I wish I could say that Justin at Consider Atheism has posted some more of his thoughts on the Problem of Evil and how to refute my defeater of it, but unfortunately they are the embarrassingly weak responses of Dawson Bethrick. I suppose that is at once both good and bad. On the one hand, it is good that such a train wreck didn’t come from his own brain. But it is bad, on the other hand, that he didn’t approach the problem with critical thinking of his own, despite my hope that he would, choosing instead to publish Bethrick’s response (but mostly in Justin’s own words).

Originally Bethrick tried to save Justin’s argument by using Isaiah 45:7 to prove that evil is indeed something God creates. Justin was rather enlivened by this passage and brought it to my attention in the comments area of my first article. And I proceeded to show him why he should probably not get too excited about arguments that Bethrick uses by showing him what the passage is actually talking about. And as to be expected, Bethrick responded (at Justin’s site). I was going to send Justin a private email about this and tell him that he would score critical thinking points if he could identify what was wrong with Bethrick’s response. But it seems I didn’t get off work soon enough, for by the time I got home Justin had uncritically regurgitated the train wreck in a new blog post, so now this gets to be done in public instead. Readers of the Aristophrenium know that I don’t mind dismantling logically bankrupt arguments from atheists who pretend to esteem reason—to put it kindly—but I was really hoping to save Justin the embarrassment because I like him. “Before you invest yourself in Bethrick’s response,” I was going to write him, “evaluate it critically for logical flaws.” Anybody can teach people what to think, but I want to teach people how to think, and few things achieve that goal quite like learning how to critically evaluate an argument.

But if he wishes to do this publically, I’m willing to oblige him. Let’s have a look.

Read the rest of this entry

Great example of reductio ad absurdum in a clever piece by John over at Sydney Anglican Heretics last month. He is responding to Greg Clarke’s comments in the Australian christian newspaper Eternity, where Clarke made a fairly strong inference to young earth creationists as “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots.” 

I was able to find an electronic version of the article at the centre for public christianity for context: 

“…people of faith don’t think that you should believe things when the evidence is to the contrary. There might be a few misguided types who think that it is a ‘test of faith’ to believe things when the evidence suggests it isn’t reality, but that is not the position of orthodox Christianity. 

“It is for this reason that many Christians in the sciences do not believe in a literal seven-day creation, or in a variety of views about dinosaurs and fossils. They think the evidence is to the contrary. Christians are realists, not head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears idiots. At least, they shouldn’t be. There is no need to be afraid of evidence and knowledge—of course, we will need to interpret it well. It is very fair to reserve judgement about evidence until such investigation has been done, but then we must let the evidence sit and deal with it as best we see it.” 

Apart from the implication by Clarke that people who believe in a literal six-day creation are ignorant, misguided or afraid of supposed evidence against their view (I have to say, it is quite the opposite), I rather appreciate the interesting tactical approach by John in resolving confusion over this issue: 

Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot.
Greg Clarke is an idiot. 

The question that we have before us today is, Is Greg Clarke really an idiot? 

In order to answer this we must set aside, for the moment, our limiting pre-postmodernal preconceptions that would entail taking these words at face value and concluding that the author is literally claiming that Greg Clarke is actually an idiot. What we must do is to examine the evidence, not on a literal level, but a literalistic one. Hence, let us deconstruct the message by taking the priority of form over content. In other words, to garner support from Marshall McLuhan’s famous maxim we can claim that the medium is truly the message. 

First, note the repetition. The writer, by claiming seven times that Greg is an idiot, is underscoring a claim of perfection, not Greg’s perfection, of course, but perfection of the message. 

Further, each instantiation of ‘Greg Clarke is an idiot’ contains seven syllables, making 7 x 7 or 49 interconnected modules. We can recall from the Old Testament that 49 was traditionally the number used when one wanted to signify divine completion over an extended period of time. Thus, the author of this message is clearly emphasising divine sanction of Greg Clarke being an idiot.

One could go on and on about this pithy declaration, its internal structure and whether or not Greg Clarke is a literal or literalistic idiot. Possibly some background detail may assist our endeavour.

This month in the Christian newspaper Eternity Greg Clarke claimed that young earth creationists, apropos science and the Bible, are not realists but are “head-in-the-sand, plug-the-ears-idiots”. Now, try as I might, I found it impossible to uncover any literary devices in his statement so I was forced to take it straightforwardly and conclude that Greg Clarke really meant that I and others were genuine, unadulterated 100% idiots because we hold that God created everything in 6 days.

The full title of the book is Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation (CFR).

I originally became interested in CFR because of the promise it offered as a commentary on the relationship between science and scripture, and as a survey of the historical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. And with chapters such as Scripture, Science, and Interpretation, Creation and Genesis: A Historical Survey and two chapters covering different aspects on The Days of Creation, I was not at all disappointed. Andrew Kulikovsky demonstrates his depth of knowledge in these areas, bringing all of the relevant pieces together into one volume that is relatively easy to read.

Similarly, Bob McCabe in a recent review of CFR, says that Kulikovsky “provides a readable text that is a basic exegetical and theological explanation and defense of the biblical text, as well as refuting common evangelical interpretative schemes that undermine the traditional reading of Genesis.”

That is not to say that the material itself is easily understood. In fact, I spent quite a bit of time re-reading some sections of the book and I think that is simply due to the nature of the topics being covered, together with my lack of prior knowledge on the subject matter.

In the first chapter, Kulikovsky acknowledges the concept (originating with Francis Bacon) that “God has revealed Himself in two ‘books’ – general revelation and special revelation” (p.18) but spends the first two chapters distinguishing one from the other, recognizing the unfortunately all too common habit for Christians to, either explicitly or implicitly, give general revelation an equal or higher position than that of special revelation.^[1] He rightly points out that whenever the two books seemingly conflict, “Such conflicts are nearly always resolved by simply reinterpreting the special revelation in Scripture … implying … that the two are not equal.” (p. 18-19). Similarly, “The truth claims of science always seem to trump exegesis, regardless of how thorough it is and how well done.” (p.41)

Read the rest of this entry

Justin, a young man from Canada, started a brand new blog called Consider Atheism. Although I don’t remember how I stumbled upon his blog, it has garnered my interest for two reasons: he is Canadian and purports to defend Atheism. (And there is also the fact that he is young, which means he is still teachable.)

One of the first posts to elicit a response from me regarded the Problem of Evil (which most people know is my favourite subject). The following is the sum of our discussion.

Read the rest of this entry

Tom Gilson wants to challenge the tunnel vision of our insular ambitions. At his site Reclaim the High Ground he writes, “[As apologists and worldview ministry leaders], most of us are still aiming for too small a result. We’re focused on the engagement: the question we’re addressing in this article or that, or the crowd we’re speaking to, or the debate we hope to win. What we want out of each engagement is good: to equip, to encourage, or to persuade in the name of Christ. But the engagement isn’t enough. We need to be about turning around Christian intellectual culture, to the end that every church can engage its own people or its own community from a position of strength.”

To read the open letter in full, click here.

On the Dalnet IRC network there is a formerly popular chat room called #ChristianDebate (whose population has really thinned out over the last five years). There are a lot of regular visitors in that room but very few have a history there quite as long as that of Father Samuel L. Bassett (a.k.a. “FrSam”). A lot of things can be said about Fr. Bassett, for he has a very polarizing personality (but I have positive and fond memories of our long history), but one of the clearest things that can be said about him, all personalities aside, is that he truly loathes Calvinism! (It should also be pointed out that Fr. Bassett is with the American Catholic Union, which is an association of independent Old Catholic priests in California.)

Around the beginning of June this year I poked my head back in that room, which I do from time to time when the network I enjoy gets too quiet. During this recent visit a very brief conversation ensued over the subject of Calvinism and, in response to my seeming defense of it, Fr. Bassett directed my attention to an article he had published at his blog in 2006 entitled “Calvinism = Diabolism.” Definitely an attention-getting title, and after reading it I said that I shall have to comment on it.

And so I did. The following is the comment I submitted to the article:

Greetings, Fr. Bassett. As you posted a link to this article on IRC last night, I obliged you and gave it a read. It appears that your basic argument reduces to the following:

1. Calvinism teaches self-hate and hatred of others (“total depravity” doctrine).
2. Only the Devil symbolizes hatred of self and others.
3. Therefore, Calvinism is diabolism (influenced by or characteristic of the Devil).

If the Christian is to fight against lies with the truth (as your closing sentence encouraged), then we must be able to distinguish lies from truth. I am a little uncertain about the wording of your second premise, but I’m willing to grant it for the sake of argument because it is true enough for us to be in agreement about. So allowing that the argument is valid, the issue then would seem to focus on the first premise. Given the need to distinguish lies from truth, we need to see whether the first premise is true or not.

Can you please cite for us from any confessional standard where Calvinism teaches self-hate and hatred of others? For example, evidence in the form of a quote from the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of the Synod of Dort, Westminster Confession of Faith, or the London Baptist Confession of Faith (any of which represent what “Calvinism teaches”).

Several weeks went by without my comment getting published. Although I would still visit the room from time to time, FrSam was never around—that is, until last night, when I was finally able to ask him about the matter. And his response speaks volumes.

Ryft: You never published my comment on your article.

FrSam: Nope. Nothing worth publishing.

Ryft: Okay.

I will let his article and his response to my submitted comment speak for the integrity of his polemic against Calvinism. And I will post here what he was unwilling to post there, and permit our readers to observe both sides. Draw your own conclusions.

Extract from Rachael J. Denhollander’s article “If the foundations be destroyed” inVol. 24(1) 2010 of the “Journal of Creation” publication.

The “beginning of the end” for teaching creation science or Intelligent Design (ID) in the public school classroom came in 1947, in Everson vs Board of Education, a case which, interestingly enough, addressed no issue of science at all, and was actually decided in favor of the more “conservative” client. What Everson did do, however, is completely reshape the understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ultimately providing the framework for banning creation science and ID in the classroom.

The Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution simply states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Thus, in every Establishment Clause challenge, the Plaintiff must prove two essential elements: 1) That the government is involved in religion, and 2) that such involvement has the effect of establishing a religion. Currently, there are a myriad of tests the court may apply in determining whether an establishment of religion has taken place, the most popular of which is known as the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test arose from the case Lemon vs Kurtzman, and requires a three-prong analysis which holds that the Establishment Clause has been violated if any of the following are true:

a) There is no valid secular purpose for the government’s action.

b) The primary effect of the action is not secular.

c) The government action fosters excessive entanglement with religion.

While other tests have occasionally been used or suggested, these have generally all been merely “revisions” of Lemon, rather than entirely new tests themselves. It is generally the Lemon test which has been used to rule out ID and creation science as unconstitutional, and it is Lemon which also finds its roots in the Court’s reshaping of history in Everson vs Board of Education.

Read the rest of this entry

Could someone please explain to me how it is that taxpayers in the U.S. are funding NASA not for scientific space exploration but rather for international Muslim outreach? The last time I checked, NASA and the U.S. Department of State were different federal agencies. When did that change?

On Wednesday of last week, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden was interviewed on an episode of Talk to al-Jazeera. During that interview he described three of the top priorities President Obama had tasked him with for his new job (in response to the question about NASA finding itself at a crossroads):

When I became the NASA Administrator—well, before I became the NASA Administrator—he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations, to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.

He was asked if this is “a sort of diplomatic role to win hearts and minds of Muslims.” Bolden quickly denied that, and claimed President Obama simply wants to draw in “the contributions that are possible from the Muslim nations.” Yet in a speech two weeks earlier at the American University in Cairo, Bolden said that NASA used to work “mostly with countries that are capable of space exploration,” but that has changed in light of Obama’s Cairo initiative:

[Obama] asked NASA to change [...] by reaching out to ‘non-traditional’ partners and strengthening our cooperation in the Middle East, North Africa, Southeast Asia, and in particular in Muslim-majority nations.

“NASA has embraced this charge,” Bolden said, adding that NASA “is not only a space exploration agency but also an earth improvement agency.”

Is the American public aware that their tax dollars are funding the U.S. space agency to patronize Muslims to “feel good” about themselves with soft-diplomacy outreach? As noted by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, NASA’s purpose is not to inspire Muslims or any other cultural entity. No doubt. Its purpose is to expand our knowledge of space and its attendant technologies. “If by doing great things people are inspired, well, then that’s wonderful,” Griffin said, and then observed, “There is no technology they have that we need” for NASA to accomplish its missions.

But earlier this year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed in her speech at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Qatar that the Obama administration is embarking on a new era of engagement with Muslim nations “to expand educational opportunities, support entrepreneurs, and promote advances in science and technology.”

“NASA, our space program,” she said, “has partnered with the Arab Youth Venture Foundation in Dubai to give Arab and American engineering students the chance to work together on NASA missions.”

Highly advanced rocket technology. Prime Directive, anyone?

Update: 27 July 2010

NASA: National Arabic Sensitivity Administration

(HT: Mike Church)

Gary Habermas is one of the world’s leading scholars on the resurrection. His website and other published materials (such as his book, The Historical Jesus) are outstanding, being first class resources for anyone facing the “latest” regurgitated challenges to the resurrection and related topics.

But I recently discovered another reason to visit his website; the Historical Resurrection Quiz. The quiz is multiple-choice-based and focuses on the historical sources, challenges and arguments concerning the resurrection. The quiz is broken up into levels of various difficulty, requiring you to attain a particular level of knowledge before moving on the next (more challenging) level. All answers are scored and bonus questions at the end of each round is an opportunity to score more points. I found it to be both fun and educational.

Adam was watching me play the first time through and each time I got one wrong he would provide helpful encouragement such as, “Oh you got one wrong, you’re not a real Christian”. Despite his encouragement, I managed to get to level 8 before I had to stop, so I didn’t quite get to finish the quiz. The questions do get harder with each level, though there is some repetition and “dummy” answer options to help narrow down the choices.

Here are a few sample questions from the quiz:

• Why is the Minimal Facts approach effective?
• True or False: If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity is false and we should live accordingly.
• What is the role of evidence in any investigation into Christianity?
• What is the principle of Enemy Attestation?
• What is the Jerusalem Factor argument for the empty tomb?
• What is the Minimal Facts method?
• The fact that Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead and had appeared to them helps to eliminate at least two opposing theories. What are they?
• Regarding the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, what distinguishes the disciples from Muslim terrorists, who also willingly suffered and died for their beliefs?
• Which two Apostolic Fathers report that the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection?
• Nine ancient sources attest to the disciples’ claim to have seen the Jesus risen from the dead. These can easily be presented in three categories. What are they?
• How many sources attest to the willingness on the part of the original disciples to suffer and die for their beliefs?
• True or False: The willingness of the disciples to suffer and even die for their beliefs establishes the truth of their beliefs.

By the way, if you answered True for that last one, then you’re not a real Christian. ;)