Apologetics

Archived Posts from this Category

May 13, 2009

Hold the reason…go heavy on the faith

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Thinking
[2] Comments

It’s common for those who fail to see the value of learning apologetics to claim that all we need to do is simply present the truth to those in error, and then trust the Lord to convict their hearts. There is no reason to present people with reasons to believe that what you claim is true is indeed true; we just proclaim the truth and trust God to do the rest. The unbeliever either sees it, or they don’t. If they don’t see it, it must be because they don’t love God and have chosen to reject the truth.

What I find interesting about those of this opinion is that they often argue with those of us who see the value of presenting the unbeliever with reasons to believe, claiming that our approach is not based on faith. “We need to trust in God to change their minds,” they claim.

Did you catch the contradiction? While they claim to trust in God to convince unbelievers of the truth apart from a rational defense of the truth, they do not trust God to convince us of what they believe to be true: that our rational-support approach to truth is in error.

So the next time an anti-rationalist accuses you of not having enough faith in God to convince unbelievers of the truth, ask him/her “If you have faith in God, why are you confronting me on this issue? Why are you giving me reasons to ignore reason and ‘just have faith?’ Why didn’t you just pray and trust God to change my mind on this issue?”

They didn’t pray for God to change your mind because they understand that persuasion comes through information, not just spiritual conviction.

May 12, 2009

Gender-Based Abortions OK in Sweden

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
Leave a Comment

Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare ruled that it legal to abort a baby based solely on its gender. Let’s see if pro-abortion feminists will stand up in opposition to this practice or not. Probably not. And why should they? After all, if abortion is about choice, it should not matter why one makes the choice they do. All that matters is that the choice is theirs, and they are free to make it, even if that choice is to kill a baby girl, simply because it is a girl.

May 12, 2009

People Could Give a Rip About Our Arguments?

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Thinking
1 Comment

Rob Bell, pastor of the influential Mars Hill Church in Michigan, wrote a book entitled Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith. In one section of the book Bell writes:

It is important to remember that we rarely find these first christians trying to prove that the resurrection actually occurred. To try to prove there was an empty tomb wouldn’t have gotten very far with the average citizen of the roman empire; they had heard it all before. This is why so many passages about the early church deal with possessions and meals and generosity. They understood that people are rarely persuaded by arguments, but more often by experiences. Living, breathing, flesh-and-blood experiences of the resurrection community. They saw it as their responsibility to put Jesus’ message on display. To the outside world, it was less about proving and more about inviting people to experience this community of Jesus followers for themselves.

Mark Oestreicher (who quoted the above passage on his personal blog), president of Youth Specialties, added his own two cents in support of Bell’s comments:

People today could care less about the “proof” of our arguments, the “logic” of our evidence that demands a verdict, or our “cases” for faith, christ, easter, christmas or whatever else. The only evidence demanding a verdict people care about these days is how i live my life. The only case for christ people give a rip about is the case made by commitment to love and justice, or lack thereof.”

It is unfortunate that such high-profile, youth-focused Christian leaders would make such remarks. While it is true that people are interested in seeing our Christianity lived out in real life—and not just hearing our arguments for Christianity—that does not mean they are unconcerned about our arguments. Every human being is concerned with the truth because we are made in the image of the one who is Truth. Knowledge of the truth requires epistemic justification of some sort, and to some degree, and hence arguments are beneficial.

(more…)

May 11, 2009

The Evil of Inflicting Life on Unwanted Children

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[5] Comments

Anne Lamott, a so-called “progressive” Christian, wrote an article in the LA Times concerning a response she gave to a question about abortion during a panel discussion in Washington about social justice. She is staunchly pro-choice, and even had an abortion herself. Listen to what he has to say about abortion:

I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion — one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) — but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.

…

I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies — some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for — when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.

…

But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.

Let me make a few observations in the way of evaluation. In the first paragraph she made a moral distinction between the born and the unborn, and asserted that the choice of the born trumps the right to life of the unborn. Why? Why doesn’t the existence of the unborn life trump her right to choose? The baby’s location? But since when does where you are determine what you are, or what rights you are entitled to? Maybe Lamott can explain to us how it is that being in a womb robs a human being of his/her rights. Are there any other places humans reside in which they cease being the subject of basic rights? How about Washington?

Based on her comments in the second paragraph, she seems to be arguing that the born have the right to decide the fate of the unborn because of differences in size. Why? How is size morally relevant? Since when does your size determine one’s moral worth, and who is the subject of rights and who is not? Does an adult female have the right to decide the fate of a 5 year old human being because she is bigger than her? Of course not! So why can an adult female decide the fate of a one month old human being? Is it because it sooo small? Well, then, exactly how big does one have to be before they are protected from being killed with impunity? What is the exact size? And what is it about that size that magically transforms the unborn into a morally significant subject of rights?

Lamott’s last paragraph is the most confusing. While she says each human life is sacred (including the unborn’s), she argues that the right to an abortion is a crucial part of the fight for that sacredness. What?! We protect the sacredness of each human life by protecting a woman’s right to rob a tiny human being of his life? If words mean anything at all her position is nonsensical.

Lamott’s most outrageous statement, however, is when she says we “must not inflict life on children who will be resented.” Inflict life? Since when is life something to be avoided? She acts as though it is a disease. And what’s so bad that life would not be worth living? Having someone resent you? There’s no doubt that being resented by anyone—yet alone your mother—would be a horrible experience, but since when do we kill people so they won’t experience potential emotional pain? Should we kill our unborn children because someone other than the mother might resent them someday? And how is it that something as immoral as resentment makes it a “moral necessity” that we kill unwanted children? It seems to me that one immoral act is being used to justify another, all in the name of morality. Such is the moral confusion of our generation, and it is being done in the name of Christianity. God help her!

May 8, 2009

A great definition of apologetics

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics
[3] Comments

J.P. Moreland has probably given the best definition of apologetics I have ever come across. He defined apologetics as “a ministry designed to help unbelievers to overcome intellectual obstacles to conversion and believers to remove doubts that hinder spiritual growth.”—Love Your God With All Your Mind, 131.

The only thing I might change in this definition is his labeling of apologetics as a “ministry.” Indeed, it is a ministry, but that term connotes that it is only for some people in the body of Christ. Biblically speaking, however, apologetics is no more a ministry in this sense than is prayer—both are basic to the Christian life. I would prefer, then, to define apologetics as a “discipline.”

May 8, 2009

Peter Singer, bestiality, and infanticide

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics
[11] Comments

Marvin Olasky interviewed Princeton philosopher of bioethics, Peter Singer. The New Yorker has called him the most influential philosopher alive. Influence means that one’s ideas have a way of shaping other people’s ideas. So what are Singer’s ideas you ask? When asked about the morality of necrophilia (having sexual relations with a corpse) Singer said, “There’s no moral problem with that.” What about bestiality? Is it morally acceptable to have sex with animals so long as they seem willing to do so? Singer’s answer: “I would ask, ‘What’s holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?’ (but) it’s not wrong inherently in a moral sense.” Translation: I must say that you’d have to be pretty desperate, but your business is your business.

When asked if it was morally acceptable for parents to conceive and give birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children Singer answered, “It’s difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, (but) they’re not doing something really wrong in itself.” When asked if there was anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale he said “No.” I have to wonder why it’s hard to warm to such parents if there is nothing wrong with their choice to treat the unborn as human junk-yards. If their choice to harvest their children for their body parts has no more moral significance than brushing their hair, he should have no problem warming up to them.

He also affirms that it is ethically permissible to kill 1-year-olds with physical or mental disabilities, although ideally the question of infanticide would be “raised as soon as possible after birth.” What’s so scary is that this guy is a bioethicist! You would think a bioethicist would value human life and have some ethics. Not Singer. And he’s not alone. There are other philosophers occupying liberal bioethics chairs in liberal universities that advance similar idea.

If this guy is the most influential philosopher alive, we’ve got serious problems coming our way! What starts in the academy will end up as the common view on the street within 20 or so years. If we don’t do our job as the church today, to combat such moral nonsense with an arsenal of good theology and good reason, we will lose the future generation.

You can read the rest of the interview at Townhall.

April 27, 2009

Kathy Ireland on Abortion

Posted by Jason Dulle under Abortion, Apologetics, Bioethics
[3] Comments

ireland Former supermodel, Kathy Ireland, is a pro-life Christian. She was recently interviewed by Fox News and gives a great defense of the pro-life position.

April 22, 2009

Hate Crimes Legislation: Making Homosexual Orientation a Special Class

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Politics
1 Comment

Matt Barber has a good article on the hate crimes legislation bill pending in the House, exposing what is wrong with hate crimes legislation in general, and demonstrating why homosexuals should not be added to the existing list of people protected by these laws.

The House is set to vote on this bill tomorrow.

April 22, 2009

No Tolerance for Miss California

Posted by Jason Dulle under Political Incorrectness, Same-sex Marriage
[5] Comments

Liberals talk about tolerance, but can never seem to practice it. Whenever someone disagrees with their liberal positions, they are vilified. Such is the case with the recent Miss USA competition. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by pageant judge Perez Hilton (an openly gay man) whether she thought “gay marriage” should be legalized throughout the U.S. Prejean responded: “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offence to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Granted, I think this was a horrible defense of her position, but I’m not here to critique her answer. I’m here to critique the way liberals have responded to her for stating her support for traditional marriage. Perez Hilton responded by calling her a “dumb b**ch” on his blog, and describing her as having “half a brain.” According to Hilton, her answer cost her the competition. Did you hear that? She was discriminated against because she gave an answer Hilton didn’t like. Why ask an open-ended question that you will only accept one answer for?

E! News anchor Giuliana Rancic twittered, “I know i’m a journalist, and i should be objective … but she is an ignorant disgrace and she makes me sick to my stomach.”

Even the director of the Miss California pageant, Shanna Moakler, quickly distanced herself from Ms. Prejean. She twittered, “This is why we have judges at Miss USA, so we find the girl to rep us ALL,” and “I don’t know how you can call a gay man or woman your friend and not want them 2 have the same joys as yourself. In my family we believe in equal rights for all, I am sad and hurt, I agree with Perez 100 [percent]. It’s one thing to have an opinion I am very opinionated n have dealt with backlash from it, it’s another to alienate people who cared about u.” After the pageant, she even refused to meet her backstage and congratulate her for being runner-up. It sounds to me that it is Prejean’s “friends” who are choosing to alienate, not Prejean.

Do these people not recognize that the majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage? Miss California’s answer reflects the thinking of mainstream America, but by the liberal reaction one would think her views represent a tiny minority, as if she denies the Holocaust or believes the Earth is flat.

How has Prejean responded? Has she villified all those who have called her names and turned their backs on her for holding to a different point of view? No. Regarding Hilton she said, “I can only say to him that I will be praying for him. I feel sorry for him, I really do. I think he’s angry, I think he’s hurt. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. He asked me specifically what my opinion was on that subject, and I gave him an honest answer.” That is true tolerance. And I don’t think it is any coincidence that a person who holds to Christian values is the one expressing it.

April 7, 2009

Vermont Legislature Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
[2] Comments

Vermont is first again! They were the first to enact civil unions in 2000. Now they are the first state to democratically enact same-sex marriage (rather than having the courts impose it on the people). The Vermont legislature voted today to legalize same-sex marriage, barely overriding the governor’s veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses. From the polls I have seen, this reflects the will of the people. While I am staunchly against legalizing same-sex marriage, at least Vermont went about doing it the right way: democratically.

April 5, 2009

Iowa Supreme Court upholds overturning of marriage laws

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Politics, Same-sex Marriage
Leave a Comment

In 2005 the Iowa state law defining marriage as between a man and woman only was challenged. A county judge struck the law down in 2007. On Friday 4/3/09 the Iowa Supreme Court upheld that ruling, making Iowa the third state to sanction same-sex marriage (via the courts).

March 29, 2009

Atheism is not the Default Position

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism
[38] Comments

There is a popular view held by many atheists that in the absence of positive evidence for God’s existence, we ought to accept atheism as true by default. This view is called the presumption of atheism. I have written a full treatment against it on my website (“Not so Fast: There is no Presumption of Atheism“), but I thought it was fitting to share a great quote from philosopher William Lane Craig on the subject:

I hear all the time that atheism wins by default – in other words, if there aren’t any good arguments for God, then atheism automatically wins. So many of these fellows don’t offer any arguments for atheism; instead, they just try to shoot down the arguments for theism and say they win by default. In reality, however, the failure of arguments for God wouldn’t do anything to establish that God does not exist. The claim that there is no God is a positive claim to knowledge and therefore requires justification. The failure of arguments for God would leave us, at best, with agnosticism, not atheism.^[1]

Nobody can say it so succinctly, and so powerfully as Craig!

^[1]William Lane Craig, during an interview with Lee Strobel, “Bill Craig on the New Atheism,” available from http://leestrobel.com/newsletters/2009MARCH/thenewatheism.htm; Internet; accessed 18 March 2009.

March 15, 2009

Obama Revokes Executive Order for Funding ESCR Alternatives

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics, Stem Cell Research
[4] Comments

In my previous post I discussed President Obama’s recent Executive Order to expand the number of embryonic stem cell lines eligible for federal funding. It turns out that’s not all the president did. Part of the Executive Order entailed revoking President Bush’s Executive Order 13435 (issued June 20, 2007), which made it a priority to fund research into alternative methods of obtaining pluripotent stem cells-methods that do not involve the destruction of embryos. That policy was largely responsible for the iPS breakthrough that revolutionized the field of stem cell research.

Why would Obama revoke that Executive Order? The most promising areas of stem cell research have been those that do not involve the destruction of embryos (adult stem cells, cord stem cells, iPS). Why would he pull funding for the most promising areas of stem cell research, and direct those funds into the least promising area of research: ESCR?

This is ironic in light of Obama’s own stated support for “groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.” It is also baffling given his own admission that to-date, ESCR has not produced therapeutic benefits. Contrast this to research using alternative sources of stem cells, which have yielded more than 70 treatments. It doesn’t make any sense to put all of one’s eggs in a basket that is both medically unproductive and ethically suspect, when there are other baskets that are both medically productive and ethical. It seems Obama is being driven by an ideology that is more concerned with promoting research involving the destruction of human embryos, than he is with funding research that is yielding actual therapeutic benefits for sick Americans. So much for putting science ahead of ideology. If he was interested in science, he would put his money on ethical alternatives to ESCR such as iPS.

March 12, 2009

Expanded Federal Funding for ESCR

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Bioethics, Politics, Stem Cell Research
[5] Comments

On Monday March 9, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise by issuing an Executive Order to expand the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). While the move was expected, it is baffling given the fact that recent advances in the stem cell research field have made ESCR technologically passé. Just over a year ago scientists were able to come up with a morally benign method of obtaining the biological equivalent of ESCs, called Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPS). iPS cells have the advantage over ESCs in that they do not require the destruction of human embryos or cloning to obtain them, the process of creating them is simple and less expensive, they do not face the problem of somatic rejection when used therapeutically, and they promise a limitless supply of pluripotent stem cells (stem cells that can become any of the body’s 220 cells) for scientific research. Given the recent technological advances in pluripotent stem cell research, deciding to invest additional money in ESCR makes as much sense as deciding to invest money to make better cassette tapes. Obama’s Executive Order is out-of-date, and unnecessary.

On the positive side, Obama did not try to hype the potential of embryonic stem cells as have many other politicians. He candidly admitted that “at this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. … [I]f we pursue this research, maybe one day – maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children’s lifetime – but maybe one day, others like him [Christopher Reeve] might [be cured via embryonic stem cell therapies].”

On the negative side, however, I find Obama’s reasoning to be malformed. According to Obama,

[I]n recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.

The dichotomy between science and morality is not a false one. The two can conflict at times. We can debate whether the two conflict in the case of embryonic stem cell research, but it will not do to just declare by fiat that there is no conflict.

Interestingly enough, Obama goes on to speak of his own religious moral values, and how they have affected his decision to expand the funding of ESCR. What I would like to know is why it’s ok for Obama to make policy based on his religious values, but it was wrong for Bush to do the same? This is a double-standard. The fact of the matter is that in principle, there is nothing wrong with drawing on one’s religiously-informed moral values to make public policy. Policies are based on moral considerations, and our understanding of what’s right and wrong is most often informed by our religious convictions. In this case, however, we have two men with conflicting moral values. Bush valued all human life – including embryonic life – whereas Obama only values post-natal life. Bush valued all human life equally, and thus believed it would be immoral to kill one life to save another. Obama doesn’t value all life equally, and thus thinks it a moral imperative to kill one life to save another. Each man has a different ideology, and thus a different policy. So enough with the talk about Bush choosing “ideology over science.” He chose morality over science. Obama, on the other hand, is choosing science over morality (although I’m sure he doesn’t see it that way).

February 25, 2009

New Apologetics Book Countering Atheism

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism
[30] Comments

One of my favorite book titles is I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek. But I think Ray Comfort’s new book title comes in for a close second: You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can’t Make Him Think. That is classic!

February 25, 2009

God-of-the-Gaps, or Science-of-the-Gaps?: Science Cannot Eliminate God

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Science
[15] Comments

bridge-the-gap-failed Science-types tend to dismiss theism on grounds that it’s rooted in an ignorance of material explanations for natural phenomena. Science has discovered material explanations for most things once thought to be acts of God (lightning, gravity, etc.). Seeing that the gaps in our understanding (gaps once occupied by God) have increasingly been filled by materialist explanations, so, they say, is the need for theism. Furthermore, given the track record of scientific progress in the last few centuries, even those gaps that remain are likely to be filled with materialistic explanations, leaving no room for theism. Are these conclusions reasonable?

I’ll begin by addressing the question of whether scientific progress eliminates the need for God. To speak of the need for God, in this context, is to speak of His explanatory power. Scientists who think finding materialistic explanations for natural phenomena eliminates the need for God presuppose that God is just a hypothesis, and that this God-hypothesis is only needed to explain the natural world. Both presuppositions are false.

Most people who believe in God do not do so because God explains some X that is otherwise inexplicable. For them, God is not an explanatory entity, but a living reality they encounter. They believe in God because they have experienced Him. There are, however, some theists who believe in God only because of the explanatory power such a being holds. What these science-types miss, however, is that for these individuals, God explains much more than just the natural world. There are non-physical realities that need to be explained such as the existence of objective moral values/duties, the existence of mind/consciousness, and freedom of the will. Materialistic explanation of these phenomena are not plausible. An immaterial being, however, provides a sufficient cause. So even if God was no longer needed to explain all features the universe, His explanatory power would not be obsolete. There would still be a need for the God-hypothesis.

(more…)

February 19, 2009

Mortimer Adler on the (Necessary) Pain of Education

Posted by Jason Dulle under Thinking
[10] Comments

In 1941, philosopher Mortimer Adler wrote a short, but impactful article for the Journal of Educational Sociology titled an “Invitation to the Pain of Learning.” Adler argued that thinking/education is one of the highest and most rewarding pursuits of man; unfortunately, it is also one of the most difficult and painful. As a result, genuine education is being abandoned for what some have called “infotainment.” Education has become a passive enterprise, in which teachers provide students with information dumbed down so that it is entertaining, fun, and pragmatic. But education should be an active enterprise in which we engage ideas and subjects that challenge our mind and shape our character. Adler calls both people and educational institutions to focus on the short-term pain of educational learning for the ultimate satisfaction of a transformed life. Here are some great excerpts that are worth your time to read:

One of the reasons why the education given by our schools is so frothy and vapid is that the American people generally – the parent even more than the teacher – wish childhood to be unspoiled by pain. Childhood must be a period of delight, of gay indulgence in impulses. It must be given every avenue for unimpeded expression, …and it must not be made to suffer the impositions of discipline or the exactions of duty, which of course are painful. Childhood must be filled with as much play and as little work as possible. … Heaven forbid that learning should ever take on the character of a serious occupation – just as serious as earning money, and perhaps, much more laborious and painful. … It must all be fun. It must all be entertaining. Adult learning must be made as effortless as possible – painless, devoid of oppressive burdens and of irksome tasks.
…
[T]he fundamental activity that is involved in every kind of genuine learning is intellectual activity, the activity generally known as thinking. Any learning which takes place without thinking is necessarily of the sort I have called external and additive – learning passively acquired, for which the common name is “information.” Without thinking, the kind of learning which transforms a mind, gives it new insights, enlightens it, deepens understanding, elevates the spirit simply cannot occur. Anyone who has done any thinking, even a little bit, knows that it is painful. It is hard work – in fact the very hardest that human beings are ever called upon to do. It is fatiguing, not refreshing. … Far from trying to make the whole process painless from beginning to end, we must promise them the pleasure of achievement as a reward to be reached only through travail.
…
I do not know…whether it [radio and television] can ever do what the best teachers have always done and must now be doing; namely, to present programs which are genuinely educative, as opposed to merely stimulating, in the sense that following them requires the listener to be active not passive, to think rather than remember, and to suffer all the pains of lifting himself up by his own bootstraps.
…
Unless we acknowledge that every invitation to learning can promise pleasure only as the result of pain, can offer achievement only at the expense of work, all of our invitations to learning, in school and out, whether by books, lectures, or radio and television programs will be as much buncombe as the worst patent medicine advertising, or the campaign pledge to put two chickens in every pot.

I particularly like what he says about teaching over people’s head. While this practice is usually condemned, Adler argues it is absolutely essential to good education:

[W]e must have no fears about what is “over the public’s head.” Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles. The school system which caters to the median child, or worse, to the lower half of the class; the lecturer before adults…who talks down to his audience; the radio or television program which tries to hit the lowest common denominator of popular receptivity – all these defeat the prime purpose of education by taking people as they are and leaving them just there.

I couldn’t agree more. People need to be intellectually challenged if they are ever to grow intellectually. That’s not to say we should speak in words they do not understand (at least without defining those words for them), or that we do not appeal to their existing knowledge base, but it is to say that we shouldn’t always be covering the ABCs. It’s appropriate to move on to higher letters in the alphabet. Christians need to be weaned from theological milk, and learn to eat some theological steak. Otherwise, they’ll be condemned to being Peter Pan Christians for the rest of their lives.

February 13, 2009

Atheist Demotivator

Posted by Jason Dulle under Atheism, Fun
[78] Comments

Have you ever seen those motivational posters that have a nice, serene or inspiring picture, and a word-message beneath it? For example, it might show a rock climber pulling himself over the summit of a mountain. And the word will be “achievement,” followed by some inspirational line about achievement. I hate those posters! I much prefer the ones created by Despair, Inc. One of my favorites is “Incompetence: When you earnestly believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there’s no end to what you can’t do.”

