Refuting God is Imaginary: #1

A response to proof #1 of God is Imaginary.

Let’s think carefully about proof #1 and see if succeeds in showing that god is imaginary. If it does, that’s big news; we’d have found out something very interesting. We may express proof #1 succinctly as follows:

• Premise 1: According to the Bible, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it will be.
• Premise 2: But, if we ask for all cancer to be cured, it won’t be cured.
• Therefore: The God of the Bible is imaginary.

Let’s start by thinking about the logic of this argument. Suppose its premises are true. It then follows that at least some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken. But now notice that the conclusion says more than that. It says that the God of the Bible is imaginary. How does that follow from the premises? To reach that conclusion, we need an additional premise—something like this:

• Premise 3: If some of the Bible’s statements about prayer are mistaken, then the God of the Bible is imaginary.

Now it’s worth pointing out that the author of proof #1 doesn’t even discuss anything like Premise 3. It appears to be a background assumption. But for the proof to succeed, Premise 3, or something like it, needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise, the argument is logically invalid: the conclusion doesn’t follow from its premises.
My sense is that the vast majority of people would find Premise 3 implausible. After all, it seems perfectly possible for a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing being described by the Bible to be real whether or not the Bible itself makes mistakes. So, Premise 3 is questionable (to say the least).
Someone might reply that perhaps “the God of the Bible” just means “the God that would exist if the entire Bible were true.” In that case, Premise 3 would be axiomatic. However, then the conclusion would be compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being. And certainly any argument that’s compatible with there being a perfectly good, all-powerful, and all-knowing being is not an argument that God is imaginary.
So, if proof #1 is indeed an argument that God is imaginary, then it relies on a dubious premise; therefore, proof #1 fails to establish its conclusion. It seems, then, that reflective truth-seekers wouldn’t be moved by it.
We could stop here. The proof fails to establish what it claims to establish.
But the proof fails in more ways than one. According to this proof, the Bible’s statements on prayer imply that God would cure all of cancer on account of our prayers. But the proof fails to rule out (or even consider) the following possibility: background conditions on prayer are implicit in the text.
Consider that according to Matthew’s account, Jesus says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” He goes on: “not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).
And elsewhere, he says, “This, then, is how you should pray: Our Father in heaven… your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:9-10).
It appears that Jesus thinks prayers must be possible to answer (so, no asking for square circles). And prayers must accord with God’s will.
Why, then, does Jesus say that “everyone who asks receives”? A standard answer, which proof #1 fails to address, is that background conditions on prayer are implicit and would have been understood by his audience. Indeed, that’s exactly what Jesus’ earliest followers thought: the Johanine text says that we know that we have what we ask for if we ask according to his will (John 5:14-15).
Now it certainly does seem good for all cancer to be cured. But the crucial question is this: could God instantly cure all cancer without thereby forfeiting a higher good? That’s a difficult question, and proof #1 doesn’t even attempt to answer it.
For all that proof #1 says, it may be that our fighting against cancer with mental and physical energy forges courage, compassion, and unique and special relationships between everlasting beings. What if some cancer allows us to become heroes in loving others? More generally, what if a finite stage of suffering can act as a means to certain everlasting bonds of love that far outweigh that suffering?
These are admittedly complex and difficult questions, with many books and articles devoted to them. So, if someone claims to prove that suffering cannot act as a means to outweighing goods, he better have a carefully spelled out argument to back that up; otherwise, reflective truth-seekers won’t be moved. Proof #1 offers us nothing of the sort; therefore, it fails in to establish its premises.

A Real God isn’t a Magical God

Jesus compares faith to a seed, not a magical wand. Seeds grow with time to produce fruit. There’s a process. And some methods of cultivation are more effective than others.

Truth is often complicated. Therefore, when a perfect being speaks truth, this being should sometimes speak about complex matters. What he says should sometimes baffle the simple-minded, while being discernible to the wise.

The scientific studies we have on prayer are actually compatible with a “realistic” interpretation of the biblical statements on prayer (contrary to what GII says). The only catch is this: some types of prayers appear to be more effective than others. The least effective ones seem to be prepackaged, one time prayers, from a distance for people one doesn’t know or care much about. A famous 2006 study indicates this. But when people pray fervently for people they care about, then the statistics change: such prayers have a statistical effect. Truth-seekers may wish to investigate studies referenced here and here.
Proof #1 is too simple. Its view of God is too simple. Its interpretation of Jesus’ statements is too simple. In a nutshell: it fails to address the possibility that a perfect, rational being might reveal complex layers of truth that truth-seekers may grow in their understanding of.

http://gii.josiahconcept.org/proof-1

Refuting Atheists Claims of Greed (with News)

I haven't been posting on here for some time, and that's because I've decided to have a running theme with some upcoming posts. You may have heard of the website Godisimaginary.com. All it consists of is bogus arguments that sound interesting but fall apart when thought is applied to them. Now, there is a website pointing out all the mistakes God is Imaginary (or GII) makes, but some have not been covered yet, so while they have refuted some, many remain unchallenged.
So, for the next few posts, I will be posting some of the responses (giving credit where it's due), as well as some of my own.
In the meantime, enjoy this refutation of a commonly seen attack on the Catholic Church:

http://liberallogic101.com/?p=258

Are We Sure It Wasn't the Useless Rally?

From Wikipedia:
According to the rally's official website, the event had three main goals:

• To encourage attendees (and those who couldn’t attend) to "come of the closet" as secular Americans, or supporters of secular equality.
• To dispel stereotypes ("there is no one 'True Atheist' "). Participation by non-theists of all political persuasions, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds was encouraged. The intent was to show that there are secular Americans in every major demographic.
• Legislative equality. Secular Americans should be permitted to run for public office and adequately represent non-theists, just as theists in office represent their constituents. Non-theists deserve a seat at the table just as theists do; the rally should put secular values "on the radar" of American voters.

Now, far be it from me to tell people they can't gather together and speak their minds (frankly, atheists have done a wonderful job bossing Christians around in this regard), but I really must ask one question:
What does this hope to accomplish?

So far as I can tell, the vast majority of Americans do not agree with the atheist agenda (yes, modern atheism has an agenda, and I'll say how I know this in a bit). Consider some examples from the rally itself:

-While the atheists may cross out In God We Trust on US currency, it has been ruled constitutional three times by the Supreme Court. In addition, 90% of Americans support leaving the phrase on money, according to a 2003 joint poll.
-While they may have left out "under God" when reciting the Pledge ( a phrase initially put in to differentiate America from godless communism, but I'm sure their admittance is just a coincidence), courts all around the nation do not agree with them. Not only does it not legally violate anyone's civil rights, but also apparently the atheists filing the case were not very "bright" as one of them, Michael Arthur Newdow, didn't bother to check to see if he could file on behalf of his underage daughter.
 -At one point, military officers had attendees who were in the armed forces recite their so-called secular armed forces oaths. I say so called because the Uniformed Services Oath of Office clearly ends with "so help me God." Although I wasn't there, I wonder whether the oaths taken were the US Marines Rifleman's Creed since it does mention God.

Speaking of legal issues, one of the rally's sponsors can't even get its own legal stand right. According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation's purpose statement, the FFRF  promotes "the constitutional principle of separation of state and church."
News Flash:  "separation of state and church" is NOT in the US Constitution and never was.

While I agree 20,000 at one rally is a lot, that doesn't really compare to the number of people at (let's say) the March on Washington or Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally or even the Million Man March. In fact, this is doomed to fail in the long run. Why? Atheists would have you believe that they make up 16% of the US population; the truth is they don't even make up even 1% of all Americans.

Combine their constant lying about their numbers, their arrogant ignorance concerning God, the rise of religious vocations in America and key places like Africa and Asia, and their rudeness to anyone who disagrees with them, and I think we can all conclude the same thing....
Atheists are idiots.

Fighting Gay Propaganda

 http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/120322
The dark, intolerant, and abusive nature of the gay agenda
March 22, 2012
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst


Over twenty years ago, I had an intermittent conversation about homosexuality with a gay man at work. Although he persistently brought up the subject, he would periodically fly into a rage and call me a bigot when I disagreed with him. That man went on to become a key homosexual organizer in my city.

Five years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor of my newspaper concerning how the paper was becoming an organ of gay advocacy. I forwarded the letter to a group who received regular mailings from me. One man responded and disclosed himself as a gay. He accused me of wanting to submit gays to the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. He used several abusive terms which reminded me of other encounters I have had with gays, including the individual mentioned in the first paragraph. I replied that I refused to be bullied and intimidated into silence.

Are gays inherently hysterical, hateful, and intolerant of disagreement, I wondered, or are they reading off the same script? Are they systematically organized to strike out at opponents, and to silence them through intimidation? The answer is that no, homosexuals are not necessarily hysterical, hateful, or intolerant by nature — but yes, this is something they have learned. It is a technique called "jamming," which is part of an elaborate program to further the gay agenda.

Propaganda and thought control

I learned about jamming by reading the articles How America Went Gay, and Thought Reform and the Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and a clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is the author of the book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far (1995). Socarides drew a lot of his information about the program that involves "jamming" from the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's (1990) by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This book is a blueprint for gay activists for applying brainwashing techniques developed by the totalitarian regime of Communist China. These techniques were catalogued in Robert Jay Lifton's seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China (1989).

The program borrowed from the Chinese and put forward for gay activism by Kirk and Madsen involves three steps: 1) desensitization, 2) jamming, and 3) conversion.

1) Desensitization — Through constant exposure to homosexuals on television, in the movies, on radio, and in the newspapers, the public would become accustomed to gays being a normal part of their life. The image conveyed would be that gays are ordinary people like everyone else. As the gays came out of the closet to show a public face, the startling aspects of gay perversion and pathology would be left in the closet — concealed from the public eye. The goal of desensitization is public indifference.

2) Jamming — The object of jamming is to shame gay opponents into silence. The shame comes from the accusation of bigotry and from social stigmatization.

"All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack...The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicted twinge of shame....when his homohatred surfaces.

"Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths.... It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause." (Kirk and Madsen)

Notice the two elements — the shaming of the alleged "bigot" by making him feel like a social pariah and the depiction of the suffering gay to win sympathy. In my personal experience, I have met with two versions of the shaming tactics from gays. The first is the personal attack (ad hominem, meaning "against the man"). The ad hominem attack ignores the logic and facts put forward by the opponent and accuses him of being a bigot — i.e., a shameful being. The insult is pure assertion and unsupported by facts. It is essentially a threat to socially stigmatize the person if he does not desist from his opposition to the gay agenda.

This tactic is very effective in a politically correct group-think environment — such as college campuses and newsrooms. Politicians as a class are extremely sensitive to the threat of being publicly stigmatized. Remember Kirk and Marsden's idea that "people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like the pack." These may be primitive wolf-pack group-think tactics, but they are powerful nonetheless.

Almost all of us have been through this kind of thing. A perfect example is the high school clique. Retribution for violating the code of the clique involves public shaming and demonization. One becomes an "untouchable" — a pariah to every clique and caste in the school.

A study of the life cycle of a business found that the terminal stage of decline was when group-think prevailed. At this point, the in-group became an end in itself and the customer became an inconvenient nuisance. James F. Welles, Ph.D., wrote The Story of Stupidity, which examined historical eras in which many people were seized by a self-destructive collective stupidity. In each case, group-think prevailed, and rationality and independent thought were driven out. "Political correctness" is a form of contemporary group-think that drives out common sense. This poisoned environment has created the opportunity for the abusive nonsense of gay "jamming" to flourish. However toxic and destructive wolf-pack group-think is, it is a powerful temptation that man, a social animal, is prone to, and which dictators make use of.

When I testified before the Ohio Senate Committee on the Defense of Marriage (DOM) Act, the Republican committee chairman, who favors the act, allowed those against DOM to repeatedly make charges of bigotry and hatred against those who favored DOM. He allowed them to run on with no time limit as they painted the gay lifestyle in glowing terms and wallowed in their personal pain from bigotry. Unfortunately, he did not allow those in favor of DOM to answer the charges of bigotry or refute any of the assertions the anti-DOM folks made. He refused to allow experts to speak about the tragic realities of the homosexual lifestyle. Why? He probably did not want to be called a "bigot" in front of the TV cameras. He was scared to death of public jamming and shaming. Even though he voted for DOMA, he was terrified at being publicly branded as not being "one of the pack." This accords perfectly with Chinese brainwashing techniques. Consider Kirk and Marsden again:

"...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. In short, jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. This approach can be quite useful and effective — if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends."

The gays have indeed been given massive public exposure by liberals on TV, in the movies, and within the print media. This aggressive use of the media has been a priority of the agenda of gay leaders at least since 1971.

The "frisson of doubt" inserted through emotional conditioning is especially effective on men in the clergy. They view themselves as men of conscience and compassion — and like to be seen by others as such. Thus, when the pastor speaks in accord with the scriptures and calls gay sexual practices a sin, he may feel an almost unconscious shiver of doubt and shame. It is not the shame of violating a universal moral law or upholding the truth of the Bible. It is the shame of violating a social taboo and the fear of being seen by men that he is lacking in compassion and sensitivity. It plays to the ultimate fear of many pastors, the fear of public disgrace.

Denominations like the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists are in a pitched battle over whether to ordain gays, or to bless gay unions. Many of the theological moderates and many of the Bishops have taken to saying that they are "open" to hearing both sides. By taking no public position, they hide from the threat of being defamed by one side as being a "bigot" and a "hater," or being charged by the other side with being unscriptural.

The resistance against the gay agenda in the churches is left to the most conservative, the most principled, and those most willing to stand alone. Those who love God and truth more than they hate being publicly slimed by the gay activists and their liberal allies must often bear a heavy cost. When the liberal clergy seize control of a denomination and back the gay agenda, they ostracize the conservatives who oppose the gay agenda and exclude them from the seminaries, from denominational committees, and from speaking engagements. So much for liberal "tolerance" and "inclusion."

One aspect of the shaming technique is to portray how much pain the gay suffers as a result of the intolerance of the bigot. The movie Philadelphia, starring Tom Hanks, is a media tour de force in getting wide audiences to sympathize with the sufferings of a gay man and to be disgusted with the persecutions of his bigoted tormentors. Everyone who places a high value on compassion is bound to be swayed by the movie. It is one of the greatest masterpieces of propaganda ever put on screen. The not-so-subtle message is — "Shame on you bigots for not giving your approval to the cute and sensitive Tom Hanks — who just happens to be gay." With one stroke, the bigots are jammed and shamed and the gay wins sympathy. Brilliant propaganda — that. The Chinese would be proud.

3) Conversion — The third step is conversion of the public to be receptive to the gay agenda. Conversion requires a change of heart. The change of heart will occur "...if we can actually make them like us," says Kirk and Madsen. "Conversion aims at just this...conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the media." When the audience begins to sympathize with Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, the process of conversion has begun.

On television, gay comedienne Ellen DeGeneres once used abrasiveness in comedy. Since her public disclosure that she is a lesbian, she has emphasized personal likability. Queer Eye for the Straight Guy emphasizes a goofy cuteness and sweetness. Public likability has eluded the hard-boiled Ellen, but the "fab five" of Queer Eye have been fantastically successful in winning the sentimental favor of the public. No line is too sappy and no situation too mushy for the fab five. Don't you just want to hug them? Folks, this is conversion. Serious conversion. Never underestimate the gushy sentimentality of the American public. The cuteness of Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin did more to turn public sentiment away from slavery than all the abolitionists combined.

The big lie

The big lie technique has been used by almost all totalitarians. As explained by Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, "Tell a lie, make it a big one, repeat it often enough, and a lot of people will believe it." The Chinese propaganda techniques used for the gay agenda are more sophisticated than the bombastic Nazi methods. But as true totalitarians seeking mind control, the people behind the gay agenda are promoting three big lies: 1) Homosexuality is genetically determined, 2) Change is not possible, and 3) Gay rights are part of the civil rights agenda. Homosexuality is placed on a par with race and gender. According to the gay agenda, these truths are obvious. No debate is needed. Opposition to these points signifies bigotry.

1) Genetic determinism — Genes determine human choices and the trajectory of human development, we are told. This means that the gay is a programmed automaton and has no choice but to perform those sexual acts which the genes dictate. A full menu of sexual perversions are written into the genes and require only the right opportunity and stimulation to express themselves. This is nonsense, of course. Gays have free will and choice, as do every human being. Sexual perversions must be learned through some combination of experimentation and instruction.

At present, there seems to be no scientific evidence linking particular genes to particular sexual practices. But there is scientific evidence to the contrary. A sample of 90,000 identical twins (who have the same genes) shows no meaningful correlation of the sexual preference for twins raised apart. Fraternal twins had a higher correlation. If genetic determinism was true, there should be 100% correlation. (Source: Bearman & Bruckner, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 107, No 5, 2002)

The Journal of Homosexuality, a gay publication, reports that certain gay-gene studies and gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. Many gays want the truth instead of the big lie. Others prefer the big lie. The author of one of the criticized gay-gene studies is under investigation for science fraud by the National Institutes of Health for Science Fraud.

2) Gays can't change

Dr. Socarides says that one-third of his former gay patients are now married and most have children. This corresponds with the success rate of the Betty Ford clinic. Another third of Socarides patients remain homosexual, but are not part of the gay scene. They report more control over their impulses and a more responsible approach to sex. The point is that two-thirds of his patients made positive changes to some extent. This excludes the blanket assertion that gays can't change.

3) Discrimination against gays is a civil rights issue

Race and gender are permanent innate characteristics that are fixed at birth. No moral judgment can be made of race and gender, because no one chooses their race or gender.

By contrast, gay sexual activity is a behavior — and a homosexual orientation seems to emerge in developmental stages. Individual choices and social environment profoundly influence the trajectory of development. Sexual perversions must be learned through experimentation and instruction. Such practices are subject to moral judgments.

In view of these facts and controversies, what we need today in America is a moral citizenry immune to such brainwashing and disinformation. If we are to preserve civilization in the face of the relentless lies and deceptive techniques of the gay agenda, enough God-fearing Americans must be willing to stand up for what is right, courageously, and make a difference in the culture war.

Pseudo-Catholics....Get Out of My Church!!!

Why Are These People Still Catholic?
By Mark Judge

Do liberal Catholics love the Catholic Church?

In my view, the answer is no. And I don't mean that in a malicious or pugnacious way. I simply mean that when you examine the true nature of love, liberal Catholics don't seem to love the Church very much.

Receive news alerts
Mark Judge RealClearReligion
Catholics liberals

There was a recent outrage over an atheist-sponsored ad in the New York Times that encouraged Catholics to leave the Church. I wasn't outraged at all. The ad asked a good question. If you don't love something, why hang around it?

Perhaps a contrast would help illustrate the point. If someone were to ask me why I love the Catholic Church, my answer would be somewhat along the lines of the following:

I love the Catholic Church, to quote Chesterton, because I believe that what she teaches is true. That is to say, I believe that God is not a distant and capricious force beyond joy and reason, but a person. Furthermore, I believe that, through the death of Jesus Christ and the gift of the sacraments, the Catholic Church offers freedom. Yes, there are rules based on scripture, reason, tradition and the natural law, but those rules and traditions are intended to bring us freedom. Both through mastery of the self and making oneself a gift to others, especially the poor, one if set free.

On a more personal note, I love the Catholic Church because she helped save my Irish ancestors during 600 years of British tyranny. The Church also came to America and built the communities and institutions that created the learning, prayer, friendships and joy that created the foundation of my friendships and education.

At Our Lady of Mercy on Maryland, then Georgetown Prep and Catholic University, I was taught about how faith and reason compliment each other. I realized that social justice is not only for the migrant worker who deserves a living wage, but for the unborn child.

Of course, there is also the intellectual tradition. I teach a high school journalism class at Georgetown University in the summer, and sometimes when I'm walking across campus or through Healy Hall I feel a surge of happiness and gratitude for the hands that built that institution. I share a Church with St. Augustine, Teresa of Avila, Dietrich Von Hildebrand, Ignatius Loyola and Dawn Eden, to name just a few. I have blessed enough to benefit from the wisdom of Blessed John Paul II, Josemaria Escriva, and Dorothy Day. I am a lucky man.

Yet as Pope Benedict noted in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est ("God is Love"), genuine love is not just good feelings, even if those feelings are grounded in reason. True love endures suffering and he emptying of the self even when doing so seems foolish; genuine love, in Pope Benedict's phrase, "goes all the way to the cross." This does not mean ignoring faults.

There was no one who was more furious about the Catholic sex abuse scandal than I. Like others, growing up Catholic I encountered priest, nuns, and other Catholics who were mean, petty, even abusive. Genuine love does not overlook these things. It aims to correct them, even using shame if need be. Growing up Irish Catholic, shame was a powerful and necessary weapon.

But genuine love does not make faults the central focus of all of one's attention. Whenever I see E.J. Dionne, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Sullivan or some other liberal Catholic -- or "Catholic Lite," as George Weigel calls them -- answering questions about being Catholic, it reminds me of one of those verbally abusive spouses who can't even contain their anger in public. You know the type: the woman in the neighborhood who publicly humiliates her husband at a cocktail party.

The instant default position for Catholic Lites is criticism of the Church; their answers are never nuanced reflections along the lines of, "Well, in the recent past the Church has made some terrible mistakes and allowed some of its members get away with truly demonic sin, but I still believe in the soundness of the teachings."
Ask a Catholic Lite about their religion, and there is not even a preamble about how much they care about the Church. It's always some variation on this: "Well, I am proud of my Church's tradition of social justice, of feeding and caring for the poor, of involvement in the Civil Rights movement, of anti-war activism and speaking truth to power. I don't agree with everything it says, and I think we have reactionary pope, but that will change."

In other words, I am a member of the Catholic Church because it perfectly reflects my political philosophy. The parts that don't agree with I either ignore, or renounce; indeed, to establish my liberal and secular bona fides, I will lustily criticize the Church, in public, and often. In effect, my church is the Democratic party and the progressive philosophy. The Catholic Church exists to serve my politics, my narcissism, and my self-aggrandizement.

This isn't love. It's spousal abuse.

The controversial ad in the New York Times was spot on. Why are these people still Catholic?

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/03/19/why_are_these_people_still_catholic.html

Why People Think Atheists are Stupid

As if you need current proof that atheists are idiots.