February 29 – A quadrennial event

Answering the Man Who Answered the Music Man

Theist John Ferrer Ph.D. -vs- Atheist Dan Barker

Who has the higher intellectual ground?

In the previous blog we examined Ferrer’s critique of renown atheist Dan Barker. Although we know what (and why) Dan Barker believes (or doesn’t believe), we have no idea what Ferrer believes, because in his 7,300-word critique of Barker’s definition of atheism, he chose not to enlighten us about his personal believes. With that in mine, let’s see if we can discover what he believes based on his association with his alma maters. We know that Ferrer earned a Master of Divinity in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary and a Master of Theology and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. So, let’s see what those institutions believe (based on their mission statements), because what they believe is most likely what Ferrer believes.

What Ferrer believes

Southern Evangelical Seminary

We believe the sixty–six books of the Old and New Testament Scripture alone to be verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original text, and that they alone are of supreme and final authority in faith and life.

We have seen this claim that the bible is inerrant “in the original text” in a number of evangelical mission statements. Perhaps it’s due in part to Dr. Bart Ehrman’s book Forged in which he sheds an undeniable light on the fallacy of biblical inerrancy. Evangelicals can no longer say that the bible (as we know it today) is inerrant. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary. We know without a doubt that scribes made mistakes while copying manuscripts, that mistakes were made in translation, and that at times scribes even added their own ideas to some biblical texts. Being forced to face this truth evangelicals have reluctantly added the line “in the original text” to their mission statements. But how many people have actually ever read the NT in the original Greek? Has Ferrer? Is the bible that most people are carrying with them to church on Sundays really inerrant?

Attributes of God

In the following section Southern Evangelical Seminary details what they believe to be the attributes of God. Since Ferrer demands that Dan Barker prove that there is no God, let’s turn the table and request that Ferrer “prove” each one of these is an attribute of his god. What do you think? How many of these are verifiable? If you’re an evangelical, you might say that all of them are because the bible tells you so.  If like me, you said that none of them are verifiable, you would be correct.

(In their mission statement this is one long sentence, but I have made it into a list for easier reading.)

Ferrer believes in one God who is…

• creator of heaven and earth,
• a spirit
• infinite
• light
• love
• truth
• eternal
• almighty
• infallible in all things, including His foreknowledge of all future events
• unchangeable
• all wise
• just
• holy
• triune in one essence and three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We can see now why Ferrer chose to omit his personal beliefs in his critique of Dan Barker. There is no way he can defend this. But it gets even better.

The historicity of Genesis.

• We believe in the special creation of the entire space–time universe and of every basic form of life in the six historic days of the Genesis creation record.
• We also believe in the historicity of the biblical record, including the special creation of Adam and Eve as the literal progenitors of all people,
• the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation,
• the worldwide flood,
• and the origin of nations and diverse languages at the tower of Babel.

I still don’t understand how someone could earn a master’s and a doctorate degree and still believe in the myths of the book of Genesis such as a six-day creation, or Adam and Eve, or the flood or the tower of Babel. Higher education is supposed to expand your world view. If it doesn’t then it’s not being done right. I would propose that Ferrer has surrendered his intellectual high ground by believing in the historicity of Genesis.

 

 

My wife and I recently visited Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. The geological formations in those two national parks are absolutely stunning. We continually were in awe of the beauty of the earth, and we mockingly commented that it’s amazing what God could do in just six days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To maintain the belief in a six-day creation story is reprehensible and to be honest also downright embarrassing.

 

 

 

It’s amazing what God can do in six days!

 

In his critique of Dan Barker, Ferrer claims that atheists fail to demonstrate intellectual superiority over theists. He writes,

Modern atheists can presume intellectual superiority over any theist, without any significant intellectual work on their part. This recipe smells rotten. Barker, (and other atheists) would do well to remember that abstaining from God-belief is nothing meritorious in itself. And neither does active questioning prove any special intelligence.

If Dan Barker wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else.

My questions: Does a master’s degree and a Ph.D. from a christian seminary qualify Ferrer as having done his intellectual work? Does Ferrer maintain that a god-belief is meritorious in itself? Wouldn’t failing to question be considered a lack of intelligence?

