Randal Rauser's Blog, page 41

Steelmanning Run Amok

The other day, I posted an article on the proper application of the Strawman Fallacy. So I thought it would make sense to start off the new year with a companion article addressing steelmanning. While strawmanning is an informal fallacy that involves intentionally critiquing the weaker versions of a position while ignoring the stronger versions, steelmanning is the opposite: it involves presenting the position in the strongest version possible. I’m a big proponent of steelmanning as illustrated, for example, in my book defending atheists and in my public debates in which I assumed a devil’s advocate role by defending atheist positions I reject (see here and here and here).

However, I find that many people don’t actually understand steelmanning, and to illustrate I’d like to begin with a tweet I posted yesterday:

"Religion is the source of all evil."

Wow. Does that include ridiculous generalizations?

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) January 1, 2021

This tweet elicited several replies from people recognizing the utter foolishness of this popular new atheist maxim. But there was also this comment: “When considered in a charitable manner, they could just mean ‘Religion is the source of a significant amount of evil’. Why not rebutt [sic] this instead. Sure you’ve heard of steelmanning.”

In short, this fellow is accusing me of failing to steelman the maxim (and, by implication, of strawmanning it) because I failed to explore a generous hyperbolic reading of it. In fact, this fellow is in danger of another informal fallacy here. I’m going to call it the unlimited steelmanning fallacy. According to this fallacy, there are no contextual limits on the application of steelmanning: and so we always ought to seek a charitable way to redeem a statement by another person, no matter how prima facie indefensible it may be. And so, if we can interpret the statement that “Religion is the source of all evil” as really meaning “Religion causes a lot of evil” then we ought to do so.

There are at least two glaring problems with this approach. First, it ignores and distracts from the actual problematic implicature (implied meaning) and perlocution (effect) of a speech act. Imagine, for example, that I denounce the man who says that “Mexicans are lazy.” And then our pious steelmanner extraordinaire comes along and chides me by suggests that perhaps the man wasn’t intending to say that every single Mexican is lazy. Maybe he was only making a general observation that many Mexicans are lazy. That is at least a more defensible claim and by failing to consider it, I failed to steelman that fellow.

But that would be a completely silly response. The man who says “Mexicans are lazy” is expressing prejudice, plain and simple. The implicature is to marginalize a visible minority, period. To get into the weeds on whether he was intending literally to identify every single Mexican as lazy merely obfuscates to cover his prejudice. Likewise, to get into the weeds on whether the secularist was literally intending to say that every single evil is ultimately caused by religion merely obfuscates to cover his prejudice.

This brings me to the second problem: nobody consistently follows this unqualified steelmanning. Rather, we seek contextual clues to determine both the illocution (the meaning) and perlocution (the reception) of a speech act. As with “Mexicans are lazy”, the perlocution of “Religion is the source of all evil” is to propagate ignorant and unnuanced prejudice, and an unnuanced, incautious prejudicial statement has not earned the luxury of alternative interpretations. Indeed, proposing alternative meanings is merely a way of masking the indefensible perlocution and thus amounts to a defense of the indefensible.

The statement that “Religion is the source of all evil” is a stupid, unnuanced statement that cultivates unnuanced prejudice and ignorance. And it should be called out, not defended.

I have discussed these issues before. See, for example, my discussion of what I call the Fallacy of Charitable Interpretation and also my discussion of the limits of steelmanning see my video here.

The post Steelmanning Run Amok appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Militant Agnosticism

Michael Shermer describes his own disbelief in God as follows: “I once saw a bumper sticker that read ‘Militant Agnostic: I don’t know and You Don’t Either.’ This is my position on God’s existence: I don’t know and you don’t either.”

Shermer is right to call that position “militant”. To claim that nobody can know the truth of a proposition brings with it a high evidential bar. To be sure, there are some truth claims toward which I think one can readily defend a ‘militant’ agnosticism. For example, no human being can know the number of snowflakes that fell in the great New England blizzard of 1888. Estimates are that approximately 20,000,000,000,000 snowflakes fall in an average snowstorm. And no doubt, meteorologists can make far more precise estimates of the number of snowflakes that fell in the 1888 blizzard. But the actual number is inaccessible to human beings now.

As for knowledge as to whether God exists or not, that is a very different issue. That requires, first, that Shermer has sufficient familiarity with all the arguments for and against God’s existence to know that none of those arguments is sufficient to justify a belief that God does (or does not) exist. Second, Shermer must either have an irrefutable argument that no person could have knowledge of God apart from the subset of those arguments that support theism (i.e. that argument must show that such belief could not be justified based on direct personal experience); conversely, he must have special access to all ranges of non-discursive possibly justified belief about God to know that none of those possible ranges of non-discursive belief occasioned by experience could possibly justify said belief.

Needless to say, Shermer has none of this. All he has is a wholly unjustified declaration that nobody can know the truth of a proposition about which he is agnostic.

Militant, indeed.

 Michael Shermer, The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies—How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths (New York: Henry Holt, 2011),175.

The post Militant Agnosticism appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Before You Accuse Somebody of the Strawman Fallacy

You don’t accuse somebody of lying just because they said something that is false. The accusation of lying is only justified if you have good evidence that they knew that what they were saying is false at the time that they said it and that they said it with the intention of persuading someone else that it is true.

Something similar may be said with respect to the fallacy of strawmanning. It is not sufficient to argue that a person has presented an opposing view inadequately. One must have evidence that they were aware of superior presentations of the view at the time that they shared the inferior one and that they shared the inferior one with the intent of misrepresenting the strength of the view.

As Jacob Van Vleet puts it, strawmanning “is an argument that intentionally presents a misrepresentation of a particular position in order to easily refute or dismiss it.” Van Vleet gives this example: “Jews and Christians simply believe that if you are good you will go to heaven, and if you are evil you will go to hell. This is the gist of their belief. So, you shouldn’t take them seriously.” As Van Vleet points out, this description of what Christians believe is simply not accurate: “In this example the views of Jews and Christians are intentionally distorted so that they can be easily dismissed.”

It follows that if a person really doesn’t understand Christianity such that they really do think that heaven is merely a reward for good behaviour, then they are guilty of ignorance but not of strawmanning. So before you accuse somebody of strawmanning, be sure that you have sufficient evidence to establish intention.

Jacob Van Vleet, Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2011), 10.

Van Vleet, Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide, 10.

Van Vleet, Informal Logical Fallacies: A Brief Guide, 10.

The post Before You Accuse Somebody of the Strawman Fallacy appeared first on Randal Rauser.

My New Biblical Violence Book

I’ve been thinking about the problem of biblical violence since I wrote a critique of Paul Copan in 2008 (published in 2009). Over the last twelve years, I delievered a conference paper on the topic, I have devoted chapters to the imprecatory psalms and violence of Torah in my books What’s So Confusing About Grace? and Conversations with My Inner Atheist, and I have written dozens and dozens of articles in my blog.

However, over the last week I have finally resolved to write a book devoted to the topic. The book will focus on the problem of Yahweh War and the herem in Deuteronomy and Joshua and it will be written for a general audience. I have tentatively named it Jesus Loves Canaanites and I hope to finish it by mid-January. Barring some big change in my schedule, this shouldn’t be a problem since I have twelve years of reflections just waiting to be put down onto paper.

And now, on to the writing.

The post My New Biblical Violence Book appeared first on Randal Rauser.

The Best Christmas Pageant Ever

Merry Christmas, everyone! Here is the introduction to the chapter on incarnation in my 2008 book  Faith Lacking Understanding . The excerpt invites Christians to rediscover the magic and mystery of incarnation by way of a celebrated children’s story.

In her delightful children’s classic The Best Christmas Pageant Ever Barbara Robinson tells the story of how the infamous six Herdman children (“absolutely the worst kids in the history of the world”) first encounter the Christmas story. Through a series of events, they begin going to Sunday school where they are confronted by the perfunctory preparations for the stale Christmas pageant. Year after year it is the same affair and the church has grown hardened to it.

But the Herdmans have never heard the Christmas story before and are fascinated. Shorn of the baggage of over-familiarity, they hear the story with fresh ears which allows them to ask embarrassing questions and facilitate novel insights. So intrigued do the Herdmans become that they scheme until they have co-opted all the main roles in the play, at which point they proceed in delightful fashion to leave their indelible stamp upon each one. For instance, Imogene portrays Mary with a gritty reality since she “didn’t know that Mary was supposed to be acted out in one certain way—sort of quiet and dreamy and out of this world.” Imogene’s interaction with the baby Jesus is characteristic of the many felicitous impieties that unfold:

Imogene had the baby doll but she wasn’t carrying it the way she was supposed to, cradled in her arms. She had it slung up over her shoulder, and before she put it in the manger she thumped it twice on the back.

