I'm More Scrooge Than Scrooge

So I just received an email from yet another reader who wanted to wish me a 'Merry Christmas'. Make no mistake, I sincerely appreciate the warm wishes, the fact that these people think of me and take time out of their day to write me such endearing sentiments. That really means a lot to me personally and I am grateful.

But it was another reminder of this wretched holiday. Bah, I deplore it. Christmas. A humbug, that's what Scrooge rightly called it (although he was ultimately weak because he gave in to the nauseous trappings of the 'holiday spirit', along with the equally weak Grinch). I have not held a favorable view of this holiday season since I was a very young boy and still naïve about most everything. So much of the Christmas season has become repugnant to me; through its bloated commercial excess it has lost most of its authentic value. I do appreciate the importance of families getting together and celebrating their love and solidarity. Absolutely and without reservation. But for me that is accomplished at Thanksgiving—which really makes Christmas superfluous on that score.

And, let's be honest, there is nothing Christian about the holiday season. From the decorated tree to the festively wrapped presents to the egg nog and Mandarin oranges to Santa Claus and his reindeer and the stockings hung by the chimney with care, at the end of the day Christ is not to be found anywhere in the truly predominant features of the holiday (ignoring the fact that he was almost certainly not born on the 25th of December). Aside from our nods to nativity scenes and the tradition of recounting the gospel narratives of his birth, what exactly does Christ have to do with Christmas? Nothing, if we can be honest about it. It is a facade impotently concealing the fact that this season and its traditions originate in pagan religions.

When is Thanksgiving? It’s around the middle of October for Canadians and around the end of November for Americans. And then there is New Year’s Eve at the close of December. Those are holidays I genuinely appreciate and can get into the spirit of. But what is this ‘Christmas’ inserted in between them? I could really do without that superfluous holiday.

Misfortunate Friends

Nothing proves who your real friends are quite like misfortune.

When misfortune hits—and what form it takes rarely matters—a real sense of loneliness can envelope me. The perception of that loneliness is not an illusion; I am genuinely alone because, when misfortune befalls me, a number of so-called friends are suddenly nowhere to be found. And that loneliness is palpable because it is precisely in those moments that I need friends the most. Why do so many friends vanish?

Because I was never their friend. That's the dirty little truth. I was nothing more than a notch on their social network belt, whose value was measured by the contribution my acquaintance made to their status quo, which diminishes by the degree to which I am perceived as a liability. When misfortune befalls me, I become 'high maintenance'. I am worthy of their time so long as I don't require anything of them, even more so if I can be of use to them.

But if I am not of use to them or if I have some kind of need, I'm treated like a pariah and soon find myself experiencing a poverty of social contact. So it is in those moments of misfortune that I have to retreat to that small, select group of people who are genuine friends. Misfortunes make demands on my attention and energies, which cannot be wasted on frivolities like self-absorbed ingrates. And that group is small indeed because precious few are those who I consider worthy of my true self. When misfortune hits and causes my social contacts to evaporate, creating that perception of real loneliness, it is then that my true friends stand out in stark contrast. And I look at those who disappeared and I say, 'This has been added against your account.'

Another Rational Atheist

Evidently there are some atheists who do not know how to read—which is quite an extraordinary paradox, given their apparent ability to write. You see, despite the fact that my former blog Apologia has been declared 'Closed' for more than a year, it continues to receive drive-by comments from these visitors. (Some might argue that perhaps these visitors are linked to the specific article in question by Google, but that is no excuse because I reiterate within the Comments field itself that the blog is closed.)

A gentleman by the name of Nigel Davies recently left a terrific scholarly response:

Your religion does not declare that there is one God atall. It declares faith in the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost betraying its origins in pre-Christian faiths of multiple gods. You have rationalised that down to one god but you have one more reduction to go before you reach the fact that there is actually no god atall.

Christianity does not declare that there is one God, Davies states. Were you aware of this? I wasn't. That was definitely news to me. When I examine every reasonable standard of historic Christian belief, from apostolic teaching and throughout the history of orthodox doctrine, I find again and again the declaration that there is one God—and at times rather explicitly, in direct repudiation of relevant heresies (e.g., The Nicene Creed, which begins with the affirmation, "I believe in one God").

Do you know what we call a proposition that's contradicted by evidence? A delusion, sir. This is especially the case when the amount of invalidating evidence is so extensive. Now, I think it's quite probable that Davies meant to say that the expression 'trinitarian monotheism' is an oxymoron but, if that is so, he really ought to have said that because that's quite a different statement—but it's also an extremely difficult one to support, given a responsible definition of both terms (viz. both terms presuppose a singular deity).

Of particular interest to me, of course, is his bold assertion that it's a "fact" that God does not exist. Oh how I would love to examine the evidence which establishes that as a fact. I shall not hold my breath, though.

Håvard Skjæveland and the Problem of Evil – Part 1

It seems that my discussion with Skjæveland on the Problem of Evil (i.e., how it supposedly demonstrates the probability that God doesn’t exist) has drawn to a tentative close. And I want to highlight the term “tentative” because he has not exactly given up yet. Let me explain where we’re at thus far and how we got here.

First, a little background information on Skjæveland. He is a 23-year old student from Stavanger, Norway, who is studying web programming. He is an avowed atheist who describes himself as “running pretty high on Richard Dawkins’ atheism scale” which means, I have reason to think, he affirms the ‘strong’ version of atheism. He also admitted to me that his thinking has been influenced by the New Atheist propaganda of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, and Harris. (These gentlemen are reliable on philosophy in the same way that Duane Gish is reliable on science.)

On December 10th he introduced himself to me in an email which described his appreciation of the fact that someone else actually recognizes the fundamental difference between agnosticism and atheism, that the former addresses an issue different from the latter. “I was beginning to think I was alone!” he exclaimed. And in a subsequent email he shared with me a brief synopsis of his atheistic convictions and how he arrived at them. A particularly compelling issue for him, he said, was how convincingly the Problem of Evil undermines Christian theism. (I chose to ignore his thoughts on other religions, e.g., Hinduism, because I have no interest in defending those.) Since I have never encountered a Problem of Evil argument that accomplishes its intended aim—and I have examined many, both historical and contemporary—I thought this could be an issue worth exploring. He agreed to engage me on it.

He began with the logical Problem of Evil argument as presented by Epicurus, whom he cited directly, an argument taken up by others like David Hume and John L. Mackie. However, this alleged problem suffers from a fatal flaw, I pointed out—the definition of ‘evil’. Epicurus and others who submit this problem use the term 'evil' but never bother to define it. Until that term is defined, the problem is a lifeless corpse with no merit whatsoever because 'evil' lies at the very heart of the issue. “If you find the logical Problem of Evil argument compelling,” I said, “it's because you have assumed a definition of 'evil' on behalf of the argument.” I told him that he needed to disclose this definition he was assuming in order to continue examining the problem.

At this point he backed away from the Problem of Evil argument. “I don’t really know how to define evil,” he confessed, and asked if we could approach it as a Problem of Suffering argument instead. “Surely you agree,” he said, “that there is gratuitous suffering in the world,” that God could do something “so that people don’t suffer needlessly.” And I had to stop him right there. First, the Problem of Suffering argument shoulders an enormous burden of proof that has to be met. As the critical mind will detect, asking me to agree from the outset that gratuitous suffering exists is to beg the very question, which is fallacious. Since the supposed existence of gratuitous suffering lies at the heart of the argument—the very issue upon which it is hinged—he cannot simply assume it, nor can he ask me to.

Second, how I understand the term “suffering” differs explicitly from how he understands it (because our metaethics are antithetical, mine being God-based and him being an atheist), so my agreement would only encourage the fallacy of equivocation at any rate. Then I reset the conversation, underscoring the two things that must be established. “If you cannot prove the gratuity of human suffering, the argument fails. If you cannot prove that human suffering is inconsistent with the attributes of God, the argument fails” (viz. omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent).

Skjæveland said he didn’t know how to go about proving the gratuity of suffering “except to come up with hypothetical scenarios” by which to illustrate it. So he called upon the example of rape: “Surely the woman being raped didn’t ask for it and certainly doesn’t deserve it.” Again I had to note the logical fallacy being committed, or possibly two different fallacies. On the one hand, he is possibly committing the fallacy of arguing from incredulity; i.e., “This suffering must be gratuitous because I can’t believe it’s not.”

On the other hand, he is definitely committing the fallacy of begging the question; i.e., “This is gratuitous suffering because it is gratuitous.” How did he commit this fallacy? By stating that the rape victim did not deserve it. Unfortunately, that assumes the truth of the very conclusion to be proved. “I am not trying to suggest she did deserve it,” I said. “It's just that I won't be bullied into a conclusion, if you know what I mean.” Nothing defeats an argument quite like fallacies, by which it defeats itself. They are to be avoided. Does there exist gratuitous suffering? That’s the burden shouldered by this argument, which must be met because if gratuitous suffering does not exist then the argument is a dog with no bite.

On the issue of whether or not human suffering is inconsistent with the attributes of God, Skjæveland had no directly relevant response. The only response he had was, “If God made us this way, doesn’t that suggest that God is at least imperfect?” First of all, God is not imperfect if the history of creation is unfolding precisely as he had planned it, meeting every purpose for which it was designed. Second, I was unable to determine how the angle his response took here adequately meets the burden of proof. The perfection of God was not the issue. The issue is the alleged conflict between human suffering and a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. So I had asked him to clarify, if he could, how his response relevantly answers that issue.

And at this point he backed away from the Problem of Suffering argument too. “I’ll concede the two informal fallacies you bring up,” he said, and further conceded that suffering could be consistent with the attributes of God (although it makes him wonder if God is “toying with us,” which I subsequently answered). “Can we leave the Argument of Suffering behind for the moment, and maybe drive back to pick it up later on?” he asked. “I admit tentative defeat; I need to think about it more and familiarize myself with the issues better.”

The following was my reply, in part:

According to my understanding, you were trying to describe an argument against the existence of God that you thought was compelling. What I was trying to do—the only thing I was trying to do—was critically examine the argument with you to see if it had any rational force. I accept that you found the argument compelling, but I disagree it was for rational reasons. In order to make my case, I had to score the argument rationally (step-by-step with you, in a somewhat Socratic fashion). By proving its logical weakness, I thereby establish that its compelling force could not have been reason.

I don't want to appear as though I am disparaging your intellect. I am personally convinced that you are quite a highly intelligent man. Please understand that. But I do think people should be honest with themselves—in my own opinion, speaking from my commitment to critical thinking. If an argument is proven to be logically untenable, then a person should be honest with himself and admit that its compelling force must have been something other than reason, i.e., that he came to the argument already convinced to some degree.

So here is my suspicion. I think you already sensed on some intuitive level that there was a conflict between what you see as gratuitous suffering on the one hand and the supposed attributes of God on the other, and you gravitated toward arguments that seemed to provide rational ammunition for what you already believed. In other words, the arguments did not convince you, but they were needed as rational support for what you already believed. Maybe by recognizing and honestly admitting that these arguments are logically untenable, a way can be opened for discovering why you think there's a conflict between the world and God.

I know you're not prepared to concede that yet. Given our brief exchange thus far, you are perhaps beginning to see that it's possible these arguments are untenable, but I don't think we've had enough mileage on this yet to convince you. I know only because I've done the homework already; now I'm showing you that homework. We'll get there, but on your terms.

This is where the critical analysis of the Problem of Evil or Suffering rests at this point. I’m pretty sure that we will return to it later, but for now I suspect that Skjæveland wants to (a) intellectually digest the criticisms I had raised, (b) review the arguments put forth by atheist philosophers on this issue, to find out if his presentation was missing something, and if so, what, and (c) to see if any of them adequately address the criticisms I had raised. He never said any of this, mind you; it’s just my suspicion, based on nothing other than the fact that it’s something I would do, having been in a similar position myself at times.

- - -

NB: I just want to underscore one remarkable feature of my present debate with Skjæveland, because its significance simply must not go unnoticed. In all the years I have engaged countless atheists in debate, not a single one has ever conceded (a) the logical fallacies I have pointed out in their arguments or (b) any sort of defeat of their argument. Without any exceptions, every single one of those atheists have insisted that either no fallacies were committed or that I don’t understand what fallacies are—even when the fallacy they commit is almost verbatim identical to the examples given in Logic textbooks I cite from.

I want to formally recognize and acknowledge that Skjæveland is the very first atheist I’ve ever debated who had the personal and intellectual integrity to concede a logical fallacy when indicated and the defeat it incurred. My respect for him can scarcely be measured it is so high. Out of hundreds of atheists, he’s the first. This man has a place of high honor in my estimation.

Håvard Skjæveland and the Problem of Evil

I am currently engaged in an email discussion with a young Norwegian by the name of Håvard Skjæveland on the Problem of Evil argument against the existence of God. (His internet footprint is outdated, he tells me, so take whatever you find about him with a grain of salt.) Our discussion began about four days ago and is still ongoing. Once it is completed, I intend to publish the results here in my blog, having received his permission to do so. Keep an eye out for this. He is a very intelligent, articulate, and respectful young man and our discussion is proving to be quite fruitful, certainly on my end.

(NOTE: As it stands right now, the discussion is shifting away from the problem of ‘evil’ in favour of the problem of ‘suffering’, but I am leaving the title as it is because whether the issue is ‘evil’ or ‘suffering’ the fundamental context is synonymous.)

Knowing a Personal God

When it comes to understanding the concept of God as a "personal God," who loves me, cares for me, and desires to have a relationship with me, I just don't get it. It doesn't make sense to me; I feel awkward when I pray, and just don't understand how, out of 6 billion people, I matter a hill of beans to the guy who created the universe. Surely, having done that, he has much more important concerns than lowly I . . . Logically, I can convince myself that God exists, but it doesn't go much beyond that. So, that's where I'm stuck, and have been stuck, for the past number of years.

He did more than create this vast and complex universe. The reason why out of some six billion people you, as a unique person, matter to God can be very succinctly stated: he also created you. Given what you have said elsewhere in this thread, I have a hunch that your view of God has more in common with Deism than with Christianity; e.g., "I view God as some abstract figure somewhere far off in the distance." It is inherently difficult to develop or even recognize a relationship with a God who created the entire cosmos and then stepped back while the universe developed under its own impetus. There is no point of contact with such a God; it feels like several billion years of evolution separates you from the last time God had anything to do with his creation. Ergo, he makes sense analytically but not on the personal level at which you exist.

That's a significant obstacle. So I suggest that the first step you need to take in order to bridge this awkward chasm is to evaluate your view of God. Currently your view of God, being more similar to Deism than anything, makes it practically impossible to develop a relationship with God. So sit back and ask yourself, "How is it I came to have this view of God? What informed my view? Is it accurate?" The only reason we know that God is more than some transcendent abstract entity—the only reason we know anything about God at all—is because he disclosed information about himself to mankind. Let me flesh out this concept allegorically.

A friend of Morgan's told her that there exists some writer named David, and had sufficient evidence for that claim enough for Morgan to accept it analytically. However, on the personal level it was practically meaningless to her. She had no idea who David is, other than what was provided by the proposition about his existence and that he is a writer. She may contemplate about him, trying to infer what she can from the fact that he is a writer, but in the final analysis he is a proposition, not a person. Yet what if she came across a number of books he had written not only about himself, describing his character and values, but also about things he had said to this person and done at that place, etc.? It stands to reason that David would then mean something more to her than he did before, because now she knows so much more about him as a person. There is still no personal connection between them, but he has certainly assumed enough new dimensions that she can see him as a person. (Real world example: at one point Barack Obama was nothing more meaningful to me than a name, until I read his autobiography. There is no personal connection between he and I, but for me he is now more than just a name; he is a person.) But now imagine that in one of the letters she discovered that David is her father, that she belongs to him. It stands to reason that he would then mean a great deal more to her than he ever did. By exploring what David had revealed about himself, for Morgan he went from being an empty proposition to a meaningful person—with whom she could have a relationship, and to whom she meant a lot.

Now maybe this allegory is too simplistic, perhaps it has some weakness in its relationship to the point I am trying to make here, but just keep in mind that it's being recommended more for its illustrative power than its accuracy. You believe that God created the universe, and that's certainly accurate. However, he did more than just create the universe. He also created you, which is one good reason why you matter "a hill of beans" to this Almighty Creator. You are not some inconsequential accident of nature that barely registers in significance on the scale of the vast cosmos. You are a significant creation of God himself, someone whose significance is such that God went to inexpressible ends in order to claim you through adoption into his family. And I say these things because I am deeply familiar with and convinced by the information God has disclosed about himself to mankind, which is both how and why God is for me more than an analytic proposition. For me, Obama went from being an empty name to a real person because I spent time learning about him from the things he revealed about himself. God went from being a proposition to a significant person the same way; but he came to mean so much more when I discovered that not only do I belong to him but also that he went to profound ends to adopt me as a child into his family.

So that is my encouragement to you. The more time you spend exploring and genuinely meditating upon the things God has revealed about himself, his character and actions, and how it relates to you as his own purposeful creation, the easier it will become to have that relationship with him which has thus far eluded you. It will often feel more like a 'long distance relationship' than a daily person-to-person relationship but God also explains why things are (for now) this way, with the promise that the day is coming when the distance that sin has wedged between us and God will be done away with, once this final battle has been fought and decisively concluded, and we will once again enjoy the Edenic paradise we are ultimately intended for.

Going to church is downright depressing. Walking into church with 1,000 people who do "get it" makes me feel inferior (they get it but I don't), defective, and just plain old dumb. What do they know that I don't? is what I'm thinking . . . My faith, such as it is, is always weaker leaving church than it is when I go.

I also want to point out that a relationship with God is not characterized only by euphoric praising and such. I see that too, in church, with people raising their arms in joyful expressions of awe as they worship. But that is only part of the picture. After church there is the rest of Sunday afternoon and the journey from Monday all the way to Saturday filled with the mundane pressures of this life we live. And you know this, I'm sure. I could be one of those people at your church who looks like they "get it" to you, but you have no idea what I am dealing with in my life or what my Tuesday evening looks like. I guarantee you that there are times where you would look at me and think, "Maybe he doesn't get it either, like me." (Perhaps even more so because, like you, I am rather stoic in the emotional arena. I do feel, but I don't wear it on my sleeve. I exercise a degree of control over my emotions that could be characterized as Vulcan, amplified by my love for logic.)

And by the way? I am also confident enough to guarantee you that most of those 1,000 people are indeed faking it (i.e., their behavior in church is diametrically inconsistent with their behavior otherwise). It might be politically incorrect to say such things about church people but I've never had much respect for political correctness. In my life, candid honesty takes priority. They won't admit it because there is such a sensitivity for the integrity of faith, but many of those people are indistinguishable from unbelievers the rest of the week—unfamiliar with Scripture, do not know anything about God, can’t explain salvation, etc. I think it's a good thing that you have within you this longing to feel a connection with God, but don't allow yourself to think that they "get it" while you don't. Some of them are in the same boat you're in, and others "get it" even less than you do. Don't feel inferior, defective, or dumb. There is no need to feel weaker leaving the service. I encourage you to pursue this longing you have, but never compare yourself to others because you have no idea if their behavior at church is a product of faith or just a social performance.

