Militant Atheism

[stahrwe]

Dawn, you may have noted the comment by Israel Finkelstein quoted by Tat in recent discussion, that he treats people who disagree with him as like advocates of a flat earth theory. This is the sort of contempt that Harris has for fundamentalists. [/quote]

You are wrong. Finkelstein equates people who question carbon dating with flat earthers not people who disagree with him.

The foundations of American atheism are in the Declaration of Independence, with its axioms that all are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course atheism assumes that the term 'creator' is a metaphor. But the point is that culturally, atheism in the USA is part of a cultural tradition that sought to leave the old religious emnities of Europe behind, by respecting everyone's right to freedom of opinion. So Harris has a baseline of respect, except this respect is not returned by fundamentalists who insist their errors are the sole truth. It means the middle way of seeing the kernel of scientific truth in religion is squeezed out by the clash of opposites.

You are wrong again. Wow, why bring the DOI into this discussion? The DOI had nothing to do with religious tolerance or intolerence. I think you have confused it with our Constitution. The DOI does reference, 'pursuit of happiness,' but that hardly seems a firm foundation to justify atheism. Further attempting to reduce 'creator' to a metaphor neglects the opening paragraph of the DOI which states, "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God

Is God a metaphor for something else here?
If so, What?
Perhaps 'creator' was intended to be a metaphor for God?
Do you agree?

[stahrwe]

You may say that Finkelstein is mocking people by associating them with flat earthers, but he has a serious point. If you start from the axiom that the Bible proves the existence of supernatural entities, you will build a foundation upon the sand, not on rock, in the famous parable. Everything you build upon a false foundation will be subject to mockery.

This is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous things I have ever read. How is mockery by a discredited archaeologist (Finkelstein) even a concern? Why is he being brought up? Really, who cares what Finkelstein thinks or says about Christianity? The parable about building on sand has nothing to do with mockery. Seriously, how did you come up with that???? As a matter of fact, mockery of Christian beliefs was expected in the formative years of the church and is warned of to us today. It is not possible or desirable to avoid. As for the Bible, it has been around in its present form for 2000 years and no one who has built thier lives on it has failed yet. In fact, you have the lesson totally backwards. Matthew 7 reads:

Jesus is speaking:
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Christians are the wisemen, can you figure our which category you are in?

[Dexter]

Quoting the Bible doesn't make it so. Even if you have several passages.

[stahrwe]

Quoting the Bible doesn't make it so. Even if you have several passages.

True but Robert was trying to reference the Bible and was hopelessly confused but I doubt any of you would be aware of it. He reversed the story so it would be as if in the story of the 3 little pigs the wolf blew the brick house down.

[Robert Tulip]

You may say that Finkelstein is mocking people by associating them with flat earthers, but he has a serious point. If you start from the axiom that the Bible proves the existence of supernatural entities, you will build a foundation upon the sand, not on rock, in the famous parable. Everything you build upon a false foundation will be subject to mockery.

This is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous things I have ever read.

Okay, lets go through line by line. Supernatural entities do not exist. Therefore, if you assume they do exist, you are wrong, and everything you say based on that foundation is wrong.

How is mockery by a discredited archaeologist (Finkelstein) even a concern?

Finkelstein is only "discredited" in the eyes of malicious fundamentalists who cannot cope with scrutiny of their false ideology. Stahrwe actually has less than zero credibility here - when he says someone is discredited you can expect they are actually prestigious.

Why is he being brought up?

Did you read the thread? Harris mocks people for spreading falsehoods, and so does Finkelstein. The source post on Finkelstein's comments is here.

Really, who cares what Finkelstein thinks or says about Christianity?

Well obviously anyone who is interested in the truth will care about the results of Biblical archaeology

The parable about building on sand has nothing to do with mockery. Seriously, how did you come up with that????

It has everything to do with mockery. If Christians claim they build on solid foundations while spouting supernatural gibberish, atheists can hoist them by their own petard, as it were, by mocking the inconsistency within the Christian statements using the Bible as a reference.

As a matter of fact, mockery of Christian beliefs was expected in the formative years of the church and is warned of to us today. It is not possible or desirable to avoid.

