What's Wrong with Jamie?
You are indeed a breath of fresh air in a world of fundamentalist smoke and mirrors. As a recovering--no, make that "recovered"--Church of Christer with some Bible Church thrown in, I can't tell you how much your publication has meant to me. The first time I read it, I thought, "I'm not crazy after all! `They' are!"
Thanks for giving me back my brain. Enclosed is a check to renew my subscription.
(Jamie Kay Smith, 3500 East Park Boulevard, Apt 104, Plano, TX 75074)
EDITOR'S NOTE: What's wrong with Jamie Smith? Doesn't she know that without God it's just not possible for people to be happy? That's what we constantly hear from the "born again," yet those who follow this column know that former Christians, especially the fundamentalist kind, have written many times to express their happiness--no, not happiness; joy--at having escaped from the shackles of religious insanity.
Thank you for your enlightening articles in the Review. Since I started reading your articles, I'm more convinced, through reason and the use thereof, that there is no God. The Bible, which I was taught growing up as a Methodist, is a myth. I'm glad to know that there are thousands like me, who are unbelievers and infidels. It's hard for my family members to accept that I am an atheist, but I know the truth has set me free from religious dogmatism and fiction.
Again, thanks to The Skeptical Review. I am enclosing a check to cover a 3 years' subscription and a copy of each of the following (order deleted).
(Rene Eugenio, 19402 Elmira Court, Cerritos, CA 90703)
I do appreciate the way you explained the buzz words family values that the political religious right loves to use (and countless others). You have the knowledge and expertise to explain the ridiculous, boring, and idiotic to people who have been spoon fed religious and biblical ramblings since birth. Please, do not stop at family values. There are so many women out here in the U. S. who do not have a clue how or why women have been placed in second-class citizenship. A few issues dedicated to this subject would be very enlightening and very needed. As you know, religion has historically provided society with ideas and beliefs based on the moral teachings of the Bible, which have shaped our culture and traditions and, sadly, our views of what it means to be male and female. Christian religion condones and has contributed to male domination, and actually encouraged the physical chastisement of women, which long ago bloomed into domestic violence and continues today.
(Kova Lancaster, 2468 Baywood Court, Orange Park, FL 32065-6253)
EDITOR'S NOTE: "God's Opinion of Women" was published in the Autumn 1995 issue of TSR, (pp. 11, 16), but in response to Ms. Lancaster's request, the front-page article in this issue was written. Her suggestion is a good one, so I will try to include more on this subject. My experience when I was a minister was that women formed the core of most congregations. I found that when work needed to be done, women were generally more dependable than men. After I began to see flaws in the fabric of the biblical inerrancy doctrine, I wondered why so many women allowed themselves to be treated as inferiors of men. I still haven't figured it out. I suppose it must be that people can be indoctrinated in their childhood to believe anything.
I saw some excerpts of The Skeptical Review, on the internet and quite enjoyed them. Although my main interests are in the physics area, I have been puzzling for 30 years about why most people seem rather oblivious to the manifold serious errors of belief. Years ago, I read Volume 2 of A. D. White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology and was fascinated. Recently, I came across a grossly erroneous book attacking biological evolution from a Christian viewpoint; then I encountered your Review and would very much like to receive a year's subscription at no cost if possible, but I will pay if required.
(Michael O'Brien, 14932 SW 155 Terrace, Miami, FL 33187)
EDITOR'S NOTE: All first-year subscriptions are free. This is a policy I have maintained from the beginning of TSR, because I believed that most people who give it a try will like it and remain as paid subscribers. The policy has obviously worked.
