Fundamentalism Down Under...
As we move towards the year 2000, we are confronted almost daily with the onset of the "silly season," where innumerable nutcases await the parousia. For this reason, also because of its high quality, I would like to subscribe to The Skeptical Review for another year.
Religious fundamentalism does not necessarily have to be an overt danger. Hutterites and Amish live quite peacefully and, for want of a better word, "fundamentally" without raising much fuss. What I, and no doubt most of your readers, have a problem with are groups like the "Concerned Christians" from Denver. Eight members of this group were arrested earlier this year in Jerusalem. Their aim was to carry out extreme acts of violence in Jerusalem at the end of the year, starting by provoking a shootout with Israeli police. Why? To hasten Christ's return.
What is most irritating about groups like the "Concerned Christians" is not just the fact that they are criminally insane but the fact that the grounds for their insanity is socially accepted. They quote ad nauseam from the various books in the Bible, chopping and changing as if it were a coherent whole. Instead, as we all know, there were many writers competing with one another over many centuries. What percentage of the general population knows of the Yahwist, Elohist, Priest, Deuteronomist, and Redactor who wrote the Hebrew scriptures? How many know of the politics between Israel and Judah and which books were written by the priests of which state? I am lucky in that I know someone with a doctorate in religious studies, who gave a course in Christianity where I learned of the above facts, but for others it is far more difficult to find good scholarship about the Bible. Bookstores are far more likely to stock big-selling garbage like The Bible Code or Jesus the Man than books by Richard Friedman or R. J. Hoffman.
What we all need to do, though, is not just read The Skeptical Review and books by reputable scholars but write to newspapers whenever a religious debate is taking placed. When James Veitch (Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University) challenged orthodox scholarship about Jesus to show that it was more politics than truth intended (in his own words concerning the gospel of Luke) to say, "Our Jesus is better than your emperor," he was rounded upon with claims that he is "absolutist and derisory," that he is writing 2,000 years after Jesus while the gospels were written only 30 years afterwards, so the gospels are right, that "skeptics come and go but he [Jesus] goes on for ever," and that they presently "grapple with his living Spirit but they do not face him in person--yet." When a scholar is threatened with eternal damnation for writing about a subject he loves, it is up to as many of us as possible to defend him. It is one thing to have difficulty understanding subjects like quantum physics--to do so requires formulae and coping with extremely abstract concepts--but having difficulty understanding hermeneutics is quite inexcusable. The only prerequisites for good scholarship are an open mind and literacy. If we all put this message forward in public as often as possible, then hopefully the next "magic year" of 2033 will be less maddening for all of us.
(Hayden Wood, 14 Mays Street, Devonport, Auckland, New Zealand)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The final paragraph of Mr. Wood's letter alludes to some newspaper clippings that he enclosed with his letter. An associate professor of religious studies published an article in which he discussed the mythological roots of the "nativity" stories in the New Testament. The result was a flurry of letters expressing outrage at his audacity to question the historicity of the New Testament accounts of Jesus's birth. The usual fundamentalist comments were recycled: the apostles were so convinced of what they had seen and heard that they went everywhere preaching it and were eventually killed for their faith, the reliability of the gospel records has been confirmed, Sir William Ramsey [incorrectly identified as Ransom in the letter] was a noted archaeologist who considered Luke "a historian of the first rank," etc. All of these "apologetic" claims have been refuted over and over, but gullible Christians still recycle them. Apparently the state of Christian fundamentalism on the other side of the world is pretty much the same as it is here.
I read Hatcher's article and encountered this quotation from Stephen Miller in Daniel: The New American Commentary: "To suggest that any semi-educated Jew of the Maccabean period could be ignorant of the fact that it was Cyrus the Persian who conquered the great Babylonian Empire and allowed the Jewish captives to return to their homeland is not reasonable."
