Letter to Hatcher...
I read your articles in The Skeptical Review. I was raised a Christian and am now an unbeliever, and wanted to share with you what I believe to be the greatest problem with the Bible.
I used to be an attorney (I now work in high tech), and I once represented a young man who was accused of stealing a lot of money from his employer. There was a lot of accusatory evidence, and for what it's worth his wife and his attorney both believed him to be guilty. For every piece of incriminating evidence he had an answer. For example, he had forged someone's signature on a number of documents; he said that person had verbally authorized him to do so. (The person had since died and was not available to either corroborate or disprove my client's statements.) He claimed to have made a trip on company business but there was no record of the trip having actually been made; he claimed that company officials had instructed him to travel incognito because of the highly sensitive nature of ongoing negotiations. And on and on it went.
At some point, the problem with his case became no one piece of evidence, but the cumulative weight of everything. And at some point it really didn't matter that he had an answer for everything; people just stopped listening.
That's the problem I have with the Bible. It contains a whole lot of what on the surface appears to be contradictions, historical inaccuracies, scientific inaccuracies, absurdities and outrages. Inerrantists such as you have an answer for every blessed one of them, your current discussion with Farrell Till about the Book of Daniel being a case in point.
But the real problem with your case, as I see it, is not whether you can answer this skeptical argument or that one; it is that there is such a multitude of problems with the text that at some point it just doesn't matter any more. The cumulative weight of contradictions, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies and the like are just too much. I call this the "Everything Problem," and, brother, you've got it bad.
(Mel Dahl, 87 Hortonville Road, Swansea, MA 02777; e-mail, mel.dahl@mindspring.com)
Hatcher's Reply...
Thank you for taking the time to email with your thoughts on the debate on the date of authorship of Daniel. The court case you referred to reminds me of our human limitations. Juries can find defendants guilty only if the evidence convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt. It sounds like this fellow was probably convicted, and I can see how from your perspective you have a problem with several portions of the Bible. I will admit to you that there are some passages that I have difficulty explaining. On the other hand, I have also seen many pieces of evidence that convince me of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
If you want some good evidence concerning Daniel then keep your eyes on this unfolding debate in The Skeptical Review. In the end of Farrell Till's November/December article, he noted that Bruce Wildish was going to join him in the January/February issue on this subject. Let's see if either one of these critics is willing to address the linguistic evidence. I have my doubts that Farrell Till will take on this subject because earlier he claimed that the Aramaic of Daniel was late, but then later he said he had never made that assertion.
As you probably know, critics argue that the linguistic evidence (approximately 20 Persian words, 3 Greek words, the type of Aramaic and Hebrew used) necessitates a late date for Daniel. However, I have pointed out that some of the strongest evidence for a sixth century Daniel comes from the linguistic comparisons to other literature.
I will admit to you that I am finite and could be wrong. Are you willing to admit the same?
(Everette Hatcher III, Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221; e-mail, everetteiii@aristotle.net)
Editor's Note: It is singular that Hatcher didn't really address the problem that Mr. Dahl presented in his letter. Bruce Wildish and I have discussed this same problem but didn't illustrate it as effectively as Mr. Dahl did with his example of once having defended in court a client who had an unlikely explanation for each of the many bits of evidence that pointed to his guilt. The credibility of the client eventually collapsed under the weight of so many unlikely explanations.
That's the problem with Hatcher's defense of the early authorship of Daniel. He has had to resort to too many unlikely scenarios to defend his position: Darius the Mede and Cyrus could have been the same person, Daniel 5 could have used the words father and son in the sense of predecessor and successor, the writer of Daniel could have been using a dating system that made Daniel 1:1 chronologically correct, the word peres in Daniel 5:28 could have been a pun on the word Persian, and so on ad infinitum. Even if we granted Hatcher all of these conjectures, that would do very little to instill credibility in the Bible as a whole, because there are hundreds of other inconsistencies, discrepancies, and contradictions elsewhere that can be explained only by postulating unlikely scenarios. Where should the acceptance of such scenarios end? Just how far should we go in giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt? Hatcher and his inerrantist cohorts apparently think that there should be no end at all to the acceptance of far-fetched, how-it-could-have-been explanations of problems that cast doubt on the inerrant view of the Bible, but this is an unreasonable expectation. No inerrantist would be willing to accord the same consideration to the holy books of other religions, so to expect such consideration for their own holy book is a flagrant resort to the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Hatcher spent more time in his letter singing his old familiar theme song about linguistic evidence, as if he is expert enough in Aramaic to make a judgment in this matter. In my reply to Hatcher's third and last installment of his latest article, I intend to address this point, since this part of his article was where he brought it up again. Meanwhile, I have sent an e-mail request for Hatcher to send me his credentials in linguistics that qualify him to know that “some of the strongest evidence for a sixth century Daniel comes from the linguistic comparisons to other literature.” I would be willing to wager right now, before I have received his reply, that Hatcher knows next to nothing about Aramaic and has never taken a course in the subject. If my suspicion is right, the best that Hatcher could do on this point is what he has done on every other point he has brought into the discussion: he can only quote inerrancy-believing authors (most of whom will probably be the Grand Rapids, Michigan, kind), who see how-it-could-have-been reasons to argue that the Aramaic of Daniel was the sixth-century type.
A Fair Deal?
It grieves me to see the energy you expend, attempting to disprove God's existance [sic]. Your efforts have proven nothing to me, on the contrary they solidified my belief in God. Your attacks against God only establish what I often say, that there is a Being to fear and attack; otherwise to attack a mythological being is illogical.
I reviewed the reasons you offered–sometime ago–attempting to prove thereby that God doesn't exist: one was the Biblical narration of Phineas Numbers 25:7 and other God's responses [sic] to that incident which you quoted: “Phineas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest has turned my anger from the Israelites by his zeal for my honor among them, that is why I did not put an end to the Israelites for the offense to my honor.” Which led you to ask, “How can there be a god so cruel and merciless that would allow man's inhumanity to man by sanctioning those deeds?” A valid question however subjective, if we wish to make an objective decision we have to analyze the two sides to an argument. Putting everything in perspective we will see that however harsh the punishment and God's statement seem, He is not the ogre made out to be. Contrary to appearances we find God to be an all loving and merciful Being, who notwithstanding our ingratitude and rebellion against Him, He continues to shower us with abundant blessings out of His munificence.
He is that God who humbly offered Himself as the immolation on the cross, to die the ignominous [sic] death of a criminal for our sakes; only to be repaid by insults from His creatures.
If you are still vague about what I am trying to depict for you; imagine for one moment what it would do to you, to have a relative, friend or acquaintance whom you loved dearly upon whom you lavish all your love only to be repaid by insult and ingratitude what would you do?
If there is still a doubt in your mind about God's existance [sic] then consider the harmonious state of our universe, or the minute organization of the microscopic detail in a leaf, or the eye of a man. Or the makeup of a snowflake; particles of snow that although having the same structural pattern; six points no two have the same design, or man; of which there are approximately 5.9 billion on our planet no two of us have two fingerprints that are alike: although fingerprints come in eight [sic] identifiable patterns, plain arch, plain whorl, tented arch, central pocket loop, loop, double loop, accidental.
Pray tell me is this the work of an infinite intelligence or happen-stance? I offer you a challenge; prove to me substantially and inctrovertably [sic]–not a personal opinion nor [sic] through an assumption–that God does not exist and I will forsake my religion, is that a fair deal?
