Addressing a Friendly Christian's Comment

I recently received a comment from Steve Jake, a Christian blogger who writes the aptly titled blog The Christian Agnostic, who responded to my previous screencap / response to an apologist which, in turn, I decided to screencap and respond to.

My response is as follows:

Steve, thanks for your comments. They are much appreciated. But I have a few questions and points that you may find worth considering.

When you say that Jesus was a real historical figure, what evidence would you be speaking of exactly?

You see, we have stories of about a Jesus in the Gospels but we also have stories about a Jesus in the Koran. And there are even tales of a Jesus as far south as India.

What is the evidence that constitutes that any *one of these is based off a real historical figure?

Citing the Bible disqualifies the evidence, not only because it would be circular, but because the Bible is untrustworthy when it comes to historical records of antiquity. It hints at certain key events which would be known to the general public, sure, but beyond that all the details seem to be demonstrably inaccurate.

Botched geography, an incorrect consensus date for a non-existing consensus told to have been issued by one ruler but actually issued by a different one from a different time period than mentioned. Solar eclipses that never happened. On and on the list goes.

Also, just because someone can point back to the fact that Jesus is attested in the Bible doesn't mean that *their Jesus is any more historically valid than any other. Just because a Muslim can say, hey, Jesus was this fellow in the Bible and since Christians believe he's the real deal, that's good enough for us--this doesn't make the Jesus of the Koran any more or less historical. 

Just because Christians *believe Jesus existed and there are stories of Jesus making a pilgrimage to India doesn't mean that because Hindus can claim that the Christian Jesus visited them toward the end of the first century that their tales are any less fabulous, does it? What about Joseph Smith's idea of Jesus visiting North America in the early 18th century? After all, if Jesus was a real historical figure *AND the genuine Son of God ... anything is possible, right?

So what of the Jesus of the Gospels? The Gospels are also stories, are they not? If not, and they are historical documents, why don't they read like other historical documents of the day? Why do they disagree on historical claims about Jesus? Why don't we know who the authors were? Why did they write in Coptic Greek and not Hebrew of Aramaic? On and on it goes.

Let me ask you this, do you think Jesus was a *real historical figure because he, according to Christians (only Christians, mind you), talked with other actual historical figures such as John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate? Both Robin Hood and King Arthur talked with real historical kings, does this make them more than mere legends? If so, how?

How does a person in a story talking to a known historical figure qualify that person as historical when there is absolutely no extemporaneous evidence for Jesus outside of Christian tradition?

How telling is it that there is relatively no assumption for a "historical" Jesus existing prior to the third and fourth century? And when it is required, for theological reasons, it points to the Christian tradition which presupposes it instead of, well, the historical facts about the man himself.

At least with Socrates we have mention of him in Xenophone and a handful of others who criticized him, so we have independent sources outside of Plato's narratives to suggest Socrates was probably real. At least, we have no reason to doubt it.

With Jesus, we have zero independent outside attestation of his existence, and all outside mention of him merely states that there were Christians that believed and worshiped such a figure, much as we have mention of that there were those cultists who believed and worshiped Dionysus. That doesn't tell us much than what others purportedly believed.

That doesn't prove Dionysus was a real historical figure as well, does it? And Odysseus fought at the War of Troy, which historians think may have been a real war, but that doesn't mean that Odysseus was a real historical figure, does it?

But, in addition to this obstacle of not having the evidence required to confirm any ties to genuine history, we do have many reasons to doubt the existence of Jesus beyond the historical unreliability of the New Testament texts.

One, his persona finds its place in an ancient document that is not written in the historical tradition of the time, but rather written in a literary form popular to those of that era.

More than this, it seems most of the Jesus stories are simply retellings--or reformulations--of many of the Old Testament patriarchs. So much so that they parallel each other in plot, structure, and form. A Midrashim of sorts.

Beyond this is the way in which the specific Gospel stories themselves are constructed. Where, for example, the Gospel of Mark makes use of reversals and mirrored events, a literary trick to make Jesus a stoic sage rather than a messianic figure, the Gospel of John on the other hand is acknowledged by many to likely be a Gnostic text, or at least have Gnostic influences, which is no small matter when you pause to realize that Gnostic Christians believed in a *Celestial Jesus, not a corporeal or historical one.

