theism

Common Sense Atheism

Sean McDowell — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:05:13 -0700

Last February I debated Dr. Jim Corbett on the question of God and morality. As a result, I was invited to appear as a guest by Luke Muehlhauser, the host for a Podcast at Common Sense Atheism. We discussed many things including apologetics and debate, the state of youth today and how apologetics relates to philosophy. Luke was a gracious and thoughtful host. Check it out!

Here's the link: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8087

Why Naturalism Is False (And Why It Matters) Part 2

Holly Ordway — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:23:14 -0700

Why Naturalism Is False (And Why It Matters) Part 1

Holly Ordway — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:40:09 -0700

Is God a Genocidal Bully?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:34:48 -0700

Richard Dawkins sure thinks so. In The God Delusion he wrote:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"

This is certainly a well-worded objection, but is it convincing? I remember the first time I heard this objection. It unsettled me quite a bit. How could a loving God be so malevolent as to command the extermination of an entire people-group (the Canaanites) including men, women, and children (Josh 9:11-15)? Undoubtedly, this is one of the most difficult questions confronting Christians. While not all answers will entirely soothe the emotions, there are three points that can help us makes sense of this challenge. (For a more in-depth analysis, I suggest reading an excellent article by William Lane Craig.)

First, God has the right to take life however and whenever He desires. Since God is the author of life, He can take life and give life at His whim. Life is a gift from God. Every moment we exist is a gift from our Creator (Acts 17:24-28). God is under no obligation to sustain the universe or our individual lives. Since God created the world (and everything in it) He can do with it as He desires. Humans cannot take another life because they did not create it. Since we did not give life, we have no right to take it. But since God is the giver of life, He can take it in whatever manner He chooses. It’s His prerogative.

Second, God shows tremendous longsuffering and compassion before executing judgment. When God first told Abraham that his descendants would inhabit the Promised Land, God instructed him that the fulfillment would be significantly delayed until the sin of the Amorites (the people of Canaan) was complete (Genesis 15:16). Why the wait? God was allowing sufficient time for the Canaanites to repent of their evil ways. 430 years was more than enough time for the Amorites to turn to God. Moreover, God promises to spare any nation that turns to God in repentance and abandons its evil ways (Jeremiah 18:7-8). God gave them considerable time to repent, but eventually justice must prevail.

Third, God's commands must be understoon in light of His covenant with Israel. God chose Abraham to be the father of a nation through whom "all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:1-3). Israel was to be a holy nation, set apart from the evil and corruption of surrounding nations (Lev 18:30). God was preparing a nation as a vehicle for the coming Messiah, the universal Savior (Eph 2:11-22). In direct contrast, the Canaanites were involved in witchcraft, divination, child sacrifice, and sexual perversion (Deut 18:9-11; Lev 18:1-24). Thus they were the most serious threat to God's divine plan for Israel. Dr. Paul Copan rightly observes: "Although the biblical commands are themselves considered harsh, not carrying them out would have undermined the very theocracy and plan of salvation God had establishe" (That's Just Your Interpretation, Baker Books, 2005, p. 165).

When difficult challenges like this arise, it’s important to remember what we know to be true about God: He is good, patient, loving, and worthy of our trust. We may not understand entirely why he called for the destruction of the Canaanites, but we can rest assured that He has a good reason. Philosopher Paul Copan has an entire book on this subject coming out soon: Is God A Moral Monster?

I’ve often found it curious that atheists such as Dawkins raise this objection, because if we live in a Darwinian world, then what is wrong with this? After all, we see killing and other forms of pillaging all the time in nature. Just watch the recent “Life” program on the Discovery Channel (which, by the way, is incredible). The Israelites were merely weeding out the weak.

The fact that we object so loudly to the slaughter of the Canaanites attests to our deep-seated commitment to objective morality. And yet if there is no God, where does objective morality come from? Dawkins certainly hasn’t offered a convincing explanation. So, ironically, Dawkins has to use God to negate God.

Reflections on My Recent Debate

Sean McDowell — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:08:09 -0800

My recent debate with James Corbett on the topic, "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?", has generated quite a stir. A number of people from various backgrounds and beliefs have chimed in with their thoughts, including a popular atheist blogger, a Christian science-fiction writer, a Christian postmodernist, the "Apologetics Junkie," and the Saddleback College paper (the debate was held at Saddleback College).

Here are a few of my thoughts:

Last November I sat down with my friend Greg Koukl while we were both at a conference in New Orleans to talk about his (then) pending debate with Michael Shermer. Greg gave me lots of helpful advice, but one quote stuck out to me in particular: “The more you sweat in preparation, the less you bleed in battle.” Given that my first debate was going to be on my home turf—in front of my family, friends, students, and colleagues—I most definitely did not want to bleed in battle.

So I prepared hard for about four months by watching debates, reading books, talking with my former professors, and even having multiple practice debates with friends of mine. I’ve probably never prepared for something harder in my life. While I have been a public speaker for over a decade, this was my first official debate. I learned very quickly that speaking skills help in debate, but they are only one component.

Debates are also quite stressful! Knowing the debate was being simulcast live over the Internet to thousands of people, knowing that it would eventually be posted on YouTube, and also considering the experience Dr. Corbett has as a teacher, only added to the pressure.

How did I deal with it? My preparation was key. One of my former Talbot professors, Doug Geivett, encouraged me to trust my training. As many of you know, I earned an MA in Philosophy and an MA in Theology from Talbot in 2003. I went into the debate as prepared as I could have been. I knew that even if I didn’t perform well, I had truly done my best and could live with that.

C.S. Lewis’ advice also came in handy. In new social settings Lewis said it’s natural to feel uncomfortable. But if you choose to go speak to people and choose to be interested in what they say, then often the social awkwardness dissipates. I chose to smile before and during the debate, met people before the debate (including some on the other side), and to relish the moment. I even met one outspoken atheist named Mark who was giving me pointers before the debate!

One of the curses of debating is that hindsight is 20/20. As soon as the debate was over I found myself saying, “I should have said…” But here are a few that stand out to me.

First, during the cross-examination and Q&A period, Dr. Corbett argued that Stalin and Hitler had terrible backgrounds and could not have done differently (even though, oddly, he had already conceded that he believes in free will). In other words, choices are determined by environmental factors. But if this is true, then why would we hold Hitler and Stalin accountable? Why be upset with them? They couldn’t have done differently! After all, we don’t get upset with a soda when it explodes because the soda has no free will. We may be upset that our clothes get wet, but we don’t hold the soda responsible. The same should be true with Hitler and Stalin. But I doubt my opponent really believes that.

Second, much of Corbett’s case involved two things: (1) We should doubt and not hold things too firmly; and (2) people who believe in God, and have certainty that they’ve heard from God, are more likely to do horrendous evils. Believe it or not, I already had two stories planned to share in my closing remarks that countered both of these. But I forgot!

One story was about how, in an emotional moment, Mother Theresa reached out and hugged a leper in Calcutta. A passerby said, “I would not do that for all the money in the world.” Mother Theresa replied, “Neither would I. I did it for the love of Christ.” In other words, she was firmly convinced that people were made in God’s image and had dignity and respect, regardless of their appearance, and ought to be treated lovingly. She fought poverty not because she doubted, but because of her firm convictions that humans are valuable. The same is true for William Wilberforce. He spent his life fighting slavery not because he doubted, but because of his firm convictions that God created people to be free.

Sure, some people have had firm false beliefs about God and have caused harm because of them. This is undeniable. But this only shows that our psychological convictions are not enough—we must also seek to have true, reasonable beliefs. Corbett is right that doubt is important, even though I think he overemphasizes it. (Side note: it saddens me how often we Christians condemn doubt. If we really have truth, then what are we afraid of? Doubt is a part of life and can be a powerful vehicle driving people to find truth.) But there are in fact certain things we should not doubt such as the immorality of rape, the intrinsic value of human beings, and the immorality of slavery. And there are some things we should doubt at times—namely our own doubts! The purpose of doubt is to arrive at the truth. Otherwise, what good is doubt? And there may come a time when our doubts genuinely dissolve because we have solid reasons for our beliefs.

The other quote I meant to use, which responded to Corbett’s second main point, was from David Berlinski, a secular Jew who received his Ph.D. from Princeton University. Contrary to Corbett, Berlinski believes that one of the main reasons for the greatest atrocities in world history is the absence of ultimate accountability. In The Devil's Delusion Berlinski said, "What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe...was that God was satching what they were doing" (NY: Crown Forum, 2008, 26). As I said in my opening statement, many people have done horrible things in the name of God and religion. But we must keep Berlinski's advice in mind as well--the lack of ultimte accountability may be a driving force as well.

Overall, I feel good about the debate and am excited to eventually have another one. I am beginning my Ph.D. work this week, so I’m not sure when I will have the time. But if the right opportunity arises, I just might jump at it!

My thanks to the students from the Freethinkers and Campus Crusade for Christ at Saddleback who helped sponsor the debate. And also Karla, the Saddleback faculty advisor, and Dan Grossenbach for all their preparation. And thanks to Jim for agreeing to participate. It was a lively evening—one I will never forget.

Live Debate With Sean McDowell and James Corbett

Conversant Live — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:48:13 -0800

Here is Part 1 of the debate between Sean McDowell and James Corbett on the question, "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" To view Part 2, click on "continue reading."

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 1

Here is Part 2 of the debate between Sean McDowell and James Corbett, which took place on February 26, 2010 at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, California.

Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values? Part 2

Advice for Atheists Who Want to Engage Theists

Christianity 101 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:20:12 -0700

Atheists recognize that taking a strong position--absolutely, positively, there is no god--comes across as dogmatic and intolerant. Although many atheists espouse the strong position, the leaders of the atheism movement prefer the weak definition--there is no credible evidence showing that God exists--not only because the strong position appears intolerant, but also because "it does sound rather untenable." They acknowledge that the most persistent objection to the strong position of atheism is that it sounds dogmatic and unscientific. Advancing the strong position in public debate forces all atheists (both strong-position and weak-position) to prove the nonexistence of God, invoking the burden of proof.

Atheists are quick to acknowledge that the strong position has disadvantages in public discussions at the popular level because it is easy to portray as dogmatic, unreasonable, and thus unscientific. To avoid public relations and marketing embarrassments, the atheism movement tries to show that the strong position of atheism, far from being the only form of atheism, is the rarest among atheistic positions. Instead, they advance the weak position of atheism. From this perspective, they shift the burden of proof to the theists. Here is how Positive Atheism magazine describes the ideal sequence when an atheist talks to a theist about the existence of God.

It must be realized that we are dealing entirely with claims -- claims that various deities exist.
In discussing such claims, it is always the person making the claim [the theist] who is responsible for providing evidence and strong argument.
The person listening to the claim [the atheist] need not make any argument at all.
The listener [the atheist] does not need to disprove a claim in order to reject it.
If the person making the claim [the theist] fails to make a convincing case, the listener rightly rejects the claim as falsehood (or suspends judgment, based upon the strength of the claim). In either event, the listener ends up lacking a belief in the object of the claim.
It is never the negative [weak-position] atheist's responsibility to prove or disprove anything. That job belongs to the person making the claim, which is the theist.

Don't get the wrong impression. Atheists believe that the strong position is defensible; they just prefer to shift the burden of proof on the theists. Atheists can articulate the nature and range of their non-belief, and they can discuss their reasons for rejecting theism. They do so primarily be dismissing the religions of theists as being beliefs that consist entirely of controversial and untestable claims.

Does the Theist or Atheist Have the Burden of Proof?

Christianity 101 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:16:44 -0700

No doubt you are already familiar with the concept of the "burden of proof." (Unless you have already had some unfortunate personal experience with the criminal justice system, just think about the O.J. Simpson trial or any television drama involving the criminal courts.) The "burden of proof" is on the prosecutor (the D.A.) to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty. If the prosecutor doesn't present enough convincing evidence, then the defendant is declared "not guilty."

It is the declared intention of atheists to put the burden of proof for the existence of God on the theists. They don't want to be put in the position of having to prove the non-existence of God. They know it can't be done. As was stated in Positive Atheism magazine: "one cannot prove a negative existential claim (that is, a claim that a thing does not exist)." For this reason, the distinction between the weak position and the strong position of atheism becomes very important. With weak-position atheism, the burden of proof falls on the theist. With strong-position atheism, however, it is the atheist that carries the burden of proof. Here is how it breaks down:

The weak-position atheist says: "I don't believe in God because no one has provided me with any credible evidence that God exists." This position puts the theist on the defensive. The theist must present evidence to persuade the weak-position atheist.
The strong-position atheist says: "Absolutely, positively, there is no god." In response to this dogmatic position, the theistic can say: "So prove it." This means that the strong-position atheist must go on the defensive.

Atheists are well aware of this burden-of-proof issue, and they want to avoid carrying it. Consequently, they advocate using a weak-position definition of atheism even for a person who has a strong-position belief. (This is not a lie because the weak-position definition is broad enough to include proponents of the strong-position.) Using a weak-position description of atheism will always put the burden of proof on the theist. This is purely and simply a debating strategy, which the atheists aren't embarrassed to admit. Positive Atheism magazine suggests using weak-position terminology to avoid the burden of proof issue:

With the weak definition, the strong-position atheist can participate in a lengthy debate with a theistic apologist without ever disclosing his or her wholesale dismissal of the entire god question, and without once ever being called upon to prove anything. (A careless presentation of the strong position could open itself to the Burden of Proof.) And the strong-position atheist can, through restraint, make much more of an impact on the listener. The main point here is that the theist is the one making the claim, so the theist must first describe what he or she is claiming, and secondly make a strong case for the claim. By showing that the claim itself is invalid, that it is not worthy of our attention, we don't need to deal with any counter-claims.

Christopher Hitchens, who is as close to a "poster boy" for strong-position atheism as there is, failed to heed this advice in his recent debate with William Lane Craig at Biola University. Craig presented a reasonable case for the existence of God, while Hitchens failed to offer any evidence for the non-existence of God, despite Craig's persistent request to do just that. For a balanced critique of the debate, see Doug Geivett's excellent blog post.

Next time we'll wrap up this mini-series on atheism by relating some advice Positive Atheism magazine gives to weak-position atheists who want to engage a theist in a discussion or debate.

An Atheism Primer

Christianity 101 — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:42:11 -0700

A recent op-ed piece by Charlotte Allen in the Los Angeles Times, "Atheists: No God, No Reason, Just Whining," prompted a flurry of reactions from the atheist community. The most clever response came from Hermant Mehta, who basically said that atheists should be protected from outrageous claims such as those made by Allen (that atheists are basically boring). Mehta even compared atheists to Jews, perhaps implying that such claims are tantamount to hate speech.

Exhanges like these, especially in the blogosphere, don't really serve much of a purpose, except to reinforce pre-existing stereotypes. We need more productive conversations, such as the debate that occurred between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens on the campus of Biola University.

In the interest of stimulating productive conversations in this area, we'd like to provide some objective information about atheism and atheists. First of all, it's important to know the technical definition of atheism in the context of two other categories of belief, theism and agnosticism. These are from the Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion:

Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divine beings. With a few exceptions, most religions fall into this category.
Agnosticism is the view that there is insufficient evidence for the existence or nonexistence of God. Agnosticism functions as an intellectual mid-position between theism and atheism. (The term was coined in 1869 during the Victorian debate over Western biblical faith and the scientific theories of Darwin.) Pure Buddhism and pure Confucianism, if there are such things, might be considered to fall in this category. Strictly speaking, they don't believe in a deity, but they are not incompatible with philosophies and religions that involve one or more deities. As is the trademark of all agnostics, they don't really take a position on God one way or the other.
Atheism denies the existence of any superhuman beings. There is no form of transcendent order or meaning in the universe. According to the atheist, any notion of "god" is merely fiction created by humans that is beyond rational thinking. In practice, atheism denotes a way of life conducted without regard to any alleged superhuman reality.

You might be thinking, "Hey, that is exactly what I thought. The three possibilities boil down to God, maybe God or no God. It is as simple as that." Well, that's what we thought too. But it is not as simple as that. It turns out that not all atheists are created equal (pun intended). They categorize themselves as being either negative or positive atheists. Here is how these categories are defined:

A Weak-Position Atheist: This person believes, for himself or herself alone, that there is no god. Maybe God really exists, but he or she hasn't been convinced of it. Other people are free to believe or disbelieve in God's existence. But weak-position atheists choose to believe in the nonexistence of God until they are convinced otherwise. (Sometimes this position is referred to as negative atheism.)
A Strong-Position Atheist: This person believes that absolutely, positively, there is no God, and he or she believes this is a universal truth. This definition became somewhat popular among atheistic writers during the twentieth century. (Sometimes this position is referred to as positive atheism.)

The distinction between the weak-position atheist and the strong-position atheist is an important one because it leads to the question of who carries the burden of proof. In our next post, we'll deal with this issue. Meanwhile, we'd love to hear your questions and comments.