Tag Archives: God

A Brief Review of Hawking and Mlodinow’s *The Grand Design*

Posted on May 1, 2011 | 10 Comments

Recently, after I heard a non-Christian colleague or two express interest in reading Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, I proposed a book discussion after work one day.  A few Christian colleagues liked the idea, and we were off.

For those who don’t know, in this book, Hawking and his co-author Mlodinow attempt to explain the origin of the universe in a completely naturalistic way, in other words, without reference to God or any other supernatural explanation.  The non-Christian colleagues who were interested in reading the book noted that very project as the reason why they wanted to read it.

What was curious to me was that once I invited (in a very non-chalant way, I add, so you can’t say my manner or tone put them off) these colleagues to the book discussion, they suddenly became very uninterested.  One of them completely blew me off.  Hmmm…odd.

At any rate, I recently finished reading the book in preparation for the book discussion.  Science really isn’t my forte’, and Hawking is a giant in the field.  I therefore know my limits and can’t really comment on the viability of the science content in the book.   I know very little of Quantum Mechanics, so when Hawking and Mlodinow are speaking about things such as the structure of an atom or the results of experiments with electrons, I’ll obviously defer to him.

Given my inexperience with the subject matter and their expertise, it would be a great act of hubris for me to debate H&M on those matters.

However, there’s a good bit of philosophy in the book.  In fact, the book turns out to be mostly philosophy, not science, which is weird, given the fact that the authors pronounce philosophy “dead” in the second paragraph.  Philosophy is my field, and there are plenty of philosophical mistakes and shoddy justifications to go around in the pages, so I can venture a few comments about that.

To put it most simply, H&M get themselves into very deep philosophical waters several times in the book, and they seem either totally unaware or totally apathetic toward that.  The reason why I say that is that time and time again, they make very controversial assertions on HUGE philosophical questions and topics, and almost every time, they venture very little if any justification for their views, and sometimes they totally miss the point.  These are questions on which very accomplished scholars have written volumes back and forth, and each time, H&M give only a slight attempt at backing up their assertions, and sometimes, there’s no attempt at all.  A few times, the justification that is offered is more strange than the assertion itself.

William Lane Craig has written in depth (again here) about most of these spots in the book, so I find no need to rehash them here, but still let me give an example or two.

**NOTE: to access the links above, use “pugnacious” as the ID and “Irishman” as the password.

Soon after they confidently pronounce philosophy dead, they launch into a few chapters about the realism vs. anti-realism controversy in the philosophy of science.  This is a second-order debate–in other words, a philosophical query about the nature of science, not a scientific question proper–about the status and reality of unobservable entities in scientific theories.  Realists think that, if a scientific theory employing use of unobservable terms (like “electron,” “quark,” and such) is predictively successful, that gives reason for thinking the terms actually refer to something real.  In other words realists believe those unobservables are real in those cases.  Anti-realists tend to stick with just observables when it comes to belief.  If a theory referring to unobservables in explanation is predictively successful, A.R’s do not think that is reason to actually believe in those things.

Since anti-realism goes against the common-sense grain, the temptation might be to write it off, but though I am not an anti-realist for the most part, I admit that there are many scholars–such as Harvard’s  Bas Van Fraasen (formerly at Princeton and Yale, now at San. Fran. St. U)–that employ sophisticated arguments on it’s behalf, and it’s highly unwise to dismiss them or act like they don’t exist.

H&M step into this debate and attempt to sidestep it with what they call “model-dependent realism.”  They say it differs from anti-realism, but it turns out that it is an extreme form of it.  They attempt no justification of it except to say that it “helps solve” a few “problems.”  They describe the view, but this is not the same as justification.

Their comments surrounding one of these problems are some of the most strange in the book.  While pondering what it means for a table in a room to “exist,” they ask how one can be sure the table continues to exist when no one is in the room observing it.  How do we know that it doesn’t disappear when no one is watching, only to reappear when someone re-enters the room?  According to H&M, the model that declares that the table continues to exist is “simpler” and it comports with observing the table upon entering and re-entering the room (a model in which the table disappears when no one is watching agrees with observation too, by the way)…and this is about as much as we can say.  We cannot say, though, that such a model accurately describes reality.

