Pages

Monday, May 21, 2012

A confident believer in an age of cranky atheists

James Anderson reviews A Shot of Faith: Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists by Mitch Stokes.

11 comments:

  1. Hi Patrick,

    Here's a good video I found on YouTube about religion, you might like to view it and see what you think.

    ”God in my life”

    I think it makes a lot of good common sense don't you?

    From
    Chris Hill

    American youth: Young gifted and passionate about religion. ”Fiery lady”
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Chris Hill said:

      "God in my life"

      The url embedded in your "God in my life" comment doesn't lead to anything titled "God in my life" as far as I can see, but rather it leads to a YouTube video titled "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer."

      I think it makes a lot of good common sense don't you?

      On the contrary, I think they're largely loaded questions.

      I'll quote the questions verbatim as presented in the video:

      1. Why won't God heal amputees?
      2. Why are there so many starving people in our world?
      3. Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
      4. Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
      5. Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
      6. Why do bad things happen to good people?
      7. Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?
      8. How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
      9. Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
      10. Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?

      For example, the first question assumes amputees have a right to be healed. The second question assumes the problem of suffering and evil is logically incompatible with a good God. The third assumes people are innocent. The fourth assumes metaphysical naturalism. The fifth assumes the Bible does in fact sanction slavery. The sixth assumes people are good. The seventh assumes eyewitness testimonial evidence doesn't count as evidence. The eighth assumes Jesus must appear on command like a genie in a bottle i.e. when we pray for Jesus to appear to us. The ninth assumes the Catholic interpretation of these verses is correct. The tenth assumes all Christians who are divorced are genuine Christians.

      Obviously much more could be said about each question. But we've responded to most if not all of these in the past on our weblog. So check out our archives for starters.

      BTW, Prof. Anderson also talks a bit about a couple of these in his review. I guess you didn't read his review.

      Delete
  2. Patrick, You don't believe amputees have a "right" to be healed? That's not even the question. The question concerns the rarest kind of healing, and the most spectacular, a type of healing that we know for sure does not occur naturally. And with the worldwide web, and video phones and cameras everywhere, snapping pictures of every wrinkle in a cloud that looks UFOish to every smudge that looks ghostish, you'd think we'd have captured at least one limb growing. Or I guess it proves God doesn't want to perform miracles that we know for certain do not occur naturally. Or God doesn't want them to be photographed and shoved beneath everyone's noses. When did God get so shy? Certainly not in the days of the fabulous Exodus curses, or Moses parting a sea in front of over a million people, or the worldwide Flood, or raining fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah, or a man flying up to heaven in a flaming chariot (even Jesus' ascension seems tame in comparison). So why not heal amputees and put it on youtube? Instead I saw a street preacher on youtube who claimed to make people's legs stick out an inch more. And I saw Derren Brown, the host of Mind Control (not a Christian), do the same thing. All on youtube.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward T. Babinski said:

      And with the worldwide web, and video phones and cameras everywhere

      Such things are hardly ubiquitous in the sense you need them to be, even in wealthy nations. Besides, even if the healing was caught on camera (assuming it wasn't instantaneous), you'd dismiss it as some graphic design trick.

      Delete
    2. 1. In addition to Matt's fine response, what you say, Ed, assumes the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

      2. Again the question about amputees could be subsumed under the larger question of the problem of suffering and evil. You of all people should know we've dealt with this question many times in the past. Use your skills as a librarian and do a targeted search on our blog if you're not satisfied.

      3. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there are plenty of examples of healing in the Bible. But you don't or won't accept the Bible's record as evidence.

      4. Plus the type of healing you're talking about in your little rant might not be healing by God. It could be paranormal healing by energumen as agents, for instance.

      5. You're only looking for the dramatic episodes of healing. I don't know, maybe you've been watching too many comic book superhero movies. There are likewise reliable accounts of people who have been healed of diseases like cancer when Christians prayed for them.

      6. As I also alluded to above, God isn't a genie. You can't tell God to heal someone on command, to heal that person at the time you want that person healed, in the way you want that person healed, and ready to be captured on camera and uploaded to YouTube in the way you see fit. God may or may not listen to prayer for someone to be healed. It's his prerogative to heal, not ours.

      7. You should interact with someone like Craig Keener. I'm sure you know he recently published a book on the very topic titled Miracles.

      8. Given the atheistic universe you inhabit, Ed, there are no universal, timeless, objective human "rights." At best it's just what humans have made up for one another.

      9. Your little rant against God is unintentionally revealing. Since you hardly believe in God, why are you so upset at God?

      Delete
  3. And with the worldwide web, and video phones and cameras everywhere, snapping pictures of every wrinkle in a cloud that looks UFOish to every smudge that looks ghostish, you'd think we'd have captured at least one limb growing. Or I guess it proves God doesn't want to perform miracles that we know for certain do not occur naturally. Or God doesn't want them to be photographed and shoved beneath everyone's noses. When did God get so shy?

    I have just had the opportunity to have a ringside seat next to a woman who first of all was dying from leukemia, who underwent a bone marrow transplant (otherwise known as a stem cell transplant), suffered horrific complications, and only after months in the hospital, is she now returning to something approaching normal.

    Through it all, God did something far more magnificent than to "make a limb grow". He created DNA; he gave minds to human beings to be able to comprehend it, to subdue the process, to make it their own (Gen 1:28). It's on a blog, and it occurs over time, but what I watched was far more miraculous than anything I could have imagined, because I was sitting there, month after month, watching it unfold.

    I'm not a person who's afraid to call vomit, vomit. Discernment is certainly called for. But this is a woman, whose blood levels were scraping zero, in every way, and the Lord has miraculously given her life back to her.

    You may want to idolize man for this process, but something bigger than man was at work. Man is not that big; mere accident did not cause DNA to work the way it does, first in the destruction of life as it is damaged, then in the restoration of life. Mock if you will, but I have seen a miracle at close range.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For questions 1,2,3,6 see this video by Voddie Baucham:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD1yv4J6ohE

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anderson notes in his review that the author is a Calvinist who accepts the Free-will defense. I have always had a hard time understanding how one does this. I understand that you may accept that it undercuts the logical problem by showing that some concept of God can be believed in the face of evil, but it still strikes me as a little dishonest. As a Calvinist I have specific ideas about God's providence, and human agency that does not seem to allow me to appeal to a free-will defense, at least a Plantinga construes it. Am I missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Pseudo-Augustine,

      You might be interested in Greg Welty's critique of Plantinga's FWD. It begins in the section titled "1.3 The Failure of Plantinga's Defence."

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link Patrick.

      Delete