This morning I listened to Mohler’s helpful summary of the New Atheism. The audio includes an introductory presentation followed by Q&A.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Hitchens vs. Wilson on the Laura Ingraham Show
Laura Ingraham hosted Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson on her show. The debate was an hour long, but without the commercials it only lasted half an hour. As is typical of this type of debate on national radio, there is little room for substance and plenty of room for soundbites. Hitchens and Wilson are masterful at the soundbite level. Hitchen’s advantage was to be in studio, which gave him primacy in speaking. He probably did about 70% of the talking. He uttered his typical vitriol against religion. “Vicarious atonement,” says the British pugilist is “a wicked thing.” Throwing our sins at a man being punished at the cross is a wicked concept. How about our sin Hitchens; ain’t that wicked?
Hitchens does make an interesting observation when he states that our minds are trained to think that there is a beginning. Where does that training come from? He does not answer. Is it instilled in mankind, as Paul makes clear? Wilson responds by saying that every position has an infinite regress of something, but the Christian’s assumption is that the eternal and infinite Triune God of Scriptures is the beginner and creator of all things.
Pastor Wilson– in traditional VanTilian style– declares that Christianity is good for the world because it is true. The argument that it brings good benefits is irrelevant to answer this question. Christianity is not pragmatic or utilitarian.
Ingraham spent the latter part of the debate on what differentiates us from animals. There was actually agreement on this part. Both agreed that there was a difference. This places Hitchens at least in a different category than a Peter Singer, who in my estimation is a much more consistent atheist.
Side Note: This was perhaps the first time I heard the name Jonathan Edwards come up in a national radio show. A caller observed that there was little emphasis on the work of the Spirit in these types of discussion.
Hitchens is fond of the description “wicked” for the Christian faith. Wilson then asks the obvious question: “Who will judge me for having all these wicked ideas?” Hitchens answers–to Ingraham’s amusement–that he will judge Wilson! A couple of laughs and the end of the beginning of a short movie tour. Next NPR, and then Fox and Friends.
Dawkins and Education
Note: This is part of a weekly note sent to members of Providence Church.
Richard Dawkins–the militant anti-christian atheist–declared that he is starting a summer retreat. What will they learn at this retreat? They will mix tug of war with philosophical arguments against the existence of God, scientific proof that evolutionary theory is valid, and of course, instead of the traditional kumbaya melody, these little, open-minded children and teenagers will be dancing to the tune of John Lennon’s atheistic utopia Imagine. This reveals a sort of change in tactic for the atheists; a return perhaps to their Stalinist and dictatorial history when evil triumphed by polluting the minds of the children. Atheists thrive in demonizing the Christian faith for its crusades and violent ecclesiastical history, but the reality is that ultimately it is the atheistic impulse that leads to violence and death. Think about it. In what worldview can you affirm that life begins at conception or that man bears the image of His Creator? Certainly not atheism. Atheism teaches that life bears no ultimate meaning. This is all there is. At least Dawkins now realizes that education begins at the early stages of life. But what hope can he offer these impressionable little ones? This is probably Dawkins’ attempt to leave a legacy; ultimately, a legacy of hate and meaninglessness.
On the other hand, blessed are we who teach our little ones to awake with the sounds of the gospel and to end the day with the sounds of the gospel. May our little ones grow up with the full assurance that life is full of meaning for those who trust in Yahweh.
Stanley Fish, NYT, and Facts
Stanley fish argues to his largely atheistic NYT readership that the concept of assumptionless facts are not possible. He writes:
To bring all this abstraction back to the arguments made by my readers, there is no such thing as “common observation” or simply reporting the facts. To be sure, there is observation and observationcan indeed serve to support or challenge hypotheses. But the act of observing can itself only take place within hypotheses (about the way the world is) that cannot be observation’s objects because it is within them that observation and reasoning occur.
This was Van Til’ s primary emphasis in his writings. The very idea of brute facts strikes at the heart of irrational reasoning. Everyone has assumptions (Frame, Bahnsen). These assumptions form both the context and the culture of all human thinking. Hence, human thinking never begins in a tabula rasa (John Locke), it begins and ends in accordance to preconceived notions of politics, religion, etc.
Professor Fish’s Opinion article reflects–at least in my opinion– a reaction to the often abused usage of evidential and classical apologetics. Both of these forms assume a common ground, a neutrality in dialogue between believers and unbelievers. Ultimately as Van Til and R.J. Rushdoony argued, to compromise our revelatory faith for the sake of dialogue is a dangerous error.
The New-Atheism (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, etc.) has attracted plenty of theists to a round of debate. These theists have accepted the “common ground” argument. They appear to have fallen in the trap. The atheist simply begins with a plethora of arguments against the consequences of Christianity in society and conclude that “Christianity is not good for the world,” while the “common ground” theists come along and argue vociferously that the Inquisition was not a Christian cause and that Fundamentalists do not represent the mainstream of the Christian faith. But that is exactly where the atheist wants the Christian to be. He wants them to be in the defensive; always having to explain and re-exaplain the errors of his faith. This is why Fish’s approach to this matter is so refreshing. If you abandon your trinitarian assumptions for the sake of dialogue, you have abandoned the only true foundation and standard for all thinking.
Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson debate at Westminster Seminary
Psalm 139 and Richard Dawkins
On this second Sunday after the Epiphany (January 18th), I will be preaching on Psalm 139. Psalm 139 is an exposition of the attributes of God. His omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence are clearly revealed in this glorious chapter. Particularly, Psalm 139 is an exposition of life; the human life in and out of the womb. It necessarily entails how we are to view the human life in the womb and how we are to view it outside the womb. It is the outside of the womb part that atheists are so concerned about. They know that in a sense, they have gained a strong victory concerning a human being in the womb. That is, if it/he/she (however they define it) will be an unnecessary burden, then a mother has the right to destroy that life. This is in itself a tragedy. A tragedy that has been brought about the failure of the church.
But the area where atheists seek to impose their ideology is in the education of children. Since they have control of the womb, they are also seeking dominion outside of it. This is most clearly taught by atheist Professor Richard Dawkins. Dawkins believes that children who are taught what they ought to believe are being abused. He has said in a forum that it is wicked to tell a child that he/she is a Christian. His point is that chldren are to think for themselves and parents should not exert their influence in framing the thought process of their own offspring. Dawkins would be shocked to know that not only are we to teach that they are Christians from their earliest days, but that we purposefully indoctrinate them with a theocratic agenda; an agenda that will produce more parents with the same agenda.
Is Dawkins a Cultural Christian? By Dinesh D’Souza
Asked by a British member of Parliament if he is one of those atheists who wants to get rid of Christian symbols especially during the Christmas season, atheist Richard Dawkins replied that he is not. Dawkins said that he himself sings Christmas carols and that he considers himself a “cultural Christian.” Just as many Jews regard themselves as Jewish, defend Jewish interests and cherish Jewish culture while not participating in Jewish religious rituals, Dawkins says that he respects the fact that the history and traditions of the West are shaped by Christianity. Dawkins says he’s not one of those who wants to purge the West of its Christian traditions. The main threat to Christian symbols, Dawkins argues, does not come from atheists like him but rather from Muslims and members of other faiths.
A Reformed View of Apologetics, Part 1
Editor’s Note: In these posts, I have tried to offer a simple introduction to Presuppositional apologetics. Many in our day are unaware of the incredible influence of Professor Cornelius Van Til. These posts serve to distinguish the Reformed View of apologetics from Thomistic approaches and to encourage Christian thinkers to self-consciously presuppose God’s existence in every apologetic encounter.
Just as Calvinism distinguishes itself from other systems of thought in the area of cultural transformation,[1] so too, does Calvinism differ itself in the area of epistemology.[2] The superiority of the Reformed tradition over other philosophical approaches to epistemology is even clearer when we examine the foundation of their thinking.
We are how we reason; we reason how we were made to reason. Though Christian humanity is filled with dignity, we are also filled with sin. This is what some call the “noetic effects of the fall.” Simply put, our minds are in the “valley of the blind.”[3] Our new humanity rescues us from our autonomous epistemology. It is for this very reason that we are to think as God intends us to think.
The Reformed tradition differs substantially from Roman Catholic, Arminian, and atheistic thought.[4] All three of these systems begin their reasoning process from an autonomous framework. They all follow a Thomistic[5] approach to reason, and hence, do not begin as God intends them to begin. God’s intention is that the Christian begin his thinking with God’s counsel as the presupposition of all reasoning. The consequences of denying God’s counsel as a presupposition to all thought is disastrous. As Van Til summarizes:
Romanism and Arminianism[6] have virtually allowed that God’s counsel need not always and everywhere be taken as our principle of individuation. This is to give license to would-be autonomous man, permitting him to interpret reality apart from God.[7]
The Reformed thinker cannot fathom reality apart from God’s revelation. On the other hand, autonomous man cherishes-for the sake of reason-non-Christian presuppositions. Our standing before God is one of gratitude. We are grateful that God has redeemed our minds to think His ways and not ours. As Van Til powerfully concludes:
The Reformed believer knows that he himself has been taken out of a world of misinterpretation and place in the world of truth by the initiative of God.[8]
—————————————
[1] See my articles on Abraham Kuyper on the Abraham Kuyper archive list.
[2] Epistemology refers to “how we know things.”
[3] This is the language used by Cornelius Van Til.
[4] For instance, consider atheist George Smith’s methodology. In his debate with Professor Bahnsen he stressed that his philosophy is Aristotelian. This form of reasoning was later picked up by Thomas Aquinas.
[5] By Thomistic, I mean the works of Thomas Aquinas, who strongly emphasized the use of natural reason to come to theistic conclusions.
[6] Arminianism is a system of doctrine that teaches that man has the free will to choose or reject God, and his salvation is dependent on a cooperative effort.
[7] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 7.
[8] Van Til, Cornelius. Common Grace. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1947. pg. 7.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part IV
The second book entitled What Christians Believe deals with alternatives to the Christian faith. Lewis first establishes that though other religions are inherently wrong as a whole, yet Christians cannot categorically affirm that they have nothing to offer that is good and wholesome. This is a valid point as far as it goes. If by affirming some good in other religions, Lewis refers to their commitment (as in Islam), their good behavior in public (Mormons; though they would be a “cult” in my perspective), or good moral teachings (like Judaism), then I think it is a fair assessment. Nevertheless, Christians reject any alternative to Christianity, because God says, “You shall have no other gods before me.”[1] By allowing any other religion opposed to the God of the Bible, the right to instruct us on how we ought to live is to break the first commandment. God Himself has the authority to instruct us and all that we need is found in His Revelation. In the end of the day, all truth is God’s truth, but when any other truth, besides the Scriptures becomes authoritative in our daily instruction, we have deceived ourselves.
Before delving into a few specifics of this section of the book, there is a humorous section where Lewis discusses one reader’s complaint about his constant usage of the word “damned.” Lewis writes:
One listener complained of the word “damned” as frivolous swearing. But I mean exactly what I say-nonsense that is damned is under God’s curse, and will (apart from God’s grace) lead those who believe it to eternal death.[2]
This is somewhat humorous in light of the contemporary evangelical fear of using language that would be considered cursing. This is in my estimation a hangover from fundamentalism. Lewis is right, but does not go far enough. Lewis is correct that the use of the word “damned” is reserved and can be used for all things and people that are worthy of curses and damnation. (for my article on cursing click here)
Among the great rivals for the conception of God, is the concept of No-god. This is atheism (a-No; Theism-God). Lewis develops his critique of atheism by saying that atheism is too simple. Atheism leads to meaninglessness. But if it is meaningless, then how do we know that statement to be a meaningful expression of what atheism signifies? But also, Christianity can fall into that same category. It can also be too simple and fall short of a proper alternative to atheism. This is what Lewis calls Christianity and water. He writes:
Christianity-and-water, (is) the view which simply says there is a good God in Heaven and everything is all right-leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin and hell and the devil, and the redemption.[3]
This, of course, is convenient Christianity. “Just tell me when I must come to church and how much I have to give, and then leave me alone.” As Lewis argues later in the book, you cannot have a religion with no ethical demands. God plus no duty equals no Christianity. Unfortunately, millions prefer to serve this God that is only good. It is natural to assume why the natural man does not want to pursue God at any depth. If he does so, then he must be confronted with his many responsibilities before the government of the family and the civil government as well. Further, he will come to grasp with the horrible consequences of not submitting to Christ as Lord. To put it simply, doctrinal depth can lead to a God that is not so convenient to the modern mind.
It is here also that the atheist “inquisitor”[4] wants to have it both ways. The intellectual atheist sees the gospel message and says, “This is too simple.” It does not match their criteria of what a respectable religion should be. On the other hand, when they are presented with the great knowledge of the church throughout the ages, they say, ” This is too hard.” At this point the atheist reveals what is truly in his heart. As Romans 3 says: “There is none who seek after God, no not one.”
The apologetic of C.S. Lewis would be considered to be evidential in nature.[5] Though, he may also be influenced by classical apologetics.[6] Lewis seems to use the latter in proving the existence of God. He begins by proving the God of theism and then perhaps the resurrected Christ.[7] Lewis asserts that the atheist cannot deny the existence of God. Everything that he assumes proves God. Lewis uses the example of a robber. He is considered by society to be bad, but where does badness come from? According to Lewis:
To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the Good Power: even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.[8]
He continues:
All the things, which enable a bad man to be effectively bad, are in themselves good things-resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.[9]
The bad does not exist apart from the good, there can be no real dichotomy in this world.[10]
Briefly, I shall speak to an area of Lewis’ writings that I despise, his treatment of free will. But before doing so, I want to relish on his idea of the great king’s purpose for the Advent (His Coming). Lewis sees the present world as “Enemy-occupied territory.” Surely since the fall we have lost the innocence of the garden and have allowed the enemies of God, the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15), to have dominion over what rightly belongs to God. Nevertheless, those who have seen the end of the story are fully aware that God’s secret plan will crush Satan’s armies. Lewis beautifully summarizes the story of the Great King:
Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed, you may say landed in disguise, and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage.[11]
A great sabotage; this is a great plan to take over the planet that rightly belongs to the King of Kings. This calls for activism in every sense of the word. We cannot remain silent in this world pretending that what will be will be; this is fatalism, not Calvinism. Having dominion requires a plan; and only God’s plan can nullify the enemies’ tactics.[12]
Allow me to speak to Lewis’ view of free will. Lewis writes:
God created things, which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like machines-would hardly be worth creating.[13]
This form of argumentation you see ad infinitum. In fact, it may have been this exact argument from Lewis that has influenced notable Arminian scholars throughout the last 30 years. I can see the validity of it, if one looks merely at the existential level. All of us want to be free, autonomous, not bound by anything outside ourselves, the captain of our ship and masters of our own souls. Nevertheless, the Bible presents an entirely different picture. When Lewis speaks of free will being the ability to go either wrong or right, he is misleading the reader (certainly not on purpose). If by freedom, Lewis simply meant the physical ability to do one thing over another, to have pizza instead of spaghetti, then there would be no dispute. But Lewis uses freedom in a spiritual level. How can man choose good or evil, if he is dead (Ephesians 2:1)? Or how can he choose the good when he does not seek the good (Romans 3:10-21)? The fall brought humanity to a perplexing stage. He can no longer desire the things of God, unless they are given to him by the Father (John 6:44). For Lewis free will is necessary because without it, we are mere robots. But would that not be a glorious thing? Imagine doing God’s will at every breath and at every stage of life. To be a robot is only drudgery to those who do not know the wonder of being led by God at every moment. Nevertheless, the Biblical picture is that we are not robots, but responsible beings. God is sovereign and we are responsible, but lest we find some sense of pleasure in that fact, Paul tells us that even our deeds (our good works) is a gift from God. He works in and through us. Apart from God we are nothing. Only the regenerate mind can do good and even then we cannot claim it for ourselves, for God receives all the glory. This I believe is the right perspective on the matter, though incomplete in its treatment.
Finally, in this final section, Lewis speaks rightly about the inability of man to speak without divine consent. That is, man speaks because God grants Him the ability to do so. In Lewis’ words:
When you are arguing against Him (God) you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all: it is like cutting off the branch you are sitting on.[14]
How is it like to breathe because God gives you breath? How is it to speak against your Creator? And how is it to make a “case” against the existence of God while being upheld by His power to do so? Indeed, what is man that God is mindful of him.
[1] Exodus 20:2.[2] Mere Christianity, pg. 45.[3] Ibid. 47.
[4] I am very careful with this idea of an atheist inquiring about the faith. Calvinism teaches that unless the Spirit of God changes the heart no one can truly seek the things of God. Generally, when the atheist “seeks” God, they are seeking what they can gain for themselves.
[5] John Warwick Montgomery and Gary Habermas hold to this position.
[6] Held by R.C. Sproul and others.
[7] I am not aware of Lewis using arguments from the resurrection in his apologetic. I am willing to be corrected.
[8] Mere Christianity, pg. 50.
[9] Ibid., pg. 50.
[10] In the world to come, all bad is abolished and all things will be perfectly good.
[11] Lewis, pg. 51.
[12] Only an optimistic eschatology is capable of accomplishing this. I doubt Lewis dealt at all with the issue of eschatology, but if I had to guess he would probably be some sort of Amillenialist like most Anglicans
[13] Ibid. 52.
[14] Mere Christianity, pg. 55.
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part II
C.S. Lewis begins his discussion by applying the argument from morality. The general idea is that man in whatever circumstance he finds himself, is fully aware of a standard. For the atheist, that standard is circumstantial (or so he thinks). For the Christian, that inherent Law of Right and Wrong has been written on the hearts of man, because the Creator has established fixed laws of morality, by which man must comport.
Indeed, if there are no fixed set of laws (of morality) then we enter into the realm of the absurd. As Lewis writes:
Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find that same man going back on this a moment later.[1]
No one can live consistently within a worldview that does not operate within the laws of morality. These laws guide man, so that when he does wrong, he senses and knows that he has broken some law. Of course, the unregenerate continues throughout his life to suppress this reality to the point of death (ultimate death; Romans 1).
C.S. Lewis summarizes the inescapability of man before this Cosmic Law:
First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.[2]
The Law of Nature for Lewis is a law derived from the Creator. This concept of the Law of Nature has two general meanings, a) that, it is the revealed Law of God to all people and is clear in Nature and by our experiences and b) It is the revealed Word of God found in Scriptures and witnessed in Creation. There ought not to be some unnecessary dichotomy here. Both explanations answer the problem, but one is incomplete without the other. Many during the Scholastic period claimed that the Laws of Nature were clear and therefore, we were in no need of some special, divine revelation. This is foolish, since Natural Revelation is never as clear as Special Revelation.[3]
This was the climax of the Enlightenment that autonomous man is not in need of divine assistance. Descartes, himself, sought to see the starting point of all things in the Self. Truth is found everywhere. It is not confined to the Biblical Revelation. But when the Self of Descartes replaces those two revelations,[4] then autonomy has once again replaced the authority of God’s unique revelation in Scripture and Nature. Hans Kung summarizes Descartes’ journey:
The two books in which medieval man had sought truth—the book of nature and that of the Bible—appear to be replaced here by those of modern man: the book of the world and that of his own self.[5]
This is at its inception the decline of a proper view of Morality that Lewis sought to follow.[6] How is man able to know right and wrong if he is the standard of right and wrong? A true standard must be greater than self, if it is to judge other “selves.” Continue reading “C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: Analysis and Application Part II”