Randal Rauser's Blog, page 141

Still Further Thoughts on Christian Atheism

If you want further evidence of the hostility and condescension that very liberal Christians have toward Christian orthodoxy, you need only look to the latest comment posted in support of Gretta Vosper at her blog article: “The reason I’m an atheist … in case you missed it.” Here’s the comment, coming from a fellow named “Robert”:

Hi Gretta

Your situation reminds me of the line from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5: “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.” The irony is that when heresy-hunters persecute non-conformist Christians like you for not believing in literal heaven, they are falsely saying evil against you because of Jesus. The blessing of Jesus is for those with integrity.

Jesus goes on to say in Matthew 23 that religious leaders are hypocrites. Like whitewashed tombs they are outwardly beautiful, but inside they are decayed and impure. The idea of a supernatural interventionist God is obsolete, a decayed hypocritical belief that is incompatible with scientific knowledge. Church efforts to hold onto this primitive myth are doomed to fail because it is untrue. This throwback prevents Christianity from having any credibility among a wider modern audience, and actively supports unethical and unchristian behaviour, such as the persecution of you for the sake of the name of Christ.

I replied:

Robert, your comment nicely illustrates the utter contempt that folks like yourself have for orthodox Christianity. Gretta Vosper has actively been promoting atheism within the UCC for years, and now that the church has undertaken an inquiry you label them “heresy-hunters” and “hypocrites” and “white-washed tombs”. It’s clear that you just want orthodox Christians with their “primitive myth” to shut up.

Your modernistic condescension calls to mind Bultmann’s infamous words: “It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.” It is true that Bultmann’s attitude was trendy back when electric lights and the wireless were a big deal. But it is now thoroughly outdated. Orthodox Christians are well represented in fields like academic analytic philosophy (where I am active) and natural science. To note an example of the latter, a colleague at my church, Aksel Hallin, is a physics professor at the U of A specializing in dark matter and as of last year, a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize. And yes, he’s also an evangelical Christian. And a couple years ago I had the privilege of meeting Francis Collins, one of the most influential scientists in the world and yes, another evangelical.

While your appeal to a secular force majeure may have impressed the Vienna Circle, today it merely illustrates your own dated irrelevance.

I don’t know if Robert is a member of the United Church of Canada, but I would expect that he is. Certainly his views are well represented within the denomination. And that is a good example of just how dated and increasingly irrelevant this church is. For further discussion see this 2012 Globe and Mail article on “The Collapse of the Liberal Church.”

The post Still Further Thoughts on Christian Atheism appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Further Thoughts on Christian Atheism

A fellow named “Shane” posted a very revealing comment at Gretta Vosper’s blog today which succinctly summarizes the chasm that separates her version of “Christianity” from that identified by historic Christian orthodoxy. Shane writes:

“For me, Christian Atheism is about the values that we as humans have developed and associated with the Christian story, not about “believing” certain truth claims that are demonstrably false or massively implausible, like the resurrection, virgin birth or even the existence of a “God”. If Christianity can’t incorporate such views, that’s pretty sad, and declares the triumph of mere belief over values. It’s confusing the wrapping with the present.”

Nicely stated. In the view of Shane, and it would seem of Vosper as well, the various doctrines that have historically defined Christianity (God’s existence, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) should be understood as dispensable husks. The real kernel of gospel truth, that which is important for all time, is captured in three words: Love one another.

Shane’s final metaphor is a revealing one: you keep a present but you discard the wrapping (unless you’re one of those old-school thrifty grandmas who carefully removes the tape and folds the paper to reuse it next Christmas). And Shane clearly envisions something like this: keep loving one another, but recognize that Christian doctrines are the dispensable husk.

While the wrapping metaphor suggests that we should move beyond the mythology of symbols and narratives (once you’ve opened the gift you can throw away the Christmas wrapping paper), I suspect that Shane may be open to folks remythologizing to the extent that doing so would protect and nurture those all-important values.

There are two problems with this picture. The first, as I’ve already noted in earlier articles, is that this picture isn’t Christian. Perhaps it is secular humanist, it could be Unitarian universalist, but it most certainly is not Christian.

The second problem is that folks like Shane and Gretta Vosper are openly hostile to the view that Christian doctrines are something more than dispensable Iron Age and Roman Age myths. In other words, they’re openly hostile to Christianity. They criticize and denigrate Christian doctrines as dispensable wrapping paper, reducing the rest of us who insist that it is essential to being old-school thrifty grandmas.

Consider Shane’s bald contempt for Christian doctrines which he dismisses as “demonstrably false” and “massively implausible” and which he places in condescending scare quotes.