The "warfare" between science and religion is indeed a puzzle. We have a situation where those who enjoy unparalleled prosperity and comforts from the fruits of those who have devoted their lives to science will gladly take all that science has to offer except anything that conflicts with their religious beliefs. This is especially true of the theory of evolution. Scientists can make space probes, put them into rockets that they have programmed for trips to other planets, and succeed in getting them to the exact destinations intended. Scientists can now grow in laboratories organs from the tissue of animals and successfully transplant them into the animals that donated the tissue, and it is just a matter of time till they will be able to do the same in humans. Then people urgently needing new hearts, kidneys, livers, etc. will be able to have their defective organs replaced with new ones grown from their own body tissues so that rejection will no longer be a problem. I have no doubt that when this becomes a reality, preachers and Christians will take advantage of it, but when that time comes, I also have no doubt that upon leaving hospitals completely recovered, they will still oppose the scientific community's worldwide acceptance of the theory of evolution. Biologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, chemists, geologists, etc. spend their entire lives working in laboratories and field observations and experiments, and conclude that evolution is the explanation for the origin of species. Preachers and Christians read the Bible, generally engage in no research or experimentation, and they conclude that the scientists are all wrong. It is as if someone seriously ill should be told by leading specialists that he has cancer, and he refused to accept the diagnosis because of something that he had read in a document thousands of years old. So why does religion make people so oblivious to reality? I wish I knew.
The Skeptical Review is wonderfully absorbing to me. I have never read the Bible until recently when I was looking specifically for all the holocausts it contains. I found Joshua's very fine holocausts in his book right away, but I have bogged down looking for the others I know they are there if I can only find them. So now I turn to The Skeptical Review for help. It seems to me holocausts are worthy of some attention.
I know I cannot hope to find those outstanding examples by Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane in the Bible, but I feel sure those in the Bible are comparable and were enacted by kindred spirits.
Here in the very capital of the Bible Belt, I find intellectuals are a rarity, and so I hope this will bring me contact with others who speak my language.
(John Coffin, 1959 West Division Street, Springfield, MO 65802)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm not familiar with many details of atrocities that accompanied the military conquests of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, but I doubt if they could have been more brutal than the Yahwistic massacres of the Old Testament. In addition to the ones recorded in the first 11 chapters of Joshua, the most notorious ones were the massacres and rape of the Midianite captives in Numbers 31 and the Amalekite women, children, and infants in 1 Samuel 15.
If the head count of the virgin Midianite girls who were kept alive for their captives (vs:17-18) is accurate, there were 32,000 of them. Since the text states that all of the male children and nonvirgin females were killed, there would have surely been 60,000 captives who were killed. This calculation is based on the assumption that the number of male children would have approximately equaled the number of virgin girls and that the nonvirgin women would probably have equaled the number of virgin girls.
There isn't much information on which to base an estimate of the Amalekite massacre, except that the text states that Saul "smote the Amalekites" from Havilah to Shur, an expression that indicates the massacre extended over a wide range of territory. There are textual data, however, that would make Joshua's massacres of the Canaanites greater than Hitler's massacre of Jews in World War II. This conclusion is based on census figures given in the book of Numbers for the Hebrews who had come out of Egypt. There were over 600,000 foot soldiers, who were 20 years old or older (1:45-46). If there were this many males of military age, it would be reasonable to assume that there would have been an approximate number of females of the same age, so there would have been 1.2 million in this one age group. If there were this many who were 20 or older, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that there would have been that many adolescents, children, toddlers, and infants. The Levites were not counted in the census, and we could hardly imagine that the military group would have included the elderly and the infirm. So when all census numbers are taken into account and reasonably interpreted, a total population of 2.5 to 3 million is arrived at. All but conservative Bible scholars agree that the population numbers were probably exaggerated (as were many other things in the Bible), but biblical inerrantists are stuck with the conclusions that are necessitated by what is said in a book that they think is inerrant.
In Deuteronomy 7:1-2, Yahweh commanded the Israelites to go into Canaan and "utterly destroy" seven nations that were "greater and mightier" than they, and Joshua states in several places that this was done "as Yahweh had commanded" (10:40; 11:11, 15, 23). So if these seven nations (listed in Deuteronomy) were greater and mightier than the 2.5 million Israelites, there must have been over 17.5 million people living in Canaan. If, as Yahweh had commanded, Joshua "utterly destroyed" them and "left nothing alive to breathe," then the Israelites would have massacred three times as many as the estimated 6 million who were killed in the Nazi holocaust. Every time I think about this, I wonder why the horrible atrocities that the Jews experienced in Europe in the 30s and 40s do not cause them to renounce their own genocidal history. This must be just another example of how religious indoctrination makes people oblivious to the obvious.
In Dr. Price's rebuttal in the May/June issue, I read the following sentence: "Further, Till seems ignorant of the fact that numerous scrolls of nearly every book of the Old Testament found in the caves of the Dead Sea, dating from the 1st century A. D. to as early as the 4th Century B. C. verify that the Masoretic text in all its essential details was in existence at that time" (p. 3).
Now I am totally lacking in any scientific or educational credentials, but I have read some books on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is my understanding that very little material from the Old Testament has been found there. I have read that a large fragment of the book of Isaiah has been found but only small fragments of other books and that the bulk of the material is not related to the Old Testament. It also seems that though all these writings date from before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C. E. and were therefore written before, during, and shortly after the alleged life span of the biblical Jesus, no mention of events related to the life of Jesus have been found. It therefore seems to me that Dr. Price's statement is inaccurate.
If I am mistaken here, I guess I will have to go back and reread some book to see where I went astray.
(Dave Nelson, 3944 Chickory Road, Racine, WI 53403)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm no Dead Sea Scrolls scholar either, but my understanding is that Mr. Nelson is essentially right. Most of the scrolls are not copies of Old Testament books but writings of the Essene sect that produced them. The accuracy of saying that "the bulk of the material is not related to the Old Testament" would depend upon what is meant, because many of the scrolls concerned religious views based on the Jewish scriptures, and some of the scrolls were commentaries on the Jewish scriptures. On page 6 of the July/August issue, I responded to the same statement that Mr. Nelson has quoted from Price's article and cited scholarly sources to show that most of the scrolls were "in a highly fragmented state." I understand that even the scrolls that were in the best condition, such as the Isaiah scroll, were not complete, because sections on the edges had crumbled with age. I think that Dr. Price will have a great deal of difficulty proving his claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls "verify that the Masoretic text in all its essential details was in existence" as early as the 4th century B. C.
In the interests of reason, logic, and common sense, why not just admit that the failed "parousia" [second coming] thoroughly and forever destroyed the Christian faith and be done with the whole damned mess? Am I missing something? Are not the statements absolute and therefore not subject to any other interpretation? Please respond.
(E. L. Robbins, 2700 East Rapids Road, Apt. 17, Lansing, MI 48911-6312)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The only thing Mr. Robbins is missing is the Christian mindset, which instills determination to believe that Jesus died and is coming again, no matter how compelling evidence for the failure of the promise may be. Christians--at least the fundamentalist kind--would argue that the New Testament statements about the second coming are indeed absolute, but interpretation is another matter. Throughout its history, Christianity has been adept at reinterpreting the scriptures whenever confronted with evidence that indicated error in the Bible. When undeniable evidence that the earth is a sphere was discovered, the faithful reinterpreted the flat-earth passages in the Bible and claimed that biblical writers had taught a spherical earth all along. Even with the evidence for a spherical earth being as overwhelming as it is, there are a few diehards who still cling to the biblical view, and as incredible as it may seem, a Flat-Earth Society maintains its headquarters in Lancaster, California.
It isn't surprising, then, that when too much time had passed to make the promises of an imminent return of Jesus credible, Christians shuffled to reinterpret the New Testament passages that said he was returning soon. Many biblical scholars believe that 2 Peter was written primarily to gloss over the promises in 1 Peter (4:7, 17; 5:4). The second epistle put a different spin on the subject and advised Christians to understand that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (3:8) and went on to assure Christians that "the Lord was not slack concerning his promises" but is just "longsuffering" (v:9).
So that's why we can't just be done with it. The mindset of most Christians is so unreasonable that we have to keep piling evidence onto evidence until their faith collapses under the weight of too much nonsense. The first two letters in this issue show that this does happen sometimes.
I have a few thoughts on a concept that recurs often in The Skeptical Review. Regarding "anti-supernatural bias," I think that for one who understands the nature of supernaturalism, the concept is an oxymoron, and that you are therefore being accused of something which is logically impossible.
Conclusions about alleged supernatural entities are based on mysticism, which is intentionally nonrational. The word "bias" implies the inappropriate rejection of an assertion due to nonrational factors, for instance a prior irrevocable commitment to an opposing viewpoint. Supernaturalism is therefore founded upon bias and would not exist without it. If one recognizes this and wishes to avoid bias, one must therefore reject supernaturalism.
What is being misunderstood as "anti-supernatural bias" is nothing more than "rational methodology," in other words an attempt to reach conclusions that are distinguishable from lies and delusions.
I welcome e-mail or other correspondence.
(John Burton, 7246 Jefferson Road, Magna, Utah 84044; e-mail JrhoBurton@aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Price, of course, is the one who has been bandying about the charge of "anti-supernatural bias, as if it were an incontestable sign of irrationality. What Mr. Burton says is true and is recognized even by Dr. Price, who applies rationality himself to evaluate the merits of unlikely claims. As indicated in his article in this issue, he apparently accepts some modern miracle claims, but he has conspicuously sidestepped the issue of miracle claims in the nonbiblical literature of ancient times. From all indications, Dr. Price accepts all miracle claims in the Bible, without exception, but rejects all similar claims in the nonbiblical literature of ancient times. How can anyone who holds to a position like that expect anyone to take him seriously?
For every critical remark you receive, there are thousands that praise you for freeing them. Please tell me the best possible way to have TSR known throughout my area. Are there any other books that I can read that will give me more insight into the Bible from a critical perspective? I look forward to your future articles.
(Jason Wilson, 607 West Main, Iron Mountain, MI 49801)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I wish I knew the most effective way to publicize TSR locally. Some have tried various methods: running classified ads in area newspapers, sending subscriptions to local libraries, copying articles for hand-to-hand distribution, etc. The effectiveness of these methods is at best questionable, because they have resulted in only a handful of inquiries. The most effective method of publicizing TSR by far, in my opinion, has been the internet. Its web cite brings inquiries almost daily, and subscription requests have come in from all over the world. I would think, then, that if there is a local computer bulletin board in your area that this might be your best bet.
I have already suggested Is It God's Word? by Joseph Wheless to Mr. Wilson. In addition to that book, I would recommend Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman. Who Wrote the New Testament? by Burton L. Mack, Forgeries in Christianity, also by Wheless, and practically any book by Joseph McCabe, especially The Myth of the Resurrection and The Forgery of the Old Testament.
The Skeptical Review arrived yesterday, and as usual was quickly devoured by me. Of all the papers I receive, TSR is the best. I love to read anything by Farrell Till, Judith Hayes, and Dave Matson, plus many others.
Rev. Garry L. Creed's letter was a hoot. I can say that, since I was married to one of those fundamentalist preachers for 25 years. We hobnobbed with an awful lot of them, including Billy Graham, I might add. Religion is very big business, so they pull out all stops when it comes to ignorance fertilization. When I first met Billy Graham, at least 35 years ago, everyone was awe struck by him. I, ever the skeptic, saw him as a pompous, very rich, religion machine. I think he could spell, though, and use English adequately.
I don't agree with Jeff Schmura about "too much minutia" in TSR. Till's explanations thrill and educate me. This is what sets TSR far apart (and way above) all other atheist papers.
I am enclosing one of my satirical lyrics because Dave Matson's letter "What Is a Miracle?" reminded me of it, so I dug it up.
Enclosed is payment for my next year's subscription to TSR.
(Dorothy B. Thompson, P. O. Box 562, Bandon, OR 97411)
EDITOR'S NOTE: TSR does not publish fiction and poetry, much to the regret of many who have sent these kinds of submissions; however, I am going to make an exception for Ms. Thompson's poem, because it makes some observations about biblical inerrancy that are just as incisive as some of the articles we have published.
Miracle Madness
Bible folks worked miracles,
According to "the book."
They parted waters of the seas,
All axioms forsook.
They raised the dead and talked to snakes,
Turned water into wine.
A stick became a serpent,
The sun refused to shine.
The dead were raised and donkeys spoke,
And rivers became blood.
Polar bears in Palestine,
And rabbits chewed the cud.
The mountains moved, the sun stood still,
A virgin girl gave birth.
The rain came down for forty days,
And flooded all the earth.
A person walked on water and
Didn't even sink.
A man was dead for half a week,
And then was in the pink.
But if nature's laws were voided,
By religious tittle tattle,
The universe would be unhinged,
And up a creek without a paddle.
Three observations were inspired by the latest issue: (1) It was interesting to see you cite W. S. McBirnie. I wonder if you know that he was a veteran figure in the Extreme Right/Crypto-Fascist element in this country. He kept files on several thousand Americans whose opinions were deemed "suspicious" by extremist standards, based mostly on rumor, innuendo, conjecture, distortion, and paranoia. He was even allowed to take over the old subversive files of the LAPD in 1975, once they realized they hadn't been using them (and they were manifestly unfair to begin with). Last I heard of him, he was brought to court on a charge of bilking old ladies, a standard tactic in Christbiz. With all of his political activity, I was surprised to learn that he even bothered to do any real research into religion. Perhaps you should have included a brief disparaging remark in your citation of him, for in him we see the detrimental effects on one's character of taking the Bible seriously.
(2) The recent debate over how the apostles could have come to believe in the resurrection, if it were not actually true, has surprisingly not brought up the "swoon theory": that Jesus wasn't really dead when brought down from the cross, but later revived for long enough to create a powerful impression of a miracle. This, though not original with him, was described in detail by Hugh Schonfield in his best-selling book, The Passover Plot, which also focused on the "purposeful planning" by Jesus, a theory earlier suggested by Bolingbroke. I found the book worthy of a good deal of consideration. Is the failure to refer to the "swoon theory" due to the rejection of it among skeptics, or the fact that the book, being a best-seller, is hence unacceptable?
(3) I recently came across a book by Hyam Maccoby entitled The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. Maccoby presents a highly persuasive case for an idea I've long held, that Paul was the real inventor of Christianity. Maccoby also claims that Paul was eventually considered a false apostle by the Jerusalem followers of Jesus, who virtually excommunicated him for his bizarre conceptions. They, "the Nazarenes," had actually known Jesus, and knew that he never claimed to be God, or that his death on the cross would save us from hell. Jesus must be seen as a Messiah in the Jewish meaning of the term, as a king in the mundane sense, but Paul made him into a metaphoric king and world savior. Paul further cast Jesus in a Gnostic image, as an emissary from "above," who had come with salvific knowledge, and simultaneously in the guise of the dying and rising god of the mystery cults (particularly Attis, who died a bloody death on a tree and rose again, and whose cult was strong in his native Tarsus). These ideas were easily accepted by a Gentile world already familiar with them. Jews quite understandably rejected such concepts, but when the Romans destroyed Judea in 70 A. D., the way was left clear for the Pauline interpretation to become Christianity, with virtually no one left to dispute its authenticity. And history, as we know, is written by the winners. Christianity is Paulism, and its scriptures were written from a Paulist perspective that has little resemblance to "the historic Jesus," a man who was a Messianic pretender and who did not make too big a stir in the world, certainly nowhere nearly as big as the mythic image of Jesus.
What I want to know is, how did this book escape my awareness for so long? Why isn't it being shouted about from the rooftops as the best explanation of the mysterious origins of Christianity.
(Stephen Van Eck, Rural Route 1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I don't know how Maccoby's book escaped Van Eck's attention. I read it several years ago and have it in my personal library. I have seen it recommended in freethought publications, and, although I would have to check to be sure, I believe that I once recommended it in TSR. At any rate, I will recommend it now. It's a book well worth having for anyone interested in studying the origins of Christianity.
I have not discussed the "swoon theory" in my articles on the resurrection, because in my opinion it detracts from the real issue, which is the Christian obligation to prove that the crucifixion of a man named Jesus ever occurred in the first place. There is no credible historical evidence that it did, but certainly the lack of evidence to corroborate the extraordinary events that allegedly surrounded the crucifixion (the three hours of midday darkness and the resurrection of the many saints) constitutes sufficient reason to doubt that it did. All discussions of the swoon theory that I have read approached the gospel accounts of the crucifixion with the assumption that they are basically accurate reports written by men who simply misinterpreted what happened. Thus, the theory supposes that Jesus was crucified, taken down from the cross, and put into a tomb but that he wasn't actually dead. He was just mistakenly assumed to be dead, and so he later revived, came out of the tomb, and was seen by his disciples, who thought that he had come back from the dead.