And all this is merely scratching the surface of the many *types of Jesus  archetypes we can find present in Christian tradition. To say they were all the same divine/historical figure is simply to conflate, combine, and formulate a Jesus based on the desire to harmonize all the discrepant versions of Jesus we already have. But that isn't being honest with the types of Jesus we can purse out of the texts, all the while noting their distinct differences and wishing for something more tangible than mere stories *about him.

There are many figures from antiquity who beat Jesus out in terms of the verity of their individiual historicity. Even Spartacus has more independent attestation, from various accounts, than Jesus does. My own example of Queen Cleopatra and the meticulous details to which here life and death were documented. You can name me practically any Greek philosopher from antiquity and we can probably say that these people were better attested than the Jesus of Christianity.

That's no slight problem, I think you'll find. At the end of the day, the claim that Jesus was a well attested figure just doesn't pass scrutiny. 

The problem, as I see it, is you have Christians who claim Jesus was real, and that he existed, but then cannot discern any real historical information for him that hasn't already been presupposed for him. So, in effect, you have Christians citing Christianity as the main reason they believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ. That is rather circular reasoning, wouldn't you agree?

And that's all the consensus of Biblical scholars have on Jesus. All they can point to is the tradition of taking for granted the dearth of evidence required to tie Jesus to history in the way we have come to expect of real historical figures.

And of course, when we don't have data for such figures, they typically go the way of legend and myth, because it's not pertinent to anyone's faith that they be quote, unquote, "historical" in the first place. Nobody loses anything, for example, if we find out tomorrow that Socrates really was just a made up character in Plato's dialogues. But Christians who need Christ as their spiritual redeemer risk to lose everything by admitting the same.

Which is why the search for the historical Jesus continues long after most rational people would have considered him among the likes of Robin Hood, King Arthur, or Odysseus. Christians are invested in making Jesus Christ real, even if he never was.

If not for this quirk, I am sure his legend would rest happily in the pages of antiquity, with no worry about whether or not he ever was real in the way Alexander the Great was real.

Of course, I could be wrong. But given what we know, I have to ask myself, what is the more likely scenario? That a virgin born God-child came to Earth, like so many before him, but for the strange occurrence that this one was somehow different ... for this one, unlike all the Osirises and Apolloniuses and Mythras, well, this one just so happened to be real. Or, that he is a legend like all the rest.

Like I said, I *could be wrong. But then that brings us back to my initial question, does it not?

Swedish Fish Book Updates: Book Blurbs

My friend and long time supporter The Atheist Missionary has provided a nice back cover blurb for my forthcoming counter-apologetics book The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbits Foot.

Thanks to TAM for being an avid reader and one of the dozen people who compelled me to do this project.

“An Essential Reading Companion to Randal Rauser's The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails. If Rauser's version of tentative Christian apologetics is the virus, readers will find this enjoyable retort to be the cure.” –The Atheist Missionary

Of course, the back cover synopsis will be:

Skeptic and best selling author Tristan Vick doesn't have a theology degree, yet he knows just as much about God as any theologian. However, don't be fooled as it's not as impressive of a claim as it sounds. Anyone can theorize about God. In this detailed rebuttal to Christian apologist Randal Rauser, Tristan Vick (a Christian turned atheist) takes on Rauser's popular brand of Evangelical apologetics and offers a worthy critique of Christianity from a different school of thought. But this book comes with a warning to those that buy into Randal's from of Christianity hook line and sinker: avoid reading this book if you don't want to have deep thoughts and profound philosophical insights, because it could be hazardous to your faith.

The book is still on track for an early 2014 release. Stay tuned for further updates!

How I Spent (Part) of My Xmas

Because education is important. 

My Response to Randal Rauser will be a published book!

Almost as soon as I had finished reviewing Randal Rauser's apologetic book The Swedish Fish, The Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails, I began receiving emails by those who were following the series and wanted to know if I'd be collecting the reviews into book form.

At first I really didn't give it much thought. But by the third email, I realized there was enough of an interest. So, yes, I will be publishing an edited version of the reviews, with ADDED content, more sources and citations, and an slightly more condensed version of the reviews.

It will be called The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver, and Working the Rabbit's Foot. Of course, it's an obvious spoof on Randal's title.

Besides the interest in this book, I also hope that people can use this counter-apologetics as a way to introduce their Christian family and friends to other ways of thinking that they may not have heard before, and also as a conversation starter.

Needless to say, I cover more material than Randal did with far more economy. So it's a good work to introduce to apologist wannabes, to show them that anything they have to say has most probably already been addressed, and that they should read this book before starting a debate with you.

Really, that's what this book is for. It's a time saver--for you--so you don't have to waste your precious time debating people who only ever use the same ten arguments again, and again, and again and... well, you get the picture.

My book addresses many of the main apologetic arguments, tackles them head on, and leaves them crippled--so that you don't have to waste your time arguing against age old, twice disproved, non-theories about why Christianity is so great and why you ought to believe. Instead, all you'll have to do is point your God believing friends to this little book--and then sit back and watch as their mind turns into a massive pretzel.

With any luck, I'll get it completed by the first week of January. Stay tuned in for updates.

Happy Holidays to my heathen brethren, and Merry Xmas to all!

Merry Xmas from Japan

I live in Japan.

Christmas is practically non-existent.

Sure, the stores still have all the sales. Some houses put up lights (I counted five this year). And the department stores have all the sales.

But it's just not Christmas.

First off, everyone works.

I'm on break at work writing this, and its Christmas Eve.

After work, I most likely will do some last minute Christmas shopping.

I wanted to do Christmas up right this year, but after having just recuperated from a bronchial infection that kicked my ass for two months, a flu bug, and a bout of pink eye before that, oh, and having put my back out for a week, I really had nothing in me to give.

All this on top of being financially strapped from paying back loans for a last minute trip to America back in May. So presents are meek this year. One per person. Nothing fancy.

We don't even have a Christmas tree. There's no decorations up. For the most part, it's just a normal day in Japan.

And so tonight I will go home, have dinner, and wish everyone a Merry Christmas, and I might get a not in return.

Although, I might make a midnight run to 7/11 to buy an Xmas cake and a cheap bottle of wine. A popular tradition in Japan. Oh, and KFC is half off today because, well, Japanese think foreigners eat fried chicken on Xmas.

This morning, for five classes, I shocked my students by telling them we don't have Xmas cake in the U.S. and KFC is not the dinner choice for most Westerners. They were stunned. No Xmas cake?!

I usually inform them that we have fruitcake, but it's not really the same thing. In fact, it's pretty much... well... evil. Like, if cake hated you and wanted you to know it. Fruitcake is cake's revenge against the human race, as far as I'm concerned.

So like most Japanese people, I will follow the adage--when in Rome do as the Romans do--and work, eat my Xmas cake, open presents in the morning and then wish everyone fun as they head off to work, because I will be taking the day off.

Because it's Christmas.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Duck Dynasty Debacle

I've written extensively on the freedom of speech. About the Duck Dynasty guy... whatever his name is... what he needs to realize is that the First Amendment makes it so the U.S. government can't censor him. But being a bigoted asshole, and saying hurtful things about gays (not to mention showing an overall ignorance and intolerance of prostitutes--who may be good people stuck in a dire situation) demonstrates that this person needed to shut the hell up.

We should allow for the free exchange of ideas--as long as we are responsible with our words and don't use them to try to harm others. 

The goal of free speech should always be to enlighten, bring forth new ideas, and gain new perspectives through our words and conversation. But the moment a person starts rattling off bigoted claims left and right, then you're not practicing free speech, because freedom of speech CANNOT thrive when you oppress others by holding them to outmoded stereotypes and unfair accusations on top of dismissing their opinion altogether (which is why it makes it bigoted).

It amounts to labeling people for the wrong reasons, then pigeon holing everyone who fits that label. That's wrong in my opinion. Obviously the patriarch of Duck Dynasty disagrees, but he's wrong to do so. Not wrong because I feel he's wrong, but wrong because his bigoted views do actually cause gays, blacks, and other minorities emotional damage--and for what? Because the guy carelessly throws around antiquated labels and doesn't seem to know the genuine hurt that lingers behind them? Or because he thinks it's okay to mistreat others as long as he has a good God-fearing biblical excuse to do so? 

Those who know me know my anti-censorship stance. On my blog, for example, I don't have a comments posting policy, because I don't believe in them. 

But when you attack people directly--by calling out their looks, their gender, their sexual preference, their race... whatever... then such an attack is unwarranted. Always.

So this Duck Dynasty wanker was deliberately defaming others with his bigoted words, or worse--he was unaware that he was--and regardless he was stopped. Simple as that.

In my view, your right to speech doesn't include the right to slander, shame, bring humiliation, or spread oppressive and insular ideologies which would seek to harm others. That's not what the freedom of speech is about.

I fully agree with A&E reneging his public forum in which he can espouse his sinister and poisonous ideologies. After all, they're a private company, and they have the right to terminate your business if you begin misrepresenting them or tarnish their image by saying stupid, racist, homophobic, not to mention ignorant things.

Phil Robertson still allowed his stupid, racist, homophobic, and ignorant beliefs, mind you. He can tell them to himself all the day long. We just don't have to listen to him is all, and it's not an attack on his freedom of speech to tell him to shut the hell up. He already said his piece. It annoyed people, and the company he worked for realize that the show he was on reaches out to 14 million viewers, and that's a big enough audience that when they get disgruntled, ratings are affected. And A&E was wise enough to realize the impact Phil Robertson's words may have had on that substantial viewership and, to their benefit, they weren't having it. 

When your words become blunt instruments to repress and keep others down, then you loose the privilege of being allowed to speak your mind. Not because you don't have the right to speech, but because your mind is cruel, depraved, and simply not tolerant enough to be tolerated by civilized people.

If you want to act like a fucking caveman, then go live in a fucking cave. Leave civilized society up to the rest of us.

And the moral of the story is... THINK before you speak. Because words carry with them real consequences. Something to keep in mind--even for people who often take their freedom of speech for granted.

Okay. Rant over.

Reviewing Randal Rauser’s “The Swedish Atheist...” Chapters 30-33 [finis]

Chapter 30: The Taliban and the Serenity Prayer

Unable to simply accept things on faith, Sheridan launches his attack and challenges Randal to make a valid connection between any faith-based experience and his brand of faith. Sheridan says:

“How can you really know all the claims of Christianity are true? The kinds of evidence that apologists provide—like the historicity of the resurrection or religious experience—that may be nice for you, since you’re predisposed to believe it, but it seems to me to be a very slim reed on which to build a whole system of faith.”

Randal responds in a strange way, by informing:

“If we want absolutely secure, irrefutable proofs that establish as true only one set of beliefs about reality, we are bound to be disappointed. All of us.”

So if we have irrefutable proofs in things about reality that support our beliefs, we’re bound to be disappointed. What?

Gravity works. The equation for gravity was written in a proof demonstrated by Isaac Newton, hence the term 'Newton’s law of universal gravitation', which is written as:

• F = Gm1m2/r2

where:

• F is the force between the masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the first mass,
• m2 is the second mass, and
• r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

So here we have an irrefutable proof that establishes our beliefs about one aspect of reality as being true. Now let me ask you, how disappointed do you feel right now?

What’s that? You don’t feel in the least bit disappointed? You don’t say?

When Randal says things like this, it seems to me that he might have a specific example in mind. But finding a counter-example to his claim before he can present any examples of what he possibly could mean just shows that his claim is refuted before it has ever had time to be considered. That's just bad argumentation.

In my experience, having demonstrable proofs that support my beliefs by demonstrating how my beliefs comport to reality gives me a greater confidence in my beliefs, not less. When I can establish such strong beliefs, I don’t have to rely on faith, and in turn I don’t have to live in a state of uncertainty and constantly check my faith against the real world. 

