Monthly Archives: May 2012

Yet Another Conference …

Posted on by
3

Can Christianity stand to the atheists' super powers?I’m off to the Freethought Alliance Conference in Irvine, CA this weekend, so I’ll be a little slow with blog posts for a few days.

This should be an interesting event, with a Who’s Who of atheist speakers—Michael Shermer, Robert Price, Phil Zuckerman, Aron Ra, Richard Carrier, Brian Dunning, Mr. Deity, Dan Barker, Eddie Tabash, and others. I’d like to put copies of my book into the hands of some of these speakers. I’m sure that most won’t read it, but I want to add to my collection of positive reviews and hope that this increases the chance that someone will open doors for the book.

As an aside, has anyone noticed that there are more atheist/freethought conferences lately? I’m fairly new to this game—the first conference that I attended in this category was The Amazing Meeting 2 in 2004. But this could simply be my being more aware of them. Let me know if you sense that conferences have changed in the last decade, either on the freethought side or the Christian side.

Photo credit: Wikipedia

Debate: Does God Exist?

Posted on by
5

Christian apologetics don't do much to support the notion that God exists“Does God Exist?”  This was the topic at a public debate I attended on Monday.  Here’s a brief summary.  See how you would respond to the points that were raised.

The moderator started with Ian Barbour’s four criteria for assessing hypotheses:

1. Agreement with Data.  We never have proof (outside of mathematics and logic), but we can provisionally accept the hypothesis that fits best with the data.

2. Coherence.  A new hypothesis should be consistent with and support already-accepted theories.  If not, it had better be a pretty compelling hypothesis.  Simpler is better.

3. Scope.  Broader is better.

4. Fertility.  What new things can this hypothesis tell us?  What predictions can it make?  What new questions does it invite?

The two speakers were Lutheran pastor Gary Jensen (also a member of Reasons to Believe, an old-earth Creationist organization) and humanist and lawyer Jim Corbett.

I felt that Corbett won the event.  Call me biased, but his arguments were much more concrete.  Rev. Jensen was comfortable speaking to the crowd of roughly 200 people, but his arguments were shallow.  I’ll do my best to give highlights of each speaker’s points.  For Rev. Jensen, I’ll add occasional comments.

Jensen spent much of his opening statement speaking in what (to my mind) were tangential generalities: quoting famous people, asserting that we must follow the evidence wherever it leads (Socrates?), showing how the Bible encourages a sensible interaction with nature, giving a brief summary of the progress of the modern cosmological view, and so on.  He said that the Bible is the only religious story with a cosmic beginning.  (Huh?)

He got to his first claim with a reference to the fine tuning argument, but he simply pointed to Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees.  Okay, that’s a data point, but it’s hardly an argument.

In talking about cosmology, he threw in the term “Darwinism.”  Ouch—that may due to too much hanging out with the Reasons to Believe guys.

He talked about God as a given and made a mistake that I see frequently—confusing statements about his beliefs (which he made) with an apologetic argument (which he didn’t).

He cited Sir William Ramsay’s argument that Paul’s journeys documented in Acts are accurately described and therefore the gospel story is likely also accurate.  (No: that the names and places Paul documents are the least we’d expect of a book that claims to be historical.  This is no argument that the supernatural claims are accurate.  The Harry Potter books accurately refer to London, but that is no evidence that the supernatural elements are accurate.)

He cited Antony Flew’s There is a God as evidence of a smart person who changed his mind.  (This was a mistake—I’ve read the book.  First, it was ghost-written and second, the arguments that supposedly turned Flew into a deist are scientific arguments.  That a non-scientist is convinced by scientific arguments is uninteresting to me.)

Modern science was hatched in a Christian culture.  (Okay, and it was a carnivorous culture as well.  So what?  I see no cause and effect here.)

Jensen made a vague reference to professors “kicked out” for being Creationists and gave Guillermo Gonzalez as an example.  (I wonder if he’s read the other side of the story.  That there is another side doesn’t make Jensen’s claim wrong, but it is mandatory that he at least be aware of it.)

