Yahweh is Proven to be a Pernicious, Lofty, and Fickle God

This is an excerpt from a book that we have written which is near completion, and was inspired by a heated online conversation we had with a well known Christian. In this excerpt, it will be proven that Yahweh, touted as the “ultimate and only true god,” is nothing short of a fickle, and pernicious god, with an added air of loftiness about him when it concerns the subjects of knowledge and wisdom. To prove this, I can show where in the Bible Yahweh views wisdom as being good, and also views it as being bad.

Christian Apologetics Exposed: What the Case of Christian Apologist Randy Everist Demonstrates About Christian Apologetics

This is a blog post meant to illustrate some of the problems with Christian apologetics. Christian apologetics is aimed at presenting a "rational basis" for Christian faith by defending Christianity against criticism and presenting a rational basis for their faith. According to R.C. Sproul, "The defense of the faith is not a luxury or intellectual vanity. It is a task appointed by God that you should be able to give a reason for the hope that is in you as you bear witness before the world." This is based on the following verse from the  First Epistle of Peter (3:15) "...but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect." (Wikipedia)

There are conceptual and internal inconsistencies in the Christian apologetic methodology in that faith is the belief without evidence, and knowledge is belief with evidence. Since Christianity is founded on faith, that faith overrides reason and evidence when it goes against their Christian faith. The Christian apologists claim to base their faith on evidence and reason, when in fact, it is based on faith first and foremost. When evidence and reason disproves their faith, they turn their backs on the results, and forsake the knowledge gained from the results. The Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard recognized this problem and argued that:

"Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainly. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I don not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith." *

Kierkegaard openly admitted that Christianity was illogical, and in fact a paradox was the center of his faith. This paradox was the Christ. According to Kierkegaard, an "Absolute Paradox" of Christianity was that a temporal being would take physical shape and allow itself, or at least a part of itself, to die a terrible death. Furthermore, the Trinity itself was a paradox, unless it is accepted that any son is his father through reproduction. To accept the paradox of Christian faith was to embrace something without relying upon abstraction, something beyond basic duty to society. At the heart of Christianity is the Christian conception of the trinity--which is illogical.  I posted arguments that demonstrate that this is the case. The Christian apologists cannot provide evidence for the trinity. Their belief in the trinity is founded on faith, and not evidence and reason.

Like the great American pragmatists would say, in particular Charles Peirce, the best way to fix beliefs is NOT via tenacity which is the method of tenaciously holding to ones beliefs no matter what; and NOT by authority, which is the method of going by what those in authority tell us without considering the alternative; and NOT the method of a priori, which is the method of using what is agreeable to a person's reason. It is through inductive, and in particular deductive logic and the Hypothetico-Deductive method--which is self-correcting--that we gain knowledge. When we use a deductive argument, the argument must be valid and the premises must be true, in which case, the conclusion must also be true. If the argument is not valid or sound, then the conclusion does not follow; in which case, one ought come up with another argument, or give up the conclusion. When we use the H-D method, we propose a hypothesis, and then we must present reproducible evidence that supports that hypothesis. If the hypothesis cannot be supported, then the hypothesis is given up. This is what we mean by knowledge, when we say knowledge is based on evidence. The Christian apologist's faith cannot stomach this result. That is why it prefers the aforementioned methods, which do not work as well in fixing beliefs as the H-D method. They use tenacity, ie. they will tenaciously stick to their faith despite the lack of evidence for it, or when there is evidence against it; they use authority, i.e. even when that authority has been proven to be wrong; and they use a priori, i.e. what seems agreeable to their reason when it supports their faith, and not otherwise. So, when apologists claim that they are presenting a rational basis for their faith, they are in fact, putting faith before reason. Their claim to be presenting a rational basis for their faith is only a pretense, for they are not in it to discover truth and knowledge--but only to support their faith based beliefs. Worse yet, when reason goes against their faith, they reject it outright or they use the ad hoc and/or Humpty Dumpty methods in their attempts to rationalize their beliefs and hold to their faith. Let me provide you with an example that illustrates the problem of Christian apologetics when faith comes into conflict with logic, truth, and evidence--when objective reality comes into conflict with subjective reality.

Recently, I presented an argument that proved that the Christian apologist, JW Wartick's blog post illustrated that the Bible makes no sense. Another Christian apologist by the name of Randy Everist commented on my blog, telling me I had not given arguments to support my case, and that I had not provided the proper exegesis of the text--which I actually had done. I answered all his points, and proved that my argument was both valid and sound. I wrote another post pointing out the arguments and exegesis in bold in order to illustrate that his claims were unfounded and that he had not refuted my arguments. His only response was ad hominem --all he could do was ask where I teach, and claim that I am not a "real philosopher." I showed that Randy's replies are those of a "mental baby,' and NOT those of a scholar. Another commenter that goes by the name The Truthful Heretic, made the remark that Randy might be a troll:

"The guy talks of argument in the start, and then thinks this annoying childish way of asking a repetitive personal question, is going to make it look good for him?

I'm thinking maybe he's just a troll, especially because of the "Humpty, Dumpty" as you suggested. Even if not, he is just annoying as hell!

After not being able to refute the argument, and being made to look like a fool, and thereafter trying to use tricks such as using ad hominem as a red herring, he thought he could save face by accepting the Truthful Heretic's potential way out of his predicament by claiming that he was really just a troll. As Randy himself said:

"lol. So which school do you teach at? Yeah, that's what I thought. I AM in fact just trolling, and I never knew how fun it could be! I just have a strict policy of not debating with anyone who is non-serious. Sorry. lol"

Note, that it can be seen from his comment that he has never trolled before, as he did not know how much fun it could be!--thereby telling on himself, that in fact, he was not actually trolling in the first place--he got beaten so bad, in order to save face, he would rather be called a troll! At any rate, Randy's responses to my argument were those of a mental baby or a troll. If his responses were those of a mental baby, then his responses were not those of a scholar. The definition of a troll is:

"In internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.    The verb troll originates from Old French troller, a hunting term. The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological monster.

In modern English usage, the verb troll is a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat.The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and wickedness." (Wikipedia)

If his responses were those of a troll, then his responses were not those of a scholar. Either way, the Christian apologist Randy Everist's responses were not those of a scholar.

Here, we have a Christian apologist who could not refute my argument that the Bible makes no sense, and as a result, Randy merely resorted to debate tricks such as repeated uses of ad hominem as a red herring. To make matters even worse, in one of Randy's post's called "Debate Tactics" he also said the following:

" Though I do not condone debate tactics for the sake of winning a debate, I do want people to recognize when particular tactics are done to them. We ought not to be concerned primarily with debating, or even being right. We rather ought to be concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of God. That said, many times atheists/skeptics (and even believers) evince some confusion (or outright dishonesty) when it comes to debate tactics."

Randy Everist claims that "we ought not to be concerned primarily with debating, or even being right, and that we rather ought to be concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of God"--but his responses and his actions demonstrated, that in fact, he was not concerned with knowing and being in alignment with the truth of  God!  When the argument and evidence went against his faith, Randy Everist, by his own declaration, resorted to debate tricks and trolling--just to save face and to hide from the truth that the Bible makes no sense--and to hold onto his faith.

Randy went ad hoc by pretending to be a scholar who refuted my argument, to claiming he was just trolling after the Truthful Heretic said that Randy might be  a troll because of his inability to grasp the arguments, and because of his use of ad hominem. Randy saw this as a way out of his predicament, and to avoid looking like a fool, and to hold onto his faith, he claimed to be a troll instead. However, through our interaction on this blog, Randy has illustrated what is wrong with Christian apologetics. For them, faith overrides logic and truth--which results in the use of ad hominem and these types of ad hoc responses and Humpty Dumpty Semantics when they cannot refute an opposing argument that would undermine their faith. In the face of logic and evidence that does not support their faith, or if it goes against their faith, they will hold to their faith--no matter what.

Now, let me say something more on the difference between debating and philosophy. The art of debate is usually, but not always housed in the Communications department, and not the Philosophy Department. Let me explain why. Debate is concerned with winning people over to one side or another, and not whether what they are arguing is true or not. Why, a person, if they can get away with it, can use fallacious arguments, or whatever other means (such as avoiding to answer a question that they know the answer to because it would defeat their position) A philosopher--and by philosopher, I mean a REAL philosopher--ought to be concerned with getting at the truth. The definition of philosophy is the study of knowledge, and as a philosopher, I seek truth and knowledge--not just for the sake of knowledge but to increase the overall good. As a philosopher, I use logic and the dialectical process towards that goal. On the other hand, we have Christian apologists, like Randy Everist, who only accept arguments and evidence when they are "in alignment" with their Christian faith and are only concerned with winning a debate. Randy Everest demonstrates the mental baby and troll aspects of Christian apologetics and their lack of scholarship. Since Christianity is founded on faith, that faith overrides reason and evidence when it goes against  their Christian faith. The Christian apologists claim to base their faith on evidence and reason, when in fact, it is based on faith first and foremost. When evidence and reason disproves their faith, they turn their backs on the results, and forsake the knowledge gained from the results.  This is one of the biggest problems with Christian apologetics--using any means necessary, regardless of whether it is true or not.

