Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Killing Pharaoh's Firstborn Son

   During a recent atheist podcast on which I was a guest, a question was asked about whether I believed the Passover story of Exodus 12 was true or not, whether the Hebrew people smeared blood all over their doors while an angel of the Lord passed over all of Egypt killing every Egyptian firstborn child. In that episode I affirmed that there is definitely historical truth to the narrative, yet I denied how the atheist host portrayed it, and I also denied knowing exactly how or in what precise ways that historical Exodus "really happened." After years of study I now find it difficult to accept mainstream interpretations of popular Biblical narratives, especially the ones taught in Sunday school. I much rather prefer to interpret each letter within the Bible as it's own piece of literature within a wide stream of living tradition. Where there is clear scribal redaction, I take it seriously. Where there is a theoretically oral form behind divergent texts, I take that into consideration too. I now think there are many ways to interpret a textual tradition, and I certainly have my own preferences. In this post I'm going to comment on the methods and details which I have found persuasive for interpreting the Passover narrative.
At the time of the podcast episode I pointed out that what seems (at least to me) to be the most obvious point of the narrative is, specifically, the death of the Pharaoh’s “firstborn” son (4:22-23; c.f. 11:5;12:29) in contrast with YHWH's "firstborn," Israel (4:22-23).  I do believe that the Pharaoh's firstborn died. I don't claim to understand exactly how, or by what means exactly, but I do believe that the death of Pharaoh's firstborn son is true, and that it spurred the legendary exodus of Israel from their settlement in Egypt.
   I am emphasizing the death of Pharaoh’s “firstborn” son right away in order to highlight what I believe the most important detail of the exodus narrative. For not only is Pharaoh's "firstborn son" explicitly described as the one to whom the initial purpose statement by YHWH was directed (c.f. 4:22-23; thereby confirming at the outset the most basic goal of the stated judgment within the Exodus narrative1), but that same "firstborn" is later described (in Exodus 11 and 12) as the one who sits on Pharaoh’s throne. 
After perusing various critical methodologies and scribal practices again,2 I am convinced that literary motifs about Israel as YHWH's "firstborn" and the death of Pharaoh's "firstborn" are so clearly front-loaded with meaning and literary intentionality that overlooking or dismissing such facts (as David Smalley, the podcast host seemed to) illustrates how different American evangelicals, fundamentalists, and even atheists are from the majority of old testament scholars. Fundamentalists and atheists even seem to be more informed by debates between each other, and not through humble attempts to discern and evaluate critical scholarship. Regarding the Exodus story, at worst they sometimes seem to be formed more by Cecil  B. Demille’s visionary masterpiece, The Ten Commandments, than by any scholarly interaction with the text of the Exodus narrative itself. 
   To expound upon that last criticism of mine, I would like to point out that at some point in my discussion with the atheist host of the podcast he insisted that I must be saying that the text of Exodus 12 does not actually “mean what it says.” It allegedly means that all the firstborn were killed. It allegedly means God passed over all the Israelites and slaughtered every other firstborn child throughout the entire nondescript empire of "Egypt." At least, that’s what I’ve been told it must mean because that's what the podcast audience has stated in response to our episode.
   In this post I would like to walk through a number of reasons why the “meaning” of Exodus 12 isn’t as obvious as David Smalley (apparently) thinks it is, and why even most Christians and atheists who agree with David would be wise to pause and reflect upon how little they actually know in comparison with actual facts. Allow me now to propose three areas of the Passover narrative which conflict with a fundamentalist approach to the meaning of the Passover in Exodus 12.
  1. The first is that the literary structures of the Passover narrative reflect a scribal tradition about justice from YHWH (“the LORD”) upon the Pharaoh’s house and the gods/deities protecting his dynasty. The Passover narrative is definitely not depicted as an arbitrary and indiscriminate slaughter of firstborn innocents, nor is it depicted as a slaughter of little children. Such portrayals of injustice are actually how the Pharaoh's actions upon Israelite males are depicted in the beginning of the narrative.
  2. The sociological & topographical indicators of the Exodus narrative do not comport with the surface-level meaning that David seemed to rest aspects of his argument upon. For example, when the text says something like "throughout the land of Egypt" that does not necessarily mean every square inch of Egyptian land at that time, or even at the time in which Hebrew scribes redacted the narrative into its final form, just as "the Pharaoh of Egypt" did not mean "the only Pharaoh at that time," because multiple Pharaoh's ruled at the same time.3 Kings and their sons often had co-regenecy as well, and during periods of political division the land of Egypt had multiple territories and monarchs.
  3. The Passover narrative in discussion is primarily (and obviously) liturgical and temple-centered in character, being redacted and filtered through a lens which already has the Torah established and understood among Israelite readers, and can thereby utilize the Exodus narrative as justification for later Israelite liturgical practices. One must seriously wonder why an atheist would hang his (or her) entire argument of a story's meaning (and consequently it's portrayal of absolute morality) on anachronistic conceptions.4 
   Although these points do not resolve all atheistic questions and challenges about YHWH’s morality in killing anybody (or allowing anyone to be killed), they certainly do show how superficial such challenges can be.5 This, I suggest, indicates a kind of truncated understanding with regard to the literature being simultaneously utilized by fundamentalists and criticized by atheists.
   In this post I would like to focus mainly upon the literary structures of the Passover narrative and how they inform us. Because time and space limit detailed discussions about the second and third points, I will only touch upon them briefly in this post as such attempts appear to be helpful. Anything I think I have missed will be posted in the footnotes below.  

