News-Record.com

Anyone who objects to government sponsorship of his religion hates America, right? The word "conflate" was coined specifically for this sort of nonsense.

What are you saying, Sue? Who is objecting to the government supporting "his religion"? What does that have to do with the story at hand? Just a bit confused here.

Sue and John, here's the bottom line: In America, we keep church and state separate. It's the law, and it's a good law!

"In America, we keep church and state separate."

Were that is was truly so!

Anyone truly interested in learning about what atheism is all about should read Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris.
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

The rise of atheism in this nation is merely a symptom of its moral and spiritual decline. It is nothing more than the sinful, rebellious mind shaking its fist in the face of its Creator. When unbiblical standards of government, business, ethics and morality become the norm, the very fabric of a society begins to come unraveled; as it is today. If there exists no absolute and universal moral standard, the door is opened to anything and everything; because no one can take upon themselves the unthinkable autonomy of saying that bestiality, deception, war or stealing et al. is always “wrong.”

It is becoming fashionable in some atheist-humanist circles today to suggest that man-boy love is OK, or that incest is only natural. It remains to be seen just how murky and rotten the end of the slope will be. If all morality is relative and personally situational, who then dare say otherwise? The fact that this philosophy has been widely implemented in America bears ample testimony to its inherent defects and promise of ruin and despair. This is the legacy of humanism and atheism. Man’s reason for denying his Creator and spurning His divine Law is so that he can become his own god (the lesson of Gen.) and do his own thing: a formula for hell on earth; even if you don’t believe in a hereafter.

I agree that Church and State must be separate institutions. But I also agree, along with the citizens of our nation’s beginnings, that both Church and State must be under God and his Law/Word. Therefore, there should never be a separation of God and government; only Church and State. The state, as St. Paul clearly shows in Romans 13, is merely an arm of God to maintain moral and civil order. So foundational and imperative is this truth that Christians were enjoined to submit to the non-Christian authorities of the day. Government governs best that governs least – but well - in accordance with God’s Law. A government and social order that departs from God’s ways will inevitably and systemically implode, because divinely ordained moral and civil order are essential to continuity and blessing. The USSR is a great example.

We are on the verge, whether Republicans or Democrats (it seems of late) hold office, (take your pick: Monica or boy page) of descending into the pit of corruption that is the promise of humanist/atheist principles. The fact that atheism is on the rise is, therefore, not a good thing, but a tragedy of the first order. The fact that the Church is also is in disarray and decline is equally, if not more, to blame.

I, perhaps, more that you guys, decry the sad state of pop, mass media religion in this country. True, orthodox, biblical Christianity is the most intellectually stimulating and totally engaging human thought-enterprise possible. It‘s a sad day when emotionalistic, light-weight televangelists etc. steal the stage from the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Dorothy Sayers, Chesterton, Schaeffer, and Van Til. This is changing, and the Truth will always and inevitably prevail over ignorance and unbelief, for “God is not mocked.” True and ultimate freedom is to be a loving and faithful servant of the Creator and his reigning Messiah, Jesus Christ.

"The rise of atheism in this nation is merely a symptom of its moral and spiritual decline."

Thanks, Nikos. We hold you in high regard too. Still, I would urge you to read Sam Harris' article, to get an overview of the way many atheists actually view the moral and spiritual issues that you mention. You might find a few things that surprise you, and you might find that you agree with some things that are said. At the least, it will provide you with greater understanding of atheism -- that it isn't "rebellious mind shaking its fist in the face of its Creator" and why it can't be any such thing.

Nikos is a prime example of the type of individual that knows absolutely nothing about atheism and is completely unaware of his ignorance. The really sad part is he actually beLIEves all this garbage he's spouting here.

Nikos writes: "I agree that Church and State must be separate institutions. But I also agree, along with the citizens of our nation’s beginnings, that both Church and State must be under God and his Law/Word."

Really? Let's have a look at what our founding fathers thought of religion, specifically the kind Nikos advocates:

http://monotheism.us/

Christianity is not about the State as the current nationalistic church goers would have you believe. It is about living in a Kingdom seperate from this world. Ever heard of the doctrine of two kingdoms?

Nikos writes further:
"It is becoming fashionable in some atheist-humanist circles today to suggest that man-boy love is OK, or that incest is only natural."

Really? Can you point me to a site where these evil atheist-humanists are saying this?

Perhaps you are unaware that man-boy love is more of a thing priests and pastors are into. Want some websites to prove that? I'd be glad to provide some wonderful links.

Oh heck, I just can't help it...just one site for Nikos:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

rSnAke,
since when is it sad for a person to hold on to something which provides hope and comfort ? nikos and you have the same right to believe whatever each chooses and to garner support and encouragement from it. your statement sounds akin to what muslims say....'you either believe what i believe or else '.
while i don't disagree with what nikos states, i do however believe that an atheist can love their family, can be a good friend or co worker and a contributor to their communities - yet these very same people will face a very different destiny upon death. you see, works have nothing to do with salvation ( i differ here from catholics ), so all the good works and services an atheist commits during their respective lifetime means nill when facing judgement......and because is God is true then you and i have nothing to share in eternity.
and right about here all the Christians start singing...when we all get to heaven what a happy day that will be.....

progressive,
have you jumped ship and sided with the atheist community and support their mission ? the links you posted do little to glorify God, but do show the depravity that mankind can fall into and also do there best to scuttle the word of God. i'm not trying to be cute but i can't remember if you subscribe to universalism or not ? Jesus made it clear that you either were for Him or against Him.

buz,
I was refering to the garbage Nikos wrote about atheists and atheism. He obviously doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about on that particular subject. I was not talking about his personal religious beLIEfs at all. I will say again, anyone that wants to find out the truth about atheism should check out the link I provided and read The Atheist Manifesto by Sam Harris. I guarantee you will be surprised by how much garbage is floating around concerning atheism.

