…and this is a 
August Berkshire in the news
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: February 25, 2006 1:02 PM, by PZ Myers
August Berkshire of Minnesota Atheists gave a talk at Northwestern College, one of our regional evangelical Christian colleges, and the Star Tribune has a story about it. He gave the students a list of very poor religious rationalizations—it's a strange and interesting story, and a little sad, since the students don't seem to have learned anything at all.
There are also peculiar little twists to everything that reflect how blinkered people can be. Berkshire was invited by the instructor in a theology class, and look how unaware this guy is:
Johnson told the group that his association with Berkshire began when a student went to a debate at the University of Minnesota and brought him Berkshire's card. "I had a strong urge to call him up and tell him to leave my student alone," Johnson said. "But I was curious, too -- I'd never really rubbed shoulders with an atheist.
Isn't that odd? The student had gone to a debate and met Berkshire, and the instructor's first thought is to tell the atheist to leave the poor kid alone. And then for a theology teacher to have never met an atheist…these people are all hothouse flowers, aren't they? They get brought up in avoidance of anything that might challenge their delicate beliefs.
He shouldn't have worried. There's a series of student responses at the end of the article, and it's clear that they have all developed very strong denial mechanisms, and not a word sunk in.
"I appreciated that he was very approachable, not hostile," said Andrew Olson, 20, of Long Prairie, after class. "I was curious about his motivations, though. Why was he here? I felt like he came to try to convince us there is no God, even though he said he hadn't.
Yeah, and like he didn't have fangs and claws or anything. I thought the article clearly laid out why he was there: the instructor invited him, and as usual, August laid out his case quite clearly:
Berkshire told the students he wasn't trying to talk them out of their beliefs. "I don't care if you accept my arguments or not," he said. "I just want to show you that yours are based on faith, not reason. And that's OK, as long as you don't try to force them on me or our government."
Pay attention, take better notes, and think, kid.
"I wanted to ask him more about the Bible, if he thinks it's all deluded," Olson said. "He groups all religions together. I'd have liked to discuss the merits of salvation by grace, a truly unique concept."
Maybe thinking isn't an option, then. He didn't follow Berkshire's points 1 and 2. "Salvation by grace" is nothing but unjustified dogma, a bit of empty noise. I am a little curious what possible arguments he would use to justify it, but I suspect it would be nothing but a bunch of quoted Bible verses.
Krista Baysinger, 20, of Benson, Minn., said, "I really enjoyed it. He was noncondemning and presented his arguments well. But nothing he said shook my faith -- not at all. Actually, this is a way to help us strengthen what we believe, by thinking it through."
Unfortunately, none of the students quoted are actually thinking.
Betty Kraus, 20, of Prior Lake, wondered why Berkshire "has invested so much of his life in this. I mean, he comes in and lays out argument after argument that he wouldn't accept from us. What would he have us do?"
Wait a moment…a student who has enrolled in a Bible college is wondering about an atheist spending so much of his life on something? Does she think he spent his childhood going to atheist school on Sundays and atheist camp in the summer, after high school he went off to atheist college to get a degree in atheism, and now goes to atheist services a couple of times a week and sings in the atheist choir? These kids really need to get more exposure to the non-Christian life.
Oh, well. One can always hope that there were a few kids there who were using their brains…but they were probably not the ones who would glibly parrot a string of rationalizations to the reporter afterwards.
Comments
It's amazing the kids thought he was there on a 'misson' to shake their faith. I guess it's sorta like that 'gay agenda' they complain about too, huh, perfesser?
Posted by: Fixer | February 25, 2006 1:15 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 25, 2006 1:23 PM
I suspect that there's a good deal of projection going on in cases like this. Christians often make it their mission to convert others to Christianity, so they feel that when counter-arguments are offered, it must be because the non-Christian is trying to strip their faith from them.
Posted by: Kyle | February 25, 2006 1:25 PM
Does she think he spent his childhood going to atheist school on Sundays and atheist camp in the summer, after high school he went off to atheist college to get a degree in atheism, and now goes to atheist services a couple of times a week and sings in the atheist choir?
My favorite memory of Atheist Camp is the time our motley group of misfit atheist campers beat the rich kids from the Christian Camp across the lake in the big canoe race.
Posted by: Sean Foley | February 25, 2006 1:38 PM
It is nice to know there are people like August who are willing to make these sorts of presentations. Keep up the good work August!
Posted by: Torris | February 25, 2006 2:32 PM
I don't understand #15. "Without God, there can be no free will." What? I thought Rush said that free will was the absence of God.
Posted by: Rey | February 25, 2006 2:32 PM
Hey! How come my parents never let ME go to atheist camp?
Posted by: BJHokanson | February 25, 2006 2:39 PM
From the Star-Tribune article:
In general I think terminology like this isn't terribly useful outside of debates with theists, but I'm pretty sure these are backwards.
