Kiosk

This note is intended to describe why, from an artistic and anatomical perspective, the shroud image is an embarrassingly obvious fraud committed by a Gothic artist following the standard conventions of his time. The artistic errors are so severe that it is impossible for the shroud to record the image of an actual human body—unless it was a very seriously pathological person with a brain the size of a Homo erectus.

The question is, how does consciousness arise in biological systems? There are at least two theories that account for consciousness. One is the idea that something is added to the body—an élan vital, a soul, or an independent mind (mind/body dualism). The other idea is that complexity (i.e., consciousness) emerges from the interactions of simple parts. Is there a way to choose one of these as being correct? Yes, by hypothesizing an emergent consciousness in a system that is not yet conscious—the computer. If we hypothesize that consciousness will emerge in a computer, given enough component parts, we can determine by rigorous testing if the hypothesis is proved. If the test proves that consciousness emerges in a computer, we will have proved that a soul is not necessary for consciousness—neither in computers nor in humans.

Julian Jaynes was one of the original psychologists, philosophers, and scholars, of the 20th century. While Charles Darwin connected human consciousness with biological unconscious, Sigmund Freud with psychological unconscious, and Karl Marx with social unconscious, Jaynes connected evolution of human consciousness with the breakdown of the bicameral mind, the Half God/Half Human mind. Although his theory did not become as popular as other theories it is nevertheless worthy of serious consideration.

"Last week I dreamt I had died and surprisingly gone to Heaven. St. Peter's computer system had developed a glitch and although our Boarding Passes on the Shuttle that took us there had a very different destination printed on them, we tore them all up as we passed the moon and partied the rest of the way..."

In Theism and Explanation, Gregory Dawes tries to get to the bottom of some very important questions: Could a theistic explanation ever, even in principle, be a good explanation for anything? What would a successful theistic explanation look like? How strong could a theistic explanation be?

Apophatic theology is yet another attempt to explore the meaning of God, in this case, by negation—to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the arcane being that believers call God. At first blush this doesn't seem like too bad an idea, since all previous attempts to explain God by telling us what He is and how He does operate leads most intelligent people to roll their eyes in disbelief at the twisted logic in which the explainers engage.

Komarnitsky critiques the efforts of Christian apologists such as Dr. N. T. Wright, J. P. Holding, and Lee Strobel, to support the historicity of Jesus' alleged resurrection, and then offers his own explanation for the empty tomb and post-Resurrection appearances traditions.

"Are you an atheist?" always makes me feel somewhat awkward, uncertain how to respond. It is not that I mind having people know that I do not believe in God. I have never been a believer, and I am unconcerned about who knows it. My problem with "atheist" is that it is too negative and does not say enough about what I consider to be true.

Christian apologists are quick to tout the notion that human morality must be based upon an objective, unchanging standard. These defenders of the faith speak at great length in an attempt to enumerate the absurdities of a moral code which is relative to time, culture and person. However, if one dissects their arguments they are shown to provide no logical case for objective morality; rather, they merely assert a need for it and show that relativism does not meet that need. Not only do they fail to show a naturally necessary case for objective morality, they fail to understand that their own stated mechanism—in this case the Christian god—necessarily fails to impart humans with an objective moral code upon which they can reliably base decisions.

Hitting hard, Ferrisi--born into a 100% Roman Catholic family--explains the main reasons that he completely rejects Christianity.

"Holding believes Dawkins to be a hypocrite because, while Dawkins labels Young Earth creationism a 'crackpot' idea, Mr. Holding believes Dawkins to have thrown in with the Christ-myth crowd, an equally 'crackpot' idea in Holding's estimation. My article examines this charge, finds it false, and exposes Mr. Holding as the true hypocrite." — Brett Palmer

The philosopher René Descartes famously pondered the question of the possibility of God's deceit. If God was deceitful, we as his creations could never trust anything we contemplate or perceive; it may simply be a deceitful, omnipotent God directly warping our faculties or, as our creator, deliberately constructing us with faulty, unreliable faculties to start with. To dodge this disturbing possibility, Descartes argued that God, a perfect being, could not be deceitful because deceit is a fault, an imperfection. This simple stratagem appeared to satisfy Descartes. But was Descartes on to something more insidious and unthinkable than he was willing to contemplate; was he too hasty in sweeping this concern under the rug?

Did some of the early Christians at Corinth doubt the reality of Jesus' resurrection? Was Paul trying to defend the reality of Jesus' resurrection in his first letter to the Corinthians? Komarnitsky says "yes" on both counts; JP Holding says "no." Those who think the only way to interpret the evidence is that Jesus resurrected from the dead might want to take a closer look at each point of evidence.

"Dr. Jill Taylor's book, My Stroke of Insight is the story of a neuroscientist who experiences a stroke and loses the faculties of the left side of her brain. Her stroke became a mixed blessing as it transformed her into a spiritual person. Her story provides wonderful insights into right-brain functions, the brain that deals with the mysteries of creativity as well as spirituality. I feel optimistic that Jill Taylor's book can develop a bridge between religious, spiritual and secular people so that they can develop insights into those practices and experiences that are traditionally discussed in religious and holy books, and develop a language that can be used to share experiences and insights."

