Pat Condell, in his own inimitable way, explains why not to believe in God doesn't mean that one must believe in nothing.
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Do We Need a "New Agnosticism"?
For some reason, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Sam Harris have been dubbed the "New Atheists." The term was coined by Gary Wolf in a November 2006 article in Wired Magazine. According to Simon Hooper, What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises. In a recent article on Slate.com, Ron Rosenbaum argues: [I]t's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. He says that the "New Atheists" are too dogmatic and could use a good dose of humility. He continues:
He quotes the blogger John Wilkins,
I agree with Wilkins and that is why I call myself an "agnostic atheist." I don't believe any of the gods that have been described by religions exist, however, I cannot rule out once and for all the possiblity that some type of deity exists. I am not sure, though, that the "New Atheists" would disagree. I think their primary purpose is to argue against the belief in the god of the Abrahamic faiths (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).
Rosenbaum argues that the "New Atheists" treat science the same way that believers treat divine revelation. He says that they believe that science will someday have all of the answers to man's existence. He says that they are exercising faith in science in the same way that a Christian exercises faith in the Bible. He writes:
He says that he doubts that science will ever be able to answer the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
He goes on to say:
Perhaps I am being simplistic, but it seems to me that the fact we can discuss this question acknowledges that there is something and not nothing. It is simply the way things are. Perhaps there will never be a scientifically provable explanation of how something can come from nothing but that is a different question than "why is there something rather than nothing." In addition, the idea that there originally was "nothing" begs the question. The simple fact is that we don't know what existed prior to the big bang. We may know one day but probably not in my lifetime.
Al Mohler, a fundamentalist evangelical, and the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky maintains that there are two problems with agnosticism as set forth by Rosenbaum. He writes:
I disagree with Mohler. With regard to his first criticism, he simply begs the question that there is divine revelation. He says that agnostics have a false humility because they believe that man "decid[es] the intellectual terms" of what he will and will not believe. But how else can it be? Mohler himself, I imagine, sets the intellectual terms by which he decides between Evangelical Christianity and Islam or Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. We all have to use our intellect if we are come to any conclusions about anything.
Secondly, he says that it is not practical to leave the "God question" unanswered. It is too important. I would respond to this by saying that we can either pretend that we know (as apparently He does) or be honest and admit that we don't. I think at the end of the day that it really doesn't matter much what one says one believes about the subject anyway. Most theists live as practical atheists. God has little or no place in the decisions they make in their lives. I say this as one who was a Christian minister for 20 years and observed, up close and personal, how Christians live.
I think in the final analysis that there is enough evidence to conclude that the God of the Bible, as well as the god(s) of other religions do not exist. Can I prove it? No. Can I say for certain that no deity of any description exists anywhere? No, but I highly doubt it.
Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.He cites Thomas Huxley (who coined the term "agnostic") [I]t is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
He quotes the blogger John Wilkins,
We are all atheist about some things: Christians are Vishnu-atheists, I am a Thor-atheist, and so on. But it is a long step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Thor) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities. I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that.
I agree with Wilkins and that is why I call myself an "agnostic atheist." I don't believe any of the gods that have been described by religions exist, however, I cannot rule out once and for all the possiblity that some type of deity exists. I am not sure, though, that the "New Atheists" would disagree. I think their primary purpose is to argue against the belief in the god of the Abrahamic faiths (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam).
Rosenbaum argues that the "New Atheists" treat science the same way that believers treat divine revelation. He says that they believe that science will someday have all of the answers to man's existence. He says that they are exercising faith in science in the same way that a Christian exercises faith in the Bible. He writes:
Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)
He says that he doubts that science will ever be able to answer the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive.
He goes on to say:
I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.
Perhaps I am being simplistic, but it seems to me that the fact we can discuss this question acknowledges that there is something and not nothing. It is simply the way things are. Perhaps there will never be a scientifically provable explanation of how something can come from nothing but that is a different question than "why is there something rather than nothing." In addition, the idea that there originally was "nothing" begs the question. The simple fact is that we don't know what existed prior to the big bang. We may know one day but probably not in my lifetime.
Al Mohler, a fundamentalist evangelical, and the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky maintains that there are two problems with agnosticism as set forth by Rosenbaum. He writes:
This is one of the central problems with agnosticism as a worldview. In claiming to take a humble approach, it actually ends up in a posture that is rather lacking in humility. The agnostic argues that we, as human creatures, are capable of deciding the intellectual terms when it comes to the big questions such as, first and foremost, the existence and possible knowledge of God [emphasis mine].
A first principle of the Christian faith is the fact that special revelation is necessary in order to have any adequate certainty on these questions. Prior to this, the Christian worldview affirms that God has implanted the knowledge of himself in nature. In both forms of revelation, God sets the terms for his own knowability [emphasis mine].
The intellectual state of affairs that makes theism possible is the knowledge given by God himself in revelation. Atheism rejects the possibility or actuality of such revelation. Fair enough; at least we know where we stand. Agnosticism requires what divine revelation does not offer — certainty on our own arbitrary terms.
The second major problem with agnosticism is more practical. It just doesn’t work as a middle position or alternative to theism and atheism. Why? Because the question of God’s existence or non-existence is simply too important and fundamental to human life. Every human being acts either upon the assumption that God exists, or that He does not exist [emphasis mine]("A 'New Agnosticism'--Coming Soon"?).
I disagree with Mohler. With regard to his first criticism, he simply begs the question that there is divine revelation. He says that agnostics have a false humility because they believe that man "decid[es] the intellectual terms" of what he will and will not believe. But how else can it be? Mohler himself, I imagine, sets the intellectual terms by which he decides between Evangelical Christianity and Islam or Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism. We all have to use our intellect if we are come to any conclusions about anything.
Secondly, he says that it is not practical to leave the "God question" unanswered. It is too important. I would respond to this by saying that we can either pretend that we know (as apparently He does) or be honest and admit that we don't. I think at the end of the day that it really doesn't matter much what one says one believes about the subject anyway. Most theists live as practical atheists. God has little or no place in the decisions they make in their lives. I say this as one who was a Christian minister for 20 years and observed, up close and personal, how Christians live.
I think in the final analysis that there is enough evidence to conclude that the God of the Bible, as well as the god(s) of other religions do not exist. Can I prove it? No. Can I say for certain that no deity of any description exists anywhere? No, but I highly doubt it.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Am I a Fundamentalist Atheist?
Some people have termed me a "fundamentalist atheist." When I first heard the term a couple of years ago, I thought it a clear oxymoron. As one said:
The term seems to have originated in 2007 and was popularized by the subtitle of Alister McGrath's response to Richard Dawkins published that year: The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. McGrath compares Dawkins to a religious fundamentalist. He writes:
McGrath continues: The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today . . . immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism that refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged (p. 14). For McGrath, apparently, one is a "fundamentalist atheist" if one holds to his non-belief in god(s) with such dogmatism that he refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary.
An evangelical Christian (albeit a left-wing evangelical), Pete Enns, sees a similarity between Christian fundamentalists and Atheist fundamentalists, he states:
According to this definition, I would acknowledge being a "fundamentalist Atheist." I think that if the Bible is really the divine Word of God, it ought to reflect a different mindset than the times and culture in which it was written. It should be markedly different than other books written during the time. If it reflects the same kinds of ideas as found in the writings of other civilizations at the time, I see no reason to think the Bible is special. For example, Enns admits that the Genesis creation story is not much different than the other creation stories told in other cultures at the time. He writes:
I agree with Silva, Lindsell, and the historic Evangelical position that divine inspiration demands inerrancy. If the Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) which all evangelicals believe, then its origin is God and if God cannot err, then the Bible cannot err. B. B. Warfield of Princeton laid this argument out clearly over 100 years ago in The Inspiration And Authority Of The Bible . One's understanding of what it means and how it should be interpreted might err but the text itself cannot err. Left-wing evangelicals such as Enns would say that the problem in Genesis that it is be interpreted wrongly by fundamentalists. It should be interpreted as the kind of literature that it is, i.e., creation myth and then one can properly understand what the message from God is in the text. To me, there is no reason to believe that the text is from God if its format and its teaching are essentially the same as other creation myths of the time. Why should I believe this one is a message from God but the others are not? So, I guess I am a fundamentalist after all. I expect much more from a divine book than liberal and left-wing Evangelical Christians do.
"Atheist fundamentalism" is essentially meaningless as a label because atheism is not a religion (no more than baldness is a hair color). A fundamentalist is somebody who adheres strictly to the fundamental tenets of a religion, philosophy or any other prescribed thought or dogma - and will have no room for change or deviation from these ideas and practices, such as Biblical literalism and creationism. Atheism, by the definition accepted by most atheists, has no positive beliefs intrinsic to it. It is only defined as a lack of belief in any of the many gods found in holy books throughout the world. There is no set of people who can be considered "more atheist" than the mainstream or moderate belief and hence there is no distinction between a "fundamentalist" and any other kind of atheist.
The term seems to have originated in 2007 and was popularized by the subtitle of Alister McGrath's response to Richard Dawkins published that year: The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine. McGrath compares Dawkins to a religious fundamentalist. He writes:
Dawkins simply offers the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching, substituting turbocharged rhetoric and highly selective manipulation of facts for careful, evidence-based thinking. . . . Dawkins preaches to his god-hating choirs, who are clearly expected to relish his rhetorical salvoes and raise their hands high in adulation. Those who think biological evolution can be reconciled with religion are dishonest! Amen! They belong to the "Neville Chamberlain school" of evolutionists! They are appeasers! Amen! Real scientists reject belief in God! Halleujah! The God that Jews believed in back in Old Testament times is a psychotic child abuser! Amen! You tell them brother (pp. 11-12)!
McGrath continues: The total dogmatic conviction of correctness which pervades some sections of Western atheism today . . . immediately aligns it with a religious fundamentalism that refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged (p. 14). For McGrath, apparently, one is a "fundamentalist atheist" if one holds to his non-belief in god(s) with such dogmatism that he refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary.
An evangelical Christian (albeit a left-wing evangelical), Pete Enns, sees a similarity between Christian fundamentalists and Atheist fundamentalists, he states:
I've read enough of the New Atheists to see a pattern in their thinking about the Bible, and it is disturbingly similar to what you see in the Southern Baptist Convention or Bob Jones University. Conservative Christians and New Atheists share naïve views of what the Bible "ought" to be, namely the notion that if the Bible is really the "Word of God," it will provide accurate historical and scientific information.So, for Enns, "fundamentalism" has to do with how one approaches the Bible. If one expects it to be inerrant and show obvious internal markers that it is of divine origin, then one is a fundamentalist. The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Atheist fundamentalists is that they come to different conclusion regarding whether the Bible shows such evidence of divine origin. He claims that they both are naive in how they approach the Bible. He and his left-wing evangelical brethren believe that the Bible reflects the mindset of the times and the culture in which it was written and may contain some errors and still be the Word of God.
Conservative Christians are very clear about this assumption, and it is just under the surface for New Atheists. This shared assumption is taken in polar opposite conclusions.
New Atheists point out that Genesis is wholly out of sync with scientific reality. This is true, but they assume that this sort of thing is sufficient grounds to declare the Bible a stupid book, Christianity a stupid religion, and Christians stupid people. "See how sloppy the Bible is with basic facts known to every middle schooler? And you call this the 'Word of God!' Get over it."
Lack of elementary scientific credibility renders the Bible suspect. Oddly enough, conservative Christians hold the same assumption. If the Bible is not historically, even scientifically, accurate, then God is a "liar" and there is no reason to trust him. The Word of God cannot make such huge factual errors. Based on this assumption, the scientific evidence is either ignored, marginalized, selectively appealed to, or re-interpreted to ease the tension.
New Atheists and conservative Christians have all sorts of reasons to be at odds, and their shared naïveté about the Bible is certainly one of them. Both have false expectation of what the Bible ought to deliver, and this sets them on a collision course. Both sides have some homework to do ("Does God Talk to Us Through Fiction? Unpacking a Non-Literal Interpretation of the Bible").
According to this definition, I would acknowledge being a "fundamentalist Atheist." I think that if the Bible is really the divine Word of God, it ought to reflect a different mindset than the times and culture in which it was written. It should be markedly different than other books written during the time. If it reflects the same kinds of ideas as found in the writings of other civilizations at the time, I see no reason to think the Bible is special. For example, Enns admits that the Genesis creation story is not much different than the other creation stories told in other cultures at the time. He writes:
Beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists unearthed other creations stories from the ancient Mesopotamian world, the same environment that produced the Bible. These discoveries have helped us understand a lot about how creation stories worked in the ancient world.So for people like Enns, the fact that the Bible reflects a cosmology which we all know is erroneous is okay. One shouldn't expect the Bible to teach anything different than what the peoples of that time believed. But if that is the case, then why should I think there is anything special about the Bible? Why should I think that it is the Word of God? In addition, how can I know what parts of it are true and accurate and what parts are not? Harold Lindsell, many years ago spoke of the problem faced by those who believe the Bible contains error, he said they have to find a "canon within the canon" (The Battle for the Bible). Moises Silva, in a Presidential address to the Evangelical Theological Society (which makes belief in inerrancy a requirement for membership) states:
Ancient peoples did not investigate how things came to be; they assumed that there was a "beginning" when the gods formed the earth, people, animals, trees, etc., as you see them now. You can hardly blame them for making this assumption. The "how" question of creation was settled. They were interested in the "who" question: which of the gods is responsible for all of this? Each society had its own answer to this question, which they told in story form. The biblical story cannot claim a scientific higher ground. It, too, works with ancient themes and categories to tell Israel's distinct story.
The doctrine of Biblical infallibility is not a piece of abstract theorizing but an immensely practical conviction. For if the Scriptures are characterized by errors such as are found in any other book, then it is up to my less-than-reliable mind and moral judgment to determine what in the Bible is truth or error. And thus the notion of the Bible as a reliable disclosure of the divine will loses any distinctive meaning (“Can Two Walk Together Unless They Be Agreed?”: Evangelical Theology And Biblical Scholarship, 1998).
I agree with Silva, Lindsell, and the historic Evangelical position that divine inspiration demands inerrancy. If the Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) which all evangelicals believe, then its origin is God and if God cannot err, then the Bible cannot err. B. B. Warfield of Princeton laid this argument out clearly over 100 years ago in The Inspiration And Authority Of The Bible . One's understanding of what it means and how it should be interpreted might err but the text itself cannot err. Left-wing evangelicals such as Enns would say that the problem in Genesis that it is be interpreted wrongly by fundamentalists. It should be interpreted as the kind of literature that it is, i.e., creation myth and then one can properly understand what the message from God is in the text. To me, there is no reason to believe that the text is from God if its format and its teaching are essentially the same as other creation myths of the time. Why should I believe this one is a message from God but the others are not? So, I guess I am a fundamentalist after all. I expect much more from a divine book than liberal and left-wing Evangelical Christians do.
Friday, June 25, 2010
From Fundamentalist Evangelical to Agnostic Atheist
I was a fundamentalist evangelical Christian for about 20 years. You can read some of my story here and listen to some of it here.
Today I am an agnostic atheist. I am atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any particular deity. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know or have certainty that no deity of any description exists. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Mark Elliott of the Bible and Interpretation website asked me to write my de-conversion story in 1500 words or less. It was posted on his site yesterday. Below is the post:
From Fundamentalist Evangelical to Agnostic Atheist
by Ken Pulliam
I was "born-again," as the Evangelicals term it, in 1978 at the age of 18. I repented of my sin and trusted Christ and Christ alone for salvation. My life changed dramatically and I enrolled in a Baptist college to study for the ministry. After graduating from Baptist University of America in 1981, I went to one of the most conservative Christian colleges in the nation, Bob Jones University. There I earned an M.A. (1982) and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology. I wrote my dissertation on "Bernard Ramm's Changing Views of Scripture." At Bob Jones the emphasis was on the ancient languages and exegetical theology. It was presupposed that the Bible was the Word of God and thus inerrant. We studied Biblical criticism and contemporary theologies but only from the standpoint of determining how and why they deviated from the "truth." Protestant scholasticism rather than open-minded scholarship was promoted.
Upon graduation, I took a position as an instructor at International Baptist College in Tempe, Arizona. This was a small Bible college in the same fundamentalist evangelical tradition as Bob Jones. I taught Greek, Systematic Theology, Apologetics and English Bible classes. Sometime during my 8th year of teaching (1994), doubts that had been simmering under the surface came to the forefront. One of my concerns came from my teaching of Apologetics. I was convinced that the presuppositionalist school of apologetics (developed by Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary) was right in its criticisms of the classical and evidentialist schools, which taught that Christianity could be demonstrated through rational proofs and historical evidences. As the presuppositionalists pointed out, historical "facts" have to be interpreted, they do not come with their interpretation built-in. One's presuppositions would determine how one would interpret the evidence. Thus, one would never come to the conclusion that Christianity is true unless one first presupposed the truth of the Bible. To do this, however, was simply begging the question. The real question was whose presuppositions are correct. It seemed to me that the non-supernatural interpretations of the evidences for Christianity were more consistent with our knowledge of the real world. As I began to look at the Bible and evangelical Christianity through the eyes of one not already committed to the truth of the Bible, the faith that I had held for nearly 20 years began to look intellectually indefensible.
In 1994, I remember preaching in a church in El Paso and during the course of my sermon the thought, like a bolt out of the blue, popped into my head: "you don't really believe this." The thought terrified me and almost disrupted my sermon. Later that night I went to my hotel room and prayed for God to help me overcome these doubts. I believed that they were Satanic in origin. I determined to study these issues, which were causing me doubts, until I could eliminate them from my thinking. One of the doubts that was plaguing me was the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I wondered how the punishment of an innocent person could be just. It seemed counter to man's moral intuitions and these intuitions I believed came to man as a result of being made in the image of God.
I read every book and article on PSA that I could find. I examined all of the classic works beginning with Anselm and continuing through the Reformers, the Puritans (especially John Owen), the Princeton theologians and contemporary defenders of PSA. I found that essentially there was no answer. While various attempts to justify the doctrine were put forward, most admitted that at the end of the day, it was a mystery. For example, A. A. Hodge wrote:
J. I . Packer argued that Reformed theologians have made a mistake in trying to explain or justify PSA using reason. He says that in an attempt to answer the objections of Socinians and other rationalists, they unwittingly gave up "home field advantage" and played on the Socinians' home turf of rationalism. He wrote:
Packer says that at the end of the day, PSA is a mystery and all attempts to understand it or defend it rationally will fail.
While I could accept the notion that PSA transcends reason, I could not accept the fact that it contradicts reason and our sense of justice. If it is self-evident that it is unjust to punish an innocent man, then how could the righteous and holy Judge of the Universe accept that punishment as the means by which his wrath against sin is propitiated? Could man's redemption be based on an unjust act? I could not resolve this problem. I realize that there are other theories of the atonement besides PSA but all of them base man's salvation on the death of an innocent man. I also firmly believe that the best and most competent exegesis of the biblical text yields the PSA. This is clearly demonstrated, I think, in the work of Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.(4)
So, after struggling with this issue and others, my faith slowly evaporated. Sometime around the fall of 1996, I admitted to myself that I no longer believed. This was not an easy thing to do. It is very traumatic psychologically and emotionally to admit to one's self that one has devoted his life to an error. To acknowledge self-delusion is difficult. In addition, I had the practical concern of how to support my wife and family since all of my education and training were geared towards being an evangelical Christian minister. I had no marketable skills for the real world. It was, therefore, tempting to keep silent and continue on in my role but I could not do that. I could not live with myself knowing that I was living a lie and pretending to believe something that I honestly no longer did. I was in a real dilemma.(5) Fortunately in my case, I was approached by someone who wanted me to help him start a business. This person, although a family member, had no idea of the intellectual turmoil that I was experiencing. We started the business in January of 1997 and it was successful. I had a new career and I felt relieved. For the first time in a long time, I was able to sleep at night. In the nearly 14 years that has transpired since my loss of faith, I have had no regrets. Sometimes people will ask me if I have doubts today that maybe I made the wrong decision and I can honestly say that I don't. My life is good and I have found meaning and purpose apart from my former faith.
Notes:
1. The Atonement (Nabu Press, 2010), p. 200.
2. "What Did the Cross Achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution," Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture, Delivered at Tyndale House, Cambridge, on July 17th, 1973, published by Tyndale House, 1974. Available on-line .
3. Ibid.
4. Tyndale Press, 1965.
5. I can definitely sympathize with those men in Daniel Dennett's study of unbelieving Pastors. See "Preachers who are not Believers," Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, March 15, 2010, available on line .
Today I am an agnostic atheist. I am atheist in the sense that I don't believe in any particular deity. I am agnostic in the sense that I don't claim to know or have certainty that no deity of any description exists. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Mark Elliott of the Bible and Interpretation website asked me to write my de-conversion story in 1500 words or less. It was posted on his site yesterday. Below is the post:
From Fundamentalist Evangelical to Agnostic Atheist
by Ken Pulliam
I was "born-again," as the Evangelicals term it, in 1978 at the age of 18. I repented of my sin and trusted Christ and Christ alone for salvation. My life changed dramatically and I enrolled in a Baptist college to study for the ministry. After graduating from Baptist University of America in 1981, I went to one of the most conservative Christian colleges in the nation, Bob Jones University. There I earned an M.A. (1982) and a Ph.D. (1986) in Theology. I wrote my dissertation on "Bernard Ramm's Changing Views of Scripture." At Bob Jones the emphasis was on the ancient languages and exegetical theology. It was presupposed that the Bible was the Word of God and thus inerrant. We studied Biblical criticism and contemporary theologies but only from the standpoint of determining how and why they deviated from the "truth." Protestant scholasticism rather than open-minded scholarship was promoted.
Upon graduation, I took a position as an instructor at International Baptist College in Tempe, Arizona. This was a small Bible college in the same fundamentalist evangelical tradition as Bob Jones. I taught Greek, Systematic Theology, Apologetics and English Bible classes. Sometime during my 8th year of teaching (1994), doubts that had been simmering under the surface came to the forefront. One of my concerns came from my teaching of Apologetics. I was convinced that the presuppositionalist school of apologetics (developed by Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary) was right in its criticisms of the classical and evidentialist schools, which taught that Christianity could be demonstrated through rational proofs and historical evidences. As the presuppositionalists pointed out, historical "facts" have to be interpreted, they do not come with their interpretation built-in. One's presuppositions would determine how one would interpret the evidence. Thus, one would never come to the conclusion that Christianity is true unless one first presupposed the truth of the Bible. To do this, however, was simply begging the question. The real question was whose presuppositions are correct. It seemed to me that the non-supernatural interpretations of the evidences for Christianity were more consistent with our knowledge of the real world. As I began to look at the Bible and evangelical Christianity through the eyes of one not already committed to the truth of the Bible, the faith that I had held for nearly 20 years began to look intellectually indefensible.
In 1994, I remember preaching in a church in El Paso and during the course of my sermon the thought, like a bolt out of the blue, popped into my head: "you don't really believe this." The thought terrified me and almost disrupted my sermon. Later that night I went to my hotel room and prayed for God to help me overcome these doubts. I believed that they were Satanic in origin. I determined to study these issues, which were causing me doubts, until I could eliminate them from my thinking. One of the doubts that was plaguing me was the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I wondered how the punishment of an innocent person could be just. It seemed counter to man's moral intuitions and these intuitions I believed came to man as a result of being made in the image of God.
I read every book and article on PSA that I could find. I examined all of the classic works beginning with Anselm and continuing through the Reformers, the Puritans (especially John Owen), the Princeton theologians and contemporary defenders of PSA. I found that essentially there was no answer. While various attempts to justify the doctrine were put forward, most admitted that at the end of the day, it was a mystery. For example, A. A. Hodge wrote:
we confess that the divine administration, both as to the coming in of the curse through Adam, and as to the redemption from the curse through Christ, rests upon principles higher and grander than those embraced in the ordinary rules of human law. . . . But while the complete satisfaction which absolute justice finds in the vicarious sufferings of a substituted victim may transcend reason, it by no means conflicts with it. (1)
J. I . Packer argued that Reformed theologians have made a mistake in trying to explain or justify PSA using reason. He says that in an attempt to answer the objections of Socinians and other rationalists, they unwittingly gave up "home field advantage" and played on the Socinians' home turf of rationalism. He wrote:
The almost mesmeric effect of Socinus’ critique on Reformed scholastics in particular was on the whole unhappy. It forced them to develop rational strength in stating and connecting up the various parts of their position, which was good, but it also led them to fight back on the challenger’s own ground. . . . They made the word of the cross sound more like a conundrum than a confession of faith — more like a puzzle, we might say, than a gospel. What was happening? Just this: that in trying to beat Socinian rationalism at its own game, Reformed theologians were conceding the Socinian assumption that every aspect of God’s work of reconciliation will be exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought. Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic. (2)
Packer says that at the end of the day, PSA is a mystery and all attempts to understand it or defend it rationally will fail.
If we bear in mind that all the knowledge we can have of the atonement is of a mystery about which we can only think and speak by means of models, and which remain a mystery when all is said and done, it will keep us from rationalistic pitfalls and thus help our progress considerably(3).
While I could accept the notion that PSA transcends reason, I could not accept the fact that it contradicts reason and our sense of justice. If it is self-evident that it is unjust to punish an innocent man, then how could the righteous and holy Judge of the Universe accept that punishment as the means by which his wrath against sin is propitiated? Could man's redemption be based on an unjust act? I could not resolve this problem. I realize that there are other theories of the atonement besides PSA but all of them base man's salvation on the death of an innocent man. I also firmly believe that the best and most competent exegesis of the biblical text yields the PSA. This is clearly demonstrated, I think, in the work of Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross.(4)
So, after struggling with this issue and others, my faith slowly evaporated. Sometime around the fall of 1996, I admitted to myself that I no longer believed. This was not an easy thing to do. It is very traumatic psychologically and emotionally to admit to one's self that one has devoted his life to an error. To acknowledge self-delusion is difficult. In addition, I had the practical concern of how to support my wife and family since all of my education and training were geared towards being an evangelical Christian minister. I had no marketable skills for the real world. It was, therefore, tempting to keep silent and continue on in my role but I could not do that. I could not live with myself knowing that I was living a lie and pretending to believe something that I honestly no longer did. I was in a real dilemma.(5) Fortunately in my case, I was approached by someone who wanted me to help him start a business. This person, although a family member, had no idea of the intellectual turmoil that I was experiencing. We started the business in January of 1997 and it was successful. I had a new career and I felt relieved. For the first time in a long time, I was able to sleep at night. In the nearly 14 years that has transpired since my loss of faith, I have had no regrets. Sometimes people will ask me if I have doubts today that maybe I made the wrong decision and I can honestly say that I don't. My life is good and I have found meaning and purpose apart from my former faith.
Notes:
1. The Atonement (Nabu Press, 2010), p. 200.
2. "What Did the Cross Achieve: The Logic of Penal Substitution," Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture, Delivered at Tyndale House, Cambridge, on July 17th, 1973, published by Tyndale House, 1974. Available on-line .
3. Ibid.
4. Tyndale Press, 1965.
5. I can definitely sympathize with those men in Daniel Dennett's study of unbelieving Pastors. See "Preachers who are not Believers," Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University, March 15, 2010, available on line .
Monday, June 7, 2010
Will Atheism Eventually Replace Religion?
Belief in a personal god seems to be on the decline.
According to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) over 12 percent of Americans identify themselves as atheist or agnostic and another 12 percent as deistic. That means close to one quarter of the US population (the most religious country in the first world) does not believe in a God that can be known or that has spoken to man.
The situation in Western Europe is even more dramatic.
The above quote is from a a provocative article in Psychology Today, "Why Atheism Will Replace Religion", by Nigel Barber. He gives four reasons why atheism is growing faster than religion in today's world.
1. Religion is no longer necessary to cope with economic and health-related uncertainties.
2. Religion is no longer necessary to cope with physical, emotional and psychological problems.
3. Religion is less popular with the more educated.
4. Religion is no longer necessary to fulfill the social and entertainment needs of people.
Jonathan Merritt, in an article in The Huffington Post, disagrees with Barber. He writes:
I think the demise of religion has been exaggerated by Barber. It is true that more and more people feel the freedom to publicly announce their unbelief but atheism still carries a stigma in the USA. It is doubtful that a person could be elected as President of the United States who admitted he or she was an atheist. On the other hand, though, the UK may soon have an atheist as prime minister. David Miliband has an excellent chance to one day be the Prime Minister. So things are changing, but Europe is decades ahead of the US.
In addition, as I pointed out in a previous post entitled, Is Religion Cognitive-Emotional Cheesecake, religion still has a lot of appeal. I think religion will continue to evolve, as it always has, and accommodate itself to a more scientifically-oriented culture, but it will not disappear any time soon.
Would the world be better off without religion? I tend to think it would. Just imagine if we could wave a magic wand and make Islam disappear. Many (but not all) of the world's conflicts would no longer exist. While Christianity is not as big a threat to world peace, it does in my opinion, siphon off resources that could be much better used. Hopefully, man will one day realize that to focus attention and resources on this world rather than on a future world is in all of our best interests.
According to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) over 12 percent of Americans identify themselves as atheist or agnostic and another 12 percent as deistic. That means close to one quarter of the US population (the most religious country in the first world) does not believe in a God that can be known or that has spoken to man.
The situation in Western Europe is even more dramatic.
Belief in God declines in more developed countries and is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%).
The above quote is from a a provocative article in Psychology Today, "Why Atheism Will Replace Religion", by Nigel Barber. He gives four reasons why atheism is growing faster than religion in today's world.
1. Religion is no longer necessary to cope with economic and health-related uncertainties.
It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion.
2. Religion is no longer necessary to cope with physical, emotional and psychological problems.
In modern societies, when people experience psychological difficulties they turn to their doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist. They want a scientific fix and prefer the real psychotropic medicines dished out by physicians to the metaphorical opiates offered by religion.
3. Religion is less popular with the more educated.
This hunch is supported by data showing that the more educated countries have higher levels of non belief and there are strong correlations between atheism and intelligence.
4. Religion is no longer necessary to fulfill the social and entertainment needs of people.
Moreover, sport psychologists find that sports spectatorship provides much the same kind of social, and spiritual, benefits as people obtain from church membership. In a previous post, I made the case that sports is replacing religion. Precisely the same argument can be made for other forms of entertainment with which spectators become deeply involved. Indeed, religion is striking back by trying to compete in popular media, such as televangelism and Christian rock and by hosting live secular entertainment in church.
Jonathan Merritt, in an article in The Huffington Post, disagrees with Barber. He writes:
Barber ignores the unrivaled work done by people of faith throughout history. No other social organization can report the miracles, life-change, healing, and hope produced by faith communities. There is a new generation rising up to meet the brokenness of the world with innovative and, one might say, supernatural solutions. No sports team or therapy group can claim that.
I think the demise of religion has been exaggerated by Barber. It is true that more and more people feel the freedom to publicly announce their unbelief but atheism still carries a stigma in the USA. It is doubtful that a person could be elected as President of the United States who admitted he or she was an atheist. On the other hand, though, the UK may soon have an atheist as prime minister. David Miliband has an excellent chance to one day be the Prime Minister. So things are changing, but Europe is decades ahead of the US.
In addition, as I pointed out in a previous post entitled, Is Religion Cognitive-Emotional Cheesecake, religion still has a lot of appeal. I think religion will continue to evolve, as it always has, and accommodate itself to a more scientifically-oriented culture, but it will not disappear any time soon.
Would the world be better off without religion? I tend to think it would. Just imagine if we could wave a magic wand and make Islam disappear. Many (but not all) of the world's conflicts would no longer exist. While Christianity is not as big a threat to world peace, it does in my opinion, siphon off resources that could be much better used. Hopefully, man will one day realize that to focus attention and resources on this world rather than on a future world is in all of our best interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)