Excellently presented arguments and facts against the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins. I would charge all rational thinking people to closely examine these declarations against Richard Dawkins' fallacious arguments.
http://doubtingdawkins.com/index.html
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
12 April 2012
22 February 2012
On Ignorance
Biblical ignorance is something of a pandemic, not only in the church, but in atheism as well. Whilst recently listening to a review of "50 Things You Didn't Know About Religion" by Skepticality. A few things struck me during that interview/dialogue and then I went to this site (Disclaimer: If you want to follow Alice down a contrived, fantastically warped rabbit hole go to the site; if not, stay away. Its liable to cause frustrative brain explosion (credit to Mr. Rosebrough for the "frustrative brain explosion" remark).
For now I will focus upon the interview. The first thing that is striking is that most often when someone refers to "religion" what is almost always implied is the Judeo-Christian religions. This is interesting in that, the Jewish/Christian faith has made such an impact on the world, that immediately what is discussed is the Judeo-Christian claims of God and His nature when referring to "religion;" this was so in the aforementioned interview.
The next thing that came to light whilst listening to this 24+/- minute pontification on all things "relgious," mostly the Christian religion as aforementioned, is the Biblical ignorance of these "learned" skeptics. Recently, on an article's comments section, I engaged in a lengthy debate with numerous opponents. What amazed me was the fact that sites like those aforementioned, and the commenters that I engaged, either refuse to accept or patently ignore the greater context in which the texts that they cite as so abhorrent. It must be said that one need not be a Christian to apply the same rules of reason and context one uses in reading any text to the Bible.
For instance, one commonly cited verse is Isaiah 13:11-16, which says:
11 I will punish the world for its evil,
and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant,
and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
12 I will make people more rare than fine gold,
and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
in the day of his fierce anger.
14 And like a hunted gazelle,
or like sheep with none to gather them,
each will turn to his own people,
and each will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through,
and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces
before their eyes;
their houses will be plundered
and their wives ravished.
Clearly, this is a difficult text, even for a believer, for the Prophet is quoting God as saying these things. Yet, as has been mentioned before, context is needed. Isaiah 13:1 says: "The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." Thus, this prophecy is written to a specific people, at a particular time, namely that God is bringing His judgment upon the people of Babylon. Why? Because Babylon was an idolatrous, sinful nation who was being judged for said idolatry and sin; Israel, God's chosen people and nation, were judged no less harshly for the same sins (cf. Isaiah 3:1ff).
This passage is difficult in that it condemns "innocent" people, but as Scripture clearly teaches there are no innocent people (Romans 3:11ff). Therefore, God's condemnation comes upon them, and rightly so. How can a loving God do this? one may ask. The simple truth is that the reality of sin (see "sin" link above) is far greater than most in modernity ever care to acknowledge. It is the most abhorrent thing in God's eyes, in fact, He cannot look at it (Habbakuk 1:13). Furthermore, because of His holiness, He must punish sin. God does not leave the issue at, "Sinner, be damned, but instead He provides mercy in the Gospel of Jesus Christ whilst simultaneously punishing sin and remaining holy, just, and merciful.
For now I will focus upon the interview. The first thing that is striking is that most often when someone refers to "religion" what is almost always implied is the Judeo-Christian religions. This is interesting in that, the Jewish/Christian faith has made such an impact on the world, that immediately what is discussed is the Judeo-Christian claims of God and His nature when referring to "religion;" this was so in the aforementioned interview.
The next thing that came to light whilst listening to this 24+/- minute pontification on all things "relgious," mostly the Christian religion as aforementioned, is the Biblical ignorance of these "learned" skeptics. Recently, on an article's comments section, I engaged in a lengthy debate with numerous opponents. What amazed me was the fact that sites like those aforementioned, and the commenters that I engaged, either refuse to accept or patently ignore the greater context in which the texts that they cite as so abhorrent. It must be said that one need not be a Christian to apply the same rules of reason and context one uses in reading any text to the Bible.
For instance, one commonly cited verse is Isaiah 13:11-16, which says:
11 I will punish the world for its evil,
and the wicked for their iniquity;
I will put an end to the pomp of the arrogant,
and lay low the pompous pride of the ruthless.
12 I will make people more rare than fine gold,
and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
at the wrath of the Lord of hosts
in the day of his fierce anger.
14 And like a hunted gazelle,
or like sheep with none to gather them,
each will turn to his own people,
and each will flee to his own land.
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through,
and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces
before their eyes;
their houses will be plundered
and their wives ravished.
Clearly, this is a difficult text, even for a believer, for the Prophet is quoting God as saying these things. Yet, as has been mentioned before, context is needed. Isaiah 13:1 says: "The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." Thus, this prophecy is written to a specific people, at a particular time, namely that God is bringing His judgment upon the people of Babylon. Why? Because Babylon was an idolatrous, sinful nation who was being judged for said idolatry and sin; Israel, God's chosen people and nation, were judged no less harshly for the same sins (cf. Isaiah 3:1ff).
This passage is difficult in that it condemns "innocent" people, but as Scripture clearly teaches there are no innocent people (Romans 3:11ff). Therefore, God's condemnation comes upon them, and rightly so. How can a loving God do this? one may ask. The simple truth is that the reality of sin (see "sin" link above) is far greater than most in modernity ever care to acknowledge. It is the most abhorrent thing in God's eyes, in fact, He cannot look at it (Habbakuk 1:13). Furthermore, because of His holiness, He must punish sin. God does not leave the issue at, "Sinner, be damned, but instead He provides mercy in the Gospel of Jesus Christ whilst simultaneously punishing sin and remaining holy, just, and merciful.
Ignoring the direct context and the broad context of Scripture, does not make your claim valid, and ripping verses out of context does nothing but prove your ignorance. I would hope that those who claim to have "studied" religions such as Christianity would know that essential and fundamental truth. As Christians we can only pray and hope that those looking for answers actually look, and don't take these untruths at face value.
04 January 2012
Can A Molecule Make Us Moral?
This is a question asked by Dr. Paul Zak in an oped piece for TED Talk on cnn.com (here), and supposedly answered. Therefore, its worth the time to address Dr. Zak's argument.
Dr. Zak begins by saying (article):
"The longest debate since humans have been having debates is whether we are good or evil. It underlies the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Jesus and Judas."
First of all, humans are basically evil, despite popular opinion, and I have already covered this issue here, which goes into great detail about the state of humanity post fall. Suffice it to say:
"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good; not even one." (Romans 3:10-12, ESV)
With the exception of Jesus (see this post for further discussion on the nature of Christ), every human that ever lived falls into the "evil" category.That being said, it is interesting that Dr. Zak uses specifically religious examples at the very outset (trying to make a point?). Next, Dr. Zak asks:
"What is our human nature? Of course, the answer is we can be both good and evil. But what determines which part of our character emerges?"
Human nature was defined above, and as to the answer being both, that's not true. We are evil and when good is done, it is the Imago Dei, the image of God in which we were created (Genesis 1:26), shining through the filth of our wickedness. Dr. Zak here is attempting to address the Theodicy (i.e. the problem of evil), and in one fell swoop define "evil" or "good" in terms of biochemistry. One does not have to be a biochemist to see the difficulty here. For one to define "good" one must have a canon, or measure, to define that which is good. Despite the assertions of existential and relativistic philosophies so prevalent in modernity, "good" or "evil" are not defined by social norms per se. The great philosopher Plato addressed this himself here, and said that to define anything as "good" we must have a perfect "Form" by which to define it (i.e. Good). Which Form, is the only good and righteous being in existence: God. Furthermore, as that God has revealed himself in His Word (cf 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1) and Law (Exodus 20), then sinful man can only define morality based upon the standard of God's Holiness which is the perfect "Form" for all moral understanding.
Next Dr. Zak says:
"We then found oxytocin was responsible for many other moral behaviors, from being generous to sacrificing to help a stranger."
The latter part of this statement is intriguing as Dr. Zak mentions in his video presentation stress and testosterone decreased oxytocin levels, and that chemical is directly related to feelings of trustworthiness. Zak determined this by a test that he outlines in the aforementioned article and video, but there is something to address that is more pressing. Trustworthiness aside, Dr. Zak also said that a decrease in oxytocin levels (peripheral, not central; more information on oxytocin is available here) leads to selfishness. Finally, Dr. Anne Campbell who wrote the article "Oxytocin and Social Behavior," stated that oxytocin release happens only after stimulus (e.g. touching, massage, prayer are all examples Dr. Zak used; Dr. Campbell also cites childbirth). Only one question then remains: What about combat and the sacrifice of one soldier to save his comrade (high stress, no stimulus) or a civilian for that matter? What about a man or woman who braves a burning building or raging river to save a stranger's life (again, reactionary and w/o stimulus)? Dr. Zak has presented the conclusion to his research as definitive proof that a chemical makes someone "moral," yet he fails in the point just presented. Morality is not chemical, it is metaphysical and relies on God for its very definition and existence. The only way one can achieve a saving "goodness" is by the covering of that person by Christ's righteous sacrifice on the cross (Colossians 2:13-15).
One final thought, all of the responses that related in increased peripheral oxytocin in Dr. Zak's study were empathetic to another party and involved money, and the majority of research about oxytocin in the first place is related to rodents...just saying...
Dr. Zak begins by saying (article):
"The longest debate since humans have been having debates is whether we are good or evil. It underlies the stories of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Jesus and Judas."
First of all, humans are basically evil, despite popular opinion, and I have already covered this issue here, which goes into great detail about the state of humanity post fall. Suffice it to say:
"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good; not even one." (Romans 3:10-12, ESV)
With the exception of Jesus (see this post for further discussion on the nature of Christ), every human that ever lived falls into the "evil" category.That being said, it is interesting that Dr. Zak uses specifically religious examples at the very outset (trying to make a point?). Next, Dr. Zak asks:
"What is our human nature? Of course, the answer is we can be both good and evil. But what determines which part of our character emerges?"
Human nature was defined above, and as to the answer being both, that's not true. We are evil and when good is done, it is the Imago Dei, the image of God in which we were created (Genesis 1:26), shining through the filth of our wickedness. Dr. Zak here is attempting to address the Theodicy (i.e. the problem of evil), and in one fell swoop define "evil" or "good" in terms of biochemistry. One does not have to be a biochemist to see the difficulty here. For one to define "good" one must have a canon, or measure, to define that which is good. Despite the assertions of existential and relativistic philosophies so prevalent in modernity, "good" or "evil" are not defined by social norms per se. The great philosopher Plato addressed this himself here, and said that to define anything as "good" we must have a perfect "Form" by which to define it (i.e. Good). Which Form, is the only good and righteous being in existence: God. Furthermore, as that God has revealed himself in His Word (cf 2 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:1) and Law (Exodus 20), then sinful man can only define morality based upon the standard of God's Holiness which is the perfect "Form" for all moral understanding.
Next Dr. Zak says:
"We then found oxytocin was responsible for many other moral behaviors, from being generous to sacrificing to help a stranger."
The latter part of this statement is intriguing as Dr. Zak mentions in his video presentation stress and testosterone decreased oxytocin levels, and that chemical is directly related to feelings of trustworthiness. Zak determined this by a test that he outlines in the aforementioned article and video, but there is something to address that is more pressing. Trustworthiness aside, Dr. Zak also said that a decrease in oxytocin levels (peripheral, not central; more information on oxytocin is available here) leads to selfishness. Finally, Dr. Anne Campbell who wrote the article "Oxytocin and Social Behavior," stated that oxytocin release happens only after stimulus (e.g. touching, massage, prayer are all examples Dr. Zak used; Dr. Campbell also cites childbirth). Only one question then remains: What about combat and the sacrifice of one soldier to save his comrade (high stress, no stimulus) or a civilian for that matter? What about a man or woman who braves a burning building or raging river to save a stranger's life (again, reactionary and w/o stimulus)? Dr. Zak has presented the conclusion to his research as definitive proof that a chemical makes someone "moral," yet he fails in the point just presented. Morality is not chemical, it is metaphysical and relies on God for its very definition and existence. The only way one can achieve a saving "goodness" is by the covering of that person by Christ's righteous sacrifice on the cross (Colossians 2:13-15).
One final thought, all of the responses that related in increased peripheral oxytocin in Dr. Zak's study were empathetic to another party and involved money, and the majority of research about oxytocin in the first place is related to rodents...just saying...
21 December 2011
What's in a name?
Against my better judgement and as a means of contemplative output, I have decided to begin this blog. The name is strange, but has great meaning...
In Ephesians 6:13, the Apostle Paul commands Christians:
"Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand (ἀνθίστημι), in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm." (Ephesians 6:13, ESV)
The word "anthistemi" (anth-is'-tay-mee), is a word in Koine Greek (cf. Strong's 436) that means to take a complete stand against and to strongly resist an opponent. This brings to mind the phalanx of the Greek hoplites, standing in unison, as a unit, opposing their enemy with fierce determination and courage. Likewise are we Christians commanded in the pages of sacred Scripture to resist sin, our enemy the devil, and also to resist the world. James the Just says:
"...Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (James 4:4)
This means that a Christian is to oppose what is natural to fallen man, which is sin. For,
"...you who were once dead in trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world..." (Ephesians 2:1)
Therefore, The Anthistemi is intended to be an opposing stand against the "course of this world." What I intend with this blog is to oppose with sound reason and the Word of God (the Bible), the ignorance, false-teaching, and distortions that have become so prevalent in modern society.
I do not stand alone but with every Christian dedicated to true Christian Orthodoxy and understanding the Bible. Indeed, I would not stand, though, if it were not for the Lord Jesus Christ calling me to Himself to be saved from my sin and renewing my mind (Romans 12:2).
Whether you are a Christian or not, I hope that you will take the time to consider the things written on this blog thoughtfully, carefully, and logically.
To conclude:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in His only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and from thence shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
In Ephesians 6:13, the Apostle Paul commands Christians:
"Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand (ἀνθίστημι), in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm." (Ephesians 6:13, ESV)
The word "anthistemi" (anth-is'-tay-mee), is a word in Koine Greek (cf. Strong's 436) that means to take a complete stand against and to strongly resist an opponent. This brings to mind the phalanx of the Greek hoplites, standing in unison, as a unit, opposing their enemy with fierce determination and courage. Likewise are we Christians commanded in the pages of sacred Scripture to resist sin, our enemy the devil, and also to resist the world. James the Just says:
"...Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (James 4:4)
This means that a Christian is to oppose what is natural to fallen man, which is sin. For,
"...you who were once dead in trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world..." (Ephesians 2:1)
Therefore, The Anthistemi is intended to be an opposing stand against the "course of this world." What I intend with this blog is to oppose with sound reason and the Word of God (the Bible), the ignorance, false-teaching, and distortions that have become so prevalent in modern society.
I do not stand alone but with every Christian dedicated to true Christian Orthodoxy and understanding the Bible. Indeed, I would not stand, though, if it were not for the Lord Jesus Christ calling me to Himself to be saved from my sin and renewing my mind (Romans 12:2).
Whether you are a Christian or not, I hope that you will take the time to consider the things written on this blog thoughtfully, carefully, and logically.
To conclude:
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in His only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and from thence shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)