Sobering Reflections on De-Conversion

I appreciated Ed Stetzer's heart-felt, humble, and searching reflections on the de-conversion of Bart Campolo.
.

Cosmos

I noticed today that the new FOX / National Geographic thirteen-week TV series, "Cosmos:  A Spacetime Odyssey," makes a bold philosophical statement in the first line of their primary promotional video in which they lay their worldview cards on the table.  The voice of Carl Sagan declares, "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."  

So there.

Update March 9:  episode 1 of the rebooted "Cosmos" series began with that same line from Sagan:  "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."  This "in your face" philosophical/ideological agenda is stunning.  One thing it isn't, however:  science.
.

Pale Blue Dot

A good word from David Murray reflecting on Carl Sagan's message.

.

Reason and Faith

Organizers of the “Reason Rally” that took place on National Mall in DC on March 24 tried to lay claim on rational thought as the property of atheism.  Some 20,000 people came out to support the cause.

The featured speaker was Richard Dawkins, who applauded the US Constitution as the world’s model for “secular constitutions.”  That’s a clever twist:  yes, the First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  But no, that hardly makes it a “secular” constitution.  It would be far more accurate to say the First Amendment affirms a key distinc­tion between religion and state, thus expressing respect for both.

Dawkins and the “new atheists” don’t just speak out against religion, but they openly ridicule and mock religious belief.  This is ironic:  if you want to be seen as the reasonable, objective party in a debate, you don’t throw emotional rhetoric grenades at the opponent.  But that’s just what Dawkins does.  And he calls all atheists to join him:  when Christians affirm miracles, “Mock them!  Ridicule them!  In public!”  Religious claims that transcend science need to be “ridiculed with contempt.”  Maybe he didn’t get the memo:  this was the “Reason Rally,” not the “Ridicule Rally.”

Tom Gilson points out (in the Washington Post, 3-21-2012) that, in The God Delusion, Dawkins devotes an entire chapter to unscientific anecdotes that a religious upbringing is “abusive” to children yet ignores scien­tific findings that spiritually engaged teens are healthier than others in several ways.  Gilson notes how even atheists (such as Michael Ruse) are embarrassed by The God Delusion.  Far from having any exclusive claim to reason, Gilson claims the new atheists “are among the chief offenders of it.”  Especially prominent in their arsenal of reason-defying weapons is the fallacious appeal to emotion and attacking a “straw man.”

What’s more, you just can’t be taken seriously by anyone who knows even a little history if you claim that reason belongs to the atheists.  Here I’d refer to Mark Dever’s long list of brilliant, accomplished, reput­able Christians in all kinds of disciplines on down through the ages presented in his incisive message, “Is Be­coming a Christian Intellectual Suicide?”

On the reason­ableness of Christ­ianity, see also, e.g.:  Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind; J. P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind; and John Piper, Think.

.

Challenging Richard Dawkins

Leading figures in “The New Atheism” movement include Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and especially Richard Dawkins. What makes this atheism “new” is its aggressive approach lambasting religion, and its ramped-up, provocative and attention-getting rhetoric (e.g., saying things like “religion poisons everything”). The best-known book coming from this circle of authors is, no doubt, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006).

In 2006 David Robertson, pastor of St. Peter’s Free Church, Dundee, Scotland, began posting comments about The God Delusion at the Dawkins website, going chapter by chapter and issuing numerous trench­ant critiques. In the end, Robertson compiled his posts in book form: The Dawkins Letters (2007). I want to note a few of Robertson’s key ideas, especially ways he challenges Dawkins and the New Atheism.

• -Dawkins’s naïve vision of peace on earth through atheism does not account for Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot: “The 20th century can truly be called the Failed Atheist Century” (p. 20).
• -“It takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist” (26).
• -Addressing Dawkins: “I am becoming more and more convinced that your position is primarily a philosophical and religious posi­tion, rather than one you are driven to by science” (33).
• -“It is your attack on a distorted and perverted ver­sion of Christian teaching about God which provides you with the most entertaining smokescreen for your lack of substantial argument on whether God exists in the first place or not” (48; see also 59).
• -A key objection of Dawkins against theism is: “Who designed the designer?” Robertson retorts, “‘Who made God?’ is a ques­tion I would expect from a six-year-old” (66). The Dawkins view is that, since all things evolve from more simple to more complex forms, and since any designer of the universe would have to be incredibly complex, God cannot exist (67). But this is to knock down a straw man: no Christian argues that the God of the uni­verse is somehow the product of evolutionary processes.
• -Robertson concedes, of course, that “some aspects of religion and some religious people have caused a great deal of harm in the world…” (79-80). But to lump all religions together with the sweeping verdict that they’re harmful and evil (like a “virus”) is to fail to look closely and make reasonable distinctions. “Take the question of Christianity and Islam. It suits you to lump them both together (including the extremists)” (85).
• -To Dawkins: “You define faith as believing something without evidence—a definition which is something you have just made up in your own head and has nothing to do with Christianity” (85).
• -Dawkins needs to learn basic principles of reading the Bible—like understanding a passage within its context, and distinguishing between what’s descriptive and prescriptive (103).
• -While Dawkins wants to portray Hitler as a Christian (after all, Hitler grew up Catholic, and Catholic and Lutheran churches were signifi­cant forces in German society), Hitler’s own writings and prac­tices locate him decidedly outside of the Christian faith (110-12).
• -Robertson takes Dawkins to task for the “extraordinary state­ment that ‘horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place’” (114—cf. p. 356 in The God Delusion). Such a view would justify the shocking conclusion that raising children in the Christian faith is inherently abusive, and that stance, in turn, would justify the state removing children from such homes (115). This is how reckless and chilling the Dawkins trajectory can be.
• -Robertson concludes with a lengthy bibliography and comments on all kinds of key players and writings in the atheism debate.

Let me also recommend Alister McGrath’s writings and lectures in response to Dawkins and other new atheists, including his book, The Dawkins Delusion (2010), and especially his June 27, 2011, lecture given at Regent College in Vancouver, “Why God Won’t Go Away: Reflections on the ‘New Atheism’” (download at regentaudio.com for free). Another thoughtful Christian who interacts with Dawkins and company is Oxford math professor John Lennox (his debates with various atheists are on YouTube—and see johnlennox.org).

[ originally posted at www.forthejourney.blogspot.com ]

.

Alister McGrath on the New Atheism

Regent College is offering Alister McGrath's recent lecture, "Why God Won't Go Away: Reflections on the 'New Atheism,'" as a free audio download at regentaudio.com (click here). This is a thoughtful, discerning and penetrating assessment and critique of the New Atheism movement--well worth the time to listen and consider! McGrath, a former atheist and a highly accomplished scholar with academic doctorates in both the natural sciences and theology (click here or here for info about him), helps one sift through the various claims and lines of argument that are advanced by authors such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

[ originally posted at www.forthejourney.blogspot.com ]

.