I heard Alice gasp and she poked me. “I don’t think it’s very nice to burp the baby Jesus,” she whispered, “as if he had colic.” Then she poked me again. “Do you suppose he could have had colic?”

I said, “I don’t know why not,” and I didn’t. He could have had colic, or been fussy, or hungry like any other baby. After all, that was the whole point of Jesus—that he didn’t come down on a cloud like something out of “Amazing Comics,” but that he was born and lived … a real person.

Amazingly, while the pageant that results lacks refinement and polish, it is powerfully moving as the audience (and reader) are brought to wrestle anew with the gospel story. Ironically, absolutely the worst kids in the history of the world have challenged the church to rediscover the awesome mystery that lies at the heart of Christmas.

Barbara Robinson, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever (New York: Harper Collins, 1972), 1.

Robinson, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, 61.

Robinson, The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, 82.

The post The Best Christmas Pageant Ever appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Is the Christian God Worthy of Worship? A Debate with Dan Barker

Dan Barker is a former fundamentalist preacher-turned-atheist, author of many books including Godless and God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, and co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In this informal from December 22 2020, we addressed the question “Is the Christian God Worthy of Worship?”

The post Is the Christian God Worthy of Worship? A Debate with Dan Barker appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Atheist Polemic for Pastor Dan: A Review of God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction

Dan Barker. God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. New York: Sterling, 2016.

At the beginning of chapter 2 of his bestselling book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins infamously describes God as “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (Cited in ixx) That single sentence from the book has received more attention than any other. Indeed, it has been so significant that Dawkins asked Dan Barker, former Christian preacher and current co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, to write an entire book about it.

The result is God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. Barker devotes a chapter to each one of the 19 descriptors from Dawkins’ book. But he doesn’t stop there. Barker then adds eight more (e.g. “merciless”, “cannibalistic”) for good measure. He concludes with a chapter on the New Testament in which he argues that since Jesus is just the same God as is described in the Old Testament, anything true of the God of the Old Testament is true of Jesus. So if God is jealous, petty, unjust, unforgiving and the rest, then Jesus is too. In short, the New Testament offers no respite.

An Unconventional Book

This is not a book that you read from cover to cover. The format consists of page after page of Bible verses all organized around the core offending adjectives. As you can imagine, that makes for a tough slog. As a result, it is likely that most folks will read the introductions to each chapter and then skim the biblical references that are laid out on page after page.

Barker acknowledges this very point and so he seeks to make it easier for the reader by boldfacing the words in each verse that warrant grouping that verse under the offending descriptor: “Reading the bible can be laborious, especially during long passages. I have tried to make the task easier by boldfacing the relevant words in each verse. If you are in a hurry, simply scan for the boldface and come back later for the context.” (3)

For example, in a chapter on sadomasochism, Barker lists dozens of verses that relate to God and his desire to inflict fear in subjects. Barker then highlights the “fear” references like this:

PSALM 34:11 “Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord.” (187)

Needless to say, it is tendentious (to say the least) to describe references to “the fear of the Lord” as ‘sadomasochistic’. But then, nuance and charity do not seem to be in Barker’s vocabulary.

Atheist Fundamentalism

Barker is aware of the predictable retort from biblically literate Christians: “‘You are taking it too literally,’ we sometimes hear from sophisticated believers.” (6) Barker adds that these ‘sophisticated’ Christians tell him “I am still reading the bible like a fundamentalist…” (6)

They’re right: he is.

Fundamentalist Bible reading has at least three key hallmarks: proof-texting; default ‘literal’ interpretation based on allegedly ‘commonsense’ reading; disregard for expertise. And Barker exhibits all these characteristics. In spades.

Let’s start with proof-texting. This is the practice of reading the Bible from an ideological starting point that leads one to disregard/ignore the original context and meaning of the passage whilst being guided by one’s motivated reasoning to justify one’s background ideology. Barker is forthright that his ideological goal here is nothing less than a polemical assault on the concept of God in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Moreover, as an activist for the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” (a secular equivalent of the Discovery Institute), Barker is concerned to implement a secularist program to remove religion from the public square. (As a Baptist critic of civil religion and the myth of the Christian society, I share some of Barker’s concerns. However, I part ways when he lapses into his more fanatical rhetoric such as when he denounces religion as ‘cancer’.)

