Skip to content

Monthly Archives for July 2007

Faith, conversion & apostasy

I would guess that most people know someone who has, at some point in their life, made a major change in their belief system, such as from atheism to Christianity, or vice versa. You may have made such a change yourself.

I’ve known several people who have for a time professed one belief system (sometimes adamantly) only to abandon their beliefs at some point. One of my high school classmates, an extremely intelligent girl, was a hard-core atheist well into her college years, became a Christian. There were many friends of mine who “got saved” during the Jesus Movement, only to drift off into ambivalence (not necessarily a change in belief systems, but definitely a change in level of enthusiasm).

One friend lost his faith in God after a series of very hurtful incidents, including being shunned by his father for no apparent reason, and then divorced by his wife. He decided God couldn’t exist, based on his personal experience. He suffered from clinical depression, and eventually committed suicide (not because of atheism, mind you). Another guy I know left Christianity in favor of Judaism, and eventually became an atheist (he was also mentally unstable, as he suffered a rare form of brain cancer). However, I have known others who have left Christianity for atheism or other philosophies (Buddhism, for example), who are (as far as I know) rational, intelligent people, and who are no more depressed than I am.

What makes someone abandon one belief system for another? It’s an interesting question, and due in part to the people mentioned above and others I have not mentioned, something that I’ve occasionally pondered. The New Testament does speak – although not to any great length – of those who seemingly abandon the faith. What are we to make of this?

Scot McKnight, author, teacher and blogger, is just starting an interesting blog series called Finding Faith / Losing Faith, which should prove both interesting and enlightening. While I have, as I said, pondered the past and present spiritual status of those who have left Christianity, I have not done any serious study on the issue. I look forward to hearing what McKnight will have to say on the issue.

Written on 31 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

My Letter to a Christian Nation Pt 4: Please stop being so stupid…

Dear “Christian” Nation:

Please pay attention: You are not being persecuted if people hate you because you’re a jerk.

Almost daily, as I visit the blogs of Christians and Atheists, scan and delete e-mails, and read the occasional Christian newsletter, I see examples of obvious stupidity on the parts of Christians. It is, it seems, rampant in American Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, and other para-Christian isms. If you’ve taken a look at Sam Harris’ $16.95 Letter To a Christian Nation, you’ll have seen that it was prompted by the large amount of “hate” mail he received, much of it from folks claiming to be Christians.

Harris writes:

Since the publication of my first book, The End of Faith, I have received thousands of letters and e-mails from religious believers insisting that I am wrong not to believe in God. Invariably, the most unpleasant of these communications have come from Christians. This is ironic, as Christians generally believe that no faith imparts the virtues of love and forgiveness more effectively than their own. Please accept this for what it is: the testimony of a man who is in a position to observe how people behave when their faith is challenged. Many who claim to have been transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism. While you may ascribe this to human nature, it is clear that the hatred these people feel comes directly from the Bible. How do I know this? Because the most deranged of my correspondents always cite chapter and verse.

Harris has a good point. However, it must also be pointed out that anti-Christians are even worse… All you have to do is visit the same atheist / Darwinist blogs to see how absolutely vicious, obnoxious and stupid some (not all, or even most) atheists can be. (And, of course, Harris doesn’t appear to be bothered by viciousness when it’s directed toward Christians.) Self-righteousness is an ugly thing, whether it’s an atheistic self-righteousness or a pseudo-Christian self-righteousness.

You may note that I said “pseudo-Christian self-righteousness.” The reason is simply this: self-righteousness is simply the antithesis of Jesus’ teachings, his example and of the Christian Gospel itself. Remember things like “love your enemies,” “bless those who curse you,” and “turn the other cheek?” Remember also “take heed, he who thinks he stands, lest he fall?” What about “without love, you are as irritating as off-beat tambourine” (my interpretation). Do you understand that if you fall into any sort of self-righteousness you have, at that point, completely lost the Gospel? All of your foolish, arrogant, stupid “you atheists should rot in hell” comments are in a very real sense, un-Christian.

But wait, there’s more: Pithy sayings are an embarrassment to thinking people everywhere.

