Skip to content

Tag Archives for atheism

Easter reflections

In America, we typically look ahead, rather than behind. Once a holiday is over, the decorations are ripped down and packed away, and it’s off to plan the next big event. But, just give me a moment to offer a couple of thoughts about Easter, as I’m still celebrating.

Easter has not been my favorite holiday, aside from maple cream flavored Easter eggs (which I can no longer eat). This was especially true for the last 20-some years, as Easter reminds me of my Dad’s death.  For most of my life I have tended to separate holiday celebrations from any religious significance, being one of those who sees all days alike (Rom. 14:5), in spite of having a very incarnational theology.  However, over the last couple of years I have become more and more incarnational, as well as liturgical. Christmas has taken on a new meaning for me, as has Easter.  I realize that the dates are somewhat arbitrary, but that’s not the point; the point is our meaning and purpose in the celebration.  As it turns out, Easter has become my favorite holiday.

Easter has always remained the focus of the Eastern liturgical year, while in the West Christmas took precedent.  I honestly can see both points; the incarnation is astounding. On the other hand, the Resurrection is the foundation of our faith; as Paul pointed out in 1 Cor. 15, if Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then neither shall we – and then we are to be “pitied more than all men.”

This year, I was struck by a new realization that also emphasizes the importance of Easter: atheists hate the Easter holiday.  This surprised me at first; I expected them to brush it off and go about life as normal. After all, most Evangelical Christians don’t really put a lot of stock in the day itself.  And, like Christmas, Easter has it’s share of non-religious aspects: chocolate bunnies, egg hunts, and so on.  We all know these accoutrements come from pagan fertility celebrations, so what’s the big deal?

Joe over at Debunking Christianity posted an “Easter Sunrise Blasphemy” which gives his perspective. Then, as I perused a few more atheist blogs Easter morning, I started to see a trend.  Whether it’s the whole concept of the cross and what that means – sin, judgment and death – or the meaning of the Resurrection, it apparently hits a nerve wity many atheists, much more so than Christmas.  Perhaps it’s that Easter is exclusive (even though most of us believe Christ died and rose for all mankind); or, perhaps it’s that Easter is intolerant of other faiths, or non-faiths. Or, perhaps Easter is simply the watershed issue in Christianity: either Christians are wrong and celebrating in vain,  or we’re right and non-Christians are missing out.

Whatever the issue, as I read through these posts, I kept thinking, “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of salvation to all those who believe.”  Easter is exclusive, in that only those who have experienced resurrection can understand and share in the celebration. Easter is also intolerant and divisive; it says boldly, “we’re right” (and by default, “you’re wrong”).  Or, in other words, “I’m resurrected (and you’re just dead).”  It is the watershed of Christianity.  And I, for one, make no apologies for this; in fact, I celebrate Easter, along with millions of other Christians.  This is not to say that I don’t have sorrow for those like Joe who say, “I hate Easter.”

Easter – the Gospel – also happens to be inclusive: It is available to all.  However, as it turns out, Easter is only exclusive in that requires death in order to celebrate it.

Ay, there’s the rub…

Written on 15 April 2009 by me under Theological Musings with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

Atheist convert A.N. Wilson deconverts (back to Christianity)

Perhaps one of the more famous Christians-turned-atheist is author A.N. Wilson, who wrote biographies of people like C.S. Lewis & Tolstoy, as well as the “demythologizing” Jesus: A Life.   In this morning’s Mail Online, he writes,

For much of my life, I, too, have been one of those who did not believe. It was in my young manhood that I began to wonder how much of the Easter story I accepted, and in my 30s I lost any religious belief whatsoever.

Like many people who lost faith, I felt anger with myself for having been ‘conned’ by such a story. I began to rail against Christianity, and wrote a book, entitled Jesus, which endeavoured to establish that he had been no more than a messianic prophet who had well and truly failed, and died.

Why did I, along with so many others, become so dismissive of Christianity?

He blames the anti-Christian attitudes of Britain for much of his loss of faith, which “lends weight to the fervour of the anti-God fanatics, such as the writer Christopher Hitchens and the geneticist Richard Dawkins, who think all the evil in the world is actually caused by religion.”  He discusses some of these attitudes, then writes,

For ten or 15 of my middle years, I, too, was one of the mockers. But, as time passed, I found myself going back to church, although at first only as a fellow traveller with the believers, not as one who shared the faith that Jesus had truly risen from the grave. Some time over the past five or six years – I could not tell you exactly when – I found that I had changed.

