None Confirmed: The End Of Christianity, ITonight I had the opportunity to preview Vic Stenger’s contribution [PDF 220KB] to the upcoming Prometheus title, The End of Christianity, edited by John W. Loftus. After reading, I felt compelled to respond, so I figured I’d go ahead and kick off my review now. Amazon lists July 26 of this year as the expected release date.
Though Stenger’s contribution is titled, Life After Death: Examining the Evidence, over half the article clashed with Dinesh D’Souza’s philosophical arguments for God’s existence. For those expecting in an in-depth discussion of NDE’s as I was, you will probably be disappointed. Since I’m working on a series of posts addressing NDE’s, rather than reply to anything Stenger said about them, tonight I’d like to focus on a single claim:
A Place Called Sheol: Jesus & His Kingdom, IIThis is the third installment of my review on Mike Gantt’s Jesus and His Kingdom: The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven.
Chapter 2 is on the Hebrew concept of Sheol found primarily in the Old Testament. The chapter essentially serves as an extended introduction to the concept, exploring its various uses throughout the Old Testament and cross-referencing them with one another. My review itself is rather short, but I suggest you read it anyways, especially the addendum.
Fundamentalism: It’s Not Just For TheistsWith a slight modification, I wrote the following comment at CSA the other day, and felt it deserves reproduction here. While I intend to develop it as a full post or perhaps even part of a chapter in my book, here’s what we’ve got so far:
…I think deconverted fundamentalists and evangelicals tend to make the most dangerous atheists. Often, the mental weaknesses that led them to dogmatic ways of thinking in the first place persist. These traits then carry over into their newly-embraced “skepticism,” the weaknesses again take the helm, yet, this time, they are actually far worse off because a thin veneer of rationalism masks their dogmatic and irrational tendencies and puffs many up with a false sense of confidence. Consequently, many mistakenly believe that their change of psychological allegiance solved the problem. They’re often less likely to see it, because they still have that “in the tribe” mentality, only now, they fancy themselves in the right tribe. I cannot overemphasize the threat this phenomenon poses to critical thinking and pursuit of truth. Trading one’s cross for a scarlet A accomplishes nothing unless the old habits are shed. [February 14, 2011 at 3:38 pm]
What sayest thou? Doth this ringeth true in thine own experience?
Jesus & His Kingdom: IntroductionWhen I asked readers to suggest writing topics for 2011, Matt and Garren both suggested sticking with book reviews. Matt also alluded to my previously stated interest in developing content that explores what the Bible actually says about various topics.
A few weeks ago at CSA, I began to notice several intelligent and well-reasoned comments from a believer named Mike Gantt, who caught my attention with the following :
…the heaven-or-hell theory of afterlife promulgated today largely by evangelical Christianity… is not biblical. The Bible actually teaches that everyone is going to heaven and everyone is judged for their sins. Therefore, whether you believe in this or not, you will go to heaven when you die. However, the degree of enjoyment you have with that life there will be based in large part on morality with which you lived your life on earth (including the kindness you showed others who were less fortunate). [Mike Gantt]
As is the case whenever anybody makes a claim I’m skeptical of, my initial reaction was to ask Mike for the evidence that he felt justified his position. He replied with links to a book he’s written on the subject, titled Jesus and His Kingdom: The Biblical Case for Everyone Going to Heaven. I gave his links a perfunctory read, decided I couldn’t agree based on what I’d seen, then figured that would be the end of it. A week later, Mike left a comment here that contained the same claim: everybody goes to heaven. For some reason, this time, I felt the need to reply.
So, perhaps you can see where all of this is going: Responding To Universalism will be one of TWIM’s new book review series’ for 2011.
There Just Might Be Roller Coasters In HeavenAtheists often remark that they would find traditional concepts of the afterlife boring and unsatisfying. I tend to sympathize with them: I would, too. You might think that’s an odd thing for a believer to say, but, allow me to explain.
In a recent discussion on William Lane Craig’s argument that life without God is absurd, Polymeron described heaven thus:
Bliss that is eternal and irreversible. To me, personally, this still lacks something; I don’t know that heaven is something that I could feel I am working toward, so it does not really qualify for what I consider purpose.
A Brief Critique Of William Lane Craig’s Argument From Ultimate MeaningIn his post Meaning and Death, Luke Muehlhauser—along with several other atheists—criticized William Lane Craig’s claim that without God, no ultimate meaning or purpose exists. Well. Let’s get something off the table: I agree with Craig that without God or some other sentient creator, there cannot be an overarching telos for humanity; no transcendent purpose. However, even as a theist who understands where Craig is coming from, I’m with Craig’s critics on this one.
An Analogy For Penal AtonementI’d like to share an experience I had this evening. A mother was tending to her crying baby, presumably related to the pain of teething. While trying to comfort the baby, the mother said,
Aw, I wish I could take the pain of teething for you…
I feel confident in asserting that the majority of individuals would both approve of the mother’s loving intentions, and encourage her to take the pain if she had the means. So why is it that such a disproportionate subset of people object when Christians preach a God both willing and able to take the pain of sin for us?
A Quest For Second BestOver the past six months, the arguments I've read and wrote have led me to what I believe to be a logically-valid, undeniable argument for DCT's superiority over any other moral theory. As such, I state confidently today that all contemplation of "the best moral theory" is actually a quest for second best.
When Is Belief Justified, Redux? Proof Of God’s Existence, 4We left off promising a more in-depth discussion of jim's post. I understand that jim offers his series Proof Of God's Existence as a thought experiment, and that he's simply asking what our initial judgments would be, perhaps to help define the parameters of this "common sense inquiry" he alluded to in the introduction. Personally, I'm all for it, and as a writer I've always enjoyed reading jim, even his vitriolic tirades against me which were often colorful and creative (I even recall some limericks).
After setting up an odd series of events between Mary the neighborhood realtor and Carol the neighborhood skeptic, jim closes with the following set of questions:
Are Carol's [suspicion and uneasiness] justified at this point, slight though they be, or can they be summarily dismissed? Is this early foreboding of suspicion rational? Irrational? Pre-rational?
My short answer was that Carol's initial and ongoing uneasiness were justified, but any ongoing suspicion less so. Likewise, I answered that Carol's initial and ongoing uneasiness would also seem rational, but again, any ongoing suspicion less so. Tonight I'd like to address those questions in more detail, in hopes of churning out at least a provisional definition of justified belief.
When Is Belief Justified? Proof Of God’s Existence, 2jim has written the second installment of his series titled Proof of God's Existence. The post introduces four fictional characters that jim uses in an intentionally loosely-framed thought experiment:
Bob Smith Bob is a somewhat elderly man, retired, whose wife and friends find innocent and trusting to the point of being gullible.
Carol Smith Bob’s wife is the counterpoint to Bob’s trusting nature, skeptical to a fault, and always on the lookout for a scam. (note: both Bob and Carol always try to be scrupulously honest with each other).
Mary Jones The Smiths’ nextdoor neighbor, as well as the local real estate agent. She’s a recent move-in, and neither of the Smiths know her very well.
Mr. Garcia The mysterious man across the street.
So far, everything sounds good to me.