Last June, Jamin Hubner, who’s a contributor to Alpha and Omega Ministries, did a post on his own blog (“A Brief History of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology”) in which, among other things, I see him plugging Gary Burge’s tendentiously entitled Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told about Israel and the Palestinians.
But the fact that Burge is a PC-USA minister, along with the further fact that he’s a contributor to Jim Wallis’s leftwing rag Sojourners, ought to alert one to his presuppositions. From what I’ve read by him and about him, Burge is basically a shill for Hamas.
Here are some reviews of his book which give the other side of the argument:
This is silly name calling. Sure,
ReplyDeletethe PC(USA) and "Sojourners" are both wrong. But what has that to do with Hamas?
It's hardly name-calling to point out that someone with those affiliations is going to bring a leftwing political slant to his analysis of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Try not to be hopelessly naive.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you read his op-ed pieces in Sojourners (to take one example), you'd see what it has to do with Hamas.
Steve: So what?
ReplyDeleteHubner didn't "plug" Burge. He cited him in a footnote. Besides, his point that dispensationalism has political influence is uncontroversial and obvious.
By your standard, Hubner could call you a shill for Leftist villains like Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer.
RANDALL VAN DER STERREN SAID:
ReplyDelete“Hubner didn't ‘plug’ Burge. He cited him in a footnote.”
So you’re one of those folks who needs to have the obvious explained to him. Very well then. When Hubner favorably cites Burge’s book as the go-to resource on this issue, that’s a plug.
“Besides, his point that dispensationalism has political influence is uncontroversial and obvious.”
Are you trying to be dense? The question at issue is not whether dispensationalism has political influence, but whether Burge is a reliable source on dispensationalism vis-à-vis “mainstream politics and foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine.”
Moreover, in writing a critical post on dispensationalism, it’s incumbent on Hubner to at least cite reputable critics.
“By your standard, Hubner could call you a shill for Leftist villains like Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, and Chuck Schumer.”
Since I’m not promoting their speeches, your attempted analogy is radically disanalogous.
RvdS,
ReplyDeleteYour first comment solely had to do with your query, "What does this have to do with Hama?"
Steve then addressed your silly point about name calling, and then pointed you in the direction where you could get an answer to your question (should we assume it was sincere?).
You then responded to Steve with an off-topic response, saying "So what?" to his directing you where to go to find an answer to your ostensible sincere request for information.
Are you just itching for something to do given that Jersey Shore isn't currently on Thursday nights?
The second review gives (by far) the better critique of Burge. The first is dispensational tripe, with a thick coating of political jingoism. He makes a single acknowledgement of a Jewish-led atrocity, sweeping all else under the rug. Most of the theological points are vitiated by error.
ReplyDeleteReading the second review, I almost wondered if it could be written for the same book. The writer gives credit to Burge for attempting an even-handed approach, while astutely pointing out the social-justice motives (rather than true gospel-motives) that apparently occasion the book.
For all that, it should be apparent that Burge is criticized from a couple (mutually theologically incompatible) angles; which helps reveal the real weaknesses of the book. If I were going to critique that mid-east nation from a political angle, I would probably avoid citing apologists for gun-toting Muslim extremists, who are no friends of the Christians. The America-first conservative isolationism, exemplified by the likes of Pat Buchanan, is probably safer and wiser.
Even when I believed in Christianity, once I left Dispensationalism, it was easy to no longer believe that the establishment of Israel in 1948 had anything to do with Biblical prophecy. They were founded as a secular nation, basically, because they were not founded on faith in the true God of Abraham (as revealed through Christ). In the Scriptures, every replanting of Israel that I remember reading about always accompanied spiritual revival of faith and devotion to Yahweh. Now that Yahweh has revealed Christ, a true gathering of Israel should recognize that fact. Unless of course there is some alternate theological explanation, but now that I'm basically atheist, it no longer matters to me anyway.
ReplyDelete>but now that I'm basically atheist
ReplyDeleteNow that you're posing as atheist, you mean...
C.T., not sure what you mean. I understand the definition of atheist, and believe that to basically apply to me. How can I be posing as an atheist if I'm truly sincere about my non-belief? If you believe that it is impossible to be a sincere atheist because of Romans 1, fine, I also shared that belief back when I believed in Christianity. It doesn't make it true, however.
ReplyDeleteBYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Even when I believed in Christianity, once I left Dispensationalism, it was easy to no longer believe that the establishment of Israel in 1948 had anything to do with Biblical prophecy. They were founded as a secular nation, basically, because they were not founded on faith in the true God of Abraham (as revealed through Christ). In the Scriptures, every replanting of Israel that I remember reading about always accompanied spiritual revival of faith and devotion to Yahweh. Now that Yahweh has revealed Christ, a true gathering of Israel should recognize that fact."
My post wasn't predicated on dispensational assumptions.
Steve, I just skimmed the responses you offered, and they seem somewhat dispensational to me. Not that it matters, I guess. Some Christians, including the pastor of the church I still sometimes attend, believe that Israel is just another country, with no special status before God of any kind. Of course I agree with that now, but even when I was a believer, I agreed with that theology, though still remaining Zionist in the sense that Israel deserves to exist.
ReplyDeleteC.T., so, no response? I'm not sure if what you said was a genuine attempt at commentary or just another put-down for an atheist. Whatever.
Hey Byron, I don't want to get off-topic too much, so I'll just quickly comment I think it's likely we could sufficiently defend Israel on the grounds that it's a democratic state in a decidedly non-democratic Mideast (along with Iraq). We don't necessarily have to bring our theology into our support for Israel unless we want to.
ReplyDeletePatrick, I like that. Agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteAnd Patrick, from me too. I agree with you. Israel deserves to exist.
ReplyDelete>C.T., so, no response?
ReplyDeleteOn your blog you wrote this: "And though I cannot rule out the possibility of returning of faith, I do not want to encourage any false hopes in that direction either."
This is somebody who stepped away from Christianity to step into center stage. Under the spotlight. Posing. "Now, audience, I don't want you to get your hopes us unnecessarily. I may come back to the faith, but I may not. But as you continue to focus on me know this, when I do make a decision, you will be the first to know. I know this is difficult for you. My name is Helen. Helen of Troy. You are my suitors. If I play hard to get that is just something you have to deal with."
BYRON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, I just skimmed the responses you offered, and they seem somewhat dispensational to me. Not that it matters, I guess. Some Christians, including the pastor of the church I still sometimes attend, believe that Israel is just another country, with no special status before God of any kind. Of course I agree with that now, but even when I was a believer, I agreed with that theology, though still remaining Zionist in the sense that Israel deserves to exist."
There are two separate issues:
i) Do ethnic Jews/Eretz Israel retain a special place in Biblical eschatology?
ii) Should we view Israeli Jews as the bad guys, and "Palestinians" as the peace-loving victims of Israeli oppression?
These are easily separable questions.
C.T.,
ReplyDeleteNo offense, but there's something you're missing here. My personal blog is simply that, a personal blog. It happens to be public, because I wanted to be open about my loss of belief with those who might read it, especially friends and perhaps family members (my family members don't visit my blog as far as I know, but I did tell them in other ways). When I was still in the atheist closet, I was criticized by a theist friend of mine for being secretive about it and not making it public. Now when I make it public, and it seems that you level the criticism that I am merely seeking attention for it. OK, fine. I admit I became an atheist primarily for emotional reasons, but that would never have happened if the intellectual reasons had not been there first. I realize you cannot know my motives, and I cannot stop you from pre-judging me. So whatever this means to you, I suppose that is the best I can make it.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Israel is perfectly guilt-free, though I do believe, based on what I have heard, that the majority of the blame goes to the militant Muslim groups. I appreciate the distinction you make here. Thanks.
Byron,
ReplyDeleteOne other point: Since Burge targets dispensationalists, reviewers critical of Burge are apt to be dispensationalists.
However, that's just one aspect of the issue.
Byron, I personally think all atheists are posers. In that they don't really believe what they claim to believe. For instance, no atheist really thinks he is going into nothingness when he dies. Their behavior gives them away. People who really thought their life was one and done wouldn't be on the internet, for instance. I mean, actually if you go into more deeply they'd probably be killing themselves. Or they'd just be insane.
ReplyDeleteC.T., your type of thinking is very common, and I too shared it when I was a theist. But, what if this life is the only one you are guaranteed to have, and no one has any knowledge of what, if anything, comes after this life (though many claim with definiteness to have received revelation on this subject from their religion or holy books). The people I know who are atheists have the view that this life should be lived, enjoyed, and that they should do good to other human beings (gasp, they have morals without God!). Some criticize atheists as having no reason for escaping depressive nihilism, but I disagree. Life itself is worth living, and needs not be subject to depression. Instead, we can be glad for the time we have, and live it fully.
ReplyDeleteCT:
ReplyDeleteNoooo....Byron is a close friend of mine & he IS an atheist. Why would you doubt that? And you sure are arrogant to think YOU know what HE is better than he does.
@ c.t.:
ReplyDelete"I personally think all atheists are posers. In that they don't really believe what they claim to believe. For instance, no atheist really thinks he is going into nothingness when he dies. Their behavior gives them away. People who really thought their life was one and done wouldn't be on the internet, for instance. I mean, actually if you go into more deeply they'd probably be killing themselves. Or they'd just be insane."
Man, you sure are ignorant. While some of us are open to the possibility that there is a god...and maybe even an afterlife, at the same time, we also DO believe that if there isn't a god, then we ARE going into nothingness when we die. That is the logical conclusion that stems from a lack of belief in a god. We lack belief in a god(s) because there is absolutely no evidence to prove there is a god. And to say that there DEFINITELY IS a god without evidence is merely wishful thinking.
And furthermore, why would a belief in no afterlife drive us to commit suicide or go insane? That would only happen to people like you if YOU became an atheist, because you would no longer have your crutch of religion to hold you up. But, for those of us who are emotionally and psychologically strong...we don't need a crutch and can handle the harsh realities of life.
And besides, why would we want to kill ourselves if we believe this life is the only one we have. If we don't believe in an afterlife, which means we believe THIS life is the only one we have, why would we want to throw it away by committing suicide?
I need to change my e-mail address. I don't know how to do it and I've been to lazy to figure it out! lol
ReplyDeleteByron said:
ReplyDeleteThe people I know who are atheists have the view that this life should be lived, enjoyed, and that they should do good to other human beings (gasp, they have morals without God!).
1. No one is saying atheists aren't moral. There are many moral atheists. Many atheists who do the right thing. Many atheists who help and care for others, who take care of their families and friends, who don't lie or cheat or steal or murder or commit adultery or whatever else is contrary to good morals. So it's not about moral behavior.
2. As well, no one is saying atheists don't know what good morals are. Many atheists intuitively know what's right and wrong, what's good and what's bad. So it's not about moral epistemology.
3. Rather the issue is about moral ontology. What grounds objective morality given the confluence of atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism? On atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, what's objectively wrong with Jeffrey Dahmer doing the things he did? What's objectively wrong if he kidnaps boys, rapes them, murders them, and then eats them?
Sure, it might be frowned upon by society. But it's not as if social morals are objectively grounded. A different society might well have different morals. Maybe Dahmer's rape and cannibalism is socially acceptable in someplace like, I dunno, Papua New Guinea. Or maybe it would've been socially acceptable in someplace like, say, the Aztec empire.
Or let's say the entire human race suddenly thought things like murder, rape, and cannibalism were perfectly legitimate moral options. Then Dahmer wouldn't have done anything wrong.
4. In a similar vein, you might consider watching a short film named "Cruel Logic" by Brian Godawa.
Some criticize atheists as having no reason for escaping depressive nihilism, but I disagree. Life itself is worth living, and needs not be subject to depression. Instead, we can be glad for the time we have, and live it fully.
ReplyDeleteThere are some people who go through life epitomizing what Socrates decried against i.e. living an unexamined life. They never stop to think about anything really. They never reflect. They just wake up, eat and drink, go to school or work, chillax with their friends, go home, go to sleep, and wake up and do the same thing again. This persists with minor changes here and there for the next 50 years or whatever. Yet they're perfectly happy. In this respect, they're just like a happy little dog or some other animal. (Indeed, on atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, that's all we are.)
Not to mention there are some people who are naturally more optimistic than others. There could very well be optimistic atheists who are quite happy and who live happy lives. It's just a matter of temperament. Or perhaps a matter of environment. Some atheists might've grown up in a happy household.
Also, there could be pathological people who are quite happy. Take a look at some people in insane asylums. They happen to think they're the Duke or Duchess of Cambridge. Or the king or queen of the United Kingdom. Or the POTUS. Or some think they're God himself. Or they're a high elf in Middle-earth. Yet they're perfectly happy. We'd say they're delusional. But no one ever said delusional people can't be happy!
So the fact that some people can go through life happy as they can be, living life to the full in whatever sense they think it means to live life to the full, isn't the issue. No one is saying it can't be done. No one is saying it's not possible.
Rather the issue is whether on atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism we can say life is ultimately "worth living." What makes life ultimately meaningful, valuable, and purposeful given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism?
Larryjones1cor15 said:
ReplyDeleteAnd besides, why would we want to kill ourselves if we believe this life is the only one we have. If we don't believe in an afterlife, which means we believe THIS life is the only one we have, why would we want to throw it away by committing suicide?
You should try asking antinatalists your question.
"the issue is whether on atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism we can say life is ultimately "worth living." What makes life ultimately meaningful, valuable, and purposeful given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism?"
ReplyDeleteI find meaning in spending time with family and friends, laughing and enjoying each others company. I find meaning in helping out with social causes like supporting a political candidate, signing a petition to stop an injustice, donating money to a charity or converting a Christian to being a Freethinker. I also find meaning in nature, art, literature and the theater. I find meaning in romance. My life as an atheist is lived with a lot of meaning and purpose.
Don't need religion for any of that.
Patrick Chan said:
ReplyDelete"Rather the issue is about moral ontology. What grounds objective morality given the confluence of atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism?"
Well, I guess if there is no god, then I guess I have to admit that there is no objective morality. But, just because there is a need (rather real or perceived) for objective morality, doesn't prove that god exists. You guys like to make that leap in logic. And since you are a theist (and correct me if ur not), I'm assuming you have made this leap in logic yourself.
Secondly, just because there is no god, and hence, no objective morality, doesn't mean we have no method for coming up with a practical and efficient morality on our own. If god doesn't exist, (and I ask, for the sake of this discussion, you GRANT me that there is no god)then we are forced to come up with a ethical system on our own. No, it may not be objective, but we have to come up with SOMETHING if there is no god. What else can we do? So, we as a society, came up with a code of ethics.
Patrick Chan asked me:
ReplyDelete"You should try asking antinatalists your question."
And my "question" being:
"And besides, why would we want to kill ourselves if we believe this life is the only one we have. If we don't believe in an afterlife, which means we believe THIS life is the only one we have, why would we want to throw it away by committing suicide?"
LOL! Yeah, those guys seem pretty depressed! :-) Boy, I'm glad I'm not them. But, I do kinda like that one quote: (paraphrasing here) "We all know the same true; we just spend our lives choosing our own way to distort it." :-)
And btw, I just kind of skimmed thru the site; didn't really read anything. But, not all atheists are like them. It's probably true that all antinatalists are atheists, but not all atheists are antinatalists. :-)
But yeah; you're right. Those guys would probably have a...uh...slightly different answer to my question. lol
@ Patrick Chan:
ReplyDeleteThat cruel logic is a pretty trippy video. Yikes! Well, if the professor can quit wetting his pants for a minute...he could simply calm down and affirm his criminal biological theory and say, "Well, if you are one of those people who are genetically predisposed to committing crimes, even murder, without feeling any remorse or sympathy for his victim or without fear of getting caught, then, I guess you are about to kill me and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it."
And if the majority of our society were like him, we'd have a dire problem on our hands.
*"Cruel Logic"
ReplyDeleteLarryjones1cor15 said:
ReplyDeleteI find meaning in spending time with family and friends, laughing and enjoying each others company. I find meaning in helping out with social causes like supporting a political candidate, signing a petition to stop an injustice, donating money to a charity or converting a Christian to being a Freethinker. I also find meaning in nature, art, literature and the theater. I find meaning in romance. My life as an atheist is lived with a lot of meaning and purpose.
Don't need religion for any of that.
1. Of course, none of this contradicts what I said above. Indeed, what you say here is just another example of what I've already pointed out. Given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, anyone can find meaning in whatever they like.
2. At the same time it still doesn't answer the question I posed: "Rather the issue is whether on atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism we can say life is ultimately 'worth living.' What makes life ultimately meaningful, valuable, and purposeful given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism?" For example, given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, what's wrong with Dahmer finding meaning in murder and cannibalism?
As Jeffrey Dahmer's dad, Lionel Dahmer, told Larry King in an interview: "Even the psychiatrist that examined him [Jeffrey Dahmer] at -- for the purpose of the trial didn't really know why he did it. But he did tell me why he felt that he could do what he did. Why he felt free to do what he did. He told me that -- and this was after reading the books on -- by these scientists on creation science, he felt that he was up -- up from the slime, as he put it. You know, molecules to amoebas to Larry type of a thing, evolution. That there was nothing, no direction by a god. No one to be accountable to. No one to answer to at all."
Well, I guess if there is no god, then I guess I have to admit that there is no objective morality.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the admission.
But, just because there is a need (rather real or perceived) for objective morality, doesn't prove that god exists. You guys like to make that leap in logic.
I didn't make this "leap of logic" because I didn't argue for God's existence above. Rather I'm arguing against Byron's points. Again, you've obviously missed what I've written above.
Secondly, just because there is no god, and hence, no objective morality, doesn't mean we have no method for coming up with a practical and efficient morality on our own. If god doesn't exist, (and I ask, for the sake of this discussion, you GRANT me that there is no god)then we are forced to come up with a ethical system on our own. No, it may not be objective, but we have to come up with SOMETHING if there is no god. What else can we do? So, we as a society, came up with a code of ethics.
1. Again, you've totally missed my point. I granted all of this above. What you've said fails to respond to my original question: "Rather the issue is about moral ontology. What grounds objective morality given the confluence of atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism?"
2. But since you've admitted, "Well, I guess if there is no god, then I guess I have to admit that there is no objective morality," then you've not only conceded my point, but also contradicted Byron's point when he said "gasp, they have morals without God!" I'll thank you for conceding my point, but I don't know if Byron will thank you for contradicting his! :-)
It's probably true that all antinatalists are atheists, but not all atheists are antinatalists. :-)
While it's true "not all atheists are antinatalists," antinatalism is atheism taken to its logical extreme.
And if the majority of our society were like him, we'd have a dire problem on our hands.
Indeed, but there's nothing objectively immoral with the serial killer's position. That's the point.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteAll of your questions raise legitimate points, for all philosophical positions people hold, and perhaps especially for my own position.
You offer an interesting admission that, "Many atheists intuitively know what's right and wrong, what's good and what's bad." This admission works very well for the theist positions, because it essentially opens the door to discussion as to the origin of these intuitive moral feelings. Like a good one-two punch, you later submit another necessary question, "What grounds objective morality given the confluence of atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism?" Possible solutions to this two-sided argument include the wide range of theist responses and beliefs. Without getting into a side discussion on the evidence and probability of theistic claims, I believe the answer to the questions are more basic and fundamental in nature than that offered by theists. Basically that answer for the non-theist is a fundamental appeal to the process of evolution and its product of the human genome and resulting behaviors and predispositions. Science cannot yet fully answer all questions of knowledge concerning this subject, which is precisely what makes the questions so difficult for non-theists. The difficulty comes from the lack of scientific knowledge on the subject, to the direct extent that such knowledge is lacking, and the question becomes less and less difficult the more scientific knowledge we obtain in this area. God is the ultimate answer for a monotheist, but one could argue that we are either not far enough along in the process of scientific discovery to realize our limitations in answering the fundamental questions of human nature, or that we have progressed far enough along that (as far as I know) we see no insurmountable difficulty in eventually explaining basic human nature based on the genome and the environment in purely naturalistic terms.
Incidentally, I watched the "Cruel Logic" movie and I can almost fully agree with the serial killer's logic. I take one important exception, however. The movie wrongly focuses on the individuality of behavior in justifying morality, when morality is admittedly individualistic in action, but morality is and has always been a social construct, not necessarily for the benefit of the human race as a whole, or for individuals, but for the society's benefit and purposes as encoded in its dominant culture. We necessarily frown upon cannibalistic cultures in primitive countries, for the express reason that as individuals, our competing societies, and perhaps the human race itself, would not survive if such cultural norms were enforced universally. However, the cannibals in Papua New Guinea are simply experiments in Nature's evolution, parts of a collective whole called the human race.
That brings me to the subject of antinatalism. I have not fully researched it, but apparently it too is a moral possibility. If so, it serves as an evolutionary dead-end. I do not know if the human race will ultimately survive. I believe that question will be answered objectively as a product of our evolution. I hope that it will. But in the larger scheme of things, I am not sure that our survival as a species is fundamentally important. But again, I hope so.
Byron said:
ReplyDeleteBasically that answer for the non-theist is a fundamental appeal to the process of evolution and its product of the human genome and resulting behaviors and predispositions.
1. Well, appealing to our genetic makeup doesn't resolve the question of objective morality on atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism. It only pushes the question back a step. Now morality is tied to DNA. Morality is subject to our genetic evolution. It's possible we could have evolved a different set of morals. Or it's possible we could evolve a different set of morals in the future. Perhaps we could evolve to think rape and murder are perfectly moral actions. So morality is still subjective, not objective. In other words, morality is an illusion tied to our genes to make us get along with one another socially and thus allow for improved odds of survival. But that's all it is.
2. It'd seem you've just provided a possible grounds for morality in the animal kindgom. If morality is tied to DNA in humans, then morality could presumably be tied to DNA in other species too. It's possible that some species will evolve a sense of morality in the future. After all, humans did, so why not other species? In that case, it could be possible that sharks evolve and become intelligent, conscious creatures that think it's perfectly moral to eat other sharks not to mention humans. But shark morality would be different to human morality because humans don't think it's moral to eat other humans while sharks do think it's moral to eat other sharks as well as humans. This likewise illustrates the lack of an objective foundation for morality.
The movie wrongly focuses on the individuality of behavior in justifying morality, when morality is admittedly individualistic in action, but morality is and has always been a social construct, not necessarily for the benefit of the human race as a whole, or for individuals, but for the society's benefit and purposes as encoded in its dominant culture.
1. Sorry, Byron, but that's doubletalk. For one thing, society is comprised of individuals and individuals don't necessarily think in terms of whether their actions will benefit or harm society let alone whether it'll improve human survival on an evolutionary scale. (In fact, the latter wasn't possible prior to Darwin and Mendel.) For example, let's say a person murders another person and then feels guilt. He may feel guilt for a variety of reasons. But it'd be quite a stretch to say he feels guilt because he realizes murder undermines the chances of his survival and society's survival. Actually, since killing a competitor would make it more likely that he'd survive and that his genes would be passed on, this would seem to be one of the least likely reasons he'd feel guilt for murdering another person.
2. If morality is just a social construct, then morality is just a set of rules invented by society. But a society can change its rules. Or a different society might well have different morals. I already pointed this out above. Let's say the entire human race suddenly thought things like murder, rape, and cannibalism were perfectly legitimate moral options. Or let's say the Nazis won WWII and brainwashed everyone into believing it was fine to murder undesirables like Jews, gypsies, the mentally deficient, the handicapped, etc. According to your position, murder would then be morally licit.
3. Let's say you're right that "morality is and has always been a social construct." What happens when someone realizes this is the case? Is there anything objectively wrong with someone murdering another person so long as he can get away with it without being caught?
Patrick, a friend corrected me on my understanding of objective morality, that it is a universal absolute which would apply in some sense at all times. It seems that my position would not allow for an objective morality to exist, then, without some outside agent (i.e., God) or cause (God again, probably). I suppose my question becomes, why is an objective standard for morality necessary? If such a thing exists, where is the evidence for its existence, since we all can point to exceptions (Papua New Guinea, etc) to what some believe is the objective moral standard?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do believe that morality exists in the animal kingdom, and is tied to intelligence and the ability to form social behaviors. I don't remember the link, but I came across an example of "morality" in a gorilla or a chimpanzee (don't remember which) acting to save another of its own kind from drowning at the risk of its own life. I would consider that a very primitive form of morality, though I am no expert on animal psychology.
Individuals most often act as individuals based on their desires and motivations. Society enforces its cultural rules (of the majority) upon the minority (punishing crime and so forth) as needed. And I have to take an exception to where you said, "For one thing, society is comprised of individuals and individuals don't necessarily think in terms of whether their actions will benefit or harm society let alone whether it'll improve human survival on an evolutionary scale. (In fact, the latter wasn't possible prior to Darwin and Mendel.)" Yes, according to a context of evolutionary understanding, this was not possible, but it is possible to act in a context of good for "human survival" itself even if knowledge of evolutionary descent is not possessed. I suppose I could not call it objective in any absolute, universal sense, but I could say that evolution produced behaviors for the propagation of the species as a whole. Unless of course, as you say, if the whole human race suddenly believed that destructive actions were morally right, I could not argue that the morality is necessarily wrong perhaps, but it would serve as an evolutionary dead end to the extent it was followed. But I believe our evolved intelligence is also involved in our formation and enforcement of morality as well.
Bryon said:
ReplyDeletewhy is an objective standard for morality necessary?
You're asking this question? Seriously? After everything I said above? Come on, man. Please re-read what I've written above, Byron.
Sigh.
Well, to offer another example, Byron, if there is no objective morality, then you can't say Dr. Josef Mengele's human experiments were objectively wrong. Nor can you say what Unit 731 did on humans was objectively wrong.
You can't say their vivisection without anesthesia on pregnant women was objectively wrong. You can't say removing the organs of a living human being without anesthesia to test how they'd function without these organs was objectively wrong. You can't say freezing the limbs of an otherwise healthy human being and then amputating the limbs was objectively wrong. You can't say testing flame throwers or biochemical weapons or grenades on living human beings was objectively wrong. And so on and so forth.
At best you might say it's wrong given our society's morals. But you can't say it's wrong given Nazi Germany's or Imperial Japan's morals.
Or you might say it's wrong given the whole of humanity's morals. But humanity's morals could vary depending on time. Maybe in the future we'll all think it's perfectly moral to conduct these sorts of human experiments.
Like you said above, maybe what the Nazis and Unit 731 did were "simply experiments in Nature's evolution, parts of a collective whole called the human race." Since Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan lost the war, then what's moral is what we have in place today. But if they had won the war and took over the world, then maybe it'd be perfectly moral to conduct all these human experiments.
Patrick, right, so?
ReplyDeleteWhy does there have to be an objective source for morality? Just because there might not be one does not automatically imply that all the horrors you give as examples must occur. Perhaps they're expected as part of the evolutionary process. Perhaps they are (hopefully) anomalies in what I believe to be a deterministic universe (without necessarily a God, and certainly without the Christian one, in my own personal view).
Perhaps we are simply on our own as a species, with no God and no need for one, and we must simply help ourselves?
Byron said:
ReplyDeleteWhy does there have to be an objective source for morality? Just because there might not be one does not automatically imply that all the horrors you give as examples must occur.
Well, we happen to live in a universe where all these horrors did in fact occur. The Nazi and Unit 731 human experiments aren't hypotheticals, Byron. They actually took place. Just Google if you don't believe me.
Perhaps they're expected as part of the evolutionary process.
In what sense can anything be "expected" in the evolutionary process? On atheism, the evolutionary process is a blind process. There's nothing guiding it.
Perhaps they are (hopefully) anomalies in what I believe to be a deterministic universe
Indeed, given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, we have no free will. Free will is an illusion. A "deterministic universe" would be quite apt.
Perhaps we are simply on our own as a species, with no God and no need for one, and we must simply help ourselves?
It seems like what you're really asking is why can't there be no God and no objective morality. Yes, theoretically, it's possible. It's possible there is no God and no objective morality. Perhaps like it's theoretically possible the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some parallel universe.
But if it's the case that atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then why bother "helping" anyone? Why not live selfishly instead? If your response is something like "for the good of our species," then why should we care what happens to our species? We only have finite lives. In fact, so does our species. At some point in time, our species will either become extinct or evolve into a different species. And someday all species on earth will die either when the sun itself dies or when the universe itself ends. So why should we care for the good of our species unless it happens to benefit us personally?
BTW, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then not only is there no objective morality, but it'd seem there's also no obligation to believe atheism is true. Rather you can believe whatever you want to believe as long as it's beneficial to you in whatever way you want to define beneficial.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if you define beneficial in terms of health, and if studies are correct that religious people tend to live healthier lives, then you might as well be religious since religious people apparently have healthier lives.
Patrick, I am not sure in what sense you see the word "expected" when you used it. If I am correct that this universe is deterministic, then there are no accidents, even for such horrors as you mentioned (which I do believe you). They could not always be "expected" however in the sense of being foreseen or predicted. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the fact these situations arise rarely is some cause for hope for the human race, at least in the relative short term.
ReplyDeleteThen you ask, "why bother helping" anyone? Well, why not? Why would a person be restricted from helping others simply for lacking the context for motivation that you seem to require? Perhaps it makes us feel better to do so. Perhaps we have ulterior motives. Perhaps it's even always selfish, but I don't think so, as I believe there exists genuine compassion and benevolence at times in the human heart. The underlying motivation for such need not be "god" and his desires for such action.
Then you say, "BTW, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then not only is there no objective morality, but it'd seem there's also no obligation to believe atheism is true." I am not sure what you intend by "obligation" here. If there is such a thing as natural curiosity and desire to obtain truth by study and analysis then that alone is "obligation" for finding atheism, if such is indeed the truth. Again, it comes back to our DNA and the results of our evolutionary process, and behind that is the deterministic factor of the universe, I believe.
Then you say, "Rather you can believe whatever you want to believe as long as it's beneficial to you in whatever way you want to define beneficial." But I don't see how atheism requires this, without subtracting knowledge, scientific endeavor, and even common sense from consideration. I can sincerely believe that sticking my hands in fire is beneficial for me because it meets my definitions. But that does not make it so, and I have the rational ability to deduce that fact using reason and scientific processes. I'm not sure I could say you arrive at objective truth using such, but certainly you arrive at a successful pragmatism which is beneficial for your survival and ultimate goal of passing on genes.
You said: "For example, if you define beneficial in terms of health, and if studies are correct that religious people tend to live healthier lives, then you might as well be religious since religious people apparently have healthier lives."
But, if religion is not true, then the underlying cause of such benefit should be determined, isolated, and maximized. If religion is indeed true, and your definition is true, then of course I must agree. But just because it naturally follows from your presuppositions does not make religion more probable (or healthier) by itself, right?
Byron said:
ReplyDeleteIf I am correct that this universe is deterministic, then there are no accidents, even for such horrors as you mentioned (which I do believe you). They could not always be "expected" however in the sense of being foreseen or predicted. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the fact these situations arise rarely is some cause for hope for the human race, at least in the relative short term.
1. You keep trying to foist some semblance of meaning onto your beliefs. But unfortunately your beliefs won't allow it. Given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, life is an accident. Life is meaningless. Life is absurd. You keep missing this basic point.
2. You keep talking about the human species as a whole while brushing aside individuals. Too bad for the individuals who died such gruesome deaths in one of the Nazi or Unit 731 experiments! That's just part of the evolutionary process. Of course, atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism does leave us with this callousness. But the problem is that you don't seem willing to face the cold, harsh reality of your own position. Your head tells you there's no God, etc., no meaning, value, or purpose in life, but your heart wants otherwise.
Then you ask, "why bother helping" anyone? Well, why not? Why would a person be restricted from helping others simply for lacking the context for motivation that you seem to require? Perhaps it makes us feel better to do so. Perhaps we have ulterior motives.
Again, you completely miss the point. Sorry that I have to be so blunt but it's taxing to have to repeat myself to you multiple times. The point is since you deny objective morality, then you have no objective basis for moral behavior.
All you've said so far is either morality is based in socio-cultural norms or morality is based in genetic determinism. But these are about as objective as the shifting sands. These can change, progress or regress, evolve or devolve. We could've evolved with different moral sentiments. We could evolve to think it's moral to hate our neighbor rather than love him.
Of course, I'm not denying it doesn't make you feel better to help people or that you can't have ulterior motives in helping people. I'm not denying your emotions or psychology could trick you to believe there are objective morals even though there really aren't. I'm not denying you don't think what you're doing to help people is meaningful to you in some way.
Although for some people like Jeffrey Dahmer it makes them feel good to kill people. It gives their life meaning. If people like Dahmer become the majority of the human population, then perhaps their morals will become normative.
Rather I'm denying that you have an objective moral basis for your moral behavior.
As a consequence, why not live selfishly? If you're on a boat adrift in the middle of the ocean with one other person, and there's only enough food and water for one person, then, if you can overcome the other person, is there anything objectively wrong with killing the other person so that you'll have a better chance of survival? Not that I can see, given your beliefs.
If we're all buried six feet under in the end, if how we live in life doesn't have any sort of a bearing on our destiny since there's no heaven or hell, no judgment, no God, no nothing except nothingness, then it doesn't matter whether we lived like Mother Theresa or like Hitler. So why not just live however you like so long as you can get away with it? Why not live selfishly?
Perhaps it's even always selfish, but I don't think so, as I believe there exists genuine compassion and benevolence at times in the human heart.
ReplyDeleteThere also exists genuine selfishness in the human heart. The human heart doesn't provide an objective basis for morality.
If there is such a thing as natural curiosity and desire to obtain truth by study and analysis then that alone is "obligation" for finding atheism, if such is indeed the truth.
The point is, if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then there's no duty to believe the truth unless it's beneficial or advantageous to you in some way. There's no duty to prioritize the truth over and above other things like health, wealth, power, status, or strength. If you want to prioritize the truth, fine. But no one and nothing is compelling you other than yourself. It might be useful to believe the truth in certain situations. But there's no burden or onus to believe the truth in all cases or situations. So your atheism undercuts the value of truth.
But I don't see how atheism requires this, without subtracting knowledge, scientific endeavor, and even common sense from consideration. . . . But that does not make it so, and I have the rational ability to deduce that fact using reason and scientific processes. I'm not sure I could say you arrive at objective truth using such, but certainly you arrive at a successful pragmatism which is beneficial for your survival and ultimate goal of passing on genes.
Given atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism, that's not necessarily the case. You'd have to deal with Plantinga's EAAN for one thing.
At this point, your atheism would lead you with moral relativism, with no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose in life, with a diminished value for truth, with an impoverished reason and rationality, with a higher probability of unreliable cognitive faculties, etc. What's left? Not a whole lot! So much for all that talk about atheists being reasonable and rational and so forth!
But, if religion is not true, then the underlying cause of such benefit should be determined, isolated, and maximized. But just because it naturally follows from your presuppositions does not make religion more probable (or healthier) by itself, right?
At least as I understand the article, the benefit would be that people believe religion is true, even if it's not true. It's a matter of perception, not necessarily reality.
The Calvinist God ordained child molesters, serial rapists, serial killers, murderers, drunk driving deaths, plagues, natural disasters, and so on, before the beginning of time. Somehow this is not a problem for most Calvinists. They rationalize God's actions as being part of God's mystical plan where He will eventually make everything right that He ordained to be wrong in the first place. And because God is the ultimate source for all morality, righteousness, and all events and outcomes (including sin and evil if you take these doctrines to their logical conclusions), then it becomes the ultimate appeal to authority, with "might makes right." God is the ultimate cosmic bully sadist (and soul rapist, in terms of monergistic salvation), without any mercy for all the non-elect.
ReplyDeleteWhy would I ever wish to worship such a being? I'll grant for the sake of argument that God, if He exists, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I'll grant that God is the source for all morality, authority, and power. I'll even grant that God has the right as Creator to do as He pleases, according to Paul's argument in Romans 9. So my rebellion is doomed. If the two-wills theory of God is correct, then God's preceptive will forbids what His decretive will ordains, including my own rebellion and its certain failure and the doom of my own soul. Even if such a God existed and Christianity is actually true, I could not worship such a God. I would extend my rebellion, blasphemy, mocking, ridiculing, and scorn for as long as God grants my soul the power to do so, even eternally if that is possible.
Why would ANYONE want to bow the knee and worship such a monster as God?
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteApparently I was wrong in my understanding of what "objective" means, as I was also corrected by a friend of mine. I would have to concede that there might be no "objective" basis to morality if objective means "absolute and universal." If someone had to have an objective basis for morality, then perhaps science will discover enough in the future to be able to say definitively that man's morality evolved along with his genome, and its nature is ultimately rooted in the deterministic nature of the universe. But I'll concede for the sake of argument there is no objective basis for morality, and again I ask, "so what?"
You say, "But the problem is that you don't seem willing to face the cold, harsh reality of your own position." The problem is, I have actually described such events using stronger terms than you have in this discussion, and I do face what my position entails. Then you say, "Your head tells you there's no God, etc., no meaning, value, or purpose in life, but your heart wants otherwise." How do you know what is in my heart? And why must all of these concepts be lumped together and taken as an indivisible whole? And why must meaning, value, and purpose be extracted only from your position that there must exist universal absolutes from which to derive them?
Anyways, I think I did miss your point, and I do concede to being wrong on the objective basis of morality.
I also do not understand why theists seem to insist that without a universal absolute set of morals given by an omnipotent, omniscient God, that the only alternative is to live in such a selfish extreme that borders (and exceeds) destructiveness to society in general. This is just not the picture with atheists in general. Why is that? I would hate to think that unless I have an absolute, universal god ruling over me and suppressing my bad behavior (or at least the belief of such) that I must then live like an absolute devil. Perhaps this is true for some theists, but it is not universally true.
Now let's talk about some problems with the position of Calvinism (what I am familiar with). I do not know what your theological position is, but if you hold to God's omniscience then you still suffer from some of these problems to an extent. And the Calvinist God in control of all things is actually a worse picture than that of stark, Godless atheism.
(cont)
Why is the first part of my comment not posting? I've tried to post it twice. Weird.
ReplyDeleteByron said:
ReplyDeleteThe Calvinist God ordained child molesters, serial rapists, serial killers, murderers, drunk driving deaths, plagues, natural disasters, and so on, before the beginning of time. Somehow this is not a problem for most Calvinists. They rationalize God's actions as being part of God's mystical plan where He will eventually make everything right that He ordained to be wrong in the first place. And because God is the ultimate source for all morality, righteousness, and all events and outcomes (including sin and evil if you take these doctrines to their logical conclusions), then it becomes the ultimate appeal to authority, with "might makes right." God is the ultimate cosmic bully sadist (and soul rapist, in terms of monergistic salvation), without any mercy for all the non-elect.
Why would I ever wish to worship such a being? I'll grant for the sake of argument that God, if He exists, is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I'll grant that God is the source for all morality, authority, and power. I'll even grant that God has the right as Creator to do as He pleases, according to Paul's argument in Romans 9. So my rebellion is doomed. If the two-wills theory of God is correct, then God's preceptive will forbids what His decretive will ordains, including my own rebellion and its certain failure and the doom of my own soul. Even if such a God existed and Christianity is actually true, I could not worship such a God. I would extend my rebellion, blasphemy, mocking, ridiculing, and scorn for as long as God grants my soul the power to do so, even eternally if that is possible.
Why would ANYONE want to bow the knee and worship such a monster as God?
1. You're shifting gears, Byron. This has nothing to do with whether or not Calvinism is true. Or whether or not the God of the Bible exists. Or whether or not Christianity is true.
In fact, I'm granting your belief that God does not exist. I'm granting your belief that atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true. I'm saying if atheism, physicalism, and neo-Darwinism are true, then the consequences I've outlined above would follow.
You may not like the consequences. You may not like that there's no objective morality. You may not like that your life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose.
You may not like that some people end up like Hugh Hefner with all the women he could have, or like George Clooney or Matt Damon with fame, fortune, women, and class, or like Will Ferrell with a happy and fun life, while others end up bitter and alone without any friends or family or significant others to love and to hold or anything else really in life.
It's just the luck of the draw, I guess. Some have fantastic and happy lives, while others have sad and lonely and bitter and terrible lives. But in the end everyone ends up dead and buried. That's all there is to it. There's no justice. No one to say what's right or wrong, good or bad. Life's unfair. Oh well. Too bad. That's just the way it is.
But just because you don't like the consequences of your beliefs doesn't mean they're not true, does it?
2. You're obviously very angry with God to say the least.
You exemplify what C.S. Lewis once said about himself when he was an atheist: "I was at this time of living, like so many atheists or anti-theists, in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world."
But if you don't believe God exists, Byron, then why are you angry at him? There's no one to be angry with. No one that can hear your anger let alone respond to it. Your anger toward God makes no sense. It's illogical. It's irrational. It's unreasonable. Isn't it?
Patrick, you are telling me that, "You may not like the consequences. You may not like that there's no objective morality. You may not like that your life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose." It does not particularly bother me, actually. Because I don't live my life in a realm of philosophical ultimatums. In fact, being a freethinker is actually freeing, and I'm finding some long-needed purpose in my life. So it's quite the opposite of what you predict here.
ReplyDeleteYou say, "You're obviously very angry with God to say the least."
I would probably have to plead guilty to that, but more on that in a moment.
Then you say, "But if you don't believe God exists, Byron, then why are you angry at him? There's no one to be angry with. No one that can hear your anger let alone respond to it. Your anger toward God makes no sense. It's illogical. It's irrational. It's unreasonable. Isn't it?"
That's a good question, actually. I think I am angry because if the Calvinist God that I used to believe in actually DOES exist, then I'm probably not elect, because I can no longer believe in any of these doctrines. But I get angry because I feel forsaken by God (lacking answered prayers) and betrayed and duped (I believed God was actually good, but I can no longer believe that based on the Scriptures themselves). So that is part of my anger, a sense of divine rejection and hopelessness if such a God exists, faced with the monstrosity of Hell, eternal torment, and an absolutely sovereign God who apparently ordained it to be this way (even if I grant He has a right to do as He pleases).
Byron said:
ReplyDeleteIn fact, being a freethinker is actually freeing, and I'm finding some long-needed purpose in my life. So it's quite the opposite of what you predict here.
Well, I never said you couldn't find some sense of purpose and have positive feelings about it. Some people find some sense of purpose in molesting children and have positive feelings about it too.
That's a good question, actually. I think I am angry because if the Calvinist God that I used to believe in actually DOES exist, then I'm probably not elect, because I can no longer believe in any of these doctrines. But I get angry because I feel forsaken by God (lacking answered prayers) and betrayed and duped (I believed God was actually good, but I can no longer believe that based on the Scriptures themselves). So that is part of my anger, a sense of divine rejection and hopelessness if such a God exists, faced with the monstrosity of Hell, eternal torment, and an absolutely sovereign God who apparently ordained it to be this way (even if I grant He has a right to do as He pleases).
Of course, the same God and Scriptures in which you disbelieve also freely offers the gospel.
Then God has graciously made it impossible for me to believe in the Gospel He inspired in the Scriptures, and I suppose I should be grateful because His glory will be increased as a result of my damnation. Nice! Sometimes I think I should flip such a deity the bird, if I actually believed He could see it.
ReplyDeleteByron said:
ReplyDeleteThen God has graciously made it impossible for me to believe in the Gospel He inspired in the Scriptures, and I suppose I should be grateful because His glory will be increased as a result of my damnation. Nice! Sometimes I think I should flip such a deity the bird, if I actually believed He could see it.
1. Given your atheism, this makes about as much sense as getting angry at Santa Claus when you find out he's not real.
2. Also, what you say about Calvinism above, even if you disagree with it, isn't fair to Calvinism. You're not trying to understand Calvinism on its own terms. You're framing Calvinism tendentiously.
3. You haven't changed the substance of your critique (such as it is) since your first few comments on Triablogue. This is despite the fact that Steve and others have responded to you. This is despite the fact that there's plenty of resources you could read in our archives. Not to mention elsewhere. But you don't so much as attempt to acquaint yourself with the material. Rather you just keep repeating the same old tired lines. "God predestined that I should not believe! God predestined that I should be damned! I hate God!" And so on and so forth.
4. BTW, no one is stopping you from believing except yourself. At this very moment, you have the choice to believe or continue to disbelieve. It's on you, Byron. Your call.
5. Your rhetoric is highly emotive. Despite the fact that you're an adult, you're behaving like a little kid. Were you always like this or is this what atheism has reduced you to?
I'll grant points 1,3, and 5. Point 2, I simply don't understand, as I'm simply interacting with the logical conclusions of Calvinism from the point of an outsider (non-elect). Point 4 is simply wishful thinking. Choosing to believe or disbelieve something is not a product of the will alone. There are times when it is impossible to believe something. However, since none of this is on-topic any more, I'll give it a rest.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the discussion.
Byron said:
ReplyDeleteI'll grant points 1,3, and 5. Point 2, I simply don't understand, as I'm simply interacting with the logical conclusions of Calvinism from the point of an outsider (non-elect). Point 4 is simply wishful thinking. Choosing to believe or disbelieve something is not a product of the will alone. There are times when it is impossible to believe something. However, since none of this is on-topic any more, I'll give it a rest.
So:
* You've said you don't believe God exists.
* You've conceded there is no basis for objective morality given your beliefs.
* You've said you hate God whom you don't believe exists.
* You've agreed hating God whom you don't believe exists makes about as much sense as hating Santa Claus after finding out he's not real.
* You've agreed you don't interact with Steve and others' arguments on Christianity and Calvinism but just keep repeating the same old tired lines that you've always used.
* You've agreed you haven't so much as attempted to acquaint yourself with the material on Christianity and Calvinism that Steve and others have provided you in the past.
* You've agreed you're behaving like a little kid and emoting.
In other words, you've admitted you're behaving utterly irrationally. You've abdicated any semblance of reason. There's no intellectual respectability about your position at all. No one can take you seriously anymore.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteIt's quite obvious that you have no idea what deconverting from a religion is like. I admit, it's new for me too. The anger at feeling deceived, betrayed, orphaned, and the like begins building as a believer, and carries over into the skeptical life as emotional baggage. Sure, it is not entirely rational, or mature. I can grant that.
And it's true I've basically refused to interact with the material on this site currently. I was instead looking for a discussion and interaction, based on concepts I already understand. I feel I should not have to read volumes of reference material just to have a normal discussion on these topics. However, I was on a blog once where the host also felt the same way, but seemed to not require it of every single guest. Odd. Then and now. However, perhaps I will research some of the material in my own free time.
"In other words, you've admitted you're behaving utterly irrationally. You've abdicated any semblance of reason. There's no intellectual respectability about your position at all. No one can take you seriously anymore."
What I just quoted is perhaps the most enlightening series of comments I have ever read on Triablogue. I have wasted my time here, and apparently yours as well. Sorry for that. But now I cannot escape the feeling that I entered as a player into a game rigged from the very start.
I am learning the rules, and I may continue to participate in the future. For now, I simply feel that everything built up quickly and quite nicely to a condescending dismissal. I think the discussion here at the site suffers from the rather cold, demanding, and dismissive interaction offered here.
At least now I know what to expect!
Byron,
ReplyDeleteLook, at the risk of stating the obvious:
1. While we do post on other things from time to time, this is primarily an apologetics blog.
2. Also, we're not writing entirely or even primarily for you. We're writing for lurkers both now and in the future too. Our comments in this thread aren't going to disappear. Well, unless Blogger messes things up like they did recently. But I don't plan to delete anything.
3. Furthermore, although I think you're probably a nice guy in real life (and personally speaking I can sympathize with your love for all things geekery since I see myself that way as well), the fact of the matter is that you're saying terrible and even evil things about God. You may not believe in God so you don't think it's any more evil than saying evil things about Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. But surely you realize I'm a Christian. So if you look at it from my perspective, you're attacking the God whom I love. The God whom I see as the one, true, very real and living God.
4. In addition it's hardly a "dismissal" given that Steve, I, and others here have taken tons of our time to interact with you and then you admit stuff like "it's true I've basically refused to interact with the material on this site currently." Sorry, but if we're "dismissing" you now, by your own words, you've been "dismissing" us this entire time as well. It's a two-way street. After all, how would you like it if you give someone your time and respond to their questions and provide them with material to help clarify things and so forth, but then they basically ignore it all and continue to just say whatever they want to say? Continue with their own ranting and raving or diatribe or whatever? Keep talking past you and past your material and saying stuff like, "Well, that's just not how I see it!" all the while continuing on with their emotional and irrational temper tantrum against you or what you're trying to tell them? And then they even admit that that's precisely what they're doing? Put yourself in our shoes as well.
5. Plus, again, by your own admission, it's an irrational and immature attack against Christianity. So I'm just calling it like it is. I'm not saying anything other than what you've already admitted yourself.
If you consider these sorts of things, perhaps you can understand why we're not exactly so warm and fluffy toward people like you who for all intents and purposes are attacking Christianity. Sure, you may not think you're "attacking" Christianity. You may be commenting because you're wrestling with your own inner demons or deconversion or whatever. But nevertheless that's what you're doing.
To reiterate, your comments are hardly so friendly toward God. There's plenty of evidence of that in this thread and in previous threads. Not to mention, on a far lesser note, toward us. You disrespect the time we spend trying to respond to you. Again, your comments amount to an attack against Christianity. And even among people in civil discourse your comments are themselves hardly civil toward us yet you expect us to behave civilly toward you.
So, sorry, but given all these things, unless you change, you're hardly someone anyone should take seriously. You're behaving like a little kid if not worse.
Patrick,
ReplyDeleteIf I have behaved in any way uncivilly towards you, Steve Hays, or anyone else, then I sincerely apologize. I am honestly not aware of doing so, at least not intentionally. Instead I opted for honesty and transparency with my feelings (including anger) in the discussion thread.
As for attacking Christianity, anything I say as an unbeliever could be construed as an attack or a dismissal simply according to my beliefs. However, I think your chief complaint is the manner in which I have addressed Christianity, which I admit has been unwarranted in its harshness. I was trying to give logical conclusions of theological precepts derived from the Scriptures themselves, though admittedly skewed in my atheistic agenda to illustrate points in the worst possible and unfavorable light. The Scriptures themselves seem evil to me, so also my understanding of them will be less than favorable. However, you pointed out this is an apologetics blog, not a debate blog, so such does not belong here.
Lastly, I do appreciate the time and responses you and others have put into discussion with me. It was not my intent to ignore all the material offered to me, but I did refuse to interact with volumes of material just in order to have a discussion on these subjects of interest to me. My conscious purpose has been to attack Christianity wherever possible, a kind of counter-apologetics if you will. However, I do NOT wish to cause any hard feelings or intend any disrespect toward anyone. At best, I have misunderstood your intended communication, and I fear I have vented a good bit of anger (not meant personally, please understand), and fell into emotional argumentation when I should have remained objective. So the fault is mine.
I apologize, Patrick Chan, Steven Hays, and anyone else I have communicated with here.
1. Thanks, Byron. I appreciate it.
ReplyDelete2. Like I said, I think if we were to ever meet in person, you'd probaby be a pretty nice guy. Warm, friendly, approachable. Good and loving to your family and friends. Someone kids would trust and enjoy playing with and having fun with. A decent person. Maybe you're even nicer and kinder than many Christians I know. Maybe we'd even get along.
But (as I'm sure you know) what's at stake is not whether you (or I or anyone else) happen to be a likeable person, etc. Rather what's at stake is the truth and conformity to the truth. The fact that God exists and the Bible alone is his word to humanity. The fact that he calls people to turn away from their sins and to trust in Jesus Christ. The truth is what's of first importance, not whether you (or I or anyone else) happen to be likeable or more importantly happen to like the truth.
Hence my strong stance.
3. With this latter point in mind, I hope in the future you'll spend the time to thoroughly understand not only Christianity on its own terms (even though you no longer believe in it and may think you already know it since you were once a professing Christian), but also atheism on its own terms.
As J. Gresham Machen once said: "Narrowness does not consist in definite devotion to certain convictions or in definite rejection of others. But the narrow man is the man who rejects the other man's convictions without first endeavoring to understand them, the man who makes no effort to look at things from the other man's point of view."
Of course, I'd imagine you think you already understand Christianity enough to reject it and that you understand atheism (or agnosticism) enough to embrace it. But from our discussion in this thread and in past threads I, for one, would beg to differ that you do in either case. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but just calling it like I see it. You're free to disagree, but the proof is in the pudding by which I mean your facts, reasons, argumentation, and so forth.
BTW, when I say Christianity, I'm not speaking strictly about Calvinism or Reformed theology, even though that's my biblical and theological perspective. Rather I'm speaking about evangelical Christianity in general. You could reject Calvinism but remain an evangelical Christian in a different tradition (e.g. Arminian, Lutheran).
With this latter point in mind, I hope in the future you'll spend the time to thoroughly understand not only Christianity on its own terms (even though you no longer believe in it and may think you already know it since you were once a professing Christian), but also atheism on its own terms.
ReplyDeleteOkay, not to be insufferably dense, but that's easier read than understood. How would I go about doing that, in general? What recommendations do you have? Thanks.
1. On the Christian side, you could start by reading and interacting with our material. As a technologically savvy person, I trust you'd know how to search for material in our archives.
ReplyDeleteAlso Steve has a list of helpful books arranged in various categories here, here, and here. Check out the ones that interest you.
Steve's "Why I Believe: A Positive Apologetic" and "Why I Believe: I'm Glad You Asked!" are insightful.
Several Christian scholars have answered some questions in an e-book Steve and James Anderson put together called Love the Lord with Heart and Mind. Check out their recommended books too.
This should be a good start.
2. On the atheist side, a couple of the better proponents are J.L. Mackie and Robin Le Poidevin. See Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. Check out Le Poidevin's Arguing for Atheism as well as his recent Agnosticism: A Very Short Introduction.
I think Michael Ruse is good on evolutionary ethics.
At the same time, you should read Alvin Plantinga's review of Mackie's book, "Is Theism Really a Miracle?" (1986) which was published in Faith and Philosophy 3 (2).