A modest and tentative year's end reflection: The identity of Jesus of Nazareth in contemporary scholarship

I want to finish this year posting in my blog with a personal reflection of an "outsider" regarding many of the cultural and religious ideas in the Western world (even though, to be honest, I don't consider myself an outsider anymore).

Among scholars, there is a debate about the Historical Jesus (who was Jesus really, what his actual teachings are, etc.) and its connection with the biblical Jesus.

For traditional Christians, Jesus was the son of God and hence the exclusive way to God's Kingdom and so forth. For the people like the members of the so-called Jesus Seminar (leaving aside individuals like Robert M. Price who is a Jesus' denialist), Jesus was at most a spiritual teacher, social reformer and/or a cynic philosopher, who wasn't the Son of God and obviously wasn't resurrected in a literal sense either.

In my opinion, the true identity of the historical Jesus stands or falls, largely, with the historicity of the resurrection. If the latter is a historical fact, then the view of Christians seem to be plausible regarding the biblical claims of divinity about Jesus. Jesus wouldn't be simply another spiritual teacher or "reformer" among many others, with some interesting insights, sayings and contributions for spiritual salvation; but that his resurrection (provided this occured) is an unique fact in history which, giving its putative supernatural cause, seems to validate his radical claims and status and give him an unique authoritative and privileged position among "spiritual teachers". An unique extraordinary spiritual and plausibly supernatural event like the resurrection is what one would expect from an unique spiritual teacher sent by God with unique and special credentials as evidence of the divine authority of his claims.

The Jesus Seminar tend to reject Jesus' resurrection as an historical fact precisely because its members correctly and consistently realizes that the resurrection, if historical, would make hard to deny Jesus' unique connection with God and Christianity's exclusivistic claims of salvation. It could be denied only in a very idiosyncratic, largely arbitrary and contraived way (and no major New Testament scholar, including a radical critic like John Dominic Crossan, seems prepared to take this idiosyncratic and implausible view).

Summary of my reflections, ideas and suggestions:

The following is a summary of my current opinion about the debate regarding the historical Jesus. Please, don't take these points as an authoritative opinion (after all, I'm not a New Testament scholar even thought I'm studying the topic intensively) nor as conclusive conclusions. See them more as reflections and ideas for further inquiry and food for thought.

However, I'm going to support my opinions with scholarly evidence, references and facts (specially evidence coming from skeptics and critics of Christianity) in order to provide objectivity to my views and specially to avoid pure speculations, and force my interested readers to thinking hard about these questions.

Also, I'm not going to argue for or against Jesus' Resurrection in this post. I'm interested just in arguing for a conditional: If Jesus' Resurrection is true, then the view of Jesus by traditional Christians is, for most part, likely to be true (regarding Jesus' divinity, for example) and this includes exclusivism regarding salvation. If Jesus' Resurrection is false, then the Jesus Seminar' view of Jesus and pluralism regarding salvation are likely to be true.

Let's begin:

1-The Jesus Seminar's project is demostrably based upon naturalistic and atheistic assumptions. The purpose of this group is to create a portrait of Jesus palatable to a secular society and an anti-Christian audience.

In the introduction of the Jesus Seminar book The Five Gospels (five, because it includes the Gospel of Thomas), the authors confess: "The contemporary religious controversy turns on whether the world view reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith . . . . the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope" (p.2. Emphasis in blue added)

Note carefully that according to the authors, the "worldview reflected in the Bible" (i.e. theism!) cannot be accepted if we accept science. In other words, science implies atheism, not theism. This is exactly the same philosophical view of pseudo-skeptics and hard-core atheists like James Randi or Michael Shermer.

The Christ of "creed and dogma" (i.e. the resurrected Jesus, the Jesus who performed miracles, the Jesus who expulsed demons, the Jesus who is the savior, the Jesus who said "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." (John 3:16), etc.) cannot be true, if you are scientific (i.e. atheist). Given that there is not God, then it is impossible that the Son of God can exist, or that a supernatural phenomenon (like the resurrection) may be historical.

Based on this philosophical assumption, is not surprising that the reconstruction of the historical Jesus which the Jesus Seminar has made is of a Jesus who's purely naturalistic. And this is not a surprise either that the Jesus Seminar has to reject the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. What is an actual "miracle" for me is the fact that people like Crossan or Spong (and other Jesus Seminar's members) keep considering themselves as "Christians" (which is clearly misleading and, in my opinion, intentionally dishonest).

If you begin with naturalistic assumptions, you'll end with a purely naturalistic reconstruction of Jesus. In fact, the authors print in red only those words of Jesus which they consider to be authentic. The result (surprise!) is that around the 80% of Jesus' sayings (specially the sayings of a supernatural kind or that pointed out to a supernaturalistic and divine Jesus) in the Gospels are considered unathentic. Only around a 20% are considered actual sayings of Jesus, and these sayings portrait Jesus as a sort of social critic or reformer, the Jewish version of a Greek cynic philosopher.

2-In his writtings, the members of the Jesus Seminar, even the self-proclaimed "Christians" among them, are openly hostile to God's intervention in the world. However, they concede that if Jesus' Resurrection is historical, then a supernatural intervention is likely to be the cause of that event. And as they reject such interventionistic view of God, they are forced to reject the resurrection too.

For example, in a book with Marcus Borg, the leading Jesus Seminar's member John Dominic Crossan concedes that Jesus' resurrection as a historical fact "requires a 'supernatural interventionist' understanding of the way God relates to the world". (The Last Week, p.218-219 n18. Emphasis in blue added). Given that Crossan is supposed to be a Christian, not a deist, what is the problem of conceiving God as an agent who intervenes in the world? (The true answer is that Crossan is actually an atheist, not a Christian. He doesn't believe in mind-independent objectively existing God and hence cannot accept the intervention of a non-existent entity in the world. See point 3.)

The crucial point is that Crossan correctly realizes the close connection between the Jesus'resurrection and God's causal influence in that event. I agree with Crossan in this point (a point that is accepted by most New Testament scholars and historians, as proved by the fact that no atheist scholar defends the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection).

Agnostic historian and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, in his debate with William Craig, argued "What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year... The evidence that Bill himself doesn’t see his explanation as historical is that he claims that his conclusion is that Jesus was raised from the dead. Well, that’s a passive – “was raised” – who raised him? Well, presumably God! This is a theological claim about something that happened to Jesus. It’s about something that God did to Jesus."

Just for the record: Ehrman doesn't deny the historicity of the resurrection, only the historian's competence to prove it because the resurrection, if ocurred, is a miracle. (Obviously this is a red herring, since his debate with Craig was entitled "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", and not "Can a historian to prove historically that a miracle has ocurred?").

If the evidence for a putative miracle occurs in a context charged with strong religious significance (like in the case of Jesus, whose teachings were centered on God's Kingdom and spiritual salvation), then the miracle is not a merely ambiguous phenomenon, but one plausibly attributed to a supernatural origin (i.e. an origin connected to the God whose kingdom Jesus taught).

As atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemman explains "Indeed, the miraculous or revelatory aspect of Jesus cannot be the object of any scientific approach. However, as long as theology is "paired" with historical thought (as it is on the one hand by the character of its central sources and on the other hand by modern criteria of truth), then it must be interested in a natural explanation of the miracle- or it must admit that even on historical grounds a supernatural explanation is more plausible" (The Resurrection of Christ, p. 21. Emphasis in blue added).

Given that the resurrection cannot be explained naturally (as agreed by almost every major scholar), then it is obvious (specially given the religious context in which it ocurred, IF it did) that the most plausible explanation is that it was a miracle caused by a supernatural (divine) intervention.

3-In point 2, I asked why a "Christian" like Crossan is bothered by the fact that Jesus' Resurrection, if true, would entail a supernaturalistic intervention. After all, if the Christian God exists, then it is perfectly possible that he intervenes in the world. Why couldn't he? (Just imagine Richard Dawkins or Keith Augustine complaining that the non-existence of inmaterial souls or an afterlife is unacceptable because it seems to support too much the truth of materialistic naturalism as a worldview. Do you imagine any of these hard-core atheists complaining about the non-existence of an afterlife for that reason? Obviously not, they're more than happy to embrace such anti-survivalist position, precisely because it supports the truth of their materialistic worldview. Likewise, if Crossan is a Christian, why is he bothered by the omnipotence of his Christian God which could enable him to intervene in the world?)

The astute reader is likely to guess the answer. Crossan is an atheist (masked as a Christian in order to give the impression that, contrary to traditional Christians, he is not motivated by ideology or "faith" but by objectivity, science and the respect for facts alone. This is a studied strategy, which falls apart when you explore the matter in more detail with a critical eye).

The irrefutable evidence for Crossan' atheism (misleadingly and astutely masked with the phraseology of Christianity) is available in the book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? (p.50-51) in which Crossan debated William Lane Craig. In the exchange, and fully knowing Crossan's misleading position (Crossan claims that the statament "God exists" is a statement of faith), Craig pressed him hard to give an explicit answer to the question of God's objective existence. This was what happened (please note carefully Crossan' sophistical evasions and distractions):

Craig: But if the existence of God is a statement of faith, not a statement of fact, that means that God’s existence is simply an interpretive construct that a particular human mind—a believer—puts into the universe.

Crossan: …I would say what you’re trying to do is imagine the world without us. Now unfortunately, I can’t do that. If you were to ask me (which is just what you did) to abstract from faith how God would be if no human beings existed, that’s like asking me, “Would I be annoyed if I hadn’t been conceived?” I really don’t know how to answer that question.

Craig: Sure you do!

Crossan: Wait a minute! We know God only as God has revealed God to us; that’s all we could ever know in any religion.

Craig: During the Jurassic age, when there were no human beings, did God exist?

Crossan: Meaningless question.

Craig: But surely that’s not a meaningless question. It’s a factual question. Was there a being who was the Creator and Sustainer of the universe during the period of time when no human beings existed? It seems to me that in your view you’d have to say no.

Crossan: Well, I would probably prefer to say no because what you’re doing is trying to put yourself in the position of God and ask, “How is God apart from revelation? How is God apart from faith?” I don’t know if you can do that. You can do it, I suppose, but I don’t know if it really has any point.

Bingo!. Crossan doesn't believe in an objective, mind-independent entity named God. In a pretty literal sense, Crossan is an ATHEIST. When I read that passage some time ago, I fully and suddenly understood why some Jesus Seminar' members call themselves "Christians", but deny Jesus' Resurrection (which is essential to Christianity). The whole atheistic project of the Jesus Seminar group was now fully understable and clear to me.

Craig summarizes Crossan's position (after their debate) in this short video:

I consider the duplicity and misleading use of language of some members of the Jesus Seminar as a example of charlatanism, intentional misdirection and intellectual dishonesty. Hence, I don't trust them.

4-The atheistic project of the Jesus Seminar is, basically, to make Jesus palatable to a increasingly secular society (which is highly hostile to Evangelical Christianity) in which religious pluralism seems to be the rule.

Religious pluralism is the view that "there are several ways to God". It is opposed to Christian exclusivism which says that Jesus is the ONLY way to God.

As said, the Jesus Seminar project seeks to portrait a Jesus who is not the only son of God (because it would imply an exclusivity contrary to religious pluralism) but a social reformer or spiritual teacher, "among others". The Christian exclusivism about Jesus becomes (in the hands of the Jesus Seminar) a Jesus compatible with religious pluralism.

And precisely, given that Crossan (and other Jesus Seminar members) fully realizes that Jesus' Resurrection is clearly connected with a supernatural (divine) intervention, he also realizes that if the resurrection is true, then Christian exclusivism is also true (and this is contrary to the religious pluralistic project of the group).

This rejection of Christian exclusivism in favour of religious pluralism is evident in the same book mentioned above, in which Crossan complains that Jesus' Resurrection "privileges Christianity as the only true or 'full' revelation of God, the 'only way'" (p.218-219 n18. Emphasis in blue added.)

Note carefully Crossan's connection between the factuality of the resurrection and Christian exclusivism regarding salvation. I submit this connection is a very plausible one. But Crossan employs this connection as a complain against Christianity (and hence, as an implicit theological assumption against the resurrection).

By the way, my answer to Crossan's complain is SO WHAT? It is a prerrogative of God to decide the means of salvation. Perhaps we can find unpalatable or wrong the view that just one way is the unique way for salvation. But this is our problem, not God's problem. You cannot determine what God has done simply appealing to your feelings and expectatives or to what you consider palatable.

I myself confess that the view that Jesus is the "only way" has bothered me a lot in the past. That he's THE way (not just one way among others) was an idea that I considered unpalatable, bigoted and unjust (moreover, in that time I was completely ignorant of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection). But I learnt that what is true or false cannot be decided by the test of "palatibility". If you have follow the evidence wherever it leads and draw from this the logical implications, even if the latter are fully unpalatable for you or somehow hurts your feelings or destroy your expectatives.

As far I've studied the matter, the vast majority of New Testament scholars agree that, if Jesus' Resurrection is true, then God is likely to be the cause of that event (this is why you won't get atheist New Testament scholars defending the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection). Also, they seem to agree (with Crossan) that if the resurrection is exclusive of Jesus, then the thesis of the "only way" defended by Christians is likely to be true too. I entirely agree with them about these two points.

5-Many people seem to be sympathetic to religious pluralism because they cannot accept that God has provided just "one way" to him. They cannot accept that good people in other religions cannot be saved. I myself agreed with this position for a long time. Currently, I don't agree with it anymore, because I cannot determine in advanced what God's means of salvation are. It is God's decision, not mine. Therefore, I have to be open to exclusivism and cannot reject it a priori. It is a matter that has to be decided on the basis of the evidence.

If God's means are exclusivistic, let it be. If they're pluralistic, let it be. We have to follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of our desires or expectations.

The question is, if Jesus' Resurrection turns out to be true (i.e. historical), does it support exclusivism or pluralism regarding his teachings? Like Crossan, Borg and most New Testament scholars that I've read, it seems to support exclusivism, because the resurrection is an unique event, of argueable supernatural origin (Crossan's words), which seems to give a special support to Jesus' person and teachings. Hence, it puts Jesus wholly apart (in a different category) of other "spiritual teachers", "social reformers", "gurus" and so forth.

6-People who, for whatever reasons, have religious pluralist beliefs, will buy largely into the Jesus Seminar's historical reconstruction of Jesus. The reason is that they cannot accept (and are very hostile to) Christian exclusivism, and hence they will resonate with the Jesus Seminar's pluralistic portrait of Jesus as "one teacher among others", as another teacher who is nothing special nor exclusive regarding salvation, as someone with interesting ideas and insights for spiritual evolution or even salvation, but not the exclusive or "only" way to God.

I submit that the Jesus Seminar's members who reject Jesus' Resurrection are consistent, because the historicity and factuality Jesus' Resurrection doesn't fit with the purely naturalistic and pluralistic portrait of Jesus that they have previously created. They use a Christian language about the resurrection, but deny its actual literal meaning (preferring to speculate misleadingly about metaphors). As more evidence of this see Marcus Borg's speculations about "meaning" and metaphors and other verbal sleight of hand in his debate about the resurrection with William Lane Craig.

They don't believe in God nor in Jesus' Resurrection (the two basic theses of Christianity), therefore they're not theists nor Christians. They're atheists masked as Christians in order to push forward a social atheistic and anti-Christian agenda in the name of Christianity.

Note that it has nothing to do with theism or Christianity being true. Even if atheism were true, the Jesus Seminar's agenda is dishonest and misleading, and as such deserve to receive proper exposing and debunking. (By the way, it doesn't imply that all the members of the Jesus Seminar are charlatans; some of the have made interesting contributions to the discussion, but overall I think their hidden atheistic agenda makes them unreliable).

