The Warfare Is Mental

Jesus Never Pooped: or, A Better Way To Conduct Exegesis

November 10, 2008

Excuse me for making a generalization here, but I've noticed that atheists tend to approach the Bible much like creationists tend to approach literature on evolution. Certain atheists (for example Richard Dawkins) are publicly fond of bashing creationists for dodgy scholarship, and rightfully so. For example, many of us know how some creationists are overly fond of emphasizing select passages from Darwin or Dobzhansky to support their arguments, while selectively de-emphasizing other passages that might weaken their argument. What's less recognized is the extent to which atheists and skeptics do the same thing (for example Richard Dawkins) when quoting the Bible or the Founding Fathers to support their cases for atheism.

Religious Shortcomings Can Warrant Skepticism

November 7, 2008

Particularly in the context of the atheism/theism debate, there are valid reasons skepticism is usually justifiable. Here are just two quick ones:

1. Many religions permit only a top-down transfer of information, with extra-churchicular programs devoted to 'deeper understanding of the faith' for those with further questions. Contrast this to the Bereans described in the book of Acts, who are described as "more noble" for their habit of "checking the scriptures" to see if what was being preached to them was supported or not. This is a sort of "skepticism" prevalent amongst believers; not as much a skepticism over whether God exists or not as a skepticism over the statements from religious authorities. Essentially, the habit of questioning and fact-checking the pronouncements of religious authorities is applauded in scripture. (Acts 17:11)

2. Many individual adherents of the various faiths either do not, can not, or will not defend most or even any of their beliefs. Contrast this to Peter who admonishes believers to "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." (1 Peter 3:15) Or the more obscure New Testament writer Jude: "Be merciful to those who doubt." (Jude 1:22) Not everyone can say their pastor or church conforms to these requirements, but these are requirements the Bible plainly states.

Since the shortcomings of so many religious institutions and believers fall into these and many other categories, is it any wonder people fond of reason often look upon the whole enterprise with an eye of suspicion?

What If A Creationist Did This?

November 1, 2008

While reading a recent Chronicle feature by staff writer Jill Tucker, I quickly learned that Gary Healy teaches mathematics at John Muir Middle School in San Leandro, California. I also learned the teacher discovered a package of religious flyers in his mailbox one day, with a note asking to distribute them to his students.

Healy was shocked and refused to distribute the flyers, which were ostensibly for a Bible-based support group dealing with issues related to peer pressure. Tucker reported that at day's end the flyers remained on Healy's desk, so, at least for that day, Healy directly broke with official district policy, which maintains that flyer distribution for non-profits occurs on an all-or-none basis. I was really hoping to catch some crank gassing online about how this is a heroic response to an outrageous moral evil that should be addressed in the name of the separation clause, but to date I haven't found any.

The Biblical Doctrine of Salvation: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, II

October 5, 2008

In Part I we discussed the first pivotal misunderstanding of religion I claim compromises the validity of the main thesis in the rather well-written A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM). The second implicit misunderstanding we ought to discuss relates to misinterpretations of salvation, the peculiarly culturally-resilient notion that,

“If the person has been virtuous, the soul is admitted to Heaven for an eternity of reward; if the person has been wicked or sinful, their soul descends to Hell for an eternity of punishment.”

Although the author did not explicitly assert this to be the Bible’s position, this is not a biblical teaching, and it is unclear from the essay whether the author understands the biblical perspective, although many of the questions asked in the case studies raise legitimate concern. The above is nevertheless an erroneous interpretation of scripture frequently straw-manned by critics of all stripe in the general public and academia alike, not surprisingly with little or no counter from theism. I say “not surprisingly” because as the author of AGITM is apt to notice, many pious do not know the Bible with the same degree of expertise they expect of its critics.

As with yesterday’s discussion, this apparent misunderstanding of salvation potentially undermines AGITM’s overall argument and even further lessens its relevance to theism. Although less relevant to AGITM’s main thesis (the argument against spirit / soul), this point of contention is relevant to many of the sub-arguments and questions of whether salvation would be granted under the unfortunate conditions experienced by those in the fourteen case studies. Many and possibly all of the sub-dilemmas raised fall apart when salvation is delineated in a manner compatible with scripture. For it is only in the misunderstood context of the biblical ‘soul’ and the rewards-and-punishments system that such questions as these arise at all:

“One must ask whether these people’s disabilities will affect their eternal fate. Would a Christian, Jew or Muslim who lost their automatic speech be held accountable by God for failing to say the prayers he has demanded of them, through no fault of their own? What about a deeply religious individual who loses the ability to speak except in profanities?”

…or the following from the discussion of frontotemporal dementia (FTD):

“..will God damn people for their genes?”

The Biblical Distinction Between Soul And Spirit: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, I

October 4, 2008

Ebonmuse has on his site another much-talked-about essay titled A Ghost In The Machine which is a valiant argument against Cartesian duality, or the generally-theist idea that humans have a soul substance that can survive or somehow transcend the death of the physical body. While leaving a comment in the thread of On Expertise I noticed another comment by Heliobates which read,

“…if you want to read what I consider to be THE SLAM DUNK argument against theism, check out our host’s A Ghost In The Machine. Without Cartesian dualism, religion is dead in the water.”

To this I responded,

“IMO the error… is in assuming all religion dependent upon the Cartesian paradigm. Yes, I can and will offer a detailed counter-explanation, but it is far beyond the scope of the thread..”

So here we are. I said I would offer a detailed counter-explanation, and now I’ve got to stick to my word.

A Public Challenge To Atheists: Is It Wrong For Me To Crush A Flea?

September 19, 2008

I frequently pick fleas off our cats and crush them beneath my fingertips, and I invite any and all atheists to explain whether they think this behavior is wrong or not.

For the sake of the discussion, let's presume this causes suffering to the flea. Is it wrong for me to crush a flea? Why or why not?

Thanks in advance for comments and thanks especially if you link to this post from your own blog or website.

The Theist’s Guide To Converting Atheists: My Response To Ebonmuse

September 17, 2008

The atheist blogger Ebonmuse has for nearly a decade now hosted an essay on his website titled The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. I was originally pointed to the essay from a link on another atheist blog asking believers to consider potential facts or situations that would sway them from belief.

What follows is my initial set of responses to this essay.

An Atheist Paralell To God Of The Gaps Thinking

August 21, 2008

Lately I've noticed an atheist parallel to God of the Gaps thinking. I was in the blogosphere the other day when I stumbled on a piece called CSI Deuteronomy where the author takes the fifth book of the Bible to task. The reason was an awkward phenomenon the ancient Israelites were supposed to undertake for unsolved murders occurring outside of city boundaries.

The passage from the Revised Standard Version reads:

Thoughts on the Nature of Evidence

August 5, 2008

Today I thought about evidence. Not any evidence about anything in particular at first, but more about the root characteristics of evidence – what it is, what it isn't, when it is strong, when it is weak, etc. What we call evidence is merely nothing more than some fact or feeling, and it occurred to me that many of us (myself included) misunderstand the nature of evidence we often hang belief upon. Even more interesting was the discovery that in debates between atheists and believers, much evidence is inconclusive as opposed to genuine. Genuine evidence lends well to incontrovertible conclusions. On the contrary, inconclusive evidence cannot reliably sustain incontrovertible conclusions. Also note that several pieces of inconclusive evidence pointing to a conclusion carry greater weight than just one piece.

On Evangelism

July 8, 2008

I was in the blogosphere this morning and came across a question:

"Is it okay for atheists to try to change people's minds? To try to convince people that their religion is mistaken, and that they should de-convert and become atheists instead? And is there any difference between that and religious evangelicalism?"

To begin, I'd respond by saying atheists are fundamentally incapable of any form of evangelism. This is because the word itself is inextricably intertwined with positive affirmations of faith. Now this is not to say that atheists can't or don't undertake similar methods as evangelists in getting their points across. Nonetheless, the question the author asks is valid.

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →