Your response to John Coffin's request for biblical holocausts was both enlightening and disturbing. You 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." We can agree that the 17.5 million that you calculated constituting the seven nations living in Canaan is undoubtedly exaggerated. Such a large population in a small area 3,300 years ago is unimaginable. Also, no rational person believes that Joshua "utterly destroyed" them as described in the Bible. Under instruction from Yahweh, Joshua and the Israelites did kill men, women, and children in city after city. When one kills after capturing a city, as was done, the killing constitutes genocide, a flagrant violation of Yahweh's sixth commandment against murder. This is one example of many where people act upon the belief that God is speaking to them. The Christian crusades and inquisition, shooting doctors at abortion clinics, and the Islamic concept of jihad (holy war) are some others.
This kind of fundamentalist thinking and the consequent militant impassioned action for one's God can be traced back to Numbers 25, where Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, upon seeing an Israelite man and a Midianite woman engaging in sexual intercourse, took a spear and stabbed both of them through their genitals. For this, Yahweh rewarded Phinehas with a pact of [everlasting] priesthood.
As a secular humanistic Jew I find the atrocities in the Hebrew Bible a total embarrassment. Since I do not attribute the actions to God's commands but rather to what people thought God commanded, I can only blame those who committed the crimes "in God's name." John Salvi III was not forgiven for shooting at an abortion clinic because he believed God instructed him. Baruch Goldstein cannot be forgiven for murdering Muslims praying in a mosque because he believed God instructed him. Neither can anyone in the Bible or not in the Bible use such a defense. The consequent results of such fundamentalist thinking are one of the most frightening and dangerous aspects of our society today.
In answer to your challenging question, I hereby renounce all genocidal aspects of Jewish history as unacceptable and challenge other Jews to do the same. I also challenge all peoples of the earth to likewise renounce all genocidal aspects of their particular histories.
(Edward J. Klein, Attorney at Law, 179-54 80th Road, Jamaica Estates, NY 11432-1402.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Religion in and of itself seems to foster intolerance toward those who are not "believers." Sikhs and Hindus can't get along, and both persecute Zoroastrians. Muslims fight their jihads, which are usually directed against non-Muslims. The Bible-based religions, however, have a particularly violent history of genocide, inquisitions, crusades, and witch hunts. Although no scientific study of its causes has been made or is even possible to make, one has to wonder if the violent history of the Judeo-Christian religions is rooted in the Bible's depiction of their God. After all, when believers in Yahweh read in his "holy word" that he is a jealous god, who commanded the utter destruction of nations who stood in the way of his "chosen people" and the execution of all who worshiped other gods (Dt. 13:6- 10; 17:2-7), why would they not think that in massacring heretics, witches, and infidels, they were doing the will of the god they worship? One of the more puzzling aspects of Judeo-Christian beliefs is that Bible fundamentalists who are shocked by modern-day holocausts and atrocities will nevertheless wink at the Yahwistic massacres of the Bible and bend over backwards to justify them with such tortured excuses as, "God's ways are higher than ours," "God had a plan that required it," "The babies and children who were massacred went to heaven," etc., etc., etc. They tolerate in their god conduct that they would despise in their neighbors and national leaders.
Having just gotten the July/August issue in the mail yesterday (Thanks for mailing it out specially, Till) I take keyboard in lap and prepare myself to write critically about what I read within.
No matter how much I like Till, or how right he usually is, I must foremost take exception to the discussion on Page 14 re: "More about Converted Atheists..." Till has ranted in the past that some Christians say of other Christians---particularly ones who converted to another faith or to atheism---that he "wasn't a real Christian." Now I read Till saying the same thing: They were not "committed atheists." Till's whole reply reads just like a Christian explaining how no real Christian has ever converted to atheism.
I guess I don't understand even the point of trying to establish that no "committed atheists" have ever reverted/converted to Christianity. So what? If nobody ever converted from Christianity to atheism, I might argue that it was merely because Christians were so closed-minded that such a thing was impossible, but that wouldn't really do anything to prove atheism. Similarly, a Christian could point at the lack of atheist converts and say that it's because we're too closed-minded about the idea of God or of "the supernatural."
Furthermore, when Till says he's never heard of these guys who were said to be atheists but are now Christians, I don't know that he had ever heard of Dan Barker the Christian before he had read/ knew/heard of Dan Barker the former-Christian atheist. I certainly hadn't, and even today I tend to think of Bob Barker (The Price is Right gentleman, I believe) before I think of Dan.
So, Till, how is your dismissal of those who have converted from atheism to theism as not "committed atheists" different from Christians saying of others that they aren't or weren't real Christians? Even if there is some relevant difference, what does this demonstrate about the superiority of the atheist position?
Aside from this quibble---but what is left in the debate over errancy but quibbles---I found the issue as good as I have learned to expect from the year and a half I've been a subscriber. Particularly off target was Roger Hutchinson's article, and his suggestion that Adam:humanity: agent:player [was] particularly laughable. I would certainly not have chosen him for my agent, but I had no choice in the matter.
One might make the claim that David's son died of "natural causes," which were incorrectly understood by a primitive people to be an "act of god," and while this reply gets one out of the woods on the child-punishment issue, it practically admits biblical errancy. I doubt that the inerrantist readers of TSR would wish to do this.
One thing I itch to see in TSR is a noninerrantist Christian defend Christianity in light of an errant Bible. I agree with Theodore Drange when he said of his Argument from the Bible (an argument against Christianity from the errancy of the Bible) that some might say he was knocking down a straw man, but that "I believe there are millions of such `strawpeople' out there." If it could be shown that the establishment of biblical errancy was not such a blow to Christianity everywhere, then things are great for Christians, they needn't worry about this or that contradiction, and they wouldn't appear so foolish when they dismiss as unimportant to their faith what TSR says.
Just what is it that keeps still more millions of people from losing their faith in the face of an errant bible? Is it the claim that they were inerrant in the original autographs (but god stopped caring after that)? Is it due to being taught happy-happy/joy-joy versions of Christianity that are so pleasant that questioning them is like taking a disgusting-tasting medicine? Is it because of a personal religious experience? Or is it just a matter of being in a really deep rut?
(Jeff Epler, 2332 NW 51, Lincoln, NE 68524; e-mail, jepler@inetnebr.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Drange's argument against Christianity can be accessed at <URL:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html>. I will reserve comment on Jeff Epler's letter until after the one below from Antonio Casao Ibanez, whose previous letters initiated the discussion about converted atheists.
Thank you for your comments to my letter in the July/August issue. Yes, I understand the differences between English and Spanish systems, so I give no importance to your mistake with my surname. Regretfully, I make much more mistakes in my letters.
You know that I appreciate your good work as editor of the Review, a publication which I feel interesting and well-documented in general. I told [you] so on renewing my subscription for two years and in my first letter of this discussion.
Of course, I am sure you are being true on stating that you know of no committed atheists who have converted to Christianism, and I have never doubted about it. If I listed the names of famous converted atheists, [it] was to reply [to] Mr. Ulm's question: "Have any TSR readers... ever known an intelligent, well read, and committed atheist who became a devout Christian?" As a TSR reader, I thought I could add something to the knowledge of facts related to Mr. Ulm's question. My surprise and my deception came [when] I read that I could be "trying to make an issue where none exists." Probably my troubles with [the] English language, which force me quite often to use a direct, almost aggressive style could give this impression. If this was the case, I very much regret it and apologize for it.
Coming to my list, I feel that, at least, Joseph Joubert, a philosopher, disciple and collaborator of Diderot, and Henry Gheon, a Nietzschean philosopher, seem good examples of committed atheists, even in your restrictive exception of "committed." The first, Joubert, had written with regard to Saint Sulpice Church in Paris: "In temples like this one, men become religious and [en]slaved; before these altars, they initiate themselves into servitude, because every religious feeling is servile." Maybe their names do not appear in freethought and atheist literature, but I fear that, similarly, we are not to find in a history of Christian thought names of committed Christians who have become atheists.
