Blog

22 Apr, 2024

Blog

How Antebellum Christians Justified Slavery

“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures.”

Richard Furman

 

“While many Christians today view slavery as a grave moral wrong, the reality is that throughout history, some Christians have used the Bible to defend it. For example, in the early 19th century, a Baptist pastor named Richard Furman wrote a letter to a governor arguing that slavery was “in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.” Christian Educators Academy by Camilla Klein

What many modern-day evangelicals fail to acknowledge is that many religious leaders of that era, particularly in the South, supported slavery and used scripture to justify their beliefs. Four such religious leaders are listed below.

James H. Thornwell, a Presbyterian minister in South Carolina, argued that slavery was “ordained by God” and that it was “in harmony with the spirit of Christianity.”

Thornton Stringfellow, a Baptist minister, in his book “Slavery Defended from Scripture,” argued that slavery was consistent with biblical teachings and that abolitionists were misguided in their interpretation of the Bible.

John C. Calhoun, a prominent politician and slave owner, argued that slavery was a necessary evil and that the enslavement of Africans was a benevolent act that saved them from savagery.

Richard Furman, a Baptist pastor, wrote a letter to his governor arguing that slavery was “in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.

We will explore the writings of each in future blogs, but for this blog we will look at Richard Furman’s proslavery argument. His 54-hundred-word letter to the Governor of South Caroline can be found here.

[Furman’s argument is very wordy and (as a former schoolteacher) I found it verbose with an inordinate amount of run on sentences. I have gleaned his 5,400 words down to a more manageable 1,000 words and have underlined certain phrases that I believe to be especially pertinent.]

Richard Furman

“Exposition of the Views of the Baptists Relative to the Coloured Population of the United States in Communication to the Governor of South Carolina,” Charleston, 24th December 1822

Sir:

The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it, for a moment, in the Christian Church. But instead, they let the relationship remain untouched, as being lawful and right.

In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.

The Christian golden rule   has been urged as an unanswerable argument against holding slaves. But surely this rule is never to be urged against that which the Divine government has established.

Cruelty is certainly inadmissible; but servitude may be consistent with such degrees of happiness as men usually attain in this imperfect state of things.

The Africans brought to America were, in general, slaves by their own consent, before they came from their own country, or fell into the hands of white men.

Much tyranny has been exercised by individuals, as masters over their slaves, and that the religious interests of the latter have been too much neglected by many cannot be denied. But the fullest proof of these facts, will not prove, that the holding men in subjection, as slaves, is a moral evil, and inconsistent with the Christianity.

If the above representation of the Scriptural doctrine, and the manner of obtaining slaves from Africa is just; and if also purchasing them has been the means of saving human life, which there is great reason to believe it has.

If, also, by their (the negro) own confession, which has been made in manifold instances, their condition, when they have come into the hands of humane masters here, has been greatly bettered by the change.

In addition to all other considerations, the translation from their native country to this has been the means of their mental and religious improvement, and so of obtaining salvation, as many of them have joyfully and thankfully confessed.

It appears to be equally clear, that those, who by reasoning on abstract principles… should be particularly careful… that they do not by a perversion of the Scriptural doctrine… invade the domestic and religious peace and rights of our Citizens… and prevent indirectly, the religious improvement of the people they… professed to benefit.

To pious minds it has given pain to hear men, respectable for intelligence and morals, sometimes say, that holding slaves is indeed indefensible, but that to us it is necessary, and must be supported.

It is therefore, firmly believed, that general emancipation to the Negroes in this country, would not… be for their own happiness, as a body, while it would be extremely injurious to the community at large in various ways.

If a man has obtained slaves by purchase, or inheritance, and the holding of them as such is justifiable by the law of God; why should he be required to liberate them?

Should, however, a time arrive, when the Africans in our country might be found qualified to enjoy freedom; and, when they might obtain it in a manner consistent with the interest and peace of the community at large, the Convention would be happy in seeing them free:

Finally, for their good, if they embrace his salvation, humble themselves before him, learn righteousness, and submit to his holy will. To have them brought to this happy state is the great object of Christian benevolence, and of Christian piety.

The idea that the Bible’s teaching the doctrine of emancipation as necessary, tends to make servants insubordinate to proper authority.

In is true, that a considerable number of those (negroes) who were found guilty and executed, laid claim to a religious character; yet several of these were grossly immoral, and, in general, they were members of an irregular body, which called itself the African Church, and had intimate connection… with a similar body of men in a Northern City, among whom the supposed right to emancipation is strenuously advocated.

The result of this inquiry and reasoning, on the subject of slavery, brings us… to the following conclusions: That the holding of slaves is justifiable by the doctrine and example contained in Holy writ; and is, therefore consistent with Christian uprightness, both in sentiment and conduct.

That slavery, when tempered with humanity and justice, is a state of tolerable happiness; equal, if not superior, to that which many poor enjoy in countries reputed free.

That a master has a scriptural right to govern his slaves so as to keep them in subjection; to demand and receive from them a reasonable service; and to correct them for the neglect of duty, for their vices and transgressions; but that to impose on them unreasonable, rigorous services, or to inflict on them cruel punishment, he has neither a scriptural nor a moral right.

That it is the positive duty of servants to reverence their master, to be obedient, industrious, faithful to him, and careful of his interests; and without being so, they can neither be the faithful servants of God, nor be held as regular members of the Christian Church.

Claims to freedom as a right… would be unjust; and all attempts to obtain in by violence and fraud would be wicked.

It is, also, believed to be a just conclusion, that the interest and security of the state would be promoted, by allowing considerable religious privileges to this class, by attaching them, from principles of gratitude and love to the interests of their masters and the state; and thus, rendering their fidelity firm and constant.

While on the other hand, (to emancipate them), as some have supposed necessary… would be felt as oppressive, (it would) … sour and alienate their minds from their masters and the public, and to make them vulnerable to temptation.

All which is, with deference, submitted to the consideration of your Excellency.

There you have it. Make your own decision.

Coming next:

Many evangelicals (like Lewis) argue that slavery and slave laws found in the bible, do nothing to contradict their belief in a perfectly good God. They are quick to exonerate their God from any culpableness for slavery as experienced in 18th and 19th century America. This leaves us wondering what might have happened if the bible didn’t condone slavery.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

16 Apr, 2024

Blog

The Bible and Slavery

“If you claim to be a good person, then the bible should embarrass you and disgust you.”

Dan Barker

In the previous blog we examined Steven Lewis’s justification for God’s jealousy in the bible. In this blog we’ll look at his justification for slavery in the bible and in the next blog we’ll explore why Lewis’s argument entirely misses the point atheists are making about God and slavery.

The Bible and Slavery

Lewis begins,

“Another prominent criticism of the God of the Bible among the atheistic literature is that of his passive permission of (or active participation in) slavery. (This)… issue is significant for believers. Does the God of the Bible condone slavery? If so, does this represent a moral failure—or even an act of evil—on the part of God?”

What atheists say,

“The spectacularly unreflective authors of the Bible had absolutely no problem with slavery whatsoever, as long as the slave owner didn’t actually beat his slave blind and toothless. That was going just too far, although beating a slave to death was perfectly fine as long as the slave survived for a day or two after the beating. Then, when the slave died, it was appropriate to feel sorry for the unfortunate slave owner because it was, he who had suffered a loss.” Michael Shermer

What the bible says,

And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. (Exodus 21:20-21).

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25)

Lewis continues,

Before considering this question, one must carefully define the terms being used, and once again, this requires a look at the context of the biblical laws involving slavery.

Context of biblical laws? Here’s what Barker has to say about that.

Barker: I think what they really mean by context is “my theology.” Their lives are devoted to their God, and naturally they rush to his defense. They want me to see God the way they do, so that I might accept his atrocities as a small part of a greater holy and righteous plan.”

Lewis continues,

The typical American is appalled at the actions of his ancestors in this regard, and, thus, when reading in the Bible where slavery was permitted in ancient Israel under the guidance and laws of God himself, the response is often shock and confusion. However, the error here is a fallacy of equivocation.

Let’s see what “fallacy of equivocation” means and if it actually applies to Lewis’s argument.

“A fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.” Texas State, Dept. of Philosophy

The TSU site gives examples for “fallacies of equivocation.” Here are two. The first one is often used by christian apologists (like Lewis) as an argument for the existence of God.

“The laws imply lawgivers. There are laws in nature. Therefore, there must be a cosmic lawgiver.”

The second one is a bit more humorous, but you’ll get the idea.

  • God: “One million years to me is a second.”
  • Man: “What about one million dollars, my Lord?”
  • God: “A penny.”
  • Man: “May my Lord give me a penny?”
  • God: “No problem, just a second.”

Lewis doesn’t actually state what he’s talking about when he says, “the error here is a fallacy of equivocation.” So, we’ll have to infer that according to him the following statement is a fallacy of equivocation.

“Slavery as existed in America was bad, therefore all slavery is bad, therefore slavery in ancient Israel was bad.”

For Lewis this is flawed thinking. Let’s see if his argument can support his claim of fallacy of equivocation.

Lewis writes,

Simply speaking, slavery in the Bible is not the same as slavery in nineteenth-century America. A few distinctions are important so that one can more clearly see the full picture of what is being discussed in the Bible when it speaks of slaves.

So, according to Lewis we don’t have a “full picture of slavery.” Undoubtedly, he is going to enlighten us about the differences between modern slavery and biblical slavery.

