School of Biblical Evangelism, Chapter 71 - Comfort answers Atheist questions

Comfort and Cameron use this lesson, titled "Atheist Obstacles", to deal with all of those common questions and objections that Atheists have toward Christian apologetics. From the very beginning, we are promised by Kirk Cameron that, “It is quite simple to prove that an atheist doesn’t exist, while disproving God’s existence is impossible.” So of course I started reading this lesson with anticipation – the really hard Atheist questions are going to be answered! Here are three of my own questions:

1. Why are so many billions of people born into countries and religions that make it almost impossible to learn about and study Christianity while others are born to Christian parents in countries (like the United States) that are so seeped in Christianity that it makes it very easy to learn about and become Christian? Isn’t this an unfair playing field?


2. Why is it that so many different Christian religions define God differently? In fact, they argue with each other about what God is, and what he requires - so much so that many Christian sects actively recruit from each other to “save” each other. How can an outsider to Christianity know which Christian sect is right?


3. And I've always wondered how an omniscient God, who knows everything - including the future, how can he truly have freewill? Granted, if God exists outside of time then the future might not mean anything to him – but existing outside of time only makes the question of God's freewill even more difficult. If God doesn’t have freewill, then he’s really no different than any other natural force.

I had such high hopes for this lesson!


Comfort doesn't create easy labels for what he says are common Atheist objections, So I've created my own labels.

First is the "let God show himself" objection. Comfort starts with his by now familiar method of insulting those he would call to God. He caricatures a “proud and ignorant sinner” with “no understanding of the nature of His Creator” who says, “I will believe if God will appear to me.” Comfort then mixes Exodus 33:18–23 with 1 Corinthians 10:4 in order to explain why, “No man has ever seen the essence of God.”

For those unfamiliar with this section of Exodus, Moses has asked God to “Show me your glory.” God responds by saying he likes Moses, and would love to do as he asks, but exposing him to God’s full glory would kill him. God then stuffs Moses into a cleft in a rock and places his hand over Moses to protect him as he walks past.

For some reason, Comfort leaves out part of Exodus 33:23, which says, “And I will take away mine hand and thou shalt see my back parts but my face shall not be seen.” The original Hebrew word is 'achowr, which means things like “backside” or “hinder parts”. Some religious scholars interpret this to mean the “after effects” or "essence" of God’s presence, but that doesn’t seem to agree with the use of the word for “hand” which the same scholars say does in fact mean “hand”. In either case, saying that no one has ever seen the essence of God isn't exactly true.

To answer Comfort, Yes, some Atheists have asked God to show himself, and Comfort uses the bible to answer that by saying that God actually can't show himself without killing the viewer with God's glory. (Except that God's backsides are apparently a little less glorious.) Still, I can't help but think that all of God's other apparitions would be sufficiently impressive to qualify as "showing himself". The unconsumed burning bush, for example, or the huge pillar of cloud and fire are both direct, visible revelations from God.

But this is just unnecessary showmanship. God, if he exists, should be easily and directly provable without the Hollywood special effects. Easiest of all would be for God to just let us "know" that he exists, with a firm and undeniable conviction. Why does an all powerful God require all those Old Testament fireworks anyway?

Besides, a one-time event, no matter how flashy, is not excellent evidence. Excellent evidence would be something that could be repeated over and over again, as often as the experimenter liked. You could test my own existence that way by pinching me any time you like, and every time you would feel my flesh between your fingers, until some point after my death. (But please, send me an email instead - you'll get a testable, repeatable response that is much less intrusive!)

There is no comparable way to test the existence of God. That is the point that Atheists try to make.


Next is the "Prove God doesn't exist" objection. In this Comfort states that the Atheist,

"...takes an illogical leap by concluding that there is no God, because it cannot be proved that He doesn’t exist. Such reasoning is absurd. Why would anyone try to prove that God doesn’t exist when it can be proved that He does? Creation proves scientifically and absolutely to any sane mind that there is a Creator. His existence is axiomatic."

I like Comfort's use of, "... any sane mind...." Another insulting little dig.

And Comfort is right, it would be absurd to insist that God doesn't exist because we cannot prove that he doesn't exist. That's nonsense reasoning. Fortunately for Atheists, that's not what we are saying.

Comfort has completely misunderstood the objection to God due to evidence through experimental testing of God. Comfort says that God is axiomatic, but many people disagree - which by itself disproves the axiom. Comfort gives "proof" that God exists through "creation", which is explainable by science through non-supernatural means.

Scientific experiments must be falsifiable or else they are useless. If we cannot construct any experiment that would give a positive result if God did NOT exist, then applying experiments to test God's existence is a worthless endeavor. Oh sure, we could lay a voluntary test before God, such as a fleece, and according to the Bible, God might play along. But as Comfort goes on to explain, just because God does NOT answer means nothing.

Atheist don't use this reasoning to prove that God does not exist, merely to show that there is insufficient proof to show that he DOES exist. We're still in a position of waiting for sufficient evidence.


Then there is, "The Problem with Prayer" objection. Comfort sets up a scene with a sick child and a praying family. If the child dies then the Atheist, according to Comfort, points out that the prayer didn't work. If the child lives then he lives due to what the Atheist calls naturally explained reasons. Then Comfort completely misses the point by going on to say that, "... one thing we do know is that answered or unanswered prayer has nothing to do with God’s existence." He gives a "broken car" analogy where he says, "What would be my intellectual capacity if I concluded that (my car) had no manufacturer simply because I couldn’t contact them about the dilemma? The fact of their existence has nothing to do with whether or not they return my calls."

The analogy breaks down. What if the manufacturer used to exist, but doesn't exist now? (Anyone still own a Yugo?) Maybe God doesn't answer because he died? (No, I don't think he died. You have to exist before you can die.)

Comfort completely misses the problem that Atheists have with prayer, even as he says that prayer may be answered or unanswered. The problem is, if prayer is answered only at God's whim, and if God may act on people even without their prayers, then what use is praying, other than salving God's desire for worship?

Atheists view the words, "I'll pray for you" to be a null statement that is devoid of content or proposed action. It is something that has no value or use, which is why secular people have responded to the "National Day of Prayer" with a more helpful blood donation holiday, called the "National Day of Reason".

I think that Atheists would agree that the effectiveness of prayer, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with the existence of God, and is a strawman argument that is posed and easily knocked down by Comfort.


He mixes the prayer objection with another, "God exists regardless of Human Testimony" objection. Here he says that miracles, or the lack of same, do not have anything to do with God's actual existence. He uses the sun as an analogy.

The sun doesn’t exist because we see its light, or because we feel its warmth. Its existence has nothing to do with any human testimony. Nor does it cease to exist because a blind man is not aware of its reality, or because it becomes cloudy, or the night falls. The sun exists, period.

Agreed. The sun exists whether we agree with or deny its existence. The sun exists even if every one of us were blind, and living on the bottom of the ocean where we could no longer directly detect it. It exists regardless of what we say.

But we can test that the sun exists. We can feel it's warmth, turn it's radiation into electricity, calculate how it's mass affects the planets in our solar system, watch its sunspots, and experience what happens to our cell phones and radios when it flares. We can even experiment with what would happen if it did not exist, through astronomical observation of gas and matter that do not orbit a star like our sun, or by examining the absence of solar radiation on the dark side of Mercury or our own satellites.

The sun exists no matter what we say - and we have mountains of evidence that prove its existence. We have no such evidence for God.

The next paragraphs aren't an Atheist objection. They are some sort of "Odd Rant about Idolatry." Honestly, it doesn't seem to have been correctly placed in the lesson series. In these paragraphs Comfort says, "If men will not embrace the biblical revelation of God, their nature is to predictably go into idolatry." He spends a paragraph talking about why idol worship is silly, and then finally tries to bring it back to an Atheist Objection by saying, "However, there is something even more ludicrous than the imaginings of idolaters. It is that trait of human nature that is just as predictable —the intellectual suicide of the atheist."

"Intellectual suicide". Heh. Ray can certainly come up with the zingers can't he?

I really have no idea where this bit on Idolatry comes from. Perhaps Comfort is confusing a reliance on the scientific method as a way to discover truth with the religious practice of worship? Does he think that scientists worship science or the scientific method? Let's put this simply. Atheists don't worship - and are therefore incapable of idolatry. Worship is an act of religious devotion, and religion requires supernatural claims to which Atheists do not subscribe, so idolatry is something that only a religious person can be accused of. There is a non-religious definition of idolatry that says it is an, "immoderate attachment or devotion to something", which could apply to Atheists, but it does not denote worship.

Anyway, his rant on Idolatry has nothing to do with answering any Atheist objections, and I'm really not sure why it is in this lesson.


Comfort finishes with a paragraph about the, "Adamant atheist April Pedersen". Here Comfort says he sent a copy of the Atheist Objections to Ms. Pedersen, who responded by saying that they were, "...worded with impeccable logic..." and "...nearly impossible to find holes in your premise...." I had never heard of Ms. Pedersen before, I thought she might be a prominent Atheist, but a quick Google search for 'Atheist + "April Pedersen"' gave me a mere 22 hits. (As a control, I googled Atheist Calladus and got 2500 hits! Not bad for a D-list blogger!)

This leads me to wonder, just how many Atheists did Comfort send a copy of Atheist Objections? How many answers did he get back, and what were their agreements and objections? Did any atheist ask him something that he just couldn't answer?


And finally Comfort tosses in a story, almost a parable, that gives the analogy of a terrorist takeover of a plane as for why it is a good idea to be a believer. In this analogy, terrorists have secretly taken control of the cockpit and called the tower threatening to toss the passengers out of the plane unless their demands are met. The pilot, being a slick sort of person, writes a note on his notepad telling the passengers to pull the parachutes out from under their seats and wear them. The note is smuggled out to the passenger compartment, where some passengers believe the note and follow the directions, and some disregard the note for "lack of evidence" - thereby falling to their doom when the terrorists toss everyone overboard.

The analogy is not equivalent to reality, and is in fact a poor restatement of Pascal's Wager, which is also easily refuted. A better, more true to life analogy is that several notes are passed out of the airplane's cockpit, all reputing to be from the Captain, and all giving different and sometimes conflicting instructions. This is the problem that Atheists have with the many different Christian sects, and indeed with the thousands of different religions that all require different, and sometimes conflicting actions from their followers. The wise thing to do would be to examine the bag under your seat to see if it does indeed carry a parachute, then ignore ALL of the notes and follow your own judgment.


To conclude, all of this, except for Comfort's strange rant on idolatry, have something in common. They are all poor answers to an Atheist's request for proof. And let's get this straight - Atheists do understand about the difference between evidence and faith. Faith is belief without the requirement of evidence. Faith means that a religious person doesn't need proof. To quote Penn Jillette from the "Bullshit" episode on the Bible,

If you're religious, and you believe the bible is real because of faith, we can't touch you. It's an automatic tie. No one can bust you. Bible nuts pride themselves on believing in things that are hard to believe in. They think God will bless them for that.

So if you believe in God on faith, fine. Your faith is not convincing to me or other Atheists. We are at a tie, and Atheists require proof or evidence to break that tie. So far, Comfort's School of Biblical Evangelism has failed to deliver that evidence.

(Part 2) (Part 4)

School of Biblical Evangelism, Chapter 70 - Ray Comfort proves that God exists - or does he?

This is part two of what will eventually be a 5-part series on Ray Comfort's "School of Biblical Evangelism". Here I'll talk about lesson 70 which is titled, "How to Prove the Existence of God". Hey, this is all that Atheists ask for! Proof, we're finally going to receive proof! If Comfort can deliver the goods I'll become a believer by the end of the lesson!


Comfort and Kirk Cameron waste no time in insulting Atheists in this chapter. From the very beginning they lean on a quote from Dwight Eisenhower, "It takes no brains to be an Atheist." Atheists, Kirk says, "... don't want to be confused by the facts." Comfort follows up by quoting Psalm 14:1 ("The fool has said in his heart, There is no God"), and then says that Atheists deny common sense.

Apparently this is designed, as Kirk says, to "... open the Unbeliever's heart to receive (God's) truth." Because being insulted makes Atheists feel warm and fuzzy and receptive to the insulter's ideas.

Here's Comfort's proofs:

1. The question, "Who made God?" is a silly question because, "the fact of the existence of the Creator is axiomatic (self-evident)."


2. By observation, space doesn't have an end. "Strain the mind though it may, we have to believe (have faith) that space has no beginning and no end. The same applies with God. He has no beginning and no end. He is eternal."


3. Although space doesn't have an end, apparently Time does have an end. "... time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. (the bible) tells us that one day time will no longer exist." "God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2); He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time."


4. Everything that has been created has a creator. A building has a builder, a painting has a painter. "We can’t see Him, hear Him, touch Him, taste Him, or smell Him. How can we know that He exists? Why, creation proves, beyond the shadow of the smallest doubt, that there is a Creator. You cannot have a “creation” without a Creator." Comfort wins us over on this point with another dig - "This is so simple that a child can understand it. The only ones who have trouble with its simplicity are those who profess to be intellectuals."

And that's it. That's the entire chapter. In four quick points, Ray Comfort not only demonstrates that he has no education, no understanding of science, including cosmology, physics, and biology, he also takes the time to denigrate those people who do have an understanding of these subjects.

Look, I know how hard it is to figure out the math that proves the physics of what we know - but the basic concepts behind that math aren't so difficult to grasp even though the concepts are often counter-intuitive.

Let's take these points in order.

"God is self-evident." Obviously this isn't true because if it were then the discussion would be over. God is NOT self-evident, in fact most definitions of the Christian God are self-contradictory, thereby negating self-evidence. The "Problem of Evil" argument by Epicurus is the contradiction that most people drag out.

But I like to point out a different inherent contradiction with God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence.

If God is all knowing then he supposedly completely understands every aspect of human emotion, he understands it as we ourselves understand human emotion. The popular Christian saying is that “God is Love”. Poetic, and very difficult to define. Would you agree that God understands love as well or better than we do?

But what about fear? Everyone has experienced fear, and a few of us have been in fear of our own lives. That sort of fear is devastating and often life-changing to us, we remember it forever.

Does God understand fear? Does he understand it as a mortal understands fear? Is he fearful of his own pain and possible death? How could he be? He's eternal, immortal, all powerful.

If God exists as Christians describe him, then he plays with creation in “God Mode” - he's not afraid of losing the game. Heck he could get distracted during Armageddon and accidentally lose to Satan, and the only thing it would mean to him is that he would have to hit "reset" and start the whole thing all over again.

Fear is an inherent contradiction to an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

There is a LOT of debate as to whether the idea of God is inherently contractory, and a lot of debate as to whether he exists. You can spend a lot of time reading about this at Infidels.org. So I would say that is sufficent to show that God's existence is NOT self-evident.


"Space does not have an end." This statement is false. At least for our universe. If you want to talk about a multiverse you open a whole new can of worms.

We know by astronomical observation that we live in a finite universe, that space is about 93 billion light years in diameter. Space is expanding, and the rate of that expansion is accelerating. It is even possible for the speed of expansion to exceed the speed of light - it isn't a against Einstein's theory of General Relativity which applies to things moving through space, but all bets are off when space itself is moving. In fact, the only way for space to become as big as it has become during it's mere 13.73 billion years of existence is due to faster than light-speed expansion.

So, if there is an end to space, then what's on the other side of it? The answer is that we don't know. And "we don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer that makes scientists very happy. We've got an unknown that we don't even know how to explore at this point. But maybe one day we will know how to poke around and figure it out.

Oh we have theories. It is quite possible that there is no "other side". Space expands, it doesn't require "space" to expand into.

There is a lot to learn here, but for a good starting point, a good overview, I highly recommend listening to Astronomy Cast, hosted by Fraser Cain of Universe Today, and Dr. Pamela Gay of the Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville. Dr. Gay is a working astronomer, and the Astronomy Cast podcast is billed as explaining "not only what we know, but how we know what we know." I recommend that Ray Comfort listen to episodes 77 through 79 so that he can correct his false statement in this lesson.

But I'll bet a cookie that the lesson isn't changed in the next revision.


"Time has an end." Does it? We're not sure about that. We know that time has a beginning - but depending upon which end of the universe scenario is true, time may not have an end. It is possible that we will experience a "heat death" where every atom in the universe reaches it's lowest possible energy level, and that continues for eternity. We won't know for sure though until we have a better understanding of Dark Matter and Dark Energy - which means we need a better understanding of the density of the universe. "Time has an end" is not an obviously true statement. The true answer is, again, "We don't know! Isn't that great?!"

Scientists just LOVE unanswered questions! They're fun to investigate. They get the scientist new research grants!


Now for the last point - "Everything that has been created has a creator." An arch, for example, has a creator. Architecturally, arches are the best example of something that has been constructed. When constructing an arch it must be supported by scaffolding or else it will fall down. Arches require a continuous line of touching bricks. Non-parabolic arches must be supported by walls on the sides or else the arch's bricks will push the walls outward until the whole thing collapses.

There is just no way for this complex bit of architecture to form naturally - say over millions of years due to natural processes that include erosion due to wind and water. It's just too unbelievable...

Uh yeah. My photo is a perfect counter-example to this argument.

And this is just one counter-example out of many that include entire branches of science.

Comfort is committing the "argument from personal incredulity" logical fallacy. He doesn't believe that things like natural selection or the big bang theory are real because it negates his belief that only a creator can create.

Unfortunately for Comfort, both evolution and the big bang are supported by mountains of evidence that are so large that it takes dedication and perseverance to avoid acknowledging reality.

It is so easy to correct ignorance in this digital age. You could start by auditing the video lectures of the Introduction to Biology courses at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They're available for viewing free, online, so you really have no excuse for continued ignorance.


So what does this all mean? A great big "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy. Ray Comfort either does not understand, or misunderstands basic science and logic - and he bases his ultimate "Proof that God Exists" upon these misunderstandings.

And this leads me to wonder, are Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron honestly ignorant, or are they being willfully stupid? Do they refuse to do the work, the study, to become knowledgable about the science behind these issues? And if so, to what purpose?

I'm not tempted to suggest that they do understand the science behind these issues because frankly, I think a better understanding of these sciences would lead to a lesson that is more logically constructed.

I honestly think that they are ignorant, and that they feel no need to correct their ignorance because it is working for them, it's earning them a living. No need to kill the goose laying the golden eggs.

(Part 1) (Part 3)

The School of Biblical Evangelism, chapter 69 - Atheism

I've written about Ray Comfort before.

I don't mean to keep writing about the man, he really is a pipsqueak amongst the religious, a mere shadow of people like Wildmon, Robertson, and Dobson. Compared to even Harold Camping, Comfort's ministry is merely second class.

Still, Ray Comfort, and his boy wonder sidekick Kirk, seem to simplify the common Christian arguments to points that are easily grasped by non-theologists. By doing so Comfort offers a service to Atheism in that it is easy to show the weaknesses in these fallacious arguments, and thereby refute them.

Ray Comfort sells a self-study program called "The School of Biblical Evangelism", as part of his "Way of the Master" evangelism ministry. For a mere $150 you can learn the arguments that Ray Comfort claims will "make an Atheist backslide". (Here's a thrifty tip - save over a hundred dollars and buy it from Amazon.) There are 101 lessons in this school, and you can see the list of those lessons here.

I find it amusingly freudian that the lessons on Atheism begins with lesson number 69.

Due to the kindness of Google, I managed to get copies of the 5 lessons regarding Atheism in PDF format. Lessons 69 through 73 of this 101 lesson course all deal with refuting Atheism. Compare this to the lessons on Islam and Buddhism, which get only two chapters each, or to Hinduism, which gets a measily one chapter.

So, since I now have copies of these lessons, let's take a look at what they say, starting with lesson 69. (I'll get to the other lessons as I can.) Here's the very first sentence:

I don’t believe in atheists. This isn’t because I haven’t met anyone who claimed the title, but because such a person cannot exist.

After giving examples that it is impossible to know exactly the weight of all the sand on Hawaii, or how many hairs are on the back of a Tibetan yak, Comfort then goes on to say:

... let’s say that the atheist has an incredible 1 percent of all the knowledge in the universe.Would it be possible, in the 99 percent of the knowledge that he hasn’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? One who is reasonable will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the vast knowledge that he hasn’t yet discovered, there could be enough proof that God does exist.

Comfort next inverts this and says:

Let’s look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, “There is no gold in China,” what is necessary for that statement to be proved true? I would need absolute or total knowledge. I must know that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any filling in any mouth in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement.

This is the entirety of lesson 69. This is the logic upon which Comfort basis his assertion that there is no such thing as an Atheist. Oh, he says a couple pages more - explaining the implications of these statements. And of course, in true Ray Comfort style, he insults Atheists by saying things like, "It has been rightly said that the “atheist” can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman." Insults and digs seem to be a staple of the Comfort ministry.

Let's simplify what Comfort has said.

1. You cannot say that there is no evidence for God unless you are omniscient.
2. You cannot say that there is no God unless you can search everywhere, which would require omnipotence.

To simplify it even further, Comfort is in essence saying - "You can't prove that God does not exist, therefore you must accept that he DOES exist."

If I were to rewrite "School of Biblical Evangelism" for Comfort, I bet I could condense it to pamphlet size!