Now it's time to dig in to the text. 

   As virtually every Exodus scholar has pointed out (at least the many dozens I have consulted over the last 15 years), the meaning of the Passover narrative depends largely on recognizing it’s larger (macro) and smaller (micro) literary context. It doesn’t help the english reader to focus merely on “proof-texting” (as David did), as though the english translations of very specific verses are perfectly perspicuous on their own and are in no need of being informed by ancient literary methods. Such presumptions are absolutely mistaken. In the ancient way of understanding the narrative before us, what actually helps is seeing the whole narrative in its composition, and not just a verse or two within it, and also listening to that same text by paying attention to the "musicality" of its details, particularly as is found in the original language (which was not english). 
   As can be seen from the literary structures below,6 the Passover section of narrative was compiled within a much larger and considerately organized scribal framework in mind, which also seems intended to balance each pericope by a number of corresponding literary sections. The much larger chiastic framework of chapters 1 through 13 can be seen below:

a enslavement and attempted decimation of Israelites in Egypt (1:1–22)
pharaoh’s plan to murder Israelite males to control the Hebrew threat to his dynasty (1:8-10)
a new king arose (wayyāqom). The Pharaoh does not want the Hebrews to escape the land.
total number of Israelites entering the land: seventy representatives
b Moses, an Israelite male child, escapes death from pharaoh (2:1–10)
Moses “grows up” (gdl) as a son in pharaoh’s house
c Egyptian strikes an Israelite; Moses strikes down (nākâ) Egyptian (2:11–22)
d call of Moses: standing on holy ground (3:1–4:17)
distinction between holy and common: ground (ʾădāmâ) Moses stands on (ʿāmad ʿal) is holy
topics: sign (ʾôt) (3:12), Israel’s three-day journey (3:18)
e Moses returns to Egypt (4:18–31)
“bridegroom of blood
f brief encounter with pharaoh (5:1–5)
Moses and Aaron spurned
g CENTER: commissioning of Moses and Aaron (5:6–6:13)
promise to deliver Israel from Egypt with mighty hand (yād) and mighty acts of judgment
people doubt Moses
g′ CENTER: commissioning of Moses and Aaron (6:14–7:7)
promise to deliver Israel from Egypt by his hand (yād) and mighty acts of judgment
Moses’ self-doubts
f′ brief encounter with pharaoh (7:8–13)
Moses and Aaron spurned
e′ first cycle of plagues (7:14–8:19 [7:14–8:15])
Nile turned to blood
d′ second cycle of plagues (8:20–9:12 [8:16–9:12])
YHWH distinguishes between his holy people and Egyptians; afflicts one, not other!
begins: YHWH will distinguish between Egyptians and Israelites (cf. flies, plague on livestock), not afflicting land on which you stand (ʿāmad ʿal), only land (ʾădāmâ) of the Egyptians (8:21–23 [8:17–19])
topics: sign (ʾȏt) (8:23 [8:19]), Israel’s three-day journey
c′ third cycle of plagues: Egyptians are struck down! (9:13–10:29)
begins: YHWH warns that he has not yet struck (nākâ) Egyptians themselves, but now he will strike (nākâ) them (9:14–15); hail strikes down (nākâ) Egyptians, flocks, crops (9:25–33)
b′ YHWH will destroy Egypt’s firstborn males (11:1–10)
Moses is regarded as “great” (gdl) by Pharaoh’s officials, and he announces the death of Egypt’s firstborn, from Pharaoh’s firstborn “who sits on his throne” (v. 5) to Pharoah’s “slave girl who is behind the millstones,” and even “the firstborn of the livestock.”
a′ freedom of Israelites from Egyptian slavery and increased population (12:1–13:16)
YHWH authorizes a “Destroyer” to pass over Israel and destroy the firstborn of Pharaoh’s dynasty
Pharaoh arises (wayyāqom) to mourn the loss of Egyptian life. Israelites finally escape the land with the Pharaoh’s permission
total number of Israelites escaping the land: 600 squads of soldiers plus many more noncombatants

   Notice that in the opening section of the Exodus narrative (section a: 1:1-22) we find an explicit historical stage set up for the reader, upon which the Hebrew male population is viewed from the perspective of the Pharaoh as a political threat to the Pharaonic dynasty. In it’s corresponding narrative section (a’: 12:1-13:6) we find another stage set up, only this time the outcome is exactly what Pharaoh did not want to happen, namely, the escape of the Hebrews from his land. That whole process of entrapment and escape, which began with the slaughter of true innocents by the Pharaoh and continued with Moses growing up to be “great” in Pharaoh’s house (section b), ends with Moses the “great” climactically entering upon stage  again to pronounce the impending death of those in Pharaoh’s house (section b’).  
   In section b’ we find a variety of phrases used, beginning with “the firstborn of the Pharaoh who sits on his throne.” I agree, along with various scholars, that this initial phrase indicates the focal point of the coming devastation, as portrayed by the scribes who composed the final redaction of this Exodus narrative. The focus of the first section (a) is upon a clear threat to Pharaoh’s dynasty, and the focus of the last section (a') is also upon the heir of Pharaoh’s dynasty who currently sits as co-regent of his throne. 
   Then we find two more illustrations—all, by the way, within the same sentence— following the coattails of the threat pronounced upon Pharaoh’s dynasty. The destruction will extend “even to the firstborn of the slave girl who is behind the millstone, and all the firstborn of the livestock.” This could be interpreted hyperbolically as destroying every single firstborn human being and animal among every single Egyptian "firstborn" across the entire Egyptian empire of that time. However, such reasoning isn’t easily reconciled with the topography of Exodus narrative as a whole (which I will explain more about in future posts7), and especially not with where the Hebrews are said to be located within Egypt, or even where the previous nine plagues were allegedly contained. 
   It seems far more likely to interpret such passing references as an extension of Pharaoh’s dynasty—that is, the “firstborn” of the slave girl and the firstborn of the livestock of Pharaoh’s house. And by “house” I do not mean a single physical building-structure (like modern houses), but “house” in the sense of the cultic or political center of this particular Pharaoh’s domain. A final indicator of the narrative's focus being more particular than what a cursory glance offers is, fascinatingly, contained in 12:29, which not only repeats and re-emphasizes the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, and the firstborn of his livestock, but also changes the reference to the “firstborn” of the slave-girl in Pharaoh’s house to the firstborn of the captive who is in Pharaoh’s “dungeon” (which, in Hebrew can be rendered literally as his “house of the cistern”)! Such topographical limitations would considerably reduce the size of the actual destruction which fundamentalists  and atheists both imagine. 
   A smaller framework is also contained within both halves of the larger section (above), the second half of which (6:14–13:16) informs the meaning of the death of the firstborn, as can be seen below in its own micro-chiastic scribal arrangement:
a YHWH promises to rescue his people from Egypt (6:14–7:7)
YHWH will bring them out (hôṣîʾ) from Egypt by their hosts (ʿal-ṣibʾōtām); to bring out (hôṣîʾ) from Egypt his hosts (ṣěbāʾôt), the Israelites
“Moses and Aaron did so; as YHWH had commanded them, so they did”
chronological note: ages of Moses and Aaron
b YHWH’s power to create life (7:8–13)
initial sign (môpēt) to pharaoh: Aaron’s rod becomes a snake
c opening cycle of three plagues (7:14–8:19 [7:14–8:15])
each introduced by YHWH’s instructing Moses/Aaron to stretch forth his hand with rod, followed by statement that Moses/Aaron does so, initiating plague
d CENTRAL CYCLE of three plagues: YHWH begins plagues without hand and rod of Moses/Aaron (8:20–9:12 [8:16–9:12])
c closing cycle of three plagues (9:13–10:29)
each introduced by YHWH’s instructing Moses/Aaron to stretch forth his hand with rod, followed by statement that Moses/Aaron does so, initiating plague
b YHWH’s power to terminate life (11:1–10)
final sign (môpēt) declared: death of firstborn
a YHWH rescues his people from Egypt (12:1–13:16)
YHWH brings them out (hôṣîʾ) from Egypt by their hosts (ʿal-ṣibʾōtām); “the hosts (ṣěbāʾôt) of YHWH went out (yāṣāʾ) from the land of Egypt”
“the people did so; as YHWH had commanded Moses and Aaron so they did”
chronological note: length of years of sojourn in Egypt
   Various scholars recognize that the plagues form three cycles of three plagues each, plus the tenth plague, which stands alone. Each cycle follows the same pattern. The first plague within each cycle is introduced by YHWH’s instructions to Moses to go and “stand before” (hityaṣṣēb and niṣṣab) pharaoh “in the morning” (babbōqer; 7:14–15; 8:20 [8:16]; 9:13). The second plague within each cycle is introduced simply by “YHWH said to Moses, ‘Go in to pharaoh’ (bôʾ ʾel-parʿōh”)” (8:1 [7:26]; 9:1; 10:1). The third plague within each cycle has no instructions by YHWH to go and warn pharaoh; rather, Moses is instructed to begin the plague by a symbolic action (8:16 [8:12]; 9:8; 10:21). Furthermore, various scholars recognize that the literary aim of each plague cycle is directed at particular Egyptian gods who protected the Pharaoh’s dynasty and empire (e.g. Nile/Hapy; Frogs/Heket; Mosquitos/Khepri-Atum; Flies/Khepri-Atum; Livestock/Apis-Ptah-Hathor; Ulcers/Sekhmet-Amen-Re; Hail/Nut-She-Tefnut-Seth; Locusts/Senehem; Darkness/Amen-Re). Indeed, even the repeated emphasis upon Pharaoh’s “livestock” is significant because during the latter end of the 13th dynasty (in which I, along with various Egyptologists, believe the “Exodus” event took place) the firstborn cattle of Pharaohs were considered objects of veneration. 
   It is also very important to note that a literary pause follows the ninth plague. The tenth plague is not recounted immediately after the ninth, as it is with all the previous plagues. Instead, tension is built through a lengthy introduction to the tenth, climactic plague against Pharaoh’s “firstborn.” This structuring strategy serves not only to heighten the suspense within the overall narrative framework, but to highlight this final plague in particular as the goal or aim of the previous nine plagues. This literary pause also offers an echo of the episode about Aaron’s rod, which immediately preceded the first nine plagues. In both sections, and nowhere else in the intervening narrative, the signs that are offered are called “wonders” (môpēt; 7:9; cf. 7:3; 11:9, 10), indicating clear literary continuity. The sign of Aaron’s rod becoming a snake demonstrated a challenge to the gods protecting Pharaoh’s dynasty. This final plague will demonstrate his power to destroy Pharaoh’s dynasty by destroying Pharaoh’s firstborn “who sits on his throne,” and even the firstborn of his livestock and slave-girl.
This entire section is also framed by matching introductory and concluding units. The opening unit features the genealogy of Moses and Aaron (heightening the anticipation that these two men are going to play a key role in the upcoming events). YHWH recommissions them for the task of leading Israel from Egypt. They are to “bring out” (hôṣîʾ) the Israelites from Egypt “by their hosts” (ʿal-ṣibʾōtām). YHWH promises, “I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring forth (hôṣîʾ) my hosts (ṣĕbāʾôt) … from the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment”. The term ṣěbāʾôt (“hosts” or “armies”), which occurs in both of these units, occurs nowhere else in the Book of Exodus. So these remarks are clearly intentional literary devices to grab our attention. These “hosts” (ṣĕbāʾôt) of the YHWH’s—who are now deemed to be Israelites—are also conceptually parallel with the “hosts” (ṣĕbāʾôt) of YHWH who are heavenly beings or “gods” allotted to the nations, as referenced throughout the Torah (Deut 4:19; 32:8; et. al) and elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, thereby setting up a clear theme of conflict and warfare between Israel’s God and His enemies, the gods protecting Pharaoh’s dynasty. This introductory language is then echoed in the concluding section, which recounts the fulfillment of all that was promised in the introduction.

   Finally, the concluding micro-section (12:1—13:16) then recounts the tenth plague and the exodus from Egypt and contains numerous correspondences with the introduction:
a instructions for preparing for plague on firstborn (12:1–13)
lamb sacrificed (so YHWH will not slay firstborn sons of Israel as he will firstborn sons of pharaoh's dynasty)
b memorial of eating of unleavened bread (12:14–20)
c Passover meal instructions (12:21–28)
Moses gives instructions to the people regarding the Passover meal (pesah)
ends: “the Israelites did as YHWH commanded Moses and Aaron; thus they did (kēn ʿaśû)”
d CENTER: the exodus and tenth plague (12:29–42)
c additional Passover meal instructions (12:43–50)
YHWH gives further instructions regarding the Passover meal (pesah)
ends: “all the Israelites did as YHWH commanded Moses and Aaron; thus they did (kēn ʿaśȗ)”
b memorial of eating of unleavened bread (13:3–10)
a instructions for memorial of redeeming of firstborn (13:11–16)*
redemption of firstborn by lamb to commemorate slaying of firstborn Egyptian sons and sparing of firstborn Israelite sons

Incidentally, Exodus 12:1–13:16 is a surprisingly lengthy and composite section of material to function as a single unit. It also sandwiches the tenth plague between very clear rituals pertaining to Israel’s liturgical practice in the “promised land” during Passover. For this reason most scholars believe its composition is best explained as containing clear editorial work of later Israelite scribes and not a single seamless narration of historical facts understood at the time of the Passover. 
This concluding section represents the climax of the narrative that began in chapter one. As often occurs in climaxes, the speed of action slows significantly to help convey the importance of the event. The coherence of 12:1–13:16 is reinforced by its symmetric arrangement. At the center of the symmetry stands the climactic event itself—the exodus and the tenth plague. The additional material of the unit forms concentric circles around this center, which accounts for what otherwise might appear to be careless organization and repetition of liturgical data. As the liturgical rituals of Israel’s Passover circle around the section about destroying the Pharaoh’s "firstborn" along with all firstborn associated with his house, the reader is reminded that this destruction was ultimately about saving YHWH’s firstborn son from Pharaoh’s oppressive dynasty, which was explicitly stated at the beginning of Exodus when Moses became “great” and rose up to tell Pharaoh to let YHWH’s people go. 
“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the YHWH, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, Let my son go that he may serve me. If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’”(4:22-23). 
It’s rather astonishing to consider that the word “firstborn” appears in Exodus in a variety of places, most of which are contained in chapters 11-13; but prior to chapters 11-13 the only places we find the word “firstborn” mentioned are in 4:22, 23, and 6:14, which all refer to Israel as the Lord’s “firstborn” in contrast with Pharaoh’s “firstborn.”  

1.  The "sonship" of Israel and the "fatherhood" of YHWH also happens to be one of the most pervasive typological symbols of Israel's writings, thereby confirming the immense value of this "firstborn son" motif in the minds of whatever scribal redactors there were prior to and at the time of the text's final form.
2.  Gunkel, Mowinckel, Noth, von Rad, Coats, et. al.
3.  One example of this is found in the Turin Kings List, which lists nine Egyptian kings between Sobekhotep IV and Dudimose, covering a period of approximately forty years and multiple potential monarchs who reigned within the late 13th dynasty. Some scholars speculate that each reign was successive, whereas others speculate about simple co-regency, and others multiple rival kings at the same time. There is no definitive way to know at this point in history, but there is a lot of internal evidence which necessitates a reformation of traditional Egyptian chronology to make the records we have discovered match up with other contemporary documents.
4.  That would be like a modern pre-school teacher discussing the meaning of the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme, as though it's obvious meaning and moral purpose was to illustrate the foolishness of a round egg sitting on top of a brick ledge. Hardly anyone today is aware of the authentic meaning and moral purpose behind that nursery rhyme, even though considerable scholarly evidence points to it as a clever aphorism about a foolish drunkard who is unable to piece his life back together because of his addiction.
5.   I am aware that even the death of Pharaoh's "firstborn" (whether an adult or child) raises an important set of moral questions. This narrative of Exodus, along with many other narratives in the Hebrew scriptures, clearly reveal that civil monarchs (among whom Pharaoh is but one) do not have the right to take innocent human life, though YHWH, the God of Israel, Lord and Creator of all life, does have a transcendent "right" to do so. I am also aware that atheists do not accept such distinctive justifications about God's right to "kill" human life any more readily than judeo-christian theists accept atheistic justifications about killing some human beings. (As one example, David Smalley admitted on air that one of his exceptions to killing a human being was to stop a terrorist-shooter from killing a bunch of people by killing the terrorist first. Other exceptions, such as abortion, are sometimes offered along with some "scientific" or psychological or biological justification for breaking the general principle that killing people is "bad.") 
   Such actions by YHWH do not appear reasonable to modern sensibilities, especially as they pertain to illustrating Divine justice, goodness, or innocence. Even the manner in which we are supposed to understand the role that death plays in this world is not obvious at a surface-level of the Exodus/Passover narrative. With this in mind, I would like to make one brief series of remarks that are intended to explain a basic commitment of my own--one that I'm personally persuaded by, and one that I don't pretend ought to persuade everyone else. 
   That commitment of mine is the belief that all human beings habitually project onto "God" either images of unjust severity or presumptive liberality that are alien to actual "Divinity," and that people everywhere constantly reflect habits of deformed character among every human creature they interact with rather than God himself. Consequently, I consider it to be perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the accuracy or truth of certain portraits of God that have arisen in human history. Human idolatry lurks under the surface of a lot of what people say and believe about God. Christians and Israelites are no exception to this, either. 
   I am also well aware that the Hebrew scriptures contain certain ways of denoting the mystery of Divine justice that many modern people consider to be alarming. I still consider such denotations to be inspired by God somehow (and exactly how, I'm unwilling to describe at length right now). I also believe they are instructive as saving truth, even though all portraits within the ancient Hebrew scriptures have been portrayed through idioms of an ancient culture that was archaic and often politically ruthless. It is precisely because I am willing to interpret these ancient texts as ancient texts--and not anachronistically through modern superficial and tribalistic sensibilities alone--that I have no interest in rejecting anything which has been traditionally (and academically) understood as inspired by God somehow. Indeed, I believe such inspired teaching can be more poignant and profound today, even moreso than previous generations, precisely because I believe it was recorded, redacted, and preserved in an idiom of vigorous severity and even divinely appointed "primitiveness."
6.  The chiastic literary structures of Exodus are referenced in many academic monographs and commentaries. The structures in this post are extracted and modified from Dorsey, D. A. (2004). The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis–Malachi (p. 66-67). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 
7.  For a detailed analysis of Egyptian topography during all periods of the Exodus alleged by various Egyptologists, see Rohl, David (2015). Exodus: Myth or History? (pp. 88-166). St Louis Park, MN: Thinking Man Media. 

Thursday, December 21, 2017

Limits of Anti-Metaphysical Empiricism

There is an intriguing philosophical phenomenon which has arisen within the last few centuries: the belief that when human beings (but especially theists) attempt to reason apart from sense experience, that cannot itself provide us with factual knowledge. 

To illustrate such commitments, allow me to illustrate two claims made by David Smalley in his book The Baptized Atheist:
An Atheist rejects all super-natural existence and prefers to live by empiricism, the theory that knowledge can be acquired only through direct observation and experimentation rather than through metaphysics and theology.1

This makes sense on the surface of things, considering David's presuppositional commitment to naturalism, which includes the idea that no gods exist, or that if any of them do exist, he has not personally come to know them through empirical observation or testing. After all, given his admittedly limited investigation into such topics, David is aware that metaphysical statements are about some kind of "supra-sensible" reality which is not directly experienced or verified by "natural" science. But that isn't the only claim which David makes in his book about the limits of knowledge and facts. He continues elsewhere, after a few more pages of illustrations about Christian beliefs that appear to be circular, insisting that:
As I present evidence contrary to any of the above circular reasoning statements, the confirmatory bias of theists has them searching for answers of validity in the very book I am asking them to validate. Simply put, you cannot convert an Atheist to Christianity by citing the very doctrine he or she rejects. Proof must come from outside sources and be logical, reasonable, convincing, and obtained through empiricism. No religious doctrine in history has been proven as absolute; therefore none of them fit that description.2
If I am understanding David correctly, he believes that all informative or factual statements about the objective world must be derived empirically (based on experience, observation, sensation), and therefore, in order for any human being to "obtain" justified true knowledge (i.e. proof), such knowledge cannot transcend particular, physical experience or the appearance of the senses. And because metaphysical claims are not able to be brought to the critical test of sense experience, they are concluded to be illogical, unreasonable, and unconvincing (i.e. nonsense, or senseless).

This, as I see it, is an excellent example of how offensive the field of metaphysics is to the common intellectual outlooks of modern atheism. Metaphysics presumes to tell us something about the objective world which we don't directly know in ordinary experience, and which can't be verified through the methods of "natural" science. Skeptics of theism (and often, Christianity in particular) view metaphysical reasoning as conflicting with empirical science as the one and only way to acquire knowledge. 

All of this, as I have said before, is perfectly reasonable given atheistic pre-commitments to the nature of reality as a whole. But I would like to point out a few important details about David's claims, and thereby the claims of any other who, like him, "prefers to live by empiricism, the theory that knowledge can be acquired only through direct observation and experimentation rather than through metaphysics and theology."