I hope you will now acknowledge receipt of the reference sources about Voltaire's repentance, which I offered in my previous letter. I can add to it that the confession of faith signed by Voltaire was published in Volume 12 of Correspondance Littteraire, Philosophique et Critique, an old French review, published by Grimm, Diderot, and other encyclopedists. It appeared in pages 87 and 88 of the April 1778 issue. Besides, they reproduced two further documents in the June 1778 issue, proving that the confession was authentic.
Many thanks for your explanations about Paine. If I called him the patron saint of some American unbelievers is because they treat [him] this way in their literature. For instance, [in] Freethought Today, March 1995, we can read two articles, "Let's Revive Thomas Paine Birthday Memorials" and "Celebrate Paine's Age of Reason," which I think confirm my opinion. On my part, I admire Paine as a fighter for human rights, although I disagree with him in some of his attacks on organized religions.
(Antonio Casao Ibanez, Apartado 882, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The last thing Mr. Casao should feel compelled to do is apologize for his English. The syntax is a bit off in places, but otherwise he has a good command of English grammar. I suspect that many TSR readers wish that their command of Spanish were half as good.
I'm glad he now understands that I was only answering Mr. Ulm's question, which was whether I knew of any committed atheists who had ever converted to Christianity. I don't know of any, and so I answered accordingly. I was not trying to argue, as Jeff Epler seemed to think, that no committed atheists had ever converted to Christianity. I hope I am more rational than to try to argue something that I couldn't possibly know.
I do know Christians who claim that they were once atheists, but in talking to them, I formed the opinion that they had been unchurched rather than atheists. I found none of them who seemed to know much about responses that have been made to the traditional theistic arguments. Mr. Casao has reached back into the 18th century for some examples of what he considers committed atheists who converted to Christianity. As far as I know, he may be right about them, because I am not familiar with the lives of either Joubert or Gheon. Mr. Casao identified them both as philosophers, so I will make a cynical comment about whether philosophers should be considered committed to anything except their philosophical ideas. Whenever I read philosophical works, I sometimes find myself wondering if even the writers know what they're trying to say. I'm willing, however, to concede that Joubert and Gheon were atheists who converted, but as Jeff Epler pointed out, what does it matter? I didn't know either one of them, and so I can still say that I have never known a committed atheist who converted to Christianity.
Before making a decision in the matter of Voltaire, I would want to see the documents that Mr. Casao referred to, because tales of deathbed conversions almost always circulate after famous atheists and skeptics die. They inevitably turn out to have no substance to them. Anyway, I'm still confused about why Mr. Casao keeps wagging Voltaire into this dispute, because he argued at length in his first letter that Voltaire was never an atheist. If he wasn't an atheist, then Voltaire would not be an example of an atheist who converted to Christianity, no matter what may have happened when he was on his deathbed.
Within the past few months, I've been sitting in my study, reading, thinking, and absorbing material found on the internet. Presently, I'm on infidels.org and I have been left speechless. Night by night, I read the material presented, and I find myself digging out all the unanswered questions I had put upon the "mental shelf," realizing that someday I would begin to pull them down, one by one, seeking answers to all my unanswered questions.
Why am I writing this? Well, I'm a former pastor, who preached his last sermon in July of this year. I have been keeping track of the "theological contradictions" contained within scripture hoping that someday I will be able to share my "notes" with those on the internet. The nature of "Jehovah God" has always been puzzling at best. Even the kids I taught in Confirmation (Lutheran) would point out God's "paranoid-schitzo" qualities that included a heavy hand in murder. I nearly drove myself crazy trying to bring a reconciliation of the two natures possessed by God and His Son Jesus (God).
I no longer can. I no longer have "all the answers" that I once possessed as a "Christian Apologist" (note email address). The mental hold that "Christianity" has upon my soul runs deep--I often wonder if I'll ever escape its guilt, fear, and shaming qualities as it lays a question mark across my eternal destination. Now, I find the internet to be a very useful tool, in finding material that I can read, and resources that can help me see through problems that I cannot escape on my own. I found your ad for a free one-year subscription to The Skeptical Review. Please, if you think this resource can help me, could you put me on your list? Also, on the issue of "Biblical Inerrancy," can you recommend a very detailed book that explores the nature of the "Biblical God?"
It's hard for me to request such a thing. I and my wife have spent hours and hours discussing this issue. After requesting a removal from the clergy roster, I found out how many friends I have left in this world. None! You wouldn't believe the treatment I've received from the brethren, and you would really be amazed at how denominational heads react. I could just as well have an "H" tattooed upon my forehead for "heretic" or the proverbial "A" for apostate.
Thanks for hearing me out!!
(Douglas R. Larson, 20861 467th Avenue, Brookings, SD 57006; e-mail berean@brookings.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Larson was, of course, added to the subscription list. He has also joined errancy@infidels.org and is making some valuable contributions to the discussion of inerrancy issues. The mental anguish and turmoil that I went through when I quit the ministry is now 34 years into my past, so Mr. Larson has brought fresh insights into the inner conflict and other problems that a minister experiences when he can no longer practice the profession that he entered with youthful optimism and idealism. I know all too well what he means by the loss of friendship that accompanied his decision. The New Testament teaches Christians to love their neighbors, but they don't have much love for preachers whose doubts force them to resign from the ministry.
Readers with e-mail may be interested in joining the Errancy list. To do so, just send "subscribe errancy" in the message window to major-ii@infidels.org.
As always, your September/October issue was outstanding, but you really outdid yourself with the lead article on the Bible's attitude toward women. It was long overdue in TSR, and you did a marvelous job with it. I'm looking forward to the second part.
I must say, however, that I'm tiring of Dr. Price's droning. Your responses have been quite concise and revealing. He just doesn't seem to get it, though.
My subscription expires with 6-97, so here's an extension. I also enclose three HD formatted disks and add another $1 in my check for ASCII copies of TSR. Hopefully, this compilation is up-to-date with the most recent issue, as I want to forward your article on women to a couple of friends via e-mail.
Keep up the fantastic work. Like most of your readers, I devour each issue as soon as it arrives.
(Dave Howard, 38281 Mountain Home Drive, Lebanon, OR 97355-9367)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The compilation was up-to-date, and thanks to
Jeff Epler, who has been doing the HTMLizing, the web site is also
up-to-date for the first time in almost two years. Those who want to
access the web site to find past articles published in TSR may
do so at http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/ tsr/. Those who
want the articles on disk should send three HD DOS formatted disks and
$1 for postage to our address on the backside of this issue.
A Good Piece of Christian Desperation...
I am glad as always to receive your publication. I thought that I would get a head start and renew my subscription for another two years. Enclosed is a check for $12. I also would like to submit the address listed below for a one-year trial subscription. (Name omitted.)
I was delighted to read the prophecy defense article by Dr. Price. It is the best piece of Christian desperation I have seen in quite a while. By his understanding of the burden of proof, the earth must be flat if I am not able to discredit completely the flat-earth theory to the satisfaction of a flat-earth believer. I grew tired of hearing anti-supernatural bias. I have only one question for Dr. Price that would cut through all of the smoke and mirrors that he employs to rationalize his viewpoint. Is there even so much as one prophecy/fulfillment scenario in the Bible that Price would possibly consider erroneous? I suspect his answer is that there is not. If that is so, then what kind of position would that be for a man who claims to advocate "healthy skepticism"? Could Dr. Price have an anti-errancy bias?
Thank you again for the work that you do. It is needed now more than ever.
(Chad D. Kelly, P. O. Box 183, Greenwell Springs, LA 70739-0183)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I not only suspect that Dr. Price would say that there are no erroneous prophecy-fulfillment claims in the Bible; I'm very sure that this is his belief. He couldn't retain his position at a Baptist seminary unless he subscribed without reservation to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The height of inconsistency is for someone like Price to yell "anti-supernatural bias" or "radical skepticism" at us when he uncritically accepts the inerrancy of everything recorded in the Bible, no matter how fantastic it is.
You have done an excellent job of responding to Roger Hutchinson's ridiculously weak defense of the idea that the biblical God does not punish sons for the sins of their fathers ("The Sins of the Fathers: Another View," TSR, July/August 1997).
I simply cannot believe that Hutchinson is being intellectually honest on this topic. As you noted, the Bible clearly features stories of innocent children who were punished for the sins of their fathers, and perhaps the most well-known example is the killing of all the firstborn in Egypt (Exodus 11:5). Is Hutchinson willing to argue that these children were not deliberately killed by God only because of the sins of their fathers? What other "reason" could there have been?
There are other problems with Hutchinson's piece. He writes that "God will allow a father to teach his children to disobey His commandments..." until the third or fourth generation, whereupon God will punish the offending children for their sins, but this is absurd. First, it does not make sense to punish children for following the ways of their parents. Indeed, it is only natural for children to follow the ways of their parents. After all, how are they going to follow God if they have not been properly introduced to him?
Second, why does God wait until the third or fourth generation to handle his business? To paraphrase Robert G. Ingersoll, would some kindly Christian genius please come forward and explain this to me? It just seems disingenuous of Hutchinson to suggest that those who realize "that the Bible is saying that God will punish the children of the third or fourth generation for the sins of the fathers" are reading the Bible superficially. The Bible says what it says, no matter how disgusted or embarrassed Hutchinson might be by its ideas.
Finally, Hutchinson asserts that "Adam acted as mankind's agent, so to speak." Thus, original sin was imputed to humanity. But no human being elected Adam as his or her agent. God appointed that idiot as our representative, and we have been cursed ever since! This is just another excellent example of God's unjust, undemocratic, and utterly irrational ways of dealing with human beings. When are fundamentalists going to admit that the Bible simply does not stand up to critical examination? "God only knows!"
(Norm R. Allen, Jr., Executive Director, African Americans for Humanism, P. O. Box 664, Buffalo, NY 14226)
EDITOR'S NOTE: At times, it is hard to believe in the intellectual honesty of Bible inerrantists who peddle the kind of nonsense we have seen in Roger Hutchinson's articles, yet as a former preacher, I know that biblical fundamentalism can warp one's ability to think rationally. The situation, however, is not hopeless. I eventually recognized the stupidity in the Bible inerrancy doctrine, and so did Dan Barker, another former preacher whose article on biblical fables was published in the issue before this one. On pages 13-14 of this issue is a letter from Douglas Larson, who just recently resigned from the Lutheran ministry.
Whether Roger Hutchinson will ever see the folly of his position certainly looks doubtful at this point. Readers may have noticed that he is back again with an article on pages 4-5 of this issue. Another opinion about his "Sins of the Fathers" articles appears directly below.
Roger Hutchinson's selective scripture citations are so typical of bibliolatry tactics. In this case, it's the idea that god is totally fair--always has been--and will not-- never did--punish descendants for the sins of their ancestors ("The Sins of the Fathers: Another View," TSR, July/ August 1997). The title of his article actually reveals the truth of the whole matter. It's another view, a view that is diametrically opposed to the many scriptures that are unquestionably literal (and need no inventive, subjective "interpretation" to explain "what it really means") and teach that god does indeed punish the children for the sins of the fathers.
Mr. Hutchinson and his ilk quote scriptures favorable to their "view," and ignore or interpret away scriptures that contradict, and use false, irrelevant analogies to state their case. These practices reveal that bibliolaters either have retarded, depraved thought processes or have cunning, deceitful and deviated natures. It is almost impossible for religionists to be objective concerning their "matters of faith," since they have so much of their self-worth, self-validation, self-importance, self-love, self-acceptance, and self-preservation (eternal life) invested in it. To admit they're wrong about their religious beliefs or even to be unsure about them would be like committing spiritual suicide. I know it's hard because I used to be a fundamentalist of the Pentecostal variety. Fortunately for me, I'm not a fantasy-prone personality, so my religious experience was uneventful, boring and without tongues, signs, wonders, miracles, etc. Only my intense Bible study with its resultant "revelations" and "insights" kept me believing that god was "in my life" and "teaching me for a special purpose, when he will use me in his timing," etc., but with reason, "all things are possible"--well, maybe not all things. So it was easier for me to renounce superstition completely than for the poor self-deluded/clergy-deluded religionist who has a history of "supernatural experiences" between his ears.