He writes,

First, biblical slavery was more akin to indentured servitude than forced slavery. It was typically a contract entered into willingly by both slave and owner, usually for the sake of the poor in order to provide for themselves or their families.

Second, kidnapping and the forced servitude of captives were expressly forbidden as capital crimes, which would outlaw the entire nineteenth-century slave trade outright.

Third, slavery came to a natural end. A number of conditions could occur that would mandate a slaveowner to free his slaves:

Furthermore, the laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave is always protected and preserved.

Lewis’s interpretation of biblical slavery is indeed intriguing, but is it valid? We will examine each one separately.

First, indentured servitude did indeed occur in ancient times. However, it should be noted that this option of indentured servitude (as found in the Old Testament) was not as common as Lewis would like us to believe and only applied to fellow Hebrews and certainly not to foreign slaves.

The second argument comes from Exodus 21, which says, “And he who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall be put to death.” However, Lewis is doing a bit of cherry picking in this argument. He fails to quote the very next verse which says, “And he who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death.”

For the record there is a plethora of capital offenses in the Old Testament including…

  • Adultery
  • Working on the sabbath
  • Homosexuality
  • Being a wizard
  • Blasphemy

By the way, it should be noted that this “kidnapping law” only applied to kidnapping other Hebrews. It certainly did not apply to taking captives from other tribes, as we see when the Israelite warriors were told to kill every man woman and boy child of the Canaanites, but they could take the virgin girls for themselves. (We’ll tackle this disturbing story in an upcoming blog.)

Third point says that there are some conditions that allowed slaves to be set free. So, what are those conditions? These examples come from Exodus 21.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve you for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; is he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.

And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.

And if a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on the account of his tooth.

Notice again that these conditions only applied to Hebrew slaves. Non-Hebrew slaves became property for life and could be bequeathed to the slave owner’s children.

Lewis continues,

Furthermore, the laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave is always protected and preserved.

An online article entitled “Dismantling the myth that ancient slavery wasn’t that bad” sheds a different light on Lewis’s assertion that the human dignity of slaves was always protected.

Because these kinds of slavery took place so long ago and weren’t based on modern racism, some people have the impression that they weren’t as harsh or violent. That impression makes room for… Christian theologians to argue that ancient slavery was actually beneficial for enslaved people.

Let’s be very clear, it was not.

Lewis continues,

Perhaps God knew that such a blanket condemnation of slavery would not be heeded, and so he chose to construct his laws more as a gradual step away from slavery and toward human dignity and equality rather than an ineffective or destructive condemnation from the start. In any case, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God.

I’ve decided to break the above paragraph into chunks so we can evaluate each part separately.

Perhaps God knew that such a blanket condemnation of slavery would not be heeded…

This argument makes no sense. When has the God of the bible ever not given a command because it might not be heeded? God’s commands were always to be heeded or people started dying.

…and so he chose to construct his laws more as a gradual step away from slavery and toward human dignity and equality rather than an ineffective or destructive condemnation from the start.

When in the history of mankind has there ever been “human dignity and equality” for slaves? Also, is Lewis actually arguing that his God was hoping that slavery would gradually stop on its own? But as we know, it didn’t. Barker writes that we “had to wait millennia to abolish the biblically approved practice on our own, a progress that was hampered by faith in an ancient slave monger deity.”

God conveniently remains blameless.

Uninfluenced by such an argument Lewis ends his article like this,

In any case, slavery in world history cannot be blamed on God. Slavery existed long before God’s law was given to the Israelites, and it existed long after. Thus, when the Bible’s descriptions of slavery and slave laws are taken in the correct social context under which they were given, a direct contradiction in the existence of the perfectly good God of the Bible fails to materialize.

There you have it. God conveniently remains blameless. But atheists aren’t buying it. In the next blog we’ll explore why.

Coming next:

Lewis argues that biblical slavery was different from slavery in the nineteenth century. However, he neglects to address the fact that many American slave owners were devout christians who used scripture to support slavery. We’ll explore the writings of a Baptist pastor named Richard Furman who wrote a letter to the Governor of South Carolina arguing that slavery was “in accordance with the designs of Divine Providence.”

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

 

7 Apr, 2024

Blog

A Jealous God

Dan Barker and the Immoral God of the Bible by Steven Lewis

Answering the Music Man

 

“If you claim to be a good person, then the bible should embarrass you and disgust you.”

“The God of the Old Testament rarely gets angry when he sees his people doing morally harmful things. The Lord jealous becomes enraged when he sees someone loving a god other than himself.”

Dan Barker

In the previous blog we examined Lewis’s reasoning for justifying the problematic passages in the bible. In the next couple of blogs, we will take a look at some of those problematic passages concerning 1) God’s jealousy, 2) the issue of slavery and 3) God’s genocidal commands in the bible. Hopefully, we can shed some light on how evangelicals (like Lewis) find ways to defend the indefensible.

We’ll start with…

God’s jealousy

The proverb has it that God is a fiercely jealous lover.

What the bible says,

Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods of the people which are around about you. For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you, lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee and destroy thee from the face of the earth. Duet. 6:14-15

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. Exo. 20:5

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous is a jealous God. Exo. 34.14

God is jealous and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. Nahum 1:2

Not sure why Lewis is choosing to ignore these verses, but he maintains (contrary to what the bible says) that the God he believes in is incapable of experiencing jealousy.

He writes,

When speaking of a perfect and eternal God, Barker’s definition of jealousy makes little sense. Humans often want things for selfish reasons, or even from a sense of loss or incompleteness when a desired object is absent, but an infinite being lacking nothing would be wholly incapable of such desires.

This philosophy (borrowed from Aquinas) says that since God is necessarily perfect, nothing in the created universe can be beneficial for God. The god of the bible is perfectly complete and requires nothing other than itself. Therefore, since God lacks nothing, God can’t be jealous and can’t experience envy. It might be good philosophy, but it’s certainly not the god we find in the bible.

Not all believers agree with Lewis’s conclusion that God cannot experience jealousy. While researching this topic I found another christian blogger who explains God’s jealousy like this.

“Holy jealousy is central to the fundamental essence of who God is. Jealousy is at the core of God’s identity as God. Jealousy is that defining characteristic or personality trait that makes God God. Whatever other reasons you may find in Scripture for worshiping and serving and loving God alone… paramount among them all is the fact that our God burns with jealousy for the undivided allegiance and affection of his people.”

For the record, this is just plain cringe worthy! Is this believer really saying that jealousy “for the undivided allegiance and affection of his people” is the defining characteristic of God? What ever happened to Love being the defining trait of God?

So, how does Lewis justify his claim that the God he believes in is incapable of jealousy? He continues,

If the Bible is right, then God’s jealousy is never out of some selfish desire or need for self-fulfillment or divine ego-stroking, but actually out of God’s own love for the good of the those for whom he is jealous. If God is the perfect, eternal creator that the Bible portrays, then he is by nature the ultimate source of good in all that exists, and, thus, all people who reject God in favor of false alternatives are only harming themselves.

Atheists would object the statement that “God is by nature the ultimate source of good”. It’s just another idea that Lewis proposes without any evidence to support it. Atheists would also object to Lewis’s conclusion that anyone who rejects God does so based on “false alternatives”. Many former evangelicals who “rejected God”, did so because they began to realize that what they were being taught in church wasn’t actually true.

Barker writes,

When I learned that Christianity is not true, I had to decide: “Do I want God, or do I want truth?” You can’t have both.

Lewis continues his defense,

Humans often want things for selfish reasons, or even from a sense of loss or incompleteness when a desired object is absent, but an infinite being lacking nothing would be wholly incapable of such desires. If God exists as he is portrayed in the Bible, one must pause to consider whether there is any other reasonable sense in which jealousy could be ascribed to God.

So, how is God “portrayed in the bible”? Let’s “pause to consider” this verse from Duet. 4.

For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. If you make any kind of idol, you will arouse his anger and you will quickly perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess. You will not live there long but will certainly be destroyed. The LORD will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive.

If the bible clearly says that God is a jealous God, and other believers say that jealousy is God’s defining trait, how does Lewis justify his claim that God, by nature, is incapable of jealousy?

Lewis continues,

While the word “jealousy” in its typical connotation seems more of a flawed character trait than something to be proudly proclaimed of a good and honorable being (such as God), this is not the only sense in which this word is used. Instead of leaping to conclusions that jealousy is always evil or bad, one must consider in what sense the word is being applied to God.

Here we go again. According to the authors of “Answering”, christians have a different view of what constitutes faith and now we’re told that they also hold a different view of jealousy. How convenient.

The question then becomes, “Is God described as ‘jealous’ because he desires something that is rightfully his, or because he is forcing admiration on something that belongs to another?” The context of the Bible makes it clear that the answer is the former. God’s jealousy is for Israel to remain devoted and committed to him as the ultimate and perfect source of all that is good.

Is Lewis actually saying that the Israelites rightfully belong to God? Like a woman rightfully belongs to her husband? This is definitely a warning sign of a jealous lover. Can you imagine a husband saying something like this to his wife on their wedding day?

“I love you so much that I want the very best for you and I know that I am the best husband for you. Since you belong to me, if you ever leave me for another man, you will not be happy with him, so I must kill you to save you from yourself, because I love you so much.”

Lewis can put whatever spin he wants on the definition of “jealousy”, but the bible clearly shows a god who is a controlling lover. “You belong to me and must be devoted to me and only me, or I’ll destroy you”.

Conclusion

Lewis’s argument that a perfect God is incapable of jealousy fails here because the bible clearly states that God is jealous. Faced with this inconvenient truth, Lewis then attempts to convince us that there are different kinds of jealousy. “Okay, the bible may say that God is jealous, but it’s a “holy” jealousy. God only wanted what was best for the Israelites.” But even that argument fails. The bible describes God’s jealousy as a consuming fire which is ready to consume the Israelites if they worship other gods. We are told that they will arouse God’s anger and will certainly be destroyed. This view of a jealous God does not match Lewis’s portrayal of a benevolent deity who is incapable of jealousy. Lewis is attempting to justify the problematic passages in the bible. And therein lies the problem.

Let’s be perfectly clear…

Even though I am arguing that the deity of the bible is portrayed (in the bible) as a jealous God, I am not saying that the God of the bible actually exists. I do not believe in God. And no, Ferrer it is not necessary for me to prove that God doesn’t exist, I can simply say that I don’t believe in the god of christianity nor, for that matter, the gods of any other religion.

As I wrote in the previous blog, when Barker and other atheists make their statements regarding the nefarious character of God, they are not saying that God actually exists. They are simply trying to point out that those who call themselves believers fail to realize that the deity of the bible is portrayed (in the bible itself) as a nefarious character.

Final word:

Barker writes,

“If you claim to be a good person, then the bible should embarrass you and disgust you.”

So, what if the problematic passages in the bible don’t embarrass christians? Are they not “good” people? Certainly, that can’t be the case. The problem is not with their character. The problem is with their unquestioned devotion to their beliefs. When believers are taught to justify (rather than face) the problematic passages in the bible, it can lead to a skewed sense of morality. We’ll see more of this justification from Lewis in the next several blogs.

Coming Next:

We will examine what the bible has to say about slavery. Wait until you see how Lewis spins that one! Here’s a preview.

“Furthermore, the (Hebrew) laws did more to protect the slaves than the slaveowners; the human dignity of the slave was always protected and preserved.”

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

 

 

31 Mar, 2024

Blog

 

Dan Barker and the Immoral God of the Bible

Steve Lewis

Steven Lewis has an MA in Apologetics and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion from Southern Evangelical Seminary. His passion is in learning and teaching about God—particularly in the field of Christian Apologetics with a focus on the Problem of Evil.

 

What theists lack in logic (or in this case morality) they make up for in length.

Barker’s quote contains 17 words. Lewis’s reply contains a whopping 8,800 words.

_____________________________________________

If you claim to be a good person, then the bible should embarrass you and disgust you.

Dan Barker

Lewis begins his rebuttal like this,

A common jab often lobbed at the God of Christianity is that of the alleged immorality of the Bible. The purpose of such arguments, of course, is not to prove that God does not exist, or even that the Bible is false, but rather to show that God (as portrayed in the Bible) is not the holy, loving, forgiving Father believers assume, but he is instead evil, hateful, petty, prideful, vindictive, and a host of other horrifying descriptors.

This is what atheists have to say about the god of the bible.

Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Barker: God is “pyromaniacal, angry, merciless, curse hurling, vaccicidal, aborticidal, cannibalistic, and slavemongering. The God of the Old Testament destroyed whole civilizations. He drowned the entire population of the planet. He is not the only bad egg in literature, but he is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.”

Shermer: “The Bible is one of the most immoral works in all literature.”

Mackie: “The Old Testament itself reports many atrocities as having been not merely approved but positively demanded by God and his spokesmen.”

Lewis responds,

Before engaging and rebutting such claims, however, one must first consider the underlying assumptions and methodology that lead to these conclusions in the first place. However, this is not how believers typically go about establishing the “moral worth” of the Bible.

We have seen this argument in other examinations of the authors of Answering the Music Man. Ferrer gave us a different definition for atheism, Keltz, a different view of faith, and now Lewis is telling us that christians have a different way of viewing the “moral worth” of the bible. What a surprise! This should be interesting!

Lewis uses a large bulk of his 8,800 words building his case against Barker. It’s important to note here that Lewis is not actually addressing atheists in his rebuttal. His audience are believers who might be influenced by Barker’s accusations of a nefarious god.

He first asks his readers to presume the actual existence of God. Second, he states that God is perfectly good and moral. Third he insists that the bible (being God’s revelation to mankind) is the basis for all moral authority. After proposing these three ideas (without any supporting evidence) he is able to justify any atrocity found in the bible based on the “contextual justifications” within the bible.

In this blog we’ll look at Lewis’s reasoning for justifying the disturbing passages in the bible and in the next blog we’ll look at the actual problematic passages.

The consideration of the existence of God.

Lewis writes,

The focus of this chapter (in Answering the Music Man) is not whether or not God exists, but whether the God of the Bible is guilty of Barker’s accusations of immorality. If the context of Barker’s claims is that God is fiction, then discussing “God’s immorality” is nothing more than meaningless conjecture with no basis in reality. The proper context of the Bible includes the fact that God exists as creator and sustainer of the universe. Thus, in order to make any meaningful case at all, Barker must presume that the God of the Bible truly does exist.

Sorry Lewis, God’s existence is not a fact.  In addition, Barker and other atheists are simply saying that those who call themselves believers should realize that the deity of the bible is a nefarious character and perhaps, unworthy of being worshiped.

But as we have seen, Barker is not writing to like-minded atheists- he is writing to theists who believe that God exists. Thus, in order to make any meaningful case at all, Barker must presume that the God of the Bible truly does exist (even if just for the sake of argument) and then attempt to demonstrate a contradiction given that assumption. This is the only reasonable option for Barker if he wishes to avoid self-defeating circularity or pointless conjecture.

It’s a curious conjecture on Lewis’s part to say that if Barker doesn’t acknowledge the existence of God, his comments calling the god of the bible nefarious are “meaningless with no basis in reality”. (Although much of what Lewis says also has no basis in reality.) Yet, if Barker were to acknowledge the existence of God, his comments now become “self-defeating” and “pointless”. Talk about circularity!

According to Lewis, Barker has failed to consider…

God’s moral goodness and moral perfection.

Lewis: Furthermore, another problem for Barker is that of the nature of God. Even if Barker… presumes God’s existence, he still must consider God’s nature as described in the Bible in order to fairly and accurately evaluate God’s acts and commands.

So, what is God’s nature as described in the bible?

For the purposes of this chapter, I will simply assume that God is the infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good creator and sustainer of the universe that the Bible claims him to be. God is also said to be righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, longsuffering, and so on. This view is consistent both with the biblical view of God and with over two millennia of theological scholarship, so it seems to be a fair place to start when evaluating the sort of being Barker is referencing.

It’s obvious that Lewis does not understand that atheists have very little regard for the “biblical view of God” or in “two millennia of theological scholarship”. Atheists would ask, “First, how do we know God actually exists, and second, how do we know that God is perfectly good, righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, and longsuffering?”

Barker writes,

“Why do believers assume that a higher power is necessarily a more moral power? How do they know it is not the other way around?”

Lewis does not accept that Barker’s personal sense of morality is a valid way to judge the problematic passages in the bible. According to Lewis, Barker is refusing to accept…

The moral authority of the bible.

Lewis: A better approach is to begin… by first establishing (or assuming for the sake of argument) the basic truth claims of theism as well as the historicity and reliability of the Bible.

Let’s not forget that the “basic truth claims of theism” and the “reliability of the bible” are very much in question here. Obviously, Lewis is not attempting to better Barker in a debate. In a face-to-face debate with an atheist, Lewis would never be able to start with such a statement without it being immediately questioned. This logic would never convince an atheist, but of course, atheists are not Lewis’s audience.

Lewis writes,

The Bible is understood as the authoritative word of God, and, hence, its own “moral worth” should be evaluated by its own standard of morality. In other words, rather than evaluating ancient documents according to modern moral sensibilities, a better way to evaluate the truth of the Bible is by starting with the Bible itself and working backwards from there.

By “modern moral sensibilities” does he mean that civilization no longer accepts slavery or genocide as morally acceptable? According to Lewis, rather than relying on our own morality, we should get our morality from the bible.

Lewis: But if Barker draws his morality only from his own internal perceptions, then he has lost his case against God. However, Barker believes his own morality is superior to God’s.

If the god of the bible supports slavery and demands genocide then, YES, Barker’s morality IS superior.

Lewis: We must consider the nature of God. If God is in fact the perfect creator of humanity and morality, Therefore, God would always by necessity be the greater moral authority.

So, if we presume 1) that God actually exists, 2) that God is perfectly good, 3) that the bible is the authoritative word of God, and 4) the bible is the highest moral authority, then we now have the means to justify any problematic passages in the bible because of the…

Contextual justifications within the Bible.

Barker rejects centuries of biblical and theological scholarship that help us to understand and contextualize many of the problematic passages that constitute his arguments. Given this understanding of the God of Bible, the task of evaluating difficult passages must be taken from the context of the whole, including these claims… about God being righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, longsuffering.

Indeed, there are (many) problematic passages in the bible, but according to Lewis there exists “centuries of biblical and theological scholarship” that helps christians to “understand” (i.e. justify) those morally problematic passages.

The bible says that God is righteous, benevolent, loving, merciful, longsuffering. Atheists, who do not accept the reliability of the bible, would also not accept what the bible says about God’s attributes.

Lewis: The central thesis for Barker is one of morality — that God somehow fails to live up to basic moral sensibilities that are obvious to most humans.

Yes!! Exactly!

Lewis: The focus here is in what sense God can be said to be a “moral being” beholden to the moral principles Barker appeals for his arguments. For Barker, God must answer to his apparent violations of Barker’s moral code, but where does Barker get his moral code?

As we have already seen above, Barker goes to great lengths to deny any need for external authority when it comes to determining morality. But if Barker draws his morality only from his own internal perceptions, then he has lost his case against God.

We must consider the nature of God. If God is in fact the perfect creator of humanity and morality, then the very internal sense of morality that Barker perceives in his own mind ultimately has its origin in God’s own nature and goodness. Therefore, God would always by necessity be the greater moral authority.”

Lewis’s argument here is that Barker’s morality “ultimately comes from God. This reasoning comes from Aquinas’s Five Ways to Prove God. The fourth proof “deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God.”

Lewis is implying that Barker actually gets his “goodness” and “morality” from God by default. Having been an evangelical myself, I can tell you that Lewis simply cannot fathom that an atheist can be good or moral without God. But as many secularists will tell you, it is not only possible, it is likely that secularists have a more developed sense of morality than do believers. (See Zuckerman’s article Atheism, Secularity and Well Being for more on this.)

Lewis’s article is a prime example that many believers mistakenly rely on the bible to provide them with their morality, and therefore, quite often exhibit a skewed sense of morality, as we shall see next in the next blog.

Coming next:

Even when the actions of the god of the bible are nefariously atrocious, christians can justify them because the bible (and Lewis) tell us that God is benevolent, loving and merciful. Therefore, anything done in the name of God (including slavery, misogyny, homophobia and genocide) can also be viewed as acts of benevolence, love and mercy. If you think the problematic passages in the bible are disturbing, wait until you read how christians justify them.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

 

 

 

25 Mar, 2024

Blog

Thomas Aquinas

“If anything is found in the words of the philosophers that is contrary to the faith, this is not philosophy but rather an abuse of philosophy, due to a failure of reason” Thomas Aquinas

__________________________

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. Dan Barker

 

Many of the contributors of the book “Answering the Music Man” have a PhD in “philosophy of religion” and as a result quote Thomas Aquinas ad nauseum as their proof that renown atheist Dan Barker is in error when he declares his non-belief in their god. While doing research for my last several blogs, I decided to find out for myself what Thomas Aquinas had written. What I learned was very enlightening.

Before we get started with the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225–1274) let me first say that I understand that as an intellect and philosopher he was formidable. He is still considered the greatest figure of thirteenth-century Europe. His works are still read, studied and written about to this day. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Aquinas.

Over a mere two decades of literary activity, Aquinas left behind more than eight million words (eight times more than has survived, for instance, from Aristotle). It is a measure of Aquinas’s immediate and lasting influence that—quite unlike the situation with other medieval philosophers—essentially everything he wrote has survived and has been lovingly edited and translated into English and many other modern languages.

Having only read several hundred of his 8 million words it would be foolish of me to attempt to discredit Aquinas’s genius. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest thinkers of all time and is still revered as one of the great philosophers, in the same league as Aristotle and Plato.

My issues with Aquinas have nothing to do with his great intellect. My issue is that modern day theologians use his 900-year-old writings to justify evangelical Christianity. What became clear was that Aquinas was a product of his time, as we all are. The sciences he pondered on were philosophy and theology. In the thirteenth century, he knew nothing about the (as yet) undiscovered sciences that have taught us much about the world we live in.

What Aquinas didn’t know.

He knew nothing about any of the following…

  • the Gutenberg Bible (1440)
  • the western hemisphere (1492)
  • that the planets revolved around the sun (1500s)
  • the King James Bible (1611)
  • the speed of light (1676)
  • the science of gravity (1687)
  • the existence of dinosaurs (early 1800s)
  • atoms and molecules (1827)
  • germs and bacteria (1860)
  • the elements and the periodic table (1869)
  • radio and sound waves (1880s)
  • the possibility of flight (early 1900s)
  • the uses of microwaves rather than flames to heat our food (1945)

This list could go on and on. I understand that none of this means that Aquinas is automatically wrong in his observations. I’m simply saying that his complete ignorance of science, as we know it today, and the religious culture of his day, might have limited him to some inaccurate conclusions about the existence of God. If Aquinas were alive today, with his great intellect, and knowing what we know now, it seems possible that he might have come to different conclusions about the existence of God, just as atheist Dan Barker did.

Aquinas starts with the proposition that God exists. How could he come to any other conclusion? Questioning the existence of God in the 13th century would have been a very dangerous undertaking. The existence of God was not something that he set out to prove as is the case with modern sciences. Had he focused on the study of theology (as if it were a real science), he would have started with the hypothesis that God exists and then tested that hypothesis to see if it is indeed true. I haven’t read all 8 million of Aquinas’s words, but it appears to me that rather than starting with a hypothesis of God’s existence, he started with God’s existence as a given and then set out to justify it.

Aquinas says, “Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason”

So, when we consider how the authors of Answering the Music Man employ Aquinas’ philosophy to help them defend their religion, it’s hard to ignore that there are gaping holes in their reasoning due in part to Aquinas’s ignorance of the knowledge granted us by modern-day science. We can’t blame Aquinas; he didn’t know what he didn’t know.
However, evangelicals can’t use that excuse. They have the same common knowledge we all do, but they choose to ignore it because it might contradict their religious beliefs.

Five Ways to prove God’s Existence

Aquinas is famous for his Five Ways for proving the Existence of God. Since I had never actually read them for myself, I decided it was time. For a novice like me, I found it very enlightening. If you have never read them, I would encourage it.

After reading Aquinas’s five ways for proving Gods existence, I came to the conclusion that they do not actually prove anything of the sort. They are based solely on philosophy, and I find their conclusion less then convincing. However, theists still use these arguments in debates with atheists so let’s take a look and see if they can stand the test of time.

First way: The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

Summary: In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

So, if A changes B, and B changes C, and C changes D, and D changes E and so on and so forth, the question for philosophers is, what, if anything, changed A? If A starts the change and is unchanged itself then A=God.  Therefore, in the words of Aquinas, “this everyone understands to be God.”

I may not have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I’m certainly not an intellectual elite, (like the authors of Answering the Music Man), but I’m not buying this theory. And that is exactly what it is… a theory… passed off as a presumptive truth.

The next two ways are similar in construction and postulate the concept of “a first cause”. I don’t buy those two either.

Fourth way: The Argument from Degree

Summary: But judging something as being “more” or “less” implies some standard against which it is being judged. For example, in a room full of people of varying heights, at least one must be tallest. Therefore, there is something which is best and most true, and most a being, etc. Aquinas then adds the premise: what is most in a genus is the cause of all else in that genus. From this he deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God.

This is proof of the existence of God? Let me see if I understand this reasoning correctly. If we’re considering the intelligence of humans, there has to be someone who is the most intelligent person in the world, such as Einstein in his time, or Oppenheimer in his or Aristotle and Aquinas in theirs. If this is true, then an even more intelligent being has to exist which is at the top of the hierarchy and therefore “this everyone understands to be God.” Like I said before, I don’t have a PhD in philosophy but I’m not buying this!

Fifth way: Argument from Final Cause or Ends

Summary: We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So, their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

By objects that lack intelligence, I assume he is talking about animals and possibly plants. If this is true then it seems that Aquinas is trying to explain the concept of what we now call instinct. How does a bird know how to make a nest? How do wasps know how to use either mud other materials to make a wasps’ nest? Some other examples of this phenomenon are,

  • Beavers building a dam.
  • Bees creating a beehive and producing honey.
  • Mother bears nurturing and protecting their young.
  • Wolves hunting in packs.

The Stanford philosopher who was attempting to explain this concept to a novice like me explains it like this,

The concept of final causes involves the concept of dispositions or “ends”: a specific goal or aim towards which something strives. For example, acorns regularly develop into oak trees but never into sea lions. The oak tree is the “end” towards which the acorn “points,” its disposition, even if it fails to achieve maturity. The aims and goals of intelligent beings is easily explained by the fact that they consciously set those goals for themselves. The implication is that if something has a goal or end towards which it strives, it is either because it is intelligent or because something intelligent is guiding it.

I have five oak trees outside my bedroom window. Maybe I haven’t been paying much attention, but I have yet to see any evidence of arboreal “striving” to propagate. What I have observed, though, is that in autumn, the squirrels in my neighborhood climb the trees, pick the acorns and bury them in the ground for winter. Is the acorn “striving” to be planted in the ground or are the squirrels striving to survive the winter? I fail to see how the conclusion to this is “everyone understands this to be God”.

Maybe everyone in the 13th century, but we know better now, don’t we? At least we should.

If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates if the question were one of evidence rather than philosophy. 

 

Coming next:

Dan Barker and other renown atheists have come to the conclusion that the God of the bible is a nefarious character. Barker writes, “If you claim to be a good person, then this book (the bible) should embarrass you and disgust you.”

Are theists actually embarrassed by the atrocities found in the Old Testament? And if not, why not? We’ll see, but I will tell you this, I was disgusted by their stance.

References:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

The Five Ways of Proving God. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

17 Mar, 2024

Blog

Happy St. Paddy’s Day

How Christians Define Faith

A critique of B. Kyle Keltz’s definition of faith

 

Renown atheist Dan Barker says,

Faith would be unnecessary, they remind us, if God’s existence were proved to be a blunt fact of reality. But this is a huge cop out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke Faith. Instead, we use reason to prove it. Faith is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith, you don’t have to put any work into proving your case or overcoming objections. You can “just believe.”

Keltz replies

Barker is abusing the definition of “faith” because in each one of these cases, “faith” is defined without any mention of how Christians define faith. Barker is defining faith as he experienced it during his days as a Christian evangelist and not as it is understood by Christian theologians. I will emphasize that Barker is free to reject what he is defining as “faith,” but this is not a rejection of faith as understood in the classical Christian tradition.

In this blog, we’ll see just how correct Barker’s statement really is, and if Keltz can prove his case for the existence of God based on how theologians view faith.

According to Keltz, Barker’s definition of faith is not how christian theologians understand faith. Which begs the obvious question. How do christians define faith? One would think that Keltz would supply the answer to that question rather early in his article. But that was not to be! It took some careful reading and word mining before I was finally able to find it, (much like the small print in a pharmaceutical advertisement).

He spent nearly 5,000 of his 6,900 words discussing his view of what is meant by “classical understanding of faith and reason”, and quoting Thomas Aquinas ad nauseam. Finally, 5,656 words later, I was able to find the “christian faith” needle in Keltz’s verbose and amphigoric hay stack. Here’s what he says about how christians define faith.

The act of faith, in theology, is the will commanding the intellect to assent to the truth of a proposition based on the authority of God.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Having faith in some proposition of theology means that your will overrides your intellect and tells it to believe in something that is not factual and for which there is no proof, all because we are told that the proposition is “based on the authority of God”, (which also is without proof).

Let’s be perfectly clear.

Before we continue, I feel it is necessary to clarify some issues. If you are a secularist or an atheist, or better yet, a former evangelical turned atheist (like me) you will see immediately the fallacious errors in Geltz’s argument and won’t need my critique. If you’re an evangelical, like Geltz, you never will see the errors and are probably already starting to compose your 7,000-word reply to correct me.

If, however, you’re on a journey to discover the truth of christianity and are beginning to question what you are being told from the pulpit, this blog’s for you. (Sounds like a beer commercial, huh?) What I want you to pay attention to is how Geltz uses many fallacious arguments in his attempt to discredit Barker’s understanding of faith. This is bad form and Keltz should know better.

Geltz incorporates christian doctrines into his arguments that he says are “the truth” but cannot be proven. Much of what he says can only be taken on faith alone. However, that’s not how he presents it. He offers christian doctrines in his argument as if they are given and accepted truths. I have underlined such fallacies.

What is Christian Faith?

Geltz arguments are based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas which, as we mentioned before, he quotes ad nauseum.

Aquinas’s understanding of faith shows how Barker was able to give up Christianity so easily, intellectually speaking. Barker took all the truths of Christianity on faith. He never considered arguments for God’s existence or the historical evidence for the life and death of Jesus Christ.

First off, what exactly are the “truths” of christianity? And how do we know they are actually true? The obvious answer is “we don’t know they are true” they can only be taken “by faith”. Can anything in the previous paragraph be taken as truths or are they issues of faith? I’ll let you answer that.

I doubt that Keltz has actually read Barker’s book godless where Barker addresses the issues that Keltz claims “he never considered”. (Chapter 6: Refuting God, Chapter 15: Did Jesus Exist? Chapter 16: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?) It’s clear from reading godless that Barker gave these beliefs careful consideration before he came to the conclusion that “Christianity was not true”, and therefore decided to leave.

Beliefs can count as knowledge.

Keltz continues…

Here we see Aquinas referring to assent as knowledge. This means that, for Aquinas, beliefs can count as knowledge. So, as long as someone knows the truth, he has knowledge. Thus, the objects of faith can be knowledge.

“Beliefs can count a knowledge”? That’s a new one to me. If I’m understanding this correctly, all those years I spent in Sunday school classes gave me knowledge and that accumulated knowledge can now be an object of faith. Geltz avoids the obvious question here. Is the knowledge anyone gains in years of Sunday school actually true? Maybe you’ve never stopped to answer that question. I didn’t until I was in my 30s. Just because someone has biblical knowledge and knows a lot about christian doctrines, does not make any of it true?

Geltz writes “as long as someone knows the truth” but he hasn’t told us yet what “truth” he’s referring to. But we’re coming to that. And it will be up to you to decide if what he calls the truth, actually IS the truth.

God is the Object of Faith.

Geltz continues…

Aquinas establishes several things regarding the object of faith. He determines that the object of faith must be God: unseen, not fully known, yet partly known through propositions.

If you are trying to prove the existence of God, it’s bad form to start with the proposition that God’s existence is a given. It’s the hypothesis, not the proof.

In discussing that the object of faith is God, Aquinas says, “Now the object of the theological virtues is God Himself, Who is the last end of all, as surpassing the knowledge of our reason. Because all theological truths are about God it follows that God is the object of faith.

Once again, we must ask if “all theological truths” are actually true.

As the object of faith, God cannot be fully known or seen. Wherefore it is evident that neither faith nor opinion can be of things seen either by the senses or by the intellect.  Anything that is seen or fully known with certainty cannot be an object of faith because the truth of a proposition that is experienced with the senses or reached as the conclusion of a logical demonstration is certain.

At last, Geltz has given us a semblance of valid reasoning, but then he attempts to show that the “truth of any proposition about God” can be gained by faith and reasoning. Let’s see how solid his argument really is. He continues…

Thus, something that is seen or fully known through logical demonstration cannot be an object of faith. However, God is partly known through propositions based in reasoning and in God’s revelation to humanity. God’s authority as Creator and Sustainer of the universe provides the basis for assenting to the truths of faith.

The phrase “God is partly known” starts with the assumption that God actually exists. It’s fallacious to start an argument for the existence of God with the assumption that God does exists. Atheists like Barker and others are simply waiting for the proof. Where’s the proof?

“God’s revelation to humanity”, and “God’s authority as Creator and Sustainer of the universe” are both statements that must in fact also be taken entirely by faith. Once again, it’s fallacious to start with those two propositions as “givens” and then claim that they are the basis for the truths of faith.

Didn’t we just come full circle? Let’s see if I understand this correctly. We can prove God’s existence through reason, as long as we start with the proposition that God is the creator and sustainer of the universe. It’s kind of like saying that we can reasonably believe that Santa Clause lives at the north pole as long as we start with the proposition that Santa Clause truly exists.

Now it gets rather jumbled. I will break this up into smaller parts so we can digest it better. Remember anything I have underlined is something that Keltz takes for granted as a truth which atheists must reject until there is sufficient proof.

Keltz continues,

Returning to Aquinas’s preferred definition of “faith” as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not, it is now evident why he thinks that this is a sufficient definition. Aquinas explains that “the substance of things hoped for” is a reference to the object of faith, which is God. God as the object of faith is “hoped for” because the believer does not yet have full knowledge of God, which can only be obtained through the beatific vision in heaven.

Full knowledge of God can only be obtained by going to heaven? Clearly that is a proposition that must be taken entirely on faith.

The “evidence of things that appear not” refers to the act of faith. Assent is given by the intellect on command of the will based on the available evidence in considering the truth of Scripture.

Once again, the believer is being asked to override his/her intellect in order to accept the “truth of scripture” which is based on available evidence. Huh? What evidence?

This is belief because the truths of faith are not certain in that they are beyond the reach of natural theology. They cannot be demonstrated or experienced through the senses, and their truth must be assented to on the authority of their source, which is God.

Okay, let’s see if I understand this logic. Although the “truths of faith” are not certain and cannot be demonstrated, they must be accepted on the basis that God is in authority? As long as believers START with the proposition that God exists, they can concede (through reason) that God exists. Once again this is fallacious reasoning.

Faith and Reason

Geltz continues,

There are truths that are only known through reason (i.e. scientific proof with no faith required), such as the number of planets in the solar system, the atomic mass of oxygen, the lifecycles of butterflies. There are truths that are known through both faith and reason, such as… the existence of God, the existence of the soul, and the resurrection of Jesus. Finally, there are truths of faith that are known only on the authority of God, such as God’s triunity, Jesus’s death on the cross the atonement for the sins of humanity, the resurrection, judgment of the dead at the end of days.

Wow!! So, it doesn’t matter about proof or a lack of proof? Once again, we seem to have come full circle. There’s still no proof for any of the “truths” Geltz mentions, but that doesn’t seem to matter. As long as christians can use “philosophical reasoning” as their justification, then anything they “want” to be true, can be declared as actually true. Do I need to point out again that this is fallacious reasoning?

How True are Geltz’s Truths?

Atheist Barker defines faith as “believing something without any evidence or with evidence to the contrary.” Theist Keltz takes issue with that and says that christians define faith differently and have done so for centuries. Here is an incomplete list of beliefs that Keltz says are true based on HIS definition of faith. Ask yourself, does Geltz offer any real evidence for any these beliefs?

The following are truths for Geltz.

  • God has revealed himself to humanity.
  • God is the creator (in six days) and sustainer of the universe.
  • Scripture is true.
  • The existence of God.
  • The existence of the soul.
  • The resurrection of Jesus.
  • God’s triunity.
  • Jesus’s death on the cross.
  • The atonement for the sins of humanity.
  • The resurrection.
  • Full knowledge of God can only be obtained in heaven.
  • The judgment of the dead at the end of days.

Only for the intellectual elite

An interesting thing about Keltz’s argument is that this higher understanding of faith and truth are not available to just anyone. One must be a trained theologian to understand it. He writes…

Aquinas is saying that… much of this knowledge is beyond the reach of unaided reason. (and that) not everyone has the means, time, ability, or motivation to learn natural theology, (and that) only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence, attributes, etc., (and that) only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology. Some truths can only be known through faith. Yet it allows for many truths of Christianity to be known through human reasoning. Knowledge of God and the truths of christianity can be attained by rigorous philosophy, and it can also be attained by laypeople through…

wait for it…
wait for it…
wait for it…

…faith.

Side note: Added 3/26/2024.

Keltz writes, only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence, attributes, etc., (and that) only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology.

After doing some extra research about “natural theology” I found this on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website.

The question of whether natural theology is a viable project is at the root of some of the deepest religious divisions: Shi’ite thinkers are optimistic about reason’s ability to prove various theological and ethical truths, for instance, while Sunnis are not; Roman Catholic theologians typically think that reason provides demonstrations of the existence of God, while many Protestant theologians do not. Unlike most of the topics discussed in an encyclopedia of philosophy, this is one over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut.

It’s disturbing that the one thing a religious elite like Geltz points to (other than faith) that can prove the existence of God is something “over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut”. If this is his proof of God, then I, without hesitation, choose to remain a secularist.

Conclusion

So here we are, back at square one. Keltz took issues with Barker’s definition of faith and argued that the combination of faith and reason can confirm the truths of christianity. But after 6,900 words he admits that only a few can have knowledge of God and everyone else is left to rely on “faith” alone. So, let’s go back to Barker’s words about the usefulness of faith.

“If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke Faith.”

When all is said and done, Keltz has failed in both of his objectives. He did not prove that Barker’s definition of faith is inaccurate, and he did not prove that the christian definition of faith has any validity. He then ends his argument by admitting that only intellectual elites (like himself) can gain this higher understanding of faith and reason, while everyone else has to take it entirely on faith alone.

It would have been so much easier, more honest and less verbose if Keltz had just accepted Barker’s definition of faith and then added the “real” truth, which might have gone something like this.

“As christians we have traditions and beliefs that we can’t prove but choose to believe anyway. Our religion depends on these beliefs which we elevate to “truths”. We love and need our religion. That is why we fiercely defend it even though many of us deep down suspect that our beliefs are indeed not true, (but we would never dare say this out loud.) In addition, we just don’t want Barker to be right because he is living proof that even “without Christ” all things are possible. He embarrasses us and that is why we must oppose him.”

(Could have been done in less than 100 words.)

Coming next:

Many of the authors of Answering the Music Man use arguments based on the writings of Thomas Aquinas. We’ll explore the validity of defending christianity based on 900-year-old philosophy.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

11 Mar, 2024

Blog

Are Faith and Reason Compatible?

B. Kyle Keltz

Keltz, earned a PhD in Philosophy of Religion and a MA in Apologetics. He also has ties to the C.S. Lewis Institute, whose mission is to develop wholehearted disciples of Jesus Christ who articulate, defend, share, and live their faith in personal and public life.

“It is in the nature of faith that one is capable of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so.” Richard Dawkins

“Religious faith is not adjustable. It remains strong in spite of a lack of evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence” Dan Barker

_______________________________________

Like the lonely heart who keeps waiting for the phone to ring, I kept trusting that God would someday come through. He never did. The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat—an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. – Dan Barker

“What theists lack in logic they make up for in length.”

Dan Barker’s statement about faith contains 66 words. Keltz’s reply, on the other hand, reached a whopping 6,900 words. Once again Keltz’s reply, like Ferrer’s, is not only unnecessarily lengthy but also lacking any evidence for the existence of God.

One would think that the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to logically prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist, but that’s not what Keltz does. Instead, he spends the bulk of his article arguing against Barker’s definition of the word “faith”, which according to Keltz, is not how christians define it.

Needless to say, I cannot critique all of Keltz’s 6,900-word reply, so I will summarize most of it and focus only on certain highlights that seem most important. Keltz spent nearly 5,000 words attempting to explain the philosophical connection between faith and reason and then preceded to explain why the combination of faith and reason can actually prove the existence of God… at least for christians. Let’s see how valid his argument really is.

Keltz begins his critique like this… (underlining is mine)

OF ALL THE CONCEPTS associated with Christianity, faith is probably the one that is most abused by atheist proselytizers. Often it is claimed that “faith” is “believing something without evidence or despite evidence to the contrary,” and faith and reason are incompatible. Atheists are abusing the definition of “faith” because, “faith” is defined without any mention of how Christians define “faith.” These comments are misleading because they can lead people to think they represent the only definition of “faith” or that they are referring to what Christians believe.

There’s another definition of “faith”? Isn’t that kind of like, “alternative facts”? It was a revelation to me that (according to Geltz) christians define faith differently than everyone else. Okay, this is interesting already. We’ll take a deeper dive into how christians define “faith” later, but for now, let’s see how the dictionary and the bible define “faith”.

Faith

Dictionary: noun, “a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”

Bible: Now, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)

The bible says that faith is… evidence of things not seen. So, having faith in something is evidence that it exists?  How can that be? We’ll get back to that but first let’s look at the dictionary definition.

If you’re like me, you’re not quite sure what is meant by the term “spiritual apprehension”. I googled it and found an enlightening article which explained what that term means. The article goes like this…

  • Science is a way of finding truth. The Latin root of this word, scientia, means “knowledge.” We formulate hypotheses, perform experiments, gather and analyze data, and make conclusions based on statistical tests.
  • Faith is another way of finding truth. In this case, a “spiritual apprehension” is an awareness or understanding that comes through the Spirit, not through the scientific method.

Okay, that makes a little bit of sense, the author continues…

  • In a revelation given through Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, who was seeking knowledge, the Lord said, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (Doctrine and Covenants 8:2). I might add that the promptings of the Spirit come after we have done our part to study things out, and that faith is not to have a perfect knowledge. We don’t have meters that can measure these promptings, but that doesn’t mean we don’t get promptings and learn to trust them.

So according to the author of this article published by BYU the teachings of Joseph Smith can be realized as truth only when the Holy Ghost dwells in a person’s heart. (What would evangelicals think about that?) If the doctrines of Mormonism can be believed as true on the basis of an understanding that “comes through the spirit rather than proof” couldn’t all other religious doctrines be believed by the same measurement? Do Muslims have faith? Do Hindus? Do Buddhists? Does their faith prove that their religion is true?

Truth is truth, right?

So, if all religions are using the same measuring stick (i.e. faith) to validate their beliefs why do they end up coming to different conclusions? If that’s the case, is faith really an accurate way to find “truth”? Every religion would affirm that for their religion and their religion alone the answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes”. Let’s see what an atheist might say.

Barker writes…

If faith is valid, then anything goes. Muslims believe in Allah by faith, so they must be right. The Hindus are right. The Greeks and Romans were right. More people claim to have seen or been healed by Elvis Presley than ever claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus. With faith, everybody is right.

Keltz seems to agree:

If it is okay to believe something without any evidence, this means that it is okay to believe in anything and suggests that all religions are right, although most religions make opposing claims regarding the nature of reality and the purpose of humanity. Barker mentions that even atheism could be taken on faith according to this definition.

It’s interesting that Keltz makes this last claim that (according to Barker) atheism can be taken on faith. He (not surprisingly) failed to include the rest of Barker’s quote in his article, but we were able to find it in Barker’s book, godless. If you actually read Barker’s own words you will realize that he is being facetious. See for yourself.

Barker writes…

“With faith, everybody is right. Suppose an atheist, refusing to look at any religious claims, were to say, “You must have faith that there is no God. If you believe in your heart that nothing transcends nature and that humanity is the highest judge of morality, then you will know that atheism is true. That will make you a better person.”

Any atheist or secularist would read this and chuckle at the satirical humor. The idea that an atheist would use faith to reinforce their non-belief in gods, is a rather silly idea, which was Barker’s intent. However, this level of satire seems to be lost on the likes of Keltz.

Keltz continues by laying out his plan to discredit Barker.

Next, I will explain the classical Christian position regarding faith and reason as presented by Thomas Aquinas (born 1225 CE). After this, I will contrast Barker’s understanding of faith with Aquinas’s understanding. I will conclude that Barker is defining “faith” as he experienced it during his days as a Christian evangelist and not as it is understood by Christian theologians in the classical Christian tradition.

So, let’s take a quick look at how Barker views faith as it relates to belief in gods and then next week, we’ll take a deeper dive into how “christian theologians” define faith. Hmm, that should be interesting!

Dan Barker on Faith and Reason

“Do I want God, or do I want truth? You can’t have both.”

Barker says,

“Faith would be unnecessary, they remind us, if God’s existence were proved to be a blunt fact of reality. But this is a huge cop out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are admitting that the assertion can’t be taken on its own merits. If something is true, we don’t invoke faith.”

As a secularist this certainly makes sense to me. I wonder if Keltz has ever asked any of his atheistic friends what they think of Barker’s statement. Oh, wait, Keltz spent his entire educational career in the protective bubble of evangelical institutions. I seriously doubt he has ever actually spoken face to face with anyone who identifies as an atheist, except perhaps in a debate. What he would find, is that many atheists actually spent years practicing christianity before they abandoned their faith. They therefore have a better understanding of the inner workings of christianity. Theists, on the other hand, seem to have very little understanding of the nature of atheism. This is not surprising, and we will explore this idea more in future blogs.

I lost faith in faith.

Barker writes,

“Finally, at the far end of my theological migration, I was forced to admit that there is no basis for believing that a god exists, except faith, and faith was not satisfactory to me. I did not lose my faith—I gave it up purposely. The motivation that drove me into the ministry—to know and speak the truth—is the same that drove me out. I lost faith in faith. When I learned that Christianity is not true, I had to decide: ‘Do I want God, or do I want truth?’ You can’t have both.”

Coming next:

A Classical Christian Understanding of Faith and Reason

Keltz employs the writings of Thomas Aquinas in an attempt to demonstrate that the combination of faith and reason actually can prove the existence of God. We’ll see how successful he is.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

29 Feb, 2024

Blog

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

mt.toll@comcast.net

19 Feb, 2024

Blog

ANSWERING THE MUSIC MAN

Atheism New and Old by John D. Ferrer

A Critique of Dan Barker’s Brand of Atheism

In case you are not familiar with the reference to the “Music Man” here’s a link to Dan Barker’s story of going from a teenage evangelist and christian music composer to becoming an atheist.

Dan Barker: Since I do not believe in a god, I am by default described as an atheist. Theists do not have a god: they have a belief. Atheism is the lack of theism, the lack of belief in god(s).

Before we get started with Ferrer’s critique, let me say that Dan Barker does not need my help defending himself from the likes of the authors of Answering the Music Man. None of them would do well in a one-on-one debate with Barker. Perhaps that’s why they wrote a book.

In his book “godless” Dan Barker says this about theists who are attempting to discredit him and other atheists.

“What they lack in logic they make up for in length.”

This is certainly the case with John D. Ferrer. Barker’s rather simple definition of Atheism contains just 40 words. Ferrer’s response, on the other hand, exceeds 7,300 words.

One would think that the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to logically prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist. I expected that somewhere in Ferrer’s 7,300 words he would be able to produce at least some semblance of a defense for his theism. But that’s not what he does. Instead he spends the bulk of his 7,300 words arguing against Barker’s definition of the word “atheism”. With that said, let’s look at what Ferrer says about renown atheist Dan Barker.

Here’s how he begins he defense… (underline is mine)

Words evolve over time, growing, losing, and changing definitions, all depending on fickle social fashions. The word “atheism” is no exception. In the last ten to fifteen years, a new definition of “atheism has grown in popularity, threatening to replace the classic sense of the word. And people like Dan Barker are benefactors.

He spends the rest of his wordy diatribe attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of the word “atheism” is dishonest. He also spends some of his 7,300 words belittling Barker on a personal level. I guess this is what you do (ad hominem) when you are unable to produce a defense of theism.

Ferrer: Is Barker just an intellectual hipster who can’t stomach “old-fashioned” classics without a spritz of irony? He’s in his seventies now, so “hipster” probably isn’t the right term for him. Although, I’m sure he has rocked the tweed jacket and craft beer from time to time. Barker, however, is firmly entrenched in a new socio-culture of atheism known, ironically, as New Atheism.

Ferrer attempts of discredit Barker’s definition of “atheism” and also to attack Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation. Ferrer not only doesn’t like Barker’s definition of atheism he doesn’t like Barker’s brand of atheism. He wants Barker to play nice. This coming from a man who is a “teaching fellow” for a pro-life organization that I’m sure, would have no issue taking away a woman’s right to control her own body.

Here’s what Ferrer says about what he calls Barker’s “new atheism”

Ferrer: New Atheists like Dan Barker would have to dull their blade a bit and learn to play nice with others. Dan Barker and his Freedom From Religion Foundation will likely persist as militant as ever, competing for territory, and promoting nontheism, secularism, and irreligion with all the fervor of an evangelistic crusade.

Here’s what Barker says about his evangelistic crusade.

“Once a preacher always a preacher (in my case, at least), so the question now was, “Should I preach atheism?” When all is said and done, we can’t help being who we are. I had developed certain habits and skills in the ministry and still wanted to change the world for the better. I am very concerned about our species’ preoccupation with superstition and irrationality and confident that if someone like me can be healed of such delusions so can others”

I have personally experienced “being healed of such delusions” and for me is was very freeing. Others (like Ferrer) are stuck in theirs. In my next blog we’ll explore the reasons why.

Ferrer  continues…

Ferrer: He is not… the quiet, respectful, public atheist who flies under the radar rather than drawing attention to himself. Nor is he the outlandish academic atheist squirreled away in his office in the biology department at some college in the 1970s. New Atheism replaces peacemaking policies with verbal conquest; humble nonbelief becomes cocky secularism; timidity switches into boldness; and the pluralistic se la vie shifts to intolerant chants of “Stop that, or you’re sued!” It’s clear that he is not the peacemaker.

Love this paragraph. Ferrer wants atheists, like Barker, to be humble, timid and not in the public view, while at the same time the likes of Ferrer are attempting to push their religious beliefs on the public. Based on Ferrer’s credentials (which we’ll explore in the next blog) it could be assumed that he has no qualms about blurring the lines of separation of church and state. And when he attempts to overstep his bounds (as evangelicals often tend to do) and push his religious beliefs on the general public, Barker’s foundation is there to protect the constitutional rights of the other citizens. So in that sense, I guess Barker is not a peacemaker. But then again, is Ferrer?

Barker writes, “It turns out that atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. Basic atheism is not a belief.”

I kept waiting for Ferrer to begin his presentation for the defense of the existence of his god, but he never does. He spends his next 5,000 words attempting to prove that Barker’s definition of atheism is “new” and “fickle” (making it trendy, and thus invalid). Ferrer contends that Barker’s definition does not conform to ancient Greek etymology of the word Atheos and thus is not valid in today’s world. Really? This is where he wants to go with his argument… to ancient Greek?

Ferrer would prefer that rather than atheists saying, “we don’t believe in gods” they must say unequivocally that “there are no gods”. Rather than theists shouldering the burden of proof that their god exists, Ferrer would prefer to shift the burden of proof to atheists. That way Barker and other atheists would be forced to prove that no gods exist.

Why would that be important for Ferrer? It’s simple! Since he can’t prove his god exists, (which he demonstrates in his 7,300-word diatribe) he wants Barker to prove that gods “do not” exist.

Ferrer’s desire to switch the burden of proof that “no gods exist” reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s theory of the Celestial teapot. Russell’s teapot theory is “an analogy” designed to discount the need for a burden of proof regarding the non-existence of something (i.e. a God).  Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Ferrer responds to Russell’s teapot theory by saying that the question of God’s existence is a little more pressing than… “the trivial dismissal of an orbiting teapot”. Ferrer goes on to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus divinitatis” (the sense that a divinity exists) although he fails to give any supporting evidence other than his “senses”. What if I were to say that “there is a substantial case supporting the notion of the sensus teapotis”? Would that be enough proof that the celestial teapot actually exists? Certainly not! Let’s be clear here; a “sense” of the divine is not actual proof of the divine.

Ferrer also doesn’t like Barker’s definition of agnosticism.

Barker: People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don’t have a knowledge that God exists. “The atheist says, “I don’t have a belief that God exists.” Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. Agnosticism is the refusal to take as a fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence.”

If Ferrer were being honest with himself (and with us), he might admit that he himself is an agnostic. Ferrer has a strong belief in his god but there is insufficient evidence to prove its existence, and therefore his belief (no matter how strong) cannot be taken as fact. He is indeed a theistic agnostic while I am an atheistic agnostic. He believes in his god (teapot), but he can’t prove his god exists. I don’t believe in his god, but I cannot prove that his god doesn’t exist. In that light, Barker’s use of agnosticism is perfectly valid. We’ll expand more on this in next week’s blog as we take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s own believes.

SO, WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? Ferrer continues,

It can be true even if God exists

Ferrer: Perhaps the weirdest result with Barker’s brand of atheism is that it doesn’t say anything about whether God exists. Even if God exists, Barker’s atheism could be true. That’s a strange brand of atheism, aligning just fine with God’s existence.

On this one point, I have to agree with Ferrer (except for the part about a strange brand of atheism). I understand that my disbelief in gods does not mean that they absolutely don’t exist. And I will continue in my non-belief until there is evidence to the contrary. However, here’s what Ferrer proposes it would take to convince atheists that god actually does exist.

Ferrer: This means that even if God exists, even if God came down to Los Angeles, California, dictated the Bible on live TV, ended the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet (wine), and personally moonwalked across the set of God ’s Not Dead III—Barker’s atheism would still be true so long as his atheism refers only to his lack of theism.

How about rather than ending “the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet”, God ended world hunger or human trafficking or the suffering caused by wars? Wouldn’t godly kindness toward all mankind be more convincing to atheists like Barker and me than God doing the moonwalk on American TV? Get serious, Ferrer!

Intellectual laziness

Ferrer: (Barker’s definition of atheism) fosters intellectual laziness. The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. My point is that the “default atheism” view is self-serving for atheists. It can deceive atheists into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground but can presume it while theists do all the work.

Does earning a master’s in Apologetics and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion automatically award Ferrer with the “intellectual high ground”? (I think not, but more about that in my next blog.) Barker admits that he doesn’t have the education of a theologian, saying that it wasn’t that important to him.

Barker: “Looking back, I can see that most of the religion courses (with a couple of notable exceptions) were simply glorified Sunday School classes and I don’t remember that we delved very deeply into the evidences or arguments for or against Christianity. I believed that my education was secondary to my calling.”

Ferrer continues,

“What can we make of Barker’s Atheism? In the final evaluation, Barker’s definition of atheism offers a strategic advantage for him. He never has a burden of proof in defending his nonbelief. If Dan Barker wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability, he is going to have to earn it just like anyone else. His definition of “atheism,” fits the profile of a pseudo-intellectual skeptic.”

The pot and the kettle.

I take issue with Ferrer’s claim that he has earned “intellectual respectability”. Let’s say, for an example, that we were to ask Ferrer if he believes in Astrology. My guess, (based on his religious beliefs) would be that he does not. Would he say that he “doesn’t believe in astrology”? By his own argument that would be invalid. According to his own standards, he must say unequivocally that astrology is false and then accept the burden of proving that it is false. If he simply were to say that he “doesn’t believe” in astrology without offering any evidence debunking it, wouldn’t that make him “a pseudo-intellectual skeptic” of astrology? Let’s see how Ferrer’s own words reveal him to be the pot.

A reversal of Ferrer’s own words

“The only way to reach the intellectual high ground is to earn it. It can deceive atheists (and theists) into thinking that they don’t have to earn their academic high ground. If anyone wants to wear the mantle of intellectual respectability (on any topic), they are going to have to earn it just like anyone else.”

So, has Ferrer actually earned his academic high ground?

It might surprise you to learn that there are a number of universities that offer a Master’s degree in Astrology. Would Ferrer’s limited knowledge of astrology make him a pseudo-intellectual skeptic? Is Ferrer implying that his master’s in apologetics has earned him the intellectual high ground over someone who has earned a master’s in astrology? Perhaps for Ferrer it does, but for me a master’s in astrology carries the same weight as a master’s in apologetics.

What does Ferrer personally believe?

I find it curious that nowhere in Ferrer’s seven thousand plus words does he ever say what he personally believes. We know what Dan Barker believes (or doesn’t believe). He’s been very clear about that. So, why doesn’t Ferrer tell us what he believes?

Coming next:

We’ll take a deeper dive into Ferrer’s personal beliefs and as a result, perhaps come to understand why he has chosen not to reveal them in his critique of The Music Man.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net

13 Feb, 2024

Blog

Happy Marti Gras!

Not that this blog has anything to do with Marti Gras, but I wish you a happy one none the less!

__________________________________

The Full Armor of God – Conclusion

The battle in the twenty-first century is a spiritual and cultural battle for the hearts and minds of the next generation! It is a war of ideas and requires spiritual weapons with which to wage it! Dr. Elizabeth Youmans

In the two previous blogs we examined an article from bibleinfo.com about the full armor of God (as found in Ephesians 6). In part one we discussed the belt of truth and the breastplate of righteousness. In part two we discussed the shoes of the gospel of peace, and the shield of faith. In this blog we’ll take a closer look at the remaining two articles of the armor: the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit (i.e. the bible) plus some added instructions that (according to the bibleinfo.com article) are needed to make the armor fully functional so it can actually protect as advertised. But we’ll get to that in a bit.

But, before we get into that, let’s take a side trip. This week I serendipitously stumbled on a blog that Dr. Bart Ehrman wrote about ten years ago called “The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old.” Ehrman writes,

The Religion of a Sixteen-Year-Old.

Isn’t it very strange indeed that so many people of faith… think that even though they are supposed to grow, and mature, and develop new ideas, and chart new territories, and acquire new knowledge, and change their understandings as they get older in every other aspect of their lives, they are supposed to hold on to pretty much the SAME religious views that were satisfying to them as a sixteen-year-old? That is one of the things that I find most puzzling and dissatisfying and frustrating about many evangelical Christians is that the views they put forth, are at the intellectual and spiritual level of sophistication of a 16-year-old. There’s something wrong about that.

I was 16 years old when I became a christian, so Ehrman’s article is particularly relevant for me. In a previous blog I talked about how and why I ended up walking away from christianity. I realize now that perhaps it was the result of me maturing intellectually and refusing to unquestionably hold on to the religion that I was introduced to in 1972.

Maybe you are beginning to question what you are being told from the pulpit, like I was back then. If so, let me say that it’s okay to question, it’s not only okay, it’s the right thing to do. Just realize, if you begin to question, you might lose some friends. Do it anyway.

So, let’s see what bibleinfo.com has to say about the last two articles of the Full Armor of God.

Helmet of salvation

The helmet protects the head—perhaps the most vital part of the body since it is the seat of thought and the mind. When we have a sure knowledge of our salvation, we will not be moved by Satan’s deceptions. When we are certain that we are in Christ with our sins forgiven, we will have a peace that nothing can disturb.

What’s important to remember here, is that the concept of “sin” is made up by religions. I’m not a religious studies expert but I’m pretty sure that every religion in the history of mankind has had some concept of sin. There’s always some way that humans are displeasing to their gods. And when the gods became angry, they retaliated by causing drought, floods, earthquakes or even war and (as an act of kicking them when they’re down), the famine that always seems to follow such events. Religion is the process of appeasing the gods. “What have we done to displease the gods and how can we make it right.?” There are many stories of how different civilizations have worked to appease their gods, for example, by offering up grains or “first fruits” as payment for a bountiful harvest, or, as in Hebrew tradition, offering animal sacrifices. Whatever it takes.

Christianity, however, has taken this concept to a whole new level. It’s not something we have done to displease the Abrahamic god, it’s something the first man and woman did, and as their descendants, we displease this god simply by being born. Because of something the mythical Adam and Eve supposedly did in the Garden of Eden; the entire human race is condemned to an eternity in hell.  The only way to escape this dismal fate is to join the Jesus Club. Even when I was active in church, I never really bought into that theology. How about you? Is that what you believe?

Now let’s return to the last article of the Armor of God.

Sword of the spirit

The sword of the spirit is the only weapon of offense listed in the armor of God. All the other parts are defensive in nature. God’s Word—the Bible—is described as “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword”. God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). That is why it is so powerful. That is why it is so important that we study the Bible and become familiar with its truths and its power. The sword of God’s Word both protects us and destroys our enemy—the devil and his temptations.

Notice that the reasoning bibleinfo.com gives for the proposition that the bible is true, is that the bible says it’s true. That’s not how it works. Is there no other way to show that the bible is true other than it saying it is? Apparently not. I have yet to encounter a christian (even a trained apologists) who is able to provide a list of credible non-Christian sources that confirm the historicity of the main tenants of the bible. Yet, for evangelicals, it’s all true… “for the bible tells me so”. Another topic we’ll explore further in an upcoming blog.

The bible verse “living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword” comes from the book of Hebrews 4:12. Here is the verse in its entirety.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper then any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have three issues of concern about this verse. First, evangelicals believe that the letter to the Hebrews was written by the apostle Paul, but biblical scholars pretty much agree that it was not. This is a problem for evangelicals because it brings into question the inerrancy of the bible, and that can’t be allowed. So, as we have seen before, they will continue to believe it was written by Paul despite evidence to the contrary.

Second, experts believe that the book of Hebrews was penned somewhere around the year 65 CE. The New Testament did not even exist yet, three of the four gospels had not even been written yet. So, what exactly is he referring to when he says the “word of God”. I read one commentary on this verse that refers to John 1:1 saying that Jesus is the word of God. Funny that the gospel of John wouldn’t be written for another 30 years. So that can’t be it. Is it referring to the ancient Hebrew texts? Possibly, but even if it was, what percentage of people in the first century actually had access to, and were literate enough to read them? Easily less than 10%. It would be like saying that it’s more accurate to read the NT in the original Greek. How many people can do that? It can’t cut to the quick if you don’t have access to it.

And lastly, read the verse again. The intent of this sword is not only to “destroy our enemy” but also to dismember him, as in “piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit, and the joints and marrow”. I don’t give much credence to the bible at this stage of my life, but I do believe that modern day christians who use this verse to say that all scripture (even the NT) is “a powerful weapon” are greatly misrepresenting it, as does Dr. Elizabeth Youmans. I wish they all would stop weaponizing the bible.

The bibleinfo.com article adds a couple more thoughts about the articles of the armor. Apparently, it’s not enough to just put on the armor of God, it’s useless without this essential addition.

Prayer

Although prayer is not one of the pieces of the whole armor of God… you need to bathe it all in prayer. Prayer brings you into communion and fellowship with God so that His armor can protect you.

So, do I understand this right?  It’s not enough to be wearing all the articles of armor, they won’t work unless they are “bathed” in prayer? After all this exhortation to “put on the armor of God” it doesn’t protect anything unless you follow the directions to the very end. But bibleinfo.com isn’t done yet. There’s one more surprise regarding the armor.

How do you put on the whole armor of God?

It isn’t as difficult as you might think. All the pieces of the armor are found in a relationship with Jesus. When you give yourself to Jesus and “put on” His righteousness, you are clothed in the whole armor of God.

Let me see if I have this right, the complete ensemble of the armor of God is included free of charge with a membership to the Jesus club. How convenient! Don’t worry about it or waste your time putting on the full armor of God because it’s already part of the Jesus club uniform.

In conclusion, the bibleinfo.com article is very simplistic and seems to have been written for “a 16-year-old” (of any age) whose understanding of what’s actually in their bible is limited.  If that kind of simplistic explanation is no longer acceptable to you, you’re headed in the right direction. Keep seeking the truth and you will find it.  Keep questioning what you are being told from the pulpit. Do your homework, and don’t let someone else decide what’s right for you.  A great place to start would be by reading Dr. Ehrman’s book Forged.

Ehrman tells the story of when he dedicated himself to following the actual truth of the New Testament, no matter where it led him, he was no longer welcomed in evangelical circles. This might happen to you too. But I can tell you that it’s worth it. You’ll find yourself on a solid ground that you never knew existed. As Dr. Ehrman discovered, being outside the evangelical camp… “is a lush paradise compared with the barren camp of fundamentalism.”

Learn to question everything!

and

Prepare yourself for the opposition you’ll encounter as a result.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net