Tuesday, December 25, 2012

"A Sense Of Awe...Reverence...And...Great Mystery"

"I am very much a scientist, and so I naturally have thought about religion also through the eyes of a scientist. When I do that, I see religion not denominationally, but in a more, let us say, deistic sense. I have been influenced in my thinking by the writing of Einstein who has made remarks to the effect that when he contemplated the world he sensed an underlying Force much greater than any human force. I feel very much the same. There is a sense of awe, a sense of reverence, and a sense of great mystery."

--Walter Kohn (1923-), American theoretical physicist, awarded Nobel Prize in 1998

Monday, December 24, 2012

"...Something Incredible..."


 "Somewhere something incredible is waiting to be known."
 ~ Carl Sagan

DNA, the internal combustion engine, aerodynamics, radio, television, computers, artificial hearts, radar, atomic particles, sub-atomic particles, electricity, the light bulb, photography, motion pictures, antibiotics, space exploration, etc., etc. The intelligence behind this amazing universe no doubt has many more astonishingly wonderful surprises waiting for us to discover.


"Square Circles"


A continuation of the discussion of July 10-15, 1999, on Yahoo group
errancyn, between a Christian (TUFLY) and Farrell Till, from July 21,
1999:

TUFLY
Whether you accept the truth or not is up to you, I am just presenting it
to you.

TILL
Why, sure, you are. I have just one question to you. How do you know that
what you are presenting is "truth." A Mormon will tell me the same thing,
and so will a Muslim, and a Hindu, and a Zoroastrian. Please forgive my
stupidity, but I'd just like to see a little evidence to support your
"truth" claim.

TUFLY
Can any of you give me proof that God (Judeo-christian) does not exist?

TILL
Yes, I can, and I have done it before in public debates where the evidence
was not replied to by my opponent. The matter is as simple as this. The
so-called Judeo-Christian god is a logical impossibility. Just as square
circles are a logical impossibility that enable us to know that they can't
exist, the god Yahweh, who is depicted in the Bible as both an infinitely
loving, merciful, and just deity AND a deity who is also petty, vindictive,
and barbaric to the point of killing babies and commanding that children
and babies be killed, is a logical impossibility. An entity that would do
such things as this cannot possibly be infinitely kind and loving.
Therefore, this deity of yours cannot exist. If any deity does exist, it
would have to be one different from your Yahoo. Anyone who can't
see this must have his head in the sand like an ostrich.

This is just one example of mutually exclusive characteristics that the
Bible attributes to this god of yours and enables rational people to know
that he cannot exist. Whether you accept the truth or not is up to you, I
am just presenting it to you.

Now where have I heard that before?

TUFLY
Please consider what is at stake, your soul for eternity.

TILL
I have considered what is at stake. My intellectual integrity is a stake,
which in and of itself is sufficient to make me reject your ancient
superstition.

Now will you please prove to us that any such thing as a "soul" even
exists? Can't do it? I didn't think so. And we're supposed to be the stupid
ones.

TUFLY
What is at stake for the likes of Till (providing he could ever be right)? I
would rather be wrong about christianity than wrong about any other
religion (or non-religion).

TILL
Well, you should be happy, because you are wrong about Christianity.

Farrell Till

The "Witnesses-To-A-Car-Wreck" Quibble

A discussion between a Christian (TUFLY) and Farrell Till concerning the 
alleged evidences for Christianity from the Yahoo group, errancyn, from 
July 10-15, 1999:

TUFLY
Hi guys!
I don't claim to know much, but I do know that if ten people see an
accident in the street, you will hear ten different accounts about how it
happened. This simple fact, which you would be foolish to argue, points
to the authenticity and the fact that not only did Jesus rise from the dead,
but that the separate accounts are merely different perpectives on the
same incident. If we were to have two or more exactly matching eye-
witness accounts, that my friend, would be highly suspect.

TILL
First of all, you are committing the fallacy of false analogy by using
this worn-out example of different people who witness an automobile
accident. Witnesses to automobile accidents are not verbally inspired
by an omniscient, omnipotent deity as they write their accounts of
the incident. If they were, then we could reasonably expect agreement
in what they say. Another point of false analogy is that automobile
accidents are common occurrences and are known to happen. There are
probably few people who have never seen either an automobile accident
or the aftereffects of one.

Resurrections from the dead, however, are an entirely different matter.
There has never been a verifiable case of someone who died and
returned tolife, so there is a world of difference in testimony to an
ordinary, everyday event and testimony to an extraordinary event, the
likes of which has never been known to happen. Second, if the witnesses
to an automobile [accident] are inconsistent in various major points,
then their testimony becomes worthless as evidence of what happened.
If one witness indicated that the accident had happened at night but
another that it had happened after sunrise, if one witness indicated that
she was alone at the scene when the accident occurred but another
indicated that there were two people there and another indicated that
there were several on the scene, and if one witness said that a policeman
arrived on the scene quickly but another said that two policemen arrived
on the scene, and if one witness said that the accident happened in
Podunk but another witness said that it happened in Hicktown, and if
the police didn't even have the firsthand testimony of those who had
allegedly seen the accident but only the testimony of three or four
different people who said that so-and-so had said that she had seen
this or that, what kind of investigators or jury considering the evidence
to try to determine the facts in the case could make a reliable
determination of what had happened?

Is there anyone in this group that can offer reasonable evidence for
the resurrection without regurgitating hackneyed arguments that have
been answered hundreds of time? Is Tufly so naive that he thought we
had never before heard this witnesses-to-a-car-wreck quibble.

TUFLY
The bible is reasonable evidence, as a matter of fact, there are far
more ancient writings of it than anything else including authors like
Plato, etc.. Why do you believe that Plato wrote anything? Perhaps I
say he was an illiterate who had a vivid imagination and his best friend
wrote down his wonderings? Well, that would put me in your camp, and
I do not prefer to be there.

TILL
It isn't a matter of how many "ancient writings" of the Bible may exist or
whether Plato wrote anything. The issue is whether everything said in all
of those ancient writings is true. Just because Plato may have written
something, for example, would not make what he said true, even if it
had been copied a million times. The same is true of biblical writings
and any other documents. Your argument seems to be this: Ancient
biblical writings were copied several times; therefore, everything these
writings say must be historically true. Do you know what non sequitur
means?

Now do you have any evidence to offer in support of the NT resurrection
claim besides false analogies.

TUFLY
IF we cannot use the ancient writings and their near perfect copies over
the millenia, then what may we of faith use?

TILL
Near perfect copies? You've been reading too much apologetic
propaganda. What may you of faith use? Just look at what you're
asking? Faith or belief is something that a person should have as a
result of having examined reasonable evidence to justify the faith.
If there is no reasonableevidence to justify the basic tenets of
Christianity--and there isn't--the intellectually honest person will
not believe those tenets.

TUFLY
The testemony of the Holy Spirit definately will not hold water with
you.

TILL
Well, don't look now, but you are begging the question of whether the
"Holy Spirit" (1) exists, and (2) has given any "testimony" to anything.

TUFLY
Suppose I told you that you would gain an "inner" knowledge and a
vastly deeper understanding of the scriptures when you accept Jesus
Christ into your heart?

TILL
In other words, you are telling me that if I will believe first, then I will
believe the scriptures. Suppose I told you that you would gain an "inner"
knowledge and a vastly deeper understanding of the Qur'an when you
accept Allah into your heart?

TUFLY
I think you would laugh,

TILL
You're right, just as you would laugh (at least inwardly) if a Muslim
told you that you would gain an "inner" knowledge and a vastly deeper
understanding of the Qur'an if you would just accept Allah into your
heart. Don't you ever bother to critically examine such tripe as this
before you try to pass it off as "evidence"?

TUFLY
however you cannot possibly understand what the scriptures say untill
you do so.

TILL
And that's exactly what is wrong with you. You cannot possibly
understand the Qur'an until you "do so."

TUFLY
To the likes of you, unfortunately, the scriptures are a meaningless
prattle.

TILL
To the likes of you, unfortunately, the Qur'an is a meaningless prattle.

TUFLY
Proverbs 14:6 reminds me of you.

TILL
Sura 4:106-109 reminds me of you.

TUFLY
I highly suggest you read 1Cor 1:18, and if you can manage read on
through verse 23.

TILL
No need to. I know what it says without even looking. The fact
that you think that an ancient document that glorifies stupidity should
be recommended reading speaks volumes about your own stupidity.

Now do you have any arguments that you want to post in favor of your
inerrancy beliefs? If so, post them. If not, why don't you go peddle your
question-begging nonsense somewhere else? You'll probably find a
reception for it on just about any Christian list.

Farrell Till

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Going Abroad Without The Camp


























































































































































































A classic post from the late Farrell Till (1933-2012) from the Yahoo Group,
errancyn, May 20, 2000:

TILL
We have seen some of the logistical problems that would have been
involved in setting up encampments for 2.5 to 3 million people and
carrying out the routines that camp life and sacrificial requirements
would have imposed. Probably few inerrantists have ever considered
a wilderness problem that all densely populated areas must solve,
and that is the problem of human-waste disposal. The following
passage made some stipulations in this regard that would have
posed some special hardships on the Israelites during their
wilderness wanderings.

Deuteronomy 23:12 You shall have a designated area outside the
camp to which you shall go. 13 With your utensils you shall have
a trowel; when you relieve yourself outside, you shall dig a hole
with it and then cover up your excrement. 14 Because Yahweh
your God travels along with your camp, to save you and to hand
over your enemies to you, therefore your camp must be holy, so
that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away
from you.

This passage clearly indicates that latrines were not allowed inside
the encampment, and so when nature called, one was required to go
outside of the 9-square-mile camp to attend to it. He/she was to take
along a "trowel" (paddle in some translations) to dig a hole in which
to bury the excrement. It is hard to imagine how large this "designated"
area would have had to have been to accommodate 2.5 million people
digging their individual holes to attend to their business. If each hole
were only 6 inches by 6 inches, a "designated area" of 625,000 square
feet or 69,444 square yards would be needed to provide a hole for
each person. Since there are 4,840 square yards in an acre, this
"designated area" would have had to have been 14.35 acres in size
to accommodate each person's going "outside the camp" with his/her
trowel just once per day. Of course, we have to wonder what they
would have done on the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. days.
Would each person have used the same hole over and over again?

In Yahweh's inscrutable wisdom that led him to choose this method
of waste disposal rather than ordering the construction of pit latrines,
special problems would have necessarily ensued. In a time, for
example, when there was no Imodium A-D, diarrhea would have
seriously complicated the problems. It's hard to imagine how that
2.5 million people trekking throughout the day to this "designated
area" could have attended to their  needs without at times uncovering
the holes that others had used. This must have caused many
unpleasant moments. Yahweh may, of course, have anticipated
this problem and instructed Moses to make the designated area
much larger than 14.35 acres. Indeed, this would surely have been
necessary, since the 14.35 acres would have provided for only one
6-inch by 6-inch hole per person per day. Since the Israelites
wandered in the wilderness for 40 years and since Numbers 33
listed only 41 encampments for them, they would have averaged
spending almost a year at each camp site. Unless a big chunk of
land outside these camps was set aside as the "designated area,"
there would have been a lot of unpleasant digging experiences.

Other than that is the problem that would have confronted those
who felt nature calling during the night. Those in the middle of the
encampments would have had to trek at least 1.5 miles just to reach
the "designated area." Men with prostrate problems surely suffered
from sleep deprivation but would have otherwise been in good
physical condition from the exercise they got from walking back
and forth to the "designated area." Inerrantists will no doubt pooh-
pooh (pun intended) this posting, but I didn't put Deuteronomy
23:12-14 in the Bible; I have merely critically analyzed what it
says and found that it presents another problem of logistics that
biblicists need to explain if they expect rational people to believe
that their Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of an omniscient,
omnipotent deity.

Some inerrantists will claim that this requirement concerning waste
disposal applied only to the Israelite army when it was engaged in
campaigns against the enemy, because verses 9-11 say, "When you
are encamped against your enemies you shall guard against any
impropriety. If one of you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal
emission, then he shall go outside the camp; he must not come
within the camp. When evening comes, he shall wash himselfwith
water, and when the sun has set, he may come back into the
camp."

This is more of a quibble than an argument, because when the entire 23rd
chapter is read, it should be apparent that the commandments it contains
were intended to apply to all Israelites and not just to the soldiers. I'm
sure that even inerrantists would not argue, for example, that a man with
crushed testicles or an amputated penis (v:1) should be allowed into the
assembly as long as he wasn't a soldier. Did the commandment against
sodomites (v:17) apply only to soldiers? Could an Israelite lend money
for interest as long as he wasn't a soldier (v:19)?

Leviticus 26:11-12 states that Yahweh had set his tabernacle among
the Israelites and walked among them. The tabernacle was set up in
the center of the general encampment of the Israelites(Num. 3), so if
Yahweh walked among the Israelites where the tabernacle was, that
would have to mean that he walked in the general encampment of the
Israelites. If he didn't want to be repelled by the sight of excrement in
an encampment of soldiers, why would he feel any differently about
encountering it in the general encampment? The statement in Leviticus
26:11-12, by the way, is in a larger context that speaks of Yahweh's
being with the Israelites to drive their enemies out of the land. In other
words the language here is very similar to Deuteronomy 23:14, which
speaks of Yahweh walking "in the midst of the camp."

Consider Deuteronomy 23:9-11 again (quoted above), which said that
one who had become unclean because of a nocturnal emission would
have to go out of the camp, wash himself with water (there's that darned
water problem again), and remain outside till evening, at which time he
could reenter the camp. Are we to assume that this was a requirement
that had to be obeyed only by soldiers? That's hardly likely, because
the Levitical ceremonial laws declared nocturnal emissions to be unclean,
period.

Leviticus 15:16 If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his
whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening.
17 Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls
shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening.

One would have to strain to make this law applicable only to soldiers
who were camped "against an enemy," because it is in a context that
defined uncleanness for women as well as men. In the same way, one
places a strained double standard on Deuteronomy 23:12-14 if he tries
to make the latrine law here applicable only to men on military duty.

At any rate, very little is solved by quibbling that the policy on waste
disposal applied only to soldiers and not to the Israelites in general,
because the Israelite army numbered 600,000, so if the calculations
above are divided by four in order to limit this commandment just to
the army, the logistical problems would still exist. Can you imagine
an army of 600,000 that did not provide latrine facilities within its
camp, but every soldier was required to trek without the camp?
Imagine the hardships this would have placed even on soldiers if
their camps were as large as Kent Loar and David Sparrow have
tried to make them. I warned them that their expansion of the camp
would backfire on them when other logistical problems were introduced,
so after the fuss they raised over this, they can hardly try to make the
camps smaller than my "best-case scenario" of nine square miles.

Farrell Till