books and articles on behalf of Mormonism. A news network reported that physicians and nurses cheered and applauded as TV scenes of the suicide bombings of the World Trade Center were shown in Saudi Arabian hospitals.
A treacherous thing about religion is that it seems to have an insidious ability to override rational thinking.
Bradford's problem...
The problem of the Bradfords of the world is that they aren't capable of attempting to visualize exactly how the composers of ancient biblical texts viewed the "known world" then with the "known universe" of the modern era. They often take our scientifically discovered knowledge of the past four hundred years and interpret it into the poorly translated texts (the King James Version) of the copies of nonexistent original documents.
It does perplex me how "the Bradfords" don't seem to ask themselves why their particular god/ Jesus/Satan did not educate their people beyond religious philosophic discussions and cultural arts advice. You don't find anything that would be considered useful in biblical texts like sanitation systems, water treatment, medical knowledge, geography, science (oceanography, meteorology, geology, metallurgy, etc.). The biblical text is mostly about Hebrew historical fiction and the emerging Christianity that the church used to establish its authoritative political and military powers.
Since the Hebrew God walked with Abraham, one has to wonder why this Hebrew God did not educate Abraham about Earth and Galaxies and scientific knowledge. Couldn't their god draw diagrams on the ground or on parchments to educate them and give them knowledge beyond what was then known? I can think of lots of different knowledge, which if given to the Hebrew tribe would have provided them with the means to have totally conquered the whole planet world!
And, the same with the mythical Jesus. Read some of the Gnostic Gospels! In the Dialogue of the Saviour, attributed to Jesus, he was asked by Judah why does the Earth shake when it moves. Jesus picked up a rock in his hand and asked Judah what he had. Well, of course, a rock in the hand. So, Jesus dropped the rock and told him that the earth would fall like the rock if it moved-it was the Hand (Word) of God that held up the fixed earth and it does not move. In Matthew 4:8, "the devil took Him [Jesus] up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." Again, the devil, Jesus and the composer of Matthew didn't know that the earth was a planet and that you couldn't see all of the "kingdoms" of the world from one vantage point. They could have seen only the surrounding kingdoms of the then known world around Palestine.
Wouldn't it have been very significant if Jesus had shown and told Judah that the Earth was shaped like a round pebble, turning on its axis for the apparent sunrise/sunset, and that it orbited around the sun (bright light in the day sky) just like eight other planets, comets and asteroids did! Or, that, yes, you could see all of the surrounding known kingdoms from a high mountain peak but there were lands, civilizations and oceans beyond the horizon and that by traveling eastward by land and by sea, you would eventually return to this place?
"The Bradfords" need to reconsider and "think" of what they would or could have accomplished if they could physically time travel back to these periods themselves. What could they have taught? If the Hebrew God and Jesus had educated the same, would we now be a more advanced civilization by two to three thousand years? Yes! We could have achieved this too if the sciences and mathematics of the Greeks weren't destroyed by Christians eighteen hundred years ago. And, today, the Protestant fundamentalist creationists are attempting to eliminate sciences again. And, the preachers from the pulpits have been relentlessly reading from the two-thousand-year-old Bible for centuries-has that produced a better world? Has that made us a better people? Not really. Isn't it time for them to put away the Bible as a historical fiction and start teaching science, secular humanist morals and ethics, and bring us forward into the 21st Century and beyond? We'll have to for our own long term survival as the intelligent and wonderful species that we are and can become. Bible preaching won't!
(Chet Twarog, 100 Tower Street, Apt 412, Hudson, MA 01749-1770 e-mail, ctwarog@ hotmail.com)
Editor's Note: When I discuss this same subject with biblicists, I use the example of Exodus 25-40. Of all the things that an omniscient god could have revealed that would have helped all humanity, he used almost all the space in these chapters to give intricate instructions on how to make a tent, its curtains, and its furnishings. While thousands of people were dying from diseases caused by poor sanitation, the god of the universe was more interested in ceremonial trivia than information that could have benefited all people. Don't Bible believers ever wonder about such absurdities as this? Apparently they don't.
Bradford's logical error...
Michael Bradford's comment about Till's "faith" in atheism is based on a common error, namely that a logical belief in atheism requires the disproof of all possible deities. It does not.
Many atheists, including me, have rejected the God hypothesis for lack of evidence. We have searched the facts diligently, in the process studying the Bible far more seriously than most Christians ever will, and we have concluded that God, as might be understood by most religious people, is not much more credible than Santa Claus. Like Santa Claus, the God hypothesis not only lacks evidence but actually contradicts established principles. We do not assert that God, in every conceivable form, has been disproved-only that the concept has no credible support.
If someone claims that giant, ten-foot, green spiders secretly rule San Diego, must we identify all the characteristics of said spiders before we can rationally reject the claim? In rejecting such a claim, are we, in fact, saying that such a thing does not exist? Or, more prudently, might we be saying that, without serious evidence, given the fact that the claim contradicts good scientific principles, and given that a reasonable search has turned up no such creatures, such a claim should not be taken seriously?
