At our consistory meetings, we’re working our way through John R. Sittema’s With A Shepherd’s Heart.  This is an excellent book that I can highly recommend.  Last night, we discussed chapter 6, “The Wolf’s Teeth – Relativism.”  Sittema ably lays out the problem, but then also gives a few suggestions for elders and pastors to combat this deadly poison.  His first point is especially worth noting:

Make clear, both from the pulpit in your local church and in personal pastoral meetings with the members of the flock under your care, that your church holds firmly to the Bible as the infallible and inerrant Word of God.  Teach clearly what these terms mean.  Declare loudly and often, both in principle and in practice, that you consider the Bible to be the absolute and infallible standard for both doctrine and life. (64)

Sittema has a footnote right behind “infallible and inerrant Word of God” and those words are also worth quoting:

I deliberately use both terms “infallible” and “inerrant,” since one of the interesting breaches in the high view of Scripture in recent decades has come as a result of the work of so-called evangelicals who argue in favor of biblical infallibility, but consider inerrancy to be a modern rationalistic term, inconsistent with the Bible’s view of itself.  I reject the distinction as a dangerous semantic game. (64)

It’s too bad that Sittema doesn’t work this out further.  However, I agree with what he states.  Remember: when Sittema wrote this book he was still a Christian Reformed pastor (he later became PCA) and he had seen first hand what the rejection of inerrancy does to a church and its doctrine.  Biblical inerrancy is a powerful anti-venom for the poison of relativism.

Over on CultureWatch, Bill Muehlenberg has a review of a book by Alistair McGrath, called Heresy. Bill’s description of what the book says about orthodoxy, heresy, and the roots of Christianity bears repeating:

Contrary to the claims of many contemporary critics (and their popularisers such as Dan Brown), there was always a shared common faith: “Right from the beginning, Christians knew what really mattered about God and about Jesus of Nazareth.”

But that had to be articulated, codified and theologically defined. Sure, there was diversity in the early Church, but it was a diversity based on a shared consensus about the basics of what the Gospel was all about. While there certainly existed differences in social, linguistic and cultural contexts, “there was a fundamental unifying strand in early Christianity”.

McGrath examines the diversity found in the early Christian communities, and looks at how this was dealt with as the young church discovered its theological footing. During the opening centuries of the new faith, there was a process of “crystallization of orthodoxy” in which theological expressions of the faith were honed, refined and sifted. Those formulations which were affirmed offered the basis of orthodoxy, while those which were rejected became the heresies which later had to be fought against and rejected.

McGrath reminds us that heresy arises more from within the church than without. It “shares a lot of the theological DNA of orthodoxy”. And the battle against heresy was not merely some attempt to retain religious power, but to safeguard the faith itself, and ensure its more or less untarnished transmission.

After examining a number of classic heretical movements and beliefs in church history, McGrath looks at the question of why heresy emerges. He argues that more often than not, the original intentions and motivations were good: to more effectively and soundly explain and preserve the gospel.

For example, often the attempt is made to make the faith amenable and relevant to the surrounding cultural environment. The motivation may be right, but the outcome often is not. Too often such attempts at enculturation and accommodation lead to the rise of heresy.

By seeking to assimilate into current intellectual, ideological and cultural norms, the gospel often has to be watered down or radically redefined in order to fit. That is always a danger. The gospel in one sense must always stand above any culture, and pass judgment on it, not the other way around.

As an example, consider how the early church encountered and engaged with Gnosticism. Could it incorporate Gnostic ideas, or must it resist them?  It seems that for the most part the early church resisted Gnosticism, recognising the dangers it posed to the Christian worldview. But where it was embraced, heresy soon followed.

Of course Christians must interact with their surrounding culture, but they must always remain vigilant while doing so. While too little engagement with culture can render the faith irrelevant and ineffective, too much accommodation and compromise can often lead to the destruction of Christian orthodoxy.

In a recent book sociologists Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld argue that “‘true believers repress even a hint of doubt” in order to maintain continuity in their systems of thought. This repression of doubt and subsequent assertion of absolute truth defined by one’s system of thought is “the hallmark of every type of tyranny.” Is Christianity as expressed by true believers a form of tyranny? Is doubt the key to keeping us from acting like tyrants, or have the author’s missed the mark?

In Praise of Doubt (Harper One, 2009) by Berger and Zijderveld is a cogently written and dense book on the benefits of doubt for modern democratic societies. They argue that the two extremes of doubt can be labeled fundamentalism on the one hand, wherein doubt is repressed and actively kept from community members, and relativism on the other hand, wherein doubt is exalted to such a high place that truth no longer exists but is a completely subjective reality. In a political sense fundamentalism leads to tyranny on a national scale at times (e.g. Stalin’s Soviet Union) but more often as small sub-cultures such as polygamist Mormon  enclaves in the American West. Relativism, on the contrary, leads to complete anarchy because the mores of society are abandoned and it is impossible to keep order if nothing is off limits according to personal persuasion and taste. The middle ground is a society built on tolerance whose institutions, ironically, protect everyone’s ability to doubt without being doubted itself.

