I don’t know whether this topic has existed under another thread.....?

I’ve actually come up for a breather. In the last 10 days or so, I’ve read and heavily marked books by Onfray (The Atheist Manifesto - convinced he wrote it drowning in a a large beaker of shiraz being continuously topped up), Harris (The End of Faith, fairly nasty, and deceitful too - the guy discloses buried away in a footnote that he belongs to one of the branches of Buddhism) and HItchens (God is not Great - well written but again ever so intolerant of religion), About to start Dennett (Breaking the Spell 389 pages ugh) and lastly Dawkins (more ugh - 374 pages)

I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve written, “assertion but no demonstration”. 

Are any others reading these books and for what purpose and what do you make of them?

They all seem very angry, even nasty. Very stirred up - 9/11 has something to do with it for sure but also intelligent design has definitely got under their skin big time.

The points I’m interested in are:
1. What is their argument and is any of it new?
2. How good is it.
3. How should Christians respond apologetically.

So is anyone reading this stuff, how seriously should we take it and if seriously what to do about it all? I have some ideas but interested if others have been looking into it.

David, it’s great to know you’re putting yourself through such an ordeal.

I haven’t read any of these books, mainly because I can’t afford to buy them and partly because I always want to argue with them.

I do however have some suggestions if you wish to contend with them:

1. Start a blog and get it known.

2. Write letters: to the media, to the publishers, the authors, atheist groups.

3. Write your own book/critique of their works, pointing out the failure of the authors to support assertions with evidence and argument.

4. None of it is new, but it gets recycled periodically.

5. These writers are in part responding to the conservative right in the US, which is willfully blind and gets nasty toward non-believers.

6. Would you write a digest of their books for us?

Thank you David for your really helpful, practical comments - I have printed them off.

I’m not quite sure where I’m heading.

A blog is certainly an idea, but is a lot of work. I wonder if there are others with an interest in this subject with whom I might be able to work with in a joint blog?? I’m conservative but also affable(!).

The thing in my mind is that we need to challenge these guys to public debate - they think they have sunk religion, but I don’t think they do such a great job. John Lennox really did well against Dawkins last October and you could tell from the comments on Dawkins blog site that his supporters knew that as well.

One of the problems is getting across all the material. I really regret that I didn’t do an Arts degree in philosophy.

Anyway I would like to hear from others as well.

The only thing I would add is don’t bother trying to defend Intelligent Design. It isn’t necessary, it has minimal cred, it is not regarded as science and it way too closely linked to creationism to give a promulgator sufficient cred to be bothered with.
And
The arguements will all wind up about ID or YECS and not about anything that really matters.

Hi David
I have to disagree with Owen that ID is irrelevant to the current atheism debate. For many years (from before I was born til recently perhaps) evolution was unchallenged as the paradigm through which western man understood his origins. ID has triggered a somewhat irrational response from the RMNS evolution proponents - after all if there is no God then such evolution is the only explanation and their worldview is being threatened. (Btw I’m happy to accept that ID is largely philosophical, but then so is RMNS evolution ...)

I too would love to do some study in philosophy - I like reading the philosophy as it impacts the origins debate but find I’m not so good at expressing my own ideas about these issues.

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.)

Owen Atkins - 21 January 2008 08:26 PM

The only thing I would add is don’t bother trying to defend Intelligent Design. It isn’t necessary, it has minimal cred, it is not regarded as science and it way too closely linked to creationism to give a promulgator sufficient cred to be bothered with.
And
The arguments will all wind up about ID or YECS and not about anything that really matters.

Apart from one aspect, I think you are completely wrong on ID, Owen.

The part I agree with is that the picture is bigger than ID.

However, having read 3 books now ID has clearly got under the skin, and frankly why would we of all people not argue in favour of ID?

Definitionally we have to be very careful. IDers include both old earth creationists and evolutionists, but they exclude young earth proponents.

Derek, thank you for your comments - I will think further and respond tomorrow.

I didn’t say ID was irrelevant, I said don’t bother with it.
The trap will, if you wish to engage atheists, be to fall for the whole Creationism vs Evolution arguement.
If you find yourself in this trap then you won’t find yourself being an apologist for Christ, or even for God (as a general term) but for Creationism and then the trap will have you caught- on a side issue.

There has been some discussion but the more the merrier, it’s an important topic.

[quote author="David Palmer"]I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve written, “assertion but no demonstration”.

Yeah, for people that talk so much about reason, they tend to play very fast and loose when it suits.

It’s a sad reflection on both the church (in the broadest sense) and our culture that these books have resonated so much with the public.

The church (at large - we’re a small minority) has been beleaguered by scandal and struggled for relevance, and it seems people have realised they don’t have to listen to any of it, feel a bit ripped off for the moralizing and hypocrisy, and have reacted fairly strongly.

3. How should Christians respond apologetically.

Get our own house in order imo.

Come to terms with modern science. It’s the gaping hole in modern Christian thinking. So much work to be done there.

Speak out against the televangelists, the faith healers, the prosperity nonsense, the meaningless ritualistic nonsense that goes on.

Stop fanning the flames with all the Islamaphobia. If we keep telling people their religion is inherently dangerous while dropping the bombs with quasi-religious overtones, why aren’t people going to apply the same logic to us?

Stop outsourcing/neglecting the ‘good works’ part of being a Christian - people are going to think you’re pretty useless if you don’t actually do anything (church doesn’t count).

Go hang out with the people Jesus hung out with instead of living like every other Western individualistic secular humanist. People are going to call you out & proclaim your emperor has no clothes if he is, in fact, naked.

Basically, if the atheists see us as people filled with empty, or in fact dangerous, nonsense-worship who only pop up to meddle with human progress (science) or to enforce our social agenda on other people by being against this or that, then we really need to make sure we are actually for something and are demonstrating it.

Locally this might not be as big as a problem as it is internationally - fading liberal churches which stand for nothing; irrelevant, scandal-ridden catholicism; money-grubbing, prosperity gospel driven pentecostals; xenophobic, war-mongering anti-everything politically-driven US evangelicals; wealthy, self-absorbed Western ‘Christians’… there’s a lot not to like!

So, maybe be different to that…

Owen Atkins - 21 January 2008 11:08 PM

I didn’t say ID was irrelevant, I said don’t bother with it.

Hi Owen
I’m sorry if I misread the gist of what you were saying. But to not “bother with” ID and ignore is to not engage in the debate in a belief that reinforces their atheism. For people genuine in discussing what they believe, ID is no problem.

The trap will, if you wish to engage atheists, be to fall for the whole Creationism vs Evolution arguement.
If you find yourself in this trap then you won’t find yourself being an apologist for Christ, or even for God (as a general term) but for Creationism and then the trap will have you caught- on a side issue.

The “creation vs evolution debate” can be a trap for those on both sides of the fence to fall into old reflexive forms of argument and just ignore the real issues. However that debate has moved on in the last 20 years.

If Christianity wants to engage atheism then it must identify the real issues that support the atheist worldview - and where we come from is part of that worldview (but only part). There are many other issues like the poor witness of the church that need to be faced as well. If we love atheists (and God does) then we need to have arguments and a worldview (and a witness) that address their concerns.

I often wonder how many atheists are out there. Peopel say they are in a minority, but a lot of young people would seem to classify themselves as atheists ... if you can judge by what they put on [ahem] facebook as their religious beliefs.

Some are quite passionate, but you also meet the ones who say that they are “non-practising atheists.”

Luke Stevens - 21 January 2008 11:11 PM

There has been some discussion but the more the merrier, it’s an important topic.

[quote author="David Palmer"]I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve written, “assertion but no demonstration”.

Yeah, for people that talk so much about reason, they tend to play very fast and loose when it suits.

It’s a sad reflection on both the church (in the broadest sense) and our culture that these books have resonated so much with the public.

The church (at large - we’re a small minority) has been beleaguered by scandal and struggled for relevance, and it seems people have realised they don’t have to listen to any of it, feel a bit ripped off for the moralizing and hypocrisy, and have reacted fairly strongly.

3. How should Christians respond apologetically.

Get our own house in order imo.

Come to terms with modern science. It’s the gaping hole in modern Christian thinking. So much work to be done there.

Speak out against the televangelists, the faith healers, the prosperity nonsense, the meaningless ritualistic nonsense that goes on.

Stop fanning the flames with all the Islamaphobia. If we keep telling people their religion is inherently dangerous while dropping the bombs with quasi-religious overtones, why aren’t people going to apply the same logic to us?

Stop outsourcing/neglecting the ‘good works’ part of being a Christian - people are going to think you’re pretty useless if you don’t actually do anything (church doesn’t count).

