Deconstruction

My comments on this Facebook thread: Unbelievable? March 3 at 5:40 PM 

"If y'all had been listening to Ear Biscuits, you would know that Rhett and Linc's desire is a search for truth, and that my dears is what Christianity is all about, so get off your high horses and actually pay attention."

Christianity is not about a search for truth that terminates in rejecting Christianity. And truth is worthless without an ultimate good.

It shouldn't be necessary to start all over again every time we deal with another apostate or atheist, as if these are brand-new objections with no preexisting answers. If an atheist is going to raise objections to Christianity, they have a moral and intellectual responsibility to consult the best Christian theologians, philosophers, scientists, Bible scholars et al. to familiarize themselves with the available answers. 

It's just a fact that some writers naturally operate at a higher level than others. Apostates like Rhett flatter themselves when they imagine that reading popularizers exposes them to the best arguments that Christianity has on offer. The best way of evaluate a belief-system is to assess the most capable exponents of that system. That's hardly a revolutionary observation on my part. For instance, if I'm going to assess atheism, Graham Oppy is a better representative than Richard Dawkins. 

If you're going to assess the best evidence/arguments for Christianity, read Bible scholars like Paul Barnett, Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, John Collins, John Currid, James Hoffmeier, Richard Hess, Craig Keener, Kenneth Kitchen, Alan Millard, John Oswalt, Vern Poythress, Michael Rydelnik, Andrew Steinmann, Peter Williams, Edwin Yamauchi. 

Or philosophers like  James N. Anderson, Bill Dembski, Timothy and Lydia McGrew , Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Robert Larmer, Alexander Pruss, Josh Rasmussen, Greg Welty.

Yes, the list is one-sided because the immediate question at issue was how well Rhett knows the evidence for Christianity. What's his yardstick? 

I've read all the best atheists. And since you bring it up, I've seen lots of stuff by Bart Ehrman. 

Stories like Rhett aren't "inconvenient" for me. The fact that somebody doesn't find something compelling isn't evidence that it's false. For that matter, the Bible predicts apostasy, so the phenomenon of apostasy is not a defeater for Christianity. 

I don't need to handwave away Rhett's story. It's striking how many unbelievers think that's impressive. It discloses what low standards they have. Frankly, it would be unfair to judge the merits of atheism by someone like Rhett. 

Ultimately, though, these are not symmetrical alternatives. It's not a dispute over a particular fact within a shared framework of reason, meaning, and morality. Rather, consistent atheism leads to moral and existential nihilism–as well as skepticism about human reason. 

"My point is that you have to at least respect the person not finding the evidence compelling, especially one that has taken the time to look at it."

Since atheism is evil, I don't have to respect their choice. Indeed, I shouldn't respect the adoption of an evil ideology. 

Yes, I'm making a theological value judgment based on Christianity, which is demonstrably true. 

"Your entire shtick has pretty much been that people are too stupid to have read the right information, so what do you expect, of course, they leave."

Wrong. My shtick has been that apostates like Rhett think reading popularizers gives them an accurate gauge on the best evidence for Christianity. 

As I already mentioned, there are different motivations for apostasy: intellectual, emotional, sociological. 

Many people don't simply believe or disbelieve something based on truth, reason, and evidence. They can have the right information but remain unconvinced. Take 9/11 Truthers. People can have unethical motives for that they believe or disbelieve. It's not just about a disinterested assessment of the evidence.

"One way to chain up the emergency exit."

Whatever that means.

"The point it, is says seek and you WILL find."

Scripture speaks in generalities. It's a fallacy to turn generalities into universal promises. But that's not how mass communication works. It's coarse-grained, not fine-grained. 

"Firstly, a-theism it's not a world view it's an absence of belief in one more god that you don't believe in."

I'm aware of pop cliche definitions of atheism. But that artificially isolates the issues, as if the existence or nonexistence of God is a discrete variable with no wider ramifications. Evolutionary ethics only explains moral instincts. That doesn't mean moral instincts correspond to moral facts. Evolutionary ethics can't justify moral realism. At best, is a theory about moral psychology, not moral ontology.

I can quote lots of atheist thinkers who admit that atheism logically leads to moral and existential nihilism. That's not just a Christian characterization. 

"How badly indoctrinated and narrow minded are you?‬"

By reading many atheist thinkers who explain how atheism commits them to moral and existential nihilism. 

"There are good and bad atheists…"

Yes, many atheists are inconsistent. 

"If atheism ultimately leads to all nihilism and there’s no objective purpose to the universe, so what? Time to put our big boy pants on and live with that fact."

Your maternalistic attempt to shame critics into submission lacks leverage if nihilism is true. 

"Right, if it was so evidenced based there be little need for faith"

A deeply confused inference. One reason for the need for faith is how little control we have over our circumstances, including the future. That's entirely consonant with an evidence-based faith. I can have strong evidence that something is true, but have painfully limited control over events that impact me or those I care about. Hence, the necessity of prayer (to take one example). To be a creature is to be contingent, needy, and vulnerable. 

"What bit of Christianity is demonstrable true anyway?"

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/11/required-reading-for-atheists.html

"I believe in social contracts that are negotiated between people in relation to each other."

Which means the powerful inevitably oppress the powerless.

"You do realise you’d be a Muslim if you were born in Iran don’t you? Luck of the draw."

More like the luck of divine providence. 

And, of course, social conditioning boomerangs on your own preferred position as well. 

"The bible talks in generalities. Sure, except when a pet theology point that actually matters to you comes up them it’s all ‘the bible is crystal clear when [insert deeply held belief usually something to do with LGBT folk, the suddenly everyone’s an expert on the greek and the exegesis]"

The Bible is clear on some things (e.g. LGBT) and less clear on others (e.g. baptism).

Even on naturalistic grounds, homosexuality is a maladaptation. 

You’re conflating. It’s not that you need a cumulative argument to establish belief, it’s that the conclusion of beliefs widely vary. Case in point ‘LGBT issues are clear’ according to you. There are plenty of Christians who disagree with you and for equally studied valid reasons.

As Catholic NT scholar Luke Timothy Johnson frankly admitted, in reference to homosexuality:

"The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says…I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture…" 

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-0

If you're talking to an atheist or apostate face-to-face, it's often good to begin by asking about their background. BTW, we're getting mixed signals on this comment thread. On the one hand we're admonished not to make it personal: focus on arguments rather than motives. On the other hand we're admonished to listen to their stories. Don't begin with counterarguments.

                                                                                                               
If, however, a YouTube star launches into a public attack on the Christian faith, then the logical course of action is to respond to the arguments. That said, apostates shouldn't expect Christians to drop everything each time someone commits apostasy, and run through their copy/paste list of objections to Christianity. Atheists and prospective apostates have a responsibility to familiarize themselves with preexisting answers to stock objections, instead of demanding that Christians start from scratch every single time. In many cases, it should suffice for Christians to point them to resources that already address their arguments and objections.

Completely illogical response on your part. Many apostates only read one side of the argument. And if they do study Christian apologetics, it's often confined to popularizers. Many apostates operate with folk theology and a Sunday school level of understanding, which leads to false expectations and is easy to knock down. Because humans are social creatures, many young people lose their faith simply by switching to a different community, like a secular college. They are chameleons who change color to match the shade of their peer group.

When atheists respond to Christian attacks on atheism, do you accuse atheists of feeling threatened by the faith of Christians?

Another illogical comment by you. I don't have to feel personally threatened by something to be concerned for the sake of others. Is that a novel concept to you? Are you only concerned about things that impact you individually? Is it inconceivable to you that someone might be concerned for someone else's benefit rather than himself? Is there no room for altruism in your atheism? BTW, feel free to quote where I said I want no platform for these guys.

i) It's funny how you stereotype Christians and shoehorn them into a monolithic narrative. To begin with, I didn't say my concern was limited to other Christians, did I? 

ii) The term "apostate" is a factual description, not a value judgment. It's only disrespectful if you think losing one's Christian faith is bad. 

iii) There's a difference between deplatforming Rhett & Link and giving them a platform to lodge repetitious objections to Christianity. For one thing, they already have their own platform. In addition, It does nothing to advance understanding to go over the same ground ad nauseam, as if these are novel objections with no preexisting answers. That rewards intellectual laziness. Finally, there's no need to feed a cult of personality. If you want to have a serious engagement between Christianity and atheism, pick the most compete exponents on each side rather than superficial celebutantes. 

"How many people would need to leave before you question your theology?"

Irrelevant to truth-claims since people leaving is not an evidential criterion.

"What truth claim are you referring to?"

Atheism is a truth-claim about God's nonexistence.You asked me how many people would need to leave before I question my theology. My theology would be the truth-claim. You're measuring Christianity by an anti-intellectual yardstick. The mere fact that some people (whatever the number) exit Christianity is not an intelligent reason to doubt Christian theology. That's just a sociological phenomenon.

From what I've read, Rhett gets his arguments from popularizers like Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Tim Keller, and Ravi Zacharias. That hardly represents the most robust, sophisticated case for Christianity. 

You act like this is a competition in which, when people abandon the Christian faith, our side loses. No. The ones who lose out are those who ditch the Christian faith. They aren't harming Christians or Christianity: they are only harming themselves. 

i) Now you're attacking an argument I never used. 

ii) It's not a difficult question since the psychology or motivation for apostasy isn't a challenge to the truth of Christianity. The real issue is bad atheist arguments. My critique was never predicated on what makes Rhett tick. 

iii) I haven't made any claims about knowing their heart. But as far as that goes, it's a commonplace of human psychology that some folks lack an accurate self-image. Likewise, that sometimes an outside observer has a more objective understanding of what is driving the individual than the individual. That wasn't my argument, but since you bring it up, there's nothing intrinsically "arrogant" about that. 

iv) You act like there's a mass exodus out of Christianity. 

BTW, it's amusing to see you accuse me of imputing motives to apostates when, in the same breath, you impute to me your prejudicial narrative about how I'm supposedly motivated by having to explain why so many "deconstruct". 

Since you brought it up, as far as motives go, apostasy requires no special explanation. There are intellectual, emotional, and sociological motivations for apostasy. These are easy to document. The motivation for apostasy varies individually. As far as Calvinism goes, apostasy is not a defeater for Calvinism. The phenomenon of apostasy is consistent with Reformed theology. So that, too, requires no special explanation.

"No person who left Christianity did so because they wanted to, they did so because they had no choice." 

That's a demonstrably false generalization. Take the cliche example of the boy raised in a "fundamentalist" church who loses his faith in his first year of college because he's in a new community, was never exposed to the evidence for Christianity, and is surrounded by sexual temptation.

i) You're indulging in overgeneralizations based on a selective sample.

ii) People can spend years in religious settings but only read one side of the story. 

iii) Again, if you spend time reading comments by apostates on YouTube, Facebook, and Reddit, as well as endless deconversion stories, there's an oft-repeated pattern in which the apostate has a childish understanding of Christianity theology, and was ignorant of preexisting Christian answers to objections–as well as uninformed about multiple lines of evidence for Christianity.

iv) Regarding ex-nuns, post-Vatican II theology has liberalized. 

v) What percentage of conservative seminary grads commit apostasy? Or do you mean progressive seminaries?

vi) The question at issue isn't whether understanding Christianity requires a theology degree, but whether responding to philosophical, historical, and scientific objections requires serious study. Defending a position, even if it's true, can be more intellectually challenging than understanding the position. 

vii) Actually, I suspect some Christians drop out of church become the quality of the sermons is so childish. The problem is not that it's out of reach of the majority but dumbed down. This is why apologetics is popular among men. There is an intellectual appetite.

"Non sequitur unless you suggesting that the dumbing down is for women’s benefit or that women don’t have intellectual appetites."

I never said anything about dumbing down for women. 

"‘If only you’ve read the books, heard the sermons, studied the scholars I have, you’ll conclude correctly like me, that it’s true."

I never suggested that if people just read the right sources, they will all be convinced. You're changing the subject. I'm simply making a point about intellectual standards. 

The designations we use are context-dependent. If you need to see a doctor, you call them a doctor (or physician). If you need a plumber, that's how you refer to them. Same thing with electricians, lawyers, automechanics, and phlebotomists. 

I might call someone a philosopher, pastor, evangelist, Christian apologist, realtor, mayor, or–guess what–atheist!

The designation is not an exhaustive description, but topical. The context of this discussion is a couple of YouTube celebrities who publicly repudiated the Christian faith. There's a standard, technical term for that: apostate.

I call them apostates because they committed apostasy, and the topic under discussion is that specific action on their part. There are settings in which we might refer to them as men or male or fathers or parents or Americans or whatever, but that's not the frame of reference in this situation.

It's revealing that some commenters here are so touchy about the "apostate" label. That only makes sense if you think it's wrong to recant the Christian faith. 

Your emotional, illogical response is duly noted. Revealing how often atheists, who pride themselves on their critical thinking skills, compared to Christians, are so irrational once we peel away a layer or two.

BTW, if atheism is true, then you do have masters. Physical determinism. Evolutionary psychology. Social conditioning.

"Never an actual answers to the problems"

You haven't raised any substantive questions or objections, so there's nothing to answer. There are ever so many books, articles, and websites giving detailed answers to all the alleged "problems". I've been a blogger for 16 years. I've read all the best atheists, and I provide detailed answers.

i) To begin with, as Deborah Tannen documented years ago, men and women have different communication styles. You're attempting to impose a feminine communication style on me. That's sexist. That shows a lack of awareness and respect on your part for natural differences between men and women. So I don't accept your misandrist speech code. You are blind to your own prejudice.

ii) We live in a culture where acted offended is a substitute for reason and evidence. People who can't rationally defend their views resort to feigning offense as leverage to shut down legitimate debate. 

But people aren't entitled to be offended by some things. There no universal right to be offended that overrules reason and evidence. When people are offended by the wrong things, we need to challenge that, not cave in to their anti-intellectualism and emotional extortion. 

I'm unimpressed by your passive-aggressive tactics. You resorted to the rhetorical tropes of the SJWs: "rude, hateful and arrogant".

The Bible uses far harsher language than I have. 

"Right now, you are nothing but a clanging cymbal."

It's revealing to see your spiritual condescension. 

Fact is, you're an enabler of unbelievers because you try to cut down critics who challenge them, then you play the heroine.