You can’t impress people with a smug, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” In fact, it’s my guess that there’s a very good chance that you’d completely embarrass yourself in any intelligent conversation with a non-Christian. Now, I have nothing against someone with a quiet, simple faith; some of these are, in fact, some of my favorite people and I don’t mean to offend them. But, a simple faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster won’t do anyone any good; faith must be based in Truth as Paul points out:

For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Romans 10:2,3

Again, we find ourselves back to self-righteousness.

The people I am really speaking to are the smug, obnoxious folks who think that a bumper-sticker slogan is a great thing to yell at an atheist. A month or so ago an atheist friend of mine was confronted by a number of these obnoxious folks, who uses such witticisms as:

1. “Thank God for the Atheists!”
2. “I’ll pray for you!”
3. “I don’t believe in atheists!”
4. “God bless you!”
5. “So, do you, like, believe that the world just poofed itself into existence with no Creator?”

To you, I ask simply that you please shut up and start trying to use that brain (and heart) that God gave you.

Now, I know that there are stupid people everywhere, and that stupid Christians are no more stupid than stupid non-Christians (I mean, after all, you do believe in God, so I give you credit for that). But seriously, go back to my first point (about the persecution of jerks) and give it some thought. If an atheist is a stupid jerk, it’s nothing to me. However, if you say you’re a Christian and you’re a stupid, loud-mouthed jerk, it embarrasses all of us, and just gives a sense of credibility to people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and others who hold you up as the example of the social devolution that religion causes.

Okay?

Written on 25 July 2007 by me under Letter to a Christian Nation with 7 Comments

Perhaps Dawkins really is delusional?

As I have said before, I have wondered, reading The God Delusion, whether Richard Dawkins is ignorant, delusional, or intentionally deceptive. I am presuming that he is not unintelligent and that he understands basic logic, which is what has confused me as I’ve read through the book. I would have expected something more polished and well-argued, something to actually make people think, and perhaps doubt. This, however, is not the case.

Today I followed a Telic Thoughts link to a May 12 article by Dawkins on TimesOnline entitled “How dare you call me a fundamentalist” where he, in that winning way that he has, attempts to rebut some critics of his book. It is an interesting read, and if you haven’t read any Dawkins in the past, this is perhaps all the Dawkins you will ever need.

He starts by responding to criticism by other atheists that he uses “shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language,” then moves on to criticism that he is ignorant of the religions he criticizes. As in the book itself, his response to this 2nd question is nothing but rhetoric, and then he avoids having to make any real response by sending folks to read “‘Courtier’s Reply’ on P. Z. Myers’s splendid Pharyngula website” which he says “he cannot better.” If he cannot do better than “Courtier’s Reply,” then he should probably just give up; it is nothing but an attempt to justify Dawkins’ repeated straw man arguments, and it’s just ridiculous. Of course, Dawkins has no valid rebuttal and no excuse for failing to understand things he attacks. Saying things like “[t]here is no such thing as a Christian child: only a child of Christian parents” and “[m]ost believers echo Robertson, Falwell or Haggard, Osama bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini” can only be attributed to either ignorance or lying (and these quotes are from his rebuttal!).

He also objects to being called a fundamentalist, and tries to draw a distinction between passion and fundamentalism (fundamentalists apparently don’t change their minds). As a scientist, of course, he will change his mind if confronted with evidence. Of course, he doesn’t mention that fundamentally he believes that only evidence that can be scientifically verified can be considered.

Last week I was leaning toward the conclusion that Dawkins’ use of bad logic, mis-characterization and outright fiction was intentional. However, after reading this rebuttal, I’m starting to believe that he is, after all, simply delusional.

Written on 23 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 8 Comments

Dover revisited

I still see the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case bandied about, usually to make the point that ID (Intelligent Design) is Creationism in disguise. It is a stupid argument for a number of reasons, the main reason being that a court of law has no authority in realms of science, philosophy, or truth, for that matter. What courts rule on are the applicability of laws to a specific set of facts; even then the rulings are often limited in scope (in fact, this particular ruling is only authoritative in the Middle District of Pennsylvania).

Kitzmiller v. Dover (usually referred to as Kitzmiller or Dover), is of course the now infamous court case dealing with a school board’s attempt to mandate the teaching of ID in the school’s science program. The case is often misunderstood and often inaccurately presented. The case was a “bench” trial, meaning there was no jury; the full text of the Judge’s decision can be found here. While the decision is poorly reasoned, it can be an interesting read, as it give a little insight into the case and the evidence that the Judge considered. Judge Jones, by the way, prior to being appointed by President Bush to the Federal Bench in 2002, was chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and who, among other things, reportedly banned a micro-brew beer because he was offended by the label. Before that, he made a failed attempt to get into politics, and worked as co-chair of Tom Ridge’s transition team. It could be argued that his qualifications were more in the political realm than in his legal abilities or experience. He still is a fairly inexperienced judge, as judges go, having served only 3 years before hearing the Dover case.

None of this, however, has any bearing on whether his decision in the Dover case was either accurate or well-reasoned. For that, we need to look at the case and the decision itself. In May 2007, the Montana Law Review published an article which discusses some of the background of the case, the failings of the School Board, the failings of the Judge, and what the decision does or does not mean. Note, however, that the authors are connected with the much-hated Discovery Institute, which – as with Judge Jones’ background – should have no bearing on the merits of their paper; however, I wanted to make this point up front rather than have the article dismissed purely on that basis.

The article is an interesting look at the case, for those who really want to understand why this particular case went the way it did. There is a minor plug for ID at the very end, but overall the article sticks to the factual and legal issues what should be a forgettable case. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Dover continues to be as referenced and as misunderstood as the Scopes trial.

Written on 21 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment

On uniting the country

Andrew Sullivan has a great post today at The Daily Dish about Hillary Clinton and how she is universally distrusted. He seems to think that this is a bad thing.

However, I’m thinking that electing her as President could be just the thing to unite the country. How long has it been since we’ve had a president that nobody trusts? We might even get Congress to work together. Just imagine, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, standing shoulder to shoulder, voting as one … Lee Greenwood joining Green Day on stage… the thought gives me goosebumps.

Written on 20 July 2007 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, Politics/Current Events with 4 Comments

Probability, credulity and credibility (and Dawkins)

Have you ever listened to your local TV News broadcast or read a story in your local paper that deals with a subject that you know about, and been amazed at the inaccuracy of the reporting? I have, which is why I mention it. In fact, more often that not, when I know something about the subject being reported, I will see how incredibly sloppy or just plain wrong the reported news is.

It makes me wonder, what are the chances that these 2 or 3 stories are the only ones being incorrectly reported? Considering that we have first-hand information on perhaps less than 1% of the reported news we listen to or read, couldn’t it be just coincidence that these were also the inaccurate stories? So, what is more probable: that our small, non-random sample of news reporting has coincidently found the handful of badly reported stories, or that our sample challenges the credibility of all news reporting? I am inclined to think that it is more probable to think that most, if not all, news stories are chock full of inaccuracies and just plain false information. At the very least, it challenges my credulity in the news media.

Now, let’s apply this same reasoning to some other non-fiction work, say, Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. I freely admit to not being a scientist and I can’t converse intelligently on the specifics of micro-biology or whatever. Dawkins and friends have occasionally accused people like Behe, Dembski and others of misleading non-scientists with their slick presentations. This is to imply, of course, that folks like Dawkins would never stoop to misleading anyone with bad logic or misinformation. But who (aside from other scientists) is to say that this is true? As I said, I’m a relative simpleton, who must decide who to believe based on who appears most credible. Isn’t this the case with most of us?

But, there are some things that I do know, so I can start there. Take dualism, for example, the belief that there is a difference between matter (your brain) and the mind, or between body and soul. I know something of dualism, as I’ve been a dualist my entire life. Most of my friends are dualists. (I also know some duelists, but that’s another matter.) Dawkins begins his discussion of dualism innocently enough, saying that a dualist recognizes a distinction between matter and mind. Then, he accuses dualists (all of them) of believing the mind is a disembodied spirit that could leave the body, that mental illness is demon possession, and that dualists “personify inanimate physical objects at the slightest opportunity, seeing spirits and demons even in waterfalls and clouds.”

If I were completely ignorant of the topic, I might conclude, “dualists are completely wacko,” which, of course, is what Dawkins wishes you to think. However, I personally know of no dualists who believe spirits reside in either waterfalls or clouds. I do believe in spirits, good and evil; however I do not assume that mental illness is necessarily demon possession. Many duallists do not believe in spirits (other than the human mind or spirit). Here, I have to believe that Dawkins is being intentionally inaccurate, as any high school student could easily research and understand the topic, and present a more accurate description.

Dawkins makes similar claims that tax-free money taken in by American churches is “polishing the heels of already well-heeled televangelists.” Having been on a few church boards, I can say without hesitation that none of these churches’ money has gone to any televangelist. Again, this is something quite easy to fact-check. Dawkins’ book is full of such broad brush strokes and inaccuracies. This appears to be typical Dawkins-style rhetoric, which only works if you are totally clueless about the subject matter being discussed; it only takes a bit of knowledge on the topics, and a rudimentary understanding of logic, to recognize them.

So, what do we make of Dawkins? Is he, perhaps, just ignorant of issues of dualism and the workings of American church finances? Is he incredibly sloppy on mundane issues, but suddenly painstakingly accurate when he is explaining the errant arguments of Intelligent Design or the certainty of evolution “by slow, gradual degrees?” Can we therefore excuse these lapses of accuracy and accept as credible his statement that “We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion“?

Looking back to my original premise, does that fact that Dawkins is so, shall we say, “inaccurate” with regard to these mundane issues imply the probability that he is also “inaccurate” with regard to more crucial issues? Or, is it just coincidence that he seems to be “inaccurate” with just the issues with which I happen to be knowledgeable?

I cannot, of course, with any logical certainty claim that a few small, white “inaccuracies” prove that he is wrong on any other topic. That would, indeed, be illogical. However, I think the odds certainly place his credibility at risk.

Written on 18 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 6 Comments

Wisdom and atheism

Okay, I meant to start on my Dawkins’ review this evening, but went out for a photo-walk instead. It was a good choice, as it was a beautiful evening, and there was a wonderful sunset:
Sunset #58

Call it God’s art, as I do, or call it a byproduct of the accidental laws of physics, it was beautiful all the same.

Growing up on the plains of northwestern Minnesota, far, far away from city lights (or even neighbors), I am used to looking at the big sky (it’s not just in Montana, no matter what they try to tell you) and being amazed at what God has made. Nature, to me, has always reflected the glory of God. I agree wholeheartedly with Paul in Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I can comprehend many things, but one thing I cannot comprehend is to look at nature and not see God. Richard Dawkins and others have theories about that, but to me it is just foolishness. The so-called wisdom of the world versus the foolishness of God (I think Dawkins would agree with that line). The Apostle Paul, one of my favorite authors, was obviously a very intelligent and wise man (the 2 do not necessarily go together); at one point he wrote, “I chose to know nothing … except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Wisdom, or foolishness? Both, perhaps.

Today the Internet Monk has a great post, “For Smart Guys Like Me,” where he talks about this very issue. It’s a very wise look at the foolishness of men, or vice versa, depending on your point of view. To me, it was a breath of fresh air, as spiritually refreshing as my walk around the lake.

I sometimes understand the foolish wisdom of God. At times, I think I understand the foolish wisdom of men. But, as I have said before, sometimes thinking too much makes you stupid, and we can easily miss the obvious, the God who is our creator as well as our shepherd, who leads us beside still waters.

The wisdom of man, however, at least according to the ‘New Atheists,” would say that this thinking is foolish, even dangerous. Today at Prosthesis, Macht writes concerning the “new” wisdom:

The new atheists view of man is that we are all, at the core of our being, reasonable. That’s what makes us human. That’s what makes us special. There is an ideal, rational person deep inside every one of us. But we all have religions and traditions that surround us and prevent us from being rational. All that baggage prevents us from being reasonable and leads to all the things that are wrong in the world. Atheism, in their view, then, is a “natural state” of man. We are all born atheists, they tell us.

But, again, this view is just wrong.

The wisdom of men changes, but as the writer of Ecclesiastes said, “there is nothing new under the sun.” Wisdom? Foolishness?

Perhaps a little of both.

Written on 18 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with No Comments

The Top 100 Christian Blogs

A blog called The Evangelical Outpost has published an admittedly subjective list of the “Top 100″ Christian Blogs. I’ll say up front that I didn’t make the list … this year. ;-)

Now, if I hadn’t followed a link from one of the blogs who did make the list, I wouldn’t have found it. (I will say that Tom Gilson’s Thinking Christian does deserve to be on the list.) Personally, I haven’t found 100 Christian blogs that I have found worthy of revisiting. So far, I’ve found less than a dozen that I’ve bothered to subscribe to, and I’ve let a few of those go. But then, I tend to be hard to please. I have a hard time with the American Evangelical culture, so it takes someone rare who can think beyond the mainstream to keep my interest. I also get easily bored with the whole emerging church crowd (what I have termed the emo-gent movement).

While I have checked out numerous blogs to find some good thinking material, I have been greatly disappointed. And, one of my favorite bloggers has at least temporarily turned his back on the blogging world. I read more science-related blogs than Christian, and I do frequent an atheist’s blog; besides being an old friend of mine, Mike is also a good writer and more interesting and thought-provoking than much of the pablum I find on the net.

So, I’m interested in checking out some of these “Top 100″ blogs, in the chance (I do believe in some chance) that I discover something really good. (I’ll try not to let my failed exploration this morning into a couple on the list dampen my spirits.) Hopefully you don’t have my particular issues and will have an easier time finding something palatable on the list.

And yes, a few of these recent posts, while interesting enough, are to hide the fact that I haven’t had time to come up with any original material… I do plan a post or two on Dawkins’ The God Delusion, but there’s so much there to have fun with that I don’t really know where to begin…

Written on 17 July 2007 by me under Random Thoughts, Reviews with 5 Comments

Next summer: The Cosmic Dance

Several years ago I read Gregory Boyd’s (and Edward Boyd’s) Letters From a Skeptic, and since then I’ve given out many copies of the book to friends and acquaintances who have questions about Christianity, or know someone who does. The book consists of correspondence between Gregory (a theology professor) and his father, Edward, who is a non-believer. It’s a great, non-threatening book for anyone to read, as nearly everyone will agree with at least one of the authors.

But, that’s all I’ve ever read of Gregory Boyd, until yesterday when I followed some links that let me to his blog, and from there to the Christus Victor Ministries page. Boyd is now Senior Pastor of some large church machine in St. Paul, MN. I’m not a megachurch fan, but as I read through his church’s website, I kind of liked it. Okay, enough background plugs.

Now, this upcoming book by Boyd & friends looks really interesting:

The Cosmic Dance

The site gives a brief explanation of the book as well a few sample pages. As I read through the short blurb about the book, which won’t be released for another year, it made me want to be one of Greg Boyd’s friends. Put this down on your calendar for next summer.

Written on 16 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with No Comments

Darwin or Design?

The blog world is all aflutter about the new audiobook Darwin or Design? by Jason Rennie. The book is available for download free (or a higher-quality version at a modest price).

The book features interviews with evolutionists such as P.Z. Myers, Sean Carroll, and Nick Matzke and ID proponents such as Mike Behe, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Mike Gene, and attempts to provide a fair and balanced look at the ID issue. The book also includes interviews with sci-fi author Robert Sawyer (Calculating God, a very interesting read) and journalist Denyse O’Leary (one of my favorite bloggers). The full list of chapters and guests can be found here.

I haven’t had a chance to listen to any of it yet, but the initial reviews have been positive. For anyone interested in the ID controversy, this sounds like a great deal (and hey, it’s free!).

Written on 15 July 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 1 Comment