Unapolegetic Fact-checking

I have one other occasions point out that apologists, especially Christian ones, tend to be willfully ignorant, delusional, stupid, or a combination of the three. A recent post by Justin Steckbauer on the Christian Apologetics Alliance' website does an excellent job confirming this view. "The Facts on Christianity: A Quick Examination" is certainly "quick" but bears no resemblance the rest of its title. Steckbauer fails to provide any facts or even the slightest attempt at examining anything he states. The short piece is especially entertaining since he does a pretty good job destroying his own claims. Of the 5 points he tries to make 3 take the form of rhetorical statements ("Does God exist?", Is the Bible really God's word?", Did Jesus really exist historically?") with the last two being meant as persuasive questions ("But was Jesus Christ really God come to Earth?", "What will you do?").

He starts the first point by stating, correctly, that you do not need absolute proof to reach a reasonable conclusion. He immediately dips into idiocy by trying to use the cosmological argument. Predictably, what follows is a jumble of logical fallacies and double standards. Basically, its the old BS that the universe needs a cause but God doesn't. No attempt at justifying or explaining why God should be exempted. Steckbauer's approach to the Bible is just as feeble. He does make an interesting half-assed attempt at acknowledging what actual scholars have known for quite some time by stating, "But there are over 25,000 whole and partial ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and they all match nearly identically." I don't know what the estimate is currently up to be but the number of fragments that make up the Bible is in the tens of thousands. However, he is blatantly wrong about there being even a single whole manuscript. dating to ancient times. Not one! He further proves what an ill-informed fool by trying to claim, "The Bible when compared with recorded history is 99.7% accurate." Not even close. I would be genuinely shocked if it was .3% accurate since the very few references in the Bible that have any connection to established history tend to be grossly inaccurate. His approach to Jesus is just as false. He mentions but does not reference "historical accounts by witnesses." There are no such accounts. All the earliest information relating to Jesus come from scriptures. There are no historical accounts of Jesus. The earliest historians wrote about Christians not Christ. Most accounts are at best third or fourth hand. You would think if someone wanted to write about "facts" that they might at least spend a few minutes fact-checking.

Apologist really are only good for a laugh. Their "arguments" have not changed in centuries. They have been so thoroughly refuted that there isn't anything more to do beyond satire and ridicule.

It's a twofer!

While reading online a recently posted interview at Christian Century I could not stop laughing. The combination of two ridiculous approaches created such an absurd tapestry of nonsensical bullshit I had to laugh. David Heim's interview with Francis Spufford, "Right-brained apologetics", is so surreal I can't begin to think of how to adequately describe it. I will just state the main premise and then leave it to others to read.
Spufford insists that apologetics as a whole relies far too much on reason and rationality. He believes that injecting more emotion/sentimentality into the field is necessary. Seriously! I'm not kidding. He really believes that apologetics is based on reason.

It's fucking hilarious! Keeping in mind the title and it's allusions to the false right brain-left brain dichotomy just adds to the unintended humor. Though, I would caution readers not to apply too much reason of their own. If you think about it in any meaningful way it could lead to the opposite effect. Once I did re-read it I was a bit depressed. That people can be this idiotic is rather disheartening. So, it's better to laugh than cry. Read it once for its absurd humor and move on.

"Christian" Historians

I agree with Mr. Clark that historians should denounce publicly scumbags like David Barton for fabricating all sorts of nonsense and then trying to pass it off as history. However, I'm also a little disturbed by what he does not say, or rather clarify, in his Patheos piece. In "Barton, Larson, Fischer: Checking in with the Liars for Jesus" he uses the term "Christian Historian" a handful of times without making clear what exactly he means by it.

If he means to reference historians who specialize in religious history, specifically Christianity, that's fine. If he means individuals who are Christians first and "historians" second then that is a problem. It may seem a subtle difference but it is not. If you are a historian you apply the standards and principles of historical research regardless of the specific topic. If you can not do so for personal or ideological reasons you are not an historian, period.  Even with the best of intentions and/or credentials such individuals should be more accurately labeled propagandists or apologists, not historians.

John Shelby Spong

Even though I disagree with John Shelby Spong on a wide variety of topics I genuinely like him. In terms of modern theologians and Christian apologists his is certainly one of the more thoughtful and even somewhat original theists. Most of what he believes is just as delusional and loaded with nonsense but he does a far better job supporting them than most. He also comes across as just a really nice person. When he disagrees he tends to focus on the issue or concept at hand rather than resort to personal attacks. It would be great if his fellow theologians and apologists would follow his example.

Any non-religious person, atheist or not, who has an interest in religion/theology I would strongly recommend becoming familiar with Spong's work. He has written numerous articles and books. Despite the failure of his ideas to stand up to any deep scrutiny they are none the less very interesting and worth exploring.

A few of the pieces on or by Spong from around the internet:

CNN Belief Blog post: "My Take: The 3 biggest biblical misconceptions"

Culture Shocks podcast: Interview with Barry Lynn

John Shelby Spong website

He also has a Facebook page and there are numerous clips of him on YouTube.

I encourage everyone to read as widely as possible on as many topics/issues as possible. I intend to regularly post on individuals I find interesting whether I agree with them or not. Opinionated or not, I truly believe that we should constantly question and challenge ourselves.