I still believe in the Bible when it tells me that only a fool says that there is no God (Ps 14:1).  Regular readers know that I am no defender of atheism.  Unfortunately, a post by a religious Jew has recently come to my attention as part of my series on refuting Kelly O’Connor of the Rational Response Squad that so badly mischaracterizes atheists that I actually am jumping to their defense in this post.

Religion is defined by its beliefs; atheism is a lack of belief in God.  Already I see the difference between religion and atheism, and why atheism cannot be a religion by definition.  I was skeptical reading this post from the Jewish Philosopher simply because I didn’t feel the subject matter couldn’t sustain a blog post.

As it happens, I was right.  “Atheism is not a religion” is little more than an assertion that Jacob Stein stretches into a blog post.  And its the second blog post that has Kelly angry (part 1).

Before I consider Kelly’s post, I wanted to briefly touch on a few things in Stein’s post.  First, I don’t believe that atheism is an extension of determinism.  I believe that its roots lay in metaphysical naturalism.  To the atheist, all that we see is all that there is.  Stein later will assert that determinism has been refuted by quantum mechanics and that atheists seem to hardly notice.  This just isn’t true.  To my knowledge, atheists don’t believe in determinism in the first place (often criticizing my own Calvinistic theology as deterministic or fatalistic).  This leads me to conclude that atheists lean more to the secular existentialist camp.

Second, his research that he lists in four points is flawed.  In his first point, he is wrong that atheists cannot define “god.”  They define “god” as an all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being about whom myths and legends are composed.  While Christians and Jews would not include YHWH in such a definition, the atheists do and therefore do not believe in Him.  As I’ve heard it put, “Atheists and theists are the same in their lack of belief in gods,  atheists just go one God further.”

Stein is wrong in his assertion that atheists don’t seem bothered by an intelligent creator.  They emphatically deny such a being, insisting that the Big Bang is all that was necessary to set the universe in motion.  This is partially deterministic, but they don’t ascribe to the philosophy that there is only ever one possible future.  Many believe in human free will, which is why secular existentialism is so attractive to them.

I agree with Stein that atheists are bothered by a personal god who would judge their actions. Read the rest of this entry →

I find it extremely ironic that Kelly O’Connor of the Rational Response Squad takes offense to a Christian making a statement against her philosophical beliefs, but then goes on to write that atheists are under no obligation to respect the beliefs of others.

The proof is in the pudding.  First, Kelly acts offended at this statement from Rev. Marty Fields:

They [atheists] keep writing books, one right after the other, rehashing the same old tired arguments that you heard in your freshman philosophy class. Atheists taking issue with those who believe in God is — of course — nothing new. The only difference is that now — with each new offering — they appear to be getting angrier. … and more desperate. (source)

Kelly responds with the following:

Marty Fields, who will not be addressed as “Reverend” here as I have no reverence for him or his ilk, wrote an op-ed entitled “Angry Atheists”. He starts out by accusing atheists of being philosophical dilettantes, using the “same old tired arguments that you heard in your freshman philosophy class.” Ironic, coming from a proponent of a religion that hasn’t come up with a new argument in 2000 years. I think that tops freshman year philosophy, eh? (source)

I’d say that sounds defensive.  Now the irony:

In debates, Hitchens is respectful of his opponent, just as the example that he cited between Russell and Copleston. He has no obligation to be respectful of their beliefs or opinions, though, and neither do any of us. [emphasis added]

Yet, above, she seems to be angry for Fields not pulling punches when he talks about atheism.

Now the obvious objection here is that Kelly has a point, that Fields doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that is why she is so angry.  Let’s examine Fields’s article, “Angry Atheists,” and see if he knows his stuff.

Contrary to what Kelly states in her article, Fields neither labels The End of Faith as the least offensive of the Four Horsemen’s books nor does he attack Christopher Hitchens personally.  He lists the books in their order of publication.  He labels Hitchens’s book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, as “both the most visceral and the angriest of all.”  However, he doesn’t label Hitchens as such, nor does he make any character assessments.

I agree that atheism is declining in influence, mostly due to the anger and bitterness that is so evident within their attitudes and words.  However, it is misleading to state that without considering Kelly’s rebuttal: “Atheism is increasing worldwide, a fact easily proven by population studies and surveys.”  This is very true.  Atheism, once representing 10% of the population, now represents 11% of the population–and I only see that number growing in the coming years.  In five to ten years, they may represent 20-30% of the population–or more.

I also agree that atheists are starting to attack religious belief itself, and trying to make belief in God an object of ridicule.  They’re trying to make it a taboo.  Sort of like finding out someone’s super dirty secret and not being able to say that you really think that it’s wrong and that the secret holder should be ashamed.  They try to make religious belief into that super dirty secret and relentlessly try to shame people who adhere to religious beliefs.  The Rational Response Squad itself tries to classify theism as a mental disease or defect.

“Why am I here?”  “Am I significant and valuable?”  “Does life have meaning?”  These are some of the questions that Fields proposes and says that the New Atheists (like the Four Horsemen) either ignore or assume that their idealistic naturalism can answer.  Kelly, in top New Atheist form, also glosses over these questions.  She doesn’t even point us to a resource that attempts to answer these important questions.  She’s busy being angry.

I don’t think that she’s upset about Fields’s lack of knowledge on the subject of atheism.  I don’t think that she’s upset that Fields believes that Jesus is the answer to all of the questions above.  I think that so much of the article was right on target that Kelly has to retreat into defensive mode in order to continue to delude herself into believing two things: 1) that there is no God; and 2) that God isn’t calling her to repentance.

Instead of responding to theists, she should try responding in prayer to the One we speak for.

Tomorrow, I’ll consider part 2 of Kelly’s post, “Damn Right I’m Angry.”  So far, I see no death blows being dealt to Christianity as the hype claimed.  Maybe those are in part 2?

In my newest edition of the Rational Responders Newsletter, they tell us Kelly O’Connor, always ready with the atheist response, has written “the most destructive blow dealt to Christians so far” in her recent post, “Damn Right I’m Angry,” part 1 and part 2.  Kelly addresses two writers, Marty Fields and Jacob Stein, who have the audacity to call atheists angry and bitter.  So I will be taking a closer look at her posts here on the blog, and see how devastating the blow that she dealt really is.

Meanwhile, over on the blog of the inimitable Rook Hawkins, he has written a marvelously long post entitled “Which Jesus: A Legend with a Multiple Personality Disorder.”  The thesis?  In order to believe in a historical Jesus, Christians have to pick and choose which gospel verses to believe while totally ignoring most of the rest.  Once I’m done looking at Kelly’s post, I’ll take a crack at Rook’s post.  We’ll see if our young ancient texts expert is simply misguided or if he’s on to something.

Matt, from Matt’s Notepad, has taken me on in the comments section of this post about historical inaccuracies in the Bible, the Christ Myth, and Biblical contradictions. I’ve decided to split off and answer the comments in the blog because this last comment is a long one and will require more space than I’m generally comfortable giving to my comments section. I also think that it will benefit many readers who otherwise don’t read the comments section.

The historical inaccuracies [of the Bible] are many. Shall we start with some of the bigger ones? The Global Flood … never happened. Physically impossible for it to have happened and there is no evidence for it happening.

The Exodus from Egypt. Again, there is no evidence for it. It would have left Egypt in economic and social ruin but there are no records of such, not even from nearby nations that were enemies of Egypt from which many writings have been found and archived.

What about Esther? There is no record of a queen by that name at all anywhere.

Moving on to the New Testament. No record of any sort of large scale census at the time ordered by the Roman Empire. The idea that such a census was carried out is silly anyhow, especially the part about people having to return to the towns of their ancestors.