Do you know why Christians have to always go to church every week? (Notice I say have to, as a necessary condition, not because they enjoy social gatherings so choose to). To remind themselves that their faith is true. When you have a solid belief in something based on demonstrable proofs, you don’t need such constant reassurance. After all, you don't see me jumping up and down every ten minutes to make sure gravity is still functioning as we hope it will. You can simply accept your beliefs as being founded on brute facts.

As for those who say we need to have "faith" that gravity will keep on keeping on, or that the sun will continue to come up as always, this faith is more akin to a confidence in knowing how something functions and its relationship is to us. Yes, we also must have confidence that it will continue to function, but this is why things like gravity are called "physical laws" in the first place. They've been established as an immutable property of the actual physical universe, and there is no reason to doubt they would cease to be so. The same cannot be said of belief in God or other supernatural conjectures that are not supported by brute facts.

So the question really should be, who should be feeling disappointed here? The person with a ton of facts and a strong belief, or the person with no facts who has to constantly reinforce their beliefs with other like-minded beliefs in order to keep believing it all?

Randal goes on to inform that he accepts doubt as a sign of spiritual health. He adds that

“Doubt forces us to keep thinking through our beliefs.”

I strongly agree with Randal’s statement about doubt being beneficial to how we go about thinking through our beliefs. In fact, it’s the first thing Randal has said that I’ve agreed with in a long time. 

But at the same time, I can’t help but feel Randal is just saying this to try and sound somewhat more scholarly than he actually is. After all, earlier he was making the case about the necessity to have faith in knowing God’s signs, having faith in the type of God who’d create hell as a punishment, and making faith overall sound like a virtue. If there’s one thing I know, it’s that faith and doubt are antithetical to one another.

Allow me to explain.

Faith is believing in something regardless of whether or not your belief in that thing is fully justifiable, let alone demonstrable. Faith amounts to making the choice to positively believe one way and not the other, and based on no real evidence but for your sense of certitude, and so in your faith based conviction you feel confident that you’re beliefs are right (or true).

If you had evidence, then it wouldn’t be faith. It would be knowing.

Not knowing, however, is where doubt creeps in.

Doubt is the opposite of faith. Because you don’t know for certain, you are reluctant to make any choice, since the fact of the matter could go either way. You’d rather not commit to a faith based assumption, but if you are forced to do so, you’d rather assume you have a greater chance of being wrong than not.

Theologians who claim doubt is important to their faith only do so disingenuously. Of course, they may admit that they have to have a certain amount of doubt in God’s existence in order to ask the question “Does God exist?” in the first place, but of course they instantly go about consoling themselves by giving themselves the answer they like best, usually a wholehearted, “Yes, he does.”

But that’s all the doubt they require. They only require enough doubt to allow them to ask the question. After that, doubt turns into a powerful acid that only seeks to corrode their cherished faith. If they had more doubt than the bare minimum required to ask the question in the first place, they’d instantly be placed in danger of teetering over to the other side and becoming atheists and agnostics—which is why they place so much emphasis on faith being a virtue and doubt being a detriment. Faith is the soothing balm which diminishes that painful revelation that always accompanies a strong doubt—that horrible realization that they have a greater chance of being wrong than not.

In that sense, faith and doubt are always working against one another. It’s a lot like a grand ole game of tug of war, and our beliefs may fall anywhere along the full range of that well-worn rope, faith constantly pulling us one way and doubt pulling us the other.

The question believers like Randal need to ask themselves is, if God really were real, would they have to “wrestle with doubt” at all? Wouldn't God be more like a brute fact, like gravity is?

Randal closes the chapter by warning Sheridan that sitting on the fence isn’t a risk-free position.

Chapter 31: Feel Free to Sit on the Fence, but Don’t Get Caught in the Lava Flow

Opening chapter 31, Randal begins by telling a story about a man trapped on an island with a volcano about to explode. The only way off the island is to jump into a boat and paddle to a safe distance away from the volatile island. But there’s a catch. Randal explains that according to the strange property customs of this man’s tribe, there is a serious dilemma to be considered. He expounds:

“If you leave the island and there is an eruption you’ll save your life, but if you leave and there is no eruption, you’ll lose your home. Conversely, if you stay and there is no eruption, then you’re just fine, but if you stay and there is an eruption, then you lose your home and your life.”

Sheridan informs that setting up this obvious dichotomy seems simply like a tactic to force someone to choose one of two options, when there in fact might be other options worth considering. I agree with this criticism, but Randal denies the accusation and says that

“Whether you go forward, turn back or stay where you are, you are making a decision.”

Once again, it seems we are in danger of Randal beginning to make sense. So before you get your hopes up that Randal will prove himself reasonable, just listen to what follows.

“That doesn’t mean you need to let anyone pressure you into a new decision, but it does mean that it’s wrong to think you can just ‘sit on the sidelines’ until you reach whatever level of certainty you’re after.”

Really? So agnosticism isn’t a valid position? 

Furthermore, Randal may say we needn’t let anyone pressure us into making a decision, but then goes right on to say we’re wrong if we don’t hurry up and make one, thereby pressuring us into making a decision. I know what you’re probably thinking, but too bad, Randal doesn’t care about things like reason—obviously. 

Taking the time to sit on the sidelines and deliberate (a quite reasonable response to uncertainty, I might add) on important decisions just isn’t allowed! There’s no time to sit around reasoning about things. And if you reason the wrong way! Well, then! Randal doesn’t like it. So just hurry up and make a decision already!

No pressure or anything.

Randal finishes his little anecdote by affirming:

“We should be wary of the dangers of doubt no less than of belief.”

Randal then informs that we can still believe certain things for which the evidence is not as strong, just not with the same degree of conviction. Of course, this goes without saying. But what strikes me as peculiar is, now that Randal has admitted that belief propositions are basically probabilistic, how does he sustain such a high rate of conviction based on what appears to be such low rate of probability? 

What's more, does Randal actually realize what it would require in terms of support to get a genuine high rate of probability? I don’t think he does. In fact, I don’t think many believers realize this, which is why probability of existence often gets simplified into daft fifty-fifty arguments like Pascal’s wager. Math for simpletons--or apologists. Not that there is much of a difference.

Low there! We interrupt your programming special to bring you some theological insights by Randal Rauser. Speaking about degrees of conviction, Randal informs us:

“[A] Christian could say that his belief in God is quite strong, but his belief that God is triune is less so… He could accept that proposition ‘God is three persons.’ He just wouldn’t accept it with the same degree of certainty that he accepts some other propositions of the faith like ‘God is the most perfect being’ and ‘God is love.’ Remember, Jews were in a covenantal relationship with God without ever believing that God is three persons. This means that at one point in history God revealed himself as one but not yet three. Christians believe that later revelation expanded and in some sense corrected the Israelites’ belief. With that in mind, it would seem possible that in the future God might expand and correct Christian beliefs in similar respects.”

Only an Evangelical Christian would dare to write the phrase “Jews were in a covenantal relationship with God.” They were, were they? They weren’t just obeying and worshipping their God as was custom? But they were in a relationship with him? Upholding a covenant is much like honoring an agreement. If Abraham, Moses, and David didn’t agree to follow God’s dictates to the law, they’d be breaking their agreement. But following a ruler’s laws isn’t necessarily a “relationship.” Just because you follow the speed limit doesn’t mean you have a “covenantal relationship” with your government’s lawmakers who enacted those laws. All you have in terms of a “relationship” is the agreement to follow those laws. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.

Another thing that strikes me as odd is that God chose to depict himself one way, then suddenly, depicts himself another way. And Christians wonder why outsiders are perplexed by the confusing beliefs of Christians? Worse still, Randal flat out says that Christian beliefs corrected the Israelite beliefs. Does this mean Jewish beliefs are wrong? Is Randal claiming all modern practicing Jews who believe in Yahweh as the one true God, are wrong? Really? Because that seems to be the implication. If not, then couldn’t he have merely said ‘updated’ their beliefs rather than ‘corrected’ them?

But Randal isn’t entirely wrong either. Christians might very well be wrong about God, too. After all, we could imagine God revealing himself another way to another people of faith, and so it’s not just Jews who are “wrong” but also Christians. But that’s obviously me speaking nonsense, right? I mean, it’s not like we actually have any examples of a final revelation given to a chosen prophet by the one true God. That would be, like, staring an entire new religion, right? The next thing you know they’d be declaring all the infidels who didn’t agree with them “wrong” and, well, you get the point. Praise be to Allah!

Just kidding.

As fun as it is to roast Randal up a bit of humble crow pie, he does edge in one decent point. Randal states that he feels that

“[I]t’s a big mistake to think you need to hold all Christian beliefs with the same level of conviction, as if it’s 100 percent certainty or not at all.”

I’m sure the Fundamentalist variety of Christians would have a field day with this, but Randal’s point is well taken. Fundamental Christianity makes a huge mistake putting things into black and white terms. 

In fact, I would say that this ebb and flow of Christian belief conviction in specific doctrinal claims has allowed Christianity to thrive. The English philosopher A.C. Grayling suggests it's a lot like trying to box with jelly. Christianity always changes its shape and form to accommodate the biggest threats attacking it. And then it sticks to everything.

This has essentially allowed Christians to pick the best their faith has to offer and leave the rest. After all, slavery didn’t turn out to be all that good. Evolution has forced Christians to rethink the conviction they once had in the literal truth of the Genesis origin story of man. If they held to 100% conviction in these obviously falsified beliefs, they’d go the way of the dinosaur. (The reason fundies haven't gone the way of the dinosaur, however, is because, as Richard Dawkins has rightly observed, they flat out deny science and history.)

At the same time, however, this success that Christianity has enjoyed by growing more pliable, and more accommodating, has also made it more prolific and, ultimately, a greater nuisance. Gone is the day of Christian orthodoxy—now all you have is the heretical views of the individual. 

Personally I find this wishy-washy kind of faith sort of annoying. It could just be my preference for systematic thinking, but I feel that this pliability perhaps allows Christians to change their minds on what they belief far too much to be reliable in anyway, and far too uncertain to be able to talk about their beliefs in a comprehensible fashion. 

Which is why, I think you’ll find, many atheists prefer to take the easy bait and rail against Fundamentalists. It’s just so much more fun to get a reaction out of them than have to listen at length to a liberal Christian’s existential spiritual crisis.

Chapter 32: Adieu

Sheridan informs that he has to get going and Randal bids him adieu. That’s the whole of the chapter.

One thing I will say that I can’t complain about is the fact that Randal allowed Sheridan to maintain his reasonable doubts and didn’t have the character be converted. That would have been an obviously silly ending and little more than an apologist’s fantasy. But to his credit, Randal left Sheridan an atheist and a skeptic.

Chapter 33: A Love Supreme

Randal opens by recounting Sheridan’s journey, then informs “He’s beginning to see that the ‘skeptic’ bears a burden of proof surely as the believer.”

Well, actually, that’s not how it works. The burden of proof depends on the positive claim being made and whether or not the state of evidence warrants it. If not, then the burden of proof is surely on the claimant. If so, then, and only then, would the burden of proof be on the skeptic.

Closing the book, Randal repeats his favorite bit of wisdom:

“Remember, the conversation isn’t about winning a debate. It’s about moving toward the truth.”

It’s a sentiment I can get on board with, although I didn’t expect to find any more things to agree with in this book. But what can I say? I’m feeling agreeable.

With that said, we have come to the end of The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver, and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails. It was anything but a smooth ride, but I think I will forgo closing thoughts as I feel I've said everything I need to about the nature of this book and Randal's reasoning. 

Ladies and gentlemen, you’ll be pleased to learn that the ride is over. Now, stop reading this. Seriously, I’m sure you all have better things to do. So go do them already.

Sincerely,

The Advocatus Atheist