7-The argument from Jesus' Resurrection to exclusivism is this (this is not a deductive argument, just a series of cumulative steps leading to the exclusivistic conclusion. I'm assuming, for the argument's sake, that Jesus' Resurrection is historical in order to press the point about exclusivism). When examining the following argument, try to think if each step is the most plausible one (not just think in logically possible alternatives, because we're interested in what is most plausibly true, i.e. most plausible than the alternatives, not in mere logically possible speculations or imaginary scenarios. Remember how pseudoskeptics try to explain away the evidence for psi appealing to logically possible scenarios which only exists in the pseudoskeptic's materialistic imagination):

a-If Jesus' Resurrection is literally true, then it is from a supernatural origin (since no natural explanation nor physical law can account for this unique event). In fact, natural laws are general (they rule a indefinite number of similar phenomena), but Jesus' Resurrection, if true, is an unique event. No natural laws exist to account for an unique, isolate event.

Theoretical physicist and theist John Polkinghorne comments "Whatever we can say about cloudy unpreditability, we surely can't suppose that it was through a clever exploitation of chaos theory that Jesus was raised from the dead, never to die again. If this happened (as I believe it did), it was a miraculous act of great power. "(Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, p. 97)

b-A supernatural origin of Jesus' Resurrection would imply the direct intervention of God, because God (the God of which Jesus spoke, his abba or father) is the first candidate, in the religious context of Jesus' life, to performance a miracle like that.

c-If God intervened directly in the resurrection, then his purpose was to validate Jesus' teachings about the God's Kingdom as special and unique among any other spiritual doctrines (in which God hasn't intervened or at least their intervention is less clear). This fact implies that all the atheistic spiritual doctrines are essentially false (since they deny God's existence and hence God's Kingdom) and the theistic doctrines, not validated by God himself (e.g. with a miracle) are unreliable.

d-If God validated Jesus' teachings, then these teachings are true (because a perfectly rational and good God cannot lie nor validate falsehoods, specially regarding spiritual salvation).

e-Jesus' resurrection is a historical fact.

f-Whatever doctrine is incompatible with Jesus' true teachings has to be false (this exploits religious pluralism is its broadest version).

g-Therefore, religious pluralism is false.

h-Hence, Christian exclusivism is true.

All the above steps can be resisted in a number of ways by the religious pluralist. But I think each step above is, given the religious context of Jesus' life, his teachings about God's Kingdom, the way in which natural laws operate and the putative fact of the resurrection, that each step is more plausible than the alternatives (and all the stepts taken together provide a good cumulative case for exclusivisim over pluralism. The key step is the historicity of Jesus's Resurrection).

This is why I submit that Jesus' identity depends, largely on the fact of the resurrection. If it ocurred, then the view of Jesus as the Son of God, cannot be ruled out. In fact, it seems very plausible and this is why exclusivism seems to be supported. Hence, that his teachings are exclusivistic, not pluralistic, cannot be ruled out a priori either (as Crossan and Borg concede). No social reformer, spiritual teacher or cynic philosopher has ever been vindicated in his teachings by a phenomenon like the resurrection. Hence, the resurrection doesn't seem to be the kind of validation that one would expect of the teachings of a mere social reformer, philosopher or "one among others" spiritual teacher.

8-Finally, a word about Jesus as the "Son of God". Skeptical critics doubt or deny that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. However, there is a passage in which many scholars, including some skeptical ones, consider as a true saying of Jesus: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Mark 13:32)

Note that Jesus says "The Son", implying that it is just one, not many.

Many scholars consider that this is a true Jesus' saying because Jesus is admitting ignorance regarding the Second Coming (and a God cannot be ignorant, he's omniscient). Hence, according to the principle of embarrassment, this is not the kind of saying that you would fabricate about a man to whom you are ascribing divinity or deity in order to convince other people to believe and worship Him.

Moreover, according to some Biblical scholars, in greek exists a figure of speech known as anabasis, which consists in an step by step increasing in stress inside of a passage. In the above passage, Jesus seems to be making a gradation in levels:

-No one ("normal human beings") knows

-Not even the angels in Heaven (angels, being a little bit superior than human beings)

-Nor the Son (the son, not a son nor some sons, implying that just one has that status and, moreover, that he is in a superior level than angels)

-Only the Father (abba) = God, which has a superior status than everybody else.

This clearly places Jesus as "Son of God" in a category above humans and angels (hence, in a superior position regarding any other spiritual teacher, social reformer, cynic philosopher, etc.). He is claiming to be the Son of God in a uniquely divine sense.

Another important reference is found in the Gospel of Mark (12:1-12) and is referred as the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard, which most scholars, even skeptics, consider as a true saying of Jesus. Jesus tells the parable of the owner of a vineyard who rented it to some vinegrowers. He sent a slave to receive some of the produce. But they refused to listen to the slave, beat him, and sent him away. One by one as the owner sent additional slaves, they refused to listen and either beat or killed them. He had one left to send, a SON. But the tenants killed him too and threw him out of the vineyard. In this parable, the vineyard symbolizes Israel, the owner of the vineyard is God, the tenants are the Jewish religious leaders, and the servants are the prophets send by God.

This parable clearly shows a Jesus who see himself as God's only son, different and above all the others prophets. Therefore, contrary to the misleading naturalistic and pluralistic portrait of Jesus made by some liberal scholars, it seems that Jesus perceived himself not as a mere human prophets, social reformer or spiritual teacher "among others", but as God's ultimate menssager. This exclusivity of Jesus' identity, authority and teaching reaches its maximum in a last unique event: the resurrection.

This is why I agree that when in (Luke 22: 70) is written "And they all said, 'Are You the Son of God, then?' And He said to them, 'Yes, I am.'" (Luke 22:70), we're reading a probable actual saying of Jesus (in spite that this specific Luke's passage is not seen by most scholars as historially evidenced).

In conclusion, I find these arguments convicing, and the portrait the Jesus Seminar and other liberal scholars regarding Jesus, as misleading, false and unjustified. I do think Jesus regarded himself as the Son of God. (If Jesus is actually the Son of God, or was deluded into that belief, is another problem. But if the resurrection is true, then the conclusion that he's the Son of God seems to be likely given Jesus' own self-perception).

9-Regarding pressupositions, I think everybody have them. The question is if the presupposition is justified or not. For me, a naturalistic pressuposition like the Jesus Seminar' is unwarranted and, given that I think naturalism is false, I think that presupposition is false too (and misleading and question-begging in the context of the Historical Jesus, since the divinity of Jesus and his resurrection is part of what precisely is at stake and deserve to be investigated and determined).

As consequence, I don't believe in the historical reconstruction of Jesus made by the Jesus Seminar and other liberal scholars. It doesn't mean that I agree with all the theses about Jesus defended by traditional Christians; I only accept, currently, that they are right in 1)Defending the view that Jesus regarded himself as the son of God; 2)Christian exclusivism and 3)That such a views are likely to be true IF Jesus' resurrection is an historical fact.

10-The Jesus Seminar's views are very influential and well-received in popular press and media. And purely speculative books about Jesus like Dan Brown's become popular best-sellers.

I submit the ultimate explanation of this social phenomenon is mainly an hostility to or animus against the traditional Christian exclusivism and the divine view of Jesus plus a solid ignorance of Christian theology, history and philosophy.

This animus has cultural roots in Western countries, and has been caused by the efficacy of atheistic propagandists plus the irrationality, dogmatism and anti-intellectualism of many Christian pastors, churchmen and ideologues.

You can easily discover this animus asking the critic if God's existence and Jesus' resurrection were proved to be true (the two basic or core beliefs of Christianity), it would provide evidence for Christianity. You'll discover that some of them will say NO, and resist whatever evidence supports Christianity.

I call this the "ultimate defense against Christianity", because virtually nothing (not even the putative evidence in favour of this religion's two basic beliefs) would count in its favor.

Happy new year 2012 to all my readers!

Sivarama Swami vs Dr Stephen Law debate on the topic Does God Exist?

Most debates in universities about God's existence face atheist scholars against Christian scholars. The above debate is an interesting exception.

According to wikipedia, Sivarama Swami is "a Vaishnava guru and a religious leader for the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)", hence he's not a Christian philosopher or theologian. You can visit Sivarama Swami's website here.

Sivarama Swami is faced against atheist philosopher Stephen Law (who recently debated, and in my opinion was defeated, by William Lane Craig).

Contrary to popular opinions, Christian theology has been mainly rationalistic and argumentative regarding its core doctrines. Christian scholars present a straighforward rational case both for God's existence and Jesus' Resurrection based on scientific, historical and philosophical evidence and argumentation.

In contrast with that Christian approach, we find a lot of Eastern and Asian philosophical systems which are irrationalistic (or rather, a-rationalistic) in the sense that for them "reason" is part of the illusion of existence, or is the wrong tool to spiritual liberation and evolution. Reason cannot grasp correctly the mysteries of life, which stands beyond logic, rationality or science. Mystical experiences, subjective insights into our own minds, meditation, etc. provide (for these thinkers) the actual path to discover the "truth".

I remember reading the book of a Zen master who argued that the Christian attempt to prove God's existence through reason is impossible, because God (if exists) is far beyond of our capabilities of understanding (a similar approach is seen in some leading members of the Jesus Seminar, for example in Marcus Borg, who based on his own personal mystical experiences, appeals to metaphors, meaning and words each time he's confronted with rational arguments for God's or historical arguments for Jesus' Resurrection. Hear Borg's poor performance and evasive and misleading arguments in his debate with William Lane Craig here).

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why some Eastern and Asian thinkers/philosophers/spiritual masters tend to avoid public debates with Western thinkers. They're not interested in winning arguments or convincing people through the use of logic and reason.

For the record: all Christians concede that God is beyond our capabilities of understanding in the sense that we cannot grap fully what God's infinite power is through our finite and fallible minds. Always will exist a gap between our knowledge and God' infinite knowledge, power and perfect nature. But it doesn't mean that some properties of God cannot be known and understood. So, the Zen master's conclusion (in the book that I read) is actually a non-sequitur.

I mention all of this because the above video is one of the few cases in which you'll watch a non-Christian religious thinker debating with an atheist philosopher.

Enjoy.

Lawrence Krauss Does a Striptease for William Lane Craig

Have fun.

December and Christmas: Time to reflect, share, love, enjoy and think

For me, December in general and Christmas in particular are times to to do many positive things. Among them:

-To reflect about life' important questions like the meaning of life, the existence/non-existence of God, the existence/non-existence of an afterlife and so forth.

-To share useful things with people, specially the ones who are less afortunate than you. You can share food, toys for children, objects that you don't use anymore, etc. with poor people who need them. For them, these objects can be very valuable and useful.

-Enjoy the positive things of your life, like the lucky of having people who loves you and whom you love too, and having them alive to share with them these happy moments. Remember that, at least in this life, you don't have these people around forever.

-I like to eat good and very sophisticated food (sorry, it is one of my weakness), enjoy good movies, read good books which contribute to my intellectual, emotional and spiritual evolution.

-Giving thanks to all the people (including God, in you believe in Him) for all the good things of your life.

Merry Christmas!

History Channel Documentary - The Real Face of Jesus from the Turin Shroud

The Huffington Post: Shroud Of Turin, Jesus' Proposed Burial Cloth, Is Authentic, Italian Study Suggests

See more here.

Agnostic New Testament scholar and historian Bart Ehrman humilliates The Infidel Guy about the existence of Jesus

No competent New Testament scholar or scientific historian denies the historical existence of Jesus. However, some people like the atheist ideologues and propagandists Richard Carrier and Jesus Seminar "scholar" Robert M. Price have defended or believed the view that Jesus didn't exist (the so-called Jesus Myth Hypothesis).

For example, in this article in infidel.org, Richard Carrier wrote "Jesus might have existed after all. But until a better historicist theory is advanced, I have to conclude it is at least somewhat more probable that Jesus didn't exist than that he did. I say this even despite myself, as I have long been an opponent of ahistoricity."

Carrier is academically trained as an historian; and that an historian like him consider that Jesus' non-existence is more probable than his existence, is actually solid evidence of Carrier's professional incompetence in his own field of academic training. As agnostic historian and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman comments in the above audio, no serious scholar or historian believes in the non-existence of Jesus; the historical evidence for Jesus's existence is stronger than the evidence for many of the ancient historical people who everybody agree have existed. As consequence of this evidence, this Jesus Myth view is overwhelmingly rejected by New Testament scholars and historians (atheist, agnostic, jewish, liberal, conservative Christians, etc.) alike.

As consequence, implied by Ehrman's own argument, people like Carrier or Price are not and cannot be serious nor competent scholars. They're propagandists for atheism, and their propaganda includes the suppression or intentional distortion of the historical evidence for Jesus' existence in order to support their emotional and ideological hostility towards Christianity.

In the above audio, you can hear The Infidel Guy (who's not a trained historian, but untrained atheist believer) being humilliated and refuted by Bart Ehrman about the existence of Jesus and the falsehood of the Jesus Myth Hypothesis.

You have to understand that many radical, hard-core atheists are irrational, in the sense that their cognitive faculties don't work properly in order to discover the truth or evaluate the evidence. Wishful thinking is one of their main traits. Another one is their overall stupidity. The above audio is a fine example of this.

They are not reliable as sources of information, because their intellectual faculties are seriously distortioned and damaged by atheistic prejudices, dogmas, spiritual/emotional impairments and ideological commitments.

Faces of Belmez: The greatest paranormal phenomenon in the history of parapsychology?

A friend from Spain informs me that the so-called Belmez's faces (apparently, from a paranormal origin) have been around for 40 years, and there is not a clear explanation of the phenomenon. For some, they're a fraud. But other researchers think that at least some of them are real.

Some of these parapsychologists consider that this phenomenon is the greatest paranormal phenomenon of the history of parapsychology.

Peter Millican, and how atheists misrepresent Alexander Vilenkin

Prof.Peter Millican

In England, William Lane Craig debated with prestigious Oxford scholar and atheist philosopher Peter Millican.

I've read some of professor Millican's material, and I consider him a serious and intellectually brilliant philosopher (Millican is a Hume scholar, and I've learnt interesting interpretations about Hume reading Millican's comments). However, in his debate with Craig, Millican committed an astonishing and typical atheist mistake: he misrepresented Alexander Vilenkin's words in order to refute Craig's contention that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem proves an absolute and ultimate beginning of the universe.

Being a experienced debater and fully knowing that atheists misrepresent Vilenkin's words (I don't think Millican's misrepresentation was intentional), Craig easily refuted Millican's contention reading Vilenkin's full words in full context:

Clearly, Millican was mislead by some atheist about what Vilenkin's actual view is.

It's astonishing that even serious, brilliant philosophers like Millican may commit that kind of mistake in public. Sadly, it shows that professor Millican was more interested to refute Craig's contention than in objectively evaluating if Craig's argument is correct or not.

Again, atheists are forced to employ of misrepresentations and straw men in order to give plausibility and support their atheist case.

This is another reason why they're beaten in public debates.

Voting Results on debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Williams vs Andrew Copson and Arif Ahmed

In the facebook page of the Cambridge Union Society, you can read "On the Motion - "This House Believes God is Not a Delusion": Ayes 243, Abstentions 129, Noes 229: The motion passes by 14 votes." in favor of Craig/Williams vs atheists Copson and Ahmed.

