Atheists: There are No “Heavyweights” of Theology
I’ve seen an interesting claim several times recently by different atheist bloggers. It’s been stated a few different ways. Let me illustrate. First, John W. Loftus:
In my opinion there are no heavy weights for Christianity just as there are no heavy weights for Scientology or Islam or Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism. It’s all improbable to the core and I see no reason why one religious myth’s scholar is any better than another. (source)
I see it in this post from Ray Garton, as well:
I’ve got news for you. We’re all experts on religion to one degree or another, every last one of us. Religion is not like, say, heart surgery or entomology or aviation. Sure, there are people who spend years in school studying theology and the bible, years in seminaries becoming clergymen. But there are also people who wake up one morning and decide to start their very own religion, and then do it. You, if you so desired, could go online and, for a small fee (small compared to the tuition that would be required to get a degree in anything), become an ordained minister, start a church and – presto-chango! – become a tax-free religion (yes, it really is that easy).
In any field of endeavor in which you are free to make it up as you go along, the word “expert” has little or no meaning.
In this video, Angie Jackson (aka Angie the Anti-Theist) also makes the claim (2:02-3:13). When criticized for not taking on better theistic arguments, she responds by saying that theism is self-evident nonsense no matter who she takes on. Therefore, she doesn’t need to seek out any better arguments because she can defeat all of them easily.
The underlying idea is that all we, as theologians, are doing is making this stuff up as we go along. That presupposes many, many things. First, it presupposes that they are absolutely correct and there is no God. From that, it it goes on to posit that there is no revelation, since no one is beyond this world to reveal it. And finally, it concludes that rigorous and lifelong study of the Scriptures yields no useful knowledge, no matter whose mind takes on the task.
The first proposition shows an incredible arrogance. To suppose, from material investigation only, that the immaterial doesn’t (or can’t) exist isn’t being fair-minded at all.
The second proposition, building from the first, concludes that there is no divine revelation due to the fact that there is no divine. The Scriptures are nothing but the scribbling of ignorant Bronze Age herdsmen. This proposition is accepted based on the erroneous conclusion that there is no God. God can be deduced from science, but not proven by science. If there is no reason to accept the first proposition, then the second proposition is also nonsense because special revelation is the only way to understand God’s character. It’s impossible to know the full character of God from general revelation only.
A written Scripture, in that framework, makes sense.
The third proposition is a negative consequence of scientism, which is the philosophy that only science can yield truth, and therefore knowledge gleaned by science is the only valid knowledge we can possess. (This notion has been linked to positivism, and they both can be refuted by the simple fact that, while they both require empirical evidence to prove everything, there is no empirical evidence to prove either of these propositions.) This rules out almost all of classicism, and philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle–anything that isn’t science isn’t knowledge.
By that standard, what I do (philosophy with some theology) is bunk to these people. Philosophy can’t be proven by science, though I would argue that science can suggest the truth or falsity of certain philosophies. Some people who subscribe to scientism go so far as to say that nothing learned before the Age of Enlightenment is worthwhile anymore.
This just isn’t so. The classical philosophers have much to offer us.
But, here’s the real problem. Assuming that these guys are wrong, and there really is a God who sits in judgment, who do you want teaching you his Word? L. Ron Hubbard, who (by all accounts) wholesale made up Scientology, or a godly Christian pastor, who has studied the revealed Word of God his whole life?
Before you make your choice, think about this. The soul, the part of you that is you, that is your essence, your being, is eternal. The beginning of anything sets the trajectory for how that “anything” plays out. This life, the beginning of your eternal existence, is going to set the trajectory of your eternity.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft used geometry as an illustration. Planar geometry represents this life, while adding a third dimension represents eternity. A planar shape, such a square, magnified into eternity, can only ever be a cube. Same with your life. In eternity, your “shape” is determined by the foundation you laid in this life. You can’t get around that.
Eternity is a long time. I want the guy who studied his stuff to teach me about God.