This insinuation that mockery is unfounded is more of the 'lets put the blinkers on to protect the flock' style of theology. When Christians make claims that are false they deserve mockery.

As for the Bible, it has been around in its present form for 2000 years and no one who has built thier lives on it has failed yet.

Not quite 2000 years, more like about 1700. The first few centuries saw very diverse theological positions, before all of the non-canonical texts were condemned and nearly obliterated.

In fact, you have the lesson totally backwards. Matthew 7 reads:
Jesus is speaking:
24Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The parable is about action, not belief. We can compare it to the Last Judgment, where Jesus says that salvation depends on doing works of mercy. It was the later church dogma that put orthodoxy into the central role over orthopraxis.

The point I am making is that false belief is a shaky and unreliable foundation. Belief in the existence of supernatural entities is entirely false. The Bible needs to be deconstructed so that the real cosmic vision in the gospels can be understood. Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, makes an excellent start on this by showing that Paul was actually a gnostic, as I explain here. The same method can be applied to salvage the real meaning within the parables of Christ.

Christians are the wisemen, can you figure our [sic] which category you are in?

O great and wise Stahrwe, save us from our modern scientific foolishness. Your wisdom tells us that all science is wrong, and we should revert to Bronze Age dogma so the church can regain its corrupt privileges and social control. Excuse me while I puke.

[Interbane]

As a matter of fact, mockery of Christian beliefs was expected in the formative years of the church and is warned of to us today.

Delusion requires vaccination, in a sense. Being immunized to mockery ensures you have a tough skin when the absurdity of your beliefs is exposed. But, since "you've been warned", you don't need to feel bad, you can continue believing! I think the most important part is getting it shoved down your throat that there is absolute truth contained in the bible, and have faith when understanding is difficult. It's the perfect recipe to believe with conviction so powerful that it forces people to the conclusion that logic actually doesn't apply to them! Of course, if someone is presented with an argument that makes so much sense that it shakes their faith, the last defense mechanism is that it is trickery. Those espousing the damaging arguments must be agents of Satan!

Joking about this reminds me of Leonardo Di Caprio on the recent movie Shutter Island. In the beginning, a few of the doctors, while being interrogated by him, proclaim with astonishment that he has excellent defense mechanisms. Of course, it fits in with the plot and Leo thinks they are being diversionary or using some other tactic. Then towards the end of the movie we find out Leo was actually living a delusion, and he was repeating back defense mechanisms he'd put in place. An interesting look into how it must feel to be Stahrwe. The righteous investigator who constantly sees our "mockery" not as honest ridicule of ridiculous beliefs, but spiteful name calling or attempts to divert from the truth. I'm sorry for calling your beliefs stupid Stahrwe, but they most certainly are. That doesn't mean you are, but your beliefs certainly are. In fact, they are so ridiculous that they should be ridiculed, but the catch-22 is that somehow you see such actions on our part as confirming evidence of your beliefs! Haha.

[Dawn]

RT:"The authors that you mention lack true humility, because they assume their supernatural faith is true and apply circular reasoning to rationalize their assumptions."

Robert, Have you read them? What evidence do you have that these authors have not examined their assumptions at least as objectively as you have yours?

Let's look at Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

The Case for Christianity
Lewis spends most of his defense of the Christian faith on an argument from morality, a point which persuaded him from atheism to Christianity. He bases his case on a moral law, a "rule about right and wrong" commonly known to all human beings, citing the example of Nazism; even atheists believed that Hitler's actions were morally wrong. On a more mundane level, it is generally accepted that stealing is violating the moral law. Lewis argues that the moral law is like the laws of nature in that it was not contrived by humans. However, it is unlike natural laws in that it can be broken or ignored, and it is known intuitively, rather than through observation. After introducing the moral law, Lewis argues that thirst reflects the fact that people naturally need water, and there is no other substance which satisfies that need. Lewis points out that earthly experience does not satisfy the human craving for "joy" and that only God could fit the bill; humans cannot know to yearn for something if it does not exist.

A logic fail from the start. Wishing does not make it so. Our 'yearning' for a moral law can be entirely satisfied, and better satisfied, by a cosmology that restricts claims to the natural without speculating about supernatural entities. The popularity of this gush derived from Lewis's ability to present an avuncular exploitation of the moral basis of the war against Hitler in suitably reassuring Christian tones.

After providing reasons for his conversion to theism, Lewis goes over rival conceptions of God to Christianity. Pantheism, he argues, is incoherent, and atheism too simple. Eventually he arrives to Jesus Christ, and invokes a well-known argument now known as the "Lewis trilemma". Lewis, arguing that Jesus was claiming to be God, uses logic to advance three possibilities: either he really was God, was deliberately lying, or was not God but thought himself to be (which would make him delusional and likely insane). The book goes on to say that the latter two possibilities are not consistent with Jesus' character and it was most likely that he was being truthful.
Lewis claims that to understand Christianity, one must understand the moral law, which is the underlying structure of the universe and is "hard as nails." Unless one grasps the dismay which comes from humanity's failure to keep the moral law, one cannot understand the coming of Christ and his work. The eternal God who is the law's source takes primacy over the created Satan whose rebellion undergirds all evil. The death and resurrection of Christ is introduced as the only way in which our inadequate human attempts to redeem humanity's sins could be made adequate in God's eyes.

This trilemma is just twee Anglicanism aimed squarely at the parish vicar. It entirely begs the question it seeks to justify by simply assuming that Jesus Christ existed as a historical individual, despite the complete absence of objective evidence for this claim.

God "became a man" in Christ, Lewis says, so that mankind could be "amalgamated with God's nature" and make full atonement possible. Lewis offers several analogies to explain this abstract concept: that of Jesus "paying the penalty" for a crime, "paying a debt," or helping humanity out of a hole. His main point, however, is that redemption is so incomprehensible that it cannot be fully appreciated, and he attempts to explain that how God atones for sin is not nearly as important as the fact that he does.

Here we see the 'pat little Johnny on the head' version of theology with the argument that 'how' is less important than 'that'. Oh, atonement is all far too complicated for ordinary people to understand, so don't worry your pretty little head about it, uncle CS will fight off all those baddy satanists and atheists for you, no need for you to think for yourself.

Say, those were some pretty accurate summaries, Robert. Did you read the book yourself (yet)? And don't missThe Problem of Pain And for a modern point of view see: Timothy Keller's Reason for God ... Missed your points about logic lacking though...Don't tell me you're getting on the "Jesus wasn't even historical" bandwagon. The fact that Lewis assumes His historicity says more about his audience than anything. Not every generation has been so 'taken' with such silliness. It used to be people saw the real issue was what to do with Jesus. Now we think it easier to pretend He didn't exist or ever make such claims as He did... What other historic personages shall we 'wish away'? Easier than giving an answer to the "Lewis trilemna" isn't it?

I don't see Lewis arrogantly patting anyone on the head. It is a wise man that can take a complicated topic and break it down for the average 'Joe' to comprehend without insulting his intelligence. Lewis has done an excellent job at what he's set his hand to here, remembering that this book is derived from radio talks intended to cut the intellectual and religious jargon out and be accessible to the common man. He does a great job encouraging the hearer to think!

As far as satisfying our yearning for moral laws from purely natural origins... this just doesn't 'fly' philosophically. I know folks are working on finding an origin for morals without the need for a Moral Lawgiver... but it's a 'kinky case' solution at best. The most obvious answer is the one Lewis gives.

Thanks for your 'run-down' on Lewis. I'd love to see a book discussion here on one of Lewis or Zacharias' or even Chesterton's books... I get the impression that noone actually reads the opposing point of view though, which is odd to me. Or do you find it as hard to read Lewis as I do Harris? I do think it's helpful to get the facts 'from the horse's mouth', and more accurate in terms of getting the whole context and flavor of a remark...

[Robert Tulip]

Say, those were some pretty accurate summaries, Robert. Did you read the book yourself (yet)?

I have a copy of Mere Christianity, and I did try to read it some time ago, in the days when I was more sympathetic towards orthodox apology. As I mentioned in my post, these summaries were quotes from Wikipedia.

Missed your points about logic lacking though...

This goes back to Kant's refutation of the ontological proof for the existence of God. Kant pointed out that our imagination of an ideal being does not prove such a being exists. Lewis says that because we feel joy at the idea of God that proves God exists. The similar argument is that we yearn to live after death, but this does not prove there is life after death.

Don't tell me you're getting on the "Jesus wasn't even historical" bandwagon.

Looked at scientifically, there is no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. The Gospels say their motive is to make people believe. This means their motive is not to provide an accurate record of facts. It is far more plausible that the church invented Christ than that he really lived.

The fact that Lewis assumes His historicity says more about his audience than anything.

And this goes to the central problem, that theology is unwilling to examine its assumptions. Just because many people share an assumption does not make it true, especially when it lacks evidence, and the alternative, the suggestion that Jesus was invented, has strong evidence and match to frequently observed patterns in psychology.

Not every generation has been so 'taken' with such silliness. It used to be people saw the real issue was what to do with Jesus. Now we think it easier to pretend He didn't exist or ever make such claims as He did... What other historic personages shall we 'wish away'? Easier than giving an answer to the "Lewis trilemma" isn't it?

You cannot wish away a historical personage whose existence is attested by independent contemporary sources. But there are none of those for Jesus. The trilemma, that Jesus was either God, a liar or a maniac, presupposes that the Gospels are reliable, when in fact they are brilliantly crafted political documents aiming to unify religious sentiment against the power of Rome.

I don't see Lewis arrogantly patting anyone on the head. It is a wise man that can take a complicated topic and break it down for the average 'Joe' to comprehend without insulting his intelligence. Lewis has done an excellent job at what he's set his hand to here, remembering that this book is derived from radio talks intended to cut the intellectual and religious jargon out and be accessible to the common man. He does a great job encouraging the hearer to think!

Lewis is arguing that Jesus atones for sin, ie that if we believe in him then we are forgiven. This leads to all the metaphysical evidence free zone of the saving blood and the ransom. He says the question of how this occurs is irrelevant, despite the fact that it is purely magical and mythical. Believing in the literal truth of magical myths caused the Dark Ages. Science has liberated us from such rubbish.

As far as satisfying our yearning for moral laws from purely natural origins... this just doesn't 'fly' philosophically. I know folks are working on finding an origin for morals without the need for a Moral Lawgiver... but it's a 'kinky case' solution at best. The most obvious answer is the one Lewis gives.

Real morality has to be reconciled with evolutionary knowledge. Imagining a supernatural basis for morality leads to all the Christian errors. For example we have been discussing in Stahrwe's abortive attack on Sam Harris how Christianity does not condemn slavery. The "Moral Lawgiver" who insists that people abandon the evidence of their senses and their cultural heritage is more a colonial imperial subterfuge, justifying conquest by the powerful. You can start to understand the evolutionary morality in the Bible, for example in the Sermon on the Mount, by holding to a rigorous logical insistence that we should disbelieve claims that lack evidence, eg the traditional claim that God is a supernatural entity.

Thanks for your 'run-down' on Lewis. I'd love to see a book discussion here on one of Lewis or Zacharias' or even Chesterton's books... I get the impression that noone actually reads the opposing point of view though, which is odd to me. Or do you find it as hard to read Lewis as I do Harris? I do think it's helpful to get the facts 'from the horse's mouth', and more accurate in terms of getting the whole context and flavor of a remark...

I have tried to read Lewis, and found his unquestioned assumptions and desire to justify obsolete traditions to be obnoxious. I don't fully agree with Sam Harris, and have set out some of my critique in the discussion on his book The Moral Landscape, but he is far more readable and rational than Lewis, or than any orthodox Christian apologist.

[stahrwe]

Robert,

since you have such difficulty with C S Lewis' more conventional writings, I suggest you read his Space Trilogy. Having read your posts, I think you would really enjoy them. Of course they are allegorical, but they are also extremely 'out there' in terms of science fiction. I am serious here.

You might also read, Phantastes by George MacDonald and Lilith.
I would not suggest that you read The Everlastingt Man, or any Chesterton for that matter, you would not survive.

As for the general argument against God which you and the Atheists use I refer you to Lewis:

Lewis quoted Lucretius (De rerum natura, 5.198–9) as having one of the strongest arguments for atheism:[27]

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa

"Had God designed the world, it would not be
A world so frail and faulty as we see."