Posted by: pdf23ds | February 25, 2006 2:51 PM
Posted by: ivy privy | February 25, 2006 3:07 PM
Posted by: wamba | February 25, 2006 3:10 PM
Well, I'm one atheist who certainly doesn't group all religions together. Many of them are almost entirely benign. It's been a pretty long time since the last zen-buddhist rampage of conquest, for example.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | February 25, 2006 3:17 PM
Posted by: wamba | February 25, 2006 3:17 PM
In the interest of equal time:
Creation Boot Camp
May 2005, run by "Dr. Dino" Hovind
Posted by: wamba | February 25, 2006 3:19 PM
From the way August was portrayed in those two articles, it didn't sound like he was tremendously persuasive. If I were a Christian student at a Bible college, I probably wouldn't have been moved either.
The only way to get out from under religion is to think for yourself. As PZ noted, those kids aren't doing that.
Posted by: Jeremy | February 25, 2006 3:24 PM
I can visualize my brother in law clutching his chest and swooning, as he does when my emails arrive in his box.
Posted by: mr.ed | February 25, 2006 3:26 PM
And this one time, in atheist camp....
Posted by: MJ Memphis | February 25, 2006 3:28 PM
Bible College folks sometimes show up at Pesach seders, too. you're supposed to discuss stuff at seders, question what the heck the strange story means, and so on. most remain politely quiet.
Posted by: ekzept | February 25, 2006 3:28 PM
If you think about it, most camps are atheist camps: you're trying to learn about nature from nature rather than the Bible. Fancy that!
Posted by: Troutnut | February 25, 2006 4:05 PM
I don't understand #15. "Without God, there can be no free will." What? I thought Rush said that free will was the absence of God.
I think that's what they call a "paradox." For instance: there is free will and yet there is not free will; there is predestination and yet there is not predestination, etc.
For crying out loud, just because we don't understand something, that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. Holy sweet flying Jesus on a flagpole, just because it seems as though it doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean we shoudn't respect the beliefs of others. Like my grandpappy used to say, "Holy stick me on a toothpick and call me Jesus!"
Posted by: 386sx | February 25, 2006 4:15 PM
If August Berkshire gave a good talk I wouldn't be very surprised if perhaps 1 or 2 students were a little shaken in their dogma, and that perhaps 1 or 2 might begin the process of disentangling themselves from belief in nonsense.
Posted by: cm | February 25, 2006 4:46 PM
" It's been a pretty long time since the last zen-buddhist rampage of conquest, for example.
-jcr"
You owe me a new keyboard.
How about: "No one expects the Quaker Inquisition!"
A talk like Berkshire's is mainly of value in demonstrating that non-christians don't have horns, hooves, and forked tails. (at least in groups that have led sheltered lives)
Posted by: Dale | February 25, 2006 5:34 PM
I should have posted this sooner. It's the standard 300 proofs of god's existence.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | February 25, 2006 5:46 PM
I am in agreement. People these days seem to think that you were either put here by God, or, failing divine intervention, animated from a slimey egg in a cave miles beneath the Earth's crust.
People who say they practice tolerance and then make comments like that show they have never known the concept. A friend of mine who had a form of cancer was once told by someone that they'd pray for her. When my friend asked this person why, the lady said it was because my friend had done something to offend God, and he gave her this cancer hardship in retaliation.
Talk about assumptions...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 25, 2006 6:33 PM
Re "atheist camps," wamba's link to Camp Quest is right on point. In the past, I've been a counselor at the original Camp Quest, in the Cincinnati area....
I'm not positive, but I think it's a pretty good bet that August Berkshire has spent some time at Camp Quest of Minnesota. As an adult volunteer, that is, not as a camper.
And, er, none of this weakens the "atheist camp" point PZ was making in the first place.
Posted by: Rieux | February 25, 2006 6:35 PM
"From the way August was portrayed in those two articles, it didn't sound like he was tremendously persuasive. If I were a Christian student at a Bible college, I probably wouldn't have been moved either."
They won't speak their doubts out loud in front of the entire Bible College, and might not even admit they have them, but there's no telling what is going on inside the minds of some of the silent students. Don't imagine that every one of them is indoctrinated beyond all hope. I can almost guarantee you there were a couple future atheists in that room who will (quietly) begin to think about Berkshire's arguments.
Most young people go to a Bible College because their parents and church expect them to; once there, some will begin to experiment with new ideas, as young people at any college are likely to do. In some ways, a Bible College holds more fertile soil than a public university, because many of these kids actually care whether their religion is true. Don't be misled by the obligitory protestations of faith; they can't say so in that forum, but I'm certain there are a few students who have started thinking about the basis of their faith. . . or will someday start thinking about it. Berkshire is doing good work.