Pro-choice People are Upset by Ultrasound Jesus Ads
It looks like our secular friends, particularly those who are pro-choice, are very upset about the so-called “Ultrasound Jesus” ads that are getting set to go this Christmas in the UK.
I don’t think that the ads are intended to be pro-life. But if they are, so what? One proven way to influence public opinion is through advertisement. Businesses do it when they’re in danger of losing their copyright or trademark due to their common usage in the language (such as Xerox or Happy Meal). What’s wrong with the pro-life movement using advertisement to get its message out?
Certainly the same groups wouldn’t protest a pro-choice ad. Or the rampant atheist billboards that seem to be cropping up all over the world. It’s just like the controversy over the Tim Tebow ad for the Superbowl. Why does the pro-choice camp get so riled up over ads that can be construed as pro-life?
Didn’t I Just Talk About This?
This video from Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church (FL), highlights the exact point I was trying to make in my previous post regarding Rabbi Barry Block’s comments on Exodus. Dr. Hunter says that it is very dangerous to attach a literal meaning to Genesis 1 since it might drive away potential converts (especially if they might be scientists).
Dr. Hunter calls us to contemplate the fuller mystery of God.
However, he does rightly recognize that if we mythologize parts of the Bible, then how are we to understand other parts of the Bible? Are they also allegory? If the creation story found in Genesis 1 is only a myth constructed by Bronze Age herdsmen who don’t have a lick of scientific sense in their bodies, then can’t the same argument also be applied to the Resurrection?
We’re pandering to culture here. And as Christians, we should be better than that! How can we be salt and light to the world if, by our beliefs and actions, we are just like the world?
Who Designed the Designer?
This video, from YouTube user AntitheistAtheist, has the critical praise of numerous atheists in the comments found below the video. Examples:
- I like your style kid, keep on thinking. Think bigger and further.
- we [sic] dont [sic] surely know how the universe gets here, nobody does and it has to be accepted. the [sic] mistake that theists do is to explain everything that cant be explained with god of somesort [sic]
- Maybe that’s it God created us who was created by a larger God and so on and so on in an ever expanding universe.
- [S]cience has answered all of the greatest questions up to date, coming up with the only reasonable answers. Religion has answered nor prooved [sic] anything. It is absolutely reliant on “faith”, that is an integral part of the deal “Just believe!”. It may never be answered, but if it ever is, zou [sic] can bet science will find the answer and not faith.
The last commenter, in typical atheist style, presents an alternate definition of faith that is not what faith really means. I’ve advocated the death penalty for this before, and I think the law is on my side.
Anyway, why is Who designed the designer? still so popular among atheists? There’s an easy answer to the question. Here it is, from philosopher William Lane Craig:
Notice that Craig laughs about the objection. Like me, he finds it absurd.
Crucifixion
Termed one of the most cruel and humiliating deaths that a person could undergo, crucifixion originated with the Persians in the seventh or sixth centuries b.c. and continued until the Roman Emperor Constantine abolished it. An article that appears on The Blog for WhyWon’tGodHealAmputees offers some doubt that Jesus Christ actually died in this fashion.
One should note that the contributors to that blog have repeatedly asserted that Jesus Christ is not a real, historical person. So why they would have interest in a scholar who debates the existence of crucifixion is unknown.
It looks like Gunnar Samuelsson, a newly graduated Swedish theologian, has asserted that it is unlikely that Jesus died by crucifixion. Samuelsson has underwent a three year study of the ancient literature and doesn’t find it probable that crucifixion was used at that time. He only finds references to suspending a person (or part of a person), but no references to actual crucifixion. Even the Bible itself doesn’t actually say that Jesus was crucified, only that he carried a staurus and was hung on it.
Interesting, and wrong. In the Gospels of Matthew, several times Jesus’ execution is referred to as being “crucified” between chapters 20 and 28. Mark also refers to Jesus’ execution as a crucifixion between chapters 15 and 16. Luke refers to crucifixion throughout chapters 23 and 24. John also in chapters 18 and 19. Acts also refers to crucifixion in the death of Jesus, primarily Peter’s first sermon (Acts 2, but again in Acts 4). Paul talks quite extensively about Jesus’ crucifixion in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians.
