Randal Rauser's Blog, page 119

“A fundamentalist radical Christian is just as misguided and frightening as a fundamentalist radical Muslim.” Discuss

Yesterday political analyst Matthew Dowd posted the following tweet:

A fundamentalist radical Christian is just as misguided and frightening as a fundamentalist radical Muslim. No difference.

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) August 10, 2017

The tweet prompted a variety of responses including this one from Chad of Truthbomb Apologetics:

This is a astonishingly ignorant comment. It is a blatant denial of reality. https://t.co/Skc8IuiCKR

— Chad (@TBapologetics) August 10, 2017

Frankly, that response left me rather puzzled.

To begin with, I take it that any individual who is properly described as a  “fundamentalist radical” thereby exhibits the following characteristics (among others): anti-intellectualism and thinking constrained by simplistic binaries, scapegoating of outgroups, intolerance of others and willingness to resort to violence to promote one’s agenda.

So compare:

Zale H. Thomson, a Muslim who exhibited anti-intellectualism and thinking constrained by simplistic binaries, scapegoating of outgroups, intolerance of others and willingness to resort to violence to promote one’s agenda. As a result, Thomson attacked four policemen with a hatchet in New York on October 23rd, 2014, severely injuring one of them in the head and another in the arm before he was shot and killed.

Robert Lewis Dear, Jr, a Christian who exhibited anti-intellectualism and thinking constrained by simplistic binaries, scapegoating of outgroups, intolerance of others and willingness to resort to violence to promote one’s agenda. As a result, Dear carried out a mass shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic on November 27, 2015 resulting in the murder of three people and the injury of nine more.

Dowd would say that (Christian) Dear and his actions are “just as misguided and frightening” as (Muslim) Thomson’s.

And I have to say I agree with him. To say the least, I don’t see how Dowd’s observation is “astonishingly ignorant” or a “blatant denial of reality.”

The post “A fundamentalist radical Christian is just as misguided and frightening as a fundamentalist radical Muslim.” Discuss appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Genuine Inquiry vs. Partisan Advocacy: A Couple Comments

Jeff Lowder just wrote a helpful article in which he contrasts “genuine inquiry” vs. “partisan advocacy”. Jeff describes genuine inquiry as

“reading opposing viewpoints, not with the goal of preparing pithy one-liners for debates, but with the goal of actually trying to learn something or consider new ways of looking at old topics.”

He adds that it consists of

“trying to ‘steel man’ your opposition, i.e., trying to strengthen the arguments for your opponent’s position.It might even include publishing arguments for a position you do not hold and even reject.”

Good to see! By that measure I’m concerned with genuine inquiry since, ahem, I engage in all of the above.

So what does partisan advocacy look like? Jeff writes:

“In contrast, partisan advocacy is, well, exactly what it sounds like it is. Much like an attorney hired to vigorously defend her client in court, a partisan advocate isn’t interested in genuine inquiry.”

Okay, I know what Jeff means, but there is a problem. While this might seem to be “like an attorney”, the difference is that the attorney (at least the attorney with integrity — and since we’re steelmanning, that’s what we’ll focus on) works intentionally within a broader system that seeks to serve the interests of justice. Within this context, the attorney recognizes that her commitment to defend (or prosecute) the defendant functions as part of a system in which opposing counsel engages in the prosecution (or defense) of the same defendant. Together, these opposing views appeal to the objectivity of a judge (either a professional judge or an ad hoc jury) to serve the interests of justice.

The point is relevant not only for defending attorneys but also for defending any advocate for a particular view to the extent that he/she understands him/herself to function within a similar system.

Now for my second and final quibble with the article. Jeff opts to describe the contrast between genuine inquiry and partisan advocacy as follows:

“I think we get the distinction between (an ideal) philosophy of religion vs. apologetics.”

Again, I know what he means. And again, I want to offer a modest dissenting opinion. While apologetics often exemplifies partisan advocacy — especially when it is produced by “apologetics ministries” — the term “apologetics” simply refers to a defense of one’s views, whatever those views may be. And people can surely engage in defenses of their particular beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be) without capitulating to partisan advocacy.

The post Genuine Inquiry vs. Partisan Advocacy: A Couple Comments appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Confusing Revelation Objection to Christianity

Read my new article “Answering the ‘Confusing Revelation Objection’ to Christianity” at Strange Notions.

The post The Confusing Revelation Objection to Christianity appeared first on Randal Rauser.

If this is God’s Word, why isn’t it easier to understand?

That’s the question.

You can read my latest article at confusedaboutgrace.com here.

The post If this is God’s Word, why isn’t it easier to understand? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Review Copies of What’s So Confusing About Grace? are Now Available

Note to all the bloggers out there: review copies of What’s So Confusing About Grace? are now available. The only stipulation is that you agree to post a review within six weeks of receiving the book. (Sadly, in the past about half of the review copies I’ve sent out were never reviewed. Hence, the need to secure a commitment to review the book in a timely manner.)

I have hard copies available for reviewers in North America and Britain. Outside North America and Britain I have review copies available in two formats: PDF and EPUB.

You can contact me by clicking this link and scrolling to the bottom of the page.

The post Review Copies of What’s So Confusing About Grace? are Now Available appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Latest Review for What’s So Confusing About Grace?

This review comes courtesy of Mike Edwards. You can read it here.

The post The Latest Review for What’s So Confusing About Grace? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

In a Heartbeat: Changing Attitudes among Christians Toward Same Sex Attraction

For years now attitudes toward homosexuality have been shifting in society generally and among Christians in particular. According to statistics published by Pew Research in 2015, significant majorities of the following Christian groups now accept the morality of homosexuality: Catholic, mainline Protestant, and Orthodox. In addition, a slight majority of “historically Black Protestants” also accept the morality of homosexuality. Only among evangelicals (and Mormons and JWs) is this view still a minority, and even here the trend is toward acceptance: in the last eight years evangelicals have moved from 26% to 36% acceptance.

Speaking anecdotally, I know several Christian high school teachers, and they all report much higher rates of acceptance among their students.

Growing up, the grid we were given for the moral assessment of homosexuality came from Romans 1:

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

As evidence for this lust we learned of shocking statistics regarding the promiscuity of homosexual males (see, for example, this list of statistics courtesy of Matt Slick). (Notably, there was little-to-no focus on lesbian behavior.)

Without wading into the morass of statistical debate (which is definitely contentious), it is worthwhile noting that the encounter with individual gay people and their stories has been enormously significant for changing the conversation. Arguably, Ellen DeGeneres’ decision to come out twenty years ago was a Rubicon moment. And there have been countless stories since then which have been added to the tidal wave. Place the stories of people against a list of promiscuity statistics and exegesis of particular biblical passages, and the Pew Forum illustrates which side is winning.

If you want a powerful visualization illustrating the nature and force of this shift in moral assessment, just consider the short animated film “In a Heartbeat.” Produced by two film students and just uploaded to YouTube (and Vimeo) yesterday, the film has already gone viral with over 2.5 million views. It tells a simple story of adolescent attraction, though it substitutes boy-meets-girl with boy-meets-boy.

Watching “In a Heartbeat” one does not see evidence of a male sinfully “abandoning natural relations with women” and becoming “inflamed with lust” for another male. And one sees no high rate of promiscuity. One only sees what seems to be the perfectly natural sexual and emotional attraction of one individual to another. Depending on your ethical assessment you may view that either as the sober truth or subversive manipulation. But however you evaluate  it ethically or theologically, it certainly reflects the current drift of social opinion.

The post In a Heartbeat: Changing Attitudes among Christians Toward Same Sex Attraction appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Book that’s Bringing People Together

Well this was a lovely surprise! The other day I walked into a coffee shop and who should I see reading my new book together but Rob Bell and John Piper! So I turned to John and wryly said, “Whatever happened to ‘Farewell Rob Bell?'” As they both chuckled I snapped this picture. And that’s all the Gospel truth cause you know I’d never make a story like that up just to promote my book.

The post The Book that’s Bringing People Together appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Saved from Birth?

Nine days ago I launched a website, confusedaboutgrace.com to provide a complement to my new book What’s so Confusing About Grace? I will be posting new articles at a weekly basis at the blog, and the second article has just been posted. It’s titled “Saved from Birth?“

The post Saved from Birth? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

For the umpteenth time, certainty is not the problem

Epistemic humility is popular theses days. All things considered, that’s a good thing: it’s good to be epistemically humble. That forces you to keep in mind that you don’t know everything and to contemplate the fact that you could be wrong.

On the downside, many people seem to believe that being epistemically humble entails taking potshots at certainty — i.e. the state of lacking any doubt about a belief. For example, somebody commits a moral atrocity and they cite some particular belief as the motivation for that action.

And with that the diagnosis asserts itself: the problem is that they were certain of their belief. That’s why they committed that atrocity. That mother who killed her children because she believed God told her to? She never doubted, and that’s the problem. That soldier who massacred civilians because of the rightness of his cause? He never doubted, and that’s the problem.

Obviously, certainty can be a problem in particular contexts. But it hardly follows that certainty is a problem generally.

Let’s take another example: offering help to strangers. Late at night Jane sees a stranger on the side of dark country road with a flat tire. But the man is acting erratically (he is waving his arms and making growling noises). Jane says to herself: “It’s good to be kind to strangers,” and so she pulls over to offer help. The stranger walks up, punches Jane in the face, and runs off into the woods howling.

Clearly Jane made a mistake: she should not have pulled over to offer help. But who among us is going to opine that the lesson is don’t offer help to strangers? On the contrary, that would be absurd! Instead, the real lesson is be discerning in the strangers to whom you offer help.

The same goes with certainty. If a person commits a moral atrocity based on a belief of which they’re certain, the proper response is not don’t be certain of any beliefs but rather be discerning of the beliefs in which you’re certain.

Indeed, and this is the really ironic bit, it is certainty itself which drives the misbegotten attack on certainty. How so? Because when we indict particular actions unequivocally as moral atrocities — a mother killing her children because she believed God told her to; a soldier massacring civilians because of the rightness of his cause — we (typically) do so precisely because of beliefs for which we have maximal conviction (i.e. certainty). I’m certain (i.e. I have no real doubt) that God doesn’t command mothers to kill their children. I’m certain that no military goal justifies the massacre of civilians.

To wrap up, being certain is not itself a problem: the question we should all ask is what am I certain of?

The post For the umpteenth time, certainty is not the problem appeared first on Randal Rauser.