Reflections on 9/11 by a Christian patriot

In September of 2001, I was an engineer at the old Westinghouse building in Westminster, near I-25.

My job was good. Many mornings I would enjoy eating breakfast at work. It was novel. The food was good. It was also a time to talk with coworkers about issues other than work.

That morning, I watched the news out of the corner of my eye, while focusing on my meal. I enjoyed the omelet as the cheese and egg blended in my mouth. Then the omelet turned to ashes.

Continued here at examiner.com

There is no Richard Dawkins

The vanity of God?

My last posting answered questions that Christians may encounter in Denver.

The next few articles will answer more questions Christians might encounter in Colorado--specifically, questions by a reader of a recent article. The questions stem from digging deeper behind the answers given--answers which did properly answer atheist questions. But as with all answers, there are more assumptions that can be unearthed.

Here is the first question:

1. "You say God doesn't need anyone, that he is self-sufficient. But if that's the case, then why does he require glorification? Why does he need people to glorify him? By your description, he only made everything just to glorify himself. Isn't that vanity by any Christian definition?"

[continued here]

Most popular apologetic articles of 2010

Colorado was a busy state this year. From atheistic billboards denouncing Christmas to pedophiliac books there was plenty to write about and engage the readers of Denver.

However, a few of these issues stood out in highly read or highly commented articles. And thanks to my inquisitive readers, one article had about 2000 hits in one day!


Well, here they are... (continued here).

New Atheism as a passing fad?

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

Insightful article, here.

Confused Coloradoan defends pedophilia

Pueblo author Philip R. Greaves wrote a book.

A book with an "indulgent tone toward child molesters."  [continued here]

Boulder fire shows the nature of man

The Denver news sources talk of the "wrath of mother nature".

Others talk of the foolishness of man.

What this unexpected fire shows is the vanity of man (Ecclesiastes 1:2).  (...continued here)

Denver school ignores human nature

Bruce Randolph School in Denver now offers birth control. The school based clinic (serving grades six to twelve) will offer basic contraceptives including "emergency contraceptives"--many of which may be aborticides...(continue here).

A Talk About Female Leadership

As the Denver Christian Apologist writer at Examiner (here), I receive many comments. One article brought out a reader with the following civil exchange (this is slightly abbreviated):

[Responding to my comments about female pastors in another article]:


L- Galatians 3:28-29 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

[I replied that I would write an article on that set of verses, but it was not accepted...]:

L - What about Deborah? Judges 4:4-5 Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.

L - I'll also throw in Junia: Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. And Phoebe: Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. And I'll add that Miriam, Moses' sister, was obviously a leader.


Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: In a proper exchange of ideas, it behooves both parties to acknowledge the facts. Please ask yourself (don't need to write it here) if I properly explained Galatians 3:28? As for my part, I never dealt (nor could w/ short articles) other passages or the broader issues involved. 1.Deborah was a prophetess--if there are prophetesses today then they can be leaders (but prophets and apostles ended when the Bible was finished). 2. Deborah actually chided Barak for letting a woman get the victory in battle: "So she said, "I will surely go with you; nevertheless there will be no glory for you in the journey you are taking, for the LORD will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." 

Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: to continue: 3. Phil. 2:25 calls Epaphroditus a "messenger" (NKJV) wh/ in the greek is 'apostle' b/c apostle means 'messenger/one sent'. 4. Clearly there were only 12 Apostles at the beginning (Acts 1 records the election of another to replace Judas) and at the end (Revelation has the 12 Apostle names in Jerusalem). So, Epaphr. could not be another apostle in that specialized sense of the word. 5. Therefore, rom. 16:7 is not another Apostle (w/ capital A). 6. "Among" the apostles may mean with them not one of them. 7. Deacon means 'servant', so more than the word is needed to determine if the text means an office or simply a 'helper' (like all of us should be). thanks for asking.


Lori - 1. Why does God make an exception (according to you) for prophetesses if He doesn't allow women as leaders? And where does it say in the Bible that prophets and apostles are finished? 2. My reading is that Deborah was chiding his lack of faith. 3, 4, 5, and 6. I didn't read the text about Junia to mean she was 1 of the 12. Paul refers to himself as a apostle. I believe she was an apostle in the same sense...


Lori - To continue: I base some of my argument on what I have seen, felt and experienced through the powerful ministry and leadership of women in the church. “Of course, you also used emotionally loaded words "suppression" and "oppression", but these are not reasons either.” I used suppression and oppression based on women having the Spirit quenched by being denied the full use of their spiritual gifts. I remember hearing Beth Moore saying something like, “I teach women and those men who are humble enough to listen.” What a wonderful world it would be if more men were humble enough to listen to her. That’s how I feel.


