No more long quotations...
I agree with your observation that I quote too many long passages. Therefore, I wanted to send you the enclosed article by the critics Brian Colless of Massey University, New Zealand, entitled "Cyrus the Persian as Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Vol. 56, 1992, pp. 113-116. I will refer to this article in my next paper because I think Colless makes some excellent points. However, my paper will avoid using lots of long quotations. I think you were right to point out that this produces tedious and boring articles to read.
You also accuse me of writing about only those scholars who agree with me (TSR, Vol. 10, p. 7, column 2), but that is not right. I have corresponded with many critical scholars, and I will gladly share these letters with you. You are probably aware of these critical scholars and their commentaries on Daniel: J. J. Collins, Andre LaCocque, John Goldingay, W. Sibley Towner, and D. S. Russell. My correspondence with them is enclosed. I have several other letters from less known critics, and I will be glad to pass them on too.
Thanks you again for the opportunity to join you in this discussion on Daniel. I have learned much as a result, and I hope you have picked up a few things along the way too.
(Everette Hatcher III, P. O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221; e-mail, everetteiii@aristotle.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: This letter from Hatcher arrived after the July/August issue of TSR had already been set up for press. I could not print it in that issue without reediting the "Mailbag" column, and I didn't have time to do that.
In promising that he will use no more long quotations, Hatcher has missed the point I was making about his appeals to authority. There is nothing wrong with "long quotations" if the writer using them attempts to justify whatever major points the quotations make in support of his case. In the Daniel debate, I have twice quoted almost the entire chapter of Daniel 5, because I deemed it necessary to show that the writer of this passage obviously thought that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar were father and son. However, in addition to quoting this passage, I also added my own commentary to explain why it is more reasonable to assign the primary meanings to "father" and "son" in this text rather than unlikely secondary meanings.
My criticism of Hatcher's method has been that he too often quotes apparently for the sake of showing that he has found some writers who agree with him, but he puts only minimal effort into explaining why the positions of the writers he quotes should be accepted. When a writer does this, he is making flagrant appeals to authority, which is a recognized logical fallacy, and logical fallacies prove nothing.
Hatcher seems to think that I was objecting only to long quotations, but that wasn't the case at all. There were sections in Hatcher's last article in which he strung together short quotations without explaining why the positions stated in them were particularly convincing, and he also strung together long lists of books and articles without quoting anything that they said. I suspect his purpose in doing this was to say between the lines, "Look how much reading I have done on this subject," but he doesn't need to convince me that he has put a lot of time and effort into studying this subject. He should understand that a long list of references, such as what we saw in column one on the first page of his last article, is actually self-defeating, for rather than impressing readers, this will be more likely to bore them to the point of giving up on the article.
I really saw nothing impressive in the letters that he sent to me from the "scholars" he has been in contact with. Most of them were no more than terse notes that seemed intended to make courtesy replies to correspondence that they didn't really have time to fool with. Some of the replies were scribbled so hastily that I couldn't even decipher what they were saying. The one typewritten reply from Andre LaCocque even expressed disagreement with Hatcher's belief that the writer of Daniel lived in the 6th century B. C. "Whether the author of Daniel lived in the sixth or in the second century BCE," LaCocque said in his letter, "it remains that his visions and message are addressed specifically to people and circumstances of the 2nd century. If you prefer to think of him as a 6th cent. man, I shall not argue with you. In that case, however, there was no way for him and still less for his contemporaries to understand anything that was revealed to him, as they all missed the point of reference of the revelations." LaCocque's letter hardly lends support to Hatcher's position, and he would be hard pressed to find a "scholar" outside the fundamentalist/evangelical community who would agree that the author of Daniel lived in the 6th century B. C. At any rate, Hatcher indicated above that he intends to send another reply, so, if he submits an article that attempts to argue logically instead of just appealing to authorities, we will have at least one more opportunity to see if he has anything convincing to offer on this subject.
Two issues in a row!
I've been growing a little disturbed about the increasing abundance of pulpiteering testimonials in the letters section from former congregationalists cooing about their conversion to the bracing rigors of reason. Please understand that I fled the church not only because I saw that the Bible was a compendium of contradictory nonsense and repulsive superstition, but also because I hated getting spattered by the self-satisfied pious piddle of my fellow worshipers--very similar to the sentiments that are coming to dominate "From the Mailbag."
I realize that you're trying to ease the emotional trauma of some of these apparently fragile children who are tentatively stepping out of the dark forest of ignorance into the sunlit fields of truth; but please put a limit on these misty-eyed encomia and concentrate instead on the many letters containing the biblical ammunition we so desperately need-- after all, we *are* losing a country here.
"Biblical ammunition" reminds me-- I can find nothing in the Bible, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, Wells (G. A.), Asimov, or Hoffmann about this: what started the tradition of calling the three wise men Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthazar?
(John Carver, 10517 Oklahoma Avenue, Chatsworth, CA 91311)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Carver is going to think that he has hit the jackpot. After lamenting that none of his letters had been published in the past, he has now made it into two consecutive issues. He is right in supposing that one reason why I publish so many letters from ex-Christians is to lend support to those who have reservations after having taken their first steps away from their religious past. I receive many e-mail messages and phone calls from people who are in this stage of skepticism, so such letters as the ones that Mr. Carver complains about are published to help them see that those who choose rationality over superstition eventually pass through the stage of doubt and reservation to find much more satisfaction than they had ever had before.
Another reason for these letters is to counter the doom-and-gloom position of theists who so emphatically state that skepticism/atheism has nothing to offer but pessimism and unhappiness. If that is so, then why do ex-Christians almost universally agree that they are far more happy now than when they were shackled to biblical superstitions?
I can't answer Mr. Carver's question about the wise men. I've never bothered to investigate the matter.
Wrong issue received...
Although I have never been a great believer in the Bible, I have only in the last few years delved deeper into the whole issue of faith and believing. Your magazine has been a great help in sorting out my own thoughts as well as in discussing these things with other people (atheists as well as believers). Thank you.
May I point out that I received the January/February 1999 issue yesterday for the second time. I suppose this was a mistake, so I hope to receive the March/April issue soon. Also, my first name is Lidy, not Lindy (it sounds cute though).
(Lidy Mohr, Box 1598, Revelstoke, BC, Canada V0E 2S0)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Unfortunately, Mr. Mohr wasn't the only subscriber who received the wrong issue. Somehow, some copies of the March/April issue got mixed with the May/June, so in the mechanical way that envelopes are stuffed, the mistake was not noticed until some mailings had gone out to Western Canada and possibly England too. A few have written to notify us and have received replacement copies, but I have no way of knowing who else may have gotten the wrong issue. If you were one who did, we will replace it upon receiving notification.
I apologize for the misspelling of Mr. Mohr's first name. The mistake has been corrected in the address files.
Allaying disquietudes...
I understand you are a skeptic, one who doubts the existence of God. I hope to be able to allay your disquietude and bring a measure of peace to your life. To this end, I shall try to answer the questions: Does God exist? Who is the best witness to His existence? How is this made known to us?
First, I will attempt, with my limited knowledge, to answer, is there a God? The answer is an emphatic yes. Who is the best witness to His existence? Ironically, it is communism. Consider this for a moment: communism vehemently denies the existence of God, yet it expends its energies to expunge all concept of God. How can you expunge someone that doesn't exist? Does the underworld expend its energies to eradicate superman? No, of course not. It is illogical to fight something that doesn't exist; therefore, I conclude that God does exist.
Now to answer the last question: who or what tells us humans, subconsciously, that there is a God, an all-merciful and loving Being? The answer is our soul, that spirit with which we were infused by our creator from the moment of conception, known as the soul. There are 6.5 billion of us on planet Earth, and each of us has a soul, an exact replica of our Creator in His image, a weak one at that but nevertheless His image. That is the creature that tells us there is a God and leaves no human in peace who denies Him, the Supreme Being.
I ask you, please do not believe anything I say but think about it and research it, then show me where I am wrong.
(Frank P. Calderon, 4010 Josephine Street, Lynwood, CA 90262)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Calderon need not worry. There isn't much chance that I will believe anything he says, because his letter was one of the most illogical attempts to prove the existence of God that I have ever read. The Skeptical Review exists to discuss the biblical inerrancy doctrine, but in the "Mailbag" column, I have given readers and subscribers a great deal of leeway to discuss topics other than this, so I will accommodate Calderon and, as he requested, show him where he is wrong.
First, let me put Mr. Calderon's mind at ease and assure him that he doesn't need "to allay my disquietude and bring a measure of peace to my life." The "disquietude" in my life ended when I finally found the courage to admit that the Bible can't possibly be what I was taught to believe about it as I was growing up and that the probability that some god exists who monitors my every movement and thought is so remote that it doesn't even warrant serious consideration. Furthermore, no words could adequately express just how much peace of mind those decisions brought into my life. Mr. Calderon, then, should direct his concerns about the disquietude of others to those who may have a need for his services. He is wasting his time writing to me about his superstitious nonsense. He says that we all have "souls" that leave "no human in peace who denies God," but I hate to tell him that my "soul" must be falling down on the job, because I find myself perfectly at peace with my total and complete lack of belief in this god Calderon is trying to peddle.
The proof he has offered that this god of his exists proves only that he has a serious need to do a bit of studying in elementary logic. He should begin by reading about the fallacies of begging the question and circular reasoning. "Is there a God?" he asked, and his answer was an "emphatic yes." Well, boy, that's enough proof for me. Who could ask for more evidence for this god's existence than Frank P. Calderon's emphatic yes. Obviously, Calderon doesn't understand that argument by assertion proves nothing.
He then asked, "Who is the best witness to God's existence?" His answer? Communism is the best witness, and he arrived at this conclusion by a very peculiar line of reasoning. Communism vehemently denies the existence of God, so God must exist, since no one would expend time and energy fighting something that doesn't exist. Oh, boy, where should I begin to answer this ridiculous argument? First, I'll call to Calderon's attention that communism is an economic/ political ideology that has nothing to do with theism. It teaches that all property and means of production should belong to the state so that the output of production efforts can be shared by the people in accordance with their individual needs, but it takes no position on the existence of gods. As a matter of fact, the book of Acts indicates that the earliest Christians practiced a form of communism by selling individually owned houses and lands and keeping "all things in common" so that "distribution" could be made to "each, according as anyone had need" (4:32-35), but, if we are to believe the Bible, this band of early communists certainly didn't vehemently deny the existence of God. To the contrary, they "ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ" (5:42) and "went everywhere preaching the word" (8:4). Mr. Calderon seems to be laboring under the impression that because many communist leaders apparently had no belief in God, that necessarily made communism an atheistic movement. That would be somewhat like arguing that because most of our political leaders are Christians, the United States is a Christian nation, but most conservative Christians constantly deplore the fact that the U. S. is not what they consider a Christian nation, and so they spend a great deal of their time trying to change it into a country that would conform to their criteria of what a Christian nation should be.
Calderon then absurdly argued that it is "illogical to fight something that doesn't exist," so opposition to God must mean that he exists. According to this logic, Calderon would have to believe that a person who would try to convince a Mormon that the angel Moroni doesn't exist would be proving by his opposition to the Mormon claims about Moroni that this Mormon angel does indeed exist. Likewise, if someone in a Hindu society should undertake to convince Hindus that the god Vishnu doesn't exist, he would by the very fact of his opposition to Vishnu be proving that Vishnu does exist. I seriously doubt that Calderon would be willing to accept these consequences of his own logic. People don't try to prove that Superman doesn't exist, because there is no need to. Everyone realizes that Superman is a fictitious character. If, however, movements should develop that were based on the belief that Superman was a real person, there would certainly be people who would oppose this view, especially if the "Superman" groups should seek to force that belief onto the rest of society as Christian groups try to impose their God/ Jesus beliefs onto society in general.
Finally, Calderon informs us that "our soul" tells us that there is a "God." I am sorry to disappoint him, but I haven't heard anything from my soul yet on the issue of whether some vaguely defined god exists. On the other hand, my brain tells me that there is no real evidence for the existence of gods, angels, demons, souls, and such like, so Calderon will have to go back to the drawing board and look for more evidence than what he has shown us if he wants me to abandon all common sense and believe in this god of his.
