. . . of the “most logical fallacies in one post” award. I kid you not. I’ve read lots of blog rants but this one is the tops.
Edgar pointed me to a guy who tries to refute Christianity full-time but who mainly traffics in straw men arguments (”refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody’s argument, rather than the actual argument they’ve made”) and in finding a Christian who said something stupid and pretending that it represents orthodox Christianity (as if every time an atheist said something stupid it proved that there was a God). This guy is the poster boy for poor arguments to make with theists. It is as if he read all of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al and is repeating their worst arguments.
He claims to be an “evangelical atheist,” which reminds me of the raiding parties by my buddies from Dawkins’ blog. I wonder when his next mission trip to a Muslim country is? After all, if he is so afraid of Christians he must really fear Muslims. Or maybe he funds atheist missionaries out of his own pocket because of his deep love for people around the world and the need to liberate the world from religion.
I’ll fisk one post just for grins. I won’t list address all the fallacies or this post will be 20 pages long. I just want to highlight a sample of the New Atheist arguments.
Fundie claim #10 – No God, no moral codes
Fundie: The Bible [or insert other so-called holy books here] is the basis for morality!
Always good to start with name calling (”fundie” – eek!). I mean, he doesn’t even have to prove his point after that, does he? Cause you have to know anything said by someone who focuses on the fundamenals of their faith is horribly wrong.
Then he starts with a straw man argument, so his post self destructs in the first sentence. The Bible lists moral commands, but it isn’t the basis of the commands. The basis is the God who created the universe and everything in it. Yeah, I know this guy doesn’t believe that, but remember that he is trying to critique our claims. He starts by misrepresenting orthodox Christian beliefs about morality and then proceeds to attack them. I should stop here but I’ll go on.
Without it, there would be no moral codes and everything would be permissible.
But that isn’t what the Bible says. It teaches that moral codes existed before the Bible was written. God wrote the law on our hearts. He gave countless commands before the Bible was even written. So there’s another piece of straw.
Without god, people would have no reason to be moral,
Now that is a true statement with respect to universal morality. Without God people might still create and enforce their man-made laws. Laws require lawgivers. Otherwise, why follow them? You can pretend that all sorts of laws exist, but no one will follow them and there will be no consequences if they break them. Try it.
and Christians are more moral than atheists because we believe in a god.
Some misguided Christians might have said that, but that isn’t Biblical Christianity. If you read the Bible the message is quite clear: We are all sinners in need of a Savior. Authentic Christianity is the opposite of self-righteousness, because by definition to be a Christian you must know you can’t be good enough on your own and that you need a Savior.
God exists, and the Bible is the true source of morality and we need it as a moral guide.
Yes, He exists and yes, what the Bible says about morality is true. But he also wrote the moral laws on our hearts so that men are without excuse. It does make a terrific moral guide, though people can come up with other lists of morals as well.
Side note: have you noticed that those lists look a lot like those in the Bible? Love your neighbor, don’t kill, don’t steal, etc. I imagine Mr. Atheist disagrees with all those, and could care less if you steal his stereo or sleep with his wife.
Fundie theistards
More name calling. Man, this guy must be right if he can call us clever names like that.
who believe that there is no reason to be moral unless god exists have weaker morals than atheists who act morally without the fear of hellfire and damnation.
Interesting assertion, but no proof. And oddly enough, he seems to be like Christopher Hitchens, who doesn’t just not believe in God, he hates God. I mean, he’s really, really angry at this being that doesn’t exist. And, like Hitchens, he seems to think their is a universal morality. After all, he keeps referring to morals and even “weaker morals,” as if there is some real standard we need to meet. But where did that standard come from, and why should I care what he thinks it is? As he’ll demonstrate below, he thinks that disagreement about something must mean the truth isn’t discernable.
Another mistake: The Bible doesn’t teach us to act morally to avoid Hell. It teaches that we are doomed to Hell because we have already sinned and will sin again. Being good on our own is hopeless, so we need a Savior. Mr. Atheist might not believe that himself, but that is what the Bible teaches.
And while it is irrelevant, he never attempts to prove that atheists are truly more “moral.” And even if they were, is it out of the goodness of their hearts? How do we know their “better morality” isn’t for their self-interest, training from parents and other authority figures, the blind workings of evolution, or fear of punishment?
Again, I’m on record for saying that one of the poor arguments to make with atheists is that they have no morals. I agree that they have morals. I just don’t think their philosophy can adequately explain them.
The truly scary thing is that theistards who use this claim are actually admitting that without their faith in a sky-daddy,
Ooh, the sky-daddy claim, as if we just made this all up.
they would be running around the streets killing people, committing crimes and going (even more) batshit crazy.
Again, what’s with the universal morality? And even before we had faith in God we didn’t run around killing people. God’s law was on our hearts whether we liked it or not, and the fear of punishment from parents and other authority figures impacted our habits and behaviors.
Considering the fact that most people are theistards, doesn’t thinking about this send chills up your spine?
More name calling. Very intimidating. Must mean he is very confident about his views.
Yeah, it sends chills up my spine when I hear about Christians building houses for the the poor, feeding orphans, doing prison ministry, building hospitals, liberating women, freeing slaves, helping people in crisis pregnancies, doing disaster relief, etc.
Theistards, if you need to delude yourselves about an imaginary sky-daddy and an imaginary hell to behave morally and to prevent yourself from killing others or raping children, I suggest that you check yourself into a mental institution at once.
Got that? He said God and Hell are imaginery, so they must be. He still hasn’t explained the source of his morality. And he repeats his straw man about us going on killing sprees if we didn’t have faith.
*shiver*
Religion appeals to cowards and the intellectually lazy
More name calling. I’m chastened, really. And I wish I could match his intellectual prowess. Yeah, there have been no brave Christians over the last two millenia.
because it frees them from the burden of actually thinking for themselves.
A little pride perhaps? Yeah, there haven’t been any great thinkers in the Christian realm, either.
They choose to remain in a state of moral retardation, and are more than willing to hand over their depraved minds to pulpit-pounders.
Hmmm . . . more name calling, and then there’s that universal morality again. He needs to get with the program. How can he say we’re depraved? What is his standard?
I’m sure it won’t sneak morality in the back door like all the other atheists do. (”It helps perpetuate the species.” Who said that was a moral good? “It maximizes everyone’s happiness.” Who proved that someone else’s happiness was as important as mine? It sure isn’t in the Darwinian worldview. Oh yeah, it was those Christians whose worldview has everyone being considered of equal value. We’re just running off the fumes of Christianity and didn’t realize it. Dang.)
Bible-thumping Christians might object to this description by wailing “The Bible!! Bibleeeee!! The Bible is the source for my morality, and the Bible is the word of the LORD GOD because it says so!! Praise Jesus!!”
More straw. We have ample evidence for the Bible being the word of God. We don’t say it is the word of God just because it claims that 3,000 times.
Idiot fundies, please take some time to consider what I’ve been saying time and time again:
Well gee, since you asked so nicely.
Christians have no confidence in mapping the course of their lives, choosing instead to take their imaginary sky-god’s orders, whose so-called Word is interpreted by – guess who – mortal men!
So interpretations of mortal men can’t be trusted. Uh, then why should we read what you have to say?
And who says we have no confidence in mapping the course of our lives? We have tremendous freedom in Christ! You have no idea what you are missing. Stop living in stereotype land for a minute and hang with some Christians living out their faith. There is lots of joy, even amidst life’s challenges. I used to be an atheist / agnostic. I’ve seen the truth, and I believe, and I am not going back.
In the end, Christians who so hate worldly opinions on how to live their lives, come back to square one by relying on humans to interpret the screamingly inconsistent scripture.
Just because humans can make mistakes don’t mean they always make mistakes. If your claim is that we always make mistakes, then why listen to you? And as to the claim that the Bible is inconsistent, my experience with atheists like this is that they never took it seriously. There are plenty of resources that address the alleged inconsistencies if people are truly interested. If.
This is why Christians cannot even agree among themselves what’s moral in the cases of, for example, homosexuality, divorce, abortion, birth control and euthanasia.
So if we can’t agree then there is no real truth? I’ve noticed that atheists don’t always agree, so I guess that proves there is a God.
The Bible clearly describes homosexual behavior as sinful, but some people deny that in unrighteousness (though many libs concede the point but just claim they don’t believe the Bible, but that’s another thread). Same thing for abortion and such. The Bible correctly teaches the nature of mankind and that there will be false teachers in the church.
If god was so clear about morals, why is there such confusion?
The answer will really set this guy off: Satan, false teachers and sin, just as the Bible tells us!
Wouldn’t the solution to these dilemmas be clear-cut and written plainly in the Bible?
Maybe they are, but you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Nah. And it couldn’t be that God gave us principles to live by and expects us to use our minds (by the way, the Bible applauds reasoning, but we’ll never convince this guy).
Why don’t they just ask god what to do, since they claim that god is the basis of morality? The blunt truth is that these Christians are simply back at square one. In the end, they are still relying on fellow men, if not themselves, in making moral judgments. More often then not, their moral judgments will be seriously warped due to the twisting and cherry picking of scripture to support a particular view. The additional fact that the Bible can be used to support nearly every point of view doesn’t make things any easier either.
Just repetition, I’ll ignore that paragraph.
Now, the most important question: Even if there really is no basis for morality if god doesn’t exist, and even if atheism did lead to atheists turning into infant-murderers, how does this have any bearing on the real question of the existence of god?
All these philosophical skirmishes do not bear any weight on the issue of the Christian god’s, or any other god’s existence.
No lawgiver, no laws. You can analyze that argument in depth, but it really is that simple.
Christians, are you really that arrogant, deluded, and stupid to think that before your idiotic cult infected the world, or before the Bible, there was never any moral codes in place?
More name calling. Man, you must be right!
As explained above, there have been morals since creation, just as noted in the Bible. They just weren’t written down right away. We don’t think there was a point where there were no moral codes, and the Bible doesn’t teach that there was a point where there were no moral codes. This is another straw man argument.
Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi which was secular?
So? Unless your claim is that it was written before creation then it fits in a Biblical motif.
Are you theistards going to instead close your eyes and avoid dealing with the facts again, just as you have closed your eyes and shut your brains in the face of anything that could ever make you doubt your moronic beliefs all these years?
Couldn’t end without one last name calling / straw man session, could you? Yeah, we’ve never given any thought to our faith. News flash: Christians ask themselves tough questions all the time. In fact, the Bible asked them long before you did! Sorry to burst your bubble, but you aren’t being very original.
There you have it folks. The best and brightest. And to think, he has a blog full of this! Trust me, it is not going in my Google Reader. I’d spend all day annihilating this stuff.
I’ll end by pointing out that even if Mr. Atheist was right it would mean that everything religious people ever came up with is solely due to . . . [drum roll] . . . Darwinian evolution! These bags of chemicals just “evolved” to invent all this. We couldn’t help it! But then why is he so angry, proud and self-righteous? Oh, right, he couldn’t help it either.
Filed under: Apologetics | Tagged: atheism, atheists, Bible, God, ID, Jesus, religion
Apparently, his morality does not cover calling people names, thus, he doesn’t know that this is a bad thing. Why couldn’t he come up with that on his own? I mean, I know it is wrong to call him “crap-for-brains”, even should I do so, which I do. But in his little world, his morality evidently isn’t so advanced yet. To us, what did he call us? theistards, we know that such behavior is akin to any other form of harming another. There also seems to be a pride issue that eludes him. But I guess that his morality doesn’t cover that either. I wonder if other atheists are so loose with their definititions of morality. Somehow, I think this dude is uniquely unqualified to speak on such issues. Must have something to do with the substance of which his brain is made.
The preceeding was a very unChristian response. Yet, I’m unmoved.
Neil, great post, thanks for the blow-by-blow on this one.
You said ” he also wrote the moral laws on our hearts so that men are without excuse.” Good. I usually don’t think of this, but it’s 100% Thanks for pointing it out to me, it seems important. I’ve known it, I just wouldn’t (previously) have used it in this setting.
The atheist said we “believe that there is no reason to be moral unless god exists” and that “atheists … act morally without the fear of hellfire and damnation.” My point would be that I don’t always act morally, but I try. And I do so out of love for my Father. Becuase of my relationship with Him, I have no fear of hellfire and damnation.
He used the term “”imaginary sky-daddy” and I chuckled. I guess I’ve been on too many planes lately, I had this mental image of God sitting in the cock-pit of a Delta plane – The SKY-DADDY!
Finaly thought, for an “evangelical atheist,” he used a lot of inflamatory words, retarded, moronic, closed eyes, shut brains, cowards, intellectually lazy, etc. Is that his attempt to convince me?
Thanks again. Great post.
Marshall Art,
Actually I thought your response was quite charitable.
SST,
This is where we’re accused of being hypocrites. Somehow, by saying we’re Christian means we absolutely must become Christ Himself or we are helping to make their case. Yet, we ackowledge our sinful natures and our need for Christ’s intercession on our behalf. What people like this dude fail to see in their own selves, is that they are supporting OUR case by their inability to take the moral high road regarding how they deal with their ideological opponents. In other words, not that I need to use them for your sake in particular, he has no god of any kind and look how he treats people! He hasn’t the moral foundation to even see that he has just done what we know can happen where God is dismissed.
Neil,
There is little to add. You’ve done a good job of responding to his bad logic.
As you point out, if God doesn’t exist, religion is just the result of change+matter+time. What are we to do? Blame nature for making us theists.
Great post
i hate people like this guy. Don’t people in the religion-vs-science argument crowd understand that all they are doing is preaching to the choir?
Theistards?
I can’t even begin to relate how Morally Offensive that is to me. I have several special needs family members. To equate mental retardation and a belief in God is simply…. Words fail me.
It’s as redilculous as it is offensive. Yet I’m to believe this guy is morally superior for his atheism?
I would also like to know this: If religious views are a result of evolution [which they are not], are atheists claiming to be more evolved or less so? It seems the latter as they typically state that we developed a concept of God as an adaptation which proved more beneficial to man’s development than a lack of belief in God, meaning that we once did not believe in God at all.
I should like to state that if God were a delusion He would still be more beneficial to mankind than atheism, especially bleating antitheism of this fellow’s stripe.
–Sirius Knott
Hi Neil, since you spent some time clearing up the misconceptions of that atheist, may I clear up a few of your own?
You wrote,
The so-called new atheists make the same arguments as the individual to whom you responded? If they do, you fail to identify where. The closest you seem to come is where you state that Christopher Hitchens hates God. Actually, Hitchens hates religion. He could not hate a being he doesn’t believe exists in the first place. Your claim reflects a recurring theistic conceit.
Neil said: Robert, I sincerely appreciate your tone – especially in contrast to the “rational” person I fisked, but I must correct some errors in your comment.
If I “failed” to identify the arguments it was only due to a lack of space (that post was already too long). I am quite familiar with their arguments and the post I fisked is in concert with them. Search for “Dawkins” and you’ll see other comments of his I’ve addressed.
The title of Christopher Hitchens book is “god is Not Great – How Religion Poisons Everything.” Aside from the silly hyperbole (it poisons everything? He can’t see anything positive it has done?) there is the pettiness of not capitalizing a proper name. His objection is clearly with God. He may not believe God exists but he hates whatever it is he is analyzing.
You wrote,
As an aside, I’ve always found this to be an extremely weak theistic argument, one that Christians themselves don’t seem to believe. In any case, I quote it since it become relevant below.
Neil said: If Christians don’t believe it then they disbelieve in error and in contradiction to the Bible. Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to my point that the original post mischaracterized the Biblical view over and over.
You wrote,
I’m confused. You state many times that the source of man’s morality is God, not the other things you mention. A response which better corresponds to your belief would go something like, “If an atheist acts morally, it’s only because the law of God is inscribed in his heart as a guide.”
Neil said: Thanks for the assistance in presenting my arguments, but I’m OK with what I wrote. The parents and authority figures had the law written on their hearts as well.
In any case, I think you’re misunderstood his argument. He’s saying a theists acts morally under threat of punishment (or expectation of reward), while the atheist does not. This is what makes the latter’s moral actions superior.
Neil said: I think you misunderstood my argument. It is comical that he could claim a universal moral principle that doing the right thing just because it is the right thing is morally superior to doing the right thing out of self interest (fear of punishment, etc.). Where did this morality come from? Why is that superior? What is the standard? If morals evolved, then whatever morals you hold are by definition “moral” for you. Who cares what someone else considers to be moral?
And more to the point, he misstates the case – as do you – that theists (Christian ones, at least) act morally under threat of punishment or expectation of reward. The Gospel is that while we can never undo our sins and be good enough on our own, Jesus died in our place. “Salvation by works” is a hallmark of all non-Christian faiths and cults, but is the opposite of the Gospel.
You wrote,
Not surprising, since atheism isn’t much of a philosophy, if it is at all. You might want to examine humanism for a philosophical, non-theistic basis for morality.
You wrote,
I think the argument is more in response to the theistic conceit that without some belief in a lawgiving god (perhaps along with a dose of a fear of hell), there’d be total moral depravity. We see this argument all the time, such as when there’s a school shooting, theists inevitably try to link it back to court decisions disallowing prayer in schools. This explains also why many Christians are so adamantly against evolution, which allegedly undermines faith in God.
Neil said: “Theistic conceit.” Heh. Let’s not broad-brush theists too much now with the school shooting thing. You guys sound a little conceited as well. And again, how can you show that in a Darwinian worldview that conceit is bad?
And you and the original author ignore the obvious: How can you prove that these atheists are truly morally superior? They would still face personal consequences for crimes even if there was no God (jail, being ostracized, etc.) and they might still do the right things for personal gain.
You wrote,
Take away the Bible, and what evidence do you have for the Christian god?
Neil said: That’s a flawed question. We do have the Bible, and He did reveal himself.
P.S. As a courtesy, please capitalize God on my site when referring to the God as revealed in the Bible. Thanks.
You wrote,
This is a red herring. His point–and it’s a solid one–is that Christians say man is in a fallen, sinful state, yet they order their lives in accordance with how they (fallen and sinful as they are) say they should. Yes, people make mistakes! But should someone lose their soul over someone else’s mistakes?
Neil said: No, it is not a red herring. It was the logical conclusion of his “people always make mistakes” premise. Just because you don’t know everything doesn’t mean you can’t know some things – especially if God clearly revealed them to you.
I don’t follow your point about losing a soul over someone else’s mistakes.
You wrote,
You have a very limited experience with atheists then. Many of our ranks come from former Christian apologists. Others, like Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, and Hector Avalos, are first-rate biblical scholars. I’m aware Christians have explanations for Biblical inconsistencies, but the rationales are more twisted than a pretzel.
Neil said: I disagree. If I want pretzels I’ll go to Erhman, who thinks that a deliberate copying error of the Bible would mean the originals could not have been inspired.
You wrote,
More red herring. In the first place, that even Christians cannot agree amongst themselves over very fundamental moral issues doesn’t speak well of a divine law written in our hearts.
Second, it’s rather odd that Christians cannot agree on what the real truth is if their claim of a direct link to the creator of the universe has any foundation.
Neil said: You are confusing red herrings with what I’ve done, which is merely taking his views to their (il)logical conclusions. Again, the Bible explains why we ignore the law written on our hearts. People have the ability to rebel against the laws, regardless of how clearly they have been spelled out to them. Or are you claiming that you have never knowingly broken a rule?
You wrote,
*sigh* These red herrings are tiresome. He’s questioning the confusion among Christians. Again, this confusion makes no sense if Christianity is true. The situation is better explained as either God is a prankster who desires confusion, or he doesn’t exist.
Neil said: Of course it can make sense if Christianity is true. The Bible teaches that there will be fake Christians, and it teaches that we still have much to learn once we become authentic Christians. You and the original author are just demonstrating your lack of understanding of Biblical Christianity. (Don’t feel too bad, lots of Christians misunderstand it as well).
They are plenty of fake Christians (I know, I used to be one). And the real ones are still sinners as well.
You wrote,
Why even write them down at all, if they’re were in fact written upon our hearts from the moment of creation?
Neil said: To convict people that they have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. And remember, the Bible isn’t just a big rule book. It tells us history and shows the way back to God.
Are you opposed to multiple modes of communication?
You wrote,
I can only assume you’re saying this tongue-in-cheek. For a more elevated discussion of Christianity and atheism, I suggest Daylight Atheism.
Neil said: It was tongue-in-cheek, though upon further reflection the original post was pretty similar to the arguments presented by Dawkins, Hitchens et al.
I am very happy to acknowledge that there are many thoughtful atheists who do not feel the need to mimic the style of these New Atheists (and I am happy to have some of them visit this blog). In fact, my guess is that the “old atheists” are probably as unhappy with the “new” ones as orthodox Christians are with most televangelists.
So his blog is called Evolved and Rational?
From what I’ve read he’s evolved about as much as a grade schooler and I didn’t see any rational point.
Robert, I’m impressed with your style, do you use this all the time, or did you just imitate Neil for this one time. Let me say for one that I think it works and comes across as non-confrontational. I hope Neil is sincerely flattered.
I don’t pretend to speak for Neil, nor do I have his expertise in apologetics. For that I apologise
But I have some opinions on some of what you said, so I thought I’d share them.
You sad “He’s (the original poster) saying a theists acts morally under threat of punishment (or expectation of reward), while the atheist does not.”
I take offense at this. I don’t act the way I do out of fer or expectation of rewards. I act the way I do out of love for my Father in heaven. I know what He wants (He wrote it down for me) and I try to do it. I know I disappoint Him a lot, but when I do He forgives me. I wish I could be 1/10 the father He is. I’m learning.
“This explains also why many Christians are so adamantly against evolution” – well I for one am not against evolution. I’m against bad science. I know this gets way off topic, but I haven’t seen any more evidence for evolution than for creation. Since both theories, exist, I object to someone claiming theirs is true and mine isn’t.
” yet they order their lives in accordance with how they (fallen and sinful as they are) say they should.” That should be how God says the should. I don’t order my life based on what man says. Only what God says.
“should someone lose their soul over someone else’s mistakes?” No. Our souls were lost long ago, because of our sin. We didn’t need any one else’s mistakes to help us out.
“even Christians cannot agree amongst themselves over very fundamental moral issues doesn’t speak well of a divine law written in our hearts.” For me personally, I’m glad that it’s written down. When someone (beacuse of their sin) says something that doesn’t quite add up, I can go check with the Expert.
“it’s rather odd that Christians cannot agree on what the real truth is if their claim of a direct link to the creator of the universe has any foundation.” Yes it is odd. Even though we have a direct ling to the creator, we continue to sin. I think Paul said it best when he said something like, “the things I want to do, I don’t do and the things I don’t want to do, I do anyway.” Boy do I feel like that a lot.
Robert, just because Jesus saved us from our sins doesn’t mean He corrected them all at once. I am still a sinner and I’m likely to get a lot of things wrong. Even the stuff I’ve written here may be wrong (I’m trusting Neil to correct me if he sees it).
Besides all of this, if you are an atheist, you have nothing to worry about right?
Randy
Please! You said, “Robert, I’m impressed with your style, do you use this all the time, or did you just imitate Neil for this one time. Let me say for one that I think it works and comes across as non-confrontational. I hope Neil is sincerely flattered.”
What a back handed compliment! I’m sure Robert is just being nice by ignoring this remark.
Neil did not come up with the style of quoting someone and then adding their own comments. But don’t worry, I’m sure it had the affect of making Robert actually want to read what you had to say.
Randy, your comment on evolution is telling. “Since both theories [creationism and evolutionism], exist, I object to someone claiming theirs is true and mine isn’t.”
You must really object to people believing in a whole host of other religions, as they claim theirs is true and yours is not.
I do not object to any religion – or philosophy – as long as it doesn’t interfere with my own lifestyle. I don’t want religious views forced on me in any way. Lucky for me, I live in the United States of America. Here, I have the right to live my life as I see fit. I also have the right to cry “foul” when there *is* interference, at least I did the last time I checked.
Excellent response, Robert. Well done.
Mark, I realize Neil isn’t the originator of the style, but he does it well. Robert did too. I actually thought he may be trying to emulate Neil, which was in this case, a good way of convincing me to read what he had to say. I was seriously impressed with his style.
Maybe “object” was too strong a word. I “disapprove” when my kids are taught something is science and proven when it’s far from that. Teaching theories as theories, I have no problem with. In fact, I wouldn’t “object” or “disapprove” if my kids took a comparative “religions” class at school. Compare Christianity, Islam, Hindu and yes even Atheism. I can explain the Truth to them.
“Teaching theories as theories, I have no problem with.”
Such as the theory of gravity?
Neil, the word “conceit” as Robert used it is not pejorative. You apparently are unfamiliar with the other definitions of this word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit
Also, I looked over Robert’s comment and didn’t notice any reference to Christopher Hitchens. Why then, did you feel the need to bring him up?
