Oh, Twitter Christians, You Amuse Me

In trying to convince me that the God of the Bible does in fact exist and therefore validates Christianity compared to, say, Zoroastrianism, a Twitter user wrote this to me: “Does Zoroastrianism contain a virgin birth, a Trinity, a created angel/being that became evil, angel human hybrids, God becoming human and dying for our sins, new heavens and new earth?”

 

For some reason, Christians are painfully unaware that virgin births are fairly common in religious mythology. It’s not even a particularly special phenomenon in the animal kingdom, though rare, it can and does happen. Moreover, what is so special about female virgins anyway? The haven’t been tainted by a penis? By that logic any man who has sex with a woman therefore taints her – how rude! Now no god will want to impregnate her! If a religion really wants to impress me, give me a male virgin who impregnates a woman without having sperm taken from him.

 

A trinity? What’s special about a trinity? Lots of things come in threes and stupid tweets are one of them. Why doesn’t God stick to a duality? Or maybe there are four spiritual facets to godhood. What difference does a trinity make? Three is not a special number any more than any other number.

 

A created angel that became evil? Jesus Christ, that’s not even in the Bible. And, as I’ve said many times, any such creation of God had to be known by God to become evil – since the Christian god is omniscient – and this makes God look like a dick; he knew it was going to happen and let it happen anyway! Angelic beings becoming evil also not special in mythology.

 

Angel-human hybrids? Someone has not read ANY mythology other than their own.

 

New heavens and new earth? As I’ve written before, I’m not impressed with believers’ visions of heaven which often sounds a lot like life on earth without having to pay taxes. I get it, though, your life on earth sucks and you need to believe it’ll get better after you die. Yet for some reason, most y’all are scared to die just like anyone else.

 

Comparing one religion to another and pointing out where one is supposedly special whereas the other is not does not validate one’s religion. It just makes you look ignorant. That’s fine for Christians I suppose for in being ignorant and meek they shall allegedly inherit the earth. Mmm, yeah, judging by their work so far, that’s been working out great.

Christians Against Dinosaurs

 A few months ago, I scanned a headline about a group seeking the removal of a dinosaur statue outside a McDonalds in Tucson, AZ. Having lived in Tucson and familiar with the landmark, I was intrigued to the point of actually reading the article.

The group is called ‘Christians Against Dinosaurs’ (aka CAD) which maintains a Facebook page with a dead link to christiansagainstdinosaurs.com (I guess the CAD admins don’t make enough money or haven’t heard about free web hosting). Per the Facebook page, the philosophy – such as it is – maintains: There is no evidence dinosaurs ever existed, that dinosaurs ever existed is based on assumptions, Jurassic Park is not a documentary (I wasn’t aware anyone thought that), dinosaurs in musea(?) are made of plaster, carbon dating is not reliable, and that chickens are not modern dinosaurs. The group admins repeatedly assert they have done the scientific research and have concluded – with no help from their faith – that dinosaurs never existed. Furthermore, to believe in dinosaurs is dangerous because, well, it’s false and naturally leads people away from the Christian god.

 

Of course, I couldn’t help but be tempted to join the group and weigh in on their discussions. I also knew it would be fruitless to change anyone’s mind, so why would I bother? Because insanity doesn’t get a free pass, ever, even when you can’t cure the ill. I’m glad I did join, though, because what I discovered is a potentially dangerous group of people.

 

Let’s begin with their denial of the evidence, of which there is a lot. What I mean is that we’ve recovered fossilized bones (NOT the bones themselves, which CAD members don’t seem to understand) of many exceptionally sized animals that would be classified as lizards. (Lizards being their classification based on anatomy and physiology, and in this case, supposedly their behavior; based on modern lizards). We’ve recovered LOTS of fossils of these lizards and as the evidence mounted, yes, assumptions were made that these fossilized bones belonged to (often large) lizards that we do not see anymore. Because what else could they be?