(Frank P. Calderon, 4010 Josephine Street, Lynwood, CA 90262)
Editor's Note: Mr. Calderon has shown himself to be a typical theist. In the January/February 2000 issue, I published a long letter from him in its entirety and devoted a page and a half to replying to all of his points. Now he has come back to rehash his first letter as if I had said nothing to rebut such ridiculous claims as opposition to his God concept is proof that this god exists, because no one would spend time opposing a mythological being. By Calderon's logic, if skeptics in India seek to convince their Hindu countrymen that Vishnu does not exist, their opposition to the existence of this god would prove that Vishnu is real. It apparently hasn't occurred to Calderon that skeptics oppose god concepts for the simple reason that they see benefits that their respective societies would obtain if they rid themselves of superstitious beliefs in gods. I pointed this out in much more detail in my reply to Calderon's first letter, and he has now said exactly nothing in reply to my rebuttal.
Calderon also regurgitated his claim that God is loving and merciful and “continues to shower us with abundant blessings out of His munificence,” but Calderon has apparently turned a blind eye to the diseases, disasters, famine, and such like that his deity also showers upon us. Certainly, people will experience good fortune in life, but they will also experience misfortune. Simplistic theists like Calderon see the good fortune as “blessings” from a munificent creator, but consistency would demand that if “God” is going to be credited with the good things in life, he should also be blamed for the bad. I would therefore ask Mr. Calderon to answer a simple question: If the “good” in life is proof that his god exists, then why wouldn't earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves, volcanic explosions, disease, famine, pestilence, etc. be proof that his god does not exist?
The same applies to Calderon's belief that harmony in the universe proves the existence of his god. Such a view is myopic in the extreme. Planets do orbit their suns in orderly fashion, but asteroids and comets collide with planets at times, stars explode, and galaxies collide. For every detail of “orderliness” that Calderon can find in the universe, he can also find details of chaos. If the former proves the existence of his god, why wouldn't the latter disprove the existence of this god?
Calderon thinks that he sees “design” in the universe, but the examples he cited show only his myopic view of life. He used the eye as an example of marvelous design, and I find this especially ludicrous because of my own problems with vision. About 10 years ago, I had a severe case of cataracts that so obstructed my vision that the problem had to be corrected with interocular lens implants. The operation was a complete success, and for that I thank the skill of the ophthalmologic surgeon and not some “maybe” god, who never lifted a finger to do anything about the problem. As I write this, I am squinting to bring the writing on my computer screen into focus, because I had lasik surgery two weeks ago to correct astigmatism so that I will be able to function without wearing glasses except for reading. I will have to wait two more weeks before reading glasses can be prescribed.
I have a simple question for Mr. Calderon: If this god of his is so munificent, why didn't he do a better job of designing the human eye? My vision problems have been minor compared to what some people must endure because of the poor “design” of eyes. It does seem that an omnimax deity could have done a better job than this.
I have now devoted about three full pages in this column to Calderon's theistic rantings. I don't know if he intends to send another letter or not, but if he does, it will not be published unless he at least attempts to reply to my rebuttal points. I get a little tired of biblicists and theists who want publishing space but don't want to answer their opponents’ rebuttal points.
A Waste of Time...
First off, please accept my emphatic apology for my forgetting to notify you that my address has temporarily changed. In my eagerness to spend a few months working as a boat captain among the Hawaiian Islands, my mind, keen as it is, was elsewhere. I see that my neglect has caused Skepticism, Inc., to squander nearly two dollars in postage: a slovenliness to duty which would have had me soundly flogged in Nelson's Navy, and is a crime on par with stealing Captain Bligh's cheese or pilfering Captain Queeg's strawberries. To ward off any hint of mutiny, enclosed is a check to cover the costs.