Denver Christian Apologist - Lori: You stated: "If you don’t see my questions as relevant to your argument concerning Galatians, that’s how you see it. I see differently." That is part of the difficulty: what is considered a proper rationale. The other verses you pointed to were not relevant to Galatians. Books are written with their own context and my primary argument was within the book and chapter itself. None of your other passages bear *directly* on that text. Thus, Galatians cannot be used for your argument. And so I moved on to the other texts and explained them as well. This could go on ad infinitum unless you are willing to struggle with a single text and defend your position from that text (other texts are helpful but an argument must be based upon texts not general impressions).

Lori- To continue: I base some of my argument on what I have seen, felt and experienced through the powerful ministry and leadership of women in the church. “Of course, you also used emotionally loaded words "suppression" and "oppression", but these are not reasons either.” I used suppression and oppression based on women having the Spirit quenched by being denied the full use of their spiritual gifts. I remember hearing Beth Moore saying something like, “I teach women and those men who are humble enough to listen.” What a wonderful world it would be if more men were humble enough to listen to her. That’s how I feel.

Denver Christian Apologist - And yet Beth Moore is not humble enough to listen to me? Using language this way is not a defense of any position but poisons the well of the discussion with the insinuation that the opposing party is not 'humble'--that certainly has not been proven. Remember: the first thing offered as an argument was Galatians. I offered a cogent explanation that has not been answered beyond quoting other verses.

Lori - You seem determined that I reply to your posts in a manner you think appropriate, not in the manner I would naturally respond. I’m not sure why that is. It makes for an awkward conversation. Regardless, I don’t see the point of continuing as we aren’t going to agree. I don’t like straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Gives me indigestion.

Denver Christian Apologist - Dear Lori: I am hopeful that God does use this conversation for His glory so I do not think it needless. I think upon reflection you will see that I spent some time answering you point for point (not always) but did not receive like response. So, I could contend that you are forcing me to dialogue the way you want...but I won't do that. For your sake and the readers, I will take some of those point-by-point answers and flush them out for clarity in the next article. Either way, I hope you will continue to read and find more common ground in my other articles.
thanks

Ted Haggard's new church

Haggard's new announcement is probably not a surprise to anyone.He's starting a new church--a new church outside of Colorado Springs.But this time it's with a twist: a liberal evangelical church.

[continued here]

Growing up environmental and Christian

I grew up environmentally active.  And never knew it.

I was taught to pick up trash. My parents even warned me they would stop the car and make me walk back to pick up any defenestrated trash (it never happened, because I believed them.).

I also walked everywhere. I mean everywhere: schools, friends' homes, stores and work. And then I got a bike and cycled everywhere. I even took the RTD to downtown Denver and walked the 16th Street Mall. I didn't get a car until my father suggested I get a job to buy a car to learn responsibility (reducing pollution).

I eventually purchased a used car (that's recycling done right) in my seventeenth year of life. And I paid in cash instead of credit (thus saving on needless paperwork).

In fact, being raised lower middle class (border-line poor) during the greedy eighties really hampered my childhood (or so I have been told). With no computer, big tv, stereo system or large home, my energy consumption and geographical footprint was minimal. And we recycled aluminum cans with a vengeance.

I was green before green was hip.

And I owe it to my Christian upbringing.

Specifically, my upbringing was not always explicitly Christian but it was informed by generations of Christian practice that still undergirded much American culture. Greed and excessive spending were frowned upon. Flaunting wealth (large houses) was a social taboo. And I was always to take care of other people's property and certainly God's property: the Earth.

Such residual Christian thinking is a sane bulwark between the excesses of laissez faire capitalism and guilt-ridden environmentalism. Man does not own the earth. It is not man's to raze nor man's to worship. The earth and all that is in it is God's.

Money, technology, houses and our bodies are owned by God. And accountable to God. Thus, there is an objective and immutable basis for a correct approach to environmentalism.

Local atheist talk weak on critique

The Wednesday nigh lecture in downtown Denver, Objectivism vs. Christianity, by Dr. Locke, was one hour long.  While strong on rhetoric, it was weak on argumentation.

This weakness was manifested in two different ways. First, the critique of Christianity was almost a series of unjustified assertions of what is wrong with its belief-system. Second, the analysis--the rightful basis of any critique--was almost a cornucopian presentation of how not to present an opposing viewpoint. 


