I was a guest of Gene Cook of "Unchained Radio" on his show "The Narrow Mind" on June 7, 2006. I asked for permission to host the MP3 of the show on my site and he graciously agreed. Use this link to download if interested, though I think my follow-up below goes over my arguments better than I did in the show. My show follow-up:
Gene quotes a Christian saying, "Gene Cook walked all
over Jacobson in this show." I can accept that I'm not the best debater, not
quick enough on my feet. And I suppose for that reason maybe I shouldn't have
volunteered to go on the show. But I wanted to see how I could do. Frankly,
probably not as well as I'd have like to. I'd say that I didn't have good
answers for a number of issues, at least I wasn't able to pop up with them.
Still, I think I did make a fair number of good points, even if I didn't get the
chance to flesh them all out. So, here are some of the things I should have
added to the conversation:
On Job:
I said that in Job, Satan is "the accusor", a member of God's court that acts as
a prosecuting attorney. Ask a Jew about this if you don't believe me. If Satan
is God's enemy as Christians claim, then why is God even talking to him? Why is
he allowing himself to be talked into things by the master of evil?
Also note that obviously God went along with it, right? Satan was allowed to
kill Job's children and servants, and God gave him permission. They are both
using man as pawns so as to prove their points. Like a bar bet. Is God, by
allowing himself to be talked into letting Satan kill Job's family any more
'virtuous' than Satan that did the deed? How is Satan any more of an enemy of
man than God himself, at least from the perspective of this story?
Gene said that the Book of Job shows that Satan is indeed the enemy of man. Is
this really true? Satan in this story basically saying, "man (Job) is primarily
self interested." But isn't this what Christianity says? Doesn't Paul himself
say that he doesn't do what he should do, due to his own selfishness? So if Paul
doesn't always do what he should do, then why is it so terribly of Satan to say
that Job might not always do what he should do? That's all Satan is saying. So
how is Satan (in this story) saying anything substantially different that what
Christianity says?
Also, doesn't God know everything including the future, and doesn't Satan know
this? How could Satan possibly challenge God if God knows everything? That would
be like Satan betting on a football game, "I betcha the Rams" win--on a game
that God has already seen who wins. How could this make any sense?
For more information on Satan, I'd like to recommend a couple of my articles:
The Implausibility of Satan
The History of Satan
On Judaism and the afterlife:
I said on the show that Judaism doesn't have heaven and hell or even an
afterlife. Gene disagreed, and listed a specific verse of the OT alluding to an
afterlife. It is true that there is some references to an afterlife, and Shoal.
But exactly what form the afterlife takes, or even if there is one, is not
consistent in the OT. For example, in Job, he laments that death is forever:
But man dies, and is laid low; man breathes his last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake, and a river wastes away and dries up, so man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake, or be aroused out of his sleep. (Job 14:10-12)
Also, even if there is some references to an afterlife
in the OT, there clearly is no indication of there being different
places, heaven and hell, in the OT.
I had indicated that there was no idea of "atonement" in the OT. Well, I can
agree that there is lots in the OT as far as being true to God, and to sacrifice
for God. But, as far as "atonement" being tied to whether you would go to heaven
or hell, THAT is not in the OT.
On Noah, figurative speech, and God's "Baby
Talk":
I mentioned Noah's flood, and that according to Genesis, it appears that God
changes his mind. Genesis says he regrets even creating man. How can an
omniscient God ever change his mind or have regret?
Gene says that we should keep in mind that some things in the Bible are
figurative, like if Jesus says he is the "door", we know he doesn't mean a
literal door.
First thing to consider, whenever someone uses figurative speech,
there is always an increased chance of misunderstanding. Like if I had never
heard the word "door" to mean anything except a literal door, I might be
confused if someone said they are a door. Even so, the idea of a door to mean a
figurative gateway sufficiently follows from the literal definition of the word
door that I could probably guess what "I am the door" means even if I never
heard the word "door" used that way. But my point is, words if they are to have
any meaning at all, the writer and the reader must understand the meanings of
those words. If a writer uses a word in a non-standard way, they must take some
responsibility if what they say is misunderstood.
With that in mind, lets have a look at the passage in question. Here is Genesis
6:5-7 NIV
The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
So, what words here are figurative? Does "grieved" not
mean "grieved"? Does "I will wipe mankind from the face of the earth" not mean
"I will wipe mankind from the face of the earth"? If those words are to have any
meaning at all, then they must either mean what the words say they mean in the
dictionary, or we must have some other agreement to their meaning. Cultural
figurative use that the reader and the writer both understand can be such an
agreement. But none has been offered. No reasonable alternative meaning to any
of these words or phrases has been offered. Gene just says this is God's "baby
talk" since we can't understand what God would really say to us if we could
understand what he understands. Well, if God is going "goo goo ga ga" to us,
then he shouldn't be surprised that I hear "goo goo ga ga".
Also, if the above passage in Genesis is "baby talk"
and doesn't mean what it seems to mean, then how does one know if anything in
the Bible means anything it seems to mean? Maybe that whole heaven and
hell idea is just baby talk.
Also, this idea of God having to use "baby talk" to talk to us actually violates
the idea of omnipotence. For if God is omnipotent, surely he should have the
ability to communicate clearly to those he created. If he can't talk clearly to
us, who's fault is that?
But really, if these are in fact God's words, then they are not "baby talk", they are words that convey specific meaning. "Grieved" has a meaning. "Wipe mankind from earth" has a meaning. If that's not what God meant, then why did he lie to us and tell us completely wrong?
On Presuppositionalism:
I think I demonstrated satisfactorily that presuppositionalism is nonsense. If
he compares the Bible vs. the Koran, he is using his senses to read what one
says over the other. You have to leave presuppositionalism and enter into
naturalism in order to compare one to the other. Also, I demonstrated that
reliance on our senses is instinctive, we do it before we are able to realize
what we are doing. We don't rely upon the Bible or any other religion
instinctively, it has to be learned. If he had never heard of Christianity, he
couldn't rely upon Christianity. Isn't it obvious that Christianity can't
possibly be Cook's base presupposition if he has to first rely upon his senses
to be able to learn what Christianity is? As long as he was born with sight and
hearing, he will rely upon them instinctively. Naturalism is our instinctive
presupposition, not any book somebody gives us.
On Objective Morality:
I noted that Christians can't even decide whether or not listening to Elvis
Presley is sinful or not. Gene responded that even though Christians don't
always properly discern the "objective morality" of the Bible doesn't mean it
doesn't exist. I suppose. But the fact that you can't find invisible unicorns
doesn't prove they don't exist. The point is, it is HIS claim that the Bible
presents objective morality, which means it is his responsibility to
demonstrate. And the fact is, on every single moral issue, Christians argue
every possible angle. Some churches allow divorce, some don't, etc. What good is
"objective morality" if nobody is able to discern it? Basically, until Cook
demonstrates this alleged "objective morality" than I am justified in
disbelieving it. Just like if someone claims they have a Martian locked up in
their house, but when I come to see the Martian, it had somehow just escaped,
then I am justified in disbelieving.
The fact of the matter is, what Christians see as sinful and not sinful is based
on their culture. When Elvis was new, it was counter to culture at the time, and
therefore rejected it as sinful. Now that Elvis has been a part of our culture,
Christians don't complain about Elvis. This isn't "objective", its relativistic,
based on culture. Simple as that.
On the ending of Mark:
In the NIV, a known conservative translation, it says, "The most reliable early
manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." If the NIV
admits those verses likely aren't genuine, then I think it a safe bet they
aren't. But, if you want to insist those verses are original, then go ahead and
drink deadly poison, just like the disputed verses says you can:
Mark 16:17-18: And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.
So if you want to insist that those verses are
genuine, then go ahead and drink deadly poison. Lay hands on sick people and
make them well. Let's see a Christian demonstrate these feats.
But, actually, even if these verses were original it doesn't really matter.
Either way, it still proves my point that we don't know what the original Bible
said. This is just one example of verses that are in question, and no matter
which side you pick -- whether you pick that they are original or you pick that
they aren't -- they are still in question proving that we just don't know.
On Textual Criticism:
I was annoyed at Gene for saying I was ignorant of textual criticism, because he
has on other shows charged people with being ignorant of texual criticism if
they haven't read NT Wright. Well, he is ignorant of textual criticism if he
hasn't read Bart Ehrman. And, by the way, Ehram was at one time a very
conservative Christian and went to Moody Bible college. He learned to read and
write Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic in order to more fully understand God's Word. He
put a lot of effort to learn multiple languages because of his devotion to God's
Word. And yet it was his study into textual criticism that lead him away from
Christianity. The fact of the matter is, we know of many changes in the Bible,
such as the ending of Mark. And there are many others. This is fact. Read Ehrman
for yourself.
On Contradictions:
I didn't get to say everything I wanted to say on them. My main point is that no
matter what contradiction I might find in the Bible, there will some possibility
that the statements are not contradictory. If I say "I stubbed my toe" and I
also say "I did not stub my toe", that seems contradictory. But I might mean
that I did not literally stub my toe, but I did something "boneheaded" and
figuratively stubbed my toe. So I could claim that the apparent contradiction is
simply a case of one statement being figurative and one being literal.
So I don't doubt that whatever contraction I might find in the Bible, a possible explanation for the apparent contradiction can be made. But that is ALSO true of any work, like the Koran. No matter what contradiction one might find in the Koran, an possible explanation for it can be found. But the point is, would it be a probable explanation, or merely possible?
For example, the Bible has two accounts of the death of Judas. In one account,
it says his guts were spilled in a field. In another, it says he hung himself.
One explanation I have heard is that he hung himself, and then his body fell and
his guts were spilled. Okay, that is possible. But, is it likely that is what
really happened, and yet one author only mentioned the hanging while the other
author only mentioned the guts in the field? Until you can show that it is
probable that these two authors wrote it that way, it is still more likely
that the authors meant what they wrote and only what they wrote and do indeed contradict each other.
Please consider reading this article by Paul Tobin:
On
Possibility and Probability
On Numerical Errors:
I think I wasn't clear. Gene asked how could there be a possible interpretation
of 2+2 that isn't 4? I tried to say that if someone claimed they added 2+2 and
got 3, they could say that wasn't a contradiction. Rather, just a case of
rounding. Such as if someone said they added 2 gallons to 2 gallons and got 3,
they could say that they added roughly 1.6 gallons to 1.6 gallons, got 3.2
gallons, and rounded each number. So, the 1.6 and 1.6 got rounded to 2, and the
3.2 got rounded to 3.
Indeed, there are these kinds of errors in the Bible,
and Christians will use that kind of explanation. For example, in one
passage, dimensions of a container given seem to have the value of pi to be 3.
The usual explanation given is that the values are simply approximate.
However, there are substantially more of these kinds of errors in the Bible. Please see another couple of
articles by Paul Tobin on numerical and mathematical errors in the Bible:
Mathematical Errors in the Bible
Numerical Contradictions in the Bible
On the TAG:
The TAG, if I recall correctly, has three legs: alleged objective morality of
the Bible, alleged internal consistency of the Bible, and, I confess, I forget
the third. But, I've pulled the feet out from two of those legs. There ain't no
"objective morality" in the Bible, or at least nobody can demonstrate it. As far
as "internal consistency", anything no matter what, can be made to be
"internally consistent" so long as you are willing to accept mere possibilities,
unlikely possibilities at that. There are lots and lots of contradictions in the
Bible, such as the death of Judas. Therefore it is not internally consistent.
But, if you want to go with unlikely possibilities, then sure, you can force the
Bible into being internally consistent. But in that case, the Bible has no edge
over, say, the Koran, for I could make any alleged contradiction in the Koran go
away with the same kind of arguments used to make the Bible "internally
consistent".
On Dualism:
As I said on the show, I cannot fundamentally disprove dualism, I cannot
fundamentally disprove the existence of the soul. But, its not for me to
disprove, it is for those that say there is a soul to prove it does exist. Yet,
even though I cannot prove it doesn't exist, I can show why it seems unlikely.
Say Dilbert and Wally are working on an engineering project. And I ask who is
doing the initial design work, and I'm told Dilbert. So I ask if Wally is doing
the documentation? And I'm told, no, Dilbert is doing that. So I ask if Wally is
doing the field installation? And I'm told no, Dilbert is doing that too. Pretty
soon I start to wonder, just what the heck is Wally doing? That's how it
is with the mind and alleged soul. We don't know everything about the brain,
true. But we do have lots of evidence that everything we understand the mind does is
directly related to the physical brain. I'd like to quote from Keith Augustine's
"The Case Against Immortality" who summarizes some findings by Beyerstein:
"Beyerstein lists five main types of empirical evidence which support the dependence of consciousness on the brain. First, phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species' cognitive traits (Beyerstein 45). Corliss Lamont sums up this evidence: "We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life" (Lamont 63). Second, the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development (Beyerstein 45). Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (45). If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn't the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? (46). Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states (45). Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states (45)."
Please consider reading Augustine's article for more
information:
The Case Against Immortality
On Evolution:
There is much that could be said about evolution, I just want to comment about
one specific issue raised. And that is, Gene seems to not understand that
evolution doesn't care about the individual at all. What might seem beneficial
to any one specific person may not be beneficial to the species. Like it might
be beneficial to me to steal anything I can find, but if we all did that, it
would be detrimental to the species. Empathy is an emotion that evolved because
it works to the benefit of the species if not to the individual.
Lee Strobel's book The Case for a Creator, has some criticisms of evolution,
which I tackle in my critique of that book. Though it might not pertain directly
to Gene's arguments on the show, but might be of general interest:
Another Case Not Made:
A Critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator
On 'Accounting for Debate'
One caller said that atheism can't "account for debate". Of course it can.
Ultimately, I recognize that anyone that disagrees with my arguments does do
because that is what the patterns in their brain represent. I've got patterns in
my brain that represent certain opinions, other people have different patterns
the represent different opinions. And for some reason, one of the patterns in my
brain comes out that I like to challenge other people's beliefs. So that is why
I am writing this, and appeared on Gene's show. To be honest, I wish it wasn't
just some patterns in my brain, that I had some soul that had these opinions and
not just brain chemistry. But, as per Augustine's article referenced above, it
does appear to be just brain chemistry.
Conclusion:
Gene quotes someone saying, "I can't believe Paul had the audacity to challenge
Gene in a debate with a performance like that." Well, I didn't do as well as I'd
like. But, the debate challenge I gave was specifically over the TAG and
presuppositionalism. And for that, I think I did okay on for that is what I was
prepared to talk about. The arguments I raised specifically about
presuppositionalism, Gene had no answer for. Even so, oral debate isn't my
forte. As can be seen from my responses above and from my articles,
written argument is more my forte. If Gene would agree to a written debate, I'd
be all for it.
If nothing else, I hope that I have challenged people to consider their own
beliefs. That, and maybe consider reading the links I've given. I'd also like to
recommend Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus.