It's interesting and even astonishing that in a so prestigious scholarly debating society like the Cambridge Union (not precisely a friend of Christianity), Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and Peter Williams have beaten atheists Andrew Copson and Arif Ahmed.

According to my information, that debate was a little bit weird, in the sense (in contrast with most scholarly debates) that it was allowed to the public to interrupt the speaker's speech and raised objections and comments in any moment. Obviously, this doesn't help to clarify the speakers' points, and tends to create confusion.

This is not an ideal condition for a rigurous debate. In any case, even in these less than perfect conditions, the atheist speakers lost in their own "home".

This is further evidence of the extreme intellectual weakness of the atheist case.

The great debate: Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox

[DEBATE] Deus, Um Delírio: O Debate - Richard Dawkins & John Lennox from Deus em Debate on Vimeo.

In my opinion, Lennox clearly destroyed Dawkins in this debate pretty easily. In fact, some people suspect that Dawkins' coward refusal to debate William Lane Craig was caused, in part, by the beating that Lennox provided to him. Dawkins realized that, if Lennox destroyed him in public, Craig (who's a more experienced debater) would sweept the floor with him.

Currently, Dawkins has received a new debating challenge from Patrick Coffin, to debate with Christian philosopher Edward Feser (the author of Aquinas and the The Last: Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism). This challenge will prove again Dawkins' cowardice, because he WON'T accept.

And if he accepts, then we will enjoy a new intellectual beating of Dawkins.

The Rage Against God: Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens, explains his conversion from atheism to theism

Journalist and writer Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopther Hitchens, was (like Christopher) an atheist. However, his life experiences, intellectual reflections and other reasons motivated his conversion to Christian theism.

In his very interesting book, The Rage Against God, Peter explains the reasons of his conversion and provides interesting insights about contemporary atheism.

Please read this article by Peter regarding his book.

The new atheist Christopher Hitchens dies of cancer at 62

Christopher Hitchens, one of the so-called "New Atheists", lost his battle against cancer. He died at 62.

Hitchens said, even after his disease, that he didn't believe in the afterlife. But if the afterlife exists (as I think it does), then I think that by now he could have changed his opinion.

Hitchens was a seasoned polemicist and a harsh critic of religions. But in my opinion, he wasn't a sophisticated thinker. Just watch his performance in his debate with William Lane Craig in 2009 (in which Hitchens was badly beaten):

Debate - Does God Exist - Christopher Hitchens Vs William Lane Craig from Iglesia Bautista Nueva Esperanza on Vimeo.

Anyway, let's hope he will be in a better place now. QEP.

New videos of people telling their Near Death Experiences

A tribute to Masakatsu Funaki: The world's greatest real Catch Wrestler and Submission Fighter

Despite of the fact that my blog doesn't deal with sports, I think that as a practitioner and long time fan of mixed martial arts, I must share some words about a man who has been a great inspiration to me. This man is Masakatsu Funaki, a seasoned martial artist and real (not fake) Catch Wrestler.

In United States, "Catch Wrestling" is commonly conflated with "pro-Wrestling" (the fake wrestling shows which features people like Hulk Hogan, the Undertaker and so forth). In Japan, "pro-wrestling" has been considered not so much as a fake, because people there tends to think that japanese pro-wrestlers are real fighters.

The truth is this: Many japanese pro-wrestlers are real trained figthers, but the pro-wrestling shows are mostly fake (like in U.S.). Funaki even participated a lot in these "fake" wrestling shows, and currently he's a "pro-wrestler". However, he is an actual, real figther. (Note the contrast with pro wrestlers in the United States: Almost all of them are not actual figthers, only showmen).

In order to create an actual, real wrestling event, in 1993 Masakatsu Funaki created (together with some other fighters) the organization of Pancrase, the first organization promoting mixed martial arts. The fights of Pancrase weren't "pro-wrestling shows" with fake fights and predetermined winners, but actual fights with few rules (e.g. don't strike with closed fists in the face, just with open hands) among martial artists from different styles.

In the above video, you can watch some of Funaki's real fights in Pancrase. He was a kind of a king of hand to hand fighting, a master of submission holds. With six different black belts (or their equivalent) in several arts, Funaki was a fighting machine.

I remember watching in situ some of Funaki's greastest fights and even talking with some of the wrestlers of Pancrase. I even trained, in seminars in Japan and United States, with some of them. They were absolutely amazing.

One of the fights that I never will forget is Funaki's fight with the great jiu-jitsu master Rickson Gracie. It was in the year 2000. I was present in that stadium to watch the fight and the bets were largely favourable to Funaki. I thought Funaki would beat Rickson, but I wasn't sure (Rickson was the best jiu-jitsu expert in the world). This fight was watched by 40000 persons there and 70000 through cable around the world!:



If you watch the fight carefully, you'll notice that it was on a par during most of the fight. Only at the end, Rickson's worldclass expertise in ground fighting gave him an edge. I never thought this fight would end like this, because Funaki is one of the greatest ground fighters and submission experts.

Funaki said before that fight that he would knock Rickson out in 3 minutes, and I thought it was possible because Funaki's strikes and kicks are extremely powerful. Rickson, smartly, avoid Funaki's punches and closed the distance creating a grappling situation. But even in that situation, Funaki could beat Rickson, I thought, since Funaki's grappling skills are of the best that I've ever seen.

I'll never forget that fight.

Some fans of mixed martial arts will dispute my claim that Funaki is the greastest living Catch Wrestler. They will say that Sakuraba was better and mention as evidence the fight between Sakuraba and Funaki in 2007 (which Sakuraba won):



Perhaps they're right, perhaps not. (The above fight was in 2007 and Funaki was past his prime. In any case, I happily concede that Sakuraba is one of the best figthers in the world).

But I think they at least will agree that he was one of the 3 top Japanese catch wrestlers and submission figthers of all the time. And certainly, he's one of the finest martial artists of the world.

Discovery Channel Documentary: The Shroud of Turin - New Evidence

Patrick Coffin's open invitation and the cowardice of Richard Dawkins: Is Dawkins afraid of Edward Feser too?

All the world already knows that Richard Dawkins is an intellectual coward. He used not less than 12 excuses for not debating William lane Craig:

Now, Patrick Coffin, the host of the Catholic Answers Live radio program, has published an open invitation to Richard Dawkins to debate Christian philosopher Edward Feser (the author of the book The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).

An Open Invitation to Richard Dawkins

Dear Dr. Dawkins: Last week, on November 28, 2011, we devoted an hour on Catholic Answers Live to “Deconstructing Atheism,” with philosopher Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition and other philosophical works. I invited you, albeit last minute, to call the show and you replied that it was too late in the UK but that you would deputize an American representative from your foundation, Sean Faircloth, who did call in the show. Dr. Feser and I tried to steer Mr. Faircloth back to the central question of whether God exists, and extract from him an answer as to why you refuse to debate William Lane Craig, the Christian philosopher and apologist. Mr. Faircloth had no answer, although he did exhibit above average question-dodging. What a disappointment. After the show aired, you emailed me to complain that Feser and I misrepresented the truth, that you indeed did debate William Lane Craig on national Mexican television in 2010, and that you hoped I would make an on-air correction to set the record straight.

Firstly, to put it charitably, it is a stretch indeed to call the Cuidad de Las Ideas event in Mexico a “debate with William Lane Craig” since there were six panelists, including you and Craig, on the question of whether the universe has a purpose. I watched the whole thing on YouTube, and there was no direct Q&A interaction between you and Bill Craig (who, by the way, blogged at the time that you told him to his face that you did not consider it a debate with him).

Second, I read with interest your essay in The Guardian titled, “Why I Refuse to Debate William Lane Craig.” I am no logician, Dr. Dawkins, but I do know that these propositions cannot both be true. I also note your willingness to confront lightweights like Rev. Ted Haggard, actor Kirk Cameron, or non-philosophers who happen to be English archbishops. I hereby invite you to set the record straight and debate Dr. Edward Feser on whether or not God exists. I know your dismissive line about the CV, and perhaps you’ll play that card here. But I hope not. Edward Feser is also not a professional debater (neither is Craig, but that’s another matter) but a philosophy professor. He’s not asking for a debate. I pitched the idea, and he accepted. As you know, even fellow atheists such as Oxford’s own David Came are recognizing a pattern of ducking substantial one-on-one debates when he sees one. We all see it. One atheist commenter on your website called on his fellow atheists to “inundate” our phone system as a protest against Catholic Answers Live. This is intellectual discourse? I posted an invitation there for any atheist to call and voice his or her arguments. None have taken me up on my offer. This is known as chicken hawk behavior, or: courage in speech, cowardice in deed. The Dawkins-Feser debate would be taped and released thereafter.

Either way, you would be free to upload the debate on your website both as proof of your victory and as the occasion to make your critics fall silent. Finally, because you live in the UK, we would be happy to accommodate you with a reasonable time of day. We would go with our preference. I believe the world is ready for an updated version of the famous 1948 BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and Fred Copleston, SJ. Please let me know. This is a sincere invitation.

Patrick Coffin
Host Catholic Answers Live radio program
www.catholic.com/radio

Having read most of Edward Feser's books, I know he's an intellectually honest, serious, erudite and rigurous thinker; in contrast with Dawkins, who's at most an intellectual lightweight and an inconsistent thinker. (Dawkins' main virtue is that his books are very readable, this is true. But people familiar with intellectually sophisticated thinkers would instantaneously recognize that Dawkins is not a great thinker. He's more like a sophist. See this post as evidence for this conclusion).

As consequence, I'm pretty sure that Feser would destroy Dawkins very easily in a debate about God's existence.

I predict that this debate won't happen, because Dawkins (if he knows who Feser is) won't accept the challenge. Dawkins will chicken away again.

But if (and this is a big IF) that debate happens, for sure Dawkins will be intellectually humilliated.

Gerd Lüdemann vs William Lane Craig second debate on Jesus' Resurrection

The Possibility of Resurrection from Veritas [1] on Vimeo.

Brent Leung publishes a new AIDS Documentary entitled The Emperor's New Virus?: An Analysis of the Evidence for the Existence of HIV

The Emperor's New Virus?: An Analysis of the Evidence for the Existence of HIV from houseofnumbers on Vimeo.

In this documentary, Leung interviews the leading AIDS experts like Robert Gallo, Barre-Sinousi, David Baltimore or Luc Montagnier; and the leading AIDS critics or skeptics (more precisely, they're critics of the theory which connects HIV with AIDS, not of AIDS itself) like The Perth Group, etc.

Dr.Roger Leir and the Scientific Study of putative Alien Implants

Dr. Roger K. Leir presents physical evidence of implants by putative alien beings

A brief review of A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism by Peter S. Williams

Peter S. Williams is a Christian philosopher who is very familiar with the contemporary atheistic literature, specially with the so-called "New Atheism" kind of literature.

His book A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism (which can be bought in Amazon.co.uk, not Amazon.com) is a decisive confutation of the new atheism. Nuanced, balanced, erudite and charitable, Williams explores each of the best new atheistic arguments for atheism and against theism, and shows them seriously flawed (fallacious, resting on unjustified or even false assumptions, inconsistent, etc.).

A major virtue of Williams' book is that his arguments don't assume the truth of Christian theism. Even though Williams is a Christian, the premises of most of his arguments against atheism can be, and in fact are, largely accepted by agnostics and even atheists themselves. This gives Williams a crucial dialectical adventage: his critics will have to reject premises which, for most part, they accept themselves when arguing for other topics. They will tend to be caught in the uncomfortable position of having to reject arguments that, in the critics' own standards, are based on very plausible premises (which would expose the critic's wishful thinking and intellectual dishonesty).

Another interesting aspect of Williams' book is his explanation of what "faith" actually means in Christian theism, and how the new atheists constantly misrespresent the concept, and how they themselves concede that some of their positions are based on faith.

For example, Williams quotes Dawkins saying that faith is "blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence" (p.63). However, Dawkins himself has conceded that some aspects of his hard-core belief in the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is based on faith: "There cannot have been intermediate states that were not beneficial... If you can't think in one, then it's your problem, not natural selection's problem. Natural seleccion- well, I suppose that it is a matter of faith in my part" (p.64)

Why exactly is Dawkins' faith superior or better than the faith of religious believers that he condemns and castigates? Epistemologically, if "faith" is defined in terms' of Dawkins' own definition, his act of faith regarding natural selection is so irrational as the faith of religious believers.

Evolution by natural selection, on Dawkins' own concession, is not just a scientific hypothesis supported by evidence, but something that has to be true as a matter of faith on his part. (This kind of fanatical irrationalism can explain Dawkins' dogmatic, bigoted and intolerant censorship of the publication of agnostic journalist Richard Milton's critical article about Darwinism).

Perhaps Dawkins would defend his faith saying that, at least it is not so bad or evil as the faith of religious fundamentalists.

The problem with this response is that, epistemologically, Dawkins' faith is so irrational like the ones of religious fundamentalists (even if it is conceded that his faith is morally superior than the ones of religious fundamentalists). Moreover, in Dawkins' own worldview, the "evil and the good" are not objective properties of the world; therefore, there is not objective way to say that Dawkins' faith is morally superior or inferior than other faiths. It's just faith (as defined by Dawkins), and hence irrational. PERIOD.

Conclusive evidence of the moral poverty of Dawkins's atheistic worldview is seen in these videos:

Therefore, Dawkins cannot consistently appeal to ethics in a attempt to justify morally his irrationality.

In any case, the new atheists' rhetoric about "faith" is irrelevant to William's Christian theism, since he shows that in Christianity, "faith" is not a blind belief unsupported by evidence or contrary to it, but a commitment to what we have reason to believe that it is true (e.g. a commitment to believe that Jesus' teachings about God's Kingdom are true based on the historical evidence for his resurrection). As consequence, in Christian theism, "faith" is not something opposed to reason, but something which is a consequence of it.

According to Williams, a lot of Biblical passages support this view, for example:

-Samuel said "I am going to confront you with evidence before the Lord" (1 Samuel 12:7)

-Jesus said "At least believe in the evidence of miracles" (John 14:11)

-God to humans "Let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18)

-Paul to Christians "stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults" (1 Corinthians 14:20)

-Christians are encouraged to "always be prepared to give an asnwer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15)

And many other passages.

I submit that most people (Christian and non-Christian alike), specially many non-Christian theists that I've known (some spiritualists, some mystics, etc.), have been largely mislead by the rhetoric of atheists regarding the proper meaning of "faith" in Christian theology. I include myself in the group of people who was at one time fooled by such propaganda (see the first part of my autobiographical post).

The works of serious Christian philosophers (like Edward Feser, Alvin Plantinga, etc.), including some of Williams' articles and also his book, have convinced me that "faith", properly understood in its Christian sense, is not an irrational or blind belief, but a belief based on the deliverances of reason (if such deliverances are false or flawed in a particular case is another discussion... right now we're not examining the truth of Christian theism, but the epistemological status of "faith" properly understood).

Serious atheists, like first-rate philosopher Brand Blanshard, have argued that Christian theology has been mainly rationalistic (in the sense of offering reason and evidence, from history and natural theology, to support the truth of the Christian faith). This point is intentionally suppressed or misrepresented by the new atheists and other atheistic charlatans.

Hence, providing a much needed clarification and evidence for what "faith" actually means in Christian theism is another great contribution of Williams' book.

In summary, Williams, rigurously and systematically, provide conclusive evidence (like the ones mentioned above) to show that:

-The new atheists contradict themselves in fundamental points.

-They crudely misrepresent the best arguments for God's existence (a point noted by every serious philosopher, even atheistic ones, who have read the new atheistic books), and their objections are largely irrelevant to the theistic arguments when properly formulated.

