Archive
When nature burps
The following is a guest post by Alex Papulis. It is a response to Dave Muscato’s previous article, “Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results.“ Enjoy!
Dave claims that global skepticism, with one slight qualification, is the most defensible position, and I ask: with what does Dave think he can defend any position, be it global skepticism or any other position?
Let’s frame the issue with a little story. Imagine a universe where things have no purpose or design. Things just happen the way they do. Imagine, now, that in one corner of the universe, a bunch of particles happen to get together and form the letters of the sentence “Giraffes exist.” Imagine also that in some other corner of the universe, another bunch of particles happen to get together and form the letters of the sentence “Giraffes don’t exist.” I have two questions: 1) why should we think that one versus the other of these sentences that the universe has produced reflects something true about the universe, and 2) how does the universe in this story significantly differ from our universe? Does the production of the sentences differ significantly in character or circumstance from the production of our beliefs, and in either universe do we have a reason to think on any particular occasion reality has been correctly reflected?
The fact of the matter is, our beliefs are just as much a product of nature as hurricanes, dust, and cloud formations, and nature doesn’t aim at anything, it just is what it is. Dave’s beliefs (including the “I think therefore I exist” sort) are the product of something that doesn’t aim at truth, so unless he has some other belief-forming mechanism that he can invoke when he wants to defend global skepticism or any other position, I don’t see how we can actually speak of defense.
A deistic creator, i.e. one that winds the world up and lets it go and perhaps the sort that Dave writes that he is dangerously close to believing in, doesn’t make the situation any better. Put simply, if the creator isn’t concerned with whether or not human beliefs correctly reflect reality, then even if we did believe in such a creator, we still have no reason to think any of our beliefs our true.
Dave writes that what he’s concerned with is what works. If using evidence gets things right, then he’s satisfied. But that’s just not going to work. First, his beliefs about what works or gets it right are just as indefensible as any other belief; he has no reason to think they’re true. When nature burps, we believe, and that’s that. Aren’t his beliefs that such-and-such activity works and gets it right caused by unconcerned nature just as much as the theist’s? And furthermore, doesn’t his global skepticism apply to these beliefs about what works?
Second, and perhaps more importantly: is Dave saying that science doesn’t actually tell us about the world? If he does think it tells us about the world, then he needs to address, in addition to the bigger problem above, the issue of induction: why should we think the past/observed states are a reliable guide or evidence for the future/unobserved states of the world? If, on the other hand, he doesn’t think science tells us about the world, then we should be clear about that.
Have I made a mistake? Think I’m wrong? Let me know in the comments or feel free to send me an email/FB message.
Alex Papulis is a former Mizzou student, now in his first year of UW-Milwaukee’s philosophy MA program.
SASHA Guest Post: “Sam Harris’s flirtation with life after death,” by Rocket Kirchner
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Today’s article is a guest post by musician, activist, long-time friend of SASHA, and Christian evangelist Rocket Kirchner.
In Christopher Hitchens last days, Hitch seemed to be more troubled by Sam Harris postulating the possibility that consciousness can survive the grave than Hitchens constant debate with Theists. With the Atheist/Theist polemic at least he knew where he stood. But not with his fellow Atheist Sam Harris asserting that “one can be a good Atheist and firmly believe that consciousness will continue on after death.” Is this a creedal statment from Harris or merley a flirtation? Or is it just plain open inquiry? Either way, Hitchens response to Harris was, “Be careful, Sam: This manner of inquiry can lead down a slippery slope.” As a Christian practioner myself, and one who has studied for decades the history of Atheism, I am intrigued by Harris’s proposal.
My intrique is two fold: The first is Philosophical, and the second is Sociological. The Philosophical one is obvious: a major player in the New Atheist movement specializing in a subject that many Atheist consider to be not important or taboo. The Sociological intrigue is how this would affect the Atheist-to-Atheist dynamic within its own movement, and also how it would find common ground for an ever-expanding dialogue between the Atheist and the Theist. It is interesting to note that the new Freethinker movement of the post-modern era is now reaching a point where there is a breakdown from a general Zietgiest, to many thinkers in the movement becoming specialists. Historically-speaking, we need not be surpised. This happened in both the pre-Socratic era in Greece, and the post -Socratic era at the Library of Alexandria in Egypt. Harris has indeed found his niche.