Anyway, it becomes easy to see that Ray Comfort is using an obfuscated version of the "burden of proof" fallacy in order to stake his claim that Atheism is impossible. I've written before that the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim - so if Comfort claims that God exists, it is up to him to offer positive evidence for his existence. It is NOT up to the Atheist to offer evidence for the absence of God.

However, if an Atheist wishes, he CAN counter-argue that God does not exist by giving evidence that is at least as equally compelling as Comfort's argument. That evidence is called the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" (IPU).

You could easily answer Comfort by saying, "the Invisible Pink Unicorn says that you are wrong, and that there is no God." Any protestations that there is no such Unicorn could be met with the same claims that Comfort has made. Comfort can't say that there is no evidence for the IPU unless he's omniscient. He can't say that the IPU can't be found anywhere unless Comfort is omnipotent. He is now in a position where he must offer positive evidence for God.

Lesson 69 of his curriculum is voided.

Unfortunately, showing that the believer's 'burden of proof' argument is fallacious doesn't actually phase people of Comfort's caliber. There is often no attempt to understand the logic and adapt, either due to intellectual dishonesty or a sincere misunderstanding of basic logic. The person who does this will ignore or fail to understand that their point has been nullified.

Here's an example of this. I've been having an interesting back and forth with a person identified as Jenn, in the comments section of the blog Pseudopodia. (I recommend Pseudopodia to my readers - it's in my blog reader.)

Jenn's assertions that we can't disprove the existence of God are handily countered by the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Of course, this doesn't phase Jenn, who calls it all babbling crap.

The Internet has a word for people like Jenn, we call them "trolls". They refuse to engage in dialog, and instead happily make baiting, inflammatory remarks. Most people have learned to ignore them - except from time to time it becomes important to counter the harm that they are doing.

Comfort is also a Troll - of exactly this nature. He refuses to engage in any sort of productive dialog. He refuses to learn why his logic is flawed. He is happy to bait others and make inflammatory remarks and unsupported claims. Most of the time it is safe to ignore him - however sometimes it becomes necessary to undo the harm he has done.

And that's why I keep writing about him.

(Part 2)

Webster Cook's Cracker - PZ's Cracker

If you are a reader of the blog Pharyngula, you already know this story. If not, I'll summarize. (links to this story: link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6, link7)

A University of Central Florida student, Webster Cook, attended Catholic mass on campus, and while there received the Eucharist, (a small cracker blessed by a priest). Mr. Cook, who is also a student senator at UCF, went with a friend who was apparently not a Catholic, and didn't receive the Eucharist. So, Cook wanted to show his friend the Eucharist, and instead of eating it as the priest thought he would do, he took it back to his seat.

Well, he tried. After blessing a cracker the Catholic church believes that it takes on mystical properties and actually becomes the substance of Jesus Christ. And walking away with an undevoured chunk of Jesus flesh gets Catholics very upset. Members of the university church tried to physically stop Cook from walking back to his seat with his Eucharist.

Cook, who had planned to eat the cracker immediately after showing it to his friend, was understandably upset with being roughed up a little, and instead held on to his Eucharist to prove a point. The church demanded he return it, but Cook wanted the church to apologize for becoming physical with him and to promise not to use physical force against church members anymore. The church responded by pointing out that Cook was holding the cracker "hostage".

Cook filed a complaint of physical abuse with the college against the church. The church retaliated by filing a complaint of disruptive conduct against Mr. Cook, and beefed up the campus church with additional clergy to prevent anyone else from duplicating his effort. The President of the university sided with the church on this, and directed armed university police officers to stand guard during mass.

I haven't seen a photo, but from this reaction I have to guess that Webster Cook must be a 7 foot tall 350 pound monster who can bend steel bars with his bare hands.

So instead of getting an apology for being roughed up by others in the church, Mr. Cook got death threats that scared him so badly that he gave the Eucharist back, and is now trying to hide and wait for this all to pass over. There is still a chance that the school may expel him for being a nuisance. Some monster!


Now we get to Dr. P.Z. Myers, an associate professor of the University of Minnesota, Morris, and writer of the very popular blog Pharyngula. Dr. Myers uses his blog to discuss evolutionary biology, and Atheism. He admits he's on the Atheist fringe, but is willing to take his lumps for that.

Dr. Myers was understandably outraged at Mr. Cook's treatment by the church and the university in Florida, and wrote a scathing post about it originally titled "It's a Goddamned cracker!". (He's since changed it to 'frackin'" but the hyperlink remains the same.) Most of that post was just pointing out the ridiculous aspects of what has happened to Cook, but one paragraph inflamed a lot of people. Dr. Myers said:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.

Since this post, Dr. Myers has gotten a host of hate mail, several death threats, and now even the Catholic League is trying to get Dr. Myers fired from his position. The Catholic League is basically just one guy with a computer - Bill Donohue - but he's noisy and might do some damage. Dr. Myers started a bit of damage control and asked his thousands of daily readers for help with letters of support.


My take on all of this? I don't have a problem with Mr. Cook taking the Eucharist, or Dr. Myers asking someone to send him one. Dr. Myers hasn't asked anyone to actually steal a Eucharist, although his wording is iffy, and could result in the theft of one. I would hope he asks that no Eucharist be stolen, merely re-gifted.

When you are given the Eucharist - well, it's yours. That's true with any gift, and I don't see an exception even if you believe that gift is actually bits of Jesus. The recipient of the gift is free to do what they want with it, unless there is a previous agreement. Cook, for example, was under no such agreement, and should have been free to do what he wanted with his gift.

So if some guy receives the Eucharist and then instead of eating it, re-gifts it to Dr. Myers - I have no problem with that. And I have no problem with what the recipient does with that gift.

What about the claim that the person is holding Jesus hostage? I have to ask, do you really believe that an all powerful God can be held helpless inside of a ziplock bag? Wouldn't it be easier to believe that the Transubstantiation could be miraculously reversed as needed?

In regards to the claim that Dr. Myers is being disrespectful to the Eucharist, and to the Catholic church, and to Christianity, I say yeah, so what? In what way is this different from a cartoonist drawing silly pictures of Mohammad? Or of people leaking the "sacred" documents of Scientology? We have seen a distinct lack of empathy from Christians over the outrage felt by the adherents of these religions over these acts, and I see no difference in this case. I think that drawing a picture of Mohammad in a tutu is exactly the same as desecration of the Eucharist, and I think that death threats over either act are silly.

I don't think a religion or religious belief automatically deserves respect.

But I do think that PEOPLE deserve respect, even as I do not think that a person's BELIEFS or IDEAS automatically deserve respect. And I think that was what Webster Cook's example clearly proves. Mr. Cook deserved respect - and he was denied respect, in church, by church members. People didn't like what he was doing with the gift he had been given, and gave him grief over it. In my opinion, Mr. Cook rightly tried to get these religious people to see reason, and became understandably scared at the batshit insane reaction of the Church and its members.

Mr. Cook is owed an apology.

And by being disrespectful to a belief, I think that Dr. Myers is valuable in continuing what Cook could not do, namely trying to get the Church to admit that a person deserves respect. I don't think that is what Dr. Myers planned when he wrote his entry, and I think he was crude and crass and absolutely disrespectful to the beliefs that a large religious community holds dear. But I think that this is where his post holds the most value.

However, if Dr. Myers advocates the theft of a Eucharist, then he is being disrespectful to a person, and should be condemned for that - and that alone. Theft is always disrespectful and immoral.

Dr. Myers, the only thing I would ask you to do is to clean up your wording a little, and ask to be "re-gifted" a Eucharist. Other than that - knock yourself out.

More bibles for soldiers!

It looks like Austin Cline mentioned bibles to Iraq last year. So I'm not the first to speak of this.

But I think that Austin missed my own point, these bibles aren't for the Soldiers. There are just too many for them to be for the soldiers. These are special witnessing bibles, and will be used to recruit Islamic Iraqis.

Military Ministries also talks about the Rapid Deployment (bible) Kits that were mentioned in my entry about the Campus Crusade for Christ. They also mentioned the same 1.8 million bible number. Which I thought was odd until I found out that Military Ministry is actually a division of Campus Crusade for Christ!

Back in 2003 - World Net Daily ran with the story that thousands of troops in Iraq who were supposedly begging for bibles. WND talks about the Rapid Deployment Kit in this article, where they supposedly had an order for 40,000 bibles! According to WND:

Requests from commanders, chaplains, soldiers, sailors and airmen continue to pour in, including one scrawled message on a piece of cardboard which reads: "I have a Bible …but the guys in my unit don't have any. Can you send [Bibles] over?"

Christians asking for bibles to hand out to their friends. What happens when someone says, "no thanks"? You're working in close quarters with these people, do you keep proselytizing? Or do you respect their wishes?

CBN, Pat Robertson's group, also has an effort to send 100 thousand bibles in 100 days, all at no expense to themselves. Why should the church pay when they can have their followers do it? They still get to claim credit.

And this is just the Iraqi arena. There are groups that send bibles to soldiers everywhere, but this huge push, this immense effort is targeting troops in Iraq, and absolutely flooding the area!

Just how many bibles do our troops need? 2 per soldier, 5 per soldier?

I've already stated my reasoning for not sending bibles to our soldiers in Iraq.

I think that Tim Todd's ministry is sending bibles because it is a low-cost, easy to implement, and very flashy bit of religious advertisement that is supposed to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

But hey, just because a different religious organization is sending crates of bibles to our troops, doesn't mean that other religious groups can't duplicate that same unneeded effort.

I just noticed an email today from Campus Crusade for Christ. It's been sitting in my email box since mid-June. In this email, the director of donor relations for Campus Crusade speaks about all the requests they get to send bibles to soldiers. These requests aren't coming from the soldiers themselves - but from friends, family and concerned Christians. From this email:

Requests for Bibles for our troops continue to pour in. A recent note shares:

"My husband's cousin is in charge of a brigade in Iraq and we would like to send Bibles to his whole brigade. They have already lost a Sgt. We could probably find out where to send them. How much would this cost? I believe there are 700 men and women in all. We have been praying for a way to reach these soldiers. His cousin, a Lt. Col., is not saved so we pray for his salvation also. Thank you."

Meeting the tremendous need for God's Word among our men and women in uniform is only possible with the support of people like you. Since the beginning of this year, Campus Crusade for Christ's Military Ministry has been receiving requests for an average of close to 20,000 Rapid Deployment Kits per month.

This email links to a website that also says:

With the help of people like you, more than 1.8 million RDKs-each containing a pocket-sized New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs, a daily devotional, and a booklet that clearly shares the Gospel-have been distributed since September 2001. However, there remains much more to be done as requests for Bibles continue to pour in from soldiers, chaplains, military family members, and others.

I have one of these pocket sized New Testament bibles, perhaps not the Campus Crusade variety - but the equivalent. I picked it up from a table overflowing with bibles while stationed in South Korea. I have no idea what happened to the rest of the bibles on that table. I do know that out of my workshop, I was the only troop that picked one up.

But I have to ask, sending 257 thousand bibles per year to our troops in Iraq seems excessive. there are only about 150 thousand American military in Iraq right now. And it's not like we get 150 thousand new troops every year - these troops have often been rotated through Iraq on several tours.

So assuming that EVERY soldier in Iraq gets a brand new bible EVERY year, then where are the EXTRA 100,000 bibles per year going?

And this is just Campus Crusade for Christ's numbers. Remember, other religious groups are doing the same thing!

My opinion still stands - this is an easy to do, low cost, flashy method of attracting attention for your religious group. It is a fund raising bullet that looks great when religions ask believers for money. "Supplied 1.8 million bibles to our troops!" Wow! Look at the great work they're doing!

Never mind that half of those don't make it to the hands of any soldier.

And this leads to my second opinion. There is an ulterior motive here. There is a motive to flood a Islamic country with bibles in order to save Muslim souls for Christ. Perhaps if enough bibles get into the country, some one will take them.

To me, this speaks of both dishonesty and cowardice. Dishonest, because while a religion says a bible is going to a solder, the hope is that the solder will give it away to an Iraqi, perhaps as the soldier witnesses to the Iraqi. This borders on urging unconstitutional actions, and feels a little like coercion to me because the guy doing the witnessing is carrying a rifle.

And it is cowardly, because the religious groups involved don't have the testicles to travel to Iraq and hand out bibles themselves. They don't do it because they know that some Islamic Iraqis might use them for target practice.

I think that sending this many bibles to the troops in an Islamic country and pretending that they are NOT for Iraqi recruiting purposes is a lie.

But hey, I guess it's moral to lie in order to save someone's immortal soul.

So, how many other religious groups are sending bibles to Iraq? If Campus Crusade is doing it, and Tim Todd is doing it - how many others? How many bibles per year are going to Iraq? Easily a quarter of a million, just on these two ministries. Comment or email me with other organizations doing this.

I wouldn't be surprised if we're sending a million bibles per year to our poor bible-deprived troops in Iraq.

Harold Camping and the End of the World

I was sitting in the covered dining area, outside of a Sonic a few weeks ago, eating a burger. For those of you who may not be familiar with Sonic, their gimmick is that they are supposed to be a traditional 1950's drive-in burger and malt shop, with servers who deliver food to your car. It's not the best burger in the world, but hey, they serve banana-chocolate malt shakes, so I'm good.

My meal was interrupted when this old woman with a cane walked up to me. She must have been close to 70 years old, with white hair, wrinkled apple cheeks, a slow walk and a very big purse.

"Excuse me, can I talk to you about God?" she asked sweetly.

"No thanks," I answered, "I'm not interested."

"You're not interested in your salvation? This is important." She said something in this vein... I don't know the words she used exactly.

"Really. Thank you, but no thanks," I said firmly. I went back to what I was doing.

"Well," she said as she started to turn away from me, "You're really going to be sorry when the world ends in 3 years."

That stopped me. "Right. The world's going to end? When?"

She turned back and pulled out a pamphlet. "It's explained here. The rapture will happen on May 21, 2011."

I didn't take the pamphlet. I was just sort of taken off guard. Most religious people wouldn't dare to set a date. When they are wrong, (and they are ALWAYS wrong) it makes them look foolish and they lose followers.

"Oookaay... well I guess we will see what happens on the 22nd. I'll see you then." Yes, I was being glib. And she got ticked off!