Throughout the argument tolerance is elevated as a key virtue in all respects. It seems that assertions of absolute truth are understood to be as dangerous as the abandonment of truth claims. What then are the ramifications of this argument for Christians? When our churches urge us to state faithfully the absolute certainty of Christian truth are we being intolerant? Are our assertions as intolerant as Stalinism?

At the core of this issue is whether or not Christianity stands as a system of thought upon an incorruptible bedrock of truth claims or if it is a foundation from which certain pillars can be removed and still leave the system intact. Put differently, do we have to assert that Christianity possesses Truth in order to be Christians? At some level we do have to assert some truths like there is one God who exists in the three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, that Jesus Christ was both human and divine, that he lived, was killed and died to forgive our sins, and that He will return to usher in a New Heaven and a New Earth. These issues, among others, are central to Christian faith. But there are other issues about which battles have been fought for centuries and many new ones that have arisen in the last century.

So how much doubt is too much and how should Christians, if at all, protect themselves from ideas contrary to their Christian beliefs? While Berger and Zijderveld argue that the biblical criticism introduced in the 19th century was a praiseworthy advancement in Western and Christian thought, Mark Noll in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind sees the Christian reaction to this development as one of the major detriments to modern Christian thought. Doubt about various aspects of the Bible or Christian faith in general are not dangerous, but probably healthy as they push us to more deeply consider what we believe in and why. The problem is that the average American Christian mind is not prepared to handle intellectual assaults and reacts in one of two ways, concession or retreat.

As Berger and Zijderveld point out the tendency is for modernity to relativize all thought, Christian and otherwise, which is why we see more and more concession among American Christians on things like homosexuality, pre- and extra-marital sex, stem-cell research, etc. For the true believer who cannot accommodate any doubt lest it destroy his/her system of thought the retreat is into stock arguments about the Bible’s inerrancy or a particular proof text memorized to refute opposing arguments.

Deeper thought from Christians on important issues like politics, economics, biology, etc. is needed and can be done without elevating doubt and tolerance to a god-like level. Berger and Zijderveld are right to point out that doubt is foundational to modern thought in that it enables us to think critically about all topics. But the end game of thinking is not to find tolerance but to find Truth. To the Christian, the pursuit of truth is also done to glorify God by exploring and understanding His world with the resources and faculties he has given us.

The problem is that Truth is unattainable in its complete and irrefutable form this side of Heaven. Our understanding of truth is hindered by our humanness and our inherent sinfulness. Yet as we fervently pursue truth through study more understanding is brought to light to help us see God’s world more clearly. When data arises that seems to conflict with Christian teaching it is not the role of Christians to deny it outright as contrary to traditional Scriptural teaching. This type of thinking has plagued the faith since the response to Darwin, epitomized in the Fundamentalist movement, began in the late 19th century. Rather, we need thinking that sees new evidence and seeks to understand it in light of Christian truth. This kind of productive thinking leads to better responses such as the likely possibility that the Genesis creation story is metaphorical rather than literal in its use of days.

With an appreciation for the utility of doubt and the recognition that the pursuit of Truth is glorifying to God, we as Christians can pursue knowledge with fervor. We need not elevate tolerance in this pursuit but should assert that we do believe Christianity to be the truth concerning salvation, but that none of us can know all truth because we are imperfect and it is withheld from us. With a more balanced ideology that does not compromise our Christian beliefs, nor seeks to water down the assertions of Scripture we can live as Christians devoid of tyranny. The Bible is God’s story of his work in the world in time past and in times to come. It is not a field manual for every minute functioning of the world and its history. A humble recognition of this reality will also help us to avoid the type of tyranny described by Berger and Zijderveld. And, ultimately, as non-tyrants we will be more effective in sharing the Gospel.

__________________________________________________________
To purchase a copy of In Praise of Doubt or The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind click on the preceding links.

This lecture contains Moreland’s famous “Wonmug” illustration. Ah, memories!

The MP3 file is here.

Topics:

• Is it intolerant to think that one religion is true?
• Is it more important to be loving and accepting of people regardless of worldview?
• How should Christians approach the question of religious pluralism?
• How does a person choose a religion anyway?
• Who is Wonmug, and would you like to be like Wonmug?
• Is it enough that a belief “works for you”, or do you want to believe the truth?
• Can all the religions in the world be true?
• Is it wise to pick and choose what you like from all the different religions?
• Is it possible to investigate which religion is true? How?
• Which religions are testable for being true or false?
• How you can test Christianity historically (very brief)

If you don’t know about Wonmug, you’re not even a Christian, (I’m pretty sure). Just kidding. Maybe.