Lewis's interest in the works of George MacDonald was part of what turned him from atheism. This can be seen particularly well through this passage in Lewis's The Great Divorce, chapter nine, when the semi-autobiographical main character meets MacDonald in Heaven:

...I tried, trembling, to tell this man all that his writings had done for me. I tried to tell how a certain frosty afternoon at Leatherhead Station when I had first bought a copy of Phantastes (being then about sixteen years old) had been to me what the first sight of Beatrice had been to Dante: Here begins the new life. I started to confess how long that Life had delayed in the region of imagination merely: how slowly and reluctantly I had come to admit that his Christendom had more than an accidental connexion with it, how hard I had tried not to see the true name of the quality which first met me in his books is Holiness.[28]

He slowly re-embraced Christianity, influenced by arguments with his Oxford colleague and friend J. R. R. Tolkien, whom he seems to have met for the first time on 11 May 1926, and by the book The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton. He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion, noting that he was brought into Christianity like a prodigal, "kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape."[29] He described his last struggle in Surprised by Joy."
from Wikipedia article on C S Lewis

[Dawn]

Looked at scientifically, there is no evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. The Gospels say their motive is to make people believe. This means their motive is not to provide an accurate record of facts. It is far more plausible that the church invented Christ than that he really lived.

Your statement is simply not true. What evidence have you considered?

Indeed the Gospel writers each have a slightly different focus and audience in mind as they write. Yes, John's was clearly that people might believe. But don't miss Doctor Luke's foreward:
"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

This is not the language of myth-making or invention.

The fact that Lewis assumes His historicity says more about his audience than anything.

And this goes to the central problem, that theology is unwilling to examine its assumptions. Just because many people share an assumption does not make it true, especially when it lacks evidence, and the alternative, the suggestion that Jesus was invented, has strong evidence and match to frequently observed patterns in psychology.[/quote]

Except that no psychological method has ever attested to the innumerable transformed lives that are given testimony to by the followers of Jesus. Shared assumptions don't make them true. But a lot of people sharing a true assumption does not make it automatically suspect as false either.

You cannot wish away a historical personage whose existence is attested by independent contemporary sources. But there are none of those for Jesus.

Are you sure about that? Depends who you read/believe doesn't it?...

Lewis is arguing that Jesus atones for sin, ie that if we believe in him then we are forgiven. This leads to all the metaphysical evidence free zone of the saving blood and the ransom.

This is no 'evidence-free' zone for those who have been forgiven. He's not really arguing here. Just stating a fact. Take it or leave it. Nothing needs to be proven.

Real morality has to be reconciled with evolutionary knowledge. Imagining a supernatural basis for morality leads to all the Christian errors. For example we have been discussing in Stahrwe's abortive attack on Sam Harris how Christianity does not condemn slavery. The "Moral Lawgiver" who insists that people abandon the evidence of their senses and their cultural heritage is more a colonial imperial subterfuge, justifying conquest by the powerful. You can start to understand the evolutionary morality in the Bible, for example in the Sermon on the Mount, by holding to a rigorous logical insistence that we should disbelieve claims that lack evidence, eg the traditional claim that God is a supernatural entity.

Or does evolutionary 'knowledge' need to be aligned with real morality? Depends on your belief system doesn't it? Knowledge of a supernatural basis for morality is a rock solid foundation. The whole slavery and the Bible issue is a false 'issue' not substantiated by the whole counsel of Scripture. The outworking of Biblical principles leads to freedom, not slavery.

I have tried to read Lewis, and found his unquestioned assumptions and desire to justify obsolete traditions to be obnoxious. I don't fully agree with Sam Harris, and have set out some of my critique in the discussion on his book The Moral Landscape, but he is far more readable and rational than Lewis, or than any orthodox Christian apologist.

Unfortunately you don't have basis for saying this based on your own reading. So your statement lacks credibility. Sam may be readable' and 'rational' but is not accurate and therefore trustworthy in his conclusions. He makes far too many unfounded statements to be considered an authority of the magnitude of Lewis. And until you have ventured to 'try' Ravi Zacharias you dare not make such claims.