News-Record.com

What do you think Nancy?

I think it's going to be worth the time and trouble of everyone who finds the subject of religion interesting to read what these latest voices have to say on the subject. It's particularly vital these days as so many people all around the world continue to talk of their religion in terms of war.

If nothing else, these folks provide some much needed food for thought. In many cases, I expect their ideas would be completely new -- and that can't be too bad, IMO.

Everyone should read this and then read it again.

Actually its the same old, same old atheist ranting. They bang on the anvil of God's Word and only make a few sparks fly. The dignity, beauty, moral excellence, cosmic perspective, saving grace, and truth of God will always make thier fiath-less protestations look silly in the end. In the mean time many are deluded by them. But God allows them to be pernicious gadflies to increase and purify the Faith of the redeemed. Romans 8.28!

How can you have food for thought if you won't partake? {;-)

I know that you guys are a lot smarter than me. Now that that is out of the way...I'm actually on vacation, but I came in today after attending the funeral of someone I've been writing about.
I think that some of the most brilliant minds don't believe in God because it's a concept that doesn't make sense. I believe that some of the most brilliant minds believe in God, because they understand the concept of faith could never make sense. And would you thrash me if I said there are a lot of brilliant minds who are somewhere in the middle?

"I know that you guys are a lot smarter than me. Now that that is out of the way...I'm actually on vacation, but I came in today after attending the funeral of someone I've been writing about."

I guess that would be this Alice? I hope it was a nice service. I expect you put a lot of yourself into the project of bringing her story out... I hope you have a nice rest after this stressful episode.

"I think that some of the most brilliant minds don't believe in God because it's a concept that doesn't make sense. I believe that some of the most brilliant minds believe in God, because they understand the concept of faith could never make sense. And would you thrash me if I said there are a lot of brilliant minds who are somewhere in the middle?"

I recall studying physics with Gaylord Haggeseth at UNCG, waaaay back in the day. He is a devout believer and a worderful scientist. Yet he knew better than to mix the two areas of his life, unlike certain pathetic individuals who appear on TV once a week.

So the brilliance of the mind, while it affects one's views of religion, isn't a final determinant. Still, one major thing to note, as is pointed out by some folks on both sides of the religion divide, is that religion isn't a reliable plus for human behavior. So far, no religion has come along that has done nothing but make people better. For me, that's the bottom line. Every believer buys into the myth that his religion makes those who follow it better.

IMO, if we are to ever hope to improve the human condition, we need to jettison that idea and start learning how to make ourselves better another way. The "truth" value of belief in the supernatural should become a secondary issue beside the question "how can we manage to live at peace?"

First thing I did was look up David Johnson, the fine illustrator for the article. I especially liked his drawing of my namesake.

"Smarter" isn't a claim I would want to make, nor do I understand that as precisely what Harris and Dawkins are saying. I have read their works, along with Dennett, and also followed closely discussions/debates they have entered with both believers and "moderates"/agnostics (like the late S.J. Gould) who aren't as virulent in their dismissals of faith. There are even staunch atheists, like Kai Neilsen, who are not devoted to "debunking", etc., as Harris has now taken as his mission (and Dennett has always aimed at).

The most intriguing analysis Newsweek is probably introducing to its middle-brow audience is that around the "moral sense" being something evolution increasingly can account for. No direct mention, I notice of Dawkins' very controversial "memes" argument. This would seem to butt against any notion atheism is "less complicated". Also, the astronomer who calls for a ritual- ceremonial kind of science-cum-faith seems to be asking for trouble.

The problem here is that atheistic humanism has no remedy for the sin problem - evil, crime, hatred, war, etc. The problem with "learning how to make OURSELVES [mine] better another way" is that this approach has miserably failed: atheistic communism and American liberalism being two major cases in point. ONLY the radical changing of the inner man through the power of the Gospel can achieve this end.