Seriously, this is the most fun lecture to listen to, you should listen to it, if you like fun.

In a word no.

Relativism has always been with us because of who we are. We are a spectrum from infantile to sublime. Our brains work well beyond the limitations of anything we create. They multitask whether we want them to or not, holding in one cluster our salacious dreaming, our tasks at hand, our bodily conditions, what we see and hear, and maybe five or ten other blinking lights on the multicolored spectrum that we are.

When we speak of absolutes, we either mean something we care passionately about or we commit idolatry (or both). Idolatry is the ascription of absoluteness to our own creations. We are all idolaters. That is about as universal a statement as there is.

Now before you skewer me for either Calvinistic moralism or Nietzschean perspectivism run amok, be assured that both have a place in the spectrum of who we are. Calvin’s thinking is merely a summons to love your fate and be aware of the degree to which you do not control it. Nietzsche, who embraced the spectrum almost entirely, was a proponent of amor fati but he was also urged self-transcendence and thus attaining a state of actual freedom.

The values I believe appropriate to an integral person rest on the bedrock of the primary value — non-idolatry, which is much more than relativism. Non-idolatry is a capacity to say no at any and every point Upon this bed I rest tolerance, in a tough, not a permissive, sense; democracy, wed to universal human rights; and helpfulness, in an enabling rather controlling or paternalistic sense. These three values work in tandem and vary in strength from situation to situation. They are subservient to the base value of non-idolatry.

Now I would indeed be skewered were I to suggest that schools take up my chants. Because schools are politically obligated to bow to notions of the absolute which are typically broken into shards once children move toward adulthood.

No, these thoughts are for one whose life is shards. They are simple Saturday thoughts on a blog which few read. It would be the height of humiliation were anything I said to be celebrated. Better nodded to in passing … by someone who knows and relishes the feeling of shards underfoot.

http://bit.ly/Xxf93

A.W. Tozer was a pastor with the Christian & Missionary Alliance (C & MA) and also a prolific author. Because of his books he has become known far outside the C & MA. One of the most amazing things about his writing is that if you realize he has been dead for 40+ years and yet how relevant his words are for today, then you might appreciate the prophetic nature of his words. One of the reasons for that (arguably the most important reason) is that he was also a man who spent many hours a day in prayer. One of the pieces he is best known for appeared in the C & MA magazine (which then was called “The Alliance Weekly”) in 1952. Since that time it has been published in a book by the title of This World: Playground or Battleground? I think you will find it to be worth reading:

In the early days, when Christianity exercised a dominant influence over American thinking, we conceived the world to be a battleground. Our fathers believed in sin and the devil and hell as constituting one force; and they believed in God and righteousness and heaven as the other. Man, so our fathers held, had to choose sides; he could not be neutral. For him it must be life or death, heaven or hell, and if he chose to come out on God’s side he could expect open war with God’s enemies. The fight would be real and deadly and would last as long as life continued here. Men looked forward to heaven as they would to returning home from the wars, laying down of the sword to enjoy in peace the home prepared for them.  How different today. The fact remains the same, but the interpretation has changed completely. Men think of the world not as a battleground but as a playground. We are not here to fight, we are here to frolic. We are not in a foreign land, we are at home. We are not getting ready to live, we are already living, and the best we can do is to rid ourselves of our inhibitions and our frustrations and live this life to the full. This changed attitude toward the world has had and is having its effect upon Christians, even gospel Christians who profess the faith of the Bible. . . They might hedge around the question if they were asked to declare their position, but their conduct gives them away. They are facing both ways, enjoying Christ and the world too, and gleefully telling everyone that accepting Jesus does not require them to give up their fun. . . their worship is a sort of sanctified clubbing without the champagne and the dressed up drunks. Sides do not enter into it.

Pastor Jeff

I feel good.
I feel on top of things.
I probably should not say, write or even think that. Because I probably will jinx it, the feeling.

It’s strange. The work is piling up at school; February looks like a tough month, and granted, the first question for the exam in relativism (handed out yesterday) made me freak out a little. Still, I feel I can manage.

Maybe it’s a defence mechanism that I have. A mode that sets in when there’s too much to do, and the only way to cope with it, or to cope with the failure, is this mode. If that, however, would be the case then I have never had too much to do before in my life (and I know I have) because this feeling is new.

So tomorrow it starts:
The studying of Formal Logic. The reading of Relativism. The reading of Decartes. Researching Rawls’ epistemology.
Bring it on! It’s under me!

Shadowing
written by Maurice Whitehurst

here i am, disguised n robed
a whore of truth, a lie untold
bear a brunt oh fool in light
hidden behind the glare of night
strum the strings that line your wall
a tall, a small, contextual
and then to whom, it must advance
a truth, is true in or out of circumstance
stand between the day and night
a symbol appears to night the light
clasped and chard a million ways
deceiving the dead, us dead men say
which they belong, a common song
a theme, a say, in which to convey
a phenomenon that’s true
a truth of fools, dependent upon of
observable truths.

C. Knowing cause I know:

Recognizing one thing is a declaration of knowing what it is not. If two things are identical, you know one exist independent of the other. (You can see that) You recognizing one declares it is not the other. You can’t get to two counting without one.

D. Agreement is knowing:

I know black because there is agreement of what black is. (We have agreed that Black represents a color, a people, a conscious- ness in our common reality.)

Taking God’s Word seriously means many hours of diligent study, which produces doctrinal coherence and theological consistency. That’s not what today’s evangelicals are known for. So how do we remedy that?

Today, in the midst of reading Descartes and about Relativism I had a bit of a work out.
It has been a while and what better way to start getting in shape then on a whim.
So whim workout it was.

First off I rode a bit on our (Camillas and mine) excercise bike.
That was not too hard.
Then I decided to try my luck with some push-ups.

I did nine.
And no, not in a row.
3 sets of 3.
And no, not resting my lower body on my toe-tips.
But, on my knees.

My upper body, mainly my arms, are shaking like birch leafs in the summer breeze.
The non-shape I’m in is laughable.
That has to change!

In the two-character dark comedy of American political discourse, Conservatives often accuse Liberals of applying unfairly high standards to their home country: what Liberals condone abroad they condemn at home—plainly, they hate America.

The standard Liberal response is just that they’re not being unfair–Conservatives just can’t handle the truth. A relative minority might argue America that should be held to higher standard, either because it’s exceptionally good or because it’s exceptionally bad.

What is often overlooked is that there is a good argument for applying higher standards to America but NOT because it’s in any way better or worse than other countries.

The basic argument was set out by Levi-Strauss in a different context, that of professional anthropology, as he grappled with the following dilemma: Say you’re an idealistic anthropologist and you want your research into other cultures to help correct injustices in your own. On the one hand, scientific objectivity requires that you approach those alien cultures on their own terms. That is, you need to abstain from any normative judgments about how good or bad those cultures are, lest such judgments distort your research. On the other hand, you want to reserve the right to make judgments about how good or bad your own society is: you are, after all, concerned to correct its injustices. How, then, can you be neutral in the field and committed at home?

Levi-Strauss’s answer, which he claims to derive from Rousseau, is that anthropology is objective but objective knowledge can be legitimately used to advance a moral or political agenda. Science is one thing; how you use it is another. Anthropology uncovers truths about human nature by studying, in an objective way, how societies differ, but this knowledge can then point the way toward genuine improvements in our own society. Here is the key passage from page 391 of Tristes Tropiques (translated by John Russell):

Other societies may not be better than our own; even if we believe them to be so we have no way of proving it. But knowing them better does none the less help us to detach ourselves from our own society. It is not that our society is absolutely evil, or that others are not evil also; but merely that ours is the only society from which we have to disentangle ourselves. In doing so, we put ourselves in position to attempt the second phase of our undertaking: that in which, while not clinging to elements from any one particular society, we make use of one and all of them in order to distinguish those principles of social life which may be applied to the reform of our own customs, and not of those societies foreign to our own. In relation to our own society, that is to say, we stand in a position of privilege which is exactly contrary to that which I have just described; for our own society is the only one which we can transform and yet not destroy, since the changes which we should introduce would come from within. [my emphasis]

In other words, we are to take the same neutral scientific attitude toward all societies, but it is only right that we take a non-neutral moral attitude toward our own society since we are, after all, its members. (It’s worth noting that the lessons that are supposed to be won through anthropological study are not precepts taken from the rulebooks of other cultures, but are instead principles that emerge when you place whole societies side-by-side.)

I think a similar kind of argument can be made in the realm of political science. Political science proper requires a certain level of objectivity and neutrality, but, as political actors in our own polity, we needn’t apply knowledge in a similarly neutral way. We can condemn at home what we condone (better: are neutral about) abroad precisely because we are citizens specially positioned, indeed obligated, to affect what goes on at home. And if all judgments in political science are inevitably colored by the investigator’s implicit normative standards, then, well, we should apply higher standards when we speak as political actors.

Thus, I suspect that many ‘America-hating’ Liberals appear to treat America unfairly because they are sensitive to the different rules governing scientific and political discourse. They are more dispassionate, less inclined to moralize about other countries because it’s not them that they help govern.

