christianity

You are currently browsing the archive for the christianity category.

Christians are enamored with this guy?

The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction. Reaffirm the great Lutheran heritage of allegiance to the truth and authority of Scripture. Turn back from distorting the grace of God into sensuality. Rejoice in the pardon of the cross of Christ and its power to transform left and right wing sinners.

Where do I remember this kind of crazy-talk from…


Tags: , , ,

Here is an example of missing the point:

Even though the argument from reason may sound good, the argument is a good example of begging the question (I.E. circular reasoning). The premise (that physical sources cannot constitute a rational source) is the conclusion (That naturalism – which says physical sources can constitute a rational source – is wrong). The reason that this is hard to see initially is due to the way in which the argument is laid out.

I think this is flatly incorrect. Saying that physical causes cannot be rational is not the same as saying naturalism is false. I think it gives a good reason to reject naturalism, but it might turn out that we are not rational and naturalism is true.

The central point of the argument is that merely physical sources cannot constitute a rational source, and therefore Lewis (and others) come to the conclusion that naturalism is self-refuting. Yet this premise is left without a proper explanation, and I don’t see why merely physical sources cannot constitute a rational source – in fact, this is one of the things that naturalism argues – that rationality can arise out of a purely physical source. A person employing the Argument from Rationality simply posits as a premise that it cannot, and then claims that this makes naturalism self-refuting. Obviously, we could refute nearly any worldview in this manner. Similarly, we could claim that any abstraction – from love to opinions to ideas to art – cannot arise out of purely physical sources and our argument would be no different. Why abstractions cannot arise out of physical sources is not explained, and I think they clearly can. It’s easy to create an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.

No, this is a clear case of missing the point. We know that at a fundamental level physical causes don’t act for reasons. The reason an asteroid hits the Earth isn’t because it thinks colliding with our planet is the best way to achieve some end. It is acting in accordance with the laws of physics, and these laws (plus relevant physical conditions) comprehensively explains the event. So we have a prima facie case against the physical constitution of rationality. Is an emergent account possible? Perhaps. Is such an account forthcoming? Doubtful. Therefore the argument constitutes a good reason to reject naturalism.

Sophistry is a joy!

Indeed.

Tags: , , ,

This is pretty cool:

MMA discusses evils and faith.

Tags: , , ,

Thanks again to Bethany House Publishers for sending me this review copy.

Finding an Unseen God: Reflections of a Former Atheist (AMZ/BHP) is Alicia Britt Chole’s auto-biographical account of her conversion to Christianity from her atheism. I hasten to add that this book isn’t a book detailing all the steps in her conversion but rather a heavily introspective, subjective account of her turn to faith. It becomes quite clear that Alicia is a bright person who is familiar with the maze of debates between theists and atheists, but thankfully this is not another book listing facts and evidences in a dry manner. That isn’t to say she ignores them, but instead she focuses on what I can only call spiritual awakening.

As I mentioned before, the book makes heavy use of introspection and, I imagine, is enough to scare a few people analytically-minded folks off. That would be a mistake, though. Don’t think stream-of-consciousness-beatnik-first-person reporting but something akin to C.S. Lewis’ Surprised by Joy. With that being said, she does have a choppier style- most chapters are only a page or two long- and it can take a while to acclimate to her style. But once you get moving the pacing is spot-on and the book will be over before you know it.

As a philosopher I really appreciated what I took to be the main thrust of the book which take the form of a question: Is your worldview conversant with the way things actually are? Alicia makes the case that her atheism was not, in fact, conversant with reality. She has some rather personal stories that I’ll save for you, but they are interesting looks into the dynamics of human relationships. Some of the stuff she recalls about her parents made my eyes misty now and then, but you never lose focus of the point throughout it all.

A few things to note in closing.
This is not a typical read for me. I’ve done atheists both new and old as well as their theist opponents. I’ve read some poorly written conversion stories by evangelical Christians, and I’ve interacted with many atheists as they propound various child abuse theories of doctrinal inculcation. But rarely do I get to enjoy a book that has some philosophical rigor to go with a beating heart.
Alicia is obviously an accomplished and seasoned writer. She successfully draws you into her world without artificiality or sob stories. I work with publishers and even though I’m only an average writer (at best) it gets pretty easy to see the difference between shoddy work and the genuine article. She belongs to the latter group.
Lastly, I’d be interested in seeing some responses from both atheists and atheists-turned-Christian. Does she accurately portray the journey from skepticism to faith? Are there similarities with other stories like this? Does she give atheism its due in the book? I hope this book stirs up enough interest to get the ball rolling on these questions.

I’ve been in the book industry for a few years now, and even though I’m removed from the bookstore “floor” these days I still have to add the compulsory “who I would recommend this book to” gag. First, this book is the perfect escape from apologetics as usual. If you’ve had your nose in a scholarly book for a while and want a well-reasoned book on someone’s turn to faith, give it a go. This is also a perfect introductory work that will hopefully lead to careful study of Christianity. But this is also a bit of a devotional. So while it has many things to offer different people, don’t pick it up if you want an answer to the so-called “New Atheists”– this book does not speak to that kind of debate. For the people I mentioned earlier, don’t miss this one. You’ll be sorry.

(Follow Alicia Britt Chole on the web here)

Tags: , , , , , ,

What an unwieldy title for a blog post (I couldn’t decide what the cut out; it all seems relevant). Rather than attempt to summarize any of it, please head over to RDTWOT to see the list of the blogosphere’s scholarly discussions on Tom Wright’s new book on justification.

My favorite discussion so far.

Tags: , , , ,