This realism vs. anti-realism is a topic on which volumes have been written, and this is all they can offer?

I am not saying they should interact in depth with every scholarly voice out there on these questions…but is it not too much to ask that they at least interact with some, and that, where they do not, they temper their confident assertions by simply noting that there are legitimate counter arguments out there?

An instance of this is their defense of the “multiverse” explanation of the anthropic principle.  Roger Penrose, a former collaborator with Hawking, has written a critique of the multiverse hypothesis.  Even if responding to the critique in depth is outside the purposes of the book, why didn’t H&M even give a mere mention of the critique? 

Another philosophical sticky spot is their declaration of determinism, another topic on which Craig writes.  They offer a very thin justification of their determinism, but never mind that…more problematic, it gets them into a very gnarly external conceptual problem (a logical problem in other academic disciplines that interact with science): if determinism is true, then what about the words within the pages of the book?  Those must be dertermined too, along with the reader’s assent/dissent of H&M’s arguments.  If determinism is true, H&M were determined by the chemicals to write what they wrote, and the readers are determined by the chemicals to agree or disagree.  Truth and rationality have nothing to do with it.  How can we be confident that their views are true?  They weren’t arrived at via rational thought. 

Craig puts it much better than I can when he says,

I wonder, for example, why they think that anything they’ve said in their book is true, since, on their view, they were determined to write it. Everything they say is the product of blind physical causes, like water’s gushing from a pipe or a tree’s growing a branch. What confidence can they have that anything they have said is true—including their assertion that determinism is true?

Determinism erodes any sort of rationality or justified true belief, yet H&M must write as if rationality is possible, as if it is possible to rationally persuade someone to choose to agree with a view of reality that is true.  Thus their whole project is at odds with their determinism. 

Read the links by Craig to get a sense of the other issues with the book.

There were two main reasons why I ventured into this unfamiliar territory.  First, there’s the element of engagement.  This book has been widely discussed and touted in the media and popular culture.  Hawking is one of the most influential scholars of our time.  Having read this book will hopefully open up many opportunities to engage with non-believing folks on the questions that matter, such as questions of origins and life’s meaning.  Bible friends, when you get a chance to engage with the world about spiritual things on it’s own terms, jump at the opportunity.

Secondly, when you interact with smart people that disagree with you (in this case, none other than Stephen Hawking), if they make good points and employ solid reasoning, that can lead you to question your own views.  On the flip side, if your views and beliefs have the advantage of being backed by logic, reason, and truth, putting them up against the best of the other side will reveal that, and thus confidence in your beliefs will be strengthened.  Either way, you come out ahead.  Since ideas have consequences and the truth matters immensely, whether your philosophical “opponents” are right or you are right, it sure does help to know that.  Pitting your worldview up against the viable alternatives can be a good way of coming to the truth.  It’s a win-win either way, because I want to know the truth no matter who possesses it.

→ 10 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part III

Posted on February 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

See part I here and II here.

Sorry for not posting for so long.  The wrestling season tends to get crazy.  Anyway (where she says “QUOTE,” she is quoting me in order to give context to her words):

Margaret: QUOTE“…yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.”

I don’t think that is the intention. As you mentioned, an ad has the problem of limited space. Knowing the people who put the ads up, I think the primary goal is to get people to think about what is really in the Bible. Most self-professed Christians haven’t read the Bible, and so seeing those single lines out of it are likely to be surprised. I would hope that it would spark enough curiosity that they’d crack the book open and find out what it really says.

RB: Perhaps…but to that extent, the ads are misleading. Besides, I’ve seen the same kind of treatment several times in humanist/atheist polemics against the Bible.

Margaret: QUOTE “The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else.”

I am fully aware that different parts of the Bible should be read different ways. I consider the Bible to be a valuable book in-of-itself for several different reasons (some literary, some historical), with some parts much better than others. The problem is with people who claim that the Bible the infallible word of God that they supposedly base their ethics and whole worldview on.

QUOTE “No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians.”

Funny you mention that letter. The majority of Biblical scholars believe the letter to the Ephesians to be written by someone other than Paul. Regardless, Ephesians does not speak of “mutual submission.” It says that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives, and the metaphor used for both is that the husband is like Christ and the wife is like the church. How the heck do you get mutual submission from that? Also, you haven’t explained the the correct interpretation of that passage is. Part of my argument is that the Bible is inconsistent and often contradicts itself. So you pointing out that some passages sound mysoginist while others contradict that doesn’t necessarily prove that the mysoginist-sounding passages are in fact pro-woman. You have to explain how and why they are pro-women in their supposed proper context.

RB: What are their reasons for thinking that it wasn’t written by Paul? By no means do I disregard the voice of scholars…its just that the most important thing isn’t the claim “scholars say,” it’s their argument, the “why” behind their claims.

I got mutual submission from the previous verse: Ephesians 5:21—“submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Your question perfectly demonstrates what I’m talking about: taking the larger context of the passage you had in mind helps hone in on what Paul meant. Submit to one another, then he explains what that means according to gender roles in the home. Wives, respect the husband’s leadership. Husbands, love, protect, and nurture wives like the gems they are. I don’t know why that is so horrible. There are certain things that husbands are suited well for and vice versa. Each is made in the image of God and is therefore equally valuable, and each contributes something to the relationship that the other lacks. By no means are the parts interchangeable. For example, my wife has an 18 inch waist…me, an 18 inch neck (ok, little exaggeration, but you get the point..:) ). If an intruder attacks our home at night, I’m not gonna say, “hey honey, I think it’s your turn to go check out that noise.” Paul isn’t saying that the husband is more valuable than the wife and can do whatever he wants, and he’s not giving the husband carte blanche to order the wife around.

Though some might thrust that meaning upon the text, its just not there…in fact, if you look at it, Paul gives the husbands much more instruction as to what he’s supposed to do than he gives the wife.

as far as the 1 Tim passage goes, let me quote another author’s argument, one that is possible (not a scholar, admittedly, but he makes sense. There are other arguments out there that might suit the passage better. This is just one possible):

“…the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated “husband.” In other words, “husband” is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn’t absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated “husband” and “wife.” So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.

So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that’s why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: “Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don’t allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet.”

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The “quiet” there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word “teach” here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn’t saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it’s that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That’s really what it amounts to.

Verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.

Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission. However, the New Testament consistently teaches that a wife should be under the authority of her husband. That fits the larger context of the New Testament much better.”

Margaret: QUOTE “If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.”

Again, I invite you to do the same to us as an example. Take a passage from, say, the Humanist Manifesto (or some other Humanist declaration), put it alongside a passage from the Bible, in a manner that makes Humanism look as bad as the Bible is made to look in those ads.

RB: Well, meeting that challenge wasn’t my main point, and I think I’ve given examples enough (Darwin, Einstein) to substantiate my point…but, here you go:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

And

“The life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

And

“If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.”

And

“If the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him.”

–all by Peter Singer, 2004 Australian Humanist of the Year

Now for the Bible quotes:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”—Psalm 127: 3

Here’s another one:

‘The universe we observe has … no evil and no good….DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Richard Dawkins

“Do not fret because of the wicked; do not be envious of evildoers, for they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in the Lord, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security.” Psalm 37: 1-3.

Margaret: QUOTE “Same for the one about trusting in the Lord…the suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.”

Again, I argue that the Bible, being written by many different humans (not God-inspired) over a long period of time, it contradicts itself. Can you explain how and why the passage quoted in the ad isn’t actually discouraging rational/logical thinking?

RB: The proverb recommends humility about one’s finitude. Being human, we oftentimes get out of our ken. I find that principle at work frequently in my job. I am a young, inexperienced coach. Oftentimes I get angry at my wrestlers/parents/referees, etc for not responding as I’d like. In times like that, if I operate according to my feelings and what I think is good to do in the moment (aka, “my own understanding”), I often rush into things and make mistakes.

So I’ve gotten in the habit of conferring with one of my assistants, who is much older, wiser, and has “seen it all,” or I confer with other older coaches I know who have a much more circumspect perspective. They often calm me down and give me stuff to think about that I miss. The same is true on a cosmic plane. We are pretty finite, but God has “seen it all” so to speak. Consulting His wisdom through prayer, Scriptures, and the body of believers often yields understanding that is much more solid than our own feelings.

This is pretty far away from eschewing logic, reason, and evidence. In fact, if you were to keep in mind what I’ve been saying about context, you’ll see that there are a great many proverbs Solomon wrote that deal with the value of wisdom and knowledge.

You don’t have to believe that the Bible is the word of God to attribute minimal intelligence to Solomon, and that he probably wouldn’t contradict himself so many times in one book.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part II

Posted on January 16, 2011 | 2 Comments

Read part one here.

After a humanist friend of mine posted a comment on the ads, I responded:

“I found the ads ironic.”

To which she replied:

“You gotta explain the irony, Rich. You want to quote something from a philosophically Humanist publication that is as bad as any of those Biblical quotes? Notice I said “Humanist”, not just “atheist”.”

And we were off.  I’m going to call her “Margaret.”

RB:

A few things…first, humanists I’ve known are often pretty quick to cry foul when Christians engage in black and white thinking. Secondly, they also typically cry foul, often for good reason, when Christians handle opposing beliefs without academic responsibility…anyone can take something out of its context, without regard to the whole system, and make that worldview sound pretty silly.

I could do that to lots of things you say, most likely, and you’d consider yourself ill abused…in fact, I could probably take the very techniques inherent in the ads and make you sound like a crazed fundamentalist Christian.

Bottom line: it is very easy to take some quote, assert its stupid, and therefore assert the whole worldview is stupid.  That kind of treatment of opposing beliefs often gets Christians accused of irrationality (most of the time secular humanists are doing the accusing), and rightly so. But that is what is going on here. 

It is far more difficult to level a critique after taking pains to show what the passage (as opposed to just quoting a one liner and asserting what you think it means as self evident) actually means, understanding historical background, etc.

This is the very thing I try so hard to teach my seniors in the research methods class I have. Some of those ads on the website are laughable in the way they treat the verses.

To be fair, they are ads, not graduate research papers, so perhaps I’m expecting too much. A certain amount of leeway comes w/ the territory I guess. They won’t persuade many who are in the know, however.

Margaret:

Given the details, I disagree. You say “in fact, I could probably take the very techniques inherent in the ads and make you sound like a crazed fundamentalist Christian.” Please do so. And when I say do so, I mean take quotes from Humanist declarations, resolutions, and manifestos (such as the ones quoted in the ads) and put them alongside Biblical quotes in a manner that makes Humanism ethics sound monterous and Biblical ethics sound much more in line with today’s ethical standards. I do not think this can be achieved.

Also, Rich, born again Christians typically claim to follow the Bible to the letter. Having read the Bible and read about the Bible by Biblical scholars, I find such a thing to be impossible because the Bible isn’t internally consistent. However, my point is this: there is not a wide range of interpretation that can be made of Humanist declarations and manifestos. Their meanings are intended to be as clear as possible and they are written in modern language because they are in fact modern.

The Bible is an ancient and highly confusing book. It requires all sorts of apologetics and interpretations by clergy from various sects, theologians, and Biblical scholars often disagree widely about the meaning and context of many passages. This is what has allowed the Bible to be used to both advocate for both the abolition of and defense of slavery in the United States. While Humanist manifestos and declarations specifically apply to modern day issues and say what they mean clearly, the Bible is useless as a foundation for morality.

It’s greatest use in history seems to be by power-hungry charismatic individuals who use its supposed divine authority to push their own agendas.

RB:

People do it with Einstein and Darwin all the time. They take quotes from Einstein out of context (“God doesn’t play dice with the universe” and other quotes) to make him seem like a devoted theist, when most likely he wasn’t expressing devotion to a personal God at all, and given everything else he said/believed, probably wasn’t even a theist.  Dawkins might be right on that one.

 Likewise with Darwin: people isolate things he said to make it seem like he had these grand doubts about his theories.  I doubt it, though.

Martha, what I was talking about is a commonsense approach to understanding anything, written or spoken: communication happens from the whole to the part, yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.