"No you won't!" She wasn't so sweet now! That grandmotherly wrinkled-apple face turned very dark and scowl-y!

"Sure I will. We could meet here on the 22nd!"

"No you won't, because you'll be in Hell."

With that, the conversation was over, and she started walking away. I goggled at her a bit, then realized she still had the pamphlet! I HAD to have that pamphlet! Food forgotten, I jumped up and ran over to where she was proselytizing a car-hop.

"Excuse me," I said in my most polite, contrite voice. I pointed at the pamphlet in her hand, "could I please have one of those?" Wordlessly she handed it over.

Oooh boy. The pamphlet was a tri-fold type on standard 8.5 x 11 inch paper, with the words "Does God Love You?" in big block letters on top. The rest of the pamphlet was closely written, 10 point font, with very little whitespace. Its densely packed words contained one of those internally-consistent and biblically referenced fake dialogs between two hypothetical people that Christians constructing strawmen will so often use.

It seems to have been published by Family Radio, and if the text wasn't written by Harold Camping, then it was written in accordance with his teachings. You can read it for yourself online here.

This tract puts a firm date on the Rapture, which is supposed to happen May 21, 2011. The end of the world, when, "...this world will cease to exist..." happens on October 21, 2011. I guess we non-believers get 4 months to get right with God huh? Except, if you read further, you'll find out it doesn't quite work that way.

I listen to Family Radio almost every week. Harold Camping has a rich, senorous voice that would be fascinating to hear if it weren't taking us all to task for being in sin. His words will often falter as he hunts for the exact word he wants, but his train of thought is never disturbed by this.


One of the reasons why I love to listen to Brother Camping is because he teaches a heretical version of Christianity on the Family Radio network of radio stations. Family radio has programming in over 30 languages, and is heard world-wide. You've probably listened to Family Radio (or skipped over them) without realizing it.

This massive Christian public radio station was founded by Harold Camping, and it teaches Camping's beliefs mixed in with Christian hymnals and gospel music.

Besides the end of the world, Harold Camping believes that all Christian churches are currently ruled by Satan. The era of the Christian church, according to Camping, has come to an end. He calls this the "end of the church age", and firmly asserts that no one has been saved through the church during this period.

All of you Christians going to church every Sunday? Not only are you wasting your time, according to Camping, but you are endangering your soul by associating in a house ruled by Satan. You would be better off staying home, praying, and reading the bible. In fact, that is your only path to salvation these days.

Camping has a call-in radio show every day that is great to listen to. He gets all sorts of calls, from adoring fans to indignant preachers. He gets Atheists too. Every call in is treated well, with a sort of quiet dignity. The caller is allowed his or her say, and then Camping responds with either teaching, or gentle chiding. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible, and will quote chapter and verse from memory. He spends a lot of time interpreting what God meant when the bible says something obscure.


Something that I find very interesting is Camping's theology on salvation. He doesn't believe that there is anything a person can to to achieve salvation - including the more mainstream Christian belief of accepting Jesus as a 'personal savior'. This is spelled out in the "Does God Love You?" tract, where it's written:

Q. Now I am desperate. I do not want to be destroyed. What can I do to become saved?


A. There is nothing you can do to get yourself saved. The Bible tells us that only God can save you. God performs the mighty miracle of salvation by applying the Word of God (the Bible) to the hearts and lives of those He plans to save. The effect of this miracle of salvation on the saved person’s life is that now he has a love for God and the Bible. He now is happiest when he is obeying God’s Law book, the Bible. Thus if a person truly desires to become saved, he should spend much time carefully reading or listening to the Bible.




Q. Can I pray that God might be merciful and save me?


A. Absolutely YES! God is very merciful. Therefore, the Bible tells us that we can and should pray to Him, begging and pleading for mercy, for salvation, admitting that we are sinners who deserve the wrath of God. This will not get us saved, but we will have the assurance that God knows of our intense desire to become saved.

In other words, if you're not on God's list, you can just whistle. It doesn't matter how sincere you are, if God doesn't like the cut of your sail, he won't toss you the life-preserver.

It's no wonder that a large part of the call-ins to his show are indignant preachers. Camping soundly whups their tails, in a friendly voice while quoting wide areas of the bible as he delivers the whupping.

But Harold Camping has been wrong in the past. He once wrote a book where he said that the world would end in 1994. (Spoiler: it didn't) He's since justified his miscalculation in his publication "We are Almost There", where he says that 1994 is actually the beginning of the Tribulation.

Still, even with being wrong, even with a method of date setting that pulls information from all over the bible in ways that are probably not meaningful, in ways where Camping is probably seeing patterns that are not really there - even with his stance on the Church and it's preachers... Harold Camping still has devoted follwers here in Fresno.

Two weeks after the sweet-faced granny tried to give me a pamphlet, I was on my bike waiting for the light to change when an old gentleman came up to me on the corner and gave me an identical pamphlet. Perhaps he was her husband? I dunno. It was in a different part of town.

And finally, this makes me very sad. These people are going to have a major problem the day after the world doesn't end. When there is no rapture on May 21st, when the world doesn't end on October 21st of 2011, there will be a lot of very bewildered, unhappy people who will need our support.

It would be easy to laugh at them. But I think they would be better off getting kindness from us.

So when the world doesn't end... send me an email and we will talk. I'm looking forward to seeing you then.

---------------------

June 15, 2011 - Follow up

Simple diagram of Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal said:

You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

So, if we assume that God will reward someone who is "playing it safe" in a gamble, if we assume that God won't punish someone for faking belief where there is none, and if we assume that God won't punish people for being too lazy to make an effort to found belief on something more substantial, then we get a decision matrix that Christians say looks something like this:


But Atheists see a very different decision matrix:

Huh.

The mixed up Burden of Proof

In the last few months I've encountered several Christians who have tried to reverse the burden of proof that I demand for claims of God. I've tried explaining, both here in my blog and in person, that the burden rests upon the person making the claim.

The problem that I seem to have is that a religious person will often deny that Atheism, or even the more tenuous statement of "waiting for proof" is any sort of default position. Instead they claim that Atheism or skepticism is a positive claim that requires proof.

This is the way that Ray Comfort argues in his "Way of the Master" series. It's is the argument proposed in the book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist". The argument goes that since I'm not personally Omniscient, then there really isn't any way that I can say that there is NOT a God, and therefore I must logically believe that there IS a God.

To counter this argument, Atheists make up fake Gods like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But I don't think we use them very well. Something my friend Richard said a few weeks ago got me thinking about how to better apply these counters to the shifting burden of proof.

Richard mentioned that he saw an interview with Daniel Dennett who countered this shifting proof by saying something like, "Well, the invisible elf on my shoulder tells me that you're wrong." This is a brilliant move. The religious person can't claim immunity from the burden of proof for his own deity while demanding that you must meet the burden of proof for your own imaginary friend.

So, my favorite imaginary friend is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (Yes, I'm unicornarian, not pastafarian!) The next time someone asks me to prove that God doesn't exist, or the next time someone tries the Ray Comfort method of asking me how can I be sure there is no God if I'm not personally omniscient, I'll respond by introducing them to the IPU, in the same manner that Elwood Dowd introduces Harvey. I'll let the IPU tell them that their God doesn't exist, and that they're being silly.

What, you don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Do you claim to know all there is to know?

Oh No! The Troops need Bibles!

Tim Todd Ministries, "Revival Fires Newsletter" is breathlessly reporting a non-existent problem in order to drum up business for his organization.

According to Mr. Todd, from the newsletter:

Every day our soldiers put their life on the line for us in Iraq and
Afghanistan to stop this awful spread of international terrorism
against the United States. I believe the very least we can do is to
make sure they all have Bibles!

....

Our soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be sent into battle without Bibles!

Oh no! Our soldiers don't have Bibles! The Horror!

As someone who served in the US Air Force for 10 years - I find it really difficult to believe that Bibles are so hard to get. In fact, 3 of the Bibles that I currently own are from 3 different assignments. Keesler AFB, Camp Red Cloud, and Kadena AB.

Where can a military member get a Bible while on assignment? I got two of my Bibles from an Army / Air Force Exchange System (AAFES) bookstore. Neither were very expensive. Another was given to me by the USO.

But I wasn't holding a rifle on the front line - so I'll admit my experience probably isn't the same as a front-line soldier. Even so - Afghanistan and Iraq both have fully stocked AAFES PX / BX. For the troops nearby, it would be an easy matter to walk in and purchase a Bible during a little down time. And for those who are not near an AAFES, they would still have the occasional opportunity to do a little personal shopping. Use the AAFES Downrange Store Locator to find the nearest AAFES. Here's an image of part of the PX located in Bagram Afghanistan.

The military does make some provisions for members for free. When I was in Basic Training, I recall very clearly when the Chaplin told us that if anyone wanted a Bible, we were welcome to one. All we had to do was ask. There was even an official cross that we could ask for.

And if you're wondering where these items might come from - well they are provided by the military supply system! All it took was a word to the company clerk and you could also have one of these items in your possession. And if you didn't want to go through the official channels, a simple word to the military Chaplin would get you what you needed.

If you are in the military, you are probably already at least somewhat familiar with the military supply system. National Stock Numbers, catalogs. When I was active duty, our supply catalog was on microfiche, and it was huge! We were pretty darned happy when it was transferred to CD-Rom with a half-way decent search engine. (We spent some time seeing what sorts of outrageous items were available to be ordered. Beer of various sorts was fun to find. Hard liquor, dog supplies and even an entire horse was available!)

Now, the entire catalog is available online. You can find it here. (If you are in the military, use your military order system.) I took a moment to see what was available. Here's one publicly accessible portion of the supply system. In the "Name Keyword(s)" box, type the word "Bible" and hit 'Enter'. Oh my! Look at that - a page of results that include various versions of the Bible - and those have various covers too! You want a bible with a desert cameoflage cover? It's there! A bible map set, a Spanish bible? It's there too!

And what if we search for the word, "Necklace"? One of the hits is a wooden cross necklace. You could also search for crucifix, but that returns large (as in 6 foot tall) crucifixes used for chapels.

There is something a bit odd. When I searched for the Koran, I got no results. Neither did I get anything from searching for the Quran or Qur'an. Islam did get some results, but those results dealt with how a soldier might handle someone of the Islamic faith. Muslim seemed to give results at first, but those led to dead ends. I guess if you are a US soldier of the Islamic faith you won't have the same opportunity to worship. Maybe Tim Todd should be sending copies of the Qur'an?

The keyword "Jewish" returns several hits... but "Atheist" and "Atheism" returns nothing.


My point in all of this isn't just to show that sending Bibles to troops isn't necessary. I'm trying to point out that there are several ulterior motives that religious ministries are indulging when they hyperventalate about "Soldiers needing Bibles".

First, this is a solution to a non-existent problem. There are enough Bibles in country for any troop who wants one. It might be a bit difficult to distribute the bibles to individuals, but that would be due to a lack of interested volunteers. And distribution is a problem regardless of the origin of the bibles.

Second, sending bibles has a high return on investment for Tim Todd. Not much effort is required for a result that includes a great deal of self-congratulation. With a little effort a religious group can look very good, which is also good for business.

The bibles are purchased by parishioners, then delivered to an APO / FPO point, where the military then subsidizes the cost of delivery. Tim Todd pays domestic postage only - if that. And I'm sure his costs are offset by other donations.

Third, this program is aimed at converting soldiers when they hit their lowest point. A soldier drowning in war will grasp at any stray to stay afloat. These soldiers don't need fairytales and empty platitudes - they need help. They need friends, an ear to listen to them, professional counselors to keep them sane.

Fourth, this program is divisive. Evangelical methods create evangelists. The military has already demonstrated that members will apply a great deal of peer-pressure to the non-Christian. In some cases, outright discrimination takes place. Divisiveness is NOT a trait you want to encourage in a team that is supposed to work together in a firefight.

Lastly, this program will saturate a non-Christian country with Bibles. When there are more bibles than there are soldiers who want them, evangelical minded soldiers may try giving them to the local Islamic population. It's for their own good, right? They won't mind.

You want to send a soldier something? Don't bother with sending them a Bible. If they're near an AAFES then send them a gift certificate. If they are not, then send a donation through the USO. You can also just send our soldiers a message of support.

That makes a lot more sense than sending a Bible, or worse, putting a yellow sticker on your SUV.

Mere Atheism

There's an old joke about an American who is visiting Ireland. The gentleman stops off for a pint in a local pub, and as he's taking his first sip one of the other patrons strikes up a conversation. During that conversation he asks the American if he is a Catholic or a Protestant.

The American answered, “Neither. I'm an Atheist.”

“I see,” replied the Irishman. “Well then, are ya a Catholic Atheist or a Protestant Atheist?"

This is part two of my two-part investigation of former Atheists. In part one I claim that Christians who use the label of "former Atheist" in reality never gave much thought to Atheism, and instead have used their past Atheism as part of their Christian Credentials in order to claim greater authority.

In part two, I'll examine several famous ex-Atheists. Unlike Christians, I don't claim these people were never "True" Atheists - I just don't think they gave Atheism or any form of Secular moral philosophy much serious thought.


In Lee Strobel's book “The Case for Christ” Strobel writes about his Atheism:

For much of my life I was a skeptic. In fact, I considered myself an atheist. To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking, of ancient mythology, of primitive superstition. How could there be a loving God if he consigned people to hell just for not believing in him? How could miracles contravene the basic laws of nature? Didn't evolution satisfactorily explain how life originated? Doesn't scientific reasoning dispel belief in the supernatural?

But that's all I had ever really given the evidence: a cursory look. I had read just enough philosophy and history to find support for my skepticism – a fact here, a scientific theory there, a pithy quote a clever argument. Sure I could see some gaps and inconsistencies, but I had a strong motivation to ignore them: a self-serving and immoral lifestyle that I would be compelled to abandon if I were ever to change my views and become a follower of Jesus.

Strobel makes many errors in “The Case for Christ” but the most glaring errors are his failure to investigate Secular moral philosophy, the equating his love of an immoral lifestyle with Atheism, and believing that his one sided interviews of several Christian experts proved his point in a manner supposedly equivalent to the way that lawyers prove a case in a court of law.

Strobel interviewed strong witnesses to Christian Apologetics – but opposing witnesses and rebuttal witnesses are ignored completely. Is this his idea of a fair trial? Strobel also ignored the fact that other religions have their own Apologetics, and so the reader is never treated to Strobel's “Case for Mohamed”, or perhaps “The Case for Judaism”. I believe that if he had used the same flawed methods Strobel might have found the case for Islam to be just as compelling as his case for Christianity. These points alone demonstrate that Strobel never actually gave much thought to the Atheism he supposedly espoused.

In my last post on this topic I showed a chart that defined the differences between implicit and explicit Atheism – I'll reproduce it here. Strobel's version of Atheism is firmly implicit, even though he might claim it to be explicit. It wasn't that he didn't think about Atheism, he did give it some thought. But he seems to have come to the conclusion that people always claim Atheism out of immorality. If he had bothered to seriously interview anyone who understands Secular philosophy based upon empathy and sympathy for others he might have changed his mind.

Strobel used Atheism as an excuse for an immoral lifestyle and he framed the question of religion as an either-or proposition - “Either Christianity is true, or nothing is true” in a classic Pascal's Wager fallacy. So was Strobel an Atheist? Sure – for a sufficiently wide definition of Atheist. He never saw the need to put much thought into his pre-Christian position.


Strobel borrowed a Christian apologetic argument from the popular writer C. S. Lewis. In the chapter called, “The Psychological Evidence” Strobel asked if Jesus is sane and rational – a restatement of Lewis' “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” argument from Lewis' book “Mere Christianity”.

In “Mere Christianity” Lewis also clams status as a past Atheist. He doesn't speak of his own salvation story in this book, but he makes several references to his godlessness. (Lewis gives his personal testimony in his autobiography, “Surprised by Joy”.)

In Book II of “Mere Christianity” Lewis starts out with this statement:

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.

Lewis makes a mistake that anyone who has ever studied comparative religions easily recognizes. Yes, various religions seem to “hint of the truth” but that is not because they've all seen the “Truth” of Christianity through a distorting lens, it is because they all are invented by humans, and humans tell stories that are related to human experience and to the human condition. After a study of religions that predate Christ it becomes easy to count the similarities, to identify stories in the Bible have earlier equivalents. Humans love stories, and they love heroic legends whether the hero wears a red cape and a big red “S” or if they're dressed in a tunic and sandals while performing their miracles.

Lewis is the first to state the Trilemma, “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” - but he leaves out the possibility that Jesus was merely a “Legend” - someone of which stories were told and embellished.

In my opinion Lewis' biggest mistake in “Mere Christianity” is that he attempts to dismiss the serious doctrinal differences between the various “flavors” of Christianity. Catholic versus Protestant, Reformed versus Traditional, sect against sect. Lewis conveniently forgets that wars have been fought over doctrinal differences. Many Christian religions actively proselytize to members of other Christian congregations in an effort to sway them from a perceived false faith and in an effort to bring them to the “real” truth. From the viewpoint of a studious Atheist, attempting to gather Christian groups who oppose each other, sometimes violently, under one roof is a serious flaw in Christian Apologetics.

Was C. S. Lewis an Atheist? Implicitly yes – but in reading “Mere Christianity” it becomes clear that he was never explicitly Atheist – he never gave any thought to Secular philosophy or serious consideration that other opposing religions or Christian sects might have equal validity.


What about other famous former Atheists, such as Josh McDowell and Ray Comfort? I've been confronted by acquaintances who who claim their conversions are a blow to Atheism. But when I did some digging, I found out that neither of these people were ever Atheist.


Popular Christian author Josh McDowell was an agnostic who once claimed that Christ wasn't divine, but had no problem believing in a deistic God. In his book “More than a Carpenter” McDowell uses the “Lord, Liar, Lunatic” fallacy from C.S. Lewis, and he completely misses the point in his brief study of comparative religions in the chapter “Will the Real Messiah please stand up?” He either ignores or hand-waves away Biblical contradictions, which is understandable – his degree from Talbot Seminary is based upon a requirement of Biblical literalism.

McDowell's own words show that he was not even atheistic, and his arguments based upon a predetermined conclusion show a dishonesty that Atheists are wise to note.


In Ray Comfort's Christian testimony he said that although he thought the religion of Christianity was “boring”, he had no problem believing in God. Transcribed from his audio testimony:

“I thought a Christian was someone who believed in God, that's all. And I thought if someone had said “Are you a Christian?” and I would have said, “Sure”. Because I said prayers at night, I believed in God – I wasn't a fool. If there's a creation, there must be a Creator, if things are made there must be a Maker.”

Comfort's arguments against Atheism certainly don't come from personal knowledge. His version of Christianity also dishonestly predetermines a conclusion – that of Creationism.


What about other famous former Atheists? Ray Comfort's partner, Kirk Cameron, claims past Atheism. According to his interview in Today's Christian:

Although he had only been to church once or twice in his life, the young man had seen hypocrisy and self-righteousness among those who believed in God—so much so that Cameron began to consider himself a "devout atheist."

"As far as I was concerned, thinking people didn't believe in fairy tales," he remembers telling himself. When asked in interviews about God, the teenager would respond: "There's no God. You can't prove that there's a God. Absolutely not. You guys are performing your own lobotomy in order to believe this kind of stuff."

Cameron makes two very revealing statements in this interview. First:

Cameron, 32, says he viewed the world as though he were the center of it and began expecting things to be done for him—because they were. "Anything I wanted was given to me. That was what I expected because that was my reality."

And second:

Cameron likens that time in his life to biting into a chocolate bunny on Easter and realizing that it's hollow. "There was this aching, empty feeling that left me very disillusioned with the business I was working in," he says. "What else was there? What else did I have to shoot for? I'd basically reached the top of the ladder, and I was 18."

Kirk Cameron's life before Christianity was that of a spoiled brat. He had no moral foundations on which to build – so of course this must be the fault of Atheism, and not a lack of character or good upbringing. How different his life might have been if he had found a strong moral Atheist role model, or if he had learned a Secular philosophy based upon empathy and sympathy for others. If he had instead been invited to a Secular Humanism function instead of a Christian service, Cameron might still have turned his meaningless life around, but in a Secular direction.

Kirk was firmly, implicitly atheistic – and never explicitly Atheist. This really doesn't surprise me because from the debate he participated in against the Rational Response Squad, it is easy to see that he doesn't put much thought into anything.


Implicit Atheism seems to be the general trend for those Christians who claim past Atheism as part of their credentials. But in every case I've examined so far, the form of Atheism they claim seems to be the a version that doesn't include ethics or a positive Secular moral philosophy.

I'm not saying that these people were milquetoast Atheists – some like born again Christian William J. Murray, son of famous Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair grew up vehemently denying God in an explicit version of “strong Atheism”. But in every case, even William Murray's, they lacked any foundation in Secular moral philosophy. The lacked an upbringing or training in methods of answering ethical questions from a compassionate, empathic, sympathetic Secular point of view. These people used Atheism as an excuse to be bad, not as a position of reason or logic.

Were these people Atheists? Sure, for a sufficiently wide definition of Atheism. But these people weren't Atheists due to logic, reason or understanding. They were merely atheistic for wholly selfish reasons.

Mere Atheists.