*Classics of Western Philosophy Steven Cahn. p. 1014

Answering "Tough Questions" Why Should We Be Good?

I found another interesting Christian apologetic blog recently called "Tough Questions Answered" and felt compelled to make a few comments of my own on their blog post titled, "If There Is no God, Why Be Good?" Unfortunately, I failed to take a photo of my comments before they were deleted. I did however, find it amusing that the moderators/writers of this blog felt it necessary to delete my comment in the first place, as it illustrated to me once again how weak their position is, and how pathetic their attempts are at upholding their nonsensical beliefs.

The post itself was a critique of Richard Dawkins arguments in which he contends that Christians are only good due to the fear of "divine wrath," and the writer goes on to say that he is unaware of any Christian scholar who makes these types of arguments. He obviously does not get out much, as I have heard this argument from scholars and lay Christians alike. Lay Christians actually LEARN this belief from other supposedly learned Christians and even from unlearned Christians.  Why, it is one of the basic messages taught to little children in Sunday School.

A person also learns right and wrong by experience, and the laws and morality of his particular group or society dictates what is accepted as right and what is wrong. Some societies for instance, accepted cannibalism as being right, whereas most would not. Why, even the early Christians believed cannibalism to be "right" as they routinely sacrificed living babies by rolling them in flour, dismembering them, and drinking their blood as a sacrifice to their god! The Romans who witnessed this practice however, thought of it as "immoral" and made note of this in court records. The view of a Roman Christian apologist who disagreed with this practice can be found in the Octavius, chapter 9. Dawkins was indeed right when he claimed that morality based on the bible is outdated and obnoxious. It is also totally unnecessary, as we, as societies, develop our own morals and ethics via Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitarianism--which means doing what is right for the overall good--no gods or goddesses required.

This is how morals and ethics develop in society. They are relative, and they change accordingly. Another instance would be slavery. At one time, it was considered ethical to keep slaves, whereas today it is not. As a pragmatist, I am willing to change my views and beliefs if a "better explanation" is developed, and unfortunately for Christians, the supernatural is ALWAYS going to be the LEAST likely explanation for any phenomenon--including ethical behaviors.  Christians may claim that the belief in Jesus as their lord and savior improves their morality, but the state of Christian society in general proves otherwise. In fact, the belief of Christians that they are born sinners, and cannot help but do bad things, has led to what the Christian philosopher Pelagius called "moral laxity" in which Christians commit rape, murder, incest, etc. believing they cannot help themselves, but that is ok according to them, because they can repent to jesus and still go to heaven. There is no eternal justice for the victims of Christian crime. The only real justice can be found in secular courts.

Bill Pratt, the writer of the blog post claims that god writes the "basic moral law on every person’s conscience," and in my deleted comment to him, I made mention of Gandhi, and if what Bill said was true, then it would be grossly unfair for Bill's god to write the laws in the heart of one of civilizations greatest humanitarians, but then fail to give him "grace" in order to save him from the fires of eternal hell. As the Christian god decides who receives grace and who does not, as it is "not of themselves" (Ephesians 2:8) it is grossly unfair, and unethical to banish such a great humanitarian to eternal punishment for not believing in god--when according to the bible that would be god's fault to begin with, as he is responsible for meting out grace to whomever he pleases. It is again, "not of themselves"--grace is a "gift" from god.

So why be good?  One quick answer to this question is that we are good because it increases the overall good of society.  It is in our best interests to be good.  Our survival depends on cooperation. 

This is why my comment was deleted. They have no argument that stands up to scrutiny. Their efforts are pathetically futile.

Addendum:  Bill Pratt did eventually post my comment, claiming it was not deleted intentionally.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but that does not take away from the fact that his religious beliefs and his arguments are flawed, as I have demonstrated.