Much work has been done on what is called Flood Geology, thinking that the Global Flood from Genesis is the cause of all the Earth’s features: separate continents, sedimentary rock layers, fossil fuels, etc. Though this work contradicts mainstream science and such has been dismissed as pseudoscience, we shouldn’t be so hasty to do so. Remember that flood geology is part of Young Earth Creationism and as such we would expect it to contradict mainstream science, which works strictly from an evolutionary perspective.

That said, what about the lack of evidence for a Global Flood? That is debatable. Many cultures have the same basic story. I would consider that evidence for a Global Flood. But there is a startling notion for why archeology and paleontology haven’t found any concrete scientific evidence: the Flood may not have been global, despite the claims of creationists.

As for the Exodus, I can’t recall anyone asserting that it was false before now. I don’t know what sort of evidence that you would expect to find from it.

Objections to the historicity of Esther are answered here. Since Persian kings could have multiple wives, we have no need to worry about Esther not being mentioned in other historical texts. As only one of many queens married to one king, history may not have seen fit to record her name. As she was significant to the history of Israel, it is therefore far more likely that she would appear in the Bible than in other historical texts. Her presence in a historical text, by the way, is sufficient grounds to accept her historicity. The only time that this seems to become a problem is when only the Bible mentions someone. “Accept the historicity of everything at face value except for the Bible–then you need bulletproof corroborating evidence from 5,000 sources and even then don’t believe it because it is, after all, still the Bible” seems to be the skeptical motto.

For more information on the reliability of the Old Testament, I recommend checking out Josh McDowell’s very thick but very excellent book, Evidence for Christianity.

The idea of the census has been explored here. For more on the New Testament’s excellent reliability as a historical document, check the same book I linked to above.

I say: The Bible never contradicts itself. Every apparent contradiction has been dealt with satisfactorily. Research it. Matt replies:

No, they really haven’t. From the contradictory timelines given in Genesis to the huge differences in the Jesus stories in the gospels – none have been able to be explained away without using human subjective perspectives/corrections/suppositions. And the moment you do that, you wipe out any sort of historical accuracy you might otherwise claim.

The contradictory timelines in Genesis are dealt with at length here. As close together as the two accounts appear, I can only conclude that any so-called contradictions are intentional on the part of the author. As for differences in the Gospels, none are given (the point is asserted with no corroboration) so I can’t answer any. All I can do is point you here for principles on harmonizing the Gospels. I could also recommend a good Gospel synopsis.

I say: The small army [of prophets from around the same time as Christ] that is a footnote in history, while Jesus Christ becomes the focal point of history? That small army of prophets? Matt replies:

Indeed. The world is always full of self labelled prophets. Even some of the worst murderers in modern times have called themselves such but they’ve not gone down in history. Why? Go figure. But then some of the smallest people in life go on to be hugely recognised in death. Visual artists are a prime example of this.

No argument to refute. None of those people literally divide the centuries into the time before their birth and the time afterwards. Even the secular world uses that same common mark, despite trying to change the designations into the “Common Era” rather than “in the year of Our Lord.”

I say: No one I know has ever claimed that any of the examples [of deities] you mention changed their lives. Matt replies:

Obviously that would be because your society consists mostly of people that share your beliefs. Go back to ancient greece, norway or rome and you’ll see and hear people dying for their gods, sacrificing to their gods and saying their gods changed their lives.

As for your claim your link refutes the Mithras theory, it does not even mention Mithras. Now have you ever considered the legend of Mithras is so extraordinarily similar to that of Jesus? Even down to the same miracles, birth date, etc?

It isn’t true that my society consists mostly of people who share my beliefs. In fact, at work, only one manager and one employee aside from me happen to practice anything remotely close to Christianity. I work mostly with agnostics and atheists. As for the claim that in ancient people would say the same sorts of things about their deities that I say about Jesus, that’s a safe claim to make since we can’t go back in time to witness that stuff. But show me some writings where people say how profoundly they have changed by surrendering to those higher powers. I haven’t seen any–but from the Resurrection to now, we can find numerous examples of just that from Christians.

Finally, I apologize for giving you the wrong link: this is the link that refutes the Mithra connection.