Hitchens’s fear of the slippery slope with regard to Harris is that Harris is willing to consider Oxford analytic philosopher Nick Bostrum’s Simulated Universe theory (think the movie The 13th Floor), or Oxford analytic philosopher Galen Strawson’s further probing into John Searle’s work on the mind/body debate. This was both mentioned in their debates with 2 rabbis on the afterlife, which can be found on YouTube [editor's note: Link forthcoming]. There is a real fear that Bostrum and Strawson, if they keep pushing these things, just might end up like former lifelong Atheist-apologist & British analytic philosoper Antony Flew, who actually became a Theist before he died and wrote a book on the subject. If Flew wasn’t safe then no one is. The slope seems to be getting more slippery. Mmm. But I digress.
It must be made clear to the reader at this juncture that Harris has stated emphatically that his position on the possibility of consciousness continuing after death is diametrically opposed to N.T. Wright’s most exhaustive work to date on the alleged literal resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. However, one must ask: To even propose such a concept, is Harris equating reductio ad absurdum with credo qua absurdum? Maybe so, considering the fact that all of this is being met with raised eyebrows. And this raises another question: If Sam Harris was really a true-blue reductionist, in its strictist philosophical definition, why would he even tamper with the possibility that we humans are not our brains? I mean, for crying out loud, the man is a neuroscientist! How can one be an Atheist and not be a reductionist? His Atomist-Material view of the universe is shakey at best.
Neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles said that the he could never find the self in the brain. DNA discoverer Sir Francis Crick challenged that. They both died with the issue unresolved. So we have a Mexican standoff. Which is it? Is the Self only an expression of neurons and synapses firing, or does the Kantian observer stand outside the brain? In other words, where does the locus of the Self actually reside?
The upshot of all of this is this: To ask questions about the plausability of consciousness surviving after death automatically opens up another channel of dialogue about consciousness in the here and now. That was Zeman’s concern, and as the trajectory of inquiry continues, the question of consciousness morphs into the question of what it actually means to be a person, something that Merton and Susuki probed in their interfaith Catholic-Buddhist dialogue. All of this moves deeper into the question of what it means to be human, or what is a human being? And that takes it to that ever-vexing question that has echoed through all of Western philosophy: “The Ex Hypothesis” (aka, the existence of a Supreme Being ). Regardless of Occam’s razor, questions of such serious import always seems to unravel back to sqaure one. And then it all starts up all over again. The slope is slippery, indeed.
Rocket Kirchner is a long-time friend of SASHA. He is a professional musician, pacifism activist, Christian evangelist, and life-long student of philosophy.
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
The Power of Prayer: Christians Praying for Trivial Crap
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
Today’s post is by SASHA guest contributor, Tara Schlotzhauer.
While I may be an atheist, I have many real life friends and acquaintances whom are religious; given that I live in middle of the Bible Belt of Missouri, the religion of choice is Christianity. Thus, it is not surprising that on a daily basis that I see at least one status on Facebook invoking some sort of help from God or thanks to God. At times, they are actually what I would consider legitimate concerns to pray for such as when a loved one is very sick or even dying. While I don’t agree with pray, I understand their need to let people know and the need to invoke good thinking towards them in this time of need.
However, more often than not, I come across a Facebook status where the person is praying for something that I would think is totally inappropriate to ask of God. For example, in the last couple of months, I have seen the following prays: asking for their football team to win the Superbowl/playoffs, asking for a big enough tax return to be able to buy a new Xbox 360/TV, asking for someone to be motivated to take their work shift so they don’t have to work, asking for God to send them someone to love and whom will love them, asking for their parents to buy them a new computer for their birthday, asking for the Supreme Court to overturn a court case where separation of church and state was upheld, etc.
As superficial and silly as I find all of these, I read a status from last night and a follow up this morning by a young high school girl that finally motivated me to write this post and share:
That’s right. A young high school girl spent all weekend not doing her homework (I know from reading other statuses regarding her weekend plans) and prayed for snow (that had already been predicted for days) to cancel classes. Then, when said predicted snow happens and classes are cancelled, she thanks God for the snow day and says this is why she is a Christian. This is also the same girl who, on Friday, posted about how many times she has dropped her phone over the course of the day (twice being in a toilet) but that God must be looking out for her because her phone still works…
I also do not know what is worse: the trivial prayer request or the number of people who liked the statuses (which I take to be agreement or approval).
While I cannot articulately express my frustration over the lack of thought by some Christians regarding the power of prayer, I can relate a great story I heard from another skeptic this past weekend at Reasonfest in Lawrence, KS.
While discussing the power of prayer with a friend who happen to be a preacher, the gentlemen gave the example of how prayer works in our lives by telling of how, a few weeks back, his wife lost her keys and was running late so she prayed for God to help her find her keys and, after a moment, peace surrounded her, she found them. My friend replied to this “touching story of prayer in action” by asking the question: So in order for prayer to work, you have to really mean it and pray really hard? Does that mean that all the families who pray for their family members of cancer did not pray hard enough? Does that mean all the starving children all over the world who prayed to God or had others praying for them did not really mean it? Or was it that God was too busy helping your wife find her car keys to help someone else who really needed his help for something more serious?
Take a moment to re-read that story to let it all sink in.
Scary enough on its own is how often, when I ask Christians why God will answer silly prayers or help people in trivial ways but does nothing about suffering the world, I get to hear these words: “God works in mysterious ways. As mere mortals, we can’t understand his reasoning or his plan but we have to trust in the Lord.”
I’m going to call BS on this. If there is a God and part of his plan includes pain, suffering, starving children, and people dying from horrible diseases, you can count me out. However, the more logical answer is that is either God is not real or, if he is real, is not all powerful or does not take an active hand in the world.
Tara Schlotzhauer is a graduate of the University of Central Missouri with a Bachelor of Science in Photography and her Master of Science in Technology. She is the Secretary of Central Skeptics at the University of Central Missouri and works with her boyfriend and fellow SASHA guest blogger Brandon Christen running the Warrensburg, MO chapter of Recovering from Religion.
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
God vs. Cashiers
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
I believe that religion devalues human life. All human life, not just the lives of the religious practitioners. I think that religion indoctrinates innocent people to waste their minds and under-appreciated their lives, their family’s lives, their friend’s lives, and the lives of total strangers as well. If you disagree with that viewpoint and want to know just why I hold it, you’ll be disappointed here; this blog post is not one wherein I seek to affirm that position. I will, however, post on that position later.
Rather, in this post I will take one group of people who (in my experience) are some of the most under-appreciated people out there, and highlight three reasons I believe they are more worthy of our appreciation and love than the God of the Bible.
I want to talk about why the cashiers at Wal-Mart are more important to you than God.
1.) The Cashier is genuinely helping you.
Did the cashier create a manufactured problem and then demand that you take steps to fix it? Did they come into your home, rob you of your supplies, and then demand that you return to Wal-Mart to purchase more in order to avoid starving to death? No, of course they didn’t! Matter of fact, there’s a good chance you don’t even know them beyond the name printed on their nametag; and they don’t know you, either.
God, we are supposed to believe, knows each of us perfectly. If you’re really gullible, you may think he knew us before time even began (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean). However, God set things up in Genesis knowing Adam and Eve would fail and also knowing that the rest of us would sin in their footsteps. He knew from the start that every human being would be in peril of going to hell, but he made the world in a way to accommodate that threat anyway. In short: he’s a prick. He manufactured the problem, then tried to force us to take the “medicine,” which would supposedly be Jesus.
At least the cashier isn’t stuffing you into a problem and then demanding you ask for their help to get out! No, they’re just there to try to help you with problems that you have in one of life’s basic little areas; buying your groceries. But still, when you think about it, that’s more than God ever really does…
2.) The Cashier can affirm you as a human being.
As human beings, we all need interaction with our fellow humans. It’s simply part of what it is to be human. Without interaction with other humans, we quickly start losing our grip on who we are and begin desperately inventing things to talk to (a la Wilson from “Cast Away”). Whenever you pass through a cashier’s line at Wal-Mart, they will at least talk to you and, in so doing, acknowledge your existence has some value. Most of them will even smile and try to make a bit of small-talk.
Now God, on the other hand, if he is real, seems to habitually avoid us. It’s as if he’s the cosmic version of that friend whom you know could answer their phone, but they let it go to voicemail anyway. Believers beg, plead, beseech, and pray all year long, but not once do the clouds part and reveal any attention to validate their actions. Instead, they’re left desperately trying to link disparate events and say it was “God’s work.” That’s a horrible, pathetic reward for so much time spent in prayer. God never speaks to us, smiles at us, laughs with us, or asks us how are day is…all things which, for an omnipotent being, would be infinitely easy to do.
But Wal-Mart cashiers do! I’ve had many chats with them, and I’ve seen others do the same. I’ve seen them smile at me, genuinely laugh at my jokes, and engage in at least somewhat meaningful small-talk. I was a Christian for years and years and never got that sort of treatment from God! When you walk out of Wal-Mart (and if you were lucky enough to get one of the good cashiers) you can, silly as it may sound, feel a bit more like a part of an interconnected community of shared meaning. Again, that’s more than you can say for God…
3.) You can know that cashiers are real.
When it comes to knowledge, it is a tricky business. I’m of the school of thought that we cannot ever 100% know anything; there are for us only degrees of certainty resulting in justified belief.
Still, even taking into account all the Cartesian possibilities, there is more certainty and a greater justifiability in believing that cashiers are real beings than believing that God is a real being. That being the case, there is more reason to give them your acknowledgment, respect, and appreciation. God, on the other hand, is purely hypothetical. Anyone who claims to know he exists (they can be identified online as the ones typing that they KNOW in ALL CAPS, which is OBNOXIOUS) actually only means that they really really really believe he exists; they are convicted in that belief. fervently held belief does not actually count as real knowledge. The fact that we can do tests to show that cashiers are real stands high against the fact that we can do nothing to give even an ounce of credibility to the claim that God is real, not matter how sincerely that claim is made.
So, as real beings just like you, cashiers deserve at least some of our respect and appreciation. They are, after all, our fellow humans, citizens, and sometimes even neighbors. They help us, and they sometimes even try to make our visit to Wal-Mart more pleasant. They are more helpful to you and more apparently real than any god has ever been.
So, the next time you go to Wal-Mart (or any other store) and you’re in the checkout line, smile and talk to your cashier. After all, they’re more important than God!
_________________________________________________________________________
SASHA blog guest contributor Brandon Christen, a former Church of Christ preacher-turned-atheist, was born and raised in Missouri. He grew up in a religious family, and joined a far-right conservative church when he was a senior in college. For almost six years, the church dominated all facets of his life and thinking until, in early 2010, he began to openly question its steadfast rejection of science and philosophy. After a protracted struggle with his convictions, Brandon became an atheist in September of that year. These days Brandon remains intensely interested in religion, focusing on religious versus secular moral and ethical issues. Brandon frequently engages in conversations with as many religious individuals as he can in a “grass roots” effort to spread awareness about secular morality. He also acts as a strong voice in the Secular Student Alliance at the University of Central Missouri. While he sees debunking religious falsehoods as important, Brandon’s ultimate focus is on becoming a professional philosopher and emphasizing in ethics so as to lend his voice to the attempt to heal the moral divide between believers and non-believers.
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current, NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
But…but what about faith?
Welcome to the official MU SASHA daily blog!
First time here? Read this.
Click here to Like our Page on Facebook (or use the sidebar if you’re logged in).
Local to Columbia? Join the Facebook Group, too!
_________________________________________________________________________
It’s a subject I hear in one form or another quite a bit.
“But what about faith?”
“Aren’t you forgetting about having faith?”
“That’s where faith comes in.”
“I just have faith.”
It seems like I can’t voice my Atheism or demand a good argument without at least one person popping up and, as if they were presenting a novel idea, asking me why I haven’t realized just how important faith is. To be fair, I think it is a decent question to ask someone why they don’t think faith is a good reason to believe in God; I say this merely because so very many people in our society do believe in God, due to faith, that it is of some importance why one would toss out (as I think they should) the epidemiological grounding of “faith.”
To me, it seems, there are several great reasons to dismiss any claim that stakes its ability to be taken seriously in your ability to “just have faith.” I’m now going to, as succinctly and respectfully as I can, outline what my top three reasons are.
Number One: Because it’s just plain stupid.
Imagine, that someone came up to me and informed me that they could, without mechanical assistance whatseover, fly. Just strait up fly.
Ta da
Now what if I believed that person without any evidence? Without a video that wasn’t suspiciously susceptible to being doctored? Without eye witness reports that were definitively genuine and consistent with the facts in addition to being consistent in regards to how they describe the flying man?
You would, justifiably, call me a fool. Now what if I based my life upon the notion that this person could actually fly? What if I justified my every action and vote based on what I thought the flying-person would want? What if I hated, loved, empowered, and oppressed based on what I thought the flying-person would like? What if I did all this still without good, genuine evidence of their powers, and when you asked about it just told you “I simply have faith!”