The Bible definitely uses the word “crucifixion” extensively to talk about Jesus’ death. Other historical documents that fit into the time period that Samuelsson allegedly studied also mention and describe crucifixion, most notably the works of Josephus. There is also some archeological evidence to back up the documentary descriptions, as we have discovered victims of ancient crucifixions in tombs. Their wounds testify to the accuracy of the description in ancient literature, including the Bible.
However, Saumuelsson is quick to say that he isn’t attempting to undermine Christianity. He’s just trying to arrive at the truth of an ancient tradition, much like the rest of us. “Samuelsson — who believes that ‘the man who walked this earth was the Son of God, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead’ — says this accusation is simply ‘stupid.'” (source)
So, let’s not let this news get us all bent out of shape.
No Wonder This Guy’s an Atheist
Yahoo! Answers user James Matthew posted this question in Religion/Spirituality: “Is this the most insane form of Christian delusion?” He expounds:
I asked my internet Christian friend how she is able to believe something that does not have any evidence for its existence.
She gave me the following answer.
“I leave all my logical reasoning and thinking capability and go to HIS throne like how a child goes its father. He is the potter and I am the clay in HIS hands. If so, how can I question HIS existence and authority to prove my logical reasoning??”
With Christian friends like this, no wonder he’s an atheist.
Recently, I posted something on the second greatest commandment. I’d like to note that the Greatest Commandment is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Mt 22:37; Mk 12:30; Lk 10:37). I think it is terrible when Christians actually tell people that they check their minds at the door wherever God is involved, as Matthew’s friend has done in this case. Read the rest of this entry
The Apocalypse is Near: I Just Agreed With Dave Armstrong
Dave Armstrong has an excellent article here highlighting the absurdity of dealing with atheists regarding biblical exegesis.
The real problem facing atheists when they attempt to reason through the Bible is described in that hated book by the apostle Paul: “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph 4:18, emphasis added). Atheists can’t understand the Bible.
Why Christians Can’t Have a Meaningful Debate About Homosexuality
Many conservative Christians do not adhere to these verses [Lev 19:18 and Mt 22:39]. If they did then gays would have the same rights as heterosexuals to lawfully join in union. It is because of American Christians hatred of homosexuality that gays cannot legally bond in most states. Some Christian parents have been known to disown their children who happen to be homosexual. (source)
Mark (proprietor of Proud Atheists) has demonstrated the reason that Christians can’t have a meaningful debate with social liberals over homosexuality. We consider, with good reason, homosexuality to be a grave sin. However, calling it that causes the other side to immediately label us “homophobes,” “bigots,” or other nice names.
It is because we love our neighbors that we try to communicate that homosexuality is a sin. If we didn’t care about our neighbor’s eternal fate, then we’d just shut up and allow homosexual marriage to take place.
Mark is doing serious violence to the definition of love by making his initial claim. He’s saying that if we loved our neighbors, then we’d leave them be to express their individuality. But that’s absolutely absurd.
If my neighbor asserted his individuality by playing with matches and lighter fluid and I didn’t stop him, one could hardly make a case for me being “loving.” If another neighbor asserted his individuality by keeping 14 year old girls for sex slaves before killing them, I would hardly be called “loving” if I allowed him to continue unabated. If another neighbor decided that gambling and drinking were more important than his wife and kids, I would not be considered “loving” if I didn’t try to reason with him and show him that he’s losing his family and ruining his future.
The radio station K-Love once ran a spot where several criminals who had committed crimes of increasing severity appeared before a judge. Each time, the judge said to the offender that he was forgiven, and he could go free to sin no more–never once punishing him. The end of the spot asked, “Do you consider this judge loving?”
Of course not. We might describe that judge as apathetic, but not loving. Same as my behavior in the three hypothetical examples above.
