Not What It's Cracked Up to Be...
I would like to express my deep appreciation to you for sending inmates The Skeptical Review free of charge. This means a lot to me as I am a Texas inmate and have earned no kind of wage since being here for the last five and three-fourth years. In the past, I had many unanswered questions and lots of confusion from having religion forced down my throat as a child. Yet when I had done my duty getting stuck reading the Bible, I've found nothing but what seemed to me to be discrepancies and contradictions starting in the book of Genesis and going all the way through it. Now thanks to someone leaving their copy of The skeptical Review and my curiosity and love of literature, I had an opportunity to pick it up and see what it was about. I've finally found someone else who has the same beliefs as I have and who can actually see that the Bible is not all that it's cracked up to be! Not only this but you also have the open-mindedness and gumption to speak out on your findings and own up to and publish it too!
I am very grateful for you sharing your viewpoints, thoughts, and ideas on this subject. It's been a relief to me to learn of others who also have trouble swallowing everything that was written in the Bible. It's wonderful knowing I'm not alone. Please publish this letter and my address in case anyone would like to write to me in the future. Thanks again for caring enough about inmates to allow us to have free subscriptions.
(Luella Leever # 646663, M. V. Unit, 2305 Ransom Road, Gatesville, TX 76528)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I get more letters from prison inmates than I have time to answer. I have published a few of them in the past, and in this issue, I am featuring several of them, which will appear immediately below.
Prison, a Struggle for Reason...
I just thought I'd drop in with some feedback. I received my first issue of The Skeptical Review, May/June 1998. This publication is great and definitely educational. For somebody like me, incarcerated in the Texas prison system, it offers a breath of fresh air from the stifling propaganda of the prison ministries. I found your debate with Dr. Price to be hard-hitting and direct. I see you didn't waste any time trying to set up smoke screens but instead got straight to the point. I enjoy the mailbag section as well as the thoroughly written articles.
One viewpoint I'd like to share with you concerns the incarcerated freethinker. A journey through the penal system can develop into a full-blown struggle for reason. The first stage of this struggle begins in the county jail and continues on in prison, where these facilities are, in general, pro-clergy. There always seem to be several types of religious services going on. For the freethinker, there are no alternatives to offer sound advice and positive counseling in an atmosphere of negativity. Without any type of nonreligious support services, perhaps as an equal balance to religious services, many nonreligious people sit idle. The common misconception feeding off this situation and perpetuated by the clergy is that freethinkers are incorrigible evil-doers.
The best thing we can do is open our minds to reason and logic and concentrate on living a positive life. If we want to improve our circumstances in life, then we need to take the initiative to change things. The Skeptical Review not only provides valuable insight but is also a tool with which to enlighten those who are confused. Thank you for the subscription. I really appreciate it.
(Michael Garza #641928, Route 1, Box 150, Tennessee Colony, TX 75884)
Two Steps from Fanatics...
I am an inmate in a California state prison. I wrote to you a couple of days ago about my family being two steps back from being fanatics. Do you remember? Well, I apologize for sending you such a messy, sloppy letter. I do have much more respect for you and your work to send such a hideous letter. I did fail to mention that I would really appreciate your putting my brother on your mailing list. He is "saved" and lives (or tries to) as such.
I did mention that individuals come into this place and preach "the word" to us. They insist that it is the word of God. I insist that the Bible is, if anything, only "a message." What I read in your publication and the Freethought Perspective I try to ask my brother about. I know well enough that he is a "holy roller" and nothing will open up his mind to be more rational in his belief. I can only write so much in a letter, and I am limited to my resources to fully instill a proper foundation to explain my points regarding the "far-fetched hoopla" this "God" lays down by way of the Bible. If my brother could just read your publication, I more or less already know that it will only ignite his fire. He will respond by expressing his views to you, I'm sure. He will defend "J. C." to the fullest. You might ask then why waste a copy or an issue if nothing will deter his close-mindedness? Well, he will take this issue to his congregation, and when he does, no one there will be able to handle what you write. Thus, they will have to research and learn more about their "invisible deity" to make some kind of logical sense.
I am an agnostic, searching for logical sense rather than building my life around "faith." I want proof; moreover, I need proof in order to wholeheartedly believe in something. I'm sending you a letter from my brother that I received today, and hope you will understand what I'm trying to write in this letter. Please consider my brother to be placed on your mailing list. His name and address is (deleted).
(Cesar Rodriguez #J78624, PBSP-SHU/C-6 C212, P. O. Box 7500, Crescent City, CA 95532)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The letter from Rodriguez's brother was basically a collage of scripture quotations strung together in typical Christian fashion, as if the writer thinks that whatever is in the Bible will be believed by those who read it. I have added Mr. Rodriguez's brother to the mailing list, but I don't have much hope that TSR will bring any substantial change in the brother's thinking. My experience has been that the majority of those who request the free subscription themselves will renew after the first year, but most of those who receive it at someone else's request won't. Quite often, they will either write or call and ask that their names be removed from the mailing list. Christians think nothing at all about pushing tracts and other religious literature onto others, but they don't like it when those with opposing views return the favor.
Monopoly on Tracts...
I am a prisoner in Joliet Correctional Center, who has been thankfully receiving The Skeptical Review for a few years. I want to "get the message out," so to speak, to the prisoners. You wouldn't believe how much time and money religions spend to indoctrinate prisoners with the fundamentalist drivel. Everywhere I turn I see a religious tract or a chaplain coming to try to convert me. I am not going to take this attack on reality anymore. I am planning to hand out anti-religious or anti-fundamentalist tracts. The religious groups have so far had a monopoly on tracts in this prison, but I foresee a time when where there is a religious tract, an anti-religious tract will sit right next to it. I was hoping you might have some tracts or information you wouldn't mind me copying. This would be a great help to me and, I think, to many others. I'm planning to do this campaign at much risk to myself, but the "real" truth must be heard at all costs. I could pass out copies (with your permission) of The Skeptical Review, but it might put a strain on you if you get a lot of requests for subscriptions. I believe it would do a lot of good, but I'm sure there are ways of doing it without causing you any undue strain. I am working with some material right now, but I desperately need more/different materials. I'm not going to make much of an impact with what I've got to work with. I'm not sure what to do here. If at all possible, please write me and let me know. Any help would be great.
(Thomas Olds #B00838, P. O. Box 515, Joliet, IL 60432)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Answering correspondence is a major problem for me, because I receive far too many letters to give each one my individual attention. Publishing this letter will be my way of responding to it.
Skepticism, Inc., has published and distributed written debates, but we have never distributed tracts. We have back copies of each issue of TSR except one, but to use these in the distribution program suggested by Mr. Olds would be cost prohibitive. Whereas tracts cost pennies to print, a publication like TSR costs about $0.50 per copy just to publish. Our extra back copies number from just a few copies to a couple of hundred per issue, and if we distributed them as tracts, they would not last long. Then we would have none to meet the demand from new subscribers who want to have back issues. Also, if our back copies are distributed as tracts, they will probably be treated as tracts; that is, many of them will just be thrown away. I wish we could help, but I see no feasible way to do it.
We, of course, have no objections if the articles in TSR are copied locally. We have always granted interested parties the right to do this provided that the name and address of The skeptical Review are included on the copies, so that those who want additional information will know how to contact us.
A Correction...
I hope you will run the following brief letter to fix a problem in my article "How the Snake Slithered into Eden." I left something out of this article that could lead to confusion. I said that the Mesopotamian epic the "Enuma Elish" tells how the king-deity cut up the body of the primal goddess Tiamat to make the universe in six steps parallel to the six stages of Genesis. I then pointed out that Genesis does not say that Yahweh directly created life on the earth, other than the first humans, but ordered the earth and the sea to make the various lifeforms.
The significance of this reference was lost because of my oversight. The "Enuma Elish" does not describe the actual creation of plant and animal life by the Mesopotamian gods, so it does not parallel the Genesis creation account in that respect. This was my error, but then it becomes significant that Genesis does not say that Yahweh directly created life either. If the first chapter of Genesis is derived in some way from the "Enuma Elish," as scholars have argued, this phrasing could be another hint of how the early Israelites kept to the basic format of the original as they reshaped it to their needs. They said Yahweh made directly what the Mesopotamian gods made directly and did not make directly what the gods did not make directly in the "Enuma Elish."
The epic has a gap that might contain a description of the creation of life, but that's not certain, and an argument has been made--a good one to my amateur ear--that the missing passage did not contain such an account. However, Tiamat, the primal mother and sea, created life, which could be the inspiration for the Genesis claim that Yahweh ordered the female earth and sea to create life. It's speculation, of course, but that's all we can do in the absence of solid information about how Genesis was composed.
I also should not have said that the "Enuma Elish" describes six steps of creation. The epic is too vague to really break down into such a neat division. At least seven parallels, in identical sequence, have been cited in the details of creation between the epic and Genesis 1.
I hope the preceding comments will make my article clearer and correct my error in saying that the "Enuma Elish" matched the six stages of Genesis 1 explicitly. The parallelism is not 100 percent precise, yet in some ways is more intriguing.
(William Sierichs, Jr., 316 Apartment Court Drive, Apt. 44, Baton Rouge, LA 70806)
Comments on July/August Issue...
As usual, many of the arguments went into very fine details, which are difficult for me to remember or follow. I am not sure if I can remember anything that I can tell a believer.
Fulfilled prophecy is one of the usual foundations that Christians claim supports their faith as if faith needed any help. The most that I can claim is that there are alternative explanations to fulfilled prophecy. Trying to disprove a claimed fulfilled prophecy is beyond my knowledge and training. If I try to prove to someone that Jeremiah did not make a fulfilled prophecy, I will have to cite some historical experts. The Christian will cite his, and the debate might get nowhere. Of course, showing that the Christian cannot prove fulfilled prophecy is very important so that the true foundation of religion can be revealed.
I was surprised at the claim of Gleason L. Archer that life is meaningless without god and without an infallible bible. There are many popular apologetic books that make the same claim and seem to be very popular with the converted. Those who cannot live without their god and infallible Bible are difficult to debate with, since they will cling to outrageous explanations and will often tell people to accept mysteries. Some people (like me) easily see biblical problems without much help; some people learn from the inerrancy debates, and most people will need to be offered a good substitute before they can give up their god/infallible-bible beliefs.
(John Delacruz, 3104 Del Monte Street, San Mateo, CA 94403-3819; e-mail delacruz@visa.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Learning how to reply effectively to inerrantist arguments is like learning any other subject. Time and repetition are needed to assimilate information, so Mr. Delacruz should not think it unusual that he can't remember all major points in material he has read. Additional reading and studying will increase ability to recall.
In earlier issues, I have pointed out that an easy way to respond to biblicists who claim prophecy fulfillment is to demand reasonable proof that (1) the alleged prophecy statement meant what the Christian is claiming, and (2) a fulfillment event actually occurred. Since various interpretations have been given to most prophecy statements and since the only evidence that biblicists can offer as evidence of fulfillment is the mere word of the Bible itself that such and such events fulfilled such and such prophecies, these two demands will usually put prophecy-fulfillment claimants into a defensive position from which they can't recover.
Gleason Archer is no different from the average would-be apologists whom skeptics encounter so often. The fact is that most of these want-to-be apologists have gotten their "arguments" and "explanations" from professional apologists like Archer, McDowell, Geisler, etc. The shallowness and absurdity of their explanations, then, come from parroting what they have heard the professionals say. Offering such explanations as "the mysteries of God can't be understood by ordinary men" or "God's ways are higher than our ways" is something else that amateur apologists have learned from the professionals. I have found that the best way to show the inadequacies of such explanations is to point out that any religionist (Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, etc.) could say the same thing to "explain" inconsistencies and discrepancies in their "holy books." So what good are explanations that can be used to "prove" the truth of any allegedly inspired book?
A Letter to Gleason Archer...
