Atheism And Theism – Both Logically FlawedMany and possibly all traditional expressions of theism and atheism suffer from inherent logical flaws. The idea is in general accord with a debate I’m currently re-hashing with myself over whether a successful ontological argument exists, or whether one is even capable of existing, and if yes or no, then also on what grounds. My area of expertise is not philosophy or logic, and the presupposition in this particular argument is that I correctly understand the terms I use to support my thesis.
Televangelist Transgression: The Health And Wealth, Abundant Life TropesInterestingly, this new age of televangelist reminds me of the classic New Age, realize-all-your-dreams-and-desires guru: Impeccably clean and dangerously persuasive, with just a slightly discernible veil of cunning. I wanna spout off about some of the typical American religious chutzpah I'm listening to right now, conveniently on Sunday morning.
Assessing The Value Of ReligionWhen should we grant or relinquish trust in the various religious statements, leaders and organizations?
Religious statements can address the here-and-now or the forever-after. Part of our answer to the question of which religious beliefs to accept depends on whether our primary concerns are the here-and-now, the forever-after, or both.
Analogies Between Marriage And FaithI never thought I’d in any way, shape, or form be expressing these ideas publicly. They just peg me as your typical right-wing, corn-fed, midwestern Judeo-Christian-dogma-asserting-non-intellectual ignoramus. I’m sorry if the use of that stereotype offends or isolates anybody, but I feel it is a legitimate stereotype and its use represents the exception to my rule against them. But really, for the past few days now, these authentic realizations have forced themselves upon me with a crystal-clear lucidity I just can’t seem to shake.
ChristianJust what is a Christian? Or, what set of behaviors is implied by the term? Famed logician and skeptic Bertrand Russell addressed this in his essay Why I Am Not A Christian:
Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life…"
As in Russell's time, the meaning of the word is vague today. It seems possible to be a Christian by one person’s definition yet equally possible to not be a Christian by another’s. If the definition of the word Christian is assumed to be somebody who believes in God and goes to church, then by that definition there are a great many Christians around. However, if a Christian is defined as somebody who accepts and adheres to the teachings of Christ, then there are hardly any Christians around. Besides, what type of Christian are you referring to? Protestant? Catholic? Liberal? Scientist? The point of all this is not to play the game of semantics; rather, such examples are included to highlight the importance of clarifying our terms to prevent the furthering of ignorance, dissension and misunderstanding.
SpiritThe concept of a spiritual plane is a universal notion that has found expression in all cultures from antiquity to modern times. Goethe referred to it when he wrote, “I have a firm conviction that our spirit is a being of indestructible nature…” and Manly P. Hall echoes this sentiment with the following: “There are many levels of life which we cannot see and know, yet which certainly exist…” Indeed, our world scriptures speak of celestial beings including the Bible, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Koran and many others. The assertion that the true reality behind life is unseen or spiritual is a common one, and the Hebrew scriptures in particular contend that a human is a tripartite being consisting of body, soul and spirit.
Even if she is the most ardent skeptic, a truly objective scientist is forced to admit that the existence of spiritual phenomena is, at a bare minimum, possible. Open-minded scientists know that the idea itself is in accord with several lines of indirect evidence, both newly emerging and classic. I find it fallacious and closed-minded to assume that all we can experience empirically is all there is, mostly because the number of phenomena we can detect empirically grows in accordance with our technology and knowledge. Due to an unhealthy interpretation of the scientific method as the ultimate test of truth, modern society has conditioned itself to believe mainly in what it can see, experience and reproduce, and it is a very limiting proposition to frame reality in the context of orthodox naturalism.
Human perception is a wonderful servant but a horrible master. Scientifically speaking, normal limits exist regarding the physical senses such as hearing or sight, evidenced by a dog’s ability to perceive audio frequencies too high in pitch for a human to perceive. That is why those little whistles drive dogs absolutely crazy yet have no effect on humans. Just because we can’t hear those whistles doesn’t mean the frequencies they emit are not real. Just ask the dog! In similar fashion, the human retina is only able to perceive roughly five percent of the electromagnetic light spectrum. The rods and cones of the human eye are tuned to perceive energy only within the narrow range of 800nm to 400nm. Anything outside of this energy frequency goes undetected by the human eye. In other words, about ninety-five percent of the energy that surrounds us is visually imperceptible to us. Who is to say that spirits are not simply beings composed of higher or lower frequency energy that we cannot detect with our extremely short range of visual perception?
Exploring the religious or mystical side, the key words used to denote the spirit are ruach and neshemah in Hebrew and pneuma in Greek. Both words have strong connection to the ideas of ‘breath’ or ‘air.’ It is also interesting is that across the board, death is accompanied by a cessation of breath, and a cessation of breath is accompanied by death. We literally, "give up our breath" the moment we expire. Indeed a human being is a conglomeration of chemicals and elements that can be weighed and measured, but there is also an integral impetus that pushes these non-living chemicals into a progressive and life-unfolding organization. Like the proverbial Prometheus, we can cup this fire in our hands and dispense it in lesser increments. In the blink of an eye this deeper impetus halts its operation of the body, and upon that moment the same exact bundle of chemicals and elements that was just teeming with molecular dynamism begins an corollary process of entropic decay. The plight of all physical life in the current earthly sphere is disintegration into dust, which is in accord with Genesis 3:19.
An excellent deliberation of these concepts is afforded in the book Grand Illusions, author Little.
False Argument #6: Impossible to Reconcile Flight to Egypt With Temple PresentationIn one of many arguments to establish the New Testament as unreliable historically, Mangasarian brings up what he feels to be a discrepancy between accounts of what took place during the time immediately after Jesus’ birth.
Matthew records that after Jesus was born, Magi from the east came to visit him and present gifts. Prior to finding Jesus, they approached Herod and asked if he knew where the newborn ‘king of the Jews’ was. (Matthew 2:2) Herod, disturbed, told the Magi to report back to him when they found the location of the newborn ‘king of the Jews,’ no doubt a political move. The Magi were warned in a dream not to return to Herod, while Mary and Joseph were warned in a dream to take Jesus and flee to Egypt. It is important to point out that the length of time the Magi stayed is not specified in Matthew’s account. Luke then records that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph took him to the temple to be presented as was the Jewish custom of the time. Are the two in conflict, as Mangasarian claims?
Mangasarian writes, “It is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple…Luke says nothing about this hurried flight. On the contrary, he tells us that after the 40 days of purification were over, Jesus was publicly presented at the temple, where Herod, if he really, as Matthew relates, wished to seize him, could have done so without difficulty.”
Luke indeed does write that after the 40 days of purification required by Jewish law were over Jesus was presented at the temple. So what exactly does Mangasarian contend? He is arguing that since Herod wanted to kill Jesus, there is no logical way in the world that Mary and Joseph would have presented Jesus in the temple, because Herod could have seized him. In theory it sounds logical. However, Mangasarian omits to mention Matthew 2:7,8 in which Herod originally told the Magi to report back to him to disclose the location of Jesus so he could worship him. However, the Magi never returned to Herod. It was not until two years later that Herod realized the Magi had ditched him. It was then that Herod “…gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” (Matthew 2:16) Why, otherwise, would the edict include the detail of two years? In other words, I’m contending that the three could’ve slipped in for purification right under Herod’s nose, while he was waiting for the Magi to return.
So, at the time Jesus was being presented at the temple, 40 days after his birth, Herod was still waiting for the Magi to return and tell him where Jesus was. Herod may or may not have been engaging in an active search for the baby Jesus, his edict had not been decreed. Mangasarian forms an irrational conclusion from a faulty premise. The faulty premise is that ‘it is impossible to reconcile the flight to Egypt with the presentation in the temple.’ This, as just demonstrated, is not true. At the time Jesus was presented in the temple, Herod was waiting for the Magi to return. It was not until two years after Jesus had been born that Herod gave his murderous orders.
So, the likely scenario is that Jesus was born and presented in the temple forty days later, and shortly thereafter, Mary and Joseph escaped to Egypt. Mangasarian’s faulty conclusion is that ‘this inconsistency is certainly insurmountable and makes it look as if the narrative had no value whatever as history.’
Mangasarian has made better arguments against the New Testament. The only inconsistency in this case Mangasarian’s inaccurate interpretation of scripture.
BibleThe Bible claims for itself to be a recording of the creator’s interaction with the creation, specifically the ancient Hebrews or Israelites, the predecessors of our modern day Jews. The word ‘bible’ comes from ta biblia, the Greek neuter-plural form of to biblion, which translates, ‘book,’ or ‘scroll.’ Hence, 'the Bible,' or ta biblia means ‘the books,’ and the plural form suggests that the Bible is not a single work but a small library of books written by many authors. Indeed that is the case with 66 different books in the canon, written by roughly 40 different authors of different backgrounds at different times occurring over a period of almost 2,000 years. The first book ever printed was in fact the Gutenberg Bible in the mid-fifteenth century, so named after the man who invented the printing press, John Gutenberg.