Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Archive for the ‘Atheism’ Category

February 16th, 2012 by Joel

What do you do if your god is attacked by atheists?

Well, if you’re Hector Avalos and your god is Richard Dawkins, and if Jim West, the atheist denier of Dawkins, attacks your god, well…you threaten…

On a recent post, West, Jim West, attacked Dawkins to which Hector Avalos, former Pentecostal faith healer (there is a connection there, believe it or not…) to which Hector responded with a threat

Either retract your statement, or you may find yourself featured in an essay on the hypocrisy of Jim West’s research. You criticize Dawkins for his research, but don’t have the integrity to see that you also have blatantly told an untruth, and you are not willing to give us a precise source.

Oh my…. this is what militant Dawkinianity will get you… it always leads to violence and the end of personal freedoms. Dawkinianity is a pox on humanity and one day, when we all open our eyes, we’ll see all the problems that Dawkinianity has caused.

December 19th, 2011 by Joel

This is what I mean when I say what I say about the New Atheists, Robert

Third, atheists do Christians a service by making us pay attention to what we believe and why. If it were not for atheists, there would not be the amazing renaissance of Christian philosophy that Alvin Plantinga rightly points to in his New York Times interview. We probably wouldn’t have the likes of Plantinga, Keith Ward, Richard Swineburne, et al.

Thank God for atheists | Roger E. Olson.

I know, so sue me, but I thank God for the New Atheists…

Enhanced by Zemanta
December 16th, 2011 by Joel

Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011

Christopher Hitchens speaking at The Amazing M...

Image via Wikipedia

Christopher Hitchens—the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant—died today at the age of 62. Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in the spring of 2010, just after the publication of his memoir, Hitch-22, and began chemotherapy soon after. His matchless prose has appeared in Vanity Fair since 1992, when he was named contributing editor.

via In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011 | Blogs | Vanity Fair.

He’s gone, I reckon…

But something he said, previously, will stay around:

Marilyn Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make a distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Christopher Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Click here to read the rest of the interview.

Let me say that what Hitchens has done for Christianity is nothing short of prophetic, or maybe Ecclesiastes-ic

Enhanced by Zemanta
December 12th, 2011 by Joel

Sam Harris Believes in God? Wait? Is Loftus next?

You remember Sam Harris, right? One of the New Atheists? Well, it seems he believes in the divine, or the spirituality, or what not… Not exactly God in the traditional sense, but maybe the progressive sense?

The answer to the question “Do you believe in God?” comes down to this: It depends on what you mean by “God.” The God Harris doesn’t believe in is, as he puts it, a “supernatural power” and “a personal deity who hears prayers and takes an interest in how people live.” This God and its subscribers he finds unreasonable. But he understands that many people—especially in progressive corners of organized religion and among the “spiritual but not religious”—often mean something else. They equate God with “love” or “justice” or “singing in church” or “that feeling I get on a walk in the woods,” or even “the awesome aspects of existence I’ll never understand.”

via Rationalist Sam Harris Believes in God – The Daily Beast.

October 24th, 2011 by Joel

Richard Dawkins the coward?

I don’t think Dawkins is a fool, but I do think that his refusal to debate Craig is a little odd.

It seems that Dawkins has been doing a little internet trolling. He has dug up an online debate in which William Lane Craig apparently defends the massacre of a city of heathen Canaanites ordered by God in Deuteronomy 20:13-15. “Listen to Craig,” Dawkins writes, as if imagining Craig were a demon sitting on his shoulder. “He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children [and concludes] … ‘We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy.  Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.’” Dawkins writes that he is so disgusted with Craig’s thesis that he cannot possibly agree to meet him in person. “Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context,” he adds. “What context could possibly justify them?”

Richard Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for refusing to debate William Lane Craig – Telegraph Blogs.

The reasoning behind Dawkins’ refusal is silly. It’s like not arguing Dawkins because he presents atheistic apologetics.

Enhanced by Zemanta
September 20th, 2011 by Jeremy

The Passionate Intellect – Personal Thoughts

This is the third and final installment of my review of The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind by Alister McGrath from IVP-Academic.  You can read the author info here and find an overview of the contents here.  Thanks again to IVP-Academic for sending a copy.

Let’s start with the good – McGrath makes very important points about apologetics throughout the book. This is assessment comes from a person (i.e. me) who, though once enthralled by apologetics, has developed a serious disdain for the field, especially at the popular level. I’m sure others have made similar points to McGrath elsewhere, but I have simply stopped reading apologetics books, in general. I find the tone of most “debates” an utter turn off.

I think the most important point he makes is that an inability to explain one aspect, or even several aspects, of your worldview doesn’t necessarily invalidate the whole thing. Interestingly, he communicates this point most strikingly by quoting Charles Darwin as saying:

A crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgement, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory (p. 137).

That is a profoundly helpful statement. Immediately preceding this, McGrath discusses this point, namely the inability to adequately explain a particular aspect of one’s worldview, in relation to the Christian’s struggle to explain the issue of pain and suffering in the world.  I like McGrath’s approach to apologetics; it gives a person room to breathe. Rather than looking for “linchpin” arguments he encourages us to look at matters more holistically. Thus, with regard to pain and suffering in the world, it is not that we may find any one particular explanation completely satisfying. However, when we take several explanations together, we might still find a theistic worldview convincing, even though we still may consider anomalies.

In addition, the book contains some very helpful articles on science and religious faith, in particular. The first part of the book contained some helpful thoughts concerning theology, in general, but I didn’t really find those chapters as stimulating as those in the second part of the book (see the post overviewing the contents). I particularly enjoyed the chapter entitled “Does Religion Poison Everything?” He ends with this bit of invective, which I do think is appropriate considering the approach to “apologetics” taken by many of the new atheists “The belief that religion poisons everything is simply childish.”

As I think I’ve made clear, I like a great deal about this book. Yet I will offer two points of critique.  First, the book was not really what I expected from a book entitled The Passionate Intellect.  As I hinted in the previous post, the book had more of a feel of Collected Essays of Alister McGrath: 2008-2010, or something to that effect.  With that said, if you like Alister McGrath, you will like this book. I like reading about science and religion, but this is not really my intellectual passion.

Second, I thought the book was a little too dispassionate to be titled The Passionate Intellect. I guess this is not really a knock. Everyone might display passion differently. Only, I was expecting something a little more along the lines of David Ulin’s The Lost Art of Reading, where he describes reading as rebellion against all of the other things that vie for our attention. The tone of The Passionate Intellect just didn’t communicate passion to me.

With that said, I do think the book is worth reading. It’s a fairly short, easy read. And, for those who like Alister McGrath, I think you will enjoy it.  For those, like me, who are unfamiliar with McGrath, it is a good introduction. Only, recognize that the title may set up expectations that do not coincide with what you experience reading the book.

Enhanced by Zemanta
September 16th, 2011 by Jeremy

The Passionate Intellect – Contents

This is the second part of my three part review of The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind by Alister McGrath from IVP-Academic.  In the previous post, I provided background on the author, and in this post, I will provide an overview of the contents.

The breakdown of the book is fairly simple.  McGrath divides the book into two parts, the first being “The Purpose, Place and Relevance of Christian Theology” and the second “Engaging with Our Culture.”  In the overall scope, I had a difficult time detecting a progression of thought, rather the book feels a little more like collected essays.  I don’t think this was the intention, but in the introductory chapter, McGrath does state that the book reflects material developed for a number of public lectures he gave from 2008-2010 (see pages 8-9).

The first part of the book begins by discussing theology more generally, then moves to more specific topics.  Thus, the first two chapters are entitled “Mere Theology: The Landscape of Faith 1″ and “Mere Theology: The Landscape of Faith 2.”  Immediately, many will notice the influence of C.S. Lewis in this book.  This influence manifests itself throughout the entire first part of the book, though McGrath does include some critique of Lewis.  The final four chapters of this part of the book deal with the gospel, suffering, nature and apologetics.  I will state already that I find McGrath’s chapter on apologetics helpful since he critiques modern approaches taken by many religious believers.

The second part of the book, while having the general title of “Engaging with Our Culture,” deals with religious belief and science, in particular.  Within this focus on religious belief and science, McGrath focuses intently on the new atheism.  A more specific critique of Dawkins plays prominently.  This focus on the sciences and the new atheism might not seem to make sense in a book entitled “The Passionate Intellect.” Yet when considering McGrath’s initial study in the sciences (mentioned in the previous post), one can see that this is one of his intellectual passions, whether or not it is one of the reader’s.  Three chapters in this section deal with the sciences and the final two deal with the idea that religion “poisons everything” and the relationship between atheism and the enlightenment.

The book ends with requisite notes and an index.  The notes contain enough for the interested reader who wants to go further to find many helpful resources.  In the next post, I will include my personal reaction.  You might look for that around Monday or Tuesday.

I hope everyone has a nice weekend!

Enhanced by Zemanta
September 15th, 2011 by Jeremy

The Passionate Intellect – Author

This is the first part in a three post review of Alister McGrath’s The Passionate Intellect: Christian Faith and the Discipleship of the Mind from IVP-Academic. In this post, I will provide background on the author. In the second, I will provide an overview of the contents followed by another post with my reaction to the book.  Thanks to IVP for sending along a copy.

Strangely enough, this is my first time reading anything by Alister McGrath (and if any of you theologians want to chastise me for that, then a hearty “whatever” to you). When I attended seminary, his volume on historical theology always drew my attention when I walked into the campus bookstore. But, I didn’t want anything to take away from my time studying Hebrew (and okay I’ll admit it, Greek), which I know Joel believes is more important than anything in the world. This particular title – The Passionate Intellect – just jumped out at me when I surveyed the most recent IVP catalog.  At right around 200 pages, I thought it would make for a fairly easy read.

So, I acquainted myself with McGrath a little from the material provided on the book’s inside back cover.  The back cover reads:

Alister McGrath (D.Phil., D.D., Oxford University) holds the chair of theology, ministry and education and is head of the Centre for Theology, Religion & Culture at King’s College, London. He was previously professor of historical theology at Oxford University and is president of the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics. He is in constant demand as a speaker at conferences throughout the world, and his works have been translated into twenty-four languages. His scholarly articles have appeared in leading academic journals, and he is the author of many books, including The Dawkins Delusion? and Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.

One other matter not mentioned in this excerpt from the back of the book is that McGrath also studied in the sciences before moving into the field of theology (see for example in chapter 7 if you have a copy).  This helps to illumine the contents of this particular book since much of the second part deals with science and the new atheism.  But, that’s a matter for my post on the contents of the book, which I’ll hopefully post within the next couple of days.  From what I’ve read so far, the book contains a number of helpful essays, especially relating to theology and the sciences.

Enhanced by Zemanta
September 6th, 2011 by Gez

The atheist delusion

Atheist symbol

”We’re not so much people who don’t believe in God, but people who have realised there’s absolutely no evidence for any of the 3000 gods and that, considering the harm that is wrought by the mass belief in this delusion, we need to start looking at the world, politics and human relations in a rational manner so that we may survive for at least a few more generations” …  ”[Religion] has the potential to end the human race, if enough people who consider that their god wants them to destroy people who have other gods, and they have the weaponry to do so, [it] creates such a situation that none of us may survive.”
David Nicholls, President, Atheist Foundation, in the lead up to next years atheist conference.

Nicholls doesn’t know that there is only one true God. Probably because he believes in Richard Dawkins and James Randi.

And what’s with organised atheists having a symbol representing their non-belief?!? Someone mentioned to me that they reckon that organised atheists get together at conferences to discuss their non-belief as there  is something missing in their lives - God. So they have formed a community to fill that void.

Come All Ye Faithless | SMH

Enhanced by Zemanta
August 28th, 2011 by Joel

The Christian National Registry of Atheists

‘Pastor’ Mike writes,

Brothers and Sisters , I have been seriously considering forming a ( Christian ) grassroots type of organization to be named “The Christian National Registry of Atheists” or something similar . I mean , think about it . There are already National Registrys for convicted sex offenders , ex-convicts , terrorist cells , hate groups like the KKK , skinheads , radical Islamists , etc..

This type of “National Registry” would merely be for information purposes . To inform the public of KNOWN ( i.e., self-admitted) atheists . For example , let’s say you live in Colorado Springs , Colorado , you could simply scroll down ( from the I-Net site /Blog ) I would have , to the State of Colorado , and then when you see “Colorado Springs” , you will see the names of all the self-admitted atheist(s) who live there ( e.g., if an atheist’s name happened to be “Phil Small” ) . The individual’s physical address , and other known personal information would NOT be disclosed ( though , perhaps a photo could be ) .

And the purpose?

Now , many (especially the atheists ) , may ask “Why do this , what’s the purpose ?” Duhhh , Mr. Atheist , for the same purpose many States put the names and photos of convicted sex offenders and other ex-felons on the I-Net – to INFORM the public ! I mean , in the City of Miramar , Florida , where I live , the population is approx. 109,000 . My family and I would sure like to know how many of those 109,000 are ADMITTED atheists ! Perhaps we may actually know some . In which case we could begin to witness to them and warn them of the dangers of atheism . Or perhaps they are radical atheists , whose hearts are as hard as Pharaoh’s , in that case , if they are business owners , we would encourage all our Christian friends , as well as the various churches and their congregations NOT to patronize them as we would only be “feeding” Satan .

Frankly , I don’t see why anyone would oppose this idea – including the atheists themselves ( unless of course , they’re actually ashamed of their atheist religion , and would prefer to stay in the ‘closet.’ ) .

read the rest: here.

Okay, so while I know that there is no domionism and everything, and the Far Right is only about living quietly and all, but um, say…. doesn’t this sorta thinkin’ scream ‘Curtail the use of the Internet’? This is the sort of thinking which drives me to pursue an outlet to let the voice of those who follow Christ humbly.

August 14th, 2011 by Joel

Who’s afraid of William Lane Craig?

Seems that a few are…

The President of the British Humanist Association has pulled out of debating renowned Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.Polly Toynbee, Guardian columnist and prominent critic of religion, readily agreed in April to debate Craig on the Existence of God but withdrew her involvement last week saying “I hadn’t realised the nature of Mr Lane Craig’s debating style, and having now looked at his previous performances, this is not my kind of forum”.

- “British Humanists take to the Bunkers” (August 2, 2011)

via Prominent Brit atheist Polly Toynbee pulls out of debate with apologist William Lane Craig | Uncommon Descent.

I do this because I love…

HT – Glenn. Sure enjoying this beach weather over here, Glenn…

Enhanced by Zemanta