Blimix

(Content note: Christianity, not entirely reverent.)

Tracey and I had a nice phone conversation.

We looked at our calendars. Passover comes after Easter. Tracey pointed out the problem: The Last Supper was a Passover seder, after which Jesus was caught and killed. Easter celebrates his resurrection. So he rose before he died? I said that obviously Jesus is yeast. But that mostly doesn't work, because communion wafers (which are Jesus) are unleavened. I had been thinking of an actual loaf of bread as the host, because one appears in a scene from "Lady Jane" (from memory):

"Why do you curtsy?"
"I am bowing to the host. To him who made us all."
"Oh, I see! So, God made you, and the baker — apparently — made God!"

Tracey says there are a few traditions that will use bread instead of crackers. So I figure the Jesus-yeast connection at least has some slight support.

Of course, the real problem with being resurrected before you die is that there are two of you for a while. Make sure not to encounter your past self. If you do, don't risk breaking the timeline by giving anything away: Especially not the circumstances of your death, nor that one of your disciples will betray you. That would be extremely irresponsible.

Tracey mentioned Orthodox church tradition. I asked about Greek vs. Russian Orthodox, and she explained that they have common beliefs, and are named for the languages in which the services are (at least partly) held. So yes, she confirmed my suspicion that there could be a Klingon Orthodox church if enough Klingon speakers with Orthodox beliefs united. The schism (the first one among the still major sects), she told me, occurred because the mainstream church (later to be known as Catholic) largely neglected the Holy Spirit in favor of the other two parts of the Trinity. I surmised that in the divorce, the Orthodox church took custody of the Holy Spirit, while the Father and Son remained with the Catholics. I'm glad for the Holy Spirit: It deserves to be with the church that doesn't show favoritism.

I have a theory. It involves two ideas:

1. Religious people are not as irrational as they give themselves credit for.
2. Going to church is a lot like going to Harry Potter Fan Club* meetings (with a few key differences).

* I wrote this a long time ago. Because J.K.R. is a hateful transphobe, antisemite, racist, and also plagiarist, my modern writing avoids using her books as examples.

Before I explain the theory, I have to ask the question that the theory purports to explain.

( Disclaimer and explanation for religious people. No offense intended. )

( The question, and some inadequate answers. )

( The theory. )

The Reason For God, by Timothy Keller, is a work of Christian apologetics. It claims to present a case for god and for Christianity, using reason and logic to appeal to skeptics. It is an example of a class of books that achieve unwarranted sales by virtue of churchgoers buying many copies each, to hand out to unbelievers so that they might be converted. I was one such recipient.

Essentially, these sales constitute a scam. The reasoning presented by the book is so thoroughly and consistently unsound that it cannot appeal to anyone who does not already hold the views of the author. Those buying the book in hopes of winning converts have spent their money (and time) in vain.

I had begun to dissect the logic of the book when I first received it, but quickly lost interest due to the lack of challenge this presented. More recently, a Christian friend of mine began reading the book, and having problems with it. So we began taking notes, and meeting weekly to discuss each chapter. One problem was that Keller's reasoning process was often obscure: There were several points where it was not easy to discern how Keller had intended one idea to support an earlier or later one. The other problem involved the format of the first half of the book: In each chapter, Keller would introduce an objection either to theism or to Christianity in particular, then spend the rest of the chapter trying to argue against that objection. His arguments were so weak (and sometimes incomprehensible) that the still viable objections were pushing my friend toward atheism. I was able to clarify some of the arguments, but even then, they gained no credibility. Keller's system backfired, and in consequence of reading this book, my friend has become more solidly agnostic.

Over the past few months, I have published my notes on the book in serial form. You can find "The Lack of Reason For God" collected here:

• Introduction
  
• Chapter 1: The divisiveness of Christianity.
  
• Chapter 2: Why does god allow evil?
  
• Chapter 3: Christianity's restrictions on intellectual freedom.
  
• Chapter 4: Injustice in the name of Christianity.
  
• Chapter 5: A loving god sends people to Hell.
  
• Chapter 6: The conflict between science and Christianity.
  
• Chapter 7: Can you take the Bible literally?
  
• Intermission: A switch from arguing against skepticism to arguing for theism and Christianity. Also bad epistemology.
  
• Chapter 8: Evidence for the existence of god.
  
• Chapter 9: Atheists really believe in god.
  
• Chapter 10: Building one's identity without god.
  
• Chapter 11: Salvation through god's grace rather than good works.
  
• Chapter 12: The crucifixion.
  
• Chapter 13: The resurrection.
  
• Chapter 14: The holy trinity.
  
• Epilogue: Conversion.
  
  This post, collecting the entries, would be a suitable place to comment on the project as a whole, on the book, or even on the field of Christian apologetics. However, if you are looking for a religion debate with a stranger, look elsewhere. (This includes you, Timothy Keller. Straw man arguments make baby Jesus cry.) If you're a friend of mine looking for a religion debate, I'm game, and we can surely find a better venue than the comments section.