Okay, Ben Witherington is back in my good graces, because he’s got a really decent sense of humor. Check out today’s post, which has one of the best collection of puns and one-liners I’ve seen in a while (some of which I’ve not heard before).
No bull.
Whether or not you agree with the label “new atheists,” I’m sure you know that it refers to a handful of very vocal writers who are proposing among other things that religion is the real root of all evil. This morning I ran across this insightful article on the City Journal website by Theodore Dalrymple, who refers to himself in the article as “the village atheist.” In the article, entitled “What the New Atheists Don’t See,” Dalrymple discusses his thoughts on the “epidemic rash of books” by these “new atheist” authors. And, he’s not at all impressed by what he has seen:
The curious thing about these books is that the authors often appear to think that they are saying something new and brave. They imagine themselves to be like the intrepid explorer Sir Richard Burton, who in 1853 disguised himself as a Muslim merchant, went to Mecca, and then wrote a book about his unprecedented feat. The public appears to agree, for the neo-atheist books have sold by the hundred thousand. Yet with the possible exception of Dennett’s, they advance no argument that I, the village atheist, could not have made by the age of 14 (Saint Anselm’s ontological argument for God’s existence gave me the greatest difficulty, but I had taken Hume to heart on the weakness of the argument from design).
Dalrymple deals with several of the authors, giving quite general thoughts on their arguments and overall positions, in general feeling that at the very least, they are being quite myopic in their approach:
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.
“Thinness,” I think, is very appropriate as he goes on to explain what, in his opinion, the new atheism is missing, and where it is failing. Of course, Dalrymple is not arguing for the existence of God – he, however, does point out that there is an obvious depth in at least the Christian religion that is missing in the new atheism.
On the other hand, in this article at least, he does not provide support for any other type of atheism, but I recognize that was not his point here. Overall, it’s a well-written, thought-provoking look at the recent flood of atheist literature from a fellow atheist.
I’ve always loved horror movies, and still do (rent 1408 if you haven’t already). So, when my friend Mike tagged me with the Hallowmeme, I couldn’t resist. (A meme in blog-talk is kind of like a chain letter, without the curse attached.)
The Hallowmeme is to show a trailer from a horror movie from your childhood. In my case, the difficulty was deciding which one… every Halloween the Hallock City Hall was open for a big Halloween party, which included witches stirring cauldrons of something, candy, games, and short versions of the then-classic horror films like Frankenstein or Bella Lugosi’s Dracula. But, my favorite horror flicks were the ones they used to show on Saturday afternoons on one of our 2 or 3 area TV stations. I never knew if the films were in color or black and white, as all we had was an old B&W set. That, along with the bad reception that we were used to in those days, made everything seem just a little bit scarier.
One of the big special effects in use in the 50’s was to take something small and blow it up to gigantic size, so we had movies about giant bugs and anything else that would be scary in large sizes. One of my favorites was The Amazing Colossal Man, which was more of a sci-fi than a pure horror flick, but had the same “attack of the giant
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Fw3J2G_bM]
But, my selection for a true horror flick is none other than The Blob, starring a young and then unkown Steve McQueen:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAKfGjdh5as]
Be afraid… be very afraid…
Now, who shall I tag?
fredzone
accidental procrastination
KenComments
Michael Krahn
That’s enough.
It seems that Mr. Osteen is still generating some commentary from Ben Witherington. Now, I don’t know why Osteen bugs him so much; compared to what else is on TV in the name of Christianity, Osteen is pretty bland. But, he is incredibly successful. Today, all BW does is provide this quote from John Wesley under the title, “Memo to Mr. Osteen from John Wesley:
I fear, wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its branches.
(Now, I first tried to leave a comment on Witherington’s blog, but I always have issues trying to log in to Blogger, so I gave up and decided to comment over here, not that he reads my blog.)
This afternoon I was flipping through the TV channels and happened upon Mr. Osteen. This particular sermon did, in fact, step over the line (in my opinion) into the “believe it, receive it” territory, which I don’t agree with. He was not, however, teaching that God will make you rich, but rather to have faith for things like getting out of debt.
But, is Wesley’s comment above any better? Is poverty more “holy” than prosperity? In fact, it seems that Wesley was a might confused and had mixed emotions about any kind of “religious” revival. If, in fact, the Gospel takes root in an area, he proposes that industry and frugality is a necessary result. Therefore, people prosper, which he theorizes will “kill” religion. It would seem that revival is self-defeating by his analysis.
Reading between the lines, however, I sense something which is perhaps more insidious than a prosperity gospel: the belief that poverty is tied to holiness. I am not an expert on Wesley or Methodism, but I do know that while he remained an Anglican, he was one of the early holiness preachers, holding an Arminian belief in man’s free will, and a belief that man can achieve (with the help of grace) a certain state of holiness. The problem with this thinking is that even with a professed belief in the prevenient grace of God, it results (often, if not always) in a works-based Christianity which stands in opposition to the Gospel of grace as taught by Paul. If this is the case, then Paul would say that it is no gospel at all:
Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? – Galatians 3:3
Certainly an Earthly prosperity is not to be our goal; that much is clear. However, I don’t believe that a goal of poverty is in accordance with the abundant life that God has promised us, either. And, I do not see that our spirituality is tied to either poverty or prosperity. Either extreme can result in totally screwed up lives; however, a belief in prosperity is usually not (at least that I’ve heard) tied to our salvation. On the other hand, if we fall into a works-based gospel where our sanctification (and possibly our salvation) is dependent upon our own free will, then perhaps we have no gospel at all. I’m guessing that if one has to err, it would be better to err in faith in God than to put faith in your lack of wealth.
Obviously, Paul did not assign anything spiritual to a state of poverty or prosperity, and that’s where I’m going to have to come down on this issue:
I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. – Philippians 4:12
(However, plenty is a lot more fun.)
