Quickly, I’ll say that although this would be . . . → Read More: projection, polytheism & judaeo-christian ‘atheism’]]> One of the standard atheist charges against belief in a god (especially since Feuerbach) is that humans invent a ‘god’ who is nothing more than a ‘projection’ of their own need to believe.  The central idea is that all beliefs about ‘gods’ simply reflect what humans want or assume a ‘god’ to be like.

Quickly, I’ll say that although this would be one of the strongest challenges to theism, it is anything but a knock-down argument.  Not only does it leave entirely unchallenged the notion of a real, actual, but yet unknowable god¹ with essence and qualities other than imagined or known by humans, but it also assumes that a ‘god’ would automatically be unable to reveal himself through the god-like desires and assumptions of humans².  Nonetheless, even apart from these points much more can be observed.

First of all, we should note that the charge of ‘projection’ is precisely the charge that the biblical prophets level against the polytheistic ‘gods’ that the nations believed in.  Isaiah 44 has a deliciously illustrative example of the classic monotheistic mockery of polytheism – a kind of monotheistic ‘atheism’, if you like³.  Isaiah effectively says that these polytheistic people take a tree, cut it down, use one half to cook dinner and warm themselves, and then take the other half, carve it into the shape of an image and bow down to it as a god.  Polytheism, atheists and monotheists agree, is human projection.

Also, having noted the similarity between the critiques of both Feuerbachian atheism and monotheistic ‘atheism’, we should not the key point of departure.  Revelation.

Contrary to humans imagining or desiring their way to God, the Bible speaks of a God who reveals himself.  Romans 1 speaks of the idolatry of the Roman pantheon (resulting in the idolatrous lifestyle of gluttonous eating and indulgent sexuality – faithful worship of the idol gods of food and sex), and contrasts this with the God who is ‘plainly seen’ as creator because of the created world.  The wider New Testament presents the person of Jesus Christ as the exact, final and full revelation of God – sharpening, completing and bringing into focus everything that had ever been revealed about God.

Martin Luther has a particularly striking understanding of this.  For Luther, even reason was unreliable to gain true knowledge of God.  For Luther (following the lead of the NT authors), God was fully known in and through Jesus – and particularly through Jesus’ surprising, detestible, un-godly, weak and shameful death on the Cross.  He contrasted ‘theologians of glory’, who speak of God’s bright glory and strength, with true ‘theologians of the Cross’, who speak of God’s suffering, shame and ‘weakness’ on the Cross.

I’ve seen a video of Dawkins mocking Jesus on the Cross as small-minded and insignificant.  What he is doing, perhaps unknowingly, is agreeing in principle that God would be ‘powerful’, ‘big-minded’ and ‘significant’ as imagined by humans – and mocking Jesus for not being like that.  The New Testament writers however, knowingly proclaimed this strange, weak, local, and dying God – whose gospel sounded foolish to Greek ears and was an offensive stumbling block to the Jews.

1. which is something most forms of theism – in different degrees – say about their god
2. I note that ‘assumptions’ is not a very charitable term to theism.  For example, negative theology is an immensely rational, logical and delusion-countering way of thinking about what qualities a ‘god’ must have.
3. Which is also seen in the creation story, where all the things listed in the 6 days of creation – sun, moon, stars, sky, earth, sea, birds, beasts, etc. – reflect the polytheistic array of ‘gods’ of the surrounding nations

…namely that there is indeed an uncreated ‘thing’ which cannot be questioned, caused, created, ‘got behind’, etc.

The former call this . . . → Read More: uncreated thing]]> Those who hold that all things (the universe/multiverse/whatever) began to exist and were created (by an ultimate Creator or First/bottom Cause), and those who hold that all things (the universe/multiverse/whatever) ‘have always existed in some form/state’ agree on (at least) one point…

…namely that there is indeed an uncreated ‘thing’ which cannot be questioned, caused, created, ‘got behind’, etc.

The former call this uncreated ‘thing’ God – and the latter call it Nature.

The essays are comprised answers to ‘big questions’ from a variety of perspectives – theist, atheist and agnostic.  They make for interesting reading whatever your beliefs are.

Two of the ‘big questions‘ essays were of particular interest to me: “Does the . . . → Read More: ‘big question’ essays]]> Cheers to Bryson for directing me to an essay, which I discovered was one over several over at The John Templeton Foundation.

The essays are comprised answers to ‘big questions’ from a variety of perspectives – theist, atheist and agnostic.  They make for interesting reading whatever your beliefs are.

Two of the ‘big questions‘ essays were of particular interest to me: “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” and “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?“.

Some other bits which may be of interest to some readers include:

• “Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?“
• Debates between contributers to the Science/Belief essay (Christopher Hitchens v. Ken Miller; Jerome Groopman v. Michael Shermer; and Steven Pinker v. William D. Phillips).
• A Brief interview with (physicist/cosmologist) Paul Davies concerning multiverse theory
• assorted video content (look for it)

…for a friendly, respectful, engaging and thoroughly enjoyable conversation about life, god, the universe, morality and all . . . → Read More: thanks ian…]]> Thanks, Ian Luxmoore…

…for a friendly, respectful, engaging and thoroughly enjoyable conversation about life, god, the universe, morality and all the rest.

At the site related to the book, there are summaries of the (as the site says) “six improved arguments for atheism”.

Now, I’m terribly sorry, but if these are ‘improved’ arguments for atheism, then it would be . . . → Read More: illogical atheism]]> Ken Perrott recently drew attention to a new book called The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God by Geoffrey Berg.

At the site related to the book, there are summaries of the (as the site says) “six improved arguments for atheism”.

Now, I’m terribly sorry, but if these are ‘improved’ arguments for atheism, then it would be embarrassing to see the ‘unimproved’ ones!   I’ve only taken an intro to philosophy class, and have never taken any classes in logic, etc., but these are poorly stated arguments, which would no doubt be embarrassing to proper atheist philosophers.

I’ve done a quick response in PDF format: 6 atheist arguments – quick response.  Enjoy.

(p.s. – I can give some time to responses to this, but I’m entering another busy semester, so don’t have time for too much.  Yes, I’m aware that these were ‘summaries’ and that the book would ‘unpack’ them further, but I still say they are poorly stated as is.)

I’ve been blogging with atheists (among others!) for at least 2 years now (I first ‘met’ Ian and Ken over at Frank Ritchie’s blog on a provocative post he did back in June 07).  Blogging is an interesting phenomenon.  We put up words that we think are worth reading.  I started my very . . . → Read More: blamentations]]> Blamentations (pronounced: Blah-men-tay-shins; combining the words ‘blog’ and ‘lamentations’).

I’ve been blogging with atheists (among others!) for at least 2 years now (I first ‘met’ Ian and Ken over at Frank Ritchie’s blog on a provocative post he did back in June 07).  Blogging is an interesting phenomenon.  We put up words that we think are worth reading.  I started my very first blog as a way of keeping in touch with family back home in the U.S., and have had various blogs since then.  ‘By-default’ was a kind of ‘spiritual musings’ blog, which then changed title to ‘Fruitful Faith’, when I moved to wordpress.com.  Then I was able to get my own domain and have been here at fruitfulfaith.net.

More and more over the last couple years, I’ve been posting more and more posts related to science and faith issues, due (no doubt) to the on-going interaction with atheist bloggers.  I’ve seen this very much as a good thing, but often sense that it isn’t productive.  Every now and then, I wonder if I should just blog about Jesus, faith and following Him.  But then I consider the lack of helpful interaction there so often is between theist and atheist, and I think to myself (perhaps foolishly and/or arrogantly!?), “But Dale, you can help –in some small way– to make conversations more helpful and constructive, and less of a ranting shouting match.”

Now, I’ll just say that I reckon it’s a lot easier to see unproductive blogging when you’re not one of the bloggers involved.  I’m quite sure I’ve engaged in conversations where I wasn’t listening or communicating as clearly as I could.

To add to this, I’m busy.

I work.  I study.  I have a family that needs my time and attention (which I love giving to them!).  I’m in a band that practices and plays gigs (and is putting out an EP soon   ).  I’ve also joined the pastoral leadership track at Carey, so there’s that as well.  Plus we’re moving to a cheaper and more-well-suited-for-family-with-a-6-month-old kind of house (Glenfield) this month…

I don’t have to blog (in general), and I don’t have to blog with atheists (in particular).

But…

I honestly do think it’s a good and helpful thing.  Putting your thoughts into words and organising them helps you immensely to shape your thinking and learn to communicate (please disregard this rambling post as an example!).  And at times, there can even be somewhat fruitful interaction with atheists.

So in the interest of the most effective use of blogging-time that I have, I’m interested in arriving at a “theist+atheist blogging prolegomenon” (before-word or ‘foreword’) of sorts.  A kind of “discussion about how to discuss”.

Many/most of the interactions I see and/or take part in can be characterised by what I’d call “speaking past eachother”.  This can take the form of jargon or unsimplified technical terms, or just plain-old mockery and sarcasm.

(Note: if you find yourself calling another blogger names like ‘dork’, ‘stupid’ or ‘idiot’, then you need to chill and not blog for a month or so.  And dangit, it sure would be nice to see theist correcting theist and/or atheist correcting atheist when such language bubbles to the surface!)

If there’s anything at all that’s needed, it’s patience.  IF (and it’s a big if!) theist and atheist are to get anywhere in the conversations, they must realise that it won’t  happen quickly.

The first goal for me is to strive toward ‘mutual understanding’.

This is not ‘mutual agreement’.  This is not ‘winning’/'losing’.  It’s an agreement on the nature of the disagreement.  Only from here can a conversation really get anywhere.

This post is VERY rambling in nature.

I’m off to bed now, but two final thoughts about patience.

First, we have to be patient (and avoid sarcasm or name-calling or judging) about the use of words.  It is not engaging to simply write-off the way the other person is using a word.  If you don’t like the way someone is using a word, then ask them about it patiently.  Don’t assume they are trying to evade the issue or cloud a conversation with mystery.

Second, we have to be able to be patient most of all when we are most tempted to lose control and get frustrated.

Anyway, it’s getting late.  Just a few “blamentations” before bed.

It has various forms, and is worded differently, but is essentially the same question:

Where did we come from?

Alternate forms include: Why are we (or anything!) here?  How did things come into being?  Why is there something rather than nothing?

It’s . . . → Read More: the most basic question]]> The most basic question one could ask is one which is asked and wondered at both by small children and genius level intellectuals.

It has various forms, and is worded differently, but is essentially the same question:

Where did we come from?

Alternate forms include: Why are we (or anything!) here?  How did things come into being?  Why is there something rather than nothing?

It’s the question of the ultimate origin (or original beginning) of everything.

A few things about the question:

First, it is valid to ask this question and to seek at least some kind of answer.  The level of certainty which one has concerning their answer has nothing to do with whether or not it is a valid question.

Second, we are never done asking the question.  Comparison between the various kinds of answers will never be finished.

Third, it is the most basic question.  It is the question where all other questions lead to.

Now, this most basic question has three kinds of answers (each with presumably infinite variations):

1. Everything* is an illusion.
2. Everything is eternal.
3. Everything was created.

Now, I’ll comment on each option in more detail.