As for Mr. Hutchinson's article, I'll let his god Jesus settle the issue. Jesus is allegedly god and therefore "inspired" the writers of the whole Bible, which would make him omniscient and intimately acquainted with its contents and concepts. In Matthew 23:31-35, he said, "Therefore you [scribes & Pharisees] are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar" (NKJV). Verses 34 and 35 should be read together with no break, because Jesus was saying that his motive for sending the prophets to the Pharisees was for them to be killed by the Pharisees in order to increase ("fill up") the guilt of murder and bloodshed to a point that the Pharisees could finally be guilty, judged, convicted, and punished for all the righteous blood shed on the earth.
Wow! So Jesus admitted to conspiring to send his pawn servants (prophets, wise men, and scribes) to their sure murder just to increase the Pharisees' guilt/punishment to a hyperbolic degree! How sadistic! Unnecessary too, because if, as Jesus said, the Pharisees were already guilty and condemned to hell for the murder of past prophets, then why increase their guilt, which wouldn't increase their punishment? Hell is hell, or would a religionist invent "levels of punishment in hell," red hot, white hot, blue hot, whatever?
The answer to the whole debate is right in these verses above. An excuse of this being "before the cross" and the "age of grace" while the Jews were still "under the law" won't work either, since the whole debate is over whether or not god punishes descendants for their ancestors' sins. To say that at one time god did, but later he didn't, and sometimes (as in Matthew) he does for special reasons means that god does not have absolute moral values and that "he" does have "variableness" and "shadow(s) of turning" (James 1:17).
(Jeff Schmura, 808 Apple Lane, Shoemakersville, PA 19555)
Alas! Roger Hutchinson's recent article (TSR, 11/12 1997) is another example of our Bible-believing, guest authors not doing their homework. If they would but study the principles of good reasoning expounded upon in the past issues of TSR, materials developed chiefly by Till and me, a great deal of commentary could be skipped. TSR is on the Internet, leaving precious little excuse.
Mr. Hutchinson begins by assuming that the Bible is correct in all its historical details. This is inappropriate, because TSR is dedicated to proving that the Bible contains numerous errors. If one wishes to meaningfully challenge Till's ongoing study, it cannot be on the basis of assuming, a priori, what the conclusion must be! Mr. Hutchinson's attitude seems to be, "I believe that the Bible is right, which leads to my belief in the biblical god as well as the miracles in the Bible. Prove me wrong!"
If that is his personal worldview, then so be it. However, if he wishes to convince the rest of us that he has something, then the burden of proof is his. His failure to fully grasp that concept has led (I suspect) to his faulty presentation in no small way. Furthermore, it is not enough to advance an idea that may possibly be true; you must show that it is the best argument in order to win your case. Thus, Hutchinson's failure is also tied to a misunderstanding of the concept of "absolute proof and error."
The above two principles, and the principle of needing extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, answer virtually all of Mr. Hutchinson's points. A little study of past TSR issues could have saved a lot of ink! For instance, he seems puzzled that skeptics reject the Gospels while accepting the account of Hitler's atrocities against the Jews. But the two are hardly equal! Strong evidence says that the Gospels are not first-hand accounts. Rather, Jesus' "history" appears to have been largely invented by the church to support certain doctrinal views. It seems to have been manufactured from the Old Testament, the concept of a savior god, the concept of a sun god, astrology, and other sources. The extraordinary claims for Jesus not only lack extraordinary proof, but they run counter to the best conclusions!
Compare that to the numerous, firsthand witnesses to Hitler's atrocities (including former Soviet and U.S. soldiers who liberated those camps). Add to that the surviving German records, the massive photographic documentation, and the other physical evidence. What a difference! Thus, the skeptic rejects the first and accepts the second.
Mr. Hutchinson seems to think that the skeptic cannot reject miraculous claims without rejecting the associated god. Again, just apply the principle of extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims. Such miracles are extraordinary claims lacking extraordinary proof.
Had Mr. Hutchinson done his homework, he would not need to ask, "What are these `standards,' and do skeptics apply them reasonably and logically with respect to the Bible?" Nor would he have found fault with our current state of knowledge. (The skeptic doesn't claim to be 100% certain, only that he has the best argument, that it is likely to prevail in one form or another. Check out the concept of "absolute proof and error.")
At one point Mr. Hutchinson fears that our principles of reasoning will lead us to reject true information. Mr. Till nicely addresses that point: "I would much rather err on the side of caution than gullibility." Erroneously rejecting some truths, usually for a time, is the price paid to insure that our stock of knowledge is sound. The alternative, that of accepting everything until proven otherwise, is to lose any hope of developing a sound stock of knowledge.
Mr. Hutchinson accuses us of prejudice in accepting macro-evolution while rejecting most of the biblical accounts. Apparently, he has forgotten (or never understood) the solid ground beneath macro-evolution. The order of the fossil record, the structure of certain biological molecules, and comparative anatomy not only scream "macro-evolution" but independently yield similar evolutionary sequences. Add the other major lines of evidence, such as the distribution of plants and animals worldwide, vestigial organs, etc., and we can begin to understand why scientists speak of evolution as a fact. The idea that life has undergone modification with descent over the ages is not a scientific controversy; it is a social or religious controversy born out of ignorance and prejudice. (We must distinguish between the fact of macro-evolution and the various theories of macro-evolution, the latter being subject to legitimate criticism.)
Compare the above to biblical miracles, which have no documentation whatsoever, which resemble the tall tales of many Mideastern religions, which often violate scientific principles, and are, in short, extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. The choice should be obvious to anyone who understands the evidence and has an elementary grasp of the principles of good reasoning.
Finally, Roger Hutchinson has the audacity to suggest that we skeptics are really Deists or liars! "Since there are no sound reasons to reject the idea that God exists, we should expect those who call themselves skeptics to be either Deists (at a minimum) or liars." Ideas are rejected for a lack of good evidence; they are not accepted for a lack of good disproof. Once again, we have a misunderstanding of the concept of "the burden of proof." (Aside from that, there are many reasons for rejecting the biblical god.)
(Dave Matson, editor, The Oak Hill Free Press, P. O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail: 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
A friend passed his May/June 1997 issue of The Skeptical Review on to me, and I read it with great delight. This is a wonderful publication. I was especially pleased to find an article by Judith Hayes. Certainly I want a year's free subscription. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate it if you would also send a subscription to my son, whose name and address I will place at the bottom of this letter.
You quoted Jung as saying that a majority of mental illnesses are caused by religion. I believe it! I was raised in a fundamentalist home. Although I changed denominations several times, I was a churchgoing and dedicated Christian for many years. From my middle teens onward, I suffered depression. Sometimes the only thing that kept me from committing suicide was the fear of hell. From time to time, I suffered from totally irrational fears. I remember a time when I, a grown woman and mother of three school age children, would run and hide under the bed if the phone rang when I was home alone. I went to doctors, a clinical psychologist, and clergymen for help. I took various medications, and I prayed--and prayed! Nothing helped. In January 1995, both my husband and I (I was 56 and he was 61) found the courage and honesty to give up religion altogether. After a little reading, we realized we were atheists and have proclaimed it proudly ever since. And guess what? Since then I have not had one second of depression or irrational fear. I didn't know life could be so enjoyable. I now believe with all my heart that teaching a child to fear hell is the very worst form of child abuse.
Thank you for offering this publication. I am looking forward to receiving my first copy.
(Carol Faulkenberry, 1308 Crest Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35904;
e-mail alncarol@internetpro.net)