The skeptic does not have the duty of proving that those green spiders don't exist. The burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who advocate such a thing. The case for the giant, green spiders cannot be made respectable by demanding that skeptics disprove the claim. It follows, then, that atheism only needs to note the lack of credibility inherent in theism. The view that needs to be justified is theism- not atheism. Therefore, the atheist's position, as given here, is hardly futile. All he or she asks for is the same degree of credibility for theism as for any reasonably established claim. As for supernaturalism, it need not be ruled out dogmatically. It may be rejected on the grounds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The extraordinary claims that supernaturalism makes about reality have never been backed up with extraordinary proof. Absolute certainty is never the requirement for proof, as discussed here. Rather, all the common explanations must be effectively eliminated before we reach for the exotic ones. Until supernaturalism passes this test, it will never be accepted by rational, objective minds.
We might also note that supernaturalism is not on par with naturalism. If we are to talk intelligently about our physical universe, we must accept the axioms of nature. Only then does it make sense to talk about supernatural realms beyond the natural. Thus, supernaturalism, in any form useful to theism, involves a secondary level of assumptions imposed or grafted upon the natural universe. Furthermore, as far as anyone can tell, the natural universe can stand all by itself, making these secondary assumptions unnecessary. Therefore, the fact that both naturalism and supernaturalism ultimately rest upon axioms does not mean that they are of equal value.
Finally, Michael Bradford asserts that faith in Jesus Christ is based on empirical, documented, historical evidence. He concludes with: "Till's extreme belief that Jesus Christ may never have lived at all... demonstrates, even in liberal circles, his apparent ignorance of or contempt for available historical evidence."
It seems that Mr. Bradford is wholly unaware of how thin, almost nonexistent, the evidence is for Jesus! Perhaps, a review of some of G. A. Wells' books would serve as an antidote for the bloated claims of McDowell and others. If a recent work by a noted Bible scholar is sought, then I recommend "Deconstructing Jesus" by Robert M. Price. Jesus, the man, may or may not have existed. Although most scholars say "yes," nobody really knows. All we can say is that a reasonable view of him, as an obscure preacher of the imminent end of the world, or as a charismatic miracle worker, would have fit in with those times. As for the Jesus "canonized" today, he is the creation of the early church and modeled after the many pagan savior gods and/or sun gods.
As any good scholar will note, the Gospels are not historical accounts, leaving almost no support other than forged interpolations or documents simply mentioning Christianity's tenets. Till's position is hardly extreme and is actually supported by a minority of scholars.
(Dave Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P. O. 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116 e-mail, 103514. 3640@compuserve.com)
Editor's Note: Some biblicists will no doubt react with, " Giant spiders controlling San Diego? That's too unlikely to require serious consideration." Well, of course, it is, and I suspect that Matson postulated such a scenario for that very reason. To my mind, giant green spiders controlling a city is no more incredible than a world under the control of an invisible spirit in the sky, but because so many people have bought the idea of this invisible spirit in the sky, it has become necessary to counter the idea with equally absurd scenarios.
Let's substitute alien beings for the green spiders. If someone should seriously claim that alien beings have come to earth, assumed human form, and taken control of the government bodies of San Diego, would anyone reading this feel any compelling need to prove that alien beings have not done all this? Of course not. The reaction of reasonable people would be that the one asserting this extraordinary claim has the burden of proving it is true.
I don't think any readers would disagree with me on this, but, for some reason, when the extraordinary assertion is that a spirit in the sky controls the world, many people think that those who don't buy the idea should have the burden of proving that it is not true.
Go figure.
Different realms of knowledge? As a former Christian of the fundamentalist flavor, I find it interesting to see how many people ascribing to various religions can accept the subjective mush in their heads as "truth." I practiced this mush-acceptance for twenty-five years and even had opportunity to teach my fellow fools how to do it. Rational/critical thought was to be rejected. Objectivity was to be avoided. I used the Bible to buttress my teachings. Subjectivity was to rule.
I open my comments this way to bring focus on the recent letter ("A shift in policy," p. 15) by Mr. Steven D. Brown in the September/ October issue. Brown essentially believes there is a "middle way" between the acceptance of the fullness of what scientific thought has to offer and "the fullness of life that is available" through one of the gods. Is that not subjective mush?
He goes on to say that his view of the Bible is that it is indeed a book brimming with error but that it also contains "truth." Brown does not tell us how he is able to differentiate. No doubt, by subjective selection as all the bible-based factions do. I was quite adept at this game- playing to maintain the delusions I called "faith." Faith is nothing but make believe, but that's a subject for a separate letter.
Then Brown would persuade us with his "assumption that there are different `realms' of knowledge." One of these is the "nonrational realm." His flawed comparison between the truth that 2+2=4 and "Beethoven's 5th Symphony is a beautiful piece of music" being another truth will not stand. The former truth is objective truth, whereas the latter is only subjective. There are many people who think that the Beethoven piece is horrible as they apply a different criterion of subjective thinking. This illustrates why religions clash-different ways of viewing that which is called "truth." Witness the horrible clash now between Muslim madness and Christian outrage. The struggle is over what people have in their heads, not "truths." Beliefs and truths are not the same thing is the point.