I would like to make a polemical “demotivational” poster of my own on the topic of “Atheism,” and I would like your help in determining the caption and picture. Here are the captions I have come up with:

Atheism: The best way to become your own boss is to pretend your boss doesn’t exist
Atheism: Because God didn’t qualify for the job
Atheism: There is no God, and I hate him.
Atheism: An elite club for those with enough faith to believe everything came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing, Amen.
Atheism: Because nobody tells me what to do.

Which is your favorite? Can you think of some alternatives? Paint for me a picture to go along with the caption you selected. For example, for the first caption I envision a big corporate conference room with a man sitting in the CEO’s chair on his lap, acting as if the CEO is not there.

February 13, 2009

Philosophy: The Last Academic Stronghold of Theism

Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Atheism, Naturalism, Philosophy, Theism
[9] Comments

Philosopher and theologian, William Lane Craig, has frequently made reference to the turn of events in philosophy over the past 40 years. What was once a very secularized field has been “invaded” by theists. As evidence of this phenomenon, consider what atheist philosopher, Quentin Smith, had to say in the journal Philo:

By the second half of the twentieth century, universities and colleges had been become in the main secularized. … Analytic philosophers (in the mainstream of analytic philosophy) treated theism as an antirealist or non-cognitivist world-view, requiring the reality, not of a deity, but merely of emotive expressions…. The secularization of mainstream academia began to quickly unravel upon the publication of [Alvin] Plantinga’s influential book on realist theism, God and Other Minds, in 1967. It became apparent to the philosophical profession that this book displayed that realist theists were not outmatched by naturalists in terms of the most valued standards of analytic philosophy: conceptual precision, rigor of argumentation, technical erudition, and an in-depth defense of an original world-view. … [T]oday perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians. … God is not “dead” in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.^{^[1]}

In other words, the intellectual respectability of theism was resurrected. Theism was rational after all (even if [as Quentin thinks] it is ultimately false), and formed a beachhead against secularism in university philosophy departments. What I find interesting, however, is the response of naturalists. According to Smith

the great majority of naturalist philosophers react by publicly ignoring the increasing desecularizing of philosophy (while privately disparaging theism, without really knowing anything about contemporary analytic philosophy of religion) and proceeding to work in their own area of specialization as if theism, the view of approximately one-quarter or one-third of their field, did not exist. … [N]aturalist scientists…are so innocent of any understanding of the philosophy of religion that they do not even know that they are innocent of this understanding, as it witnessed by their popular writings on science and religion.^{^[2]}

And again,

If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion (i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion, and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion, the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that “no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,” although I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate.^{^[3]}

Be sure, this is not because Smith thinks theists have the better arguments. On the contrary, he is persuaded that naturalism is the true ontology. But he recognizes that 99% of naturalists are so ignorant of the philosophy of religion that they would not be able to refute the arguments. I have found this to be true of many naturalists. They continue to speak as if theism requires an irrational, blind leap of faith into the dark, and continue to present tired-old arguments against theism as if those arguments have not been answered by theists both past and present. They are unaware of those responses, because they do not engage the philosophy of religion with the same rigor that theists engage philosophical naturalism.

Furthermore, because most naturalists ignore philosophers of religion, they are also unaware of the fact that theistic philosophers have defeated their arguments for naturalism, and thus ignorant of the fact that their belief in naturalism is not justified (at least until they are able to undercut or rebut those defeaters). As Smith notes, “They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief.”^{^[4]}

While Smith is concerned about the recent turn of events in philosophy, I find it reason to rejoice. It is a testimony to the intellectual credibility of the Christian faith. Religious faith does not require a commitment of the will in the absence (or in spite of the) evidence, but rather is a persuasion based on reasonable knowledge. Christians need not fear philosophy; we need only avoid the false philosophies of men (Colossians 2:8). As C.S. Lewis once said, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.”

^{^[1]}Quentin Smith, “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism,” Philo, 4:2 (2001); available from http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm; Internet; accessed 07 January 2009.

^{^[2]}Ibid.

^{^[3]}Ibid.

^{^[4]}Ibid.