Obviously, the same defense is open to Conservatives who are similarly accused of condemning at home what they condone abroad, but it’s most often Liberals who meet with this charge.

This is the sixth in a series of articles exploring the changes in the Church in western countries in the second half of the 20th century. In the first article, I outlined eight ideas that underpin modern thinking, and that (in my view) have infected the Church with false thinking. Relativism is the fifth of these. Please read the page ‘The state of the Church in the West’ before commenting.

Relativism is the idea that truth depends on point of view and circumstance.  According to the relativist, there are no absolute truths (or, in the weaker form, absolute truths cannot be known).

I’ve been thinking about the relationship between relativism and empiricism. I suspect it’s a feedback loop. If the only things that exist are those that can be empirically tested, then there is no absolute truth; if there is no absolute truth, then everything must be tested over and over again to see what is true in each particular circumstance, at each particular time.

Moral relativism is the core philosophy for situational ethics, the concept that ethical actions and responses vary according to circumstances.  It also contributes to other errors, including the view that tolerance means accepting error.  Tolerance is the practice of treating other people with respect even if you disagree with them. The term has been redefined to mean accepting another person’s viewpoint as being correct for them – which is a very different thing. ‘I have a right to my opinion,’ says the relativist, meaning, ‘I have a right to expect you to treat my opinion as valid.’ Tolerance in the first sense means not mocking you when you claim to be able to breathe underwater. Tolerance in the second sense means standing by and letting you drown.

Paradoxically, moral relativism has become a moral absolute in our society – a demand for tolerance in the modern sense is the final argument and the highest authority. In a world where one person’s opinion is as good as another’s, those who insist that their opinion is the correct one are seen as rude, judgmental and hating.

Why relativism is a lie

As a philosophical construct, relativism per se is easy to refute. If there are no absolutes, then the statement that there are no absolutes cannot be an absolute. When we narrow down to moral relativism, though, the simple argument fails – saying there are no moral absolutes does not raise the same paradox.

In practice, moral relativism rests far more on argument from extremes than on philosophical concepts. The process is to take one situation where the moral absolute appears cruel, and to then extend those grounds. To take one example, in a discussion about abortion someone will always raise the issues of pregnancy as a result of rape or incest.

So let’s look at the arguments for moral relativism:

1. Every view deserves respect. Really? Should we respect the view it is okay to mug old ladies?
2. What’s right for me isn’t necessarily right for you. This statement is true when it comes to personal preferences, such as food preferences. If I say oysters are delicious, that statement is true for me. It may not be true for you. But moral relativists apply the statement to moral truths. A belief that it is okay to mug old ladies does not make it okay.
3.  What is right in one culture is not necessarily right in another. In essence, this is the same as the previous argument. In response, I’d say that different cultures have shared similar underlying moral values, though their behaviours in response to those values have differed. But some cultures become tunnel-visioned, protecting one right at the expense of another. Think of the Aztecs, who carried out ever more extensive military raids to supply sacrifices so that their priests could tear the hearts out of thousands of people each day. Think of the cross-Atlantic slave trade. Think of female circumcision.
4. What is right in one situation is not necessarily right in another. In response to this, some thinkers talk about a hierarchy of moral values, with moral values such as ‘Do not lie’ (which is a behavioural statement rather than a moral statement) taking second place to moral values such as ‘Do as you would be done by’. Behaviours may need to respond to situations; underlying values don’t.

So all of these arguments for moral relativism can be countered, and on the other hand we have the word of God Himself that there are absolute truths: I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, Jesus said.

Relativism in the Church

Relativism leads to what one of my daughters calls ‘wishy-washy, airy-fairy, feel-good’ Christianity. Church relativists are apologetic about moral realities, water down Church teachings or claim an exemption, and argue that this reality or that ‘is not relevant to the modern day’. Relativists substitute tolerance for charity: instead of giving people the truth owed to them by love, relativists let them continue in error in order not to offend.

Relativist churchgoers focus on the social teachings of Jesus, and point to His association with tax collectors and prostitutes as an example we should follow. They ignore the fact that he called those same sinners to repentance. They also ignore His moral teachings, the message of His death and resurrection, and the rest of the Bible.

Next post: fundamentalism.

Brian Auten has a new book review posted up at Apologetics 315.

The book is “If There’s A God, Why Are There Atheists?”, by theologian R.C. Sproul. R.C. Sproul is one of my favorite theologians. The book in question has a very, very special place in my heart, because I think that it is one of the major reasons why I was able to resist pernicious ideas like religious pluralism and postmodernism for so long. Once you put on the glasses of Romans 1 and see for the first time what man is really doing with respect to God, you can never see things the same again. I’ll say more about this at the end, but let’s see what Brian wrote first.

When I first saw Brian’s review come up, I had high hopes that he would write something so compelling and delightful that you would all rush out immediately and get a hold of this book right away.

And he did not disappoint!

The review

So often, you hear atheists complaining about religion is nothing but wish-fulfillment or some sort of crutch for people who are frightened by a variety of things. They think that God is invented to solve several problems. 1) how does the world work?, 2) is there meaning to suffering and evil?, 3) why should I be moral?, and 4) what will happen to me and my loved ones when I die?. On the atheistic view, God is just a crutch that people cling to out of weakness and ignorance. But is this really the case?

Sproul starts the book by investigating three atheists who sought to explain religious belief as a result of psychological factors.

Brian writes:

Before tackling the psychology of atheism, Sproul spends a chapter on the psychology of theism, from the perspective of Freud’s question “If there is no God, why is there religion?”11 What follows is an overview of various psychological explanations of theistic belief: Feuerbach’s “religion is a dream of the human mind.”12 Marx’s belief that religion is “due to the devious imagination of particular segment of mankind.”13 And Nietzche’s idea that “religion endures because weak men need it.”14 The author properly reiterates: “We must be careful to note that the above arguments can never be used as proof for the nonexistence of God. They can be useful for atheists who hear theists state that the only possible explanation for religion is the existence of God.”15 That being said, Sproul also reveals what these arguments presume:

Their arguments already presupposed the nonexistence of God. They were not dealing with the question, Is there a God? They were dealing with the question, Since there is no God, why is there religion?16

Sproul points out the weaknesses of each of these approaches and says “there are just as many arguments showing that unbelief has its roots in the psychological needs of man.”

Wow, could that really be true? What are the real reasons why people reject God? Does the Bible have anything to say about what those reasons are?

Brian cites Sproul’s contention:

The New Testament maintains that unbelief is generated not so much by intellectual causes as by moral and psychological ones. The problem is not that there is insufficient evidence to convince rational beings that there is a God, but that rational beings have a natural hostility to the being of God.

[...]Man’s desire is not that the omnipotent, personal Judeo-Christian God exist, but that He not exist.

In Romans 1:18-23, the apostle Paul explains what is really going on:

¹⁸The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

¹⁹since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

²⁰For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

²¹For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

²²Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

²³and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

By now, all my readers know the scientific, philosophical and historical arguments for Christian theism, and you’ve all seen the debates with William Lane Craig and other scholars. So you know that atheists never win these debates, and that not only logic but the entire physical universe, past, present and future, falsifies atheism. What, you don’t believe me? I’ll prove it.

When you ask Daniel Dennett how the universe came into being, he’ll say that it brought itself into being. When you ask Martin Rees what causes the fine-tuning, he’ll tell you about an unobservable multiverse. When you ask Richard Dawkins what created the simplest living cell, he’ll speculate about unobservable aliens in another galaxy – aliens that he knows a priori evolved by natural mechanisms. And so on, and so on. Christopher Hitchens’ entire case against God in his debates is “I don’t like him”. So something else is going on here.

Sproul explains why atheists have to oppose rational argumentation, as well as scientific and historical inquiry.

The cumulative effect of this knowledge that is clearly seen is to leave men ‘without excuse.’ Herein lies the basis of the universal guilt of man. No one can claim ignorance of the knowledge of God. No one can cite insufficient evidence for not believing in God. Though people are not persuaded by the evidence, this does not indicate an insufficiency in the evidence, but rather an insufficiency in man.

[...]The basic stages of man’s reaction to God can be formulated by means of the categories of trauma, repression, and substitution.

[...]If God exists, man cannot be a law unto himself. If God exists, man’s will-to-power is destined to run head-on into the will of God.

And this is the force that is animating atheists today. They get a little bit of knowledge in some obscure field. They don’t want to look stupid in front of their colleagues. They abandon their faith. Maybe there is a financial dimension to their apostasy, (e.g. – Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker). It’s not something they’ve looked into – it’s something they do because of psychological reasons. No atheist disbelieves in God on the evidence – there is no evidence. It’s all just feelings and desires. E.g. – the need to be seen as smart and compassionate.

The rest of the book review, and the book, deals with explaining in detail how atheists respond to an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator/Designer. I encourage you to click through and read the whole book review. You can read the review, and the book, and then investigate for yourself whether atheists really are like that. Two other books to pick up on this topic is Mere Christianity and The Great Divorce, both by C.S. Lewis. And dont forget my recent post on a new book coming out on this exact same topic.

I am really grateful to Brian for taking the time to pull explain the thesis of the book with such perfect quotes. By the way, I left out the best quote of all, but you have to go look through Brian’s review for that!

Note: Brian isn’t nearly as mean as I am, and he probably doesn’t go nearly as far as R.C. Sproul and I do. But I’m telling you this – TRY IT. Go and sit down with these atheists and ask them how they got to be that way. This also works on people from other religions. I’ve tried it on Postmodern relavist “Christians”, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Mormons. And don’t be mean to them, either. Just because I’m being mean now it doesn’t mean that I am being mean when I investigate other people’s worldviews.

My survey of atheists

By the way, did you all see my survey of atheists that I did a while back? It’s relevant because one of the questions I asked to my volunteers was “How you begin to follow Christ if it suddenly became clear to you that Christianity was objectively true?”. I got some very strange responses that dovetail nicely with Sproul’s book.

Here are a few of the responses:

• I would not follow. My own goals are all that I have, and all that I would continue to have in that unlikely situation. I would not yield my autonomy to anyone no matter what their authority to command me.
• I would not follow, because God doesn’t want humans to act any particular way, and he doesn’t care what we do.
• I would not follow. Head is spinning. Would go to physician to find out if hallucinating.
• I hope I would be courageous enough to dedicate my life to rebellion against God.
• I would not have to change anything unless forced to and all that would change is my actions not my values.  I would certainly balk at someone trying to force me to change my behavior as would you if you were at the mercy of a moral objectivist who felt that all moral goodness is codified in the Koran.
• He would have to convince me that what he wants for me is what I want for me.

This is all part of my series discussing whether morality is rationally grounded by atheism.

Yes, they really think like that! Just ask an atheist those questions and you’ll see how “objective” they really are. Ask them how much time they’ve put in to studying to see if these things are really true.

Related posts

• Transcript of debate between Greg Koukl and Michael Shermer
• Cowardly Richard Dawkins explains why he won’t debate William Lane Craig
• How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?
• Hugh Hewitt interviews Richard Dawkins on his new book
• Richard Dawkins cites fraudulent research, runs from public debate
• William Lane Craig takes on prominent atheist Daniel Dennett
• Richard Dawkins debates John Lennox: Does God Exist?
• Richard Dawkins thinks that aliens may have caused the origin of life
• Answering Richard Dawkins’ question: “Who made God?”
• Richard Dawkins cites German professor as authority on historical Jesus
• Analyzing Christopher Hitchens’ case against God
• How do leading atheists understand morality on atheism?
• The William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens debate

The terror trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 co-conspirators looms on the horizon, Hambali may be tried at the Prettyman building in Washington, DC – and the political debate still rages.  President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder decided to try them as common criminals with the full protection afforded to every American citizen.  Most Republicans believe these terrorists do not deserve the full protections afforded to an average American – instead favoring the military commissions as the proper venue to try foreign nationals that are terrorists, plain and simple.

President Obama rode into office with promises of closing Guantanamo and restoring America’s standing in the world – through his image, his face, his brand.  Not via the more traditional concept of American Exceptionalism.

The President and his band of merry men believe we are just one nation in a family of nations, and therefore must conform.  It is akin to a high school student harassing mom for a pair of the hottest basketball shoes, just to be seen as “cool.”  Being on eof the “cool” kids is not a strategy for success.  It wasn’t a sustainable social model in high school, so there should be no doubt that it will fail in the real world.  Yes, Obama and his administration persist.

Oh goodie.

What the Obama Administration does not understand – but the American people do – is simple.  We are capable of recognizing facts, distinguishing them from fiction and are prepared to stake our freedom, again and again.  Because we are not one of many nations.  We are a nation of people, of citizens.  We live and die by the words in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution.  It is our sons and daughters who go to war.

In Politico’s Arena, I came across a recent post by former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. An absolute, spot on analysis of the facts at hand, not the politics.  Just the facts:

Trying terrorists: some facts (co-authored with Bill Burck)

When it comes to trying terrorists on American soil since 9/11, let’s all work from the same set of facts. This morning we’ve heard three people in the Sunday shows talking about the “hundreds” of terrorists that we have tried in US courts and hold in US prisons – as if KSM was just some regular Joe terrorist. Some facts:

First, the only civilian trial of a 9/11 terrorist was Moussaoui who was arrested before 9/11 had even happened and before the President had authorized detaining terrorists as enemy combatants.

Second, Moussaoui had his trial while the entire military commission system was under sustained legal attack by left-wing lawyers, which put all military commission trials on hold. So he couldn’t have been tried by military commission back then any way.

Third, the trial was a circus largely because the defendant was uncontrollable and used the attention to spout hate against the US; the prosecutors were unfairly accused of misconduct, though the judge gave some credence to the accusations; and they couldn’t even get the death penalty even though he eventually admitted he was supposed to be the 20th hijacker. The Moussaoui trial is hardly viewed as a model of success.

Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, never had a trial, as he pleaded guilty. And his arrest was just one month after President Bush authorized detentions of enemy combatants – the system was still being set up. He also could not have been tried by military commission because of the left-wing legal assault on the system.

As for the “hundreds of terrorists” -that figure encompasses every type of terrorism charge DOJ brought in 8 years and have nothing to do with 9/11, nor were any of those people foreign terrorists captured overseas as part of the war on terror. Those terrorists were held at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants with the intention of eventually trying them in military commissions.

Perino & Burck offered extensive analysis at NRO, read in its entirety HERE.

My perspective is very simple.  I am not an attorney, so I would not dream of speaking to the legal complexities. As a political communications person with a background in military affairs, I am pretty comfortable common sense has its place in this debate.  Yes, I know these terrorists and detainees were not afforded a perfect life before, during or after their capture.

Were errors made?  Of course.

Were there abuses?  Potentially.

Should we separate CIA interrogators from military interrogators? Yes.

Should we separate clandestine operators from everyone else? Yes.

Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his 9/11 co-conspirators be treated differently than average grade terrorists? The barn door is open, the horses are gone.  Let us be realistic about how and where to try KSM.  Let us take into account the circumstances.

Is there an argument for locking him up and throwing away the key? Yes, but – we have to follow a real process.  Either we believe in the justice system or we don’t.  Of course, the Supermax facilities can keep us safe.  Of course, attorneys and justices working at this level are competent.  No, I do not believe AG Holder was correct to state we would have trials, then guarantee a verdict.  It’s antithetical to our justice system.  We must do better.

The American people simply must become more engaged and do the hard work of becoming good citizens.  This is our country.  We owe our founders, our ancestors and our children the best.

Foreign nationals who plot the mass murder of Americans should not be afforded the same rights and privileges we provide to our fellow Americans.  KSM and his ilk are evil personified.  They are not the same as a kid who commits armed robbery, or the average meth head.  KSM embodies a specific and insidious type of evil.  He did not plot the murder of 3,000+ Americans because he is a poor kid from the projects.  (Don’t insult those kids)

KSM is not a poor kid with a drug addicted mom, who feels pressured to join a gang.

KSM is not a guy who got a little drunk and pushed his wife around.

KSM is evil.  Not a man.

Neither KSM, nor his co-conspirators, are deserving of the second and third chances we afford our fellow Americans when they make personally catastrophic decisions.

There is no rehabilitation for KSM.  He is not an American. He deserves nothing from us.

The argument in favor of affording him the same rights we give to our fellow Americans is tenuous and based on a preacher philosophy. “Gosh, if only we treat him nice and just like everyone else – he’ll understand we are all the same.  We are all equal.  America is good because America treats everyone the same.  America is so nice because America doesn’t see any difference between KSM and a kid with an ounce of weed.  It’s all the same, man. All we have to do is tell them how nice we are and show them how nice we are to men whose sole focus is genocide – then they’ll give us an exemption. Don’t you see?”

This mindset reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of evil, f our enemies – but more importantly, of what the American identity is.  America is a great country because we expect individuals to live up to the ideals in our Declaration, in our Constitution.

I believe in real equality.  Moral relativists seem to think their equivocations are the same as belief in Equality.  They are not.   Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not my equal.  KSM is not the equal of Nancy Pelosi.  KSM is not the equal of Dick Cheney.

KSM has no equal but evil.  Therefore, his trial must be held in a court where the debate about good & evil occurs every day.  Where men and women of good conscience live and die by this struggle.  Military commissions serve this purpose.  I know, I know… my liberal friends will be angered.  The moral relativists will become enraged at the mere suggestion.  But know this: the men and women on the front lines, they see evil every day.  They see the goodness inherent in the hman spirit every day.  God may or may not be in every foxhole – but the heroes who face these dangers are better equipped to judge KSM than a guy who experienced evil via television – or at a funeral – or by inhaling the chemical and burnt flesh smell emanating from Ground Zero.

Could you sit as a jurist at KSM’s trial and honestly separate yourself from the horror our nation experienced?  Could you?  If you were a fan of Daniel Pearl, would you be able to be dispassionate?  Would you overcompensate – and acquit KSM because you feared retribution from Liberal commentators and anti-war protesters?  Would you simply decide he was guilty on Day One?

Of course, most of us answer these questions the right way.  That does not make it real.

Men and women in the military have to .  Every day.  That is how battles are won, how wars are won.  How strategies are made.  They do the job, they choose right – every day.  This is why they are our heroes.

Because they are heroes.  I trust them.  Do you?

—Media Lizzy

Join me on Facebook or Twitter!