In January Hemant hosted Christian apologist Lee Strobel on this website. When Strobel was asked to provide some challenging questions to the audience here, the first question he provided was this one from fellow Christian apologist Dr. Gary Habermas:
Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself. These historical facts are: (1) Jesus was killed by crucifixion; (2) Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; (3) The conversion of the church persecutor Saul, who became the Apostle Paul; (4) the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half-brother; (5) The empty tomb of Jesus. These “minimal facts” are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. While the fifth fact doesn’t have quite the same virtual universal consensus, it nevertheless is conceded by 75 percent of the scholars and is well supported by the historical data if assessed without preconceptions.
We see the same basic challenge from resurrection defender Dr. N.T. Wright: “The [discovered] empty tomb and the ‘meetings’ with Jesus, when combined, present us with not only a sufficient condition for the rise of early Christian belief, but also, it seems, a necessary one. Nothing else historians have been able to come up with has the power to explain the phenomena before us” (The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003, pg. 706).
In my opinion these are fair questions from the traditional side of scholarship, and as a layman studying Christian origins, I found the responses from non-traditional scholarship not completely satisfying, or at least not very well or completely explained. The lack of a satisfactory response does not by default mean that Jesus resurrected from the dead, but it does spark the imagination. What really happened 2,000 years ago?
I began my own inquiry into this question several years ago. I took as my starting point the beliefs and traditions expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, widely recognized amongst scholars on both sides of the aisle to contain the earliest known Christian beliefs and traditions: Jesus died for our sins, was raised on the third day, and appeared to many people.
In considering the possible causes of these beliefs and traditions, notice that Dr. Wright does not appeal to the historical reliability of the gospels. He is saying that even apart from the gospel accounts of a discovered empty tomb and “meetings” with Jesus, nothing else historians have been able to come up with has the power to explain early Christian belief. Strobel and Habermas are not as open to suggestions outside the confines of the gospels, but as Habermas admits, the discovered empty tomb tradition is the weakest of his five “facts.” Given this, I start my investigation by accepting the possibility that the gospels could be mostly legend, including the discovered empty tomb tradition. For those who reject such a starting point, hear me out and I will show how this topic comes back full circle and impacts on the question of gospel reliability.
If the discovered empty tomb tradition is a legend, not only is Jesus’ resurrection effectively ruled out, but so are several non-traditional explanations for the rise of early Christian belief, like the stolen body theory, the moved body theory, and the theory that Jesus only appeared to be dead and then resuscitated. With these ruled out, there is only one explanation that jumps out at me as a plausible cause of the two-pronged belief that Jesus died for our sins and was raised, half of the 1 Cor 15:3-7 formula. That cause is the human phenomenon of cognitive dissonance reduction. Basically, this is the human tendency to rationalize a discontinuity between reality and one’s current beliefs in such a way that current beliefs are modified or added too instead of being rejected. Sometimes this results in extremely radical rationalizations. We have solid examples of this from other religious movements in history, such as the Millerite movement, the Sabbatai Zevi movement, and others.
This theory has of course been presented before and the controversy surrounding it can be seen in Dr. Wright’s strong disagreement with it and Dr. Robert M. Price’s response to Wright’s critique. According to Wright, “The flaws in this argument [that cognitive dissonance caused early Christian belief] are so enormous that it is puzzling to find serious scholars still referring to it in deferential terms” (Resurrection of the Son of God, pg. 698; full critique pg. 697-701). Price responds with:
…there are many viable explanations [for the rise of the belief that Jesus resurrected], not least Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance reduction, whereby more than one disappointed sect has turned defeat into zeal by means of face-saving denial. Wright suicidally mentions this theory, only to dismiss it…with no serious attempt at refutation [emphasis added].
I agree with Price; Wright does not adequately rebut this idea.
Finding the cognitive dissonance solution very plausible myself but feeling that it has not been communicated very well in discussions about Christian origins, I decided to publish a book about it. For those interested in my book, it can be found here (or at Amazon.uk), along with endorsements from several notable scholars. Not only does my book apply the concept of cognitive dissonance to the belief that Jesus died for our sins and was raised, but it offers an explanation for the appearance traditions (no, not mass group hallucinations) and the belief that it was on the third day that Jesus was raised. It also takes a look at where Jesus was most likely buried considering the fact that he was a member of the lower classes. In summary, my book attempts to condense a lot of thought that has gone into this specific topic and adds what I think are a few missing links to produce a single comprehensive natural explanation for the rise of the beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7.
A plausible non-traditional explanation for the rise of the beliefs and traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-7 comes full circle and impacts on the historical reliability of the gospels. Why? Because 1 Cor 15:3-7 is used by traditionalists as external evidence for the historical reliability of the gospels. But if there is another plausible explanation for the rise of these beliefs and traditions, there is nothing about 1 Cor 15:3-7 itself that supports the conclusion that the gospels are more likely historical rather than legendary expansions of these beliefs and traditions. In short, traditional scholarship should not be using 1 Cor 15:3-7 to support gospel reliability.
I’d like to thank Hemant for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion and introduce my book. I think other laypeople especially will find it readable and original in its approach to Christian origins, and I think it is the laypeople of the world who need to make sense of the arguments and claims that scholars make about their religious traditions.
Due out in autumn 2011, What is a Rainbow, Really? will take on topics including who the first man and first woman were, why there are seasons, what the sun is, how old the world is and why there are so many animals, first answering the questions with myth and legend, and then with “lucid scientific explanations”.
I remember seeing something like that at the Creation Museum this past summer…:
I’m guessing Dawkins’ book will be just a bit more accurate.
Too bad the title leaves something to be desired. (Though it does sound like something Dawkins would say…)
“Of course that is not my title. It was just the title of the sample CHAPTER that Dave McKean and I showed to the publishers. Somebody, somewhere, decided to make that the ‘working’ title of the whole book. As for the real title, that will require much discussion and agonizing. Suggestions welcome.
Richard”
The book’s illustrator will be Dave McKean, who’s previously worked with Neil Gaiman. It’ll be published by Transworld, part of the Random House Group.
No word yet on what Dawkins’ advance is, but like his other works, this is sure to be a popular seller so I wouldn’t be surprised to see something in the million-dollar-or-more range.
People are slamming the servers to learn about their upcoming Halloween book burning.
Pastor Marc Grizzard and his church’s members will be banning “Satanic” books… Like all non-King-James versions of the Bible (or is it Kings James? Help me, William Safire!).
They’re also burning books by Billy Graham, Rick Warren, and (really?) James Dobson, Bill Bright, and Tim LaHaye.
(Do you think he’d accept copies of my book if I sent them to him?)
I thought it was all a big joke until I saw this video:
I know what he’s doing. He’s trying to make Fred Phelps look good by comparison. It won’t work! I do fear, though, if the Phelps crew protested his church over this, the universe would explode or something.
One also has to scratch ones head what is Christian, religious, or even sensible about burning Bibles and other books. Besides having the odor of Nazi era book burning, the idea of a Christian church burning Christian books smacks one as bizarre behavior. What the Amazing Grace Baptist Church proposes to do lends credence to the idea advanced by some secularists that people of faith have a tendency to do nutty things.
It was fun to watch Colbert interview him three years ago, and I doubt this will be any less entertaining.
It should be noted that Colbert’s guest the next day is evangelical Christian scientist and head of the NIH, Francis Collins… just a coincidence?
…
And on Friday, Dawkins will be a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher. They’ll be taping the show, then taking off for the Atheist Alliance International convention, where Dawkins will present Maher with his namesake award.)
Maher invited Sam Harris on his show in August — it’s was an unusual, but pleasant, experience seeing two famous atheistsrationalists God-free people discuss faith last time. Dawkins is even more entertaining when interviewed Good times will be had.
That day marked my first encounter with banned books.
I probably don’t need to point out that my mother’s efforts were utterly counter-productive, that her prohibition only made true-crime books seem even more alluring. Human nature, for all of its rumored complexity, is a simple thing: Tell us we can’t have something and we suddenly want it more than we’ve ever wanted anything else in our lives. Put something out of our reach and we grope and strain and pant for it with all of our might.
…
The groups that keep Banned Books Week front and center want to remind us that freedom of reading, like freedom of speech, is crucial to a democracy. Books are worth fighting for. The release of the annual list of controversial books is a great opportunity to renew our commitment to unfettered access to books.
Books don’t kill people; people kill people. In other words, I didn’t become the ax murderer that my mother feared I might. And if I had, I don’t think we could’ve blamed the books…
Sounds reasonable. If I were a child, I’d be eager to find out what was so dangerous about a book that someone (i.e. probably a conservative Christian) wanted to keep it away from me.
Higgins and the Illinois Family Institute issued a rebuttal to Keller’s piece. They don’t find anything wrong with censoring certain books from children.
Here’s what [Keller] fails to address:
Ideas do, indeed, have consequences. Keller’s personal experience that reading about serial killers, ax murderers, and remorseless poisoners didn’t turn her into a murderer is lousy evidence for her unproven implicit claim that literature has no capacity to change people.
Not every novel, play, essay, or short story is appropriate at every age.
Books that never appear on the shelves of libraries, that is, books that the ALA’s de facto censorship protocols (aka “Collection Development Policies”) never allow to be purchased can’t be banned.
Banning a book, or more accurately, making a book less easily accessible to children, may keep dangerous, destructive, deviant ideas and images out of the minds and hearts of children or delay the age at which they’re exposed to them.
Of course literature can change people. Keller of all people wouldn’t say otherwise. But a book alone isn’t going to turn you into a monster. There are always other factors in play. And to shield a child from every potentially damaging factor is to remove that child from the world itself.
Is every piece of writing appropriate for every age? Not necessarily. But no one should be making that decision for someone else’s children.
As for sheltering the children from harmful ideas, we’ll get to that later.
Higgins goes on to talk about “inappropriate” books assigned in school:
Keller seems to employ a red herring argument when she cites To Kill a Mockingbird and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn while, for example, ignoring a play like Angels in America that includes extraordinarily obscene language and graphic sex and whose author Tony Kushner displays some rather virulent anti-religious sentiment.
She makes it sound like some teacher forced that book upon his unsuspecting students. Not true at all.
Some backstory: An Illinois teacher was under attack from conservative groups when he assigned Angels in America last year. The lady leading the charge (*surprise*) once worked with IFI.
The teacher didn’t force the book upon the students and he gave them an option to read an alternative book (Camus’ The Stranger). In addition, parents had to “opt-in” to the play and sign a permission slip if they were allowing their children to read Angels in America.
“If I have any agenda, it’s this: kindness and compassion are virtues to celebrate, forgiveness is always preferable to revenge, hope is powerful and lasting, and what we do for the greater good is what will define us and our legacy. If any work of literature can be demanding, complex, and nuanced in helping me express those values, then that is an exciting prospect. I believe that Angels in America is all of these things, and that, above all, is why I teach it.”
How dare he…?
(And what’s with Higgins attacking Kushner’s religious beliefs? An atheist wrote a book, therefore it should be banned?)
Higgins finally gets to the part you know she’s been waiting to get to — The Homosexuals:
In addition, [Keller] fails to acknowledge that many of the most frequently challenged books are ones that affirm controversial ideas about homosexuality, and that many of those are picture books intended for very young audiences. The frequently challenged books Heather Has Two Mommies and King and King embody unproven ontological and moral claims that many parents consider radical, subversive, and perverse. The implicit claims are far too abstract and complex for the very young audience for whom these picture books are intended, which leaves just squishy, emotional non-arguments to shape the feelings of young children. I think this could reasonably be called propaganda.
She learns that “the most important thing about a family is that all the people in it love each other.”
Damn radical, subversive, perverse propaganda…
And then, as she’s done before, Higgins goes down the slippery slope and brings in false analogies (like racial superiority and paraphilias):
The epithet “book banner” is hurled at conservative parents as a tactic to humiliate them into silence. Would parents who object to picture books that explore the sorrow of children who have been deliberately created as motherless or fatherless children be called book banners? Would parents who object to picture books that affirm polyamory be considered book banners? Would parents who object to public school teachers enthusiastically and positively teaching a play that affirms and celebrates racial superiority be considered book banners? Would parents who object to public school teachers teaching a novel that graphically depicts and celebrates paraphilias as normal variations of sexual practice be considered book banners? Would parents who object to the teaching of a book whose author attacks or ridicules Orthodox Judaism or Islam be considered book banners?
Of course, no teacher is encouraging racial superiority or celebrating paraphilia. Just because a book discusses those ideas in a certain way doesn’t mean it’s an endorsement of said ideas. (And what the hell is wrong with affirming polyamory?)
We can argue over the phrase “book banner.” Maybe “book denier” is better.
The problem I have with Higgins throughout her piece is that she and IFI are not simply concerned with what their own children read.
Their goal is to control what your children read. If they’re offended by it, then they don’t want your kids exposed to it. That’s why we raise a fuss. And that’s why we should be embracing Banned Books Week. Parents have a right to control what their children should read (key word: THEIR). I would hope they don’t censor anything, but it’s each parent’s decision.
And smarter children will find their way around the barriers surrounding them. Children, with their almost unlimited sense of curiosity, ought to read books they think are interesting. If someone else is trying to stop you from doing it, it’s all the more reason to find out why that is. (Want some advice? Try Judy Blume. She’s fantastic.)
I do agree with Higgins when she implies that parents should be concerned with what their own children read.
The way to handle that, though, is not by censoring their kids from tackling controversial subjects. Let your children read what they want. But keep an eye on what books they choose. Read it yourself, if you can. Discuss the subject matter with them. Don’t let the book be the last word on the topic.
You know, If IFI were truly concerned about children being exposed to violent imagery, graphic sexuality, and complete fabrications about the world around us, then they would focus on banning the Bible.
When they get around to that, maybe I’ll take their other concerns more seriously.
There’s good reason why people lose their faith in college -– when confronted with the messiness of religion, or theology, or textual studies their sheltered minds are taken by surprise and they feel lied to and betrayed by the church that did it’s best to keep them from encountering reality. But some still think it’s better (or at least easier) to pretend than to deal with the messiness that is reality. Instead of wrestling with church history or helping our kids respond with love to all the people they encounter, the very discussion gets banned. So kudos to Banned Books Week for forcing us to face those fears instead of hiding from them. For not letting ideologies be used as silencing weapons of oppression.
There is also no mention at all of the atheist blogosphere — even PZ Myers gets short-shrifted. I’m not exactly unbiased about this, but I feel like blogs are one of the main ways people find out about what is going on in the atheist community. To not mention them, even in a section titled “The Future of Atheism,” seems like a tremendous oversight.
Stenger comes off as someone who knows all about what gets released by major publishers but relatively little about what gets written on the Internet.
Stenger replied in the comment thread to that criticism here, here, and here:
I am sorry I did not give bloggers and some organizations more recognition. I guess I am an old-time physicist who takes published works more seriously than informal,unedited, exchanges that are mostly soundbites rather than deep discussions. Read the article in a recent Atlantic about how bloggers are killing the old, respectable journalism where reporters worked hard to dig out the truth and are replacing it with advocacy of little substance and no middle ground…
…
I’m sorry, but I have looked all over the internet and never found anything on the New Atheism that comes close in intellectual merit or maturity to the six N Y Times bestsellers and other books I mention. I am a very experienced computer user. I wrote my first computer program exactly 50 years ago when a graduate student. I love my grandchildren but don’t refer to their scribblings in my books.
…
OK, I promise to mention blogs in my upcoming talks on The New Atheism and say more about them in any next addition. I am sure they are influential. Perhaps I can be fed some exemplary cases to use.
However, I still insist I googled every subject discussed in my book and have referred in numerous places to URLs. I still think the medium has not superseded books and journal articles that are carefully reviewed and edited before being published and where you can develop arguments in detail. Point me to a blog that picked up the Hawking quotation abut the universe not beginning in a singularity and turning it meaning completely around. Point me to a blog that recognized the theological significance of this.
I agree with the other commenters on that thread — while the New Atheist authors have tremendous reach and, therefore, the greatest impact, more atheists are affected on a regular basis by what happens within the grassroots atheism movement on the Internet (on the blogs).
We’re challenged on our ideas and we challenge others; we’re spreading the messages that the books lay out; we’re building the communities that are so vital for a movement to succeed.
It’s possible that atheism would be getting a lot of attention without the blogs. But you can’t ignore the impact we have.
Stenger admits we deserve recognition, but he argues that the blogosphere is not as intellectually stimulating as the bestselling books.
So, let’s throw the question out to the crowd:
What atheist blogs do you think provide “exemplary” intellectual stimulation?
(Or is Stenger right that they don’t provide such stimulation?)
And just to keep the discussion moving along, you’re not allowed to say Pharyngula.
