Randal Rauser's Blog, page 127

How the atheist rhetoric of “reason” undermines reason

I opened my 2011 book You’re not as Crazy as I Think by chronicling some of the myriad ways that evangelical Christians invoke the rhetoric of truth as a way of reinforcing binary in-group out-group oppositions. In our age of marketing identities, I noted that evangelicals have attempted to brand themselves and their communities with “truth”. And to drive the point home I cited several examples of books (e.g. Nancey Pearcy’s Total Truth; Art Lindsley’s tautologically titled True Truth) and curricula (e.g. Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project).

In my previous article “Evangelical and Atheist Communities: Closer than you might think,” I argued that evangelical and atheist communities in North America share many similar cultural traits. And the point carries through to this issue of branding. If evangelicals have often branded themselves and their communities with “Truth,” atheists regularly brand themselves and their communities with “Reason”. Alas, in neither case does the reality live up to the branding.

Evidence that atheists (secularists, humanists, etc.) brand themselves and their communities with “Reason” is not hard to come by. Consider, for example, the much touted “Reason Rally“, national events held in 2012 and 2016 in Washington, DC.

Or you could consider atheist kitsch like this t-shirt: “Support intelligence … sleep with an atheist.” A libertine sexual ethic and the rhetoric of Reason all in one short slogan. Effective branding indeed.

The problem, ironically enough, is that when you brand the in-group as “Reason” and align the out-group (e.g. the “religious”) with irrationality, you undermine the ability of your in-group to develop the very skills of critical thinking necessary for the exercise of reason.

As a case in point, consider my recent visit with Freethought Arizona in Tucson. As I noted in my account last week, the first question at that particular event was from an elderly gentleman who asked me when I was first indoctrinated. Why? Because that’s what you ask of the out-group, i.e. those who are unable to exercise “Reason”. Over the next 1 1/2 hours we returned to that theme time and again as I sought to undermine the binary opposition.

Was I successful? The event was recorded and should hopefully be put online in the next few weeks. I shall surely let you know when it is. At that point you can make your own judgment. But in the interim, consider the “critical” responses from a couple individuals at the Meetup posting for the event.

The first comment comes from a fellow named “Jim C” who says simply:

“You have to realize that ministers only speak in parables. They have nothing real to say.”

That’s Jim C’s assessment of my contribution to the conversation: I had nothing to say.

Note first that I am not a “minister”, nor was I introduced as such. Rather, I am a professor with an academic PhD from a leading British university and author of several peer-reviewed journal articles and books. Within this context, labeling me as a “minister” has the clear rhetorical function of marginalizing a voice from the out-group, thereby delegitimating that individual’s analysis. In other words, it has the exact same rhetorical function as an evangelical labeling a dissenting voice as a “liberal” or a “secularist”.

(I remember at this point William Lane Craig’s debate with philosopher Richard Taylor. Although Craig has two earned PhDs, Taylor insisted on referring to him with the puerile insult, “the Reverend Mr. Craig.”)

Although I provided careful analysis and evidence to support my opinions (i.e. I exercised reason), Jim C marginalizes my entire presentation by saying I spoke in “parables” and thus that I really “have nothing to say.” I suspect that Jim C is also alluding to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 13:13: “This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.'” If Jim is making this allusion, then presumably he is claiming I speak in “parables” in order to obfuscate (which is presumably Jim’s takeaway from Jesus’ words). Needless to say, there is no attempt from Jim C to exercise reason in order to justify his analysis, still less to engage critically what I actually said.

A second commenter named “Cheryl Bene” enthusiastically echoed Jim C’s judgment:

“Jim I agree with you 100 %. He [Randal] kept redefining words as a method of never coming to the point and addressing the question that was asked of him. He sounded like a politician. He reminded me of Bill Clinton in when Clinton tried to define what “the the word is – is….” verbal manipulation.”

Cheryl seems to interpret Jim’s reference to parables as an attempt on my part to obfuscate. Note that Cheryl Bene provides no examples to support her claims. And so, instead of engaging with my arguments she attacks my character, in essence charging me with bullshitting, i.e. with manipulating language in a flagrant disregard for truth.

The irony here is that I prefaced this entire exchange by noting how atheists and Christians regularly marginalize the out-group by impugning their motives, i.e. by charging members of the outgroup with irrational and/or immoral conduct. And I emphasized the need to move beyond such rhetorical marginalization with the admirable case of a dialogue between Pope Francis and Jose Mujica, atheist and one-time president of Uruguay.

But old habits die hard, it would seem. Instead of choosing to recognize that reasonable folks of good character can exist in the “religious” outgroup, Cheryl Bene opts to impugn me as being engaged in an immoral exercise of bad faith, of attempting to obfuscate to maintain my own irrationality.

The important point to recognize here is that this kind of behavior is spurred on by the rhetoric of branding one’s own community with “Reason”. Evangelical communities become more susceptible to indoctrination in relation to the extent to which they uncritically adopt the rhetoric of truth to marginalize out-group members. Likewise, atheist communities become more susceptible to indoctrination in relation to the extent to which they uncritically adopt the rhetoric of reason to marginalize out-group members.

One more thing: I would add that the same problem arises with the use of the term “freethought”. You don’t become a free thinker when you leave a church. You become a free thinker when you acquire the skills of being able to listen to, understand, and then critique the views of others by the careful assessment of their intuitions and evidential reasoning.

The post How the atheist rhetoric of “reason” undermines reason appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Conditional Premiss of the Moral Argument – Peoples, Rauser, Hannestad, Moore

The post The Conditional Premiss of the Moral Argument – Peoples, Rauser, Hannestad, Moore appeared first on Randal Rauser.

{UN}APOLOGETIC Interview

{UN}APOLOGETIC | Dr. Randal Rauser from Riverwood Church on Vimeo.

The post {UN}APOLOGETIC Interview appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Evangelical and Atheist Communities: Closer than you might think

Over the years I’ve had the privilege of visiting several atheist/humanist/skeptic communities, most recently the three groups I visited in Arizona. And over that time, I’ve noticed some striking similarities between (evangelical) Christians and the atheists, groups that you might otherwise think are the evangelicals’ polar opposites.

Let’s note some similarities.

We can start here: the evangelistic fervor of each group is undeniable. Tracts and pamphlets are commonly found at community gatherings which summarize the core convictions and goals of the group as well as their vision of the Good society (i.e. the Gospel).
Community lunches, social outings, and social activism in the community are common as a way of building community solidarity and living out the aforementioned commitment to a particular Gospel. One can find a range of events and outreaches such as blood donation drives and collecting for the food bank to imploring members to calling a local political representative or marching in communal protest for social change.
Before or after a scheduled meeting visitors are regularly welcomed by the more gregarious members with a wide grin and a firm handshake.
The evangelistic fervor of the group is on display in members who wear T-shirts that present some aspect of their views in humorous or provocative ways — “God is my co-pilot”; “Atheism: A non-prophet organization” — presumably as a way to “take a stand” and perhaps initiate a conversation with the curious stranger.
Each group is also sustained by an “Us vs. Them” mentality which views the wider culture in which they exist as hostile to their beliefs, a force to be countered as much as converted. The binary opposition is strengthened further by simple (and indeed simplistic) categories which serve to reinforce group solidarity … and sometimes indoctrination of group members. For example, the evangelicals view themselves as moral and faithful over-against a culture that is often morally corrupt and hostile: i.e. “the world”. Meanwhile, the atheists/humanists/skeptics view themselves as rational and virtuous over-against the soft-headed anti-science and politically oppressive religious hoi polloi.
Finally, one does not need to be in the group long before one hears talk of strategies for outreach to the wider community to strengthen the group and work for the transformation of the wider society along the lines of the Gospel.

To sum up, while self-described atheists, humanists, and skeptics may think they share little-to-nothing with the typical evangelical community, in my experience the reality is that they share quite a lot. To the extent where those atheist/humanist/skeptic communities consist of members who once counted themselves evangelical and have since left their Christian religion behind, you might conclude that the evangelical beliefs may have been rejected but the evangelical culture remains.

The post Evangelical and Atheist Communities: Closer than you might think appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Moral Argument: A Discussion and Debate

Today I appeared along with Glenn Peoples, Lance Hannestead, and Graham Seth Moore on Cameron Bertuzzi’s YouTube show Capturing Christianity. The topic: the moral argument for God’s existence. You can watch it below:

The post The Moral Argument: A Discussion and Debate appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Does God exploit individuals for the benefit of others?

Brothers stock photo https://pixabay.com/en/brothers-twins...

Yesterday I had a Twitter exchange with Justin Schieber regarding his claim that allowing person A to suffer for the benefit of person B constitutes an exploitative use of person A. Although Justin doesn’t define “exploitation” he presumably means something like “selfish or immoral utilization”.

I don’t share that intuition.

Consider a simple illustration. Mrs. Jones has two children: Timmy and Tommy. Given his epilepsy, Tommy needs to be closely monitored. As a result, Mrs. Jones tells Timmy that when they go to the park on Saturday he needs to stay with his brother to ensure his safety. Timmy is disheartened to realize that he cannot play in the soccer game but he agrees to his mother’s request and dutifully remains with Tommy. But that doesn’t keep him from being miserable the whole day for having missed the game.

Mrs. Jones allowed Timmy to suffer for the benefit of Tommy. Does it follow that he exploited Timmy, i.e. that she subjected him to selfish or immoral utilization?

No. It seems to me that Mrs. Jones did not exploit Timmy by allowing him to suffer for Tommy. Neither does God exploit person A by allowing that individual to suffer for person B.

This isn’t all I have to say on this matter. But it is enough to provide a defeater to the basic form of Justin’s intuition about justice and exploitation.

The post Does God exploit individuals for the benefit of others? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Apologetic Dialogue Today: A Discussion on The Brew Podcast

Back in January Drake De Long-Farmer and I joined forces to deliver a seminar on “Apologetic Dialogue in a Post-Christian World” at the Break Forth conference in Edmonton. Drake recorded the session and it is now featured as the latest episode of The Brew Podcast. You can listen to the event below and join the discussion here.

http://www.boldcupofcoffee.com/uploads/2/6/0/2/26023817/apologetic_rabbit_trails.mp3

The post Apologetic Dialogue Today: A Discussion on The Brew Podcast appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Atheism in Arizona: Debriefing the Book Tour

This morning at 2 am I arrived back in Edmonton having completed the second leg of our modest book tour for An Atheist and a Christian Walk into a Bar. Part 1 unfolded over a couple days (March 10-11) with three events in Edmonton and Sherwood Park, Alberta. Part 2 also unfolded over a couple days (March 18-19) with three events in Phoenix, Tucson, and Sierra Vista, Arizona.

As you can probably guess, the two different legs of the tour were a study in contrasts. Edmonton was bitterly cold with wind and snow. During Justin’s brief visit the temperature stayed well below freezing. But if Edmonton was unseasonably cold (even for Edmonton), Arizona was unseasonably warm with daytime highs soaring well past 33° C (90° F). And while all our Alberta events were in Christian venues (a seminary and two churches), the Arizona events were hosted by humanist/skeptic/freethought/atheist groups.

Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix

Here I am with a noticeably standoffish Justin Schieber (left) and Chris Wojno, the President of the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix (right). (In case you’re wondering, that puts me right in the middle.)

We arrived in Phoenix on Saturday morning and were picked up by Chris Wojno, the President of our host organization, the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix.

In the evening we arrived at the HSGP’s building for our 7 pm event. They own a very nice facility that looks like a small church or community center. Eventually about thirty people showed up and we launched into our brief ten minute presentations before we segued to open Q&A with the audience.

The dialogue with the audience went for two hours, and despite the length it seemed to go quickly with an endless array of spirited questions and comments.

Show time at Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix. Note the awkward smiles.

Although we covered many topics, on this evening a significant number of the questions covered the topic of the Bible and biblical violence in particular. Perhaps the most notable exchange occurred at the very end with a gentleman who based his comments on the book Alpha God which seeks to interpret religious violence by way of evolutionary psychology. He spent a couple minutes graphically describing violence among chimpanzee populations before seguing into a chronicle of the list of violence incidents described in the Bible.

Needless to say, this was not the moment to get into a debate point by point about the methods and analysis of Alpha God or the specific biblical passages that had just been referenced. Instead, I smiled and thanked him for sharing his views. And here’s the thing: after the event he came up to chat a bit more, we shook hands, and he bought a copy of our book while generously telling me to keep the change.

Throughout that exchange I recognized that this gentleman had a right to be angry: the Bible does contain several prima facie problematic violent texts. And when one is given a grid like Alpha God to interpret them, it is not surprising that a person might exhibit some passion. As for my part, I limited myself to the wisdom of Proverbs 15:1: “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”

Freethought Arizona

After the event at the HSGP we were picked up by Oliver Spires of Freethought Arizona. Oliver drove two hours through the desert night until we arrived at the house he shares with his partner, Lisa Laurence. Lisa was our initial contact for the Arizona events and she worked tirelessly to bring it altogether. It was a real pleasure to receive Oliver and Lisa’s hospitality as they put us up for a couple days at their house along with great food and great conversation.

Don’t worry, more people showed up at the theater before we began: about 90 in all.

Sunday morning we went to our 10 am event at Freethought Arizona. As with the night before, we began with approximately a ten minute opener before we went to audience Q&A. Some of the questions were barbed: case in point, the first questioner asked me how old I was when I was first indoctrinated! But most questioners were very congenial, if pointed. All in all, it was a very invigorating exchange.

While the previous night’s event had returned several times to biblical violence, on this morning’s exchange we returned several times to the themes of rational belief, free thought, and indoctrination. Fortunately, Oliver recorded the event and I’ll be posting it when it becomes available.

After the event we adjourned to the hospital cafeteria (the rented theater is in a hospital) for lunch and some great conversation. This was another really great group.

Sierra Vista Freethinkers

Randal-selfie in the Sky Island Unitarian Universalist Church in Sierra Vista. (By the way, how much caffeine was in that cup of coffee?)

After lunch we were picked up by Carolyn of the Sierra Vista Freethinkers. Next, we took another hour 1/2 drive south to the town of Sierra Vista, just a handful of miles from the border with Mexico. (By the way, during my visit to Arizona I logged many places I want to visit on a future trip, and one of them is the nearby town of Bisbee, a bohemian community of artists and non-conformists which reminds me of Nelson, BC.)

The Sierra Vista event was held at the local Unitarian Universalist Church. This final event was the smallest (about 20 people) but in a small town in politically conservative, rural Arizona, that ain’t bad at all.

It’s interesting to note how different themes/topics emerged as dominant in each event. In this final exchange the focus was primarily on issues of religion, politics, and science. The variety of topics certainly gave each event a distinct character.

Once again, it was a rich exchange. Afterwards we retreated to a leisurely dinner at the local Olive Garden with a couple families from the group and then we headed back to Tucson and prepared to fly home the following day.

Final Thoughts

First off, I’m thankful to all our hosts — Chris, Oliver, Lisa, and Carolyn — and all the fine people we met along the way. This Arizona trip just reinforced my perception of how we need to keep talking to one another, learning each other’s stories, and seeking to cultivate Henri Nouwen’s wisdom that listening is the highest form of hospitality.

I have a positive stereotype that self-described freethinkers, humanists, and atheists are by and large more concerned with the environment than your average Christian (and especially your average conservative Christian). That positive stereotype was borne out by the Chevy Volt and Toyota Prius that shuttled us between events. I also have a (for me positive) stereotype that freethinkers, atheists, and humanists share my broad progressive political agenda and aversion to Trump. That too was largely borne out.

I also have a negative stereotype that some freethinkers, humanists, and atheists tend to be dismissive of alternative (e.g. religious) perspectives as irrational and indoctrinational. Alas, at some points that too was borne out at times. But hopefully our largely irenic events put a dent into the negative presuppositions held by some.

All in all, it was a very enriching exchange and I was grateful to receive the warm embrace of so many. The sun, desert heat and palm trees weren’t bad either!

The post Atheism in Arizona: Debriefing the Book Tour appeared first on Randal Rauser.

On accusing a brother or sister in Christ of heresy

A couple weeks ago I posted an article on the new Shack movie titled “To See or Not to See The Shack Movie: That is the Question“. Today somebody named “Sven” posted a comment in which they charged  author Paul Young with a long list of egregious doctrinal errors:

“God is not a gender fluid goddess. The Shack teaches “Universalism” that all paths and religions lead to heaven. The Shack claims that God does not judge sin. This make Christ sacrifice on the cross worthless. The Shack uses 10% lies to distort the Gospel and lead people astray.If you have any Biblical Christian discernment, you will see the Shack for the abomination that it is.”

So let’s see, Sven begins by charging Young with goddess worship, pluralism (albeit incorrectly described as “universalism”), a non-judgmental God, and an impotent savior. What is more, Sven insists that these are not simply errors, they are lies. In other words, Young is intending to deceive. Or perhaps Sven is claiming that Satan is deceiving and Young is merely his unwitting puppet. Either way, this is serious business.

There is one bit of truth in Sven’s analysis: the depiction of God in The Shack arguably reacts against manipulative images of a wrathful deity to such an extent that concepts like transcendence and holiness are almost forgotten. (I explain the problem at some length in my book Finding God in the Shack.) Having said that, please keep in mind that this is not a systematic theology; rather, it is a novel describing a weekend in which a man wrestles through his own grief. So it should hardly be surprising that the manifestation of God Mack receives includes a disproportionate representation of the still small voice of maternalistic comfort rather than the royal wrath of fire from heaven.

Anyway, given that Sven had leveled such extraordinarily serious charges at Mr. Young, I asked him to substantiate just one of them, namely the charge of universalism (or pluralism).

The response?

I don’t know anything about Sven, but I do know that I’ve seen similar behavior among many conservative evangelicals. People that (hopefully) would never think of leveling the charge of “adulterer” or “pedophile” or “thief” without excellent evidence nonetheless believe themselves justified in lobbing the most serious theological charges at fellow brothers and sisters in Christ with no evidence at all.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen Christians label another Christian as a “heretic” or charge another Christian with holding a “heresy”. But almost invariably the one making the accusation is unable even to define what they mean by heresy, let alone to defend that definition, let alone to demonstrate that the one charged has in fact satisfied it.

So this is my challenge to the wider Christian community. When Christians raise charges of heresy like Sven did against Mr. Young, ask them to define and defend their terms and to provide the evidence that this other individual has, in fact, satisfied that definition. If they can’t do that much, denounce them for defaming a fellow brother or sister in Christ.

The post On accusing a brother or sister in Christ of heresy appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Justin Schieber and Randal Rauser at Sherwood Park Alliance Church

The post Justin Schieber and Randal Rauser at Sherwood Park Alliance Church appeared first on Randal Rauser.