The Exodus, and Why it Did Not Happen as Depicted in the Bible

 

In the spirit of Passover, and the fact that Christian holidays such as Easter "borrowed" many of the elements of their beliefs from others, in this post I will argue that the best explanation for the Exodus, via Ockham's razor, is that it did not occur as depicted in the Old Testament, but is instead a story which was cobbled together from the stories of different groups, and was used to elevate the status of the Jewish kings, and to serve their political, economic, and social interests.

I will be looking at the Exodus from a historical materialist perspective, and will use historical and archeological evidence to support my arguments--unlike the traditional idealistic Christian perspective, which views the bible as the "words of God," in the strict and literal sense. Instead, I will be looking at the "conditions of production" of the Exodus story that explains why it was written.

Considering the Israelites were at one point in time, nomads and slaves, it makes logical sense that their kings (namely Solomon and Josiah) employed hyperbole to create scenarios that elevated their status. In fact, some of the earliest known written works in the bible are from 1 Kings 1 and 2, and 2 Sam 9:20--the narration of the succession of David. Scribes of kings are known to exaggerate claims of the rulers who employ them, and this too can be said for the writers of the bible in their efforts to elevate their status in the world. This is how the story of the Exodus evolved.

William Lane Craig's Best Explanation Move for the Existence of God is Impotent

  Let us examine the "Best Explanation Move."  The Best Explanation Move is a scientific move.  It is founded on having a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations. This is known as the scientific method or the "Hypothetico-Deductive" method. We pose a series of hypotheses and then see if the predicted consequences actually follow. If they do, we conclude that a hypothesis is confirmed. Two conditions must be met for the best explanation move: 1. The first condition to be met is that you must  have a hypothesis, which makes predictions, which are confirmed by observations, and 2. The second condition is that a hypothesis has to do a better job than any of its existing rivals.  I will use two examples to illustrate:

For example, we now think that infectious diseases are the result of microorganisms.  In the past, people used to think that disease was the result of bad air, usually the night air--or the result of being inhabited by evil spirits.  A simplified discussion of this is revealed in the following argument, with:

h = germ theory of disease

O1 = when we examine the blood and lungs of those who have an infectious disease (such as tuberculosis) we find a microorganism ( in the case of tuberculosis, the mycobacterium tubuerculosis)

O2 = the observation that when this microorganism is injected into animals who can contract the disease, and they do contract 

O3= those who have never been exposed to the disease do not have the microorganism

h' = infectious disease is caused either by bad night air or by evil spirits. 

P1.  If h, then O1, O2, O3

P2. O1, O2, O3

P3. h does a better job in explaining the disease phenomena than h'.

P4. h fits in with other related h's that are themselves confirmed.

C. Therefore, h. 

 

Against JW Wartick--Why Arguments are so Important

Recently, I made comments on the Christian blogger, JW Wartick's blog concerning the debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss-- he refused to post my last comment which illustrated that my argument against Craig was successful, and that he had not provided any counter argument to that point otherwise.  JW Wartick also read my blog posting on  The Existence of Contingent Beings. and referred to my post on his blog.  I kept a record of the entire conversation.  JW Wartick resorted to ad hominem, by asking for my credentials, and claiming that I am not a professor of philosophy and religion--which is neither here nor there, as it is the arguments that count--not whether or not I have a diploma on the wall.  When I consider an argument, I judge it by whether it is valid and sound.  In the course of our discussion, JW Wartick would not stick to the argument at hand, so I continued to call him out on it, and asked him for his counter arguments, but all he did was circumvent the issue.  Instead of sticking to my arguments, and offering counter arguments, he merely continued to say "You cannot say that"--without providing any arguments to back it up.

The "Fear of Atheism"--according to Dr. William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Sam Harris

-->

I recently read a post by the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight," who quoted Dr. William Lane Craig after the April 7, 2011 debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame University. Dr. Craig is apparently trying to do the old "switcheroo" by claiming that the "new atheists" are "blue collar, and uneducated." I had to lol.....

This is what Dr. Craig said:

"I wonder is something culturally significant is going on here. Several years ago, I asked the Warden at Tyndale House in Cambridge why it is that British society is so secular when Britain has such a rich legacy of great Christian scholars. He replied, “Oh, Christianity is not underrepresented among the intelligentsia. It’s the working classes which are so secular.” He explained that these folks are never exposed to Christian scholarship because of their lack of education. As a result there is a sort of pervasive, uninformed, village atheism among them. I wonder if something like this could be happening in the States. I was surprised to see the number of blue collar folks from the community buying Harris’ book and thanking him for all he has done. They didn’t seem to have any inkling that his views had just been systematically exposed as logically incoherent. The intelligentsia have almost universally panned Harris’ recent book (read the reviews!). Yet it is lapped up in popular culture. Wouldn’t it be amazing if unbelief became the possession mainly of the uneducated?"

The reason why I began this blog, and I go to conferences, and write papers, and talk to people in general at Socrates cafes, book stores, or to anyone anywhere interested in religion and philosophy, is to give everyone the opportunity to learn what religion, and Christianity in particular, is all about--the educated and the uneducated alike.  Note, that I am offended that Dr. Craig implies that the uneducated are too ignorant to understand what is going on.  Oh, quite the contrary.  Once, on the way to a conference, I was invited to stay at a bishop's home, and I did.  It was a beautiful home, and he took me around to show me all the beautiful things in it--from marble floors to exquisite art work.  He tried to enlist me to join his ranks, as I would have much more power, money, and influence to change society in the direction that I was working towards, such as equality, and rights for women.  I told him that it was my duty and goal to inform as many people that I could of all the arguments and explanations as they relate to religion, and Christianity in particular, and philosophy in general, to invoke reflectivity, with the hope that people would choose the truth for themselves once they heard all the arguments and explanations.  The bishop said to me, "Oh, the poor ignorant peasants don't need to know too much.--and that is is why the Bible was translated into Latin in the first place, and was not translated into other languages, so that less people could read and understand it.  The poor ignorant peasants would be too confused, and it is for their own good not to know."  He offered me the opportunity to earn a PhD of theology at their seminary, and said I could choose ANY church in his domain, including Jamaica!!--lol.  Of course, I rejected this, and told him that he should be ashamed of himself for deceiving the masses.  The so-called "uneducated peasants" ARE able to understand and choose the best arguments and explanations when they are provided with all the information.  This is my goal, and I have converted many educated and uneducated people. 

Besides the fact I have already exposed some of Dr. Craig's arguments as being fallacious in this blog (and I will continue to do so as time allows) Dr. Craig obviously did not read Ravi Zacharias' book "Beyond Opinion" as another prominent theist, Alister McGrath, said quite the opposite. Mr. McGrath made the comment that the increased atheism in the West is due to the "Enlightenment" i.e. EDUCATION and knowledge. It is only in oppressed nations such as those in Africa, where Christianity is gaining new converts by giving followers what I claim is "false hope":

""Interestingly, atheism has very limited influence outside Western culture. The only African nation in which it has any significant presence is South Africa, predominantly among the white population. This is a telling indicator of its Western roots, and therefor its predominantly Western appeal. But there is more to this observation than at first seems to be the case. It is not simply that atheism is a Western product/ It is actually a product of one specific area in Western culture: The Enlightenment, or modernity."

(Beyond Opinion, Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)

In fact, I was a theist myself, until I went to college and took every religion course offered. I also took philosophy, where I learned logic, and how to think critically and reflectively, and I believe small children should be taught this skill as well. Today, children and adults go by the rote method, and most do not have the skills to think reflectively or critically, which is why people believe and do things without questioning why--which is dangerous.

While in college, I also learned multiple explanations for biblical text, and the inconsistencies, interpolations, and contradictions, led to the realization that it is nothing but badly written mythology--plagiarized mythology at that. According to Wintery Knight's blog, theists would like their mythology taught as fact in schools, and are encouraging educated Christians to become part of the system to create a "theocracy" in the US:

"It seems that if we had a individuals …with full-on Christian worldviews who have risen to the highest levels of authority in places like the educational system, that they could make just as much impact as what is happening now."

--We cannot allow that to happen if we wish to continue to "evolve."

Christianity became mainstream due to "the sword, or the noose, or various methods of torture" around the world in areas such as Africa*, South America, and of course North America** and Europe***; but now we have a different methodology--education.  Education is a factor that can lead to atheism--I am living proof of that. Western culture and the "Enlightenment" is also showing this to be true. Keep it up people.  Let's put the "fear of atheism" into them....lolol.....

*"European Christianity and the Atlantic Slave Trade: A Black Hermeneutical Study," By Robinson A. Milwood, p.30

**"Introduction to Christianity" By Mary Jo Weaver, David Brakke p. 164
***"The dark side of Christian History" - Helen Ellerbie 


 Addendum--Wintery Knight has not published the comment I made to his posting--I don't wonder why.....

CS Lewis' False Dilemma: Ray Comfort Unintentionally Offered Another Potential Alternative Disjunct to CS Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord" Argument.

In it for the cash!

Religion was invented when the first con artist met the first fool. ~ Mark Twain

 Assume what Ray Comfort says is true on his blog:

"Few people know that Jesus had a donor-based ministry. It costs money to feed and lodge 13 itinerant preachers. Many people knew that, and gladly supported the cause."

If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist.

Now, let us consider CS Lewis' argument:

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." (Lewis, C.S,.Mere Christianity, London: Collins, 1952, p54-56. (In all editions, this is Bk. II, Ch. 3, "The Shocking Alternative.")

C.S. Lewis' argument is often recast as:

P1.  Either, Jesus was a Lunatic, or  Liar, or Lord, (or sometimes  as "Mad, or Bad, or God")

P2. Jesus was obviously not a  Lunatic and not a liar.
C.   Therefore, Jesus was Lord

C.S. Lewis thinks that P2 is obviously true.  Is this the case? P2 is not obviously true, and Ray Comfort has provided us, indirectly, with a plausible motive and  reason why P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.

Let us reconsider P1. CS Lewis' main premise in his argument, "Liar, Lunatic or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist.  As pointed out above, If Jesus' ministry was "money based," then it is possible that Jesus was a swindler, and con artist. Thus, in the case of P1 we can add "or a swindler and con artist".

Therefore, P1 ought to read:

:
Either Jesus was a liar, or a lunatic,or a swindler and con artist, or a lord,  

As Ray Comfort points out, the gospels claim that Judas was the treasurer. We know that if you have a treasurer, you must also have a treasury. In this case, the treasury consisted of silver. Now, we know from modern day evangelists, that they often times use the poor, starving, and oppressed to get "donations" that they then use on/for themselves. Now here, in the bible, we have an EYEWITNESS account that Jesus was doing the same thing!! Jesus had been given some expensive oil that he was going to use on his.feet, and from what Judas said, we can infer that such donations were supposed to be used to feed, clothe, and house the disciples and the poor. Judas, our eyewitness, points out that this very expensive oil, that was DONATED, ought to have been sold, and the money used to FEED THE POOR. (John 12:4-6 )We can infer from this that Judas felt deceived by Jesus, and called him out on it. Judas was a whistleblower. Again, like in modern times, the whistleblower is often attacked, and made into a scapegoat by those who have committed the indiscretions. Note, that according to the gospels, Judas was attacked after he called out Jesus for using the expensive oil on himself, instead of selling it and using the money to feed the poor. Lastly, the gospels have Judas exclaim "I have betrayed innocent blood" (Matt 27:4) and then he killed himself, as if he was guilt ridden. However, given what we know about what happens when a person blows the whistle, that is, how the company belittles them, lies on them, and so forth--another possible alternative we can infer is that the other disciples began to lie and spread bad rumors against Judas, and that the disillusioned Judas committed suicide because he was duped by Jesus, and everything he believed in was a sham, and turned out to be false.

Whether my explanation is correct or not, is not the point. The fact of the matter is, it is a PLAUSIBLE, AND VIABLE explanation, given our EYEWITNESS account, according to the gospel, and what we experience with many modern day evangelicals, and church leaders in general, where they misappropriate funds for their own selfish use. Note, I gave a plausible explanation already for the EYEWITNESS accounts against Judas.

CS Lewis' P1 in his argument, "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord" leaves out the disjunct that Jesus might have been a swindler and a con artist. Furthermore, P2 is not obviously true, thereby proving that C.S. Lewis' "Lunatic, or Liar, or Lord " argument is not sound, and therefore fails.

