Theology 101 - Apologetics and Theology [Part Two] - A Case Study

In the last post, we discussed the utility of theological reflection in the practice of apologetics. We suggested nine ways in which the study of theology may benefit those engaged in apologetics, arguing that one cannot successfully defend that which one does not know. In this short post, I wish to highlight a specific example of how the convergence of theological study and apologetic activity can not only be welcome but also necessary.

It’s no secret that Richard Dawkins is not a friend of the Christian faith. Neither, however, is he warm towards the discipline of theology. In an article for the Free Inquiry magazine in 2006, he asked, “what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say” concerning the origins of human existence. [1] He continued to argue that “It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge”, and by contrast, theology has never said anything “that is of the smallest use to anybody”. “The achievements of theologians”, writes Dawkins, “don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything”. At other times he has spoken of his “doubt” that “‘theology’ is a subject at all”, comparing it with the study of leprechauns. [2]

Abuse, Catholics and Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins has been in the news again over the last few days since he claimed that being raised as a Catholic was worst than sexual abuse. I imagine he was worried that Jesus was getting too much attention at Christmas so he thought he would throw out something controversial to get a bit of attention for himself. Needless to say it was a pretty silly thing to say and I'd like to think he doesn't actually believe that to be true but alas we can only go by what he says.

Anyway rather than warranting his comments with a reply I thought instead I could make you aware of an on-line rap he features in, enjoy and have a great Christmas!

The No True Atheist Fallacy

Atheism

I used to be an atheist. That doesn't necessarily mean I was a Hitchens/Dawkins (insert other religion despiser) style atheist, in fact I wasn't anti-religious at all. Yes perhaps I thought it was all a little silly but to be honest it was more out of ignorance than disdain for the religious. Coming from a single-parent, dysfunctional  and working class household I wasn't particularly well read and needless to say I did pretty bad at school, not because I was stupid but because I was lazy and was never really encouraged to see any value in education and learning. However, I considered myself an atheist because I didn't believe a God or gods existed nor did I believe in the supernatural which seems consistent with atheism. I have always been naturally sceptical and atheism just seemed rather normal to me. Although I never thought about it at the time (because I'd never heard of hedonism), I used my atheism to justify my hedonistic lifestyle because it just seemed okay because that's what everyone else in my friendship group was doing. Of course I'm not saying atheism necessarily leads to hedonism but it could just as much as it could lead to humanism.

Arrogance

Yet in the seven years I've been a Christian I can't count the number of times I have been accused of lying, since I couldn't really have been an atheist. I'm constantly struck by the arrogance of some atheists who seem to know better than I do about what I have or haven't believed in the past, rather than accept that people can move from atheism to theism. How dare people accuse me of not knowing what I didn't believe in. One does not have to be a middle-class, Nietzsche read, university educated, Starbucks sipping humanist to be an atheist, one simply needs to have the absence of belief in the gods and the supernatural! There is no atheist disclaimer that states only those that know the Origin of the Species from back to front or those that saw the light after reading The God Delusion are allowed to call themselves atheists. Perhaps it's that it's only some of the arrogant atheists (and atheist celebrities) on Twitter that define themselves by their lack of belief in the gods that feel justified in accusing those less read than themselves as worthy of calling themselves atheists. There is no qualifier for atheism other than that one doesn't believe in the gods or the supernatural, there are no books to read or prophets to obey, just the ones you choose. I'm quite justified in referring to myself as a former atheist whether atheists like that or not and in fact the more atheist literature I read the more I think I'm justified in my decision.

The No True Atheist Fallacy

What this amounts to is a variation of the no true Scotsman fallacy whereby anyone who once considered themselves an atheist but has changed their minds couldn't have been a real atheist. This is because from their perspective anyone that once called themselves an atheist should never become a theist, so you therefore must have been pretending, not properly understood atheism (there's not really much to misunderstand) or just using the story for some ends. This is all very strange since many (not all) atheists view themselves as being the champions of reason and logic yet fail to see the problem of their own erroneous reasoning which I demonstrate below.

No true atheist would ever become a Christian
You said you were an atheist and are now a Christian
Therefore you couldn't have been a real atheist

I suppose all I really want to say is that if you are an atheist please don't keep accusing ex/former atheists of not really being atheists to begin with. Firstly, it makes you look silly and arrogant and secondly, I'm afraid you better get used to it because I think a number of people are starting to see that ultimately atheism does not stand up to scrutiny. As a Christian I have to constantly hear about all the Christian de-conversion stories going around which I read and try and learn from so perhaps extend the same respect to former atheists rather than pretending we don't exist. Thanks.