He says that he encourages free inquiry but that scientists who reject the supernatural are therefore closed-minded.

He referred to information in DNA (that some protozoa have 200 times the DNA that humans do shows that DNA isn’t “designed” as we use the term) and absolute morality (that we see considerable social evolution from biblical morality to today’s morality overturns this notion).

Corbett had some interesting points (any transcription errors are my fault):

  • We have a moral responsibility to treat supernatural claims with skepticism.  Otherwise we open ourselves to every snake oil salesman.
  • Religion is the only impediment to science education in America, and science education is tied to national security.
  • We’ve found clues of python worship in Botswana from 70,000 years ago, our earliest evidence of God of the Gaps thinking—that is, God lives in the gaps where science says, “we don’t know.”  In this pre-scientific world, this was understandable and even laudable.  But in the 21st century, it’s inexcusable.
  • Lawrence Krauss called God of the Gaps thinking “cowardly.”
  • When Christianity was in charge, we called that the Dark Ages.
  • One imam helped stifle the Islamic Golden Age, and we’re seeing the same thing in America.

Corbett concluded with an interesting parallel.  It took about 300 years from Christianity to go from nothing (death of Jesus) to being the official religion of the Roman empire (Council of Nicaea).  If you count Darwin’s Origin of Species as the beginning of modern atheism in the West, we’re halfway through our 300-year transition period.  Polls indicate that religion is declining, new knowledge explains away God, and God of the Gaps thinking is no longer necessary.

I’m not sure if that should be seen as optimistic (we’re making good progress) or pessimistic (we have a long way to go) or even unrealistic (Christianity has weathered storms before and we mustn’t count it out), but it’s an interesting parallel.

Photo credit: YouTube

Related posts:

Related links:

Are Churches More Like Charities or Country Clubs?

Posted on by
21

Christian apologetics and atheismMost churches do good works—soup kitchens, food banks, and so on—so they’re like charities.  But they also provide a social connection like a country club.  Which is the better fit?

Let’s look at the financial statements of organizations that are clearly charities.  The American Red Cross has an annual budget of $3.3 billion.  Of this, 92% goes to program services, with the rest going to “management and general” and “fundraising.”  Or Save the Children—91% of its $450 million budget goes to program services.  Or World Vision—85% of $1 billion.  Or the Rotary Club of Eagle Grove Iowa—100% of $3.3 million.

Organizations that help the disadvantaged are just one kind of nonprofit.  The ACLU (86% of $70 million) defends individual rights and liberties.  Or, for an organization on the other side of the political aisle, take the Alliance Defense Fund (80% of $32 million).

Surely many country clubs host bake sales for good causes, organize projects that help charities, or even donate money, but let’s assume that the good works done to society by country clubs amounts to a few percent of income or less.  We have 80 to 100% of revenue going to good works for regular nonprofits vs. (say) 2% for country clubs—that’s why donations to nonprofits are tax exempt and dues to country clubs are not.

How do churches compare?  The short answer is, we don’t know.  With very few exceptions, the financial statements of churches and religious ministries are not available to the public.

But there are estimates.  For example:

Every year churches collect some $100 billion in donations. But most donors do not know that the average congregation in the U.S. gives only two percent of donated money to humanitarian projects. Some 98% goes to pay staff, upkeep of buildings, the priest’s car, robes, salary and housing.

This came from Roy Sablosky.  But he’s on the board of the American Humanist Association of Greater Sacramento.  Might he be biased?

Christianity Today is another source.  A survey gave this breakdown of the average church budget: 43% for salaries, 20% for facilities (mortgage, etc.), 16% missions, 9% programs, 6% administration and supplies, 3% denominational fees, 3% other.

So where is the money to good works?  Presumably “missions” includes this, but this is a nebulous category.  A dollar spent on the First Baptist Church soup kitchen certainly counts as a charitable expense, but the dollar spent supporting a missionary doesn’t.