When I took part in the procession last Sunday and heard the Gospel being chanted, I assented to it with complete simplicity.

He then goes on to explain in part why he began to once again believe – and it is not perhaps what you would think, unless you understood the true nature of Christianity, as celebrated in Easter.  He concludes the article with

Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.

The Resurrection, which proclaims that matter and spirit are mysteriously conjoined, is the ultimate key to who we are. It confronts us with an extraordinarily haunting story.

J. S. Bach believed the story, and set it to music. Most of the greatest writers and thinkers of the past 1,500 years have believed it.

But an even stronger argument is the way that Christian faith transforms individual lives – the lives of the men and women with whom you mingle on a daily basis, the man, woman or child next to you in church tomorrow morning.

Christ is risen indeed!  There is hope; but then, some of us already knew that.

Written on 14 April 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , , , ,

More Bart Ehrman, Interrupted

I’ve been posting a bit about Bart Ehrman’s ridiculous book, Jesus, Interrupted, and linking to Ben Witherington‘s series (now up to part 4) examining Ehrman’s claims.  In post #4, BW writes,

The early church, as we begin to see already in Papias, was confident that their ultimate source documents went back to apostles, prophets, eyewitnesses and their co-workers, which is why these 27 documents are in the NT. They were composed by Paul (with help of scribes and co-workers), Peter (1 Peter with help of Silas probably), Mark, Luke (both co-workers of both Peter and Paul), the 4th Evangelist (drawing on Beloved Disciple written sources. The Beloved Disciple composed 1-3 John himself), the compiler of Matthew, James, Jude, perhaps Apollos in the case of Hebrews, John of Patmos, and at the very end of the NT period, the compiler of 2 Peter, drawing on Petrine and other materials.

In short, the NT can be traced back to about 8 people, either eyewitness apostles, or co-workers of such eyewitnesses and apostles. Early Christianity’s leaders were largely literate, and some of them, like Paul and the author of Hebrews, were first rate rhetoricians as well.

The post contains an immense amount of information on how to evaluate ancient literature, and specifically on the authorship and integrity of the New Testament documents.  I don’t know who needs this more, the atheists who are waving Ehrman’s book like a flag, or fundamentalists.

Every Christian should have some real understanding of where the Bible came from and why it’s believable; otherwise, fools like Ehrman come along with their incredibly bad scholarship, or claims about “other gospels,” throwing people to and fro.  The Bible is an extremely reliable set of ancient documents, supported by other documents. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum, as many people seem to think.  It didn’t just fall from the sky, and it wasn’t handed over to Joseph Smith to read with magic glasses.

One book I really want to read – when I have time – is Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham (mentioned by BW in his post).  Another I am adding to my list is BW’s future book What’s In A Word, whenever that comes out.  These days it’s not enough to slap a bumper sticker on your car or wear a WWJD bracelet (not that it ever was), or live from emotional high to emotional high; Christians are faced with all kinds of ridiculous claims by people looking for reasons not to believe. We should all be ready with enough knowledge of the truth to call a fool a fool.

Written on 14 April 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Reviews with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Bart Ehrman and the End of Reputable Scholarship

Bart Ehrman is getting a whole lot of press lately (if blogs count as “press”).  Ehrman is a Bible Scholar who has recently written Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible, where he points out various errors and inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts.  Or, says he does, anyway.  So far, all he’s done is get a bunch of atheists – and others who are either ignorant or just looking for a reason not to believe in God – excited.  Although these folks claim to be wise, they reveal something else entirely (see Romans 1:22), which again leads me to believe that for most atheists, atheism is a moral choice, rather than intellectual.

Even a marginal study shows that the New Testament documents are quite remarkable,  and not the error-filled and questionable documents people like Ehrman claim they are.  Much of the problem, it seems, is applying modern criteria to ancient documents and cultures. (This might actually be good, considering how inaccurate the modern news generally is.  I have learned over the years not to trust anything I read or hear 100%; every single news story I’ve read involving situations of which I have first-hand knowledge, has been incredibly inaccurate.  I can only assume, then, the the stories I no nothing about are just as inaccurate.)

For example, Ehrman criticizes the Gospel authors for not including every single word Jesus said on the cross.  Perhaps someone should have told Matthew, Mark, et al. that this was the expectation of readers in the future.   Here’s a quote from Jesus, Interrupted that was “mined” by John Loftus over at Debunking Christianity:

Why was the tomb supposedly empty? I say supposedly because, frankly, I don’t know that it was. Our very first reference to Jesus’ tomb being empty is in the Gospel of Mark, written forty years later by someone living in a different country who had heard it was empty. How would he know?…Suppose…that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea…and then a couple of Jesus’ followers, not among the twelve, decided that night to move the body somewhere more appropriate…But a couple of Roman legionnaires are passing by, and catch these followers carrying the shrouded corpse through the streets. They suspect foul play and confront the followers, who pull their swords as the disciples did in Gethsemane. The soldiers, expert in swordplay, kill them on the spot. They now have three bodies, and no idea where the first one came from. Not knowing what to do with them, they commandeer a cart and take the corpses out to Gehenna, outside town, and dump them. Within three or four days the bodies have deteriorated beyond recognition. Jesus’ original tomb is empty, and no one seems to know why.

Is this scenario likely? Not at all. Am I proposing this is what really happened? Absolutely not. Is it more probable that something like this happened than that a miracle happened and Jesus left the tomb to ascend to heaven? Absolutely! From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one…” [See pages 171-179]

Ah, yes. This certainly sounds like the kind of scholarship and intelligent analysis that I would expect from a Bible Scholar… but of course I am being sarcastic.  But, it doesn’t have to be intelligent if it tells dunderheads what they want to hear.

Ben Witherington has written a couple of posts that exposes some of Ehrman’s many errors, and from my reading some exerpts and interviews with Ehrman, I would tend to agree with Witherington’s analysis.  I haven’t read the whole book yet, but I will – I am getting a review copy sent to me as part of  TheOOZE’s Viral Blogger network.  I haven’t figured out the angle yet- I know there is one, I just haven’t found it.  Regardless, the book will come, and I will review it – fairly, after I’ve read it myself.

Ehrman may be getting his 15 minutes of fame, but I don’t think he’s gaining any respect from the truly wise.

Written on 09 April 2009 by me under Reviews, Theological Musings with 2 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Bertrand Russell and the limitations of reason

If there is one thing that sets the so-called “New Atheists” apart from the old atheists, it is perhaps the general ignorance of philosophy, and specifically of the philosophical foundations for their own stated positions.  I will hear Hume quoted (for his atheism and specifically for his arguments against the Design Inference), while ignoring the fact that Hume’s arguments also challenge the concept of causality; for Hume, science and reason cannot ever be predictive.  I have also heard Bertrand Russell quoted, as perhaps the most well-known atheist of recent years, having authored Why I Am Not A Christian.    Russell, however, presents even more problems for the New Atheism.

I thought that I had mentioned the great series of posts, “The Limitations of Reason,” that have been appearing over at Sophie’s Ladder, but perhaps I haven’t. In any even, if you have any interest whatsoever in philosophy and epistemology, this series (now at 10 posts) provides a nice overview.  Number 10 in the series deals with Mr. Russell and his inability to refute Hume.

The New Atheists all tend to lean towards science and specifically evolutionary theories as the “answer” to Christianity and faith in general.  Daniel Dennett stands out somewhat as he is primarily a philosopher, an empiricist who focused on the phlosphy of the mind. I don’t know how he defends his epistemology, if he does. (Perhaps Sophie will address this at some point.)  Russell, however, would not have fit in at all with this group, though he may have wanted to.

Russell’s conclusions include, as quoted by Sophie:

“Although our postulates can … be fitted into a framework which has what may be called an empiricist ‘flavor,’ it remains undeniable that our knowledge of them, in so far as we do know them, cannot be based upon experience…In this sense, it must be admitted empirism as a theory of knowledge has proved inadequate….”

Thus, science is “at war with itself:  when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will.  Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false.  Therefore naive realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false.”

and

“If we are to hold that we know anything of the external world, we must accept the canons of scientific knowledge.  Whether… an individual decides to accept or reject these canons, is a purely personal affair, not suscpectible to argument.”

Atheists tend to get upset when I point out that the validity of the scientific method cannot be substantiated by it’s own rules, and that their belief systems are based on choice.  Scientism, which places scientific knowledge above all else, and rationalism are therefore nothing more than other faith or belief systems.  John Loftus at least admits his thinking is based on  a set of foundational assumptions, though he doesn’t seem willing to discuss the validity of those assumptions.

To my knowledge none of the New Atheist discussions get to a foundational level, as Russell’s did. I am assuming this is because 1) they are unwilling to admit they have these assumptions (as science is supposedly totally objective), or 2) if they did, they may have to face Russell’s conclusions. Sophie concludes:

In the end, Russell’s movements through philosophy is an iconic testament to the futility of reason.   His beliefs that the objective world is encountered directly were soon shown to be false.  His attempts to establish mathematical logic were determined to be incomplete.  His attempt to refute Hume and establish inference were admittedly failures.   Yet, for all the crumbling of his towers, “rational” atheists still hold to his basic beliefs, which show that they themselves do not base their beliefs on rationality but cling to them because they desperately want them to be true – the very thing they accuse Christians of doing.

Written on 12 March 2009 by me under Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 5 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

A great discussion on Christianity vs Atheism

If you have any interest in the subject at all, I suggest you read JD Walters’ post Setting the record straight: the psychology of one ‘true believer’ at CADRE Comments.  Not only is the post a great response to the current state of atheist blogging (aside from folks like Brad Monton), but John Loftus responds in the following discussion.  In JD’s conclusion, he says:

But despite all this, when all is said and done I can reflect on my faith with satisfaction at its firmness, not a result of ignorance but precisely its opposite, a deeper understanding of my tradition and the disciplines which Loftus claims lead people away from faith (as Francis Bacon remarked long ago, a little learning inclines people to atheism, but more learning brings them back to theism).

With all of the “New Atheist” hoopla over the past couple of years, I would agree with Walters: the truth remains that atheism has been tried and found wanting.

Written on 07 March 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 6 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

The Inane Atheists

The “New Atheists” – people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and of late, Christopher Hitchens – have been making the news now for a couple of years, as their books promoting their strain of anti-theism can be found on endcap displays and best-seller lists everywhere. While some of you who are arguably wiser than myself may not be familiar with these guys, I’m sure many of you are.  I started paying attention to them initially due to my old friend Mike who, when we reconnected after many years, advised me that he had become an atheist. I’ve never been big on apologetics, but found some of the debates – much of which involved the creation-evolution issue – somewhat stimulating. However, I think that the term “New Atheists” should be changed to “Inane Atheists.”  While some of them at times can sound wise and philosophical (apparently, at least, to other atheists) the majority of their arguments have proven to be little more than atheistic bedtime stories, concocted to provide the same type of comfort they charge religions with fabricating.

The Preacher of Ecclesiastes is correct: There is nothing new under the sun.  While the packaging has changed, there is nothing new about the disbelief in God, and the Biblical advice on the subject is still sound. The Psalmist is on point as is Paul.  Today, atheism, the belief that there is no god of any kind, also includes the belief that nothing supernatural or non-material exists. This, of course, describes a lack of belief, or a negative belief, if you will. The positive – what they do believe – would be called philosophical materialism, or sometimes naturalism. As I’ve described before many times, materialists are merely myopic; they have chosen to believe only in what they think has physical properties.  Atheism is, in many ways, epitomized by the Golden Calf, and yes, it is a form of idolatry, exchanging the worship of the Creator for the worship of the creation. I’m sure the argument would be made that they do not worship anything, but of course that is foolishness as well; the natural processes of the universe and reason itself are put in the place of God.

If anything is new about today’s atheists, it is that they are moderns (as are we all in the West).  As I’ve set forth in my Teacup Analogy, their arguments (for example, lately I’ve read a ridiculous series of posts trying to apply IDQ principles to Christianity and the Bible) must be brought completely within modernism in order to function. If you hold to a philosophy that is skeptical of their epistemology, they sound quite ridiculous.  They succeed only when they manage to trap some poor soul into adopting their presuppositions; as we in the West are all moderns to a degree, it is occasionally possible to suck some unsuspecting Christian into believing that Christianity is properly understood only within a modern context. John Loftus, at Debunking Christianity, is at least honest about that point when he says that modernism is the Achilles’ Heel of Christianity. Of course, John presumes modernism, and at least to my knowledge he hasn’t presented any argument for why modernism is the only true philosophical position; his point is that modernism and Christianity are incompatible, and that if you adopt a purely modernist worldview, Christianity will be undone.

However, as Alister McGrath has written (“I Believe” – Exploring the Apostles Creed, pp 26):

Reason runs into difficulties when trying to cope with God. Alfred, Lord Tennyson made this point perfectly in his poem “The Ancient Sage”:

For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven.

Belief in God, it need hardly be added, rests on solid foundations- even if paradoxically, as Tennyson suggests, it cannot be proved. Atheists and Christians alike take their positions as matters of faith. The former may like to try and represent their position as objective and scientific, but it is actually nothing of the sort.

Modern atheists, of course, will see this thinking as malarkey, as it is an argument based outside of the modernist teacup, or at least removes the argument from the materialist epistemology that they rely on. The “New” Atheists cannot seem to function outside of modernism or outside of materialism, because that simply is the box in which they have put themselves in. To interact with them on any meaningful way, you have to get in their box (or teacup).

And why would I want to do that?

You see, I’ve encountered God. It’s not just that I’ve had some spiritual experience, but that I know and have relationship with God.  A modern atheist will, of course, toss this in the pile of non-observable claims and demand “evidence.” However, this presumes a Kantian or Platonic kind of dualism, which is certainly not a given.  Classifying God and all experiences of God into the large category of Noumena in order to dismiss it entirely is, I think, to commit serious philosophical error; but for one who is committed to atheism, it is convenient, pragmatic error.  Again, it requires a commitment to stay within the modernist teacup and to close your eyes should you ever attempt to look over the rim.

Modern atheists, however, are almost always not committed to requiring objective evidence in all areas of their lives; if they did, they would become “Spock”-like in their assessment of everything, including politics and relationships. Love would cease to be a many-splendored thing, and family life would have to be based on pragmatism rather than any emotional bond. It is contradictory for a materialist to claim “I know that I love my wife,” for he can know nothing of the kind; it is simply an unprovable claim by his own standards.  However, materialism becomes essential when fending off any claims of God (although it has been shown many times how internally inconsistent these arguments against God are).

Operating from a more consistent approach in which you accept that there are ways of knowing that are not limited to that which is observable and measurable – that is, living outside of the teacup and taking in the banquet that surrounds it – we can look to the arguments, claims, challenges and ridicule of modern atheism and see how inane they really are. While I believe it is possible to climb in the teacup and expose the errors from within modernism, for the Christian to “prove” his own faith, it is simply not necessary.

Written on 26 January 2009 by me under Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 11 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

A lesson in materialistic epistemology

This should serve as a good introduction to my upcoming post, The Inane Atheists:

Written on 23 January 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Humor and/or Sarcasm with 3 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

Africa need God, says atheist Matthew Parris

Contrary to the ravings of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, Matthew Parris writes in the UK Times:

Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Perris makes some very interesting observations, and indicates that the effects of Christianity that he has witnessed in Africa “… confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.”

Now some may make the argument that Perris is really an agnostic and not a true atheist, but I think that’s beside the point.  The reality is that the Gospel does bring change. Some of us have known this all along.  The Apostle Paul stated in Galatians 5:1 that “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.” This – besides the fact that the Gospel is true – sets Christianity apart from religious systems like Islam.

Jesus proclaimed (Luke 4), in announcing the beginning of his ministry:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:18, 19)

That’s what Christianity’s all about, Charlie Brown.

Written on 17 January 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , ,

Modernism is the disease…

From a review of Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition, a response to the New Atheists, from the Christian Cadre:

Feser argues that modern thought itself is the disease of which their arguments are a symptom. His aim in The Last Superstition is nothing less than to rehabilitate the classical philosophical project that began with Plato and Aristotle and was refined and advanced by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics.

That’s just what I’ve been saying, kind of.  It sounds like Feser is trying to correct some pedestrian understandings of Aquinas and Augustine (which I confess inlcludes that of yours truly) in the process. It sounds like this book will be a major challenge to the contemporary pop atheist voices (“Secularism is, necessarily and inherently, a deeply irrational and immoral view of the world, and the more thoroughly it is assimilated by its adherents, the more thoroughly do they cut themselves off from the very possibility of rational and moral understanding.”), but also should be required reading for Christian philosophers.

One more for my Wish List.

Written on 11 January 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with No Comments
Tagged with , , ,