Atheism, Arguments and Rationality

For the past week or so, we have been exchanging comments with Takis of For the promotion of rigour and rationality blog. Takis is a professor in the science industry in Edinburgh, Scotland. Takis introduced himself to the CAS community by commenting with a quote from Deuteronomy 21:18-21 proscribing stoning a "stubborn and rebellious son." We'll leave it to you the reader to decide if the comment was intended to provoke. Takis argues the negative.

One of the things we've noted in our exchange with Takis and with agnostic/atheist commenters and bloggers is often their arguments are based on one or more erroneous assumptions. In our earlier Response to Atheist Missionary, Atheist Missionary made the false assumption that we were sola scriptura. Takis seemingly made the assumption that we thought the deity (God) listened only to us and not to Takis' Muslim friend Mustafa.

Also, in both exchanges, we found instances of positive claims being made without supporting evidence. We find it somewhat interesting that individuals claiming to be more rational and logical than theists are seemingly unaware of the general rules of debate and logical fallicies. Let's be clear. Under the generally accepted rules of debate, the person making a positive claim has the burden of proof. Thus, if you were to state "they (the deities of Christianity and Islam)are in competition with one another" then the burden of proof is on you to prove your positive claim ("are"). The Christian apologist has no burden of proof. However, Christian apologists must be careful not to "consent by silence."

By the way, many readers may not be aware that the university system, the scientific method and the rules of evidence were developed by Christian clergy. Catholics to be more specific. Thus, we find exchanges with university professors in the sciences arguing for rationality versus Christianity all the more interesting.

As always when visiting other blogs, please be charitable and Christlike.


Related Posts:
Response to Atheist Missionary
Atheist Thought Experiment
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God


Source: Comments to 4000,000 Catholics in America Missing

Response to Atheist Missionary

The following is our response to Atheist Missionary. This is a continuation of the comments to our post answering Atheist Missionary's "Atheist Thought Experiment".


Greetings! Thank you for the invitation to visit and read your response.

A myth is defined as a traditional, typically ancient story ... I cannot conceive of a better definition for Christianity.

I like your definition and fully agree that you conceive of Christianity as a myth, but nonetheless, you have yet to prove your claim.

>"am I correct in assuming that you rely solely on the collection of ancient scripts that made their way into what we now refer to as the modern Bible to confirm that your view is superior to all of the other organized religions that hold views contrary to your own?"

Nope, you are not correct.

While my branch of Christianity did write and compile the Bible for mankind, we believe that all truth is from God and thus use all of the truth available to us, including biology, physics, mathematics, history, etc. In fact, my branch of Christianity developed the university system, the scientific method and the rules of evidence. As truth cannot contradict truth, our Christian doctrines never conflict with secular science.

As I have said before and I will say again: all religions can't be right but they certainly can all be wrong. If you are interested to know which belief systems I find the most intriguing, I would probably choose Zen Buddhism

You do recall the question I was asked was "Why do you put so much faith in a book when there are countless other holy books?"", don't you? So why did you respond with your interest in Zen Buhdism or your belief that all religions can be wrong. Fun rabbits to chase, but they are not the topic of the question. Focus, grasshopper.

Specifically, I commend you to Proof #5 Read the Bible which provides as follows:
Imagine that we are good friends.

Imagine = hypothetical.

Your long diatribe that can easily be answered with a passage from the Bible itself.

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Acts 8:30-31

The author of proof #5 seems neither to understand the scripture nor to have had someone teach them the meaning. For example, the section claiming As you page through the book further you find that it is
totally sexist from beginning to end. ignores history. Christianity was the women liberation movement of the Roman period of history. Christianity liberated women as they had never been prior.

I will grant that a number of American Christians outside my branch have used some of Paul's instructions to Timothy to subjugate women. However they are wrong for the very same reasons stated, they don't understand what they read. Much of Paul's admonitions against women speaking had to do with the disruptive behavior of women who were talking amongst themselves during the service of the day. That behavior is akin to conversing loudly in a modern movie theater. Put in historical context, its not the sexism that many claim.

Regarding creation, the flood, etc., my branch of Christianity finds no conflict with science and archeology. We recognize that the Old Testament is written in different literary styles and not as a science text book. This difference in interpretation is likely what contributes to your regarding the Bible as nonsense.

>"Stephen Law handle the logical problem of evil (for theists) much better than I could ever hope to: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/12/could-it-be-pretty-obvious-theres-no.html"

Please note that the question was about suffering and NOT evil. They are not the same nor equivalents.

I agree that suffering has plenty to do with holiness.

