The Invention of Religion

23 08 2010
Cults and new religious movements in literatur...

Image via Wikipedia

A new blogger arriving on the scene, badcatholic, imagines himself back in time as a fly on the wall during the invention of religion.

Caveman 1: Bro, these mammoths are frightening, and I don’t know why it rains.
Caveman 2: Yeah, sounds like we need some supernatural explanation for natural phenomena for which we are not yet advanced enough to understand.
Caveman 1: Right. So we’ll need a god…
Caveman 2: Nice.
Caveman 1: And let’s have no adultery with beautiful women…
Caveman 2: Uh-
Caveman 1: And in with the concept of eternal, unimaginable torment-
Caveman 2: Slow down-
Caveman 1: And moral obligations, and no more of this survival of the fittest. We’ll not be able to lie, or steal, or cheat, or mastrubate-
Caveman 2: Are you sure you-
Caveman 1: Or eat too much, or drink too much, or be lazy, or be prideful… (source)

It has always fascinated me that atheists repeatedly assert that religion is a human invention, yet a quick study of religious vices and virtues reveals that we’ve set an impossible standard for ourselves. Religions, not just Christianity, speak of the evils of acquiring and hording material possessions, lust, adultery, pride; and extol an others-centered attitude as well as exhorting adherents to not even think about bad things. Religion asserts that humans are broken and need to be fixed, either through a set of ritual behaviors or by a quickening of the spirit by the hand of God, and those who refuse to comply will face eternal destruction, shame, and humiliation. Who would invent that?

On the other hand, if God is the author of religion, that makes much more sense. A divine being who  stands in judgment of humanity warning us against adultery, lust, and evil thoughts makes more sense than a bunch of primitive humans with no motivation to make monogamy the preferred form of marriage, adultery a grave sin, and forbid masturbation and all forms of lust as the standard of behavior.

If mankind invented religion, I think we’d see a much different picture than we do now.


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Atheism, God, Humor, Religion, Sin, Theology

Two Great Posts from TurretinFan

18 08 2010

Image via Wikipedia

When I read blogs, I have the tendency to skim my RSS readers rather quickly and read things based on titles. You’d think that that would mean I spend time and effort on each of my post titles, but the sad truth is that I don’t. That is really a topic for a different time. Two titles on TurretinFan’s excellent blog did catch my eye, and they were very much worth the time to read and consider, as they show some interesting holes in evolutionary theory.

I don’t believe I classify as either an evolutionist or a creationist, though I suspect that many would consider me a creationist. I think that evolution is certainly possible given that it is supported well as a scientific conclusion, but the necessity of God makes evolution a moot point. It is not necessary given God, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. Neither does evolution, if true, falsify God.

Even though I must admit strong scientific evidence in favor of evolution, there are certain philosophical problems with it. TurretinFan calls attention to one such problem in this post. TF cites three scientific studies that create a problem for modern evolutionists. In the first, sea sponges are found to be 70% genetically similar to humans. This, combined with the other two studies that argue against familial ties (however distant) from chimpanzees, creates some reasonable doubt among the prevailing theory of evolution.

TF says that this information will be waved away by evolutionists. I think it is more likely that evolutionists will try to discredit either the research or the researchers, in that way they can safely ignore the conclusions altogether or at least minimize the impact of the study on their beloved theory.

In the follow up to the first post, TF recounts a comment from Peter Pike that creates serious philosophical problems with the theory of evolution. Genetics are used to trace the evolution of living species, but morphology is used for extinct species. The problem? Genetics is a poor way to predict morphology. What this means for evolutionists is that they are using one method on living species, and an incompatible method on extinct ones.

One method is going to be accurate, the other method is going to be inaccurate. As there is no way to reproduce evolution in the lab (there is a way to monitor it from this point forward), we don’t know which method is more accurate. Therefore, whole evolutionary trees are going to be dead wrong and we don’t know how.

