A Refutation of A Mis-characterization of What Thomas Aquinas Didn't Say

In the first place, this blog by Mark Shea is very biased with a Catholic slant which is not at all hard to understand since he was Senior Content Editor for Catholic Exchange and a weekly columnist for the National Catholic Register at the time of this writing, which was Sep. 23, 2009.

Mark starts off his diatribe with a mischaracterization of the reasons for similarities in arguments of the so called "New Atheists" with arguments from previous eras, which I'll get back to. A jab at the "Chattering Classes" which is nothing more than his attempt to distance himself from a club of which he is obviously a member by feigning "anti-intellectualism." Why does this nearly always work with the Christians? It even worked in the days of Paul of Tarsus, who was only interested in converting Graeco-Roman gentiles, to Judaism. Maybe it's because, unlike Paul's era when most people were illiterate with the understanding of today's average 4 year old, it's easy for someone to pick up a book on evolutionary behavioral science, ethology. Such as, E. O. Wilson's book, "Sociobiology," Robert Wright's, "The Moral Animal" or any of the work by William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George C. Williams, or Robert Trivers. Where they could find out for themselves the evolutionary origins of morality, without being high-jacked into the transcendent, by those claiming knowledge of revealed moral prescriptions and proscriptions—which I feel, is the origin of evil.

Now what Mark Shea fails to recognize, is the Bible we argue against has only changed minutely over the last four centuries, and the whole concept of religion is a fanatically conservative one. Not to mention, it is very difficult to make progress with, what can be described as an irrational fear or a delusional arrogance, since they are unabashedly resistant to evidence for fear of offending some bronze age omni—totalitarian dictator. Or, Mark is being disingenuous in his choice of argument, its basis and premise. There is at least one more possibility, but I will leave further conclusions to you dear reader.

Because there are, in fact, many arguments that are new and from almost as many viewpoints. For instance; the argument from ignorance, this Abrahamic deity's ignorance of geography and cosmology; the free will argument; and the argument of morality. There are also new evidences for the older arguments that are fatal to the Abrahamic god(s) and all but fatal to any argument for a supernatural being of any kind, time or place.

Mark's own argument exemplifies my first point, by bringing up the 800 year old Thomas Aquinas to highlight the argument from evil and Occam's Razor. But the current atheological stand on the argument from evil, theodicy, is that it is better framed in the context of a religious argument against a religious claim. Take what has been scientifically verified through meteorology, weather, while considered evil by Thomas Aquinas, is actually a direct result of predictable aspects of nature, and mathematically calculable to a degree of accuracy that would have gotten you, Mark, burnt at the stake 200 years ago. So, tornados are no longer considered evil in the same way as they were in Thomas Aquinas' day, along with Earthquakes, etc. Disease is no longer considered the result of sin, either.

So what, exactly is evil? I'm not talking about sin - yet, only evil. Well for one thing, as an adjective, evil describes fallen angels. Those devils, and demons, which are religious mythical constructs that are only as potent as ones belief in them, and by association god(s). And yes, I chose my words correctly, for the general population of those days were more afraid of the bad than in tune with the good of the spiritual realm. Am I saying that without gods there would be no evil? Maybe!  For most of what was considered evil in the pre-enlightened past, was seen as such based on supernatural excuses, apologetics or exegesis, what I call the lack of an intelligent explanation. Quite possibly, I'm suggesting that without supernatural beliefs, actually—supernatural thinking, there is little reason for evil as a description, with its inferred supernatural or transcendental connotations. And, that there is a less metaphysical, less primitive descriptor of the bad things that have happened to all of us at one time in our lives. Don't get me wrong, I know better than most, the atrocities committed by people motivated by greed, want of power and the evil means they employ. I do not deny the incredibly horrendous aspects of man's inhumanity and total disregard for life and health. It's just that we now know, as evidenced in the books listed before, the devil didn't make him do it, as the pun goes.

To be frank, I mean to assert that one of the greatest evils is the very mindset that facilitates the godhead in the first place: Authority from divine sources; unsubstantiated claims of superiority; revelation as a means of divine dictate; divine laws disconnected from our evolutionarily ingrained morality as a species of warm, caring mammals; in short, any barrier to open inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas make up the evil that allows for and has permitted the most heinous crimes against humanity. This is why the foundations for the US democracy, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and the scientific method are so powerfully successful, they discourage the validity of unsubstantiated opinion in inquiry and discourse by insisting upon evidentiary support for claims and conclusions. As I see it, all discourse should adhere to this principle. So, not only does the problem of evil present itself as a fatal blow to the logic of the infinitely good, it seems evil can be the product of the irrationality required for the reliance on, or belief in, the supernatural. It is that evil - hidden in claims of divine authority, as well as what follows, that motivates me to be the activist Atheist that I am.

Now the relationship between Nazism and religion are well documented on the internet (Google - Nazism, Christianity, Pope Pious XII, Jozef Tiso), quotes by the parties in power, books on the subject, a reading of Mien Kompf, even a reading of history will show anyone that is actually looking for evidence that Nazism is fascism (a political movement resulting in corporatism) motivated by Nationalism and racial purity, while inflamed by the imperialism of Christian Supremacy (got to spread the Word). Note that Nazism is perpetuated by self-reinforcing claims of superiority that would have been squelched had anyone bothered to see the evidence (the 1939 Olympics would have been a good start). Hitler's rhetoric concerning the atheistic communists, alone, should be more than sufficient to give most rational people pause concerning his religiosity. It is a case of denial to think that a religiously segregated group were destroyed for other than religious reasons. Reasons that were in fact a repeat of the Spanish Inquisition of the 13th Century, a Catholic persecution of the Jews that inspired Hitler almost as much as his love of the character in the Jesus narrative.

A typical claim of those piously inclined is that Stalin was an atheist, as Hitler himself claimed on numerous occasions including writings, interviews and speeches. But it's a case of correlation confused with causation to assert that it was for atheistic reasons that Stalin ordered the murders as purported in your writing, Mark. Marx himself said that religion would basically fade away do to the lack of its necessity in an egalitarian state. Even Stalin's attack of the Russian Orthodox Church was for political reasons due, in part, to its complicity with the resurgence of a Czarist's revolt. It is reported that Stalin reinstated the Church during WWII, though it never regained the influence it once had, maybe for reasons the clergy have feared for years.

The other despots mentioned ad nauseam in religious diatribes, debates or clerical oratories are guilty of similar atrocities, but again, not for atheistic purposes, or to further an atheistic agenda. Atheism isn't even a philosophy, let alone any reason to kill someone. It is a lack of belief in god(s). Might the propaganda be an attempt to hide something, a misdirection by religionists? Who may have always been afraid of the day people would find out they're not necessary. Or maybe it is something else? There is power in using divine authority or austere revelation, to justify, even incite, bigotry toward a political system that favors, say, the working class over financial elite or a system based on a free market of ideas over dogmatic dictates from pious pundits of bronze age desert goat herder myths. Which might explain why Stalinistic totalitarianism is misrepresented as Marxism or communism in fascist and right leaning political systems, like our Republican party.

As for your assertion, Mark, "New Atheists" have claimed that Nazism or communism are religions, I can only say that I have not heard nor read any such claim and I have heard and read most of their work on the subject. It doesn't even fit their exacting, measured discourse on the subject. Also, that I, or anyone would need to use "transcendent categories" to understand or explain "good and evil" is also a bit absurd since good and bad, right and wrong, etc are temporally relative to each situation, to be judged subjectively, based on evidence, because they are realistically substantial. This is of course, exemplified by our court system.

Then Mark descends to a misstatement of Hume's "ought" from "is" problem in an attempt to bolster a claim that morality cannot be a naturalistic occurrence or is not derived from natural properties of a materialistic universe. Only, the "ought from is" problem which is known as Hume's Guillotine, a problem of knowing the ethical value of a moral choice as opposed to its practice in reference to one's goal is only a problem for those proposing morality as an objective, self-evident truth. But, this isn't even where Mark is going with this "mystification" of the materialistic world view. He only ends up obfuscating the mechanics of thinking with the value of thought, or more specifically the mechanisms one uses in a situation requiring moral judgment, with the moral value of its outcome. Mark actually states:

"In the atheistic universe of Is the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Adolf Hitler” can have no greater or lesser Oughtness than the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Martin Luther King Jr.” They just Are."


In this example of Mark's misunderstanding of "ought from is," thought as a process, and the substantial value of morality he conflates the biochemical reactions required for human thought with the moral value, and then the subsequent results of those thoughts.

The problem with this is, it would only be true in a world where morality were objective. If as asserted by moral objectivists (absolutists) that there is only god's morality as delivered from on high, such as the ten commandments and all that. Then the actions of these objective automatons would be under god's divine authority. If you can't stomach this, imagine for a moment that Hitler had won the second world war. Imagine the mental contortions the Catholic Church would exert upon us in comparing the Der Fuhrer's Final Solution to their very own 13th century Inquisition in subjugating the Jews. Asserting without evidence that their god commanded Jewish extermination. Quoting something like,"vengeance be mine sayth the lord" and command only His retribution, would suffice. See! This is why our Constitution starts with the words, "We the people," because moral value comes from what we humans value, our very own evolutionarily ingrained morality. Ethical principles garnered during our evolutionary history through altruistic cooperation and a simple tit-for-tat philosophy, practiced in an extended family atmosphere. Just in case you were wondering where, when and how our morality originated. I mean before you quote Richard Rorty in his pragmatic ironism, which I disagree with by the way.

I do, however, conditionally agree with the quote you mined. There are in fact occasions where cruelty is understandable. Ask any mother defending her offspring. And note that our evolutionarily ingrained morality is not a hard fast rule (objective or absolute), but as behavioral science contends, and an understanding of its origins and mechanisms will show, morality is relative and moral judgments are subjective. But the reason atheists seem to be unaware of Prof. Rorty's "Why not be cruel?” is because it's based on Professor Rorty's pragmatic ironism, a philosophy, not science and unlike mindless religionists, Republicans and conservatives, atheists don't automatically fall in line—we think for ourselves. Therein lies humanities progress away from the Dark Ages. Thanks to those for which I have great respect; the atheists, deists and secularists of the 18th and 19th centuries. It took admirable courage to publicly defend rationality in a time when religious bigotry could get someone roasted on a spit, and all the more so, since they didn't have the discoveries in the sciences, philosophy, and history that we have today. The scientific basis for morality, for instance, finds it best footing in the 60's. I will say this about your snide remarks, and lame mischaracterizations, they have enabled me to better understand your particular mindset, yes—its fear. But fear of what?

Then there is Occam's Razor, or as you put it, "The Everything-Works-Fine-Without-God Argument."

After more unabashedly boorish and fictitious descriptions that only show the ignorance and bigotry (no it's not too harsh a word, see definition) of this author, he makes a claim that equates Planck's Quantum Theory, the cosmic expansion theory with a myth, an oral tradition of Iron Age desert dwellers. But herein lies the fallacy of this comparison, first 'metaphysical' is a poor choice of words if one wishes to be honest (of course, I don't think Mark cares at all about that) for both cosmic expansion and Planck's Theory are supported by physical evidence and observation. Laboratory work in quantum physics and observation of the universe through telescopes verify the mathematics that supported the hypothesis originally. But Mark would have us think it was a guess, while Hubble, Einstein, Planck, Hawking and Brown would beg to differ.

In comparison the loaves and fishes story isn't supported by any evidence at all while being shrouded in contradictions, like the two differing versions in Matthew 14:17-22 and 15:31-39, differing slightly from their original version in Mark 6:40-46 and 8:5-9 and Luke 9:13-17 is similar to Mark 6:40 and yet another depiction of the Mark 6 narrative in John 6:7-19, when in fact the all of the narratives are a purposeful similitude to II Kings 4:40-44. While showing that this narrative evolved over time, as all oral traditions do (eg. the Father Christmas, St. Nicklaus, Santa Claus), it shows no historical basis for relating it to reality. Which even a cursory apprehension of Pauline theology, especially as expressed in the Epistles will confirm. That is the earliest texts on the "Christos" (excluding, of course, the "Chrestus" and other interpolations, or redactions) portrays a "Son of Man" as "Son of God" once the Sun of heaven in a multi layered spiritual sense that incorporates traits of the Greek mystery cults et al., but doesn't mention an historical "Jesus of Nazareth." Quite damming actually, considering I Thessalonians is the oldest of the writings (books or letters) in the NT. It shows that "Jesus of Nazareth" of the synoptic gospels is a later creation along with the crucifixion which is a fiction within a fiction.

This exemplifies another reason to abstain from making claims of divine authority based on the myths of excessively primitive and superstitious people. It has gotten many people killed for unsubstantiated beliefs, the 927 killed in Jonestown French Guiana, Heaven's Gate suicides, Hawaiians (who died fighting against Christian missionaries about which god) and Native Americans (who's murders were condoned by a Papal Bull from Pope Alexander VI in 1530 CE), people die for beliefs all the time. But contrary to your assertion, Mark, the early Graeco-Roman followers of "Christos" were not ostracized, tortured and killed for their beliefs (no one really cared), but for being obstinate and arrogant enough in their ignorance to incur the wrath of Nero, so as to be framed by him for the burning of Rome, for which of course he, himself, was guilty. For future reference, Mark, except for some accidents and natural causes all deaths can be, to some degree, attributed to one's beliefs generally.

Your next assertion Mark is not a mischaracterization, it's just flat false. You claim that the odds against the universe 10^137 which I'm not sure how you came up with that ratio, maybe some spin off from Hoyle's 7.65 MeV for carbon or maybe it is from your understanding of the concept of constants, but in any case, it's wrong. It is, in fact, possible to have many different universes if certain natural properties are varied to some degree. The possibilities are infinite, actually. But the way you and most religionists wish to see Anthropic Coincidences is in support of the god hypothesis when, in fact, cosmology negates the possibility of a god.

Mark, constants in this universe are constant because they are related, tied, to everything else in this universe. It is the ties, the relationships, that keep them constant. If one variable would change the rest would change proportionally, adjust one constant hypothetically and the rest would find a balance, their equilibrium in that new state, it's quite simple actually. Sometimes I think the confusion comes from the images conjured in some minds, by the idea of  "Natural Laws" which from an anthropic view could be misapprehended as laws to be followed instead of axioms derived expressly for the comprehension of the relationships in the physics of our naturalistic universe. In any case for those who wish to know the facts, Victor J. Stenger is a great place to start.

But as has been excruciatingly evident from Mark's writing, to this point, facts are the furthest concept from his mind. So, as he continues in this vein deriding first Prof. Richard Dawkins FRS and then Prof. Daniel Dennett about a simple idea of increasing complexity which is observed in all aspects of the natural world, contrary to the "Woop - There It Is" crowd's god hypothesis of creation. I guess he hopes I will not mention the multitudes of philosophers, scientists, and the scientifically literate that concur with Prof Dawkins' conclusion. What are you afraid of Mark? It seems as though you want to drag humanity back from some precipice, the cusp of rationality, back into the superstition of ignorance. But why? Is it because you know that no matter how many eyes of, and during, the Dark Ages looked to the heavens, no matter how complex they thought it was, no matter how they supposed it worked or the details involved, our ancestors assumed your god did it for anthropocentric reasons? Well, until Galileo opened the eyes of those so self-centered as to presume the universe was created for their enjoyment, utilization or some sort of entrance test. Or is it because whether one uses words like contingent, uncaused, or eternal the burden of proof is still with those that make such assertions.

Furthermore, your reference to Thomas Aquinas in this context is interesting because Aquinas was not a philosopher in the modern sense of the discipline because he started with the conclusion, "a god's existence" and worked backwards from that assumption, meaning he didn't want know, he only wished to prove that god's existence was as he put it, part of his perfect essence. Basically, an exercise in circular reasoning. Begging the question, if you will permit, which came first —the perfect or the essence? Consequently, his view on this topic is in a similar vein, just as hilarious. Not only does Aquinas contradict the Christian god as portrayed in the Bible, along with the "we were created in his image" concept which is thrown out with the bath water. He also puts a cramp in making a son, being the son then trashing the trinity as a... whole, or should I say, "Hole." Aquinas has depicted "nothing" where something should be. Because, what Aquinas has done, in the attempt to describe his god within the concepts of "uncaused entity" and "simplicity of form," is turn the god hypothesis into a hole. A hole is the only thing that fits the criteria he used to describe this being. A description that is exceptionally vacuous, for even a hole has a cause. So, if Thomas Aquinas' description is even close to your idea of a god, it is impossible for it to have created a universe, in the first place, been the god of Christianity, in the second; or in anyway related to the reason why you're writing this diatribe. Oh, one more point I would like to make concerning Aquinas' description while we are on the topic.

This Part 1, Question 3, Article 7, "Whether God Is Altogether Simple?" is a good example of what I call the despotic power of the unreachable entity as an authority, which is the true power of religion. Instead of just admitting that the, "I'm god and I created myself," claim is absurd, they get even more elaborate with the lies, just like anyone on the verge of being found a fraud. But the lie is in the most obvious, indeed the most abundant concept of this description, Thomas Aquinas calls this entity a He, a Him, with His whatever, not an it without genitalia. And don't give me that gratuitous masculine gender junk, the paintings are a good clue. Aquinas and those he is trying to impress are making this authority icon ever more enigmatic while increasing their power over those who would pose such questions, as, "who created god?"

While religionists cloud the essential concept of 'essence', which has, in this context, more to do with what man accepts from this entity, man's acquiescence to the authority of this entity, this icon, than anything it has as a essential property, they use the term as if to denote some form of mental image. Also, one needs to remember, these people believed in ghosts, witches, and demons, etc. So it's not like they had a firm grip on reality in the first place. This is another point in Aquinas' defense of his so called "uncaused" enigma that I think bears more scrutiny. What was their frame of mind, their reference their view of reality? Because Aquinas et al. were trying to describe some sort of omnipresent non-corporeal mind, maybe thinking that this could never be falsified or not realizing the sheer extent of their ignorance of an organ now known as the brain, they relinquished all the ability of man to think for himself. This during a period when inquiry, discovery and education were so repressed by the church, that the only way to derive insight was scripture. They eliminated the only avenue available to reconcile this miscomprehension, our own ability to reason. This is the historical context of Aquinas' writing that is being glossed over by Mark.

These "philosophers" (I only use this term as a flag, for there is nothing resembling a philosopher among them) had no idea how a mind was generated, even René Descartes' Cartesian Dualism is still 400 years in the future. So, as is so often the case, in their attempt to make their authoritative opinion believable, Aquinas and the church brought out the very property that falsifies their fantasy. A mind is generated by a brain and nervous system, but that was still a mystery to men of that era. Which is why, as science progresses, we can scratch various veins of thought, god(s) being one of them. As all that is left, is the ability to use this icon of authority in justifying absurdities, atrocities, suppression, oppression, and hate through bigotry or xenophobia. Horrendous atrocities are, and have been justified through this icon under the guise of its moral authority, of which it has none. Not an iota! A fossil of this mindset is the quip, "good god fearing people," that can still be heard to this day. Only, morality can not be dictated or mandated, as if it were some objective, absolute or an all encompassing scheme.

As the early Platonic philosophers, Aristotle among the most influential of that period (though personally I am more inclined to agree with Lucretius and Epicureanism), thought that the imagined realm was every bit as real, and even more perfect, than the corporeal reality of our senses. Their assumption from ignorance that the images of our mind were not generated by us, but received by us from a central mind that supposedly possessed the powers, the mechanisms, the ability, to comprehend and then transmit the qualia of reality. The very same concepts of the Platonic era of some 1600 years previous. Showing the incredible magnitude of the Judeo-Christian retardation of human progress, I might add. It becomes clear why Aquinas would, by using and somehow justifying Aristotelianism (again concepts that were already 1600 years old at that time), describe this mask over their collective ignorance in this manner, thereby retaining their authority as those in the know, those in direct communication with this all powerful mind. While at the same time facilitating an all knowing, all seeing central mind that all too human authority figures are in direct contact with, even seemingly explaining - fictitiously - how these humans have an inexplicable capacity to comprehend. But, they were very wrong and it caused problems, very big problems.

This authority as described by Aquinas or even in the bible, did not explain the universal motivation of kindness and altruism exemplified by cultures that did not adhere to the dictates of the Abrahamic god(s). As is typical, exposure to new ideas, emersion into new cultures, and understanding at the human level will open one's mind to long held fallacies almost regardless of education. This is the legacy of exploration in the centuries that followed Aquinas. By exposure to other cultures it was discovered our morality was not contingent on adherence to the Judeo-Christian god of Thomas Aquinas. This, more than any other force, was the reason for the decline in the power and influence of the Roman Catholic Church. The Renaissance, from the east; the Reformation from the west; then the Enlightenment from the ensuing sciences, this is what brought down the theocracy of the Dark Ages. Because man finally learned that the authority of a central mind doling out altruistic thought, was never needed to justify love, compassion, forgiveness, friendship or trust. Which was found to be a characteristic of every social animal on the planet, of every culture encountered by explorers, even societies more morally advanced than Europeans at the time.


Admittedly, immorality is practiced in every group, a further dramatic demonstration of the evidence against an all powerful central mind, but for authority figures to justify heinous acts to decent people, or sanctify oppressive totalitarianism, say theocratic despots, is the purpose left for this "uncaused" enigma, this "non-contingent" authority. Which is why some activist atheists are so vocal in resisting this fictitious enigma's fan club. This dogma's oppressive powers and unrelenting bigotry, its pursuit of the suppression of freethought and open inquiry that retarded human progress for a millennia, the existence of this, this vacuous darkness, this dulling of the human intellect that simpletons mistake for light, this is the atheist's raison d'etre.

Which brings us to the most blatantly shoddy line in the entire catechism. The one suggesting that there are only two good atheist arguments and everything else is somehow derived from their concepts.

Now first of all, atheism is against the proposition, a defensive position, and as such, we avail ourselves to facts garnered from science, history, philosophy etc. to use against the arguments asserted (the proposition), put forward by theists. Which is the only reason theists get to name the arguments they loose. Like the ontological argument which is an example of circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. Theodicy is a whole line of theological thought contrived to counter the argument from evil which is logically fatal to the biblical god. Only the religiously inclined are in denial about the illogical contrivance that is Yahweh. Which is nothing new of course, the idea of religion is based on a claim of knowledge which is impossible to know. But if there were a single argument for the existence of god that the theists could claim victory with, does anyone think for a moment that they would hesitate, of course not. The only reason religion exists at all, is because in the system of debate one can win, loose or draw to an inconclusive end. But deductive reasoning, critical thinking, reliance on evidence through the scientific method have pushed superstition's influence into some pretty small gaps left by questions that are, as of yet, unanswered. Which means atheist's arguments are the negation of theological assertions as facilitated via various disciplines of inquiry. But more to the point; Can anyone name one discipline of knowledge that has any evidence in support of the supernatural?

Then you fall still further into the abyss of personal attack on some very intelligent men, divulging an ignorance of just how humans learn in the first place. By missing the deeper meaning that is obvious to those of use who have actually read Christopher Hitchens' work (you should try it he is quite brilliant) you display an ignorance, that I could have guessed, of childhood retention of fundament experiences. See, the reason that Christopher "just knew" was because that was the way things added up according to his past experiences. Simplistic? Sure! Mostly on ignorance, I'll grant you. This is the main reason religions start inculcation very young. But the reason he still knows, and has increased his knowledge in this respect, is because he had an open mind to use in investigations and experiments while realizing there are appropriate people to ask the critical questions. It is obvious from Mr. Hitchens' writings that he regards evidence more important than authority and that, more than likely started very young. So, you are in fact, wrong when you assert that his atheism is, "based on faith in a mystical epiphany to a nine-year-old boy." For some that is just how it starts, things just don't add up. Some people just can't suspend disbelief long enough for the delusion to sink in.

But your argument only gets worse from here with strawmen attacks using strawman depictions of Thomas Aquinas (which is why I started by bringing him down to size) and an early 20th century, failing, science fiction writer that found a niche in religious fiction (if you were his agent how would you suggest he broaden his readership).

Then, with all due respect to Thomas Aquinas the person, not particularly your strawman depiction of him, I have an Argument from Intellectual Maturity that goes something like this:

If your god is perfect, and has a perfect plan, why would it suspend such an intricate synthesis? How could even a god suspend natural principles once in motion? Why would it answer prayers that are not part of that plan? Also, why would someone think their selfish reason for asking for the suspension of natural principles would be answered by an all powerful being that created a universe full of life that interacts in such a brutal fashion that no one would wish it on his own pet? Like it would answer your prayers for a new car.

You have got to be kidding me right? Talk about arrogance. This is just one more childish concept that backfires under scrutiny. Not to mention the experiment that showed conclusively that prayer does not work. Or the gulf disaster would be cleaned up already, and the narrative concerning this Jesus character wouldn't be proven mythical by Matthew 18:19.

Mark, in reference to Matthew 12:39, you ask the question:
"First, why would the Gospels record this rather embarrassing incident?"

But only after padding your ego with your rendition of an atheist strawman - again. Which seems to be a problem, for some people can't fathom that— hypothetically asserting they know what a person or group thinks, is fatuous. Possibly clouding the ability to discern what qualifies as evidence.

In trying to see this Jesus character from a Christian perspective is to miss the actual character as originally portrayed in this, and much older narratives. Only barely visible in patches of the NT, is the fundamentalist Jew, most likely Nazorean, that only wished to reclaim the throne of David from the Syrian Kings, pre- Maccabean Revolt (168BCE) or maybe Queen Salome's reign from 76-67 BCE, and the temple for his sect of Jewish fundamentalists. And since this sect followed a similar teaching of the Essene or Sadducean sects, found themselves in opposition to the Pharisee, who were the moderate accommodationists and not well liked by the fundamentalists Jewish sects. Now this character could be derived from an Essene fundamentalist chronologically related to the story, and more visible in it, but I see only speculative inference to such a derivation and much stronger evidence against any actual existence. It is clear however, that this character is an icon made of many messiah narratives, not all of which, are even from the Near East. But to clear up your confusion about what was actually going on in Matthew 12:39, as we are not told what the sign should denote it may be nothing more than sectarian rivalry. Magic not required, but look for what is missing from Mark 8:12, a sign from heaven. Besides, this character preformed many other magic tricks according to the narratives. But then again, in this collection one can find giants, unicorns, fish used as submarines, talking snakes, dragons, witches, demons and angels. The point being, none of it is real, historical, even relevant after the fall of Rome—as it is an apocalyptic fable.

Bringing up Matthew 12:39 wasn't a very good strategy on your part because it gives many in atheology the opportunity to highlight another aspect of Christianity that is probably the most powerful means to atheism short of attending Theological Seminary at Yale one can obtain. As many contradictions in the Bible show it to be a cobbled together collection of apocalyptic fictions, that is, oral narratives that were separated by many years and evolved independent of each other. But, like I said, most were only of any relevance with respect to the Roman occupation. That is until the First Council of Nicaea officially started the process of making "Followers of Christos" the sanctioned religion of the newly reunified Eastern and Western Empires of Rome.

Also, to call the authors of the NT "Chroniclers" or even "cunning frauds" is an extreme stretch by almost any authoritative understanding. The synoptic gospels, especially, are no more than sheep herder sci-fi, stories told to children and slaves, sometimes as moral stories, like Aesop's Fables. Some are more adult apocalyptic or inspirational conquering hero style, but none were meant to be in a canonized collection of books that were to become the basis of a religion - least of all, what would become, Christianity. In fact, Mark is written by a Roman to a Roman audience most likely in a theatrical vein as evidenced by the over dramatized Triumphal March of the Jesus character in Mark 15:15-19. Paul of Tarsus, and Ignatius of Antioch had more to do with your religion than any corporeal, historical or fanatical Jesus. That the verse you mention is in fact a poorly copied verse from Mark 8:12, that then adds the "Jonah and the whale" narrative is enough to raise a brow. But then take a look at Matthew 13:42,50 a simple duplication of verses by careless scribes during interpolation, the addition or subtraction of text after the original writing. But when one is confronted with the evidence that there are literally many hundreds of these errors of an editorial nature, almost as many of a chronological nature, and just as many of a historical nature in this collection of stories, it becomes clear that the scribes that were actually putting pen to paper, put in verses, as they were told, without consideration of context.

Now, is some of this due, at least in part, to a language barrier? Probably, both during transcriptions and later in multiple interpolations and redactions. Is some of it due to politically motivated intervention for exclusion, persecution or retribution? Most definitely. Notice how the Jews are blamed in the four gospels, in a manner that stretches credibility beyond the brink. In short, the books of the bible have been so badly written that it is possible to find justification for anything, claims of anything and contradictions of everything (almost) in this book of Eli, or Elohim? maybe Eloi? or is it Elias? I guess it depends on where one looks, which is precisely the point. Oh, by the way, I have seen more evidence than most, that this Jesus character in the messiah narrative is an amalgamation of many characters, hopes and heroes, both real persons (many claimed to be the messiah, heir to David's throne etc.) and fictitious, a spiritual or dream state, as in Pauline theology, mixed with pagan mythical heroes, Greek mystery cults, even Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern Iron age mythical heroes and philosophers. The Romans were very good at incorporating the cultures they occupied into the Empire, as exemplified by Constantine in 324 CE, when he reunified the Roman Empire.

Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. But to understand what that statement means, one needs to know the meaning of the words claim and evidence in this context. But as exemplified by your reference to that old "love" canard, you don't know what love is or how to show it. Although you may have some romantic idea of the concept. Maybe some spiritual or supernatural basis for what are actually very temporal feelings generated by the hormones and nervous system. But in a lab, it is quite easy to demonstrate analytically and scientifically that someone loves someone or something with an fMRI or checking a blood sample for elevated hormones. While the best way is still the old fashioned one, someone that loves you will show it. The same system of examination of evidence used in many professions is the very same system used to determine all we can about the Cosmos. On the other hand, what do parrots that reiterate that old trope think divorce is based on? If it sounds too fantastical to be true, it probably is.

Throughout history extraordinary claims have not stood up to scrutiny. Never has any supernatural claim ever been verified, as supernatural, in fact, most have been refuted with the simplest of tests, like your reference to the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, which was nothing more than retinal damage (not spontaneous mass hallucination, as your strawman dogmatist claims), from staring at the Sun to long. This was attested to by people on the scene at the time, at other sites like Eclipses etc., even predictions of miraculous sun events in the U.S. where observational equipment was utilized to measure and record the event. I do find it humorous that supernatural claims aren't of something as obvious as a 60ft. dough boy or an inexplicable planetary alignment. But no, it has to be something along the lines of bleeding crackers as witnessed by those of an obviously loose grip on reality, if not suffering from full blown delusion.

By the way, science rarely happens in a lab, as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey or any of the scientists listed before would attest. And like any other claim, when the evidence is presented the value of the claim increased. One of the main objectives of the Beagle was to bring back specimens, evidence, not extraordinary claims, as you seem to think was brought back from Africa. Evidence is what can be evaluated. This is just another attempt by a religionist to present a strawman that can be railed against, but has no basis in reality. It isn't just the "New Atheists" that debunk supernatural claims, that has been pursued and successfully accomplished by thinking people of all walks of life.

The "New Atheists" don't expect the Bible to be other than what it is, a collection of fictional stories built from pagan myths, Graeco-Roman mystery cults, Near Eastern origin myths of Jewish Yahwists all wrapped around a political treatise for a fundamentalist Jew claiming to be the heir to the throne of David. It is those that profess to know the mind of this mythical deity, claim that "he" is the origin of life and morality, it is these people that push this book off as authoritative, as factual, even historical. There was a time not to far in the past when a person would be burnt at the stake for claiming the Bible was anything other than the inerrant word of this god, how soon it is conveniently forgotten. It is because of this religious dogma (look it up), bigotry, and pseudo-science that atheists exist. We are what keeps the religiose from turning the Crown Jewel of the Enlightenment, these United States into another Nazi state or theocracy.

Even though there are those that try to show the bible is a book of knowledge, and they are just as wrong as you are, Atheists practice rational inquiry in, and the comprehension of, these texts, the word, by which the devout still swear. But for the atheologist it is enough that these writings don't even display a rudimentary knowledge of simple geography, the flow of rivers, the orbits of planets, etc., in fact, this collection of stories shows exactly the knowledge one would expect an Iron Age desert dweller to know. It also shows the ignorance of a desert dweller with regard to the naturalistic claims that are in error in this canon of fables.

The Hebrews still use a lunar calendar to this day. The pagan's cycle you are unwittingly referring to as time, is actually a calendar for planting crops. Certain sects in Hebrew culture tried to get the Hebrews to convert to a solar calendar, but they never did. The pagan cultures were more matriarchal where the emerging religions were more patriarchal. Is that the cycle your referring to? Or is it more in the tidal calendar range that fishermen use? Maybe you should learn more about calendars, Julian and Gregorian versions. Or is the concept you are alluding to, that old ashes to ashes, cycle of life, thing?

Like your claim that Genesis, I presume, states that the universe was created from nothing, ex nihilo as you put it. But it doesn't claim that at all, you only presume the 'nothing', because it was to have created heaven and earth. What you don't understand, is that which you don't wish to see. Your god was standing on the waters, the heaven was the sky and the earth was soil. But you don't wish to see that, so you don't. The god of the creation myth only created that which the primitives knew, air and land. If you read the Hebrew or Latin, or for that matter, KJV, it is clear as a bell that this creation myth is terrestrial —has nothing to do with the universe, not one planet. The whole claim of a god that created the universe, and the anthropic coincidences is based on a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. God is standing on the water as he creates heaven and earth. This god puts the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, domes that separate the waters above from the waters below and the heavens and the earth (small 'e' as in soil) but doesn't even mention planets. Primitive mystics claimed that the lights moving around in irregular patterns were minor gods, angels or demons. Didn't realize the "lights" were galaxies in some cases. The ancient Yahwists had no idea about the universe, so by extension neither did their god as is obvious from Genesis. So, not only can't it be known by revelation as you assert, it seems those that wish to know the universe, can't even read it, in their holy books.

So, with that I say to you my narrow minded short sighted metaphysician, if you stand by what you write, not only do you not understand, it doesn't seem you want to. The information is out there, the evidence is there to stay, facts are eternal, it's beliefs that fade away. Your god is just the newest in that graveyard for gods, mythology.

Then you concluded with more unsubstantiated opinion about "sane metaphysicians," which I'm not sure that I have ever met, for they differ from a theoretician in their reliance on magical thinking. And you assert, "science is limited," but I say, only by our imagination and powers of reasoning. To delve into supernatural explanations is to surrender, to pretend to know. It is to give unto god(s) that which is theirs, ignorance, then prostration, followed by subjugation based on intellectual limitation. In following a thread that you have pursued throughout this monograph that science is "narrow" and the metaphysical is "larger" you are misinterpreting the relationship science has with the metaphysical. You see, the supernatural realm is where human ignorance reigns, using the tools of science, we chip away at the supernatural realm by shredding supernatural explanations to get at the facts, the evidence shrouded within, while discarding the magical thinking and thereby reducing human ignorance and increasing our knowledge. This is why science, our knowledge, contrary to your false statement: "Everything must fit my narrow empiricist worldview!” is actually quite vast, while its potential is unlimited. Because, again contrary to that statement, science doesn't just command that something "must" do anything. Science has been very successful at investigation and evaluation followed by implementation. Symbolized by the difference between how far science has brought us as a species with spacecraft venturing beyond the boundaries of our solar system. While "supernatural revelation" can only take us back into the Dark Ages. A time in our recent past that your fog, your "metaphysic," which, of course, does not transcend anything, did indeed enshroud the human intellect, human understanding, as exemplified by its effects on the human conditions of that era. The men of The Enlightenment, many of which, were this country's Founding Fathers, brought us out of the dark abyss of ignorance where superstitious subjugation held us in servitude, against our will, for far too long. The supernatural realm is that vast fog of ignorance you named god.

One more thing, the insane asylums are full of people who are there based on their beliefs, but not one person is there based on there scientific inquiry. Then you say:

"It should be noted that the operative term here is 'will not,' not 'cannot.'"

In reference to accepting the evidence in support of scientific claims. I could not have said it better myself. But I feel you should use it for introspection, for as this diatribe exemplifies a comprehension of science, philosophy and especially Christianity, that I can only describe as selective—to the point of neglect. Then, again you hit the nail on the head with the following. Bravo!

"There are two sorts of questioners, roughly speaking: those who ask to find things out and those who ask to keep from finding things out."

Only, after reading this, and some other rants that you have written, they seem to be devoid of all but intellectually limited opinion. What have you learned and from where did you glean your knowledge? What evidence do you have for this supernatural realm, entity, or revelation? You have not expressed it here, or elsewhere that I have read. It seems you have not garnered anything from science, philosophy or your religion. You parrot Thomas Aquinas without thinking critically about his perspective, historical context, limited education, motivation or anything else. Only to top this by presuming to imbue Aquinas' theology with hypothetical statements—you put your words in his mouth. Your assertions concerning the "Sun fraud of Fatima" and the "bleeding biscuits of Betania," show that you are guilty of the very closed mindedness inferred by your statement that I quoted above. It is obvious that you will cling to your supernatural security blanket no matter how frayed it gets by facts, filthy it gets through fraud, faded it's found by differing faiths, or how shrunken it gets by science. You Sir, are among those afraid of facts, cautious of questions, and limited in your literature, not to mention, misguided by your mentors. I honestly think you are confused or fooling yourself, because to follow the evidence where it leads does not lead to superstition or a godhead. And this superstition, this godhead has never been good for mankind, as evidenced by every advance of human betterment and individual empowerment has been in defiance of religion, this godhead, and its dogma.

In this review of your blog entry, Mark, I have found nothing to be impressed with, in fact I found it depressing due to your reliance on misinterpretations, mischaracterizations, unsubstantiated assertions, and strawman arguments. To build strawman arguments out of what you or C. S. Lewis think of atheists is, at best, arbitrary. But I can see where it has saved you from learning even the elementary aspects of your religion, while at the same time fueling your bigotry toward those that have gone to the trouble of basing their world view and decisions on evidence, study, inquiry and mastery of many disciplines other than proselytizing. But Mark, I have one question for you on a more personal note; When you looked back on this, this rant and found that none of it was based on fact nor evidenced in any way and therefore fictitious, didn't an alarm go off in your mind?