Although he tries, unsuccessfully in my view, to inoculate himself against the proof-texting charge (indeed, he attempts to turn the charge on Christians (292)), there is no question but that Barker is a chronic proof-texter. What else can be said when you list literally dozens of Bible passages per chapter with little-to-no context provided, bold-face English words within each verse, and then encourage the reader to skim the long lists of boldfaced words in these decontextualized verses?

For example, in his chapter on God being “bloodthirsty,” Barker says “As promised, here are a few dozen passages dealing with animal sacrifice. You don’t need to read them all. Just scan for the word ‘blood.’ [helpfully boldfaced] When you are finished, you can wash your hands.” (81) Barker reads the Bible the way fundamentalist Christians read ‘controversial’ books. In short, they don’t actually read at all: instead, they just scan the text for offensive content.

I am reminded of conservative Jewish film critic Michael Medved who once wrote a book called Hollywood vs. America which attempted to do for Hollywood what Barker does for God. For example, Medved went to the trouble of counting the number of ‘f-bombs’ in Goodfellas (all 246 of ’em!) to demonstrate that Hollywood has a potty-mouth. No need to bother with the actual film: counting the swears should be enough.

Second, Barker exemplifies the tendency toward literal interpretation based on an allegedly commonsense, or as he puts it, “face-value” reading:

“We should always start with the face value. It is the face value, after all, that gives metaphor its punch. We should stick with the face value unless it is impossible to do otherwise, or unless there is a stated or understood reason to interpret it figuratively.” (6)

I can’t help but make a brief aside here. It seems to me that Barker exhibits an antiquated approach to language which assumes that ‘literal’ language is the standard mode of expression while metaphor (and other forms of idiomatic expression) are subsequently added like seasoning sprinkled on the main meal (see what I did there?). It is surely ironic that Barker’s choice of term — “face value” — is itself a metaphor. Barker adds to the irony when he then notes that this ‘face value’ “gives metaphor its punch“.

However, the main issue pertains to Barker’s unquestioned and naive assumption that “face value” for a 21st century North American reader will reliably map onto the “face value” of a first-century Greek-speaking Roman, let alone that of a fifth-century BCE Hebrew speaking Jew. Interestingly, Barker apes Ken Ham at this point as the young-earth creationist insists that Genesis 1 obviously teaches creation in six 24 hour days because that’s the ‘commonsense’ reading.

This leads us to the third point: Barker exhibits a dismissiveness for expertise that borders on outright contempt. Consider that sarcastic reference to “sophisticated Christians” whose insights he dismisses in a hand-wave by opining, “I think we should read the bible like any other writings, just like millions of normal people have done throughout the centuries without the aid of scholars by their side explaining what it really means.” (6)

You can definitely hear the former fundamentalist Protestant preacher in those words. But it is important to understand that Barker’s approach to the Bible is at variance not only with Roman Catholicism (cf. the Magisterium) but also with the mainstream Protestant understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture. (On the Protestant view, perspicuity pertains only to the central dogmas of the kerygma — e.g. creation, fall, redemption. It did not apply to the careful exegesis of specific biblical passages.) Barker’s method of categorically marginalizing expertise in favor of the average reader’s “face-value” interpretation reflects the aberrant anti-intellectual and hyper-individualistic methods of Protestant fundamentalism. In short, Barker is shadowboxing with the “Pastor Dan” of his past life.

There is no shortage of examples where scholarship does provide an invaluable guide to the meaning of texts. The young-earth creationist’s utterly inept reading of Genesis 1 is, of course, a familiar example. But here is another which is particularly interesting given that it is another favorite atheist prooftext for demonstrating the absurdity of the Bible. In Joshua 10:12-14, we read of God extending a day so that the Israelites may win a battle. Atheist fundamentalists love to flag this story as an indictment of biblical inspiration and authority given that it assumes geocentrism, posits a ‘miracle’ that would have disastrous consequences for earth history, and is not corroborated in any historical records.

However, biblical scholar K. Lawson Younger Jr. has pointed out that the idea of a deity intervening in a battle by extending a day so as to secure victory for one side was a well-established literary motif in ancient near-eastern (ANE) literature (Copan and Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? 97). The casual reader cannot be blamed for being ignorant of ANE literary tropes, of course. But they can be blamed for thinking that their “face value” reading has nothing to learn from scholars who are familiar with ANE literary tropes.

My Theology?

Barker notes that he is also accused of taking texts out of context. Ah, but he has a ready retort: “I think what they really mean by context is ‘my theology’.” (5, emphasis added) As Barker puts it, “theology is really me-ology.”

The irony of that charge is that if there is anybody who appears blissfully unaware of how his assumptions shape his theological reasoning it is Barker himself. As noted above, his entire method is an aberrant expression of hyper-individualistic and anti-intellectual Protestant fundamentalism while his theology is an activist secularist humanism. Alas, like most fundamentalists, Barker sees specks in everyone else’s eye while remaining unaware of the planks (in this case, ‘Barker-ology’) in his own.

God and the Imprecatory Psalms

I can hardly hope to enumerate all the cases where Barker’s proof-texting and dependence on individual untutored assumptions about face-value reading lose important nuance and distort the text as a result. (Nor do I, a systematic theologian rather than a biblical scholar, have the expertise to do so.) But in this review, I will make the point with one example from chapter 12 where Barker focuses on the killing of children.

(As an aside, Barker says that there is no general word for the killing of children (127-128). But that’s incorrect: the word is ‘pedicide’. As a further aside, he also says there is no general word for the killing of animals (271). But that too is false: the word is theriocide.)

Here I will focus on Barker’s treatment of Psalm 137:9: “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” Barker comments,

“Can there be a more terrible sentence ever spoken in fiction or history? The God of the Old Testament is telling his people to enjoy torturing and murdering babies.” (128)

That is an absolutely crazy reading of the psalm. God is not commending braining infants in Psalm 137:9 any more than God is commending forgetting people in Psalm 13:1. More to the point, the speaker is not God at all but rather a human being, one who is expressing rage and anguish at his oppressors (i.e. the Babylonians) as his people are sent into exile. The psalms are a full record of human experience including doubt, fear, hopelessness, and in this case, rage. It is not God who expresses these emotions but rather the human psalmist.

So how should we think about these emotions generally, and the rage of Psalm 137:9, in particular?

Readers like Barker are ready to judge the psalmist. But how about we first try walking a mile in his sandals? In my book What’s So Confusing About Grace? I give a contemporary analogy by considering the case of Jennifer Neville-Lake, a bereaved mother of three children who were killed by drunk driver Marco Muzzo. At Muzzo’s sentencing, Neville-Lake told him that she hopes he knows what it is like to have a child die. What an abhorrent wish, an unspeakable curse! And yet, when you understand that Neville-Lake is an anguished mother crying out in unimaginable pain and rage, perhap you can move from sanctimoniously judging her to sympathizing with her.

Psalm 137 invites a similar response: rather than judge the psalmist — still less, to place his words into the mouth of God  — we should attempt to understand why he has these feelings toward his oppressors. (For further discussion, see the chapter “How I learned to hate my enemies” in my book What’s So Confusing About Grace?)

To his credit, Barker gives at least some acknowledgment of the importance of context. Unfortunately, he then immediately undercuts this concession: “Some argue that PSALM 137:9 is just the psalmist talking, not God, but if we accept that argument, the whole Old Testament should be torn up and discarded….” (128) This is simply an absurd claim: recognizing that the psalms are an honest record of human experience and emotion rather than a litany of divinely given directives does not oblige one to “tear up and discard” the Old Testament.

What about Jesus?

The very last chapter is devoted to Jesus. This is important because Christians will insist that the Old Testament should be read and interpreted through Jesus. Barker replies by arguing that if God is jealous, petty, unjust, et cetera, and Jesus is God, then it follows that Jesus, too, is jealous, petty, unjust, et cetera (290).

This is a silly argument, one that completely misses the main point that the Christian insists that how various biblical texts are to be read is changed by the coming of Jesus. For example, let’s return to Psalm 137. Jesus said that while it has been said that we should hate our enemies, he calls us to love our enemies (Mt. 5:43). The imprecatory psalms are a prime example of a place where the hatred of enemies is embodied within the text. But read from a Christian point-of-view we are called to move through the very real emotions of anger, bitterness, and hatred and eventually on to the forgiveness of those who have offended against us.

Throughout this final chapter, Barker consistently adopts tendentious readings of the words and actions of Jesus. For example, he claims that Jesus came to bring not peace but a sword (294) and that “Like a cult leader he preached family hatred” (298). Needless to say, Barker does not consider the obvious and minimally charitable interpretation of hyperbole. And he writes, “In one case, [Jesus] refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother (MATTHEW 15:22-28).” (298-99) What Barker fails to note is that in this pericope Matthew intentionally presents the woman (who is movingly vindicated in the exchange) as of Cana (i.e. a Canaanite). This provides a powerful exegetical clue to a new way of reading the ill-fated descriptions of Canaanites in the Deuteronomic history. (For further discussion of this pericope, see chapter 12, “Was Jesus a racist?” in my book Conversations with My Inner Atheist.)

Finally, and perhaps most bizarrely, Barker claims that Jesus really only showed care and concern for insiders in his Jewish community: “Neither the Israelites nor Jesus showed much love to nonbelievers.” (300) Needless to say, this completely ignores Jesus’ consistent embrace of the marginalized other (e.g. tax collectors, lepers, women, rebels, adulterers, prostitutes). Perhaps most famously, when asked what it means to love one’s neighbor, Jesus shared a parable that centers on the hated Samaritans (Luke 10:25-37).

The Verdict

I have been overwhelmingly negative in my review of God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction. The reason is that this is a thoroughly bad book. To be sure, it is great at achieving its aims: the problem is that those aims, and the fundamentalist methods that underlie them, are harmful and merely reinforce prejudice and ignorance where thoughtfulness and charity are required.

That said, there are some redeeming qualities to be found in its pages. To begin with, I very much liked the cover design and the use of print images drawn from the wood-gravings in Gustave Dore’s famous Illustrations for the Bible. And even if I think the typesetters made the font of the main text one size too small, overall this is a nicely packaged volume.

As a Baptist, I am also sympathetic to Barker’s concerns about the separation of religion and the state, especially when religious conservatives distort the Bible to serve their purposes of cultivating a civic relation. For example, Barker is right on to critique Anne Graham Lotz’s proof-texting of 2 Chronicles 7:14 at the National Prayer Breakfast (164).

And even if Barker proof-texts and exhibits a deeply problematic polemical anti-intellectualism, along the way he does make many legitimate points. There is no question that the Bible does indeed carry much deeply problematic moral content. And rather than ignore those texts or spin them, Christians need to confront them honestly. Every reader has a tendency to read in accord with their biases. And if Barker reads like a fundamentalist Christian counting instances of the ‘f-bomb’, his book forces Christians who have their own selective methods to confront many texts that may present a significant challenge to their theology.

The fact is, however, that there are many books and essays by Christians that offer thoughtful reflections on biblical violence in light of theology, hermeneutics, and ethics (e.g. Eric Seibert, Kent Sparks, Paul Copan, Greg Boyd, Peter Enns, John Dominic Crossan, Philip Jenkins, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Richard Swinburne, Douglas Earl, Thom Stark). None of these scholars root their analysis in fundamentalist methods. And all of them seem a good deal more aware of their own presuppositions and how those presuppositions inform their work than Dan Barker.

To pick up your own copy of God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction, go to Amazon (and support my website in the process!).

The post Atheist Polemic for Pastor Dan: A Review of God: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Atheism and Secularism

Image source: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/48582587...

This article continues my survey of ideas commonly associated with atheism. The previous installment considered the relationship between atheism and freethought. In this article, we consider the relationship between atheism and secularism.

There is no doubt that atheism is often closely associated with secularism such that self-identified atheists are often committed to the furtherance of secularism. But what exactly is the relationship between these two concepts? Is it merely a common association borne of historical circumstance or is there a stronger logical relationship?

Let’s begin with definitions: what, exactly, is secularism? The word secular derives from the Latin saecularis which referred to a generation or age. However, in common parlance, the term refers to a focus on this present age (i.e. the world around us) as opposed to a spiritual reality beyond this material realm. With that in mind, the term secularism refers to a programmatic movement or philosophy that attempts to focus on life in this present age whilst marginalizing if not removing altogether the significance of other-worldly religious doctrines from the public square.

It is quite easy to find evidence of the close association between atheism and activist secularism. One of the most influential atheist groups in North America, American Atheists, includes the following statement as part of their mission: “American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse.” In other words, the group American Atheists is programmatically devoted to the defense and expansion of avowedly secularist values.

While there is no doubt that many atheists share the same secularist vision as American Atheists, once again we find the same phenomenon at work with regard to secularism that we have already seen with regard to freethought, scientism, materialism, and skepticism. In short, some theists embrace secularism whilst some atheists reject it. And so, as with these other concepts, we see that the association between atheism and secularism is borne of contingent historical association rather than some necessary conceptual link.

Theists who embrace secularism

Let’s begin with the notion of theists embracing secularism. On this point, I’ll simply make mention of a matter of some controversy in my home country of Canada: the reference to God in the Canadian national anthem, “O Canada,”: “God keep our land glorious and free.”  Not surprisingly, the Canadian Secular Alliance has been among the leaders campaigning for removing this reference to God in the anthem. The reasoning is clear: God has no place in the national anthem of a secular state.

Predictably, you’d expect that Christians and other theists would line up on the other side of this cultural war as avid defenders of the place of God in the anthem. And to be sure, many do. However, other Christians are not quite so happy about God’s place in the anthem. For example, Canadian evangelical theologian John Stackhouse expresses his opposition to the references to God in the anthem as follows: “I think it’s egregious that we include that portion. I think Christian prayer should be reserved for Christians praying.” He continues, “Since many people are neither monotheists nor Christians, it is a completely inappropriate expression in a society like ours.” Stackhouse’s statement could have been written by a representative of the Canadian Secular Alliance (or American Atheists) and yet it comes from the pen of a respected evangelical Christian theologian.

This Christian concern about religion in the public square shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. The fact is that many religious traditions are deeply committed to the disestablishment of religion and the separation of church and state. In that sense, they share with the secularist a commitment to keeping religious convictions private whilst establishing and maintaining a healthy secular public square. Indeed, my own Baptist tradition was founded on such principles back in 1609 when Thomas Helwys wrote a courageous but ill-fated letter to King James I requesting religious freedom for his middling group of non-conformist Baptists. (King James responded swiftly to the request, albeit not in the way Helwys had hoped. The poor chap was quickly imprisoned and never heard from again.)

Of course, one could reasonably retort that there is a stronger sense of secularism which is inconsistent with theism, namely one that seeks to remove religious or transcendent concerns altogether. In short, one seeks not merely to push them out of the public square but out of one’s private life as well. While that significantly more robust project would certainly be inconsistent with Christian theism, it would actually be consistent with deistic theism.

Atheists who reject secularism?

What about the other side? Could there be atheists who are critical of secularism? The answer is yes, certainly. Just as one can find Baptists (and other theists) who are keen to defend a secular sphere, so it is perfectly possible that one can find an atheist who would have significant concerns about the programmatic pursuit of a secular public square. For example, an atheist could believe that religion serves a valuable pragmatic role of providing social cohesion and stability, and this could be sufficient to warrant a principled disavowal of secularism. To note one interesting example, I once heard an English atheist defend the caesaropapist model of church/state relations in the United Kingdom by insisting on pragmatic grounds that it provided stability and social cohesion for society. This gentleman worried about both the threat of Islam and the thinness and insipidity of British secular ideology to sustain social institutions and government.

To that end, consider this famous quote widely attributed to Voltaire (who was himself a deist) which was supposedly given to his mistress: “Whatever you do, don’t tell the servants there is no God or they’ll steal the silver.” Whether Voltaire said this or not is beside the point. The point, rather, is that an atheist could share Voltaire’s sentiment that theistic belief is valuable to secure good behavior and social stability. In that case, an atheist could enthusiastically promote theism and religion in the public square borne by a pragmatic calculation for societal benefit. Whatever else you may think of that type of reasoning, it certainly shows that atheism is perfectly consistent with a rejection of secularism as surely as theism is consistent with the embrace of it.

https://www.atheists.org/ (Accessed June 25, 2016).

Canadian Secular Alliance, “The Canadian Secular Alliance invites our government to make the national anthem secular, and thereby make it easier for all Canadians to show their patriotism,” http://secularalliance.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/CSA-briefing-note-God-and-the-national-anthem-14May2014-1.pdf (Accessed July 1, 2016).

One commentator offers her reflection that her (secular) boss referred to that positive reference to God in the anthem as an “amazing line.” She then reflected, “I’m not sure I’ve ever appreciated a fresh perspective so completely. I’ve probably sung and heard “O Canada” thousands of times in my lifetime—yet I rarely think about the words. They’re powerful, aren’t they?” “Trinity Western University: ‘We Know it Will be Messy,’” Faith Today Blog (June 30, 2016), http://blog.faithtoday.ca/ (Accessed July 1, 2016).

Cited in Jeff Dewsbury, “God stays, debate goes on,” (July 1, 1999) Canadian Christianity https://canadianchristianity.com/god-stays-debate-776/  (Accessed July 1, 2016).

Incidentally, I share Stackhouse’s sentiment. See also my article “Why you shouldn’t sing ‘Silent Night’ at city hall,” Tentative Apologist Blog (December 8, 2011), https://randalrauser.com/2011/12/why-you-shouldnt-sing-silent-night-at-city-hall/ (Accessed July 7, 2016).

Cited in Mark Coppenger, Moral Apologetics for Contemporary Christians: Pushing Back Against the Cultural and Religious Critics (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 65.

The post Atheism and Secularism appeared first on Randal Rauser.

If You Defend Ravi Zacharias and Hucksters Like Him, You are Part of the Problem

This morning, I received a comment on my February 2019 article “Christians cannot sit on the fence concerning Ravi Zacharias.” It reminded me that even with the most recent shocking revelations about Ravi sexually abusing young women at his massage parlours (see here and here), there will always be people willing to defend the man for “the sake of the kingdom.” Here is how this commenter, “Josh”, put it:

“What is your end game Randal? I get the “exposure” thing, but what is your true endgame? You see, many people have broken the spell and lie of atheism partly due to RZ engaging debates and speeches. So he messed up. Okay, we get it. He lied. Not cool. But it’s out now…he retracted and we move on. I guess my point is this; I place things in 2 buckets as it relates to overall outcome. Bucket 1 is for “HELP” , bucket 2 ” HINDER”. If what you are presenting helps and moves folks closer to Christ – well done! However, if what you are presenting causes division, strife or confusion – hinders…then maybe check your heart. What is this really about?” (link)

Notice how Josh questions my motives: I need to “check my heart” and figure out what my “true endgame” is. Because Ravi HELPED people so if I point out that he was a habitual liar and sexual predator, apparently I’m HINDERING those people. I’m not HELPING them move closer to Christ. I’m HINDERING them by causing division, strife, or confusion. Interestingly, Josh doesn’t get around to mentioning how my actions impact those people that Ravi HARMED. Do they count?

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Instead, let’s try Josh’s logic for a moment with some other cases.

Why are you telling people that Father O’Reilly sexually molested your nephew? Don’t you know that many people have broken the spell and lie of the devil because of his ministry? If you raise concerns about your nephew (not to mention those accusations from the last parish), you will undoubtedly cause division, strife, and confusion. You will be HINDERING people, not HELPING them. What is this really about?
And why are you raising concerns about Apostle Praiseworthy’s use of ministry donations? Do you know how many people have broken the spell and lie of the evil one because of the Apostle’s deliverance ministry? So he messed up. Okay, we get it. Not cool. But if you point out that there are irregularities in his financial records now, you will cause division, strife, and confusion. I guess my point is this: there are two buckets: HELP and HINDER. If you get into the issue of the Apostle’s new Mercedes and his leased Gulfstream you will be HINDERING people, not HELPING them. What is this really about?

The truth is that people like Josh are indeed HELPING: they are HELPING to protect and enable hucksters and predators by seeking to shame and silence those who question them. And that leads me to ask:

Josh, what is this really about?

The post If You Defend Ravi Zacharias and Hucksters Like Him, You are Part of the Problem appeared first on Randal Rauser.

How Not to Read the Bible: Lessons from Footloose

In this video, I consider the lamentable Bible reading of Ren McCormack (Kevin Bacon) as he uses biblical passages out of context as a pretext to get the town to lift their ban on school dances. All from the classic 1984 teen movie Footloose.

The post How Not to Read the Bible: Lessons from Footloose appeared first on Randal Rauser.