You commented in your letter that you were also affiliated with the Church of Christ in the past, as was I. I had a couple of friends who attended Harding during the '60s, so am somewhat familiar with the school. I attended Cincinnati Bible Seminary during that same time period.
For years I really believed that I believed, though some doubts were difficult for me to assuage. Finally, I fell away from active participation in the church itself and I pursued other career endeavors and tried not to think too deeply about the doubts I felt. I pretended to still believe, out of habit and fear, I suppose.
Finally, I began a renewed study of scripture, actually studying it with an open mind for the first time. I realized that all of my biblical training had been undertaken from a subjective viewpoint prior to this. My new viewpoint was totally objective, or as near to it as I could manage.
I also began to study other historical documents and viewpoints outside of the bible. The picture began to become clear very rapidly. I had been misled and misdirected for most of my life in things spiritual.
After several years of rationalism and realism, I am very comfortable in my beliefs, and this has led to such peace and serenity that I cannot believe it. I am so much happier in my life. Those around me, family and friends, constantly remark at how much more at ease I have become and how much less driven I seem to be. I also feel myself to be a more moral person now than I ever felt I was as a Christian.
It would appear from the reading of one issue of your newsletter, you probably know exactly of what I speak. Sorry to bore you with the needless details, but I am so happy with who and what I now find myself to be that it's difficult not to share a little of my enthusiasm with someone who understands it.
(Bob Hypes, P. O. Box 264, Leo, IN 46765-0264)
Thanks for the video. Sorry for the return delay. Though I'm a Christian theist, I can't help but think that "Buster" should be BUSTED! What a mule-brain! Hey, no one should question things that have already been "decided"! (By who? The Church of Christ? The Catholics? Constantine?)
Hopefully, you occasionally run into a theist who thinks. There are some, you know. I try to have an open mind and think rationally; perhaps you've seen my essays in Freethought Exchange. I do believe in God and Christ but don't believe in Bible inerrancy.
(Ron Labbe, 15 Anson Street, Jamaica Plain, MA 02130)
I would hate to be in your shoes when Jesus comes.
(Anonymous with a Peoria, Illinois, postmark and a tract on the agonies of hell enclosed.)
My wife and I are most indebted to you for the loan of the video tapes of the Till-Dobbs Debate....
My wife has, until viewing the tapes, shown no interest in The Skeptical Review, considering them to be too complicated for "ordinary people," that is, those people who know nothing about the Bible except for Bible references made by the clergy and the "shopping-mall" preachers.
Having sat through a number of hours listening to the debate, my wife is now reading all The Skeptical Reviews on hand. They are lying all over the house now. In the bathroom, in the bedroom, even in the hot-tub room. She has gone crazy! She is now reading and talking, and jumping up and down, and arguing and asking questions and is on a crusade to stamp out every vestige of superstition from the planet! Boy, you can't believe it! I hope she feels better tomorrow.
We were stunned, I mean super stunned, that a purported spokesman of Mr. Dobbs' standing had nothing convincing, not even the slightest evidence in support of his position. For a time, we felt embarrassed for Mr. Dobbs, but then we became angered by his behavior.
My wife characterizes Mr. Dobbs as an arrogant, overbearing, nasty person without even a scintilla of fair play in his store of virtues. She thinks Mr. Dobbs is a troubled and tortured man and will, over time, hurt the cause of Christianity.
My thoughts are that Mr. Dobbs will certainly cause most fence-sitters to fall out on the side of nonbelief, if not outright atheism. A problem is that it is enormously more dificult to earn the right to be an atheist than it is to earn the right to be a member of one of the 260 or more sects in America.
You would have been most proud of yourself if you could have seen the effect the tapes had on us. You did indeed lay ruin to the Dobbs apologetics. If Mr. Dobbs presents the best that defenders of the faith have to offer, then perhaps finally we can see a lot more humanity toward one another and a lot less religious condemnation of all mankind....
(Len & Rita Reitz, 3660 9th Drive, Baker City, OR 97814)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Needless to say, the compliments were appreciated. The video tapes are still available on two-week loan for anyone who wants to see the utter failure of an esteemed fundamentalist editor and preacher to offer any reasonable evidence to support the prophecy-fulfillment argument.
Lindell Mitchell defends the massacre of the Amalekites, in the Winter 1994 issue, as a "holy war." The holy-war concept in itself is immoral. Contrary to his assertions, morality exists without reference to the alleged absolutism of any supernatural entity. Like most people who believe in morality, I can accept the use of force--even lethal force--to defend myself or another person from an attack, but it is a moral outrage to try to justify killing other people merely because one thinks they have somehow offended a supernatural belief system. Whether one's god is the theological entities of the Israelites or those Christians who committed the crusades, the inquisitions, and the holocaust, or the ideological entities of Nazis and Communists, whose rationale for their massacres is basically the same as used by theologians, "holy war" is inherently a moral offense.
(William Sierichs, Jr. See address at the end of Touring the Middle East Jesus Style , p. 12.)
The fundamentalist view that there is no morality without God is a view that was challenged long ago by Plato in the Euthyphro. Plato asked the question: are actions right because they are commanded by the gods, or do the gods command those actions because they are right? If the ultimate source of right and wrong is God's will, then it is not informative to say that God wills what is right. If God wills the killing of Amalekite children, then that is right. If God wills the torture of children, stealing from the poor, sexual promiscuity, or even the condemnation of fundamentalists to the fires of hell, then that is right. (And the fundamentalists cannot object that God wouldn't do this because it would be morally wrong.) In effect, this view is a form of moral subjectivism which says that God's subjective moral determinations hold for everyone. There is no deeper explanation of moral truth. By contrast, virtually all philosophers (theist and atheist alike) have wisely rejected this view in favor of a standard of morality independent of the will of God. This allows for both deeper explanation of what makes actions right and wrong (e.g., in terms of utility, hypothetical social contract, objective reasons, rationality, etc.) and allows the theist to make sense of moral evaluation of God himself. On this view, it is possible to say something informative when you say, as traditional theists do, that God is good. On the former view, to say that God is good is to utter a tautology. Fundamentalists who maintain that there is no morality without God are contradicting millennia of ethical philosophy, as any introductory moral philosophy textbook plainly illustrates. (I recommend James Rachels' The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 2nd ed., 1993, McGraw-Hill.) I should add that I think Till concedes too much when he seems to grant the fundamentalist claim that morality cannot be objective or absolute without God. The theist needs an argument to establish this claim--there are certainly a number of purportedly objective moral theories propounded by theists and atheists alike which are not dependent on the existence of God (including utilitarianism, Kantianism, and social contract theory).
On another philosophical point, Lindell Mitchell accuses Farrell Till of believing that "man's knowledge is restricted to what he gains through one of his five senses" and goes on to claim that Till "has forever shut himself off from any evidence that results from testimony." Mitchell supposes that the evidence of testimony cannot be justified on the basis of an individual's perceptions and inductive inference (as is suggested, for example, by David Hume in section ten of his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, "Of Miracles"). While Mitchell is not alone in making this claim, he needs to provide some argument to show that we cannot be justified in relying on the word of others on the basis of our past observations that most of what people tell us turns out to be correct when we check it ourselves. (This happens to be the subject of my doctoral dissertation. While I disagree with Hume in the details, I think something like what he suggests does allow for us to be justified in believing a wide variety of testimony, including the products of scientific research. Religious authority, however, does not fare as well.)
Finally, I'd like to recommend that those who have read George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God and would like to move on to something more philosophically sophisticated (a well-read theist can rebut most of Smith's arguments) try J. L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism (1982, Oxford University Press; Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (1991, Temple University Press); and Richard M. Gale's On the Nature and Existence of God (1991, Cambridge University Press). Be forewarned: the last of these is quite technical.
(Jim Lippard, doctoral candidate in philosophy [epistemology/cognitive science], University of Arizona. Personal mailing address is 2930 East First Street, Tucson, AZ 85716.)
Your cover article in the Summer 1993 issue, on some of the logical fallacies employed by Christian apologists, left a good impression on me and left me looking for more articles in The Skeptical Review in the areas of logic and critical thinking. I have quite often now seen fellow freethinkers present a Christian rebuttal and let it stand as the last word, expecting that we all know what exactly was wrong with the argument. Well, that's not always the case for some of us. And perhaps for some it is never so. Logic isn't taught much, and those of us who have had a course in it could from time to time do with a refresher.
For example, I listened to you ask Mr. Dobbs at the debate last summer a question that went something like this: "If you had an unmarried daughter who became pregnant but told you she was still a virgin, would you believe her?" Mr. Dobbs refused to answer, saying that this question was of the same stuff as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Of course, it was apparent to me that the comparison was invalid and that your opponent in the debate was merely dodging the question. But I couldn't state why. I would have liked to have been able to when, during the next intermission, I overheard two men in the foyer congratulating each other on the fine job their preacher had done in "answering" your question. But I just wasn't prepared at the time.