The critique of Christianity, at the beginning of the talk, was naturally based upon the assumed referent of Objectivism. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint was not defended clearly at the first. Perhaps the speaker thought the audience would be mostly friendly to his views.


The problem is this: most of the "problems" offered about Christian philosophy were only legitimate critiques assuming the truthfulness of Objectivism. From a Christian worldview, this necessarily becomes one large question-begging enterprise: the very thing in debate between Christians and non-Christians is whether the one worldview or the other has the legitimate standard of right and wrong, reason and non-reason, etc.

For example, when it was asserted that the Bible's view of justice is actually "anti-justice," this assertion is only valid given the truthfulness of Objectivism and its definition of 'justice'.  As a Christian (or any non-Objectivists for that matter) I have a different standard of justice and a different definition. To merely assert that my view is wrong based upon the presumed (and unargued) position of Objectivism is to beg the larger question (to argue in a circle).

It would be another thing to demonstrate (prove) that the Christian doctrine of justice was internally inconsistent within its own worldview (philosophy). No such proof was offered.


When debating or talking about the superiority or inferiority of one broad-based philosophy or another, it is incumbent upon the initiator of the discussion to handle the entire worldview, not attack it piecemeal. Any single element in such thorough systems of thought is always dependent upon the rest.


Even so, some of the critiques, in the form of a question, are legitimate questions and I hope to answer them in future postings. The next article will analyze the second weakness of this lecture: the presented "facts" of Christianity.



   More Info: For an eye-witness account, here.

God: The Failed Hypothesis, A Review

“We now have considerable empirical data and highly successful scientific models that bear on the question of God’s existence. The time has come to examine what those data and models tell us about the validity of the God hypothesis.”

So claims Colorado professor Stenger.

Introduction

Victor J. Stenger is an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado. And he is emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii.

Of course, there are many and sundry professors in America with similar training. What makes this book any different than the other new atheist books out there?

First of all, it is a scientifically involved book. Although some science understanding is needed in parts of the book, it is well written and well researched.

Secondly, it is endorsed by Dawkins: "...Stenger drives a pack of energetic ferrets down the last major bolt hole...I learned an enormous amount from this splendid book." This puts it on the national radar.

The chapters cover various examinations of the physical universe that purportedly reinforce the central thesis. But my intention is not to examine each chapter let alone each argument. That would become a book in itself. Rather, I will focus on the foundational elements of the book while highlighting a few other points. If the foundation of this atheistic-scientific house is missing, then the entire superstructure falls.


Building the House

Professor Stenger understands the importance of a proper and solid foundation. Thus, he lays out the ground-work in the beginning of the book, explaining what scientific model he is using and the God he is analyzing. From here the house superstructure is further built in the remaining chapters.

The 'god' he wishes to scientifically analyze is the one in common with the "three monotheisms": "...a supreme, transcendent being--beyond matter, space, and time--and yet the foundation of all that meets our senses...[one who] is a nanosecond-by-nanosecond participant in each event that takes place in every cubic nanometer of the universe...[who] listens to every thought and participates in each action of his very special creation..." (11).

And how will he investigate this 'god'?

“My analysis will be based on the contentions that God should be detectable by scientific means simply by virtue of the fact that he is supposed to play such a central role in the operations of the universe and the lives of humans. Existing scientific models contain no place where God is included as an ingredient in order to describe observations. Thus, if God exists, he must appear somewhere within the gaps or errors of scientific models” (13)

He simply equates the natural and supernatural as material and non-material respectively (14). And the science he uses is the doorway of our senses, our instruments, and generalized models of explanation. Hypothetical test that may reveal a non-material origin are proposed because " [God's] presence would be signaled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by the empirical verification of such a phenomena.” (14)

He acknowledges that a clever theist may retort that his god is still hidden, forever beyond the reach of empirical investigation. History and common sense, he replies, ultimately shows that "absence of evidence became evidence of absence. Generally speaking, when we have no evidence or other reason for believing in some entity, then we can be pretty sure that entity does not exist" (18).

He specifies that he will use a particular criterion in this book, falsificationism--an approach popularized by Sir Karl Popper. In particular, any hypothesis "must be one that contains the seeds of its own destruction...a hypothesis that cannot be falsified is a hypothesis that has no value" (25). In other words, the falsification criterion is the claim that valid scientific models are ones that could conceivably be proven otherwise. Popper rejected inductive reasoning postulating the progress of science in terms of conjecture (hypothesis) and refutation (testing). Instead of seeking out confirmation (evidence) of a theory, falsificationism seeks counter-facts and test to disconfirm a theory.


Analyzing the Foundation

“No consensus exists among philosophers of science on what distinguishes science from pseudoscience or nonscience, although most scientists would say they know pseudoscience when they see it.” (12)

This amazing admission is reworded elsewhere:

"falsification...[was] a means for distinguishing legitimate scientific models from nonscientific conjectures. Since then, however, philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose" (26).

If no consensus exists on what criterion differentiates science from nonscience, why write this book?

Professor Stenger attempts to bypass this impasse: 'god' can be so falsified as a hypothesis because such a Being is "supposed to be everywhere..." If everywhere and a participant in all places and actions (of which all places and actions are at bottom material), then, argues the professor, this 'god' ought to be empirically discovered in any given place or action.

This assumes that science is the definitive technique for determining observable truth and that observable truth has no unobservable components—a gratuitous assumption as best. Behind this epistemic assumption lies a corresponding metaphysical assumption: that only the material exists. And further: if their is a non-material realm (of any consequence) then it will interact with the material realm in a testable way (again, therefore, falsifiable by scientific models).

Furthermore, the use of models is a tricky business. The author admits:

"Whether the elements and the processes that make up a successful model are to be taken as intrinsic parts of reality is not a question that can be simply answered…” because the model might be falsified in the distant future. Yet "when a model is falsified, we can reasonably assume that those elements and processes that are unique to the model…are likely not intrinsic parts of reality.” (13)

If each hypothesis is not necessarily an accurate model of reality and able to be falsified and thus replaced in the future, then how can one determine that now is the time to answer this God-question? Upon what (uncriticized) criterion was this decided?


Destroying the Foundation

The first problem is the definition of 'god'. In brief, the classical Protestant (Reformed) doctrine of God, as summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith, does not present Him as merely participating in all things. Rather, this Triune God does "uphold, direct, dispose and govern" all things while ordering all to "fall out according to the nature of secondary causes..." even as God makes use of means, whilst free to work "without, above, and against them" (WCF 5.1-3). Such a God cannot be reduced to crass materialism, because the material universe is dependent upon Him. Therefore, any and all tests (and observations) are evidences for the existence of such a God.

The problem is that such a God is unacceptable to Stenger. Near the end of the book, he winnows out other 'god' options ('hidden gods') except the "hideous hidden God of Evangelical Christianity". Or more specifically the version given by an Evangelical Christian who admits that God does hide himself (contrary to Romans 1:18ff.). Even so, Stenger's attitude toward this God who "cannot be totally ruled out" is to accuse Him of "cowardice" and of not being "perfectly loving" (239ff.).

What is "perfectly loving" in an all-material universe? Most people believe it to be more than animal coupling. Perhaps it is the combination of bio-chemical and bio-electric reactions in the body? This questions does not even begin to touch the perennial question of what perfection is. This unscientific response is a picture of the entire effort of the book: to bring an Infinite and Transcendent God to the bar of finite human reason.

Given that this review is from the virtuous circle of the worldview of Christianity, what do non-Christians think?

Popper himself acknowledges the limitations of his scientific method. Professor Stenger notes that Popper restricted falsification to empirical statements only: "philosophical theories, or metaphysical theories, will be irrefutable by definition" (26). The God of Christianity in general, and Protestantism in particular, is a metaphysical God, notwithstanding Stenger's attempted reductionism.

On the other hand, the scientific worldview of Popper and others include "metaphysical theories" of what is a fact and what is material. Popper even admitted that "Darwinism is...a metaphysical research programme".

Among the other critiques of falsification as the heart of science, Martin Gardner, at Skeptical Inquirer, (2001, reprinted) explained:

"There are many objections to this startling claim. One is that falsifications are much rarer in science than searches for confirming instances. Astronomers look for signs of water on Mars. They do not think they are making efforts to falsify the conjecture that Mars never had water."

Another detractor summarizes several internal inconsistencies and contradictions. Mr. Dykes's paper, Debunking Popper (here), includes other well-known philosophers who have pointed unconquerable problems with falsification (aka, critical rationalism). One should suffice:

"Blanshard noted that particular propositions such as 'some swans are white' can only be falsified by showing that 'no swans are white.' Since the latter would be self-evidently untrue, 'some swans are white' is a perfectly valid scientific statement which cannot be falsified."

The boundary between science and nonscience is fuzzy indeed. Stenger is correct: "philosophers of science have found falsification insufficient for this purpose."


Conclusion

One cannot simply abstract God out of the interconnected web of beliefs of Christianity. Falsifying a single proposition is not the same as falsifying an entire worldview. Since well-developed worldviews cannot be falsified piecemeal, the new atheists need to use other tools in their quest to demolish Christ's kingdom.

Certainly confirmation and falsification are both useful tools in the domain of science (and even elsewhere). And critical self-evaluation is needed in any endeavor in life. But the hypothesis of falsification is not up to the task of tearing down the foundation of Christianity. Its inbred limitations are admitted even by its major proponent. Instead of disproving the God-hypothesis, falsification itself turned out to be a failed hypothesis.

2009: Apologetic Year in Review

Now is a good time to summarize some useful articles in apologetics. These are the highlights of various articles I have written in the last few months covering the specific issues of apologetics and Christian theology. I hope they are challenging and helpful:


Apologetics Proper:

Apologetic Books for School
Some Tools of Apologetics
Basic Questions About Apologetics Answered


Apologetics in Action:

Pizza with the Atheist Club
Falsifying Scientific Pretension


Christian Doctrine:

Bible Denies Existence of Atheism
What's the Big Deal About Christmas?


Christian History:

October Revolution
Kentucky Judge Bypasses American Christian History


For more info: Articles organized by topic, here.

I am the Denver Christian Apologist

A go-get-'em church member recommended me to a national news source, examiner.com.

She suggested I write as the Denver Christian Apologist since I have had experience discussing the faith with all types of college students down at the campus. Having bible studies during the college semester hours has certainly helped.

So, I signed up. And they signed me on. I even have my own page.

How many Calvinists do you know who write for a national news source what they want to write?

Even so, just because I am from Denver it does not follow that my articles are not germane to Christians elsewhere. So, here are some articles you may find useful, interesting or thought-provoking:


Why I Must Believe in God

Falsifying Scientific Presumption

Basic Questions about Apologetics Answered

The Connection between Atheism & Communism

God: The Failed Hypothesis, A Review

Halloween Versus the Reformation

Latest Atheism Ad as Attack on Childhood

The last of the atheistic ads in London is finally here.

After months of bus ads using snappy, superficial cliches and clever comments, the ads will finally culminate in a billboard waiting to be defaced by logic.


Description

The ad attempts to undercut parental authority by questioning their natural and God-given right to direct the spiritual nurturing of their children. The billboard displays a happy young girl with words to her right (see article): Please don't label me. Let me grow up and choose for myself.

This less overtly negative ad was in response to many supporters. As Guardian writer Sherine noted (approvingly): "Many of you felt strongly that children should be given the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to, if any, and that they should not have a religion decided for them."

Its not the rank and file atheists asserting this bizarre attitude: "The atheist campaign team shared this point of view." Dawkins supports this campaign. As do other other organizations.

Even so such an ad hides a multitude of attitudes and theories about the relationship between children and parents. At richarddawkins.net and the guardian website a number of irate unbelievers asserted surprising attitudes more Americans need to be aware of:

"Absolutely right, allowing our children to be brainwashed by obviously delusional people is abuse."
"Parents don't own their children"
"To take advantage of the open minds of innocent, unaware children in this cynically oportunistic [sic] way is something that makes me sad and angry at the same time."

The question is: do the new atheist leaders agree with such dangerous sentiments?


Analysis

A myriad of responses are appropriate for this insidious attack upon what remains of Christian civilization. Yet the critiques with more punch are usually from within atheism:

"Do you not see the irony in telling other people how to live their lives and even raise their own children? I don't like faith schools, or the fact that i was baptised, but i would dislike even more someone telling my parents how to (or how not to) raise me." (Garou, Nov. 18)

With biting irony, gillesboy commented: "Bah! And to think of all those years of vegetarianism and humanism. I hate you dad!"

One observant commenter summarized the real underlining issue many people on both sides are hiding from:

"Religious power hierarchies are all about control. Because children's minds are uniquely receptive it is schools that are the prize in the battle to control people and populations...Let children's minds be free!" (LeDingue, Nov. 18)

Yes, the debate is about power and control. Those are unavoidable conditions of reality. The real question is who gets to control the children? If not parent, then who? The local city council? The state bureaucrats? Or maybe the atheists themselves?

