David Palmer - 24 January 2008 07:56 PM

Actually Danii, the YECS people are working over time to demonstrate their position scientifically.

I don’t know of any who do try to do that…

They do try to demonstrate the compatibility of their non-scientific theories of the past to our science of the present, but that’s a very different thing entirely!

All I’ll add is that this forum is littered with YEC / TE threads where creationists argue that evolution is just plain bad science. I don’t need to back this up, just do a search through Dead Horses.

Yah, anyway getting back to the whole neo-atheism thing - David P, from reading the various books, do any of the authors attempt to make much of a case for (or defense of) atheism, or is it generally just the default position once you decide religion = evil?

I’ve always thought that taking atheism to its logical ends was its greatest weakness - everything is meaningless, and life is a lie. Either you accept the inherent meaninglessness of life and irrationally get on with life anyway, or collapse in despair, as far as I can see. Do any of the authors talk much about that?

The annoying thing from the Christian perspective is that these ideas and arguments aren’t new - CS Lewis was making the case against them ~70ish (?) years ago, but as a whole we don’t seem to have made much progress since, or perhaps we’ve been resting on our laurels while the world has kept turning…

Dave Lankshear - 25 January 2008 09:13 AM

All I’ll add is that this forum is littered with YEC / TE threads.

Fair enough, don’t let’s turn this into a YEC/TE bash - not my intention.

I might drop out for a little while I try and finish off Dennett and Dawkins and get my thoughts in order.

There are a number of issues the atheists raise which we need to address:

1. Religion a natural phenomena (Dennett’s big point)

2. OT God is a a terrible god calling for callous destruction, blah blah blah and the NT is no better

3. Christians are not morally better than anyone else, actually worse.

4. Christian Church through Inquisition, persecution of pagans, Jews, Crusades is a terrible institution with a lot to answer for.

5. ID (but not YEC because ignored) comes in for a drubbing which I find very suggestive and means that at some stage we will have to come back and talk about ID.

6. And in the background looms the spectre of Islam (only Harris goes for them big time)

If I had to recommend any of these books to get the gist of the atheist argument it is Hitchens’ “God is not Great” and probably after I’ve read it, Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”, if only because it has received by far and away the most attention from critical reviewers.

Cheer for now

David

Luke Stevens - 25 January 2008 09:46 AM

Yah, anyway getting back to the whole neo-atheism thing - David P, from reading the various books, do any of the authors attempt to make much of a case for (or defense of) atheism, or is it generally just the default position once you decide religion = evil?

Luke, this is such a good point. You are spot on and I intend spelling this aspect out.

Derek Hazell 21 January 2008 9:07pm
David, how much do you think these atheism publications are influencing society - is the large number of these publications an indication that atheism is on the ascendancy or conversely are the books a sign of weakness in the atheist worldview? (I suspect that atheism is under siege coz the intellectual arguments against atheism are growing and the intellectual atheists are becoming aware of the difficulties in their worldview.)

David Palmer 21 January 2008 10:01pm
Derek, thank you for your comments - I will think further and respond

Hi David
I’m looking forward to your thoughts about my question above and also any further reflections on these books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris etc.

rgds

Dave Lankshear - 24 January 2008 08:18 PM

I think that’s triple time, on the weekend, on half pay… some even work this hard as volunteers. Some other naughty YECers need to demonstrate their “scientific sincerity” (and Christian-ness) by sending nasty threats to Christian Theistic evolutionists. Some just write very rude rants.

This particular group has so much self righteous anger with us Sydney Anglican’s that it overflows in so many directions and such volume that they’ll even get stuck into Connect 09 in such a vicious way that they treat us like we are almost apostate and refusing to listen to God! For daring to choose a strategy to spread the gospel! Amazing. I love that… because we dare to choose a strategy as we try and marshal the troops to fulfil the Great Commission, we are obviously not listening to the bible! ;-)

Other YECs here are capable of much more polite dialogue, and good on ‘em. But the last thing I imagine them saying is that it’s a Philosophical position. They’d say that Theistic Evolution was bad theology AND bad science. The SydneyAnglicanHeretics mob would say it louder… turn it up to 11 man!

Dave, I had a look at the both the links. The second reminds me of the history of the Reformation, when different leaders arose and they attacked each other with a similar lack of love and discretion.

Everybody I have heard or read criticising Peter have never met him; the stuff they say about him is completely out of his character. It is the nature of fundamentalism in every religion that they believe that hold the absolute truth and all others are apostates. They believe that they have the moral high ground and this give them the right or responsibility to denigrate those they see as evil doers.

They are bigots, and it is impossible to reason with those who are prejudiced.

Ignore them and just keep on loving your neighbour and your brothers and sisters in Christ, because it is that which will reach people. Argument is a tool, but ultimately it is what we are like (seeing Christ in us) that will reach their hearts.

P.S. Why does this application’s spell checker use American English?

Derek Hazell - 02 February 2008 06:57 PM

Derek Hazell 21 January 2008 9:07pm
Hi David
I’m looking forward to your thoughts about my question above and also any further reflections on these books by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris etc.

rgds

Thanks Derek,

I’ve now finished Dennett and will start on Dawkins this coming week. I got badly diverted last week attending a Catholic bioethics conference (and witnessed a terrific pulsating bunfight between liberal and conservative Catholics) plus Pressies meeting in Sydney plus my son Ben got married yesterday.

Won’t get back much before the end of Feb. I want to read McGrath on Dawkins plus some philosophers (Alec Fisher and others) who have applied the blowtorch to “The God Delusion” on the basis of the logical fallacies found in the book.

If any of you read Australian Presbyterian I have an article on “A Common Word between Us and You” in the Feb edition. If you go to the Barnabas Fund website Patrick Sookhdeo has done two excellent detailed reviews of “A Common Word” and some of the responses to it.

Cheers, David

David Palmer - 03 February 2008 01:42 PM

...I’ve now finished Dennett and will start on Dawkins this coming week...I want to read McGrath on Dawkins plus some philosophers (Alec Fisher and others) who have applied the blowtorch to “The God Delusion” on the basis of the logical fallacies found in the book.

I too am looking forward to your comments on Dawkins. I read large slabs of a previous book of his, “The Blind Watchmaker”, and was taken aback at his understanding of humanity, ie, we are nothing more than complex machines. Can you believe it! Dawkins’ hyper-evolutionary position is reductionist and I came away disturbed that anyone would ascribe to his poverty stricken understanding of humanity.

I haven’t heard of Fisher and McGrath. I am grateful to you for bringing them to our attention.

cheers
Angela

Luke said:

...from reading the various books, do any of the authors attempt to make much of a case for (or defense of) atheism, or is it generally just the default position once you decide religion = evil?

Luke,

I dont think any of the authors equate religion with ‘evil’ - more that it is unnecessary and some of its consequences may be described as such.

And there is nothing to defend: It is up to religion to present a case that belief in a god is plausible.

Such a case has not been made.

On the contrary - the more we approach something resembling ‘knowledge’ the more implausible such a belief becomes.

I’ve always thought that taking atheism to its logical ends was its greatest weakness - everything is meaningless, and life is a lie. Either you accept the inherent meaninglessness of life and irrationally get on with life anyway, or collapse in despair, as far as I can see. Do any of the authors talk much about that?

Luke,

I wish I could offer you something more: But atheism is merely a refusal to believe in a non-existent god.

It is not an ideology (However some may choose to represent it)

But as for meaning - that is with your own good self.

Personally, I find significant meaning in this life.

Not the least of which is having had the privilege of interacting with you.

In the Christian view, by contrast, “You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him.”
Dinesh D’souza

From his article in the ‘San Francisco Chronicle’ - if that’s the argument then it’s pretty sad: Because we cannot cope with reality we have to make up a story which makes the travails of existence more palatable.

David P.,

Let me save you some trouble - you cannot refute the arguments.

At best you can accomodate to a degree… or ignore them
(or accept them - but I dont expect that).

Angela,

McGrath has degrees in physics and theology - he is a prolific writer who I came across about a decade ago when writing an essay on community.

Prior to his attack on Dawkins, he wrote ‘The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World’,which is best described as deluded wishful thinking

The irony is that the stonger the Christian response - the greater will be the atheist rebuttal

You see, you aren’t able to burn us at the stake anymore (Dont you wish you were?)

Rob

Rob Callander - 17 February 2008 04:12 PM

\
You see, you aren’t able to burn us at the stake anymore (Dont you wish you were?)

*sigh*........yes

Rob,

Burning at the stake for atheists? Of course not. Historically, that is reserved for heretical Christians so let’s not use a precious resource unnecessarily ;)

I am always fascinated how people discussing different or opposing positions can become increasingly polarized. Sometimes I wonder if it is a matter of pride or a genuine and sincere belief that they are right and the other bloke is deluded and to be pitied or a crazy mixture of both.

Depending on the topic, a compromise is sometimes possible. But not when it comes to God and the bible. It is a fundamental tenant for Christians that God is there and He is not silent (as evidenced in creation, the bible and His people). It is a fundamental tenant of atheists that there is no God and that the idea of God or gods is a human machination.

Even though we disagree, there is no argument or discussion on any topic that will prevent me from being gracious towards you and accepting you just as you are because I know the God who is gracious to me and continues to lavish His love upon me. So there! :)

Angela

Rob Callander - 17 February 2008 04:12 PM

David P.,

Let me save you some trouble - you cannot refute the arguments.

At best you can accomodate to a degree… or ignore them
(or accept them - but I dont expect that).

Well, you’ll just have to wait and see, but don’t get too cocky - there are things even a token atheist can’t not know.

David Palmer - 25 January 2008 09:52 AM

There are a number of issues the atheists raise which we need to address:

3. Christians are not morally better than anyone else, actually worse.

Agreement at last! On this point I absolutely and unreservedly agree with atheists. We are not morally superior because everything about the Christian points to the grace and mercy of God. Everything we have and are are generous gifts from God.

And I am more than happy to point to Paul’s declaration in 1Tim 1:15-16, which I appreciate more and more in my walk with Christ over the last 26 years

15Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

David Palmer - 25 January 2008 09:52 AM

3. Christians are not morally better than anyone else, actually worse.

Really?

So when we receive the Holy Spirit through Christ we remain morally the same, or in fact we get worse? Maybe I misunderstand ‘morally better’.