Blog Archives
I Love Irony
I recently began following a new blog, Atheist Camel. I generally find it pretty inflammatory and I was going to unsubscribe, until I stumbled on this post. That made me decide to keep following, at least for the time being. The reason why is the irony that said post brings to the forefront. Read the rest of this entry
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.
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.
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?
The Bible and History
Back in the day, when I used to follow the Rational Response Squad, user Badbark asked the Squad how they viewed the historicity of the Bible. A few answers, starting with Rook Hawkins:
Nothing in the Bible can be accepted as historical. We do not have evidence for very much, and what evidence we do have does not support the Biblical account. I suggest you read the introduction to my book for some bibliographical information, and skim through my blog for additional articles on this subject.
Hambydammit adds:
In a nutshell, the bible should be read like one of Homer’s epics. There are real names and places from time to time, but it is a work of fiction.
Even if some of the authors thought they were writing history, their accounts are not reliable unless they are backed up by corroborating evidence.
My favorite answer, from ronin-dog:
None of it. Even if a story is written in a historical setting, it is still fiction.
All this interests me. The Bible, contrary to what these atheists present, is at least attempting to present accurate history. It seems to stand up at least as well as other historical documents from the same eras, if not better. For example, the narratives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have many details confirmed by archeology. We find parallels to Jacob purchasing Esau’s birthright, for example, in other period literature. The blessing of Jacob rendered by Isaac also has historic precedence: such a blessing by a patriarch would have been irrevocable, which is why Isaac is so horrified that Jacob deceived him and received the blessing intended for Esau. Many, including me, have asked, “Why not just take it back?” He couldn’t. We now know that.
The names Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the names of the patriarchs of the twelve tribes, were all found to be in use in that time period. There are also some mentions of a person named Abraham external to the Bible that seem to correspond to the Abraham in the Bible, but no one is for certain. Read the rest of this entry
Inherited Religion?
John W. Loftus is all about error. It’s sad and funny at the same time. This time, he’s on about a typical atheist talking point: the fact that religion is inherited from the culture.
Of course, this does nothing to impugn the credibility of a particular religion. Truth is still truth. The argument isn’t an attack on the truth claims of Christianity. Instead, it seeks to use human nature against religion. It is not in dispute that we inherit beliefs unquestioningly from our parents and culture. Likewise, there is no dispute that we like to feel special and good. But how does this argue against any particular religion?
Loftus has this to say:
Why do they [Christians] think they are privileged to be born in the right time and place when others are not? If there is a God why would he privilege them like this? Why? It’s the natural tendency we humans have for thinking we’re special, that’s why. All ancient societies built temples to their gods which they thought were located directly on the center of the world. This thinking is still being embraced by Christians in many ways for they claim their geographical religion is where God has revealed himself and can be known. (source)
People tend to inherit the religion of their parents. Big whop. Does that mean we are privileged? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about it:
- All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. (Jn 6:37, 44, 64-65)
- And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
- And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom 8:28-29, the so-called Golden Chain of Redemption)
- So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom 9:16)
- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:3-6)
- In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:11-12)
- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)
So, since God can determine everything about us (he foreknows us, Rom 8:29, see also Ps 139), it stands to reason that the place and time of our birth is under his control as well. That would mean geographically inherited religion is nothing less than a mechanism by which God can predestine his elect.
Another One Bites the Dust
Yet another credentialed Evangelical Christian has left the fold. As usual, he has started a blog ranting against his former faith. This particular entry seems to have the attention of the atheist blogosphere, and with good reason. Our former Christian brother (or sister) has hit many of the hot buttons that atheists just love to hear! The references to Fred Phelps are particularly juicy for the atheists out there–they take every opportunity to compare mainstream Christianity to Fred Phelps. Read the rest of this entry
Delusion?
I’m discussing John Loftus’s book The Christian Delusion here, and I’m looking at the Why Won’t God Heal Amputees and God is Imaginary websites here. All three seem to think that religion (Christianity in particular) is a complete delusion.
Now, Ex-Christian.net is weighing in on the issue here. Comment #7 reads:
You know, when the most powerful being in the Universe, omnipotent creator-of-all actually acknowledges your existence with some little “miracle”, or imagined form of “feedback” (usually through feelings) it can be a tremendous boost to many people’s fragile ego.
What’s interesting, is the very people who claim they have received “petty” miracles from God are usually angry when asked how they feel about other people being ignored, left to die, suffer, or go without justice (who may have also prayed faithfully) yet God is granting you “petty” little wishes concerning health, finance, even a new car/truck.
WWGHA covers the same class of argument that Franko47 has brought up in chapter 10. Basically, the argument runs something like this:
One hundred people go off to war. All pray that they will come back home alive. Ninety-eight of them are killed in combat, while two survive. The two who survive come home and spread the word that their prayers saved them, and credit God with their survival.
When faced with this situation, atheists point out that Christians talk extensively about the two who survived, while completely ignoring the other 98 who were killed. The atheist reasons that the Christian is cold, callous, and uncaring. The Christian is looking so hard for evidence of God, that he is ignoring human suffering in order to find it.
Interesting though the thought experiment may be, it doesn’t prove anything about the nature of God. Although I concede that it is callous and uncaring to brush off the 98 who died and only focus on the two who survived simply because it conflicts with the idea of an all-good God who is in control of everything. This does prove something about what a long way we Christians have to go in order to line up with Christ’s teaching and God’s expectations for our lives.
But that’s hardly news. Anyone who knows Christian theology knows that we can’t claim to be perfect. Only one can make that claim.
What I’m more interested in here is that many atheists (Franko47 among them, apparently) consider this little thought experiment a compelling case against God. I don’t see why it would be. It proves nothing about the nature of God.
What is a miracle? Browsing definitions online, the common thread among all of them is that a miracle is a special or unique occurrence, surpassing all explanation. To be considered a miracle, the event must be unique by definition. So if 100 soldiers went to war, prayed to survive, and they all did, where’s the miracle? What is special or unique?
In order to be special or unique, an event must be against the odds, a rare occurrence. If an event happens, and it isn’t against all odds, and it’s not unique or special in any way, then it’s a commonplace occurrence and doesn’t count as a miracle.
New Material at My Anti-Loftus Site
Finally, after lots of hem-hawing around, I purchased The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails by John W. Loftus and company. So far, I’ve read the introduction and wasn’t impressed.
I wasn’t going to do an answer to the introduction, since all Loftus was doing was outlining the themes that will addressed later, as well as riding some of his favorite hobby horses (“Christianity has been refuted in every generation; they just re-invent the faith!” and “Modern Christians would be tried by the historic Inquisition for heresy!”). But there were two points worthy of addressing: Loftus misused Alvin Plantinga’s argument that Christianity is a properly basic belief, and he quoted a sound bite from William Lane Craig that doesn’t do justice to Craig’s full beliefs on how the Holy Spirit interacts with actual evidence for the Christian faith.
So, my thoughts on the introduction can be found here. Look for chapter one to be reviewed soon!
Back Rome Again 