-They misrepresent the concept of "faith" (as understood in Christian theology) but themselves fail prey to leaps of faith (as misdefined by atheists), as evidenced by Dawkins' quotation above.

-Their worldview (given their purely mechanistic assumptions) cannot ground properly the existence of an objective normativity (including moral normativity). A point which tends to be conceded by many leading atheists (see evidence here).

A criticism that I'd mention against Williams' book is that he doesn't deal with more sophisticated atheists like Quentin Smith, who knows better than the "new atheist" cranks and are harder to refute.

In any case, since most people are familiar with the new atheists and want to know responses to them specifically, I think Williams' omission is largely justified.

Also, I think Williams could add an appendix in which the main philosophical and scientific arguments for God's existence (e.g. the kalam argument, design arguments, the moral argument, the argument from consciousness, the quantum mechanics arguments, etc.) be discussed in the context of the most common objections against them. Even though Williams discusses some of these arguments, it is done more in the context of the new atheists' crude critiques and misrepresentations of them; but other (more plausible and serious) criticisms are available in the technical literature and perhaps dealing with them in an appendix would be helpful.

Also, as an argument against atheism (in its materialistic, metaphysical naturalist version which is the most plausible one), Williams could use the evidence from near-death experiences, which strongly suggest that mind-body dualism is true (the best up-to-date scholarly evidence, and philosophical discussion, of NDEs is available in philosopher Chris Carter's recent book Science and the Near Death Experience). An appendix discussing this matter would prove to be very useful and informative for his readers.

Williams' book is, without a doubt, one of the best up-to-date critical resources about contemporary new atheism.

I strongly recommend this book for all the seekers for the truth, regardless of their theological (or anti-theological) persuasions.

Eben Alexander III and the near-death experience of a neurosurgeon

See this full interview with Dr. Eben Alexander III here.

Visit Dr.Alexander's website.

Agnostic philosopher of religion Anthony Kenny comments about the book The Last Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism

Sir Anthony Kenny, a prominent philosopher of religion (known for his criticisms of Thomas Aquinas' arguments for God's existence) wrote the following comment about philosopher Edward Feser's book The Last Superstition: A refutation of the New Atheism:

[Feser] has the rare and enviable gift of making philosophical argument compulsively readable... The publisher's blurb tells us that this book has been widely hailed as the strongest argument ever made against the New Atheists. Having read and reviewed quite a number of other similar books, I concur with this judgment

Having read Feser's book, I agree with Kenny's opinion. I'd add that, in order to understand Aquinas' thinking in detail, you should get Feser's book titled Aquinas. It was published after The Last Superstition, and it is even more detailed and scholarly than the TLS.

One aspect that I liked a lot of The Last Superstition is that Feser castigates, sometimes with harsh words, the ignorance, incompetence, irrationality and overall stupidity of the "new atheists".

I'm convinced that people like the "new atheists" are charlatans and they deserve to receive intellectual punishment like the ones that Feser provides in his book.

Interview with researcher of psychic phenomena Guy Lyon Playfair

This is an interview with writer and researcher of psychic phenomena Guy Lyon Playfair. I thank Guy for accepting this interview. Enjoy.

1-Guy, tell us something about your background.

I was born in India, brought up in England, and emigrated to Brazil after a couple of years working for a property developer, which I felt was not where I really wanted to be. I spent fourteen years there mostly working as a freelance journalist, with a four-year period in the press section of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was a great learning experience.

2-Why did you get interested in parapsychology and psychic phenomena?

My mother was a member of the Society for Psychical Research, so I grew up reading the SPR Journal along with my comics and jazz magazines, and was aware of the subject since I was about ten or so and accepted it as part of life.

3-Have you had any personal, first-hand experience with some actual paranormal or afterlife phenomenon?

Yes indeed, several. I've described most of them in my various books. My Brazilian experiences are in my first book The Flying Cow, which has just been updated and reissued, as has This House is Haunted, which is all about the Enfield poltergeist case of 1977-78. And all kinds of odd things happened when I was working with Uri Geller as I described in The Geller Effect.

4-What is your opinion of Allan Kardec and the movement based upon his teachings?

Very favourable. I was very lucky to meet Hernani Guimarães Andrade, the pioneer of psychical research in Brazil, who let me work with the institute he founded. He was a Spiritist as well as a trained scientist, and a first rate field researcher who did a great job recording the cases that he investigated, notably of poltergeists and cases of the reincarnation type. He taught me everything I know about psi research and I am eternally grateful to him for that. I'm not a card-carrying Spiritist but a very sympathetic observer greatly impressed by the charitable work Brazilian Spiritists do.

5-You have written an excellent book about Chico Xavier, who was the most famous and respected medium in Brazil. However, some Brazilian psi researchers like Vitor Moura Visoni have recently argued that Xavier was a fraud on the grounds that 1)Xavier never accepted scientific controls; 2)His guide never actually existed (according to the findings of Brazilian researcher José Carlos Ferreira Fernandes); 3)There is much evidence of cold reading; and more importantly 4)Xavier's books have passages copied of others famous books. What do you think of these criticisms?

Not very much. It is generally known that 'spirit guides' are not identifiable real people, and anybody who knows anything about mediumship will know that a trance medium has no conscious control over what comes through. As for Chico being a 'fraud', all I can say is that since he donated 100% of his royalties for something like 450 books to charitable causes, we need a few more 'frauds' like him.

6-According to your research, and leaving aside cases of tricks, is there good evidence to think that "psychic surgery" is an actual paranormal phenomenon?

Undeniably, by definition. 'Paranormal' merely means inexplicable in terms of presently understood science, and there is abundant evidence that 'psychic surgeons' have been seen to do things that await explanation. I collected a good deal of evidence from witnesses and had a couple of operations myself, so have no doubts that we have a genuine mystery here. There are many frauds, especially in the Philippines, but their tricks are quite easy to spot.

7-What do you think of psychic surgeon Zé Arigó? Was he a real psychic surgeon?

Well, the president of Brazil (Kubitschek) evidently thought so, since he pardoned him after he had been jailed for illegal practice of medicine. So did Andrija Puharich, a qualified doctor who spent a lot of time with him as you can read in John G. Fuller's excellent book Arigo: Surgeon of the Rusty Knife. I include some interesting eye-witness testimony from doctors who had seen him in action in The Flying Cow.

8-Uri Geller is a controversial figure among psychics. Skeptics consider him as the paradigm of "psychic fraud" and among psi researchers the opinion seems to be divided. According to your research, is Geller an actual psychic? Does he posses actual paranormal skills?

I've been in touch with Uri since 1973 and first met him when he came to live in England in 1985. We are still in regular touch and I consider him a good friend. I think I know him better than any of his detractors do, and think he has been much misunderstood. A lot of the opposition to him is just based on jealousy. As for his skills, I'm still waiting for a normal explanation of how he managed to bend a chrome vanadium spanner (which I still have) as I described in Fortean Times (issue 250, 2009). His critics have gone all quiet about that.

9-It has been said that Geller had contact with alien beings. What is your opinion about this aspect of Geller's life?

I have questioned him about this and his reply is that it all happened (if it did) while he was hypnotised by Puharich and he doesn't have any conscious memories of this stuff.

10-What is your opinion about William Crookes' research with Florence Cook? Do you think the evidence supports the hypothesis that Cook was a fraud?

I don't really have anything to add to the volumes that have already been written about this. She was certainly caught faking, like Otilia Diogo in Brazil, but that is no proof that she was always a faker.

11-In alternative medicine exists the so-called "energetic medicines", or therapies which use "paranormal energies" (chi, prana, ki, etc) in order to produce healings. Have you researched these kinds of alternative therapies. Do they use actual paranormal energies which work independently of the placebo effect or suggestion?

This is not something I am qualified to comment on. I regularly use alternative therapies, especially herbal, and have found them often better than chemicals. I am especially interested in hypnosis, which I think should be used far more often that it is these days. In my book If This Be Magic (also recently reissued) I give many examples of what it can do when used properly.