Evolutionists, please don’t argue that my last point doesn’t matter one way or the other. With a little bit of Googling, I can find quotes from other evolutionists who argue that evolution is literally the pinnacle of modern science, and all other scientific advancements, theories, and discoveries rely on the truth of evolution. The point is that it does matter. If science literally depends on how accurately we are able to trace ancestry, then science itself is falsified on this philosophical point alone.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Creationism, Evolution, Science

Great Quote from John Piper

12 08 2010
Cover of

Cover via Amazon

Whenever a Christian converses with a non-Christian about the truth of the faith, every request of the non-Christian for the proof of Christianity should be met with an equally serious request for proof for the non-Christian’s philosophy of life. Otherwise we get the false impression that the Christian worldview is tentative and uncertain, while the more secular worldviews are secure and sure, standing above the need to give a philosophical and historical accounting of themselves. But that is not the case. Many people who demand that Christians produce proof of our claims do not make the same demand upon themselves….If the Christian must produce proof, so must others. (Desiring God [Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Books, 1996], pp. 273-274)

H/T to Jason Engwer of Triablogue.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Atheism, Heresy, Theology

Catholic Belief is Unified, Right?

8 08 2010

Catholic apologists have us believe that Catholics are unified on all Christian doctrine and belief. Since the Catholics have the Pope and an infallible Magesterium, they have the full and final revelation of God, and this revelation is based both on Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Patty Bonds, sister of James White (of Alpha & Omega Ministries fame) and author of the blog Abba’s Little Girl, brought up the subject of infants perishing in hell in a recent post. As a former Calvinist, Patty believed that infants who died in infancy would go to heaven if elect, and hell if not.

I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God’s capricious picking and choosing. . . . So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become “regenerate” and be saved. (source)

She’s backed by the Westminster Confession of Faith, by the way:

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (X.3)

Many find this idea hard to swallow, and so they hold to something referred to as the “age of accountability.” In this scheme, if a soul is taken from us prior to its ability to hear the call of the Spirit, and so could not have made an informed choice, the soul departs and is with God. In this setup, God won’t hold the soul accountable for sins because the soul doesn’t understand what that means.

In other words, infants dying prior to a certain age (differing based on the individual, but usually between 5 and 7) or the mentally handicapped are always taken to heaven.

It’s warm and fuzzy, isn’t it? But Catholic Steve Ray has some scathing things to say about that:

The Protestant doctrine of the “age of accountability says that babies, young children, mentally retarded, etc. are not accountable for their sins since they are not old enough or capable of commiting moral offence against God. They are therefore not sinners, or at least not held accountable. . . .

The Bible seems to teach that a baby is a sinner (because the Bible says all have sinned, right?) and that “the wages of sin is death”, so if a baby dies, it must go straight to hell. Is there anything that can save them before they are mentally able to understand the Gospel and “accept Christ as their Savior”? Are all children thus given a death sentence for the first decade of their lives? My that seems cruel and heartless, contrary to the love and mercy of God.

It sure is convenient to have the man-made, invented doctrine of the “age of accountability”. This makes some sense of these verses in the Bible. But, what chapter and verse do we turn to as a proof text for this doctrine Jerry? Whre are these words in the Bible? We soon find they don’t exist. Protestants invented them. . . .

There are however, simple solutions to these problems. The [Catholic] Church has resolved the problem; in fact, it never had the problem. (source)

Except that it did have the same problem, and it still does.

Augustine, who the Catholics are always quick to claim as their own, held that infants who died prior to baptism were eternally damned. This is very similar to the Calvinist beliefs blasted both by Patty Bonds and Steve Ray.

Catholics used to believe that infants who died prior to baptism would go to limbo, contrary to Augustine. The issue has been hotly debated, even in Augustine’s time, and no official Catholic position has ever been set down. Instead, limbo is (even today) held as a possible theological conclusion, but is not the only possible conclusion. Since there is no official published Catholic position, individual Catholics are free to believe as their conscience dictates.

So, what’s the advantage to being Catholic again?


Comments : 1 Comment »

Categories : Calvinism, God, Roman Catholicism, Sin, Theology

Animated Mischaracterization of Calvinism

8 08 2010

I read the blog of James White’s sister, Patty Bonds, quite frequently. Through it, I discovered this video. It’s amusing.

Patty feels that it accurately represents Calvinism. She writes:

I was probably one of the most radical Calvinists of all. I would and did stand flat footed and state unwaveringly that all five points of the TULIP were infallible and that those who were not elect were going to glorify God simply by their depraved lives and their eternal damnation. I had also come to the conclusion that even unborn babies that perished were subject to God’s capricious picking and choosing. I had been taught that since it was Tradition that taught us that children were not guilty of actual sin until after an age of accountability that we should reject that idea along with the whole of Catholic Tradition. So if a child was still born, it was entirely up to God whether that child would die with his sinful human nature and suffer damnation for it or if he would somehow become “regenerate” and be saved. If your head is spinning right now, don’t feel alone. I can’t believe I once believed this rubbish either.

So, while Jim’s folks have a cow about this video and bluster about bearing false witness and all, I have to say I found the video not only funny, but also an accurate representation of my own former Calvinist beliefs. I’d say they were also Jim’s but he would just tell me I’m wrong like everyone else is wrong when they find fault in him. Whatever. (source)

Of course, the video does not accurately represent Calvinism. I was toying with the idea of picking through this video and showing how badly it misrepresents Calvinism, but TurretinFan has done that for me. He said everything that I would have said, so enjoy his short but excellent refutation of the video.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Categories : Apologetics, Calvinism, Heresy, Humor

Idiotic Argument Against Christianity

23 07 2010

A side project that I’m working on, in addition to everything else, is to re-read (in their entirety) the books that are supposed to destroy not only Christianity, but theism in general. I’m creating a site, currently empty except for some cool pictures, where I will post my thoughts and links to the thoughts of others on these “masterworks” of atheism.

I’ve started with Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation, which is the shortest of all of the books. Harris makes a huge error in the opening pages of the book. This mistake might hold the title for the most idiotic argument against Christianity ever purported, and I’ve noticed that other atheists have propagated the error. Like a virus.

Although I will develop the argument more succinctly later, I wanted to take a moment to address it. Neal, a user who commented on John W. Loftus’s reactionary piece to The Infidel Delusion, stated that atheism cannot provide an objective moral standard, but Christianity does. Neal makes a serious philosophical error, though I don’t think he intended to. I think that he intended to suggest that Christianity, as it points to God, provides that as the ground for morals. Atheism isn’t able to posit objective morality, as much as it is synonymous with metaphysical naturalism. If the universe is all there is, then there is no transcendent realm to appeal to when looking for the ideal standard. The ideal standard ought to be, it does not exist in point of fact. “Ought to be” has no meaning in a universe where only the natural exists: nature is what it is.

The first reaction to Neal’s lengthy piece was from Jim, who said:

Neal,

And atheism provides no objective criteria whatsoever. So even here Christianity is superior in that it provides objective foundations for society.

Sorry, Christianity doesn’t provide any objective foundations for society, either, except perhaps purely “within” Christian society.

There seems to be no evidence of any actual absolute objective morality. The universe doesn’t care what Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or the Inquisition did.

Within human society, we have determined certain “objective measures.” Take the length of the meter, for example. The length of the meter is only as good as HUMANS desire to accept OTHER HUMANS declaration of the standard.

If a group of humans decides to have a different standard for length (the “foot” or “yard”) they are free to come up with their own objective standard for their group. Or they can redefine the length of the “meter” for their own group. What they CAN’T do is redefine the “meter” for a different group.

What Christians have done, allegorically is subjectively decided on the nature of a GOD who decides what the length of the meter is and then claim that they have the ultimate OBJECTIVE foundation for the definition of a meter.

You see what Christians are doing? They are simply using the creative power of their mind to invent something (SUBJECTIVELY) and using that creation as a foundation for OBJECTIVITY.

It’s quicksand . . .

Both Neal and Jim fall into the same trap, propagating the same error that I’m accusing Harris of: Christianity is not the foundation for morals. God is the foundation for morals.

To his credit, Jim corrects himself (kind of) midway through the post, shifting the source of morality back to God. This is the correct view. Christianity is, with qualifications that I won’t get into here, a series of interpretations of the same book. Being subjective in nature, therefore, Christianity cannot provide an objective ground for morality. As such, it is not the source of morals.

Jim, however, makes many serious mistakes. The underlying assumption of his comment is that philosophy and theology cannot provide any objective insight into who God is, and what he would command. That is, philosophy and theology don’t consist of real knowledge, just mere opinion. He also rejects the authority of Scripture, and in all probability, the very existence of special revelation. He also implicitly accepts relativistic morality, which is also false.