Buz,

I am on the side of Truth. Is does the Christian community no good to white-wash history. That has gotten us in trouble time and time again.

The problem with some of the folks who claim to be Christians is that they tell outright lies about what is happening and what has happened.

I stand by my links. The first one is to show that the founding fathers, for the most part, were Diests and Unitarians. I have seen quotes by folks like Washington and Jefferson and Franklin to show how "Christian" they were. They were not and we might as well admit that.

The second link shows how pervasive child abuse and molestation are in the so-called Christian community. What good does it do us to try to cover that up? Shouldn't these folks be brought to the light of justice?

What good are we doing and what kind of message are we sending to the world when we out and out tell fibs to make our point? What would Jesus do, Buz?

Again, Buz, I challenge you or Nikos to find a site, any site on which atheists advocate man-boy love. Am I advocating for atheism? Nope. It is the Truth that will set free, not half-truths or manipulated information.

Buz, I am on the side of Truth...are you?

And, Buz, what in the world would being a universalist have to do with what I wrote? Or did you just through that in to discredit me? Remember, Truth will set you free!

prov,
first let me answer your last question about universalism. i would hope by now that you and i were past trying to discredit one another. the question was asked in the context of atheism and do you believe that 'all' mankind (inclusive of atheist) gains salvation ultimately. i was wondering out loud if i had remembered that you subscribed to that or not, no discrediting on my part, only looking for truth.
nowhere did i state or say i believed that atheist were man-boy/incest advocates ! i clearly stated what i believed about atheist (i.e good friends, co-workers, etc.).
perhaps i took a skewed understanding of your original post, it just seems (imo) like you were aiding/abetting atheist while dissing Christians.
you and i go back a ways and i would have hoped you would know that the 'truth' is paramount to me.

rsnakE,
thanks for the clarification. i have read some of the link and i'm really not impressed - he is totally ignorant of the word of God (but that's to be expected) but he tries to speak authoritatively but fails - he is condescending and presumptous.

Sorry to have posted and run, but was busy last weekend. John asks, "What are you saying, Sue? Who is objecting to the government supporting "his religion"? What does that have to do with the story at hand? Just a bit confused here."

This gets a big "whooops." I meant to post the comment in a different thread. Sorry about that.

"i have read some of the link and i'm really not impressed - he is totally ignorant of the word of God (but that's to be expected) but he tries to speak authoritatively but fails - he is condescending and presumptous."

I have personally decided that when I am asked to read something at some link, I'll do my best to read it entirely. I admit that I have long been in the habit of doing as Buz has stated here, "reading some" of a link and deciding the entire thing is trash.

I value my time, but reading 4 or 5 pages of someone else's thoughts isn't that big an imposition, generally. I consider that learning the entirety of what someone says can be rewarding in many ways, even if only to get a more complete view of what an opponent is thinking. And you never know what gems of wisdom might be hidden in a stranger's thoughts.

This gets a big "whooops." I meant to post the comment in a different thread. Sorry about that."

Well.

I guess tha clears THAT little item up. So it goes.

OK, I read the manifesto. Nothing there I haven't read or heard before. It is merely the ranting of anthill unbelief in the face of scenario universe, magnificent and transcendant.

I challenge you to find one radical gay or American Man Boy Love Association dude who is not a humanist or an atheist - consicously or unconsciously. No true, orthodox Chirstains espousing their views and practices.

Whatever makes you atheists decent and moral and loving is borowed hook, line and sinker from the Bible: God is love, love one another, forgive one another, minster to the poor and needy, do justice, set the captives free, use just weights, minister to the sick and dying, provide for the orphans and widows (James), don't put down the Jews (Rom. 11), "come, let us reason together, saith the Lord", all of I Cor. 13 on love, lex talionis, turning swords into plowshares, pray for the government, etc. etc.

Just because Christains (or so-called Christians) have fallen short of the mark doesn't invalidate the Marker.

The bad stuff of history and today is the result of sin and unbelief, which affects even nature. Se how our aerosol use has stirred up Mama Nature.

The complete harmony of all existence is predicated on faith and obedience to the Creator. God did NOT just leave us to ouselves, but gave us His Law and His Word - and His Redeemer. Our nation is filled with atheists. If you folks don't like us calling attention to your less than savory reps, don't feel like you can do that to Christians either!

You are a bunch of munchers, ethically, morally and philosophically. You would never have known what true love and moral excellence is apart from God's full-orbed revelation of it. Even so, you can't really understand it apart from the new birth and filling of the Spirit.

Your critiques of the Church and Christianity of course have merit. Christians are more aware than you of their shortcomings, and of those who claim to represent the Faith. But, as I pointed out, you can NOT dissassciate yourselves from your unbelieving black sheep and still condemn Christianity for its lesser reps. You and your manifesto have no existence apart from the eternal reality of God, His Word and His redemmed.
You will always have to define yourselves in terms of your unbelief.

Since this is an atheist thread, what do you free thinkers 'think' of this avowed atheist's blog comments. See the end of the post for the link:

"A Reconsideration of Some Atheistic Arguments

I would like to reconsider some claims that I've made in the past and suggest that they are wrong. The set of claims are the following:

C1: Religious language is meaningless.
C2: The notion of God is incoherent.
C3: Theism is an intrinsically worthless hypothesis.
C4: You cannot be reasonable and be a believer.
C5: Theistic hypotheses are the opposite of scientific hypotheses.
C6: The existence of God cannot provide us with any ethical obligations.
C7: The Argument from Physical Minds is a good atheistic argument.

As I said above, I believe that all of these claims are false. As time has gone on, and as I've continued to research the philosophy of religion, I've progressively moved away from supporting most atheistic arguments. I'll explain why I believe as I now do by addressing each claim at a time.

Claim #1: Religious language is meaningless.

There have been two different ways that religious skeptics have tried to argue that religious language is meaningless. First, the neopositivists of the early twentieth century argued, just as David Hume once did, that a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is empirically verifiable or analytic. This was expressed by Hume (2001) in his famous quote:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

The idea, as it is suggested above, is that a proposition is meaningful if and only if it is an analytic statement (where the truth of the statement is contained in the statement itself, such as is the case in mathematics and logic), or if it can be confirmed, in principle or in practice, through observation. The neopositivists wanted to deny that there is any synthetic a priori knowledge - that is, they wanted to deny that there was any knowledge of propositions known prior to experience that were not analytically true. Let me break that down for you. "2+2=4" is an analytically true statement, where the truth is contained within the statement by the very nature of what it is saying. We do not have to look out into the world in order to see whether or not 2+2=4. The statement itself shows us that the statement is true. On the other hand, take the statement "Sean Hannity is a dumb person". This statement is not necessarily true in the sense that 2+2=4 is necessarily true, but we know that it is true through observation of Sean Hannity. What the neopositivists wanted to deny was that we could know any propositions to be true that are not necessarily true like 2+2=4, before or prior to making observations about it. They wanted to say that there is no instance where we know a non-analytically true proposition before looking out into the world to see whether or not the statement is correct.

This lead the logical positivists to reject many areas of traditional philosophy as nonsense. They regarded the study of metaphysics as a study of non-analytically true, prior-to-experience ideas, and so they "committed it to the flames", like Hume encouraged us to do. They did the same thing with religious beliefs, and they did the same thing with ethical philosophy. According to the logical positivists, these philosophical areas of research deal with claims that are neither analytic nor known through experience, and therefore all of these philosophical areas of research are meaningless gibberish.

Nowadays, with the exception of only a few supporters, logical positivism is dead. One of the criticisms against it was that the principle they were using - the principle that says that a statement must either be analytically true or empirically verifiable - is itself neither analytically true nor empirically verifiable. So many philosophers have come to regard the principle as self-refuting.

I do not regard this criticism as a good one. I do feel that the verification principle is, in principle, empirically verifiable. How could we empirically verify it or disconfirm it? Ayer (1952) and Hempel (1970) tell us that a statement is empirically verifiable or falsifiable if we can imagine observations that would lead us to either accept it or reject it. With that, we can ask ourselves if the verification principle says anything where we could imagine observations that would lead us to either accept it or reject it. Alvin Plantinga (2000) has suggested that the neopositivist rejection of religious language constitutes a reductio ad absurdum of the verification principle, and I believe that this implicitly admits that Plantinga clearly feels that religious language is meaningful, and therefore constitutes a defeater of sorts for the verification principle. And that's the key, I would suggest. If we can find statements that seem clearly meaningful to us, that do not meet the demands of the verification principle, then we have empirically disconfirmed the hypothesis. At the same time, if we can see a commonality amongst all meaningful propositions that we can think of, about the world and in philosophy, that is harmonious with the verification principle, then this would empirically verify the hypothesis to a degree. So, this shows, I think, that this criticism of the verification principle is on shaky ground.

At the same time, however, I do believe that there are statements that seem clearly meaningful to us that do not meet the demands of the verification principle. Tom Metcalf (2005) wrote a paper not too long ago on epistemic principles that we use in every day life and in science, that all seem very difficult to empirically justify or support. For instance, consider the following three epistemic principles:

Basic Deduction Thesis: Properly employed deduction confers epistemic justification upon the conclusion of the argument.

Basic Induction Thesis: Properly employed induction confers epistemic justification upon the conclusion of the argument.

Basic Abduction Thesis: Properly employed abduction confers epistemic justification upon the conclusion of the argument.

Since these principles are clearly not analytic, they seem to falsify the verification principle. Moreover, the obvious consequence is that if these theses do not meet the demands of the verification principle, then we basically do not know anything at all, including the verification principle itself.

A second criticism is that, even if the verification principle were true, it is unclear that many religious statements would not meet the criterion. It is commonly suggested in the philosophy of religion that while we cannot empirically observe divine activity directly, we can observe it indirectly. At the same time, scientists did not observe gluons until the 1970's, but we understood that they existed by indirect observations of their effects. If this can be applied to divine activity (and I think that it can), then it seems that many religious statements would indeed be empirically verifiable in principle.

So, as far as I can see, the neopositivist critique of religious language does not work out.

The second way that skeptics have tried to argue that religious language is meaningless is via arguments provided by George Smith in his Atheism: the Case Against God. These arguments are mirrored in some papers written by Sidney Hook (see, e.g. Critiques of God, ed. Peter Angeles). Smith argues, as Augustinian theologians have in the past, that we cannot describe God in positive language. We can only say what God is not, rather than what God is. However, at the same time, we could only say what God is not if we first had some sort of notion from the beginning about what God actually is. So the attempt to describe God and his characteristics in purely negative terms would collapse into the project of describing God and his characteristics in positive terms, which, according to Smith, is not something that we can do. The conclusion that would purportedly follow from this is that we cannot meaningfully refer to a “God” in our language at all.

Now it seems to me that Smith, when analyzing religious language, chose to define God's characteristics in purely negative terms when in fact he could have easily described these characteristics in positive terms. For instance, Smith defined "omnipotence" as "having no limits on action". However, he could have just as easily described omnipotence as “being able to do whatever it is that is logically possible to do”, which is clearly a positive description. Furthermore, the positive description that I’ve just given is much more in accord with what believers typically believe about the nature of God, in comparison with the definition that Smith gives us. So, from this end, Smith's argument has problems.

Another argument that Smith gives us, if I remember it right, roughly suggests that because God is an infinite being, He can have no limits, and because He has no limits there are no borders of his character upon which we could distinguish God from some other thing. However, this is clearly a very shallow and uncharitable analysis of the way that believers speak about God. The classical view of God as literally infinite in character is no longer accepted by almost all theologians (was it ever predominant, really?), and furthermore the Bible itself describes limits to God's character. For instance, according to the Bible, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). Now, Smith might argue that this is simply incoherent. However, it would only be incoherent if we already accepted Smith’s rather shallow analysis of the way in which believers speak and conceive of God. Since they clearly do not speak and conceive of God in the way that Smith lays out, all of his arguments, including this one, fail.

In summary, then, there's simply no good reason to believe that religious language is meaningless. In philosophy nowadays, there's a sort of presumption that claims of these sort are meaningful until "proven guilty" (e.g., Sennett 2005). Since most people, at the end of the day, do seem to understand completely what most other people mean when they speak of God, and since religious language has not been proven meaningless, it seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate to believe that it is meaningful.

Claim #2: The notion of God is incoherent.

The second claim that I now regard as false tells us that God's divine characteristics are inconsistent with one another. Philosophers such as Michael Martin (1990) have provided detailed criticisms of divine characteristics. Other critics include Doug Krueger (2003) and Tom Metcalf (2005). Now, Richard Swinburne wrote a book some time ago called "The Coherence of Theism" (1993) where he set out to disprove this claim. John Mackie (1983), an important religious skeptic, regarded Swinburne's work as correct. I do also, but there's a more fundamental problem, I think, to this whole dispute.

I believe that many of the "incompatibility" arguments presented against believers today are very uncharitable toward believers. If we operated under a principle of charity, I believe we would simply understand that by "omniscience", believers do not literally mean "infinite knowledge", but rather "all knowledge that it is logically possible to have". For instance, God would not have knowledge of indexicals, or knowledge by acquaintance of immoral acts. It would be better to say that God knows all true propositions that it is logically possible for him to know, as well as the capacity knowledge and knowledge by acquaintance that he has by his nature as a divine being and as a Person. Richard Carrier (2005) has likewise suggested that these arguments are typically shallow ones that should not be taken seriously, and I join him in that sentiment.

Claim #3: Theism is an intrinsically worthless hypothesis.

Now, why would we regard theism as an intrinsically worthless hypothesis? Some people say that in fact, theism would not explain anything at all. Simply saying "God did it" is not an explanation. Skeptics might object that believers have not explained how God has done anything, and that is a crucial component of an explanation.

I think we should distinguish between partial and complete explanations. Certainly attributing some aspect of the universe to God's doing is not a complete explanation because, as the skeptic has pointed out, there is no explanation provided by believers as to how God has actually done the things that He has. However, why not accept theistic hypotheses as legitimate partial explanations? They have identified a person as responsible for something, but they simply don't know how he accomplished that something. For instance, if we notice that a bank has been mysteriously robbed, and the police are informed by several witnesses that the burglar was a man named John Smith, they would not simply shrug the witness off and say, "Well, you don't really know how he did it, so we're going to reject your explanation". Instead, the police would use this as a possible partial explanation for the event, and John would become a prime suspect. They would continue to investigate until they discovered the “how” as well as the “who”.

On the other hand, skeptics might object that God is an inherent silly idea, and should not be entertained as an explanation for anything. Perhaps this is the way in which theism is an intrinsically worthless hypothesis?

The problem here, I think, is that there are many different conceptions about who God is supposed to be. Christian fundamentalists have a much more anthropomorphic conception of God, whereas the God of the philosophers is much less anthropomorphic, although He, like many other beings, is able to share some characteristics that humans have as well (e.g. emotions and a moral sense). If skeptics wanted to suggest that the existence of the God of Christian fundamentalists is an inherently silly idea, then I would agree with them. I do not see much difference between this God and the gods of other outdated religions.

At the same time, the God of the philosophers is a much different being, and it is very unclear that the existence of this God is an inherently ridiculous or silly idea. What theistic philosophers and many scientists believe in nowadays is simply a powerful sentience with certain person-like characteristics that is responsible for a creative act. Is this really all that more far-fetched than many current theories in theoretical physics? In contemporary physics we have random events, multiple universes, eleven or more physical dimensions. It is theoretical possible to walk through walls if you tried long enough. As well, a book that sits on a table only does not fall through the table because of the repelling energy between the atoms that constitute the two objects. This is a world very different from our common sense intuitions. All practicing physicists tell us this (e.g. Brian Greene (2000) is a popularizer, and for an atheist physicist sharing this message, see Taner Edis (2005)). So given that science is finding out how strange our world really is, and given all these very strange ideas in contemporary theoretical physics, should we really be so quick to say that theistic hypotheses are inherently ridiculous and not worthy of any serious attention? Certainly the ideas that believers are putting forward are different from theoretical physics in that they are claiming that a spiritual entity exists, and physics has no such similar theory at this time, but I do believe that this analogy still carries over. There are some very strange ideas expressed in contemporary physics, and if we do not reject them outright for their weirdness, then I do not see why we could consistently do so for theistic hypotheses.

Claim #4: You cannot be reasonable and be a believer.

With all of the above taken into consideration, the claim that a reasonable person cannot believe in God can be seriously questioned. There are, in fact, many theologians who have provided arguments toward a reasonable belief in God. These arguments, I believe, cannot properly be called unreasonable in any acceptable sense. For current work on this subject, see Alex Pruss (2006), Richard Swinburne (2004), Alvin Plantinga (1993a, 1993b, 2000), Pruss and Gale (2003), Victor Reppert (2003), and James Sennett and Douglas Groothuis (2005). Also, Graham Oppy, a philosopher at Monash, recently published two books, where he argues that though no arguments toward the existence of God are strong enough to compel any reasonable non-believer to change his mind, it is nonetheless true that there are thoughtful, reflective, reasonable, and intelligent individuals who belief in orthodoxly conceived monotheistic gods (2006a, 2006b).

I have personally met many believers that I would call very rational, reasonable, and intelligent people. I would not merely call them rational, reasonable, and intelligent in general, but I would go on to say that they are rational, reasonable, and intelligent with respect to their belief in God.

Claim #5: Theistic hypotheses are the opposite of scientific hypotheses.

Claim #5 is usually put forward on the grounds that theistic hypotheses are not testable. Indeed, Kenneth Miller, a practicing Catholic and critic of the Intelligent Design movement, once said in a lecture that he was convinced that God “had a hand” in helping the Red Sox win the World Series in 2004, but this is not a scientific claim because it is not testable. [1]

At the same time, however, Michael Martin (2002) has pointed out several difficulties with the claim that theistic hypotheses are not testable in principle. If this is true, and if this is the only strong argument given by those who say that theistic hypotheses are, by their nature, unscientific, then the argument fails. Discussing the testability requirement, Martin writes,

“Consider the claim that Mr. Smith's cancer was cured by a miracle; that is, by a direct intervention of the supernatural in the natural course of events. Surely, evidence that Mr. Smith's cure was brought about by a new medicine he received would tend to count against this miracle explanation. Moreover, even the hypothesis that God exists--at least on some conceptions of God--is testable in this intuitive sense. After all, the existence of evil has been thought by some to be evidence against the existence of an all-good, all-powerful, and all knowing God[…] So it would seem that the criterion of testability--at least when formulated along these lines--cannot keep theological theories out of science and cannot provide a rationale for [methodological naturalism].”

Further, alternative criterions, such as the suggestion that scientific explanations must be based upon natural laws, have other problems. For instance, it is commonly accepted that the Big Bang is not a scientific theory that is based upon natural laws. Yet no scientist would maintain that, therefore, the Big Bang is not a scientific theory. [2]

Again, in principle, I believe that the conception of God believed in by many philosophers and scientists is not significantly stranger than many ideas currently discussed in theoretical physics. Furthermore, I argued earlier that we can, in principle and perhaps even in practice, indirectly observe predictions that a theistic hypothesis would make. So I see no reason to believe that theistic hypotheses are of the opposite nature of scientific hypotheses.

Claim #6: The existence of God could provide us with no additional ethical obligations from the ethical obligations we would have if God does not exist.

I believe that Claim #6 is clearly false for very straightforward reasons. I believe that just as we believe that we have certain obligations to friends and family members, we could have similar ethical obligations toward God. For instance, let’s say that a friend calls you up on the phone and asks you, “I really need to borrow your car for a few hours, would it be okay if I did?” Let’s also say that this friend has done many favours for you in the past. Clearly, if you there is no pressing need for you to decline, then you have a sort of obligation to let your friend borrow the car, especially considering the many favours that she has done for you in the past, and because of how badly she needs it. In that situation, then, allowing your friend to borrow your car for a few hours is the morally right thing to do. If you refused to let her borrow the car for a few hours, then this would be wrong and insensitive.

