Randal Rauser's Blog, page 84

Does religion impose oppressive dress codes?

One of countless examples of a child being forced to wear something they don't want to wear due to social expectations. Unfortunately, for "Atheist Republic" that common social reality is framed as theism vs. atheism. As if atheist kids never have to wear stuff they don't like????? https://t.co/D9NSjneXw0

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 4, 2019

That tweet elicited a reply from Stephen Law and with that we were off on a debate. As usual, I found the exchange to be interesting, spirited, and illuminating, so I’ve decided to share it below.

SL: As an atheist, I force my daughters to go to school wearing hats with pictures of Richard Dawkins on saying ‘There’s Probably No God’. They don’t like it. But Christians send their kids to school wearing stuff they don’t like, right?

RR: So you’re insistent on ignoring my point? Got it.

SL: Hmm. I think maybe you’re missing mine.

RR: I pointed out that the proper framing issue is not theism vs atheism (or, for that matter, “religion” vs. “secularism”) but rather the imposition of particular cultural norms/social standards on legal minors. And to some degree, we all do that. What’s your point?

SL: My point is that sometimes atheism/religion IS appropriate framing. Atheists may force kids to wear stuff they don’t like, but not cos they’re atheist. Whereas religion does sometimes motivate imposing dress codes, etc on minors. That’s an asymmetry – one I don’t want airbrushed [sic]

RR: “Atheism” is simply belief in the non-existence of God (or, accorrding [sic] to some folk, absence of belief in God). As such, it’s too thin, content-wise, to determine dress. But atheists all adhere to richer socio-cultural frameworks that impose standards on children.

SL: So we agree – atheists don’t force an ‘atheist dress code on kids, whereas religions sometimes force religious dress codes on kids that may embody an oppressive religious ideology. Fair enough for @AtheistRepublic to flag that.

RR: Atheists don’t impose dress codes qua atheism just as theists don’t impose dress codes qua theism because “atheism” and “theism” are not beliefs that map onto dress codes. See how that works?

SL: Obviously is no blanket theist dress code but there are many religious dress codes (whereas no atheist one) and some of those dress codes represent and embody oppression, as in the Iranian case.

RR: Look at how you shift, mid-tweet from “theism” dress code to “religious” dress code. Did you think I wouldn’t see that? And surely you know some religions are atheistic?

SL: Sure. There’s no problem with what I just said. To repeat, some use religion to justify misogyny and imposing oppressive dress codes on women. Iran does that. Atheists don’t. Atheists may legitimately point this out. You’re trying to teflon-coat religion suggesting that we are all just as bad as each other. Nope – some religions (historically, most) have religiously oppressed women, and sometimes imposed oppressive dress codes. Iran is an example. There’s no such atheist-justified oppressive dress code.

RR: There’s no such atheist-justified oppressive dress code.” Yeah, there’s also no aparentist-justified oppressive dress code. Imagine that…

SL: The bottom line is various religions (some of em, & not theism per se) have historically oppressed women on religious grounds & imposed dress codes. Those *religions* are to blame. Blame them. You won’t : ‘No no it’s just culture’ & we’re all just as bad as each other.’ Nope.

RR: Stephen, I know you’re more sophisticated than this. If you want to critique the dress code in Iran, then focus a critique on post-Revolution Iran. When you instead suggest we should target “Islam” simpliciter, or even “religion”, you dilute your target, undermine your message and all for the sake of riding your own ideological hobbyhorse.

SL: It’s fair enough for an atheist org. like @AtheistRepublic to point out that *religions* like Islam are one root cause of this sort of thing. Atheism per se isn’t (neither is theism). You’re [sic] criticism is unjustified.

RR: I’m no fan of the hijab, but I wonder: are you opposed to the imposition of any dress code on children? If not, what dress code would you believe is proper for children and why?

That’s where the conversation ends. To debrief, I am concerned that Stephen’s analysis is focused on pitting “atheism” against “religion”. As I argued, this is spurious for several reasons, including the following: neither atheism nor theism stipulate a dress code for minors, all cultures do stipulate dress codes for minors (and indeed all citizens).

Yes, religion often can be among the factors that provide an ideological justification for various dress codes, but keep in mind that some religions are atheistic. Moreover, it is not the religion simpliciter that justifies the dress code but rather a particular interpretation of that religion within a particular culture.

Furthermore, we all do recognize the propriety of some imposition of a dress code on the minor population and the population generally. For example, I doubt Stephen Law would approve of men walking around bottomless in the streets of London.

Finally, Stephen’s ideological focus on “religion” as an oppressive force is far too blunt an analysis: if he wants to stop oppression in post-Revolution Iran, for example, he should focus on the culture and society of post-Revolution Iran, not “Islam” simpliciter, to say nothing of the absurdity in targeting “religion”.

The post Does religion impose oppressive dress codes? appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Christians cannot sit on the fence concerning Ravi Zacharias

The other day I spoke with a supporter of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. To his credit, he had read Steve Baughman’s book at my recommendation. So I asked him what he thought. He replied, “I don’t know. It’s troubling.” In other words, he had gone from thinking that Zacharias is a fine apologist and a Christian man of integrity to thinking that Zacharias is very plausibly a fabulist, liar, and predator.

I commend that RZIM supporter for keeping an open mind and looking at the evidence. However, I still pressed him on the implication that he could “sit on the fence” regarding the fitness of Mr. Zacharias for ministry. Here’s how I put the point: If you thought that a daycare worker was very plausibly a sex offender, would you send your child to that daycare? No, of course not. There is no sitting on the fence and you don’t take that risk.

If there is sufficient evidence to support the plausibility to the charges of Mr. Zacharias’ chronic fabulism and lying as well as his predatory behavior, how can you possibly sit on the fence? You cannot. Unless and until Steve Baughman’s charges are definitively refuted, and they most certainly are not, no Christian in good conscience should support Mr. Zacharias and RZIM.

If you haven’t yet considered the evidence against Mr. Zacharias, you can get Baughman’s book here.

The post Christians cannot sit on the fence concerning Ravi Zacharias appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Let’s discuss the Confederate Flag in Pop Culture

Here’s my Twitter survey question posted this morning. Is there still a place for the General Lee in pop culture memory or should we do away with images of the Confederate flag once and for all?

Let me know your thoughts below.

Given the car's prominent placement of the infamous Confederate flag, an image of slavery and oppression, is it now time to retire the General Lee?

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) February 2, 2019

The post Let’s discuss the Confederate Flag in Pop Culture appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Wow, P.Z. Myers really doesn’t like the new atheism

A few days ago, P.Z. Myers published his assessment of new atheism: “The train wreck that was the New Atheism.” It’s nothing short of an evisceration, including a scathing takedown of the four horsemen. (Myers saves his choicest criticisms for Sam Harris.)

To all that, I say yea and amen. Though I should think Myers owes us some exercises in penitential satisfaction before his restoration is complete given that new atheism’s many critics were raising similar concerns a decade ago.

But in this article, I want to highlight and respond to one key passage in Myers’ article:

“Mainly what happened is that the credibility of science was stolen to bolster rationalizing prior bigotries. People were drawn into the Church of the New Atheism by Islamophobia, but rather than being enlightened about the unity of humanity, they instead learned that bastardized evolutionary theories could be weaponized to justify all kinds of abuses, because that’s what the self-appointed “leaders” were doing.”

I agree with Myers that the new atheists “stole” (or as I would prefer to say, “appropriated”) the credibility of science to bolster their ideology. My only concern is that Myers and countless others like him continue to do the same thing when they promote the nonsense idea that natural science supports naturalism, atheism, and/or secularism.

The post Wow, P.Z. Myers really doesn’t like the new atheism appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Commit Hume to the Flames

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school of metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

-David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding-

Hmm, does Hume’s advice contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No? Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No?

Commit to then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

The post Commit Hume to the Flames appeared first on Randal Rauser.

My Thoughts on the Christian Version of Netflix

Today, I was contacted by a representative of Crossflix inviting me to partner in a promotion of the service with my readers, a promotion that would potentially yield some not insignificant revenue for my cash-strapped site. (As you will observe, I don’t have any paid advertising which requires me to cover the cost of my site to the tune of hundreds of dollars a year.)

But what is “Crossflix”? I learned here:

“Crossflix is the Christian alternative to Netflix.”

Er, why do we need a “Christian alternative to Netflix”? I am reminded of the days growing up evangelical in the 1980s when I thought we needed a Christian version for everything. So, for example, instead of listening to Iron Maiden, I listened to the Christian version: Barren Cross. Instead of listening to AC/DC, I listened to the Christian version: X-Sinner. Instead of listening to Queensryche, I listened to the Christian version: Sacred Warrior. For goodness sake, instead of listening to ABBA, I listened to the execrable Christian version: Silverwind.

