Month: November 2018

Richard Dawkins’ “Faith” and “Luck”:
From an interview of Richard Dawkins by Jonathan Miller:1

“Um, there’s got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can’t think of one then that’s your problem, not natural selection’s problem. Natural selection, um, well, I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my, on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful. You might mentioned feathers. I mean it’s perfectly possible that feathers began as fluffy, um, extensions of reptilian scales to act as heat insulators. And so the final perfection of the sort of, wing feathers that we see in flying birds might have come very much later. And the earliest feathers might have been a different approach to hairiness among reptiles keeping them warm.”

Richard Dawkins fills the gaps in his knowledge with his faith. Sans evidence, he can appeal to his imagination (in the guise of respectable science). It is “perfectly possible” it “might have” and again, it “might have”—and that is good enough.

Furthermore, Richard Dawkins wrote:

“Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural.”2

Note the presupposition: we know that absolute materialism is true and so the supernatural is disqualified a priori. If we ever encounter a miracle, if we are exposed to evidence of a miracle, we are do disregard it as being the outworking of some materialistic phenomena that “we don’t yet understand.” But we can project and so “we hope” to “eventually” be able to explain all things according to materialism. In other words, he restricts his thinking and denies any evidence which is troublesome to his chosen worldview.

Richard Dawkins noted:

“Chance, luck, coincidence, miracle…events that we commonly call miracles are not supernatural, but are part of a spectrum of more-or-less improbable natural events. A miracle, in other words, if it occurs at all, is a tremendous stroke of luck.”3

This actually plays a part in his views on origins?,

“It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck.”4

He declares that “we are allowed” but who is doing the allowing and why are they allowing it? He is allowing himself; he is filling the gaps in our knowledge with “luck” as he previously did with “faith.”

He also wrote,

“If I saw a man levitating himself, before rejecting the whole of physics I would suspect that I was the victim of a hallucination or a conjuring trick.”5

Certainly, it could be a trick and one ought to investigate but it is fascinating that his reaction to being an eyewitness to something that violates his worldview, that violates absolute materialism, would be to prefer the explanation of it being a hallucination.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

“My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees. Their ancestors might have looked a little like colugos. Birds could be another matter…. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds….Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees…
The beauty of this theory is that the same nervous circuits that were used to control the centre of gravity in the jumping ancestor would, rather effortlessly, have lent themselves to controlling the flight surfaces later in the evolutionary story.”6

More of the same, “…guess…might have…could be…guess…Perhaps…perhaps…The beauty of this theory is…the evolutionary story.”
Perhaps he is correct yet, perhaps he is merely concocting tall tales.

Karl Keating; Director of Catholic Apologetic Organization Catholic Answers:

…the doctrine of purgatory is not at odds with other tenets of Christianity. In fact, as he [Samuel Johnson] may have known, there is considerable scriptural warrant for it, even if the doctrine is not explicitly set out in the Bible.1

Can it really be said that considerable scriptural warrant could be non-explicit?

^{It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul expiates its sins}: ‘I tell you, you will not get out till you have paid the very last penny’ (Lk 12:59). 2

The concept of Purgatory is place between the particular and general judgments not because the Bible teaches this or even hints at it but because it is the only place that Mr. Keating could find to place it. It is so incongruous with Scripture that it must be forcefully inserted, and it must be inserted because it is found nowhere in the Bible.

Fundamentalists note that biblical references to the judgment refer only to heaven and hell. Quite true. That is because most of the references are to the general judgment.3

This is stated as opposed to the individual judgment. The problem for Mr. Keating is that references to individual judgment still say nothing about having to suffer for our own sins in the fires of Purgatory.

professional anti-Catholics…claim, instead, that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong again. It speaks quite plainly of a third place, where Christ went after his death, the place commonly called the Limbo of the Fathers, where the just who died before the Redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them (I Pet 3:19). This place was neither heaven nor hell. Even if the Limbo of the Fathers was not purgatory, its existence shoes that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture.” 4

The Limbo of the Fathers or Abraham’s Bosom is now empty and now there are only two places; heaven and hell.

Anyone who has not completely expiated his sins—that is, not just had them forgiven, but ‘made up’ for them, been punished for them—in this life is, to some extent, ‘unclean.’ Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to qualify for heaven (which is to say his soul is spiritually alive), but that is not enough. He needs to be cleansed completely. By not admitting the doctrine of purgatory, one necessarily implies that even the slightest defilement results in the loss of the soul.” 5

By made up he is making reference to Colossians 1:24 which he quotes as “in my sufferings for you, and [I] fill up those things that are wanting in the suffering of Christ.” This is in some way supposed to connect to Purgatory but ^{as is fairly common in Roman Catholic writings they seem to overlook the line between the living and the dead}. The living man Paul was writing to living people in the city of Colossi, from here by use of eisegesis (or, isogesis), this concept is force to breach that Biblically un-breachable chasm between the living and the dead.

Fundamentalists think…Christ obviated6 the need for any expiation on our part, but the Bible nowhere teaches that. Having one’s sins forgiven is not the same as having the punishment for them wiped out.”7

Then what does having ones sins forgiven mean?

no parish maintains a ‘schedule of fees.’ A few people, of course, freely offer more. On average, though, a parish can expect to receive something less than five dollars by way of stipend for each memorial Mass said. These Masses are usually said on weekdays.” 8

I’m not quite sure what he means by schedule of fees but I can speak as one that worked for a Roman Catholic Church for four and a half years. The local Archbishop decides how much a Mass intention costs; $10.00 in our case. In the Mass Book we write down the intention and we would mark whether it had been paid or not and, of course, we had a receipt book specifically for Mass intention payments.
In the parish for which I worked there were seven Masses a week for which intentions were allowed, three intentions were allowed per Mass. Theoretically speaking, this means that if all the intentions were sold the parish could bring in $840 per month from these sales alone. If this does not seem like much, sadly, it is a few dollars more than I was making per month for full time work. Multiply the dollar amount per Mass by millions of Masses all over the world, then multiply it by millennia and you will see that we are talking about an incredible amount of money.

Anthony Wilhelm:

Purgatory is perhaps best described as the painful state or experience of encountering God after death, when we see him as he really is ‘face to face’ (1 Corinthians 13, 12), and, by contrast, ourselves as we really are, as sinful humans. ^{An encounter with the living God always is painfully, totally upsetting}.”9

Christ has made up our sins, and now accepts us totally, but we yet have the need of doing something about them ourselves, as when we hurt anyone we love…Most people realize that they have not made up for all their sins, that they still are clinging to some faults, and therefore could not expect to be perfectly happy immediately after death with the perfect, totally accepting Love we call God. 10

True, as an example, if in this life we stole something we could make up for it by giving it back. But this concept cannot be taken into the afterlife because Jesus came to do that which we could not do; make it up to God. Any denial that Jesus did so fully, or the contradictory purgatorial argument that Jesus did do so but we must still suffer in the afterlife is a denial that Jesus completed the task for which He was born and died. Jesus Himself said, “It is finished/paid in full” (John 19:30).

Those passing through this purgatory state know clearly that they are saved, God’s love overwhelms them, and they have a joy far more intense than anything on earth.11

In that case, one would wonder why people are in such a hurry to get their dead relatives out of Purgatory. Sure, it is not yet heaven but that is where they know they are going so why not save your money and let them enjoy this intense joy for a few centuries? (Please forgive the sarcasm).

A Catholic Response, Inc.:

Even though not explicitly referred to by name, the Bible does allude to it, especially in terms of purging fire.”12

As will be discussed in the next essay in this series, The Consulted Scriptures, in order to read Purgatory into the Bible in every place where any sort of flames are mentioned there is an attempt to insert Purgatory, yet to no avail.

very serious sin – mortal sin – ‘kills’ our friendship with God. By willfully committing mortal sin, we reject God, and we lose this sanctifying grace (Titus 1:16). Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross can still redeem our friendship with God; however, we must repent and seek God’s forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). If we do not repent and die in this graceless state, then we suffer the loss of eternal life. This loss is eternal punishment or hell (Matt 25:46). 13

Let us explore the logical conclusion of this concept. We are talking about a person who has completed all their Roman Catholic sacraments, who has redemptive sanctifying grace i.e., God’s forgiveness. Let’s say that this person is driving along in their car and commits adultery in their heart by lusting after the photograph of a person on a billboard, if they get into a car crash and die they will go to hell for all eternity.
This is because even though they had their sins forgiven by Jesus Christ and had redemptive sanctifying grace, they simply did not make it to the priest for confession and so they will go to hell. This is a nonsensical tactic from the Dark Ages and does not exist in the Bible. Forgiveness is forgiveness and salvation is salvation.

Some sin is not serious enough to kill our friendship with God, but still it is harmful. The mess caused by our sin needs correction. This correction is temporal punishment (Hebrews 12:5-11). We can be corrected and cleansed through personal penance on earth or later in Purgatory – thanks to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. 14

True, ^{Hebrews 12:5-11 speaks of correction or chastening but nowhere does the word of God speak of this as able to continue later in Purgatory}.

In comparison to hell, Purgatory could rightly be described as Paradise.15

Maybe so, but compared to heaven Purgatory is hell.

Others may object by citing that Christ’s Blood ‘cleanses us from all sin.’ [1 John 1:7] Now that is true, but His sacrifice of redemption can be applied in different ways, such as through Baptism, Confession, prayer…Another way is Purgatory. 16

If it is true then we could have Christ’s redeeming blood applied to us in Purgatory. This would mean either that an unforgiving sinner could be saved in Purgatory or that, as the case appears to be, Christ’s Blood does not cleanses us from all sin since we must still suffer for them ourselves in this life and afterwards.

What Is Their Appeal? Their appeal is at least two-pronged: One is their self-professed appeal, and the other is the facts of the matter (which will be considered from a Christian perspective).

Their self-professed appeal is stated by Richard Dawkins as “intellectually fulfilled Atheist.”1 Atheism promises enlightenment-in the forms of scientific literacy, rationality, happiness, morality-and freedom from guilt, superstition and adherence to dogma.

Another aspect not generally identified as an appeal, but one that is milked for all it is worth, is the image of the Atheist as the “underdog.” Even in a time such as this-when being an Atheist is about the hippest thing to do, and there are quite a few shekels to be made from books, lectures, and even movies about Atheism-the New Atheist still will claim to be a second class citizen-she is the underdog who is not under God (this pun makes sense if you are dyslexic as I am).

Having mused and researched on this subject, I have found that being “an intellectually fulfilled Atheist” means that fulfillment is found in materialistic stories about how things may have or could have (or should have?) occurred: for example, how the universe came about and functions on purely materialistic grounds.

The New Atheist movement is particularly popular among the youth. Popular are Atheist activists such as The Golden Compass author Philip Pullman who stated that his children’s books are about “killing God,” and he is “trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.” He has also produced a pro-Atheism DVD for “children that are 11 years old and above” (details found here).
Richard Dawkins has launched the “Out Campaign” aimed at the college crowd. The youth are naturally rebellious and the New Atheists come along, wealthy, happy, vociferous, erudite, iconoclastic and urge them to commit the ultimate rebellion: rebellion against God. The youth are being told they basically can do as they please within certain vague notions of “right” and “wrong.” The youth confuse rebellion against religious authority with rebellion against God.

Atheism is an appealing, consoling delusion which includes the delusion of absolute autonomy, the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability, the consoling delusion of subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence, and the delusion of being more erudite than thou. (Atheists are the smartest, they are “right” and everyone else is “wrong.”)

What Is The New Atheist Movement?
The title of this parsed essay referred to the “New (Emergent) Atheist” movement in order to draw a correlation between the “Emergent Church” movement and the New Atheists. The Emergent Church movement is about popularization, broad appeal, and watering down orthodox doctrines until they are malleable enough to become harmless and friendly.

Likewise, the New Atheism is about broad appeal, but it is of a baser sort. It is pushing a septic skeptic outlook. This movement is very good at media campaigns, that is certain; they have erected a facade of scientific and intellectual respectability around poor arguments, faulty logic, bad philosophy and have also turned science into a play thing to be bent in the direction the Atheist wants it to go.2

For example, while Sam Harris will soon be a scientist, he will by no means represent the integrity of an unbiased researcher. When asked, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” he stated:

Once the neurology of belief becomes clear…religious faith will be exposed for what it is: a humble species of terrestrial credulity.3

In other words, he already believes something and is becoming a scientist in order to build a facade of “science” around his Atheistic beliefs.In reality, the movement is about being vociferous, emotive, and disrespectful.At first consideration, I thought that these various scientists and professors were vociferous, emotive and disrespectful, because theists were beneath their contempt and they could not bother with those foolish mental children. Yet, I have come to find that they are vociferous, emotive, and disrespectful because they do not have much more with which to work.

Being vociferous draws attention to you, makes you look heroic, authoritative, and self-assured.

Being emotive (making emotionally charged statements) is a great tool, since you can cut right through any thought process and touch people’s feelings which builds a connection to the speaker. Emotiveness is a way to skirt around arguments. Also, who can argue against adrenalin-spiked feelings: feelings are tangible while ideas, thoughts, arguments are ethereal.
Being disrespectful is a very attractive quality, particularly for someone with a rebellious bent or someone who has a dislike for, and a feeling of impotence against, religious authority and the demands of dogma.
The Atheist Michael Shermer, while certainly not being diplomatic himself, has written an open letter to the top four celebrity Atheists asking that they curb their intolerant rants. However, he has gone unheeded.4Certainly, the New Atheism has its moments of clarity in that adherents do make attempts at argumentation or rightly criticize fallacious theology as well as religious oppression. Yet, they do tend to replace rational discourse-whereby we treat our opponent’s positions fairly-with taking jabs at straw-men (misrepresenting a position in order to make it look foolish and easy-to-tear-down). Why focus your attention on serious, dry, scholarly debates and lectures when you can elbow your buddy in the ribs and say, “Those religious people are so foolish!”The New Atheism is also peppered with immaturity. This is caused by at least three factors:

As alluded to previously, it is easier and more 1) amusing (another “a” word) to poke fun than it is to exercise the intellect.

Many Atheists 2) rejected God in particular and rejected whatever “Christianity” means to them at a very early age.
The result of 2) is that 3) they allowed their knowledge of the Bible, theology, Christianity, etc. to remain stagnant at a child’s level. This child-level understanding undergirds their claim to knowledge, thus we hear familiar rebuttals: “I was raised Christian,” “I went to Sunday School,” “I was an altar boy,” etc.Thus, I have found it all too common that Atheists argue not against the actual contents of the Bible, the actual character of God, the actual doctrines of Christianity but they argue against watered-down straw-men which are childish versions of the genuine. Thus, in the end, they actually succeed in arguing against their very own caricatures.It is also common to find the New Atheists correlating belief in the God of the Bible to belief in “a sky daddy,” “an imaginary friend,” “fairies,” “super friends,” “magic powers” and even “Invisible Pink Unicorns,” “Flying Spaghetti Monsters.” As Sam Harris puts it:

…beliefs about God…are the same as beliefs about numbers, penguins, tofu, or anything else.5

Yet, these are perfectly legitimate correlations in their minds not only because they are generally functioning on a child’s Sunday School level but also because they disregard natural theology.6
The New Atheists also attempt to rewrite history as a tale of Atheistic benevolence and religious malevolence. This is expressed by perpetuating the myths of warfare between “science and religion,” declaring that America’s founders were Deists (at best), claiming there is no relation between Atheism and Communism, etc. (Galileo, Copernicus, myth of a flat earth, Communism).Ultimately, the New Atheism is nothing new but a mere plagiarism of 19th century secular-anti-Judeo-Christian philosophies.

Let us note three further aspects of the New Atheists: 1) their desire to establish an atheist religion, 2) their promotion of atheism as being more holy and more moral than Christianity and 3) their condemnation of “child abuse” (as they redefine it) which subsequently will be discussed in part 3.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Miscellaneous Examples:
In the essay Scientific Cenobites I provide many, many quotes such as the following regarding wishful speculations, storytelling, narratives, myths, ethos, and philosophizing in the name of, in the guise of, science.

Franklin M. Harold, emeritus professor of biochemistry at Colorado State University, wrote:

“^{We should reject as a matter of principle the substitution of Intelligent Design for the dialog of chance and necessity}…but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”1

Roger Lewin referencing John Durant, Oxford University:

“‘Could it be that, like ‘primitive’ myths, theories of human evolution reinforce the value-system of their creators by reflecting historically their image of themselves and of the society in which they live?’…‘Time and again,’ observes Durant, ‘ideas about human origins turn out on closer examination to tell us as much about the present as about the past, as much about our own experiences as about those of our remote ancestors’….These peaceable theories of human origins, like the best-in-man idea, become ‘a mirror which reflected back only those aspects of human experience which its authors wanted to see….This is precisely what we would expect of a scientific myth.’”2

Glynn Isaac wrote:

“If any of the rest of the scientific community is inclined to snigger at the embarrassment of paleoanthropologists over all this [the identification of theory as narrative], pause and reflect. I bet that the same basic findings would apply to the origin of mammals, or of flowering plants, or of life…or even the big bang and the cosmos.”3

David Pilbeam wrote:

“‘^{A major change is a growing realization that many evolutionary schemes are in fact dominated by theoretical assumptions that are largely divorced from data derived from fossils}, and that many assumptions have remained implicit.’ Nevertheless, argument disguised—probably unconsciously—as objective description is still to be found in the literature.”4

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall wrote:

“science is storytelling, albeit of a very special kind.”5

Richard Lewontin,

“does acknowledge that scientists inescapably rely on ‘rhetorical’ proofs (authority, tradition) for most of what they care about; they depend on theoretical assumptions unprovable by hard science, and their promises are often absurdly overblown.”6

Lewontin has written:

“Only the most simple-minded and philosophically naive scientist, of whom there are many, thinks that science is characterized entirely by hard inference and mathematical proofs based on indisputable data.”7

John Horgan, writing in Scientific American, makes an some interesting points about the artificiality of science as opposed to what actually occurs in nature:

“But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones…no one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of how phosphorous, which is a relatively rare substance in nature, became such a crucial ingredient in RNA (and DNA). Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, and RNA specialist. ‘It is an inept molecule’…

Rebek’s experiments [on synthetic organic molecules] have two drawbacks, according to Joyce: ^{they only replicate in highly artificial, unnatural conditions, and, even more important, they reproduce too accurately. Without mutation, the molecules cannot evolve in the Darwinian sense}. Orgel agrees. ‘What Rebek has done is very clever,’ he says, ‘but I don’t see its relevance to the origin of life.”8

Writing in the journal Nature, G.H. Curtis, Drake, T. Cerling & Hampel make the following statement in reference to the spread of dates yielded in attempts to date the KBS Tuff:

“Furthermore, the interpretation of the 40Ar/39Ar isochrons that yield multiple apparent ages from a single phase, such as Fitch and Miller have obtained on KBS sanidines, is uncertain. Their interpretations rely on oversimplified and unproved models of the diffusion of argon in solids, both in nature and in the laboratory procedure necessary to make an age determination. For this reason we feel that their results, even when they are reproducible to high precision, may be an artifact of experiential procedure, and thus not geologically meaningful.”9

Is it any wonder that Richard Lewontin (Harvard University Professor of zoology and biology) wrote?:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that ^{we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations}, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.”10

Is it also any wonder what happens when the scientific method concludes something which goes against one’s preferred theory? Well, “Skeptic of the Year” and evolutionary paleontologist Dr. Paul Willis besmirches experimentation that produces results that he did not like as he referred to “Simply going to laboratory setting, in a contrived laboratory setting.” To this his debate opponent, creationist Dr. Carl Wieland, responded:

“It’s valid in science, this is the best you can come to as far as experimental evidence is concerned. Surely, people should be commended for trying to emulate in a laboratory these sorts of things.”11

An Atheist New World Order – A One World Atheist ReligionFollowing on the steps of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778, who conceived of a civil religion) and Auguste Comte (1798-1857, who conceived of a religion of humanity), the New Atheists tear down Christianity and seek to build their church in the rubble.Daniel Dennett stated:

…there could be a rational religion.1

Sam Harris elucidates:

There would be a religion of reason…We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bull****… At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embar­rassing to believe in God.2 [expletive censored]

Dan Barker (of the Freedom From Religion Foundation) de­clared:

Darwin has bequeathed what is good….abortion is a blessing.3

Dan Barker also stated:

Atheism and Freethought and true humanistic moral­ity are, are so much more clear, so much more useful, so much more reasonable…Atheists and agnostics are more accountable they are more moral…true human­istic morality which is much superior to Christian mo­rality.4

Michael Martin (atheist philosopher and professor emeritus at Boston University) stated:

I’m nicer than God…Atheism is so special. So life affirming. So, so superior morally to the Christian sys­tem. So more respectful of human dignity and, and hu­man intelligence.5

Michael Shermer stated that his study of evolution was:

…far more enlightening and transcendent, spiritual, than anything I had experienced in seven years of be­ing a born-again Christian.6

Michael Shermer also made reference to, “the spiritual side of sci­ence” which he referred to “sciensuality.”7Richard Dawkins stated:

…you and I probably do have…feelings that may very well be akin to a kind of mystical wonder when we contemplate the stars, when we contemplate the galaxies, when we contemplate life, the sheer expanse of geological time. I experience, and I expect you ex­perience, internal feelings which sound pretty much like um, what mystics feel, and they call it God….con­templating mitochondria is actually much grander than anything that you will get by contemplating the tradi­tional objects of religious mysticism.8

Richard Dawkins also stated:

…science does have some of religion’s virtues…almost worship…beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics…far outclasses any of the…world’s re­legions…The universe at large couldn’t possibly be anything other than indifferent to Christ, his birth, his passion, and his death.9

These attempts to co-opt science for the purposes of filling the God shaped hole in every human heart are fulfillments of Romans 1:18-23, 25:

…men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eter­nal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Profess­ing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corrupt­ible man…who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Fuller quotes are provided in History of Atheism.By the term “child abuse,” the New Atheists refer to teaching your children your faith. They consider this worse than physical abuse. They not only condemn this but seek to dictate childrear­ing.Daniel Dennett wrote:

…many declare, there is the sacred and inviolable right of life…On the other hand, many of the same people declare that, once born, the child loses its right not to be indoctrinated or brainwashed or otherwise psychologically abused by those parents.10

Richard Dawkins stated:

It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in?11

Richard Dawkins also stated:

A phrase like “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” should clang furious bells of protest in the mind…Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Mus­lim child? Shudder.

The ultimate goal (besides “society stepping in” shud­der) is that this, “might lead children to choose no religion at all.”12The New Atheists seem to overlook the fact that children sometimes are referred to in such a way due to cultural and/or social consid­erations and not theological. For instance, Judaism has a Bar/Bat Mitzvah when a child becomes a willing/thinking adult and decides to make a commitment to the faith. Likewise, various forms of Christianity have confirmation, etc.

Next we will consider whether the new atheist movement is dead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Have you heard the saying, “If it’s true, it’s not new; and if it’s new, it’s not true?” Well, the “New Atheists” fit the bill-they are not new, and they are not representing what is true.

Part 1: Who Are The New Atheists? and What Are Their Claims?
Part 2: What Is Their Appeal? and What Is The New Atheist Movement? Part 3: An Atheist New World Order – A One World Atheist Religion

Part 4: Is The New Atheist Movement Dead? and Let Us Heed Their Words

“New Atheists” is a pop-culture and media term for a group generally represented by four celebrity Atheists: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. While there are many popular Atheists, these four are the leaders of the New Atheist movement. A videotaped conversation that took place between the four is sold under the title: The Four Horsemen (reviewed here).
But who are they? What are their claims? What is their appeal? What is the New Atheist movement? These are some of the questions that we will consider in this parsed essay.

Who Are The New Atheists?For our purposes, let us note the following succinct biographical information:

Richard Dawkins

The recently retired Charles Simonyi, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, a chair held at Oxford University. He is a biologist and zoologist by training and has been praised for his ability to elucidate biological functions.
His books include: The Selfish Gene (1976); The Blind Watchmaker (1986); Unweaving the Rainbow (1998); A Devil’s Chaplain (2003); and The God Delusion (2006).It is important to keep in mind that even whilst elucidating biology, Richard Dawkins is presenting observations of the natural world mixed with his particular Atheistic worldview.

Richard Dawkins claims it is almost certain (99% to be exact) that there is no God. Although, when Ben Stein asked him, “How do you know?” he admitted he had no reason for the quantification and he was since then stated, “God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”1

Having been raised an Anglican, he experienced doubts upon learning of the various religions at the age of nine. At 16, he was taught the Darwinian theory of evolution and believed it could do the job of explaining life, and thus, warding off God into the realm of delusion.

Daniel Dennett
The University Professor, Austin B. Fletcher, Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

His books include: Consciousness Explained (1991); Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995); Freedom Evolves (2003); and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (2006).
As with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett’s craft, philosophy, is biased towards Atheism.
Sam Harris
Graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and is studying towards a doctorate in neuroscience.
His books are: The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason (2004); and Letter to a Christian Nation (2006).
Sam Harris spent many years traveling the globe in search of spiritual experiences which included the consumption of various hallucinogenic drugs. He does not like the term “Atheist,” because we do not have terms such as “non-astrologer.”2 He has stated that he had a “very secular upbringing.”3
Christopher Hitchens
Author, journalist, literary critic and political observer. He received his education at The Leys School, Cambridge and Balliol College, Oxford receiving a third-class degree. He is praised for his literary output and style.
His books include: Karl Marx and the Paris Commune (1971); The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (1995); No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton (1999); Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001); and God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007).Christopher Hitchens wrote:

My parents did not try to impose religion: I was probably fortunate in having a father who had not especially loved his strict Baptist/Calvinist up-bringing, and a mother who preferred assimilation-partly for my sake-to the Judaism of her forebears.4

He refers to himself as an “anti-theist.” This denotes God in the hands of an angry sinner.
What Are Their Claims?With regard to their claims, we must note that while they are individuals, they do have much in common.We must begin by considering what Atheism is and to what are atheist beliefs? “Atheism” is a word derived from two Greek terms “a” and “theos.” A word derives its meaning from its roots, its contemporary usage and the context in which it is found. Thus, “Atheism” is defined as lack of God belief, negation of God, no God, etc.

The New Atheists prefer the “lack of God belief” interpretation (a definition which evilbible.com refers to as a preferred by a “few morons” who are “so damn stupid”; see History of Atheism). Note that “lack of God belief” or even “I don’t believe in God” are not statements about God’s existence; one can have a “lack of belief”-or not believe-in something that actually does exist.

According to their preferred definition, Atheism is not a belief, philosophy, worldview or anything, but rather, it is a lack of belief in God or, as they term it, a “lack of belief in god(s).” Moreover, Atheism is a broad term that can range from whether the individual Atheist actually believes God does not exist (which is generally known as strong, positive, explicit or critical Atheism) to merely claiming to lack belief in God (which is generally known as weak, negative or implicit Atheism). Noteworthy may be that even the website positiveatheism.com defines atheist weakly (positiveatheism.com’s Cliff Walker has been considered here).
Furthermore, Atheists refer to themselves by various terms such as anti-theist, non-theist, and they have other terms which denote their particular emphasis or social-like, activist, cultural group such as naturalist, materialist, rationalist, skeptic, Bright, Freethinker, Humanist, etc.
The New Atheists adhere to a sect of Atheism that does not positively assert God’s non-existence-that is to say, they would not claim to know that God does not exist. They are, in reality, Agnostics: this is another Greek-based “a” word, one followed by “gnosis” meaning lack of knowledge or no knowledge, from which we get the term, as it came to us from Latin, “ignorant.”The New Atheist’s book titles reveal quite a bit: God is not great since God is a delusory, naturally occurring phenomenon whose adherents poison everything by engaging in malevolence. God is viewed as a psychological reaction to ignorance and superstition spiked with fear of the unknown.

The New Atheists also assert that people invent the idea of God as a protective father figure. In light of this, it is interesting to note that Professor Emeritus of Psychology Paul Vitz (New York University) has studied the life of various prominent Atheists and turns the table by pointing out that their rebellion against God stemmed from their rebellion against their abusive, absentee, or aloof fathers.5

The New Atheists claim that scientific advancements and reason have done away with the need to believe in the supernatural; and that religion is growing ever-more dangerous as fanatics can obtain powerful weapons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

General Comments:
The books that are accepted in the Roman Catholic Bible, as opposed to, generally speaking, the Jewish or the Protestant, are: Baruch, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes), Tobit a.k.a. Tobias, Wisdom of Solomon, as well as small additions to Daniel and Esther. Roman Catholicism generally refers to these as deuterocanonical (secondary canon) rather than apocryphal.

Jewish author David Gross explains:

^{What is the Apocrypha? Popular works of the time that were excluded by the Rabbis because they felt that they contained an excess of non-Jewish influence}. Among the works found in the Apocrypha are the two volume Books of the Maccabees, which recount the Hanukkah story.
The rabbis, it is explained, opposed their inclusion in the Bible because they glorified war and the descendants of the Hasmoneans, who after their glorious cleansing of the Temple set out on a path of conquest and succumbed to non-Jewish influence. 1

The Encyclopedia Judaica 3:181-186 states:

Apart from Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Ben Sira), there are no references to these books in talmudic literature…The Talmud includes both Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha under the name Sefarim Hizonim (‘extraneous books’)….according to talmudic tradition (BB 14b) the canon was already fixed at the end of the Persian period. This tradition is clearly repeated by Josephus (Apion, 1:40-41): ‘From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes…the prophets wrote the events of their time. From Artaxerxes to our own time [i.e., the first century C.E.] the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.’ Indeed, as far as is known, apart from the final Hebrew chapters of the Book of Daniel…all the scriptural books antedate the Hellenistic period. Furthermore, from the prologue of Ben Sira’s grandson to his Greek translation of his grandfather’s work, it is clear that the Scriptures had already been translated into Greek in the first generation of the Hasmoneans and that by then the traditional division into three sections—Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa—was accepted. Although Sira’s grandson does indeed speak of ‘the other books,’ scholars failed to recognize this term as an alternate name for the Hagiographa. Philo too was acquainted with this division (Cont. 25) as was Luke (24:44) after him.

The testimony of Ben Sira’s grandson, and that , in particular, of Philo and Josephus (who mentions a fixed number of 22 books, Apion 1:38), who used the Septuagint, shows (1) That the Greek-reading Jews knew no division of the Bible, and (2) that the canon of that time is identical with the present canon. Philo also draws a clear distinction between the Holy Scriptures and the books written by the Therapeutae and peculiar to them. It follows that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were always Sefarim Hizonim, i.e., extraneous to the accepted books (βιβλία), i.e., the Scriptures. It should be added that the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls wrote a Pesher (‘interpretation’) only on the works comprised in the known canon….the Apocrypha deal mainly with the struggle against idolatry, believing prophecy to have come to an end (cf. Judith 11:17)…

Jerome, who explicitly differentiates between the Holy Scriptures—those in the Hebrew

canon—and Apocrypha, translated both…From the first century to the sixth, Hebrew literature (Talmudic and midrashic) developed as if the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha did not exist…Only in the Middle Ages did the revival of the apocrypha and pseudepigraphical literature begin within the body of Hebrew literature.

As noted in the above cited quote Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote about the cannon of the Jewish Scriptures and stated that they “are justly believed to be divine” he then refers to the chronology of their writings in stating that the “interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times.”

He then states “It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.”

Artaxerxes reigned from circa 464-424 BC which means that ^{according to Josephus when all of the apocrypha was written they were historical books without then same authority of the Scripture and at a time when for all practical purposes there were no prophets}.

It is also important to note that in the 9th century AD at the Jewish, so called, Council of Jamnia the cannon of the Jewish Bible was reiterated and it is exactly the same as the Protestant Bible. It is important to understand that this council is not to be likened to, for instance, a Roman Catholic council whose decisions are binding upon all Roman Catholics. “The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.”2
If the apocrypha was accepted by Judaism before the time of Christ and by the church in its early years why did the Roman Catholic Church not officially canonized it until the 16th century? Why do we not find these books in modern day Jewish Bibles?

Judaism treats these books as we would treat a commentary on the Bible. They are viewed as useful but not inspired, or simply as a book that records history. For example the story of Hanukkah comes from the apocrypha and is accepted as a historical document but nothing else. Claiming that the apocrypha is Scripture because it is found in some versions of the Septuagint-LXX is tantamount to claiming that the footnotes, maps and charts in our modern day Bibles are inspired.
Consider that in the New Testament Paul quotes from Greek philosophers but that in no way declares divine approval of Greek philosophy (see Acts 17:28). Also, note that Jude quotes one verse from The Book of Enoch but yet again there is no reason to think that the entire text of Enoch is to be considered as divinely inspired (see Jude 14-15).

In 170 AD, Melito, the bishop of Sardis, made a list of the books of the Old Testament and while he does not mention Esther, he also makes no mention of any of the apocryphal books. 3

F.F. Bruce notes,

ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus excluded the Apocrypha. And Philo, a Jewish teacher who lived in the first century, quoted from virtually every Old Testament canonical book, but never once quoted from the Apocrypha. 4

“Professor G.T. Manley notes: ‘[These books] do not appear to have been included at first in the LXX [3rd/2nd centuries B.C.], but they found their way gradually into later copies, being inserted in places that seemed appropriate…’” 5

“^{The apocryphal books are not in those most ancient works which allude to the Old Testament Scriptures}. For example:
(a) Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (20 B.C. – A.D. 50), wrote prolifically and frequently quoted the Old Testament, yet he never cited the Apocrypha, nor did he even mention these documents.
(b) Josephus (A.D. 37-95) rejected them. He wrote: ‘We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine…’ By combining several Old Testament narratives into a ‘book,’ the thirty-nine of our current editions become the twenty-two alluded to by Josephus.
(c) The most ancient list of Old Testament books is that which was made by Melito of Sardis (cf. A.D. 170); none of the apocryphal books is included.
(d) In the early 3rd century A.D., neither Origin nor his contemporary, Tertullian, recognized the books of the Apocrypha as being canonical.
(e) Though some of the apocryphal books were being used in the church services by the 5th century A.D., they were read only by those who held inferior offices in the church.” 6

Referring to Rabbi Shlomo (or Solomon) ben Yitzhaki (or Isaac) aka simply as Rashi, “He wrote commentaries upon the Bible almost in its entirety, besides frequently referring to it in his Talmudic commentaries…He was entirely ignorant of the Apocryphal books.” 7

Regarding the Jewish Cannon The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states:

Only those books were admitted which were held to have been written before the time of Ezra when, according to tradition, the Holy Spirit ceased in Israel…Another probably term for apocrypha is sefarim hitzonim, ‘books outside (of the cannon),’ which, according to Sanh. 10:1, were not to be read aloud in the synagogue as a Scriptural portion, under penalty of loss of one’s share in the world to come…On the whole, the books of the Apocrypha do not reach the high spiritual level of the Bible, although they contain some important Jewish conceptions. 8

The Book of Jewish Knowledge states:

…the latter-day editors of the Biblical cannon, which was fixed with finality by Rabbinical Synod in Galilee as taking place twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 C.E….early in the second century C.E., the illustrious Tanna (Sage) of the Mishnah, Akiba ben Joseph, who was one of the chief architects of the Oral Tradition, had declared with unconcealed scorn that the Jew who read any other than the twenty-four canonical writings included in the Bible would have no share in the bliss of the righteous World-to-Come. It was also strictly forbidden to read from the extra-Biblical writings in the synagogue or House of Study to avoid endowing then through such readings with the same sanctity and prestige that were reserved for the canonical writings….
Certainly, from about 200 B.C.E. to the end of the first century of the Common Era, religious writings, which were keyed to the lofty mood and sonorous rhetoric of similarly patterned works in the Hebrew Scriptures…Some books were suppressed, according to testimony in the Talmud, because they were written by such religiously ‘outlawed’ sectaries (minim) as the Samaritans, Gnostics, and Christians. (They had been branded by the Rabbinical Sages as heretical). 9

The Encyclopedia of Judaism defines “apocrypha” as follows:

Collections of Jewish writings that date from the Second Temple period and shortly thereafter, which were not included in the Jewish Bible canon…^{The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were rejected by the sages, and are referred to in the Talmud as the Sefarim Hitsonim (‘external books’)} …
The apocryphal books were not accepted by the rabbis…The one exception is Ben Sira, which is quoted in the Talmud. It appears that the sages were mainly averse to apocalyptic literature, as may be seen from their warnings against reading ‘external books’ or searching for hidden meanings (Sanh. 10:1). 10

The Jewish Religion—A Companion Book defines “apocrypha” as follows:

The books produced by Jewish writers during the period of the Second Temple but not included in the Bible as part of sacred Scripture, as they are in Catholicism but not in the Protestant Church. The statement in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:1) that one who reads ‘external books’ has no share in the World to Come probably refers to the books of the Apocrypha and ‘reading’ means reading them in public as a liturgical act, which might make them appear to enjoy the status of the biblical books…
None of these books is quoted in the Talmud or the Midrash with the exception of Ben Sira, from which there are occasional quotations with approval…the Apocrypha, were unknown in Jewish literature until the Renaissance period…these works are largely ignored entirely by Jews today…they were excluded from the Bible. 11

The Dictionary of Judaism states that the apocryphal books:

…were included in major manuscripts of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, but excluded from the rabbinic cannon…There is some indication that the Apocrypha continued to circulate in Jewish circles even after they had been excluded from the rabbinic canon… The development of the Apocrypha as a collection was the work of Jerome, the fourth-century Christian translator, exegete, and theologian, who included them in his new Latin translation (the Vulgate), but gathered them separately at the end, emphasizing that the Jewish community did not consider them canonical…

Thanks to the renewed study of Judaism in the past decades, the Apocrypha are regularly included in editions of the Bible, where they provide a valuable resource for the study of early Christianity and its Jewish context.” 12

F.F. Bruce states that there “is no evidence that these books were ever regarded as canonical by any Jews, whether inside or outside Palestine, whether they read the Bible in Hebrew or in Greek.” 13

Professor William Green notes, “The books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes.” 14

“The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon. The OT canon which they proclaimed is still found in Catholic Bibles today. The controversy continued but in 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon. In response to the Protestants, the Council of Trent definitively upheld the larger OT canon.” 15

“^{Tobit contains certain historical and geographical errors} such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares….Judith cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains….[in 2nd Maccabees] there are also numerous disagreements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion.” 16

A Roman Catholic organization called A Catholic Response has stated:

Some Christians attempt to discredit these Books by pointing out apparent historical errors contained in them. It is common knowledge among scholars that Tobit and Judith contain obvious historical inaccuracies; however, these Books are recognized as didactic17 parables, like Jonah. It is also common knowledge among scholars that Daniel suffers from similar glaring historical inaccuracies, e.g. Daniel 1:1.” 18

Notice that in zealousness to lend credibility to the apocrypha the writer of the above quoted statement discredits the accepted canon. This quote comes from an article that was approved as Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur which means that a Roman Catholic-Vatican approved censor has approved the work as containing nothing that will hinder or go against the Roman Catholic faith. It is inconceivable how it does not hinder the Roman Catholic faith to believe that the Bible contains glaring historical inaccuracies.

A Catholic Response also stated, “The Catholic OT Canon (also the numbering of the Psalms) came from the ancient Greek Septuagint Bible. Protestants, following the tradition of the Pharisaic Jews, accept the shorter Hebrew Canon, even though the Jews also reject the NT Books.” 19

The point here is that Protestants were foolish to follow the Old Testament cannon as dictated by Pharasaic Jews because after all they rejected the New Testament books. The problem for the above argument is that it was Jews who translated the Greek Septuagint and so the point is null and void.

Specific Examples:
The Torah (five books of Moses) is quoted in Joshua 1:7; 1st Kings 2:3; 2nd Kings 14:6; 2nd Chronicles 17:9; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Jeremiah 8:8; Malachi 4:4; as well as various New Testament texts.

The latter prophets are quoted in Jeremiah 26:18; Ezekiel 14:14, 20; Daniel 9:2; Jonah 2:2-9; Micah 4:1-3. Luke is quoted in 1st Timothy 5:18 (compare with Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Paul is quoted in 2nd Peter 3:15-16. Peter is quoted in Jude 4-12.

Judith:
A Roman Catholic author has written:

^{The Book of Judith does not exist in the Hebrew Bible}…St. Jerome, while rejecting in theory those books which he did not find in his Hebrew manuscript, yet consented to translate Judith because ‘the Synod of Nicaea is said to have accounted it as Sacred Scripture’ (Praef. in Lib.).
It is true that no such declaration is to be found in the Canons of Nicaea, and it is uncertain whether St. Jerome is referring to the use made of the book in the discussions of the council, or whether he was misled by some spurious canons attributed to that council, but it is certain that the Fathers of the earliest times have reckoned Judith among the canonical books.” 20

Judith 1:1, 7 states that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyrians in Nineveh when, in fact, he was the king of Babylon.

Tobit / Tobias:
A Roman Catholic author wrote:

Certain historical difficulties are due to the very imperfect condition in which the text has reached us. (i) It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (IV Kings, xv, 29) into captivity (734 B.C.), and not, as Tobias says (i, 2), Salmanasar…Sennacherib is said to have been the son of Salmanasar (i, 18), whereas he was the son of the usurper Sargon…(iii) In B, xiv, 15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asoueros) and Nabuchodonosor. This is a mistake of the scribe…(iv) Rages is a Seleucid town and hence an anachronism. Not at all; it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored.” 21

Salvation by alms:

Tobit 12:8-9, “It is better to give alms than to store up gold. For almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin.”

Magic: Tobit 6:7-8, 19, “Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? And the angel, answering, said to him:

If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kinds of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them…lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away.”

The text is referring to a piece of the heart of a “monstrous fish” v. 2.

Sirach / Ecclesiasticus:

In defense of the apocrypha one Roman Catholic author wrote, “it would be obviously unfair to require that the contents of this Sapiential book should come full up to the high moral standards of Christian ethics, or should equal in clearness and precision the dogmatic teachings embodied in the sacred writings of the New Testament…it shall set forth substantially good, not perfect, doctrinal and ethical teaching…
The following are the principal dogmatic doctrines of Jesus, the son of Sirach…almsgiving is a means to obtain forgiveness of sin (iii, 33, 34; vii, 10, 36)…favourable sayings about the dead (vii, 37; xxxviii, 16-24).” 22

The Roman Catholic Bible Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate; Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:33, “From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die.”

^{The Roman Catholic Bible The New American Bible; Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 25:23, “In a woman was sin’s beginning, and because of her we all die.”}

Works and alms equal forgiveness:
3:3 “Respect for a father atones for sins.”

3:30 “almsgiving atones for sin.”

17:18 “The alms of a man is as a signet with him, and shall preserve the grave of a man as the apple of the eye.”

20:28> “He that tilleth his land shall increase his heap: and he that pleaseth great men shall get pardon for iniquity.”

35:2 “to give alms is a praise-offering.”

Cruelty to slaves:
33:26,28 “The ox is tamed by yoke and harness, the bad servant by racks and tortures…and if he disobeys you, load him with fetters.”

Hatred of sinners:
12:4-7, “Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinner: God will repay vengeance to the ungodly and to sinners, and keep them against the day of vengeance. Give to the good, and receive not a sinner. Do good to the humble, and give not to the ungodly: hold back thy bread, and give it not to him, lest thereby he overmaster thee.
For thou shalt receive twice as much evil for all the good thou shalt have done to him: for the Highest also hateth sinners, and will repay vengeance to the ungodly.”

First and Second Maccabees:
Admits lack of prophets:
1st Maccabees 4:46, “And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them. “

1st Maccabees 9:27, “Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.”

1st Maccabees 14:41, “The Jewish people and their priest have, therefore, made the following decisions. Simon shall be their permanent leader and high priest until a true prophet arises.”

Prayers for the dead and alms giving for the forgiveness of the dead:
2nd Maccabees 12:38-46,

Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the week was ending, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his men went to gather up the bodies of the slain and bury them with their kinsmen in their ancestral tombs. But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jew to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.
They all therefore praised the ways of the LORD, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deeds might be blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among the soldiers, amounting to 2000 silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice.
In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to raise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who have gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Wisdom of Solomon:

A Roman Catholic author admits that the book contains “Christian interpolations (ii, 24; iii, 13; iv, 1; xiv, 7).” Also attempts to explain away two difficulties. One which states that the world was “created out of ‘formless matter’ [xi, 18 (17)], a Platonic expression which in no way affirms the eternity of matter, but points back to the chaotic condition described in Gen., i, 2…to justify their rejection of the Book of Wisdom from the Canon, many Protestants have claimed that in viii, 19-20, its author admits the error of the pre-existence of the human soul. But this incriminated passage, when viewed in the light of its context, yields a perfectly orthodox sense.” 23

Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 (or, 18, depending on the edition);
Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate v. 18, “For not without means was your almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter.”

The New American Bible v. 17, “For not without means was your almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter.”

Sinless birth and the pre-existence of the soul (since this person claims to have been good or noble and afterwards to have come into or received a body): Wisdom of Solomon 8.19-20,

Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate, “I was a witty child, and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came into a body undefiled.”

The New American Bible, “Now, I was a well-favored child, and I came by a noble nature; or rather, being noble, I attained an unsullied body.”

Baruch:
A Roman Catholic writes states, “In the Catholic Bible ‘the Prophecy of Baruch’ is made up of six chapters, the last of which bears the special title of an ‘epistle of Jeremiah’, and does not belong to the book proper.” 24

Baruch 3:4,
Douay Version-translated for the Latin Vulgate, “O Lord Almighty, thou God of Israel, hear now the prayers of the dead of Israel, and of their children.”

The Modern Roman Catholic New American Bible has radically changed this verse to read, “Lord Almighty, God of Israel, hear the prayer of Israel’s few, the sons of those who sinned against you.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Professor of biology, Richard Dawkins,

“Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists.”1

Physicist, and former Chairman of the Department of Materials Science at Stanford, Richard Bube,

“There are proportionately as many atheistic truck drivers as there are atheistic scientists.”2

In his book The God Delusion Prof. Richard Dawkins approvingly quotes Irish playwright and poet Sean O’Casey’s statement, “Politics has slain its thousands, but religion has slain its tens of thousands.”3 I have thus far not been able to determine when O’Casey made that statement. O’Casey, a supporter of the Soviet Union, lived 1880-1964 and appeared to have an extremely loose definition of precisely what Communism is since he defined a Communist as “anyone who tries to help humanity.” Then again O’Casey is said to have been “more concerned with poetry than logic; more with shoulder-heaving laughter than with back-bending research.” We can only assume that living until 1964 offered plenty of opportunity to witness that religion has slain its tens of thousands, but political atheism has slain its tens of millions.

It is interesting to note that Prof. Richard Dawkins states that he chooses to besmirch Christianity and the Bible in particular and at length since those subjects are known to him. Prof. Richard Dawkins was brought up in the Anglican Church and abandoned it around the age of 16 after realizing that, as we discuss at length in our essay The Gap Filler, Darwinism was big enough to do the job. This, mind you, was not because at that tender age he read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life but “because I was taught”-like so much scripture book, chapter and verse. In studying biology Prof. Richard Dawkins looks through a microscope and infers atheism-what a tragic misapplication of science. This makes us recall statements by William Lane Craig who notes just how many atheists abandoned their “religion” (whatever that means) as children and maintain a childlike conceptualization of that which they abandoned. When asked is there was ever a time that he believed in God Prof. Richard Dawkins responded, “As a child I did.”4 This is quite evident in the athesits activists references to the Bible as “a magic book” or “fairy-tales,” Jesus’ miracles as “magical powers,” and God as an “imaginary friend,” or “sky daddy.” No doubt that this tickles those whom already agree with them but to the rest of us it is all too reminicent of playground bullying and role playing with superheros. What next, will they triple-dog-dare theists to debate?

If, when speaking on Christianity and the Bible Prof. Richard Dawkins is speaking on those religious subjects with which he is well aquainted one can only wonder what his statements would be if he spoke outside of his scope of knowledge. We should mention that there is something to be said about reserving our strongest of opinions for subjects with which we are well versed. However, this can also become as excuse for lazy, if not complete lack of, scholarship. On p. 254 of The God Delusion Prof. Richard Dawkins provides an asterisk at the end of a paragraph which leads to the following statement “You may not know the meaning of ‘tribulation saints’ in this sentence. Don’t bother: you have better things to do.” This should be read as “The less you know about what I’m criticizing the easier it is for me to lead you around.” Prof. Richard Dawkins wastes a lot of time, not to mention ink and trees in the form of paper, arguing against caricatures of religion, Christianity and the Bible. We do not state this because he has obviously not read all relgioius literature that mankind has produced nor because he has not read some of the basic classics in the field. Interestingly, there are various people who are willing to come to the defense of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ ignorance. The point is not that Prof. Richard Dawkins is somehow required to know something but that he should be well versed in that which he is criticizing. His defenders not only excuse his ignorance but furthermore actually encourage ignorance. One such example is Edmund Standing who is supposed to be an educator who holds a BA in Theology and Religious Studies and an MA in Critical and Cultural Theory:

“Must Dawkins and others undertake an arduous trawling through centuries of theological waffle in order to reject religious belief? Absolutely not…Theologians can continue to write endless books and articles using dense and ‘learned’ tones, but there really is no need for atheists to read them as they all boil down to the same ultimate beliefs, beliefs that atheists, quite rightly in my view, reject on the basis that they do not have intellectual or moral credibility.”5

Consider the following example which serves to demonstrate that Prof. Richard Dawkins not only lacks knowledge of religious minutia, something for which we do not criticize him, but lacks basic information. Prof. Richard Dawkins wrote, “three ‘great’ monotheistic religions (four if you count Mormonism).”6 Many would find this statement odd. The three religions being Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Some would categorize Mormonism as a Christian denomination which would not necessitate referring to them as a fourth religion. Others would categorize Mormonism as a pseudo-Christian group in which case they may be said to be their own religion and hence a fourth. Yet, and this is our point in referring to Prof. Richard Dawkins’ lack of basic information: Mormonism is not monotheistic, they are polytheistic or, more precisely, henotheistic (two essays on this topic are found here and here). Therefore, even if there are counted as an independent religion, they aught not be counted as a monotheistic religion.

Prof. Richard Dawkins has already defended himself against the charges of lazy scholarship. In fact, The God Delusion is virtually a very large bibliography and anytime that Prof. Richard Dawkins is speaking of that which he claims to know well he is actually citing the writings of other who not only selectively quote the Bible but tell Prof. Richard Dawkins what to think about it. Below we provide the specific example of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ adoration of one such infallible interpreter-the anesthesiologist Prof. John Hartung. Prof. Richard Dawkins makes it clear that he is relying upon “Hartung’s interpretation of the Bible” (let us keep in mind that all interpretations are not created equal and hermeneutical techniques in general). We dare state that perhaps, like Mr. O’Casey, Prof. Richard Dawkins appears to be more concerned with poetry than logic; more with shoulder-heaving laughter than with back-bending research. Or perhaps more concerned with voluptuous besmirchments than logic; more with shoulder-heaving cynicism, pessimism and attacking straw men than with back-bending research. In fact, and upon further research, Prof. Richard Dawkins may have discovered that Mr. O’Casey referred to atheists as “those who, trying to get rid of God, plant Him more firmly on His throne.”7

Before embarking upon a survey of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ various example of the Bible’s immorality please keep in mind constantly that he ends up justifying them. No, we do not mean that he ends up justifying his criticisms. He justifies the very actions that he attempts to discredit as immoral-as we shall see below, after the conclusion of our survey.

Prof. Richard Dawkins was kind enough to saturate a certain portion of his book with un-contextual, misinterpretations and misapplications of the Bible:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”8

This coming from the man who thinks that Prof. Hartung is too blunt. Setting aside Prof. Richard Dawkins’ vociferous cacophony of condescension any true believer will mourn for him. This is because if Prof. Richard Dawkins really feels this way about God why would God force him to spend eternity in heaven with Him? Considering Prof. Richard Dawkins’ lazy scholarship we presume to assume that most, if not all, of these besmirchments are based on his misunderstandings and lack of basic discernment.

Prof. Richard Dawkins is perplexed as to how we go about reading and understanding the Bible. For example, he asks “By what criterion do you decide which passages are symbolic, which literal?”9 When we read a text with the purpose of understanding it rather than in order to a priori discredit it this is not a very difficult task. It is nothing less than astonishing that on a daily basis we constantly deal with symbolic, parabolic, metaphoric, proverbial language both spoken and written without the slightest second thought. But when people such as Prof. Richard Dawkins begin to read the Bible all common sense, all basic discernment, all knowledge of linguistics, literary devises, modes of speech, etc. suddenly disappear and all that is left is cynical, pessimistic emotionalism.

Let us now get a taste of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ scholarly acumen as he makes his comments and refers to the above mentioned anesthesiologist’s article published in Skeptic magazine (Vol. 3, No. 4, 1995):

“Before leaving the Bible I need to call attention to one particularly unpalatable aspect of its ethical teaching. Christians seldom realise that much of the moral consideration for others which is apparently promoted by both the Old and New Testaments was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group. ‘Love thy neighbour’ didn’t mean what we now thing it means. It meant only ‘love another Jew’_all those commandments that make reference to ‘thy neighbour’ are equally exclusive. ‘Neighbour’ means ‘fellow Jew.'”10

Prof. Richard Dawkins does not cite the verse to which he is referring, which is convenient in that it makes it more difficult to check his citation especially for those unfamiliar with the Bible. Not referencing quotations is most certainly lazy scholarship; Prof. Hartung does provide them (for those who need them).The text in question is Leviticus 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

There you have it then, Prof. Hartung and Prof. Richard Dawkins are justified in their determination. After all the text does state, “the sons of your people”-Jews. Yet, if you do not have as much faith as Prof. Richard Dawkins, if you are a skeptic and you question everything you will not take Prof. Hartung’s and Prof. Richard Dawkins’ word for it but actually open up the Bible and read it for yourself.

In Acts 17:10-11 the Bereans are considered more noble, or fair minded, than the Thessalonians because they not only heard Paul’s teaching but checked the scripture every day to see if what he claimed was accurate. Butt we have just seen that the verse implies just what they infer. However, a careful researcher will not simply open the Bible read one verse and close it since that would mean making ginormous assumptions based on scant evidence. Nay, one aught to consider the context: historical, cultural, grammatical, etc. In this case one would keep reading the text/paragraph from which the verse was wrenched and would find that Leviticus 19:33-34 states, “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” A stranger is as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself.

The Old Testament provides further reason for being empathetic towards the “strangers”:

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21).”Also you shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the heart of a stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9).

The LORD “administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 10:18-19).

What of the Moabite Ruth? This gentile and woman is the center character in the book of the Old Testament that bares her name. Racism and male chauvinism?

Prof. Richard Dawkins also wrote:

“Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: ‘Jesus would have turned in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plans to the pigs.'”11

But what is this about Jesus turning in His grave (a sideswipe at Christianity’s core doctrine-the resurrection) because Paul took the gospel to “the pigs” the non-Jews? Jesus’ mission was initially aimed at His fellow Jews but even then gentiles were included in His ministering. Eventually, and long before Paul, Jesus augmented His missions so that it would specifically include gentiles. The Temple, the Jewish Temple, in which Jesus worshipped included a portion specifically dedicated for gentiles to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see John 10:23, Act 3:11, 5:12). The Old Testament is replete with references to God’s outreach to gentiles: one such example reads as follows,

“Even them I will bring to My holy mountain, And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices Will be accepted on My altar; For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56:7 which is quoted in Mark 11:17).
Jesus told the apostles to, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).

The New Testament succinctly summarizes the whole of Biblical teaching regarding Jews and gentiles-all nations:

“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring'” (Acts 17:26-28).

Thus, why would have Jesus been alarmed at the plans being taken to the gentiles? All that Prof. Hartung and Prof. Richard Dawkins needed to do is read the New Testament, even just the four gospels, and they would have been shamed at their own ignorance. Consider the following New Testament reference to the above cited Leviticus 19:18, what is asked about it, and how Jesus responds:

“And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?’ So he answered and said, ”You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,‘ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, ‘You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.’ But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ Then Jesus answered and said: ‘A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ ‘So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?’ And he said, ‘He who showed mercy on him.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise'” (see Luke 10:25-37).

The moral hero of the story is not the priest, nor the Levite but a Samaritan a despised gentile. The attitude of the day is succinctly expressed by a Samaritan woman who was astonished that Jesus, a Jew, would have anything to do with her. She stated, “Jews do not associate with Samaritans” (John 4:9).
She even asked whether the proper place to worship is Samaria or Jerusalem. Jesus, in His typical form, does not get roped into the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy whereby one is made to think that there are only two possible answers, in this case either one location or the other, but finds the third way:

“‘Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him'” (John 4:20-23).

But Prof. Richard Dawkins keeps on getting himself into trouble by his, apparently, blind faith in his infallible interpreter:

“Hartung draws attention to the two verses in Revelation where the number of those ‘sealed’ (which some sects, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret to mean ‘saved’) is limited to 144,000. Hartung’s point is that they all had to be Jews: 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes.”12

You should actually read “the two verses” as “the only two verses to which we choose to refer, forget context and please do not keep reading past the two verses.” But which two verses? Richard Dawkins does not bother citing them. You either take his word for it or conduct some research-how many of his adherents would do that? Revelation 7:4 states, “And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed.” Thus, there you have it. Unless you question everything and conduct your own research just as the Bereans are praised for doing. If you read all the way from verse 4 to verse 9-10 you will find the following statement:

“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'”

Many other examples could be presented, such as when Jesus went to Samaria and Galilee and healed ten leprous men only one of whom took the time to thank Jesus. It is specifically mentioned that this man was a Samaritan (see Luke 17:11-16). Yet, these suffice to demonstrate that, with all due respect to those more learned than myself, Prof. Hartung should stick anesthesia, Prof. Richard Dawkins should stick to biology (observation and not his speculations) and Skeptic magazine should be skeptical about itself. We have clear evidence that two individual atheists and an entire publishing organization are guilty of, at least, lazy scholarship.

Prof. Richard Dawkins further wrote:

“Jesus’ family values, it has to be admitted, were not such as one might wish to focus on. He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with his own mother, and he encouraged his disciples to abandon their families to follow him. ‘If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple,’ (Luke, 14:26, King James Bible). The American comedian Julia Sweeney expressed her bewilderment in her one-woman stage show, Letting Go of God: ‘Isn’t that what cults do? Get you to reject your family in order to inculcate you?'”13

It is interesting to note that Prof. Richard Dawkins quotes various comedians and various other entertainers. We can only speculate as to why he did it but it is an interesting tactic in that while it makes a point it is somewhat difficult to discredit their statements. This is because the moment you begin to counter argue you realize that they are a comedian and it was just a joke, but a serious joke, but it was funny, but it is polemical, but, but, but. Thus, the point is made and no one feels childish enough to respond. It is tantamount to finding yourself arguing with a clown-the clown has fun and you look foolish.

Jerry Seinfeld stated:

“I mean, ‘Bozo the Clown’?Does he really need ‘the clown’ in his title, as clown?Bozo, ‘the’ clown?Are we going to confuse him with Bozo the district attorney?Bozo the pope?

There’s no other Bozo.”

But let us get back to dissecting Prof. Richard Dawkins’ lazy scholarship and take it from the top (or rather from the bottom of the above quote) “Isn’t that what cults do?” Yes. But is that what Jesus, what the New Testament, is asking of us? No. Rather, that is what Prof. Richard Dawkins wants us to believe but since we are skeptical we will see if what he claims is true. Jesus’ statements are surely hyperbolic: as much as you love your father, mother, wife, children, brethren, sisters and, note this one, your own life they are to seem as hate in comparison to your love of Jesus. This is not simply a diminution of our love for our family but an exaltation of our love of Jesus. It is very easy to see the way that even those closest to Jesus understood His words. Before moving on let us ask how many apostles, disciple and good old fashioned Christians have gouged their own eyes out? How many chopped off their own hands and feet? Zero would be a fair guess. But Jesus taught “if your hand offends you, cut it off_if your foot offends you, cut it off_if your eye offends you, pluck it out” (Mark 9:43-47). Because they utilized basic common sense and discernment.In Matthew 20:20 the mother of two of the apostles, James and John, makes an appearance with them.In Mark 7:9-13 Jesus taught the following:

v”Do you do well to set aside the commandment of God, so that you may keep your own tradition? For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ And, ‘Whoever curses father or mother, let him die the death.’ But you say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, Corban! (that is, A gift to God, whatever you may profit by me) and you no longer allow him to do anything toward his father or mother, making the Word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have delivered. And you do many such things.”

Jesus speaks out against the traditions of men that, in this case, were concocted to benefit the religious leaders but neglect the parents of the giver of corban.In Mark 1:30-31 Jesus goes with Simon/Peter in order to visit and heal his mother-in-law.In 1st Corinthians 9:5 Paul makes reference to the apostle’s authority to lead about/taking along/traveling around with a sister or wife as the apostles are know to do.In John 19:26-27 as Jesus is dying on the cross He ensures that His mother will be cared for by asking John to take her into his home.

And is any of this surprising considering that Jesus taught “honor your father and your mother” (Mark 10:19)?

Prof. Richard Dawkins does not seem understand, or simply does not bother taking into consideration, that just because the Bible states something that does not equal endorsement. In other words, the Bible describes and prescribes. To take something that it describes and assume that it is prescribing it only goes to demonstrate a shocking level of misunderstanding tantamount, in Prof. Richard Dawkins’ case, to gathering straw to build the straw man against which he argues. There seems to be an odd corollary between the hedonist commandment “If it feels good, do it” and what appears to be Prof. Richard Dawkins’ (mis)understanding of the Bible as teaching “If the words are printed in the Bible, do it.”

For instance, there is a common misconception that we must follow 613 commandments. This is inaccurate for at least two reasons: one is that only religious Jewish people living in God’s theocratic nation had to follow them, not gentiles. Two is that even religious Jewish people living in God’s theocratic nation never had to follow 613 commandments. This is because some commandments were just for male, some just for females, some were just for priest, some for laypersons, some for soldiers, some for kings, some for fathers, some for mothers, etc. This is something that Prof. Richard Dawkins, and astonishingly many of his comrades and adherents, do not seem to understand. For example, if I am not Jewish/Israeli soldier who lived in a very particular place and in a very particular time when land had to be conquered or protected I do not have to pick up sword against anyone.

Prof. Richard Dawkins makes the following comments regarding the morals from scripture argument:

“we (and that includes religious people) as a matter of fact don’t get our morals from scripture. If we did, we would_execute disobedient children.”14

“My main purpose here has not been to show that we shouldn’t get our morals from scripture (although that is my opinion). My purpose has been to demonstrate that we (and that includes religious people) as a matter of fact don’t get our morals from scripture. If we did, we would strictly observe the Sabbath and think it just and proper to execute anybody who chose not to.”15

“all I am trying to establish for the moment is that we do not, as a matter of fact, derive our morals from scripture. Or, if we do, we pick and choose among the scriptures for the nice bits and reject the nasty.”16

It is fascinating to note that He accuses Judeo-Christian moralists of picking and choosing the nice and rejecting the nasty. But what is his erudite response? He chooses the nasty and rejects the nice. Let us focus for a moment on the emotionally charged (as well it should be) reference to what Prof. Richard Dawkins refers to as “disobedient children,” Sam Harris refers to as children that “talk back to us,” but the Bible refers to as stubborn, rebellious, disobedient, gluttonous, drunkards who “smiteth” and curse their parents and have already been chastened (Exodus 21:15, Leviticus 20:9 and Deuteronomy 21:18).

Could you really justify executing children by appealing to the New Testament? Sam Harris has gone as far as stating that, “you can get a rationale for killing people for adultery out of the New Testament.”17 As shockingly fallacious as this is we should likewise ask: could you really justify this action from the Old Testament? Surely, since that it from whence the command comes. We have already dealt with this issue in the “Back Talk” portion of our essay Sam Harris’ Mythunderstandings. Succinctly stated, it appears that hermeneutics is simply unknown to Prof. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and other New Atheists. But the fact that they do not seem to even read for immediate context, much less greater context, is only an indictment of their lazy scholarship. As we have discussed here, stoning offenses do not mean that if you saw someone committing a stoneable offense you just executed them on the spot.

Beginning at Exodus 18:13-26 we see a careful judicious system being established. Reference to the two or three witnesses that were required are found in Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, Matthew 18:16, 2nd Corinthians 13:1, 1st Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28. These are a part of a very careful and restrictive system. In fact, the Talmud (Sandedrin 71a) basically makes the point that the commandments implied such severe restrictions that “There never was, and never will be, a wayward and defiant son” or “stubborn and rebellious son.” There is not one single case in the entire Bible of executing a disobedient child.

Prof. Richard Dawkins writes,

“Begin in Genesis with the well-loved story of Noah, derived from the Babylonian myth of Uta-Napisthim and known from the older mythologies of several cultures.”18

But why assume that people who lived in vast isolation from each other (chronologically and geographically) engaged in plagiarism? Perhaps the fact that many of the most ancient “myths” of cultures around the world tell the same basic stories (a pristine garden, a flood, etc.) means that the events actually occurred and thus became pre-historic history that in this case is known as “myth” or “legend.” Incidentally, one can only wonder if Prof. Richard Dawkins has asked the following questions regarding his belief in ancient myths and which one influenced the other: When did the event occur? How do we know that? When was the even recorded? Who recorded it? Why did they record it? What is span of time between the event and the recording? How do we know that? What is the span of time from the recording to the first manuscript? How do we know that? How many manuscripts are there? How do they compare? How do we know that what is written is accurate? Etc., etc., etc. Indeed, the answers to these questions appear to be imperative when dealing with the biblical text but are irrelevant when dealing with what the skeptic wishes to believe in its place.

Prof. Richard Dawkins further writes,

“Of course, irritated theologian types, like yourself will protest that we don’t take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is the whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories.”19

Succinctly, to take something literally means to take it as it is intended. Yet, if we define “literal” as virtually refusing to consider hermeneutics, then no one is as literal as Prof. Richard Dawkins (Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, etc.).

Prof. Richard Dawkins continues thusly:

“In the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra, the Noah equivalent, chosen to be spared with his family because he was uniquely righteous, was Abraham’s nephew Lot. Two male angels were sent to Sodom to warn Lot to leave the city before the brimstone arrived. Lot hospitably welcomed the angels into his house, whereupon all the men of Sodom gathered around and demanded that Lot should hand the angels over so that they could (what else?) sodomize them: ‘Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them’ (Genesis 19:5). But Lot’s halo is tarnished by the terms of his refusal: ‘I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof’ (Genesis 19: 7-8). If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.”20

On a few occasions Prof. Richard Dawkins appear to not take the time to visualize the scenario presented in the text that he is quoting but seems to be merely following letters into words into sentences, etc. and forget what is actually occurring. We do not actually know very much about Lot except that the Bible, being as honest as it is, depicts one particular instance when his behavior was no less than repugnant.
Lot found that his home was accosted by a mob and while this does not excuse his repulsive actions it does inform us that he was in a very dangerous and mentally/emotionally stressed state. An Air Force Major told me that she has seen people do very odd things in highly stressful circumstances such as training scenarios, things that they would never have done otherwise. When Lot offers his daughters to the mob the angels would have none of that nonsense and it is precisely at that point that they act in defense of the girls.

“Such unpleasant episodes in Abraham’s story are mere peccadilloes compared with the infamous tale of the sacrificing of his son Isaac (Muslim scripture tells the same story about Abraham’s other son, Ishmael).”21

This is not necessarily so. For instance, Muslim Qur’an translator Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote, “The boy thus born was, according to Muslim tradition, (which however is not unanimous on this point), the first-born of Abraham, viz. Ismail.”22 Moreover, “there was a debate between Muslim scholars whether the sacrificed was Isaac(P) or Ishmael(P)”23 Also, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam states, “in Islam, Ishmael is considered to be the son Abraham was about to sacrifice although great commentators who hold the opinion that it was Isaac can also be found.”24 In fact, we have done some careful research and have uncovered 43 ancient documents that predate Islam and which side with the Bible.

“God ordered Abraham to make a burnt offering of his longed-for son. As it turns out God was only joking after all, ‘tempting’ Abraham, and testing his faith. A modern moralist cannot help but wonder how a child could ever recover from such psychological trauma. By the standards of modern morality, this disgraceful story is an example simultaneously of child abuse, bullying in two asymmetrical power relationships, and the first recorded use of the Nuremberg defense: ‘I was only following orders.'”25

We should wonder if this event was at all traumatic for Isaac since in that time and place human sacrifice was a given and for all we know it was considered an honor to be sacrificed. Therefore, Abraham conjured no “Nuremberg defense” defense at all since what he was doing was the worship systems de jour. He did not even hesitate because this was standard operating procedure for the worship of the gods of that place and time. The New Testament states:

“By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called,’ concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense” (Hebrews 11:17-19).

Incidentally, note how different the Biblical use of the term and concept of “faith” is than that which some religious people and atheists alike have made it. See our essay The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists? where we discuss Prof. Richard Dawkins’ erroneous presumption that all of the apostles, except for Thomas, relied on blind faith for their belief in the resurrection. “See!”, the atheist would say, “Abraham was ready to murder his own son by pure blind faith!” But pay closer attention to the text. Abraham offered Isaac by faith meaning: by basing his actions upon knowledge, rational and intellect. But how so? Because it states that he was willing to offer him up with the foreknowledge that it had been promised to him that his descendants would be wrought though Isaac. How could this be if Isaac dies having produced no seed? Thus, Abraham reasoned that “God was able to raise him up, even from the dead.” Is it any wonder then that “Abraham said to his young men [who had traveled with him], You stay here with the ass. And I and the boy will go on to this way and worship, and come again to you” (Genesis 22:5). “I and the boy will go_and come again to you”-we both will go and we both will return. Moreover, this text is saturated with symbolism that pointed to Jesus’ crucifixion (please see the section of this essay entitled “Some Polemics”). It is simply astonishing to think that the event that made it crystal clear that the God of the Bible was different from other gods and would never accept child sacrifice is so abused and misunderstood. Moreover, it is precisely because “many many people, even to this day, do take the whole of their scripture to be literal fact_especially in the United States and in the Islamic world” that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have never practiced child sacrifice. When the Bible records Jews doing any such things it is clear that they had fallen away from worshiping the God of the Bible and were worshiping gentile/pagan gods.

On pages 240-241 Prof. Richard Dawkins makes reference to Lot’s daughters getting him so drunk that he does not even notice that they both, in turn, had copulated with him.

“Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day” (Genesis 19:36-38).

Yet, Prof. Richard Dawkins does not mention that is was this very instance of incest that caused the shunning of the Moabites and Amorites (the descendants of Moab and Ammon). Yet, surely Prof. Richard Dawkins would likewise condemn that reaction.

On pages 240-241 Prof. Richard Dawkins points out a particularly brutal story told in the Bible of a man, referred to as a Levite, who turned his concubine over to a mob of men who sexually abused her to such an extent that she ended up dying. He then cut her body into twelve pieces and sent a piece of her body to all the borders of Israel. In typical style Prof. Richard Dawkins leaves it there as if to insinuate that this was not only a normal part of everyday life but that the Bible approves of the action just because it mentions it. He does not bother pointing out that while it is in Judges 19:29 that her body is mutilated the very next verse reads “And so it was that all who saw it said, ‘No such deed has been done or seen from the day that the children of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day. Consider it, confer, and speak up!'” So shocked and repulsed were the Israelites that:

“So all the children of Israel came out, from Dan to Beersheba, as well as from the land of Gilead, and the congregation gathered together as one man before the LORD at Mizpah. And the leaders of all the people, all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God_Then the children of Israel said, ‘Tell us, how did this wicked deed happen?'” (Judges 20:1-3).

In Judges 20:4-7 the Levite tells what occurred and states “they committed lewdness and outrage in Israel.”Next, we learn that the congregation refused to rest until this issue was dealt with. Capital punishment is recommended and finally a battle ensues. Yet, surely Prof. Richard Dawkins would likewise condemn that reaction.

“So all the people arose as one man, saying, ‘None of us will go to his tent, nor will any turn back to his house’_ So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, united together as one man. Then the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, ‘What is this wickedness that has occurred among you? Now therefore, deliver up the men, the perverted men who are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death and remove the evil from Israel!’ But the children of Benjamin would not listen to the voice of their brethren, the children of Israel” (Judges 20:8, 11-13).

On page 243 Prof. Richard Dawkins makes reference to Jephthah the Gileadite who took it upon himself to vow that if the people of Ammon be delivered in his hands, “whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:30). As it turns out he wins the battle and upon arriving home the first to come out of his door was his one and only child, his daughter.

There is quite a lot to be said about this text and Prof. Richard Dawkins does not even hint at any of it. He merely expresses his disgust and sarcasm, “God was obviously looking forward to the promised burnt offering.”26How could God be looking forward to the transgression of His very own commandment “Thou shalt do no murder” (Exodus 20:13)? What of the clear distinction between Himself and the false gods who accepted human/child sacrifice as a daily part of worship?:

“When the Lord your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying , ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way; for every abomination to the Lord which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:29-30).

In fact, where does the text state anything about Jephthah sacrificing his daughter? The text merely states, “he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed” (Judges 11:39). But there is no mention of what he actually did. But wait a moment, it states that “he carried out his vow” and the vow was “I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” Actually, it is “shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” Yet, in any case he does appear to have sacrificed her-even though the minutia of the Torah’s law not once allowed for human/child sacrifice and what kosher high priest would allow such a thing.

We will now get too technical for Prof. Richard Dawkins’ purposes. It is worthwhile, if not imperative, pointing out that the “and” in the vow “be the LORD’s, and I will offer it” consists of the Hebrew construct made up of two conjunctions for “either/or”. Therefore, the vow reads as Robert Young has it in his strictly literal translation (Young’s Literal Translation):

“And Jephthah voweth a vow to Jehovah, and saith, ‘If Thou dost at all give the Bene-Ammon into my hand – then it hath been, that which at all cometh out from the doors of my house to meet me in my turning back in peace from the Bene-Ammon – it hath been to Jehovah, or I have offered up for it – a burnt-offering.'”

When we consider the greater context of the Torah clearly if it was a clean animal he would have offered it as a burnt-offering and if a human then they would be consecrated to the LORD. This would be done by the daughter being sent, with her consent (v. 37 “Let this thing be done for me”), to serve in the sanctuary.
But then why does this come across as such a tragedy? Because since she was his one and only child and a virgin, she would have no children and he would have no lineage after him. Not to mention the Jewish woman’s dream to be the one through whom the Messiah is born. Note that the text does not focus at all upon a mourning of her death but her virginity: v. 37 “I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity” v. 39 “She knew no man.”

Citing again from Young’s Literal Translation the chapter ends thusly, v. 40, “And it was an ordinance in Israel that the daughters of Israel went from year to year to the daughter of Jephthah, that they might comfort her for four days in a year.” The daughters of Israel meet with her on an annual basis in order to comfort her in her childless state. But if this be too literal for Prof. Richard Dawkins we can simply point out the usual rendering of the verse which reads, “And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.” Assuming that she was sacrificed what does it say that it became an annual ceremony in Israel to “lament” her with no approval of Jephthah’s actions.

Note very carefully that Prof. Richard Dawkins was not merely engaging in a succinct survey of what he perceives as the Old Testament’s immorality. He appears to have other motivations driving his comments, motivations that we cannot discern because we cannot know them unless he reveals them himself. However, we may point out what we have noticed which is that his statements are strictly one sided.

He, quite rightly, condemns Lot for handing his daughters over to the men of Sodom and Gomorra.But he does not condemn the men of Sodom and Gomorra.

Incidentally, he refers to Sodom and Gomorra as constituting an “intensely religious culture.”27

He, quite rightly, condemns the Levite for handing his concubine over to the men of Gibeah.But he does not condemn the men of Gibeah.

His modus operandi, for whatever reason, is to besmirch Jewish actions alone. No condemnation of the Egyptians for enslaving the Jews for four hundred years. No condemnation of the Haman for attempting to wipe out the Jews. No condemnation of the Babylonians for their attack and oppression of the Jews. And the examples of his one sided condemnation could be multiplied by many more.

Now we come to the justifying statement by Prof. Richard Dawkins who expended much time, energy, ink and trees (in the form of paper) to point out the Bible’s immorality. More precisely, the God of the Bible’s immorality:
“the disconnect between scriptural and modern (one is tempted to say civilized) morals. Of course, it is easily enough understood in terms of the theory of memes, and the qualities that a deity needs in order to survive in the meme pool.”28

H. Allen Orr, the Shirley Cox Kearns Professor of Biology at the University of Rochester, wrote that “most scientists do not accept Dawkins’s theory of memes”29 This is not surprising considering that in discussing “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Richard Lewontin mentioned Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Prof. Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.”

As a logical consequence of his faith based belief in absolute materialism Prof. Richard Dawkins has concocted a worldview that, being solely based on nature, is unviable. Time and time again he constructs his arguments until he is forced to make a quick retreat from where his own argument is logically taking him, and his readers. In this case, he presented a case against the God of the Bible’s morality. A case which he made by breaking every possible rule that one would naturally follow when reading anything from a newspaper, to a menu, to a historical document. After this exercise in lazy scholarship and just as one would think that he has driven his stake into the vampire he pauses to point out that according to his own worldview what the Bible presents as being God’s immoral actions are perfectly understandable and sensible. This is because the Bible is merely presenting what may be termed survival of the fittest God. Prof. Richard Dawkins may not like it according to his “modern” morality de jour.30 Yet, he is keenly aware that while his worldview has a logical outcome, very well understood by the perpetrators of the bloodies century in human history, he must betray his own logic of illogic and abandon his worldview when it clashed with well, everyday life on plant earth:
“As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs.”31

He has moreover stated:

“how do I react to the idea of being a vehicle for DNA? It doesn’t sound very romantic, does it? It doesn’t sound the sort of vision of life that a poet would have; and I’m quite happy, quite ready to admit that when I’m not thinking about science I’m thinking in a very different way.”32

In other words, Prof. Richard Dawkins is a passionate Darwinian when it comes to his faith based belief in natural selection’s ability to produce organisms that appear to be designed (and do away with God as a bonus side effect). But his Darwinian worldview has another side effect, one that is not very pleasant. Atheists throughout history have made it clear that atheism leads to, as Francis Schaeffer would put it, despair (we have commented on this fact and collected some of their statements here and here). But the New Atheists are very hard at work attempting to talk us into believing that atheism is pure life affirming bliss-carpe desperatio. Prof. Richard Dawkins recognizes that ultimately whatever temporary adrenaline spikes atheism can offer this heartless, soulless, brutal, void of a worldview simply cannot be applied to what it really important: good old fashioned everyday life along with politics and human affairs. The bloodiest century in human history is proof clear, read in tooth and claw, of this tragic fact.

Prof. Richard Dawkins’ both appeal to and rejection of Darwinism reminds us of G. K. Chesterton’s book Orthodoxy specifically the chapter entitled “The Suicide of Thought” wherein he makes quick work of secularism’s fallacious worldview. He writes:

“But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it_In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”33

[we present a fuller quote at the end of our essay found here]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

In studying atheism, and their attempts to co-opt Darwin’s theory of evolution and science in general, I have encountered twin logical fallacies so often that I have come to coin two terms to describe them: the fallacy of validation by projection and the fallacy of validation by regression.

This parsed essay essentially picks up where
Look Both Ways Two Atheistic Logical Fallacies concluded.

[I should clarify that while I actually thought that I was coining clever terms I subsequently discovered that “validation by projection” and “validation by regression” are terms already employed with reference to documentation analysis, etc. Yet, since I was employing the terms within the context of logical fallacies I am progressing as is. I will define what I mean by their use below].

This parsed essay consists of the following segments: Part 1: Basic Layout Part 2: Miscellaneous Examples Part 3: Richard Dawkins’ “Faith” and “Luck”: Part 4: Richard Dawkins’ Wasps and Bees: Part 5: Richard Dawkins; The Wizard of Biomorph Land Part 6: Sam Harris Part 7: Misia Landau Part 8: Samuel Melser and Examples of Reconstructions

Part 9: Roger Lewin

Basic Layout:
It is important to note that ^{when someone believes in something that is not true they cannot live in the real world}. That is to say; they must talk themselves into believing in things for which there is no evidence. They have to talk themselves into believing the stories about reality that they have concocted. Surely, atheists will claim that this is precisely true of theists. Yet, nevertheless, let us consider ample evidence that supports this assertion made against atheism.

In order to validate their beliefs atheists look both ways, up and down, the corridors of time: to the inaccessible past and future. When, for example, atheists appeal to quaint Victorian Era concepts of abiogenesis in order to explain life’s conception they must deal with the fact that abiogenesis (abiotic synthesis) is not observed anywhere and is not producible in any experiments (and if it was it would be evidence of intelligent design). What is their answer? They can imagine a time, long, long ago in the Earth’s past, when everything happened just so and abiogenesis was possible.

What about filling the various gaps in our knowledge? They can imagine a time in the distant future when their beliefs will be proven true: in other words they think that eventually material causes will be discovered for all material effects including the universe itself.

Thus, the sorts of ^{atheists who hold to these views consider that their particular, and peculiar, atheism is validated by projection and regression}. Herein lies the fallacies: they merely regress to an unknown past in which they can imagine thing occurring that do not occur today (what happened to uniformitarianism?) and they can project into an equally unknown future at which time we will discover that absolute materialism is true. Atheists of this sort appeal to inaccessible, unobserved, un-experimented upon, ideal and self-service concepts and replace evidence for imagination.
As long as they can imagine it, it must be true: this appears to be what Richard Dawkins meant by being an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I have referred to atheism’s co-option of Darwin’s theory of evolution and they have actually attempted to co-opt the whole scientific enterprise. Here we encounter another of atheism’s logical fallacies: first they claim that science does not deal with the supernatural but then they claim that science disproves the supernatural.

What atheists attempt to do is to remove the supernatural from the realm of possibility. Granted, they are, after all, atheists—absolutely committed to materialism. But note the nature of this particular view: they have closed the door to any evidence to the contrary because this view calls for it—demands it—and so their thinking is restricted (we explored this in the post Atheism and Science – The Magus).

Their assertion leads them to believe that since there is no supernatural there can be no evidence for the supernatural and since there is no evidence for the supernatural there is no supernatural. Yet, ^{peradventure any evidence of the supernatural is uncovered it is to be ignored because it does not fit the materialistic view} and because that view promises that all things will, some day, be explained in accordance to materialism (or, even if they are not all explained thusly, even sans evidence, it is the only logical and scientific conclusion).

Some scientists, such as Scott C. Todd from Kansas State University’s Department of Biology, have taken their belief in materialism to such an extreme that they openly proclaim that they will purposefully exclude any evidence that interferes with their theory from the realm of science,

“Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”1

Rather, if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer science would evolve in order to accommodate the new evidence.

One example of validation by regression is clear in hypothesis concocted by A.I. Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane (and many, many others) who “…envisioned an ancient world with the chemical conditions and energy resources needed for the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules.”2
They envisioned a time when something that is now impossible could actually occur (incidentally, all experiments in this vein have failed as evidenced in the post John Horgan, “In the Beginning…” – Scientific American).

In the next segment we will commence considering various fanciful interpretive tales about how life came to be and evolved.

When Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was a renowned theologian, Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the former Holy Office), which is the most important Vatican curial office, charged with the preservation and promotion of Catholic orthodoxy (he then became Pope Benedict XVI) stated,

My view is that ^{if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it}1

At a class on the Roman Catholic Faith2 the teacher, Hermano Juan Sandoval, was speaking on Purgatory when from the audience a question was asked to the effect of “If Purgatory is such an important doctrine, why didn’t Jesus teach us about it.”
In one single breath Hermano Sandoval answered that the doctrine is not found in the Bible but that we could look it up in Matthew 12:32. This contradictory answer is very common because while the dogma is not Biblical the claim is made that the Bible implies it. After the class while discussing the issue with a Roman Catholic class attendee I pointed out that 2nd Maccabees 12:38-46 (the mother of all Purgatory scriptures) was not speaking of Purgatory and the footnotes in the New American Bible, a Vatican approved Bible, states as much. The response was that yes, it is speaking of Purgatory, and I repeated the Hermano’s words in saying that we were just taught that the doctrine of Purgatory is not found anywhere in the Bible. The student was kind enough to bring me a list of scriptures that attempt to prove the doctrine of Purgatory from the Bible (which we will consider in the The Consulted Scriptures section).

This true story is a good example of the sorts of problems that false doctrines cause. Without any sense of irony the teacher contradicted himself, and the student contradicted the teacher.
This is eisegesis (or, isogesis), which is when we come to the Scripture with a preconceived notion and try to force the text to say what we want. As opposed to exegesis, which is when we come to the text with a clean slate and we allow the text to tell us what it says.

Our purpose here will be to examine Purgatory prooftexts, their footnotes and definitions from Roman Catholic Bibles. The Scriptures will be quoted from the NAB and the footnotes come from various other Roman Catholic Bibles and will be footnoted appropriately.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus
—Romans 8:1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.