I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, who cares if people like me?
We can approach the many comments from the Triablogue Posse to my Dr. Z case in terms of tone or content. In this post I’m going to focus primarily on the tone.
As I read the comments I couldn’t help but think that some of the commenters should watch some old SNL skits featuring Stuart Smalley (played by Al Franken. Yes I know Franken is “a liberal”. Cue the scary organ music). Stuart may have been kind of effeminate (e.g. had Mark Driscoll not been elect he may have put the boots to poor Stuart in a back alley), and he may have been an emotional wreck, but he at least recognized the value in people liking you.
Not so the Triablogue Posse. Indeed, one gets a whiff that the fewer people like them the happier they are and the more they are confirmed in their own election. (Okay that’s not all of them, but after awhile one does begin to discern a general pattern.) Consider the way three of them respond to my story.
First, a brief recap of the story itself. I told of Dr. Z, working in the Congo, desperately attempting to help the victims of rape and mutilation in the ongoing war in the region. After seeing a mutilated eight year old with her legs amputated, Dr. Z loses his faith. “What say you?” I asked the Triablogue Posse.
I was caught off guard by Pastor Dustin Segers who responded by calling the story a “tearjerker”. By doing so it seemed that he was suggesting it was somehow a manipulative cynical play on emotion as if we’re talking about a movie like “Titanic” or “My Sister’s Keeper”. That seemed to me terribly unfair. There are many people like Dr. Z who have experienced horrors we cannot begin to fathom. In the war in Bosnia a man saw his grandson disembowled in front of him. Then he was forced to eat some of his grandson’s intestines before he was impaled to a tree. Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, some people might have a difficult time conceiving of the compatiblity between a God of infinite love and compassion in light of such heinous evils?
D Bnonn Tennant’s tone was even more striking. He writes:
Randal, in your contrived scenario with Dr Z, I believe a sinless and correct response would be:
“You speak as one of the foolish men would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?”
But perhaps you don’t believe that the fool says in his heart, “There is no God”?
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that one. This guy makes Job’s comforters look like rank amateurs. Dr. Z, his shirt still soaked with the blood of the eight year old he labored to save, is a foolish man? And then Tennant continues the perpetual abuse of Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1. I am convinced that the people who quote those texts against atheists and agnostics must surely have never read them. (I dealt with this horrible proof-texting in my article “Are Atheists all Fools?”)
But the palme d’or must surely go to Kilgore who had the most vicious response to the Dr. Z story:
“Maybe Dr. Z would think more clearly if he wasn’t boozing and crying into his brandy?”
Yes, it is true. In the story Dr. Z was drinking a glass of brandy as he was weeping. Didn’t he know that as Jesus was rising at the ascension he looked down and said “I almost forgot, when you do that Lord’s Supper thing, make sure it’s grape juice.” (Too bad it took an additional nineteen hundred years before Thomas Bramwell Welch got around to inventing grape juice and stopping the tide of Christians sinning boldly every time they knelt for communion.)
In a way Kilgore’s comments are ironically funny given the number of Reformed theologians (many of whom Kilgore probably has posters of on the wall of his basement suite in his parents’ house) who enjoy a good cigar and brandy. (I could name names, but I don’t want to shake Kilgore’s faith.)
A final note to the Triablogue Posse: Once you write things like that, ending your statement with something like ”Sincerely, at the foot of cross of sovereign grace…” kinda rings hollow.
Tags: Calvinism, grace, problem of evil, Reformed Christianity, Triablogue
74 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 5:19pm
Randal
That story of the man in Bosnia is the most horrible thing I have ever heard of. I literally burst into tears when I read it, and I’m still shaking. And yet I’m sure it isn’t the worst thing one man has ever done to another. It made me question for a moment my own firmly-held belief that truth is worth seeking no matter what, but in the end I decided that such horrors can only be made worse by turning a blind eye to them. I don’t want to focus on that part of this post, but as a human being I feel compelled to express my reaction.
Breathe, Jerry, breathe.
I’ll perhaps respond later when I’m able to digest this post more objectively, but right now I’m only horrified.
But on a lighter(?) note, before I’d gotten to that I saw Stuart Smalley’s smiling face and thought this would be the perfect spot to link to Dusty’s profile photo.
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:06pm
I must say Dustin looks very angry in that photo. It is not the general impression I’d want to convey. (Indeed, it looks rather like Edward Norton in “American History X.”)
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:20pm
Well, you can’t see his face, but his finger sure looks angry. His whole hand, actually.
I wish I’d thought to take a screen shot of teh full profile before the coward removed the picture. I’m surprised that someone who can ask what’s morally atrocious about such an act unless there’s punishment at the end of the line would take that picture down. I’d think he’d be proud of it, not embarassed or ashamed as his action seems to indicate.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 6:02pm
Randall,
“Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, some people might have a difficult time conceiving of the compatiblity between a God of infinite love and compassion in light of such heinous evils?”
Randall, I have a difficult time conceiving the compatibility between a godless universe and atheists calling *anything* “heinous”.
As mentioned before, I *expect* such atrocities to take place because the Bible teaches that people are evil. The Bible records many similar atrocities and indeed, there’s nothing new under the sun (Eccles. 1:9). People have been dashing others to pieces since Cain slew his brother.
Our argument was that given atheism, how does one *ground* the very moral realism by which they identify anything as atrocious?
Assuming atheism, why is the Bosnian incident you narrate morally atrocious if we are all just bags of matter?
How does the atheist get moral laws that are obligatory on all people from impersonal matter?
Dustin S. Segers
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 6:30pm
Hey, Dusty, you coward
You forgot to remove your profile photo from here.
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:17pm
Dustin,
If you want to discuss metaethics I’ll note that your rebuttal of platonism was utterly lacking. A person could be an atheist and believe that there is an objective universal good which is exemplified in some actions but not others. Such a view would certainly stand in tension with naturalism under conventional definitions, but it is fully reconcilable with atheism.
But we’re not really talking about metaethics here. Or at least I’m not. I’m laying out cases in which it is very reasonable to see how people could lose their faith, or at least fail to affirm the proposition “God exists” where “God” is defined as a maximally loving, omnibenevolent being.
I presume as a Calvinist you believe that God decrees all things that occur to happen for God’s greater glory. Can’t you see how somebody could struggle with the notion that a grandfather forced to eat his grandson’s intestines could somehow be for God’s greater glory?
Instead all I have heard from you is that anybody who fails to affirm at any time the proposition “God exists”, no matter what the reasons, are in sin.
I demur. I don’t think that when Paul references the unbelievers mentioned in Romans 1 that he had in mind a doctor who failed to save a double amputee rape victim and is now struggling with doubt while his shirt is soaked in blood.
But this post is about another issue anyways. It is about tone. I wish you could see how, irrespective of your views, the way you present them is so deeply hurtful and alienating to others.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:13pm
Randall,
“A person could be an atheist and believe that there is an objective universal good which is exemplified in some actions but not others.”
This still doesn’t explain *how* Platonism grounds morality, it just asserts that it does.
“But we’re not really talking about metaethics here. Or at least I’m not.”
But you are the one who originally brought up the ethical dimension of Calvinistic practical theology in your posts.
Moreover re: metaethics, very few of my comments in this regard have been addressed to you, but to the atheist commenters on this blog.
“I’m laying out cases in which it is very reasonable to see how people could lose their faith, or at least fail to affirm the proposition “God exists” where “God” is defined as a maximally loving, omnibenevolent being.”
But my responses haven’t been rebutted, you have simply disagreed with them yet admitted that I was consistent. But whether you, I, or anyone else likes them is irrelevant since Scripture teaches that if a man continues in unrepentant apostasy he is headed for Hell. Thus, He must be lovingly warned to repent and turn back to the Christ he forsook.
“I presume as a Calvinist you believe that God decrees all things that occur to happen for God’s greater glory. Can’t you see how somebody could struggle with the notion that a grandfather forced to eat his grandson’s intestines could somehow be for God’s greater glory?”
Of course I can understand that, but that wasn’t my original point.
“Instead all I have heard from you is that anybody who fails to affirm at any time the proposition “God exists”, no matter what the reasons, are in sin.”
That’s because that’s what’s the Bible says; and no, that’s not all I’ve said. Anyone following this discussion can go back and look at my comments under this post see that they put the lie to your assertions above: http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/dr-z-meets-dustin/
“Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 5:40am
Randall,
I’m not sure I can add anything more than what “PM” has already said. I think he has made my case quite well for me. As a pastor, I regularly confront people in their sin and I have always tried to speak the truth in love and be patient with them since I’m a sinner too who has been forgiven much (Matt. 7:47; Eph. 4:15).
I regularly minister to people that have either apostatized, think they are Christians but are in reality false converts, or are confirmed unbelievers. I have told them the truth with tears in my eyes at times, pleading with them to repent and trust in Christ. However, while I try to be sensitive to people’s situations, I have always told them the truth and not shirked away from doing so.
I completely agree with what PM said here,
“On the face of it, that someone is headed for hell is reason enough to cry. It’s sad that you think one cannot be direct, honest, and also emotionally sympathetic.”
In Christ,
Dustin S. Segers”
You go on to state,
“I demur. I don’t think that when Paul references the unbelievers mentioned in Romans 1 that he had in mind a doctor who failed to save a double amputee rape victim and is now struggling with doubt while his shirt is soaked in blood.”
Well then, you are admitting that this man will have an excuse on judgment day, contrary to what the Holy Spirit tells you in Romans 1:20.
“But this post is about another issue anyways. It is about tone. I wish you could see how, irrespective of your views, the way you present them is so deeply hurtful and alienating to others.”
Jesus Christ, my congregation, and those who actually know me will have to decide whether that’s true or not.
In Christ,
Dustin S. Segers
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:46pm
Let me just say something about the metaethical question.
Dustin: “This still doesn’t explain *how* Platonism grounds morality, it just asserts that it does.”
I am not sure what you’re looking for here. A substance dualist might argue for their view that the human agent is a soul by arguing that we have free will and free will requires a non-physical agent to intervene in the chain of material causes. I suspect you might be amenable to this type of argument.
However, a materialist (reductive or supervenient, it doesn’t matter) retorts: “This still doesn’t explain how the soul intervenes in the physical world. It just asserts that it does.”
True, in one sense. However, it is still reasonable to go from “there are facts about free will which require a soul” to “there is a soul.” Likewise it is reasonable to go from “there are facts about free action which require objective moral valuation” to “there is a form of the good.”
You and I may agree (I’m sure we do) that all things told some sort of divine ground of morality is both correct and, so far as we can understand, a superior explanation to a purely platonic one. But my point is simply that one can be an atheist and have an objective ground for morals in a platonic form of the good. And as such, you need to fine tune your arguments against atheists in recognition of that fact. It is simply not fair to suggest that atheists are simply saddled with some form of ethical subjectivism because that is simply not true.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 10:30pm
Randall,
Free will doesn’t exist, thus, I wouldn’t agree to the argument from substance dualism (cf. Pro. 16:9; 21:1; John 6:44; 65; Romans 8:7-8; 11:36; Rev. 17:17, etc.).