Neil said: I was responding to Robert’s mention of him. It is in the paragraph above my comment.
@Randy – This “style,” as Mark pointed out, is actually a practice going way back. It makes use of the blockquote and /blockquote HTML tags. It does make for easier reading, doesn’t it?
You wrote,
I think Sam Harris makes a strong point about the dangers of faith in his books, so I do have something to worry about.
Neil said: If your point is that some religions can have some dangers, then you’ll have lots of agreement here. I’m just amazed at those who worry about orthodox Christianity and don’t see the real and pressing dangers of Islam. If your point is that all religion poisons everything and that atheistic worldviews don’t have dangers then you’ll have a tough time proving that.
There is plenty of in-house criticism with Christianity. We have lots of groups calling themselves Christians that are either fakes or “saved and confused.”
@Mark and Mike – Thanks for your comments.
@Neil – I’ll respond fully tomorrow, but I wanted to make clear now there was no disrespect intended by not capitalizing the word “god” when I wrote “the Christian god.” It’s not capitalized because it’s not being used as a proper noun. You’ll notice that when I refer specifically to God, I capitalize the word. In the future, I’ll either use “God” or “the Christian deity“.
Neil said: Thanks, no problem. I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt on that one and assume it is accidental or used in the generic sense as you did.
Robert, the blockquote and /blockquote HTML tags are good. Neil was one of the first bloggers I started following and the only one that uses it so heavily. Maybe I should learn them too.
Haven’t read Sam Harris’ books, in fact never heard of him. Given the depth of my reading list and the small amount of spare time I have, not likely to get around to it anytime soon. Guess I’ll stay un-evolved.
Oh, I forgot to say anything about the theory of gravity. I’m no scientist. I have observed (which I was taught was the basis of science) that things fall when you let go of them. I’ve even observed this up close when I missed a stair.
So I did a quick search on the theory of gravity. According to Wikipedia, the general theory of relativity replaced Isaac Newton’s theory on gravitation. Seems there were a few errors in Newton’s theory (that didn’t help my sprained foot any).
Not sure if that answers your question or not.
*Warning* the next several days will be very busy for me, so I likely will not respond any more to this thread. I will try to read any comments.
Mike
“Theory” of gravity?? Did you really say that? Saying gravity is a theory is like saying there is a theory of sunshine. I mean, I’m glad you’re trying to help and all – but… Please, step back before you hurt yourself.
Neil,
You wrote,
What the correct “Biblical view” is, we’ll leave you Christians to continue to try and figure out, but you can hardly blame non-Christians for getting the impression that the Bible is the basis for Christian morality. Whenever some moral issue arises, Christians are quick to quote scripture. They campaign to plant copies of the Ten Commandments in public places, and get quite upset when told to pull such displays down. Never have I heard a Christian appeal to an alleged moral law in our hearts as a true moral guide, even in debates amongst themselves about what is moral. Rather, it’s God and His Word.
Neil said: With all due respect, all I can say is, “No kidding.” There is zero conflict with what God wrote on our hearts and what the Bible says. The Bible says it with more detail and something that is harder to distort (though people have still distorted the word of God from the beginning).
You wrote,
It seems you’re equivocating here. Previously you speculated on the basis of an atheist’s morality (self-interest? evolution?), not recognizing you had been arguing that the basis for everyone’s morality is a law inscribed in our hearts by God. Well, what is it?
Neil said: You are trying to creating a false dichotomy. The origin is that it is on our hearts and we are without excuse. That doesn’t mean it isn’t documented in other sources or that people might invent their own morality and consequences.
In any case, I didn’t see him claiming a “moral absolute,” as you state. He was arguing from a common moral framework which holds that the motivations of an action are relevant to the morality of said action. Actions motivated by personal gain or fear of punishment are generally believed to have little moral authority behind them. Don’t you agree with this belief?
Neil said: He makes a series of moral claims, including the one that the atheist’s morality is somehow better. Sounds like a moral absolute to me.
That he doesn’t identify the source of this framework is rather irrelevant to the discussion. If it’s from God, it does not undermine his argument. You say that “salvation by works” is an un-Christian doctrine. You’ll have to take that up with the Catholic Church, but, again, one can hardly blame us for responding to what many who say they are Christian believe.
You wrote,
As was pointed out by Mike, the term “conceit” is not used pejoratively. And where did anyone describe their worldview as “Darwinian”?
You wrote,
The basis for judging one action more morally superior was touched on above. Acting in a moral manner doesn’t simply entail following whatever laws exist (in fact, it may be moral to resist such laws, or in seeking personal gain.
Neil said: Sounds like another unfounded absolute to me and a non-answer to my question.
You wrote,
You misunderstood the point of the question. You were objecting to the circularity of the argument that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so with the suggestion that extra-Biblical proof exists to substantiate the Bible as the Word of God. My question merely shows that you’re still caught within the circle. Knowledge of God still comes only from the Bible.
Neil said: If you want the evidence for why we believe the Bible is the word of God, study some of the apologetics links to the right or buy some books on the topic. To say we only believe it is the word of God because it makes that claim 3,000 times or so is ignorance or laziness. We have reliable authors, fulfilled prophecies, archeological evidence, and more. My guess is that you don’t believe it. I’m OK with that and won’t waste time trying to persuade you here. If you are really interested there are endless resources for you to consider. If not, I’ll save my time and yours.
You wrote,
Sorry, but it is a red herring because “people always make mistakes” was not his premise at all. His point was that Christians order their lives and interpret the Bible in accordance with the very human wisdom they deride. You’ve introduced an irrelevancy in order to sidetrack his argument.
Neil said: No, it wasn’t a red herring, but you just introduced a straw man to the mix. We don’t deride human wisdom, but we know that God’s wisdom trumps man’s. The Bible applauds wisdom and reasoning – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/07/13/exploring-christianity-part-9-open-mindedness/ . I encourage you to learn more about what you are attacking so you don’t continue to misreprsesent it.
You wrote,
Not surprising. But the view that Biblical inconsistencies are only apparent because atheists don’t take the Bible seriously is egregiously false. As well, atheists aren’t the only ones who criticize it…
Neil said: The links to the right address many of the alleged inconsistencies. This isn’t exactly a new area. But as I pointed out in the original post and as you have reinforced (albeit to a lesser extent) much of the critiques are out of ignorance, whether willful or not.
You wrote,
In fact, you haven’t taken his views to their conclusion. The analogy you make utterly fails. Atheists don’t claim to possess The Truth as revealed to them by a divine entity. Disagreements among them, therefore, are fully understandable and explicable. Not so with Christians, who not only claim a Universal Moral Standard as written in their hearts, but constant communication with the Creator and HIS WORD to reference!
Neil said: Please learn more about logical fallacies so you don’t keep misapplying them. I was careful to take his views to their logical conclusions.
Again, please learn more about what you are criticizing. The Bible has clear and repeated warnings that their will be false teachings and that we must work hard to properly understand the word of God – http://www.4simpsons.com/doctrine_counts.htm . So it is entirely in our framework that false teachers and disagreements will exist. The Bible even teaches how to handle the disagreements. So please spare me the argument that when what the Bible predicts comes true that it is somehow a knock against the Bible.
Whether or not I’ve broken any rules is yet another red herring and irrelevant.
Neil said: You really seem to like red herring. In this case, it is a completely relevant question. I wondered if you had any personal experience in knowingly breaking a rule. Because if you didn’t you’d be the first person I ever met that hadn’t. And since sometimes breaking known rules appears to be a universal phenomenon, and clearly predicted by the Bible, I think it is relevant to the discussion.
You wrote,
If you would, please define for me who a fake Christian is. I think this will clarify your argument.
Neil said: Someone who claims to be Christian but isn’t, either willfully or in ignorance.
You wrote,
Isn’t one’s heart upon which is allegedly inscribed the divine moral law supposed to convict? You continually refer to such a moral law, but it seems there must be some supplement in order to really drive home the point.
Neil said: No, you are just continuing with your false dichotomy because I exposed how ridiculous the original arguments were.
Couldn’t the Creator of the cosmos get it right the first time? You want to have your cake and eat it too. The Law was written in our hearts, BUT it also had to be written down on paper, later, by error-prone hand copying. Seems the Bible-as-moral-guide is a clarification at best, a step backward at worst.
Neil said: You are assuming that He didn’t get it right the first time. You are (deliberately?) missing the point that people can and do deliberately suppress and/or violate known laws. That’s one of the reasons I asked if you had any personal experience with this. If someone gave you a rule and you knowingly broke, did the lawgiver fail or did you?
(As an aside, one wonders at what point in his evolutionary development this law was written on man’s hearts.)
Neil said: Keep wondering. Hopefully you’ll realize that if your macro-evolution fantasy is true that there is zero basis for true morality.
Finally, I searched on your site for “Dawkins” and located but one post directed at one comment of his. You suggested there were multiple such posts. Sorry if I missed them.
Thank you for the interesting discussion!
Neil said: My pleasure! Blessings to you in your search for truth.
P.S. Before replying again please expand on your fears of religion and why orthodox Christianity is so scary to you, and also specifically note what you are doing to combat Islam. How much of your money do you donate to reverse missionaries designed to persuade people from the Islamic faith? I’m sure you are quite consistent with your views as presented here, but I just want to make sure you aren’t one of those atheists rebelling against the one true God while pretending to be against religion in general, all the while ignoring the most obvious risks.
Once again, Robert, excellent response.
“Hopefully you’ll realize that if your macro-evolution fantasy is true that there is zero basis for true morality.”
I see you keep repeating this mantra over and over again. It is quite similar to Jonathan D. Sarfati.
Is that where you’ve gotten it from?
Neil said: Never heard of him.
It makes no sense at all unless your define “morality” in very narrow, Christian-influenced, terms.
Neil said: It appears to be the same type of morality included in the post I fisked, the kind where everyone is expected to do certain things, and that violations are bad. I have no idea how you can make up a statement like that.
In the fields of sociobiology, cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, and moral philosophy it doesn’t hold any water. You are assuming that morality, as understood by secularists, must be derived solely from evolutionary mechanisms. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, this is a extremely poor understanding of evolutionary theory. Natural selection is hardly the only mechanism which drives evolutionary change. There are a number of other factors. Perhaps if you were well-versed in evolutionary theory you wouldn’t create these straw-men. Try reading Edward O. Wilson’s “Sociobiology” if you are honestly interested in how human morality developed.
Neil said: Gee, Mike, I can only hope to be as well learned as you some day. I’m merely assuming what atheists are proclaiming – namely that if there is no God then morality had to come from the material world. And that is nonsense. I’ve seen the claims over and over again and all it takes is a little thinking to see how the atheists sneak morality in the back door (that is, when they aren’t siding with the postmoderns and denying a universal morality). Either way they have no foundation for putting their moral claims on anyone else.
And, as always, they are left with the ridiculous notion that all religious notions of God are errors of evolution and that these “enlightened” atheists have evolved such that they can speed up the return to complete non-religous thinking, as if that were some sort of moral good. Maybe you are the ones who are behind the evolutionary curve and you just haven’t evolved enough to be able to understand religion? Maybe your great-great-great-great grandkids will learn the truth if you or your descendents don’t abort them first.
Neil said: Try again after you answer this part: Before replying again please expand on your fears of religion and why orthodox Christianity is so scary to you, and also specifically note what you are doing to combat Islam. How much of your money do you donate to reverse missionaries designed to persuade people from the Islamic faith?
Islam is the one, by the way, that started with violence, spread with violence and is violent to this day. Christianity is the one which has had abusers in its ranks, but is also the one that sends money to help Muslims after they experience disasters, among about a thousand other great things it has done that atheists conveniently ignore.
Also see http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/what-about-the-crusades-and-the-inquistion-etc/
P.S. I’ve let some of your comments through, but remember that you are on moderation for a reason. I wouldn’t type too much at once. I would have told you this off-line but you don’t leave an email address.
Neil,
You wrote,
I understand this is your blog and you may establish whatever rules you wish, but to set the above terms and conditions for responding is unprecedented in my experience and seem designed to foreclose debate.
Which is perhaps just as well. Unfortunately, I don’t see an effort on your part to address my arguments. No doubt, you feel the same.
Theologyweb.com, a site run by Christians, has some very stimulating forums, one of which is Apologetics 301. If you’re confident in your apologetics, I suggest wading in. The conversation is fairly elevated.
Blogging is a part time thing for me. I enjoy it but have many other things I like to do. Therefore, I try to keep the conversations as productive as possible.
I have a couple litmus tests I use to see if people are serious about their claims and worldviews (e.g., I don’t waste a lot of time with pro-legalized abortion pacifists, and I like to expose how those railing against “religion” are often just fighting Christianity). Sometimes I’ll entertain a dialogue with an inconsistent person just to show how to dismantle bad reasoning, but there are limits.
I’ve addressed your arguments thoroughly. If you don’t find the answers compelling there is nothing else I can say. I’m comfortable with my original post.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check that out sometime.
Good luck to you.
At the risk of continuing an unproductive discussion, I would like to point out the oddity of this statement:
“I like to expose how those railing against “religion” are often just fighting Christianity).”
Does not atheism, by its definition, imply a lack of faith in ALL religions, not simply Christianity? I fail to see that because an atheist does not share your views on other, non-Christian, religions (I’m assuming you are referring almost entirely to Islam), that his worldview is someone inconsistent. Atheists may very well believe that Islam poses a danger (read Sam Harris for more info), yet some may fail to see how war, or genocidal efforts, bring about positive change.
Just as Robert mentioned earlier, with these criteria you are effectively shutting down debate.
Neil said: First, I merely pose tests to see if people were sincere in how they described their motives. My experience has been that they are often disingenuous. They claim to be fighting all religion, because they think all religion is bad, but they focus exclusively on the one true God. Interesting. What is my obligation to carry on an extended conversation with them if they come with false motives? If that is shutting down the debate I’m OK with it.
I prefer to think of this practice as good discernment. I only have so much time, so I’d rather share the Good News with those that are truly interested in it. If people are hard hearted then I’d rather not risk polarizing them further.
Debates are cool, if I have time. I am confident that the middle-grounders can learn from them. I have learned a lot by reading opposing viewpoints.
Atheists have posted about 1,000 comments on this blog so it isn’t like it is a one way street. I have just learned a lot over the last couple years about determining when something isn’t going to be productive.
Peace,
Neil
Matt,
Neil is simply pointing out the great inconsistency of a good number, possibly the majority, of atheists: They say they don’t believe in God, but through discussion we find that their atheism is specifically a reaction/rebellion against the Christian God. I’ll give you a perfect example. Go over to http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com and there you’ll find a guy who claims to be a seeking atheist but really only ever talks about how he can’tcome to grips with Christianity.
–Sirius Knott
Sirius is right. That doubtingthomas site is a good example. It is one straw man argument and out of text interpretation after another. When you correct the commenters’ errors with facts they just ignore them and move on to their next fallacy. I gave up after a while.