Have you ever considered taking a philosophy class? Dr. Dan Fincke, an atheist blogger at Patheos at Camels with Hammers who teaches at several colleges, is offering affordable private philosophy classes. He summarizes his approach here and here.
If this interests you, contact Dan through this form.
Photo credit: Wikimedia
Monthly Archives: April 2013
Televangelists Show Prayer is Useless
Do you ever watch televangelists? Any show is one long infomercial that always ends with a direct appeal in two parts: please pray for us, and send lots of cash, as much as you can.
But why bother with the request for money? People who have the ear of the almighty creator of the universe can tap into a whole lot more than whatever’s in their wallets. Who cares about trifling financial donations when you can get help from the Big Man himself?
Televangelists’ appeals for money make clear that they know what I know: that praying is like waiting for the Great Pumpkin. People can reliably deliver money, but prayer doesn’t deliver anything.
This reminds me of a quote from that persuasive theologian, George Carlin. About God, he says,
But he loves you! He loves you … and he needs money! He always needs money. He’s all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise … but somehow he just can’t handle money.
It starts about one minute into this piece. (Caution: the dialogue is a bit R-rated. It is George Carlin, after all.)
We exist in a bizarre combination of
Stone Age emotions,
medieval beliefs,
and god-like technology.
—Edward O. Wilson
(This is a modified version of a post originally published 10/13/11.)
Photo credit: Wikipedia
New Commenting System!
The sorcerers behind the scenes at Patheos are changing the commenting engine for all the blogs to Disqus. You might’ve seen Disqus elsewhere on the internet.
Some of the improvements are:
- You can finally edit your comment. No more zero tolerance for HTML typos.
- Long comments collapse so that the first hundred words or so are shown, with a “see more” button at the bottom.
- You can vote comments up or down.
- Comments can be sorted—Oldest at the top, Newest at the top, or Best (as voted on by readers) at the top.
- You can share a comment on Twitter or Facebook.
I’m sure there’s more stuff that I don’t understand yet. (Will your old name will still work? How do you get email notification of new comments?)
There’s one temporary downside: old comments are there, but not all of the comments in the past few days have made it over. The sorcerers have assured me that all is well, and any comments you don’t see will, like the proverbial lost sheep, be brought back to the fold.
Do Atheists Borrow From the Christian Worldview?
Consider this parable:
A certain mathematician, in a philosophical mood one day, wondered what grounded his mathematics. The math works, of course, but he wonders if he’s missing something foundational.
He consults a friend of his, a theologian. The theologian knows almost nothing about mathematics, but he knows his Christianity.
The mathematician says, “Mathematics is like an inverted triangle with the most advanced math along the wide top edge. The top layer is grounded on the math below it, which is grounded on what is below, and so on through the layers, down to arithmetic and logic at the point at the bottom. And that’s where it stops.”
The theologian nodded his head wisely. “I see the problem—what does the bottom rest on?”
The mathematician was silent.
“In your view, it rests on nothing,” said the theologian. “It just sits there in midair. But the problem is easily resolved—mathematics and logic comes from God. There’s your grounding.”
“Are you saying that I need to convert to Christianity to be a mathematician?”
“No, just realize that you are borrowing from the Christian worldview every time you make a computation or write an equation.”
Satisfied that this nagging problem has been resolved, the mathematician returns to his work and thinks no more of it.
The End.
So, is the mathematician any better off? Is he faster or more accurate or more creative? Do his proofs work now where they hadn’t before? In short, did he get anything of value from the whole episode? Not at all.
And note, of course, that the axioms at the bottom of the triangle aren’t taken on faith, they’re tested. “1 + 1 = 2” has worked on everything so far, but we’ll take notice if we find a situation where it doesn’t. Some mathematical claims are proven and some are tested, but each is reliable.
I’ve heard this “grounding” or “atheists borrow from the Christian worldview” idea many times, but I’ve yet to discover what this missing thing is that is being borrowed.
If we imagine that 1 + 1 equals 2 only because God says so, that means that a universe is possible where 1 + 1 doesn’t equal 2. That’s a remarkable claim, and I’d like to see it supported by the theologian rather than simply asserted without evidence.
“God did it” is nothing more than a restatement of the problem. “God did it” is precisely as useful as “logic and arithmetic are simply properties of our reality” or “that’s just the way it is” or even “I don’t know.” An interesting question has been suppressed, not resolved. In fact, by the theologian’s own logic, his answer rests in midair because he provides no reason to conclude that God exists. His claim is no more believable than that of any other religion—that is, not at all.
The person who stops at “God did it” has stated an opinion only—an opinion with no evidence to back it up. It doesn’t advance the cause of truth one bit.
Mathematics is tested, and it works. Scratch your head about what grounds it if you want, but God is an unnecessary and unedifying addition to the mix.
God is an ever-receding pocket
of scientific ignorance.
— Neil DeGrasse-Tyson
(This is a modified version of a post originally published 11/25/11.)
Interview an Atheist at Church Day, May 5
I enjoy talking with Christians about what they believe and why. For example, I spent two weeks in Strasbourg at John Warwick Montgomery’s International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism, and Human Rights two years ago. I attended the inhabit conference this weekend. I’ve participated in the Alpha Course four times. I like to engage with the people on the street corner carrying the “Repent or Else” signs. It’s Christians who I’m most eager to connect with through this blog.
Someone else shares my interest and is trying to formalize the process. Kile Jones is organizing “Interview an Atheist at Church” day, planned for May 5. The Friendly Atheist blog gave it a boost with a recent post.
Kile hooked me up with the pastor of a small local church, and I’m looking forward to engaging with that congregation. A church of any significant size likely has atheists in the pews who aren’t able to come out, so this is a chance for them to better understand their own members, as well as non-Christians.
Are you part of a church in the greater Seattle area who’d like to participate? Contact Kile or me. If May 5 doesn’t work out, that’s not a problem. Not even close to Seattle? Atheists and churches can connect through Kile.
Photo credit: Friendly Atheist blog
Same-Sex Marriage Leads to Police State
Same old story—same-sex marriage is a slippery slope. Once we allow this change, what will come next? Will people demand to marry their children or pets or sex toys?
Many traditionalists back in the sixties had their own version of this: “Once black folks can marry white folks, who knows what’ll come next?”
The sky didn’t fall after Loving v. Virginia eliminated anti-miscegeny laws in 1967, and it didn’t when the Netherlands became the first country to grant same-sex marriages in 2001 or when Massachusetts became the first U.S. state to legalize them in 2004.
Don’t open that Pandora’s Box labeled “same-sex marriage”!
Here’s a new variation on the Chicken Little fear that the sky is falling. Fellow Patheos blogger Dwight Longenecker doesn’t wonder what’ll come after same-sex marriage. He knows: the U.S. will become a police state.
Hold your arms out for balance, and let’s step through the argument. First, he points to a recent article titled “Legalize Polygamy!” Written by a woman, it argues that a pro-woman attitude should allow women the freedom to enter into polygamous marriages. She argues that marriage is plastic—that it can be molded to take on new shapes.
America has dramatically rejected many of the marriage customs decreed in the Bible, so, yeah, marriage is plastic. But have you considered the consequences? Longenecker has.
Marriage is only plastic … because everything else is too. In other words, there is no such thing as Truth.
This big-T Truth presumably means objective or absolute truth. And here again I agree—I see no evidence for objective truth in issues that affect society such as morality or the definition of marriage. But Longenecker wails and rends his garments:
For the Catholic everything is connected. If marriage is plastic … then everything is plastic … Everything is up for grabs, there is no certainty and if no certainty, then no security.
Changing the definition of marriage pulls the thread that unravels the entire fabric of your reality? I guess it sucks to be you then, since we’ve already resoundingly rejected many of the Bible’s conceptions of the male/female relationship.
The Bible’s nutty interpretation of marriage
- “Do not intermarry with [those in the Canaanite tribes]” (Deut. 7:3).
- King Solomon famously had 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
- A raped woman must marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28–9).
- “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.” (Num. 31:17–18)
- God said to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.” (2 Sam. 12:8). God has his complaints about David, but polygamy isn’t one of them.
- Paul said, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). Marriage is clearly the second best option. Celibacy is what we should actually strive for.
- Paul also rejects divorce (1 Cor. 7:10–11).
The Bible isn’t much of a marriage manual.
The sky is falling!
In a society where anything goes everything goes…downhill fast. Where moral disintegration exists societal disintegration soon follows. Everything starts to come apart at the seams. Societal chaos threatens.
I missed how we get “anything goes” from expanding one institution of society to include a disenfranchised minority.
When there is no certainty in a society–no moral absolutes and no reason and no rules …
As for no moral absolutes … well, yeah. Why—do you have any evidence of moral absolutes besides some vague feeling? And here again, the only one who imagines no reason and no rules is Longenecker himself.
And now the punch line.
When there is no certainty in a society–no moral absolutes and no reason and no rules, then something must be done. People demand security. As disorder and chaos increase people demand order and control.
But, of course, this dystopia that’s around the corner won’t reach for Longenecker’s Yahweh, darn it. This obvious answer will be right in front of us, but our fallen race will appeal to government, and the government’s way to provide order and control is a police state.
Thus the ultimate irony that those who wanted a society “completely free” from absolutes where everything was plastic will end up with a police state where nothing is plastic and the total control is drastic.
This breathless argument distills down to this:
1. A same-sex marriage proponent is now advocating that polygamy be legalized. See? Didn’t I say this would happen?!
2. A flexible definition of marriage means that everything is flexible. Absolutes of any kind and even truth itself are no more. Anything goes.
3. Moral disintegration and social chaos follow.
4. The public clamors for order, and government responds with a police state.
(Point #2 is where the argument teleports to Crazy Town, IMO.)
The slippery slope argument is popular, but I reject it. The definition of marriage does change; that’s a simple fact of history. Instead of focusing on that, focus on the test that doesn’t change: does it cause harm?
Does polygamy cause harm? Does same-sex marriage cause harm? These are the questions to ask.
Happiness is the only good,
reason the only torch,
justice the only worship,
humanity the only religion,
and love the only priest.
— Robert Green Ingersoll
Photo credit: Wikimedia
