John Loftus on natural evil, theodicy and defense

Posted on 12/02/10 64 Comments

Our discussion of evil and greater goods theodicy has provided a solid segue for a return (finally) to a discussion of John Loftus’ edited volume The Christian Delusion (Prometheus, 2010), this time with my eagle eye focused on his essay “The Darwinian Problem of Evil.” My last blog post setting up this topic was, you will recall, a little ditty on dinosaur feces (or “faeces” if you prefer). John’s essay is a good discussion (yes, I said a good discussion, which is rather more adulatory a comment than I have granted to many other essays in the book; I’m sure John will be over the moon) of the problem of natural evil, a problem which Christians, anthropocentrists that they tend to be (like most other people by the way, Gary Francione exempted), tend to overlook. [Before continuing I would like to apologize for that last sentence. Like Iron Butterfly performing "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", it didn't know when to stop.]

Here is the core problem as John sets it up. “Upon the supposition of Darwinian evolutionary biology, this suffering is natural. It’s what we should expect to find. But upon the supposition of Christian theism, this is not what we should expect to find.” (237)

In other words, the long, tortured evolutionary history of the natural world suggests there is no mind or intelligence behind it.

John then notes that Christians could respond to the problem either with a ”defense” or a more robust “theodicy”. A defense (as Alvin Plantinga noted) is concerned merely with providing a possible story that explains how there is not really any contradiction between the presence of evil and a good God. But John is not interested in possible stories as he retorts that a mere defense is ”too low to be accepted as any kind of standard at all.” (240) Rather, he demands from the Christian a theodicy, that is, a genuine account of why God set up the world in this way. And John believes that the eight theodicies he then surveys are all unsuccessful.

I’m going to get to the theodicies in the next go-around. (At least I intend to.) Here let me note that John’s comments on this specific point are completely self-serving, and this brings me back to THE fundamental defect in The Christian Delusion, namely that it is written for those who already accept its conclusions even though it purports to be for the Christian. To make matters worse, it has an indefensible double standard.

To illustrate this double standard, let’s consider any particular perplexing fact that John as an atheist has to explain: perhaps the origin of biological information or of conscious, reasoning organisms arising through a random process, or the nature of statements like “x is evil but y is good”. Would John demand of his own atheist clan that they have the one true account of how biological information or conscious rational agents arose or in what apparently objective moral ascriptions consist (in other words, a “theodicy-equivalent”)? Of course not, not least because there is no theodicy equivalent of these, or countless other, facts that appear to falsify atheism (or at least which test the mettle of its adherents). No, John (and most any other atheist) would be happy with a plausible, nuts and bolts account of how biological information (i.e. DNA) and conscious, rational agents possibly arose through natural processes and how moral ascriptions are possibly constituted by those agents. Never mind the explanation. Just show me how we could possibly have these facts in a godless universe.

So why, when it comes to a Christian problem — explaining the existence and nature of natural evil — is the bar suddenly moved from defense (a possible explanation) to theodicy (THE explanation)? Methinks I know just what to send John for Christmas: a nice gold plaque (okay, gold-colored) that reads “Demand of others what you demand of yourself.”

Robert Gressis

I agree with John that defense is too low of a standard, but I don’t think the Christian needs to provide the for-sure-this-is-right answer either.

A defense is too low a standard because God is omnipotent. Consequently there could be all sorts of defenses like, “there was no animal suffering before human beings came on the scene; every time an animal was about to suffer, God made sure it didn’t feel any pain.” This is possible given God’s omnipotence, but it doesn’t (to me, anyway) seem plausible. Similarly, an evolutionary biologist could say that the chances of proteins emerging randomly is 1/10^500 power, but dagnabit, we just got lucky. That wouldn’t work for me either. The evolutionary biologist has to give some account of conditions that very well could have obtained 1.5 billion years ago that made the emergence of life unsurprising.

So in both cases, the theist and the evolutionary biologist has to do more than just tell us how animal suffering is part of an all-good God’s plan/life could have possibly emerged: they have to give us a plausible answer to both of these questions.

Now, what’s a plausible answer? Here’s a low standard for a plausible answer: the theist has to give an answer compatible with our best historical, scientific, and moral evidence/beliefs; the biologist has to give an answer compatible with our best scientific and historical evidence. Here’s a high standard for a plausible answer: the theist has to give an answer to the problem of animal suffering that not only is compatible with our best historical and scientific evidence and moral beliefs, but she also has to give *some* evidence that her answer is, in fact, true. And you can imagine the corollary answer for the biologist.
- randal
  
  Robert,
  
  I’ll respond to you in a post.
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker

A couple of years ago there was some debate with Loftus on his misuse of the problem of evil.
Shawn

Now this is a good meaty post Randal. Congrats.

I’ll just take a small bite now though.

“Would John demand of his own atheist clan that they have the one true account of how biological information or conscious rational agents arose or in what apparently objective moral ascriptions consist (in other words, a “theodicy-equivalent”)? Of course not, not least because there is no theodicy equivalent of these, or countless other, facts that appear to falsify atheism (or at least which test the mettle of its adherents)”.

Atheism doesn’t demand an explanation or evidence for anything other than the existence of a God (or Gods).

You see, most of us are happy to wait for science to provide the evidence and explanations, and acknowledge that there is much humanity is still to discover about the universe. One fortunate aspect of being an atheist is we aren’t intellectually or “spiritually” locked into ancient Middle Eastern explanations (although I accept you Apologists are trying as hard as you can to move away from them).

In relation to the origin of complex life forms on this planet, most atheists, and the majority of the biological scientific community of planet earth, believe that Darwin’s theory which has withstood 150 years of scientific challenge and testing is a credible enough explanation. The same as we accept the explanation of gravity.

We (evidence based thinkers) are even starting to find explanations for how the first life form might have been created via chemical reaction (refer abiogenesis).

As Mr Dawkins has made abundantly clear on our behalf, it is not for atheists to prove God doesn’t exist (or how or why he didn’t do anything you allege), for the same reason we don’t have to prove flying spaghetti monsters.

Finally, I would like you to provide just one “fact” (and biased subjective theist writings, which includes your Bible, do not count as “facts”) which appears to falsify atheism, which by definition must also be a “fact” which proves the existence of a God. I will accept references to your earlier posts which can still be found here, but not other authors.

You may become the most famous theist on earth since Jesus Christ if you can pull this one off Randal (and you’ll win $1mil from James Randi).
- randal
  
  Shawn, after a busy day at the office I’m working my way through this long conversation. I’ll provide a few responses.
  
  You write: “Atheism doesn’t demand an explanation or evidence for anything other than the existence of a God (or Gods).”
  
  Yeah, talkin’ about beggin’ the question! We ask for an explanation of everything BUT what we believe. Actually, I’m not sure how you mean your statement but it does appear to exempt atheists from any evidential burden which is, to say the least, special pleading. If an atheist says that the universe and all the things within it came to be through non-intelligent causes then he/she is obliged to defend that thesis.
  
  You ask for one fact that appears to falsify atheism? Well who decides whether said fact appears to falsify atheism? You can always find an irrational person who denies that a fact which counts against their view really does. What does their intransigence prove? The real fact is that there are some facts that appear to falsify theism and others appear to falsify atheism and if you are not willing to concede this then you are still locked in indoctrinational binary opposites. But you’re in good company. Say hello to Dick Dawkins for me.
  - Shawn
    
    Randal,
    
    I appreciate many of you theists attribute a meaning to atheism wider than it’s actual definition due to many atheists holding similar views on other, unrelated subjects like how the universe was created.
    
    However, an atheist is purely, simply and only, a person who does not believe in the existence of a God. Not someone who understands how the universe operates, how evolution works, or anything else.
    
    An atheist does not have to provide evidence for why there is no God, as that is the natural state of belief of every human before the theists get to them (usually as children).
    
    If you want to allege that anything exists (especially something invisible, silent and ethereal), the proof is for you to provide. If I refuse your “proof” then it is up to me to argue why. It is not for me to come up with “proof” of a negative, like my belief there are no such thing as flying spagetti monsters.
    
    And you don’t get off that lightly on your “facts” falsifying atheism. I wasn’t the one positing there were any “facts” which falsified atheism, you were, so I asked you to provide one, and you haven’t.
    
    As to who judges if your “fact” is convincing, that isn’t the point. You allege they exist, I allege they don’t, put up or admit there aren’t any.
    - randal
      
      Shawn, I have argued this point ad nauseum in the past. We have here two different claims:
      
      (1) The universe came to be through intelligent directed processes.
      (2) The universe did not come to be through intelligent directed processes.
      
      Both of these are claims to knowledge that have an evidential burden. To the extent where you accept (2) you are obliged to defend it.
      - Shawn
        
        I repeat, Atheism does not purport to say how the universe came to be, why loaves can’t be turned into fishes, why God didn’t flood the earth, or any other of your God’s alleged achievements.
        
        However, I know the universe wasn’t created by your God for the same reason I know it wasn’t created by a flying spagetti monster, or Mickey Mouse. They’re both fictitious characters until someone proves otherwise.
        
        Robert Gressis
        
        If an atheist only means someone who doesn’t believe there is a God, then it seems to me that it’s completely vacuous. For one thing, we don’t know which God the atheist denies. Second, we don’t even know that this atheist is someone who accepts the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, your definition of atheism is compatible with Jim, who doesn’t believe in God, but who also (since he doesn’t accept the principle of non-contradiction) believes in God, being’s an atheist.
        
        Alex H
        
        “If an atheist only means someone who doesn’t believe there is a God, then it seems to me that it’s completely vacuous. For one thing, we don’t know which God the atheist denies. Second, we don’t even know that this atheist is someone who accepts the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, your definition of atheism is compatible with Jim, who doesn’t believe in God, but who also (since he doesn’t accept the principle of non-contradiction) believes in God, being’s an atheist.”
        
        Rob: ‘Vacuous’ is surely too strong an expression.
        
        If the worry is that being an atheist is compatible with being a theist — since the atheist (defined as ‘someone who doesn’t believe in God’ (or do you mean as ‘someone who disbelieves in God’?)) might also accept contradictions — then this criticism will apply to just about any view. I would not argue, for example, that someone who accepts that I have a mother has a vacuous view, on the grounds that this person might also accept contradictions and so also reject the proposition that I have a mother.
        
        Perhaps the default assumption in describing someone’s views is that the person does not accept contradictions.
        
        Rob: I tried to reply to something else earlier… but it seems like it didn’t take.
        
        Robert Gressis
        
        Hi Alex H,
        
        You’re right, “vacuous” is too strong. That said, I think saying that “atheist” just means “someone who disbelieves in God”, and so “being an atheist” doesn’t commit anyone to anything is too weak. I think if you’re an atheist–someone who disbelieves in God (as opposed to merely not believing in God, as you rightly corrected me)–there’s almost certainly a fair bit more going on. I don’t know what that extra bit is, but if you’re actively disbelieving in God then there’s some content to the God you’re disbelieving in, and there’s also some reason you actively disbelieve rather than just not believe.
        
        BTW, I choose not to get notified of followup comments via email so I sometimes don’t notice replies for a while.
        
        http://intuitivebleep.blogspot.com John
        
        The word has multiple meanings to multiple people. Some mean “lacks a belief in God,” some mean “believes there is no God,” some mean “is certain there cannot possibly be any God,” and some even inexplicably include Satan worship in the definition. The latter two definitions tend to be used by religious people as a pejorative or as a nice strawman.
        
        The definition of atheist most commonly used by the atheists I know, is the negative: “lacks a belief in any God.” This includes people who just don’t give a crap, who haven’t bothered to include the evidence, whose brains are broken in a way that they can’t conceptualize God in the first place, as well as the skeptical atheist more common in religious societies (though the earlier sorts are more common in non-religious societies, having inherited atheism rather than escaped theism). Modifiers like “strong atheist” are used to state a positive like “believes the claim that there are no gods.”
        
        Robert Gressis
        
        Hi John,
        
        I don’t like the definition of atheist as “lacks a belief in God”. First, it would make agnostics like Paul Draper, who thinks there is some evidence for God’s existence and some evidence against God’s existence, and who doesn’t know how to weigh the evidence, but who also lacks a belief in God, into an atheist, when he thinks he’s an agnostic. Second, it makes things like cats and dogs and babies into atheists, when that’s not right.
        
        http://intuitivebleep.blogspot.com John Keiser
        
        (Can’t reply directly)
        
        Atheist is a label. Which label we want to choose is a question of taste, opinion, politics and social dynamics.
        If you manage to get everyone to agree to one definition of a label, then some people will get the label who don’t want it (like your example) and some people who do want the label will be denied it (which would happen if we picked “atheists positively believe that God does not exist”).
        
        I have a few major reasons I think lack of belief is the better definition:
        
        - Lack of belief corresponds to the philosophical definition (the set of a-theists being a negation of the set of theists)
        - Lack of belief is how many atheists identify themselves. If you define it stronger, you not only deny some of them the label, you make the label mismatch self-described atheists. This takes away their power to define themslves. I understand this is a social / political reason, but given that we’re talking about a label, it’s not irrelevant (as you observed with your Paul Draper example).
        - I think the definition “lacks a belief in God” captures the reasons and core belief of self-described skeptical atheists. Fundamentally, I am an atheist because I am not convinced that God exists. I have been presented evidence for various gods and the cases fail to convince (because of flaws in both evidence and reason). I do not need to make a case that he does not exist, and given the large number of definitions of God it would be rather hard to do so (indeed, some god-concepts are absolutely impossible to rule out or even mount a case against–I cannot actively disbelieve them). If I had no evidence against the existence of God, I would still be an atheist. (In fact, this was largely the state I was in when I first deconverted.)
        
        On the other point, I’m not sure dogs should be excluded from the category of atheist. If they are capable of belief in a God and do not, I think the word is applicable. But it’s very possible they are theists, having imbued their human masters with many of the attributes of a god.
        
        Alex H
        
        “I think saying that “atheist” just means “someone who disbelieves in God”, and so “being an atheist” doesn’t commit anyone to anything is too weak.”
        
        Agreed. Even if ‘x is an atheist’ just means ‘x disbelieves in God’, atheism has entailments — to which the atheist is committed (in virtue of his belief in atheism. [For example: an atheist is committed to disbelieving in a creator of the world.] Probably, the atheist is committed to more than what is simply entailed by his disbelief. He is also probably committed to certain kinds of propositions made highly probable by the truth of atheism. [...though 'commitment' might be a misleading word to use here.]
        
        http://intuitivebleep.blogspot.com John Keiser
        
        I agree that atheism does imply some specific things, exactly to the extent that the word “theist” implies some specific things. We ought to have some minimum definition of what a god is and is not. Every time I try to propose a description of the boundary between god and not-god, though, I find counterexamples. Maybe you can help.
        
        Atheism implies lack of theism. Whatever defines theism, atheism is a lack of belief in at least part of that definition. The best definition I can offer right now is my own: I am an atheist because I haven’t met a god-concept I could subscribe to.
        
        “Creator” certainly isn’t one of the properties that defines god vs. not-god. There are gods that were not creators. And our universe could have been created by non-gods: it could have been created in a lab by a scientist who is experimenting with the creation of universes via black hole. I am not kidding either–I do not consider that implausible, though I don’t believe we had a creator (nor do I believe we didn’t–I am an acreatorist).
      - derick
        
        Randal,
        
        I think you have a misunderstanding regarding the burden of proof. Let me try to explain. The burden of proof is required when a proponent posposes a positive conclusion – meaning when he/she asserts a statement to be true. For example to say that, “The sqaureroot of negative one is zero and this is the truth.” one needs to give supporting evidence to prove this assertion. But if another party disputes this claim by saying that, “to say that the squareroot of negative one is zero is false”. One only needs to state the general rule governing sqaureroot operation which is there is no number which have a squreroot equaling to zero to disprove it. The challenger needs not provide the answer to the sqaureroot of negative one.
        
        A much simpler example, if I say this followng argument,
        
        Rivers are made of 100% rocks;
        Pasig river is a river;
        Therefore, Pasig river is made up of 100% rocks.
        
        You can easily show that my conclusion is false by simply disproving my first statement – since you know that rivers are NOT made up 100% rocks. You do not need to see or even show anybody the Pasig river, right?
        
        To conclude, the buden proof lies with the one asserting a positive argument / statement. But to disprove it, one only needs to show that it have faulty premises. So in connection to your dilemma sith the atheits, theists are the one asserting a positive argument / statement (i.e. there is a God along with your supporting premises) and the atheist only need to disprove your premises to show that your assertion is false. To require atheists to provide the right answer regarding what or who statered everything is a wrong understanding of logic. Athiests have no responsibility to provide theists the answers to this particular question. And it still doesn;t change the fact that theists belief is not true in light of disproven premises and faulty logic.
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker

Finally, I would like you to provide just one “fact”…which appears to falsify atheism

I’ll do you one better: Darwin presenting one fact that renders atheism unfalsifiable.

“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

- Charles Darwin, Letter to W. Graham July 3, 1881

So according to Darwin if atheism is true, we shouldn’t trust our belief that atheism is true.

Thoughts?
- Shawn
  
  That’s a personal opinion (probably taken out of context), not a fact.
  - Shawn
    
    By the way, the same would apply equally to theism, as that came from a “monkey mind”.
    - Shawn
      
      One more;
      
      The “monkey mind” got us to the moon, created life in a test tube, and developed enough power to destroy the entire planet multiple times over.
      
      The evidence is this mind is quite capable of reliable convictions (at least in the case of atheists anyway).
      
      Also, the statement doesn’t seem very Darwin-like at all, seeing as the very basis of evolution incorporates improvements in all biological activities, which includes intelligence.
      
      The idea that Darwin would consider a homo sapiens’ brain and a monkey’s as anything like still the same thing, seems very unlikely to me.
- randal
  
  David,
  
  Yes, Darwin’s famous (or infamous) observation is the nub of one version of the argument from reason. If our minds were formed through processes that fine-tune them for adaptation rather than truth, then unless we have independent grounds to know that adaptation maps very closely onto truth (and we don’t) then we lack reason to believe our cognitive faculties produce truth rather than merely adaptive belief. And that terminates in skepticism.
- http://intuitivebleep.blogspot.com John
  
  This is not an argument against atheism, it’s a statement of fact. Whether theism or atheism is true, Darwin’s worry was real: it’s not a good idea to blindly trust our brains and even perceptions. It’s been shown that we have a number of systematic cognitive biases.
  
  Thankfully, we have shown ourselves capable of detecting these biases and, given sufficient reflection and checking against reality (evidence), correcting for them.
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker

That’s fair. The entire letter to Graham is online if you want to read the full context.

I don’t think it proves atheism false; however, there are some philosophers who have taken Darwin’s idea and expanded it into a formal argument.

Check out the transcript of this debate (transcribed by yours truly!) or mp3 for more info.
- Shawn
  
  Thanks, I did read the full letter and as suspected you have indeed cited it completely out of context.
  
  The preceding sentence actually points to Darwin doubting theism, not atheism.
  
  “Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy”.
  - http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker
    
    If he doubts the convictions of a man’s minds because they developed from the mind of lower animals, why would that doubt apply only to theism? He’s doubting the whole kitten kabootle my friend!
    - Shawn
      
      He summarizes Graham’s theory (I’ll accept your argument it isn’t theism) and then says “but”.
      
      In English sentence construction, that means he is disagreeing with the specific preceding sentence, not anything (and everything)else you can think of.
      
      You can theorize by his answer he also meant to apply his doubt to natural selection and evolution (although that would be pretty incredulous considering it was his life’s work) but you wouldn’t be in the majority opinion there, and that’s well short of a fact.
    - randal
      
      Of course, it is a universal, indiscriminate skeptical acid leaving us at best in the most rudimentary pragmatism: i.e. we think and act as we do because it seems to work. That’s where pomo philosopher Richard Rorty famously ended up in large part for just those reasons.
- Shawn
  
  I read some of the transcript, and as usual the apologist version of the argument bears no resemblance to what you Christians are supposed to believe, according to the only source of information you have about the existence and behavior of your God; the Christian Bible.
  
  So, whilst I accept you are entitled to believe that it is possible for A God to have deliberately created the evolutionary process in order to end up with humanity, that is not the same thing as YOUR Christian God doing so, according to any actual reading of YOUR Bible.
  
  Nowhere in the Bible that I have seen refers to evolution, natural selection or common ancestry thesis, or anything like them. In fact (as pointed out by fundamentalists) it clearly contradicts all of them.
  
  So, like many atheists I find it puzzling how any true Christian can now posit that the Bible actually means the opposite of what it actually says.
  
  But you apologists don’t like referring to the actual words in the Bible much, do you?
  - http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker
    
    The Bible has much to say: in the form of poems, songs, proverbs, parables, extended imagery, historical accounts, biographies, and the list goes on. The one thing you won’t find in my list is “science textbook.” That’s I don’t believe the Bible was written for the purpose of describing how the physical world works, but instead it offers a story about why we’re here. What our purpose is.
    
    Atheism has it’s own story, but it’s one I can’t accept. Sure there are plenty of arguments to be found for theism or atheism, but at the end of the day when I lay on the pillow, I find that my relationship with God is not delusional. I find that the Bible is quite beautiful. But showing a skeptic that my experiences are “true” is an impossible task. So don’t believe me. Tell me I’m delusional. If atheism is true, it doesn’t matter that a bunch of molecules vibrated theistically instead of atheistically for a short time during the universe’s expansion.
    
    I’ll quote the Bible now so you don’t think I’m a bad apologist!
    
    Psalm 19:1
    “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
    
    Maybe Randal has some thoughts, I’ll take a seat now. Take care Shawn, good crossing swords with you sir.
    - Shawn
      
      Sorry David, I’ll let you go, but not without challenge to your premise that the Bible isn’t attempting to explain the origins of the physical world and humanity.
      
      The point of Genesis was what????
      (and I’ll leave out the obvious intelligent design quips, oops no I won’t).
      - randal
        
        Shawn,
        
        In order to understand any literary text you have to understand it within its genre. Genesis 1 is a cosmogonic creation myth (not in the popular sense of “myth” as a false text, but in the technical sense of a text dealing with a universal truth or question of ultimate origins, often in figurative language). John Walton, an OT scholar at Wheaton, offers a good discussion in his recent book The Lost World of Genesis One. To think that ancient near eastern documents like this should be read like an essay in Scientific American is mind-numbingly anachronistic. (Sadly, some conservative Christians do great abuse to the text by reading it in just this way.)
        
        Shawn
        
        Oh how predictable, and convenient, that for all this time hunanity misunderstood what God wanted them to believe, until Darwin discovered the truth, and the apologists found the “secret” meaning of the bible.
        
        Seems God didn’t really mind humanity misunderstanding his “real” message for 2000 years, but now he wants us to.
        
        There really is no point debating the bible with you people, because you just interpret whatever you want into it to suit, including the polar opposite of what it actually says, and the opposite of 2000 years of Christian catechism.
        
        What amazes me is that you still consider yourselves Christian, and that you actually have any core beliefs at all.
        
        Which may I add is self evident as no one here has answered my question as to one single thing in the bible which is fundamental to the Christian belief system (which by definition therefore cannot be re-interpreted later to match scientific fact), and how you know it’s literally true.
        
        It’s like debating with people who don’t hold a consistent position on anything. Pretty pointless.
        
        randal
        
        Shawn,
        
        You seem to assume that Christians throughout history have read the Bible (and Genesis 1) the same way that 20-21st Century American conservatives do. That’s simply false. Read what Basil (fourth century) or Augustine (fifth century) say about how to read Genesis 1.
        
        Shawn
        
        And they’re more correct in their interpretations than you?
        
        And you’re still dodging the ultimate question. Is it all subject to (various) interpretation or not? And why’s my interpretation any less likely to be correct than your’s?
        
        randal
        
        Shawn, this is the general question pushed by most of those that wear the pomo hat. But that doesn’t exclude the fact that we can have good reasons for what we do believe.
        
        Shawn
        
        Accepted, but what is one example of what you believe from the Bible that is so fundamental to Christ’s mission (for his evangelists) that it can’t have multiple meanings or interpretations; and how do you know this?
        
        If there is no such thing (or you don’t know what it is), then fundamentally you have no “religion” (unless everyone making up their own catechism counts as a religion).
        
        randal
        
        God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. A Christian learns that through the testimony of the community of which they are a part, much like we learn all sorts of other things by being part of other communities (e.g. a city, a job site, the Kiwanis club, a circle of friends, etc).
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker

By the way you are incorrect to think that the preceding sentence is referring to theism. Darwin is responding to Graham’s “Creed of Science,” and discussing whether natural laws imply a purpose in the universe.
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker

Shawn,

The majority opinion is that atheism is false. So what?

Some of the greatest theologians have also been the greatest doubters of God as well. Check out Francis Schaeffer some time. Therefore, it isn’t strange to me that Darwin doubted even more than he wrote in that letter. Men think much more lying on their pillow then they do in the streets.

So sure, I’ll grant you it isn’t a fact and maybe Darwin didn’t doubt his beliefs about evolution. But that doesn’t change the fact the ants have been building colonies long before we went to the moon, and they did so without any beliefs. So human accomplishments don’t need to pin a medal on beliefs…in fact, many atheist theories of belief today make them useless in playing a role in actions. To some, beliefs are just like the exhaust coming out of your car’s tail pipe. So much for beliefs!
- Shawn
  
  Sorry David, I took you for a theist. If you don’t see any value in beliefs, then you can’t possibly be one.
  
  My reference to human accomplishments had nothing to do with beliefs anyway. I was proving that we don’t have unreliable “monkey minds”, or if we do, those are some pretty smart monkeys (mind you, they went into space too).
  
  By the way, I never allege atheism is the world majority opinion, although we hope that one day the rest of humanity will evolve enough intellectually to stop believing in middle eastern fairy tales.
AJ Smith

Excellent post Randal! Once again you win the debate.
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David

Shawn,

There are a variety of positions that a Christian can take on Genesis–ranging from literal 7 days of creation to theistic evolution (and other variants that allow for life to evolve but be directed by God in some way, such as Plantinga in that transcript). I believe that the primary question to address about any verse in the Bible is: what did the original author intend? I personally like Tim Keller’s stance on what the author of Genesis was trying to do (here.

If you like Keller, check out the talk he gave at Google Authors. My skeptic friends tend to like him better than “apologists.” Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxup3OS5ZhQ
- randal
  
  David,
  
  Asking what the original (human) author intended is always the anchor of a good hermeneutic, but it is not the end of one. If a person believes that God superintended the composition and compiliation of the texts into a unified whole Bible then one can also ask about God’s intention in what we call the “sensus plenior” or fuller sense. To note one classic example, look at the way that Matthew brings out in Matthew 2 another completely novel meaning to Isaiah 7:14 which was not in the mind of the original human author. At that point Christians believe Matthew provides insight to a novel sensus plenior.
  
  Tim Keller’s a very good speaker.
  - http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker
    
    Very good points Randal. Looking forward to reading some of your articles on the trinity.
    
    Here’s some good material for you.
    - randal
      
      Thanks David.
      
      I would agree with John’s negative assessment of social trinitarianism. The best place to get my views on the Trinity is in chapter two of my book Faith Lacking Understanding. I think the most promising theoretical account of the one/three problem is the sameness without identity distinction that derives from the composition paradox.
Shawn

Randal,

Ran out of reply buttons on that last chain, so let’s start again.

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. A Christian learns that through the testimony of the community of which they are a part, much like we learn all sorts of other things by being part of other communities (e.g. a city, a job site, the Kiwanis club, a circle of friends, etc)”.

That’s it? You learn it from the testimony of a community of 21st century theologians who can’t actually “testify” to anything that happened 2000 years ago?

You could say the same thing about the Branch Davidians, or Scientologists too.

The Bible is now just a book of ancient opinion? (I entirely agree with that categorization though).

I’m not trying to ridicule your belief system, just to make it clear to everyone here the fundamental reality upon which it rests. If you are content with that, so be it, but I find that “modern” evangelists are too often trying to hide the plain truth of what they are asking you to believe behind impressive (to some people) philosophical vocabulary and argument.

Take for instance the fact that few bible studies classes outside of a university will tell you the historical facts of how the Bible was actually constructed and when.

How many Christians do you think know this simple truth? I didn’t until I was 35 years old and went looking for myself, and I went to Church and attended Catholic school until I was 18.

I’ve never seen it mentioned on any evangelist TV shows, or advertised as a subject for any evangelical speeches.

Does it appear anywhere on your website? Given your extensive studies in this area, one would think so.

Why the avoidance of explaining the historical evidence of how the Bible was created? Because there’s no hermeneutic excuses for it?
- randal
  
  Shawn,
  
  Do you believe that the past is unknowable? Hmmm, then a course in historiography beckons.
  - Shawn
    
    What??
    
    I just asked you why you and your evangelist buddies don’t want to talk about the “historiography” of the bible at all.
    
    I also asked you to estimate how many Christians know the actual “historiography” of it’s construction.
http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David

Shawn,

I think we should be respectful of Randal and his wise use of time as a seminary professor. He doesn’t need to answer every possible objection thatyou have in this comment box, but he still takes a little of his free time to do so.

We all enjoy debate and discussion, but in my experience it’s best to avoid the “shotgun every possible argument at my opponent” approach, and it’s best let dead horses lie (mixing my metaphors).

Let’s save the discussion about hermeneutics for another post. Maybe Randal will do a series on it at some point. That would be fun.
- Shawn
  
  David
  
  1. I didn’t set up a blog encouraging debate on theology/philosophy/atheism.
  
  2. I don’t expect every post to be answered.
  
  3. The fact he is a seminary professor may impress you, but it doesn’t make his “free” time any more valuable than mine (or yours).
  
  4. Proper debate does not require a restriction in the number of arguments launched against an opponent’s case.
  
  5. Just taking your ball and walking off the field doesn’t mean you win.
  - http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker
    
    Shawn,
    
    Our approach to blog etiquette is quite different.
    
    When people talk in person, they might debate an issue, and occasionally their disagreement might bubble up into a broader debate that extends over multiple issues or involves general underlying principles. But if two people disagreed that way all the time, others might question their sanity for continuing to talk at all (unless they were married of course).
    
    Yet, some feel that the comfortable distance provided by the internet entitles them to behave more like picketers at a protest rally.
    
    You apparently see Randal as just another blank face holding a sign that says “Christianity” and you’ve come here with a megaphone.
    
    Well, that’s all fine I suppose. This isn’t my blog. But I at least want to show you how your “proper debate” comes across on my end.
    
    A lot of the debating wouldn’t even be necessary if a little work was put into the question.
    - http://ponderingthepreponderance.blogspot.com David Parker
      
      oops, missed my link tag
      - Shawn
        
        Thanks for the condescending advice.
        
        I’m not the one who needs educating on the facts though.
        
        One good link deserves another.
        
        http://www.as.ua.edu/rel/aboutrelbiomack.html
Sue

Applied Christian politics 101. All of which became INEVITABLE the moment that the early church was coopted by the Roman state, and thus became a key, and often leading player in the Western drive to gain total power and control over every one and every thing.

All of which is also an INEVITABLE extension of the bogus Christian claim to be the only true revelation/way/faith.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner
Shawn

Robert Gresis

Replying at the end here because we’ve run out of replies again.

Quote “If an atheist only means someone who doesn’t believe there is a God, then it seems to me that it’s completely vacuous. For one thing, we don’t know which God the atheist denies”.

Yes we do. The atheist denies ALL gods.

If he/she didn’t, they would be a theist. Why is this so hard a definition for you to accept?

Secondly, my point to Randal (which appears to have been missed by you all) is that atheism does not carry with it an obligation to provide a counter theory for any theological allegation of how the universe works or was created.

Some of us do, but that’s an entirely different debate, and isn’t being argued BECAUSE one is an atheist, but because one has a belief in one or more scientific or other theories, e.g. evolution. And as you well know, believing in evolution and theism isn’t a mutually exclusive position these days.

As I’ve said before, the beauty of being an atheist is we can admit we don’t have all the answers, and most of us are not terrified of that position.

That doesn’t mean we don’t attempt to discover more of them every day. We can do so because we aren’t locked into 1st century middle eastern knowledge and logic.
- Robert Gressis
  
  “Yes we do. The atheist denies ALL gods.”
  
  So if someone believed in a Greek deity but denied the existence of any all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the universe, then that person would not only not be an atheist, that person would be a theist? That doesn’t sound right to me at all.
  
  Also, Paul Tillich claims to believe in God, but he does not think that God is a being among beings. He claims God is the ground of being. Do atheists disbelieve in the ground of being?
  
  Also, Spinoza believes that nature is God. But atheists surely don’t disbelieve in nature.
  
  The reason I bring these up is that “God” has been used to refer to lots of different things. Consequently, telling me that an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God doesn’t tell me much. Moreover, I just disagree with you that an atheist can’t believe in any god at all.
  
  As for how I define an atheist, an atheist is someone who thinks theism is false, and I take theism to be the view that there exists very powerful, very knowledgeable, very loving/morally good creator of the universe.
  
  As for your claim that “atheism does not carry with it an obligation to provide a counter theory for any theological allegation of how the universe works or was created”; maybe you’re right (though I’m not convinced of that), but it seems to me that if you’re right, then theism similarly does not carry with it any obligation to provide a theory for any theological allegation of how the universe works or was created.
  - Shawn
    
    “So if someone believed in a Greek deity but denied the existence of any all-powerful, all-knowing being who created the universe, then that person would not only not be an atheist, that person would be a theist? That doesn’t sound right to me at all”.
    
    Yes, any form of “deity” (Greek, Hindu or otherwise) denotes theism.
    
    Robert, seems to me like you’re trying to convince people that atheists somehow, surreptitiously believe in a God?
    
    Have you given up that much on trying to prove the theist position?
    
    “but it seems to me that if you’re right, then theism similarly does not carry with it any obligation to provide a theory for any theological allegation of how the universe works or was created”.
    
    Not surprisingly, I disagree. The difference is that atheism isn’t alleging anything. i.e. it is simply denying the theist allegations, on the basis of lack of credible evidence.
    
    Therefore, there is nothing for atheism to prove (although we can and do regularly seek to disprove the theist allegations).
    
    Theists are the one’s proposing theories/allegations about the universe, and therefore should be called to provide evidence for said theories/allegations.
    
    If a scientist claims to have a cure for cancer, we don’t all just accept his word for it. Likewise, if I say I don’t believe he has a cure, I don’t need to provide evidence of my own cure to prove he doesn’t.
    - Robert Gressis
      
      “Yes, any form of “deity” (Greek, Hindu or otherwise) denotes theism.”
      
      According to you. I think you use the term non-standardly. Regardless, even if you use the term in the standard way, which I don’t believe, what’s supposed to follow from this? That I am obligated to use the term in the way you use it? That would be odd from someone who claims not to believe in moral obligation.
      
      “Robert, seems to me like you’re trying to convince people that atheists somehow, surreptitiously believe in a God?”
      
      No, I am not doing that. I am saying that lots of people have used the term “God” in lots of different ways, and so to say that an atheist disbelieves in God, without taking any stance onf what “God” refers to, isn’t telling me very much at all.
      
      “Have you given up that much on trying to prove the theist position?”
      
      “Not surprisingly, I disagree. The difference is that atheism isn’t alleging anything. i.e. it is simply denying the theist allegations, on the basis of lack of credible evidence.”
      
      Well, now you’ve started to change your definition of atheism. Before, an atheist was simply someone who “denied ALL gods.” Now, an atheist is someone who “[denies] theist allegations, on the basis of lack of credible evidence.” So it seems as though “atheism” has a certain notion of “evidence” and “credible” built into it as well. Furthermore, it contains the view that “if you don’t have evidence for something, then you shouldn’t believe that that something obtains.” OK, if an atheist is “someone who denies theological allegations [whatever those are] because it lacks credible evidence”, then someone who thinks there is no God, but who nonetheless thinks that there is credible evidence for a God, is not an atheist. Weird.
      - Shawn
        
        Robert,
        
        Take a look at what you’ve written closely.
        
        “then someone who thinks there is no God, but who nonetheless thinks that there is credible evidence for a God, ……”
        
        Can you enlighten me as to what sort of logic is needed for believing there is no God, but acknowledging there is credible evidence for one?
        
        I know of no atheist who believes there is any evidence (credible or otherwise) for the existence of ANY God. They don’t even allow for the POSSIBILITY of one, otherwise they’d be agnostics.
        
        I don’t want to harp on about a pretty straightforward factual position on what atheism means (look in the dictionary), but you appear to be confusing the problem of defining what a God is, with the straightforward definition of atheism.
        
        I will take David Parker’s advice here and refrain from launching into another line of argument about what a God is, however if Randal wants to start a post about it, I’ll join in.
        
        Robert Gressis
        
        “Can you enlighten me as to what sort of logic is needed for believing there is no God, but acknowledging there is credible evidence for one?”
        
        Sure. You think some considerations support theism, and you think some considerations support atheism, and you conclude that the considerations that support atheism are stronger than the ones that support theism. My friend Steve Petersen (a philosopher at Niagara University) believes that the argument from design gives some support for the claim that theism is true, but he thinks that the problem of evil gives significantly more support to the claim that the atheism is true. Consequently, he’s an atheist because he thinks that it is very likely that theism is false.
        
        “I know of no atheist who believes there is any evidence (credible or otherwise) for the existence of ANY God. They don’t even allow for the POSSIBILITY of one, otherwise they’d be agnostics.”
        
        I don’t see why even allowing for the possibility of a God’s existing makes you an agnostic–someone who neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists. Why can’t someone think (for example) that (1) it’s POSSIBLE that there is some evidence for Santa Claus or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but that (2) there is ACTUALLY no evidence for Santa Claus or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters and so conclude that (3) sasquatches don’t exist? Why would that person be an agnostic about sasquatches?
        
        Incidentally, when I checked “atheism” in the new online OED, it read, “Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).” It didn’t say “disbelief in … the existence of a God or gods.” On the other hand, Wikipedia supports your definition (well, your first definition), holding that “Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.” Interestingly, in support of its definition, it cites the definitions of two atheist philosophers, Kai Nielsen and Paul Edwards. Nielsen defines atheism as the rejection of a belief in “God or spiritual beings” (which matches your first definition of atheism) while Edwards defines an atheist as “a person who rejects belief in God”, which supports my definition.
        
        I don’t know what Nielsen means by “spiritual beings”, though; if Cartesian dualism is true, then human beings are spiritual beings (or so it seems to me), but I don’t know why an atheist couldn’t be a substance dualist.
Robert Gressis

I just realized that one part of my post made no sense. The corrected post should read:

Why can’t someone think (for example) that (1) it’s POSSIBLE that there is some evidence for Santa Claus or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters, but that (2) there is ACTUALLY no evidence for Santa Claus or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters and so conclude that (3) Santa Claus or unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters don’t exist? Why would that person be an agnostic about Santa/unicorns/FSMs?
Pingback: Gospel Without Law
Pingback: Oil Spills; One of the Worst Natural Disasters That Hunanity Has Dealt With » HunanityJohn, defenseChild, HealthDating, DisastersMoobs, generatedRelated, DealtCoping, ArticlesPossibly » News Area