That, actually, is the locus of much of the confusion you mentioned. The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else. Don’t read poetry like historical narrative. Don’t read historical narrative like doctrinal instruction. Take each type of genre as it was meant to be taken–this is what is meant by “literal,” not “interpret everything the exact same way.” Don’t isolate sentences out of their context, and so forth–if you do any of that, you’ll most likely miss the boat.

Here’s an example: the ad that uses the 1 Tim passage to suggest Paul was an obvious mysogynist and that he oppressed women. If Paul was really arguing what the ad suggests, do you think he would have had women as ministry partners (as is evident in his other letters and from the book of Acts)?

There is no attempt to understand the intent of the passage as a whole and nor is there any attempt to take into account all Paul’s other statements regarding husbands loving, protecting, and providing for their wives. No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians. It’s all as if he never said any of that. If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.

Same for the one about trusting in the Lord.  The suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.

And on scholars, theologians etc “disagreeing widely:” you and I both know that there are many reasons people have for holding the beliefs they do, and many times those reasons don’t have much to do with the text itself. Some defend the turf they do because they want to impress a peer group. Others because it allows them to live a certain way they want to live. Still others because they’d give up lots of grant money if they gave up the game, etc etc. The point here is that pointing to the mere fact of disagreement among theologians and others doesn’t get you far. Best just to focus on the text itself, and your case for what you think it means. A solid, well-thought out and rational argument and interpretation will hold water, regardless of others (including “scholars”) that disagree. The mere fact of disagreeing voices does not mean there is no truth of the matter to be found.

By the way, what biblical scholars have you read? Sounds like you have read and consulted quite a few. Can you remember any names? Just curious.

Anything can be abused by power hungry charismatic individuals.  This is not a mark against whatever is being abused. Again, just because I might be able to take take some stuff you say out of context and abuse your words doesn’t mean you yourself are at fault. It’s all about whether the connection is actually there.

Lastly, yes, the Bible is ancient, and yes it is from a different culture, but why is that a bad thing? Are you suggesting we have no wisdom to gain from something ancient and outside of our own modern culture?

Part III coming up!

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part 1

Posted on January 16, 2011 | 3 Comments

Humanists have recently begun a number of ad campaigns.  They are silly.

Note I didn’t say “intolerant” or “in bad taste.”  My concern is not that they “hurt people’s feelings,” as if the skeptics and humanists need to step on eggshells when it comes to religious folk.  No, my claim is that the ads demonstrate the very signs of irrationality that humanists and such claim to eschew.

Some of the ads are patently absurd.   Take, for instance, the ad above.  Any thinking person who doesn’t have an axe to grind and isn’t already blinded by an agenda will recognize that Jesus is using hyperbole.  He was a Jew, afterall, who affirmed the Jewish Law, which includes the Ten Commandments, which includes the commandment “honor your father and mother.”   He is making a comment about the superiority of one’s love to God in comparison with one’s love towards everything else.  The ad obviously lacks charity, which is a pre-requisite of rationality when dealing with one’s ideological opponents.

Also look at this second ad.  It commits the fallacy of equivocation; it subtly uses another meaning of the word “fear” than what the passage intends.  Plus, it’s not as if fear is never a legitimate response to something.

And a third…how in the world does the group making the ads think that the proverb is actually saying that evidence and logic are bad things? (more on this later)  There are several perfectly good explanations of the meaning of that proverb, they make good sense, and for the ad makers to ignore them is the height of willful ignorance.

You might respond by saying that I’m setting too high of a standard for the ads.  They are advertisements, afterall, not graduate philosophy papers.  Yes, they are ads, and ad makers are usually given a pass to play more fast and loose with words and persuasive tactics than other genres of communication, but I still maintain that a little more charity and rationality and a little less caricature isn’t too much to ask.

I had a discussion with a friend on Facebook about this recently.  In the several posts that follow, I’m going to catalogue the conversation to unpack what I’ve started to say here in this post.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

On Intolerance and Proof

Posted on January 2, 2011 | Leave a comment

Ahhh…Facebook.

The conversations on there provide good blog fodder.

I was Roaming around on Facebook the other day, when I came across a conversation one of my former students was having with another person.  I don’t know how it ended up on my home page, being that I was a third party onlooker not directly involved in the conversation, but there it was.

Supposedly this third person had tried to show Mormons how Mormonism is false, and my former student was taking exception with this.  Being that the conversation took place on a wall I did not have access to, I could not comment on the conversation myself, but that doesn’t stop me from making a blog post out of it….:)

Here are some of the things my former student said, and my responses: 

“Intolerable Christians.” (this was his first comment)

What do you mean by “intolerant”? 

Judging by the other things he was saying, he was attempting to correct the other person (I’m going to call him “Steve” from here on out for matters of convenience) for saying another religion is wrong.  In other words, he was saying that claiming another’s religious beliefs are false is out of line, ie, intolerant.  Which, ironically, was the very thing he was doing to Steve.

Steve had a religious belief that it is ok to correct/critique false beliefs.  This, in fact, is a main part of the Christian religion.  Christianity has always been an evangelizing religion.  Part of the Great Commission itself is persuading people to drop their false beliefs and idols and pick up belief in and worship of Jesus Christ.  Christians could be mistaken about Jesus, for sure, but those who claim the persuasion efforts of Christians are intolerant are, in fact, trying to do the very same thing: persuade the evangelizing Christians that their missionary beliefs, values, and actions, are false.  Which means my former student was, by his own definition, being intolerant.

Now, I don’t think he was actually intolerant.  It’s ok to try to persuade others that what you believe is true.  The culprit was not his persuasive impulse, but his faulty definition of intolerance.

“I don’t support shoving my religion onto other people”

Again, what do you mean by “shoving religion down other people’s throats?”  If, by that, you mean trying to persuade others that your beliefs are true and theirs false, I guess Steve was guilty as charged, but also again, that would mean that my former student was likewise doing the same thing.  The minute he interjected and started calling Steve “intolerant” and implying that he was “shoving religion down another’s throat,” he was seeking to persuade Steve to stop that.  That is, he was trying to correct Steve.  “Intolerant” and “you are shoving religion…” are not compliments, so how else can I understand that?

If, on the other hand, my former student was accusing Steve of calling Mormons names, shouting, mocking, or getting angry at Mormons, then Steve was not guilty.  Steve’s only remarks on Facebook was how he thought Mormon belief was illogical, unscientific, and factually false.  Not once did he call names or anything like that.  He focused on the beliefs, not trashing the person.

I guess someone could reply that I wasn’t there, and maybe Steve did call names and such.  However, the same could be said about my former student: he wasn’t there either.  The only information I have to go on is the very same information he had to go on, and given what we were both privy to, there’s no reason to charge anyone with “shoving” anything down anyone’s throat.

“It seems to me that he was not being very accepting of the differences of the Mormon religion. Instead he attempted to show them his religion (Christianity) was true when he has no definite proof that either religions are right/wrong.”

Ahhh, there it is.  The ‘ol “no proof” charge.  A few things:

First, having no proof of your own beliefs doesn’t make your persuasive enterprise intolerant or bigoted.  It might make you irrational and foolhardy, but not judgmental.

Second, what does he mean by “proof”?  If by that he means indubitably certain, unassailable, uh, proof that can’t be doubted, then not only does the Christian religion not have proof behind it, but virtually no belief whatsoever, save, perhaps, belief in one’s own existence, has proof behind it.  Even obvious things like belief in the external world or belief that murder is wrong or belief that I had chicken for dinner tonight are subject to doubt and are not indubitable.  But those beliefs are incredibly solid.  This just means that certainty is not a requirement of proof.

But if he means evidence, reasons, and arguments that makes a belief more sound than its opposite, then of course Christianity has proof to it!  There’ s lots of stuff out there on this question.  For starters, I recommend this website.   Or this book.

And while we’re at it, how does my former student know there’s no proof?  Has he read deeply of the history of philosophy and science?  Has he read the copious literature on the formation of the Bible?  What scholars has he read?  William Alston, or Alvin Plantinga, perhaps?  Has he attended any debates, such as this one?  Has he done any deep research on big bang cosmology or the anthropic principle? 

If not, how can he claim with any sort of confidence that there is “no proof”?  Perhaps he can say that he, himself, hasn’t encountered any proof, but that wouldn’t be saying much.

“Not the belief itself is intolerant. The fact that people don’t listen to others and try to force their religion upon others is intolerant.”

Ok, but how is merely seeking to persuade, or thinking Mormonism hopefully false, mean Steve wasn’t listening?

“Because there is no definite proof. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that is part of the definition of belief. Accepting something is true even though there is no solid proof.”

He is wrong.  The definition of belief is a statement or proposition that one holds to be true.  Proof/evidence/reason may or may not be along for the ride, but merely believing something doesn’t mean proof is nowhere to be found.  Otherwise, my former student would be just as guilty of having no proof.  My former student has beliefs, yes? In particular, that  “part of the definition of belief is accepting something without proof,” and “it is wrong to shove your religion down someone’s throat,” right?  I guess, by his own definition, those two things are without “proof,” and his efforts at persuading Steve that those beliefs are worthy of accepting is intolerant.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in philosophy

Tagged , , , ,

Atheist Ad Campains

Posted on January 2, 2011 | Leave a comment

One of my buddies, a fellow Christian, emailed that picture to me the other day.  Some of his family members were floating it back and forth, commenting on how clever it was.

I had to chuckle, but not because I thought it clever.  IMO, it leaves atheists open to several responses.  One could just as easily retort back something to the tune of “Religion inspired Martin Luther King.  Science inspired Hiroshima.”

Someone could respond to that by pointing out that I shouldn’t be blaming a whole methodology for a particular thing that someone abused said methodology to invent…which is my point precisely in the retort in the first place. 

You see, the ad commits the fallacy of hasty generalization.  It lumps all religious ideologies into one amorphous whole, and it uses the evil caused by some specific religious ideologies to paint all religions.  Not a very rational or honest thing to do, yet I find some atheist types doing it all the time.  They completely ignore all the huge differences between religions and treat them all the same.  As one author quipped, saying all religions are ultimately the same is like insisting that aspirin and arsenic are ultimately the same because they come in tablet form.

I don’t know how folks can logically put the worldview of Jesus and the worldview of Mohammed in the same boat, but that doesn’t stop people from foolishly trying.

Talk to these folks, and you get the impression that belief in and devotion to any and all higher powers is dangerous.

I guess that depends on what the character of that higher power is.

I have reason to hold that when I pass away, I will be held accountable for my actions in this life by a powerful, just, loving Creator God who insists that I treat my fellow man with compassion…BOO!  Fear me.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Kinda Convicting

Posted on December 12, 2010 | 2 Comments

This week my pastor told a really poignant story in his sermon, and the point he drove home with the story was powerful and right on:

He told of something he saw on the news a while back, where a woman had an asthma attack, but she had no inhaler with her.  Her husband thought fast and quickly brought her to a nearby CVS pharmacy.  They rushed to the pharmacy window and, presenting their urgent need at the desk, asked the clerk for an inhaler.

The clerk brought one to the counter, and gave the price: $21.50.

The husband produced a $20, and frantically searched for the other $1.50, but couldn’t find enough.  He told the clerk and asked if he could just have it; after all, his wife was in a serious condition, it would take too long for the paramedics to arrive, and time was of the essence–she could die.

The clerk, unfortunately, was obstinate: “I’m sorry, but it costs $21.50.  I can’t just give you something you haven’t paid for.”

The husband, surprised, attempted to plead, but to no avail: “you mean you’re gonna let my wife die for a buck fifty?  Come on!”

“Sorry, can’t do that.”

The paramedics arrived eventually and the woman was helped, but wasn’t the clerk a jerk? 

The point the pastor made with the story was that he was like that with the gospel.  People all around are dying and perishing without Christ, and he simply goes around with the inhaler in his pocket, cowing to silly cultural rules:

“Oh, I don’t want to be a holy roller.”
“Oh, I don’t want to shove the Bible down their throat.”
“Oh, I don’t want to be rejected.”
“Oh, I just want to love them in action rather than tell them.:

Oh…? and on and on and on.

That point stuck with me.  I’m familiar with the mindset because I’m like that too.  I’d rather withold life-giving spiritual medicine from people for a buck fifty of being well thought of.

Kinda convicting…

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,