Returning to the homosexuality example, since we consider it to be a grave sin, we would be apathetic if we allowed people to walk in it unabated. It would be no different than if we failed to denounce murder. Where we are failing to communicate is that society doesn’t think that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.
Rather than listen to what we’re trying to communicate about homosexuality, however, we are simply labeled bigots or homophobes. Emotionally loaded terms. There is no meaningful debate after that.
UPDATE:
Daniel just did the exact same thing over at Unreasonable Faith: he’s not considering that homosexuality is a sin, or that Christians should speak against it like any other sin. He’s just calling the pastor a bigot. No argument. Just name calling.
Iowa Math Teacher Fired for Being an Atheist
I don’t get it.
Why are people so up in arms about this?
Abby Nurre, a math teacher at St. Edmond’s Catholic School in Fort Dodge, IA, was fired because she joined Atheist Nexus, a social networking site for atheists. She also posted some material on her Facebook page that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that she was, indeed, an atheist. (She denied it, but I’m thinking if you don’t believe in God, that necessarily makes you an atheist. But whatever.)
Why would this upset people? When we join a group, we limit ourselves in some ways by necessity.
A manager in my workplace recently got facial piercings. All facial piercings are forbidden by the dress code. She signed the dress code policy when she accepted employment. Moreover, as a manager, she is bound not only to follow the dress code but to enforce it. Despite this, she is shocked and very unhappy that her job is now in jeopardy unless she agrees that she won’t wear the offending jewelry during work hours.
When Anthony Flew, a prominent atheist, came out as a deist, most in the atheist community crucified him. Richard Carrier, for example, forwarded the theory that Flew’s new book wasn’t written by Flew at all. Others posited that, as an older man, Flew had probably succumbed to senility. Senility is the only way to explain God-belief manifesting in a convinced atheist like Flew, right? Either way, he has been excommunicated from whatever sort of community that atheists have.
Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism. He wanted to stay on as president, but the ETS is an Evangelical Protestant organization, so most felt that it would be a serious conflict of interest. While being a Catholic doesn’t necessarily conflict with the generalized statement of faith required of all members, Catholicism does have very different ideas for how grace and works relate, as well as what the “finished” work of the Atonement really means.
These examples demonstrate the point I’m trying to drive home: when we associate with a group, we implicitly agree to the underlying philosophies that set the group apart from all other groups. When we show, by word or deed, that we no longer accept the core group philosophies, we have eliminated ourselves from membership in that group.
Ms. Nurre didn’t get fired so much as eliminate herself from the ability to be included in that particular group. She doesn’t embrace the core philosophy of Catholicism: affirmation in the existence of deity, and the revelation of deity in the person of Jesus Christ. Her dismissal shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Why is it?
Logical Fallacy
Daniel Florien from Unreasonable Faith posted this video from John Piper. Piper addresses the question of women working outside the home from a biblical standpoint. Piper says:
It can be. It is like the alcohol question, it can be.
Having said it can be, I want to discourage it because mothering and homemaking are huge and glorious jobs. […]
And, just being able to focus on the home where ministry can happen—not being enslaved by anybody’s clock—you can say, “I want to work my tail off for king Jesus, but I don’t want anybody to pay me for it. I’m going to do it right here in this neighborhood with my husband’s connections and my connections. We’re going to lavish grace on people’s lives.”
So, I’m calling for ministry full-time when I say “don’t work full-time if you have a family.” Turn your family into ministry. Turn your family into a global dream for what this family might become, or what this man might be, or what we might be together as we are home.
Florien responds, “Is it okay for women to work outside the home? Of course! Is it okay for them to stay at home full-time? Of course! Is it okay for men to stay home full-time and have the wife work full-time? Of course!”
Anyone recognize the problem with Florien’s statements? Anyone?
He’s begging the question. Why is it okay for women to work outside the home? His statements are not self-evident, which means he’s not revealing some timeless truth. American society thinks that it’s okay for women to work full time outside the home, so it’s okay. Right? No problems with that logic.
Back Rome Again 