Not all these bands were terrible. Barren Cross was actually pretty good. So was White Cross (the Christian version of Ratt). But none of these bands was as good as the original. Nowhere close.

Will Crossflix be as good as Netflix? What do you think?

“We provide family-friendly programs to entertain, educate, and inspire you.”

Fair enough. But who says the entire channel should be family-friendly? The Bible is full of material that is anything but child-friendly: rape, cannibalism, murder, adultery, genocide. If Crossflix is limiting itself to material that is family-friendly, it is excluding a significant portion of the Bible, to say nothing of Christian history.

And what about contemporary social issues that should be central to Christian ethical concern, like human trafficking or drug addiction? Too graphic for the Crossflix audience, I presume?

“Crossflix is a streaming service that allows you to watch a wide variety of Christian faith movies, TV shows, award-winning faith documentaries, adult and children’s biblical education, and original Crossflix content on many of the Internet-connected devices such as televisions, tablets, and cell phones. Crossflix hosts one of the largest collections of faith and family films, award-winning documentaries, and children’s biblical animated programming in the world.”

One of the largest collections of “faith and family films”? For me, that’s like advertising “one of the largest collections of contemporary hip hop and EDM”: not that it’s bad; it just ain’t my thing.

“We empower Christian filmmakers and artists by producing original content, such as television shows, mini-series, a 50-episode Living Bible Series covering important biblical stories from The Creation to Revelations, and children’s biblical animation. Crossflix is the go-to channel for Christian entertainment, education, and inspiration.”

Not so fast: I’m not sure I want to encourage Christians producing G-rated Victorian content for a conservative evangelical ghetto subculture. Personally, I’d prefer to encourage Christians being witnesses in the mainstream culture. Consider, for example, Christian director Brad Bird and his magisterial film The Iron Giant. Or Mel Gibson’s (yeah, I know, he’s a raggamuffin) Hacksaw Ridge. More of that, please.

“Our content has no nudity or bad language. Almost all of our content is rated by Dove.org, the most reputable faith-movie rating organization. Content not rated by Dove.Org has been viewed and rated by Crossflix staff to make sure that it is family friendly.”

No nudity or bad language, eh/ Hmm, I wonder how Crossflix/Dove.org would rate the Song of Songs? Or Paul’s potty mouth in Philippians 3:8? Or the vulgarity of Ezekiel 23:20?

All this handwringing about “bad” words … I am reminded of this oft-repeated Tony Campolo quote:

“I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night.” (Cited in D.G. Hart, From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin (Eerdmans, 2011), 167.)

Anyway, back to Crossflix:

“With Crossflix, you can enjoy unlimited viewing of our content without having to watch a single commercial. There’s always something new to discover — more movies, documentaries, and other content added every week!”

Wait, did you say no commercials? Well then, sign me up!

The post My Thoughts on the Christian Version of Netflix appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Seeking Justice from a Humanist Framework: An Interview with Sincere Kirabo

Sincere Kirabo

What does social justice look like from the perspective of a secular humanist? In this interview, I consider this question with writer and humanist activist Sincere Kirabo. Mr. Kirabo is the former social justice coordinator at the American Humanist Association and the lead organizer for the 2018 Social Secular Justice Conference. He continues to work to realize a more just society from within a humanist framework.

RR: Sincere, thanks for agreeing to this interview. Given your commitment to pursuing a more just society based upon humanist principles could you begin by unpacking your understanding of humanism and how it informs your understanding of justice?

SK: I know that there are various definitions of humanism. For me, I view humanism as an ethical framework that emphasizes human reason, the equal value and agency of all human beings, evidence-based living, and contributing to the greater good of human life based on self-will rather than based on an alleged supernatural influence or revelation.

How humanism informs my understanding of justice is two-fold. For one, generally speaking, my perspective can be summed up by this quote from feminist poet and activist June Jordan: “We are the ones we have been waiting for.” ( “Poem for South African Women,” June Jordan, 1980)

In other words, I believe that any social change whatsoever must be fought for and achieved based on human-derived efforts.