The first detail I want to point out is that such a claim about the limits of knowledge is itself a metaphysical claim. How can David know for certain that "knowledge can be acquired only through direct observation and experimentation..."? Such a dogmatic statement is not found in the objective world of sense experience, and is itself not known as the result of empirical testing and experience. Has David ever sensed that statement in the real world? It is a non-material, mental construct. Has David ever tested or observed all knowledge? Has he even tested or observed all the tests about what has been observed, and thereby known? Indeed, if it were actually true that knowledge can only be acquired through direct observation and experimentation, then--on the basis of David's own anti-metaphysical claim--no one else in the world could ever know that it were objectively true, because that statement is itself not known as the result of empirical testing and experience. It turns out that claims like David's reflect the subjective (and sometimes arrogant) bias of the one pronouncing it.

The second detail I want to point out is in the form of a question: What rational basis, or what rational evidence is there for David's commitment that all knowledge must be empirical in nature (i.e. only through direct observation and experimentation)? I find it ironic that such a dogmatic statement precludes any other type of verification or support other than empirical warrants or evidence. Such an assertion is not a conclusion supported by other reasoning. And the premise3  does not admit of empirical verification since it deals with what is universally or necessarily the case (i.e. not a historical or contingent truth). So it turns out that David holds to his dogmatic conclusion4 in a presuppositional fashion, as something which controls all inquiry, rather than being the result of inquiry. By the way, I think that's fair for him to believe. But I also think it appears capricious for all those like him with anti-metaphysical leanings to prohibit the theist from doing what is allowed for him!

That brings me to my third and final point. When David insists upon the acquiring of knowledge only through empiricism "rather than through metaphysics", that is an admittedly theoretical truth claim. And if that theoretical claim is itself true, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true, in which case the whole enterprise of "natural" science would immediately be undermined. Stop and think about it for a minute. If all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. And without the knowledge and assurance that the future will be like the past (e.g. if sugar dissolved in a cup of water today, it will continue to do and not explode in a cup of water tomorrow and the next day, and even next year) we could not draw empirical generalizations and projections at all. Scientists could not arrive at even one dependable, rationally warranted conclusion about future chemical interactions, or anything else. Pick anything: the rotation of the earth, the stability of the chair you're sitting on, or the effects of a pharmaceutical drug. Each and every premise that entered into the scientists reasoning about a particular situation at a particular time and in a particular place would need to be individually confirmed in an empirical fashion. Nothing experienced in the past could become a basis for expectations about how things might happen at present or in the future. Without certain beliefs about the nature of reality and history--beliefs which are supra-empirical and meta-physical in character--the process of empirical learning and reasoning would become impossible. 

Please, please, please learn what the study of metaphysics is before buying into such strange dogmatic claims like "knowledge can be acquired only through direct observation and experimentation rather than through metaphysics." Metaphysics studies such questions or issues as the nature of existence, the sorts of things that exist, the classes of existent things, limits of possibility, the ultimate scheme of things, reality versus appearance, and the comprehensive conceptual framework used to make sense of the world as a whole, and not merely in its parts. 

1. Smalley, David. Baptized Atheist (Kindle Locations 1914-1917). American Atheist Press. Kindle Edition. Emphasis in bold and italics is mine.
2. Ibid. Emphasis is mine, again.
3.  That there cannot be a non-empirical source of knowledge or information about reality
4. That it's illegitimate to draw inferences from what is experienced by the senses to what must lie outside of experience--like the existence of supra-natural beings.

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Circular Reasoning

At approximately 11pm on December 16th, 2017, Mike Danker (who, according to his public Facebook profile, lives in Hudson Ohio) recently made these comments about me (typos and all) on a public atheist Facebook page:
Wonder if he knows the difference between formal and informal fallacies
Almost lost it laughing when he said circular reasoning isnt always fallacious. Its a fomal fallacy, not an informal one.
He talks shit about how the modern common apologists answer these questions meanwhile his response to the problem of evil is the standard C.S. Lewis response by attacking the atheist's views on morality as a redherring instead of responding
Over and over again its like if you were to ask a theorhetical someone how they know dungeons and dragons isnt just a game and they respond by saying "if only you knew the rules on dungeons and dragons clearer youd realize its not just a game" like, the rules arent all that relevant to whether or not its a game
Also "if you dont understand my views because theyre inadequetely explained youre strawmanning me" was annoying

Consider the following post to be my initial response to Mike, even though I doubt he will ever come across this response of mine.

First of all, there is no need to wonder, Mike. I do know the difference between formal and informal fallacies. I also know the difference between the kind of circular reasoning which is fallacious and the kind of circular reasoning which is absolutely necessary for reason itself to exist and be utilized by rational beings. That logical distinction is not one that you seem to be aware of, though. And since you aren’t aware, please allow me to illustrate what I meant at the time I made those claims (which, interestingly, neither time or opportunity was granted to me by David Smalley at the time those comments of mine, which you are criticizing, were made).

If someone—whether a theist or an atheist—claims that circular reasoning is always fallacious, and I was to ask why, the response would likely be some kind of appeal to “logic.” No matter what response occurs, as long as "logic" or "laws of logic" are being appealed to, inferred, or implied, that is the only thing needed to proceed. After all, any claim about "fallacious" reasoning presupposes the laws of logic (i.e. thought) in which the information conveyed can be considered "logical" or "illogical" at all. So when it is claimed, as Mike did, that a “fallacy” always occurs when an argument is circular, that is the same thing (logically, at least) as saying that a circular argument is always “invalid.” Let’s break this down though, because, as someone who has taught a course on critical thinking (using Copi’s Symbolic Logic) in the past, I suspect that Mike doesn’t realize that circular reasoning is involved within that very claim of his is, which means that if his claim is true (which I think is a necessary absurdity) then his claim, according to his own arbitrary definition, is itself fallacious. Of course, he wouldn't appreciate that at all, so I will attempt to free him from this embarrassing and unnecessary faux pas.