Brown's finding fault with reason since "it can never provide us with the answers to the questions that are most significant for human beings-the `why' questions that dwell in our innermost selves," is a smoke-screen statement. In any quest for knowledge one must first accurately define the questions. Brown has failed in this. His acceptance of fuzzy thinking as revealed in his letter to TSR shows he has a long way to go before he finds objective truth to the "why" questions. He needs first to question his answers. I began to have better answers to those "why" questions when I started on the road to understanding the differences between objective and subjective thinking. I would suggest Brown also attempt better understanding of the concepts. Such a study will likely free him from his present state of muddled thinking. His present level of courage to read TSR is a hopeful start.
(Jim Baldwin, P. O. Box 320, Charlestown, NH 03603 e-mail, jimbo@fmis.net)
Editor's Note: Since I commented on Brown's letter in the September/October issue, I have nothing to add to Mr. Baldwin's comments except to reiterate that attempts to give equal credibility to supernatural and naturalistic suppositions and objective and subjective "truths" is irrational.
History mentions Jesus?
I want to say that I enjoyed reading your July/August issue, which David Beebe allowed me to read. I want to tell you that I am a Christian who loves the Lord Jesus with all my heart, but I also like to believe that I have an open mind and will debate anyone without getting mad because a person does not believe the way I do. I will be looking forward to writing debates for your paper! I do love to expand my belief by good-hearted and good-natured debate.
I would like to make a comment to your editor's note to Glenn Woods, Sr., page 14, concerning Jesus. First, "history" does mention Jesus being crucified. You can find this in both Roman and Jewish history (not to mention a few others). I do recognize the fact that the sections are very short, due to the fact that Jerusalem was not very important to anyone back then. So who cared who got crucified? As to believing in Jesus and the message that he taught, we have to believe in faith that his message is real. We can do this just like we believe that there is "air." We cannot see it, but that does not mean it is not there. Yes, I am going to enjoy these refreshing arguments.
Due to the fact that the library at this institution "sucks" as far as information goes, I am in the process of obtaining some scientific and historically accurate books for debating purposes. You wouldn't by chance happen to have an old dog-eared copy of H. G. Wells’ Outline of World History, would you? Oh, well, I thought I would ask. Do you ever argue evolution?
Well, Mr. Till, please take care and please add my name to the subscription list. Do you take stamps as payment? My financial situation in prison is not exactly on the high-class side, but I do get stamps from time to time. Take care and may the God that I believe in bless you.
(Randall T. Prater #099405/ F3110-L, Hamilton Correctional Institution Annex, 11419 County Road 249, Jasper, FL 32052)
Editor's Note: Oh, my, I hardly know where to begin my reply to this letter. First, Mr. Prater will know when he receives this issue that I have added him to the TSR mailing list. If he wishes to send stamps as payment for his subscription, he may, but my policy has been to give free subscriptions to prison inmates who are unable to pay.
As for Mr. Prater's desire to "debate," I'll give consideration to any material he sends, but I doubt that much of what he sends will be published. Inmates don't have access to computers, so Prater's articles would be handwritten, as his letter was. I rarely publish articles submitted in hardcopy because setting them up takes too much time, so as long as I have a backlog of electronically submitted articles, for obvious reasons, I am going to use them. An article submitted in hardcopy would have to be especially good before I would consider it.
Besides that problem, Mr. Prater's letter indicates that he is probably not qualified to debate biblical matters with any appreciable degree of competence. That was shown in his claim that "history" does mention that Jesus was crucified. A great deal of flexibility must be given to the word history in order to reach that conclusion. I suspect that even Mr. Prater recognized the flimsiness of this claim, because he went on to add that the "sections" that mentioned Jesus were short and that this lack of historical details about him was due to the relative unimportance of Jerusalem.
I would need as many pages as I devoted to my reply to Mark McFall in this issue in order to reply adequately to Mr. Prater's delusions about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. The "short sections" he referred to include no doubt the controversial brief remarks about Jesus in the works of Tacitus and Suetonius and the suspected forgery in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. None of these writers were even contemporaries of Jesus, so nothing of what they said can be seen as firsthand testimony to the historicity of Jesus. The remarks by Tacitus and Suetonius amount to nothing more than statements of what Christians of their time believed about Jesus, so if Prater has nothing to offer in evidence except the hearsay comments of writers who lived after the time when Jesus was allegedly doing all of his great works in Galilee, then he has no evidence that hasn't been repeatedly answered. I will make an offer to Mr. Prater. Even though he would probably have to submit his article in hardcopy, if he can produce any evidence from disinterested, unbiased contemporaries of Jesus that he was an actual historical person, I'll be glad to take the time at my keyboard to set up his article.
An address correction... The city in Rob Marks's address (volume 12, number 5, p. 14) should be Rockton and not Rockford.
(Brian Wales, 640 North Church Street, Elkhorn, WI 53121)
Editor's Note: This was an inadvertent
mistake
that I made probably because Rockford is the larger of these two
cities, which happen to be close together. Those who wish to order the
book Is It God's Word? should notice the correction. The zip code was
right.