1. Everything is an illusion. This is not a popular view.  Who would want that to be true?  More than this, it immediately raises the question of “If things are illusory, then who/what is having the illusion?”  Descartes famously said “I think therefore I am.”  So things are real.  Option one is neither desirable nor logical.
2. Everything is eternal (uncreated/uncaused). This view encompasses all views in which the idea of an ultimate ‘beginning’ is rejected.  Cosmology (whether big bang theory or multiverse theory) seems to point ‘back’ spacially, temporally and causally to an ultimate beginning.  Also, even the views that are cyclic in nature would seem to be in need of a prior explanation.
3. Everything is created (had a beginning / was caused). This view can be split into two: a) Everything is caused/created by a cause/creator other than itself; or b) Everything is caused/created/originated by itself.  More succinctly: a) Created by creator or b) Self-originating.  If it is arbitrary or ad hoc (which I reject) to postulate a Creator, than it is certainly and utterly arbitrary and ad hoc to postulate that ‘Everything’ just had to exist of necessity (by nature).  This leads me and countless others to conclude that the most rational and reasonable position to take (however tentatively or confidently) is the view that Everything was created/caused by a creator/cause other than itself.  This view encompasses all kinds of beliefs in any/all kinds of creators/causes.  Affirming a 1st cause does not instantly commit someone to any particular kind of set of beliefs – only the simple affirmation of a 1st cause.  Pantheism, Panentheism, Deism, Theism, Spinozian/Einsteinian cosmic ‘god’, Mother Nature, etc. are all encompassed here.

This question, again, is the most basic question and is the starting point of theology.  Theology starts with the assumption (and a rational/reasonable one) that the only valid answer for the existence of things is a Creator who is other than the things created.

Theology must be taken one step/level at a time.  It is utter nonsense to reject the general idea of a Creator because of some specific question at a later logical step/level.

That brings things to a natural breaking point, so I’ll finish there.

Can anyone think of a 4th possible ‘kind’ of answer to the question – or another example of one of the three answers given that I did not mention?  Other responses?

***

*The word ‘Everything’ is being used here in the most basic sense, to refer to all existing ‘things’.  Much argument can be had about this usage.  But not here.

I think their arguments are (mostly) excellent, though of course it would be interesting to a) see how non-pro-life atheists would respond to them, and b) converse with them concerning things like how they determine (judge/establish/discover) the nature of . . . → Read More: pro-life atheists]]> In a very interesting find, this is a site of atheists (and agnostics) who are pro-life.

I think their arguments are (mostly) excellent, though of course it would be interesting to a) see how non-pro-life atheists would respond to them, and b) converse with them concerning things like how they determine (judge/establish/discover) the nature of human worth/value/dignity.

This is widely accepted by people who should know: scholars in fields relevant to Genesis 1-3 (biblical scholars, ancient near east religion scholars, hebrew linguists, experts on ancient semetic poetry, etc. . . . → Read More: on reading genesis 1-3]]> What Genesis 1-3 is not: a play-by-play, atom-by-atom historical and scientific account of creation.  The author/community which produced the text clearly had other things in mind than producing such a thing.*

This is widely accepted by people who should know: scholars in fields relevant to Genesis 1-3 (biblical scholars, ancient near east religion scholars, hebrew linguists, experts on ancient semetic poetry, etc. – see relevant examples in the Denver Seminary Old Testament bibliograpy – updated annually). Yael Klangwisan spoke on Genesis recently at a TANSA event at Laidlaw college, and a very informative PDF of her slideshow can be found here.

Unfortunately there are two kinds of people I know of that both tend to insist that Genesis 1-3 is intended as a ‘factual’ report of the exact, literal events of creation.  These two types of people are (who would have thunk it!?) young-earth Creationists (YEC’s)… and many (not all) atheists.

YEC’s are convinced that science supports their literal interpretation (see pretty much anything on this site)…

…and some atheists are convinced that this literal-and-only-literal-gosh-darnit interpretation has been replaced by science (see the opening statement of Richard Dawkins from his 2007 debate with John Lennox – and I’ll put a transcription of it as the first comment below).**

Meanwhile, there are those who are willing to listen to what Genesis is really trying to get across, and who refuse to use science to prove their religious or anti-religious views.

—

*Many/most/all? of the characters in the Bible, for example, would have been aware of the poetic and metaphorical nature of Genesis 1-3, though would naturally have had little/no reason to question whether or not it took 6 days for God to create the world, etc.  A prime example of just how much the literal-ness of this text does not matter in Jewish thought is the story of when Ray Vander Laan asked the world-class Jewish scholar, Jacob Neusner how long the days of creation were; to which the reply after a long pause was “I’ve never thought about that.”

** No… wait… Dawkins doesn’t only say that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is replaced by science, he says that religious explanations in general are replaced by science…  Wow.