Ferrer’s failure to question the bible’s accuracy concerning even the most basic knowledge or our world, even after years of education, (albeit in a safe evangelical bubble) proves that he has not done the intellectual work and has not earned the intellectual respectability he claims to have. In his words, his claim to intellectual superiority “smells rotten”. But there’s more!

The Devil made me do it!

We believe that there is a personal devil, a being of great cunning and power, who is “the prince and the power of the air,” “the prince of this world,” and “the god of this age.” We believe that he can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so; that he shall ultimately be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone and shall be tormented day and night forever.

A personal devil? I love the phrase, “We believe that he can exert vast power but only as far as God permits him to do so.” So, did God allow the devil to ruin the Garden of Eden? Did God allow the devil to tempt the mythical Adam and Eve which resulted in the damnation of the entire human race? The devil gets the blame for a multitude of offenses these days. Can Ferrer prove that the devil actually exists? Of course not! He would prefer that secularists be required to prove that the devil doesn’t exist.

Now let’s turn to where Ferrer earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion.

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Their mission statement is pretty much the same (as you might imagine) but it has some additional intriguing points.

Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.

The “supreme standard” by which all human contact should be tried? It’s not enough, for the likes of Ferrer, to believe the myths found in the bible, they also feel compelled to force their beliefs onto everyone else. Including me and including you! I don’t believe the stories of Genesis. Am I allowed to have my own religious opinions, or will the thought police be there to enforce their supreme standard on me? What if my opinion is that religion (all religion) is a farce? It’s a good thing we’re living in the 21st century. Having this opinion several hundred years ago would have gotten me a center seat at the town barbeque.

God

God is all powerful and all knowing; and God’s perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.

This one is classic. God knows the future. I might have free choice, but God already knows what choices I am going to make. God not only knows what I’ll have for breakfast tomorrow, but also, what I’ll have for breakfast every day for the rest of my life. Multiply that by 7 billion and that must be exhausting for God. Maybe I’m over thinking this, but if God really is all powerful and all-knowing wouldn’t it be a better use of God’s time and energy to make sure that everyone on this planet has something to eat for breakfast, or lunch or dinner? If God is so powerful, why are people still starving to death every day? The belief that God is “all powerful and all knowing” can only held by someone with a full belly. Try telling someone who is slowly starving to death that God is all powerful but chooses not to intervene to help them.

Here’s one that defies reasoning.

Christianity is the faith of enlightenment and intelligence. In Jesus Christ abide all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All sound learning is, therefore a part of our Christian heritage. The new birth opens all human faculties and creates a thirst for knowledge.

I don’t know about you, but it has not been my experience that Christianity is the “faith of enlightenment and intelligence”, nor that becoming a Christian “creates a thirst for knowledge”. It certainly seems to have the opposite effect. Knowledge, i.e. “acceptable knowledge”, must be subjected to the teaching of the bible while non-biblical knowledge must be avoided. Does Ferrer actually believe that all “sound learning” is a part of Christian heritage?

The will of Christ?

All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.

This is the bottom line for Christians. Their version of the truth must become supreme in all human society. They are called by their god to force Christ’s will (i.e. their will) on everyone else. This is why we need Dan Barker and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Our democracy needs to be protected from christians who feel “obligated” to force their religious beliefs on all “human society”. No wonder Dan Barker’s version of atheism makes Ferrer uncomfortable.

Don’t be fooled by the “brotherly love part. Read Romans 1 if you want to know how Christians really view non-believers. And for that matter, what is “truth”? For Ferrer the book of Genesis is the truth. I don’t believe in Ferrer’s “truth”, and I certainly don’t want him or any other christian deciding my truth for me.

It’s very clear now why Ferrer didn’t use any of his seven-thousand-plus words to defend his theism… because he can’t. His education took place in a safe fundamentalist bubble where he never had to question his beliefs. Questioning is not encouraged in evangelical circles; in fact, it’s not allowed.

In conclusion:

Ferrer’s post-graduate degrees do not automatically award him with the higher intellectual ground. If he wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else, and that means he must boldly seek the truth and, like Dan Barker, follow it wherever it leads.

Coming Next:

Another theist takes his turn critiquing atheist Dan Barker. This time he takes issue with Barker’s definition of “faith”. We’ll see how this goes for him. Plus, will this theist, (unlike Ferrer) use any of his 7,000 words to actually prove the existence of his god? And if not, why not?

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum