More than a Carpenter Notes by Phil Singleton Pg.

3- Calls his life hell while going to Kellogg Community College for not having the answers to deep philosophical questions. This anti-intellectual reaction to the unknown and unknowable is part of the problem already, as when one is ashamed to say I dont know, one is more likely to cling to any answer available. Pg. 4- [The Christians at my college] were disgustingly happy. Okay, but thats no more to the point than that a drunk man is happier than a sober man, and its certainly no evidence for Christianity being true. Pg. 5- Christianity is not a religion. How gloriously arrogant. Pg. 6- What do you define as religion? Belief in the supernatural. That covers about all the bases, wouldnt you say? Pg. 9- The very name Jesus seems to bother people? Persecution complex much? Lacking true personal examples of prejudice, he has to conjure them out of thin air, already trying to paint the largest religion in the world as oppressed. Pg. 10- He seems to be ignoring the fact that LOTS of mythological figures, not just Jesus, claimed to be the incarnation of God in human form, most of them before Jesus time. I wonder if hell address that later? Pg. 13- Thomas... the doubter (Perhaps he was a graduate student.) Hardy-har-har. At this point a critic might interject that all these claims are from others about Christ, not from Christ about himself. No, a critic would point out that all these claims are from the Bible, and that using a book to support itself is circular logic. Pg. 16- Do you believe that no one can forgive sins committed against God except God himself? Begging the question. And no. Pg. 23- In some respects, doesnt the reaction of the Jewish leaders to Jesus claims actually support those claims? Begging the question. And no. Pg. 25- So far hes only argued that Jesus claimed to be God. I think I can guess what comes next... Pg. 27- Yep. Lewiss Trilemma: Lord, Liar, Lunatic. Hoo, boy... One who claimed what Jesus claimed about himself couldnt be a good moral man. Why on earth not? Pg. 28- C.S. Lewiss flaw, which McDowell gleefully repeats, is in assuming that a mans morals and principles are null and void upon the discovery of any delusion or mental defect on his part, which is simply not the case! After all, you must admit that at least some teachings from other religions and the men among them who claimed divine heritage/influence/revelation have solid moral contributions, even though technically those men fall into the lunatic category.

Pg. 30- [If he was a liar,] then he was unspeakably evil for deceiving his followers with false hope [for their eternal destiny.] Hyperbole, wouldnt you say? Granted, its not exactly the apogee of morality, but telling people to be good to one another, if for no other reason than a reward in the afterlife, even if it is a fabrication, isnt what Id call unspeakably evil. Lets be realistic. Well, its about time. How could he be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of his teaching- his own identity? Perhaps he saw this, proclaiming himself to be a god, as a way to get people to listen to him and follow his example. It wouldnt be the first or last time its happened. Dishonest, yes, but justified, one could argue, in the proper application and dissemination of his lessons. After all, I think we can agree that even if he was lying, he certainly didnt do so for personal gain. Wherever Jesus has been proclaimed, we see lives change for the good, nations change for the better, thieves become honest, alcoholics become sober, unjust persons embrace justice. Patently, unabashedly, insultingly false. Read God is Not Great for about a hundred counterexamples. Pg. 32- [Jesus is] A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and set so high above all human greatness, can be neither fraud nor a fiction. Once again, ignoring the many mythological figures and archetypal images of the Dying God that so closely mirror Jesus and predate him by centuries. Mithra of Persia, Dionysus, Horus, Zarathustra/Zoroaster, and Osiris just to name a few. By this same logic, none of them could be fraud or fiction unless Jesus was, too. How in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter- that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man- have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy: The central figure of a powerful religion, whose scriptures have been handed down by oral tradition for decades, written and rewritten over and over, and translated into countless languages with plenty of opportunity for editorializing and exaggeration therein, turned out to be a likable character? Surprise, surprise. His image has been molded and primped to perfection over the centuries- how else would Christianity have risen to and stayed at the top? And by the way, take a look in the Apocrypha sometime- by those accounts, Jesus wasnt so perfect. In fact, according to the Infancy Gospel According to Thomas, he killed people over practically nothing. Pg. 34: Is there anything you detect in Jesus behavior (other than his claim to divinity) that would suggest he was deranged? The irony in that sentence is just so delicious. But yes, actually: his condemnation of a fig tree for not being in season in Matt. 21: 18-19. Not the behavior of a rational man.

Pg. 35- McDowell and his sources only seem to be analyzing Jesus sanity as it appears in the Bible, which would be great if the Bible were a reliable historical document. Hes promised to provide evidence that it is- Cant wait. Pg. 37- Novelist [Dan] Brown wants people to believe that the idea of Christs deity was invented at the council of Nicea. Thats such a strawman it should be cast in The Wizard of Oz. [This] fact has been rejected by well over 99.9 percent of biblical scholars who study documented history. Probably because thats not what Dan Brown or anyone else was actually claiming. Its not that the idea that Jesus was god first showed up at the Council of Nicaea, its that Constantine first had that and several other important tenets of Christianity officially recognized at this ecumenical council in an attempt to unify Christendoms populations under an organized belief system. They laid down that Jesus was divine and one with the father, the date of Easter, the promulgation of early canon law, and the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, among other things. Pg. 38- When I ask if [most Jews or Muslims] believe Jesus was a liar, they give me a sharp No! Then I ask Do you believe he was a lunatic? Their reply is Of course not. Do you believe he is God? Before I can get a word in edgewise, I hear a resounding Absolutely not! Yet one has no more choices. Way to paint in broad strokes there, pal. I bet both the Muslim and Jewish communities are just thrilled to have you speaking on their behalves. Pg. 39- He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice. You forgot fictitious. That gets my vote. Pg. 43- Hes not seriously trying to explain the scientific method, is he? If so, then why does he keep using the word proof? Science doesnt deal in proving things, it deals in explaining them! I can tell Im gonna love this chapter already. Pg. 44- The scientific method isnt appropriate for answering questions as: Did George Washington live? Was Martin Luther King Jr. a civil rights leader? Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Um, yes it is. You ask the question, form a hypothesis, do an experiment, research, or field work, collect data, analyze your findings and come to a conclusion, and, most importantly, submit your findings for peer review. These questions are outside the realm of scientific proof... Okay, time to break out the big guns. I quote Richard Dawkins from The God Delusion: What are these ultimate questions in whose presence religion is an honored guest and science must respectfully slink away? If indeed they lie beyond science, they most certainly lie beyond the province of theologians as well. I wonder in what possible sense theologians can be said to HAVE a province. ...and we must place them in the realm of legal-historical proof. I cant find anything on this concept, and have no reason to give it equal weight as the scientific method. It seems he invented the term himself. In the next chapter my son, Sean, examines the claims of the New Atheists- who believe that very thing (that science has disproved the existence of God).

A fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, and a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of proof. Atheists do not claim There is no God. In fact, its just the opposite: Atheists do not claim There is a God. See the difference? Atheists dont make any claims. Instead, they reject the claims of God based on lack of evidence. Wow, that was a short chapter. Pg. 46- Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens repreSENT! The goal of the New Atheists is simple: to eradicate any rational grounds for religious belief and to persuade theists to walk away from their faith. False. The New Atheism movement doesnt seek to destroy anyones faith, but rather to challenge it, knowing that if their beliefs are true the believers have nothing to fear since the truth is never embarrassed by rational inquiry. Pg. 48- He seems to be suggesting now that without God, life is meaningless and civilization will collapse. I am a living counterexample to the former claim, having made my own meaning in life (which is much more satisfying than having it handed to me ready-made, I must say, and all the more valuable since its a limited-time offer), and Norway and Sweden are counterexamples to the latter claim, having massively atheist populations (>80%) yet ranking extremely high in quality of life (well above the good ol US of A). Pg. 50- If Darwinian evolution is true, we should distrust our cognitive faculties since they are the result of an unguided, irrational process. The dumb. It burns. Templeton prize-winning physicist Paul Davies said, Atheists claim that the laws of nature exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. Looks like the Templeton Prize is For Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities, according to their website. What an amazingly impotent appeal to authority and a ridiculously baseless claim since, once again, atheists arent the ones claiming anything. A rational universe is what we would expect if God exists. Its also what wed expect if God doesnt exist, since any system is rational to those exclusively within it. Pg. 51- If religious believers get no credit for the positive contributions they made to society because everyone was religious, then how can religious believers be blamed for the atrocities committed in the name of God? Because religion isnt an excuse. Ever. Pg. 52- One of the most influential atheists of the past five decades- Antony Flew- recently changed his mind about God. Who? Pg. 54- Atheists willingly confess that they have no clue how life first emerged. Firstly, this isnt true. We have loads of clues, dozens of experiments done that demonstrate potential for self-replicating compounds to emerge from inorganic material under conditions plausibly similar to those early in Earths history. Secondly, if it were true, so what? McDowell seems to be advocating for the school of thought that any answer is better than no answer, when in reality I dont

know is perfectly acceptable when theres insufficient evidence to make a claim. Its a common fallacy: just because someone else is wrong doesnt mean youre right. Pg. 55- The only explanation for the origin of such end-directed, selfreplicating life as we see it on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind. So whats the explanation for the origin of that Mind? And the origin of that origin, and so on ad infinitum? This is one of my biggest problems with religion: In attempting to account for phenomena such as life and existence, it doesnt actually explain anything, but only further complicates the matter. In recent decades, scientists have begun to realize that the universe seems to have been crafted with us in mind. This is a lie. And even if it wasnt, why, then, is the vast majority of the earths surface, not to mention virtually 100% of the universe itself, incapable of supporting human life? As for the parts that DO seems fine-tuned, heres a quote by Douglas Adams: Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in; fits me rather neatly, doesnt it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well! It must have been made to have me in it! Pg. 56- If the force of gravity varied just slightly, the universe would not be habitable for life. Life as WE know it, you mean. Pg. 57- The most economical and reliable explanation for why the universe is so precisely fine-tuned is because a Creator- God- made it that way. Wow. Its geocentrism all over again; vanity and narcissism at their most potent: humans just dont want to imagine a world/universe where they arent the most important thing in existence, where not everything is made for them, where divine favor isnt their unquestionable birthright. Again, arrogant. Pg. 58- 1: If objective moral values exist, God must exist. 2: Objective moral values exist. 3: Therefore, God must exist. It makes perfect sense. Except that it doesnt make any. Morality changes between cultures and time periods. Some beliefs on the matter are more universal than others, but just because the survival of nearly all species depends on certain factors (like an individual not being allowed to wantonly kill others in his group) doesnt mean the morals associated with those behaviors are objective, and certainly not that they were passed down from a deity that cant seem to follow his own edicts- seriously, have you seen how many people god killed in the old testament? Matt Dillahunty, host of a really good talk show out of Austin The Atheist Experience, gave a good talk on morality, and he compared it to a game of chess: say you showed an expert from the 16th century a board in the middle of a game. They might say X is the best move. Then suppose you showed an expert from today. They might say Y is the best move. Whos right? Different times and different states of mind about the game led to different conclusions about whats best. What matters, though, is that our understanding of chess has developed over the centuries into a much more complex theory about the game that allows us to

consider much more variables in specific games, so the guy from today would probably have a better move in mind. Such it is with life: our study of the human condition has advanced so far from when these texts were written that we are able to expound more on morality as we come to understand certain things that the authors of the Bible couldnt, such as owning humans as property isnt cool, women are equal to men, homosexuality isnt immoral, etc. I have a couple of corollaries to McDowells claim, actually: If what he says is true, then where did god get his morals? Is something moral because he says so, or does he say so because its moral? And, most problematic of all, if what Jesus says is true then why did god place us in an immoral situation by deliberately creating us as incapable of self-redemption? And why, why, WHY, did he require and resort to a blood sacrifice for appeasement? Thats not just immoral, thats obscene! Shouldnt an omnipotent, omnipresent deity be able to find another way to absolve the imperfect beings he knowingly created? Pg. 59- Why should Christianity take the blame when it is people who are doing the opposite of what Jesus taught? Because like it or not, there is Biblical justification for such atrocities, ways people can rationalize atrocious actions by citing a Bible verse, one that may be contrary to Jesus teachings (ironically pointing out the most fundamental internal contradiction in the whole book), but still applies since Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:18 that not a jot or a tittle would disappear from the old laws until heaven and earth were done. Remember all that stuff in the Old Testament about how its okay to have and beat slaves, how the penalty for raping a woman is to marry her, how its okay to kill gay people because their blood will be upon them, i.e. its not really murder since they brought it on themselves? Jesus said it was still a-okay, and even if he didnt, it only goes back to the whole issue of Gods morality being no different than mans, changing with the ages and therefore not objective. Not even moral, actually. Not anywhere close. Pg. 60- The number of people slaughtered by atheistic regimes, such as communist China, communist Russia, and Nazi Germany is more than one hundred million people. And THERES the argumentum ad Hitlerum. About time, too, I was starting to get worried. Hitler was raised Roman Catholic. The Nazi Eagle crest had the words Gott Mit Uns on it. In Mein Kampf Hitler even said he was doing Gods work by exterminating the Jewish people: Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. As for Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, well, what can I say, atheists do terrible things sometimes too. I just dont think their motivations can really be traced back to their lack of belief. McDowell certainly isnt able to offer any evidence to the contrary. After all, theres no atheist handbook telling people to go out and kill in the name of Darwin. The legacy of Christianity has been overwhelmingly positive. De. Bate. A. Bull. Christians built the first hospitals...