This ad actually intends to "free" children to the bondage of anti-God behaviors. The Christian position is antithetical: one is for God and His Christ or against Him. There is no middle ground. Christians have historically defined freedom differently than atheists.

In all fairness, the article asserts that everyone should "see children as individuals, free to make their own choices as soon as they are old enough to fully understand what these choices mean..." Defining "old enough," "fully understand," and "choices" is a legal quagmire let alone a social nightmare. Are they "old enough" to have sex? commit suicide? join the army?
Once again, there are more questions than answers. The atheists in this campaign are hiding behind generalizations and loaded language that they themselves do not agree upon.

The bold undefended assertion that pits children as individuals against their larger group associations is historically ignorant and philosophically naive. Are not children members of the British society? Given the rights therein of police protection by the state? Or are they "individuals" who ought not to be raised in a society that "labels" them British?

To answer this question is to vitiate the entire ad.
Let us examine this more philosophically: "the freedom to decide which belief system they wanted to belong to" is the freedom to self-label. It is not labeling per se that this ad wishes to attack but labeling done by others, done against that precious commodity of men-in-sin: free-will. Besides, the children are already labeled by atheists: 'free,' 'innocent,' and 'child'.

In contrast, God has labeled them and all humans 'sinner' and 'rebel'. In his grace, He has labeled church (covenant) children 'mine'. Both labels are intolerable to atheists and secularists and any other religion not Christian. Thus their desire to rip children from their parents and churches.
And thus the real debate comes to the fore once again. Does God exist? What are the implications of His existence?

The implications of His non-existence for many atheists are clear: parents ought not enculturate their own children. Thus this atheism can truly be labeled an attack upon childhood and the family.

(this article published nationally here)

New Book for New Atheists

Professor Stenger has written a new book: The New Atheism.

Author of the New York Times bestseller God: The Failed Hypothesis (reviewed here), Stenger attempts a more positive presentation of modern atheism. And he urges scientists and other non-Christians to resist and challenge anything not justified by reason.

In explaining the new atheism, a few elements stand out in the book: naturalism, denial of God's existence, rejection of Biblical ethics. The likes of Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern systems are considered superior to "traditional supernatural monotheisms".

As soon as the book comes in, Lord willing, I will review it in full.


More here.

A Lesson from the Fall of the Wall

Today is the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. And many lessons abound from that event and the era it represents.

The commentators will be replete with political, social and economic warnings and lessons. Human interests and human rights will be forefront in the news.

But what of the religious lessons to be garnered from all this?


Morality

I was fortunate to have six years of Russian language and culture in my later school years. I am even more fortunate to know of others who lived behind the Iron Curtain.

Morality was hitting rock bottom. People stole from each other. Others lied regularly. Men would abandon their families just to escape the bleak existence. Kickback and governmental corruption was wide-spread. Indifference was commonplace.

Did the fall of the wall change these societies? Not much. After fifty years of communistic indoctrination, old habits die hard. Morality is still low in large parts of the Eastern Block. And a different morality has filled the old social vacuum: pornography and the mob dominate now.

Why? There are multiple causes, to be sure. But one cause is arguably fundamental: communism was godless. Atheism was the launching point and cornerstone of international communism. Besides other similar assertions (here), Lenin summarized Marxists' attitudes well:

"We must combat religion—that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism."

Lenin, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion

Religion was stifled for generations. Ministers and churches were openly persecuted at the worst of times and subtly undermined through espionage and oppressive laws at the best of times. Religion was not welcomed. In Russia proper this atheistic attitude dominated for almost eighty years.


Lesson

The lesson is simple. History has show-cased the failure of atheism in the guise of communism.

Unfortunately, for many communists today history only shows the failure of the proper implementation of communistic principles. Their commitment is so strong that historical and empirical evidence will not change their fundamental beliefs, only their expectations and methods. And their communistic goals and methods had already changed over the decades. But one thing did not change: they were atheists to the last.

Materialism and atheism tend to go hand in hand. In case of the communists, it was dialectical materialism (influenced by Hegel's thesis-antithesis-synthesis movement of history). If the world is only material and man only a complex biological animal, then man can be reduced to biology. And the men who can discover, and ultimately manipulate, the basal biological principles of man can perfect man. This readily leads to totalitarianism.

The lessons of today's commentators will likely not include the atheistic element of communism. That's too bad. What this country needs is an open discussion on the real-life implications of materialistic atheism. Without it, we will learn very little from the fall of the Berlin wall.

For more info: Connection between atheism and communism, here. A review of a current atheist book, here.