I do not have an exact parallel to draw on, but I can come close. First of all, keep in mind there was a period of 375 years separating the time of Cyrus from the writing of Daniel (if the critics are right). Now, just a little over 200 years ago we had our first president and just a little before that King George III granted the thirteen colonies their independence. Our country is far more literate than that of 2nd-century B. C. Judea, and we have far easier access to information. But how many well educated Americans know the name of the king who granted the thirteen colonies their independence? How many even know that George Washington was our first president? This came to mind because a few years ago there was a survey of supposedly well educated Americans that showed some could not even name the first president! I think one in five got it wrong. Some said Thomas Jefferson, a few even said Lincoln and others said Ben Franklin! According to this same survey over 20 percent did not know the name of the king or the country from which we gained our independence. Some said France and others said Spain. All of the respondents were supposedly well educated people! I am looking for the journal or article that contains this survey. I think I still have it stashed somewhere. I will try to find this and send it to you. Won't Hatcher be surprised!
On page three, column three, he asked: "How could the Qumran community accept Daniel as Scripture if it incorrectly pictured Darius Hystaspis preceding Cyrus?" My comment on this is to ask him why so many Catholics accept the Apocrypha with its many inconsistencies, which even fundamentalists acknowledge!
On page four, column 2, midway down, he quoted Dressler: "Is it conceivable that the same prophet would choose a Phoenician-Canaanite devotee of Baal as his outstanding example of righteousness? Within the context of Ezekiel this seems to be a preposterous suggestion." Well, this may not be an exact parallel, but I have heard Christian ministers sometimes use Muhammad, Gandhi, or even Buddha as good examples to follow. It depends on the context, of course, and I am without a context to refer you to. Usually, they do it as a comparison to Christ or as a witnessing tool to open a door with a convert of that particular religion.
On page five, column one, Hatcher referred to an Assyrian inscription that refers to Jehu as a "son of Omri." He seems to claim this sets a precedent for Daniel's use of "father" in his book, but this proves at best only an Assyrian custom, not a Jewish custom, and at worst it proves only the Assyrian inscriber made a mistake. He fails to establish with certainty his case that "in the near East the word son could also mean successor," unless, of course, there are more examples from that era.
I am aware that Persia absorbed Media (page eight, column two, bottom) but would that make it the "Medo-Persian Empire"? I see that Babylon absorbed Assyria, yet it isn't referred to as the "Assyro-Babylonian Empire." How does one distinguish them as separate? Did Media have a separate government though ruled by Persia? Was she one of her satraps?
I will try to find that survey for you!
(David Mooney, 1203 Mooney Way SW, Supply, NC 28462; e-mail, atheist89@hotmail.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: In my second reply to Hatcher's article (pp. 2-5, this issue), I made some of the same observations that Mooney did about Hatcher's attempts to defend the claim that Daniel was written in the 6th century B. C. I'm glad that others can see through the illogical arguments that Hatcher is using to defend his position, or rather I should say the illogical arguments that Hatcher is parroting from fundamentalist books.
Rapid Acceptance of "Scriptures"...
One argument often made by inerrantists to defend the dating of the book of Daniel in the 6th century BC is based on the evidence that this book was considered by many Jews as scripture during the late 2nd century B. C., barely 50 years after the date which many higher critics assign as its date of actual writing (ca. 165 B. C.). By the time of Jesus, ca. 170 years after its writing, there is little doubt that most Jews accepted its prophetic and scriptural nature. The inerrantist argument asserts that it is extremely unlikely that a book could be accepted as scripture so soon after its first appearance; it must therefore be much older.
That argument loses its force when one can point to a very similar phenomenon much closer in time to us: The Book of Mormon, which appeared in 1830, claiming to have been sealed up by divine command to appear in the last days, claiming to be divinely inspired, claiming to be a history of ancient peoples, claiming to have been written centuries before by prophets of God, and prophesying accurately of the very events that were occurring at the time of its appearance. All very much like the Book of Daniel.
Like the Book of Daniel, the Book of Mormon was quickly accepted by many as the Word of God. Within 50 years tens of thousands had read it and believed it and become Mormons, and had established a thriving society in Utah. Today, 170 years later, there are over ten million Mormons, all accepting the Book of Mormon as scripture, as written in ancient times by prophets, in spite of overwhelming evidence that the alleged history contained in it is all wrong, just like Daniel's Babylonian history.
So, if ten million Mormons can accept the Book of Mormon as scripture and history after 170 years, why is it so impossible that ten million Jews at the time of Jesus accepted the Book of Daniel?
I think of the Book of Daniel as the "Book of Mormon" of its day.
(Richard Packham, 2145 Melton Road, Roseburg, OR 97470; e-mail, packham@teleport.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I addressed this same issue in my latest reply to Hatcher, who has parroted the claim of fundamentalist commentators that "scriptures" could not have been accepted as scriptures within the short space of only 50 or so years, but how can anyone know that? As I asked in my reply to Hatcher, how long did it take the ancient Jews to accept the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, and others as "scripture"? I dare say that neither Hatcher nor any of his fundamentalist sources know. My goodness, if the omnimax Yahweh inspired a person to write a book, I would think that such a god could arrange for this book to be recognized immediately as "scripture." If not, why not?
Why Hatcher Parrots Other Biblicists...
I just got the latest edition of The Skeptical Review yesterday, and I would like to thank you for renewing my subscription while I'm in high school. But I must say, that my favorite part is not the articles (although those are good too). The best part of the magazine is the "From the Mailbag" section, because in every issue there are several rebuttals to the myth that life is meaningless without Christianity by people who have left the religion and now live happier and more meaningful lives.
I would like to say that I was puzzled at your frustration with Everette Hatcher's method of parroting people he agrees with and taking up so many pages with worthless citations. Maybe you've been out of the lifestyle for so long that you've forgotten why inerrantists do this. They do it so that they can say to their readers, "Well, I've done a lot of research, and I still believe what I believe, so you can too!" Of course, Hatcher knows that readers ready to lap up every justification for their religion they can find will not bother to research the cited information.
People always wonder why I do not read much inerrantist literature and read a lot of skeptical literature. Well, here's why: it's irritating to see people like Josh McDowell and D. James Kennedy constantly recycle the same logical fallacies. I want to read something that actually argues a point logically. Every time an inerrantist says, "Read this, it's good," I find the same thing: "What if" scenarios, appeals to authority, or pure speculation. It's like a frustrated parent who is arguing with a child about something and the child keeps recycling the same arguments like "everybody else is doing it" or "why?" Sooner or later, the parent says: "End of discussion!" Well, I've said to inerrantist literature, "End of discussion!" until they can come up with better apologetic methods. Hatcher confirms my decision even more.
(Brian Rainey, 313 Tudor Place, Chesapeake, VA 23325; e-mail, BRAINEY@norfacad.pvt.k12.va.us)
EDITOR'S NOTE: It's refreshing to learn that even a high school student can see through the kinds of arguments that Hatcher has been subjecting us to. I think that Rainey is probably right about Hatcher's motivation in spending so much time quoting and citing references. On page 3 (March/April 1999), he devoted 16 lines to nothing but the listing of references that agree that "Daniel mistakenly had Babylon falling to a Median Empire." Why else would he have done this except to say between the lines, "Look at how many scholars I have read who disagree with me, and I still believe that Daniel knew that Babylon fell to the Persians"? At any rate, regardless of what his motivation may be, if he wants me to continue publishing his articles, he is going to have to change his style and begin presenting arguments and supporting them rather than just quoting authors. We have seen from him enough appeals to dubious authority to last a lifetime.
Another Inerrantist Sees the Light...
I just received my first issue of TSR. Thank you for such an immediate response to my request! I am excited about the journey I have now embarked upon. It is very refreshing and encouraging to find others along the way who are not afraid to question their beliefs or those of the so called majority. I have recently made the decision, because of the facts, to leave my "God" thoughts behind. After over twenty-six years of accepting the so called "truth," I finally found the courage to take the path less traveled, and believe me, it has made all the difference! I have spent the last ten years in an ultra-fundamentalist church. I have been to the mission field and served functions as an assistant minister, but four years ago after my son was born, like a splash of cold water on my face, I awoke from my daze. I discovered that those who say they love and support me don't really care. Their focus is on those who are "lost" rather than those who are "saved." Anyhow, it was at this point I began to question the things I have been taught and that I have taught others. My friends were not ready and definitely not supportive of my questioning. I found that you can search for the truth within limits, but when I began questioning what was behind the door they began accusing me of dissension and divisiveness. I made the decision to move my family to a different state where the "church" was more mature.