The problem with Harris’ and Dawkins’ et al. critiques is that the true, biblical version of the Faith has been hidden under layers sin, counterfeits and human mindlessness from the beginning – NOT because of some predicated inherent falsehood or irrelevance, but because of massive human imperfection, sin and depravity. If people would bother to read and study the Scriptures intelligently and openly; and explore the great minds of the Faith (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, et al. - different as they are on some points) instead of the "pathetic individuals who appear on television once a week," they might ratchet up their credibility considerably.

Anti-Christian critics are always stooping to selective, ad hominem argumentation by pulling out the worst-case straw men scenarios; which can easily be done regarding any great historical movement or ideology involving millions of people. If they would delve into the core issues involved by interacting honestly with great Christian thinkers, there might be chance of real dialogue. But they are obviously not interested in dialogue, but in “sophisticated” smearing and debunking. I would hate to be in their godless shoes on judgment day. The Scripture speaks pointedly to their dilemma: “Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.” (Eph. 4. 18)

"The problem here is that atheistic humanism has no remedy for the sin problem - evil, crime, hatred, war, etc."

Yes it does. You would recognize it as following the "Golden Rule." You falsely believe that Jesus invented this idea, but it predates him by centuries. In fact, I believe that the way Confucious put it was better: "Don't do to others that which you wouldn't want done to you." And it is eminently logical.

"The problem with "learning how to make OURSELVES [mine] better another way" is that this approach has miserably failed"

Oh yeah, like Christianity made such a big success of it when it ruled every corner of Europe. Don't insult our intelligence by assuming that we never read a bit of history.

The difference between secular humanists and religious types is that we are dedicated to learning from the errors of the past, while you aren't willing to admit that errors were ever made.

Actualy, Nikos, I think you will find that even the non-theists on this message board have spent considerable time with the Church Fathers, the Bible and its commentators. Same can be said for men like Kai Neilsen and Micheal Shermer. Dawkins, Dennett and others may not be so interested for their specific studeis, but they remain highly erudite and not people I would care to smear as unthinking.
The same could be said of controversial believers like Hans Kung. for instance. Karen Armstrong and Pia de Solenni are equally broad-minded (no pun intended) as women writers on these "core issues". The one thing they all have in common is respect for dialogue and debate without the sort of ad hominem atacks you accuse them of.

O Please, Eric. Your tired old mantra of - look what the Christians did in Europe - is a crock! - illogical and prejudicial. O yea, maybe you’re right, if hospitals, orphanages (Geo. Mueller), all kinds of charitable works and movements (German pietists, et al.), representative govt., anti-slavery actions, etc. don’t count. All you guys can do is parade the actions of so-called Christians, who were actually only nominal types, unregenerate, and ignorant of true biblical theology, secularized and perverted by humanism. Shall we parade all the horrid things done by NON-Christians and anti-Christians, such as Attila the Hun, Hitler, Stalin, criminals, the Guillotine crowd etc. Not all that pretends to be "Christian" is such – now, or historically. This is just more of the tired old ad hominem stuff you guys seem fixated on. And all the Scriptural interaction you can dredge up is that Confucius saw some universal truth. That’s it?!

And even if you cited hundreds of correlations, the fact that other religious persons in history saw the universal, absolute truths Romans 2:1-16 says they have - and should - only supports the idea of supreme universal truth. No reputable Christian theologian has ever claimed that there was no truth in Buddhism, Islam or Confucianism: quite the contrary, for the above reason. We DO claim that God has revealed his perfect Law, His comprehensive prophetic plan and the world's true Messiah in historic continuity from the very beginning of creation, and had it recorded by men of faith in the Scriptures. Islam is really a highly legalistic, rootless prophetic heresy; Buddhism a life-denying (A. Schweitzer) system of ascetic escapism, and Hinduism a tutti-frutti of Vedic hymns, sophisticated speculative philosophy and primitive animism. But, I know you’ve rejected all this, so I won’t bore you with further repetition.

And Freddy, the only wisdom God recognizes is His own, and all the anti-orthodox writers and thinkers you have mentioned can do is twist and blur the truth of Scripture (God’s wisdom) and substitute their own speculative unbelief. Without the inner revelation and ministry of the Holy Spirit man is doomed to systematize unbelief and rebellion. It is still sinful godlessness, no matter how sophisticated and erudite. St. Paul says it perfectly in I Cor. 2:

“But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
“These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?”[e] But we have the mind of Christ.”

I have read many of these folks, and they are Scripture-rejecting, liberals and radicals who are merely venting their loathing for the God of the Bible, and the principles and morals enunciated in His infallible Word. The fact that many atheists resonate with them shows that they are bedfellows with them, and outside Christ, regardless of their deceptive protestations to the contrary. They probably like the arch-heretic John Spong as well! Birds of a feather.

"All you guys can do is parade the actions of so-called Christians, who were actually only nominal types, unregenerate, and ignorant of true biblical theology, secularized and perverted by humanism."

You ever read Thomas Aquinas? If not, you might want to check him out. Particularly in the realm of human rights. Not many would call him "ignorant of true biblical theology" would they? Well, maybe you would, being almost millenium further removed from the origin than he was and obviously in so much better a position to know "true biblical theology."

What about Martin Luther? Ever read a little publication of his called "On the Jews and Their Lies"? I bet you'd have a ball getting caught up on a true Protestant luminary like that...

The fact is that while some good was done by Christians during the Dark Ages, they maintained the feudal system for centuries, they fought tooth and nail against the dawning of true science and they have hindered every social advance ever attempted by human society.

You mention anti-slavery movements, which I find most interesting, considering "true biblical theology" -- if it is based on the Bible at all -- has nothing but good to say about slavery. And don't forget how many good Christian preachers worked for the first century of the nation's existence to preserve the institution of slavery.

You may see it as inevitable, but I refuse to give in and allow any religion to drag us into new Dark Ages without a fight.

The real religion of America, to paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, is business. Many of its dictates run directly counter to Christ's. But we have conveniently devised a heretical but commonly espoused and accepted form of neo-Christianity which the vast majority of Americans unthinkingly accept.

Paul is quite clever as many religionists are. He sets up an exclusive claim for himself and his fellow club-members to proprietary understanding, which is granted by an all-kowing god, who retains even more exclusive rights to its dissemination and discernment. It's a closed loop of circular logic; denying even the beginnings of critical dissection and questioning, because any outsider conducting objective inquiry is by "nature" immediately disqualified.

As usual, I have to ask, if only those inititiated into these mysteries and magically endowed with the unsubstantiated "spirit" are ever to be heard (and then, only when affirming a priori claims), what's the point in any discussion with someone like Eric or myself? If everything we are ever to say which may call into question said "truth-claims" is to be rejected out-of-hand with no consideration because we are relying only on our "natural" (though perhaps somewhat educated) minds, why bother?

Oh I am sure the answer may be "to save our souls". But you'd have to first convince us we had them to save. I am not naïve enough to think the term refers to an actual physical "thing", but then, would it be a "being", but without corporeal existence? That only goes back to accepting the premise of gods. Circular, begging questions, etc. If its isn't a being or thing, what is it? Oh, that's right, you have to have been infused with special spiritual guidance to "know" you have a soul and a spirit. It doesn't make any difference nor should one seek to figure out "what" said spirit or soul is: just blindly accept the term as promulgated, and the terms of its supposed eternal damnation or reward.

(Once "saved", would we "spend it" later, as in the way consumers once did with their paychecks?...Of course, now we all seem to be expected, nay, encouraged to live in deep debt on credit...one of those direct contradictions to the usury laws of the bible, by the way. Is there an American pseudo-Christian theology equivalent to this? By practicing the proper thanksgivings and tithes and all the rest, by even just repeating the name of Jesus enough times or blogging in his favor, does one build up credit? )