So then, on one hand, the claim is made that “circular reasoning” is always fallacious. It can only be fallacious if laws of logic (i.e. thought) exist. Once a second claim is made that he (or anyone) can identify circular reasoning in action, then the conclusion can be drawn that laws of logic (i.e. thought) exist. But that very syllogism (which is a formal fallacy, Mike) presupposes laws of logic in order to even claim that they exist and are being used. In every one of such instances where the laws of logic are appealed to, inferred, or implied for an opponent's reasoning to be "fallacious," one cannot help but reason circularly (either formally or informally). 

Circular reasoning is one of those very strange fallacies to be accused of, because it’s the only fallacy which is actually valid. Valid reasoning, according to the laws of logic, is found when a conclusion follows its premise(s). Normally, fallacies are actually not valid. That is because a conclusion normally does not follow from the premise(s), thereby making such reasoning "fallacious." Yet oddly, with circular reasoning the conclusion does follow from the premise precisely because it is a restatement of the premise. Circular reasoning is only fallacious if the premises are demonstrably arbitrary. (And for the record, just saying so doesn't make it so either. It must be demonstrated, not simply dogmatically asserted, as was the case with David Smalley's response to me.) Arbitrary circular reasoning is obviously problematic because anyone who denies the conclusion would also have to deny the premise, because the conclusion is essentially the same as the premise. 

As noted above with the chain of reasoning about utilizing laws of logic, the conclusion (that laws of logic must exist) must be presupposed at the outset by anyone participating in the discussion. As such, the argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid, but is subtly circular. It’s also absolutely unavoidable in this case, even though all parties involved in the discussion have tacitly presupposed they were trying to prove. We must, therefore, use laws of logic to prove anything as valid or invalid, even the existence of laws of logic. 

As a side note to Mike, the argument on display above was also utilizing a variation (although the same general format) of another law of logic, in order to prove that there are laws of logic. That law is known as modus tollens, and it also happens to be one of the first laws one ever learns when studying the laws of logic. You might want to learn the basics of logic if you'd like to interact with me about circular reasoning.

Every time I find someone accused of “fallacious circular reasoning”—whether its by a theist or an atheist—I pause and reflect upon the actual argument being used, attempting to see the actual circularity involved, and to decipher whether or not the premises are arbitrary. For someone to mock me (publicly, by the way) and deflect (public) attention away from what the laws of logic actually teach us, and to simply dismiss what I said about circular reasoning as not always being fallacious (which, in Mike's case, was illustrated with laughter), is an audaciously naive response, and one I hope is recanted before infecting others with one's own arbitrary circular reasoning.

Now comes the million dollar question: Between David Smalley and I (or Mike, I guess, could also be included), which person's view of the world and the nature of reality can justify the existence of universal, unchanging, and immaterial entities such as the laws of logic? 

At this point all I want to do is leave the reader to research a debate in order to begin answering such a vital question. That debate i'm referring to is known as "The Great Debate" between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein. The formal title of the debate was originally called "Does God Exist?", but after listening to the audio below it will become obvious as to why it was renamed "The Great Debate." The transcript of that debate can be found here. The audio of that debate can be found here. And a brief web page about that debate can be found here. Enjoy!

A conversation between two gods

What Osiris said to Atum:
What does it mean that I must go to the desert of the kingdom of the dead? It has no water, it has no air, it is so deep, so dark, so endless.
You will live there in peace of mind. 
But no sexual pleasure can be had there. 
I have given transfiguration instead of sexual pleasure, water and air, peace of mind instead of bread and beer.
But how painful it is for me not to see your face. 
I will not allow you to suffer want.
What is the duration of life?
You will have millions of millions. Life there lasts for millions. But I will destroy everything that I have created. This earth will return to the Nun, to the deluge, as in its primal state. 

Here are some thoughts to ponder. A fragment of this Egyptian story is found in two places: the Coffin Texts of the 12th Dynasty and the papyrus of Cha in Turin, 18th Dynasty. It’s final resting place (pun intended) was in the Book of the Dead, as one of its many ‘Sayings.’ But if the average person—papa Joe or granny Smith—was asked what the “meaning” of this fragment is, a wide variety of guesses could be offered. Perhaps it’s about the end of the world, with its destruction of all human life on earth. Or perhaps it’s about life after death, and the preservation of a god in the realm of the underworld. Some might even guess that it’s about existence between two worlds, between an old creation and a new creation. 

All of these have elements worth serious consideration, but none on their own are entirely accurate. For those of us today who presume that this text has a surface-level “meaning” that’s obvious, let me challenge your presumptions with this fact: This text is an ancient temple text. It’s not about the end of the world. It’s not about the destruction of all human life on this globe we call “earth.” It’s not even ‘about’ existence of gods between two worlds. It was about the destruction of sacred land with it’s central sanctuary where all the gods and their worshipers dwelled at the time, and the destiny of Osiris by Atum in that soon-coming destruction. It was also an ancient lament of ‘Mankind’ about that judgement by Atum, as portrayed through the mouth of the gods they had been worshipping. 

