.jpg)
Who would've guessed Jesus and Darwin where really Irish soccer hooligans??
Here is a summary of the main points of the current debate between National Methodist Examiner, James-Michael Smith, and LA Atheism Examiner, Hugh Kramer. Each summary section is linked to the article where it originally appeared. For a fuller grasp of the debate once can click on the articles in the order below.
For Hugh's concluding remarks, click here. JM's concluding remarks follow at the end of the recap:
The Theist Position (JM's)
Why JM rejects atheism as valid:
* Atheism denies that there is a creator, designer or originator of the universe that is apart from the universe. This means that the origin of the universe must be explained from within—something that is much less plausible than that it was created by something greater.
* Atheism denies that humanity has any intrinsic teleological purpose. Atheism states that have no ultimate purpose—just whatever ‘purpose’ we choose to believe we have.
* Atheism logically denies an ultimate, objective source of Justice and Morality. Justice and Morality in an atheistic world logically must be subjective. Of course atheists often have a keen sense of Justice and Morality—many times trumping even those who adhere to various religions! However, I believe this is a case of atheists living better than their worldview.
* Atheism cannot plausibly explain the near-universal innate tendency toward belief in a god, God, gods, etc. among humanity. Many evolutionary and anthropological arguments for the existence of religion have been offered…but they fall apart once actual religious belief among humanity’s various religious worldviews is looked at in greater detail.
Hugh’s critique of JM:
* [Hugh quoted a comment by a fellow atheist which attempts to summarize and critique the Kalam Cosmological argument]
* “[JM] says that we should "stop trying to embrace (an) intrinsic (or maybe he meant "intrinsically"), objective purpose to life," follow our worldview to its logical conclusion and admit our nihilism. While it's true that atheists aren't big on "ultimates" and absolutes when it comes to the meaning of life, etc., it doesn't mean that our only other choice is to think that nothing has any meaning. Like most human beings, we're quite capable of providing our own meanings to life.”
JM’s rebuttal to Hugh’s critique:
* [JM provided links to a number of articles correcting Hugh's quote and expanding upon the Kalam argument.]
* "The moment you declare that life really does have a meaning or purpose beyond whatever personal meaning you make up for it in your own life you immediately negate your claim… within an atheistic worldview, any such meaning is nothing more than sentimental decoration meant to camouflage the underlying nihilistic reality of a closed system universe with no purpose, justice or moral foundation."
* [JM noted multiple lines of evidence which make plausible a theistic worldview]:
"The philosophical and scientific evidence for the existence of a Creator
The historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus...
The psychological evidence against naturalistic reductionism...
The anthropological evidence for innate human knowledge of the spiritual...
The subjective evidence of my own personal encounters with the Holy Spirit…
...all of these to me are powerful lines of evidence rather than any sort of leap of faith. I believe faith should NEVER be “blind”…nor does Scripture endorse such a view."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Atheist's Position (Hugh)
Why Hugh rejects theism as valid:
* “As humankind's knowledge of the world expanded, religious ideas evolved to encompass what was known and offer explanations for it. Eventually, it was the turn of the monotheistic faiths that so many subscribe to today to come into being and offer their explanations for everything.”
* “…there is absolutely nothing in any of the holy books of any of them that arguably couldn't have been conceived of or known by people living at that time; so a claim of "divine inspiration" or "special knowledge" is definitely open to question. [Hugh illustrated with examples of literal and moralistic interpretations of various passages in Scripture.]
* “Almost all the social, material and scientific progress of the world has been held back rather than assisted by theists. [Hugh gave examples of conflict between scientists and religious people.]
JM’s critique of Hugh’s answer:
* [JM noted that Hugh was committing basic errors in interpretation] “You’re [also] assuming passages in Scripture that are DESCRIPTIVE to be PROSCRIPTIVE. You’re mistaking NARRATIVE for NORMATIVE… None of this is compelling evidence against the existence of a theistic God. It’s just compelling evidence for why we shouldn’t settle for bad interpretations of Scripture! ;)
* While I can’t speak for any other religious text, the Biblical texts…encourage a thorough never-ending study of the world around us…which is why the modern scientific method was birthed within the milieu of theism…if the above caricature was accurate, there would be no such thing as modern science (begun within a theistic worldview), genetics (Gregor Mendel, Francis Collins?), physics (Sir Isaac Newton?), astronomy (Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler??). An honest appraisal of the history of science will reveal the fallacy of claiming that theism is somehow antagonistic to science.
Hugh’s rebuttal to JM’s critique:
* “He says that I am making the same error evangelicals make…The reply that comes to mind is, "So what?" How does that prove my point wrong? As far as empiricism goes, there is nothing in a lack of clarity that allows multiple interpretations which adds any support to the claim for the divine origin of the message. If anything, this is evidence against it.”
* “The beginnings of science were in ancient Greece where Empiricism came out of a philosophical, not religious, tradition. What religion adds to it is an extraneous factor, not a clarifying one… But even if your point were correct, it wouldn't necessarily mean that religion couldn't also hold back scientific progress.”
* Even if one accepts all his objections to my examples though, how does that show that his thesis is right? What JM's position boils down to is that he believes in it because he believes in it. That's just not good enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concluding remarks from JM:
I have really enjoyed this debate with Hugh. Despite our use of fight imagery and occasional verbal jabs, we have a friendly relationship and both like honest, passionate debate that's civil without feeling the need to pull any punches.
The initial question was why I reject atheism. My initial reasons still remain and I haven't seen Hugh answer any of them compellingly. His response to atheism's lack of explanatory ability regarding the origin of the universe was basically to shrug it off and say that no theory gives ultimate proof of how the universe came into being. The fact stands, however, that the universe DID have a beginning, and something apart from the universe must have brought it into being. This leans heavily against any atheistic scenario which, by definition, requires the cause of such an event as the entire universe coming into being be purely natural and unguided by higher power or creator.
Hugh's response to my charge that atheism entails a lack of ultimate objective meaning and purpose in life was to suggest some middle ground where life really does have meaning, but this meaning consists of what we choose to invest it with. However, this is a self-contradictory statement. If humans determine our own individual meaning to life then it is in no way ulitmate, objective, or binding on anyone other than ourselves. Thus the person who devotes their life to bettering the world has no more meaningful life than the person who devotes theirs to becoming morbidly obese and watching reruns of Guiding Light all day. Furthermore, if humans determine the meaning of their lives, then when humans are dead and gone, their lives cease to have meaning completely and the universe continues on into its eventual oblivion, as if humans never existed. THIS is why nihilism is the logical conclusion to any naturalistic, atheistic worldview. Yet many atheists continue to delude themselves into thinking life can actually have some inherent meaning apart from an objective source of such meaning--which theists recognize as God.
The same goes for any proposed system of morality from an atheist perspective. Any notion of Justice or Morality must be purely naturalistic...and therefore not binding on those who react against it, as they too are just acting in accordance with their nature. One may prefer a certain moral view of the world, but one can never logically claim that it is right and those who reject it are wrong. An atheist may not like the fact that the Crusades occured, but they can not claim they were evil, because this implies an objective moral standard of which the Crusades fall short. Theists on the other hand can (and do) claim the Crusades were ultimately, objectively morally wrong precisely because they violate the objective morality which we all inherently possess innate knowledge of--even if our view of how that morality should be applied differs from place to place in time. [For a far better treatment of this point, see chs.2-3 of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis.]
Lastly, it is quite telling--though of course not "proof" of theism--that almost every human being who has ever lived has possessed an innate belief in something of the divine. Atheistic explanations of this fact border on the absurd. It is much more plausible to suggest that there really IS something "out there" beyond what we know as the natural world. All of creation seems to point beyond itself to something greater. This is exactly what one would expect to find in a universe created by a God who wanted a free relationship with people. For those open to such a relationship, there is more than enough evidence to validate belief in God. Likewise, for those who have no desire for a relationship with God, He is sufficiently hidden in order to not compel their belief.
Christopher Hitchens / Rabbi Schmuley Boteach
Christopher Hitchens / Douglas Wilson
Clancy Martin / J.P. Moreland
Eddie Tabash / William Lane Craig
Comments
It is a waste of time to argue with apostates and atheists, anymore than the prophets could argue with the worshippers of Baal. Atheist ideas are based on a "religion" of rebellion against God and a denial of His rule over the universe and over the hearst of men. Most atheists and agnostics are aware that their theories are wrong, but they are ultimately driven by arrogance and pride, and a desire to place man in the center of their universe, although they have denigrated him to a mass of slime that evolved in multiple mysterious ways from protoplasmic material to ape to humanoid. If one is a Christian, simply keep your healthy faith in Christ as uppermost in your mind and heart and dismiss the arguments of the apostates and worldlings you meet, remembering they have no right, no portion, in the kingdom of God, and without repentance and conversion, they shall all ultimately perish.
"and a desire to place man in the center of their universe"
Funnily enough, pretty much every religion has their god(s) regarding men as their best and most precious creation, while atheists picture men as living creatures that appeared (not in the creationist sense) on a rock circling a pretty average star, in a pretty average galaxy of a pretty average corner of the Universe.
Yes, we may now engage in a lenghty exchange over what exactly we both meant when we said "universe", but I figured it was fair game. Chalk it up to my unbridled arrogance and pride.
That's Right! You tell 'em John Flanagan!
Ya hear that ya heathens? "ULTIMATELY PERISH!"
Oh, wait... is he talking about me?
Well John Flanagan, plenty of atheists feel the same way about folks like you. I'm not one of them though. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. I don't even think it's a good idea to TRY to convince anyone to change their belief system... except in one respect. And that is if they aren't a live and let live kind of person themself. People who feel they have the right to impose their values on others through law; people who feel their position is so pre-eminent that when someone says the more inclusive "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" it's an attack on their faith, these are the arrogant and pride-driven people I want to talk to. True, I might be wasting my time, but I know what kind of country I want to live in; one that allows the maximum of liberty for everyone and plays no favorites based on faith or anything else. I don't care what you believe as long as you understand that. I figure it's worth a little of my time to explain that. Tell me I didn't just waste it.
John,
Nearly 9 million people die each year in China. Less than 5% or only half a million those people were Christian. Do the other 8.5 million Chinese people who die each year and don't believe in Christ sent to hell? What if I'm a good person in every moral regard yet I don't subscribe to your God? Am I going to hell? Do you need someone to tell you how to be a good person or do you think you know on your own? Over 2/3 of the world's population aren't Christians.. why not?
John Flanagan, your remarks are not only condescending, they are TOTALLY UNBIBLICAL.
Good thing Paul didn't follow your advice in Acts 17...or Jesus in Samaria. Please take your head out of the sand and get it back into actual Great Commission Gospel faith. Your attitude toward nonbelievers is akin to Jonah's attitude toward Nineveh...and we see how God responded to his tyrade.
Mr. Flanagan: So much of your argument is patently nonsense, its hard to know where to begin. Most atheists I know are of the soft variety, meaning the don't think there's a God but know it can't be known for certain. To suppose that think "our theories wrong" is nonsense, nor are we driven by pride or a rebellion from a deity we don't suppose exists.
Since you seem to think you know something perhaps you'd suggest some good reason you do believe in Christ. I can't think of one. That's more pertinent than all your ludicrous suppositions.
Hugh, I have no animosity toward theists, but feel that the notion that theists who insist their faith based thought is fact can represent danger to society. I never have a problem with people who simply believe because they believe but understand their belief isn't science nor carries the weight of fact.
Those who do try to back their faith with science, in my experience, corrupt their science with emotion, and consequently compromise the integrity of thought, even though many are very smart people. Whether they damage their faith is beyond my area of knowledge, but I'd guess so.
The effort to concretize religion is, I think, political, not spiritual and has no positive side.
James-Michael, having read, and responded to a number of your posts, I have to say that, while I disagree with you on many points, I respect your intellect, honesty and care about reason.
I look forward to enlighening discussions.
I agree Al, that there's danger when people act on faith-based conclusions as if they were fact (it's tangental to what I concluded in my response to JM today) but I would add the caveat that it also depends on what conclusions they reached. I find little harm in Jainism or Buddhism (except perhaps to themselves -but that's not my business) and even among Christians there's a wide variation in attitudes over just how proactive they need to be in getting others to conform with their worldview. I guard my civil liberties jealously but I don't level my rifle and call out, "Halt! Who goes there?" at everyone who's religious.
Al, I appreciate your comments and thank you for reading. I too look forward to continued dialogue.
For instance... ;)
You said: "Those who do try to back their faith with science, in my experience, corrupt their science with emotion, and consequently compromise the integrity of thought, even though many are very smart people. Whether they damage their faith is beyond my area of knowledge, but I'd guess so."
I think if someone can direct the international project of mapping of the entire human genome, and still integrate their faith with their work, they're living proof that this conclusion of yours is simply not true. And Collins isn't the only one. Fritz Schaefer would be another example, as would John Polkinghorne. These are top scientists in their fields, recognized by their peers, who are all not only theists, but Evangelical Christian theists.
James-Michael;
In the case Collins and a few others they pursue science first, and then try to use their science to suggest a case, but not in a literalist, concrete way. I know less of the others. Compare this with the AnswersInGenesis crowd or ICR whose avowed rejection of scientific method (though they'd never admit that leads to being a laughing stock.
I dont agree with Collins when he departs from science, but there's a sincere honesty and integrity there. He set up an interesting web site and I've spent some time there.
One winner here in my opinion "mutual respect". Even though the "debaters" views were so opposing it was great to follow. Well done guys I'm really proud of you. It even started rubbing off on some of the commentators. I can see you guys getting together over a cuppa. Great lesson to be learnt.
If the debate continued in cartoon world (the picture of them physically fighting is inaccurate, here's what would happen):
Darwin would evolve into a huge dragon and breath fire and Jesus would transfigure so that the flames didn't hurt him. Then Darwin would evolve into the microorganism that causes leprosy and try to take Jesus down that way. Then Jesus would just keep healing himself. The showdown would continue until Darwin evolved into god and they would have to just call it a draw.
Dear JM, The choice of cartoon is questionable. unless "whoever" is trying to portray good vs evil ??
Al,
I sympathize with you as I too reject YEC claims (the science isn't what bothers me nearly as much as the misreading of Scripture...I'm not qualified as a scientist so I can't speak as much to that as I can to the hermeneutic employed by ICR, AiG, and others). I'd encourage you to read some John Polkinghorne. He was one of the early quantum physicists at Cambridge who then went on to pursue a second doctorate in theology. I'd also encourage you to familiarize yourself with Alister McGrath at Oxford. Those two are probably the most authoritative voices on the intersection between science and faith currently living. The New Atheists as a whole seem to avoid interaction with people like these because it's so much easier to target fringe "scientists" who are Christians like Hamm, Hovind and others. The debate will never progress if this continues.
Gman,
Hugh picked the illustration for this article, as I had picked the previous three. I just thought it was silly and fun.
If you didn't like what I said, than you certainly wouldn't have liked what Jesus said when he remarked, " except ye repent you shall all likewise perish." And when Jesus said in John 14:6, "I am the way the truth and the life, NO MAN cometh unto the father except by Me." I suppose if you want to be a Christian, sort of, but refuse to believe what Our Lord said in the word, fail to see your own personal arrogance, sinfulness, and selfish ambitions to be the center of everything, then you have missed the point. Apostasy and atheism have no place in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus was quite direct in his criticism and confrontations with the church leaders of His day. Jesus, much to the consternation of progressive thinkers and philosophers in our day, was no liberal. He did not excuse unbelief. He did not say hold on to your favorite sins, especially pride. Remember John 3:16, which notes the only alternative to belief in Jesus is to PERISH.
John Flanagan, you totally ignored the Scriptures I mentioned. Why is this?
John Flanagan says:
He did not say hold on to your favorite sins, especially pride.
Is this a bad time for an ironic quip? ;)
It seems like where most people have brains and reason John Flanagan has a recording of the bible.
If that were true Jose, you think he'd get the context right.
Jm ! Acts 17 very interesting reference you make esp when you look at vs 30. Now i don't speak for John but this is the essence of the Gospel "repentance" (admitting that I am a sinner and I am in need of a Saviour and that JESUS CHRIST is my Saviour as HE redeemed me and that nothing that I can do can save me no reasoning, works or scientific calculation can save ME) be it from pride, unforgiveness hatred or any other sin that can "disqualify" you from the fullness.People often tend to look at sin as what one can openly see but its the little foxes that ruin the vineyard.
Simple but uncompromising but full of Grace and Love.
By the way, I think John Flanagan is just trying to say what we're all really thinking: "James-Michael, what do you have against Guiding Light?" :-)
Good debate. This kind of interaction allows for people on both sides (if they are willing) to see that many people do not fit the rigid charicatures that are commonly bandied about in condescending and often ignorant ways.
For example, I've seen many posts from the atheist side that described what Christians believe and are like that totally didn't describe my experience or most of the Christians I know. I am 110% certain that many people from the atheist side felt the same way about some posts they saw.
Getting past these walls will better allow all who are interested to better pursue the knowledge and truth we profess to seek through our critical thinking.
bone thug
An arguing Christian, is a selfish Christian. Are we not called upon the Lord to share the gift of life to the ones who do not already have it? Are we not called to encourage he who is lost in the world and persue him with relationship. When you argue or "debate" as you might say in this case, your missing the point of Christianity. The bible tells us to hurt for the ones who don't know the Lord. Please do so.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!