Blog Archives
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.
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.
Religious Bigotry
I have tried to fight a fight that I’m not destined to win with skeptics of Christianity. None of them are ever going to see the grounds for homosexuality being a sin since they do not accept the authority of Scripture. It’s the same with the clearly defined roles of gender in the church.
Women have achieved a measure of equality within secular society. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s very good. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a woman selecting and purchasing property, managing the household, running the family finances, and bringing in a second income through work. But, the apostle Paul precludes the possibility of women serving in church leadership roles. Of women in general:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)
He clearly defines that church leadership will be male. He says of bishops:
If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. . . . He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:1-4, 6-7)
Of deacons:
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Tim 3:8-12)
But notice why Paul forbids the woman from teaching authority: it goes back to the Fall. God’s pre-Fall intention was for the woman to be a helper and a companion. But, what ended up happening? Eve first ate of the forbidden fruit, and then Adam because of her. God then decreed:
I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen 3:16)
But that wasn’t the original intent. The woman being submissive to the man is punishment because of sin. Once sin entered the world, it corrupted everything, including the intended relationship dynamic between a man and his wife.
So what we see today is a corruption of the pure and good intent of the original created order. Despite this, it is still God’s command that the woman remain subservient to the man, since it was first the woman who was deceived by the Enemy and by the woman the man fell into transgression.
Call it religiously-motivated bigotry if you want, but the intended order of creation will be restored after the Final Judgment, and in eternity we will exist as equals, in perfect fellowship with the Creator. The woman will not remain subservient to the man forever, but for now it must be.
Satanism Wrongly Used at Trial?
This is an interesting article. Apparently, the defendant is arguing that his religion, Satanism, shouldn’t be used against him during the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial.
That amuses me. If he had converted to Christianity, he would have been trumpeting it from the mountaintops for everyone to hear, and acting pious and prayerful. But, since he converted to Satanism, he wants it hidden so as not to prejudice the jurors.
And, the judge, the prosecutors, and the defense attorney are all ignorant. LeVey Satanists practice individuality and hedonistic sex, not human sacrifice. That, and they’re atheists! They don’t worship Satan because they don’t think he exists.
DISCLAIMER: All LeVey Satanists are atheists, but not all atheists are LeVey Satanists. I am not saying that all atheists practice individuality and hedonistic sex. Comments suggesting I have said this will be deleted. You’ve been warned.
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?
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
God: Self-Serving or Narcissistic for Judgment?
The author of this post, who goes by Skinny Sushi, identifies herself as an agnostic. She and her husband were both raised Mormon, but for various reasons have walked away from the church. It seems that her primary reasons have to do with God’s judgment:
And any God who might be out there… wouldn’t he/she/it be rather pleased I’ve lived a good life and been kind to others? There’s just something about the notion of an all powerful being who will punish me for not believing despite the quality of my life that seems a little… self serving? Narcissistic?
In regard to the first point, Paul addressed this in the second chapter of Romans:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
So Sushi is right. People who do the Law without the Law are their own Law. No need for any divine intervention there. And, many people are good for goodness sake–without the Law. Read the rest of this entry
This is just . . . WOW! (part II)
In a previous post, I criticized Mark of Proud Atheists for this post. Mark listed 14 things that he simply does not adhere to, given his naturalistic worldview. In all cases, I’ve been finding that Mark misunderstands or mischaracterizes Christianity. Today, we continue exposing his errors on points eight through 14, and offer some concluding thoughts. Read the rest of this entry
This is Just . . . WOW! (part I)
Mark from Proud Atheists does it again! He manages to prove his general and willful ignorance of religion even while attempting to mock it. His latest diatribe is a thoughtful post titled “Dear Christians, ‘I Simply Do Not . . . .‘” It’s a fascinating line of crap from start to finish. Let’s see what we can make of it: Read the rest of this entry
This is Dumb
I am a Christian first. But I belong to a wider category of people who are called theists. The only thing that we all have in common is that we believe in a force greater than ourselves, which we believe to be deity, and that we worship.
When one theist says something stupid, it makes all of us look bad. Witness:
Many women who dress inappropriately … cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes. Calamities are the result of people’s deeds. We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers. (source)
So said Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi, a hardline Muslim leader.
All this time, I thought it was because Iran was situated near a nexus of faultlines. Silly me!
Back Rome Again 