That estimate of 2% to humanitarian projects may not be too far off.

These survey numbers are suspect in my mind because less than a quarter of the 1,184 surveys were returned.  Did churches who were embarrassed by their numbers—perhaps the fraction devoted to salaries or facilities was even higher—not bother to respond?  I’d like to have more reliable numbers, but when they’re kept secret, we simply don’t know.

What are churches embarrassed about that they need to make up excuses to avoid showing how they spend their tax-exempt donations?  Again, it’s hard to tell.  But there are estimates:

The January 2011 issue of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that Christian religious leaders will commit an estimated $34 billion in financial fraud in 2011. 

(I presume that’s worldwide, not just in the U.S.)  And that’s just fraud.  The money going to inflated salaries, lavish living, and other embarrassing expenses may be a far larger amount.

There are groups within Christianity that are also working on financial transparency.  For example, MinistryWatch said,

We wish Senator Grassley success in his quest for the truth [in his investigation of six high-profile televangelists].  It is time for these televangelists to come clean; otherwise it could seem that they are running nothing more than money laundering schemes in the name of Christ.

But MinistryWatch has an uphill battle.  They’re told by fellow Christians that it’s not right for anyone to judge, that it’s not Christian to be critical, that examining a ministry shows distrust in God, and that they should focus on God and not the works of man.

But shouldn’t churches be on the forefront of modeling what’s right within society?  When pastors enumerate all that’s bad with American society today, the list should include the financial secrecy of their own organization.

The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward
— Titus 1:7

See the first post in this series: What do Churches Have to Hide?

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related links:

Word of the Day: Genetic and Ad Hominem Fallacies

Posted on by
1

Christian apologetics in the big bookThe Heartland Institute recently put up a series of billboards featuring Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber), Charles Manson (a cult leader), and Fidel Castro (a dictator).  The text read: “I still believe in Global Warming.  Do you?”

These are examples of the genetic fallacy.  We’re asked, “How plausible can the claim of global warming be if these nutjobs accept it?”  A genetic fallacy ignores any actual evidence or argument and looks instead at the origin (think genesis) of the argument.  It’s a fallacy because it offers no relevant argument.

Another example would be, “You’re a vegetarian?  Don’t you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?”

But consider this: “You can’t tell me that those new phosphorescent zucchinis are safe!  Don’t you know that the research that supports that claim was funded exclusively by MegaCorp, the company that patented that vegetable?”

This claim is more compelling.  Though it is genetic, it does more than make a simple origins claim.  Compare that with “Don’t tell me that phosphorescent zucchini are safe!  MegaCorp says they’re safe.”  Stripped of the evidence, it becomes an example of a genetic fallacy.  (Of course, the evidence about MegaCorp could be false, but with it the claim at least avoids the genetic fallacy.)

Now consider these claims: “Christianity was influenced by myths of dying-and-rising saviors; therefore, the resurrection of Jesus must also be a myth.”  Or, “The Noah flood story came from a society influenced by neighboring flood stories like that of Gilgamesh; therefore, the Noah flood story is a myth.”

These are (1) genetic, since they make conclusions based on origins, (2) unsubstantiated, since these claims will need lots of supporting evidence, and (3) fallacies.  I would argue that these aren’t genetic fallacies, however.  They fail in my mind because the unequivocal conclusion (“… must also be a myth”) can’t be built on evidence that simply points in that direction.

The fallacy vanishes when we make a conclusion that could follow from the evidence: “Christianity was influenced by myths of dying-and-rising saviors; therefore, we must consider that the resurrection of Jesus may also be a myth.”  We still have work to do to establish that Christianity was influenced as claimed, but the fallacy is gone.

The genetic fallacy is the term for any argument that points solely to origin as its evidence, but there are many subsets based on the specific origin.