As far as I can tell, Christianity in the UK is moving slowly in small steps towards rationality and away from the excesses of fundamentalism that we harp about. Rationalists should recognize this, helping people to make the small changes they are willing to take rather than making them change all their beliefs at once and thus giving them an impossible hurdle to jump over.

Are evolution and naturalism incompatible? Matthew Waitkus provides a critical analysis and refutation of Alvin Plantinga's claim that evolution and naturalism are incompatible.

"Today we desperately need a new God—a God that is not an insult to our intelligence—a God that is as great as the endless cosmos. We need a just God that does not have chosen galaxies and a preferred life form—a life form that is told to slaughter other life forms. We desperately need a God that commands that we think, instead of believe and worship. We need a God to civilize us, not one that makes us savages." Robert Wright has made that effort."

"This is a review of More Than a Theory by Dr. Hugh Ross. Ross' goal in writing this book is to present a 'testable creation model.' My goal in writing this response is to challenge the arguments he makes and point out potential and/or actual problems with it. Although it would be impossible for me to point out all problems I see in his book, I think it would be pertinent to the evolution/creation debate to point out the most serious problems."

"We must teach our children to recognize their radiating effects on all they touch, and not only acknowledge their mighty power but embrace the responsibility that comes with it to further humanity's development, not for rewards in an afterlife, but to help make it possible for generations to come to experience living."

"The only way that Craig can criticize the account I have given is by arguing that his theory, that Jesus was raised from the dead, is to be preferred because it is simpler than proposing a theory to account for the empty tomb and proposing an independent theory to account for the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. The 'simplicity' of Craig's theory is only skin deep. My account of Craig's 'four facts' involves well-known and well-documented cultural phenomena, whereas his account proposes a God which intervenes in human affairs, for which I have yet to see any convincing evidence."

Easter is the main Christian festival and a central part of the Christian religion, so, feeling inquisitive after spotting a poster at the railway station I checked out a local church web site. They said that God sent his "son" as a sacrifice to forgive us our sins so we could have eternal life. There are some problems with that statement...

To have a better understanding of the psyche of Al-Qaeda we need to understand the ideology, personality and political strategy of the organization's leaders as well as their followers. Their vision of Islam was not limited to a few countries--it was to be implemented across the whole world according to God's wish as expressed in the Quran, and they were determined to make that wish a reality. They dreamed of world domination.

Hemant Mehta, known as the "Friendly Atheist" and the man who "sold his soul on e-Bay," is a well-known defender of the atheist stance who has written at least one best-selling book. Mehta recently persuaded Christian apologist Lee Strobel to answer some questions posed by his atheist friends. Strobel, in turn, asked his Christian theist friends to submit questions for atheists to answer. Seven of Strobel's friends complied. Whittenberger offers his answers to the questions posed by Strobel's Christian theist friends.

Dinesh D'Souza is a bestselling author and conservative Christian activist who has turned his talents to religious apologetics. In What's So Great about Christianity? D'Souza presents himself as the man to defend theism in general and Christianity in particular against the recent upsurge of atheist argumentation from authors such as Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. D'Souza starts off with a healthy skepticism to all irrational claims, those made in the name of science as well as those made in the name of religion. The stage seems set for an exciting intellectual confrontation, with overblown atheists at last feeling the "horse kick of a vigorous traditional Christianity." The most positive thing one can say about this book, however, is that it beautifully illuminates how intelligent people can get trapped in incredible belief systems.

"Answers in Genesis" (AiG) is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry which focuses on providing answers to questions surrounding the biblical book of Genesis, and on exposing the alleged "bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas." "AiG teaches that 'facts' don't speak for themselves, but must be interpreted." But, as Nick Covington demonstrates, AiG gets it wrong.

In his latest book, There is a God, well-known philosopher and former-atheist Antony Flew lays out the four major arguments which convinced him that God exists. In this review, Nick Covington deals both with Flew's arguments and with Flew's criticisms of the "new atheists."

"The main point is not the names of the religionists who edited the first Bibles; nor is it the dates that those events occurred on. My Christian critics attempt to distract you with such trivia in order to evade the real issue here. What does matter is how the church fathers produced what is called 'God's Word.'" - Gary Lenaire

"The article argues that magical thinking, and the element of the supernatural in general, is not so much a product of religion as material used by it in the process of moral education, which entails learning to take symbols metaphorically rather than literally. I am not trying to make any grand statements about whether the totality of religious phenomena is, on balance, good or bad. I'm just pointing to an aspect of SOME religious thinking that should be regarded favorably by proponents of a naturalistic worldview." - Gabe Eisenstein

People often say that atheism is a belief in the same way that theism is a belief and that agnosticism is therefore the only rational position. The purpose of this article is to show that, insofar as we share a naturalistic (scientific) worldview, this agnosticism is unfounded.

"As atheists and humanists we must question the term 'perfection,' and ask it what it is doing for us. Is it damning us? Is it limiting us? Is it some impossibly high standard meant to keep us humble? Or can we say, 'Perfection is honestly doing one's best'"?