It was challenging at first getting settled in, but once I did, I realized that though I had moved, the thinking was the same, or should I say, the lack of it? This past November, I left the church, although my wife continued to attend, and see no problem. I attended a few other local churches and even began a house church, but the politics and those who think they know all the answers to my questions were present. I began reading atheist literature and books, and found what I have been searching for-- the freedom to question without having the feeling that I'm a traitor or a vessel for satan.
Through all of this, my wife continues to attend the church. What has helped us in our marriage and in raising our four-year-old son, is the openness with one another in discussing what we are thinking. I do not make her do this or that. I want her to come to her own conclusions. I want her to follow her own thoughts and convictions and not mine. I share with her what I am learning and she reads parts of the books I am reading. I want her respect and confidence that I continue to seek and have not given up. I express to her that I am more happy now than I have ever been, and that I see my life progressing not regressing. I have chosen a path less traveled and she is supportive, though at this point she does not agree with what I am learning. There have been times I have wanted to ridicule or share my opinion about religion and about what she is doing in the church, but I have decided to hold back my comments. I believe that the time will come when she too will come to the same conclusions I have in the past few months, but I want it to be her decision and her journey, not my own. I challenge her to continue to question and seek and not to settle with what other men or women tell her is the "truth." We have kept the lines of communication open, and it has helped to make the transition not smooth but worth it!
There are those who will step out and walk while others watch and pass judgment. In the military it is termed a review of the troops. Those who wear the tassels and medals do not realize they are not in control. They watch not realizing they too are being watched and that their so called majority and control are being challenged and reviewed. The Skeptical Review!
I look forward to future issues. Thanks for the support for those on the path to freedom!
(Brian Dube, 3300 Willow Crescent Drive, Apt. 11, Fairfax, VA 22030; e-mail, bdube@nortelnetworks.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I have to think that traditional Christianity is in serious trouble. I receive too many communications like this to believe otherwise. As I think back, I remember a phone call from a student at my alma mater in his final year of study, who had heard about me and wanted advice. He told me that his home congregation had paid his college expenses to educate him for the ministry, but he had gradually come to realize that what he had been taught to believe was not the truth. He was going through the usual psychological trauma of trying to decide what to do. He didn't want to betray those who had trusted him, but he couldn't bear the thought of trying to begin a profession that he knew was based on falsehood. My advice to him was that, as psychologically difficult as it would be, he should make the break now, because it was unlikely that he would ever again return to his former beliefs. I knew exactly what mental turmoil he was going through, so my sympathy was with him.
Just recently, I received a phone call from a Church-of-Christ missionary who is back in the states, trying to decide what to do. He is scheduled to return to the mission field, but he knows that he doesn't believe the things he will have to preach if he goes back. I have even received phone calls from foreign countries, most of them from people who just can't cope any longer with having to pretend that they believe what they know they don't believe. Most of these calls and letters have come from preachers and members of the Church of Christ, but if that kind of transition is taking place in a church as fundamentalist as this one, it must be happening at an even faster pace in other churches, or perhaps it is the very absurdity of fundamentalist Christianity that is waking these people up to reality. At any rate, I really believe that changes are occurring that will radically alter the face of traditional Christianity in the next century. Too much information about the other side of Christianity can now be accessed with just a few keyboard strokes. This is bound to bring changes.
Jonah and the Whale...
The whale-Jonah debate raises a question: Is it physically possible for a large whale to swallow a man whole? If so, is it possible for such a victim to remain in a whale's interior for a limited length of time and emerge relatively unscathed? If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then the stories of a whale swallowing a man must be given some credence.
