Saturday, December 15, 2012

Christian atheism

Friday, December 14, 2012
Randal Rauser Nails It: Church-State Separation Not to Blame for Today's Massacre
Posted by Jeffery Jay Lowder . . at 12/14/2012 10:18:00 PM

Labels: church-state, Randal_Rauser, religion_and_politics

Matt DeStefano • 11 hours ago

Kudos. Rauser's fast becoming one of my favorite Christian bloggers - I'll have to migrate over there more often.


It, of course, comes as no surprise that atheists like Rauser’s brand of Christianity. They know their own kind when they see it.


This is a wonderful summary illustration of the kind of alternate universe that religious conservatives like Mike Huckabee live in.

I happen to think Huckabee’s reported statement was premature. At this stage we don’t know enough about the shooter’s motives to say why he did it, much less extrapolate from that case to a larger pattern.


It is a universe in which Bible thumping pastor-politicians like Huckabee court the NRA by calling themselves “a gun-clinger and a God-clinger” as if Jesus came to set us free to pack heat without government restriction.

So what is Rauser’s point? That this wouldn’t happen if we had stiffer gun-control laws, or had outright gun bans (as well as confiscating guns)?

Even if we had draconian gun-control laws, how would that make guns any less accessible than controlled substances? Illegal drugs are readily available, despite the “war on drugs.” Why think banning guns would be any more successful?


 It is a universe in which the Bible is read to justify the stoning of misbehaving children and the slaughter and sacrifice of misbehaving societies.

Notice that Rauser adopts exactly the same posture towards the Bible as militant atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.

In addition, there’s nothing unique to “religious conservatism” that reads the Bible that way. Atheists and theological liberals generally interpret the Bible the same way.

That’s just what the Bible says. The OT does, in fact, authorize capital punishment for juvenile delinquency. (Keep in mind that not all death penalties were mandatory penalties. That establishes the maximum punishment, but in some or many cases that could be commuted.)

The OT does command mass execution of the Canaanites inside the promised land–if they refuse to leave.

And since these are divine commands, what they command is, by definition, morally justifiable.

Of course, Rauser is a subdermal atheist. He has an epidermal layer of Christianity, but just under the surface he’s an atheist down to the bone. That’s why he constantly attacks Christian faith in Scripture. Like his pal, Thom Stark, Rauser is a throwback to Thomas Altizer and Paul van Buren.


I live in a country that is much more secular than the United States. (Heck, in terms of secular ethos Canada might as well be bordering Scandanavia [sic].) Thirty years ago I heard the Bible read every morning in my public elementary school. The Bible was removed long ago, and interestingly we didn’t see a spike in gun violence as a result.

Well, if he can appeal to personal experience, so can I. I attended public school K-12 during the 60s and 70s.

I’ve been reading some recent accounts about school safety. For instance:


Schools nationwide have increased security measures since the shooting at Columbine. Many have installed metal detectors, developed detailed crisis plans, implemented policies to keep doors locked and accessible only by buzzer, and put teachers and staff through training on how to recognize and deal with threats.

A letter sent to Sandy Hook parents earlier this year described a new security protocol at the school. Most visitors are required to show identification and ring a doorbell to gain entry to the school’s front entrance, which is locked after 9:30 a.m.


Well, Randal, we didn’t have that when I was a kid. We didn’t need that when I was a kid. So something has changed.

Now, it’s worth exploring why society seems to be more dangerous than it used to be.


What I do see when I visit my daughter’s elementary school is an institution that is much more aware — and intolerant — of bullying and racism than my Bible reading school was thirty years ago.

What does Randal even mean by “bullying and racism” at an elementary school? Does he mean the rough and tumble of young boys at play?

And what was the ethnic composition of the Bible reading school he attended as a boy? 

21 comments:

  1. "What does Randal even mean by “bullying and racism” at an elementary school? Does he mean the rough and tumble of young boys at play?"

    Bullying: for example, an overweight girl everyone called "Big Red" who was pushed and spit upon and eventually became suicidal. My daughter's school has a zero-tolerance for bullying. While it would be naive to think bullying has been eliminated, it is much less common today.

    Similarly, we were simply not cognizant of racism and, I blush to say, used many racist terms like calling Native Indians "chugs" and referring to cheap night at the movie theater as "Jewsday". Again, the social stigmatization of races is much less common in the school yard today.

    Thirty years ago the Marlboro man was also considered cool. Now smokers are the one group that is stigmatized.

    Thirty years ago people were much less aware of the danger of the physical and sexual abuse of children. In that regard children like my daughter are much less vulnerable to abuse.

    In some ways things have gotten worse, but in other ways they've clearly gotten better.

    By the way, you are surprised that atheists are attracted to my brand of Christianity. Maybe it's because I strive to be fair and I call out hypocrisy in my own Christian community. Remember that Jesus attracted the prostitutes and tax collectors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RD Rauser said:

      "Again, the social stigmatization of races is much less common in the school yard today."

      Although other racial disgracial games are quite common in society. Take what occurs with identity politics.

      "By the way, you are surprised that atheists are attracted to my brand of Christianity. Maybe it's because I strive to be fair and I call out hypocrisy in my own Christian community. Remember that Jesus attracted the prostitutes and tax collectors."

      Yes, I can see why telling atheists stuff like the God of the OT can't be the real God and annihilationism could very well be true would be attractive to atheists. No wonder atheists are flocking to Rauser's brand of Christianity in droves!

      Delete
    2. "By the way, you are surprised that atheists are attracted to my brand of Christianity. Maybe it's because I strive to be fair and I call out hypocrisy in my own Christian community."

      As if all atheists think you're normal. You're part of the problem. If you really want to set a good example for other Christians then stop being a Christian. The Christian death cult is the most ridiculous thing the human race ever invented.

      Delete
  2. RD Rauser

    "My daughter's school has a zero-tolerance for bullying."

    The problem with zero-tolerance policies is that "bullying" is often a euphemism for normal male behavior. For instance, name-calling is normal for boys. You might disapprove, but that's not something you can program out of boys. And if you try to program that out of boys, that will lead to resentful boys, which will lead to boys acting out more aggressively.

    Zero-tolerance policies tend to be blanket policies that fail to draw reasonable distinctions. They are usually formulaic, indiscriminate policies that insult the intelligence of students.

    "By the way, you are surprised that atheists are attracted to my brand of Christianity."

    You need to acquire basic reading skills, Randal. I didn't say I was surprised. I said just the opposite.

    "Maybe it's because I strive to be fair and I call out hypocrisy in my own Christian community."

    You lack the critical detachment to be real philosopher. You haven't demonstrated that Huckabee's claim was hypocritical. In order to demonstrate hypocrisy, you'd have to show that he contradicted his own standards.

    What you've done, instead, is to show that he contradicted *your* standards. You're taking your own view of the NRA for granted, then using that to frame the debate. Needless to say, Huckabee doesn't share your view of the NRA. You imputed to him your own viewpoint, a viewpoint he doesn't accept, then generated a bogus inconsistency.

    So your attempt to convict him of hypocrisy is an obvious and miserable failure. He doesn't grant the premise of your argument.

    Incidentally, this doesn't mean Huckabee is right. Just that you failed to rebut him on either external or internal grounds.

    BTW, maybe you should start by calling out your own hypocrisy.

    "Remember that Jesus attracted the prostitutes and tax collectors."

    You're not attracting atheists to Christianity. Rather, you're just a useful idiot for atheists. They like your stuff because they can say, "Hey, here's a Christian apologist who shares our contemptuous view of the OT!"

    They use you to corroborate their atheism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You lack the critical detachment to be real philosopher."
      But Steve, you're a presuppositionalist. By definition, you don't believe that critical detachment is even possible. Based on your worldview, everybody lacks critical detachment, including you.

      Delete
    2. "For instance, name-calling is normal for boys. You might disapprove, but that's not something you can program out of boys. And if you try to program that out of boys, that will lead to resentful boys, which will lead to boys acting out more aggressively."

      Very weak argument indeed. Sexual deviance is normal for gays, something that you can't "program" out of them, and if you do try to program it out of them, that will lead to resentful gays, which will lead them to act out more agressively....

      Try again.

      Delete
    3. dce9fe78-5061-11e1-b0f9-000bcdcb8a7312/17/2012 9:52 AM

      "Very weak argument indeed. Sexual deviance is normal for gays, something that you can't 'program' out of them..."

      Ex-homosexuals can testify to the falsity of your claim.

      "...and if you do try to program it out of them, that will lead to resentful gays, which will lead them to act out more agressively...."

      Aggressiveness is a mail trait, not a homosexual trait, per se. Indeed, many homosexuals are soft, effeminate, girlish.

      Delete
    4. dce9fe78-5061-11e1-b0f9-000bcdcb8a731

      "But Steve, you're a presuppositionalist. By definition, you don't believe that critical detachment is even possible. Based on your worldview, everybody lacks critical detachment, including you."

      That's an inept characterization of presuppositional apologetics. Critical detachment simply means the ability to step out of your own position and examine an opposing position on its own terms. The ability to accurately represent a position you don't agree with. To compare and contrast your own position with the opposing position.

      Critical detachment is, in fact, a basic feature of presuppositionalism. A preliminary step in a presuppositional critique involves explicating a non-Christian position on its own terms, and taking that to its logical extreme. What does the inner logic of a non-Christian position lead to?

      Delete
    5. "Ex-homosexuals can testify to the falsity of your claim."

      And Ex-Bullies can testify to the falsity of your claim. Boom.


      Delete
    6. "Bullying" is an amorphous term that ranges along a wide continuum, from verbal insults to battery. Schoolgirls can engage in very catty remarks.

      Delete
    7. Yes, but you seem to have stated above that bullying is somehow a male virtue. But that is obviously not scriptural, is it?

      Delete
    8. dce9fe78-5061-11e1-b0f9-000bcdcb8a73

      "Yes, but you seem to have stated above that bullying is somehow a male virtue."

      A nice illustration of mirror-reading. Try a window next time.

      Delete
    9. That's cool. If you're not arguing for name-calling as boy (male) virtue, which it sort of came across that way initially (ie, we're born this way, that's how God made us, etc.), then I got no issues, man.
      Sounds like in your last comment, that you're coming out against name-calling. I'm good with that. Peace.

      Delete
  3. "You're not attracting atheists to Christianity. Rather, you're just a useful idiot for atheists. They like your stuff because they can say, "Hey, here's a Christian apologist who shares our contemptuous view of the OT!"

    They use you to corroborate their atheism."


    Sometimes, you just have to be explicit and clearly spell it out for some folks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think it's remotely the case that Randal is some kind of 'basically atheist' guy. He may be wrong on various issues (I think he is), he may be wrong on this issue (I think he is to a point, though he also makes some reasonable points), but just because a very faint few atheists compliment him is thin ground to call him some kind of closet atheist, or even a practical atheist.

    That said - yes, I do think he's a 'favorite Christian blogger' of some atheists because, on some issues, he corroborates their views. I'll even say I find his 'calling out hypocrisy in the Christian community' at times to be rather lame in practice - I've found some of his criticisms stretched or petty. On the other hand, Steve, atheists also demonstrably love YECs, etc. Westboro Baptist is absolutely adored by atheist activists (not that you're anything close to WBC, but they illustrate the point in part.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Now, it’s worth exploring why society seems to be more dangerous than it used to be."-Steve

    That's about what Mike Huckabee was saying.

    One of the residents, where this murderer killed 6-7 year children, said "I have not felt like this since 9-11." He began to weep and shared how he was in great anguish. This is such a wicked thing. And we also need to see the ruler of this world involved, as he most surely is. He can the murderer, and then he can be the one who comes to comfort as the "angel of light".

    I pray to the God of all the universe, who made every star, and every molecule, that He will help us to cope in this dark and painful thing that happened, and that souls will grow closer to Him, and He will be glorified in this tragedy:- Thy will is done. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "By the way, you are surprised that atheists are attracted to my brand of Christianity. Maybe it's because I strive to be fair and I call out hypocrisy in my own Christian community. Remember that Jesus attracted the prostitutes and tax collectors."

    Steve is mistaken in saying that I am "attracted to your brand of Christianity", but that I felt you were right on this issue. You've also shown a willingness to engage the opposition without armchair psychologizing, admit epistemic uncertainty, and generally have a good grasp on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Naturally atheists prefer professing Christians who "admit epistemic uncertainty" regarding the claims of Christianity. They like Rauser because he has more in common with them. Because he concedes many of their own criticisms of Biblical theism.

      Delete
    2. Do you prefer your interlocutors to be certain of the claims they argue for?

      Delete
    3. Christians should be maximally certain of Christianity while atheists should be maximally uncertain of atheism.

      Delete
  7. Rauser has made a major blunder here:

    "It is a universe in which Bible thumping pastor-politicians like Huckabee court the NRA by calling themselves “a gun-clinger and a God-clinger” as if Jesus came to set us free to pack heat without government restriction."

    Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

    There is no mention of "government restriction" here. It seems Jesus did in fact set us free from this restriction. But of course this is unnecessary.

    Randall, if you are tempted to try to evade this, before you do that, why do you think this argument from silence is valid? Stop and think for a second. Can't you prove anything from an argument from silence? The egregiousness of your error is merely emphasized by the fact that there does not seem to be silence on this issue.


    ReplyDelete