Now, let’s say that God appeared to me one day in my living room and said, “Hi Jim, I’m God. I’m the guy who created this whole universe so that you could live here and sit in this living room. I really need to borrow your car for a couple of hours. Would you let me?”

I don’t know about you, but I would feel pretty ethically obligated to let God borrow my car. Now, this is a silly example, but I think it illustrates a point. We may very well have certain ethical obligations that we would have toward God if He existed. This is true just as we would have ethical obligations toward friends and family members, by virtue of who they are and what role they have played in our lives. So, if a God exists, this could well mean that we have additional ethical obligations from the ethical obligations that we would have if a God does not exist.

Claim #7: The Argument from Physical Minds is a good atheistic argument.

The Argument from Physical Minds usually works in the following way:

(1) There is strong evidence that the mind supervenes upon the physical brain.
(2) If the mind is dependent upon the brain, then there can be no mind without a physical brain.
(3) God is a mind that does not supervene on the physical brain.
(4) Therefore, God cannot exist.

The support for premise (1) is typically scientific. For instance, two skeptics who have supported this argument, Jeffery Jay Lowder (1999) and Michael Tooley (1994), give five lines of scientific evidence for premise (1). Now, perhaps this scientific support gives us some evidence to believe that, in our universe, there is a dependent relationship of the mind upon the physical brain. However, this by no means shows that there is a necessary metaphysical relationship between the two, and I believe that in order to provide good grounds to accept the conclusion, we would have to show that there is such a relationship. To say it another way, there is simply no reason to believe that it is necessary that all minds supervene upon the physical brain. At best, the scientific support for this argument would give us inductive grounds to suppose that this relationship happens to hold in our universe. What it does not show is that there is a metaphysical relationship between the two, and I believe that we would have to show that this is the case in order to accept the argument. So far, this has not been done.

Conclusion

In conclusion, then, I believe that many atheistic arguments that have been given in the past are failures. I myself have supported all of these arguments at one time or another, and I now regard them as mistaken. This is not to say that there are no good atheistic arguments. I believe that there are some arguments that remain serious problems for believers. However, what I think I have shown here is that theism is not as epistemically perverse as some religious skeptics would like us to think, and furthermore, that some of the arguments that skeptics have themselves provided are uncharitable and weak.

Bibliography

Ayer, Alfred Jules. Language, Truth, and Logic. (USA: Dover Publications, 1952).
Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. (USA: Oxford University Press, 2001).
Carrier, Richard. Sense and Goodness Without God. (New York: Authorhouse, 2005).
Edis, Taner. Science and Nonbelief. (New York: Prometheus Books, 2005).
Gale, Richard and Alexander Pruss. The Existence of God. (USA: Ashgate Publishing, 2003).
Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe. (USA: Vintage, 2000).
Hempel, Carl. Aspects of Scientific Explanation. (USA: Free Press, 1970).
Krueger, Douglas and Chris McHugh. “Atheism or Theism?” a debate at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board, 2003. URL:
Lowder, Jeffery Jay and Phil Fernandes. “Naturalism or Theism?” a debate at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, September 1999.
Mackie, John L. The Miracle of Theism.
Martin, Michael. “Justifying Methodological Naturalism” in The Secular Web Library, published 2002.
Metcalf, Tom. “Empiricism, Externalism, and Self-Undermine” (written December, 2005).
Oppy, Graham. Arguing About Gods. (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Oppy, Graham. Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity. (Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant: The Current Debate. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Plantinga, Alvin. Warrant and Proper Function. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Pruss, Alexander. The Principle of Sufficient Reason: A Reassessment. (USA: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Reppert, Victor. C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2003).
Sennett, James and Douglas Groothuis. In Defense of Natural Theology. (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2005).
Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. (USA: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Swinburne, Richard. The Coherence of Theism. (USA: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Tooley, Michael and William Lane Craig. “Does God Exist?” a debate at the University of Colorado (Boulder), November 1994.

_______________________________
End Notes

[1] This was a point made in Ken Miller’s talk at Case Western Reserve University, given this past January. The lecture was titled, “The Collapse of Intelligent Design”.

[2] This point is also due to Martin’s paper.

posted by Jim Lazarus @ 7:56 PM"

Here is the link:
http://consolatione.blogspot.com/

Sterling

PS (Pastor Sterling)
ps: thank you to the PFA group for being so accommodating to me as I have visited with you at your monthly meetings.

Nikos:
"I challenge you to find one radical gay or American Man Boy Love Association dude who is not a humanist or an atheist - consicously or unconsciously."

Ever make a Venn diagram of the atheist community? It is even more busy than your average one for Christianity. It's like herding cats, as they say.

"Just because Christains (or so-called Christians) have fallen short of the mark doesn't invalidate the Marker."

I agree. But it does argue against the notion that the religion reliably makes its believers "better."

"You are a bunch of munchers, ethically, morally and philosophically. You would never have known what true love and moral excellence is apart from God's full-orbed revelation of it."

I submit to you that much of what passes for "love and moral excellence" in the Bible is nothing of the sort. And the parts of the Bible that do have great sentiments are almost entirely copied from earlier religious and philosophical writings. It is no "revelation," as you seem to believe it to be.

"You will always have to define yourselves in terms of your unbelief."

Only while there are so many believers around who prefer to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. In more civilized corners of the world, atheism isn't a social issue. It's people like you who make our activity necessary.

Nikos writes: "I challenge you to find one radical gay or American Man Boy Love Association dude who is not a humanist or an atheist - consicously or unconsciously. No true, orthodox Chirstains espousing their views and practices."

And I challenge you to prove your assertion. Otherwise your statement is pure slander which is in violation of the eighth commandment (Luther's numbering). NAMBLA is always used by those on the extreme political/religious right as a way to discredit thier enemies...just fill in the blank: _______is associated with NAMBLA. There ya go. The enemy is automatically discredited. Who cares if it's true or not?

You cannot make blanket statements without evidence. I suggest that there is much more evidence to show that children are more likely to be molested by those who go by the name Christian, specifically extreme right "Christians", than atheists or agnostics. And I am willing to back that statement up with data from websites. The sites are not easy to view, but if proof is needed, then I will indeed post those sites.

The God I serve does not approve of misleading statements of outright lies. The church needs to wake up to the magnitude of this type of behavior in our midst. To stick our heads in the sand is not the answer. Heck, everyone else outside of the church already knows the truth and they also know how self deluded we can be. Why not just be honest and then deal with our "issues". "Judgement must begin with the house of the Lord."

"A good End cannot sanctify evil Means; nor must we ever do Evil, that Good may come of it. . . It is as great Presumption to send our Passions upon God’s Name. . . We are too ready to retaliate, rather than forgive, or gain by Love and information. And yet we could hurt no Man that we believe loves us. Let us then try what Love will do: For if Men did once see we Love them, we should soon find they would not harm us. Force may subdue, but Love gains: And he that forgives first, wins the Lawrel." --William Penn

proV,
i am still a little confused. what i hear nikos basically state is that orthodox (may i take liberty and say 'true Christians')Christians do not believe/adhere to the notion that man/boy love is acceptable....while perhaps atheist/humanist who do not have the moral compass (read Holy Spirit) provided by God's word, might espouse that practice without regard to condemnation from God. when you challenge nikos to prove that statement, to me it seems that you advocate that true Christians might espouse this man/boy love thing ? imo a true regenerate individual whom has the Holy Spirit (moral compass) residing in them could not (in good conscience) ever espouse much less practice man/boy love. so it seems to me that an individual who has not the Spirit of God residing in them is more likely to feel less restricted from pursuing that type of relationship.
you are correct in that it is no secret within and without the church that much harm has been perpetrated in the name of Christ, i for one do not deny nor try to cover up that fact. i do, to the glory of God try in ernst to live a godly live before God and man, hoping to be an example of the resurrected Messiah. i personally try to uplift the church and espouse the positive aspect of His Bride and spent no time slandering His church. you've taken time to post about the pitfalls of the church and pointed out its shortcomings, i would like to see your counterpoint to those criticisms. respectfully........

"what i hear nikos basically state is that orthodox (may i take liberty and say 'true Christians')Christians do not believe/adhere to the notion that man/boy love is acceptable....while perhaps atheist/humanist who do not have the moral compass (read Holy Spirit) provided by God's word, might espouse that practice without regard to condemnation from God."

First off, I would like to say that the NAMBLA thing sure looks to me like a red herring in this discussion. I know of no humanists personally who endorse that group or its agenda.

But looking at the deeper issue of the existence of a "moral compass," that certainly seems like a subject for interesting discussion. What is the greatest possible good, and how do you aim for it? Isn't that what we mean by this term?

I'm not sure if I understand the theist take on the whole "moral compass" business. The messages I read seem to have mixed ideas on the meaning there. Are humans supposed to follow a long set of intstructions without question? Are there a couple of general guidelines that will cover all possible circumstances? Is there a consensus to be had from the theists on this, and if not, what's the way forward?

As Sam Harris mentioned, atheists are acutely aware of the need for figuring out the best path using the tools we have. We don't claim perfection, only the determination to do the best we can with what we have available.

Nikos called us "munchers," taking what we want from earlier work (I assume he thinks we only take from Christianity's material; if that's the case, it's a sign of hubris on his part and far from the truth), but I believe we should all be "munchers." To deny the truth of anything from the past based only on its origin is foolishness.

So no one ever loved unconditionally until Jesus showed the way?

Theists will of course always claim that those who disagree with their premises, their "final vocabulary", as Rorty calls it, are doomed to fail in self-definition. In a contingent universe (multiverses), everyone is thus doomed. We are seen in relation, always, and our ideas are formed in opposition, as is most all language (Wittgenstein, who rightly never backed off his assessment of theistic language).

How would I choose to "define myself" without recourse to only citing "unbelief"? I submit that reason, and discourse, and the search for knowledge are fine things to help define a life.
There are many other ways, and they include some of the mores and conventions already mentioned, as well as others, that go back to traditions rooted in several cultures and eras. I agree with John, in today's world, we would be foolish not to mine wisdom wherever it originates.

The Scriptures teach repeatedly that the divine Law is self-evident to all, has existed from the beginning and is universal: Psalm 19, Romans 2. So, of course, as I have stated many times, all cultures and religions have mined certain principles from the Truth, and applied them as they were able: the Eight-fold Path, the Five Pillars, etc. Some are more obviously derivative from earlier expressions; others less so.

The Law given to Moses was not new at all, but a stating in totality what was known and understood only in part. The bulk of the ancient world was rife with polytheism, fertility cult sexuality, brutal oppression, etc. Previous knowledge of the divine Law was only partial because it was not given or perceived in the context of the one, true and living God. The first table of the Law, therefore, is what atheists and liberals reject - for this very reason. Heck, they don’t even want to keep the second table when it comes to adultery and sexual perversion. They kind of like the idea of not being murdered or stolen from though.

As far as unconditional love is concerned; it is generally acknowledged that Jesus was a great moral and spiritual teacher, but His supreme expression of selfless love was the offering up of himself on the cross. The spotless and innocent Lamb was brutalized and humiliated for the sins of the world; and the power of His Resurrection has transformed the hearts and lives of millions, and inspired them to lay down their lives in service to others: Albert Schweitzer, Nate Saint, George Mueller, David Livingstone or Mother Theresa. Yes, TRUE Christianity does indeed “make people better.” Religionism and pseudo-Christianity may lead some to do good works, but they are really just dressed up sinners.

All Christians are imperfect and weak in the flesh; but as the bumper sticker says (and I rarely resort to quoting them) “I’m not perfect; just forgiven.” Those who hate God and reject His Word are very quick to judge and pick apart; primarily because they must say and do everything in their power to convince others and themselves that God does not exist, and that His Law is not the supreme moral standard - because it would show them to be the lost and condemned sinners that they are, and the pain of that would be too great to bear. But they can never admit this without the grace and aid of the Holy Spirit, being “dead (spiritually) in their trespasses and sins.”

Even the most erudite and perceptive genius is a moral idiot if he rejects the absolute perfection and moral excellence of God’s self-revelation in the Law and the Son. There is no “being” apart from God: “I AM that I AM” he spoke to Moses regarding his nature. Everything apart from God has no real, independent existence. It is only a shadow or phantom of the True. This is what I meant when I said that atheists are “munchers” or thieves; in that you MUST borrow theistic morals and concepts of the beautiful, the good and the just in order to have anything resembling a summum bonum.

In fact, none of you can live one day without saying and doing things based on the teachings of Jesus, the Prophets and Moses. Do you like to hate or kill people. Do you wince when you curse at someone in error? Do you try to be kind to others and be “a good person?” If good and moral behavior came through evolutionary channels, why is there evil and counter-survival stuff going on all around us, every day – can’t men see that all this terrorism, war, hated, murder and injustice will wipe us all out. Sin, because it does not partake of eternal Being, is AKWAYS deadly in its manifestations, leading to darkness, debauchery and death – whether perpetrated by priests, atheists, Democrats, conservatives, nuns, college professors, milkmen or popes.

Most liberal, atheist types today decry the idea of absolute morality, espousing moral relativism or situation ethics. So what grounds does any of them have for trying to convince and teach others not to hate or kill or practice perverse sexuality. None. One humanist has even declared that rape is only a “natural” part of the evolutionary process. If we see our teenagers going ape, we now know why.

All that we call deplorable and evil and inhuman and unjust is done in contradiction to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. It is He, and the grace that comes through faith and surrender to Him as the divine Savior and Lord, that has called forth the best, the most loving and sacrificial in people. All who refuse to follow and seek after him, whether in the Church or outside it, inevitably become spiritually jaded and morally corrupt. Some manage a modicum of civility and human service and kindness by “borrowing” His moral and ethical imperatives. But denying the Creator and His truth is the greatest offense that one created in His very image and likeness can give, because it cuts the offender off from the supreme joy of KNOWING His Heavenly Father. It gives him no One to worship and adore, and it alienates him from the covenant blessings of love and obedience, condemning him to everlasting separation from God’s presence.

Enter the Gospel – God’s solution to the sin and alienation problem. “Unless you become as a little child you can in no wise enter the Kingdom.” Once in, everything makes perfect and eternal sense (as millions will attest). Outside Christ, all is confusion, darkness and unbelief. Atheism is not a path to light and immortality, but a long, restless and irritable descent into moral chaos and spiritual death.
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.” Ruffles the old pride, but it’s the only way.

The Christian and the Atheist
There's a little old Christian lady living next door to an atheist. Every morning the lady comes out onto her front porch and shouts "Praise the Lord!".

The atheist yells back, "There is no God".

She does this every morning with the same result. As time goes on, the lady runs into financial difficulties and has trouble buying food. She goes out onto the porch and asks God for help with groceries, then says "Praise the Lord".

The next morning she goes out onto the porch and there's the groceries she asked for, and of course, she shouts "Praise the Lord!!!".

The atheist jumps out from behind a bush and says, "Ha, I bought those groceries - there is no God".

The lady looks at him and smiles, she shouts "Praise the Lord, not only did you provide for me Lord, you made Satan pay for the groceries!!"

What use is there trying to have reasoned discourse with someone who states that any ideas of goodness a non-believer may have, any urge to compassion and love, is only ever from this proposed one god? As always, Nikos, you consisitently make the logical error of begging the question. You leave no options for balanced argument. Beside that, you insult billions upon billions of beautiful, caring human beings who have done everything you would ever expect them to do in their lives, except bow to the particular brand of deity you do.