"To all you
intellectually dishonest 'thinkers'"
Cliff Walker's discussions with a loving Christian
WOW, I didn't realize we were so sensitive. Forgive me for assuming that since I wrote a message to anyone in the Atheism site in the sub-site called Critical Thinker, I might believe that those responding might just be critical thinkers -- not critical in the sense of criticism, but critical in the sense of logical, sequential, rational, objective thinkers who use the scientific process as a way of approaching life.
Name calling? because I called you bitter? Come now. I thought we were made of sterner stuff. Let me list some of the terms you have used in your correspondence: cretins, baloney, spew forth, concoction, perposterous, despicable, fraud, loser, and these are only a few of the terms from one letter. And you are calling me a name-caller?
Wow, I called you bitter and I got a torrent of words. I believe a good psychiatrist would say, 'Well, Cliff, he must have hit a nerve.' Name-calling??? Character assassination??? Just because I said you were bitter??? Bitterness (to me) is simply unresolved anger and/or hatred that has been internalized. I believe a common sense person reading your letters would draw the same conclusion that I have drawn -- this person is bitter, bitter towards God, bitter towards God's people. Of course, the question is Why?
"Name-Calling" is the logical fallacy which attacks the character of the opponent rather than that opponent's ideas or as part of an attempt to discredit the opponent's ideas.
I rest my case.
My use of the word cretin was to describe people, such as Justice Antonin Scalia, who are engaged in a certain behavior. In fact, I picked up the use of this word from Scalia himself; in a sermon on the "fools for Christ" passage, Scalia called himself a cretin and acted proud of the moniker and encouraged other Christians to do likewise. I agree with Justice Scalia in his use of this term to describe those, such as himself, who would usurp the protections of the United States Constitution, particularly when it comes to the protection against the tyranny of the majority in matters pertaining to religious freedom and freedom from religion.
You mentioned 30,000 words, yet literary critics say that one must have at least 50,000 words of an author with which to compare a document suspected of 'forgery' and make accurate judgements.
Anything to be contrary, I suppose ...
Does this mean I can get away with forgery as long as the forged document does not exceed 50,000 words?
I doubt it.
But you declared 2 Peter a 'forgery' in your last letter. Compared to what? To 1 Peter, which certainly has less than 20,000 words in it? Those scholars who declare 2 Peter a forgery have made this same mistake, so you have some illustrious company.
As to these scholars, I've read their books and listened to them speak in person and shook their hands, whether it was such conservative scholars as F. F. Bruce or Bruce Metzger, or 'liberal' scholars such as James Robinson and Elizabeth Fiorenza, with whom I have spoke, and whose works I admire. The definitive work on the historicity of the books of the New Testament is Donald Guthrie's work, New Testament Introduction. I also understand the religious traditions from which they come, and the presuppositions which guide their scholarly thought and their writings. I have disagreed with them and I do disagree with them, and I have good scholarly bases on which to do so.
My experience was this: I was trying to find even the remotest argument for Peter's authorship of II Peter and could not. This was the first of many cracks in my faith. I soon woke up to the fact that I was among the most miserable of beings. Eventually, I saw through The Light. I know now that I was in the wrong place; I was not at home living a life of faith. That was not how I was raised, and I doubt I was "hard-wired" toward faith either. This is who I am, and fortunately, I think it is also much more realistic.
The definitive work on the historicity of the books of the New Testament is Donald Guthrie's work, New Testament Introduction.
Because this is the one which agrees with you, I suppose?
I'll check it out.
You say, "Science has always been with us." Please define the term 'science' as you are using it. The point I have been making to you from my first letter on, is that there is no dichotomy between faith and reason. They are dependent upon each other. There is no reason apart from faith. If you are in some sense a normal human being, and I assume you are, there is so much in your life, so much knowledge that you accept simply by faith, that you have not reasoned out, grasped by reason, or observed. You simply accept that stuff by faith.
Confusion is the enemy of purposeful thought.
I am not concerned, here about any definition for science (as if there is a single, definitive way to describe it to begin with; if we knew precisely what we were doing, we would have no need for science).
I am, however,
It is not uncommon for theists to do this, since most theists wish to make a case for the supremacy of faith over reason. McDowell and others have a different approach in their evangelistic efforts, portraying faith as the inevitable outcome of reason. In the company of believers, though, even McDowell will admit to the subjection of reason to faith in the life of a believer.
Just because I cannot see it with my own eyes does not mean I am using faith -- not in the same sense that one has faith in a supernatural being such as Jehovah. Faith is belief without reason or belief in spite of reason. Such faith is necessary to believe in a being described as transcendent or ineffable, because one cannot come to such belief through reason.
I say reason is sufficient to come to any knowledge which is attainable to man. If I cannot use reason to either affirm or deny something, then it is in my best interests to suspend judgement.
For example:
Again, you say you have reasoned out that you have a brain. How can that be? You have never seen your brain (unless you are like my friend who was an epileptic and had open brain surgery and was allowed to see her brain; if you are, I am humble enough to eat crow), you have never felt your brain, you have never heard your brain. You believe you have one and are using it. Faith!
I can, through reason and observation, come to the logical conclusion that I have a brain.
This is not faith. It is not what is necessary to come to the conclusion that an ineffable, transcendent being exists.
To call this faith is to confuse faith with reason. We need to distinguish faith from reason.
Otherwise, how can I have faith in Christ when I use reason to conclude that he was just a man like everybody else? If faith equals reason, then why do we even need faith?
No. My challenge to you is to distinguish faith from reason.
If you appeal to the fact that science say you have a brain or that everyone else has a brain, that is a faith assumption.
Again, I don't need to go that far; I can use reason to come to the conclusion that it is a fact that I have a brain. I have plenty of hard evidence to go on.
You believe that science is right, or you believe because the majority rules.
Science is not "right" or "wrong."
Science is a process, a method; science is not a doctrine or a dogma.
The majority rules only in political matters, and some countries, such as America, have protections against the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority ruled in determining truth, then God would necessarily exist because the majority, believing in the existence of God, would therefore cause the existence of God to occur. In other words, thinking something to be true would cause it to be.
This is patently absurd; this is solipsism.
Presuppositions are the pillars of any person's thinking, those basic guiding principles that lie at the basis of a person's reasoning. Are you afraid to reveal yours? Apparently so.
Afraid!? I already have revealed this to you, several letters ago.
The pillars of my thinking, my presuppositions, if you will, are these: 1) THINGS EXIST (I can take existence, even the existence of the Universe, for granted); 2) THINGS HAVE CHARACTERISTICS (unique characteristics distinguish a thing from other things).
Everything else I know rests, ultimately, on these two assumptions. Much of what I know rests on other firmly established facts (which are not presuppositions, but facts), but ultimately, all facts trace themselves back to these two presuppositions.
My belief that Jesus was the Son of God and died on a Roman cross to put to death my sin and the sin of the world is very sound reasoning to me.
If you insist ...
I look at the world I live in and I know there is something very wrong with it.
"You can't always get what you want" -- Jagger, Richards
So let's whine before God and insist that it be changed to suit our needs.
What is wrong? Men want to marry men, and women women.
And preachers want to stop them -- that's the real problem.
Whose business is it anyway?
(I could not believe how many people tried to stop me from marrying a Christian gal.)
Is God doing this?
No. He can't be. God doesn't exist.
Is man doing this?
Individuals perform individual acts. To lump all of man together and punish them or to discredit the entire race for the deeds of a few is stupid.
To do so, however, is very, very Biblical.
That's the main reason I distrust the Bible: its morality and its sense of justice is singularly reprehensible.
Only God can change human hearts. He does this by removing the sin and giving life. You resent all of this.
No. I resent the pathetic track record that Christians have in the morality department -- in spite of many, many Christians who denounce me for being immoral simply because I refuse to go along with their fairy tale. And in spite of the fact that Christians have a record of slaughtering people like me for resenting their moral track record in the face of their arrogant claims of superiority over me and my kind.
So why do Christians have such a poor track record in the morality department? Are they all reading the same book?
If God can change human hearts, I'm waiting.
("Humm, hum, humm -- [whistle, whistle] -- oh, you can't go to jail for what you're think-ing -- [whistle, whistle] -- humm, hum, humm.")
Okay, why is there still all this sin you listed? the murders, the evil homosexuality, those dreaded atheists, etc.?
Did I not ask with the proper, worshipful attitude?
(Perhaps this claim for the existence of such a god is simply a cruel hoax.)
You want to live your life the way you want to live it, not the way God wants you to live it.
You act as if I already think a god exists. I don't think there is any such thing as a god, and I think all claims attempting to support the existence of a god or gods are mistaken. I have many, many reasons to actively doubt these claims, and I have told you some of them.
Again, we have not established reason to think that such a being as a god exists. If and when we do (and I doubt we will), then we would need to sort our the claims of the various gods and see which god is the real one. After that, we would need to examine those documents alleging to be the word of this god, and determine which ones, if any, are genuine and which, if any, are bogus. After than, we would need to come to a consensus as to what those documents mean. Then, we would need to translate that into action -- into a how-to book, of sorts. Then, there's this quirk in Romans chapter 7, but that's only an issue on the remote chance that Jesus is the One True And Living god.
Good luck!
Wow. And how many times has the majority been right. But that was not my point. My point was that each of these billions of people exercised the spiritual dimension in their lives by believing in something beyond themselves. That was their personal opinion and belief. Are you going to argue with everyone of them and say, "You don't really have a spiritual dimension. Its all hogwash." Just because you deny the existence of your own spiritual dimension -- does that give you the right to deny their spiritual dimension in their lives? I was not just appealing to the majority. I was appealing to human history and culture -- every human culture across thousands of years of human history has exercised a spiritual dimension. Humans all across the ages and all across the board have believed in a power beyond themselves. And you are right and they are wrong? You possess the truth and they do not? And you call Christians arrogant? It is part of human instinct to believe in a higher power. It is part of the human conscience to believe in God (Paul in Romans 1 stated this plainly), however He may be defined. The person who denies the existence of God and believes in his own thinking has made himself to be god of his life.
NO STRAW MAN HERE. You are denying that a spiritual dimension exists for any man and billions have it as their own personal opinion for themselves that they have a personal spiritual dimension which they exercise in believing in God. You prove that man does not have a spiritual dimension. I say that it is logical that if man has a spiritual dimension, then that aspect of his life has a purpose, and it logically follows that God exists in order to communicate and have a relationship with man. You dare not admit the existence of a spiritual dimension in man, because it then follows -- if it does exist, then, Cliff, why are you not fulfilling your full potential as a person and use all the assets available to you to `be all you can be' and be more complete.
Wow. I heard you say the magic words 'take for granted.' Sounds like a faith-statement to me. THINGS EXIST ... what things? computers, Einstein, cretins, etc. Yup, they exist. Good ole Cliff can apprehend them with his five senses. But what about
friendship? Is that a thing? What about love? Prove to me that love exists. You would not allow me my 'appeal to the majority,' so why don't you prove that love exists without that appeal. What about dreams? You and I both know that you think/
My point was that each of these billions of people exercised the spiritual dimension in their lives by believing in something beyond themselves. That was their personal opinion and belief. Are you going to argue with everyone of them and say, "You don't really have a spiritual dimension. Its all hogwash."
If they try to tell me there is such thing as a god, I will ask them to tell me what a god is and then convince me. If they try to tell me they "exercised their spiritual dimension" I'll say, "Whatever that means!
I don't even know what you're talking about. I'm not sure many of the billions you speak about would understand you, either.
Just because you deny the existence of your own spiritual dimension -- does that give you the right to deny their spiritual dimension in their lives?
I have the right to deny any claim that I see as invalid. I am a human and I am an American.
I still don't know what a "spiritual dimension" is, though.
I was not just appealing to the majority. I was appealing to human history and culture -- every human culture across thousands of years of human history has exercised a spiritual dimension. Humans all across the ages and all across the board have believed in a power beyond themselves. And you are right and they are wrong? You possess the truth and they do not?
You are "Appealing to Authority" of the majority, here. You have contributed nothing toward the case than the claim that many, many people agree with you.
You are also engaging in a form of "Name-Calling" at this point. Observe:
And you call Christians arrogant?
Some Christians exhibit arrogance by engaging in "Name-Calling" and in "Appeal to Authority" of the majority, instead of supplying an argument for their case -- an argument that does not presuppose the point they are trying to make.
It is part of human instinct to believe in a higher power.
"Instinct" is a reasonable explanation for some people's apparent drive to believe in the supernatural. An explanation that could apply to others is depression, in that some people either don't like themselves or don't like reality, so they want something better. I recently had a few friends who fit this explanation to a tee. One woman I knew even said, "I couldn't handle this life if it weren't for the fact that the afterlife is going to be much, much better. That's the only reason I even hang on."
Another part of human instinct is that many men desire to pork young women. Does this make it proper to have sex with a teenager? And, just because I have an instinctive desire to prong the neighbor's daughter, does that prove the existence of her desire to go at it with me? Hardly!
It is part of the human conscience to believe in God (Paul in Romans 1 stated this plainly), however He may be defined.
That still doesn't make a dent in your case for the existence of a god.
For centuries, it was natural for humans to think the world was flat. Does widespread belief that the world is flat make a case for the flatness of the earth? No.
Also, according to Paul, one must believe in Jezeus in order to be saved, not just any god.
The person who denies the existence of God and believes in his own thinking has made himself to be god of his life.
This statement is very degrading.
I should end the dialogue at this point for you having made this very indignant statement -- but I won't. Many of our readers encounter it, especially those who are forced by the courts to join the Twelve Step religion where this bullshit claim is very routinely used against atheists, so I will respond:
How can I be a god when there is no such thing as a god?
How can I think of myself as a god when I do not think in terms of gods and the like?
I am a human, fully human: nothing more, and nothing less.
NO STRAW MAN HERE. You are denying that a spiritual dimension exists...
Yes it is the "Straw-Man"! You have just told me that I deny something and I don't even know what you mean when you describe what I deny. This is like me accusing you of denying that a "phe-yoo-mee" exists. What the hell is a "phe-yoo-mee"? Tell me what you mean by "spiritual dimension" before you accuse me not having a belief in its existence.
For you to say that I "deny" something is to presuppose its existence. Your task, all along, has been to make the case for the existence of a god and his Hell. You cannot get very far by presupposing what you are trying to prove in the course of making your argument. This fallacy is called "Begging the Question."
You prove that man does not have a spiritual dimension.
It is not possible to prove a negative. You are the one making the claim that such thing as a "spiritual dimension" exists.
First, explain what a "spiritual dimension" is. I cannot affirm or challenge something when I don't even know what you are talking about. When you say "spiritual dimension," you could be talking about electricity for all I know. If that was the case, then you would have made me the fool for goading me into denying the existence of electricity by giving it a specialized name.
I say that it is logical that if man has a spiritual dimension, then that aspect of his life has a purpose, and it logically follows that God exists in order to communicate and have a relationship with man.
If man has a "spiritual dimension" ...
Funny logic, though.
(Ha! Ha!)
I prefer to start my logic with things known, with things undisputed and plain as day. I then carry my premise to the unknown, if need be. I don't base my premise on things unknown or on things unknowable; I like to start in the known, undisputed world and move from there.
Nevertheless, most theists tell me that Man exists for the sake of God -- not that God exists for the sake of Man. (How they know this is beyond me!) This would make sense, though, seeing that God is usually portrayed as the Boss -- the Creator. My theist friends would be offended if they heard someone say, "God exists in order to communicate and have a relationship with man."
You dare not admit the existence of a spiritual dimension in man, because it then follows -- if it does exist, then, Cliff, why are you not fulfilling your full potential as a person and use all the assets available to you to 'be all you can be' and be more complete.
I am all I can be: alive and fully human.
THINGS EXIST ... what things? [...] what about friendship? Is that a thing? What about love? Prove to me that love exists.
If you say so. I would think that a friendship or love is an agreement between two people or one person's feelings toward another, not necessarily equal or mutual. The individuals involved can decide what it means -- if anything. If so, then it exists.
You would not allow me my 'appeal to the majority,' so why don't you prove that love exists without that appeal.
I just did.
You and I both know that you think/
Sure I can. I just did.
Except the "dreams" part, because I still don't know what you mean by dreams.
They just are not 'reasonable.'
Perhaps you misunderstand what reason means. You just switched from reason to reasonable in your argument. Reason, in the reason-faith dichotomy has nothing whatsoever to do with reasonable.
Or perhaps you are simply trying to confuse faith with reason rather than to distinguish faith from reason. Muddying the issue is one way to make it tough on your opponent. It's not very honest, though.
To use the dichotomy you want to stick with, they lie in the faith realm, Cliff, not in the reason realm.
No. I just described it, and I described without using the "faith" dodge.
I get the impression you are trying to confuse faith with emotion now. Emotion is entirely different from the faith-reason dichotomy.
The way you feel towards your cat [portion deleted] do those things lie in the reason realm or the faith realm?
Trick question.
I am not convinced you understand reason, and the role that reason plays in gaining knowledge and understanding.
Or, you are deliberately trying to confuse the issues.
The way I feel about my cat [etc.] is an emotion, among other things. There are probably some conditioned reflexes and perhaps some imprinting, bonding, and other things which contribute to the way I feel about my cat.
The way I feel about my cat has nothing to do with either faith or reason. It is an emotion, among other things. How I come to know truth is through observation and reason; I, personally, do not use faith to obtain knowledge.
Faith, to me, is an entirely unreliable method for acquiring knowledge and understanding. If the only way to know something is through faith, If I cannot come to know it through reason, then I am probably better off choosing to remain ignorant on the subject.
I would define the spiritual dimension of man -- in the narrow sense, it would be his ability to have a relationship with God (I would say to you, by the way, prove to me that God does not exist; why should the 'ball' be in my court? you are the one who holds a belief that is defined by something that 'does not exist'; rather odd, don't you think) -- in the broad sense, it would be man's ability use his imagination, to dream, to create, to think and plan for the future, etc. You, in a vague, shadowy, sense, exercise your spiritual dimension, Cliff, every time you plan for something in the future. 'Oh, I must write the cretin again, the pest. Its 4:00 now, I will do so at 8:00.' But that is a leap of faith. There is no 8:00 in existence at that moment. There is no future. You assume there is a future, you trust there is a future. You cannot reason that there is a future because it simply does not exist for you and any one at that moment. There is a good chance there will be but you can only suppose so by faith, not reason. Prove to me that tomorrow exists. I bet you made some plans for a future with your lady friend. I was in the same position after my (ex)-wife abandoned my children and I. I had found a lady and we made plans to be married. We set a date in the future. I believed we would be married. I hoped the day would come. I had some marvelous plans. But it did not work out. (I am very grateful because I am very happily married and I hope the same for you some day). You had plans and hopes and dreams. They were a reflection of the spiritual dimension in your life. They were based on faith, not reason. You believed in this relationship. You hoped the day would come. You dreamed of happiness and a bright future. You were exercising faith, Cliff. Your 'reach exceeded your grasp,' as Robert Browning would say. Reason cannot prove the existence of not even one second of the future. But you exercise faith in the future every day.
As to dreams, I would bet that you have dreams every night when you are asleep. Scientists tell us that if we do not dream, we die. You live, therefore you dream. You have had dreams. You probably had one this week. But you dare not admit that because that does not fit the faith-reason dichotomy. It is a 'thing' that exists, it has characteristics, except you cannot reason its existence. You know you have them, Cliff, but you won't acknowledge their existence in your life, because in order to do so you have to go outside of reason. In order to explain your dreams to other people, you are forced to assume (a faith thing) that they also have dreams and know what the hell you are talking about.
I was up till 2 in the morning, then I have been up since 5 and I am a little tired.
I will write back more later.
I would define the spiritual dimension of man -- in the narrow sense, it would be his ability to have a relationship with God
Good. Now we're talking.
Now, I must know the following before we can continue discussing this "spiritual dimension":
1) What is God? (Seeing that I have never seen nor heard a god, and have no reason to assume such an entity exists, please describe using regular philosophical terminology which has clear and undisputed meaning.)
2) How should I independently verify your claim that a god exists? (How do I know you are not pulling the wool over my eyes?)
3) What constitutes a relationship with a god? (Again, use regular words, not specialized words. Be sure we agree as to the meanings of these words, and try to avoid using a word that has two meanings unless we are distinctly clear as to which definition we mean.)
4) What is the procedure for having such a relationship? (What, about man, determines or reveals the ability to have this relationship? Where and how, on the human body, does this interaction take place? his brain? his navel, his thumb? what?)
5) How can I independently verify that this relationship is genuine (i.e., not a hallucination, not a cube of acid in the coffee, etc.).
I would say to you, by the way, prove to me that God does not exist; why should the 'ball' be in my court?
I say that a "dapr grysaeli jizduct" exists: you prove to me that it doesn't exist.
You can't.
Since I am the one making the claim, it is on me to make my case. You can choose simply to say, "No. I have no reason for believing that a 'dapr grysaeli jizduct' exists." To say this is entirely legitimate, although it is better if you first ask, "What is a 'dapr grysaeli jizduct'?"
Since you are making a claim for the existence of something that I can neither see, hear, feel, intuit, measure, deduct, or other otherwise detect, then it is on you to make your case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. All I have said is that I have no reason to believe your claim that a god exists or that Jesus died for my sins.
you are the one who holds a belief that is defined by something that 'does not exist'
Being in the minority, I think it wise that the name distinguishes us from the majority.
An atheist, remember, is anyone who, for any reason, lacks a god-belief. This includes infants and imbeciles and froggy little native boys and people who, for whatever reason, have rejected the claims made by theists.
in the broad sense, [the spiritual dimension of man] would be man's ability use his imagination, to dream, to create, to think and plan for the future, etc.
I don't think these things are the same as having a relationship with God. I don't think we need to use faith or spirituality to do or to describe these things.
I think you confuse the issue by describing something other than faith and giving it the name "faith" in an attempt to prove that faith -- as in faith in a god -- is valid. If you are going to talk about two distinct things, then let's discuss the two topics separately:
1) faith, as one might have in a god
2) thinking in general
Let's avoid using the same word -- faith -- to describe both things. Let's especially avoid using the same word to describe two different things during the course of a single paragraph.
'Oh, I must write the cretin again, the pest....'
You said it, not me.
If I thought that of you, I would never have responded the way I have.
But that is a leap of faith. There is no 8:00 in existence at that moment. There is no future. You assume there is a future, you trust there is a future.
I have every reason to plan for the future. The worst that could possibly happen is that I am not around to try to put those plans into action.
My experience has shown me that any "now" is followed by another "now" which is followed by another. My experience has also shown me (and my Dad also said it) that if I don't plan for the future, I am more likely, eventually, to experience a "now" that I will regret. This is not faith and has nothing to do with believing in, or not believing in, the existence of a supernatural being.
You cannot reason that there is a future because it simply does not exist for you and any one at that moment.
Wrong. That is precisely what I just did: reason that there is a future. I don't need faith, or belief in the existence of a god to reason that there is a future. I probably don't need a "spiritual dimension" to reason that there is a future, but I have no idea what a "spiritual dimension" is, so I will suspend judgement.
I had found a lady and we made plans to be married. We set a date in the future. I believed we would be married. I hoped the day would come. I had some marvelous plans. But it did not work out.
Again, you used reason to make these plans, based on your experience and your ability to think and reason. Of course you could not know for sure whether it would work out, but you probably had good cause to think that it would, so you probably, at one point, decided that it was a safe bet.
This is not faith and has nothing to do with belief in the existence of a god or having a relationship with a god -- except in the sense that your belief in the existence of a god could color your approach to making the plans. Prayer and a uniquely Christian understanding of love probably entered into your reasoning process, just like keeping my word and my uniquely "Clifton" sense of truth and love influenced my reasoning process. However, the method itself, your method for making the plans, is probably the same method used by everyone else: reason. (I say "probably" but I use reason to understand that likelihood of you using a planning method different from that used by most healthy humans -- reason; observation; thinking; acting -- is extremely remote.)
You had plans and hopes and dreams. They were a reflection of the spiritual dimension in your life. They were based on faith, not reason.
No. My plans and my hopes and my dreams were based on reason. I do not consider faith to be a reliable method of gaining knowledge, wanting something, making plans, imagining possibilities, or choosing my actions.
Although I do not know what the word spiritual means, I doubt it plays any role in my thinking or my life. I base my doubt from having heard countless people tell me about their "spirituality" and their "spiritual" experiences. Not a word of what I've heard about "spirituality" or anything "spiritual" has made a lick of sense to me; not a word of it has sounded superior to what I have: an ability to use reason to guide my life, my understanding, and my decisions.
Although I do not use the word imperfect because it implies that what exists is but a shadow of some "perfect" (albeit invisible) reality, I think human reason -- warts and all -- is the best we've got to work with. What you are calling "the spiritutal dimension ... in the broad sense" is no better. It is perhaps inferior in that it does not sound like you are giving yourself credit for your own work.
I often run into this problem when working with former Twelve Steppers. They actually quit their addictions under their own power, but are giving a "Higher Power" the credit for doing what they did themselves. This can detract from learning the skills necessary to quit and remain abstinent. Some people do succeed (AA says five percent after one year) but faith-based abstinence is very chancy: it is like that movie where the alcoholic was struck by lightning and suddenly quit drinking. Hey! Let's market that technique!
You believed in this relationship.
I had confidence in my ability to carry out what I promised to do. That was the basis for my decision to plan to be with someone I deeply desired to be with: "I can do this."
I also understood that it takes two to tango. I wrote about this last year, in the August, 1996 editorial, and had the same woman on my mind when I wrote that piece (she also disappeared in July of last year), although I used different characters to make my point in the editorial. It is unethical for me to try to persuade her into doing something which she has told me she does not want to do. I don't run her life. Although I choose to forfeit my right to change my mind once I have made a promise to someone, I still allow her the prerogative to change her mind whenever she chooses and whatever the reason.
Perhaps some day I will meet someone who has an ethical standard which resembles mine. Perhaps someone like that will like me enough to decide to be with me and to work together and to viciously fight off anything which would come between us. But I haven't yet met this person. I still have every reason to think that such a person exists, though, so I keep looking.
As to dreams, I would bet that you have dreams every night when you are asleep.
This is a different meaning of the word dreams than you used a few sentences ago.
As to dreams, I would bet that you have dreams every night when you are asleep. Scientists tell us that if we do not dream, we die. You live, therefore you dream. You have had dreams. You probably had one this week. But you dare not admit that because that does not fit the faith-reason dichotomy.
Now you are confusing what is associated with Rapid Eye Movement (REM) with having desires or longings for the future. It would be better, for this discussion, if you would distinguish between the two meanings of the word rather than confusing the two.
It is a 'thing' that exists, it has characteristics, except you cannot reason its existence.
It exists and does no need me to sustain its existence (except when talking about my own REM experiences). When explaining it or trying to understand it, I use reason. No faith is necessary to describe or understand that dreams exist -- for either sense of the word dreams.
You know you have them, Cliff, but you won't acknowledge their existence in your life, because in order to do so you have to go outside of reason.
I can use reason to come to an understanding (however partial) of what is happening during REM. I can know that what happens during REM exists.
You know you have them, Cliff, but you won't acknowledge their existence in your life, because in order to do so you have to go outside of reason. In order to explain your dreams to other people, you are forced to assume (a faith thing) that they also have dreams and know what the hell you are talking about.
Explaining dreams is communication and nothing more. (Explaining dreams has nothing to do with faith or with a belief in a deity who would bother having relationships with men or would ascent to the will of a man who prays.)
Gora was the late father of my friend Lavanam. Both are from India and worked with the untouchable castes and were friends of Mahatma Gandhi. Gora wrote of his experiences traveling around the world in 1970, and one passage is particularly humorous (and simultaneously tedious) to Western readers. After Gora came to the United States, he took an airliner from New York to San Francisco. In doing this, he experienced a strange problem with which he had had no prior experience. It takes over a page in his book for him to describe this experience, because he does not use the term jet lag. Perhaps there is no Telugu equivalent for jet lag or perhaps most of his readers would need a description, rather than a term, to understand what he is talking about. I think he simply did not know the term jet lag. I've read most of his writings, it is not like Gora to explain something in depth without telling the word which describes what he is saying.
Perhaps you and I think similarly about most things, although I do not use words like spiritual or faith to describe what can be described amply using regular terminology.
Although I don't understand what you are doing or why you are doing it, I'm afraid you may have a zeal to evangelize me (or prevent your own loss of faith) which could be prompting you to lump normal, every-day experiences into the category of religious experience, and then use that try to point out that I am religious.
I'm not going to buy that line of reasoning, though less thoughtful people may have bought it in the past.
(Or perhaps you've just been pulling my leg this whole time. Are you a Discordian?)
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 1997 7:47 PM
Please do not think that this is over and that I have run out of 'fallacies.' I told you before, I am in nursing school, I am working a full time job, I have four -- in other words, I am full up. I wrote to you on an impulse and I have been winging it ever since. The only reason I have been silent is because my major project was due tomorrow and I needed to finish it. I am not alone in my household. I wonder why you are? In my letter, I will tell you why, and its all in your letters. From this moment on, I am no longer 'winging it,' but I am going to be systematic in my discourse with you. Does the poet use reason and rational thought to express the reality which he wishes to express?
From this moment on, I am no longer 'winging it'
Last week, you admitted that you hadn't even been reading or responding to anything but "snippets" of my letters to you.
I am waiting for you to bring out both guns and start firing.
Please do not think that this is over and that I have run out of 'fallacies.'
It is obvious that you have not. Observe:
I am not alone in my household. I wonder why you are? In my letter, I will tell you why, and its all in your letters.
You keep using your own erroneous speculations about my personality and about my personal life in your attempts to discredit me, and thus discredit my case.
(Do not deny this: you are far from subtle in this regard.)
I can appreciate your need to continue using the "Ad Hominum" fallacy in trying to bolster your case, but your menacing remarks about my personal life have gone too far.
(By the way, the "Ad Hominum" fallacy comes off best when used in the third person; using it in the second person is not a bright idea.)
Life is tough for all of us at times, and it is even tougher for some of us than it is for others, depending on the resources each individual has available with which to function and to live life.
Nevertheless, since my last dispatch to you, I have edited, written much of, typeset, and printed the monthly issue of a small magazine; exposed two hoaxes; read two books; gone out on a date; taught a class; given a lecture; called four elected servants; fielded six hours worth of calls on an alcoholism hotline which I maintain and am the sole person who answers; spent eight or nine hours on the phone consoling a close friend who has recently been diagnosed with a grave illness; spent an hour or so consoling another friend whose life-partner recently died of AIDS -- this despite having to live with two chronic and debilitating medical conditions (one of which doubles me over in acute pain for about four hours at a stretch every time it hits, which is several times a week), having to cope with the fact that my closest friend in the whole world, a friend I've known for twenty-four years, suddenly disappeared into thin air without warning or explanation, and having to face up to an error on my ledger which put my available funds suddenly at zero ten days before my pension arrives. I have eaten the equivalent of two meals during the past five days, and I have slept fewer than twelve hours that whole time.
However, THIS DIALOGUE IS NOT ABOUT YOU OR ME!
(Got that?)
It is about your claim that I am "more than a fool" if you are right about Jesus, and my response that human reason is sufficient to gain knowledge.
Don't forget that you are the one who initially made contact with an Atheist magazine challenging Atheists' lack of a god-belief. I have done the best that I can to respond to your claims; in doing that, I have needed to unravel lots and lots of confusion which you have thrown into the discussion. I give everybody the same benefit of the doubt in all matters. I have tried to be very patient, but I could easily spend my time doing other things.
Therefore, if you do not stop making speculations as to my personal life and if you do not stop making degrading remarks about me, I will stop downloading your e-mail.
I have sent carbon copies to some associates and friends who also get similar flack from thoughtless philosophical opponents, because I think they'd get a kick out of your approach to truth.
Have a nice day.
Cliff Walker
The last few days have been filled and I have not been able to get back to you. I am composing a consistent, ordered response to your last question to me, 'who is God?' In the meantime, I would ask you to do something. Define 'things,' which is a part of your first presupposition, and then prove that 'they' exist. I am watching very closely your criteria for doing so. You scoff at Christians because you declare that you can use the criteria by which we 'prove' God exists to say that the Easter Bunny 'exists.' I doubt you can do any better with the 'reality' that you posit.
The last few days have been filled and I have not been able to get back to you.
So? Big deal! It's not like the world has stopped rotating; it's not like I'm waiting for the phone to ring. I know you have a life.
Take your time. Nobody has ever tried to reduce the Gospel to a bumper-sticker slogan. I don't want you to be the first.
You scoff at Christians because you declare that you can use the criteria by which we 'prove' God exists to say that the Easter Bunny 'exists.'
Wrong again! I said no such thing in our conversation (although do I admit guilt in having having scoffed at more than two Christians).
Bertrand Russell wrote: "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." (The History of Western Philosophy, p. 85). However, I also wonder if you may be throwing these "curve balls" at me in a deliberate attempt to toss confusion into our discussion. (I won't speculate over which of the above speculative assessments gives you the benefit of the doubt.)
A simple word-search for the word bunny reveals my statement to you: "I cannot believe in Jesus any more than I can believe in the Easter Bunny..." (In fact, it is the only occurrence of my use of the term on the entire WEB page.) I say nothing about proving that the Easter Bunny exists, because I cannot prove the existence of the Easter Bunny any more than I can prove the existence of a god.
It is on those who claim to make their case. It is on the one who makes an extraordinary claim to come up with an extraordinary case. One who lacks a belief is under no obligation. In other words, you can go ahead and deny my claim that "things exist" and then we have no further discussion.
Define 'things,' which is a part of your first presupposition, and then prove that 'they' exist.
You asked if I make any presuppositions, and I said I make two: 1) things exist; 2) things have characteristics (which distinguish them from other, different things).
I would include 1) objects of matter, 2) potentials and releases of energy, and 3) information among what I call things, but I dare not go further than that. I do not write off other possibilities, I simply choose not to go any further at this stage of my education.
To try to prove that things exist, I would need a presupposition more basic than "things exist" on which to base my proof; "things exists" is one of the two basic presuppositions upon which I base all other discussions. "Things exist" is so self-evident that without it as an accepted truth (or at least as a presupposition), I cannot hold a coherent dialogue; without that presupposition, any conversation would become absurd. Without "things exist," I become a solipsist.
This presupposition, however, is not unique to atheists; neither is it universal among atheists. A true solipsist would probably qualify as an atheist, though very few atheists are solipsists.
Having accepted that things exist, I go one step further and assume that things have characteristics which distinguish them from other things. Unless I assume the existence of distinguishing characteristics, I cannot make any statements based on the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of my senses or my measuring equipment.
Cliff Walker, editor
The Critical Thinker
From:[suppressed]
To: editor@positiveatheism.org
Subject: Dialogue
Date: Saturday, June 14, 1997 9:44 PM
{Thanks for the direction. I am still working on making it work so I can reply to you in the specifics of your actual words and sentences. There is alot to say. One issue, among many, stands out in our correspondence, this issue of "errors, discrepancies, and contradictions" in the Bible and these "eliminat[ing] the claims of those books from the realm of serious consideration." As I have read your correspondence, I have found misspelled words, words missing, and grammatical errors as well. You have a modern computer, probably a spell-check, maybe even a grammar-check, yet you made these errors. How can you, in intellectual honesty, set in judgment on ancient documents, which were written and recorded by those who had to work tediously to write and copy these documents with primative tools on animal skins or plants meshed together? Because these errors are in your works, am I supposed to disregard everything you say as nonsense? Does this mean that if I find a 'typo' in the Constitution, that I can or must disregard it as an authoritative document?
{In 1985, I had the privilege of shaking the hand of, and talking to, John Trevor, the first American to handle the Qumran scrolls. I have had the privilege in my studies to translate Isaiah 40 from the Massoretic (Hebrew) text of the Old Testament, and then to translate the same chapter from the Isaiah scroll of the Qumran scrolls. There was only one difference that I noticed between the texts. What is awesome about this fact, is that the Massoretic text is dated A.D. 900, while the Isaiah scroll of the Qumran material is dated 100 B.C. There is 1000 years difference between the two manuscripts, yet scholars say that there are only 12 letter differences between the two, what amounts to a misspelled word. I call that reliable.
{The people of the Jesus' world and culture were an oral people, not a people who wrote. They read and their book was the Hebrew Old Testament. They spoke Aramaic. After Jesus died and arose, there is in the early church a period of oral transmission of the words of Jesus, before the early Christians wrote the words of Jesus down. The oral tradition made the transition from the Aramaic words of Jesus to the Koine Greek of the New Testament. Paul started the epistle tradition and this led to the Gospel tradition. The impulse to record the words and works of Jesus came when the original disciples of Jesus and the Apostles began to die. All the books of the New Testament were written to Christians and they were written to be heard and remembered. It was not until 100 years or so after the books of the New Testament was written that the early Christians began to look on these writings as the word of God. Paul did not know he was writing scripture, nor did John or Peter. Then the original writings were lost through wear and tear; they were not that important and they are not important today. If modern Christians had the originals, they would worship them instead to the true Lord to which they point. For the original words of Jesus to go through all this and come down to us in a relatively harmonious shape is remarkable -- the Lord watching out for His word as He always has and will continue to do! The so called 'errors' and 'discrepancies', etc. have never bothered me. I don't need or claim an inerrant and infallible Scripture. It is the inspired word of God, meaning that as I read it, it becomes the personal word of God to me. I look beyond whatever these things might be, and see the truth of the words. I have heard this argument throughout my ministry -- 'can't believe in the Bible because its full of errors.' What I hear when people say this is, "Since the word of God is not perfect (according to my definition of perfection), I don't believe in it. It has to be so perfect that it convinces me against my will to be convinced that it is the word of God." Put me on a roller-coaster and make me throw up. Emesis, emesis!