Yep, you’d call me stupid. And that’s okay! It would be honest. It might not be polite or sensitive…..but meh, fuck it, at least it would be honest. And really, can you be more respectful towards someone than when you are totally honest with them? That’s why I don’t shy away from telling my Christian friends that I think faith is a silly, shitty reason for believing anything. It is sad but true that honesty hurts sometimes.
- Pictured: honesty incarnate
Number Two: Most believers even tacitly admit that it’s stupid.
The thing is, most Theists will confess that faith is a poor excuse for belief in a very round about way. When someone from another religion (or some silly new age spiritualism group) claims that they “just have faith” most God fearing, Bible revering Christians (for example) will try to argue with them and reason with them to follow the Bible’s claims instead. In so doing, they are de facto admitting that reason and evidence ought to trump someone’s faith.
Or what about those times when Theists boldly assert “Atheism isn’t a logical position; it’s based on faith as much as any religion!” Claims like this are normally followed by a list of arguments and evidences (however lame) as to why that particular Theist’s favorite dogma is true. Inherent in this claim/argument setup is the notion that faith isn’t as good as reason and evidence.
Indeed, it seems the rule that for most Theists that the faith defense is only trotted out when their backs are against the wall and it’s clear that they’ve not a single good, well reasoned, logical argument on their side.
Number Three: It’s damned insulting.
I’ll probably wind up writing a separate post about this single subject later on; I simply feel that passionately about it. I personally find faith to be fundamentally insulting to myself, my Christian friends who rely on it, and the human species as a whole. I used to be deeply indoctrinated in the Christian faith; a real fundamentalist. I was steeped in the personal crisis/redemption subculture and my faith in God was absolute, unquestionable, and crucial to my life.
However, steeped in the faith though I was, I fought. I struggled and clawed my way out, bit by painful bit, via reasoning and acknowledgment of evidence. It was a hard won fight, and in the end my faith was gone and I’d gained new respect for my mind and its abilities. But damn it was difficult…
Like trying to climb a mountain made entirely out of bullshit.
Nowadays, when people tell me I ought to go back to just having faith, I get incensed. My mind, such as it is, will never be the absolute best around. Bigger fish in the sea, blah blah blah. Still, with nothing but my grey matter, I figured out huge holes in the faith I was taught to revere (holes which were later confirmed by my reading up on these sorts of things). The point is I’m damn proud of my mind, and I’d hate to see it muddied by the sloppy non-reasoning that is faith.
And, on that point, I’m also irked to see my Theistic friends, who are good people, waste their minds on faith as well. It’s an insult to their inner potential, as it is an insult to the potential of the human species and the powerhouse of a brain we’ve been dealt by nature; a brain that could be put to better use solving the world’s problems and finding beauty and joy in the one life which we know that we have.
Faith is just such a damned waste.
So there we are. The top three reasons I despise “just have faith,” and other such slogans. It is stupid, those espousing it usually tacitly admit that it is stupid, and it is just plain insulting.
We’re done here.
_________________________________________________________________________
SASHA blog guest contributor Brandon Christen, a former Church of Christ preacher-turned-atheist, was born and raised in Missouri. He grew up in a religious family, and joined a far-right conservative church when he was a senior in college. For almost six years, the church dominated all facets of his life and thinking until, in early 2010, he began to openly question its steadfast rejection of science and philosophy. After a protracted struggle with his convictions, Brandon became an atheist in September of that year. These days Brandon remains intensely interested in religion, focusing on religious versus secular moral and ethical issues. Brandon frequently engages in conversations with as many religious individuals as he can in a “grass roots” effort to spread awareness about secular morality. He also acts as a strong voice in the Secular Student Alliance at the University of Central Missouri. While he sees debunking religious falsehoods as important, Brandon’s ultimate focus is on becoming a professional philosopher and emphasizing in ethics so as to lend his voice to the attempt to heal the moral divide between believers and non-believers.
Helpful resources:
Godisimaginary.com
Iron Chariots Wiki
Skeptics’ Annotated Bible / Skeptics’ Annotated Qur’an
AtheismResource.com
TalkOrigins.org
YouTubers: Evid3nc3, Thunderf00t, TheAmazingAtheist, The Atheist Experience, Edward Current,NonStampCollector, Mr. Deity, Richard Dawkins, QualiaSoup
Blogs: Greta Christina, PZ Myers, The Friendly Atheist, WWJTD?, Debunking Christianity, SkepChick
and don’t forget… other SASHA members! We are here for you, too!
Ultimate Easter Quiz!
The Ultimate Easter Quiz
By David Fitzgerald
1. When did Jesus get crucified?
a. At the 3rd Hour (9am), on Friday, the morning of Passover.
b. Shortly after the 6th Hour (noon), on Friday, the day before Passover.
c. He didn’t really get crucified, his identical twin Thomas Didymus did.
d. He didn’t really get crucified, he only appeared to be crucified.
e. We don’t know for sure, since the gospels disagree irreconcilably.
2. What supernatural events occurred at his death?
a. An earthquake hits Jerusalem (actually, two); strong enough to break stones.
b. Supernatural darkness covers all the land.
c. The sacred temple curtain spontaneously rips in half.
d. A mass resurrection of all the Jewish holy men, who crawl out of their graves and appear to many in Jerusalem.
e. All of the above, depending on which Gospel you read.
3. What historical evidence do we have for those supernatural events?
a. Every major ancient writer of the time worldwide mentioned them.
b. Many important writers in Judea discuss them.
c. Several writers in Jerusalem mention them.
d. No one mentions them, but we do have archeological evidence for them.
e. There is not a single lick of evidence for any of them, written or otherwise.
4. How many women went to the tomb?
a. Three: Mary Magdalene, James’ mother and Salome.
b. Two: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary.”
c. Lots: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James’ mother Mary and other women.
d. Just one: Mary Magdalene.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
5. What did they find there?
a. A young man, sitting inside the tomb on the right.
b. Two men, standing inside.
c. Two angels sitting on each end of the bed.
d. An armed guard of Roman soldiers standing watch, when suddenly a great earthquake occurs, and an angel descends from heaven, his face blazing like lightning and his clothing white as snow; the Roman guards are utterly terrified and all faint dead away; the angel rolls away the stone and sits on it.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
6. What happened after the visit to the tomb?
a. The women ran away in terror and never told anyone what they saw.
b. Jesus appears, is initially mistaken for the gardener, and then is tenderly reunited with Mary.
c. The women tell the disciples, who don’t believe them.
d. Peter runs and beats everyone to the tomb; or possibly gets beaten by one of the other disciples.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
7. Where/when did the risen Jesus first appear to the disciples?
a. On a mountain in the Galilee (60-100 miles from Jerusalem), just as the angel told them he would.
b. We don’t know; we aren’t told anything after the women run from the tomb.
c. He appears to two followers (not disciples) on the road to Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem)
d. He materializes in a locked room in Jerusalem as the disciples are at dinner.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
8. When/Where did Jesus ascend back to heaven?
a. Jesus returns to heaven on the same day he arose, right after dinner, from a room in Jerusalem.
b. We don’t know exactly, but it’s at least 8 days after the resurrection, when the despondent apostles have gone back to being fishermen on the sea of Tiberias.
c. After his resurrection, Jesus spends at least 40 days of teaching his disciples in Jerusalem before ascending to heaven from the Mt. of Olives.
d. Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven; he met his disciples in the mountains of Galilee and told them he would be with them always.
e. We don’t really know; Luke is the only gospel writer who actually mentions the ascension.
9. Who wrote these gospels, anyway?
a. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John – I mean, come on, it says so right there.
b. Actually, none of the gospels even claim to be written by eyewitnesses – all were originally anonymous and written at least a generation later.
c. Well, it’s more like the end of first century for Mark and sometime in the early to mid 2nd century for the others, if you must know.
d. Hold on – Not only that, but Matthew and Luke just reworked Mark gospel, adding their own material and tweaking Mark’s text to better fit what they thought it should say.
e. Get this – if all that weren’t enough, all the Gospels have been edited and added to by later editors, and for the first 200 – 300 years, we have no way to determine how faithfully the originals were preserved.
10. Where does the word “Easter” come from?
a. From the Aramaic word for Passover.
b. It originally was “Eastern Holiday” – referring to the Passover celebrated by Jews in the eastern part of the Roman empire.
c. From est ova, Latin for “Where are the eggs?”
d. From an ancient Celtic pun that means both “Bunnies” and “Chocolate.”
e. from Eastre/Eostre, the pagan Goddess of Spring.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Wait three days, and then, rejoicing, proceed to:
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
THE ANSWERS
1. When did Jesus get crucified?
a. At the 3rd Hour (9am), on Friday, the morning of Passover.
b. Shortly after the 6th Hour (noon), on Friday, the day before Passover.
c. He didn’t really get crucified, his identical twin Thomas Didymus did.
d. He didn’t really get crucified, he only appeared to be crucified.
e. We don’t know for sure, since the gospels disagree irreconcilably.
Note: According to the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus was crucified at 9am on Passover; John insists it was in the afternoon the day before Passover. To make matters even worse, they all say this was on a Friday. Later Christian sects argued he was never crucified at all; it was just a spiritual ruse.
2. What supernatural events occurred at his death?
a. An earthquake hits Jerusalem (actually, two); strong enough to break stones.
b. Supernatural darkness covers all the land.
c. The sacred temple curtain spontaneously rips in half.
d. A mass resurrection of all the Jewish holy men, who crawl out of their graves and appear to many in Jerusalem.
e. All of the above, depending on which Gospel you read.
3. What historical evidence do we have for those supernatural events?
a. Every major ancient writer of the time worldwide mentioned them.
b. Many important writers in Judea discuss them.
c. Several writers in Jerusalem mention them.
d. No one mentions them, but we do have archeological evidence for them.
e. There is not a single lick of evidence for any of them, written or otherwise.
Note: Incidentally, though we have no historical evidence for any of these spectacular events, oddly we do have historical accounts for much less interesting incidents including the antics of other, lesser, would-be messiahs during the same time period when the Gospels say Jesus’ fame was spreading like wildfire throughout Judea, Galilee, and beyond to the Decapolis and Syria.
4. How many women went to the tomb?
a. Three: Mary Magdalene, James’ mother and Salome.
b. Two: Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary.”
c. Lots: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, James’ mother Mary and other women.
d. Just one: Mary Magdalene.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
Note: a. Three: (according to Mark)
b. Two: (according to Matthew)
c. Lots: (according to Luke)
d. Just one: (according to John)
5. What did they find there?
a. A young man, sitting inside the tomb on the right.
b. Two men, standing inside.
c. Two angels sitting on each end of the bed.
d. An armed guard of Roman soldiers standing watch, when suddenly a great earthquake occurs, and an angel descends from heaven, his face blazing like lightning and his clothing white as snow; the Roman guards are utterly terrified and all faint dead away; the angel rolls away the stone and sits on it.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
Note:a. A young man: (according to Mark)
b. Two men: (according to Luke)
c. Two angels: (according to John)
d. Guards/Earthquake/Blazing Angel/Romans Terrified: (according to Matthew)
6. What happened after the visit to the tomb?
a. The women ran away in terror and never told anyone what they saw.
b. Jesus appears, is initially mistaken for the gardener, and then is tenderly reunited with Mary.
c. The women tell the disciples, who don’t believe them.
d. Peter runs and beats everyone to the tomb; or possibly gets beaten by one of the other disciples.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
Note: The women running away in terror and never telling anyone is the original ending of Mark, which stopped at ch. 16, verse 8; the rest of the chapter was one of two endings which were added much later. John tells the story of Mary coming alone and mistaking Jesus for the gardener. Luke has the women run and tell the disbelieving disciples, but then has Peter change his mind and run to the tomb. John has Peter and “The Beloved Disciple” both run to the tomb, and has Peter lose the race – so obviously, the beloved disciple (who is supposed to be the real source of John’s Gospel) is the best.
7. Where/when did the risen Jesus first appear to the disciples?
a. On a mountain in the Galilee (60-100 miles from Jerusalem), just as the angel told them he would.
b. We don’t know; we aren’t told anything after the women run from the tomb.
c. He appears to two followers (not disciples) on the road to Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem)
d. He materializes in a locked room in Jerusalem as the disciples are at dinner.
e. No way to know, since none of the Gospels agree.
Note: Matthew has Jesus meet his disciples on a mountain in the Galilee. Mark’s gospel originally ended at the empty tomb with no appearance of Jesus. Later an ending based on Luke’s was added. Luke has Jesus appear first to Cleopas and another unnamed follower on the road to Emmaus before he appears to the disciples, which of course begs the question: Who the hell is Cleopas, and how does he rate? John, as we saw, has Jesus appear first to Mary before he magically interrupts the disciples’ supper – but not all of them; he has to come back a week later to convince Doubting Thomas.
8. When/Where did Jesus ascend back to heaven?
a. Jesus returns to heaven on the same day he arose, right after dinner, from a room in Jerusalem.
b. We don’t know exactly, but it’s at least 8 days after the resurrection, when the despondent apostles have gone back to being fishermen on the sea of Tiberias.
c. After his resurrection, Jesus spends at least 40 days of teaching his disciples in Jerusalem before ascending to heaven from the Mt. of Olives.
d. Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven; he met his disciples in the mountains of Galilee and told them he would be with them always.
e. We don’t really know; by the way, Luke is the only gospel writer who actually mentions the ascension.
Note: Mathew ends his gospel with Jesus still on the mountain in Galilee with his disciples. John ends with the disciples instead returning to being fishermen again, and Jesus appearing to them at the sea of Tiberias. Neither gospel mentions an ascension. Mark originally ended at 16:8 with no account of the ascension either, but the ending tacked on by later editors followed Luke and had him ascend right after dinner the same day of his resurrection, though Mark’s dinner takes place in Jerusalem and Luke’s in nearby Bethany. Strangely, Acts 1:9-12 (also written by the author of Luke) contradicts all four gospels by telling us Jesus was around for forty days (!) (with no reaction from the public or his enemies who executed him!) before he ascends to heaven from the Mt. of Olives.
9. Who wrote these gospels, anyway?
a. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John – I mean, come on, it says so right there.
b. Actually, none of the gospels even claim to be written by eyewitnesses – all were originally anonymous and written at least a generation later.
c. Well, it’s more like the end of first century for Mark and sometime in the early to mid 2nd century for the others, if you must know.
d. Hold on – Not only that, but Matthew and Luke just reworked Mark gospel, adding their own material and tweaking Mark’s text to better fit what they thought it should say.
e. Get this – if all that weren’t enough, all the Gospels have been edited and added to by later editors, and for the first 200 – 300 years, we have no way to determine how faithfully the originals were preserved.
Note: Technically all of these are true, except for a. (Though to be fair, the 2nd century church fathers did totally want readers to think a. was true…)
10. Where does the word “Easter” come from?
a. From the Aramaic word for Passover.
b. It originally was “Eastern Holiday” – referring to the Passover celebrated by Jews in the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
c. From est ova, Latin for “Where are the eggs?”
d. From an ancient Celtic pun that means both “Bunnies” and “Chocolate.”
e. from Eastre/Eostre, the pagan Goddess of Spring
Note: Only e) is correct; The rest are pure lies. Fun fact: The goddess Eastre (a.k.a. Eostre) may be a later variant of the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar/Astarte, though some scholars suspect the medieval St. Bede just made her up.
How did you do? Be sure to share this with your Christian friends and compare your scores…
David Fitzgerald is (among other things) a historical researcher and the author of the new book NAILED: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All (recently voted one of the Top Five Atheist/Agnostic Books of 2010 by About.com)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nailed-Ten-Christian-Myths-That-Show-Jesus-Never-Existed-At-All/105120489555633?v=wall
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/32505
(Thanks to www.Skepticmoney.com for hosting the original quiz – check them out for more interesting blasphemy and practical finance advice… -DF)
Guest contributor: Author/speaker David Fitzgerald!
Welcome to the official MU SASHA blog!
Please join our group on Facebook.
Hello everyone!
I have some very exciting news: In celebration of the MU SASHA Blog launch, we are thrilled to announce that David Fitzgerald will be posting a guest article this week!
I had the opportunity to meet Dave at Skepticon III in Springfield, MO last November, where he presented his talk, “Examining the Existence of a Historical Jesus,” and I bought his book, Nailed: 10 Christian Myths that show Jesus Never Existed at All. I will be reviewing it on this blog later this week. Dave is amazing example of atheist activism: Aside from his scholarly contributions, which are hardly trivial, he serves on the boards of the San Francisco Atheists and the San Francisco branch of the Center for Inquiry.He is also the director and founder of the first Atheist Film Festival, as well as San Francisco’s oldest Darwin Day celebration, Evolutionpalooza.
Because today is the Catholic holy-day “Good Friday,” Dave has drawn up an Ultimate Easter Quiz to test your knowledge of Easter. I sincerely hope that you enjoy it, and keep on the lookout for my upcoming review of Nailed!
Best,
Dave Muscato
Co-Director of Public Relations
Vice President-Elect, University of Missouri Skeptics, Atheists, Secular Humanists, & Agnostics
(573) 424-0420 cell / text / voicemail
(888) 424-0420 toll-free
mail@DaveMuscato.com