In the '30s or '40s, the Family Herald and Weekly Star, a national agricultural journal, ran a contemporary item about a man who was swallowed by a whale. He was a member of a whaling fleet, and the whale was killed a short time later and the man released. Apparently, he was in good condition except that his skin had turned paper-white from the creature's digestive juices. This was a story of one or two paragraphs and was published as news. The animal concerned was a whale, not a shark.
Obviously, such occurrences are rare, but the possibility that they do occur should not be dismissed out of hand as a fabrication. Perhaps your diligent researcher would have more luck researching an incident nearer our own time. If my memory is correct, it took place off the coast of Africa.
(R. S. Craggs, 25 McMillan Avenue, West Hill, ON, Canada M1E 4B4)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Craggs' whale story sounds suspiciously like the one that Harry Rimmer and others popularized in the mid-thirties. If Craggs will read my article again( "A Legend in His Own Time," TSR, January/February 1999 , pp. 2-5, 11) and notice the details more carefully this time, he will see that Rimmer popularized his modern-day Jonah story in Harmony of Science and Scripture, which was published and copyrighted in 1936. Craggs vaguely recalls that the modern-day Jonah story he read was published in the 30s or 40s. Are the dates just coincidental? Furthermore, my analysis of Dr. Edward Davis's article in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, which debunked Rimmer's fish story, pointed out that Davis's research had uncovered several versions of the tale that had been published in the 30s, the very time that Craggs remembers reading a similar story in an agricultural journal. As my article showed, Davis eventually traced the story to an 1890 voyage of the Star of the East, which had sailed through the southern Atlantic (between Africa and South America), but it was not a whaling ship, and its log had reported no such incident. In all likelihood, Craggs remembers reading one of the many versions of this tale that was circulated in the 1930s, but, regardless, we can hardly take seriously a story "of one or two paragraphs" that he vaguely remembers reading in an obscure journal over six decades ago. To "research" this incident, as he suggested, one would have to have much more information than this.
Another View from Down Under...
I enjoy TSR enormously and have been more and more interested in your thoughtful articles pointing out the impossibilities in the Bible. May I make one small contribution to the debate as to why so many people believe in organized religions and in their texts such as the bible. It is all to do with the satisfaction of intellectual security. It is nice to believe in God and in his churches and bible because they explain fundamental questions so apparently clearly. It is only when one starts to look at the explanations in detail that they fall apart so rapidly. I have always strongly suspected that many, many people have started to look at the Bible critically but have backed away from its incredibilities because they were disturbed by them and therefore were much happier by backing off and not addressing them as intellectual problems.
I draw an analogy to the rearing of children. Almost everything that is written about childrearing is claptrap because it is all so very simple. Children need security and they get this in families of any size by love (I care for you. I will be secure for you) and by a clearly established and generally fixed set of boundaries. Much of children's behavior is asking us to set the boundaries for them. Once this is done they are content and happy because they have the security of knowing where they fit in.
The same is surely true of many of those who believe the Bible and the word of churchpersons. These set boundaries ("If you do this, you will go to heaven" or "if you do this you will go to hell.") Like most of those who join military organizations, this is a wonderful relief." Someone else is going to look after me. Therefore I will believe whatever they say to believe and I will be secure not only in my life but in what they tell me will happen after death." Thus these persons, when faced with questions about their beliefs, revert, like children, to the concept that "it is so because my mother or father, told me it is so." While this is quite understandable for children, it is inexcusable for those who consider themselves to be adult.
I am thus suggesting that many attitudes and beliefs of the inerrantists are due to the security they feel within their beliefs. Any questioning of them is not an intellectual challenge as much as a threat against their security blankets... and this is how they respond to such questions.
Keep up your excellent work. I look forward eagerly to reading TSR.
(Richard Sadleir, 120 Sweetacres Drive, Belmont Lower Hutt, New Zealand 6009; e-mail, rsadleir@paradise.net.nz)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I too have found that Christian fundamentalists are generally people of a mindset that wants simple, black-or-white answers to questions, and so they are willing to sacrifice their intellectual integrity for the sense of security that they derive from thinking that they know all of the answers to life's mysteries. I can remember that when I was a child, I always wanted to know why. I'm sure this attitude was what doomed me to fail as a Christian fundamentalist.
I hope that Mr. Sadleir, as well as Hayden Wood, whose letter appeared earlier in this issue, won't object to my Americanization of their spelling.
Who Needs the Devil?
Bruce Weston's article "Doubts But Questions about Prophecy" in the January/February TSR brought back memories of my own evolutionary journey from religious belief to the delicious freedom of atheism. Many experiences along the way are stepping stones to rationality. Mr. Weston's belief that he could never "just write off God completely and be an atheist like you" is certainly familiar to me.
In my case, I was "born in a Baptist cradle and spanked with a Baptist paddle." I went to a Baptist college, married a Baptist preacher, and gave birth to four p. k.'s (preacher's kids). I was a Sunday school teacher, church pianist, choir director, and was deeply involved in every aspect of church life.
It was perhaps 25 years later before I actually read all of the bible, rather than just the sound bites I'd heard all my life. Reading the bible was the key that opened the door. And it was a door that could never be closed again. It took another five or six years before I could think of myself as an atheist, one who believes in no gods at all.
As soon as I admitted it, I was rejected by my three grown sons and most other relatives. Only my daughter, who had also been studying the bible and history, did not withdraw her love and support. So I fully understand the "fear and trepidation" heaped upon T. M. Utchen by his Southern Baptist mother-in-law.
Yesterday I read again Emmett F. Field's lecture "Is the Bible the Word of God?" published by Dave Matson at the Oakhill Free Press. In just 36 pages, Emmett Fields unravels the myths of the Christian bible. The Christian god, as depicted in the primitive writings of the Old and New Testaments is a murderous tyrant, brutal, vindictive, obscene, pornographic, who has prepared a place of everlasting torment for almost every human being ever born. As Fields says, "With a god like that, we don't need a devil!"
I am ever grateful to the great minds who have taught me along the way: Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Dr. Madalyn O'Hair, Dave Matson, Farrell Till, Leland Ruble, Judith Hayes, Kersey Graves, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others too numerous to mention. My life as a religionist was one of fear, guilt, subjection, and misery, but life as an atheist is peaceful, happy, exciting, and confident.
(Dr. Dorothy B. Thompson, P. O. Box 562, Bandon, OR 97411-0562)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I hate to sound like a broken record, but I can't help pointing out from time to time that those who have tried Christianity and rejected it seem to be unanimous in their opinion that life has been much more satisfying to them as skeptics and atheists than it was when they were Christians. This is completely contrary to the commonly expressed view that we hear from Christians who think that life would be nothing but gloom and doom if they didn't have their god to believe in.
I hope that Bruce Weston and all others who are presently experiencing the mental turmoil that inevitably comes with "deconversion" will recognize another common thread in the letters of those who have already traveled this route. Uncertainty and even fear are quite normal during the transition stages from believer to nonbeliever. It's mentally painful while it is happening, but after it's over, relief and satisfaction will replace the psychological anguish.
About Inmate Penmanship...
Thanks for carrying me on the free list. I am to be released from prison next week, so please cancel my subscription. I should be a paying subscriber in a month or so. I cannot tell you how edifying your paper has been, not just to me but to all who weren't afraid to read it.
Additionally, I loved the way you handled the guy who thought prisoners were "less than" others. You stood up for us, and I appreciate it. "Penmanship" indeed! Try lying on your bunk to write. I haven't seen a desk in a decade.
Anyway, thanks again for everything. Keep up the good work.
(Allen O'Conner....)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. O'Conner gave me no new address. I would have continued his subscription until he was resettled if I knew where to send it. At any rate, I appreciate his telling me that his address was changing. Many subscribers don't, and it costs $0.55 each time a paper is returned undeliverable.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION: For a free subscription to The Skeptical
Review, e-mail
jftill@midwest.net or write to P. O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717.