1. Even if I would grant that people have libertarian free will (which I don’t), it doesn’t follow that they derive obligation from an impersonal immaterial realm.
2. Also, what “informs” the forms of the good if not an arbitrary subjective definition of goodness? Cf. my comments to Jerry in this regard in this stream of comments.
The point is this, whether you have a Platonic realm or not, you must have a personal, Absolute God that demands loyalty or obedience. I have never found an atheist (Platonist or otherwise) whether in personal communication or scholarly literature that could explain to me why a impersonal structure demands loyalty or obedience. The Greeks ran into this same problem with the “fates”; they ran back and forth between wondering whether it was more noble to fight against the “fates”, or go along with them.
Their “form of the good” did them no good (!) because they had no Absolute Personal Good God to ground goodness. So it was then, so it is now. Its the same package in different gift wrapping.
Thanks for the interaction.
Dustin S. Segers
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 11:17pm
The argument by analogy I presented doesn’t actually depend on libertarian free will. You could argue that a compatibilist understanding of free will is also only possible with a soul. (And major Reformed theologians from Calvin on held to a compatibilist understanding of free will.) But that is really a rabbit trail from the main point. You could simply slot in something else and make the same point. For instance you could argue that substance dualism is true because consciousness is irreducible to the physical. And somebody could object that there is no explanation on this argument of how consciousness relates to the physical. But that wouldn’t be sufficient to undermine the argument in its limited duty. And neither is your retort sufficient to undermine a platonic form of the good with atheism.
It is true that a platonic form of the good cannot guarantee final observation of the moral code from moral agents. (Of course Kant used this fact to argue for theism.) But an atheist could concede that point and still argue that based on their platonism certain actions and states of affairs have an objective disvalue we call “evil” and others an objective value we call “good” irrespective of whether any human agents recoginze these actions as such.
One more thing. Explanation always stops somewhere. For a theist like you or me, it stops with God. For the Platonist it stops with the self-existent form of the good.
I would add in my opinion a theistic worldview is by far the most intellectually satisfactory. But at the same time I think we need to recognize that the competing alternatives are not as weak as you seem to make them out.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:07am
Randall,
You noted,
“It is true that a platonic form of the good cannot guarantee final observation of the moral code from moral agents. (Of course Kant used this fact to argue for theism.) But an atheist could concede that point and still argue that based on their platonism certain actions and states of affairs have an objective disvalue we call “evil” and others an objective value we call “good” irrespective of whether any human agents recoginze these actions as such.”
This is where we will have to respectfully disagree. I am convinced that one’s form of the good will only be as good as their preconceived concept of goodness, and that will be determined by their cultural mileu, social pressures, religious convictions, etc.; thus it *does* end up turning into moral relativism to one extent or another.
If they think that the form of the good is represented by going along with “the fates” (to allude to the Greeks), then that is a radically different understanding of “good” versus fighting the “fates”. I agree with Platonists, that an immaterial realm is necessary in order to account for the universal abstracta that we all inevitably use on a day to day basis. What I deny is that they can create an “ought” from that “is” (to borrow Humean language). Nevertheless, this is a worthy discussion and I appreciate the interaction.
“One more thing. Explanation always stops somewhere.”
Right, and that’s why I patiently interact with atheists so as to demonstrate to those who will listen that their worldview does not and cannot provide the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the intelligibility of reality.
I also agree that Sam Harris doesn’t have a philosophical leg to stand on.
I also agree that Andre Crouch could bring it!
In Him,
Dusman
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:13am
Well then we agree on quite a lot and that’s good. Do you agree with me as well that it is inappropriate to put a picture of my daughter on the triablogue website? I love to debate, and I have had all sorts of people on my website, but nobody ever went so far as to drag my daughter into it.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:00am
Randall,
Out of respect for your request; the author changed the photo.
Robert Gressis says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 5:41pm
I think Pastor Dustin might find Christine Korsgaard’s The Sources of Normativity much more interesting than atheistic Platonic realism (there aren’t many of those out there, to the best of my knowledge; Don Regan and Russ Shafer-Landau are the only two who come to mind). Korsgaard tries to answer the question of what makes it the case that we have moral obligations, and she tries to answer this in such a way that someone who is trying to figure out why he should obey the commands of morality will be satisfied.
I could go on (if you’d like), but it’s very readable, and one of the most influential works of moral philosophy written in the contemporary era (up there with Thomas Nagel’s The Possibility of Altruism, Derek Parfit’s Reasons and Persons, and Bernard Williams’s Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. I recommend you read it, or at least read about it. You probably won’t be convinced, but it’s much more challenging than your standard unthinking “well, some things are right and wrong, and that’s that” or “well, nothing is right and wrong anyway.”
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 6:19pm
I haven’t read Sources of Normativity either. But like Jerry I shall. Thanks for the reference!
Taniwha says:
Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 12:30pm
Randal > And as such, you need to fine tune your arguments against atheists in recognition of that fact. It is simply not fair to suggest that atheists are simply saddled with some form of ethical subjectivism because that is simply not true.<
Randal why bother asking the Calvinist crew over at Traiblogue to be fair?,i understand as a Christian maybe you fully believe in miracles happening, but isnt that kind of faith pushing your faith that little bit far?.Your faith still need to be a realistic type faith right?
Im an atheist ,also with past experience with the Triablogue crew of lovely folks.They finally banned me making any more of my comments on their Triablogue, maybe because of their frustrations when all their attacks only seemed to have an effect of backfiring.And some of their own loyal blog followers became steadily more and more embarrassed as time went on.
Anyway we have been watching this exchange with much interest.Even if we dont partake of your faith Randal ,at least we can have some real respect for your honesty,displayed in these words of yours we have quoted in this comment.
randal says:
Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 12:56pm
At the end of the day I prefer to hang out not simply with people who are of like mind but rather with people who are (a) nice and who (b) care about the truth more than what they happen to believe the truth to be at the moment. And as a matter of both principle and brute fact, we need to have that attitude if this fragile idea called “the open society” (e.g. the society in which people are no longer sent to the gallows for differing in matters of religion and metaphysics) is to survive.
Taniwha says:
Friday, January 21, 2011 at 1:44am
Hee hee,wouldnt this heaven be real heavenly like when sharing it with these lovely Triablogue Calvinists.Cant you imagine Calvinists standing there with Jesus the kind man who told folks to even try to love their enemy.They would really love that great idea to bits im sure.Might make the Calvinist palate gag just a little of course.
randal says:
Friday, January 21, 2011 at 3:26am
There is a tension in scripture between unqualified calls to love one’s enemies and certain claims, such as are found in the imprecatory psalmist, to hate one’s enemies. Dustin quoted the latter to me last week. But I interpret them in light of the former. (See my powerpoint on the imprecatory psalms.)
Taniwha says:
Friday, January 21, 2011 at 10:44pm
> (See my powerpoint on the imprecatory psalms.)<
Hi Randal.Im involved with a small group of friends with mutual interest in all these type of matters.So we would really enjoy to take a look at this powerpoint.
We have tried two days running to open the link you provided.Unfortunately it wont open for us at the moment.We realize you are likely a very busy person.But it you do get time at some stage, do you think there something wrong with the link,or do you have any ideas why we might not be able to open this link?.
randal says:
Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 3:35pm
I’ll look into this. Thanks for your patience.
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:42pm
If these are serious questions, you can start by googling terms such as “atheist morality”. There is a wealth of information available from the atheist perspective about the grounding of morality. You could read what I and other atheists have written about the topic on this blog, as it has been a topic of discussion recently. You could read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, or Good Without God by Greg Epstein. You could search for an honest answer to those questions and stop throwing around the same tired old mankind-hating fear-based rhetoric.
If you sincerely want to know about possible groundings for morality without threat of eternal punishment, the information is readily available.
And if you really don’t appreciate the horror of that incident in Bosnia simply as a human being, then I feel very sorry for your children and for those to whom you minister. I will even say a prayer for them, just in case.
God loves mankind, does He not? Why don’t you?
Jerry Rivard says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:43pm
Not that it’s unclear, but I should have made it a point to address that to Dusty. I trust no one will be misled by it’s appearance right under Randal’s response.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:53pm
Jerry,
Harris and Epstein do not answer the problem of how personal obligation comes from impersonal matter and physical laws; they just *assert* that you can ground ethical norms in nature without actually demonstrating *how* this can be successfully done or without taking into consideration or answering all of the counterfactuals. For example, Harris essentially argues that we can ground moral realism in what makes the greatest number of people happy. But there are loads of problems with this:
1. What makes one *person* happy may annoy, anger, sadden, or infuriate another.
2. What makes one *culture* happy may cause another culture to prepare the missiles and man the tanks.
3. How can you measure “happiness” in order to make scientific assessments by which you apply those standards equally to everyone, especially when everyone isn’t the same?
4. We have no way to guarantee that one person’s claim to be happy indicates that they really are happy. Perhaps they are lying at first to promote group cohesion but are planning to rebel later. So much for your social contract built on happiness!
Put it gets worse, Harris says, “love is more conducive to happiness than hate is . . . “ [Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation, 23.]
5. Harris begs the question. What is “love”? Harris gives us no definition and any definition he would give has to rest on subjective human evaluations of human experience, which is circular. So according to Harris, what makes us happy? Love. Well then, Sam, what is love? His answer: what makes us happy. A classic example of the fallacy of begging the question.
Also, if what makes us happy is love, then what makes us unhappy is hate; but who gets to define hate? You – the atheist God-hater who thinks all religion is dangerous? The Muslim Jihadi?, or this serial killer, who thinks that people are nothing more than objects? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_XsYUoeRzs
Again, what constitutes happiness varies from person to person.
In Harris’ naturalist worldview, every person determines his own values *arbitrarily*, thus reasoning in a fallacious circle.
If Harris wants to violate the naturalistic fallacy (i.e., you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”), then he can knock himself out. I’ll just remind him that when he grounds morality in happiness, I’ll mention the name of Marquis de Sade, who happily advocated raping women for pleasure and eliminating laws against murder said this,
“True wisdom, my dear Juliette, does not consist in repressing our vices, because these vices constitute almost the only happiness in our life to wish to repress them would be to become our own executioners.” [Quoted in R. J. Rushdooney, To Be As God, 14-15. Italics his.]
“God loves mankind, does He not? Why don’t you?”
Psalm 5:5 “The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.”
Psalm 11:5 “The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.”