 

Ah, the ‘fossilized’ bones are either all fakes and/or were put in place by Satan to deceive all of us about there ever being dinosaurs, because the more time you spend obsessing about dinosaurs the less time you spend with God. (The devil couldn’t come up with a better plan than that? That’s disappointing.)

Certainly, nevermind that most adults spend more time at church than on dinosaurs even if they did go through a dinosaur phase as a child. I mean, no one is missing church to go catch the latest Jurassic Park movie. Sheesh. So we can dismiss the Satan Theory as being childish nonsense but to claim all the recoveries are fake? That would be a massive undertaking and human beings aren’t exactly known for keeping their mouths shut the larger a conspiracy becomes. BUT, the fakes are driven by money, prestige and power, leading us to the perpetrators of the conspiracy – Big Paleo. Ooo, scary.

 

I think CAD’s claim about Big Paleo being in it for the money is so ludicrous that it highlights the lack of research group members must avoid. Their assertion is that the field of paleontology makes so much money, that is what drives the industry to lie about what they’ve discovered and what they do. Now, I couldn’t find any estimates on how much money the field of paleontology makes annually, but literally no one thinks of paleontologists first when asked to make a short list of opportunistic careers. (Click here for a list of the most influential – not richest – paleontologists https://paleontologyworld.com/paleontologists-curiosities/12-most-influential-paleontologists ). By comparison, the faith industry in the U.S. alone makes approximately a trillion dollars a year. So, if money is the motivating factor for paleontologists, why aren’t they pastor instead? They’re in the wrong industry! And I won’t even mention the fact that you need at least a Masters degree to make any money in paleontology whereas you don’t need any education to lead a flock astray. So why go through the trouble? By the way, can you can name at least one mega-rich pastor off the top of your head? Who can’t! The lie about Big Paleo is an attempt to cash-in on the hysteria of phrases like Big Pharma and Big Oil which are seen as inherently evil, which in this case is an outright lie. (I know what you’re thinking, why would a Christian lie about something? Perhaps being Christian, they’re already immune to facts. I’m not sure. Actually I do know why but that’s not important right now.)

 

Could it be that Big Paleo is driven by prestige and power? That is possibly more likely since we know spiritual leaders are likely motivated by the same factors; it’s just a human thing to do, pretend you hold special knowledge. So that’s a possible explanation for the ‘lie’ but since that motivation applies to so many people in so many fields, the point is perhaps moot. Except when it comes to fossilized bones there is no special knowledge: We have a bunch of bones that when we compare them can be classified in a certain way and leads us to certain conclusions. As I mentioned the conclusion may be somewhat inexact, but the overall conclusion that really large lizards once roamed the earth is inescapable. (Or at least that’s what Satan wants us to think. I keep mentioning to CAD members that the evidence is there but they just don’t want to hear it; it would be too much mental work for them to draw any conclusions from it.)

 

I also point out that even if we take it as a matter of faith that dinosaurs existed, this is no different than any of them believing in God on faith. Naturally, they always counter this by saying matters of faith are not subject to scientific inquiry as if they’re being clever in avoiding the ‘evidence trap.’ So CAD gets upset that paleontologists tell everyone that dinosaurs existed based on the evidence. What they don’t realize is that, epistemologically speaking, ultimately every belief is a matter of faith, which circles back to my point about just believing in dinosaurs on faith as a non-starter. In other words, they shouldn’t be getting upset if, really, believing dinosaurs existed is a matter of faith since evidence isn’t required for beliefs. CAD doesn’t realize any analysis of their argument in dividing the beliefs undermines that argument. (I’d like to add here that there is evidence for every belief we have, though that evidence may be falsified or be a false claim. No one is born with a belief in God, though it seems human beings are born with an innate ability to believe in the nonsensical or the flimsiest of ‘evidence,’ like a book written by superstitious tribal men.)