Not one of Hutchinson's virtues...
I just received the May/June issue of The Skeptical Review. Roger Hutchinson has now convinced me of one thing, that objectivity is not one of his better virtues. I am surprised you dignified his article with a response at all.
(Christopher Boyce, 706 Copperline Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27516; e-mail orcha@shentel.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: As this column showed last issue, Mr. Boyce is not alone in his opinion of Hutchinson's articles. More follows below, the first one a letter that a reader addressed to Hutchinson.
By the way, I publish articles like Hutchinson's for reasons I have explained many times. Biblicists are their own worst enemies. If I publish their nonsense, those whose minds are not yet brain-dead from fundamentalist indoctrination will see the absurdity of biblicism from what its own spokesmen say.
A Letter to Hutchinson...
I just read your article in the May/June 1999 issue of TSR, and I feel compelled to bring to your attention several points that you overlooked in your article. First, I get the impression that you wish to deny responsibility on behalf of your religion for some degree of wrongdoings. I do not think it was ever Till's intention to lay blame for all of the ills and hatreds of the world on Christianity. Christianity has, of course, done its share. So have other religions as well as those who have no religion. If you aren't prepared to admit that, then you are very biased. Do you think that web sites such as "The Nuremberg Files" and Fred Phelps's "http://www.godhatesfags.com/" do not cause social unrest and in some cases lead to extreme acts? Of course, they do! I have no doubts that these sites influenced people such as the unknown assassin who killed Dr. Barnett Slepian. I also have no doubt that the assassin in question will never turn himself in, and probably sleeps quite well at night. Why shouldn't he? On one hand, he has "Nuremberg Files" for guidance; while on the other hand, he feels that he is enforcing his own version of Mosaic Law, and appeasing God simultaneously. There is irresponsibility in those behind the pulpits. Washing your hands of it is not the answer. If you took pride in your religion, you would take steps to vindicate its good name.
Second, in your list of modern day atrocities committed outside the grace of God, I find it interesting that you did not mention Adolf Hitler. Had you done that, I could so easily point out that Hitler's earliest ambition was to be a man of the cloth. He once told his people that they should only breed with other Germans so that their children could be "born in the image of God, and not a cross between man and beast." Could his faith in God have been the core of his racism? Why not? If this sounds absurd, please allow me to illustrate the point for you. Imagine a race of proud people who believe that God is on their side (which the Nazi party stated time and time again) and eventually bring their bigotry to its ultimate conclusion by annihilating (or attempting to annihilate) several other adjacent races. I have just accurately described Nazi Germany as well as the Old Testament.
Finally, I take issue with you for referring to Till's writing as "the blustering of a disgruntled, old man." No, dear sir, "disgruntled" is what would describe Till had he remained in the Church of Christ (in my humble opinion). That is derogatory. That is a cheap shot. Till has produced some of the best writing I have ever seen on the subject of errancy. In five years of TSR, I have seen only two typographical errors ever made (discounting, of course, articles submitted by Christians). There simply exists no body of work in all of Christian literature that can be held to that standard.
All else aside, I feel your article was driven by anger more than reason. I feel it was a "hit and run" styled literary attack, and doubt that a competent follow-up could even be written for it. If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Respond to this letter.I don't think you can, or will.
(Chad D. Kelly, P. O. Box 183, Greenwell Springs, LA 70739-9998; e-mail, constat@ibm.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Unfortunately, I have made a few more than two typographical errors. I proofread everything several times before sending it to press, but some errors manage to get by. I groan every time I see one when I am reading through TSR after it has returned from the printer. I guess I need the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide me to inerrancy.
I'm inclined to think that Hutchinson will send a reply to this letter. He's the type who just doesn't recognize the truth of my often-repeated axiom: Give a biblical inerrantist enough rope, and he will eventually hang himself.
An insult to all skeptics...
Roger Hutchinson's article insulted all skeptics in general and you in particular. It indulged in baseless speculation as to the motives of those who have considered the case for Christianity and rejected it. Hutchinson also compounds the offense with his all "sweetness and light" view of Christianity, calling it a "constraining influence" that prevented even worse atrocities in the world, and, for bad measure, quite illogically gave the religion you've rejected credit for whatever decency in you he may grudgingly concede.