Nope- Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, and Persians all got there first. ...Led the Movement to end slavery... After using the Bible to justify it in the first place, of course. ...and pioneered modern science. No sir. You dont get credit for the rain if you were behind the drought. Pg. 64- By the twentieth century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Not accuracy, authenticity. And fine, the books old. So what? There are much older religious texts from centuries before the Bible- why shouldnt they be considered factual? And why doesnt he mention that the oldest known full manuscript is dated to 125 CE, nearly a full century after the fact? Pg. 66- One of the major charges against the form critics concept of oral tradition development is that the period between the New Testament events and the recording of them is not long enough to have allowed the alterations from fact to legend that these critics allege. For one thing, thats bull. Stories change anytime someone new tells them. People exaggerate, emphasize, and editorialize their own versions of stories all the time to make them even more interesting. It strains credulity to think that after 3040 years of being passed from person to person that the story would be the same, especially when you consider that the oral traditions were based on original texts so if someone forgot part of it they could at least check to see what came next, and said texts were written in verse to make memorization easier. But in the case of the New Testament there werent any original texts, were there? For another thing, the story didnt stop changing when it finally was written down (after all those who would have been eyewitnesses were long dead). I wonder if McDowell is going to address the countless translations and rewritings of the Bible to suit the wants and needs of those in power. And for another thing, just because something is written down doesnt mean it was based on an actual event. Fiction existed back then too, you know. Pg. 73- When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is truly remarkable in contrast to the manuscript availability of other classic texts. Argumentum ad Populum. Just because theres more of something doesnt mean its the truth. Pg. 74- More than twenty thousand copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence as of 2009. The Iliad, which is second to the New Testament in manuscript authority, has only 643 manuscripts in existence. Perfect comparison, seeing as neither of them are reliable historical records. Pg. 76- Oh, so he is going to talk about textural variances? Oh, nevermind, he just flippantly dismissed the notion as unimportant. Pg. 77- Historical and literary scholarship continues to follow Aristotles eminently just dictum that the benefit of doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself. CITATION. NEEDED. This actually reveals a lot to me about the apologists mindset, since it in essence claims that any text is true until proven false. I cant find any source to lead

me to believe that Aristotle actually said this, though I did find a whole boatload of Chrisitan Apologists all using the same concept, but even if he did I disagree. Supposed you were to find a document claiming that there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars (Russells Teapot, as you may know it). The teapot is too small to be detected by human sight, with either telescope or the naked eye, but according to this dictum you should believe the teapot is there until it is shown not to be. There are several variances on this response to apologetic thinking, the most famous one at the moment probably being the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but the point behind them is solid: a claim is false until proven true, insofar as anything can be proved, and the one making the claim is responsible for demonstrating its validity. Thats why in a court of law the claim against the defendant is assumed untrue (innocent until proven guilty), and it falls to the prosecution to show otherwise. Suggesting that something should be considered true until falsified is just intellectually dishonesty, bankruptcy even. Again, McDowell is attempting to shift the burden of proof to those who disbelieve, while at the same time giving just as much validity to every other religious text that also cannot be shown to be false, nullifying the exclusive status of his own in the process. Pg. 79- We were not making up clever stories when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We saw his majestic splendor with our own eyes. 2 Peter 1:16 So now just because someone says theyre not lying means everything they say is true? I cant help but think this is what Ricky Gervais had in mind when he made The Invention of Lying- not a great flick, but decent. Plus, what about all the internal contradictions within the gospels? Like how Mark says Jesus was arrested after the Passover meal and crucified the next day, while John says Jesus was both arrested and crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover? Or how about the vastly conflicting genealogies of Joseph of Arimathea between Matthew and Luke? Pg. 86- Archaeologist Joseph Free writes: Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts. Yet he lists none. Why on Earth not? Pg. 87- If one discards the Bible as unreliable historically, then he or she must discard all the literature of antiquity. What?! Look, when McDowell promised to show that the Bible was historically reliable, I thought that meant he would show that the events the New Testament Gospels described actually happened. Instead, all hes done is show that the New Testament writings have their origins in a certain period of history. Well, I could show you when the Aeneid was written, as we have loads of evidence for that, too. But (and this is key) that doesnt make the stories therein true! Honestly, McDowell has convinced me that some of the gospels were written earlier than I previously thought, but its not that hard to write down the dates that true archaeologists have worked to assign to ancient documents. What he