And finally, a relationship with God is not based "soley on emotions and love." A relationship with God is based on a commitment to him. The emotional feeling of love for God comes with time as you get to know him, which is a product of your sanctification, a process that never ends on this side of the resurrection. There were several years between my commitment to God and my love for him. My love for God, and how much I love him, was a work in progress. I did not exit my conversion with love for God. Reverence? Humility? Respect? Yes. But love only came after I got to know him, which took years of spending time genuinely exploring the gospel of his Son Jesus Christ and the ministry of his apostles, sometimes on my own but mostly through the help of others far more mature than I in their knowledge of God and relationship to him.

If Jesus is God, then Jesus should get as much "airtime" as God does . . . If Jesus is mentioned once, God is mentioned 100 times. If they are essentially one and the same, why aren't they referred to equally? This is a tangent, but something that's been troubling me so.

If Jesus is God, then he was being mentioned 101 times.

It is so easy to think of 'God' as being a name and a person distinct from Jesus. It's not. When we are talking about God, that doesn't mean we are failing to talk about Jesus. 'God' is who he is, and 'Jesus' is his name (or the English version of the Greek Iesous).

On Becoming a Christian

This is from an old email but I thought I would turn it into a blog post because I think it conveys some important points for consideration, to meditate upon. The question was asked:

What does it feel like to be Christian? Did you just know you were saved, like—bam—"Hey, I'm saved now" or what?

I'll be frank with you: there is no simple one-size-fits-all answer to this question. That will become strikingly evident as you notice the degree to which responses will vary. And with a thing as deep and rich and complex as the Christian faith, which at its core is a living relationship with God through Christ Jesus, that should be expected.

I shall tell you what I think this question is like. Take three women: one who has been newly married for one year, one who has been married for five years, and one who has been married for twenty years. Sit them all down in front of you and ask each of them to tell you what it feels like to be married. Are you going to get one basic, simple answer that will be consistent from all the women?

Would you even expect it? I should think not, and in that sort of context it is easy to see why. But the fact of the matter is, that is exactly what being a Christian is like. It is a relationship, a very loving, very deep, very committed relationship, one which the apostle Paul finds appropriately analogous to marriage—but a marriage in the deeply religious sense, not in the just-a-piece-of-paper sense it has been reduced to.

A woman who has only been married for one year will describe the experience quite differently from the woman who has been married for twenty years, just as a new Christian will describe their experience in terms rather different from someone who has been a Christian for decades. As relationships mature and deepen, new experiences and values are discovered and enjoyed, problems arise and get worked out and so forth. Someone who became a Christian last year will not have yet experienced the dynamic trials and triumphs of someone who has had a relationship with God for the last twenty years. For that matter, the trials and triumphs of each will not even be the same when they do happen, since every relationship is unique.

There is no simple, easily packaged and slogan-ready answer that can be offered to this question, quite honestly. This must be understood, not just by you but any honest inquirer. Christianity is not simply a set of metaphysical propositions to which one gives intellectual assent and somehow, like some altered state of consciousness, one magically feels a little differently. Propositions simply do not have that property.

Relationships do. And at the very core of Christianity is God, a personal being with whom one enters into a relationship through the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, about whom both the Scriptures and the corporate body of believers attest. Myself, I have been a Christian for about ten years now, in a very complex, fluid, and dynamic relationship with God on both the intellectual and emotional level. (God has a funny tendency to grab your whole entire being.) I began this journey as an atheist and—as if that did not already change my entire world—later experienced two more paradigm-shattering changes at the most fundamental levels of my epistemic convictions. Anything I could say about what being a Christian is like is going to reflect that unique personal history and those levels of enlightenment, insight, and profound growth in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ. An answer from someone else will reflect a dramatically different sort of history, and will vary to an even larger degree if that person has had a shorter or longer relationship with God.

What does it feel like to be a Christian? It feels like meeting, falling in love with, and marrying the most wonderful person in the whole world, and that experience intensifies and deepens and becomes more complex and intricate the longer you are married, a marriage whose dimensions and contours are shaped by a history rich with experiences of love, anger, relief, sadness, joy, betrayal, repentance, elation, and so on.

But that whole meeting the person for the first time? For a lot of people it can be a little awkward. It was for me too, including when that person is God.

Obama Hatred

"Disgusting," a friend commented on my Facebook profile when the social networking web site publicized my becoming a Barack Obama supporter. I stared at that word for several minutes, dumbfounded. I could not decide how to feel or how to react. I felt a number of conflicting feelings simultaneously, mostly because that person had been my best friend for the last four years and typically had respect for my decisions. I placed my fingers over the keyboard, paused, then pulled them back. I stared at that word again. "Disgusting." It bewildered me. I did not know what to make of it. I went to type a response again, but once again my fingers hovered over the keyboard without moving.

Truly and honestly, I do not get this seeming hatred being directed toward President-elect Obama. I hear it time and again on the news wire, and now I find it among my own social circle. In Kentucky, two men hung Obama in effigy, dangling from a tree with a noose around its neck, recalling the historical images of blacks being lynched in the South. At George Fox University in Oregon, four students were punished for hanging a likeness of Obama from a tree. In Redondo Beach, California., a woman hung Obama in effigy from her balcony with a knife in its neck. In Tennessee two white supremacists were arrested for planning the assassination of Obama. In Clarksville, Indiana, a man had hung Obama in effigy from a tree. In Rexburg, Idaho, a number of elementary school students were chanting on the school bus, "Assassinate Obama! Assassinate Obama!" Also in Idaho, the Bonner Country sheriff and a Secret Service agent will be investigating a man who put up a sign in his yard that said "Free Public Hanging" with a noose hanging in front of it and the name "Obama" just below it.

It is even in my limited social circle. "Disgusting," the comment pointedly stated. I do not understand it.

'Illogical' Doctrine? Prove It.

In a message board conversation I observed someone saying:

The idea of God, having a Son, who is born by a virgin, never sins, never makes a mistake while walking the earth, is crucified, resurrected in three days, and the result of this transpiration of events was the forgiveness of everyone's sins, with the possibility of eternal life with God, is fantastically illogical . . . and this is what makes it great! There is nothing logical in those remarks above. If you contend they are logical, then by all means, make the argument those events are "logical"

"Illogical," he said. An interesting charge, and one that we should not give a pass to. So here is the question that I want to deal with: "What should be the Christian's response to this?" It is a common enough attack, given the typical rhetoric dispensed by atheists, particularly those advocating the 'new atheism' advanced by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, et al.

I think the Christian's response should pay careful consideration to that word being used: "illogical." The response ought not ignore that word. If an atheist wants to claim that these beliefs are illogical, then he should be held accountable for that claim; he needs to present an argument that makes his case. One of two things would happen. The easiest option would be for him to notice how indefensible such an argument is and choose to employ a different, more defensible attack. Obviously that will invoke a different argument, which means this one was wisely abandoned and we can ignore it, focusing our analysis on whatever new attack he proposes.

The other option, of course, is that he will stick to his claim. And it is preferable that he does, I think, because it is the weakest argument he could raise, the easiest one to take apart. I enjoy disemboweling bad arguments, mostly because I enjoy making a spectacle of what 'bad arguments' are. So if he sticks to this attack then the first thing the Christian should do is point out that what we have here is a claim, not an argument. The atheist here has stated his case. Now he must make his case, such as reason obliges him to do. (We are assuming the atheist esteems reason, which they typically profess to do.)

You can see in this anecdotal example that he has tried to shift the burden of proof onto the Christian: "If you contend they are logical," he said, "[then] make the argument [that] those events are logical." He cannot be permitted to get away with this shifting of the burden. Such a tactic is an affront to reason, for by implication it commits the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. What he is essentially saying is, "My case is true unless you can prove it false." And there is nothing intellectually appealing or compelling about fallacious arguments. This is key: If he thinks there is any truth to his claim, then he needs to establish its truth. He must present his ratio veritatis. He cannot simply assume its truth, thinking that it carries weight by the mere force of his assertion (and it is therefore up to the Christian to prove it false). In the arena of critical thinking, that is called an ipse dixit, a Latin term to describe the fallacious sophistry of an unsupported assertion being presented as true by fiat.

Moreover I contend that Christians do not shoulder the burden because there is nothing obviously illogical about those beliefs. For example, there is nothing obviously illogical (i.e., contrary to logic) about a son being born of a virgin. In fact, parthenogenesis has been observed to occur naturally in a variety of species of certain plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. And given our current understanding about mammalian reproduction, it may seem contrary to science that a virgin could give birth to a child but there is nothing contrary to logic about it. There is a very important difference between science (a posteriori knowledge) and logic (a priori knowledge); they are categorically different, such that when something is contrary to science it does not necessarily follow that it is contrary to logic.

(I would also note that prior to the dawn of the 21st century it was thought that parthenogenesis in mammals was impossible, on account of their imprinted genetic regions. But due to the work of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk in early 2004 and the Tokyo University of Agriculture shortly thereafter, plus the efforts of the International Stem Cell Corporation from 2007, etc., the creation of human parthenogenetic stem cell lines from unfertilized eggs has been achieved with tremendous success. Just imagine what we will 'know' ten years from now.)

