Blog Archives
Great Quote from John Piper
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.
This is an Interesting Comment
I’m trying to figure out the meaning of Amos Keppler (@hoodedman)’s Twitter status:
@antitheistangie There is no lack of people criticizing Islam. I see it as my task to be among the few criticizing christianity #atheism (source)
Is this guy on some kind of cool psychedelic drugs? What does he mean to be “among the few criticizing christianity?” Since when is there a shortage of people criticizing Christianity? Every atheist blog I’ve read criticizes Christianity in the bulk of their posts. I assume that the ones I haven’t read do the same (and there are a lot of atheist blogs–the Atheist Blogroll is currently boasting 1,132 members).
Yet, they claim not to be anti-Christian. They claim to be anti-religion. However, even when the chance arises to criticize another religion, they don’t.
In conclusion, this dude needs to get a clue before opening his mouth again.
I Could Never Be an Atheist
I couldn’t be an atheist. I’m not inconsistent enough with my beliefs. Reference this article by VorJack of Unreasonable Faith fame. He quotes Geds of the Accidental Historian:
There was absolutely nothing special about the persecution of Christians.
The Roman authorities saw Christianity as a potentially destabilizing force in exactly the same way it saw criminals and revolutionaries as a destabilizing force. The only reason we’re lead to believe the stories of the Christian martyrs are special is because we have a lot of them.
Okay, then, might I make the same claim about the Crusades and the Inquisitions? “There was absolutely nothing special about the persecution of indigent tribes of nonbelievers, witches, or heretics. The Christian authorities saw them all as potentially destabilizing forces in exactly the same way as it saw criminals and revolutionaries as a destabililizing force. The only reason we’re lead to believe the stories of the nonbelievers, witches, and heretics’ torture and death are special is because critics of Christianity try to use them to argue against the faith.”
If the martyrdom of the early Christians at the hands of the Romans isn’t something to get excited about, neither is the later persecution of heretics at the hands of the Christians. The sword cuts both ways.
Because I loved the Commercial. . .
The commercial reminded me of my brother-in-law. So, even though it makes fun of God, I can’t help myself:
I suppose one could argue that I’m going to hell for blasphemy. Is it wrong for a Christian to find this funny?
HT to Common Sense Atheism
Typical Atheist Arguments
In my much derided “No Heavyweights of Theology” post, a commenter named Karen Leonard posted the following comment:
It is very difficult to be a “heavyweight” in theology. There is so much mythology, misogyny, racism, sexism, cruel and unusual punishment, mixed messages, and down right nonsense within the bible, that the only people you can address that will sit through your oratory would be those whose minds are so fearful of death that they would believe ANYTHING that gave them hope to the escape the grave.
I was rather nasty in my reply:
Do work really hard at in-the-box-atheist-groupthink, or does it just come naturally?
This prompted commenter Enoch Sherman to stop following my blog, concluding that I don’t encourage rational conversation.
What, exactly, was rational about Ms. Leonard’s comment? NOTHING. Every point she made in that comment has been refuted, either by me or by another apologist. Those charges have stood refuted for years.
I already left these links in the comments, but since Ms. Leonard’s charges are so common, I thought I’d leave them here for your perusal.
- Mythology: This is rather broad, but J.P. Holding has a series on whether Jesus was borrowed from ancient pagan mythology.
- Misogyny: Glenn Miller has an extended treatment of women in the heart of God.
- Racism: A single verse refutes this.
- Sexism: I have a response here.
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment: It’s not cruel if you understand how the ancients thought about it.
- Mixed Messages: Despite all the information about resolving apparent contradictions in the Bible, this charge still gets brought up over and over, and all responses ignored.
- Nonsense: This is too broad to address.
Idiotic Argument Against Christianity
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.
Summary of Internet Atheism in One Comment
User Ranger left a comment on Triablogue that sums up Internet atheism quite well:
Not many outside of their little camp (Pulliam, Loftus, Long, Carrier and a few others that are only known online for this stuff), think they offer much of substance. Yet he gets so angry when people disagree.
I used to think it was funny, and I used to think it was legitimate. I no longer do. I think his rants are not out of anger or frustration, but because their suppression of truth (don’t read this…there’s no need to respond to non-scholars…why waste your time on this drivel, etc.) and angry attitudes attract those who are actually afraid to deal with the issues comprehensively themselves and would rather rely on their idols to deal with the issues for them.
It goes like this:
Internet Infidel A: This is the greatest book ever! I may not have read it, but these guys have degrees in important fields of study like the history of ancient science, psychology and dentistry, so they must be right. Christianity is doomed and irrational!
Triablogue: We’ve written a 250-page response showing some of the flaws of this book.
Internet Infidel A: Oh? Wow, could Christians write such a long response…it’s surely not well thought out…or is it? Do any of them have doctorates in dentistry? Well…I do claim to be a rational person and should probably read it…first though, let’s see what Loftus and friends have to say about it.
Loftus: What idiots! These guys aren’t scholars. Don’t waste your time reading their critique. They just want to claim that you are destined for hell and therefore can’t reason legitimately, etc.
Internet Infidel A: Loftus is probably right. They are just saying that I’m going to hell. They probably haven’t said anything new against our views anyways…we’re validated in still saying this is the best book ever…This is the best book ever! Christianity is doomed and irrational!
And that’s the type of person that Loftus wants to keep in his fold, because they are the type who will continue to support him and his goals of influencing college aged ignorants.
Can Ontological Discrimination Be Justified?
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.
Catholic Response to Atheism
I was wondering when I’d see a Catholic response to New Atheism. Most books I’ve seen have been by Protestant authors, though I know Dave Armstrong has done a continuing series on his blog addressing an atheist on YouTube, and recently detailed the Top 10 Atheist Arguments and exposed their fallacies.
Now, Patrick Madrid has released a new book, The Godless Delusion, with coauthor Ken Hensley. Madrid’s book tackles philosophical objections to atheism, and isn’t a defense of theism per se. Madrid took note of some atheists commenting on his book at RichardDawkins.net. Fascinatingly enough, none of them had actually read the book. User xwizbit seems the lone voice of reason:
I have to point out that when I was (an admittedly very wishy-washy and doubting) Christian I challenged myself to test my faith against a reading of The God Delusion, for various and sundry personal reasons. It hammered home what I was already secretly thinking about god, and turned me into the radical atheist I am today.
Nevertheless, had I merely mocked and jeered at the book, I’d still be wandering about in a fog of confusion instead of splashing in the waters of a clear-thinking oasis. Is it too much to ask that we might dare to challenge a book by reading it and then commenting?
After all, thankful as I am to Mr Dawkins, I at least read his book before wholeheartedly embracing it!
Which, of course, meets with invective of its own, despite the fact that xwizbt all but recanted this position in the very next comment (after having read the introduction). This one from user TrumpetPower!:
xwizbt, in this case the very description is more than ample to dismiss the whole thing as purest nonsense: “With remorseless logic, wit, skill, and boundless, joyful enthusiasm it lays waste that stronghold, routs the enemy, occupies the high ground for Christ their king, and dares anyone to retake it.”
Anybody who thinks it’s a good thing to occupy the high ground for an ancient zombie hero in a religious snuff porn anthology isn’t deserving of serious consideration.
Defending the indefensible: sharp critique of a book that one hasn’t read. And a statement that clearly shows this person doesn’t understand anything about the Christian faith.
And an anonymous commenter said this:
It’s astonishing. Believers come about their superstition via faith, which has nothing to do with reason. Then they pretend that they can defend their faith with reason. It just makes no sense to me. All they should do–all that they are entitled to do–is to stand there and say “I have faith”. That’s it.
While most atheists scream at us to defend our faith, this guy says that we aren’t even entitled to defend our faith. Obviously, he doesn’t actually understand what faith is. Actually, no atheist I know of knows what authentic faith is. Faith and reason are certainly not incompatible; where did this serious error in logical thought originate? That might make an interesting e-book some time in the future.
New Atheist Graphic
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.
Back Rome Again 