"Is God a Moral Monster?" by Paul Copan

I published this article first on the Reason Blog: http://www.cck.org.uk/reason/book-review-god-moral-monster-paul-copan

____________________________________________________

I have felt for quite some time that there has been a gaping hole in popular apologetics, namely, accessible and contemporary material on ethical issues arising from the Old Testament. The New Atheists have held up the God of the Old Testament as tantamount to an evil tyrant. Is God a Moral Monster? addresses some of these accusations head on. Paul Copan begins by quoting Richard Dawkins, who says:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully” (Richard Dawkins The God Delusion, p.31)

Richard Dawkins Attacks Agnostic Philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny

Unbelievable Conference 2012 - Video Promo

Please tweet and repost if you have a blog!

Is Christianity Evil?

The late Christopher Hitchens in his rhetorical master-piece that is God is Not Great argues that religion as a whole is a terrible evil, Dawkins claimed that God is a sort of mental illness and the rest of the four horsemen, Dennett and Harris offer just variations on those themes.

If you are of the sceptical variety and only read other Atheist writings, that is to say that you only learn about Science, Philosophy, Literary Criticism, History and the like from other Atheists [This is not to say that this is the case for all Atheists, but certainly a growing minority] it’s no surprise that many have come to believe that Christians do and have done very little good in the world. I’ve encountered many Atheists unfortunately of this type who are just as indoctrinated as the people they claim they are against, sadly the irony is lost on many of them.

However I don’t want to appear overly negative, in fact many of the people I would rather spend time with happen to be thoughtful and pleasant Atheists. Sadly many although not all Christians are not interested in intellectual matters and I admit I have to return to a select group of non-theists for interesting intellectual discussion.

Steven Weinberg once said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” [1]

Even those people who don’t adhere to a particularly sceptical view of the world will have had their view of Christianity shaped by the often negative depiction through the media. EastEnders for example had a Christian Pastor murdering someone and then kidnapping his girlfriend in 2010, for my American friends EastEnders is one of the most viewed soaps on British TV. From the media you tend to get the picture that Christians in America are allegedly all like George Bush and Christians here in the UK are known more for what they are against rather than what they are for, as we all allegedly hate homosexuals, people who have abortions and Jerry Springer the musical.


Needless to say we may not agree with those things but we don’t hate anyone and in fact Jesus warned his followers many times to practice love over hatred and Christians are made aware of the seriousness of hatred in several places [2].

Reason Rally: Invites Westboro Baptist Church, Rejects Ratio Christi & William Lane Craig

News Bulletin 16 March 2012 -- The Christian Institute

Richard Dawkins the Christian?

Very funny!

The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin: Richard Dawkins vs. Rowan Williams

Will Dawkins' Part in Reason Rally Be Supremely "Reasonable"?

One Long Bluff: A Review of Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth"

Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth hopes to convey and document some of the evidence which compels him to embrace a Darwinian perspective on origins. Dawkins is also author of The God Delusion and probably today’s best known Darwinian apologist. Dawkins, in his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth, lives up to his legendary reputation of creative tale-telling.

Just how strong are Richard Dawkins’ arguments? Does he present anything new? Do his claims stand up when subjected to careful scrutiny? Richard Dawkins clearly thinks so. In chapter 1 of his book, entitled Only a theory? Dawkins remarks:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

One wonders, of course, how many times Richard Dawkins believes that he has to rephrase the core contention of his book in order to legitimise it!

Richard Dawkins further remarks:

…Imagine you are a teacher of recent history, and your lessons on 20th century Europe are boycotted…by politically muscular groups of Holocaust deniers. The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central principle of biology they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied.

Such dogmatic rhetoric and ad-hominem name-calling is highly indicative of the level of Dawkins’ argumentation. Nonetheless, it should be noted that no critic of Darwinism seeks the outlawing of the concept of evolution — or even common descent — from the academic environment. Rather, most critics would argue that the significant criticisms of Darwinism — which are, as yet, without resolution — should be referenced such that Darwinism is not taught in an uncritical fashion. Richard Dawkins’ claim, then, that critics want to torpedo the public education system is a simple point of misrepresentation.

Will The Archbishop of Canterbury Debate Richard Dawkins?