completely fails to do is show that the events described actually occurred, instead insisting that because the Bible exists, that somehow makes it self-evidently true. His external evidence is no such thing, instead just telling us what we already know- that certain texts were written when they were because other people at the time acknowledged the existence of the texts, but not the events therein. If this is all McDowell has to offer, the notion that the Bible is evidence for itself, then I am severely disappointed and, quite frankly, flabbergasted that he believes such a circular argument has any merit at all. What about true external evidence, independent sources outside the Bible that corroborate the Gospels claims around the life of Jesus? They kept pretty decent records back then, right? Shouldnt there be at least some secondary or tertiary accounts? Records of arrest/execution? And, most importantly of all, if everything about Jesus turns out to be true, why would god choose to convey it to us this way, with so little evidence and so much controversy? Would he really favor blind, arbitrary faith over rational thought and skepticism? Pg. 91- [The apostles] were eyewitnesses. Too bad their stories were written decades after their deaths, as McDowell himself confirmed, making this point null, and too bad eyewitness testimony isnt reliable. Remember when Psycho first came out how people swore that during the shower scene they saw exposed breasts, stab wounds, and vivid, red blood? But none of those are present anywhere in the film, are they? Our minds play tricks on us all the time when were scared or excited, and sometimes we can convince ourselves of something that isnt really true. Pg. 98- What you cant explain is how [the apostles] came up with this particular belief without having had an experience of the resurrected Christ. Theres no other adequate explanation. Sure there is, and one far more likely to boot: it never actually happened. Pg. 102- With an event so well publicized, dont you think that its reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christs body?... The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection. Testimony AGAINST the resurrection? Here he goes again trying to shift the burden of proof, the whole Im right until proven wrong mindset. Okay, Ill play along, then, with a simple corollary: With an event so well publicized, dont you think that its reasonable that one historian, one eyewitness, one antagonist that WASNT mentioned in the Bible would record for all time that he had seen Christ executed? McDowell treats the Gospels as the claim and the evidence- how about some external corroboration every now and then? As I see it, that makes the silence of history deafening when it comes to testimony FOR the resurrection. Pg. 106- This one isnt against the author, Im just pointing out how horribly bound this book is. At least a dozen pages have simply fallen out by now- I dont even think they were glued in at all.

Pg. 120- Paul went from being an orthodox Pharisee, whose mission was to preserve strict Judaism, to being a propagator of that new, radical sect called Christianity, which he had so violently opposed. Finally, something that has a tangible basis in reality with external corroborating sources! Paul, formerly Saul, sought to destroy the followers of Christ before joining them after being temporarily blinded and claiming to see Jesus. That much I can accept. The only problem is that this doesnt actually prove anything and is probably attributable to a very vivid hallucination brought about by heat stroke on the road to Damascus that went away after a few days but left a lasting impression on him. This happens in all religions all the time- someone claims to have seen God in their dreams, while theyre sick or scared, during surgery or sex, etc., but notice that all these situations share the common element of conditions ripe for producing hallucinations in the easily susceptible human mind (See note on page 91). The only difference is that when its a different religion, it gets rejected as a fever dream, but when its the same religion its divine revelation. Confirmation bias much? Pg. 123- And if Pauls conversion was true, then Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for everything Paul was and did he attributed to his witnessing the risen Christ. Unless, of course, he made the whole thing up or was delusional at the time. In short, he was either a lunatic, a liar, or telling the truth. Hey, that sounds familiar... Oh, yeah, Lewis Trilemma again! Funny, though; why isnt McDowell examining Paul in that regard, like he did (poorly) with Jesus? Probably because all the evidence points to him being insane. What a double standard. Also why do we automatically have to assume that someone is telling the truth or that an account of an event is accurate, especially when the only evidence for the veracity of that account is the account itself? Pg. 126- The resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on humanity, or it is the most important fact in history. Or, yknow, its just a story. No more or less factual than Athena emerging fully-grown out of Zeuss brain. Pg. 129- The Bible is true. I know this because the Bible says its true. The Koran is true. I know this because the Koran says its true. Scientologys Dianetics, the Book of Mormon, and the Bhagavad-Gita are all true. I know this because they say theyre true. Starting to see the problem here? In this section hes trying to convince me that the resurrection according to the Bible mustve happened because the tomb was empty the next day... wait for it... according to the Bible! This is more circular than the Food City 500. Pg. 136- Oh, snap! Hes actually addressing the parallels between Jesus and other mythological figures! Oh, wait... nevermind, he handwaves the matter. Unlike the historical Jesus, there is no evidence for the reliability of any of the alleged parallel stories in the mystery religions. Jesus of Nazareth