This morning, duty compelled me to take on a delightful task that only the most liberal of boat captains would refrain from ordering another to do: unclogging the crew's toilet. During this process, I had a religious epiphany: my mind spontaneously drew a parallel between the task at hand (and arm–I was up to my elbow), and trying to get Mr. Hutchinson to see reason. Both tasks involved a stubborn blockage: the former being a clog of waste matter, the latter being a clog of biblical inerrancy. Both refuse that final flush into ignoble perdition, though both be equally deserving. Forcing a four-inch chuck of crap through a three-inch pipe is much like forcing irrationality out of Mr. Hutchinson's brain: it's a very messy, unpleasant, smelly job, but when one finally succeeds, one gains heroic stature and all who benefit will praise one's name. The toilet clog eventually knew when to give up, and it went the way all toilet clogs should: down the crapper; Hutchinson, however, still clings tenaciously to his false belief– which shows that a clog in the toilet has more sense than Mr. Hutchinson.
There was a time when I treated Biblical Inerrantists more politely–Mr. Hutchinson has convinced me that it is a waste of time, and all that is left is the humor value of the issue. Ten years from now when my subscription runs out, I hope Mr. Hutchinson will still be submitting articles to TSR, undaunted by reason, sanity, critical thinking, and common sense–it's been quite entertaining!
(David Rice, 723 Calle Casita, San Clemente, CA 92673-2708; e-mail, shydavid@ktb.net)
Editor's Note: The only thing that keeps Hutchinson from being a waste of time is that he gives readers the opportunity to see that biblical inerrancy can be defended only by constant resorts to absurd how-it-could-have-been scenarios. One article from him is worth a thousand from me or other biblical skeptics, because his articles give readers the opportunity to see actual examples of the extremes to which inerrantists will go to find “harmony” in the Bible.
Hello, Is Anybody There?
I am very satisfied with you're [sic] publication, I read one of you're [sic] newsletters that a fellow Brother, showed me here in Prison. I am totally for the movement and would shed Blood for my True White Race.
I would like to recieve [sic] you're [sic] newsletter when they come out. I am currantly [sic] locked up and they only let certain things come in. But I'm sure I would be able to get the newsletter.
Could you please send the Address of the National Alliance. Please.
(Randy Love #D83721-132, Lancaster Correctional Institution, 3449 SW State Road 26, Trenton, FL 32693)
Editor's Note: As previously noted, the rumor has circulated for several years in the prison population that The Skeptical Review is a white supremacist publication. I have no idea how this rumor began, but I thought my reply to the letter published in the September/ October 2000 issue (page 12) would finally squelch it. Apparently it hasn't, because the letter above from the same correctional institution shows that it is still alive. I am publishing this letter to double emphasize that I have no sympathy at all with racist movements of any kind. Although I am Caucasian, I find notions of white supremacy or racial supremacy of any kind despicable, so I would appreciate it if Mr. Love (what an ironic name) would spread the word that his “fellow brothers” will find no sympathy for their racial views at TSR.
Because of my policy of sending TSR free to prison inmates who request it, I have added his name to the mailing list, but he will have to inquire elsewhere to get the address of the “National Alliance.” I don't know the address and have no desire to know it.
Answer the Question...
Thank you for the latest edition of TSR. I always read it with interest, to see how you seek to contradict the inerrancy of the Bible.
Allow me to comment briefly on the article "What Is More Likely?" It seems to me that the real problem with things such as the mention of Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1 is a presuppositional rather than a logical one. Occam's razor is fine, but it tends to beg the issue rather than solve the problem. If someone believes in God, and believes it is possible for Him to reveal the future to a prophet, then the revelation of God to Isaiah regarding the name of Cyrus is a simpler hypothesis than the postulation that someone pretended to be Isaiah, and wrote after the 6th century, again pretending that he had received the name of Cyrus by divine revelation during the 8th century.
The question of presuppositions affects the article by Wildish, “Dating Daniel.” He writes, “It is unscholarly and unprofessional to allow considerations like ‘prophecy’ to enter the discussion” (p. 2). I would like to ask, “Why?” It seems that once again he is begging the question.
I understand that you are not very interested in giving time to dealing with matters regarding presuppositions, but unless we deal with these, then much of the discussion between skeptics and theists will be rather unfruitful.