{To reiterate: Does all this mean that I can add up all the errors, discrepancies, and contradictions in your correspondences to me and simply on that basis discard your arguments?
One issue, among many, stands out in our correspondence, this issue of "errors, discrepancies, and contradictions" in the Bible and these "eliminat[ing] the claims of those books from the realm of serious consideration." As I have read your correspondence, I have found misspelled words, words missing, and grammatical errors as well. You have a modern computer, probably a spell-check, maybe even a grammar-check, yet you made these errors.
Yet:
1. Most of this stuff is unprocessed: right off the top of my head. If and when something gets published, you'd better believe I pull out all the stops.
2. Every word of it is a Cliff Walker original -- no disputes over such things as textual corruption.
3. If you have any questions, you can ask me.
4. I have a disorder which makes it a tedious process to verify that what I want to say equals what ends up on the page. Nevertheless, typesetting and editing is my line of work, though I am not very competitive at it. Strenuous education and tedious practice minimize the effect of this disorder in that my skills and effort can override or "punch through" the disorder. At least I'm not as bad off as that poor fellow who has no arms and who types indices for books using a pencil between his toes.
Tell me: What's God's excuse?
How can you, in intellectual honesty, set in judgment on ancient documents, which were written and recorded by those who had to work tediously to write and copy these documents with primative tools on animal skins or plants meshed together? Because these errors are in your works, am I supposed to disregard everything you say as nonsense?
I don't claim to be God.
You have disregarded almost everything I've said that you understand -- and have misunderstood a great deal of what I have said, even though you have known original documents.
I don't understand why a god would, if this message was so important, entrust it to illiterate goat-herders and itinerant tent-makers. I would hope it would be given the means to better protection than has the Bible, because at this point the Bible is so hopeless as to render it useless: no one can tell which are the corruptions and additions and which parts are genuine.
In 1985, I had the privilege of shaking the hand of, and talking to, John Trevor, the first American to handle the Qumran scrolls. I have had the privilege in my studies to translate Isaiah 40 from the Massoretic (Hebrew) text of the Old Testament, and then to translate the same chapter from the Isaiah scroll of the Qumran scrolls. There was only one difference that I noticed between the texts. What is awesome about this fact, is that the Massoretic text is dated A.D. 900, while the Isaiah scroll of the Qumran material is dated 100 B.C. There is 1000 years difference between the two manuscripts, yet scholars say that there are only 12 letter differences between the two, what amounts to a misspelled word. I call that reliable.
I wonder why they always seem to point to the accuracy of Isaiah 40 but not to any other chapters?
The question is not "is a 1000-year-old copy of a copy accurate against a 2000-year-old copy of a copy, but did Isaiah write it? And what happened to it between when it was allegedly written and the earliest available manuscript.
Of more importance is: Did God inspire it? This is a whole different discussion which cannot take place until after we verify that Isaiah wrote Isaiah and that what we have is the same as what Isaiah wrote.
The people of the Jesus' world and culture were an oral people, not a people who wrote.
And the Greeks and Romans who edited and wrote the New Testament were not a thinking people, not a people who thought things through, and were very unfamiliar with Jewish law, custom and thinking. This is clear by reading any fragment of the New Testament.
After Jesus died and arose, there is in the early church a period of oral transmission of the words of Jesus, before the early Christians wrote the words of Jesus down.
You presuppose that Jesus died and that Jesus arose, which presupposes that Jesus even existed. But you tell me of corruptions in the story. Which of these presuppositions are iron-clad, indisputable truth? That Jesus existed? (Does the Jesus myth need a literal Jesus to explain its existence?) That Jesus was crucified? That he actually died that day and not later? That Jesus rose from the dead?
Which of these claims are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof? -- as Carl Sagan was known to say.
If modern Christians had the originals, they would worship them instead to the true Lord to which they point.
Are you trying to discredit Christianity here? Are you trying to say that faith promotes stupidity? That's my job!
I don't need or claim an inerrant and infallible Scripture. It is the inspired word of God, meaning that as I read it, it becomes the personal word of God to me. I look beyond whatever these things might be, and see the truth of the words.
The truth of which words? Which words are the real words?
What I hear when people say this is, "Since the word of God is not perfect (according to my definition of perfection), I don't believe in it. It has to be so perfect that it convinces me against my will to be convinced that it is the word of God." Put me on a roller-coaster and make me throw up. Emesis, emesis!
What I said (but you still haven't heard, though I've said it to you several times) is that the New Testament is so replete with flaws that it cannot be taken seriously as a historical document. The New Testament's morality is so destructive to society that it is one book I wish I could ban. The logic of the New Testament inspires Straw-Man fallacies like the one you gave above. Even if the New Testament admitted outright that it is the words of uninspired men, its usefulness does not go beyond historical curiosity (and a very curious one, at that).
To reiterate: Does all this mean that I can add up all the errors, discrepancies, and contradictions in your correspondences to me and simply on that basis discard your arguments?
Ask me anything you want about what I've written and you will get a response that is verifiably mine and verifiably original. You'll have to depend on my reputation as to whether what I say is on my mind is actually what is on my mind.
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.