Vosper’s attitude toward orthodox Christianity is similarly caustic: she views it as outmoded and harmful and she’s been actively campaigning against it for three years as she seeks to promote an atheistic agenda within the United Church.

And now, when the church finally begins an inquiry into her doctrinal views, it’s supposed to be the church that is intolerant?

The post Further Thoughts on Christian Atheism appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Are Christian denominations permitted to expect theism of their ministers?

Christians often complain of a prejudicial hostility toward their views. Often the perception is borne of an unjustified martyr complex. Consider, for example, the so-called “War on Christmas.” But at other times, Christians are indeed subject of an unjust hostility and prejudice.

Consider, for example, the notion of communal boundaries. In most any context it is a truism that paid representatives of a formal institution are obliged to accept and certainly not to vocally denigrate the core commitments of the institution. This is simply what we call a no-brainer.

Let’s consider a couple examples. To begin with, if you are a representative of the American Humanist Association you cannot believe that human beings are only of value because they are made in God’s image. Consequently, if you begin to promote that theological account of human value, the organization will be wholly within their rights to remove you from your office. Indeed, they will not be merely within their rights to do so. They will be required to do so because you will be actively promoting views contrary to the organization.

And if you are a representative of American Atheists  you cannot believe that atheists should be deprived of their civil rights qua atheism. Thus, if you begin to promote the idea that commercial establishments ought to be free to refuse service to atheists simply because of their atheism, the organization will be wholly within their rights to remove you from your office. Indeed, once again, they will be required to do so.

And this brings me to the United Church of Canada. The most recent centering theological statement of this denomination is found in the 2006 declaration “A Song of Faith“. It begins, “Grateful for God’s loving action, we cannot keep from singing…” and then it proceeds to describe God who is “one and triune”:

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

We also speak of God as

Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer

God, Christ, and Spirit

Mother, Friend, and Comforter

Source of Life, Living Word, and Bond of Love,

The text also attributes several actions of creation and redemption to God. The entire document is not only theocentric, it is saturated in language of God and his/her/their action in the world.

This brings me to Gretta Vosper who is adamant that no such being as is described in the 2006 “Song of Life” exists. Vosper’s rejection of the core doctrinal commitments of the United Church of Canada is exactly as bald and affrontive as the secular humanist who attributes human value to God or the American atheist who denies civil rights to atheists.

Despite all this, in his comments in response to my article “Is the Christian minister Gretta Vosper being persecuted just because she’s an atheist?” logical question (aka Ed Babinski) directly challenged me for siding with the theists in the United Church over Gretta Vosper. For example, he wrote:

“For a tentative apologist you quickly come to some very clear cut decisions with people’s jobs and lives based on what they believe or don’t believe.”

Ed also received the support of The Atheist Missionary, and no doubt others as well.

Well Ed, some issues are clear cut, and yes, paid representatives of formal institutions actually do need to adhere to particular beliefs. The American Humanist Association and American Atheists are allowed to define their own core commitments and to censure representatives who deny those core commitments. Indeed, they are obliged to do so.

I will charitably assume that Ed recognizes that much is a no-brainer. So the fact that he refuses to extend the same privilege to the United Church of Canada looks like nothing more than bald anti-Christian bias.

The post Are Christian denominations permitted to expect theism of their ministers? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

If you appreciate my blog, please make a donation to fight cancer

I have never asked for a donation to sustain this blog. Nor have I ever received any money for advertising (save a very modest kickback from Amazon.com). As a result, I invest over $1000 of my own money per year running this website in addition to hundreds of hours writing and producing content.

Here’s what I do ask from you in return: join me in the fight against cancer.

This will be the second year I participate with my daughter in Run for the Cure to fight breast cancer. We’re running on Sunday, October 2, and I’m asking you to make a donation before then to our team so we can kick cancer to the curb.

You can visit our fundraising page by clicking this link.

I know my mom will donate … but what about you?

Thanks!

The post If you appreciate my blog, please make a donation to fight cancer appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Is the Christian minister Gretta Vosper being persecuted just because she’s an atheist?

This morning Gretta Vosper, the atheist United Church minister who is currently facing a church inquiry that may result in her being removed from the United Church ministerial, posted an article on her atheism. In the article, titled, “The reason I’m an atheist … in case you missed it,” Vosper presents the current inquiry against her as a form of persecution:

“In the last seventeen months, I have learned what the cost of the label atheist is, even here in Canada. My suitability as a minister was not questioned as long as the work I did fell into the realm of “sharing the good news” or preaching something most in liberal churches would call “the way of Jesus” – a work that focuses a community on the values of love, justice, compassion, and forgiveness. As a non-theist, I was no threat. As a theological non-realist, I was probably misunderstood. But as an atheist? How could that be tolerated?”

In response, I posted the following comment on her blog:

“While I appreciate your honesty in sharing your atheistic convictions, and I recognize that this must be a difficult time, the fact remains that you’re not being persecuted.

“Imagine if a representative of the Canadian Secular Alliance became persuaded of the need to apply Sharia law in society and then decided to become vocal in his new convictions. Would you think he was being persecuted if the Canadian Secular Alliance responded by removing him from being a representative of their organization? Of course not. By endorsing Sharia law this individual would have abandoned the very raison d’etre for the Canadian Secular Alliance.

“Since you’ve rejected theism have you not abandoned the very raison d’etre for Christianity? (To be sure, Christianity is far more than theism, but it at least includes theism.)

“I recognize that you disagree. For you theism is clearly an option. But others within your own church (to say nothing of the rest of Christendom) disagree with you, and one would think they’ve got a right to see that their church retains its historic commitment to theism, just as the Canadian Secular Alliance has the right to retain its historic commitment to secularism.”

The post Is the Christian minister Gretta Vosper being persecuted just because she’s an atheist? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Why you can’t say the total evidence supports (or does not support) Christianity

This article offers a response to a comment posted by Jeff Lowder. (Click on the link to get the comment and the context in which it occurs. I shan’t bother to rehash that background info here.) To be more accurate, this article uses Lowder’s comment as a springboard to a further conversation.

What caught my attention is the idea that one might make the following statement: “I think the total evidence favors Christianity.” You see, I don’t think anybody can make this statement. Nor can anybody affirm its logical complement: “I don’t think the total evidence favors Christianity.”

There are two reasons for this.

The total evidence includes person-relative evidence

First, some evidence is person-relative and thus is simply not generally available to all people. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re debating with a skeptic who claims that we cannot know that objective moral value exists. You insist that it can and as evidence you invoke your own visceral moral revulsion upon witnessing a young man beating an aged, wheel-chair bound war vet: “In that moment,” you say dramatically, “I knew immediately and with unshakeable conviction that there is evil in the world, there is objective moral disvalue. And if that’s the case, there is also good, there is also objective moral value.”

Your interlocutor shrugs and replies dismissively: “It doesn’t seem to me to be so.”

Let’s be clear: the interlocutor’s response is not a rebuttal to your experience. Rather, it is a recognition that your experience is person-relative to you and thus inaccessible to him. Thus, as the two of you continue to debate the existence of objective moral value, you do so informed by the evidence of your experience while he does not.

Here’s a courtroom illustration of the difference. Jones is charged with murder under the weight of DNA evidence, a fingerprint, a motive, and a lack of alibi. While Jones has no alibi available to the court, he nonetheless testifies that he was in bed sleeping at the time of the murder. This memory is part of Jones’ personal evidence, but sadly it is not part of the publicly available evidence. (Of course, Jones’ testimony to his memory is part of the publicly available evidence, but the memory itself is not.)

Consequently, the total evidence includes both publicly available evidence and person-relative evidence. Since the latter is only available to specific individuals, nobody can have access to the total evidence.

Just as people can have moral perceptual or memorial personal experiences that provide the ground for belief in moral value or past events, so in principle one could have an experience of God that provides the ground for belief in God. This experience would thereby become part of one’s personal evidence, but it would not be part of the commonweal of publicly available evidence.

It follows that in principle Jones could justifiably believe in his innocence, or you could justifiably believe in objective moral value, or I could justifiably believe in God based upon personal experience that is inaccessible to publicly available evidence.

Nobody can master the total publicly available evidence

But lest we get off topic, let’s return to our central claim. How about we retool it so that total evidence becomes total publicly available evidence? Couldn’t somebody claim that the total publicly available evidence on balance does (or does not) support the truth of Christianity?

Of course they could do so … in principle. But I dispute whether anybody could do so in fact. The reason is simple: Christianity is a two-thousand year old conversation which has seen contributions from a bewildering number of biblical scholars, historians, archaeologists, theologians, philosophers, scientists, ethicists, activists, mystics, and countless others. We’re not talking simply about assessing a few classic proofs for theism along with some evidence for the resurrection. We’re talking, rather, about a truly vast amount of data in multiple languages and requiring several different advanced skill sets for sufficient appraisal. And nobody has that expertise or has completed or could complete that comprehensive study which would be required to justify an opinion regarding the total publicly available evidence.

The post Why you can’t say the total evidence supports (or does not support) Christianity appeared first on Randal Rauser.

On Rota’s Wager: Pascal and epistemic virtue

Dale Tuggy always has great podcasts and his latest is no exception. (I said always, didn’t I?!) This week he has an interview with philosopher Michael Rota on the latter’s new book Taking Pascal’s Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life.

I suggest you listen to the whole forty minute interview … and of course read the book too. As I offer these comments I have done the former but not, as yet, the latter. Consequently, my comments are a reaction to Rota’s description of the wager in his interview. He may well address my concerns in the book. And depending on the listener, you may believe he has provided a response to my concern in the last five or six minutes of the interview. I am not so sure.

Having laid out my caveats, I’ll now go ahead and offer my criticism based on my listen of Rota’s defense of the Pascalian wager. As Rota observes, the wager invites us to bet on Christianity, just so long as we are already positioned to consider it a live option for belief, perhaps as more likely to be true than not. In that case, and given the enormous benefits that would come with believing rightly in this matter, and the comparatively modest deficits should it turn out that Christianity is wrong, we ought to wager on Christianity.

And what does it mean to wager? As Rota observes, Pascal nowhere assumes a naive epistemic voluntarism as if we can control our beliefs like we move our arms: e.g. “Okay, I believe now!” Rather, Pascal invites us to wager by identifying with the Christian community, partaking in the Eucharist and the various other rhythms of Christian (and Catholic) life, and working our way into belief by this indirect route.

This brings me to my concern. I worry that Pascal’s wager undermines epistemic virtue. How so? Well, let’s say I conclude that it is perhaps more likely than not that Christianity is true. That’s enough to wager. However, I also have a general belief rooted in epistemic virtue that I ought always to consider my own cognitive biases, that I ought to devote substantial time to the problems with my own beliefs and to weighing the evidence for beliefs contrary to my own.

This leads to a problem, because if I pursue the former route — the route of pious immersion — I make it more likely that I shall believe, but I do so at the cost of epistemic virtue. By contrast, if I choose the  latter route — the route of epistemic virtue — one could reasonably suppose that I make it less likely that I will end up with a deep conviction that Christianity is true. And thus I will make it more likely that I will harbor significant doubts and/or qualifications about the Christian convictions on which I presently believe I ought to wager.

In short, it would seem that a wager for Christianity is a wager against epistemic virtue. But if we assume we ought always to seek truth above all, is that a wager we should have to make?

The post On Rota’s Wager: Pascal and epistemic virtue appeared first on Randal Rauser.

“There is no evidence for…” On the unqualified and indefensible claims of bad apologists

A few months ago I was approached by an individual after a speaking event. “Do you believe in evolution?” he asked. It was a surprising question given that it had nothing to do with my topic. I replied that on matters outside my area I defer to the consensus of experts unless I have a reason not to. This was a case, I noted, where I didn’t have a reason to question the experts and so I deferred to the consensus that accepts the broadly Neo-Darwinian account of the origin of species.

“Interesting,” the man said, “because I am a medical doctor. I looked into the matter and discovered that there is no evidence for evolution.”

I was struck by the absoluteness of his assertion. Had he said, “I am unpersuaded by the evidence for evolution,” I would have been sympathetic. But to deny that there is any evidence whatsoever in fields like evolutionary biology, paleontology, and genetics for speciation and common descent is patently false. (For a good initial overview to some of that evidence and guidance as to how to process it relative to Christian convictions, one should visit http://biologos.org/.)

And it is worth noting as well that a medical doctor’s skill and knowledge set, while no doubt formidable, would nonetheless not equip a person to assess properly the range of evidence for evolution from these various fields.

But this isn’t just a problem to be found among Christians. The fact is, however, that atheists frequently make claims that are every bit as outrageous as that of this doctor. Consider, for example, the late Victor Stenger. Though Stenger was a scientist — a physicist — for some reason he believed this equipped him to opine on the field of ancient history, and so in his article “How to debate a Christian apologist” he makes the following claim:

“There is absolutely no evidence that the Jesus of the gospels even existed.”

Once again, we have an individual who, though highly educated, nonetheless lacks any expertise in the field on which he is opining. And yet, he has the audacity to endorse a fringe position and to insist that all the evidence supports this position.

To make matters worse, Stenger then goes on to defend his claim with a string of falsehoods:

“He [Jesus] is only mentioned in the New Testament, which was written long after his death by people who did not know him. St. Paul says little that suggests a historical Jesus. He also did not know Jesus. His “evidence” for Jesus is just his own mystical visions. He said, “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preach is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1: 11-12).”

Contrary to Stenger’s claim, Jesus it not mentioned only in the New Testament (he is mentioned in the work of Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historian Tacitus, and probably in Roman historian Suetonius, for example); the New Testament was not written long after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him (rather, it is a library of first century sources about Jesus with the earliest, the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, dating to within a couple years of the events; and the status of the gospels as based on eye-witness accounts has been defended vigorously by scholars like Richard Bauckham); in his writings Paul demonstrates a wide knowledge of Jesus and his teachings (see, for example, David Wenham’s Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity); and Paul’s evidence for Jesus is not limited to his “mystical visions” (see again the creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, for example).

To sum up, all sides would do well to drop the unqualified, sweeping assertions that there is no evidence to support the development of a consensus of experts, whether the matter is Neo-Darwinian evolution or the historical Jesus or anything else.

The post “There is no evidence for…” On the unqualified and indefensible claims of bad apologists appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Best Religious Joke Ever isn’t About Religion (and why that matters)

Emo Philips’ 1985 comedy album E=mo2 features a famous joke about meeting a guy on a bridge. He shares that joke in this 1987 comedy performance:

In 2005 Philips’ joke was voted the best religious joke ever.

The only problem is that in my view the joke isn’t really about religion per se. Rather, it is about the social dynamics of fundamentalism and ingroup / outgroup identity. And neither of those topics is limited to religion.

Don’t believe me? Here’s the same basic joke tweaked for a different context:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “I have no reason to live.” I said, “Sure you do. Do you believe in science?”

He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you an atheist or an agnostic?” He said, “An atheist.” I said, “Me, too! Soft atheist or hard atheist?” He said, “hard.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “naturalist.” I said, “Me, too! Reductive naturalist or non-reductive naturalist?” He said, “Reductive naturalist.” I said, “Me, too! Nihilistic reductive naturalist or non-nihilistic reductive naturalist?”

He said, “Nihilistic reductive naturalist!” I said, “Well then you have no reason to live anyway!” And I pushed him over.

Okay, so Philips’ joke can readily be translated for other groups, including atheists. But why does it matter?

Simple, pointing out that the joke is not limited in application to one group frustrates attempts to use the joke to reinforce chosen ingroup/outgroup distinctions. (E.g. “The religious folk are so close-minded. But we’re so generous and open-minded!”)

It also opens up untold new fields to which one can unleash an incisive and clever piece of humor cum social analysis. And that in itself is a good thing.

Finally, you’re more apt to think when you realize that you too could be the punchline. And while laughter is great, laughter plus thinking is even better.

The post The Best Religious Joke Ever isn’t About Religion (and why that matters) appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Atheist apologists who dislike apologetics

If you spend any time engaging with the lay atheist/skeptic community, you will soon discover that “apologetics” is a four letter word. This is ironic given that the lay atheist/skeptic who treats “apologetics” as a curse is inevitably invested in her own apologetic enterprise, albeit from an atheistic perspective. She’s read her Dawkins and Stenger, her Dennett and Harris, and so her anti-religious apologists have equipped her with a fiery indignation toward “apologetics”.

It turns out, then, that she is mistaken. It is not apologetics she dislikes. Rather, it is a particular kind of apologetics, perhaps Christian apologetics, or theistic apologetics or religious apologetics. But then she’d do well to clear up the confusion. You don’t find players for the Yankees intoning how they dislike baseball: after all, that’s what they play. Rather, they specify the team(s) they don’t like: “I can’t stand those Red Sox!”

By the same token, those atheists that get worked up over (Christian) apologetics are playing the same game, so they better get more specific about their complaint.

Of course, were the derision expressed in those terms (“I can’t stand Christian apologetics!”), we could then turn to the next question: is the dislike justified? Are Christian apologists more ignorant, less winsome, more acerbic, less honest, more polemical, less kind, than their secular counterparts?

The answer, in my experience, is an unequivocal no. In both groups one finds nasty villagers and exemplary defenders, and a whole lot of others in between.

So from what does this deep aversion to apologetics arise? One suspects it is from a mixture of bad experiences with particular apologists combined with a heady dose of oorah tribalism and partisanship. Needless to say, while the interminable rivalries of baseball may serve the game, the same cannot be said in the world of apologetics. All those who invest time in the careful and thoughtful defense of their views are (presumably) concerned with getting at the way things are, and prejudices borne of bad experiences and partisanship do little more than frustrate that common goal.

The post Atheist apologists who dislike apologetics appeared first on Randal Rauser.