So I bought a textbook on logic and looked it up. The wife-beating question that was Dobbs' dodge was the second classic example given of a complex question. The book defined complex questions as those that presuppose that a definite answer has already been given to a prior question that was not even asked. Your question, though, was a purely hypothetical one. Every relevant condition was clearly and explicitly stated within the body of the question itself, save for the assumptions that must always be there--namely, that your opponent was capable of answering a question and would do so honestly.
So, you see, I appreciate articles that point out the logical flaws and look forward to seeing more articles like "Poisoning the Well."
(Earle C. Beach, 13203 Tamayo Drive, Austin, TX 78729-7403.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I have to plead guilty to assuming too much. When Dobbs made the analogy that Beach mentioned, I immediately realized that he had incorrectly treated my legitimate question as the fallacy of complex question, but it was so flagrant that I assumed it would be obvious to everyone in the audience who wasn't already hopelessly duped by fundamentalist indoctrination. At this point in the debate, Dobbs was groping for just anything to say to kill the two minutes that the rules allotted him to answer each question. That seemed so obvious that perhaps I made the mistake of assuming that his answers, which were mainly repetitious nonsense, didn't warrant comment.
Regarding Lindell Mitchell's article "The Amalekite Destruction a Moral Atrocity?" all I can say is that it has a coefficient of irrationality approaching infinity. He is completely unable to distinguish between the words infant, fetus, and embryo. Even "Saint" Thomas Aquinas stated that abortion was not murder in the first trimester. The Hippocratic oath also permits abortions prior to the "quickening" (first trimester). His article is an excellent example of what Thomas Jefferson had in mind in the last sentence of a letter that he wrote to James Smith on December 8, 1822, which reads as follows: "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities, the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." I was thinking of writing to L. Mitchell but decided to wait for signs of a decrease in his coefficient of irrationality.
(Sol Abrams, 1759 Stuart Street, Brooklyn, NY 11229.)
Lindell Mitchell has shown your fallacy and stupidity. His exchanges with you display your incompetence and explain why you spent the better part of your adult life teaching in a fourth rate school, and edit a paper with pitifully few subscribers. You, Sir, have spent your life for nothing. You are a nobody. Your life is a waste. It must be painful to come to the end of the way and realize that you have subsided into a stale pool. No wonder you bristle when someone calls to attention your fraud when you were in France. Again, I beg you to repent and make whole the widow's houses you have robbed. You will come before the judgment bar of God. I tremble for you. "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou are in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."
(H. A. "Buster" Dobbs, Editor, Firm Foundation, P. O. Box 690192, Houston, TX 77269-0192.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Apparently the wounds Mr. Dobbs suffered in our debate are smarting even more than I had suspected. After the debate, I began to hear rumors about misconduct on my part when I was working in France as a missionary. Among other things, it was being reported that I had stolen church funds and had been caught and called home in disgrace. In checking into the rumors, I found that Mr. Dobbs seemed to be the source of some of them. Despite my request that he produce evidence to support these charges, he has made no attempt to do so. Yet, as his letter above shows, he continues to make the allegations--all in the name of Christ, I assume.
Mr. Dobbs seems to find satisfaction in attacking me on a personal level. I'm just a teacher at a "fourth-rate school," and I edit a paper with "pitifully few subscribers." I am a "nobody," and my life is a "waste." Actually, this is not the first letter in which Dobbs has hurled these same insults at me, and each time I read them, I wonder what "inspired scripture" prompted him to say them. Is this the language of a man who loves his enemy (Matt. 5:44 ) and seeks to "do good to all men" (Gal. 6:10 )? As he goes about telling lies about my dishonesty as a missionary, I wonder if he considers himself in compliance with the scripture that says, "Speak evil of no man" (Titus 3:2 ). But more than any of this, I wonder if in pleading for me to "repent," he wants me to change and become as "righteous" as he is. Furthermore, if, as he says, I am in the "gall of bitterness" and in the "bond of iniquity," what terms could possibly describe the state or condition that he is in? When a man who presents himself to the world as a "gospel preacher" spreads malicious lies about another person's character in flagrant violation of scriptures that warn against such conduct (Rom. 1:29-30 ; James 3:3-6 ; Titus 3:2 ; 2 Cor. 12:20 ), then surely his condition is worse than just being in "the gall of bitterness" and "the bond of iniquity." In his long career as a preacher, I am sure that Dobbs has had occasion to use some of these very scriptures in his sermons. If so, a paraphrase of Romans 2:21 would be applicable to him: "You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who preach that a man should not lie, do you lie? You who preach that one should not backbite and gossip, do you backbite and gossip?"
Dobbs labored to associate me with "fourth-rate" schools, but this is strange talk indeed from a man who is just a preacher for a fundamentalist sect that doesn't even rank as high as fourth rate. Outside of the Bible-belt environment that spawned it, the "Church of Christ" is hardly even known, and, even now, it is an anachronism that is steadily disintegrating despite a coalition of old-guard preachers that is frantically struggling to hold back a tide of enlightening influences that make it virtually impossible for rank-and-file members to continue believing the absurdities of the Bible inerrancy doctrine.
As for whether I have "wasted" my life or not, I am willing to let time make that judgment. Results of the most comprehensive study of religious beliefs yet undertaken in the United States have been published in Barry Kasmin's and Seymour Lachman's One Nation Under God (Harmony Books), and the study reveals that only an insignificant minority of Americans (fewer than 19%) take their church doctrines seriously. As the years pass, this number will no doubt diminish even more, so when there is nothing left of Dobbs and me but dust; and belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible no longer exists; and his "Church of Christ," which he ballyhoos as the "only true church," has also ceased to exist; then there should be no debate about which one of our lives was a "waste." Meanwhile, the "pitifully few subscribers" to TSR continue to increase, and at the present rate of growth will easily pass 1,000 before year's end. Dobbs may consider this number "pitifully few," but I will pit the critical thinking skills of TSR's 900 subscribers against those of the Firm Foundation's thousands (?) any day.
Elsewhere in Dobbs' letter, he challenged me to prove that important events in the life of Jesus had their parallels in pagan religions that existed before the Christian era. In response, I sent a letter to Dobbs proposing that he and I debate this issue publicly. If he will affirm that the Jesus of the gospels was an actual historical character, I will affirm that the virgin-born, miracle-working, crucified, resurrected savior was a common belief in pagan religions before the time that Jesus of Nazareth allegedly lived. Dobbs's reaction to this proposal will let us know if he has the courage to put his faith where his mouth is. My prediction is that he won't touch this issue with a ten-foot pole, and the reason why he won't can be found in an old proverb that says, "A burnt dog is afraid of fire."
Enclosed is my second negative, it slightly exceeds the agreed upon length limit. However, you violated our agreement by using a large portion of your "response" to Bill Lockwood in an attempt to keep your sinking ship afloat. Therefore, I expect my response to appear in totality. You also violated our signed agreement when you called me a fool. You were unable to sustain your position, so you resorted to bluster. They were bold words for a balding old guy. It is easy to be bold when you are not face to face. I suspect you are a real "woolly-booger" to a trembling Freshman. Tough talk doesn't scare me Mr. Till, and it doesn't establish your position.
I took no pleasure in exposing your profound ignorance. It is truly incredible to observe how intellectually debased a man can become in just one lifetime.
You may continue to send me copies of your paper if you like. However, I am closing our debate on 1 Samuel 15 at this point. I refuse to continue the discussion for these reasons. First, we have completed the agreed number of exchanges. Second, you did not keep your end of the agreement. Third, I have reduced your position to ruin. Fourth, you persistently introduce irrelevant material and steadfastly refuse to grapple with the issue at hand.
You are obviously trying to make a name for yourself by attacking Christians. Your level of desperation is seen in the fact that you had to jump on a country preacher like me. When I trounced you in your own paper, any shred of credibility you had evaporated. Now you stand before the world poor, blind, and naked. There is little more to commend you than arrogance and unmitigated gall. How sad.
(Lindell Mitchell, P. O. Box 411, Livingston, TX 77351.)
Editor's Note: Gee, I'm sorry I applied to Mr. Mitchell a scripture that contained the word fool. I can tell by the tone of the letters he writes to me that he is just an all-around good guy who would never say anything disrespectful to anyone. A Christian, of course, wouldn't even consider quoting a scripture, say, Psalm 14:1 , that would suggest the atheist is a fool, so I can certainly see why Mitchell is upset.
The really frightening thing about his letter is that he probably does believe that he "trounced" me in my own paper, because he apparently can't see that he begged the question throughout the exchange and especially in his latest article. On the other hand, if Mitchell really does believe that he scored a big one for God in this debate, one has to wonder why he wouldn't want to keep trouncing me, yet he has stated emphatically that he will not continue the discussion. Our exchange of articles has generated more letters and submission of articles than anything yet published in TSR. The next issue will contain some of these materials, advanced copies of which will be sent to Mitchell so that he may respond to them if he wishes to do so. I predict that he won't. Methinks he just doesn't have the stomach to do any more trouncings.
I suspect some readers will be writing to Mr. Mitchell. If
you do, please send me copies.