A problem that I see with this theory is that it obligates its proponents to concede the basic accuracy of the whole crucifixion-resurrection scenario presented in the gospels. Thus, the debate over the swoon theory usually gets bogged down in demands from the Christian side to explain how that blood and water could have come out when Jesus's side was pierced with a spear if he wasn't really dead or how disciples of Jesus could have wrapped his body in a hundred pounds of spices without recognizing some sign that he was still alive, etc. So many elements of myth and legend are in these accounts that I consider it the responsibility of Christians to prove that any of it happened rather than my responsibility to prove that what happened was simply misinterpreted.
In defense of the swoon theory, however, I will concede that it is a much more sensible view than the Christian claim that Jesus was literally dead and returned to life. We know from our own experiences that confirmation of death often requires expert verification, which has sometimes even been known to err. We have all read newspaper accounts of people who were pronounced dead by physicians, taken to morgues, and later discovered to be alive. If this can happen today, how much more likely would it have been 2,000 years ago? The gospel of Mark claims that Pilate wanted verification that Jesus was dead before he would release the body to Joseph of Arimathea, and so he inquired of the centurion in charge of the crucifixion and was told that Jesus was dead (15:44-45). But what medical qualifications would a centurion have had to confirm death? Admittedly, a man in his position had no doubt seen many dead bodies, but that wouldn't have necessarily qualified him to verify that Jesus was dead. If a police officer today should report that he had shot and killed someone, but then the body turned up missing and the person was later seen alive, what person in his right mind would believe that this person had risen from the dead? Rational people would recognize the obvious: the police officer, who had undoubtedly seen many dead bodies before, had nevertheless simply made a mistake in declaring the person dead.
I had not heard of McBirnie's political activities and subsequent legal problems, but I don't see this as a reason not to consider what he said in his book about the fate of the apostles. If I had known about these allegations, I would not have thought it necessary to "include a brief disparaging remark" in my citation of him, because the truth or falsity of information is always independent of its sources. I have published articles by a writer whom I later learned is a holocaust revisionist and probable anti-Semitist. Had I known this about him at the time, I would have published his articles anyway, because they presented what I considered sound, logical arguments against the biblical inerrancy doctrine. To follow any other editorial policy would be to play the biblicists' game of declaring information false because it came from sources, such as "liberals" or "atheists," whom they do not approve of.
To Whom It May Concern...
I am an inmate here at F. G. I., Ashland, KY, at the mercy of our government. I have always been a God-fearing, Bible-believing person, but only because of morals and hand-me-down traditions. Just like a lot of other people, I took it for granted that everything was true, but here lately I have been searching for the truth, and what I have found out is shocking. It's like my mind is going through changes, reprogramming itself, by sorting out all the lies and trickery that our laymen have laid on it. I'm not saying that I'm an atheist all the way. It's just that I'm using logic and common sense. I read and study everything with an open mind (not like brainwashed Christians, who read with a closed mind).
I read a book called Man and His Gods by Homer W. Smith, who also wrote Kamongo and End of Illusion, and it really helped me to understand a lot. If you haven't read it, I would like to invite you and all your readers to check it out. It's published by Little, Brown, and Company, 200 West Street, Waltham, MA 02154 or call 1-800-759-0190. I also checked out The Skeptical Review. So far, so good.
I would like to be put on your mailing list to receive your paper and also any other material that you may want to send to help my studies in the truth, including any back issues that you have. Keep up the good work. By the way, I read the March/April issue. One article spoke something about family values. I liked it.
If you have anything on the Lockwood-Till Debate, please send it to me.
(James Morris, 92483-088 HA, P. O. Box 6001, Ashland, KY 41105-6001)
EDITOR'S NOTE: As I explained in "Editorial Potpourri" on page 11 of this issue, almost 50 prison inmates nationwide subscribe to TSR. The number has been steadily growing.
As this issue goes to press, I still have not received tapes
of my debate with Bill Lockwood, although telephone inquiries have been
made and gone unanswered.