  • Ad hominem: attacking the person rather than the argument.  “Senator Jones wants to raise taxes, but he beats his dog; therefore, raising taxes is a bad idea.”
  • Tu quoque: saying, in effect, “Oh yeah?  Well you do, too!”  This argument tries to respond to a problem by claiming that the other person suffers from it also.
  • Argument from authority fallacy: using an authority as a relevant source when that person is not an authority in the field at hand, rejects the consensus view (if any), or is biased.
  • Credential fallacy: rejecting an authority because that person doesn’t have the right degrees.
  • Ad feminam: rejecting an authority because that person is a woman.

And so on.

Avoid making thoughtless charges of these fallacies.  Not every attack on a person is an ad hominem fallacy.  “Just ignore that fire alarm; that’s nutty Mrs. Smith” may be a fallacy, but “Ignore that fire alarm; that’s Mrs. Smith, and she’s phoned in a false alarm about every week for over three years” isn’t.  (It may not be the safest response for the fire department, but it’s not a logical fallacy.)

And as seen above, not every genetic (origins) argument is a fallacy.

Photo credit: Simon Varwell

Related posts:

Related links:

Pastors Speak Their Mind (and Flout the Rules)

Posted on by
6

Jesus, God, and all thatIt’s another dreaded election year, and the leaders of many religious organizations somehow feel put upon by the IRS because they can’t preach about politics.

But why?  No one forced tax-exempt donations on them—in fact, they took them willingly—so it’s surprising that they’re now chafing at the regulations that come along for the ride.  The solution is easy: if nonprofit status is a deal with the devil, then don’t accept nonprofit status.

The Internal Revenue Service makes clear that churches and pastors may organize non-partisan voter education activities, voter registration, and get-out-the-vote drives (with an emphasis on non-partisan).  Religious leaders speaking for themselves can say whatever they want, and they can speak “about important issues of public policy.”

However, all nonprofit organizations, including religious organizations

are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. … Religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions. …

[Nonprofits] must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention.  Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate.

But many pastors can’t accept this.  I don’t know if they honestly think that it’s unfair or if they figure that they’ve already tipped the playing field so much in their favor that they’ll try their luck for even more, but the Alliance Defense Fund has organized the annual Pulpit Freedom Sunday (October 7 this year).  On this day:

The pastors will exercise their First Amendment right to preach on the subject [of the moral qualifications of candidates seeking public office], despite federal tax regulations that prohibit intervening or participating in a political campaign. …

The point of the Pulpit Initiative is very simple: the IRS should not be the one making the decision by threatening to revoke a church’s tax-exempt status.  We need to get the government out of the pulpit.

Wow—strange thinking.  Tax-exempt status is granted by the government.  It’s a contract, not a right, and it comes with strings attached.  If we the public will be subsidizing an organization, we are entitled to limit its actions.  No one’s strong-arming the church, and they can drop both the nonprofit status and the strings attached any time they want.

To some extent, it’s a zero-sum game.  (For example, when Mormon desires for polygamy clashed with the needs of the state, someone had to lose.)  The head of the IRS addressed this conflict of tax-exempt status and freedom of speech:

Freedom of speech and religious liberty are essential elements of our democracy.  But the Supreme Court has in essence held that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right, stating, “Congress has not violated [an organization’s] First Amendment rights by declining to subsidize its First Amendment activities.”

If the IRS constraints against speaking out on political issues are a problem, then don’t enter into a contract with the IRS.  Drop your nonprofit status, tell church members that they can no longer deduct donations, and then you can give your opinion about any candidate or issue.

But to keep your nonprofit status, you must follow the rules.

See the first post in this series: What do Churches Have to Hide?

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related links:

Church Accountability

Posted on by
2

Does God exist?In November, 2007, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked six high-profile televangelist organizations to provide more information about how they work.  Grassley said: “My goal is to help improve accountability and good governance so tax-exempt groups maintain public confidence in their operations.”