Go hang out with the people Jesus hung out with instead of living like every other Western individualistic secular humanist. People are going to call you out & proclaim your emperor has no clothes if he is, in fact, naked.

Basically, if the atheists see us as people filled with empty, or in fact dangerous, nonsense-worship who only pop up to meddle with human progress (science) or to enforce our social agenda on other people by being against this or that, then we really need to make sure we are actually for something and are demonstrating it.

Locally this might not be as big as a problem as it is internationally - fading liberal churches which stand for nothing; irrelevant, scandal-ridden catholicism; money-grubbing, prosperity gospel driven pentecostals; xenophobic, war-mongering anti-everything politically-driven US evangelicals; wealthy, self-absorbed Western ‘Christians’… there’s a lot not to like!

So, maybe be different to that…

Lukey...sensational rant - you pretty much nailed everyone in that one.

I agree...if I can summarise we actually need to live counter culturally and not just blend into comfortable, middle-class consumerism.

Maybe we can start a thread on what it means to be biblically counter-cultural in good ‘ole Sydney?

Jeff

G’day David,

David Palmer - 21 January 2008 11:01 PM

The part I agree with is that the picture is bigger than ID.

However, having read 3 books now ID has clearly got under the skin, and frankly why would we of all people not argue in favour of ID?

I’ve read a couple of books on ID as well. While I think there is something in their observations - especially Michael Behe’s book, and very nicely put - ID is rather easily dismissed philosophically by atheistic and theistic scientists alike.

The argument isn’t new; they simply invoke the “God of the gaps” idea to dismiss ID. That is, just because we don’t yet know the mechanisms for the formation of bacterial flagellum or evolutionary reaction pathways of various biochemical happenings in the human body, it doesn’t mean we won’t ever know them. And it doesn’t mean we have to invoke God to cover the current gaps in our knowledge. We just need to do more scientific research.

It’s not until ID’ers can answer the philosophical argument of “God of the gaps” in a satisfying way, both scientifically and philosophically, that ID will gain the necessary scientific legitimacy.

Jason.

Jason Hobba - 23 January 2008 11:21 AM

G’day David,

David Palmer - 21 January 2008 11:01 PM

The part I agree with is that the picture is bigger than ID.

However, having read 3 books now ID has clearly got under the skin, and frankly why would we of all people not argue in favour of ID?

I’ve read a couple of books on ID as well. While I think there is something in their observations - especially Michael Behe’s book, and very nicely put - ID is rather easily dismissed philosophically by atheistic and theistic scientists alike. 

Jason.

Jason,

I’ve misled you - the 3 books are atheist, not ID ones (Onfray, Harris and Hitchens) and I hope to finish Dennett by weekend, Dawkins next week and then trying to work out what it all means for Christian apologetics when I hope to become more active on the thread. I started it a couple of weeks too early though I have appreciated all the comments so far very much.

Also, Jason,

I wonder whether you (and anyone else interested in the topic) would be interested in getting hold of and reading John Lennox’s “God’s Undertaker - has science buried God” - less than 200 pages - he makes Dawkins his (main) conversation partner. I would be very interested in your comments, as I think he does an excellent job, raising the stakes. Lennox is a Reader in Mathematics at Oxford University, clearly impressed by Behe, Dembski and ID arguments.

ID has clearly got under the skin of the atheists. You know this when you read HItchens pummelling (and not very effectively) ID for all its worth but does not mention YEC, the softest of targets for derision.

Luke wrote: Locally this might not be as big as a problem as it is internationally - fading liberal churches which stand for nothing; irrelevant, scandal-ridden catholicism; money-grubbing, prosperity gospel driven pentecostals; xenophobic, war-mongering anti-everything politically-driven US evangelicals; wealthy, self-absorbed Western ‘Christians’… there’s a lot not to like!

Wow Luke, you almost sounded as cranky as I get! ;-)

Well put.

Hi David Palmer, maybe if running your own blog is too much work, then writing a “guest piece” for an existing apologetics blog might be doable? I for one would love to see a condensed response on the main arguments used in all those books. Good on you.

(We’ll deal with Global Warming later! ;-)

Hi David,

Thanks for the clarification. I won’t be getting to Lennox’s book anytime soon, though it sounds interesting. I’m currently reading through Francis Collin’s “The Language of God” - about how, as a scientist (and an eminent one at that - one of the leading scientists involved in the human genome project), he can reconcile science and Christianity.