Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Token radical chic charity

RD RAUSER SAID:

“In order to assess the plausibility of his claim we first have to identify what the worldview of biblical Christianity is. I presume it is, minimally, a set of metaphysical/theological claims. So what are those claims?”

That depends on how detailed an answer you’re looking for. Biblical theologies by Tom Schreiner, Bruce Waltke, Frank Thielman, and Gregory Beale (forthcoming) provide fairly detailed expositions.

“What is that set of claims the denial of which is sufficient to deem one irrational? You've talked in general terms about adopting the narrative and canonical perspective of scripture but like Dustin you have provided virtually no insight into what that set of claims is. So could you please get down to brass tacks? What is the set of claims about the nature of reality called ‘biblical Christianity’ the denial of which constitutes an irrationality?”

It doesn’t have to be a set of denied doctrines. There are a number of individual doctrines, the denial of which renders a belief-system irrational.

If the Biblical God exists, then he’s the source of all things actual, possible, and necessary. By denying the existence of God, the atheist can’t supply an ultimate explanation for anything.

If you deny the Biblical doctrine of creation, and punt to naturalistic evolution, then you sabotage the basis of human rationality–by attributing human rationality to a mindless process.

If you deny the Biblical doctrine of providence, you uproot the foundations of induction.

If you deny the Christian afterlife, you rob human existence of ultimate consequences. When we die, it’s as if we were never existed.

If you deny the efficacy of prayer, then your belief-system lacks the explanatory power to account for many events (large and small) in world history.

I could give other examples. And I could elaborate on the examples given.

“You said that I hold to a ‘low’ view of scripture. I wonder how you could know that since I didn't say anything about my view of scripture…”

You tipped your hand when you imputed contradictory diversity to Scripture. Likewise, your review of Babinski’s contribution to TCD betrays a low view of Scripture.

“…(or inerrancy, though I have been a member of ETS for 8 years in good standing, if it matters to you).”

That would mean something at the time the ETS was founded. It means preciously little today.

“I didn't say anything about my view of theological diversity in scripture. I only said that a reasonable person could believe such exists and thus come to a different set of beliefs about the claims that constitute a biblical Christian worldview than another person.”

Now you’re revising your original claim.

THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:

“Does this quote mean John Shelby Spong is evil?”

Yes, John Spong is evil.

However, I didn’t entitle my post “atheists are evil.” I entitled my post “atheism is evil."

Due to common grace, atheists range along a moral continuum. Some retain more residual decency than others.

RD RAUSER SAID:

“Let's say that atheism is constituted by the proposition "God does not exist." That can't be evil. It's just a proposition!”

There can be evil ideologies. Take Nazism. Or Satanism. And the thought is father to the deed (as the saying goes).

“So in fact we are talking about the evil of atheists and not the evil of a proposition that denies God's existence.”

False antithesis.

Human beings have an obligation to their Creator to acknowledge him and thank him. It’s like the obligation of children to parents–only higher. Atheism displays monumental ingratitude to God for the being and wellbeing of men. It also evinces a deep-seated hatred of the good. For God is the summum bonum, and the source of all mundane goods.

“Oh yeah, and you might want to take up Atheist Missionary's suggestion to read some Peter Singer. I'd suggest you also read some Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, atheists who demonstrate more moral integrity on a whole plethora of issues than most Christians I meet.”

i) That’s one of the most revealing statements which Randal has made thus far. Let’s see. Peter Singer. Fanatical lobbyist for abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Chomsky, apologist for Stalinism, Red China, and the Khmer Rouge–among other things. Cf. R. Posner, Public Intellectuals, 85-89.

Finkelstein, the classic self-hating Jew, who identifies with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Such paragons of moral integrity!

ii) Given his view of human nature, why does Singer care about the poor (if we accept the propaganda at face value)? Wouldn’t social Darwinism make more sense given his presuppositions?

“But my concern is with people who can't find the good in somebody with whom they disagree strenuously on other matters. Close to forty years ago Singer wrote a powerful paper in ethics on the culpability of rich people in allowing the poor of the world to die.”

Randal is such a dupe for empty liberal symbolism. Affluent liberals have always made “poverty” a radical chic cause–to deflect attention away from their own standard of living and provide some cover for their abhorrent ideology. It’s like the Al Gores and John Edwardses–who live in McMansions and fly by private jet while they purchase carbon offsets to excuse their lavish lifestyle, then lecture middle-class Americans on minivans.

What’s the standard of living for the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University?

“And yet rather than read that paper and Singer's other work on the plight of the world's poor, self-righteous suburban evangelicals continue to drive their big fat SUVs, tithe 4% of their income (on average) and stand in judgment of his views on abortion. What damnable hypocrisy.”

Well, that’s another revealing statement. Is it the combination of these putative vices that renders one hellbound, or are they individually damnatory?

i) Is it damnable to live in a look-alike house and shop at a strip mall? How is living in a suburb damnatory, but living in residential Vancouver BC (Randall attended Regent College) pious by contrast?

Or does Randal think evangelicals should live in a cardboard box under a bridge, then use the money they saved on housing to purchase books by Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer, Norman Finkelstein, and Peter Unger?

ii) Aren’t SUVs the contemporary equivalent of station wagons? Is it damnatory to drive a Chevy  SUV, but pious to drive a Chevy station wagon?

iii) If evangelicals didn’t have to fork over so much of their earnings in federal, state, and local taxes, they’d have more disposable income to tithe.

What about evangelicals who also donate to Christian charities and parachurch ministries? Did Randal take that into account?

What about an evangelical couple with a stay-at-home mom who homeschools the kids? Because they squeeze by on a single income, there’s not much disposable income.

Or what about an evangelical couple where both parents work outside the home to send their kids private Christian schools? How much money do they have left over after tuition and textbooks?

Or what about evangelicals who financially support their aging, failing parents? Say, assisted care.

Or what about evangelical parents with a drug addicted son or daughter? Their disposable income goes to rehab.

Or what if a father spends money taking his young sons on a camping trip? Is that damnable?

Or what if he buys a pet dog for his 8-year-old boy. Is that damnable?

iv) There is also the unspoken assumption that if we just transferred money from middle-class wage-earners to Third World countries, that would eradicate global poverty.

Is that how it works? What about all the foreign aid to Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa. Has that eradicated poverty? What about welfare programs? Has that eradicated poverty?

What about our nation-building efforts in Afghanistan?

If we just diverted middle-class wages to Somalia, that would transform Somalia into Switzerland, right?

v) What, exactly, is Randal doing to eradicate global poverty? Did street kids in Calcutta go to bed well nourished because he wrote a review of James Beilby’s Epistemology as Theology for Ars Disputandi?

“Before you call Peter Singer evil try reading the parable of the sheep and goats half a dozen times whilst setting aside your self-righteous certainty that you're a sheep and Singer is a goat.”

In context, the parable of the sheep and goats concerns the obligation of Christians to care for fellow Christians in need.

“How sad that none of the theologically correct Calvinists at this blog thread seem particularly interested in what you, or Singer, or Unger, have to say about the world's poor and our moral obligations to them.”

I was planning to make a contribution to World Relief until I blew my spending money on a $120 book about global poverty at Randal’s recommendation. So the poor will have to go to bed hungry while I read Unger’s book on poverty–then pat myself on the back for what a kind, generous guy I am.

17 comments:

  1. "That depends on how detailed an answer you’re looking for. Biblical theologies by Tom Schreiner, Bruce Waltke, Frank Thielman, and Gregory Beale (forthcoming) provide fairly detailed expositions."

    Do you know when Beale's book is coming out and/or what it will be entitled?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    You made so many irrefutable rebuttals of Professor Rausers's remarks that it's hard to know which ones deserve the most praise.

    Honestly, I feel sorry for his students at Taylor. They're getting a lousy professor, and if his remarks are indicative of his teaching in the classroom, then they're getting lousy teaching from a lousy professor.

    Taylor Hudson is turning over in his grave with this clown professor teaching at a university named after him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Geez, this is fast becoming a bloodbath.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just went over Professor Rauser's blog and read his post Parable of the Good Atheist which referenced this post.

    Anyways, besides the fact that Dr. Rauser makes a number of false observations and assertions in his post (a previous commenter in a prior thread says that Dr. Rauser accuses without knowledge), one merely has to read Steve Hay's elementary two-word response: Common Grace.

    How could Dr. Rauser overlook such a simple answer on his way to burning up his strawman?

    Why doesn't he realize how stupid he's making himself look?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why doesn't he realize how stupid he's making himself look?

    Oh, like McGrath, Reitan, and Peoples did?

    ReplyDelete
  6. RYAN SAID:

    "Do you know when Beale's book is coming out and/or what it will be entitled?"

    New Testament Biblical Theology: Transformation of the Old Testament in the New. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Forthcoming in Fall 2011.

    http://www.wts.edu/faculty/profiles/gbeale/gkbaandp.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I was planning to make a contribution to World Relief until I blew my spending money on a $120 book about global poverty at Randal’s recommendation. So the poor will have to go to bed hungry while I read Unger’s book on poverty–then pat myself on the back for what a kind, generous guy I am."


    Brutal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "iii) If evangelicals didn’t have to fork over so much of their earnings in federal, state, and local taxes, they’d have more disposable income to tithe."

    Yep, I have to dish out quite a bit of money from my pastor's compensation to "Uncle Sam" quarterly. I could literally give tens of thousands of dollars *more* per year to my local church, foreign missionaries, and mercy-ministries were it not for exorbitant taxation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Finkelstein, the classic self-hating Jew, who identifies with Hamas and Hezbollah."

    Rauser extolling Finkelstein leads to another intriguing thought as a possible revelation about Rauser:

    "Rauser, the classic conservative-hating liberal 'Christian', who identifies more readily with staunch atheists."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve wrote: If you deny the Biblical doctrine of creation, and punt to naturalistic evolution, then you sabotage the basis of human rationality–by attributing human rationality to a mindless process.

    Not at all. Many (I would say easily the majority) of Christians deny the Biblical doctrine of creation, accept the fact of evolution and still believe that some kind of supernatural event initiated by the Judeo-Christian god resulted in the first replicating molecules.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'd be interested in knowing how you know that about the majority, TAM, esp given that the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution (and the majority of Americans are hardly Christian).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do the authors of this blog seriously deny the fact of evolution? I recently posed this question to Matt Flannagan (a presenting member of the ETS): “If a student approaches their science teacher and asks whether the world is only 6000 years old, what should the science teacher tell them?” Matt answered as follows:

    “If it is a public school with a significant “fundamentalist constituency” the teacher should tell the student that according to the best current scientific theories the world is several millions of years old and explain why they think this. The teacher could then state that some religious groups believe that the world is 6000 years old and this is because they think the bible is God’s word and that Genesis 1-11 should be read literally. The teacher could note that if these assumptions are correct then God teaches that current science is wrong and there would be good reasons for thinking science is mistaken. The teacher could add that there are other Christians who think Genesis 1-11 should not be interpreted literally but he should note that whether the assumptions and interpretation in question are correct or not is a theological dispute which he as a science teacher cannot really comment on. He could refer the student to some books which discuss these issues from various angles and perhaps even refer him to the Religious Education teacher who might be able to explain the theological positions better.

    If the student asks what do you think? The teacher could answer, “I accept that science is the only reliable way of coming to these questions, and I don’t accept the assumption that the Bible is God’s word; however, these are philosophical and theological positions, not strictly scientific ones.” Alternatively he might state, “while I accept the Bible is God’s word I think Genesis 1-11 is not supposed to be interpreted literally, I think when you examine the kind of writing it is there are good reasons for thinking something else is going on there and so there is no reason for thinking science has made a mistake here.” Again, the teacher should encourage the student to come to an understanding of the issues for himself and should recommend a range of people or resources from different perspectives for him to consult. What he should not do is say: ‘no it is millions of years old and anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant fool worthy of ridicule."


    What do the authors of this blog say a science teacher should say to any student who asks how old the earth is?

    ReplyDelete
  13. “I accept that science is the only reliable way of coming to these questions, and I don’t accept the assumption that the Bible is God’s word; however, these are philosophical and theological positions, not strictly scientific ones.”

    There's the problem, right there - this is scientism, blind faith.
    How does science do repeatable experiments to observe how old the Earth is?

    ReplyDelete
  14. THE ATHEIST MISSIONARY SAID:

    "Not at all. Many (I would say easily the majority) of Christians deny the Biblical doctrine of creation, accept the fact of evolution and still believe that some kind of supernatural event initiated by the Judeo-Christian god resulted in the first replicating molecules."

    I see that you're illiterate. Of course, that's a logical correlation with atheism.

    I didn't say "evolution"–I said "naturalistic evolution." That's different from theistic evolution (not that I subscribe to macroevolution one way or the other).

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK Steve, so how should the science teacher answer the student's question as to whether the earth is approx. 6000 years old as suggested by a literal reading of the Bible? Do you disagree with Flannagan and, if so, in what regard?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've discussed that issue many times before. Check the archives.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Atheist Missionary said:
    ---
    Do the authors of this blog seriously deny the fact of evolution?
    ---

    Does The Atheist Missionary seriously believe that incredulity amounts to an argument?

    ReplyDelete