ate, slept, performed miracles, died, and returned to life. These accounts are supported by a reliable historical record. What historical record?! This guy hasnt given a single shred of evidence to support the Bibles claims to historical accuracy! Give me something, anything, to suggest why I should give the Bible even the slightest consideration as a reliable historical record! In contrast, the dying and rising gods of the mystery religions were timeless myths repeated annually with the changing seasons. That is the same justification McDowell gives to support the veracity of the Gospels being passed down by oral tradition. The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one. Pg. 138- It is impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead. Consider this example: you dont believe that Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormons), really found golden plates in the woods and got a following of millions based on the gospel he translated them into by reading them out of a hat with the seer stones Urim and Thummim. Yet a Mormon might use this same argument to defend the early church members, perhaps saying it is impossible that the founders could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Joseph Smith actually been a prophet. It is very hard to stop believing in something, especially when its something to which youve devoted a good portion of your life. People become fanatic over things that they feel give their lives meaning- they rationalize and defend aspects of their faith, sometimes even to the point of violence or death. Remember, denial is a very common and powerful defense coping mechanism, and peoples minds play tricks on them, especially in emotionally trying times, to convince them of things they want to believe (this is why eyewitness testimony isnt considered reliable in a court of law). So I dont consider it too far-fetched that those who claim to have witnessed Jesuss resurrection were under the impression that they had seen or experienced something that wasnt actually real. Pg. 139- George Eldon Ladd concludes: The only rational explanation for these historical facts is that God raised Jesus in bodily form. A rational explanation that depends on an irrational action? For contrast, try another, more contemporary religious figure, one whom I just heard speak at the Chautauqua institute, Bishop John Shelby Spong. Through his research, hes come across quite a few interesting facts about the Bible. For instance, did you know Genesis 2 was written about 500 years before Genesis 1? Yes, as it turns out the creation story was stolen from a Babylonian myth while Jews were being held captive around 600 BCE. It was adapted into Jewish scriptures as a hymn for the sole purpose of giving a reason for the Sabbath, the day God rested. Since it came before the fall of man, they put it at the beginning and thus, the creation story, and every problem with education today, was born. Now, onto what he says about the Gospels. Jesus existing as a person might be possible- even I can accept that. But Spong revealed that in the earliest authentic fragments of scriptures, which as we know only appeared after all eyewitnesses were dead and gone, he was never associated with miracles, the virgin birth, or the

resurrection. In fact, those didnt appear as traits attributed to him until the 9th and 10th decades of the common era. People embellished. People added. People thought Wouldnt it be cool if...? and threw their ideas and interpretations into the story. When people want to hold an audiences attention, theyll do whatever it takes, including making stuff up. Extrapolate on that for three or four decades and the story will have evolved into something completely different, especially in an era when 1 in 10 could read and 1 in 25 could write, so consistency among accounts was an impossibility. Pg. 143- Using the science of probability, we find the chances of just fortyeight of these [Old Testament] prophecies being fulfilled in one person to be only 1 in 10157. Unless, of course, the account of that one person was written specifically for the purposes of matching those prophesies. (See my second note on page 32.) This always amazes me, people who say that since Jesus fulfilled so many ancient prophesies, that he must be the Messiah. Well, would they have written a book about someone that hadnt allegedly done all that? McDowell listing those odds (which Im sure he didnt just pull right out of nowhere and has rational, logical explanations for) creates a false sense of improbability, that the whole thing was so unlikely that it had to be intentional. And it was intentional- in fact, its intentional in every religion! Holy Books and Scriptures from all places and times insist that their lords, saviors, prophets and messiahs have done wonderful things that match perfectly with predictions made hundreds of years ago. Why is Jesus so special, then? Like I said earlier, a self-fulfilling prophecy. The myth of this character was so carefully molded over the years, with probably quite a few prophesies invented to match him as well, that its no surprise that in the end he would seem to fit so perfectly. Approximately forty men have claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. I am the Jewish Messiah. Me. There, that makes forty-one. No other but Jesus could be referred to as the seed of a woman. Why not? A woman contributes just as much of the seed as a man does. This is actually an interesting misunderstanding from Biblical times. Remember the good old homophobic laws in Leviticus that say it is detestable to lie with a man as with a woman? Well, the thing was back then, the people had no idea that a woman had any part in actually making the baby; they thought that she just carried it until it was ready to be born, while the mans seed (the semen, the only reproductive element they could see since the ovum wasnt readily apparent) was all that mattered. They figured the formula was: deposit in woman, wait 9 months, have her push, and bingo, you got a baby! This is why men sleeping with men was considered an abomination, because of this fundamental misunderstanding in how babies were made, which also explains where there wasnt an explicit prohibition on lesbian relationships- in a time when population growth was of the utmost importance, wasting ones seed with an infertile relationship was unspeakable. So yeah, a lot of misconceptions in the Bible still perpetuate discrimination today.