 

But aren’t all the dinosaur bones in museums fakes, made of plaster? Many are because fossilized bones which really aren’t ‘bones’ in the way we understand them are very fragile. (This link speaks to the definition and fragility of fossils https://www.amnh.org/dinosaurs/dinosaur-bones#:~:text=The%20%22dinosaur%20bones%22%20that%20you,bones%20are%20turned%20into%20rock. ) Yet many real fossils do appear in museums around the world. Sure, some are plaster replicas made from molds or are guesswork where skeletons have been recovered incomplete, but even forensic scientists do the latter with human bodies. (So I guess we should consider human skeletons that aren’t recovered fully intact fake? I know, that’s a stretch, but it was fun to write.)

 

At this point I’m going to move on to their disdain for (radio)carbon dating which everyone knows can only date organic material back 50,000 years or so. Paleontologists use a different kind of radiometric dating to determine the age of the rock and sediment fossilized bones are found in and that helps estimate the age of a recovery. The most rudimentary research can point this out, so for a group that claims to be scientifically minded they goofed one of their primary talking points. Good grief, CAD’s not doing so well so far.

 

Hold on! You mean chickens aren’t modern dinosaurs? Let’s file this under ‘N’ for No Shit, Sherlock. Chickens aren’t even lizards. Alas, the evidence seems to indicate birds have descended from dinosaurs, because evolution. I won’t get into evolution here because many of its detractors either can’t grasp the basic concepts involved or refuse to believe it on religious grounds. Anyone who says chickens are modern dinosaurs means they are descendants, not that they’re actually dinosaurs. But leave it to CAD not to understand this.

 

Behind all their misleading and outright false drivel is something inevitably more sinister, however. Checking in on them this evening (you gotta keep an eye on these people) sees one CAD member going on a rant because he came across a dinosaur’s face plastered on a case of beer. That’s being a little triggered, wouldn’t you say? CAD members often post such pictures with such pithy captions as, “This is not okay!” or “Dinosaurs never existed!” Similarly, for every new report of a recovery, a CAD member will inevitably remark, “Jesus is really testing us,” making it clear that at least some members really do think dinosaur bones were put in place by Satan.

 

CAD’s desire to see dinosaurs erased from all aspects of culture indicate the worst tendencies of humanity. Among them, the inability to understand science, the declaration of special knowledge, and to be clearly divorced from reality while insisting their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their denial of the evidence. And the group is clearly religiously motivated, which can never be not troubling. Then there’s the fact that they are a group, having consciously sought each other out for the purposes of locking themselves into an echo chamber. Sure, you can try to reason with them, but the echo is too loud and we know by now that reason is not enough to make people abandon false beliefs.

 

Unsurprisingly, member as the group will go out of their way to lie and create memes such as the David Attenborough one here, giving a quote the man never said. Perhaps they missed the commandment (not optional) against bearing false witness? Called out on their lies, they never acknowledge it. Like so many people, their truth is the only truth that matters. Fortunately, science – and courtrooms to a lesser degree – don’t give a fuck about what you think is reality. This raises a question: Should people be allowed to believe their own ‘facts’? Both the far-right and far-left think so, and this is what has made such a cultural and political mess of the United States.

 

What is to be done with CAD, then, leave them to their own device? Ignoring them is more dangerous than fruitlessly trying to reason with them because if we can prevent even one more indoctrination, it’s worth it. Plus, it makes ourselves feel better to insult intentionally stupid people, does it not? It seems to work for them. Interesting that they don’t like it when the shoe’s on the other foot.

All Rights Reserved (C) Theory Parker Dec. 2020

Mind Field

It was during a Superbowl party that some friends and I were looking at my modest library and began discussing the human mind, of all things. Well, someone put forth the suggestion that the mind is a non-physical entity of the body and brain in much the same way that kickers are the non-physical entities of football teams. Hmmm, someone’s been smoking Rene Descartes again.

My reply was swifter than Bruce Lee’s fists. I replied that it was silly to suppose any duality between the mind and body since consciousness is an activity of the brain. This is indisputable (though we don’t know why brain activity leads to consciousness). In layman’s terms our minds, acting largely as an organization devise, arise to integrate and provide an interpretation of the world around us as perceived by our senses. Having operated on the brains of patients who are awake, scientists have located sites that stimulate the sense of smell, reflexes, emotions, hallucinations, and out-of-body experiences (OBE’s). You see, it’s a new thing educated people are doing; they’re called scientific journals and people should read them more often. But I suppose I care more about these kinds of things, so I’ll take it upon myself to bring the rest of the team up to speed.

Theists more so than agnostics seem to be fans of Dualism (the belief in a spiritual realm that supersedes physical reality) while there is no good evidence for such a state of affairs than say, Quadralism or Hexalism. I would also like to add that if we’re going to argue over realms of existence superseding each other, how do we determine which realm is ‘superior’ or answerable to another? Theists take for granted the notion that their unseen and immeasurable realm of spirituality, where God coincidently resides, is the immutable master over all. As usual, such a supposition is undertaken with absolutely no more evidence than a pair of crossed fingers.

Let’s do something crazy and ask an important question: Do ideas survive on their own when no one is around? The answer is “No, are you out of your mind?” (Well, not unless you’re a Platonist or fan of the Irish philosopher George Berkley…in which case you are out of your mind since you can’t provide the slightest evidence.)

But how do ideas even begin to happen? What goes into making a concept meaningful between two people? First, you think of an idea which is a physical event in your brain that is the culmination of experiences related to the real world we live in; ideas do not appear out of thin air. To transmit this idea to another person, you need a physical transport system such as text or language. (Sorry, but ESP hasn’t come close to verification. Even if valid it would have to be shown to be a non-physical event using non-physical means to transport thoughts which is not outside the realm of possibility if you’re at all familiar with the “spooky action at a distance” in physics.). Then, my senses receive your data, which is also a physical event. My brain interprets the data through a biological process, organizes the information and compares it against what I already know about the world. At some point I conclude with or without reason whether you are insane or not. There is never a point where the exchange of information between people is anything other than a physical process. Ideas do not exist without a brain around to think of or transmit them.

Now we might ask if the mind can exist without the brain. If you’re thinking “yes” then I’d like to know where the mind goes when someone is in a coma. Why don’t people revived from comas tell us about the wonderful places their mind has been while the body was laid up? If the mind can exist without the brain, why do personality and intelligence disorders sometimes arise from trauma and injury to the head? Why, if duality exists, do most people experience memory loss in old age? This tells us the brain and ‘mind’ must be intimately related somehow. The theistic objection here is that if the physical transport system of the mind is damaged, misinterpretations by the brain of what the mind wants will naturally occur.

      

Such a defense raises some questions. For example, which “you” would survive death into the afterlife? People display different personality traits throughout their entire life; the young “you” is surely most different than the old “you.” Would personality changes come with experience in the afterlife as they do in our earthly lives? If ideas come from some netherworld, would we be privy to all the knowledge in the universe come the afterlife? Now please feel free to ask your own questions on the matter that you haven’t used your brain to think of.         

In the laboratory where scientists have studied monks meditating and achieving nirvana, snapshots of the brain during this time record unusual brain chemistry. However, consciousness cannot be shown to “go” anywhere during this time. The transcendence of physical reality does not occur. The last time I checked, monks still needed to eat. I guess that’s because transcendence is not a practical state to be in if you intend to provide your brain with enough energy to meditate and achieve transcendence. Honestly, I wouldn’t see the point of the brain continuing to register any activity if the transcendence of physical reality has occurred. Does it not defeat the point? Perhaps we haven’t developed the means by which to measure “where consciousness goes” in these instances of meditation, but the theist cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that it’s all just in the head.