The new book is a history of atheism… over the past five years. It essentially spans the release of Sam Harris‘ The End of Faith in 2004 to the present day, explaining how the “New Atheism” rose up. (Even if you don’t like the term, it’s certainly popular and Stenger rightly capitalizes on it.) He summarizes the New Atheists’ main points and offers up a few more arguments of his own. Along the way, Stenger also discusses the critics’ arguments to what is written in the atheist books — and offers excellent rebuttals to them.
This is a wonderful book for any person who hasn’t read an atheist blog over the past five years. That is to say, older and brand new atheists will enjoy Stenger’s book — it’s an excellent primer for godless newbies.
Younger and older-but-Internet-savvy atheists might enjoy it, but much of the time, they’ll just be saying “I already know this.” Several references in the book have been seen on blogs everywhere — like why Francis Collins is mistaken when he tries to reconciles science with faith. Other references are known if you’ve read the other New Atheist books. Still, there is a lot of good information in here and I’m not dismissing the book.
There is one serious criticism that I have about it. In Stenger’s entire discussion of the New Atheism, he seems to focus exclusively on the works of the bestselling authors.
There is also no mention at all of the atheist blogosphere — even PZ Myers gets short-shrifted. I’m not exactly unbiased about this, but I feel like blogs are one of the main ways people find out about what is going on in the atheist community. To not mention them, even in a section titled “The Future of Atheism,” seems like a tremendous oversight.
Stenger comes off as someone who knows all about what gets released by major publishers but relatively little about what gets written on the Internet.
Perhaps that’s not too surprising. Even his bio at the end of the book — nearly identical to the one in God: The Failed Hypothesis — includes the line, “Dr. Stenger maintains a popular Web site (a thousand hits per month)…” A thousand hits per month? That was nice a decade ago, but nowadays, no “popular” web presence gets only 33 hits per day on average. (I’d like to believe more people visit his site and he just hasn’t updated the bio.)
Personal rant about ignoring blogs and national organizations aside, The New Atheism is indeed a good introduction to the New Atheism. It’s not overly philosophical and provides easy-to-understand arguments to use if you’re ever in a religious debate.
Posted in Books, General at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta
I’ve been reading a book called Write These Laws on Your Children: Inside the World of Conservative Christian Homeschooling (Beacon Press, August, 2009) by Robert Kunzman. The book is a look at six Christian families and how they homeschool their children. Not every family fits the stereotype I know I have in my mind. Some are impressive; others leave much to be desired.
In the following passage, the authors talks to one (relatively sane) mother about specific criticism toward homeschooling parents:
“But I wonder if there’s some point at which people would agree that a child is being ill served educationally,” I suggest. “For instance, if your thirteen-year-old is functionally illiterate, then maybe your unschooling stinks. I agree that there’s legitimate concern from homeschoolers whenever requirements are proposed, that it could be a slippery slope to further regulation. But at least on a level of principle, wouldn’t any reasonable person be concerned about the educational environment of a teenager who didn’t have those basic skills?”
“But there are public schools all over America where thirteen-year-olds cannot read, cannot add, cannot subtract,” Carrie says. “I wouldn’t want to single out homeschooling for standards that are not met by people who are in school and get by with it, year after year, graduating illiterate, completely unfunctioning members of society. I don’t understand why — if you’re in school and not learning things — why that’s okay, but if you’re at home and you’re not learning things, you’re not testing well, then it’s not okay.
“And what about the nonsense from academics that says I can’t educate my children?” she continues. “That is extremely offensive to me. Because there is no chance that I could go in the classroom right now — I could not walk up the hill to the elementary school right now and teach. I couldn’t teach somebody else’s twenty-five children to save my life. I’m not a teacher in the sense of being prepared to teach large groups of strangers. But if I didn’t think I was the best teacher for my own children, I wouldn’t do it. There is nobody who can teach my kids better than I can.” (p. 210)
With that, I’m done quoting excerpts.
This is a fantastic book that gives you an insight into a subculture that often goes unnoticed and is certainly not well-documented. I urge you to read the whole thing. I got through it in a week (with interruptions) and was hooked the whole way through.
Secular Student Alliance Member Todd Stiefel has agreed to match all donations to us by 12/21/2009 up to a total of $50,000. Double the value of your support and help us get the whole match by donating now.
He’ll be there to promote his new book, 
