As far as the Bible is confirmed as true, it is mundane

"Archaeology and the Bible — How Archaeological Findings Have Enhanced the Credibility of the Bible" is chapter 45 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God. John McRay's claims for such "enhancement", however, put too great a strain on the word's meaning. The archeology he cites in this chapter only enhances the Bible's credibility if cherry-picking and confirmation-bias constitute valid reasoning.

The Bible is a collection of many kinds of documents written over a period of about fifteen hundred years. Beginning with the composition of the first five books (the Pentateuch), the sixty-six total documents were completed by the end of the first century A.D. They were composed in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages in various geographical settings and different historical periods. Archaeological discoveries relating to these settings and periods have enlightened the cultural context in which many of the recorded events occurred and enhanced the credibility of the Biblical record, both the Old and New Testament periods. For example, many events recorded in the last one hundred years of this period of biblical history, during which the New Testament documents were written, have been illuminated through significant archaeological discoveries. Following are some of these impressive finds. Space limitations will not allow discussion of the fourteen hundred years of Old Testament sites.

In this first paragraph we can see McRay already narrowing his focus to exclude inconvenient facts. He's not going to discuss the Old Testament, so the absence of any archeological evidence for the Exodus is conveniently glossed over. And note his wording: discoveries have "enlightened the cultural context" and "enhanced the credibility of the Biblical record." He's clearly admitting that these discoveries are not proof that the Bible is true.

The findings he cites are these (using his headings):

Pool of Siloam
Rolling Stones at Tombs
Tomb of Caiaphas
Capernaum Synagogue
Acts 17:6 and Politarchs in Thessalonica
Erastus in Corinth
Romans 13:3 Inscription in Caesarea Maritima
Paul before Gallio at the Tribunal in Corinth

These appear remarkably mundane — some location mentioned in the Bible actually existed; some official mentioned in the Bible appears on ancient inscriptions; some of the events described in the Bible actually occurred. Note, however, that none of these attests to miracles or supernatural beings. The Bible may well contain some "truth", but as far as that truth is confirmed by archeology that truth is ordinary.

One might be tempted to suggest that though there are events in the Bible that have yet to be confirmed, and places in the Bible whose existence has yet to be confirmed, archeological evidence may arise in the future to confirm them. But one should not report all the so-called confirmations, dismissing items still to be confirmed, while actively ignoring positive evidence that contradicts the Bible — such as the the problems mentioned by Daniel B. Wallace in chapter 43:

Which evangelical would not like a clean harmony between the two records of Judas’ demise, uniform parallel accounts of Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus, or an outright excision of the census by Quirinius? And who would not prefer that in Mark 2.26 Jesus did not speak of David’s violation of the temple as occurring during the days of “Abiathar the high priest”? These are significantly larger problems for inerrancy than the few, isolated textual problems—and they are not in passages that are capable of facile text-critical solutions.

Some scholars, it seems, are prepared to admit there are problems. John McRay's approach, however, appears to be a disingenuous attempt to suggest that there is good evidence for the truth of the whole of the Bible. There isn't.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952738

Greta Christina has a list of things

Greta Christina is an atheist-writings powerhouse. Her blog — ingeniously named "Greta Christina's Blog" — is always worth reading. She writes about things other than atheism, such as gay rights, feminism, sexism, and indeed sex, but it's probably her atheist writings for which she's best known, and not only on her blog: she also writes for AlterNet, Free Inquiry and other publications.

Her posts are nothing if not comprehensive — she's a take-no-prisoners, leave-no-stone-unturned kind of writer. And now she's written a book.

It started as a blogpost, became a rousing talk at Skepticon 4 and most recently was a speech to 20,000 rain-soaked but nonetheless inspired atheists at the Reason Rally. Greta Christina is an activist, and her activism appears mainly to take the form of writing. Her goal is to persuade and convince, and she is crafting her writing career to do just that.

Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless begins with the Litany of Rage, comprising a list of those 99 things — and there really are that many of them. For unbelievers of an accommodationist persuasion this list should be an eye-opener. Unbelievers should not be tolerating wacky beliefs if those beliefs give rise to the things that Greta Christina is angry about. In the light of those 99 things, this is no time to be making nice with the peddlers of irrationality — if that irrationality leads to harm. Which it does.

The language of this book is simple, straightforward and clear. Greta Christina makes much use of repetition to drive her central point home, and perhaps some readers might tire of this rhetorical device over a whole book. But it's her established style, which readers of her blog will recognise, and it's no doubt effective in hammering her points home.

The book is as yet available only digitally (I have the Kindle version), but it will soon be in print and audio. Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless is an atheist call-to-arms — and all campaigning, activist atheists should themselves be armed with it.

---

Here's a promotional video for the book:
http://youtu.be/8E4RbDx3Kvk


Here's Greta Christina's talk at Skepticon 4:
http://youtu.be/GUI_ML1qkQE


And here's her speech at the Reason Rally:
http://youtu.be/-9Up_Beqmq4

Burnee links for Sunday

Mostly the Reason Rally...

Face to faith: Richard Dawkins, rationalism, and religion as a team sport | Comment is free | The Guardian
Lois Lee's piece is refreshingly calm, and apt in the light of the recent Reason Rally. (Some of the comments, however, feature the usual mix of banality and inanity.)

Can the Reason Rally resonate in this most religious of democracies? | Sarah Posner | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Making up for Lois Lee (above) not mentioning the Reason Rally...

