Rational Thought is not Cherry Picking

This essay was written in response to various debates I had about the bible. Most of which resulted in the accusation that I was cherry picking. I decided I would defend my position, and I believe it needs a good 'ol text wall to accomplish that.

So here I will defend textual interpretation as being different from cherry picking. I believe when one has a logical defense of their interpretation it cannot be cherry picking. I will use an argument for hell not being literal as a basic example. I will follow the format of some sources that affix a number to the end of references that may need elaboration. These correspond to the number beside the elaboration at the end of this essay.

First we should have some definitions to avoid any confusion. I am going with the mainstream definitions as I am unaware of any other definitions. If you are using a different definition, since it is not the primary definition, it is probably wrong. Feel free to defend your definition though.

Cherry Picking is when you reference some individual data to confirm a particular position while ignoring significant portions of other relevant data that may contradict that position. Confirmation bias being a common example.

Textual Interpretation is a rational explanation of historical texts, especially in this case biblical texts. I personally avoid revealed interpretations instead going for rational explanations. I believe this is a better method and is more logical.

Rational interpretations are based on the idea that the authors have their own inspiration (in this sense, synonymous with "artistic inspiration"), so their works are completely and utterly a product of the social environment and human intelligence of their authors. I am a Christian and believe that most of the authors in the bible experienced God in some way and proceeded to make a written account of such. This is not to say that I believe everything in the bible is a fact.

That out of the way I will now summarize my argument on the absence of a literal hell.

I do not believe in hell for 3 reasons:

1. Hell emerged in Christian text alongside the time that Greek pagans converted to Judaism, occurring in the new testament. In Judaism traditionally there was no literal hell.

2. The Old Testament references of hell are references to Sheol [1] (meaning the grave) and Gehenna [2] which was a destination of the wicked. A place where people sacrificed their children by fire. It wasn't until the KJV that both words were translated to the Anglo-Saxon word Hell.

3. There are multiple references throughout the bible, both in the old and new testament, to the wicked simply dying. One of which is the commonly touted John 3:16 which concludes with "...shall not perish, but have everlasting life" [3]. Romans 6:23 also says "...for the wages of sin is death". [4]

Why is this different than cherry picking. Cherry picking would be me ignoring other evidences to assert my position. Given that our current understanding of hell as far as Christianity is concerned is based on a Greek myth [5] and there is no other proof of hell, then I am not cherry picking.

An example of cherry picking would be as follows:

‘Hell cannot exist because God wouldn't allow such a place to exist. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 says "God is just", and a just God would not send people to hell.’

This is cherry picking. First off, 2 Thessalonians further states God will condemn those who persecute you. The above argument assumes that God is good to everyone and in justice he will take care of everyone. Where as it actually is saying God is just to the good by allowing persecution for the bad. That reference verse alone is cherry picking as it ignores the latter half of the verse. The argument as a whole is also cherry picking as it takes a single verse to defend the premise. Where other verses defend the opposite of his premise; for example the Ten Plagues in Egypt [6].

As for the other scriptures that speak of a literal fire breathing hell, Mark 9:46-48 being an example of a verse relating to the common idea of hell in modern usage, "...be thrown into hell, where 'the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched." [7] In context that verse is about the wage for sins.

The author of the Gospel of Mark is unknown. Whoever it was seemed to have based the work on early accounts of the time including collections of parables and miracle stories. Not that this alone can discredit him. We know just from reading and comparing the Gospels that some of the authors had different ideas of some things. After Jesus' death people began to convert to Judaism, as stated in my first reason to not believe in hell, and the converts could have come from various backgrounds that were biased. Given that Hell is contradictive to Judaism it is reasonable to assume that hell does not exist.

In conclusion I am not asserting this position, that hell does not exist. I am outlining a reason to doubt its existence. Given that there is no scientific reason to believe in hell and there is debate over the biblical texts on the subject I think we can rationally dismiss hell.


Reference:

[1]. She'ol (/ˈʃiːoʊl/ shee-ohl or /ˈʃiːəl/ shee-əl; Hebrew שְׁאוֹל Šʾôl), translated as "grave", "pit", or "abode of the dead", is the underworld of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. It is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from God. (From Wikipedia)

[2]. Gehenna is a term derived from a place outside of Jerusalem known as the Valley of Hinnom. It was a place where apostate Israelites, Baalites, and followers of Caananite gods, including Moloch, sacrificed children (2 Chr. 28:3). This is where the reference of the gnashing of teeth came from in later biblical texts. As well as the unquenched fire, for the children were sacrificed to fire.

[3]. John 3:16. In John 3 Nicodemus visits Jesus and asks him how to get to heaven. Nicodemus was a leader of the Jews. Jesus explains that you must be born of the spirit. Nicodemus does not understand this as he was born of his mother’s womb. Jesus goes on to say in verse 16 “for God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son so that all who believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”. The rest of John 3 Jesus goes on to explain that those who seek evil, choose to remain in evil, and do no not come to the light so that their evil will not be exposed. At no point does he say that the evil will go to hell.

[4] Romans 6 is about dying in sin or rising with Christ. All throughout this chapter the Apostle Paul, who was a Roman, explains to the Romans how to change their ways, and what will be the punishment if they don’t. He says multiple times the punishment of living in sin is death. Starting in verse 16 he says that “if you present your self obedient you are slaves to the one you obey. If you obey sin it will lead you to death (not hell). If you obey God it will lead you to righteousness. Romans 6 in general is a good exposition on Jesus’ sacrifice and the role it plays.

[5] The Greek myth being Hades or Tartarus. The Greek believed in a place where bad people went after death.

[6] The Ten Plagues  were a series of plagues that plagued Egypt under the rule of the nameless Pharaoh of Exodus. God brought down these plagues upon Egypt to coerce the Pharaoh into releasing his Hebrew slaves. This leading to the “Exodus” of Egypt by the Hebrews.

[7] Mark 9 covers a wide swath of topics from healing to Moses and Elijah (both appearing to Jesus as ghosts). Starting in verse 42 Jesus is saying that if you prevent someone from receiving His blessing it would be better for you to tie a millstone around your neck and throweth you into the sea. Then going on to the popular “if your right hand betrays you cut it off. It is better to enter heaven with one hand then to go to hell with two”. The verse I referenced says: starting at 47 “And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched.” I believe where it says hell here in verse 47 that it originally said Gehenna. This based on the next part that says “the fire is never quenched”, being a reference to the human sacrifice made there by the Baalites of Moloch.

Don't know what to major in? Don't worry!!!

You are a High School senior and you do not know what you want to do when you metaphorically "grow up". Or perhaps you are a College freshman and you do not know what to major in. That is not a big deal, in fact it is common. If you are in Middle School, uhm... seriously stop worrying about stuff, you're in middle school.

Most schools do not even require you to pick a major freshman year, so you don't need to stress if you don't know what you want to study. Take advantage of your gen-ed courses and don't be afraid to dive into subject areas that interest you, and even some that don't.  Now is the time to explore different classes and figure out what you're passionate about learning. You will probably discover something you like that you never even knew you would. Just be wary of taking a class in modern dance or ancient Greek literature unless these things actually interest you, because they won't go well with any other majors.



Now that I have hopefully settled your worries about not knowing your major, here are some numbers for your inner nerd to look over.

Petroleum Engineers are among the highest paying majors with a median income of 120k.

Here are the lowest paying majors, Counseling Psychology being the lowest with a median of  29k.





















Here are stats on the highest employment rates.

(All of the graphs were originally published on Businessinsider.com, my intent was to simply put them all on one page for easier reading)


The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has some numbers for anyone that doubts a college education is worth their money. Spoiler, it totally is worth your money regardless of the raising costs.

Here is a link you can follow to see the BLS assessment of that data.


Lastly if you are not yet bored of college information you can follow the following link to Forbes list of the best majors.
Forbes 15 most valuable college majors


Thanks for reading and I truly hope I have provided you with some good information to aid in your upcoming college career.

The Argument from Contingency and why it is wrong

The Argument from Contingency is a cosmological argument that basically asserts that the universe must have a reason, and that reason is God.

"Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause). 2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God" -reasonablefaith.org

The argument follows like this:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own       nature or in an external cause).

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

To logically debate this argument you have to find that one of the premises are false. No one would argue 3 is false. Since the Universe could, under different circumstances, conceivably not exist (that is the contingency part). It's existence must be explained by an event that preceded it.

Premise 1 states there are two kinds of things. The first are things which exist by necessity and second are things which exist contingently. Things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. On the other hand are contingent things which are caused to exist by something else. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets and galaxies belong in this category. -Dr. William Lane Craig argues this in his and J. P. Moreland’s book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. (link to Amazon)

Premise 2 is where the argument fails. We can assume the universe does have an explanation of its existence. However, to say that explanation is any of a number of deities is an unsubstantiated leap until you have reasonable evidence of a deity. Then to assume the universe was created by a deity is merely an assumption. 

However this argument does provide something I have found to be interesting. The universe does most likely have an explanation of its existence. What that is we don't know, but just to think one day we might is remarkable.


If you have enjoyed this rebuttal to the Argument from Contingency and would like me to do some more please drop a comment in the commenty place. Subscribe by email to follow my blog and keep up with all the latest content.