My Interview for The Humanist Hour
In this episode of the Humanist Hour we talk about my upcoming book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.
LINK.
LINK.Coming Soon: Dr. James Lindsay's Book "Everybody is Wrong About God"
On his blog Lindsay shares the Preface and Contents to this book. In his words:
Everybody Is Wrong About God is, frankly, an ambitious project of mine in which I aim to completely pull the rug out from under theism and theology. With them, therefore, atheism has to go too. My goal, then, is nothing less than turning the first page in a new chapter, one that points us toward a new post-theistic phase in human history--one that leaves God behind, for good (and I mean that both ways).I wrote a blurb for it:
Lindsay correctly argues in this book that theism (or “God”) is dead, even though most people don’t realize it yet, echoing the words of Nietzsche’s madman. Lindsay surprisingly goes on to argue that if theism is dead then so is atheism. For without theism we shouldn’t be atheists either, just human beings living in a post-theistic secular society where the relevancy of theism for our lives is beneath serious consideration. Lindsay calls us to completely rethink both theism and atheism, and he informs us what this means and how we should proceed into the future. This is a very thought provoking book, sure to be controversial. I love it!
Dr. Jim Beilby: "In the face of evils like the holocaust, silence is appropriate."
On Facebook I shared the following poster:
Afterward I had a brief exchange with a Christian simpleton. He was not impressed to say the least, describing the poster with a "LMAO" or "laugh my ass off." I called him a simpleton, saying he needs to be informed that this is a serious problem for his faith by someone on his side. So along came Dr. James K. Beilby who did just that. Beilby is the author and editor of a growing number of books seen here on Amazon. He's a Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Bethel University (Minnesota). His areas of expertise are systematic and philosophical theology, apologetics, and ethics. He has criticized two of Alvin Plantinga's views in the philosophy of religion: 1) his epistemology, and 2) his Evolutionary Argument Against Evolution, as Ex-Apologist notes.
It's good there are people on both sides of our debates who are consistently willing to honestly set the record straight, people who are not so ideologically driven that they lose sight of the primary goal of being honest seekers of the truth. Here is what Jim wrote:
Afterward I had a brief exchange with a Christian simpleton. He was not impressed to say the least, describing the poster with a "LMAO" or "laugh my ass off." I called him a simpleton, saying he needs to be informed that this is a serious problem for his faith by someone on his side. So along came Dr. James K. Beilby who did just that. Beilby is the author and editor of a growing number of books seen here on Amazon. He's a Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Bethel University (Minnesota). His areas of expertise are systematic and philosophical theology, apologetics, and ethics. He has criticized two of Alvin Plantinga's views in the philosophy of religion: 1) his epistemology, and 2) his Evolutionary Argument Against Evolution, as Ex-Apologist notes.
It's good there are people on both sides of our debates who are consistently willing to honestly set the record straight, people who are not so ideologically driven that they lose sight of the primary goal of being honest seekers of the truth. Here is what Jim wrote:
Professor Keith Parsons On Darwin the Philosopher
Dr. Parsons recently argued that Darwin engaged in philosophical questions. Given the title to his post, the point is that Darwin was also a philosopher. What does Parsons say is the criteria for when someone is engaging in philosophy, as opposed to science? He says this:
In cases ... where the evidence will not settle the dispute, scientists must employ philosophical arguments. And they do. Therefore, the suggestion that science can simply replace philosophy is wrong for the reason that, as [Thomas] Kuhn observed, scientific debates often embed—or are embedded within—philosophical debates. These philosophical differences often cannot be settled by straightforward empirical means, but must be addressed with philosophical argument. Science cannot replace philosophy because philosophy is an essential part of the scientific enterprise. Kuhn was wrong about many things, but on this point he was absolutely right.I had commented previously on what makes for philosophy right here. And I have no bone to pick with philosophy per se. But this is an interesting question. I think we can agree that mere reasoning is not equivalent to philosophy, so scientific reasoning is not necessarily doing philosophy. We should also agree that we don't need to wait until everyone agrees that a particular dispute has been settled by science, before we can say scientists are no longer doing philosophy when reasoning about the evidence. This was the case in Darwin's day, but the dispute over evolution has been settled in our day. I think the implications about evolution are settled too. What Parsons needs to do is show why anyone should wait until evolution deniers agree that this dispute has been settled, before saying evolutionists are not doing philosophy. So I see no reason to accept that criteria with regard to his specific example.
On Defining Atheism
I was recently sent a book to review, by Franz Kiekeben, called The Truth About God which is a whistlestop tour, I think, through atheism and counter-apologetics to arrive at the conclusion not that God is improbable, but that God is impossible. I will be interested to see where that goes.
Why I mention this is that I am pleased the author started off the book by briefly sketching out the different ways of seeing atheism and stating that there is a modern trend to defining atheism as a lack of belief in God. This is something upon which I have commented in various places before, and something which I feel quite strongly about.
Why I mention this is that I am pleased the author started off the book by briefly sketching out the different ways of seeing atheism and stating that there is a modern trend to defining atheism as a lack of belief in God. This is something upon which I have commented in various places before, and something which I feel quite strongly about.
I Met With Christian Philosopher Chad V. Meister Today
Who is he? On Amazon we read: "I am Professor of Philosophy at Bethel College in Indiana, USA. I'm a Christian philosopher and most of my books have to do with God or some subject related to God or Christianity. But I also have a deep appreciation for other faith traditions and for thoughtful skeptics, agnostics, and atheists as well. In fact, some of my books include writings of leading thinkers from the major world religions and from those who deny the reality of God altogether. As I see it, there is tremendous value in the dialogue, and much to learn from those with whom we disagree."
His mother lives about 15 minutes away from me. How cool is that? Just before we met he said he got an email from William Lane Craig about an upcoming book. How cool is that? And we traded books. That too is cool! I made out on that deal since the paperback of The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion is $75.He's working on a six volume work that will include the best authors in their respective fields on the problem of evil. He seemed somewhat interested in editing a Zondervan Five Views book on my Outsider Test for Faith, so we'll see if that pans out.
One thing impressive about Chad is that he's first and foremost a philosopher, an educator. He doesn't appear to have an axe to grind, nor anything to sell. From all I can tell he's interested in the search for truth. I'm also impressed that he wants a copy of my new book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, so I'll be sending him one.
We'll probably run ideas past each other in the future. Good time. Good person. Good discussion.Jerry Coyne Announces My New Book!
Well this is quite an honor! In the dedication to my book I mention four scholarly friends I consider to be intellectual giants. These are the scholars who have been the most encouraging to me over the years, and from whom I've learned the most. Care to guess who they might be?
Hermeneutical Fun with the Bible, Salvation and Christology
Christian salvation is an
eclectic mix of cutting and pasting New Testament verses together to make an
ancient dogma sound logical.
Accordingly, without human ingenuity, even Jesus himself cannot explain how
one is to obtain salvation. Ironically,
the ramblings of Jesus about the Kingdom in the Coptic
Gospel of Thomas are on par with those of the Synoptic Gospels or John.
On the "Right Side of Futurology": Atheism and Human Extinction
Dan Barker, echoing an idea expressed by many atheists, describes theology as “a subject without an object.” Since there's little reason for thinking a God exists – much less the God of the Bible – the entire field is ultimately vacuous, despite the grandiloquent rigamarole of, as Jerry Coyne puts it, Sophisticated Theologians(TM). Theology studies nothing. Its heart and soul is a phenomenon that almost certainly doesn't exist.
Dr. Ben Carson's Bible-Based Taxes
13 Jobs Bible-Believing Kentucky Marriage Clerk Probably Shouldn’t Apply For
I had previously posted this on my Facebook wall but not here. Enjoy.
"Here it Comes" My Book Went to Print Today!
The following clip from "The Wrath of Khan" expresses my thoughts as I ponder the impact of my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.
On Ending the Philosophy of Religion *Again* and *Again*
Let's do it this way. Consider the following five science related books (I could multiply them if needed). Now grant that what we find in them presents the required objective evidence to say religious faith is false and/or foolish. Okay? Grant it. Say it: "Religious faith is false and/or foolish." Good. Then there would be no reason for teaching philosophy of religion classes. None. Doing so would be unnecessary since science has already shown philosophical arguments for religious faiths to be false and/or foolish. Rather than teaching philosophy of religion classes, we should instead teach science related classes. For someone who says we cannot do science without also doing philosophy of some kind, that's not necessarily true.
My name is John W. Loftus. Thank you, thank you very much! ;-)
My name is John W. Loftus. Thank you, thank you very much! ;-)
More In Defense of Ridicule *Sigh*
There seems to be a great amount of (willful?) misunderstanding about my defense of ridicule. It's as if people don't even try to understand. The fact that we laugh at ridiculous beliefs is not going away, nor is the social pressure to conform to one's peers. Several important people agree with me and/or have used ridicule successfully. Without needing to write a whole book on the nuances and uses of ridicule, or on what constitutes good ridicule (which might end up being in the eye of the beholder), let's look at three concrete examples below. I like concrete examples. They work when I don't want to waste time chasing the rabbit of endless qualifications down the rabbit hole.
Chris Matheson's new book is a comedy about God from the biblical texts themselves, titled: The Story of God: A Biblical Comedy about Love (and Hate). I provided a sample of his book right here. It holds up for ridicule the God of the Bible. I wrote a blurb for it. It's laugh out loud funny. Read it and tell me what Chris did wrong, and/or about its effectiveness. My claim is that it's funny because with keen insight Chris accurately teaches us what's supposedly going on behind the scenes.
Since reading is a chore to some people, let's try two posters I think are funny. They're funny to me regardless of whether or not I share them. They're funny to almost all atheists. These kinds of things are what we laugh about at conferences. They are accurate and insightful.
Chris Matheson's new book is a comedy about God from the biblical texts themselves, titled: The Story of God: A Biblical Comedy about Love (and Hate). I provided a sample of his book right here. It holds up for ridicule the God of the Bible. I wrote a blurb for it. It's laugh out loud funny. Read it and tell me what Chris did wrong, and/or about its effectiveness. My claim is that it's funny because with keen insight Chris accurately teaches us what's supposedly going on behind the scenes.
Since reading is a chore to some people, let's try two posters I think are funny. They're funny to me regardless of whether or not I share them. They're funny to almost all atheists. These kinds of things are what we laugh about at conferences. They are accurate and insightful.
“It’s Over, Dad': Son of Long-time Christian College President Exposes Father’s Affair”
“No one was quite sure why North Greenville University’s
long-time president, Dr. Jimmy Epting, hastily announced his resignation
from the school he had run for 23 years – but his son may have just filled
in a few of the missing pieces.
In a video released to several social media sites including
YouTube, Epting’s son, Paul, films himself confronting his dad about his
alleged affair and may have even caught him in the act. It’s not a great look
for the esteemed former president of a college that has built everything on
conservative family values and Christian morality.” Story and Video Here
What Is the Point of Me Saying Christians are Deluded?
Here's a recent exchange:
David Bolen: Calling people deluded doesn't help them change their minds, and often prevents it.
John W. Loftus: Oh, okay then, indoctrinated minds, brainwashed minds. You see, deluded minds do not know they are deluded. Putting them in the same category of other people whom they are convinced are deluded, tells them what someone like me thinks of their faith. And no one can say I'm ignorant.
David Bolin: I agree, deluded minds do not know they are deluded. That is why calling them that just offends people and makes it more likely that they will not change their minds, even when they are actually deluded. That also applies to calling people indoctrinated and brainwashed.
John W. Loftus: I have earned the right to tell it like it is. That's my point. I put the full weight of my education and works into it. All they need to do at that point is learn who I am. It's not an ad hominem because I'm an expert, an intellectual on these matters. Now keep in mind I only do this on a mass basis, never in person.
David Bolen: I doubt you've convinced many people, with that method. Also, for all the people you have convinced, you probably made a lot more people more stubborn than ever. If you were more polite you could help a lot more people.
John W. Loftus: No. The people you're thinking about cannot be changed. Read this and then click on the tag 'Ridicule' below it. LINK.
David Bolen: Calling people deluded doesn't help them change their minds, and often prevents it.
John W. Loftus: Oh, okay then, indoctrinated minds, brainwashed minds. You see, deluded minds do not know they are deluded. Putting them in the same category of other people whom they are convinced are deluded, tells them what someone like me thinks of their faith. And no one can say I'm ignorant.
David Bolin: I agree, deluded minds do not know they are deluded. That is why calling them that just offends people and makes it more likely that they will not change their minds, even when they are actually deluded. That also applies to calling people indoctrinated and brainwashed.
John W. Loftus: I have earned the right to tell it like it is. That's my point. I put the full weight of my education and works into it. All they need to do at that point is learn who I am. It's not an ad hominem because I'm an expert, an intellectual on these matters. Now keep in mind I only do this on a mass basis, never in person.
David Bolen: I doubt you've convinced many people, with that method. Also, for all the people you have convinced, you probably made a lot more people more stubborn than ever. If you were more polite you could help a lot more people.
John W. Loftus: No. The people you're thinking about cannot be changed. Read this and then click on the tag 'Ridicule' below it. LINK.
Another Anthology Accepted for Publication With Prometheus Books
Yep that's right and thank you, thank you very much! This will probably be my last anthology. In fact, after publishing eight books in eight years it'll probably be my last book. How many times should I kick a dead horse, right? Christianity, especially the evangelical kind, was already dead in the water before I began writing. Christians just don't know it yet. Eventually they will. I'm glad to have sped up this process by administering doses of reality to deluded minds. This new anthology is along the lines of the others I've produced, named after a NY Times bestselling atheist author. This one is based on the late Victor Stenger's book, God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.
He even submitted a chapter for it in hopes I would do an anthology on his book. It is his last known essay. It's tentatively being called, "Christianity: the Failed Hypothesis." Table of contents and list of authors can be seen below. It should be out one year from now.
Edit on December 17, 2015: This is the final listing of chapters and authors:
He even submitted a chapter for it in hopes I would do an anthology on his book. It is his last known essay. It's tentatively being called, "Christianity: the Failed Hypothesis." Table of contents and list of authors can be seen below. It should be out one year from now.Edit on December 17, 2015: This is the final listing of chapters and authors:
(Liberal) Implicit Egotism Fallacy or Bias and Islam
I was talking recently to a fellow liberal who happened to be a Hindu making correctly scathing attacks on UKIP (a right-wing pseudo-libertarian UK political party similar in many ways to the Tea Party), media bias and misrepresentation and, you guessed it, Islam. Again I was somewhat frustrated that an intelligent and informed guy was getting so much right and yet made one big error. I see it so often and have been involved in debating it here and here that I had to answer my critics here. The problem is so common that I am formally going to name it as a fallacy or bias (though no doubt it already exists and you readers will tell me).
What I'm Doing in My New Book, "How To Defend the Christian Faith"
Here's what I'm attempting to do in How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist:
Rich and Powerful American Christians Manage to Please Jesus by Being Persecuted
On Friday, at a Rally for Religious Liberty in Iowa, Ted Cruz lamented the woes of living under liberal fascist tyranny in the United States.
Satire At Its Finest: Chris Matheson Tells The Story of God Most Excellently!
[Re-dated post since this book is now available]
Chris Matheson is a screenwriter whose credits include the movies Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey, and Rapture-Palooza. If you have never seen the classic movie Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure do so soon, as it's EXCELLENT! The WIKI page for it is here.
Chris will release a book in just a month, where he writes a comedy about God from the biblical texts themselves, titled: The Story of God: A Biblical Comedy about Love (and Hate). I was very honored to see it beforehand and write a blurb for it, along with Jerry Coyne, Lawrence M. Krauss, Peter Boghossian, Michael Shermer, and others.
Below I'll whet your appetites with the lines from the first section of his hilarious and intelligent book. Humorously he points to some incongruities in the biblical text itself so we can laugh. This is satire and ridicule at it's finest and I highly endorse it. Will it convince people like Randal Rauser? *Cough* It's not meant to. [Rauser has still failed to respond to Tristan Vick's book, The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot, for which I also wrote a blurb.]
Chris Matheson is a screenwriter whose credits include the movies Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey, and Rapture-Palooza. If you have never seen the classic movie Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure do so soon, as it's EXCELLENT! The WIKI page for it is here.
Chris will release a book in just a month, where he writes a comedy about God from the biblical texts themselves, titled: The Story of God: A Biblical Comedy about Love (and Hate). I was very honored to see it beforehand and write a blurb for it, along with Jerry Coyne, Lawrence M. Krauss, Peter Boghossian, Michael Shermer, and others.
Below I'll whet your appetites with the lines from the first section of his hilarious and intelligent book. Humorously he points to some incongruities in the biblical text itself so we can laugh. This is satire and ridicule at it's finest and I highly endorse it. Will it convince people like Randal Rauser? *Cough* It's not meant to. [Rauser has still failed to respond to Tristan Vick's book, The Swedish Fish, Deflating the Scuba Diver and Working the Rabbit's Foot, for which I also wrote a blurb.]
Quote of the Day, by Jeff Taylor in Salon Magazine
"Faith should, in fact, become a 'character issue.'” You'll find this quote in his latest column, These religious clowns should scare you: GOP candidates’ gullible, lunatic faith is a massive character flaw. Whoah, talk about abrasive ridicule! He's serious. Now for the quote in context:
Discussing religion freely and critically will desacralize it, with the result that the public professions of faith of which our politicians are so enamored will eventually occasion only pity, disgust and cries of shame! or, at best, serve as fodder for comedians. Faith should, in fact, become a “character issue.”
The advances of science have rendered all vestigial belief in the supernatural more than just obsolete. They have shown it to indicate grave character flaws (among them, gullibility, a penchant for wish-thinking and an inability to process information), or, at the very least, an intellectual recklessness we should eschew, especially in men and women being vetted for public office. One who will believe outlandish propositions about reality on the basis of no evidence will believe anything, and is, simply put, not to be trusted.
"Is Josh Duggar the Biggest Family-Values Hypocrite Ever? Not Even Close" by Jay Michaelson
Duggar has been exposed as a former child molester, porn addict, and with the Ashley Madison hacking leak, an adulterer. But is he the biggest hypocrite ever?
Jay Michaelson suggests other numerous candidates for being the biggest hypocrites ever, like,
Michaelson:
Jay Michaelson suggests other numerous candidates for being the biggest hypocrites ever, like,
What about megachurch Bishop Eddie Long, who, while preaching against homosexuality, sexually abused at least three teenage boys in his charge? And what about megachurch pastor Ted Haggard who, while likewise preaching against homosexuality and drug use, bought crystal meth and had sex with a male escort/masseur for three years? Or George Rekers, who, while preaching similarly, was caught with a rentboy on vacation in the Caribbean? For that matter, what about the entire Catholic Church hierarchy, which, while preaching against homosexuality, covered up the systemic sexual abuse of thousands of boys in Europe and America—and still maintains a “gay mafia” in the Vatican today?Yes, that and more, like John Paulk, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Henry Hyde, Mark Foley, Bob Livingston, or TV evangelists Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and a whole host of others!
Michaelson:
So it’s not surprising that for many of us, there’s a profoundly gleeful schadenfreude when hypocrites are exposed. (Along with profound concern for the LGBT people in repressive regimes whose lives are now in danger thanks to the Ashley Madison hack.) Women, progressives, and queers have had to sit and listen to the likes of Duggar, Huckabee, Santorum, and Fischer talk about us, as if the outright lies they spread about our lives are somehow deserving of deference. So you can’t blame us for smiling when they take a fall.True Dat! But Michaelson isn't smiling. He's hoping mad instead, for two reasons.
Who Is To Be Considered a Philosopher?
Daily Nous is a site maintained by Dr. Justin Weinberg, an associate professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina. Recently he weighed in on who should be considered a philosopher, and he had some trouble with it. Calling everyone a philosopher (which might technically be true) lowers the standard into oblivion. It would be an injustice to call Joe Sixpack and William L. Rowe both philosophers in the same sentence. However, there are people recognized as philosophers because they truly are philosophers. They have met certain criteria in this highly specialized discipline. Weinberg tells us,
Let's stipulate that someone is a philosopher who as a PhD in philosophy, or working on a graduate degree in philosophy, or having a regular appointment in a philosophy department LINKIn a similar vein, Dr. Hector Avalos recently commented on who should be considered a biblical scholar. Avalos tells us,
In general, a scholar is one who, at minimum, has the equipment needed to verify independently the claims made in the relevant field. Usually, it is standard to have undergone some certification process as reflected in graduate degrees and peer reviewed published work. Self-proclamation as a “scholar” is not standard academic procedure.The words for "philosopher" and "scholar" must have meaning, so philosophers and scholars working in those fields are best qualified to define them.
Why David Marshall is not a Biblical Scholar
 |
| An Apologist should not be confused with a "Scholar" |
The recent post about David Marshall’s lack of expertise, when compared to Matthew Ferguson, points to a broader issue of who counts as a “scholar.”
Since some of my posts were referenced in that discussion, let me just add my own comments on why David Marshall would not qualify as a scholar of the Gospels, while Matthew Ferguson would.
In general, a scholar is one who, at minimum, has the equipment needed to verify independently the claims made in the relevant field. Usually, it is standard to have undergone some certification process as reflected in graduate degrees and peer reviewed published work. Self-proclamation as a “scholar” is not standard academic procedure.
In the case of biblical studies, one needs, at minimum, the ability to evaluate the primary biblical sources independently. That, in turn, means that one must have the ability to read biblical texts in the original languages.
Peter Boghossian's Blurb for My Book "How to Defend the Christian Faith"
Actually, Dr. Boghossian wrote the Foreword to my book. Yes, I was honored, and humbled. What he wrote is very instructive and helpful as can be. Taking a blurb from it here is what he said:
How to Defend the Christian Faith is the Omega of literally thousands of years of intellectual history devoted to the defense of Christianity. It is the ultimate corrective mechanism for the Christian faith, and the definitive guide to Christian apologetics and for Christian apologists. You will never have to read another book about how to defend your faith—and, after reading this book, you may never want to.The other blurbs are reproduced below:
Why Haters Hate: Kierkegaard Explains the Psychology of Bullying and Online Trolling in 1847
Brain Pickings is a pretty good site focusing on reading and thinking in general. It's written by Maria Popova who has previously written for Wired UK, The Atlantic, The New York Times, Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab, and some others. I subscribed. You should too. Her postings are intelligent, they cover a wide assortment of topics in her brain, with no agenda I can determine except the love of reading, thinking and writing. They are her brain pickings.
She wrote an essay based on a Søren Kierkegaard's diary entry of 1847, that applies to us today.
Kierkegaard tells of three young men who sneered at him as he approached. He noticed they were smoking cigars and asked one of them for a light.
Now this doesn't describe why all haters hate, but it describes a very interesting phenomenon to me. Petty, small-minded, envious people will hate. So hating is an indication that one is a petty, small-minded, envious person. Conversely, in order to turn haters around--to flush them out so to speak--acknowledge them, ask them for a hand, or a light.
She wrote an essay based on a Søren Kierkegaard's diary entry of 1847, that applies to us today.
In an immeasurably insightful entry from 1847, 34-year-old Kierkegaard observes a pervasive pathology of our fallible humanity, explaining the same basic psychology that lurks behind contemporary phenomena like bullying, trolling, and the general assaults of the web’s self-appointed critics, colloquially and rather appropriately known as haters.What did Kierkegaard write? The money quote:
There is a form of envy of which I frequently have seen examples, in which an individual tries to obtain something by bullying.In Kierkegaard's case, people were envious of his fame. So they sneered at him until he paid attention to them.
If, for instance, I enter a place where many are gathered, it often happens that one or another right away takes up arms against me by beginning to laugh; presumably he feels that he is being a tool of public opinion. But lo and behold, if I then make a casual remark to him, that same person becomes infinitely pliable and obliging. Essentially it shows that he regards me as something great, maybe even greater than I am: but if he can’t be admitted as a participant in my greatness, at least he will laugh at me. But as soon as he becomes a participant, as it were, he brags about my greatness.Then Kierkegaard says, "That is what comes of living in a petty community."
Kierkegaard tells of three young men who sneered at him as he approached. He noticed they were smoking cigars and asked one of them for a light.
Instantly, all three doffed their hats and it would seem I had done them a service by asking for a light. Ergo: the same people would be happy to cry bravo for me if I merely addressed a friendly, let alone, flattering word to them; as it is, they cry pereat [he shall perish!] and are defiant… All it amounts to is play-acting. But how invaluably interesting to have one’s knowledge of human psychology enriched in this way.Of these petty people who disrespected him until they could participate in his greatness, Kierkegaard later wrote: "They show me respect precisely by showing me that they don’t respect me."
Now this doesn't describe why all haters hate, but it describes a very interesting phenomenon to me. Petty, small-minded, envious people will hate. So hating is an indication that one is a petty, small-minded, envious person. Conversely, in order to turn haters around--to flush them out so to speak--acknowledge them, ask them for a hand, or a light.
A Deathbed Deconversion?
Hey, how about this for a change, a deathbed DE-conversion? Yep, that's correct. Here's a message I received on Facebook yesterday after accepting a friend request (from someone who may comment):
Former clergy here sir. Your writing strongly helped me through my deconversion which came to a head on my deathbed with stage 4b cancer. I had hoped I would get a chance to express my gratitude. I appreciate the add.Interesting, eh? It sometimes works in reverse! I thanked him for his encouragement and wished him well with his health, he additionally wrote:
If you received any encouragement from my message it is only a partial payback for "Why I Became an Atheist". I recognize the tremendous amount of research and reflection that went in to that book. You took a large hit for the rest of us. Great work. You are to be admired.
Vic Reppert On the Fundamental Divide Between Jeff Lowder and Me
I do think that there is a fundamental divide between people who think that atheists and theists have a common goal, a goal of understanding one another better, and those who think that the only legitimate goal is the partisan goal of advancing one's own viewpoints. I think that is the dividing line between people like Loftus and people like Lowder.Whoah there! What a load of false propaganda crapola! Did he just say I don't want to understand theists? That is laughable and one of the reasons I think ridicule is an important response to such drivel. I don't care if Vic has a doctorate, either. Here's a clue Reppert, see chapter 3 in my seventh published book in seven years, How to Defend the Christian Faith, which highlights the honest search for truth as the priority for us all, and I mean it. Furthermore, the whole reason my writing gets such wide acclaim is precisely because I do understand Christianity. In fact, I have spent the better part of my waking hours doing so for years, and decades. And did Reppert just say I think the only worthy goal is a partisan one of advancing atheism? Again, refer to what I just wrote above. I'll go farther to state that I'm the last atheist on the planet to say atheists should all do this or that, that there is one one way to be an atheist, that all atheists should do it my way or get to the highway. Cookie cutter mentality is the last thing I have. Of course, since I stand against cookie cutter mentality then Jeff Lowder and I have problems because it's JEFF who seems to think all atheists should be like him, and THAT is our problem. It's also our problem when he calls himself a philosopher when he is not, because he uses that unearned accolade to gain credibility when criticizing me for not boot stepping in complete sync with him.
I don't think there's just one divide between us anyway. There are several of them, which I think are very instructive:
Apologist Doug Geivett Wishes Josh McDowell A Happy Birthday
Dr. Geivett did so on his blog by sharing one of his quotes:
Happy birthday Josh McDowell. He's 76 years old today.
Having convictions can be defined as being so thoroughly convinced that Christ and His Word are both objectively true and relationally meaningful that you act on your beliefs regardless of the consequences.Well now, that quote would be a good inspiration during the witch hunts wouldn't it, what, with the blood curdling screams, the welts and the smell of human flesh and all. Or, think Crusades.
Happy birthday Josh McDowell. He's 76 years old today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)