Another theistic defense postulates that the human brain only uses a small percentage of its capacity. Sometimes, theists and other spiritualists argue that we only use 10-12% of our brain; a popular common misconception. Therefore, they postulate, perhaps the areas of the brain that seem inactive are actually busy being connecting the mind to a higher or unseen reality, being that again, we haven’t devised a means of detection. Or, that at least these areas of the brain we haven’t been able to access yet because, “We’re not ready for it.” Yes, someone actually said that to me. Again there is no good reason to suppose any of this. You can’t tell me it can’t possibly be that these areas of the brain are dormant because they are no longer necessary. We are obviously getting by without using the whole brain if it actually were the case we only use a small portion of it and if there were any advantage to using the whole brain, we would seem likely to already be doing it. We need only to consider possibilities to cast suspect on a world of duality.

The human mind is a tool, albeit the most important tool in our arsenal. Even though it may allow us deep experiences and fantastic ideas, it cannot do so without the physical component of the brain. No brain, no deep experiences or fantastic ideas. Now, does this tool have a purpose? Yes. The ability to problem solve and think abstractly provides us with adaptability. This increases individual survival as well as the collective survival of the species. That is the human mind’s greatest asset. It is also the mind’s greatest liability.

Problem is, our interpretations of the world are highly subjective to our sensory experiences. Moreover, what happens to our interpretations of the world when some of our senses aren’t working? I am continuously awed by theists who should know better but fail to consider these questions because it would challenge their faith. Is it reasonable, I ask, not to consider what if our senses are working, but due to nurturing and conditioning we draw false conclusions of reality? Does the mind make any more sense of the world than is necessary for a person to live?

Maybe author Scott Adams understands: “There is more information in one thimble of reality than can be understood by a galaxy of human brains. It is beyond the human brain to understand the world and it’s environment, so the brain compensates by creating simplified illusions that act as a replacement for understanding…the delusions are fuelled by arrogance, the arrogance that humans are the center of the world, that we alone are endowed with the magical properties of souls and morality and free will and love.”

That’s almost hard to argue with. However, some things can be known with some degree of certainty through reasoning or evidence. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it still make noise? Yes it does. Leave a microphone and recorder in the woods if you don’t believe me. Even if there are no means with which to record it, the rustling of the air (noise) has still occurred. Even if one dies, there is still a world for living people to participate in, unless the world is a figment of my imagination (or of God’s imagination, as George Berkley might say).

If the world is not my imagination, then an objective reality exists whether or not I can know it. But as I have pointed out, at least some truths can be objectively known. If the world is my imagination (and my brain is in a jar somewhere), I still need to deal with the world how I imagine it, a world where apparently immutable laws of physics apply. If I’m only dreaming that some true reality exists, then God’s existence can be equally true or untrue depending upon what I felt like believing when I woke up in the morning. If we don’t perceive more of reality than is necessary to live, then there’s a good chance that believing in God isn’t particularly practical. It would depend upon the individual. Believing in God would become more of a whim since it has little practical value in helping you, say, outrun a lion.

On the other hand, if God does exist outside of our minds and it’s one of those few things we could know, again, we might wonder why God wouldn’t make us all goddamn sure of it. What is God afraid we would do with immutable knowledge of His existence? Why exist unless this is all some kind of test? It would benefit us tremendously to know what’s really going on, oh great and all-loving God, unless you have a practical reason for sending people to hell or some other equally gruesome fate. Again, we’re never privy to God’s reasoning. Are God’s plans beyond our ability to understand? This is a common theistic defense that explains nothing.

It’s not that our thoughts are without some physical existence. God does exist, at least as a concept which arises from the physical process of thinking. But God, nor any “soul”, exists when there isn’t anyone around to imagine such nonsense. Even if a soul did exist, there isn’t anyway for us to know how far divisions go. If the body is a subject of the soul, is the soul subject to a super soul? This would seem ridiculous, but I’m only following the theist’s line of thinking that arbitrarily chooses to end the divisions with duality.

