A Response To Jeff Lowder’s Argument From The History Of ScienceJeff Lowder offers an Argument from the History of Science (AHS) that purports to establish naturalism / atheism as more likely to be true than supernaturalism / theism:
Just Say No To The GLBT Mafia!I support ‘Chick-Fil-A, with a caveat: I probably don’t support the farms they get their chicken from, but I say “probably” because I don’t know where they get it from. Chances are it’s a farm with inhumane practices. At any rate, members of the GLBT mafia calling for the “banishment” of ‘Chick-Fil-A restaurants are spreading anti-American, unconstitutional bigotry, and I challenge any one of them to provide a reasoned argument demonstrating otherwise. Incidents like this really expose the danger of the militant GLBT factions. They are threatening to undermine the very principles this country was founded upon.
On The Whole “Gay” ThingI’ve been going through the comments, and Adam writes,
You wrote in your about page that you believe the church made a colossal error regarding homosexuality. I am a Christian and I agree with you on this, but I haven’t found a post about this topic (probably because it isn’t about (a)theism). Long story short, I used to be firmly against homosexuality, then wavered when my wife’s father was a homosexual, decided to give it a fair shake for the sake of family and found that I wasn’t uncomfortable with his sexuality or willing to reject him completely based on his position. The man is also a minister and loves God and I do not see his sexuality interfering with thus.
My request is if you could spell out your case for why you believe the church made an error in this area (I always hear people who are against homosexuality say that it is condemned in the Bible and I have no answer for that), I am most interested in your response as opposed to the liberal Christian moderating the faith for the culture because you approach these things with logic that is well beyond my own capabilities.
Thanks.
Thank you for the compliment. I’ve never posted on this subject because it’s an overcharged topic that tends to encourage binary thinking. It’s part of the whole “culture war” thing I really want to avoid (though one can’t help stumbling over the occasional land mine). On top of all that, “gay marriage” is actually a very complex issue that requires one to think deeply through their own positions, lest one be found inadvertently attacking another. Today I’ll try to explain my views on the whole “gay” thing, then answer Adam’s questions.
False Argument #35: Religious DisagreementParaphrased, the Argument from Religious Disagreement (ADR) asks: if an all-powerful, all-knowing God really does exist, why do we observe so much religious disagreement?
Indeed, many religions exist and not all of them are compatible. Even within a single religion like Christianity, many factions exist, and some of their tenets are mutually exclusive (e.g., Calvinism and Universalism can’t both be true). Atheists and skeptics attempt to use this disagreement as evidence against the claim that any given revelation is actually from God, but I believe the underlying premises are naïve. Further, when one looks more carefully, I believe we should expect the religious disagreement we observe—especially if the Bible is true.
Ed Kroc: Another Atheist BigotSorry, I was on the internet too much today. I found this kookery over at Paul Zachary’s “free thought” blog, and I felt it needed to be called out for the small-minded bigotry it is:
There are three kinds of religious scientists (and mathematicians): cowards, liars and idiots. The cowards need to be reassured and rescued, the liars need to be challenged and contested, and the idiots need to be exposed. It is because of this that I have become an engaged atheist, outspoken and loud, a “new” atheist if that’s what you want to call it. As long as the cowards, liars and idiots are protected by our silence and general disinterest in anything not directly related to our research, they will continue to compromise the credibility of our fields. You can be a brilliant scientist and still believe in god, but you can’t do it sincerely. That’s a problem. Sooner or later will be a clash, whether it’s in the form of muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality in a public statement or lecture. If you’re going to devote your life to the pursuit of truth, then you better have enough guts to stomach the implications, all of them.
Right, because conflicts of interest *ONLY* arise when scientists are religious. Bigoted kookery! And only the super-rational atheist scientists are metaphysically sincere! Bigoted kookery! Of course, Ed Kroc the bigot forgot all about the fourth kind of religious scientist: the ones who contribute more knowledge to science to science than Dawkins, Myers, Harris and Coyne combined. Who cares though, because, via revelation from Ed Kroc, we can be certain Francis Collins will be out there muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality, sooner or later. After all, only *THEIST* scientists do that!
Do Reconverts Exist?I’m not asking, “Has anybody ever stopped believing in God, then started again?” I’m sure those people exist. I’m thinking more along the lines of professionals and academics. Does anybody know of any prominent, vocal or outgoing believers who became prominent, vocal or outgoing atheists, then reconverted? I’m asking because I have this hypothesis that once a deconvert has blasphemed and insulted enough, potential cognitive dissonance outweighs commitment to reason. For example, John W. Loftus. Are we really to believe that somebody like Loftus is true enough to searching that he might reconvert, even after all that crap he’s talked about God and faith? Or, might all that crap-talking have permanently eroded any such chance?
If you are a deconvert, what would it take to reconvert?
Question #3: Can God Be Called Bad?Following along from Question 1 and Question 2, In your opinion, can God be rightfully called “immoral” or “bad” for preferring a universe with compassion over a universe without it?
Just For You, Greta!So Greta Christina wrote this reaaaaallllly loooonnnng slog which can basically be expressed in the following sentence: in the marketplace of ideas, why should religion be immune from criticism?
My answer? It shouldn’t. Religion can and should be criticized like any other idea, and in my opinion, the religious should welcome this criticism. After all, I welcome criticism, because through criticism my beliefs are tested. If—like JT Eberhard—I were to shy away from criticism, then I would lose out on the opportunity to test my beliefs. If I lose out on that opportunity, I increase my chance of holding false beliefs. Therefore, criticism of religion is as essential as criticism of any other idea with far-ranging social implications.
So there you go, Greta. Your second straight answer.
The Greatest Thing In The World: IndexThe following is an index for Henry Drummond’s sermon on 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (the “love” passages), reprinted from the complete, unabridged version of “The Greatest Thing In The World” by Spire Books (ISBN unknown). Highly recommended for believers of all types and atheists interested in learning more about the Bible.
The Greatest Thing In The World: The Defence (2)*The following is reprinted from the complete, unabridged version of “The Greatest Thing In The World” by Henry Drummond, Spire Books, ISBN unknown
I have said this thing is eternal. Did you ever notice how continually John associates love and faith with eternal life? I was not told when I was a boy that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should have everlasting life.” What I was told, I remember, was, that God so loved the world that, if I trusted in Him, I was to have a thing called peace, or I was to have rest, or I was to have joy, or I was to have safety. But I had to find out for myself that whosoever trusteth in Him—that is, whosoever loveth Him, for trust is only the avenue to Love—hath everlasting life The Gospel offers a man life.