Atheism – Page 4 – St. Eutychus

Hitchens v Hitchens (again)

Peter Hitchens and Christopher Hitchens both have books hitting the shelves at the same time. I’ve posted on their famous disagreement before… Peter is a Christian journalist, his older brother Christopher is an atheist journalist. It’s almost providential really. That the perfect foil for one of new atheism’s most vocal advocates comes from the same genetic pool and has the same predisposition for communication.

Anyway, Hitchens’ (the younger) new book is reviewed in a piece from the Centre of Public Christianity, published in the Sydney Morning Herald. Here’s what Peter Hitchens has to say about the dangers of the rise of atheism.

“His experiences living and reporting from Russia and eastern Europe profoundly shaped his view of the world. Having lived in Moscow at the close of the Soviet era, and having witnessed other atheistic regimes in full flight, he refuses to accept his brother’s evasion of what he sees as an organic link between atheism and the most notorious modernist experiments of the 20th century.

It is this experience that appears to shape his concerns for society. He believes Christianity is under attack today because it remains the most coherent and potent obstacle to frightening and ruthless idealism: “The concepts of sin, of conscience, of eternal life, and of divine justice under an unalterable law are the ultimate defence against the utopian’s belief that ends justify means and that morality is relative. These concepts are safeguards against the worship of human power.”

May 28, 2010

“Objective Ministries” is neither

Poe’s Law is in effect here people. I can’t tell if this is satire or serious.

Objective Ministries seem to epitomise everything that is bad about Christianity in America. Any “ministry” that contextualises by changing “LOL” to mean “Love our Lord” and then puts it on underpants as merchandise raises serious questions for me:

Laughing Jesus Thong
$8.50

They also have a “rock” ministry. Jacob Aranza says no.

Their homepage objectiveministries.org promotes a litany of extremist Christian campaigns.

The US is slouching towards secularism because Obama didn’t use a Bible in his second swearing in (after the botched first swearing).

The page features this cartoon…

Our Fallen World #1, by Peggy Miller

… and these ads.

Palin + Jindal: God’s Unbeatable Ticket — Start Prayer Campaigns Today — YES, GOD CAN!

ELECT THE ELECT in 2012!

And an opportunity to pray for France. Because they need it…

This is the type of site we’re dealing with. I am giving you the context so you treat this next point with appropriate gravity.

There is a mission to put a massive crucifix on the moon.

That sentence is worth bolding. I’ll say it again.

There is a mission to put a massive cruficix on the moon.

The page featured a news update about the mission not receiving tax deductible status (there’s now an appeal). If I lived in America, and my taxes went towards putting a crucifix on the moon, I would move to Australia.

The moon campaign follows a similar effort, from a man named Arthur Blessitt (either he changed his name or this is a bizarre case of nominal determinism) to have a cross orbiting as a salvific satellite. That campaign was based on a series of malapropriated Bible verses:

“Then the Sign of the Son of Man will appear in the Sky!
Then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”
Jesus
(Matthew 24:30)

“And I, if I am lifted up from the Earth will draw all unto Me”
Jesus
(John 12:32)

“Like a Faithful Witness in the Sky”
David
(Psalms 89:37)

“Now see my witness in the Sky!”
Job
(Job 16:19)

Oh, and a theophany.

“The glory of the coming of the Lord is at Hand”
God to Arthur Blessitt

Objective Ministries’ moon campaign raises an important question (tangentially) about what happens to people who send their ashes into space when the rapture occurs. Apparently you miss out.

Blessitt’s space mission failed – the ashes transport service he was piggy backing with failed. The ashes were lost. You might remember the story – because Scotty from Star Trek’s ashes were on board. Which proved a distraction for the “Mainstream Secular Media” when it came to reporting the mission’s failure…

When the MSM (Mainstream Secular Media) reported on Falcon 1’s failure, they focused on the loss of the cremated remains of James Doohan, an actor who played “Scotty” on the Secular TV show Star Trek, rather than Blessitt’s more important payload. In fact, the Media didn’t report on the cross payload at all, either before or after the failed orbital delivery.

The Objective Ministries founder had a better idea (since superseded):

I propose launching into polar orbit a cross of significant dimensions, with a sun-reflecting surface that will be easily visible in the night sky to the naked eyes of unbelievers. This space-age testimonial will fly over Communist China, Mussulmanned Saudi Arabia, Hindooed India, Godless France, and all other nations in need of the simple yet profound message of Christ’s sacrifice and His offer of Salvation. All the people of the world will see it shine, like a beacon of hope on the runway of the aircraft carrier of the night sky, an omnipresent reminder of the Lordship of Jesus over our world.

Unlike Mr. Blessitt’s plan, mine will require a more elaborate cross design and access to more costly launch services, as it would necessarily require multiple single-payload launches. Fortunately I feel that my connections within the Department of Defense will help bring this plan to fruition.

Orbital Cross Alpha Design:

Potential design of Orbital Cross Alpha, with approaching Space Shuttle.

In order to be viewable and identifiable as a cross to the naked eye, my calculations show that OCA will need to be at least 1000 feet along its main axis and 500 feet along the perpendicular, and placed into Medium Earth Orbit (between 1,243 and 22,236 miles; dimensions will need to be increased for visibility at higher orbits). By being at MEO, it will be high enough to catch and reflect the Sun’s light throughout the entire night.

But wait, there’s more… a new “Cross on the Moon” campaign has begun in earnest. Here’s what the Objective Ministries people say:

The Cross on the Moon Foundation (COM) is a newly formed, non-profit organization dedicated to advocate, design, and implement the placement of a Christian Cross on the surface of Earth’s Moon in 2011. Besides setting their goals on the Moon instead of Medium Earth Orbit, their plan differs from mine in that they will acquire passage for the Cross aboard a private spacecraft. As of this writing they are still developing the details of the Lunar Cross — two leading candidates include a gold plated one that would be visible from a live HD video feed and one formed from a constellation of reflective targets that would be illuminated by earthbound lasers to make it visible to the naked eye — and the transfer mechanism they will use to plant it into the Moon’s surface.

I do not see their plan as a competitor to my own. Rather, it will be one of the many Crosses that will fill the Heavens to proclaim the Glory of our Lord to all spacefarers of the future. We need Crosses not only in MEO and on the Moon, but on every planet, satellite (natural or otherwise), asteroid, space station, and Lagrange point in our Solar System. No quadrant of our system should be left bereft of the sign of His Sacrifice. Therefore, I welcome COM’s participation in this, Mankind’s greatest pre-Rapture adventure.

Also, given that our current non-Christian Commander in Chief does not share in our common creed and consequently will hinder military involvement in Witnessing Missions such as I propose, COM might represent our best opportunity to place a Cross in the heavens before we retake the government in 2012. But fear not; my contacts in the Palin camp confirm that she will be solidly behind OCA when the time comes.

But the evil “secular” government didn’t want this mission taking place… or at least not with tax deductability. And it’s all because Obama is a Muslim… or so they say…

Cross on the Moon Foundation (COM), a non-profit organization dedicated to the private launch of a space vehicle carrying a Christian Cross to be placed on the Moon, has been denied 501 (c)-3 status by the IRS. The reasons given by the IRS are unclear and seemingly contradict the granting of 501 (c) status to other organizations — namely the Lunar X Prize Foundation — engaged in similar private, Secular space missions.

“Secular” appears to be the operative word. While COM President M.N. Clark remains restrained in his words (he still hopes to negotiate and appeal the ruling), it is clear that this decision is a political one based on anti-Christian bigotry handed down from on high in the Obama administration — possibly coming directly from the President’s desk.

How can we know this? It’s a matter of simple deduction: Muslims consider the Moon to be sacred, and would never — if in a position of power to dictate such things, as Obama now is — allow a symbol of Christianity to be erected there. The denial of tax-exemption is not only consistent with Obama’s crypto-Muslim leanings, it further confirms them. This — combined with institutional pressure from Evolutionists deeply entrenched in NASA who want space to remain a Christ-free environment — means that COM will likely never get the tax-exempt status, nor the government issued launch certifications or safety documents that the IRS claim are necessary, as long as the current regime is in power.

Yeah. The current regime is holding us Christians back from our plans to dominate the heavens. The heavens that the Bible says already declare God’s majesty and existence (Romans 1, Psalm 19)…

But wait… there’s more… an update…

Our intercessory prayers have convinced God to alter the mind of the IRS agent overseeing COM’s case and he is now allowing the case to be reopened following a minor change in COM’s by-laws. Glory! But COM also still needs our help in the form of donations. COM President M.N. Clark explains why:

This is probably a good time to summarize why we are asking for donations. First we believe in having a personal relationship with God. Placing a cross on the moon will encourage theological dialogs. Already discussions have begun, mostly on confused atheist web sites. That’s ok. Our God is the creator of the Universe. The more we study the person and the works of Jesus, the stronger our faith becomes. The donations are needed to send the cross to the moon. Several companies are testing components so they can be the first to claim the Google Lunar X Prize, a 501 C-3 philanthropic organization. We need donations in preparation for sending these companies an RFQ (request for quote). If our resources are enough, we will place a physical cross on the moon. Obviously the size of the cross would have significant restrictions. A lower cost option might be to place a cross decal on the rover.

No target is too small for Objective Ministries – they also want to shut down anti-Christian parody site Landover Baptist (perhaps so that people don’t confuse their own site with parody) because, Christians own the internet.

The Internet was created by the United States of America – a Christian nation [ref. 1, 2, 3] – and should not be used to spread anti-Christian, secular, or non-Christian propaganda and hatespeech. This is our Internet, and we should exercise our position as its owners and as the guardians of civilization to stop its misuse.

We should shut down stuff we don’t like because that’s exactly the kind of things Christians should be advocating in an increasingly secular country… right? And satire is the worst thing on the Internet. It’s what Christians should be campaigning against. Right?

Perhaps my favourite bit, and the thing that led me to the site in the first place, is this children’s guide for dealing with scary atheists…

May 14, 2010

Interesting panel discussion on atheism

I’ve got a bunch of things to say about atheism in a later post. But you should watch this video, if you have 30 minutes…

May 12, 2010

Understanding Christianese (from the atheist perspective)

This is simultaneously helpful and unhelpful. Given that we believe “I’ll pray for you” actually is a method for caring for people that particular critique is mostly unfounded (though “I’ll pray for you” with no offer of physical help does smack of hypocrisy).

What do you reckon? And are there other phrases we should reconsider?

May 10, 2010

How to talk to atheists about Christianity

So today I presented the thing about how to talk to atheists I mentioned a while back. Here are my notes. You’ll probably recognise them if you’ve been reading for a while. This was a great way to justify all the hours I’ve spent in seemingly fruitless debate in the last 18 months.

Things not to say

Don’t present as an expert on scientific thought – unless you are.
Don’t use words that carry baggage. Good in the Bible is a theological category, not a moral category. Don’t conflate them.
Don’t say atheists are incapable of being good without God, or suggest they’re naturally immoral. Be prepared to ask how they make moral decisions – but don’t assert that they’re unable to – remember common grace.
Don’t go down the “look at all the evil atheists” path unless you want to go down the “explain the Crusades” path.
Don’t say “those people aren’t real Christians” unless you’re familiar with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy and you’re prepared to demonstrate how they are not in fact Christians (and can speak with authority about their state before God).
Don’t suggest that Christian principles should form the backbone of law because the majority of people identify as Christians. Invert this thinking, and put yourself in the minority – we can’t expect everybody to live as though they have the Holy Spirit, nor should we be expecting the state to govern as though we’re a Christian nation.
Don’t quote Bible verses out of context.
Don’t say “there are no atheists in the foxholes”, “atheism is a faith”, or “you only don’t believe to justify your immorality” – these are all clichéd and the atheists think they’ve been “debunked” . Avoid Pascal’s wager too (as valid as it may be).
Try to avoid generalisations – all atheists don’t think the same. There is no atheist “bible” or code they have to sign up to.

Here’s a list of things they say not to say (or do)…

This is not necessarily a list of things not to do, just a list of things atheists have said that they find annoying (from commenters on a site called the Friendly Atheist):

Bait-and-switch: Where they become your “friend,” but really, they just want to convert you
Not speaking out against other Christians who do really crazy things
Assume that everyone who isn’t a Christian is “lost” or needs “saving”
Giving credit to god for every good thing that happens, and accepting every bad thing as part of his “plan”.
Sneaking their beliefs into supposedly neutral conversations; using neutral platforms to espouse their religion (like facebook, et al.)
Automatically “assume” that everyone shares their beliefs
“You’re an atheist because you want to do immoral things. You know god exists really.”
Assuming that everyone who doesn’t believe is ignorant of the Bible, or of popular interpretations of the Bible.
Asserting that Christianity is not a religion because religions aren’t real or using some other silly criteria
Cherry picking the bible.
Not admitting that their god is immoral.
I’m also bugged by the ones who apparently care more about the soul of the person than the person.
When they acknowledge that “religion is bad” but then claim that True Christianity is not a “religion” is very annoying as well
Attempting to force their views on you, either by preaching or by codifying their belief system into law.
Latching on to your problems in order to try to convert you.
Affirming that people who didn’t believe in god in life are now in hell, even the relatives or loved ones of the person they’re talking to “My grandmother was an atheist, is she in hell?” “Yes”. This is beyond enraging, and it makes it even worse when the person saying it refuses to acknowledge how callous and cruel their words are, and how there’s nothing “loving” about them.
Quoting bible verses at you in lieu of actual debate or discussion, as though you accept their inerrance as much as they do.
They fail to see that the separation of church and state protects their freedom to worship as they choose. They naively assume that a mixture of religion and government would be a benign version of their particular sub set of their religion, instead of the insane tyranny in Europe that the founding fathers vividly remembered.

Things to say

Stick with Jesus – most atheists accept that he lived and taught good stuff (some don’t) – keeping the question grounded in the historical reality of the resurrection – or that claim – is much better than talking about whether the resurrection is scientifically plausible. Atheists want physical evidence – Jesus is the point at which physical evidence was historically provided (see his interaction with Thomas in John 20). That’s the nexus of atheistic thought and gospel proclamation.
When Mark Driscoll, in a column in a Washington Paper, was asked what the best case for Christianity was for skeptics this was his answer:

Christianity is not first and foremost about a sacred place to pilgrimage to, a philosophical system to ponder, a moral code to live, a religious tradition to honor, or an impersonal god to experience. Rather, Christianity is about a person who claimed to be the only God and said he would prove his unprecedented claim by living without sin, dying for sinners, and conquering death through resurrection.
Acknowledge that in many cases they have many points that some of us sometimes forget – it is likely that you’re a Christian because your parents are – but that says nothing about the truth or otherwise of Christianity. Science is a good way to understand the world around us – in fact it’s a good way to understand how God does things. Christians have done terrible, unloving things to people – including each other – because of their faith…
Acknowledge that many atheists have actually thought through the question of faith, or come from a position of faith, to reach their own conclusion. There is still some social stigma attached to being an atheist, it’s not a position you default into.
Explain your rationale for believing what you believe, positively – atheist propaganda suggests that atheism is the point at which all thinking, questioning people inevitably arrive at. Tell your story, show your workings, acknowledge your doubts.
Acknowledge that there are important areas where atheists and Christians can agree – separation of church and state is big for them, freedom of speech, most religious and spiritual beliefs are silly (we reject all divine claims but one), relativism is dumb – we can’t all be right.

Things to do…

Read the material – be familiar with the arguments Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, and Hitchens are equipping a generation of atheists with. Read atheist blogs. PZ Myers and the Friendly Atheist are a good sounding board for atheistic thought.
Familiarise yourself with logic and argument – know what a straw man argument is, recognise ad hominem, know what the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is, understand circular reasoning (eg the Bible is true because it says it is true) and why atheists see it as a problem…
Read the Christian responses to these writers. Know the critiques. Especially John Lennox, Alistair McGrath (EDIT: 2015, and most especially David Bentley Hart).
Ask honest questions. They can be honest questions with an agenda – but be convinced that evangelism is God’s work and just try to ask questions about why they think what they think. What are their assumptions about the world?
Treat one another with respect. You don’t fundamentally have to agree with somebody to love them. People are more likely to listen to what you have to say if you don’t resort to name calling.
Realise that at some point you actually have to fundamentally disagree. Sometimes what you say will be offensive to them. The atonement is offensive, God’s judgment is offensive, our claim to be in a relationship with the creator of the universe is offensive. If you want atheists to like what you have to say – and still be atheists – you pretty much have to get rid of the gospel. They love “liberal” Christianity – many like Spong and his ilk, and those who are doing their best to liberate Christianity, particularly from ‘oppressive’ views of sexuality.

May 4, 2010

They have iconography now…

The Flying Spaghetti Monster does make for some impressive stain glass art. But who wants to worship a god you feel like stabbing with a fork and devouring?

So with iconography and prophets the broad church of atheism is well on its way to being an official religion. All they need now are some unholydays.

May 4, 2010

Christopher Hitchens is not great

I’m writing an essay on violence in the Old Testament tonight. I’m interacting a little with the way violence has been interpreted by the “new atheists” – this review of Hitchen’s God is Not Great is fantastic fodder for anybody confronted with one of his raving disciples… it addresses his erroneous treatment of the Bible from Genesis to Jesus – and I reckon it’s just as good as Eagleton’s famous review of Dawkins.

Eagleton is famously a Marxist Catholic (and possibly agnostic), while William Hamblin, who wrote this review, is a Mormon professor of Ancient History. But you know, the enemy of me enemy and all that…

Here are some good bits… it’s quite a long article.

On the Bible

Remarkably, Hitchens is overtly disdainful of the careful reading of ancient texts in their original languages. He bemoans the supposed fact that “all religions have staunchly resisted any attempt to translate their sacred texts into languages ‘understood of the people’ ” (p. 125, emphasis added). This is a stunningly erroneous claim, betraying almost no understanding of the history of religion. In reality, the translation of religious texts has been a major cultural phenomenon in ancient and medieval times and has steadily increased through the present. The Bible, of course, is the most translated book in the history of the world. According to the United Bible Societies, it has been translated into 2,167 languages, with another 320 in process. And this is by no means merely a modern phenomenon. The Bible was also the most widely translated book in the ancient world. It was translated into Greek (the Septuagint, second century BC), Aramaic (Targum, by the first century BC), Old Latin (second century AD), Syriac (Peshitta, third century AD), Coptic (Egyptian, fourth century AD), Gothic (Old German, fourth century AD), Latin (Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, late fourth century AD), Armenian (early fifth century AD), Ethiopic (fifth century AD), Georgian (fifth century AD), Old Nubian (by the eighth century AD), Old Slavonic (ninth century AD), and Arabic (Saadia Gaon’s version, early tenth century AD). Thus, far from “staunchly resist[ing] any attempt to translate their sacred texts” (p. 125), Christians have consistently made tremendous efforts to translate their sacred books.

On the law

It is not just the early Iron Age science of the Bible that Hitchens finds offensive. The morality of the Bible, which many feel is foundational to Western civilization, is to Hitchens pure barbarism. But when we read Hitchens’s claim concerning “the pitiless teachings of the god of Moses, who never mentions human solidarity and compassion at all” (p. 100), we are left to wonder if Hitchens has read the Bible he despises with any degree of earnestness whatsoever. The Hebrew Bible speaks frequently of God’s compassion and his enduring “loving-kindness” or “steadfast love.” When Christ taught, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39), he was, in fact, quoting the Hebrew Bible (Leviticus 19:18; see Zechariah 7:8). Furthermore, the law insists that Israelites must have compassion for foreigners as well for their own kinsmen (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:34; Deuteronomy 10:19). The prophet Hosea likewise taught that God preferred “steadfast love” over “sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). The teaching of Hosea 6:6 is commonplace throughout the Hebrew Bible, representing a standard component of Jewish temple theology.

On oxen

For Hitchens the principles found in the law of Moses tend to be either transparently obvious (pp. 99–100) or barbarically “demented pronouncements” (p. 106). He objects to all sorts of things in the law, such as the “insanely detailed regulations governing oxes [sic]” (p. 100), which go on for an astonishing five verses (Exodus 21:28–32)! Actually, by ancient standards—for instance, when compared to the fourteen oxen regulations in Hammurabi’s Code—this is notably succinct. Considering that oxen were a major form of transportation in early agrarian Near Eastern societies, it is reasonable to expect some regulations about them; but, even if superfluous, there is nothing “insanely detailed” about it, especially when compared to our modern laws concerning vehicular manslaughter—probably the closest modern analogy. Hitchens really has no substantive point here beyond mere rhetorical bombast.

On weekends

Hitchens’s view of the Sabbath commandment as “a sharp reminder to keep working and only to relax when the absolutist says so” (p. 99) again fails to contextualize the text. In its ancient setting it should be seen as a progressive and humanitarian regulation ensuring that rulers and masters gave their slaves and laborers a day of rest (Exodus 20:10)—a practice that is apparently original to the Israelites—rather than forcing them to work unremittingly. Though it goes unacknowledged, Hitchens owes his weekends and also the concept of a “right” to leisure to the God of Israel—no thanks required. Only by rhetorical sleight of hand can Hitchens try to turn this blessing into an act of supposed tyranny.

On Jesus

Hitchens’s overall disdain for the life of Jesus is reflected in the fact that he can’t be bothered to even get basic biblical chronology straight. “Even the stoutest defenders of the Bible story,” he assures us, “now admit that if Jesus was ever born it wasn’t until at least AD 4” (pp. 59–60). They do? He has obviously been reading different “stout defenders” of the Bible story than I have. The Gospel narratives agree that Jesus was born during the lifetime of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1; Luke 1:5), who died in 4 BC.

Here’s the conclusion:

He consistently misrepresents what the Bible has to say, fails to contextualize biblical narratives in their original historical settings, implies unanimity among biblical scholars on quite controversial positions, and fails to provide any evidence for alternative scholarly positions, or even to acknowledge that such positions exist at all. In reality, biblical studies is a complicated field, with a wide range of subtle nuances and different interpretations; for Hitchens, it is sufficient to dismiss the most extreme, literalistic, and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible to demonstrate not only that the Bible itself is thoroughly flawed, false, and poisonous but that God does not exist.

April 20, 2010

Things not to say to atheists

So, although I’m (possibly temporarily) retired from arguing with atheists, I’ve been nominated to present a little seminar at college on things not to say to atheists.

I reckon I’m pretty good at saying things they don’t like – some right, some wrong…

Here are some things I think you shouldn’t say:

Don’t say anything about how Hitler was both an atheist and evil – as though atheism necessitates evil. I’ve broken Godwin’s law plenty of times – but mainly to suggest that atheists arguing from Christian extremities is about as consistent as Christians arguing using Hitler. This context is often lost. Hitler is like a red rag to a bull in these discussions.
Don’t say anything about how atheists can’t possibly be moral or good as a result of rejecting God. This is silly, it’s not even Biblical. If we’re right and God exists, and he’s the God of the Bible, then atheists are capable of “moral” actions even if they reject him. They don’t put off imago dei just because they don’t believe in the second part of the Latin equation.
Pretty much don’t say anything negative about science. Science is a good thing. Acknowledge that. Move on. Stick to the philosophical and reject “naturalism” that’s much sager ground because there’s no proof that it actually is how things work, just that it’s an observably feasible method of understanding things.
Don’t suggest that atheists should be governed by laws set by Christians just because they’re in the minority. This again is pretty dumb. It’s like we expect people to live like they have the Holy Spirit when they don’t. This is mostly relevant when talking about politics, but also has some bearing on talking about personal choices. It’s fine to say that something is wrong if you’re a Christian, and fine to say that someone is doing the wrong thing according to God, but unless there’s a third party innocent victim to protect (like there is in abortion) I’d be keeping that powder dry.
Don’t quote Psalm 14:1 out of context (“the fool says in their heart there’s no God”) unless you want to be lumped in with every other proof texting Bible bashing redneck who wants to beat up homosexuals while eating lobster. We need to make sure that we use the Bible well. In fact, don’t quote the Bible out of context at all. Ever.

But I’d love to hear from you, dear readers (especially any atheists hanging around) about what us Christians shouldn’t say to atheists (within reason – we’re allowed to say “you’re wrong, and it’s not very nice to call our beliefs a crazy delusion”).

Any pointers from your experience – otherwise I’m just going to be rehashing things from this post and this one (and the comments therein) – and possibly these ones from Pharyngula and the Friendly Atheist.

April 18, 2010

Eight things I’ve learned from arguing with atheists online and why I (mostly) can’t be bothered anymore

I’ve spent a fair portion of my time in the last two years entering arguments with atheists online. These are different to arguments with atheists in real life. Steve Kryger at Communicate Jesus has posted a couple of thoughts on this matter lately – and even been roundly panned by an atheist blog for his trouble. Steve’s posts:

My motivation for doing so has been twofold – on the one hand, I don’t like seeing people bagging out Jesus without anybody mounting a defense, and on the other, I realise that people google for all sorts of things and read blogs and their sycophantic comments to help make up their minds. I want to present Jesus as an alternative worldview to militant atheism.

But I’m on the verge of giving up. Here are eight lessons I’ve learned (at times the hard way) from arguing with atheists that have left me close to pulling the pin on this particular avenue of evangelism.

If you argue with atheists online, especially on their turf, you will almost always be outnumbered. There’s something about the nature of community that stops Christians using the Internet the same way atheists do. I suspect it’s because atheists are a minority with no real world equivalent to church. They meet virtually. They encourage one another through forums and blogs. The Internet, in my opinion, is their nexus of community.
Being outnumbered makes actually engaging with arguments hard. If one hundred commenters on a forum each ask the token Christian a question and that Christian only picks three to answer (which is a 3:1 comment ratio ie those hundred post one comment each, the Christian posts three) then the forum often jumps on the one person, suggesting that they are being duplicitous or purposefully evasive. It’s a trial by numbers and “victories” are awarded to the masses.
If you’re going to talk about science, logic or morality you need to be careful to frame your terminology accurately. If you want to engage and give a good account for yourself you need to be familiar with strawmanning, Godwin’s Law, ad hominem, Pascal’s Wager, and the “no true Scotsman fallacy” – Christians are often guilty of transgressions of the first two, the chances of an atheist resorting to an ad hominem attack in response to a Christian rapidly approaches one the longer the conversation continues. Atheists think they’ve debunked Pascal’s Wager, while the “no true Scotsman fallacy” is a favourite “trump card” they play in order to lump all theological beliefs together so that they can strawman us.
Atheists have no interest in nuance. They don’t pay any regard to context. They interpret everything literally – be it text from the Bible, sarcasm in discussion (or irony), or anybody’s claim to be a “Christian.” They love quote mining – especially from the Bible. I’ve seen atheists take bits from Jesus’ parables to suggest that God wants his followers to put people to the sword. They aren’t interested in theology, they aren’t interested in why Christians can justify believing things they find abhorrent, they won’t ever really put themselves in “Christian” shoes when understanding things Christians say – they prefer to maintain distance because it’s easier to ridicule the “other”.
“Christians” are your own worst enemies in these contexts. A week’s worth of reasoned and fruitful discussion can be very easily undone by one comment made without being mindful of presenting the “truth with love.” Stupid “Christian” statements, along the lines of the Answers in Genesis billboard advertisements form last year spend any credit lovingly Christ centred arguments develop.
Most “atheists” are antitheists, most hold atheism at the core of their identity – but this is not true for all of them. You can’t generalise when describing atheists – some are like Dawkins who are atheists through a philosophy of scientific naturalism and evolutionary biology through “natural selection” – this view leaves no case for a creator, others are ex-Christians who had rejected all other gods already, and have since rejected God, some, like Christopher Hitchens, seem to be atheists philosophically first, and scientifically second. Each atheist is an individual. This is part of their problem when dealing with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. They think self definition is all that matters for assessing claims – there are, in fact, external issues to take into account when deciding if a Christian is a Christian.
You’ll almost never change anybody’s mind online. Particularly if you’re outnumbered. They who shout loudest win. Ten idiots in a room yelling loudly will always feel like they’ve beaten one genius speaking quietly.
Your best bet in these situations is just to bring everything back to a question of the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection, this, after all, is the lynchpin of our belief. If they can disprove the resurrection then our faith is in vain. And it’s this argument that needs to be convincing. Questions of science and methodology are secondary.

Some bonus reflections – if you’re familiar with online bookmarking services like Digg and Reddit you’ll know that they are full of atheists who like to post, share, and comment on articles relating to atheism. There is almost no Christian presence (that I’ve found here). Christians need to come to terms with discourse on the Internet – because it’s, like it or not, a form of community. And a nexus for people looking to discuss new ideas. Sending people in to these forums “solo” doesn’t work. Constructive conversations in this format need more than a lone voice. I don’t know how you arrange a “team” approach – but that might be worthwhile.

If you’re an atheist who arrives here and thinks “these claims are all generalisations with no substantiation” – I can, if requested, point you to different threads (mostly on my blog, on the Friendly Atheist and on Pharyngula) where situations have arisen. Here’s one example, with a follow up, here’s a post I wrote that created quite a lot of atheistic consternation, and the response on Pharyngula. Or check out guest poster Dave’s three fantastic posts on why he’s not an atheist…

I’m not giving up arguing online – though I won’t spend as much time and I’ll try to establish my commitment to arguments early in the discussion, but I’d much rather chat over a beer in a pub where there’s not the ability to hide behind a computer screen and thousands of kilometres. Non verbal communication is important. And it’s much harder to be nasty to a person if they’re right in front of you (incidentally this is why you should always do radio interviews in studio rather than over the phone).

UPDATE: Hermant from the Friendly Atheist has kindly responded to my list. I’ve posted a response to his response in the comments on his blog.

I’d also like to make a small amendment to point 4 – atheists (as a general rule – not all atheists) also pay no regards to “medium” a blog entry is to be deconstructed, analysed and critiqued the same way a scientific hypothesis or peer reviewed journal is. They disagree with a sentence without paying any regard to the paragraph it builds. They interpret things they disagree with at extremes – for example – I put quotation marks around the word “Christian” above as a shorthand way of describing those who take the Christian label (making no actual judgment on whether they are Christian or not – I think you can be a Christian and be very wrong about things). And it is interpreted in the following manner:

“Oh, and putting Christian in smarmy little “scare quotes” whenever you’re using it to describe a person whose actions you disapprove of? That’s what we call a “cop out.” The claim that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is flawlessly correct and that ANY judgment you make about whether a person is or is not a Christian places YOU in a position of purported omniscience. Talk about hubris!”

That might be one way to interpret such punctuation – the traditional usage is to indicate direct speech.

April 13, 2010

Hitchens v Hitchens

Christopher Hitchen’s believing brother has come out swinging at his brother’s militant anti-theism (though it seems not for the first time, he reports that childhood family disputes were all too common).

It’s a fascinating insight into a rather heated family dynamic – but Peter Hitchens makes some good points.

But since it is obvious much of what I say arises out of my attempt to debate religion with him, it would be absurd to pretend that much of what I say here is not intended to counter or undermine arguments he presented in his book, God Is Not Great, published in 2007.

I do not loathe atheists, as Christopher claims to loathe believers. I am not angered by their failure to see what appears obvious to me. I understand that they see differently. I do think that they have reasons for their belief, as I have reasons for mine, which are the real foundations of this argument.

It is my belief that passions as strong as his are more likely to be countered by the unexpected force of poetry, which can ambush the human heart at any time.

It is also my view that, as with all atheists, he is his own chief opponent. As long as he can convince himself, nobody else will persuade him. His arguments are to some extent internally coherent and are a sort of explanation – if not the best explanation – of the world and the universe.

He often assumes that moral truths are self-evident, attributing purpose to the universe and swerving dangerously round the problem of conscience – which surely cannot be conscience if he is right since the idea of conscience depends on it being implanted by God. If there is no God then your moral qualms might just as easily be the result of indigestion.

Yet Christopher is astonishingly unable to grasp that these assumptions are problems for his argument. This inability closes his mind to a great part of the debate, and so makes his atheist faith insuperable for as long as he himself chooses to accept it.

He also takes aim at some of his brother’s more ludicrous claims…

I am also baffled and frustrated by the strange insistence of my anti-theist brother that the cruelty of Communist anti-theist regimes does not reflect badly on his case and on his cause. It unquestionably does.

Soviet Communism is organically linked to atheism, materialist rationalism and most of the other causes the new atheists support. It used the same language, treasured the same hopes and appealed to the same constituency as atheism does today.

When its crimes were still unknown, or concealed, it attracted the support of the liberal intelligentsia who were then, and are even more now, opposed to religion.

But happily – the brothers have resolved to no longer debate in public (as they have done on a few occasions). And Peter Hitchens ends with this comment…

I am not hoping for a late conversion because he has won the battle against cigarettes. He has bricked himself up high in his atheist tower, with slits instead of windows from which to shoot arrows at the faithful, and would find it rather hard to climb down out of it.

I have, however, the more modest hope that he might one day arrive at some sort of acceptance that belief in God is not necessarily a character fault, and that religion does not poison everything.

Beyond that, I can only add that those who choose to argue in prose, even if it is very good prose, are unlikely to be receptive to a case which is most effectively couched in poetry.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255983/How-I-God-peace-atheist-brother-PETER-HITCHENS-traces-journey-Christianity.html#ixzz0heKv2bMK

March 9, 2010

The Dawkins Delusion

I went along to see Richard Dawkins in Brisbane tonight. The results were unsurprising. I agreed with most of what he had to say – everything except his starting assumptions and conclusions.

He started by telling us all that our lives are incredibly improbable. That we should never take them for granted, that we should never take our existence for granted, and that we should marvel at our very unlikelihood. Then, he suggested, as his latest book indicates – evolution is the greatest and only show on earth.

Our improbable beginnings began with an improbable meeting of improbable matter that expanded improbably in a way that created stars and then life and then us. Somehow it makes more sense to believe a void created complexity than to believe a God did. But we can’t believe that a void created a God (especially the God of the Bible) who would eventually create a world… Once you start speculating about origins all the options seem possible to me.

It is, of course, improbable that anything like a God could possibly have been involved in the process – because for Dawkins as soon as you can describe the process the notion of an author is redundant. He ridiculed the God of the gaps (which is ridicule worthy) and a bunch of other strawmen. Then he closed with a question and answer session.

He was funny, engaging and most concilliatory. He just isn’t really engaging with any Christian belief that includes the ability to synchronise Christian belief with scientific truths, and he doesn’t seem to think that the Christian lay person is capable of anything but a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of particular passages. He did, in question time, suggest that the enlightened “bishops and archbishops” of the Christian world believe that God may have had some role to play in the start of everything but has then stepped back. Curiously missing the point of the incarnation.

He had a swing at anyone who believes anything on the basis of faith, authority, or feeling (there was one other factor – I forget) – and suggested that evidence is where it’s at. Which is fine. But he doesn’t really have anything to say to those of us who are believers because we think the evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus is compelling. Like a modern day Don Quixote he spends most of his time tilting at windmills to the cheers of an equally delusional crowd. Until he starts actually engaging with the facts his efforts to discredit his opponents are risible.

I think in the process of answering questions from the floor (particularly one about whether our close relationship to the ape world had any moral implications) he may have suggested it was morally ok to breed with the entities that link us biologically to the apes – the only problem is that they’re extinct.

In question time a couple of people asked about the evolutionary future of humanity – I still want to know how feasible my shirt is – will we one day turn into shape shifting alien robots? Or self healing immortal mutants with retractable claws? I sure hope so.

March 4, 2010

Jesus and science

Have you been to promotingjesus.org? Why not. It’s Mitchelton Presbyterian Church’s new evangelistic tool – they’re spending a year encouraging people to promote Jesus. It’s a great resource.

My future brother-in-law, Mitch, put most of it together. He’s done a great job. I am writing a few articles there. There’s one up already and here’s one I’ve just written (that’ll no doubt be edited before going live).

Jesus ignores science

There are many people – both from the scientific and Christian communities – who would take this statement to a further extreme. They would argue that being a follower of Jesus means rejecting science. And certainly, science is ultimately a fallible human product. It is not perfect. To hold what we now think we know to be absolutely true (based on science) is dangerous ground. This is why scientific principles are called theories. Science is always waiting for a better explanation. A more complete picture.

Jesus did not ignore science. Jesus does not contradict science – and in fact you can hold to scientific truth and still be a Christian – providing you are willing to submit to the idea that Jesus, as God, is not bound by the rules that apply to you and I. Our null hypothesis as believers – the point at which all scientific theories begin – is that there is a God who has influence over the way the world works.

The truth of Christianity doesn’t pivot on a great conflict between scientific beliefs like evolution and contrary claims in the Bible. The truth of Christianity hangs on the person of Jesus. Did he exist? Did he perform the miracles the Bible claims he did? Did he die and rise?

There is a scientific element to these questions – but more than any other religion – Christianity submits its claims to the scientific method for observation and testing. Jesus started by posing a hypothesis. He asks us to test his claims that he is the son of God and the saviour of mankind. His ministry was measurable and observable. It occurred in public in front of tens of thousands of witnesses around the regions he travelled. His miracles were repeatable – they were not – based on the accounts of his life – one offs.

Those around Jesus were able to measure and observe – and had his claims been bunkum they would have been able to refute them. But time and time again those in positions most likely to refute his actions – for example his sparring partners the Pharisees – were left having to accept that there was something unique about him.

No other religion subjects its deity to such scientific scrutiny. Jesus was tangible, he was tactile. The resurrection is without doubt the hardest claim for us to accept based on current scientific knowledge. We know people don’t just rise from the dead. This is where the hypothesis that there is a God involved becomes important.

If Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead – a claim seemingly counter to our scientific principles – then this is where science and Christianity collide. The resurrection of Jesus is a question of history not a question of science. Did it happen? If it did then it must influence our understanding of science. We must accept that Jesus was who he claimed to be.

The scientific method is relatively young. The model we understand and apply when testing truths is the product of the 19th century enlightenment. People were no less skeptical of claims of resurrection prior to the enlightenment. We’ve always had a sense that rising from the dead is an extraordinary occurrence. Even the religious people of Jesus’ day didn’t necessarily believe in the possibility of the resurrection of the dead – Paul uses this division when he’s on trial in Acts chapter 23.

While the scientific method wasn’t around while Jesus was alive, God knows the type of questions people ask. And so we meet Thomas – often called “Doubting Thomas” but perhaps more appropriately “Scientific Thomas”.

Thomas was a disciple. He’d travelled with Jesus for years. He had heard Jesus say (a few times) that he would die and be raised from the dead. It seems he didn’t believe this was possible.

After Jesus had died and been raised he appeared to the other disciples and ate some food. But Thomas wasn’t there – and he didn’t believe the claims his friends (the other disciples) made about their meeting with Jesus.

So when Thomas was confronted by the resurrected Jesus his first thoughts were the same that ours would be if we were confronted by a friend we knew was dead. Thomas had seen Jesus die, he knew he had been buried. So he thought he was hallucinating. He thought, perhaps, he was being confronted with a ghost. He didn’t believe in that sort of stuff so he put it to the test. He conducted an experiment.

This is the story John’s gospel ends with – an account of the scientific testing of the resurrection and the belief of a skeptic… in chapter 20…

Jesus Appears to Thomas

24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Jesus does not ignore science – though he could be forgiven for doing so because the scientific method wasn’t around when he was – Jesus submits his claims to science, and he triumphs over science. True knowledge and understanding of the world comes from an understanding of the one who created the world – and the one who triumphs over the realities of the world – death and our inability to live meeting God’s standard.

February 22, 2010

Violence: a natural selection

I wrote this in the car today while mulling over a talk we listened to yesterday. Why do some new atheists hate the Christian faith?

I was going to use the word “religion” in that question. But I hate religion too. Jesus spends a whole lot of time rebuking people for their religion. Religion, for those scratching their heads, is the idea that one’s actions win them salvation. It is what distinguishes Biblical Christianity from any other form of faith. For the sake of clarity I should have probably used “antitheists” rather than atheists in the title. But I’ll stick with the label the people I am thinking of apply to themselves.

At the heart of almost every objection to faith that I read from atheists is that people of faith use their beliefs to stymie the desires and actions of people with different faiths. Which is kind of a fair enough criticism. Until you think about it.

What would happen if the new atheists were in the majority and their moral framework (which basically comes down to “if it feels good, do it”) was the yardstick?

Morality is always the standard of behaviour set by the highest power one chooses to acknowledge – be it the individual, community standards, government or a deity. To suggest that morality is set internally is disingenuous and results in a really odd and selfish decision making.

The moral outcome and conclusion of natural selection is either violence or submission. How else does one survive? As soon as one entity, be it an individual or a community, acts in a way that threatens the survival of another the only natural response at that point is to act violently – or to submit and possibly die.

Richard Dawkins has famously suggested that our culture is beyond the “evolutionary” need for religion. That we’ve somehow moved past the need for our behaviour to be moderated by a higher power. Hogwash.

Even if the higher power is a figment of the collective imaginations of believers throughout human history, even if each “imaginary friend” causes their fans to act in an irrational manner towards the other teams, and even if morality that flows from a position of faith is an arbitrary and less “good” moral framework than one’s own “harm based” equation – the alternative to a planet with faith looks much worse than the current state of affairs.

People would no doubt find other reasons to kill one another. Believers must admit that religious codes have caused conflict (and continue to) since the beginning of time. This says nothing about the truth of the beliefs.

I think the reason the new atheists hate faith is not that they think faith is harmful – that cannot possibly the reason. If faith is an evolutionary survival mechanism then people are simply outworking their inherent and instinctive violent natures.

Until the New Atheists come up with a system of morality that curtails this inner violence better than religion they should shut their mouths, to deconvert people can in fact do more harm than good.

It is illogical to operate with a harm based ethical framework and a philosophical framework grounded in nihilistic survival (protect one’s ability to do what feels good) and to call for the removal of the influence of faith from public life. It is irrational, and stems from prejudice.

It can be logical to decide that oneself, on an individual level, does not need to believe God to survive and prosper – but to apply your own personal moral framework to everybody else is dangerous. It only works until someone wants something different to what you think they should want and they decide to take it for themselves.

For many antitheists the question isn’t so much of morality but that they find posited gods immoral. With their superior internal moral framework. These slightly more consistent atheists hate the God they don’t believe in for sending bears to render injustice to intemperate youths. They hate the God they don’t believe in for committing genocide by flooding the world. More accurately they hate that people are willing to describe such a God as loving.

How can a loving all powerful God allow or cause suffering? How can a loving God send people to Hell?

I commend this talk (MP3) by Tim Keller to those asking that question (he touches on the natural selection = violence idea in this talk).

The key to both these questions hinges on the unjust suffering and death of Jesus for his enemies.

I don’t understand how antitheists can be angry at a belief that calls for this sort of action – John 15 says…

“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Where Jesus did not just walk the walk – he ran it – Romans 5 says…

“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

That’s what, in my mind, makes Christianity impossible to hate. How can you argue with a person who is willing to follow that same model? (Luke 9).

“Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.”

It’s completely counter-instinctive to take that position. Particularly if instincts are defined as actions that contribute to one’s survival under a natural selection model. Christianity doesn’t seem to bear the hallmarks of a tool of natural selection because it rails against the basest element of natural selection – selfishness, and works against our natural inclination to violently defending our rights. I can’t see how the continued existence of such a mindset can be bad for society – even if some believers use their faith to call for different standards of behaviour.

Seriously – if you can’t tolerate a little bit of moral criticism – or persecution – from those with opposing views to you (just because you don’t have evidence to support their deity) – then move to France. It’s really not that bad – and the moderate Christian voices will eventually gain traction as they try to encourage other Christians to put Jesus at the centre of the gospel not religious acts.

I don’t want to go down the path of the “no atheists in the foxholes” fallacy – but how many atheist martyrs are there? How many atheists are dying in Christian nations? I’m sure there are atheists dying for their lack of belief in Islamic nations – but they’re not getting special treatment, the Christians are dying there too.

That is all.

January 29, 2010

Circular Reasoning and the Bible

This is an amazing infographic depicting the 63,000 cross references within the 66 books of the Bible.

It’s available in much bigger formats at the source. I found it at Andrew’s blog.

The bar graph that runs along the bottom represents all of the chapters in the Bible. Books alternate in color between white and light gray. The length of each bar denotes the number of verses in the chapter. Each of the 63,779 cross references found in the Bible is depicted by a single arc – the color corresponds to the distance between the two chapters, creating a rainbow-like effect.

One of the lines from atheists that annoys me is that Christians only believe the Bible is true because it says it’s true (circular reasoning).

I have two things to say to that.

One: If the Bible said it wasn’t true that would be reason not to believe it.

Two: The “Bible” as we know it was only bundled together in around 363 AD. The “circular reasoning” should instead be treated as cross referencing and corroboration from multiple sources. Not one self referencing source.

That is all.

January 10, 2010

Oops, I did it again…

Yesterday’s quest to comment on 100 different blogs had an unexpected side effect. I became embroiled in a “discussion” on a post on the Friendly Atheist. One where a contributor suggested that the heinous acts God allegedly commits in the Old Testament should be rewritten as a Mafia drama.

Here are some of the things the “friendly” atheists at that site had to say about me during the discussion…

“The man’s an ass. A potentially dangerous ass who seems to admire Hitler.”

“Your view is just asinine.”

“I was gonna feed the troll but thought the better of it, especially since he’s shown his psychopathic nature. Besides there were some beautiful arguments put forth here that he ducks instead of addressing so I don’t see much point. Instead, he’s rather like Linus clinging to his blanket but not as benignly.”

“Nathan your arguments have been nothing but equivocating, never answering the questions you were asked, and when you do (and attempt to explain something) you shovel out contradictions one after another.”

“As I said Nathan is hopeless. lol, this only makes me laugh now. sigh.”

Reading back through the thread there were plenty of things that I said that I probably wouldn’t in hindsight. The stuff about Hitler was dumb. And I probably strayed off message a little too much.

I find atheists who get in a huff about how a God they don’t believe in did evil things to be one of the oddest inconsistencies. They’re so passionate about the actions of a being they don’t believe exists. If they’re right, and God is a delusion, then shouldn’t the people who committed the actions be the ones they’re angry at?

I wonder if atheists would take their position on the actions of the deluded (or those thinking they are doing God’s bidding) to the natural conclusion and move to remove the defence of insanity from all criminal proceedings.

January 9, 2010