And meanwhile, Bible colleges produce excellent practitioners of oral sex. ;)
Posted by: Former evangelical | February 25, 2006 6:40 PM
Posted by: wamba | February 25, 2006 7:07 PM
And meanwhile, Bible colleges produce excellent practitioners of oral sex. ;)
Oh. My. Yes! (and Former Evangelical owes me a keyboard too)
Posted by: Dale | February 25, 2006 7:10 PM
The students that were impacted by August would be very unlikely to say anything publically. After all they are surrounded by others that would subject them to intense pressure and threats (of damnation). I don't know too many college age people that can stand up to concerted peer pressure, especially if from a controlled environment like a christian household. Hopefully a couple of students will quietly begin to use their reason and will, when they feel safer, make a break for freedom.
Of course they oculd dome to British Columbia, we are now officially 35% religion free. (thanks to Sean at Cosmic Variance for making me aware of the facts where I live:) )
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/25/the-godless-north/
Posted by: CanuckRob | February 25, 2006 7:24 PM
The students that were impacted by August would be very unlikely to say anything publically. After all they are surrounded by others that would subject them to intense pressure and threats (of damnation). I don't know too many college age people that can stand up to concerted peer pressure, especially if from a controlled environment like a christian household. Hopefully a couple of students will quietly begin to use their reason and will, when they feel safer, make a break for freedom.
Of course they could come to British Columbia, we are now officially 35% religion free. (thanks to Sean at Cosmic Variance for making me aware of the facts where I live:) )
http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/25/the-godless-north/
Posted by: CanuckRob | February 25, 2006 7:24 PM
They now have a face for atheists. Something they did not have before. Those words will ring in their ears and one day maybe years from now some of them will "come to" and realize how much of their life has been a fraud. Good job August Berkshire.
Posted by: James 54 | February 25, 2006 8:51 PM
"Those words will ring in their ears and one day maybe years from now some of them will "come to" and realize how much of their life has been a fraud..."
I think the tail end of this comment is a bit harsh. I'm not a religious person, but a I'm willing to bet some of these people don't go around professing creationism every day, or to every other person they meet. Let's reserve our criticism for those that truly seek to denounce real science and fact to support falsehoods. We shouldn't throw well-meaning people that haven't contributed to the religious hysteria into the pit as well.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 25, 2006 9:33 PM
CanuckRob: BC may be very secular in some respects, but don't forget that Trinity Western University is there. BC is a very weirdly polarized place in some respects. (I even noticed it within Vancouver when I lived there for two years.)
Posted by: Keith Douglas | February 26, 2006 8:23 AM
Not just BC -- this is a west coast thing, in my experience. The west coast attracts extremes as well as those less extreme from both sides, so it tends to have left and ultra right as well as atheists and fundamentalists. Places like Abbottsford in BC are well known for their populations of conservative Christians, but it's actually more scattered about than that.
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 26, 2006 11:33 AM
My favorite memory of Atheist Camp is the time our motley group of misfit atheist campers beat the rich kids from the Christian Camp across the lake in the big canoe race.
Atheist Camp was just terrible. I mean, I got hot and heavy with one little honey, but she started screaming "Oh Random Fluctuations in the Quantum Foam, I'm coming!!" and I lost my rhythm completely.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | February 26, 2006 3:30 PM
Keith Douglas, yes I know about Trinity Western and I live in Abbotsford so I am very aware of the number of godbotherers here. I am well aware of the polarity here, in politics as well as religion. I was not trying to overstate the case, it was more of a joke. The fact that there are so many that said no to any religion includes many Chinese that are probably technically animists as well as way too many new agers. Oh well, it's still better than many places.
Posted by: CanuckRob | February 26, 2006 5:46 PM
I wanted to hear more about August's thoughts about Christianity specifically because the idea of salvation by grace is completely different than any other religion's idea of salvation. I wanted to hear the atheist view of the motivation behind a belief that does not demand religious acts and complete devotion to a modern prophet in order to obtain salvation. Since I also do not equate the Bible and the Quran or the book of Mormon, I was also curious about an atheist perspective on the obvious differences that exist between these religious books. We did not have much time to get into the issues behind each point that August made so I did not see them as being closed topics. Each of August's 18 points cannot be argued for or refuted in the amount of time given that class, so I wanted a little more from a few of them.
As for the students not understanding the motivation behind August coming to speak to class, I think the answer is quite obvious. Why would a person spend so much time and energy in order to believe nothing? He spends a considerable amount of energy refuting something rather than arguing for his own beliefs. Is the motivation to just attempt to stop Christians from opposing gay marriage in the legislature? Personally, if I oppose that sort of legislation it is far more about my political views than my religious views. When I get into the idea of ordaining gay people in my denomination, then it gets religious and I base my arguments upon scripture.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 26, 2006 7:46 PM
Every religion has its own unique myths, which its advocates tend to amplify in importance beyond all reason. Big deal. Salvation by grace is one of your religion's irrational quirks, nothing more, and is no more significant than salvation by bathing in the blood of a sacrificed bull.
"Believe in nothing?" Atheists believe in all of the space, time, matter, and energy that exists; we believe in the whole dang universe and everything in it, including humanity. We reject absurd nonsense invented by human beings that contradicts reality. You also disbelieve every religion in the world but one, so shall we define you by all that you don't believe?
I see you didn't learn anything from the presentation. I'm sorry about that.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 26, 2006 7:55 PM
What I mean by believe in "nothing" is that his statement that he is a "positive atheist" is essentially false. His 18 arguments were not arguments for something, they were merely arguments against the existence of God. They were not even arguments for the advancement of science, though he loved to pull out his science magazines and showcase a possible "god gene" that would make people inclined to believe in the supernatural.
Why do you think that grace is irrational? Do you think that if God exists, it would be irrational for Him to make a way to bridge the gap between Him and His people?
I think you are taking the definition of an "atheist" incorrectly if you think that Atheists are forced to believe in theories of the universe, matter and space defined by modern scienctists. The root definition of an atheist is merely the denial of a god.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 26, 2006 8:45 PM
You really weren't paying attention. No, those aren't arguments against the existence of gods: he gave you a list of very poor arguments that people use for gods. Look at them again; he was explaining that all 18 of those arguments were logically flawed.
You are too deeply steeped in the dogma to recognize it, but the whole foolish idea of a god becoming a man and "dying" but not really somehow saving people from "sin" is really, truly, deeply stupid. It does not make sense. Repeating it over and over again won't help.
It's amusing to have a Christian lecture me on what an atheist is. Do you mind if I make up stuff and assert that that is what you believe? Atheists are not "forced" to believe anything. You claimed that they believe in nothing, which is patently false. Of course we do, and we have a great many riches to believe in...in fact, the natural world makes your narrow little book of cultish and primitive rules and myths look paltry indeed.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 26, 2006 8:56 PM
Calling something stupid without addressing it does not make sense either.
I'm not talking about the arguments that won't work, I'm talking about the illogical refutation of them.
I'm simply asserting what the definition of an atheist is, and what is not. You are adding things which you may believe as an individual but are not encompassed within the definition.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 26, 2006 9:03 PM
Andrew, seems like you're missing one of the key points of a presentation like August's. You seem to be operating with a false set of beliefs -- that August was (a) trying to convert you, and (b) wasting his time.
August clearly denied (a). Stating otherwise implies you think him a liar.
As for point (b), your instructor invited him. Making this point implicitly invokes a critique of your instructor. I rather suspect, however, that he was quite aware of what he was doing.
It may be true that accepting August's list as accurate, that there is no *rational* basis for your belief, might be worrisome. But this doesn't require a loss of your faith -- and though it may challenge it, isn't the point of this sort of exercise to *strengthen* your faith? After all, faith without any rational motivation for it is even more amazing a commitment and gift...no? In fact, as a theological student, this particular approach to the 'conundrum' you're grappling with should be quite familiar to you.
Instead of looking for ways to learn from the experience, however, you're persisting in making arguments that miss the focus of the presentation entirely -- or engaging in ad hominems of August himself. Shame shame, that's one of the classic logical fallacies. And that makes it hypocritical of you too to chide PZ for it.
Posted by: KenL | February 27, 2006 2:32 AM
Salvation by grace has always struck me as a baffling concept.
As far as I can tell the idea goes like this: God created man, and then decided he didn't like him. But then he changed his mind and said, what the hell, I'll let humans into heaven. And so he sent Christ to die for our sins.
Problems:
1. Why does god need a mechanism to dispense grace? As sovereign of everything, simple executive fiat ought to be enough?
2. The idea of sin is entirely arbitrary. Under the grace system, sin is an inherent quality of all men. Why is this the case? Why should god have constructed inferior beings in the first place? What, in fact, is sin? It can't have anything to do with actions if salvation is through grace alone. On the other hand, if it has nothing to do with action but is an inherent quality, then it thus follows that it was designed into us by god.
If this is the case, then why should his grace be virtuous? Isn't he simply refusing to blame us for his own mistakes? And if so, isn't this a basic piece of morality that we expect from any decent being?
It seems to me that the story is not that god is good for having grace now, but that he was in fact quite evil for witholding it in the past.
3. It is, in fact, not a unique concept. It exists, and in fact must exist, in any system in which a god or god is allowed to make the rules, rather then be subordinate to them. Salvation by works can only occur if god is powerless to eject a virtuous soul from heaven.
Meanwhile, if god or the gods can eject the virtuous from heaven, then salvation must be by grace. For example, look at the holy book of the K'iche Mayans, the Popul Vuh. The gods Hurricane and Feathered Serpent create humanity three times; the first two creations they destroy, because they are insufficiently pious; the third creation, us, is suffered to live because we properly worship.
However, our worship does not compel the gods to allow our existance, instead, they suffer us because they feel like it. Which is, of course, salvation by grace.
So, those are my objections to the concept.
Posted by: Christopher | February 27, 2006 3:11 AM
And yes, how much energy is expended in not believing in god? Certainly no more then that expended by the believer.
And why do it? Well, for one, it could be entertaining, for two, it could be that you believe that rational thinking is a useful thing that should be propagated.
It's not really that complicated.
Posted by: Christopher | February 27, 2006 3:15 AM
Salvation by grace: I will repeat my earlier point: It still requires a belief in a God whose existence you can't prove. Since you can't prove the existence of this God, why should it matter to me whether you believe that salvation in an afterlife comes through good works, faith, grace, or doing handsprings? Since I don't believe in an afterlife anyway, why should I care about your superstitions on this subject?
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 8:21 AM
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
The Important Examination of the Holy Scriptures by Voltaire
Some Mistakes of Moses by Robert G. Ingersoll
Note that all of these were published over 100 years ago, so if you haven't heard of them it's not my fault.
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 8:49 AM
Hi Andrew
If you read the article you will find out some of his motivation:
"The Minnesota Atheists, he said, work primarily to make sure public money isn't used to suppress science, evangelize or promote religion."
I have been working with other atheists in Denmark for some time on an atheist site, (which now has opened an international branch http://www.atheiste.net ).
We do it because we think it is fun to debate, because we think it is important to express our oppinions, and not leave it up to the religious to define society.
That doesn't mean I have something against christians, muslims, buddhists or others of faith, I just don't believe what they do.
I would encourage you to seek out more knowledge about atheists by perhaps visting groups such as the atheism vs christianity on google, or perhaps the one I am associated with listed above.
There are a lot of atheists who have studied religion. Many of my friends at the atheist site are former christians, some have been born again, they have lived the life as christians, but now have left the faith.
Others like me have been baptized and confirmed, but have never believed in anything, only realising late that they are atheists, others have always seen themselves as atheists. We are a motley crew!
/Soren
Posted by: Soren | February 27, 2006 8:58 AM
Oops - should have pressed preview
http://www.atheist.net
Posted by: Soren | February 27, 2006 9:00 AM
First of all, I would like to say that I'm encouraged with all the responses and comments that this article has received. I have not had much opportunity to debate here at college, because we all tend to have the same foundation in the Bible. I appreciate being challenged like this, because it gives me motive to care more about the exact specifics of what I believe and why I believe it to be rational. I have rarely been involved in such a discussion since high school.
That being said, I can better understand the motivation behind an atheist spending energy to debate, as it can be very stimulating and enjoyable. This leads to my point about August's stated motivation being misleading. August was clearly not only interested in keeping religion out of government. He sought to disprove the existence of God through his 18 points and therefore seek to challenge students on their set of assumptions. I cannot rationally deny the possibility of a creator of the earth. I cannot rationally say that all of the writers of the Bible were crazy or delusional. I cannot disprove the existence of Jesus or his resurrection. If the only point of the presentation was to point to belief in God as reliant upon faith and not rationality, I would say "sure". Faith is very necessary in a fallen world where God will not force belief in him by destroying towns (despite what Pat Robertson might insanely state). But this is not where the discussion lies with August. He does not want to hear that God might work in his life to give him faith, he will not accept that possiblity because you cannot find it in an issue of the Modern Scientist. If I were an atheist talking to a bunch of believers in God, I would want them to understand the errors of their beliefs. I do not blame August for doing so, as I just admitted that I would do the same, but I don't see any sense in denying it.
Christopher: I'm very glad you actually chose to address my question rather than taking the easy way out and calling it stupid. I'll do my best to try to respond.
1) God needed to use grace, because we are a fallen world. Sin entered in by way of the devil, and we have been naturally inclined to it ever since. God does not simply seek to control his creation, but to have a relationship with the individual, so He had to come down as Jesus in order to provide us a way to have that relationship.
2) As I stated above, sin was not really an original part of God's creation. God did allow us free will in order to decide to rebel against him, and we originally chose to sin, because we were fooled by Lucifer. God could have adjusted our wills in order that we would love Him at all times, but He chose to make it much more meaningful when we do have faith in him, while others choose to deny Him.
3) It is a unique concept among religions because Christianity is based upon faith, hope and love while other religions invariably are reliant upon the works of the human to save themselves and make themselves righteous. Christians understand that God has done all of the work to bridge the gap between Himself and man. God has also brought us to believe in him. I am simply not smart enough to understand and choose based upon my own knowledge, so God has provided for us.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 10:12 AM
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 10:25 AM
Those 18 arguments that he used were not closed as he might have liked to think that they were. His arguments for those arguments being unconvincing, were not completely convincing. When you state things like "the bible could have been written by people who were deluded" without being open to debate whether or not they were actually deluded, of course someone is going to argue with him. You cannot hide behind an argument by stating that the argument is unconvincing if you hypothetically were to argue for it. You can argue for nothing as long as you like, but sooner or later you're going to have to agree that you are convinced of something, and then we'd be able to argue.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 11:16 AM
The serpent told the truth to Adam and Eve? That they would be gods if only they would eat the forbidden fruit? There is such a thing as completely incorrect interpretation, and you have completely missed the point of the passage. Did I miss something, or am I a God since Adam ate the fruit? Our perfect nature died when he chose to disobey God. In the same way, you cannot blame a parent for a poor decision that a child makes when the parent clearly told them to do the correct thing and instructed them in how to live a good life, yet the child still chose the wrong path. The parent would not and could not force the child to do the parent's will at all times.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 11:24 AM
$%@$% straight he did.
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
[5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
"Ye shall be AS gods" is not the same as "ye shall become gods", with the immediate explanation of the basis of the comparison; the ability to know good from evil. Work on your reading comprehension.
If you claim the parent is omnipotent, how can you claim there is something he could not do? He could presumably have made us so that we would follow his will voluntarily, and like it! He could have made salvation dependent on eating cake and ice cream, with sorbet available for those who are lactose-intolerant.But he didn't.
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 11:53 AM
Berkshire stated what he believed, but you missed it. As an atheist, he isn't using "positive" in the primary definition, but one of the less-used ones. Positivists insist on proof, and in the absence of total proof, they insist on a really convincing argument to rely on until they find the proof. You can diagram a Positive Atheist's core beliefs pretty easily, mine takes two rules:
1. What you see is what you get.
2. Rule 1 can only be amended by a mountain of evidence.
When you look at the world you can see, there's trees, animals, rivers, etc. but no gods, no souls, and no magic. Now if you propose an invisible or counterintuitive thing as fact, you need to provide a mountain of evidence.
You can see wood float, you can see metal sink, so no one just takes Archimedes Principle on faith (floating objects displace their weight in water). They scoffed at building steel boats for 2000 years before someone went out and did it. Now, armed with a mountain of evidence, we have the most powerful Navy in the world, and Archimede Principle is considered an amendment to Rule 1. We still have to teach children that steel can be made to float and how and why, because we expect them to stick to Rule 1 until we can amend it by fulfilling Rule 2.
We've gotten a step more sophisticated since Archimedes, and we know that some kinds of evidence mean more than others. Some things that used to be considered strong evidence are seen as weaker now, like correlation and anecdotes. At this point in time, however, we're very, very good at identifying evidence, testing it, comparing notes with others. Mountains of evidence support each step, and those mountains are carefully documented and left open for review to anyone willing to take the time.
By stacking each amendment with its mountain of evidence together, we get a very different picture of reality than is presented in the Bible. It isn't a perfect picture, but it's clearer than the others, so we live with it and work to make it clearer.
Anyway the 18 points are refutations of poor evidence. Berkshire talks to all kinds of people, and faithful people cherry pick anecdotes and such to try to undermine the rigorous system of gathering knowledge that scientists use. Poor logic, anecdotes and small-sample correlations aren't as strong as tested and retested theories, though, and he was basically suggesting that you start with the strongest evidence and go where it leads you, rather than picking a desirable outcome and then cherry-picking evidence that matches it.
On the one hand, I think it's a shame you didn't have more time to talk to him, but on the other, there's a consistent problem in these debates. It's like a card game where both sides ask to be dealt in, but only one is willing to ante up. If two scientists argue, they can create an experiment that will provide evidence that one or the other is right, and they both accept the results. They bet something meaningful on the outcome: their belief.
When an atheist argues reality with a fundamentalist, there is no ante from the fundamentalist, because they will continue to profess their faith no matter the result of the argument. In fact, most wear this as a badge, that their faith can be tested and win out over reason. There are atheists who are similar, but they are "Negative" atheists who are basically fundamentalists of a different stripe, they won't bet their belief in a godless world on anything.
As a positive atheist, Berkshire is just waiting for you to present a mountain of evidence so he can add an amendment to Rule 1.
Posted by: Jason Powers | February 27, 2006 1:14 PM
We did not attain the knowledge of good and evil by eating the fruit, therefore the serpent lied. We were not like God at all. In fact Adam and Eve fell away from the protection of the God-given law by breaking it. We no longer were to exist in the garden-state of living, but in the fallen world with death. You must better understand God's eternal perspective. Adam and Eve were to live forever, but since they ate the fruit, they must live a mortal life with death and sin.
There is nothing God could not do, and I cannot claim to understand why He chose to do certain things the way He did. God adjusts the will of humans to accomplish his goals. From our perspective, we choose and make all of our own decisions, but God is able to adjust and work through all of our decisions. God doesn't have to look at how things work out and try to react to them to make the best of the situation. God is omnipotent, therefore everything that takes place is within his ultimate will.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 1:48 PM
Since you are already spinning in circles, I see no point in continuing the conversation.
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 2:31 PM
You do not understand the concept of free will and God's ability to adjust it. If there is a God, he is most definitely able to create beings with freedom to disobey God, but God has the ability to adjust anything that he wants to. Basically, God is capable of anything, and we are not capable of fully undertanding how God might be affecting our decision making.
Will you concur with my interpretation of the death spoken of by God? Do you understand the difference between the garden of eden and our present world? Satan deceived Adam and Eve...you would be wrong to interpret it any other way. Though it is not in my practice to debate the scripture with an Atheist, as I understand that most atheists do not see the Bible as accurate.
You seem to be the one spinning in circles hoping for a salvation based upon ice cream. Salvation is obtained through God sacrificing his son, so that our sinful nature will not keep us apart from God.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 2:44 PM
Andrew Olson writes:
For this to make any sense of this, you would need to make clear what you mean by free will---in what sense is it free? (And in what sense is it will?)
Like a lot of people who've thought about the subject, I don't think that the traditional notion of free will is even coherent, much less true.
Have you read Dan Dennett's book Elbow Room: on the Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting?
Like Dennett, I don't believe in the kind of free will that would get an ominipotent God off the hook for the Problem of Evil.
I have to say that this sounds just kooky to me, as it does to most atheists.
How is it that punishing one person for another person's sins makes any sense at all? What has Jesus dying on the cross got to do with me, unless God the Father is a sick puppy who demands vengeance, and will happily punish innocent third parties?
This whole notion of substitutional sacrifice seems pretty deeply sick. Your whole religion seems to be based on child sacrifice and substitutional punishment. I don't get that.
Who did God sacrifice Jesus to? Himself? Or is there a law higher than God that demands the sacrifice, so that God must resort to sacrificing his child in order to get us off the hook?
Why would any of that matter in judging me?
Whatever is forgiven because of this sacrifice, couldn't it just be forgiven, without requiring a sacrifice at all? And if not, is that any sane form of forgiveness, or just a bizarre kind of barbaric moral bean-counting?
Posted by: Paul W. | February 27, 2006 3:32 PM
Posted by: wamba | February 27, 2006 3:51 PM
Andrew, explain to me Genesis 3:22: "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'"
Clearly, Adam and Eve did gain knowledge of good and evil, and this did in fact make them "as gods". Where the serpent was misleading was his admonition that they would not die. Even that seems less then awful, because this passage makes clear that they did, in fact, have the prospect of living forever, and becoming even more like gods.
I'd also like to address your response to my point 2: Sin clearly was created by god and is not simply an action that propels us away from him; You say, "we originally chose to sin..." this is simply not true; You aren't Adam and I'm not Eve; neither you, nor I, nor anybody else in the world made a choice to eat that fruit. More then that, since no action we could possibly take could cause them to have not eaten the fruit, to say that our sin is a matter of choice is entirely wrong.
Since original sin is not, in fact, the result of actions, it follows that it must be an inherent, independant property that is transferred to our descendants
The person who chose for sin to be transferred to our descendants, rather then dying with the person who took the action: God.
Lastly, I want to address this point:
"I cannot rationally say that all of the writers of the Bible were crazy or delusional."
And yet you CAN say that every other writer of every other religious text WAS crazy and delusional?
I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly. This piece of apologia actually works against Christianity.
Think about it: In the atheist conception, the universe is a fundamentally neutral entity which has no interest in whether we percieve it correctly. Morover, no one is born percieving it correctly; this is a skill that must be independantly invented and taught.
Now, in the Christian perspective the arrangment is the opposite; the universe is run by an entity that wishes for us to percieve it correctly and actively interferes in our life to ensure that we do. Additionally, at the start of civilisation we were close to god and new him well.
Now, the atheist idea that the bible writers were wrong only means that they invented confirming evidence where there was none.
Meanwhile, for the Christian theory that the writers of the Popul Vuh were delusional to stand, not only must they have invented confirming evidence, they must have willfully ignored scads of disconfirming evidence, including their own history.
If we are to accept that much lying and delusion on the part of millions, perhaps billions of individuals who were both intelligent and morally good, then we must also conclude that the writers of the bible might well have been a part of the willfully delusional majority of humanity.
Posted by: Christopher | February 27, 2006 5:42 PM
A lot to address here, but I'll try.
Paul W:
I understand that the only true free will is possessed by God. We presuppose our own free will based upon examples like Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, but our will is very adjustable by God, because he has the freedom to do whatever He wants. So God obviously allows sin to exist because He does apparently not want robotic humans worshipping him, I don't know.
Perhaps you should read my sentence about salvation one more time through. But keep in mind, that Jesus being God's son does not mean that is a seperate or lesser God. God came down in flesh to bridge the gap between Him and us. We understand his love for us when He sacrifices his Son who was fully God and yet fully Man. He was fully man, so he did suffer on the cross, but it is perhaps more amazing that even though he was fully God, he chose not to deliver himself to safety and instead suffered. Sound logical?
Wamba: I answered some of your statement with my paragraphs to Paul W., but I'll try to indulge you as well. Everyone is not automatically saved, because God has allowed sin that his creation can glorify him further by having faith when it is difficult. The omnipotent true God does not desire the robotic faith, but seeks to prove that man can have faith in Him despite opposition in the form of suffering and other worldly problems.
Christopher: I suppose Adam and Eve did gain knowledge of some sort as they understood that they were naked. Does that mean that nakedness was evil prior to this event? Were they even close to on par with God who has created the law? They weren't and we aren't either. We are not Adam and Eve, so I do feel like blaming them for the fall, but I just must understand that I have a sinful nature and go from there.
Why do you think the Bible has been so wildly popular and meticulously copied and translated over the years? Is there any other book that comes close? You cannot deny the amazing popularity of this book written over a period of 1500 years with around 44 authors. If there is a God, surely he would use this book as his method of communicating to us.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 7:11 PM
Andrew writes:
Logical? Are you joking?
I know plenty of people who have suffered more than a person would being crucified; I'd guess most people actually suffer more physical pain, over the course of their lifetimes, and I know a few people who have suffered comparable pain for much longer.
(E.g., a friend of mine who was seriously burned in a plane crash.)
I don't understand what the big deal is about Jesus being tortured to death. He got a taste of what humans get, and then he gets to go back in the sky and be Ruler of the Universe, Forever. I'd go for that, if it was offered. Nail me to a cross any old time if I get to be God afterwards.
If you divide the suffering of being crucified for, say, six hours among the thirty billion people who've lived so far... let me see, what does that come to?
6 x 60 x 60 = 21,600 seconds of agony divided by 30,000,000,000 = 0.00000072 seconds of agony per person.
That's less than a microsecond a head.
So the guy suffered for less than a microsecond for me. Big freakin' deal. And he gets the top job for an infinite period of time... comes out to vanishingly close to nothing. Easily lost in the noise of human suffering, or of an infinite godly afterlife. A spectacularly trivial blip.
I do not see the point of this obviously token gesture, or what it has to do with whether I or any other innocent third party should be forgiven for anything.
So the guy willingly gets himself crucified by a mob. Sounds dumb.
And you connect it up to whether I should have a nice afterlife, or not, forever. Sounds really, really dumb.
Surely whether I have a nice afterlife---or a horrible one, enduring an infinite amount of suffering---should not hinge on whether some guy got himself nailed to a tree for one microsecond for me. What has that got to do with anything? What exactly, I mean... how does this make anything remotely like sense?
Unless there's some rule about the huge importance of token gestures of substitutional punishment. If so, what is that rule, and who made it, and why?
Posted by: Paul W. | February 27, 2006 7:54 PM
You're missing the fact that Jesus was both fully man and fully God. No other human who has died has had the option of saving themselves. God sacrificing His son willingly is far more significant than any human sacrifices that we may make.
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 8:18 PM
And Jesus did save himself. He rose from the dead, right? All he really went through was the crucifixion---but he "got better."
My buddy who was horribly burned "got better" to a substantially lesser extent. He didn't get to transcend physical reality; he lives with it every day.
I am not impressed with your god's sacrifice. On the relevant scales, it's obviously just a token gesture. What it's a token gesture of, and why that matters so much to you, is exactly the question.
What bunk. I know of plenty of people who've sacrificed themselves in much more significant ways. Like the guys who swam through the reactor water at Chernobyl, to try to prevent the meltdown, for example.
They knew that they would die horribly, they didn't expect to live again, and they did it anyway. Now that's a sacrifice.
Jesus's sacrifice is nothing by comparison. It's just a grandstanding stunt.
Unless he was just a man, and he actually died, in which case I'd have exactly the same sympathy for him that I'd have for any human who was tortured to death. But this immmortal God business is irrelevant at best. At worst, it's a travesty. Why should one person's suffering matter so much, even if he is god?
And what does that have to do with forgiving anybody else? What is the basic connection, and why does it even go that direction?
Why is substitutional punishment so important to you? And why do you consider it a good thing?
Why, for example, would I torture myself to death so that I could forgive somebody else? Wouldn't that be a bit odd?
And if I believed in punishing and forgiving groups, why would I have people torture me to death so that I could forgive them. How does their torturing me to death make them more forgivable? How does my setting myself up for that make me anything but profoundly twisted?
Surely there are better ways to run a universe.
Posted by: Paul W. | February 27, 2006 8:46 PM
Jesus died because of our sinful nature. It was the people and their sinful nature that had Him nailed to the cross, which is quite arguably the most painful method of death due to it's excruciating length, humiliation and pain. But the point is not how much suffering that Jesus had. This was the only way to atone for the sins of man. Jesus' ressurection only proves that He was truly God, not that he was willing to die because it would be easy. In fact, before he was betrayed, he prayed that God would have it done in any other way, but that if it could not let God's will be done. If you can think of another way of accomplishing what God did through Jesus' death on the cross, I'd be interested in hearing it. I'm not God, so who am I to judge his means?
Posted by: Andrew Olson | February 27, 2006 9:31 PM