The Reason Rally, and Why It’s Good to Keep Hammering On About Diversity | Greta Christina's Blog
Could this be the watershed moment for diversity in the "atheist movement"?

Live Blogging the UK C4ID Lecture 2011
Instant reaction to Stephen C. Meyer's lecture — the same one I recently watched on video and talk about on the next episode (#23) of Skepticule Extra.

Atheist Richard Dawkins Celebrates Reason, Ridicules Faith : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR
Barbara J. King is a mildly hostile interviewer, but Dawkins is well used to her kind of passive-aggressive approach. Audio here:
http://public.npr.org/anon.npr-mp3/npr/blog/2012/03/20120326_blog_rd.mp3

Textual transubstantiation

"Why All the Translations?" is the question Denny Burk asks in the title of chapter 44 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God. It's a good question; it seems likely that we have more translations of the Bible than of any other ancient text (Beowulf, say, or the works of Chaucer, Homer, Plato, Omar Khayyám...). The only reason for this I can come up with is that many people have been dissatisfied with the extant translations and thought they could do better — and believed it was important to do better.

Burk points out that there are three approaches to translating the Bible: formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase. The King James Version is apparently a formal equivalence or word-for-word translation, while the New International Version is a dynamic equivalence translation, which Burk describes as a thought-for-thought rendering. This gives a clue as to why there are so many ways one can interpret scripture. The version I see cited most often is the New International Version, which according to Burk is not a word-for-word translation but one where the translators have endeavoured to get inside the heads of the original authors. This in itself requires a degree of interpretation, so it's not surprising that when Biblical scholars are engaged in exegesis they feel free to contribute their own interpretations.

The third option — a paraphrase translation — isn't really a translation at all. Burk quotes Paul D. Wegner in The Bible in Translation, describing a paraphrase as a "free rendering or amplification of a passage, expression of its sense in other words."

All this concern over different translations cannot help but raise the suspicion that the real reason there are so many is that no-one knows for sure what the original really said, let alone what it meant.

---

4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952760

"Nature Deficit Disorder" is not a medical condition

The Today Programme is the BBC's premier morning news radio show. It lasts three hours (from 6 till 9) but inevitably some its subjects are given minimal coverage. One such was this morning's discussion about a report recently released by the National Trust. "Natural Childhood" is authored by Stephen Moss, who was on the programme to support his contention that children are missing out by not spending enough time outdoors. This is all very fine and dandy — I'm in favour of kids getting up close and personal with nature — but unfortunately the National Trust have fallen into the all-too-common view that the way to promote their services (and providing services is what they do by charging admission to their properties) is to spin the reduced outdoor-time as some kind of medical condition.

Taking up an invented syndrome and running with it is a bad way to promote yourself; as a member of the National Trust myself I find this tactic regrettable. "Nature Deficit Disorder" is not a recognised medical condition — Stephen Moss's report even acknowledges this, so why is he using it to spin the statistics to indicate that children are being harmed?

Aleks Krotoski has ably covered this in the Guardian, and she was on the Today Programme to debunk Stephen Moss's disingenuous PR:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9709000/9709957.stm

The report itself is available here:

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/servlet/file/store5/item789980/version2/natural_childhood.pdf

It has over 100 references and notes at the end, appearing appropriately scholarly for its 28 pages. I noticed, however, that one of those references was to something by Aric Sigman, which did not inspire confidence (it prompted a search for the word "Greenfield" — though thankfully that yielded no results).

The Reason Rally — A Secular Celebration (video)

Too late for yesterday's Burnee links, so it gets its own post. This nicely produced eight-minute video by The Thinking Atheist seems to encapsulate the flavour of the Reason Rally.

http://youtu.be/d11tcjO--70


I hope that eventually all the talks will be available in video quality to match this. The fact that many people flew hundreds of miles to stand for six or more hours in the rain — and maintain that it was totally worth it — speaks volumes about the significance of this event.

Burnee links for Thursday

When the rug is pulled | The Crommunist Manifesto
Read it. That is all.

Episode 109 | Righteous Indignation
Hayley Stevens talks about her recent trip to investigate a brace of Nessies, accompanying the world's premier paranormal investigator — the incomparable Joe Nickell. (And Michael Marshall talks about his recent visit to Sally Morgan's stage show — sorry Marsh, interesting though your piece undoubtedly was, it was pre-emptively upstaged by Hayley's hobnobbing with a living legend.)

MPs try to overturn 'God can heal' ad ban | Total Politics
Three MPs make twits of themselves. I posted this comment:

"Gary Streeter (Con), Gavin Shuker (Lab) and Tim Farron (Lib Dem) say that they want the Advertising Standards Authority to produce "indisputable scientific evidence" to say that prayer does not work - otherwise they will raise the issue in Parliament."

And I want indisputable scientific evidence that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist and that the government are not spraying tranquilisers into the air using chem-trails and that Messrs Streeter, Shuker and Farron are not twelve-foot tall lizard aliens in disguise — otherwise I will raise these issues with Deepak Chopra. (If David Icke happens not to be available.)

Martin Robbins takes them to task at the Guardian:
Hapless MPs defend faith healers

10 Amazing Practical Jokes « Richard Wiseman
For anyone who thinks Professor Wiseman spends far too much time on frivolities...


Triablogue: Outreach Report: Reason Rally 2012
The presup account. For some reason they don't think they're wasting their time.

The Most Astounding Fact About The Universe, As Told By Neil DeGrasse Tyson (VIDEO)
Grasp it:

(Via Project Reason.)