I hate it when people say that Christianity is the ground of all morals. That’s patently false. God is the ground of all morals. Christianity is, with some qualifications, subjective and therefore cannot be the ground of morality. God, who is the good, is immutable. Therefore, God is our ground for morals. Atheism cannot account for the existence of the material universe, much less provide a ground for objective moral standards.


Comments : 5 Comments »

Categories : Apologetics, Atheism, Atheist Books, God, Heresy, Morality, Religion, Theology

Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part II

20 07 2010

Mike from the blog Finding Bliss has objected to Calvinism. He says, “I find it spiritually abusive,” calls it “reckless [sic] doctrine”

In my previous post, I showed that Mike isn’t objecting to Calvinism proper. In that vein, I will answer some of the objections he then comes up with in the latter section of his post, most of which can be defused by appealing to what Calvinism actually teaches, not what Mike thinks it teaches. First objection:

How many nights have people laid awake at night questioning whether or not God chose them first? Or if like me you first believed and then you fell then that could very well mean that I was never truly saved in the first place. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : Leave a Comment »

Categories : Apologetics, Bible Thoughts, Calvinism, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Sin, Theology

Can Ontological Discrimination Be Justified?

19 07 2010

Vjack of Atheist Revolution asked his Twitter followers whether they thought atheism was a choice. Most responded that it wasn’t; rather, it was a conclusion reached after the analysis of the available data. They didn’t consciously choose atheism; they arrived at it naturally.

So atheism is part of their ontology. To that, Vjack says:

Suppose we decide that one’s initial discarding of theism and one’s continued lack of belief in gods are not conscious decisions and instead reflect one’s appraisal of the available data. This has a number of important implications. For starters, it would make anti-atheist bigotry even less tenable. If atheism was not something one chose, bigotry directed at atheists would indeed resemble anti-gay bigotry or even racism and would be equally difficult to justify. (source)

This presupposes that ontology is inherently good, and that something considered a part of one’s basic nature can’t be bad or harmful by definition. That’s faulty reasoning.

Addictive patterns of behavior are known to be inherent to one’s ontology. Heart disease is often caused internally. Certain folks are predisposed to types of cancer. These things are all hardwired into DNA; i.e., they are inherent to the nature of the person. Is anyone going to try to argue that those things are good, despite their origins?

Of course not. So why would we just automatically assume that homosexuality or atheism is good just because it is in the person’s nature to be that way? No one would try to argue that alcoholism, compulsive gambling, cancer, or heart disease are good things even though they are also part of a person’s nature.

Why, then, is atheism good just because it is in someone’s nature?

As an aside, my previous post took a look at the errors of Mike from Finding Bliss in regard to Calvinism. Experential evidence, though typically disregarded by atheists as proof of God, can be helpful in worldview debates. What we see here is an example of predestination at work: the unbelievers have convinced themselves that there is no evidence for God, and are therefore justifying their lack of belief by crying, “It’s my nature!”

Of course it is! First and foremost, humans are bonded to sin. It’s inescapable, and Vjack has perfectly illustrated it right there. Though this blog post points it out, it will not be regarded as evidence validating my Reformed worldview by any atheist.


Comments : 9 Comments »

Categories : Atheism, Calvinism, Sin

Object Lesson in Why Some Hate Calvinism, part I

19 07 2010

Mike of the Finding Bliss blog demonstrates why some people hate Calvinism. They hate a strawman caricature of it, and they don’t understand what the five points really teach. This is why I plan to make my musings on the topics of the five points of Calvinism available as an e-book.

Let’s look at what Mike got right, and what he got wrong. Mike writes, “I’ve attempted to present the 5 points as a Calvinist might present them which is not easy to do, I don’t agree with it and what’s worse I find it spiritually abusive.” It’s important to note that Mike is attempting to present these points accurately. He failed in a few places. Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 3 Comments »

Categories : Bible Thoughts, Calvinism, Father, God, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Sin, Theology

New Atheist Graphic

15 07 2010

I just saw the following graphic on Common Sense Atheism. It’s new to me, so forgive me if it’s really old:

This, of course, has it completely wrong. God always was, there was never a time when he didn’t exist. He has existed in eternity before time, before anything else ever was, and that renders the facetious argument of this graphic invalid. He didn’t come from nothing, he never “sprang into being.” He simply existed, always.


Comments : 12 Comments »

Categories : Atheism, God, Heresy, Humor, Theology

« Previous Entries