Posted by Anthony on February 15, 2010
A recent series of comments on an article of mine characterizing Obama’s desire to have the KSM trial in NYC as a ’show trial‘ prompted me to ponder one of the claims made in those comments. I noted what appears to be a parallel between “Mark’s” argument and atheistic objections to God along the lines of free will and the problem of evil. In saying this, I don’t mean to imply that Mark is actually an atheist. I have no idea if he is. Nor do I mean to unduly pick on him, because in my view youngsters are to be commended for venturing their opinions.
He insisted the KSM trial won’t be a ’show trial’ because the outcome isn’t rigged. I retorted that there was no doubt in my mind that if KSM was declared innocent, whether on the merits of the case or because of a technicality, there was no way that KSM wouldn’t end up in custody again, which is in effect an unfair trial under the constitution, for if a person is declared innocent under the constitution, he is free to go. Mark replied that what happens after the trial is irrelevant to the fairness of the trial.
I will leave aside other aspects of the conversation which you can read for yourself.
I find this to be an interesting argument that seems to be the same argument that many atheists appear to be running with when they decide that it is likely that God doesn’t exist because a loving, omnipotent and omniscient God wouldn’t allow such horrible evils to occur. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on January 23, 2010
One of the enduring criticisms against Christianity is that it is anti-knowledge, education, and learning. This blog has taken aim at this criticism before, most notably taking Richard Dawkins to task for his misuse of an Augustine quote ostensibly about ‘curiosity.’ I currently have an open challenge to Dawkins to repudiate his use of that quote.
In point of fact, these anti-knowledge criticisms really only began with the rise of the Fundamentalists and this in turn was spurred on by the rise of Darwinism. Even the shallowest of research will reveal that Christians have been at the forefront of investigation, scholarship, and yes, even science. (Dawkins answer to this: “But if they had lived in our day, these Christians would have been atheists.” What a chump)
The criticism has another angle, though, and it has to do with the relentless attack on the Bible as the ‘ancient writings of nomadic goat herders.’ Dan Barker would be a good example of an atheist presenting this attitude. The basic idea here is that if the Bible was really written by God, then it should be amazing in its clarity and its insight would be, divinely, penetrating, and certainly it should at all points validate whatever science has claimed to have discovered, since God, being God, would of course know these things. They would say, in short, that for a book supposedly inerrant and divinely inspired, it is a very human book.
Here is the brutal reality: the Bible’s ‘human’ nature is precisely an argument in its favor. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on November 10, 2009
So ABC’s “V” was on again tonight. I enjoyed it. It lacked the same punch as the first episode but I still liked it. It seems a little hurried to me. Maybe there are too many commercials? I’ve seen other hour long shows that seemed to really carry a narrative so I know its possible. I can’t put my finger on it with “V” but it isn’t enough (yet) to push me away from future viewings.
In my previous post on the “V” series, I hoped that I would see some metaphysical conversation. Perhaps its too early in the series, but there wasn’t much in that regards. Ie, unlike the first episode, this one seemed to lack substance. It still got me thinking anyway. I will now outline some of those thoughts.
The visual effects are far superior to the previous incarnation of the series. Indeed, far superior to any show from the 80’s and earlier. The miracle of CGI!
But isn’t it interesting that we are able to recognize that just because the space ships we see hovering over American cities in this show, despite their incredible life like detail, are fictional? This uncanny ability (most) people have is interesting given our “Seeing is believing” society. There is a great deal on television, movie, and computer screens that appears to be absolutely real. Yet, we know it isn’t.
I’m sure that there are numerous ruminations to be explored there but I would like to make a point that I’ve made before but I think bears repeating. A tad bit of background will help.
It is sometimes argued by skeptics that an all knowing God that wanted everyone to know him would reveal himself indisputably to all and submit himself to modern inquiry. This can be disputed at a number of points but the one I’d like to focus on is this stunning truth: ironically and counter-intuitively, today’s modern technology makes it all the more difficult to ‘believe what we see.’ We all know that technology is amazing and can create amazing illusions. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on October 13, 2009
Because of continued interest in my analysis of trends in the Christian church, I have set aside a separate website for managing that perspective. The new website is called, appropriately, “The Death of Christianity.” Or, www.deathofchristianity.com. Today’s post addresses the topic of a presentation that I will be delivering at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in Macomb, Mi, on Wednesday, Oct. 21st. The topic is: “Five Things that are Killing Christianity.”
What follows is an overview and should not be construed as my definitive statement on the subject and deals only with number one on the list.
The number one thing killing Christianity in America today:
Lovelessness.
All the rest of the things on the list tie back to this. The Christian Church exhibits constant lovelessness in much of what it does. Many readers will jump to the idea that Christians are very loving, and to an extent, I agree. Many readers will find the assertion nauseous because they think of ‘love’ as some wishy washy sentiment. Both sets of readers misunderstand me.
One of my contentions is that Love itself is misunderstood, because unlike other doctrines, this one has not been systematically explored from the Scriptures. We all act as though we intuitively know what ‘love’ is. In fact, we have culturally driven notions that are derived from hundreds of years of romanticism. The Bible- the New Testament in particular- portrays a love that is much different. It is earth shattering, and embodied in the activities of the early Christian Church. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on September 8, 2009
I’ve been chewing on this for a long time but a recent comment on one of my posts inspired me to finally post on it. The post was discussing some ’scholarly’ debate on “Gabriel’s Revelation.”
In the midst of the long comment, the gent said:
“ALL believe (sic) systems must be debunked when they claim their beliefs as fact”
There are several sentences like this, including one where he says there are “inherent frailties involved in trying to “prove the truth” of Christianity.” and adds, “It really applies to all belief systems. An honest search, perhaps lasting years as mine has (decades) will tend to inform that “Truth” is based on what a person’s convictions inform.” (emphasis mine)
Naturally, the commenter exempts himself from his own criticism. There is just one thing that he hopes that people (religionists) have: ” some humility when they preach and so we no longer have the fate of the world in the hands of true believing fanatics of any brand.”
From my experience dealing with secularists, ‘true believing fanatics’ is really a redundancy to them. A fanatic is, virtually by definition, someone who truly believes what they say they believe. Likewise, a ‘fundamentalist’ is anyone who believes what he reads in the Bible. ‘Humility’ in practice means, someone who doesn’t act on what they believe.
My response to the gent was brief:
Is your belief system a fact?
Clearly, if your belief is that all beliefs that claim to be fact must be debunked, then it is also true that this very belief that all beliefs must be debunked must be debunked. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on July 10, 2009
I had a series in mind about freedom, government, taxation, and Christianity but discussion over the first of those entries has led me to take a detour and cover some preliminary ground. The original post was titled ‘The Christian Church shouldn’t use the Government to do THEIR good deeds.’ I posted it to my blog but it received attention and criticism on my facebook page.
I drew some flak even from conservative Christians who ostensibly abide by ‘limited government.’ It appeared to me that there is some important ground that needs to be covered. The following is in part a response to the criticism of the original note but also worthy in its own right.
Important caveat: the following is written BY A CHRISTIAN and pertains ONLY TO CHRISTIANS, and then, ONLY THE CHRISTIANS THAT TAKE THE BIBLE AS THEIR FINAL AUTHORITY. I hope that is sufficiently clear.
——————-
1 Peter 4:17: “For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
Sprinkled throughout the Scriptures is evidence of God’s fondness for a certain order of interaction with the human race. The idea that judgment begins with the family of God is not isolated to Peter and the idea that there are stages in judgment is not isolated to the apostles. For example, Jesus himself alludes to it in Mark 7 when he at first refuses to minister to the Syrophoenician Woman, saying, “First let the children eat all they want.”
Out of all the peoples and nations on the planet, God chose to work his plan through one particular person, Abraham, and then one particular nation, Israel, until such time that he revealed himself personally. At that point, his goal was to reach the world through the Church. The Gospel came first to the Jews because it was only appropriate that it do so. Paul warns in Romans 11:13-21 that there was a pattern to God’s work, beginning with the Jews: “For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.” Read the rest of the entry… »
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. Read the rest of the entry… »