Second, to get a bit more complicated, my understanding of humanism as well as what is “just” or “justice” means that I’m acting on a moral imperative to disrupt both harmful social constructs and systems of oppression because they are incompatible with the aspirations of humanism. So then, when I speak of justice or “social justice,” I’m really discussing liberation.

RR: You mentioned a commitment to human equality. Christians also accept that commitment to human equality, albeit with appeal to the concept that human beings are made in the image of God. What is your basis for recognizing the equality and dignity of all human persons? Is it rooted in that ability to reason or the capacity for agency? Or is it a value that exists independently of any capacities in the individual?

SK: I would say it’s a combination of innate human ethics and critical thinking. Oppressive ideologies like anti-blackness, patriarchy, cis-heteronormativity (and so on) are taught. We are born into these systems, not born with them. Humans adopt depraved worldviews through legacies of sociopolitical systems (including many religious systems) that valorize the worth of certain groups while othering and diminishing the worth of other groups.

These ideas are damnable lies, propaganda that mutilates our view of ourselves, others, and the world. Since we are groomed to embrace these systems that reproduce widespread distress and trauma and inequality, every rational and intuitive part of me demands that I defy and seek to transform these systems.

RR: Your reference to “innate” ethics reminds me of a particularly famous appeal to innate ethics in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

This prompts me to ask a couple of questions. To begin with, while the Declaration roots our perception of universal human dignity in an innate deliverance of reason, that universal dignity itself is understood to be rooted in God’s bestowal of dignity upon our species. Where, as a humanist, would you locate that dignity?

SK: Three of the five authors of that document pontificating about equality and liberty owned slaves. Forty-one of the fifty-six white men who signed that document owned slaves. These people regarded those who looked like me to be little more than mere “living tools.” So, yeah, I’m not too concerned about their views on matters of “rights” or what is just, or the particular divine being they choose to attribute their beliefs to.

For me, it’s like this: There are no gods “sitting high and looking low” who intervene in or obsess over human affairs whatsoever. I don’t require Iron Age writings or people claiming to be representatives of a deity to dictate how I should or shouldn’t navigate this world. When I referenced “innate human ethics,” I was referring to secular ethics. I view things like human reason, compassion, and moral intuition to be naturally-occurring characteristics—not anything that emanates from an alleged divine source. My outlook concerning human dignity and social change flow from this understanding.

RR: One thing is clear: the Declaration has a different conception of the good and just society than you or I would have. As you noted, it only extends equality and natural rights to a subset of the population: Caucasian men. Do you ever work collaboratively with religious communities in pursuit of the same justice goals? And if not, is that something you’d be open to?

SK: I have previously worked with religious communities, primarily congregation-based humanist communities such as UU [Unitarian Universalist] and Ethical Culture, which both technically count as religious movements. Since leaving my position with the American Humanist Association, I’ve stepped away from these types of collaborative projects. Perhaps that will change in the future though.

RR: Personally, I’d love to see humanists like yourself explore ways that you could collaborate with Christian groups like the Sojourners Community or Catholic social action groups on joint projects of shared concern like climate change and immigration reform.

Speaking of which, if you could say one thing to the North American Christian church about the question of social justice, what would it be?

SK: Hmmm. Are you familiar with Rabbi Donniel Hartman? A few years ago he published a book called Putting God Second: How To Save Religion From Itself. In this book Hartman argues that monotheistic religions have unsuccessfully produced societies that live up to their ethical ideals. I obviously have my own opinions on why that is, but in a nutshell, he claims that religion suffers from an “autoimmune disease” that’s responsible for the way the actions of religious practitioners undermine the very values they profess their religion provides.

Echoing the sentiment of Hartman, a devoutly religious man who infuses his faith with a humanistic lens, I would say this: Make sure your commitment to God equals your commitment to the humanity your God created. Be genuinely invested in the flourishing of all of God’s children! Such an investment would help build towards replacing indifference and contempt for oppressed people (and their situations) with a fervor to confront and heal their oppressed conditions.

RR: I would certainly agree that we need to be consistent with our ethical ideals, but I would think our failure to do so is a problem not with religion per se, but rather with human nature.

Okay, last question. There’s a lot of pessimism in the United States today relating to the Trump administration’s actions on everything from environmental regulations and climate change to public education and the rights of LGBT people. Where the prospects of actualizing your vision of justice in society are concerned, how would you describe your own attitude? Are you pessimistic or optimistic? And why?

SK: I don’t think it’s possible to fully realize my ambitions for social transformation. At least not in the US. I don’t consider acknowledging this as being pessimistic. I’m a realist. I may think or dream big, but I’m grounded enough to accept that the legacies of oppression that shape our world, and the conditions that perpetuate these legacies, are extraordinarily difficult to dismantle. Regardless, the fight is necessary. All of the battles waged and little victories won along the way towards those seemingly unattainable end goals help inch marginalized communities that much closer to a freer tomorrow. This in and of itself makes the fight worthwhile.

To learn more about Mr. Kirabo and his work, you can visit him online at http://www.sincerekirabo.com/.

The post Seeking Justice from a Humanist Framework: An Interview with Sincere Kirabo appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Never Again: Remembering the Holocaust and the Church

In recognition of International Holocaust Remembrance Day (Jan. 27th), I want to take note that Martin Luther, the Father of the Protestant Reformation, was not simply “anti-Jewish” at the end of his life: he was a straight-up anti-Semite.

In the year before his death, he published a book, “The Jews and their Lies,” outlining a plan to clear Europe of all Jews who refused to convert. That program would today be called ethnic cleansing and, arguably, genocide. Months later, he published another anti-Jewish pamphlet. That pamphlet invoked the “Judensau,” an execrable and hateful image of Jews sucking at the teats of a pig. Then, before he passed, Luther preached a sermon series against the Jews.

How does the Christian church atone for such sins? I don’t know. But we start with Never again.

The post Never Again: Remembering the Holocaust and the Church appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Solomonoff Induction and the Alpha Algorithm

This is a guest post by one of my readers, Mason Green, in which he aims to provide a novel argument for the existence of God within the framework of Ray Solomonoff’s theory of inductive inference. The argument (and the background knowledge it presumes) is outside my field of expertise. But it will definitely be of interest to some readers and Mr. Green would welcome any constructive feedback you may have.

And now, without further ado…

One popular form of reasoning, Solomonoff’s method of induction, presupposes that any set of data one might observe should be generated by a computable process—that is, there should be some Turing machine (an abstract computer program) that outputs the data.

Solomonoff induction allows us to formalize Occam’s razor as a guiding principle: we simply assign all possible programs a prior probability equal to 2-K, where K is the Kolmogorov complexity (program length). That is, simpler programs are preferred as explanations compared to longer ones.

We can use this to predict future values for data sequences. For example, suppose we have a sequence whose initial values are 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1…, and we want to predict whether the next number is a 0 or 1. Solomonoff induction tells us that the next value should be a 0, because a simple program (“print ‘1,0’ repeatedly”) would produce a 0, whereas it would take a more complex program (e.g. “print 1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,1” repeatedly) to produce a 1. When used this way, Occam’s razor becomes Solomonoff’s lightsaber.

Universal Dovetailer

There is, in fact, a very short computer program or algorithm that runs every possible computation. It does this by running the first step of program 1, then the first step of program 2, then the second step of program 1, then the first step of program 3, then the second step of program 2, then the third step of program 1, etc.

Since the number of possible computations is only countably infinite, the above computer program will (given infinite time and memory storage) compute everything that can possibly be computed. Such a computer program has been proposed by Bruno Marchal and Juergen Schmidhuber, among others—Marchal has termed it a universal dovetailer. If we accept that the universe we inhabit is computable (and Solomonoff induction implies that we should), this means that the universal dovetailer will eventually output our universe (along with a lot of other stuff) if it is allowed to run long enough. Of course, a physical computer wouldn’t have access to infinite time and memory storage, but God would.

The universal dovetailer is very simple (it has low Kolmogorov complexity), and thus it should have a high prior probability for Solomonoff induction. However, Kolomogorov complexity of the dovetailer is not the only variable we need to take into account. We also need to consider the measure universes like ours have in the universal dovetailer. What fraction of the universal dovetailer’s resources are spent on creating universes like ours? This fraction is extremely low—the universal dovetailer is a bit like Jorge Luis Borges’ Library of Babel, in that almost all of the things it computes are “junk” rather than inhabitable, intelligible worlds.

Thus, when trying to reason about the origin of our universe, we should adopt a modified form of Solomonoff induction that assigns a probability of 2-K * M, where M is the measure universes like ours have in the option that is being considered.

The Alternative: Alpha

One option would be to switch to a different program with much higher M. Could there be a program which only (or mainly) outputs habitable worlds? Perhaps. It would certainly have to be more complex than the universal dovetailer, but the decrease in 2-K might still be outweighed by the increase in M.

In order to only (or mainly) output habitable worlds, such an algorithm—let’s call it Alpha, would need to be very intelligent. (Intelligence is something the “standard” universal dovetailer lacks, since it simply outputs all possible computations without discerning which ones are truly worth outputting). However, it’s likely that even a very simple program—only somewhat more complex than the universal dovetailer itself—would theoretically be able to bootstrap itself to unboundedly high levels of intelligence, use that intelligence to determine which kinds of computations give rise to habitable worlds, and then focus all its resources on outputting those worlds.

Having intelligence also implies that “Alpha” may possess personhood (unlike the universal dovetailer), and personal characteristics (such as benevolence). For example, if it determines that certain types of universes have less suffering in them, it could focus on creating those. (If we were to determine that our universe had much less suffering than an “average” inhabited universe, we could infer that Alpha is benevolent). Furthermore, Alpha could become curious, and wonder what it was like to be an inhabitant of one of the worlds it created, it might then decide to write itself into that world—which is starting to sound an awful lot like the idea of Incarnation.

Furthermore, Alpha may also create afterlives for the inhabitants of its worlds. (The universal dovetailer would do this too, in fact—which is why one needn’t necessarily believe in a personal God to believe in an afterlife. However, the Alpha would assign a much higher measure to such afterlives, which is why if you find yourself in one after you die, it’s much more likely you got there because of Alpha—i.e., a personal God).

I would argue that the belief that the origin of our universe is best described by an Alpha-type algorithm is functionally equivalent to theism. This doesn’t necessarily imply that God is a computer program, just that God could potentially be described by one (the distinction between the two being philosophical in nature). Thus, rationalism and Solomonoff induction are not incompatible with belief in a personal God.

The post Solomonoff Induction and the Alpha Algorithm appeared first on Randal Rauser.

Notes on My “Trick Question”

Two days ago I posted a short video summarizing a thought experiment that I present in my book You’re Not as Crazy as I Think, pp. 137-140. The video elicited an online rebuttal from Steve Hays of Triablogue. He begins in his first sentence by poisoning the well as he describes the thought experiment as me posing a “trick question” to serve as a “wedge tactic.”

Next, he states that I rig “the debate by stipulating a false dichotomy”. Steve is confused. A false dichotomy obtains when a person falsely state that there are only two options. I don’t make that claim. Rather, I pose the question, given these two options which would you choose?

Later, Steve claims that I “brazenly” endorse “salvation by works alone”. That’s utterly false on two counts. First, I don’t endorse anything. Rather, I pose a question — how do belief and conduct function in right relationship with God and other people? — and invite each listener or viewer to ponder that question for themselves. But folks like Steve view people who don’t give you the “right answer” with suspicion. They believe that encouraging people to think for themselves is a subversive act which is clearly intended to undermine that which they believe to be true.

Why is that? Is it because they themselves have been indoctrinated and they know nothing else? Is it because deep down they are insecure about what they believe and find such questions to be existentially unsettling? I don’t know. But either way, it is a disturbing phenomenon.

Next, let’s consider Steve’s claim that by allegedly valuing Muslim Diagne’s works over Christian Ntakirutimana’s beliefs, one is thereby endorsing “salvation by works alone”. This too is utterly false. One may simply believe that works are indictative of salvation obtaining in the life of the individual, not that works are thereby saving. And of course, Jesus himself often taught on the centrality of spiritual fruit in the life of an individual as a key indicator of the work of salvation in that individual.

As bad as all that is, Steve ends on an even worse note by suggesting that Jesus’ response to the Rwandan genocide was nonintervention. He thus observes, “If we’re supposed to follow his example, then his example is nonintervention. Do nothing to prevent the genocide–or, if you couldn’t see it coming, do nothing to stop genocide in progress.”

This bizarre comment ignores the fact that the church is now called to be the presence of Christ in the world, to behave in the manner he would behave if he were here. And that includes, among other things, protecting the innocent from harm. It also includes attempting to understand those with whom you disagree with charity and accuracy, qualities that Steve Hays knows nothing about.

The post Notes on My “Trick Question” appeared first on Randal Rauser.