As a side note, Judas' calling out of Jesus calls into question Jesus' character, and points out another inconsistency in the bible. Part of the Bible paints Jesus as being totally selfless, and only concerned with the plight of the poor. But here we have Jesus selfishly using oil that as Judas points out, ought to have been sold, and the money used to feed the poor. Jesus' reply to Judas is very telling. Jesus said:

"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have ME." ( Matt 26:11)

This shows his egotistical side. (A common characteristic of many of the charismatic swindlers and con artist types of our day.) This would further support the disjunct that Jesus was a swindler and a con artist.  If Jesus was a swindler and a con artist, then he was also a liar. If Jesus was a liar, then he was also a swindler and a con artist. At the same time as both of these disjuncts, he might also have been a lunatic!  Of course, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible.

Addendum:  Someone who read this post recently asked me what the difference was between a liar and swindler.  Here is my explanation of those differences:

A person can lie just for the heck of it, and not for money or power or anything else, except for the sake of lying. A swindler and con artist MAY tell a lie, or may not. Sometimes they deceive by other methods. Either way, a swindler is doing it to gain something to gain something such as money or power, as opposed to just a liar, because there are liars who lie for the heck of it and not to gain money or power.  There are some swindlers who swindle just for the heck of it–i.e. they get a rush out of lying, and/or conning  and swindling people--At any rate, it still involves the act of deceiving for money and/or power, for as the definition of swindle is to deceive, cheat or defraud of money or property.  A con artist is just another synonym for a swindler.  Now, with reference to Jesus, he could have been a liar just for the heck of it--without any other ulterior motive. On the other hand, since as Ray Comfort pointed out, his ministry was “donation based,” it provides us with the possibility that Jesus was a swindler /con artist, as his motive may have been “donations.”

Therefore, as unlikely as it is, he might also have been a lord......but given the explanations above, and what we know from experience, the other explanations are more plausible that Jesus might have been a liar, and/or a swindler/con artist.

Joined the Atheist Blogroll!

A is for Atheist has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

I do hope that the information provided on this site will be helpful to those seeking real answers  in regards to the Christian religion.  As a professor of philosophy and religion, I have spent a good portion of my life teaching academically, which is far different from the "Sunday School" version of Christianity most are familiar with.  This blog is dedicated to exposing the bible/Christianity for what it is--badly written Bronze Age mythology.

What does this Christian "Proof" of Crucifixion Actually Prove

 
The good Dr.'s in this video are telling us that when the Jews write,  they have a "tradition" of embellishment (the Jews have admitted this), i.e. MAKING IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG. The Dr. in this video claims exactly this, that they MADE UP stuff as they went along to suit their purposes!  However, he wants to say that this is "proof of" Jesus' crucifixion!!--aaaahhhh, yes, from people that make stuff up!!....:)  That's reliable.......riiiiggght. (BTW--i am "atheistprophet5760" on youtube, and I also made comments there.)

On the other hand, perhaps the Jews told the truth in the manuscript cited in the video. Perhaps  Jesus WAS a fake sorcerer, and was stoned to death.

According to the Dr.'s, if Jesus was accused of sorcery, then he must have actually performed miracles, because no one would be stoned to death for doing "fake" sorcery. I suppose the Dr.'s have never heard of the "witch burnings." Following the Dr.'s logic, the witches must have actually performed miracles, since they were accused of "sorcery." It could not be the case, according to the Dr.'s that they were midwives, spinners, and some were accused just for the heck of it-no miracles performed!

We can see how this "tradition of embellishment" works from the video.  Can you imagine how the Jews, who were enslaved the majority of the time, embellished their Talmud and other books in order to make themselves seem great and powerful, when in fact, they were not?  They had NO great empire, such as the Egyptians, Romans, Greek, Chinese, Ethiopians, etc. had.  They were nomads or slaves, and for a very brief period, they had a small, small, small "kingdom."  i.e. a small area of land of united tribes,  under a king.

To see exactly how badly the Jews "embellished" their text, see the video of "The Bible Unearthed."

William Lane Craig Defeated Part 2 - The Existence of Contingent Beings

This is my response to the arguments for the "evidence for the existence of god," given by William Lane Craig in his debate with Lawrence Krauss at NCU. William Lane Craig's argument is below, and my refutation follows:

Craig's argument:

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in its own nature or in an external cause)

P2. The universe exists.

P3. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is god.

C. Therefore the explanation of the universe is god.

My response:

Craig believes he has formulated a clever argument that will not fall prey to the usual cosmological counter--but it does. Adding the phrase "either in its own nature or in an external cause" does not help. Let's see how he intended to use this loophole. Adding the phrase "in its own nature" is an effort to fend off the question and infinite regress of, "What explanation can be offered to explain god?"  The answer would be, "Another god."  But that leads to an infinite regress, where the explanation of gods existence is explained by another god, and so on to infinity.  Craig wants to use the notion that the explanation of god is "in his own nature" to prevent the infinite regress. However, this move by Craig provides a counter to his own argument.  We can use the same explanation for the explanation for the existence of the universe, in that, it is "in its own nature."  Let me illustrate this for you.

One could say, "Well, god exists, therefore he must have an explanation." Then Craig could simply answer that God's explanation is "in God's own nature." Note, this is merely by description, and assertion, without any facts or evidence. Worse, we can say the same thing for the universe, but in this case, one explanation has been offered by Lawrence Krauss using Quantum Mechanics. Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there, but the fact of the matter is that we have more evidence for the universe being explained by "its own nature" than we do for any "gods or goddesses" as the explanation for its existence. Furthermore, the universe is considered circular and infinite by many religions; for example, Taoism, Buddhism and ancient African religions; and this is supported by the Second Law of Conservation of Energy, as well as Quantum Theory, as pointed out by Dr. Krauss.

So we see from examining P1, that Craig commits a fallacy worse than the fallacy of "False Dilemma," for, in P1, he gives a disjunction, with two disjuncts. One disjunct being "in its own nature" and the other disjunct is "an external cause." He goes on to P3, and limits the possible explanations of the universe ONLY being an external cause. There is no justification for such a limitation, as I have already shown.

Furthermore, I do not have to provide an explanation of how the explanation of the universe is "in its own nature." As Craig himself points out about the explanation of a "best explanation":

"...that can be left open for future inquiry... If the best explanation needs an explanation, we're left with an infinite regress."

Therefore, I do not have to provide an "explanation of my explanation" of the universe being "in its own nature." Clearly, this explanation is just as viable, if not more viable, and a better explanation, (due to scientific inquiry) than saying "Goddidit!!!" This shows that P3 is not justified, and the argument does not work, as it is an open question as to the explanation of the existence of the universe. William Lane Craig's ATTEMPT to prove god's existence as the best explanation for the existence of the universe in the above argument fails.

Ray Comfort's Red Ring of Enlightenment

I read Ray's blog today, and could not help but to laugh. It seems a kind atheist sent him just what he needed, and Ray was getting all gushy over the miracles of god! When I read the blog, I really could not tell if he was being serious or not (especially since it was written on April 1).  But then again......he is the "Banana Man."

Before he received this marvelous gift, Ray was not looking forward to an upcoming 30 hour flight to Israel where he will be filming season five of his program.  In fact, he went to the drug store looking for "nasal strips" recently, saw the bright red donut cushion, and contemplated buying it himself--but he didn't.   God does work in mysterious ways--because at the same time he was contemplating buying this marvelous invention, a godless atheist decided to send one to him, free of charge!  But the atheist called it a "Red Ring of Enlightenment," --not an inflatable cushion.  Most of the Christians who made comments did not seem to get the humor in it all--but it certainly made me laugh.

But seriously folks, what kind of a sick god would send Ray a "Red Ring of Enlightenment" to make his trip to Israel more comfortable, but at the same time, allow good Christian children in Africa to starve to death; or good Christian women in America to be raped; or.......I could go on and on.  If we are all created "equal," why would Ray's god bless him, when so many others who are as fervent in their beliefs as he is suffer needlessly day after day?

Those little Christian children who die of starvation every day certainly have nothing to learn from it, which makes me wonder. But what about Ray?  Will he learn anything from the "Red Ring of Enlightenment"?  He certainly does seem to talk out of his A$$ often enough, so it can't hurt to try.