I've read your letter to Mister Farrell Till in the latest issue (July/August 1998) of The Skeptical Review. For humanitarian reasons, I felt moved to help you out by making some suggestions: (1) Get a spelling checker. (2) Take a refresher course in grammar at a local community college. (3) Abandon the false belief that the Bible does not contain gross errors. It does. You are defending a falsehood, which cannot but make Christians appear foolish, ignorant, and even wildly irrational. Inerrancy is bad theology! (4) Attack Mister Till's scholarship, not him personally. Otherwise, you appear bitter and unable to counter an argument rationally. (5) Cease attacking positions that Mister Till, nontheists, and Christians with opposing views do not hold and thus do not defend. When you wail about "nihilism," you attack that which Mister Till does not assert, believe, support, or defend. Do you understand how silly such an attack makes you appear? (6) Realize that right behavior, wrong behavior, morality, and ethics are all not predicated upon belief in God. When you falsely attack Mister Till for not having "a yardstick for good and evil," you fail to acknowledge the fact that such a "yardstick" is independent of God-belief. Good is good because it is good: not because some god or human being says it is; evil is evil because it is evil: not because some god or human being says it is. (7) Cease insulting Mister Till and others by attributing to them attributes they do not possess. When you falsely assert Mister Till has no "yardstick for good and evil," you falsely assert Mister Till does not know good from evil. Such a person is called "a sociopath," and is a grave danger to society and himself. Is it your contention that Mister Till is a sociopath? (8) Agree to debate poor ole deluded Mister Till and show everyone how wrong he is and how right you are, instead of wailing about how he "ignores" your "evidence." [Warning: see suggestion number three above.] (9) Cease trying to threaten/scare nontheists with your demonic God, your Satan, and your Hell. This just makes you appear foolish. It is like a child making empty threats of the boogie-man to adults. It might be considered cute and precocious the first dozen times or so that a nontheist hears it, but after a few thousand times it is merely tedious. (10) Try reading the Bible instead of worshiping it. (11) Subscribe to and study The Skeptical Review. Mister Till has much he can teach you.
(Rev. David Michael Rice, 723 Calle Casita, San Clemente, CA 92673-2708; e-mail, shydavid@net999.com; http://page. net999.com/shydavid/index.htm)
Another Letter to Gleason Archer...
Having read with interest your letter published in The Skeptical Review (Volume 9, Number 4), I felt compelled to write you a few lines. First, let me congratulate you on both your honesty and your courage. You are one of a very few fundamentalist leaders who will confront the detractors of fundamentalism head on. If the Reverend Jerry Falwell is any example, the preferred method is to avoid the detractors and hope (as he wrote quite honestly in a letter to the Right Reverend John Shelby Spong regarding the latter, which Bishop Spong quoted in the forward to Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism) to avoid bringing articulate detractors to the attention of the public.
However, let me also say that I feel your defense of your position is fatally flawed, for a number of reasons. For example, you draw specious conclusions that are warranted by your belief and your suppositions but not by evidence. Take your basic contention regarding the centrality of "the Holy Scriptures" to moral philosophy. You make clear that you believe that those who reject the authority of scripture must, prima facie, embrace nihilism and the belief that all human activity is essentially meaningless. In my view, nothing could be further from the truth.
I am an active participant in the Episcopal Church in America. I attend Eucharist regularly, seek always to care for my fellow man, and am active almost continually in coalitions to help bring economic and social justice to all people. When my life experience was assessed for credit, while I was seeking my second bachelor's degree, I was awarded 10 credits for my experiences in grassroots political activism. Whether you and I share the same moral beliefs or not, we are both obviously moral creatures.
On the other hand, I certainly do not accept the idea that the Bible is inerrant or even particularly inspired. It is sacred, because it is the accumulated story of people seeking God within not one but two separate wisdom traditions. Clearly, however, not one of the three pillars traditionally cited in support of an infallible text are applicable to the Bible. The Bible is not perfectly historically accurate, it is not internally tangent, and it is not prophetically perfect. Even if, for the sake of argument, one accepts that we cannot be certain enough about history to prove that the Biblical record and the historical one are identical (a contention I would argue is incorrect based on some of the Roman records, not to mention some of the more outrageous scriptures that have thus far survived the censors; talk about the missing link--know anyone who has seen the skeleton of a satyr?), the problems of internal tangency and prophetic perfection remain, and are more than enough to prove the document a human one.
Despite the shapes that one may contort one's intellect into, no one can reconcile large portions of the text, and no one should know that better than you. As for prophecies, what prophecies could be more important than those given by Christ himself? Yet, unless we have 2000-year-old people wandering around somewhere, at least one of his prophecies was blatantly wrong--at least as given in the gospels--wasn't it?
The text was not, is not, and should not be the faith. We know from church history how Nicea shaped the core doctrines of the church, doctrines that precious few who call themselves Christian have ever departed from by more than a stone's throw. We also know how Nicea and other church councils shaped the formation of canon. The received texts are not the received texts because they were specially inspired but because they fit the theological and ideological needs of people who had already determined what the doctrines of the church were. They were, at best, convenient advertising material that fit the received orthodoxy of the time.
Today's fundamentalists are, in all too many cases, not much more than biblio-idolaters. They are people who place the Bible in the niche that idols occupied for many of the faiths of ancient peoples, and worship its dictates, rather than examining the evidence, the circumstances, and the conditions in order to better make ethical and moral decisions that further the teachings we see in the life of the radical (and in his time, he was a radical) Jesus Christ. They instead follow the teachings of His chroniclers, who wrote long after His assumption.
Please understand that I do not deny the importance of ideologies, whether they are ideologies that I agree with or not. This century has proven how powerful ideologies, whether religious or secular, can be. On the other hand, I deny that it is either necessary or desirable to follow a fallible text, albeit a fallible sacred text, which is, at best, a blackened window--a window through which we each interpret the shapes we see in a matter most convenient to us. Instead, I suggest that as emerging understanding of the world and universe around us opens new vistas of knowledge and new frontiers of science, we aim at helping the Christian churches discard damaging anachronisms, face (as courageously as you have faced your detractors) a future that will never reinforce first-century presumptions, and build a just and all-embracing community, which will reject centuries-old prejudices and take pro-active stances on the issues of the next century. Issues that will surely confront us, such as the legal standing of clones, citizenship rights for our own colonists on other worlds, and quite possibly our interactions with other intelligent species, I would submit, are not issues that the churches today are universally ready to confront.
(Reynolds Jones, 443 Hicks Street, Apt 2G, Brooklyn, NY 11201; e-mail, paragon2@bigfoot.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. Archer has refused for a period of about 7 years to defend his inerrancy belief in a public forum that would give seminary students where he teaches the opportunity to hear the other side of the inerrancy controversy. For this reason, I can't agree that Archer has shown "honesty and courage." I personally believe that he has done the opposite by continuing to proclaim biblical inerrancy while knowing it wouldn't be wise to allow his belief to be examined in public discussions by an informed opposition.
An African Perspective...
A quick comment about some of the articles I read in The Skeptical Review, May/June 1998. A common twist that Christians use in their arguments that is simple to see, and easy to squash and get them (if it's possible at all) to review their arguments, is the logic that says if we do not understand something (a blind person seeing again, or how the universe started, etc., etc.), then there must be a magical/godly explanation for it. Of course, this is quite illogical and childish. No argument can ever follow that "logic." The only conclusion that can be drawn from not understanding something, anything, is that we do not understand it. If people had rather believe in the magic of miracles, rather than [god-given] science, then that is their problem. I think that any reasonable investigation into any claim of miracles would quickly show it to be either a farce and lie, or at best something that cannot be proven one way or the other, or that all witnesses to it are coincidentally Christians.
I recently had a "chat" with a Christian who sounded quite convincing about a variety of miracles that he had witnessed, and about the real existence of the spiritual world. At the prompting of a friend, who suggested that I go and experience the miracles myself, the Christian, upon some careful examination suddenly had no personal experience and could not point me to any of the many miracle workers he claimed, so his stories fell apart quickly. It was a real eye-opener to see just how he actually misrepresented the truth and lied about everything. But that is religion for you. He has not changed, of course, has not phoned me to follow up, and no doubt continues to lie to others.
Another comment regarding Mr. Price's comment in column three, page four, about your agnosticism vs atheism: often one can use a Christian's argument against him. Mr. Price has no proof of any god, so why is he not an agnostic?
Thirdly, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. There is something wrong (debatably) with living without values, morals, principles which are based on reason and truth, rather than dogma. There is no proof of any sort of any god (there are hundreds available on the market and thousands of different interpretations), let alone Mr. Price's own interpretation of his particular god. Always keep the debate open and refer only to what we know, i.e. belief systems such as Christianity, rather than to the claimed god itself. I am a happy atheist. I try to get involved in activities that will, in my opinion, add value to the world at large in my own small way. I try to love my kids and teach them to add value as well. When I leave this world, I hope it will be very slightly better than when I found it. With atheism, one does not need to duck and dive, lie and twist the truth, change interpretations, etc. One can lead a pure and clean life, focusing on the beauty of reality, no matter how complex and confusing it sometimes seems.
Regarding the Faulkenberry article, note that you are both arguing from a modern moral position. Up until very recently, women had few rights relative to men. Living in a country of diverse ethnic cultures, I see daily the difference in attitude to a similar situation, where one culture sees something as horrific and unacceptable, and another sees it as normal and totally acceptable. (Normally it is only the losers that look for further and alternative relief and justification.) I am certainly no historian or theologian, but I would assume that, if the actual story is really accurate, in those days, (as still happens in many third-world countries), a woman that the king sends for, has no right to refuse but every obligation and honour to obey the king's every wish and command. There is definitely nothing unusual and abnormal about this, even today. Of course, in modern first-world countries, morals have changed, and we accept a different set of cultural standards. Indeed, we try to force them onto other cultures as if they are necessarily superior. Something for you to question, Mrs. Faulkenberry.
Farrell, I compliment you on your work and efforts, and, most important, on your intentions.
(Peter Brossy, P. O. Box 41856, Craighall 2024, South Africa; e-mail, peterbrossy@yahoo.com)
Primary Colors...
"Primary Colors of the Bible," your article concerning textual criticism in the July/August issue of The Skeptical Review, was very interesting. In the article, you point out that biblical critics do not think the apostle Paul wrote all the epistles attributed to him.
I can't locate the material to document the point (it is in one of the hundreds of books and magazines in my library), but several years ago a textual critic used computer analysis to indicate Paul did not write all of the 13 epistles that bear his name. In rebuttal, a Christian textual critic used the same computer analysis of vocabulary, style, etc. to indicate Ian Fleming did not write all of the 13 James Bond novels that bear his name.
What does all of this prove? I think your statement in the article explains it best. You said," Textual critics undoubtedly reach some wrong conclusions...." Even if it could be established that Paul did write (or compose, since he did use an amanuensis, see Romans 16:22) all 13 of his epistles, this would not prove inerrancy. On the other hand, if Paul did not compose all epistles attributed to him, your position of biblical errancy is firmly established.
(Don Robertson, 644 Walnut Street, Rock Hill, SC 29730)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I can't comment on the project that "proved" Ian Fleming didn't write all 13 of the James Bond novels, because I am not familiar with the data. Nevertheless, the literary detective work of professor Don Foster certainly showed the validity of textual criticisms, because he established the identity of an anonymous writer by looking for distinguishing characteristics of the unknown author in the works of those who had published under their real names. When he found the same literary characteristics, he announced who "Anonymous" was, and he was right. I lay no claim to critical expertise comparable to professor Foster's, but I know from my own career as a writing instructor that plagiarism was easy to recognize in student writing. Stylistic changes in a student essay made plagiarism stand out like a sore thumb. I will have to see more data than Mr. Robertson has given before I will agree that literary criticism is unable to recognize forgery and redaction.
Subscription Cancellation...
Please cancel my subscription. I did not subscribe in the first place. I suspect some fool (Psalm 14:1) athiest [sic] did.
(Fred L. Battles, 165 Cold Stream Trail, Felton, PA 17322-99245)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I suspect Mr. Battles is correct, but I also
suspect that the "fool athiest [sic]" who sent the subscription request
knows how to spell the word "atheist." Mr. Battles doesn't want anyone
sending non-Christian literature to him, but he included with his note
a tract entitled "Are You Ready?" It was typically shallow and trite,
and, of course, it relied on the threat of damnation as its means of
persuasion. I was able to read the first two paragraphs before I felt
the desire to vomit and threw it away. Does Mr. Battles think that I am
unaware of the biblical threat of eternal damnation? This is a device
that will turn the rational away from Christianity rather than draw
them to it, but the simple-minded just aren't able to realize this.