How about the idea that Jesus never sinned? Again, there is nothing obviously illogical about it. (It is debatable whether or not Jesus "never [made] a mistake while walking the earth" because there was a definite religious status quo that he contravened almost routinely; but such does not determine 'sin'.) Something is 'illogical' when it runs contrary to logic qua logic. How exactly does a 'sinless life' run contrary to logic? What principle of logic does it violate? It is certainly not obvious; ergo, it must be shown to be illogical, and this test applies to the entirety of his above claim. Although I think he could make an argument for how certain doctrines run contrary to our common human experience, an entirely different argument is called for when claiming that they violate the laws of logic. Furthermore, to cite a doctrine (e.g., Christ's resurrection) as contradicting our human experience forcefully demonstrates its status as 'miraculous' but it pointedly fails to demonstrate it as 'illogical' because logic is a priori knowledge; it is neither defined by human experience nor a product of scientific inquiry (a posteriori knowledge). On the question of whether something is 'illogical' or not, human experience and science are irrelevant.

So the atheist here, having stated his case, must now make his case. This, reason obliges him to do. And if he wants to stick with his claim about these beliefs being "illogical," his burden is heavy indeed. I would look enthusiastically forward to such attempts because I cannot imagine how one would go about meeting that burden. It would be exciting to observe—or, more probably, anti-climatic.

The Spirit of the Campaigns

So I was cruising around The Huffington Post this evening. (Yes, indeed I was. Remember, I am someone who reads from several different points of view, rather than just swallowing the party line from those who advocate a point of view that resonates with mine.) Of particular interest to me was an article entitled "The Victorious Jesus" written by Christine Wicker. I raised my eyebrows in a gesture that implied "Hrm?" Effective bait. Obviously I had to click.

I am not sure I can agree with her argument—it takes a lot more than rhetorical flourish to convince me of something—but I have to admit that I appreciate the contrast she was drawing. Whether you agree with her or not, it seems that for Wicker there was something of a spiritual contrast being waged in the 2008 Presidential campaign, which she saw as the 'Jesus' that John McCain exhibited and the 'Jesus' that Barack Obama exhibited.

She described the 'Jesus' that the McCain/Palin ticket exhibited as the Fighting Jesus, who is militant about doctrine to a degree that lacks compassion, tolerance, and mercy, who is divisive and speaks in the language of battle. And she characterizes those McCain supporters who are Christian in obviously similar terms, and that they "feel compelled to speak boldly against evil and unbelief. They must rebuke and correct those who don't follow their Jesus." This Fighting Jesus, Wicker comments, "is a divider" and unrelenting.

I would take serious issue with her characterization, but only because she paints with a brush that is entirely too broad. Maybe an argument can be made to support this Fighting Jesus she identified as being represented; however, I think it is a rather minor population of the American public that advocates this stance. In other words, I do not think it is nearly as prevalent as her article could be interpreted as implying. Such people are out there, sure, and McCain's campaign certainly resonated with them, but they are comparatively few in number—which I think the final election results showed.

And she described the 'Jesus' that the Obama/Biden ticket exhibited as the Peace Jesus, who is subdued, inclusive, inspiring, peaceful, concerned more about the people than the status quo, who advocates loving one's enemies over cutting them down, who shows more concern over a person's spiritual well-being than what goes on in their bedroom, who shatters the walls that divide us and calls for people to unite.

I take issue with this characterization, too, but only because it fails to account for a huge portion of the New Testament gospels that contradict her broad brush strokes here too. (For example, Jesus did not eradicate walls that divide us but, rather, took those divisions out of the hands of man and asserted that God is the only rightful arbiter. Despite her harsh sentiments about the Fighting Jesus camp, it was indeed Jesus who "divides the world into the sheep and goats," e.g., Matt. 25, or John 10). Jesus was a lot of things but he was nowhere near the '60s hippie that Wicker wants him to be.

Having said that, I do have to appreciate the contrast she was drawing, however inaccurate she might be in the theological arena of biblical exegesis. There definitely was a spiritual contrast between those two men running for the highest office, the type of campaign they waged and the spirit they engendered in their supporters. One could not easily argue against that. "Barack Obama didn't preach his faith nearly as much as Sarah Palin did," Wicker notes, and she is right about that. But she is right, too, that it would be very difficult to not see the implicit spirit of the gospel in Obama and his campaign, and which he tirelessly endeavored to foster in those both working for and supporting his campaign. Whether that was intentional or not, that spirit could be seen.

I cannot verify the truth of this anecdote but Wicker reported that when news of Palin's seventeen year old daughter's pregnancy surfaced, "[Obama] forbade his staff to capitalize on it and said he would fire anyone who did." And she also noted that during the debates, Obama never once stooped to McCain's level of derision and vitriol, persistently focusing on issues rather than characters, and always with a moderate tone that invited the support of anyone regardless of party affiliation. The examples could be multiplied several times over, especially given Palin's rallies, but the crux of the message is clear: it was a lot easier for people to see the spirit of Jesus in Obama's character and campaign than it was in McCain's. And that spirit of Jesus, as Wicker noted, did not look weak and vulnerable but, quite the contrary, looked very strong and capable, demonstrating through behavior what practicing the gospel should look like.

I would not say that McCain is more Christian than Obama, nor vice-versa. This is not a competition of personal piety or doctrinal purity. It is not the point. What is the point? I do not know what Wicker's intended point was but I can tell you how I interpreted it: The point is that there was an important and significant difference between the Christian ideologues of the McCain/Palin campaign and what appeared to be the real spirit of the gospel that the Obama/Biden campaign embraced. Neither campaign preached the message of the gospel, obviously, but they did profess to be Christians so we can judge their individual campaigns according to the spirit that the gospel advocates. And, like Wicker commented, I think that people would have to recognize 'Jesus' more in the Obama campaign than that of McCain, for better or worse.

----------
Wicker, Christine. "The Victorious Jesus" (6 Nov. 2008). The Huffington Post. Retrieved 10 Nov. 2008 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/the-victorious-jesus_b_141701.html>

Layman & Euthyphro

Pulled from Atheism.org in their "Quotation of the Minute" box:

"[Given the legitimacy of purely hypothetical questions] . . . even if God would not approve of torture, it is still true, according to the divine command theory, that if He were to approve of torture, then torture would be right." (Layman, p. 38)

Layman has latched onto the Euthyphro dilemma, which has no compelling force against Christian theism. His statement is non-sequitur when contemplating a God who is (i) immutable and (ii) omnibenevolent, and a moral order that is (iii) grounded in the very nature of God. All three are hallmarks of Christian theology.

----------
Layman, C. Stephen. The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Foundation of Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (1991)

Anderson's 'Problem from Evil' Argument

INTRODUCTION

If one is willing to believe the rhetoric, it is Problem of Evil arguments that make the most convincing case for Atheism. Obviously I have witnessed this rhetoric coming from the ranks of atheists but, curiously enough, I also witness some Christian ministers and apologists saying the same thing. Personally, I am nowhere near convinced; I have yet to discover a Problem of Evil argument that sustains the conclusion it sets out to establish (whether the impossibility or improbability of God's existence).

CURTIS ANDERSON'S ARGUMENT

The following argument comes from Curtis Anthony Anderson, a very intelligent and knowledgeable Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He identifies it as The Argument from Evil: Inductive Version [1]:

1. If God exists, then He is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.
   
   
2. There is a tremendous amount of evil in the world, some of it not caused by human beings and apparently gratuitous. (Here might follow a long description of natural disasters, diseases afflicting the apparently innocent, and so on.)
   
   
3. It is unlikely that such an amount and kind of evil would exist if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good being.
   
   
4. Probably, God does not exist.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Although I do not think Anderson himself is an atheist, since he is a member of the Society for Christian Philosophers—which helps to identify the 'God' this argument addresses (e.g., I am not interested in the problems Islam faces)—his argument nevertheless is hinged upon what is potentially the fallacious equivocation that most atheists engage in when formulating this Problem: the meaning of the term 'evil'.

The entire argument is predicated upon the notion of 'evil' so leaving it unspecified is intellectually irresponsible. The second premise asserts that there is a "tremendous amount of evil" in the world but nowhere are we told what 'evil' means in this argument. Therefore it is nearly impossible to evaluate this argument beyond noting this potential equivocation, because it is unknown whether Anderson is criticizing the issue over an internal or external inconsistency.

At this point the critique could end. But I will assume in the first case that Anderson is arguing over an internal inconsistency, and in the second case over an external inconsistency.

- - -

Criticism Over Internal Inconsistency

If his criticism is over an internal inconsistency in Christian theism, then I shall examine the premises and conclusion under the terms of Christian theism.

• Premise 1: "If God exists, then He is omnipotent, omniscient, and all good."

Although I will tentatively concede the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, the attribute of "all good" causes me some concern because asserting that God is "all good" prima facie excludes other facets of God's being, such as his 'wrath' against sin.

(I am ignoring the more glaring problem of the term describing a moral quality about God, which implies a moral order that transcends God and to which he is subject, which invokes the Euthyphro dilemma.)

If the expression "all good" does not mean anything more substantive than that God possesses no malevolence against which his benevolence might compete, but leaves room for God to possess more attributes than just benevolence, then I will concede that point also and tentatively agree that this premise reflects God as revealed in Christian sacred scriptures.

• Premise 2: "There is a tremendous amount of evil in the world, some of it not caused by human beings and apparently gratuitous. (Here might follow a long description of natural disasters, diseases afflicting the apparently innocent, and so on.)"