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

The Proclamation of Mortal Man

I am weary, O God.1
I am weary, O God, but I can persevere.
Indeed, I am too dull of a man to discern.
For I have reached my limit and I don't even have the understanding of Adam.
I have not yet learned wisdom, but I know it can be attained.

Who on earth has gone up to you to bring wisdom down to us?
Who has walked the recesses of the deep?
Who has comprehended every detail of land?
Who has entered the storehouses of snow and hail?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
Surely You know!

Our lives are filled with various trials and dangers.
And so You say, "Take refuge in Me."
Even if we don't consider every word of Yours to be true.
Even if You rebuke us when we add words to the invitation.
Every word proves true.
Our lies are found out.

Oh God, please consider helping me by granting two things before I die. 
I need deliverance from my most basic temptations--those of falsehood and lying. 
If I only had daily bread, the bread sufficient for each day.
I wouldn't be tempted to suppress You or transgress Your law in times of poverty or wealth.

I wouldn't be tempted to slander your servants to their employers. 
I have done that before, and ultimately to my shame.
Every generation seems to act shamefully as I have.
There is cursing of fathers and mothers.
There is hypocrisy in how they view others while not seeing their own filth.
There is great audacity and condemnation in their eyes.
There is a relentless disregard for even the poorest of souls.
As long as that is what it takes to remain wise in their own eyes,
They're like the blood sucking leech and their spawn, crying out, "Give! Give!"

I ponder this vast domain of Yours, and the way they strive for satisfaction without You.
They're insatiable, like the grave or the womb which can't even produce life.
They're like parched land or an entire valley on fire.
Their eyes lead them into shameful desolation.
They could look for the wisdom from above, but they won't.
This mortal existence, and all its wisdom down here, is the only viewing they take pleasure in.

Many more things astonish me, and I don't understand how they can continue living as they do.
They rationalize their adulteries away, as though they have done no wrong.
They feast on violence and then wipe the blood off their lips, leaving no trail behind.
Like an eagle in the sky, or a snake slithering across a rock.
Like a ship in the heart of the ocean, or the way of a successful man with an impressionable woman.

The whole land trembles over such disordered desires.
The weight of it all cannot be sustained forever.
Consider the slave who finally becomes Emperor.
Or the senseless fool, filled with food at the celebration of his coronation. 
Or the servant-girl who, somehow, some way, displaces her Queen.
Or the lady whom we all thought would never get married because of how insufferable she often is.
Do you think she will magically change overnight in her wisdom once she receives a husband?

Even many frail animals serve as lessons of wisdom for us mortals.
The ants prepare for bad times during good times.
The rock badgers provide security for each other.
The locusts cooperate together. 
The geckos are defenseless, but they live in well-fortified palaces.

There is also a proper grandeur which God has given to His creation.
The lion, mightiest of beasts, retreats before nothing.
The rooster walks bravely among female hens.
The hunting-dog is another, as well as the king whose army is with him.
As long as mortals remain wise in their own eyes, foolishly exalting themselves above others,
Instead of being exalted by others,
We can only hope that they cover their mouths while talking.
Raging against others will only provoke further strife, of which we have plenty already.

Rules and prescriptions alone are not able to fix the brokenness all around us.2 
Libraries of law won't suffice for the healing of generations either.
Only the wisdom from above can come down and save us.
The wisdom from below is earthly, unspiritual, and demonic.
If any of us lacks wisdom from above, ask God for it.
He gives generously to all those who do so, and without rebuke or disapproval.
But be sure to ask in loyal trust of the One you're asking,
With no doubting about what you receive as being from the Lord.
If you remain double-minded in your loyalty, don't presume that you'll receive anything from Him.
Let the lowly brother boast in being exalted by Him.
And the rich brother boast in being humbled by Him.
Because like a flower of the field, each will pass away.

1. The inspiration for this comes directly from my reflections upon the Book of Proverbs, chapter 30, and the Book of Wisdom, chapter 2.
2. The inspiration for this comes from the book of James.

Friendship Friendship

Drop in your dollar fifty
The game is the same every day
The scorpion plays with smoke
The reptile with rain
One of them must lose
None must show friendship
As long as you're invested
There is no option of stalemate
Many just enjoy ripping spines out
But the wisdom from below doesn't always satisfy
Some need alternatives to fatality
There must be a way to tap into that above
Some combination of buttons and joystick
Some magazine wrapped in plastic
Some compact disc taped to the last page
What has the Programmer left us to discover?
Such is the riddling in search of friendship
Be not wise in your own eyes, is the clue

Monday, December 11, 2017

Talking Past

What can be said to the sycophant?
He welcomes you into his abode for a friendly discussion
Offers kindness and sincerity
Chatters about all the good done in their name

What can be said to the facile?
He shows concern for the neighbor's pet
Cares about the widow and orphan too
Hates the God who kills and makes alive

What can be said to the pedant?
He ascends to the right hand of his father only to mock his face
Slays the younger brother just because he can
Justifies infanticide on his own terms, while mocking the God who passes over the innocent

What can be said to the Atheist?
He reasons like a fundamentalist
Wages war with imaginary gods
He eats and wipes his mouth and says, 'I have done no wrong.'

What can be said to the Christian?
He made this mess, but wants others to clean it up
Prescribes drugs to all patients, not even knowing each person or side effect
Immunizes every infant in their care to prevent disease from spreading