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 1:16am
You misunderstood me, Dusty. I said read The Moral Landscape, not make up what you think it contains. Your comments make it abundantly clear you have not read it. Nor have you, apparently, made any sincere effort to seek answers to the questions you pretend to be asking, since your only response is to provide links and quotes for people who any rational human being with any honest beliefs about morality would find immoral. (Including probably every source you’d have found if you bothered to look.)
You ask who gets to define love and hate and say “You – the atheist God-hater who thinks all religion is dangerous?” You should read what I wrote in response to Shawn last night. I said quite the opposite of all religion being dangerous.
Apparently you find it more convenient to make up other people’s thoughts rather than attempt to understand them. I’ll bet that saves you a lot of time.
Perhaps you can also enlighten us as to why you removed your profile picture? It seems so appropriate to your style of interaction.
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 1:32am
Jerry, after all our agreements these last few days it pains me to say that there is not a satisfactory secular ethic to be found in Sam Harris. But he does have a nice sheepish grin, kind of like he’s been rolling spitballs when the teacher wasn’t looking.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:22am
LOL. I have my quibbles with TML too, but it provides answers to Dusty’s questions even if he wouldn’t agree with them. It’s one thing to understand an idea and then disagree with it, quite another to remain willfully ignorant of idea and just build your own strawman instead. So my comments were more directed at his unwillingness to take the time to understand an alternative position before declaring so smugly what that position is. And TML was the primary source he attacked.
I think these guys may be perfect examples of the fear Shawn was talking about recently. They’re so afraid that God will send them to hell for thinking that they choose not to.
And to be fair to Sam, you haven’t read TML either. I’d suggest, if you find yourself in a bookstore with 15-20 minutes free, to read the introduction from page 15 (The Bad Life and the Good Life) to the end (10 pages in all). He sets an objective foundation, which you may disagree with, but it may at least give you a fuller understanding of it. I know, so many books, so little time.
Oh, and don’t worry, sooner or later this’ll all blow over and we can get back to our disagreement.
)
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:12am
Jerry,
It is true that there are still some atheists who attempt to defend moral realism. But it’s striking the number of atheists nowadays who don’t even try to keep up appearances. They openly admit that atheism leads to moral relativism. We often quote them verbatim at T-blog.
And the contributors to the recent publication of “The Christian Delusion” were a case in point.
This isn’t just a polemical caricature by Christians. We get this straight from the horse’s mouth.
Also, Sam Harris is not a professional metaethicist. Does anyone in the field take him seriously?
Even his fellow infidels have panned his book as nonsense:
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=12020
http://cognitivephilosophy.net/ethics/sam-harriss-moral-assumptions/
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html
http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/01/11/whats-wrong-with-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape-review/
“And if you really don’t appreciate the horror of that incident in Bosnia simply as a human being, then I feel very sorry for your children and for those to whom you minister.”
Except that atrocities are committed by human beings against other human beings. The perpetrator was just as human as the victim. So that appeal has no differential force.
Also, 4,000 kids are legally ripped apart every day in America via elective abortion, so where’s your moral outrage there Jerry?
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 5:48am
Dusty: “it’s striking the number of atheists nowadays who… openly admit that atheism leads to moral relativism.”
Atheism is a single belief: that gods do not exist. There is no single trail down which that single belief leads, though there are some well-worn paths. Nor is there a single trail down which theism leads, or Christianity. If at least the latter isn’t evident to you by now then you haven’t been paying attention.
Perhaps, though, some atheists do claim that atheism necessarily leads to other beliefs. They’re free to believe that. I don’t.
Was there a point to that observation? It seems to me it began with an acknowledgement that, whether you agree with them or not, some atheists ground morality in something.
Dusty: “Except that atrocities are committed by human beings against other human beings. The perpetrator was just as human as the victim. So that appeal has no differential force.”
You say that without God human beings are nothing but bags of molecules, rearranged pond scum. You attribute those beliefs to (all?) atheists, but they are your own. Now you reduce an unspeakable atrocity to something like a mathematical equation. And yet it is atheists you claim to be devoid of moral values. What happened to you that caused you to lose your humanity?
Dusty: “Also, 4,000 kids are legally ripped apart every day in America via elective abortion, so where’s your moral outrage there Jerry?”
My memory must be failing me. Could you please direct me to the post where I gave my views on abortion?
PM says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 6:16pm
At judgment day . . .
God: Dr. Z, you have rejected me and the salvation found in my son.
Dr.Z: Yes, that is true. I unjustifiably bought into the conditional: “If there be a God, no girls will be rapped and mutilated.” Now I see I had no basis for that premise.
God: Only those who trust in my son are worthy of heaven for I have clothed them in his righteousness.
Dr.Z: [Gnashing his teeth] I wish the rocks would fall on me! Oh how terrible is this day.
[meanwhile, dozens of girls Dr.Z saved in the Congo and who later made professions of faith in the Lord Jesus are walking into heaven.]
God: Did any of my servants warn you of the wrath to come and tell you to get back on the road to the heavenly city?
Dr. Z: No.
God: No? But I see here Randall Rouser. He has trusted in Christ and is my good and faithful servant. I know Randall, loving man that he is, cared for your soul and told you of the end you would come to in your unbelief. Randall, what did you tell Dr.Z?
Randall Rauser: Nothing, I cried with him.
Dr.Z: Randall, why didn’t you warn me?? Your tears mean nothing to me now. They will not quench my mouth or cool me from the fires of hell. Why, Randall, why did you not tell me! Why did I not sit down for coffee with Pastor Dustin, a shepherd of souls???
Randall Rauser: Don’t forget I bought you a coffee too, you ungrateful wretch! Sucks to be you.
Btw, Dr. Rasuer, you have switched subjects now and are talking about some atheists having what they take to be defeaters to their belief in God. That has never been the question. Romans 1 doesn’t suggest that atheists will offer reasons for their rejection of God. I take this change in the dialectical context of the debate to be a concession on your part. The minute you admit you would tell Dr.Z to repent, you lose. The longer you say you’d do nothing except cry, you lose.
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:22pm
PM,
You seem to think that salvation is about assenting to a proposition or two. I disagree. As I noted already, the Good Samaritan parable holds up a theologically heretical individual as a model of loving one’s neighbor which Jesus presents as an essential component part in right relationship with God.
PM says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:47pm
Dr. Rauser, I’m wondering by what rule of inference you got “assenting to a proposition or two” from “trusting and resting on a person.”? Of course, salvation is about assenting to a proposition or two, but it’s more than that too. However, the assent is necessary.
And, yes, due to common grace, many non-Christians are just as good, or better, at being neighbors than Christians. But here’s the rub: the heretic cleans the man up, clothes him, and feeds him and pays his hospital bills. If the beaten man doesn’t hear the gospel and believe it, he goes to hell. Note well that Jesus says nothing about who was justified in the GS parable, it’s about who was a good neighbor. Being a good neighbor doesn’t justify you.
In heaven walks a man who is fat and well dressed. He has been clothed and fed. But he was never told the gospel. Never told to repent of his sins. God looks at the man and asks who let this man in as naked as a porn star. A bunch of self-righteous latte drinking Christians were incredulous. Lord, they replied, this man has been clothed and fed, doing it to him was doing it to you [assuming that politically liberal interpretation of the verse]. God responded to them, His soul! His soul is naked and starving. How blind can you be!”
PM says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 6:17pm
Sorry, not rapped, raped.
PM says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 6:18pm
edit: Romans 1 doesn’t suggest that atheists will not offer reasons for their rejection of God.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 7:50pm
PM, I’ll give you one reason that I’m sure you’ve heard before (I’m just curious to hear your answer):
If our universe simply reflected the action of pure naturalistic laws rather than the intentions of God, how would it differ from the universe we have today? In other words, what conceivable observation about the universe could convince you that God does not exist? (posed by Jerry Coyne)
I have yet to hear a theist provide an even half-sdatisfactory answer. Randal?
The reason why I pose this question is because telling me that I reject god is like telling me I reject the tooth fairy. The only difference is that in my household there is some evidence of the tooth fairy.
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:27pm
For starters, I would not expect to see staggeringly complex specified information like we find in the DNA molecule anymore than I would expect to find a thirty volume dictionary in the desert formed by the processes of wind, rain and erosion.
(Finally, something on which the Triablogue Posse can hopefully agree with me.)
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:17am
Randal, I figured that you could come up with something better than a William Paley response to Coyne’s question. Dawkins may be weak on his theology and philosophy, but he has demolished the watchmaker analogy. In fact, proponents of ID (I had not thought you counted yourself among them) are already readying themselves for the discovery of the sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids. of course, once that is discovered, they can proclaim that is how god did it!
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:25am
AM,
Hmm, I’m not aware of anywhere in Dawkins’ writings where he “demolishes” ID by providing a serviceable explanation for the origin of biological information in terms of non-directed causes. I’ve read Blind Watchmaker and it is not in there, I assure you.
Whatever you think of Paley’s argument by analogy, contemporary ID arguments proceed not by analogy but rather by inference to the best explanation. We’re talking about something completely different.
Once things cool down here I am going to get back to my long overdue review of Steve Meyer’s book on the topic and I welcome your input.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:05am
I agree that the origin of the biological information remains largely unknown. My point was that the accumulation of the complexity (i.e. the 747 in the junkyard) is now quite well understood. I am glad to hear that you have read TBW and I hope you will read The Ancestor’s Tale if you haven’t done so already. I consider it to be Dawkin’s finest piece of work and he says it is the one he is most proud of.
I hope you won’t waste too much of your precious time and brainpower on Signature in the Cell but I will be interested in your review. Seems to be an awful lot of paper to waste on a simple argument from ignorance. That being said, many of your Christian theologian colleagues (like Groothuis and Craig) love it.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:19am
Hi TAM
Read Randal’s post about keeping an open mind regarding ID if you haven’t already. Personally, I don’t know much about the details of ID (just enough to call it an argument from ignorance, but with what I know of it now that would be an argument from ignorance). (I’m not meaning to imply that you’re in the same boat.) Anyway, a sample of Signature in the Cell waits patiently for me on my Kindle…
And now it looks like I might have to read The Ancestor’s Tale as well.
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:20am
It is not an argument from ignorance, but rather from what we already know about the origin of specified information.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:23am
Nor did I mean to imply I was actually calling it an argument from ignorance. My understanding of it, which I assume is wrong, is that ID is “it’s so complex, there must have been a designer.” So at this point I effectively know nothing about it and look forward to learning more.
PM says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:54pm
I started thinking about this and then realized I had a defeater for all of my beliefs because I don’t know the purpose of my cognitive faculties. Since answering your question doesn’t have survival value, I wondered why I’d have reliable metaphyscal-reasoning faculties to pontinficate on the finer points of the philosophy of religion. So I just figured I’d go home and play backgammon.
Rhology says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 6:56pm
My jaw dropped to the floor when I read that one. This guy makes Job’s comforters look like rank amateurs.
Prof Rauser, was Tennant addressing Dr Z directly?
Or was he replying to your usage of his story to make a point? And why not use another aspect of his story to make a different point? Why adopt a passive-aggressive stance in your complaint in this way?
grape juice
Do you expect this sort of comment to make us take you more seriously, or less seriously? What point was there to diverting 30% of your post to it?
Peace,
Rhology
Truth Unites... and Divides says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 8:40pm
“In this post I’m going to focus primarily on the tone.”
Does this post Progressive Christianity have a tone that’s okay with you?
Rhology says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:17pm
I demur. I don’t think that when Paul references the unbelievers mentioned in Romans 1 that he had in mind a doctor who failed to save a double amputee rape victim and is now struggling with doubt while his shirt is soaked in blood.
There’s a bit more to said doctor’s life than the one moment in his life when he did that good thing. We’ve also ALSO done BAD things. What solution do you have for the bad things that we have all done?
I’m thankful that Jesus is the answer, but you don’t seem too sure of that.
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:48pm
I believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and I can sing Andre Crouch with as much conviction as you Rhology. AMEN!
Rhology says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 9:53pm
Then, Dr Rauser, may I ask why you disagree with what Jesus put down as the problem that He came to solve?
randal says:
Friday, January 14, 2011 at 11:18pm
Could you please expand your question? I’m not sure what you mean.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:06am
In the interest of full disclosure, I should have added that I have not read Signature in the Cell but will make a point of doing so in the near future.
David Parker says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:16am
Randal,
Consider three dimensions of a person’s relationship with their beliefs:
i) being inconsistent with the beliefs you profess
ii) professing to have beliefs that you don’t actually hold
iii) changing beliefs
The Christian can’t deny that i) is a daily struggle. Tim Keller and the whole “Gospel” movement crowd (I quote the word because they use it so much…GospelCoalition website is a good example) have started using some interesting language (which might not be new at all for all I know) that basically goes like this: “You don’t need to be more moral/loving/behaving, you just need to believe the Gospel more deeply. The heart that deeply believes the Gospel will desire these things.” I’m just interested in you reaction to that kind of thinking? I mean, what does it mean to assent to a proposition, and then behave otherwise? Does that mean your degree of belief (if there is such a degree) is less than 100%? What percentage must one have to be a “believer”–51% sure? These are just random questions, sorry. And of course, behavioral inconsistency isn’t the only problem: there’s logical consistency…and I’d say one characteristic of the Reformed tradition is a focus on logical consistency among beliefs…an internally coherent belief system.
Apropos ii), it seems that this too is a problem for the Christian and the non-Christian. We can’t take for granted that our current “belief perception” could be mistaken. I’m not saying Dr. Z is or isn’t. But in an a heated argument with my wife, I have entertained quite a few beliefs that later were quite regretted and rejected. Whether I actually held them or not is another question I suppose.
Apropos iii), does sanctification involve growing more certain about beliefs, more willing to act on them, or some combo? For instance, if Dr. Z professes agnosticism but continues to work the fields with more fervor, should we write him off? Obviously he should be a deacon or an elder…I’m assuming you agree.
Anyways, to answer your original question: I would tell Dr. Z that his beliefs about God are like our beliefs about any other person: they are subject to the fits of emotion and whim. God demands we believe in Him, but he also demands that we aren’t prideful. His beliefs do have consequences, but only the test of time will tell what he actually believes. Just like I can’t sit here and think “am I a prideful person?” it would be silly for him to sit and think “am I sure about God?” Instead, I would encourage him to think about the redemption of Christ’s second coming…resurrection bodies…healing…not just everything returning to dust and eventually the universe going dark.
A visceral reaction (I didn’t even proof read)…but I’m in a hotel on the way to Oklahoma right now so that’s what I got.
David Parker says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:17am
*shouldn’t be a deacon!
D Bnonn Tennant says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 10:50am
Randal, I’m wondering if you’re planning to answer the questions that PM and myself raised in a previous thread.
http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/why-wont-randal-rouser-answer-some-simple-questions/
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:32pm
Sure. Like Ulrich Zwingli (Reformed in the foundations) I don’t believe a person needs to assent to a set of propositions about Jesus in order to be saved by Jesus. I’ll say more on the topic in the next week. But I have also discussed that topic in my blog, and laid out my position very clearly, on a number of occasions in the past (here and at Christianpost.com). I also have a chapter devoted to the topic in my new book.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 2:56pm
David Parker makes a great point when he writes: what does it mean to assent to a proposition, and then behave otherwise?
Susan Neiman addresses this point in her book Moral Clarity (one of the best I have ever read) when she observes how a failure to adhere to a particular moral standard doesn’t invalidate that standard.
I have this problem when it comes to veganism, animal rights and the abolitionist approach. I find the argument in favor of veganism utterly compelling but my wife is not sold on the idea. IMHO, the fact that I continue to consume animal products does not affect my view that it is immoral for me to consume sentient animals when there is no necessity to do so.
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 3:36pm
Believe it or not, I’m in the same boat! I had Gary Francione on the blog a couple months ago and I have a chapter on the animal rights movement in my new book. I’m persuaded by Gary’s arguments but the dissent of my wife and my weak human nature wins out at meal time.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:01pm
Which new book? I would like to order that when it becomes available. I can understand how atheists consume animals with a clear conscience but I have a hard time understanding how Christians can do it.
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:06pm
You’re not as crazy as I think: Dialogue in a world of loud voices and hardened opinions.
Unfortunately it hasn’t done me much good this week…
The Atheist Missionary says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:11pm
Just take it on the chin, Christian warrior.
I must say that Triablogue’s posting that picture of your daughter was déclassé and I was heartened to see they took that down.
The only reason I use a pseudonym is to protect my kids. Being an atheist is like wearing the scarlett letter in rural Ontario.
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 4:16pm
I just wish it didn’t require a personal appeal from me for (some) of them to realize it maybe wasn’t the best thing to do.
You think its tough being an atheist? Try being a “liberal” Christian. Of course I learned this week that apparently Jesus hates me. So I guess it is okay for them to hate me as well.
Robert Fisher says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 6:11pm
Why do you take strong disagreement to be hatred? Is it because of personal feelings? If so, shouldn’t you try to transcend that attitude? Aren’t there more important things in life than hurt feelings?
I’ve recently learned with horror about certain goings on in Canada (with Ezra Levant and H.R.C.’s) which are unthinkable here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. at least for the moment. Have you ever thought that there might be downsides to Canada’s approach of limiting free speech, especially given that you are against “indoctrination” and simplistic/unqualified binary thinking, as expressed in your FotF post?
randal says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 6:23pm
Robert,
I have no problem with disagreement. But this week one of the Triabloguers stated that Jesus hates me. Goodness, I know that on one line of Calvinism God loves the elect and hates the reprobate, but the decree is hidden, so this person couldn’t possibly know Jesus hates me unless they are claiming to have a special word of knowledge. It is possible I guess. There are charismatic Calvinists out there. But I think really what that person was aiming to say is “I hate you.”
Yesterday on the Triablogue website an individual posted a picture of my daughter and wrote something about an 8 year old being lobotomized. Apparently nobody thought that was inappropriate. It was only after I made a request that the picture was taken down. I have now removed all pictures of my family from my website. I have never experienced such hostility from anyone before.
some1 says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 8:26pm
randal, you should try breathing into a paper bag for a bit. After you recover, up your Prozac. Do it for your daughter’s sake.
Frege says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 4:00am
Some1 doesn’t realize their IP address is logged…coward.
some1 says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 5:51pm
Rather than making me a coward, your comment makes you an idiot.
Jerry Rivard says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 6:02pm
Robert Gressis
I doubt Pastor Dusty will read any of the books you mentioned, but I will. Thanks for the list.
The best thing about having a Kindle is the ability to get a sample before buying. That way I can read the first few chapters of each of these before deciding which one(s) I want to finish.
Pastor Dustin S. Segers says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 8:11pm
Randal,
You said,
“But this week one of the Triabloguers stated that Jesus hates me.”
When did we say this? Also, what do you define as a “Triabloguer”?
In Him,
Dustin
randal says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 2:29am
A triabloguer is a poster or reader from the triablogue website who adheres to Reformed theology.
I didn’t say a corporate “you” said that Jesus hates me. I said an individual did. “Lee Swartz”.
Rhology says:
Saturday, January 15, 2011 at 9:45pm
–That is hatred.
How could you possibly know that? Seems to me it’s satire. Is it loving and charitable to attribute the worst motivations to opponents? Or are atheists and other liberals the only ones who merit such courtesy?
Frege says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 12:13am
Involving someone’s family in a satirical blog post? Come on Rho, you can’t honestly believe that’s a legit Christian move. Do you?
randal says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 3:59am
I certainly didn’t anticipate anybody doing that, let alone a fellow “brother in Christ”. Imagine what fun they could have with a child that has a disability.
Rhology says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 1:44am
ISTM that Dr Rauser sorta started it with his unhelpful sob story about Dr Z. Satirising such a thing doesn’t seem like a big deal. Why bring it up?
Frege says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 3:58am
Rho,
“He started it!” Really? Just be honest, do you think there is any justification for that move? Either it’s wrong or not. Period.
Even if you think Randal was wrong, does depravity justify depravity? I hate it when Christians try to justify what obviously amounts to sin.
If you disagree, then send Randal pictures of your family and let him post them in his own satirical articles.
Shame. This is a new low for Christian blogging.
Frege says:
Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 11:32pm
Triablogue won’t post my comments anymore. Here’s my last response to Bnonn.
—————————————-
Just because something is public, it follows not that all uses of it are legitimate or much less morally permissible. Do you agree with this basic distinction?
If not, do you condone urinating in the floor of public libraries? After all, if they didn’t want you to urinate on the floor, you’d think they’d station guards in every room. Why wouldn’t they provide such basic protection of their facilities?
Perhaps posting family pictures on the internet isn’t wise…you should contact James White of Alpha and Omega ministries and tell him what a fool he is. Actually, I’ll just forward him your comments, so he’s clear on your opinion of him having pictures of his daughter on the website. And to think, of all James White’s polemic encounters, no one has stooped to Patrick’s level.
Had those pictures been private and Patrick acquired them, then he’d be guilty on two counts and not one. You have attempted to argue that he is only guilty of one count if he’s guilty of both. Your argument is jejune.
You continue to miss my point against Patrick, which is that common sense should have told him that a picture featuring Randal *and* his daughter was not appropriate for polemic purposes. If you can’t see why this violates common decency (much less Christian decency among professing believers), then you are “naive and stupid.”
If espousing high moral ideals and failing to meet them is what makes one a hypocrite, it looks like all Christians are. You’ll need to distinguish how Randal is any different, or else admit your own hypocrisy.