I also had experience of non-medical healing when I had a slipped disc which made me unable to write with my right hand. I tried numerous therapies without success, and a single session with Matthew Manning produced an immediate cure. An orthopedic surgeon who was a friend of mine told me it would take two years for the ulnar nerve to recover, and after examining me before and after my session with Matthew said he had no medical explanation.

12-In Brazil and other countries, one hears stories of voodoo, black magic and similar methods of provoking spiritual or physical damage in others at a distance through paranormal means. Do you think something paranormal is operating in these cases? Is there some evidence supporting the paranormal effectiveness of these methods of "damaging at a distance"?

I've written about this in The Flying Cow. We found evidence for black magic practices on several of the poltergeist cases that Hernani's institute researched. Yet I have never come across any such evidence on any of the British cases I have investigated.

13-Do you think that, overall, the case for survival of consciousness is convincing? According to your studies, do you think the evidence for reincarnation is good?

These are different questions and it's important to distinguish between them. Survival of consciousness I consider proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The word reincarnation implies the permanent return of a whole personality, and I don't think the evidence generally supports that, although there are cases where it does seem possible, when there are birthmarks and behaviour patterns as well as memories. I'm thinking of people like Jenny Cockell, Om Sety and most recently James Leininger in which identifiable people do seem to have returned to earth, but such cases are very rare. On the whole, though, I think that what people call reincarnation is more like temporary transfer of fragments of memory, etc.

There is still much to do in establishing just what 'reincarnates'. Luckily we have a huge database of cases thanks to those who recorded the evidence, from Gabriel Delanne (whose father was a colleague of Kardec) and Albert de Rochas to Ian Stevenson, Erlendur Haraldsson, Antonia Mills and Hernani Guimarães Andrade.

14-Professional skeptics argue that the evidence of neuroscience clearly shows an extremely close dependence of the mind on the brain. So the idea of "survival of consciousness" is, at best, highly implausible; and at worst, physically impossible. What do you think of this common skeptical argument?

It may be implausible, but the evidence suggests it does happen. We should always base our beliefs on evidence, not what we are told we ought to believe, especially by sceptics who haven't done their homework or scientists who think they have all the answers. It was considered implausible once for meteorites to fall from the sky or for continents to drift, but now both are accepted as quite normal. In 1894 Albert Michelson, a future Nobel laureate, was saying that 'the more important laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered', and 'the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote'. That was before Planck's quantum and Einstein's relativity theories, and the discovery of x-rays, radiation, sonar and radio among may other things that must have seemed implausible in 1894. Don't forget Arthur C. Clarke's Law: 'When a distinguished but elderly scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong'.

15-Do you agree with the filter/transmission hypothesis defended by writers and researchers like William James, Frederic Myers and Chris Carter to explain the mind-body connection and account for the evidence for survival?

I agree with everything Myers and James wrote, and Carter has done an excellent job in clarifying the present situation - he is also one of the best critics of the professional sceptics.

16-What do you think of the Super-ESP or Super-Psi hypothesis? Do you consider it a viable alternative to the survival hypothesis?

No, at least not until it can either be proved or disproved. Hypotheses are of no use unless they lead to testable theories.

17-Let's talk about the so-called "organized skepticism". You have written about professional skeptics a lot and perhaps our readers would like to know which is your current opinion about professional skeptics and debunkers. Do you think their overall contribution to parapsychology has been constructive and positive?

Certainly not, with rare exceptions, notably the late Marcello Truzzi who was a good friend of mine. I've said all I have to say about the others on www.skepticalinvestigations.org

18-My blog is largely dedicated to refute organized skeptics' misdirections and fallacies, and mainly expose their philosophical foundations. Do you think it is a good strategy against organized skepticism to stress a constant critical examination of them (their books, articles, lectures, "researches", etc?

I think it is usually a waste of time. People who have made up their minds don't want to be confused by facts and evidence.

19-Which is the best strategy for parapsychologists in dealing with professional skeptics? Professional skeptics seem to have so much energy and time available to debunk parapsychology, afterlife research, ufology or spirituality. Which is the main motivation behind organized skepticism that could explain that behaviour?

There are certainly many things that deserve to be debunked, and I'm always ready to do some debunking myself, as in my article 'The return of Katharine Bates' (Journal of the SPR, July 2005) where I found a highly probable normal explanation for what was claimed to be a book of past-life recall. However, there is no justification for claiming, as many do, that anything still unexplained must be imaginary or fraudulent. That's just bad science. I really don't have much time for worrying about the professional sceptics.

20-Do you think that if a guy like D.D. Home would live at the present and were consistently tested by professional debunkers like Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, Chris French or Ray Hyman, he could convince them that actual paranormal powers do exist?

Well, for a start he wouldn't be consistently tested by any of those except maybe Chris French who is a relatively moderate sceptic and a very well-informed one. It's interesting that Peter Lamont, a parapsychologist from Edinburgh who is also a fairly sceptical magician, wrote the best book to date on Home (The First Psychic) in which he could not find any convincing evidence that Home's abilities were other than genuine. He would be the right one to do the testing.

21-What do you think about other "fringe" topics, like UFOs and alien abductions? Do you think the evidence for the alien hypothesis (in order to account for some cases of UFOs and abduction experiences) is reasonably good or at least worthy of serious scholarly consideration?

I don't have any experience in this area, but any human experience deserves consideration. As it happens, I had a lunch date with John Mack for the day after he was tragically killed by a drunk driver in London. I would have asked him the same questions, and I am sure he would have said yes.

22-Do you believe in God? Do you think there is good scientific evidence for a transcendent creator/designer of the universe?

Ah, an easy question at last! I find it hard to imagine how such a vast thing as the universe just happened to come into being by chance. I accept that there are things, as the noted philosopher Donald Rumsfeld once said, 'we know that we don't know' and also things 'that we don't know that we don't know'. So for me the origin of the universe is an 'unknown unknown'.

23-Which is your opinion about Jesus of Nazareth and the historical evidence commonly mentioned for his putative Resurrection (like the empty tomb and his post-mortem appearences)?

I think too much trouble in this world is caused by people's religious opinions, which can't all be right, so I prefer to keep mine to myself.

24-What books on science, parapsychology and the afterlife would you like to recommend to the readers of this interview?

The basic text has to be Human Personality and its Survival of Bodily Death by Frederic Myers (1903). For a highly readable and comprehensive history of psychical research and parapsychology up to 1939, I recommend Natural and Supernatural and Science and Parascience by Brian Inglis.

Two excellent recent surveys are Parapsychology. The Controversial Science by Richard Broughton, who is the current president of the SPR, and The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin. As for the afterlife, my first choice would be Is There an Afterlife? by my late friend David Fontana.

25-Do you want to add something else to end the interview? What are you working on now?

(a) Yes. I think that parapsychology has become really very boring whereas psychical research used to be really exciting when people like Myers, Gurney, Crookes, Lodge, Hyslop, James, W.F.Prince and others were out in the field chasing after the evidence. That's what I have always tried to do, and luckily I'm not the only one. The latest SPR Proceedings (October 2011) contains articles by two experienced researchers, Antonia Mills and Erlendur Haraldsson, who are still prepared to go out and find new evidence for old cases, which both have done very impressively.

(b) Most recently I have been collecting evidence for telepathy between identical twins, which has never been properly studied. Thanks to my colleagues Adrian Parker and Göran Brusewitz in Sweden, it has now begun to be studied at university level. I hope to report developments in the 3rd edition of my book Twin Telepathy, due out in 2012, which will include the very interesting results of some laboratory experiments that I helped set up. So wait for that - the first two editions are already out of date!

For a last word - if you are interested in psychical research, have a look at the SPR web site www.spr.ac.uk - and maybe think about joining us. You'll be very welcome.