Accepting such lofty credit but none of the blame when it comes to his religion is not only a dishonest position but an indefensible one. Not only is there evil in Christianity, but decency can be found outside it. Christians should hang their heads in shame in comparison to Buddhism. Almost never does one hear of one sect of Buddhists murdering another over doctrinal differences, something Christian sects spent several centuries doing. There have been no religious wars in Buddhism, no inquisitions, no crusades, no witch hunts. Buddhism, a human invention, is much closer to having achieved what Christianity only pretends to be.
Not only must Christians accept the blame for horrendous results, but Hutchinson would certainly be miffed to hear that a case can be made for an assertion that even the atrocities of communism derive in part from Christianity. The early Christians, after all, were communists. Acts (2:44; 4:32) says that they "had all things in common," the very essence of communism. They gave "every man according to his ability" (11:29) and received "according as he had need" (4:35; 2:45), revealing a proverb appropriated by a French socialist, after Acts, and quoted by Marx, who has always gotten the credit. Communism is a secularized form of Messianism that bears all the aspects of a religion with an infallible founder, a holy writ, sacred icons and relics, and persecution of heretics. The ideal communist state, like the kingdom of heaven, is something that was always coming, never here. Without Judaic Messianism and apostolic communism, Marxism never would have existed. So we see that as a mindset, Christianity can be so potently dangerous that even its unintended offspring can pose a menace, not the least to its unknown parent.
(Stephen Van Eck, RR 1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 18839)
More disagreement with Hutchinson...
I was looking forward to Roger Hutchinson's latest defense of his belief in inerrancy, and was rather disappointed to see him degrade from mere sophistry, evasion, and ad hominem attacks, to including parody as well. Three paragraphs into the article I stopped to make sure that the author was indeed the inerrantist Hutchinson: the assertions he makes are identical to the criticisms skeptics make of inerrantists. This appears to be a move of desperation on his part.
He states that skeptics "denigrate the Bible when they cannot twist the Bible to say what they want." Er, that is exactly what skeptics do not do. We assert that the Bible's authors meant exactly what they wrote: it is the inerrantists who assert otherwise, and go through energetic gyrations to make the Bible's errors and self-contradictions mean what they do not. I have been reading TSR since early 1994, and I cannot recall any instance where skeptics insisted the Bible meant something other than what it says: indeed, skepticism of the Bible is predicated upon taking the Bible exactly as it is written. I'm rather surprised that Hutchinson has not realized this yet. Has he not been paying attention?
In the forth and fifth paragraphs, we see more of the same: Hutchinson takes valid criticisms made by skeptics and asserts that the skeptics are guilty of those actions. This reminds me of sophomoric elementary school yard taunts of "I know what you are but what am I?" That his parody does not apply to the skeptics is not something he concerns himself with; his chief motive appears to be a lack of anything better to say.
The rest of his article involves questions of "blame" about many social problems that have nothing to do with Biblical errancy, so I am at a loss to understand why Hutchinson wasted so much valuable space that he could have used to convince us that the Bible is inerrant. The issue is inerrancy, not what Clinton does when his zipper is down. If one wishes to explore the religious basis for racism, tribalism, authoritarianism, intolerance, and group violence, I suggest he read the material available by Professor Bruce Hunsberger of the Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Canada (see Prometheus Books). In my opinion (and the data tend to show this opinion is valid), the greater the religious convictions one holds, the 'less' moral and ethical the individual.
Those who love God the most tend to love their fellow human beings the least. What Jesus is said to have taught and what Christians do is often diametrically opposite: love one's enemies; bless those who curse you; if someone asks for your purse, give him also the cloak from off your back. I am a neo-Pagan minister with a few Christian friends. When they question my Paganism, I ask them in return: Why should I accept the Christian teachings when large numbers of Christians refuse to follow them?
(David Rice, Mariner's Ministries, 723 Calle Casita, San Clemente, CA 92673-2708; e-mail, shydavid@airspeed. com)
Who's to blame?