The investigated organizations (I’ll use the names of the public faces) were:

  • Joyce Meyer.  She responded fully to Grassley’s questions, joined the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), and discloses her annual revenue to MinistryWatch (about $110 million per year).
  • Benny Hinn also gave complete answers to Grassley’s questions.  However, MinistryWatch gave him a transparency grade of F.  His ministry’s income is about the same as Meyer’s.
  • Kenneth Copeland: incomplete information.  He claimed (go here and search “Torpedoed!”) that his 40-year-old ministry has taken in a total of about $1.5 billion.  MinistryWatch grade: F.
  • Creflo Dollar: incomplete information.  MinistryWatch grade: F.
  • Eddie Long: incomplete information and not listed in MinistryWatch.
  • Paula White: incomplete information and not listed in MinistryWatch.

Let’s dwell on this a moment.  A U.S. senator asks for information, as the Senate Finance Committee is empowered to do, and he is (more or less) given the finger.  And there is no fallout?  These ministries can tap dance away from this request for information with no meaningful loss of face?  The faithful still shower them with $100 million per year?  What kind of disconnect from reality is this?

This is a contract between U.S. taxpayers and these nonprofit organizations, mediated by the IRS.  We provide the nonprofit status and, in return, they prove that they deserve that status.  If religious organizations policed themselves and they made their finances public (by voluntarily submitting their information to the IRS like all other nonprofits), this wouldn’t be a problem.  But they don’t.  With $100 billion in tax-exempt contributions to the religion industry every year, shielded from inspection, it’s obvious that this exemption is a bad idea.

A memo prepared by Sen. Grassley’s staff highlights some of the foundational principles that are relevant to this discussion.

The Constitution does not require the government to exempt churches from federal income taxation or from filing tax and information returns.

And:

Requiring churches to file an annual information return does not offend either the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment].

Some ministries have complained that an obligatory filing would entangle the government in church business, but the opposite may be more accurate.  Today, the IRS must define what a church is, since the legal code doesn’t.  For example, after a long legal battle, Scientology was granted tax-exempt status as a church.  Putting churches in the same bin as other nonprofits would eliminate this unwelcome role for the IRS.

The Grassley memo admits that there should be no constitutional problem with a level playing field, but it argues that some problems will remain:

  • Eliminating the exemption “would unnecessarily burden the overwhelming majority of churches.”  Why?  The 1.5 million nonprofits with less than $100,000 in annual income can follow the rules.  Surely a church that can keep its books can fill out a four-page 990-EZ form.  The only tough part is taking that deep breath and disclosing to the world how you spend your income.
  • This would burden the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Office, which is stretched as it is.  When a ministry is simply a piggy bank for a few people at the top, no laws are being broken.  Things change if we can force the churches to commit publicly.  Let’s let a little sunshine in and let public scrutiny (and possible condemnation) do its work.  Could a sleazy ministry lie?  Of course, but when it does, it’s now breaking the law.  At that point, there’s a crime that the IRS can go after and assets that can help fund the process.
  • This would be contrary to the intent of Congress.  True, but the desires of Congress can change.  If ordinary Christians, embarrassed by the secrecy of churches, demanded a level playing field for all nonprofits, Congress just might turn around.  Without public demand, there will be no energy for this initiative.

The ECFA is a good step.  Though it’s expensive to join, it provides what amounts to a Good Housekeeping seal of approval to ministries that abide by its code.  But even they don’t demand that salaries be revealed, and members need only provide financial information on written request.  It’s a baby step, when a level playing field is the obvious solution.

The IRS has a form 990 and 1.5 million nonprofit organizations already using it.  It works.  It should be our window into the operation of all nonprofits, including churches.

What are the next steps?  An atheist organization like the Freedom From Religion Foundation could file lawsuits, but a push for this from within the Christian community would be far more effective.  Christians, you have the power.  Aren’t you embarrassed by being lumped in with the worst of the televangelists?  Wouldn’t you like to see some public scrutiny on Scientology and other organizations hiding behind this loophole?

You won’t like me when I’m angry,
because I always back up my rage
with facts and documented sources.
— the Credible Hulk

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Related posts:

Related links: