Posted by Anthony on March 23, 2009
I’m getting some hits regarding scientism but don’t actually have any posts dedicated to it. I thought if I’m going to be looked at on the subject I should make at least a few deliberate comments. They should not be construed, however, as exhaustive.
Scientism can refer to a few different ideas and I denounce them all. 
It goes without saying that people who exhibit ’scientism’ would not use the word to describe themselves and they will resent the suggestion that they are as described.
Because this post is pretty lengthy here is a list of the headings in order of appearance:
- Science as the Only Reliable Source for Knowledge
- Scientific Reality the Only Reality
- Science as Club for Ending Debate
- Scientific Inquiry Always Righteous
- Scientism as Fundamentalist Faith: “Atheism of the Gaps.”
- Conclusion
Science as the Only Reliable Source for Knowledge
One aspect of scientism is the unbridled deference to Science in all matters as the only reliable source of knowledge. Apologists such as myself frequently point out that there are numerous areas in our lives where we believe we know things where that knowledge is not derived from science, the scientific method, empirical inquiry, or anything that could possibly be considered ‘Science.’ One can bemoan it, but some things just are not suited for scientific inquiry and there is nothing you can do about it. Experiential realities like ‘love’ and and abstractions such as the law of noncontradiction are things we ‘know’ but not through science. That is reality. You don’t have to like it. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on December 11, 2008
It is that time of year again when a holiday becomes the front in a culture battle. I need not give examples- google Dan Barker and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. It is not uncommon to find skeptics and secular humanists insinuating with a sneer that belief in God is exactly like belief in Santa Claus, the only difference being that people grow out of belief in Santa Claus. Atheists who think this way have no problem being contemptuous punks because in their mind, given the similarities between the two examples (in their mind), a person who still believes in God exhibits prima facie evidence of being infantile and irrational: exactly the kind of people we need to cull from the population one way or another.
In light of this situation, it is useful to point out that Santa Claus actually is real.
‘Santa Claus’ is the modern expression of the legends originating with a certain, real, person, named Nicholas, or as he came to be known, Saint Nicholas. Do you see it? Saint/Santa? Good ol’ Saint NICK? NiKLAUS? Here is an unsubstantiated account that is accurate as far as it goes and helps lay the background here.
Not as well known, this same St. Nicholas wasn’t a rotund and jolly fellow. At the Council of Nicea c. 325 AD, Jolly Ol’Saint Nick got into a fist fight with one of the Arians and was ejected from the council.
This is discussed in the more extensive and more substantiated account on Livius. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on March 15, 2008
Below is the text of the speech I gave recently at my event in Wisconsin. I don’t typically write out my presentations. I usually work off an outline and as it happened I ended up setting aside the text completely and working off of memory. The presentation that I actually came had the same general points but was presented a bit differently. Also, due to time constraints I skipped some points in the actual presentation that appear in the text. It seemed worthwhile to make this available for those who wanted the best of all worlds.
It is also useful as a stalling tactic while I continue to work on other projects.
Because of the length of this presentation (9 pages in Word, single spaced), I have also made it available in PDF so that you can download and print it. It is important to note that this is only the first half of the presentation. The second half is not available in text. I may at some point make it available in audio.
Also, my graduation speech “The Fellowship of the King” came up during the Q+A section. You can find it here, in full text and Youtube: http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-fellowship-of-the-king-graduation-speech-2005/217.html
March 10th, 2008. Presentation by Anthony Horvath to the Philosophy Club at Concordia University Wisconsin. Copyright 2008, All Rights Reserved.
It is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. I have been asked to speak on apologetics through the arts, such as literature and music or in other words the promotion of Christianity through the fruits of the creative mind. In order to understand where I’m coming from it will be helpful to give a little bit of background.
I grew up going to a Lutheran grade school and high school and went to college- this college, in fact- with the intent to become a pastor. I enrolled in the pastoral ministry program and promptly became an atheist. Normally they want your pastors to believe in God so this was a real problem. A short time into my second semester I was a Christian again but under new terms. I really understood what I believed and why I believed it. I also realized that I didn’t want to be a pastor anymore but rather someone who would help people who had been in a situation like my own. I stayed in the pastoral ministry program because I was enjoyed theology and such, which probably wasn’t the best career move. It did allow me to finally get some teaching positions. I taught a year of 9th and 10th grade religion in Minnesota and then 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 12th grade religion in Rockford Illinois, where I also taught Biblical Greek and philosophy and Christian apologetics at a local Lutheran bible college.
I then moved to Wisconsin where I was the Director for Parish Ministries- sort of a glorified DCE position- for three years. In the meantime, in the midst of my professional church work career, I was engaging in debate with atheists, mormons, and the occasional jehovah witness on various online forums. I am now a stay at home dad, an author, a speaker, and still an apologist, but now apologetics is not what I do in my spare time but is my main endeavor.
Now, the interesting thing is that over the last 5 to 6 years my perspective on apologetics has changed. I already had a deep disappointment that the church and my Christian education had failed to equip me with even the basics of the evidences for Christianity but my focus was firmly on the nonChristian, usually the one positively hostile to Christianity. But I started to notice that most of the nonChristians I was interacting with had also grown up in the church. In many cases, their knowledge of Christianity was as bad as mine had been and in many cases much worse. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on February 22, 2008
A Review of
John Dominic Crossan’s
The Historical Jesus
By Anthony Horvath
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PLAGIARISM. COPYRIGHT 2007 ANTHONY HORVATH.
Introduction
While in Strasbourg attending the Apologetics Academy under Dr. Montgomery we spent a fair bit of time talking about ‘the historical Jesus’ and scholarship on the subject both in the past and in recent times. I decided that further study in that area would be beneficial. For that reason, I chose to review John Dominic Crossan’s 507 page The Historical Jesus. This review will summarize Dr. Crossan’s methodology and his conclusions, present a handful of criticisms that have been made by other scholars, and then conclude with criticism by this writer.
Summary:
Summary Introduction:
Dr. Crossan makes specific emphasis in the beginning of his book about the need to start with an appropriate methodology. He intends, he explains, to tie his conclusions that methodology. For that reason, first his methodology will be summarized and then his conclusions.
Summary of Crossan’s Methodology:
Dr. Crossan begins his prologue into the question of ‘the Historical Jesus’ by saying, “Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke” (Crossan xxvii). He reflects on a presidential address by Daniel J. Harrington, of the Catholic Biblical Association, which offers short descriptions on seven different ‘historical’ Jesuses. There is Jesus as a political revolutionary, as a magician, as a Galilean charismatic, as a Galilean rabbit, as a “Hillelite or proto-Pharisee,” as an Essene, and as an Eschatological prophet. Crossan admits, “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography” (Crossan xxviii).
It is in light of this situation that Crossan decides to adopt a methodology that he hopes will be free from such suspicion. He proposes a methodology that is as objective as can be. He refers to his methodology as a ‘triple triadic’ process. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on January 29, 2008
The Growth of the Early Church: A Testimony Believed.
This essay was written in response to challenges to demonstrate that the early Christians died because of their testimony, and their unwillingness to reject their testimony. In other words, they believed that they had actually seen certain events, and chose to die rather than deny what they had seen. Contrast with an event like 9-11, where we talk about 19 Muslims flying into the towers ‘because of their beliefs.’ I will contend in this essay that the early martyrs were driven on by what they witnessed with their own eyes- externally- in contrast to mere internal certainty and confidence.
This was written in the context of an Internet debate, so the sources are often links to sites where the reader could have investigated the information. These ‘links’ are listed at the end of the essay. It’s possible that links have become obsolete as of the time of publication. [This was put to the net more than five years ago]
The thesis of this essay is “The early Christians did not die for a set of beliefs, but rather for the conviction that a certain set of events had actually occurred.” Importantly, there will be no attempt to show that the Christians were killed precisely for their testimony, only that they died on account of it. The historical records show that those holding to the testimony of Jesus were killed for many different reasons. In some cases, the honor of local idols were defended. In other cases, especially seen among the Romans, they were killed out of fear the Christians would not be loyal to Rome. In some cases, the status quo had to be maintained. In many cases, we don’t know the real reason why they were killed. But for our purposes, our focus is on the martyrs themselves. Did they die out of nationalistic desires to bring about a new Jewish Kingdom? Did they die in order to honor the law of Moses, or to defend the sacredness of the Temple, the way so many Jews of the time did? If in fact they died rather to defend the proposition that a certain set of events really did happen and they could not behave otherwise, this will do two things for us.
Firstly, it will increase the credibility of these early Christians. A person who is willing to face death rather then deny what they believe is already one that deserves a certain measure of credibility. The problem of course is that many people throughout history have died for what they believe, and many of those beliefs are mutually exclusive. We shall turn to that issue in a moment. Nonetheless, the sincerity of these early martyrs cannot be called into question. Further, other motives that could be ascribed, like ‘fear,’ ‘avarice,’ ‘nationalism,’ etc, cannot be supported, for they obviously were not afraid, obviously if dead, could not enjoy financial fruits, and made no attempt to establish a state. We know, at the minimum, then, that they were sincere.
Secondly, if they died for testifying to a certain set of events, then our confidence in believing those events actually occurred increases. The problem is more easily seen if we consider other similar examples. For example, “2+2=4″ is a true proposition but if someone had a gun to his head, he would gladly deny what he knew to be 100% true. If a person was called to testify that he had actually seen a person enter their business but was told, at threat of death, to change his testimony, he is going to change their story. It’s just not worth dying for. If, however, the person refused to change his testimony and went to the grave on account of it, we would have to admit that the person probably told the truth. Only perpetual skepticism (ie, cynicism) could suggest anything else.
Let us keep this before us as a powerful fact about human nature.
The early Christians, when confronted with the “Roman Compromise,” simply could not deny what they themselves had actually seen. For this, they died- either directly (gun to the head style), or indirectly (were in a position of risk because they refused to recant). The “Roman Compromise” was simply the Roman way of preserving national security. A person could believe or even say nearly anything that they wanted, so long as they showed their allegiance to Rome by sacrificing to idols. Since the Caesar himself was considered a god, failure to show such consideration was treachery. The record, as we will see, demonstrates that the “Roman Compromise” was not tenable for people who knew for a fact that Caesar and his silly stones were not gods, at all. WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by Anthony on
Over the years I have produced all sorts of written material and a lot of it is on the web. What is it doing on the web? Pretty much nothing, since the search engines have never managed to find it. However, the power of Wordpress has been that anything and its mother picks up what I post here. So, what I want to do is start taking some of this material and posting it to my blog.
There are some problems with this. Some of the material is lengthy and not the sort of thing one might consider ‘blog’ worthy. For example, I have a 15 page analysis of the reliability and interpretation of Tacitus’s remarks about Pontius Pilate and the impact on historicity of Jesus discussions. That’s one long blog entry, brutha. I hope it is forgiven.
I’m also going to be posting some of my essays and research papers that arose out of my Masters degree program (I’m studying philosophy and apologetics). These also are relevant to what I do on this site. Now, I have a different attitude towards academic work then some people. I don’t write to impress the professor. I pick topics that I personally find interesting and they are often polemical. Yes, I know that this is not the way scholarship is normally done. I don’t really care.
One incident from college will illustrate: It was third year greek and we were translating out of the LXX (that’s the Septuagint for you atheists) and the assignment called for a translation followed by various discussions on grammar and what not. I found a fascinating passage out of Lamentations and wrote the whole paper focusing on whether or not it might foreshadow Christ. The resulting paper bore only a passing resemblance to what was required of me. I earned a D for the paper but I didn’t care. I learned a lot. (The professor’s note was something to this effect: “This was pretty good and had lots of insight, but I don’t think I assigned anything like this?).
So, don’t draw the wrong inference from the fact that my papers aren’t like what you’d see in a journal. My papers are written right now mainly in mind to have applicability to my ministry. You just let me handle the fact that professors expect the i’s to be dotted and the t’s crossed. I always manage to strike the balance. Ok, moving on.
Finally, I have indicated elsewhere that I’m going to be posting some of my fiction and short stories. I have some ready to go, but I think I’m going to post one or two in serial fashion. I haven’t quite decided.
I should make a note here that I expressly forbid the reprinting of this material without permission, either on paper or on the net. Do not use my papers in your own college classes. If you read the above you’d see that would be risky of you.
So, without further ado, I’m going to post the first ‘paper’ which is a longish analysis of what prompted the martyrdom of the disciples. To see all such papers, look in the sidebar for the ‘papers’ category and you’ll see all there is to see.