Here at the second premise is where the argument collapses into unintelligibility, if 'evil' is understood under the terms of Christian theism. Anderson here asserts that some of this world's evil is "not caused by human beings," which I believe refers to events in the natural world because he hints at "natural disasters" and "diseases." Furthermore, he asserts that this natural evil is "apparently gratuitous."

There are numerous problems here that would require a wholesale revision of the argument. First, under Christian theism, moral order is grounded in the very nature of God and expressed prescriptively in his commands. Ergo, 'evil' is that which runs contrary to the will of this eternal and immutable God. For Anderson to assert that 'natural evil' exists, he shoulders the burden of proving that events in nature run contrary to God's will. He cannot ask us to assume it for the sake of argument, because that would fallaciously beg the question (since 'evil' is the very crux of the entire argument).

Moreover, if these events in nature are "not caused by human beings" then what does Christian theism posit as the causal agent? Ultimately it is God, who is "omnipotent" and "omniscient" and sovereign over his creation. Therefore, to call these events in nature 'evil' Anderson would have to show that Christian theism posits that God acts contrary to his own will at the same time and in the same respect. Utterly incoherent; Anderson would not succeed here. The only way for Anderson to succeed here is for his argument to deny the theory of moral order posited by Christian theism; but in that case his argument would no longer be demonstrating an internal inconsistency but an external one.

Second, there is an important difference between something being "apparently gratuitous" and actually gratuitous. It is possible for something to appear gratuitous at the time but, given all of the relevant facts of the case later, finally understood as not being gratuitous after all (no matter how improbable such a conclusion seemed while we were still caught in the thick of it). So for Anderson's purposes, he needs cases of genuinely gratuitous natural evils—e.g., earthquakes for which God had no purpose consonant with his benevolence—which shoulders a monstrous burden of proof, given Anderson's severe spatio-temporal limitations. Maybe we are not aware of, or maybe cannot conceive of, any purpose God might have consonant with his benevolence, but that fails to prove that no purpose exists.

Third, there is a similar important difference between someone being "apparently innocent" and actually innocent, and to ask that we assume the point for the sake of argument would likewise fallaciously beg the question (e.g., if a person receives what they deserve, it is 'just'; if they receive what they do not deserve, it is 'unjust' and a case for evil can be made). So in this case too, Anderson needs a case of actual innocence that accords with Christian theism; (i) being unable to conceive of how some specific individual could be anything but innocent does not establish their innocence; such would be an argument from incredulity, which is not valid; (ii) the case has to accord with Christian theism, otherwise it will no longer be demonstrating an internal inconsistency but an external one.

• Premise 3: "It is unlikely that such an amount and kind of evil would exist if there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and all good being."

The failure of the third premise results from the failure of the second and, therefore, does not need to be addressed at this time. The second premise requires an extensive revision, which may have a deleterious effect on the third premise anyway, making it premature to address it at this time.

• Conclusion: "Probably, God does not exist."

Consequently, the conclusion no longer follows and may be dismissed as invalid.

- - -

Criticism Over External Inconsistency

If his criticism is over an external inconsistency, then I am not sure there is anything Christian theism would need to address. There are countless worldviews which Christian theism is not consistent with. But that is not in itself a criticism of Christian theism; it is merely a comparative evaluation.

Unless, of course, the worldview against which Christian theism is being evaluated is making truth claims that are said to be objective. In that case, the premises of this argument need a good deal of revision.

In the first place, as with the 'internal' criticism I can tentatively concede the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience, but the "all good" attribute causes me some concern because I do not know what is being asserted. It assumes a particular moral theory but, since that moral theory has not been described, 'good' is an empty term. I cannot give a pass to any moral terms since they are the very crux of the Problem from Evil argument.

Second, until the working moral theory is described, the second premise likewise cannot make sense. If I am not provided the moral theory upon which the argument is based, my immediate reaction is to interpret it according to a Christian theistic metaethic. But if this is a criticism over an external inconsistency, that would be an inappropriate interpretation.

And the third premise suffers from the same problem as the first and second premises. And as a consequence of all this, the Conclusion is eminently premature and nowhere near valid yet.

----------
[1] Anderson, C. Anthony. "Argument from Evil: Inductive Version" (5 Dec. 2003). University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Philosophy. Retrieved 7 Nov. 2008. <http://www.philosophy.ucsb.edu/faculty/anderson/12ArgfromEvilInductive.htm>

Tracking the Debunkers (06/Nov/08)

During the last four days there has still been nothing posted at Debunking Christianity that actually attempts to debunk Christianity. There have been three posts: one regards a debate between John Lennox and Michael Shermer; another is Loftus requesting help with some research project, asking Christians to answer what best explains animal suffering; and the third is Garman wrestling with the concept of one being 'evangelical' with one's atheism.

Well done, Loftus. Way to prove Christianity false.

Obama, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Being Christian

Under my last blog post "President Barack Obama" a gentlemen by the name of Matthew left some thoughts and questions for me (here):

David - yours is the first Christian blog that I've read that is supportive of Obama. All others have focussed on his extreme pro-abortion and pro-homosexual stances - were these not issues for you from a Christian standpoint?

Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate, God most certainly did will that Obama be elected; but then, He also gave Israel the king that they wanted in King Saul.

Keep up your awesome writings ... you don't blog as often as I think you should!

First I wish to extend a personal greeting to you, Matthew, and to thank you for stopping by this blog and leaving your thoughts and questions. Second, the reason my response to you is getting its own blog post, instead of being in the comments field, is because I have far too much to say.

With regard to other Christian blogs being critical of President Obama rather than supportive? All I can really say about that—and I think your comment itself reflected this—is that it seems to stem more from a political commitment than a biblical one with a measure of willful ignorance. You say they express criticisms of his stance on abortion and homosexuality, which in North American society are obviously two polarizing political issues, especially as key positions characterizing the conservative agenda (whether the Republican party in the U.S. or Conservative party in Canada).

But as is far too often the case, these bloggers misunderstand—or shamefully misrepresent—what Obama's position is on such issues. Take abortion, for example. If you spend enough time listening to right-wing conservative radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Andy Wilkow, etc.), which many of these bloggers probably do, you would think Obama is in favour of killing babies because he voted 'present' on certain bills instead of voting 'no'. He is described, even by McCain himself during the final Presidential debate, as aligning with "the pro-abortion movement" (which in itself is a retarded label because no one is 'pro-abortion'). These despicable right-wing hosts are attempting a blatant character assassination of Obama by misrepresenting his position, and even misrepresenting how the system works. You see, the actual facts of the case paint a very different picture. But they do not wish to present all the relevant facts because Obama would not look as nefarious as they want him to appear. And I think a lot of these bloggers listen to these radio hosts, and it gets reflected in their posts.

But look at what the facts are. As a skeptic, that is my consistent position: listen to the arguments from both sides, investigate what the facts are, then draw a more informed conclusion. For instance, under the rules of the Illinois state legislature, only 'yes' votes count toward the passage of a bill; i.e. to vote 'present' has the same effect as voting 'no' since it has the same result on the bill. Ergo, it is misleading to say that Obama "voted against" the bills. He simply voted 'present'. Moreover, when you vote 'present' it generally means that you have a problem with the bill—like its wording, for example, or its failure to include something you feel should be there. But neither these right-wing radio hosts nor these bloggers inform people of these relevant facts.

That is how the state legislature works. As for Obama's voting record, let's look at a specific example. The reason why Obama at the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois was opposed to the bill purported to ban partial-birth abortions was because it did not include anything about those abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother; it would have rendered doctors vulnerable to felony indictments for adhering to their Hippocratic Oath by performing an abortion when the mother's health was in jeopardy. In my opinion, anyone with a brain would have had a problem with that bill. "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold life-saving treatment from an infant," Obama said during the debate, "it's because it's not true . . . I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions—partial-birth or otherwise—as long as there is an exception for the mother's health and life. And this [bill] did not contain that exception" (Obama-McCain Presidential Debate III, 15/Oct/08). Imagine that. He would support a ban on late-term abortions. But, again, neither these right-wing radio hosts nor these bloggers inform people of these relevant facts.

To be fair, usually these bloggers are not themselves aware of the actual facts of the case because (i) right-wing radio often avoids the facts whenever the facts weaken their agenda, and (ii) they do not personally verify the information they hear, they do not check to see if what they are hearing is true. They hear it from a source they trust (but should not) and readily believe it, and subsequently propagate it in their blogs.

Are not the 'abortion' and 'homosexuality' topics an issue for me, from a Christian standpoint? Well, yes and no. See, your question is hinged upon what I feel is a crucial equivocation. Speaking for myself, there is a fundamental distinction on these issues as they relate to (i) the 'church' on the one hand and (ii) the 'state' on the other—predicated upon my personal conviction (corresponding to the federal Constitution of the United States) that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state.

For example, how I think the church should handle the issue of 'gay marriage' is distinct and unique from my view on how the state should handle it, such that I am quite opposed to legislating my 'church' convictions (regardless of how many people share them in common with me) over the entire constituency of the 'state' because I know there are many others who do not share them in common with me. Look at it this way: I would not want to live in a society where Islamic doctrines were legislated into state law; ergo, I am likewise opposed to legislating Christian doctrines into state law. The church can handle the issue of 'gay marriage' in accordance with its Scriptural mandate but it cannot impose those doctrines on the rest of the country's population. And the state can handle the issue in accordance with state laws, which are under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal Constitution.

If I had lived in the state of California, I would have voted 'no' on Proposition 8; in other words, I would have been opposed to the state banning gay marriage. Why? Because there is no political or legal argument for banning it. Only a religious argument—e.g., Scriptural support for (i) the sanctity of marriage as ordained by and centered upon God, (ii) marriage being a union between one man and one woman, and Scriptural proscription against (iii) the practice of homosexuality. But religious arguments, no matter how solid or compelling they might be, are entirely moot because of the First Amendment.

Having said that, there are very strong Constitutional arguments against banning gay marriage; the arguments are complex and cite various Articles and Amendments of the Constitution but they basically boil down to this inescapable fact: if one group of people are allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry. If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgment of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States, stripping them of equal protection of the laws.

But I also insist that the state is Constitutionally prohibited from interfering with church practices. In other words, wherever gay marriages are to be recognized by the state, there must be protection for church clergy who, according to their religious convictions, refuse to officiate gay marriages. It is disgusting to me when I hear about clergy being prosecuted under a civil lawsuit because they refused to marry a same-sex couple. The "wall of separation" goes both ways.

"Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate," you said, "God most certainly did will that Obama be elected; but then, He also gave Israel the king that they wanted in King Saul." Touché, my friend... touché.

And thank you very much, for your warm compliment about my writing.

President Barack Obama

To the American people, I extend to you what is sincerely the most heartfelt and incredibly enthusiastic congratulations from your Canadian neighbors on the election of Barack Obama to the office of the President of the United States of America. I know I do not speak for all Canadians but I can assure you I speak for most of them, given the core message from an unprecedented flood of emails that CBC Newsworld began receiving shortly after 11:00 PM Eastern.

President-elect Barack Obama inspired a lot more people than the American public throughout his extraordinary campaign, during the primaries and the general election: he inspired untold millions of Canadians, from coast to coast, who were drawn to his fully inclusive grassroots movement to reach across party lines and cultural divides to bring people together, united in a cause common to all: the healing of a nation and re-igniting the hope of her people, with a message for the world to not give up on America yet, that she really can be a force of good, domestically and abroad.

I am not ashamed to admit that when the west coast numbers came in and the announcement was made that Barack Obama had just been elected President, my heart soared and my vision blurred as I burst into tears of inexpressible joy. "They did it," I cried, "My God, the American people really did it." I sat there transfixed, watching Obama and his family walk out on stage for his acceptance speech, my breath hitching in my throat, overwhelmed that it really was an African-American family standing there accepting the American people's decision for them to move into the White House. It was a shockwave that circled the entire globe.

And for the next hour I shed unrestrained tears of happiness, seeing the faces of those gathered at Grant Park in Chicago, the dancing and singing and cheering, the hugs and smiles, the tears rolling down Rev. Jesse Jackson's face—and especially listening as select CNN contributors offered their thoughts on this historic moment, beginning with a tearful Roland Martin, "Obama is going to be sworn in on January 20th, 2009," he noted quietly, swallowing hard. "2009 will mark the 100th anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Obama got his start in politics in Springfield, Illinois. It was a race riot in Springfield, Illinois, that led to the creation of the NAACP."

"It's a great country," Bill Bennett said. "It's a great country and I hope he's a great President."

"I went back to look at the last speech that Martin Luther King gave back in 1968," David Gergen said, picking up a piece of paper. "It was the day before he was assassinated, and he said, 'I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land'." Gergen put the paper down, continuing, "And it seems to me, and for an awful lot of people in this country—especially for African-Americans—that Barack Obama is part of the Joshua generation, and Martin Luther King was our Moses. We're much closer to that now. We haven't ended our prejudice, but there's something about this evening and this election that I think has made an awful lot of people feel that this is the Joshua generation—we can reach something we never thought we could reach forty, fifty years ago."

"I went and looked back at the Constitution, and the first sentence talks of our desire to form 'a more perfect union'," Gloria Borger said. "We haven't done that, but we're still striving. And I think only the least gracious among us—no matter what your political philosophy—only the least gracious wouldn't say that this is a watershed moment for America."

I wiped the tears from my eyes and could not agree more. For the first time in decades, I was proud to be neighbors with the United States of America. I look at President Obama as emblematic of truly great things to come for that great nation striving to form a more perfect union.

Tracking the Debunkers (02/Nov/08)

This evening I discovered a new blog. It is not the blog itself that is new; it is simply new to me, as I had not previously encountered it nor had it brought to my attention. (I have not yet figured out a way to determine the date a blog was created when it does not display any navigation by 'date'. Someone should create a service that simplifies this area of research.)

At any rate, it should be a blog of considerable interest to me, considering what its title is: Debunking Christianity. That is surely a grand task, particularly when its founder concedes that to 'debunk' means to "show something to be false" (which he cites from the Encarta® World English Dictionary from Microsoft). Since the stated task of this blog is to show that Christianity is false, I will be tracking its entries to see if any measure up to the task the authors set before themselves.

As far as I understand, the blog was founded by a gentleman named John W. Loftus, who describes himself as a minister-turned-atheist residing in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and author of Why I Became an Atheist (a book I will now have to review, if I can find someone who wishes to rid themselves of their copy) whose participation at TheologyWeb (under the name 'Doubter John') has garnered him a questionable reputation. However, Debunking Christianity is home to a number of additional contributors of varying backgrounds; even though Loftus is of particular interest to me, I will critique any post regardless of its author.

From this point onward (November 2, 2008) I will examine entries made at Debunking Christianity to see if they accomplish what they set out to do.

The Spectator Speculates on Whether Richard Dawkins Has Changed His Mind (by John Loftus).

In this post Loftus reports on a comment that Richard Dawkins reportedly made during a second debate with John Lennox at Oxford's Natural History Museum (21/Oct/08, as reported by Melanie Phillips at The Spectator). However fascinating it might be to observe Dawkins burying himself in deeper layers of irrationality, none of this has anything to do with Christianity.

Has Loftus met the task of proving Christianity false? No.

Vote Your Conscience... Please! (by John Loftus)

In this post Loftus comments on the current U.S. Presidential election, lamenting on the inadequacies of the nominated candidates from the three leading parties (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian) and his angst over who to cast his vote for, since he has little confidence in their platforms or policies.

Has Loftus met the task of proving Christianity false? No.

Pat Condell: "Provide Evidence or Expect Mockery and Ridicule" (by John Loftus)

Admittedly I have not watched the embedded video to this post, but given Loftus' commentary it does not seem to meet the task of debunking Christianity anyhow. From what I can gather, it is rather Condell's advice for polemic approach. I will have to watch the video to confirm, but at this point it seems unlikely it even approaches their task.

[Edit 02/Nov/08: I have now watched the video and, indeed, it has nothing to do with proving Christianity is false. It is simply Condell describing his forceful bigotry and atheistic fanaticism. Yes, well, that is all quite underwhelming and remarkably irrelevant to anything beyond Condell's biography.]

Has Loftus met the task of proving Christianity false? No.

Christians Are Mentally Ill?

Discovering Satellite Radio

A little over a month ago I bought a Sirius satellite radio and one-year subscription. If you do not know what satellite radio is, it is a technologically advanced alternative to terrestrial radio (e.g., local FM stations), a subscription-based digital radio signal which is broadcast via communications satellite. Absolutely fantastic.

I blame Leroy. Right, you do not know who he is. Neither do I, for that matter—he is a friend of a friend who had an opportunity to do me a favour. But that neither matters nor relieves him of his odious culpability. Leroy and I took a 530-kilometer (330-mile) road trip together and he had satellite radio in his car. I quickly fell in love with it, for a few reasons but primarily because we could listen to the same station no matter how far we drove. So I had to get one for myself.

Initially my excitement was over being able to listen to Christian music, finally. Here in the city of Kelowna, British Columbia, there are four FM stations: one Pop station (Sun FM) with predictable fare, one Rock station (Power 104) with a good blend of contemporary and classic rock, and two Adult Contemporary stations (Silk FM; The Juice) playing music from the '80s and '90s plus today's hits. No Christian music stations. Zero. Yes, I know that if I bought a component stereo system I could hook it up to cable and receive Christian radio, but they are neither practical nor portable and I spend more time in my car and at work than at home.

But I love Christian music. Songs like "Finally Home" by MercyMe make my argument for me. So for the first couple of weeks after getting my satellite radio I was listening to Sirius Spirit (066) almost exclusively. But eventually I wanted to explore what else I could listen to with Sirius. There is a vast amount of music available, covering almost every conceivable genre—including Grunge, which I was happy to find—but then I discovered something that effectively kept me away from music altogether.

Talk Radio

I was instantly in love. Of course, being an intellectual elitist (which is what a person is when they have a passion for impeccable grammar and critical thinking, you see), I was obviously in my glory. When it comes to talk radio on Sirius I have three addictions, listed in order of their jones factor: CNN on 132, Indie Talk on 110, and Sirius Left on 146. (I have tried but I cannot listen to Sirius Patriot on 144, the right-wing ward. I am not retarded enough to swallow their inane bile. Their identities say it all—Sean Hannity, Cam Edwards, G. Gordon Liddy, etc. I do honestly try but I can take it only in small doses.)

My love for CNN is self-explanatory for anyone with cable television and a similar love for politics. On Sirius Left I enjoy only the Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller shows. (Stephanie kicks ass.) The other shows lean a bit too far to the left for my Centrist liking—and Lynn Samuels could be entertaining if only she would stop whining and bawling about Hillary Clinton losing the 2008 Democratic nomination, or insisting that she'll end up in a Jewish concentration camp under a Nazi President Obama. Yes, for real. Listen to her sometime.

Indie Talk (Sirius 110)

And on Indie Talk there are two shows I enjoy. I am enthralled with the Ron Silver show mostly because he is so intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable and he engages issues with penetrating depth; however, his two-hour show airs way too early in the morning here so I often miss it or catch only the last hour. And I have yet to discover when it replays. And what else? For me personally, there is usually nothing interesting on the Me & Vinnie show, and it does not feel like John Devore has figured out what to do with The DMZ yet (and there are way too many moments of long silence where no one is talking). And, sorry Joe Salzone, The Blog Bunker gets no love from me, player. (All joking aside, that is a fairly decent show. But I have usually dialed back to CNN during that time slot.)

[Note: As of 12/Nov/08, Sirius XM began broadcasting combined channel lineups across both the Sirius and XM platforms. One of the channels affected was Sirius 110, with Indie Talk being dissolved and replaced with POTUS Politics and its own lineup of programming. As a consequence, The DMZ with John Devore and The Blog Bunker with Joe Salzone are gone, while Me & Vinnie with Vinnie Politan has moved to Sirius 108. However, they kept the Ron Silver and Pete's Big Mouth shows, but renamed the latter.]

Pete's Big Mouth

The other show I enjoy is called Stand Up! With Pete Dominick (formerly Pete's Big Mouth). It is hosted by Pete Dominick, a stand-up comic from New York with a national circuit whose radio program exhibits a passion for political and social issues. His show is provocative, incisive, and compelling, due in large part to Pete being so incredibly outspoken while insisting on honesty, openness, and integrity. And also due in part to the types of callers he receives and how he engages them, including the comic relief of Deep Breath Steve and Mosquito Dan. And after a week of hearing Alexandra do the Blogcast, I am consecrating myself to her... *sighs happily*

Anyway, I listen to his show every single day, Monday to Friday from 12:00pm until 3:00pm here on the west coast. My commitment to the show pushes the threshold of ridiculous; I will do anything to avoid missing even a minute of it. Yes, it is seriously that good. Got Sirius? I highly recommend this show.

But there are disagreements between myself and Pete. Maybe that plays some part in my love for the show. To some degree. There are some things we agree on but that is somewhat predictable with me being politically Centrist (who leans a bit to the left on economic issues), because a Centrist can find some things in common with nearly anyone. And at least to some degree we are both critical thinkers; for now I think the weight of evidence indicates that I am a more consistent critical thinker than Pete is. But he could change. I just need to disabuse him of his commitment to Sam Harris.

Which is actually a convenient segue because one of the most notable points we disagree over is Christianity. We traveled very different paths—Pete went from Christian to non-believer while I went the reverse—and that leaves a lot of issues for us to disagree over, probably enough fill a small book (e.g. issues like 'gay marriage' and 'abortion' and even more fundamental issues like 'morality', never mind the obvious issue of God's existence).

Mentally ill?

And one of the absolute thorniest issues for me currently is Pete's often expressed sentiment that Christians are "mentally ill" if they believe that God has anything to do with American politics, particularly with respect to this 2008 Presidential election race. The first time he dropped this gratuitous invective on the show I dismissed it. It was a heated monologue regarding some religiously zealous comment Sarah Palin had recently made (about God vindicating Republicans on November 4th or something) and I know that a person can speak a little too consonant with their bias in the heat of the moment. Of course we all have our biases so I would never criticize someone for that, but he has expressed this sentiment on more than one occasion and nearly always with similar wording, especially that "mentally ill" characterization.

If Pete Dominick is genuinely concerned about intellectual honesty and integrity—and I think he has given his listeners enough reason to believe he is—then I have to call him on this issue and hold him to that standard which he professes for himself, and for which I have come to admire him.

Critical Analysis

So let's ask the pertinent question: Is it a fair and accurate characterization? Is a Christian who holds that belief truly 'mentally ill'? I think we can eliminate a significant portion of this discussion right from the start by Pete's implied concession that it is neither accurate nor fair to characterize them as 'mentally ill' in the clinical sense. First, I know from talking to him that Pete has no formal education or training in the area of mental health so it is probably safe to conclude, given this inability to defend it academically, that he does not mean it in the clinical sense (e.g., as would be listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). Second, Pete admitted to me in a personal email, "When I say 'mental illness' I might be wrong. I am sure my definition of what religion can do to influence the way your mind works could be called something more accurate" [1]. So here we have Pete conceding, at least implicitly, that the characterization worded that way is neither fair nor accurate.

Therefore it is probable that he means it as a pejorative akin to 'delusional'. But there is a pertinent question here, too: Does this hold any more water than 'mentally ill' did? As a point of fact, no it certainly does not. In a strictly clinical sense, a delusion is pathological (i.e., the result of an illness) and the characterization is admittedly indefensible at that level. But in more common usage, a delusion is a belief that is held despite invalidating evidence, a "fixed false belief." For example, if I believe that there is a cup on the table, but every relevant standard of empirical analysis demonstrates that there is not, then my belief is delusional.

So here is the question: Can this be said about Christians who believe that God is involved with American elections? Possibly, but it shoulders a burden of proof that has to be met. You see, in order to claim that they are in some way delusional, Pete has to present the evidence which invalidates their belief; i.e., he has to show that the belief is false. If the belief cannot be demonstrated as false, if there is no contrary evidence that invalidates the belief, Pete cannot appropriately deem it delusional nor defend such a notion rationally.

So a Christian who believes that God is involved with American elections (hereinafter 'X') is neither 'mentally ill' nor 'delusional' because X does not meet the criteria of either label. Period. This is the conclusion that must be confronted by anyone who esteems intellectual honesty.

There is still another angle Pete could take. He could claim that the reason why Christians are delusional if they believe X is because there is not sufficient evidence for their belief. However, there are three very serious problems with this angle.

The first and most obvious problem is that the burden of proof shouldered by the label 'delusional' is not magically met by pointing to some absence of evidence; it requires an existence of evidence which invalidates X, showing it to be false. Pointing to some absence of evidence is wholly inadequate in the rational arena. And for someone who takes critical thinking seriously, that must matter.

The second problem is even more severe. The claim that there is not sufficient evidence for X shoulders a unique and impossibly heavy burden of proof itself. Pete can claim that he has not been presented with sufficient evidence, but it is very bad reasoning to conclude that therefore none exists. It is a conclusion that simply does not follow (i.e., non-sequitur), since there very well could be sufficient evidence that Pete has simply not be shown yet.

The third problem is the most severe of all. To conclude that X is false because it has not been proven true is a logical fallacy; specifically, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Ergo, for Pete to hold that X is false he must, as with the first problem I mentioned, present contrary evidence that invalidates X. Without such contrary evidence, Pete must admit X could be true—which, please understand, is a very different thing from believing it himself—that it is not necessarily false nor is it demonstrably false.

According to generally accepted standards of sound reason, Pete must admit—in order to sustain intellectually honesty—that Christians who believe X may be of very sound mind, that they may have good reason for believing it, that they are not necessarily mentally ill nor anything similar. He may not have been presented sufficient evidence for X himself, but he has no evidence to the contrary either.

In Closing

As a closing thought, I should point out that Christians who believe X cannot rationally be called simpletons either (or any scathing synonyms)—at least, not on account of X itself because that belief is actually an in-depth conclusion drawn from a unique complex of strong philosophical arguments (and, where required, responsible exegesis of the relevant scriptural texts).

Although I readily agree that some Christians could be characterized properly and fairly as simpletons, it is only when they believe things blindly or uncritically; e.g., they believe X but they cannot reason why (e.g., other than their pastor told them, for example), or they claim the Bible says so but are incapable of showing where. This point must be stressed: If they are simpletons it is because of some rational or heuristic shortcoming on their part. It is not because of X itself, for there is nothing simplistic or immature about X. That I can certainly defend.

One must remember that there are roughly two billion Christians in the world. Whatever your experiences with Christians have been, it was necessarily a very small segment of an otherwise vast population—especially if that experience was with Christians in the United States, and especially if it was with Christians of a particular sect (e.g., Catholic, Baptist, etc.). There are a very large number of Christians (e.g., over one million Presbyterians, like myself) who believe X and can state precisely why, describing exactly the philosophical argument—and the biblical argument, if required, showing where the Bible states quite pointedly that ultimately it is God that decides who comes to power and who is unseated from power (e.g., Dan. 2:21, Rom. 13:1, etc.). They are not simpletons, they are not delusional, they are not mentally ill, and they do not deserve such pejoratives.


----------
[1] Dominick, Peter. "RE: I'm doing a blog post involving you." Email to the author. 28 Oct. 2008.

Inconsistent Skeptics

Some skeptics do not adhere to critical thinking as consistently as they should. In my experience, atheistic skeptics exhibit this lack of consistency the most. Critical thinking is not a commendable heuristic if it gets abandoned whenever it inconveniences a pre-existing bias. Rather, critical thinking ought reshape one's bias, not be tossed out when it threatens one's bias.

For example, a skeptic who adheres to critical thinking consistently (Smith) would refuse to accept some proposition P if there is inadequate epistemic warrant for it. Now, one who does not adhere to critical thinking consistently (Jones) would likewise refuse to accept P at first. Where the inconsistency in critical thinking arises is when Jones takes it a step further and asserts that because P has not been proven true it is consequently false.

This is made more obvious where P stands for "gods exist." It is consistent with critical thinking for Jones to reject P if for him there has been inadequate epistemic warrant for it. However, Jones promptly abandons critical thinking if he asserts that P ("gods exist") is false because it has not been proven true; that is a logical fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. And he further contradicts critical thinking if he also affirms that a lack of evidence for P is somehow itself evidence for ¬P ("gods do not exist"). An absence of evidence is an empty set; 'nothing' in support of P is still 'nothing' when used as an attempt to support ¬P.

Smith is the consistent skeptic when he refuses to affirm that P is true but also refuses to affirm that P is false. It may be false. Or it may be true. The lack of adequate warrant either way means he cannot affirm either; Smith remains agnostic on the question. Jones, in order to be consistent with critical thinking, must do the same. If what Jones wants to affirm is that P is false, critical thinking dictates that he must provide evidence that either (a) supports ¬P or (b) invalidates P.

"I Contend We Are Both Atheists" - Response to Comments 3

The following blog post is a direct response to some of the intriguing comments I have received regarding my criticism of Stephen Roberts' infamous Quote. I think the points being raised are too good to be buried in a Comments field which is inevitably lagging further and further behind in the flow of the blog, comments which certainly deserve their own light of day.

Anonymous said (his comment here):

"The Quote" does not imply that your reasons for dismissing other gods are the same as Stephen's reasons for dismissing yours. It merely states that when you UNDERSTAND your own reasons for dismissing those other gods, you will UNDERSTAND his reasons. I suspect that since you do not even UNDERSTAND the quote, you will not make the mental effort to UNDERSTAND either his reasons or your own.

First of all, I would encourage you to assume a name. Make one up if you have to, but please assume a name by which I can identify your arguments. Anyone can contribute as "Anonymous" and I would have no way of knowing if it was you or not.

Now, regarding your comment. I already know the Quote does not imply that our reasons are the same. The content and context of the Quote and Roberts' elaboration thereof both make that pretty obvious. My criticism argues from the understanding that the Quote implies our reasons are similar. That is the implication the Quote makes, and it is rather candid about it. So I will let the readers determine for themselves whether or not I understand the Quote, particularly by my responses here.

(Keep in mind that my criticism regarded the Quote and, by extension, Roberts' elaboration of it. My criticism did not, and cannot, regard your own views nor your perspective of the Quote. Any objection that indicates how my criticism fails to account for some perspective of yours only demonstrates a misunderstanding of my criticism itself. I am certainly able to offer a critique of your perspective on a given subject but that is not what I had done; yet it is my criticism of the Quote that you had responded to.)

What does the Quote itself say? I am going to direct our attention to the verifiable facts here, in an effort to keep this discussion relevant and intellectually honest. What does it actually say? It says that when you "understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods," then you will "understand why I dismiss yours" (emphasis supplied). And then Stephen Roberts himself stopped by this blog—which really made my day, quite frankly, since I had not heard from him in so long—to elaborate not only on the meaning of the Quote but also on what for him, as the originator of the Quote, is the real "meat" of it; specifically, that "if [theists] really understood why they don't believe in the other gods they might understand why their god is hard to believe in too" (emphasis supplied).

These facts are not really disputable. Anyone can independently verify them. Right? Especially when I openly provide the relevant links. The Quote was already fairly clear, and Roberts himself made it clearer still: the fundamental point is that if the Christian theist openly and honestly understands "why" he dismisses all the other possible gods then he will understand "why" the atheist dismisses God (or finds him hard to believe in, at best). In both the Quote and in Roberts' elaboration, the "why" test (reasoning) is the real meat or force of the Quote.

This fact becomes even clearer when one sees there are two questions which the Quote logically and naturally raises in our minds. The first question is, "Why does the atheist dismiss God?" And the second question is, "Why do I (the Christian theist) dismiss all other possible gods?" As I understand it, and Roberts likewise pointed out, the second question essentially acts as the springboard to the answer for the first question; i.e., answering the second question ought to enlighten and enable the Christian theist to discover the answer for the first question.

And my contention has been just this: "Is that actually the case?" Is there any real correlation between the answers to each question? Put it another way: Is it true that by honestly examining and understanding my own reasons for why I dismiss all other possible gods I will be enabled to understand why the atheist dismisses God? The force of my contention, of course, is borne upon the rather unequivocal answer, "No, there is no correlation." Because—

[and here is the essential thrust]

—if I honestly examine and understand my own reasons for why I dismiss all the other possible gods, I actually discover that they have no possible relationship with the atheist's reasons for dismissing God. None, zero. For example, my reasons (for dismissing all other gods) operate from the presupposition of God's existence. The epistemologies and heuristics on either side of the debate differ quite drastically, and at their most foundational levels. Not even the ground or nature of logic itself bears any similarity between us; for the Christian theist, logic is grounded in the very nature of God, and this cannot be said for the atheist—any atheist whatsoever. This is precisely why the theist's reasons (for dismissing all other possible gods) do not, in fact, offer any insight of understanding into the atheist's reasons (for dismissing God).

But notice something compelling here, equally relevant and interesting. The force of this argument can also be shown from the opposite side; i.e., flip the scenario around and it still bears this truth out. If I genuinely and honestly understand the atheist's reasons for why he dismisses God, based as they usually are upon an epistemology grounded in some form of empiricism, I discover that his reasons for dismissing God do not have any kind of relationship to my reasons for dismissing all other possible gods. Our epistemologies are grounded and structured quite differently. And that is the very point of my contention, originally and now expanded upon in this post: the theist's reasons and the atheist's reasons are not even similar, much less the same. This is why the second clause of the Quote is unintelligible. It is simply false (i.e., it bears no correspondence with reality). As I had said previously, the reasons why Roberts rejects God and the reasons why I reject "all other possible gods" are very different: "Being informed of Stephen's reasoning does not inform anyone of my reasoning, nor vice versa."

The first clause of the Quote is incoherent. And its second clause is false. I cannot understand why anyone would want to champion the Quote. (Well, actually I can, but that is the threshold beyond which my skepticism gives way to my cynicism. My skepticism I can defend; my cynicism is more rant-ish.)

jaydecay57 said (his comment here):

I believe the point of the quote is to illustrate the fact that any believer in a monotheistic religion can so readily dismiss all other gods as easily as any atheist, yet can cling so tightly to one slight variation from the others without providing an acceptable reasoning behind their choice.

I do not believe the Quote has anything to say about whether or not a theist has the intellectual honesty and integrity to provide "acceptable" reasoning behind his choice. (And I can level a significant and substantive criticism against atheists pontificating to others what "acceptable reasoning" is.) Let me explain what I mean. Whether the Christian provides his reasoning or not, the Quote is asking him to authentically examine and understand his reasons for dismissing all other gods, and that by doing so he will better understand the atheist's reasons for dismissing God. And my criticism shows how this fails the test, i.e., that it is simply not true, that it does not correspond to anything in reality.

Truthfully though the REAL point of the quote (I feel) is to make atheists smile and say "That's what I've been trying to say all along!"

Perhaps. But what those atheists "have been trying to say all along" is still incoherent and false, respectively, if it mirrors the first and second clause of the Quote. Like I said, if the Quote is really just humorous nonsense that atheists find entertaining, if it has nothing substantive or real to say about Christian theology, then I should not find any atheists arguing against me if I post about how nonsensical the Quote is. They felt the same way before I even posted, right? As I said before, "It is amusing but incoherent. Great. A smile, a nod, and now let's move along to authentic, intelligible dialogue." Why waste time over something everyone agrees is neither intelligible nor substantive?

I will give you that believing in a god is logical. However all the logical reasons to believe in a god are inherently demeaning to the believer (Fear of the unknown, gullible, ignorant, and other admittedly mean sounding words) which may be why it is difficult for some to see that it is in fact rather silly to say no other god exists except the one you have arbitrarily chosen from the myriad of other choices.

Evidently you have not listed "all the logical reasons to believe" because I did not find in your list any of the reasons argued for in systematic theologies or philosophical texts, nor any of the reasons I happen to hold. That is a lot to have left out. I think maybe there are logical reasons you do not even know about (I do not want to assume there are some you know about and willfully omitted); critical reasoning would dictate that as an opportunity to exercise a tone of intellectual charity, admitting there could be logical reasons you have not informed yourself about, instead of rashly declaring that you have listed all the logical reasons to believe. I am assuming, of course, that you hold critical thinking skills in high regard when dealing with competing views. I hope it is a correct assumption.

How do you expect not to be ridiculed?

Because I champion reason, critical thinking, and skepticism. Perhaps fundies might ridicule me for that, but not fellow thinkers and skeptics. In my limited experience, they usually demonstrate appreciation for such things being championed, not ridicule. And no, "skeptic" is not a synonym for "atheist."

...you actively chose one God that fits you and ignoring all other possibilities, called it truth.

You assume I ignored all other possibilities. I am not sure you have a defensible basis for such an assumption.

But you are correct, I do not determine truth. I discover it—which can happen when one pursues it.

If one [god] is absurd, it inevitably means they all are.

It is not obvious how that follows logically. I would love to see the premises that render such a scandalous conclusion.

This is all rather mean sounding, I know, and I do apologies a little, but under the guise of the internet I am safe from your e-god's scorn...regardless, I can take it as easily as I can dish it out, so feel free to bash my grammar and liberal use of ellipsis. I also fully realize that I'm just as ignorant as you and we're all in this thing together...I'm just able to admit and embrace it.

I fully and genuinely appreciate your contributions. When people leave their bigotry outside and enter into an authentic conversation on ultimate issues, it can plant seeds that end up shaping the ideas and beliefs of the participants. That is what this blog is all about: the conversations and experiences that shape my itinerarium mentis.