If God cannot be proven to be true or false, it would do the world a good bit of justice to dispense with the idea of gods. By freeing ourselves of less delusional delusions, we free up more time to learn things that can be known as well as identify and deal with actual threats to our existence, like intolerance and martyrdom. The collapse of theism replaced by actual thinking would increase the chances of survival for all of us. After all, religion has proven unable to control itself, what with Inquisitions, Crusades, and wars of and on terrorism. Maybe that’s because people who say they believe in God really do not; or maybe their god is a primitive, bloodthirsty prick. Believe in God if you want, but for the love of Christ keep it to yourself.

In the end, it’s worth remembering that dinosaurs were around eighty times as long as humans have been around. Yet we view their brains as vastly inferior to ours. Trees have been around even longer than dinosaurs and they don’t even have brains! So what makes anyone think they know what they’re talking about (besides me and my superiorly advanced brain)? What makes anyone think our ability to think is so special? Will our brains help us as a species to survive as long as dinosaurs or trees? Only time will tell. Delusions will not. 

I Read It So You Don't Have To: God's Crime Scene

Christian apologetics is hardly anything new in American literature, but the genre’s latest work by author J. Warner Wallace has taken a novel new approach in making a case for the existence of God. Wallace, a former L.A. County detective and former atheist, claims to apply his years of experience in examining evidence to conclude that the universe must have had a divine creator. “God’s Crime Scene” joins a growing number of books that attempts to use an atheist’s favorite tools – evidence and reason – against them. Unfortunately for Wallace, this tactic hasn’t worked for creation scientists and it doesn’t work now.

In making his case, Wallace attempts to use a number of analogies, which – judging from a number of reviews – seem to be quite engaging and convincing. This is as one would suspect from other theists who are not adapt at questioning whether an analogy is correct, much less question the conclusion the author draws. For example, Wallace begins the book by describing a possible suicide inside a house and looking for clues that might give him reason to think that what took place was actually murder. To do this, Wallace is going to look for things that may not be native to the scene such as mud on the floor or another person’s fingerprints or DNA. In other words, can Wallace account for things in the room as only being from inside the room? And right here, at the very beginning, Wallace’s analogies go awry.

If one is in the habit of questioning, one would be inclined to ask if a house is like the universe. The answer would be “no” because we have knowledge of things that can be outside of a house and brought in, but we have no knowledge of things outside of the universe that can be brought into the universe, seeing how we’ve never seen something inside the universe outside of the universe. To begin a book with such a flawed analogy does not help Wallace establish any credibility. Any credibility or benefit of the doubt one might have given Wallace for being a detective evaporates so quickly, one suspects Wallace took part in the now infamous O.J. Simpson case. (Defending or accepting Wallace’s arguments on the account of his credentials is The Argument from Authority logical fallacy anyway.)

Soon thereafter, Wallace glides into his first chapter which attempts to determine if the universe had a beginning. This appears to be an important point to apologists since given an infinitely old universe, an infinite number of possibilities might take place, such as the emergence of life. So then, the thinking goes, if the universe had a beginning, something must have set it in motion. (And, if the evidence indicates the universe was designed, it must have had a single designer. Nevermind that you never see complex structures built by a single person, but, whatever.) In order to argue against an infinitely old universe, Wallace likens a cause and effect universe to an infinite number of handguns in his police armory. If Wallace removes every fourth gun, he says, he is removing an infinite number from an infinite number, which is clearly nonsensical. The author then concludes that you cannot do the same thing with causes and effect either, so clearly the universe cannot be infinitely old. Problem is, infinite and abstract causes and effects are nothing like an infinite number of material objects. Nor is it hard to imagine how an infinite number of causes and effects are possible if one considers God’s (supposedly) infinite nature. Another bad analogy from which Wallace derives one of just many rushed conclusion.

Because it is an important point to apologists, Wallace perhaps feels (rightly so) that this argument isn’t enough to convince a skeptic and continues to argue for a universe with a beginning. So, using science to lend his argument validity, asserts that cosmologists and physicists largely agree that the universe began with the Big Bang. This is true, though Wallace doesn’t mention here that the Big Bang theory is running into a number of competing theories about the universe’s origin lately. (The least of which include a holographic universe theory and corrections to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.) A bit more on target, Wallace argues that we could never arrive the finish line that is ‘today’ without there being a beginning from which to start from. Nice try, Wallace, but what is ‘today’? Is it right…now? But now has already come and gone, which makes one wonder just how long is now? Like the universe’s origin, Wallace doesn’t give any thought here to the slippery concept of time which most physicists agree is in a lot more trouble than theories of the origin of the universe. Wallace even gives too much credit to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as it is not entirely sure that the universe is a closed system. (Of course, anyone who knows anything about science knows that nothing is 100% certain, which makes it curious that any apologist would lean on science to argue for the existence of God. Or maybe it’s not so curious as theists are finding out that appealing to blind faith is not enough to withstand criticism.)

Throughout the book, Wallace continues to make bad analogy after bad analogy from which he continually derives conclusions long since discredited by atheists. (Honestly, I don’t know why apologists are still using the ‘fine tuning’ argument.) At best, Wallace’s arguments would result in there being multiple entities involved in the construction of the universe, or to use Wallace’s own analogy, suspects in this ‘murder.’

Reviews for “God’s Crime Scene” have been glowing, which is understandable once you consider the book’s audience, most of whom do not possess the philosophical skills to call B.S. when they see it much less the bravery to say so when they do. I do think the author’s approach is intriguing – hence my initial interest in the book – and the book is written with a clear, easy to understand voice. The side bars that describe the methods by which detective work is conducted is interesting as well, but these skills obviously do not translate into believable conclusions about the supernatural. As the author indicates, he is a former detective and not a lawyer, with a lawyer being someone who would destroy Wallace’s conclusions in an actual trial on the matter.

I give the book two stars (out of five) for a gallant and unique effort in a field crowded with philosophical shenanigans. Wallace’s prose is clearly written for the layperson, but so much so that his arguments fall deaf upon trained ears. I wish Wallace better luck with his next book; “Cold Case Islam.”

[“Cold Case Islam” would be Wallace’s next logical book and a follow up to his first book, “Cold Case Christianity” in which the author’s investigative skills lead him to conclude that everything the Bible says about Jesus is true. Given that there is far more evidence for the life of the prophet Mohammed, I would be curious to see what conclusions Wallace would make about the Muslim prophet.]

The Absurdity of The Book of Genesis (Part One)

The Bible has always bothered me on a fundamental level. Its basic problem is that if you were to read it without any prior knowledge of God or gods, basically not knowing anything at all about the Bible, it would all be very difficult to take any of it seriously. This problem is compacted by the assertion by its adherents that the Bible is the Word of God. This is to say that if the Bible is the Word of God, it should be understandable in its own right with no need for anyone to interpret its meaning(s). I believe anyone going in for a cold reading of the Bible would be blown away by its tall tales, lack of necessary detail and unscrupulous arrangement.

This is as evident in the Book of Genesis as anywhere else in the Bible. So, since Genesis is the beginning of the scriptures sacred to so many, it seems like a good place to prove my point. In doing this ‘cold reading’ I am going to use the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) because, uh, why are there different versions of the Bible? Obviously there would be a version for any given language, but for any single language? This bespeaks of fiction before I’ve even begun.

At any rate, I am going to open up the Bible to Chapter 1, verse 1 of Genesis. It reads: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

The next 23 chapters drone on about God creating the Earth over the next five and a half days. Well, this would seem quite incredible even if we didn’t know anything about science either. You mean someone made the Earth in six days, all of it? Even if we were to accept this, Genesis is not at all clear about who or what God is which would be a likely place to start given the entire scope of the Bible. Worse, we’re given no reason why God created the Earth. (One of the most important things when writing literature is to give your character motivations.) Yet we’ll forge ahead since there may be as yet unrevealed motivations, though we might want to call into question the length of a day. [We might note here that use of the 24-hour day did not come into use until 4000 years ago, courtesy of the Egyptians and Babylonians.]

Chapter 1, verse 26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

The first thing we might notice in this cold reading is that the word ‘our’ is used here, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that someone besides God is at work here. Who? We do not know because God leaves out these kinds of important details. God also makes man is His image, thereby giving God a definite gender. As for why God gives man dominion over the Earth and its creatures, again we don’t know. It appears God loves omitting details.

Chapter 2 gives us another account of the creation of man for no apparent reason except to clarify that woman was created from the rib of man, a feat surely no one has ever done before and should therefore seem extraordinary to everyone reading the Bible. Interestingly, though we know that woman are treated unequally to men in most societies, there is no indication here that women are inferior to men despite being created out of a man. Chapter 2 also begins to tell us about a place east of Eden where there is a garden in which the first man and woman will live. And, in this garden God plants two unique trees: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. At this point we’re not sure why God plants these trees, but as we’ll see in the next chapter, this comes off as something of a set-up.

Chapter 3 begins with another of God’s creatures, a serpent, talking to the woman Eve. Eve tells the serpent about how the fruit from the unique trees is forbidden to eat as God has told Adam and Eve they will die if they do so. The serpent (which keep in mind is just a serpent because nothing here tells us otherwise) lies to the woman telling her she will not die if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent also tells Eve the truth that if she eats the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge she will know the difference between good and evil. Chapter 3, verse 6-7 describes what happens next: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.”

Funny, Adam and Eve now know that being naked is bad and cover themselves up. So…okay…why didn’t God cover them up to begin with? Is God a pervert? And, knowing they have done wrong by eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve hide from God the next time God comes around. Further in the reading, God has to call out to Adam to find out where Adam is and doesn’t appear to know that some serpent told them it was okay to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. So, nothing here tells us or even implies that God is omniscient, a trait modern believers always attribute to God.

But here’s the real problem with this entire scenario – Before eating the fruit Eve has no reason to suspect the serpent is lying. Even if she did know the serpent was lying, before eating the fruit she doesn’t know that lying is evil. Eve cannot even begin to contemplate the consequences of eating the fruit until after she does so no matter what warning God gives. At the same time, Eve did seem to know that the acquisition of knowledge is good. Though this is an inconsistency in the narrative, what we’re almost forced to take away is that God didn’t want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil. Wtf? Angry with Adam and Eve, God banishes them from the garden before they eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. God also punishes the serpent by making it crawl on its belly forevermore, punishes Eve by subjugating her to her husband and intensifying labor pains, while Adam gets off relatively easy being punished to work the land for food despite the fact that Adam is just as guilty as the woman for this whole farce. (That is, Adam likewise didn’t know that eating the forbidden fruit would be bad for the couple but does it anyway and gets himself punished as well. With both people being guilty here, why does Adam get off easier?)

Closing the door on the first three chapter of Genesis, what have we gathered and what questions might we ask? We see that God made the heavens and the Earth but not why. We see that God made the Earth in six days and needed a rest afterward – an indication that whomever we are dealing with is powerful but not all-powerful. We see that there are other gods besides God, though according to this text, this god created us. (But, from what we know about created things, God probably had help.) We are unable to conclude God is good or even perfect given the circumstances surrounding God’s creation’s disobeying their creator. Do perfect creations disobey their creator? is a fair question here. We also see that God frowns upon the acquisition of knowledge and the idea of immortality, a disturbing inference since God’s motivations are nowhere in sight.

Possibly most damaging to the Bible’s narrative is that if we research and compare this cold reading of the Bible to cold readings of other myths of the region of the same general time period, the creation stories are noticeable similar. (e.g. Babylonian, Sumerian, and some African creation myths.) Do we dare read any further?