Finally, in “Are We Closed- Minded Too? ” your answer did not appear to address the question raised. I appreciate your point that having been a fundamentalist before, and now having become an advocate of skepticism, you are obviously a person who is able to evaluate evidence, and are prepared to change your views. That is commendable. However, the question was, “Is there any possibility whatsoever that you would ever concede the existence of God?” In other words, what would constitute sufficient evidence for theism? It would be interesting to know how you would answer this question.
(Alex Donnelly, 78 Oakford Terrace, Nantymoel, Bridgend Mid Glamorgan, CP32 75, Wales, UK; e-mail, A.Donnelly@tesco. net)
Editor's Note: I'm glad that Mr. Donnelly reads TSR with interest to see how I seek to contradict the inerrancy of the Bible, but in reality, I don't have to do much seeking. The contradictions and discrepancies are in the text and are rather obvious to those who don't have an inerrancy axe to grind.
Along with this letter from Mr. Donnelly, I received an article (which I plan to publish later) from someone who argues that both believers and skeptics base their beliefs on presuppositions. I would never deny that, but a very basic difference in the two groups is that the presuppositions of skeptics are generally (but not always) empirically based, whereas the supernatural presuppositions of religionists are almost always based on an uncritical desire to believe the claims of their respective religions. I assume, for example, that the resurrections of Lazarus, Jairus's daughter, Dorcas, and Jesus are simply myths or legends that have no basis in fact, because all of the people I have ever known to die have remained dead. I have never known of a single one who was resurrected to life. For 35 years, I have lived across the street from a cemetery that covers four city blocks. During those years, I have seen numerous funeral processions enter the cemetery, but I have never once known of a person rising from the dead after he/she was buried there. The experiences of others have been the same: people die and then remain permanently dead. For me to believe that life was somehow different in biblical times and that within the space of just a few short years all of the characters mentioned above were raised from the dead calls for a “presupposition” that would tax my credulity far beyond reasonable limits. I think if Mr. Donnelly would be honest with us, he would have to say the same thing, but he probably won't. He wants to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and so he seeks to make purely superstitious presuppositions sound just as reasonable as the empirically based presuppositions of skeptics.
In the matter of Isaiah's reference to Cyrus by name, the skeptic's presupposition that at least this section of the book was written after Cyrus had become king of the Persian empire is far more reasonable than Donnelly's supernatural assumption that the reference can be explained by postulating that a deity able to see into the future merely “inspired” Isaiah to know that a man named Cyrus would one day rule over Persia. The skeptic's assumption is based on empirical evidence of wholesale forgeries in the general time period when the Bible was being written. Analysis of the text of Isaiah has convinced linguistic experts that variations in style and vocabulary can best be explained by the assumption of multiple authorship, and such forgeries have been so obvious that even Christian scholars recognize that pseudepigraphic works attributed to biblical characters like Noah, Adam, Enoch, Baruch, Elijah, etc., are not authentic. With this kind of empirical evidence on which to base the assumption that even some parts of canonical books are probably spurious, the skeptic is being entirely rational when he assumes that references to events and people whose dates in history are known is evidence that these references were written after those dates. A believer who assumes otherwise because of a “presupposition” that the supernatural can account for them is making an assumption for which he doesn't have even a shred of empirical evidence.
Is there any chance that I would ever concede the existence of “God”? Well, there's not much chance that I would concede it as long as theists have no better evidence to offer than what they have so far offered. What would constitute sufficient evidence for theism? Well, that's easy to answer. Let God give me the same evidence that I have for the existence of my wife. I can see her, so I know she exists. God could very easily settle this question to my satisfaction, but I won't bet the farm that he will be doing that any time soon.
Regrettably, every word I have said has been wasted on Mr.
Donnelly, because he is going to go on believing in his supernatural
presuppositions, even though he has nothing empirical to support them.