Pg. 144- Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. All the nations of the world can be traced back to these three men. Nope. They literally never existed. Pg. 149- Some claim Jesus deliberately attempted to fulfill the Jewish prophecies. This objection seems plausible until we realize that many details of the Messiahs coming were totally beyond human control. Wait... isnt Jesus God? Or one of three Gods? Or, part of God? Or... man, that trinity stuff gives me almost as big of a headache as reading this book. Pg. 152- In todays open climate, people seem offended by the exclusive claims that Jesus is the only way to God and the only source of forgiveness of sin and salvation. In case you cant see why thats offensive, Ill explain: it means that salvation is arbitrary, and therefore meaningless. My beliefs are not in my direct control. I cant simply change my mind at will about a given topic, and neither can you. Try it: see if you can believe, really, really believe, that 2+2=5. My guess is you wont be able to. You might say you do, but it would be a lie. Similarly, I am not in control of whether or not I believe in Jesus; I could say that I do, but that too would be a lie, as the evidence for his existence as a human, let alone his status as divine Messiah, is incredibly insufficient, dare I say non-existent. In fact, the existence of any deity is equally unsubstantiated. This means, as I hear time and time again, that the only way to believe is through faith, which, by definition, is blind, existing only outside of reason. Why should this be considered a virtue in any way? It seems more like a vice to me, closer to pure gullibility than anything else- you believe something not because you know it or have any evidence to support it, but because you were told to. Do you remember the quote that started all this? The one I posted as my Facebook status, that led you to suggest that I read McDowells books? Faith is not a reason. Uttering because I have faith only changes the question from why do you believe to why do you have faith. The only difference is that you removed evidence from the list of possible answers. Faith is simply believing that something is true because you want it to be true. That is neither honest nor something to base real world decisions on. And Ill add to that here: nor is it something to base eternal salvation or damnation on. The god a given person happens to believe in depends so much on where, when, and to whom they were born, and not on any constant, divine truthotherwise, wouldnt we see an even distribution of religions across the globe? I cannot imagine a greater evil than the god that would condemn those who, through no fault of their own, found themselves arbitrarily born to the wrong, even though the right one made no better case for itself than any other. Pg. 152- He is not only a God of love but also a God who is righteous, just, and holy. Just?! Seriously, how can you call god just when his idea of an appropriate punishment for a finite number of transgressions is an eternity of punishment? What a jerk.

Moreover, how could anyone be truly and perfectly happy in heaven knowing that people were suffering in agony down below? Thats no heaven, thats a mental asylum. Pg. 152- He cannot tolerate sin in his heaven any more than you would tolerate a filthy, foul-smelling, diseased dog to live in your home. It strikes me as odd that there would be something that god cannot do. I mean, hes god, right? Why is he supposedly bound by these rules? If hes really omnipotent, couldnt he change things around so that the vast majority of people who have ever lived and died wouldnt suffer for all eternity? Pg. 153- God doesnt send people to hell; they go because of their own choices. This makes me sick. What a disgusting, reprehensible rationalization; to think people could actually defend this explanation is horrifying to me. Its also sort of ironic that later in the book McDowell admits that he was abused, since this mentality is the same rationale that leads abuse victims to blame themselves: He loves me. I did something wrong, so he was right to beat me. If I follow his rules and tell him I love him and do exactly what he says, maybe he wont hurt me anymore! You can tell me youre with McDowell 100% on any other part of the book. You can even agree with him when he denies evolution or the Big Bang (though I hope not, since for the former youre an educator and regarding the ladder theyre pretty sure they just found the Higgs-Boson out in CERN, effectively proving that the universe was spontaneously created from nothing), but please, PLEASE tell me you dont agree with this part of the book. PLEASE. Think of it this way: suppose a child disobeys its parents. He made the decision to go against his mother and father and do something he shouldnt. The child deserves punishment, thats not so radical an idea. But why punish the kid? So he will be less likely to do that bad thing again, and hopefully learn to discipline himself in the future, right? Grounding them, taking away privileges, scolding them... all useful deterrents. Yet hell, the never-ending punishment, cant be a deterrent, can it? Theres nothing to deter from, no later chance for the victim to apply the lessons of the punishment (as youve probably gathered, Im against the death penalty too). But more importantly, suppose that was your child. Could you really be called a loving, righteous, just and holy father, as this god claims to be and demands to be called, if you in any way allowed your children to burn forever? Im reminded of Kathy Bates from Misery- after breaking both of James Caans legs with a sledgehammer, the first words out of her mouth are God I love you. I cant help but think the first word of that line was intentionally referring to the one she was emulating during the scene. Not to mention how horrifying the concept of eternity is. I think one of the best demonstrations of this is Stephen Kings short story The Jaunt, in which a man discovers a, cheap, easy form of teleportation between two portals. However, in order for people to use it, anyone passing through the portals must be asleep, or else they perceive the actually instantaneous trip to last QUADRILLIONS of years, which they are conscious throughout. Now imagine that, and realize that after such a

length of time you would be no closer to eternity than when you started. Not a pleasant concept, or one our minds can even begin to comprehend. What about me? Do you think that will that happen to me? Do you truly believe that I deserve eternal punishment for something I cannot control? Before you answer, consider this (what you are about to read will disturb you): Scaphism, also known as the boats, was a form of torturous execution carried out in ancient Persia. The intended victim was stripped naked and firmly fastened within the interior spaces of two narrow rowing boats (or hollowed-out tree trunks), with the head, hands, and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey to the point of developing severe bowel movements and diarrhea, and more honey would be rubbed on his body to attract insects to the exposed appendages. He would then be left to float on a stagnant pond, or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individuals feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects, which would eat and breed within his exposed flesh, which- pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insectsbecame increasingly gangrenous. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that dehydration or starvation did not kill him too soon. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation, and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days, though Mithridates, who was sentenced to scaphism after killing Cyrus the Younger in 401 BC, survived a whopping 17 days before eventually succumbing. Now, do you think I deserve scaphism? I will answer for you: No, you do not. Do you think anything I have done merits a worse punishment than that? Again, no, you do not. You are a decent person and you would not wish that upon anyone. Nor do you think I or anyone else deserves an eternity of agony infinitely worse than such a painful, protracted torture. Anyone who does think that, anyone who would allow such a thing to happen when it is within their power to stop it, is consummately wicked. A religion that has to resort to threats like eternal damnation to gain and keep members only betrays its lack of confidence in the merits of its flimsy tenets. Pg. 153- Adam and Eve chose to rebel and go their own way. Nope. They literally never existed. The Godhead- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spiritmade an astounding decision. Jesus, God the Son, would take upon himself human flesh. So what about everyone before Jesus? The millions that lived before 32 CE? Too bad, so sad? Why did God wait so long, condemning so many people to oblivion or worse in the process? Pg. 156- The wages of sin is death. Forget that noise. Sin is an imaginary disease designed to sell you an imaginary cure. Youre going to die- you always were going to die. Someday your brain, which is required in order for you to live, think, and experience the universe, will cease to function, and its components will return to non-life. In fact, without death you couldnt live. Ever heard of apoptosis? Youre a science teacher, so Im sure you have

(then again, you work in Tennessee...), but just in case, its the programmed cell death by which certain features are formed on the developing body of a fetus- the cells between fingers, for instance, are told to die so that the individual fingers can separate. Its how we were made and its how Im typing right this second. But thats not what McDowell is talking about, is it? Hes talking about the soul, the spirit, the whatever you call it that survives after earthly death. Heres the thing, though: I dont want a soul. I dont want to live forever and be reunited with my loved ones in the clouds someday. I want to die, permanently and finally. Not right away, mind you, but someday- living forever would be horrible. To sum up why I feel this way, and why such a view makes life infinitely more precious and meaningful, please go to this URL: http://i.imgur.com/CQXi3.jpg In the picture, you will see Richard Dawkins hugging a terminally ill Christopher Hitchens, who was in his final days, at a Freethought convention. Below the picture is a beautiful comment about the picture by someone (not me) on Reddit. Life itself is its own reward. We dont need to invoke any supernatural powers to make it valuable, since doing so would only trivialize the actual experience and marginalize the true forces at work in our lives, from those who strive to make us happy to the ones that drive us to achieve great things (on the wrestling mat, perhaps?). Attributing their deeds to gods is an insult and a lie. Sure, this means that there isnt an inherent meaning to life, but, and perhaps most joyfully of all, it does mean that with what little time we have left, we get to make our own. Its on us. We never needed a savior, for we were always free.