Hopefully you'll keep that in mind the next time you experience suffering. What's the official atheist explanation for the existence of suffering?

Your God is a masochist.

Um, positive claim with no proof.

If you can show me any recognized experimental study that disproves my bold assertion that prayer is sterile in an experimental setting, please provide it. However, I can save you the time because I know for a fact that no such study exists.

Remember, absence of proof is not proof of absence. That's the informal fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam / Argument from Ignorance.

>"I am aware of the Bible and, as indicated above, I believe it to be a throughly repulsive."

Again, the topic at hand is "Why don't I get to go to heaven...? My answer is that neither I nor my branch of Christianity have ever stated that you don't get to go to heaven. Sorry you're repuulsed by the Bible. It has that effect on some people. Curious...

>"Pascal's wager is the ultimate intellectual cop-out."

Um, would that be because Blaise based it on the pure sciences of mathematics and probability which are thouroughly rational? I'll take your response as, yes, you are aware of Pascal's wager.

>"If this is the best that you can come up with to support your belief in God, your belief is vacuous."

I wasn't asked "to support your belief in God." I was asked " " Why don't I get to go to heaven...." I answered that I don't know for a fact that you don't. Why chastise me for answering the question I was asked and not answering the question I wasn't asked? Is that rational?

>"The pleasure was all mine."

You're welcome.

God bless... +Timothy


Related Posts:
Atheist Thought Experiment
Why are there Atheists?
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible


Source: My ongoing discussion with a "Christian Apologetic"

Why are there Atheists?

That's a very good question and one that will not be answered in this post. The post title is actually from R.C. Sproul's book If there's a God, why are there atheists? I found this short 150 page book at a nearby Goodwill store, a good source for religious books of various beliefs. I'd seen Sproul's name mentioned in various Christian blogs, so with an interesting title and a half-dollar price, I took the book home to read.

The book is divided into two parts. Part one reads like a typical book and is the best portion of the book in regards apologetics and atheism. Part two is written in typical Christianese style with large bible quotes interspersed with narrative text. I find this format hard to read and would have preferred to have the scripture citations in a side bar so to not break the continuity and flow of the ideas being expounded.

The big take away from the book is the concept that most atheists attack religion versus the existence of God. The first part points out that much of atheist rhetoric is pop psychology aimed at discrediting religion and religious adherents. This first part provides a short history of psychology as it relates to religion and explains why all the arguments citing Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, etc. have no bearing on the fundamental question as to the existence of God. The book points out the limitations of each reknown psychologist.

The book is not a "keeper" for me and will be released back into circulation.

Related Posts:
Atheist Thought Experiment
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible


Source: If There's a God, Why Are There Atheists?

Atheist Thought Experiment

Recently, we chanced upon an "Atheist Thought Experiment". The thought experiment is the following hypothetical situation:

Irrefutable evidence is finally discovered that proves, once and for all, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth. The only person who is privy to this evidence is a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman who is holding your most loved family member with a gun to his or her head. The gunman asks you to provide the correct answer to whether the immaculate conception occurred or not. No equivocation is allowed - you must answer either "yes, the virgin birth happened" or "no, the virgin birth never happened". You have 60 seconds to make up your mind and give the answer. If you are wrong, the gunman shoots your loved one. If you are correct, your loved one is freed.

A couple of quick observations regarding the above hypothetical:

Use of an absolute ("Irrefutable"). It is usually a bad idea to ever use an absolute (always, all, everyone) as unless the point being argued is indeed an absolute, then an exception will be found. It only takes a single exception to disprove an absolute. Personally, I am incapable of even imagining any irrefutable proof against the virgin birth of Christ that could found in this day and age. Then again, the experiment is a hypothetical, a complete and utter work of fiction (not truth).

A possible contradiction ("rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman"). Atheists themselves seem to provide the contradiction here. Many atheists claim that man can have a moral code that is not based on religion, but based on rationality. Most of those same atheists would likely argue that rational people do not kill or assult others. So, on what basis can a "a rational (but thoroughly evil) gunman exist"? Atheists believe evil exists? Interesting. Oh, yeah. Its a hypothetical work of fiction. Fiction is neither required to be true nor rational.

Misunderstanding of "immaculate conception" ("whether the immaculate conception occurred or not", "whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the product of a virgin birth"). This is the clear error in the hypothetical. The virgin birth of Christ is not the immaculate conception, which should be clear from the nouns to anyone having studied human reproduction. Conception is not birth. They are nine months apart in occurance. Also, most Christians believe that the immaculate conception occured to Mary, not Jesus. Different people. So, which question needs answering? Imaculate conception of Mary or virgin birth of Jesus?

Definition of terms ("correct answer"). Based on my knowledge of scripture, the testimony of early witnesses in surviving historical Christian documents, and rational thought, I would answer that both events were true. Of course our atheist friend used the term "correct answer" versus "truth". The questions don't ask which events are true or actually occured, but what is the "correct answer". While those could be one and the same, they can also be different.

In any event, based on my belief that both events are true, my "most loved family member" would have been hypothetically shot. That immediately raisies a howl from our "rational" atheist friend "...that you are in dire need of rational salvation before you actually cause some harm or enable others to do so."

First, if rational salvation involves fiction that includes absolutes, contradictions, and misunderstandings, I want no part of "rational salvation", however that is defined. (Since salvation generally involves the existence of a God and an afterlife, and most atheists deny both; rational salvation is an interesting viewpoint for any atheist to hold. Conundrum comes to mind. erhaps we can discuss rational salvation later this year.)

Second, the charge of "dire need of rational salvation" makes clear that the thought experiment has nothing to do with atheism (the existence or nonexistence of God), but is an attempt at applying psychology to discredit either the Christian religion, Christians, or both. So, the title of Atheist Thought Experiment is less than truthful.

This final difference is important for Christian apologists to remember. Due to their inability to disprove the existance of God, many atheists attempt to disprove religion. One may disprove every religion in existence and still not disprove the existence of God. That's the dilemma of atheism. As rational science is inadequate to disprove God, psychology is employed to discredit religion and/or adherents.

Related Posts:
Atheist Believes Africa Needs God
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible

Source: The Atheist Missionary: A thought experiment for fundamentalist Christians

Atheist Believes Africa Needs God

Kendall Harmon of Anglican blog TitusOneNine found an interesting article in the UK's Times Online about an atheist who believes that Africa needs missionaries and not money. In the article, Matthew Parris, the atheist, describes a trans-Africa road trip where he and his friends sought shelter at night near missionary areas for safety reasons. Matthew and his friends noted that people in mission areas were different. The attitudes of the missionaries transfers to the local people and changes them for the better.

During a recent visit to Malawi, Matthew notes that Christians do heal the sick and do teach people to read and write. The work of Christians in Africa is so profound that Matthew writes;

"It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God. ... In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."

We have long noted that atheists seem only to exist in stable theistic societies. Atheists tend to assume social stability developed naturally versus as the result of theistic influence. The problem with the atheist model of society is that it is only sustainable in theistic societies. The atheist model is not true across all socieites. A universal truth applies worldwide and not just locally.

Take another African society as an example. Somalia is ruled by a-religious war lords who follow neither Islam nor Christianity. Might makes right. The ethics of the war lords conflicts with the ethics of the theistic society atheists. Are both sets of ethics equally moral? If not, why is one group's ethics correct and the other in error? By what authority?

Matthew has learned a valuable lesson. Its one thing to declare oneself an atheist in the relative safety of a theistic society. Its another to live that belief outside of theistic society.

Related Posts:
Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible
Non-Christians Celebrate Christmas Too!>


Source: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

Atheist Penn Jillette Receives Bible

The Anchoress brought to her readers attention a YouTube clip by avowed atheist Penn Jillette. Its seems that after one of his shows someone handed him a Gideon Bible or New Testament. In the video, Penn is clearly emotional as he describes the event. Penn, the brilliant man that he is, says something extremely succint and profound, that one expects only from the likes of a G.K. Chesterton:

"How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible, and not tell them that?"

Let that sink in for a moment. An atheist is asking how much Christians have to hate non-Christians to deliberately not tell them the gospel. Penn's reaction is similar to one that a gay Jewish friend once had. My friend was so touched that I loved him enough to be concerned about his salvation. I provided books and patiently answered his many questions over a period of years. He now considers himself to be a Hebrew Christian, much like the early Jewish converts.

Its a short video. Penn remains an atheist, but you can see that the seed has been firmly planted and awaits the nurturing of the Holy Spirit.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM

Knowing the power of God, I wouldn't be surprised to one day read that Penn is not only Christian, but Catholic or Orthodox. Similar fates have occured to other atheists.

Please pray for Penn and all atheists.

"Always be prepared to make a defense of anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence."
1Peter 3:15

UPDATE

My critique of the video doesn't seem to be too far off-base. Baptist Ed Stetzer of Lifeway Research posted the video. Among the 35 comments was one about the "seed being planted".

Related Posts:
Evangelism Explosion Among Catholics
The Church in China today
Why People Leave Church

Source: Penn Jillette; slouching toward Bethlehem