I just read the two faces of the bible and enjoyed it very much. It was predictable the day after the Colorado school shootings that the Springfield News began receiving a flood of letters to the editor blaming the violence on church/ state separation and demanding that prayer and bible reading be allowed in schools. One letter even proposed arming teachers, janitors and selected students. Wow, give a Bible in one hand and an AK47 in the other! Several letters blamed the violence on abortion, and one minister said that scientists who teach a theory that life developed from molecules were responsible for "children killing children." There has never in history been a case of a scientific theory being the cause of a single death while one verse in Exodus, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," has been directly responsible for many innocent women being cruelly burned at the stake.
My wife and I have just returned from Japan where the vast majority of people are agnostic and Christians number about 1%. Abortion has been legal for many years, yet they have a crime rate that is minuscule compared to the U.S. It seems to me that many Christians proclaim moral superiority and then retreat behind a privileged sanctuary: "How dare you attack my religion" when you point out the evil many Christians have done such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the many members of the clergy who have molested children! Every Ku Klux Klan meeting was opened with a prayer just before they rode off to lynch our fellow citizens. Three of the school shootings took place in the heart of the Bible belt, and at least one perpetrator was described by his pastor as a Christian.... Oh, well, kind of out of your area since you concentrate on biblical errancy, but thanks for letting me blow off steam.
(Bob Oliver, 607 North 38th Street, Nixa, MO 65714; e-mail, nakura@mocom.net)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The court decision banning school sponsored prayers in classrooms has been blamed for just about every crime that has since been committed. People who argue so irrationally should take the time to review the logical fallacy named post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this; therefore because of this). The truth is that crime was on the increase in the United States well before this court decision was rendered. David Mooney, a longtime subscriber to TSR, has written an article carefully documented from sources published prior to the court decision that shows the growth of crime was already out of control before "God was removed from the classrooms." I'll be glad to e-mail this article to anyone who would like to see it.
Smith's letter continued...
Religious organizations control the venue. They don't have to come to us; it is we who have to chase after them. There is nothing to get even close to them. If they want a tape or lecture series, they seek out one of us who is weak, and they go after the "atheist." The commercially produced piece (tape or transcript) just solidifies the evangelical's image of us. The other more common ploy is to start a debate, after it is clear they are losing, declare to the faithful that some cannot be saved and to listen to such as these would only lead the flock to damnation.
They have the means to control their own content. Christian radio and TV stations have risen by some accounts 40 to 60 percent over the last five years. In my state of Ohio, there isn't a county that isn't covered. But think about it: Other people pay for your station, when you have acquired enough capital, pay it off and then it's your station. Since the funds were from gifts or donations, you don't owe anything or anyone and can do what you wish with the station; it's yours. You could keep some of the Christian theme, go public during certain hours of the day, keeping both religious funding (donations) and profit from advertising. You then have a radio or TV empire at the nominal cost of next to nothing. Not a bad gig.
The national picture isn't much better. There are now two publishers of school textbooks, eight major holders of radio, TV, satellite and cellular communications, and the ubiquitous newspapers. Magazines are under fewer and fewer publishers. The flow of information is being controlled ever so much by just a very few powerful organizations. Email and other "on-line" services are similarly going in that direction. Communication of all forms will be directed through these conduits, and there will be content management (censorship) of ideas and expression. All this for the good of the children!
Freethinkers had better start thinking about how we can increase our numbers, or our days may well be numbered. There may well be a large number of us out here, but we are not organized enough to merit any notice from the media or the public.
(Douglas L. Smith, P. O. Box 513, Tiffin, OH 44883-0513; e-mail, imtruth@excite.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The first part of Mr. Smith's letter,
published in the issue before this one, discussed (with some
justification, I believe) the tendency of the freethought movement to
fragment into competing groups. No doubt, this hinders the growth of
freethought in general; however, much of what he says in this letter is
not really the fault of a fragmented freethought movement but an
advantage that Christendom enjoys by virtue of a membership that it has
for the most part inherited from gains made in its past. I still
believe that Christianity is steadily losing ground and that the
continued growth of the information age will only increase its losses.
