Love & The Outcome - He Is With Us

Michael Horton and the age of the earth

To be sure, science is better equipped to answer some questions than any other field. For instance, it is science and not theology that will tell us the age of the earth. The Bible does not provide that kind of information, nor does it care to. Nevertheless, it is an important and reasonable question.

Michael Horton, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace (Baker, 2002), 30.

Two-billion-year-old water found in Canada

Scientists found water that has not had contact with Earth’s atmosphere for roughly two billion years—making it possibly older than the dawn of multicellular life—in a Canadian mine two miles below Earth’s surface. “Water can flow into fractures in rocks and become isolated deep in the crust for many years,” said Barbara Sherwood Lollar, geoscientist at the University of Toronto, “serving as a time capsule of what their environments were like at the time they were sealed off” (Choi, 2013, par. 3).

---

Charles Q. Choi, "Oldest water on Earth found deep underground," NBC News: Science [blog], posted May 15, 2013, http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/15/18278807-oldest-water-on-earth-found-deep-underground (accessed May 17, 2013).

“Billions-year-old sparkling water may hold clues for life on Earth and Mars,” University of Toronto Media Room, posted May 15, 2013, http://media.utoronto.ca/media-releases/billions-year-old-sparkling-water-may-hold-clues-for-life-on-earth-and-mars/ (accessed May 17, 2013).

Deborah Byrd, “Billion-year-old water found in reservoir under Ontario,” EarthSky [blog], posted May 16, 2013, http://earthsky.org/earth/billion-year-old-water-found-in-reservoir-under-ontario (accessed May 17, 2013).

G. Holland, B. Sherwood Lollar, G. Lacrampe-Couloume, G. F. Slater, & C. J. Ballentine, “Deep fracture fluids isolated in the crust since the Precambrian era,” Nature 497 (May 16, 2013), 357–360; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7449/full/nature12127.html

Vern Poythress and evolutionary creationism

Now for the sake of argument let us suppose that the mainstream picture of gradualism is true, that is, purely gradual processes produced all living things. That picture is completely compatible with God having done it all for his own purposes.

Vern S. Poythress, “Adam Versus Claims From Genetics,” Westminster Theological Journal 75 (2013), 69.

Poythress includes a footnote referencing the fact that Alvin Plantinga similarly distinguishes between unguided and guided evolutionary processes in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford University, 2011), 16-17, 39, 55, 63.

Cran-Apple Cobbler (Kay Snyder)

Cran-Apple Mixture:

1 1/2 cups sliced peeled apples
2 1/2 cups sliced peeled firm pears
1 cup sugar
1 cup fresh (or frozen) cranberries (thawed)
1 cup water
3 tablespoons quick-cooking tapioca
3 tablespoons cinnamon hearts candy
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
2 tablespoons butter

Topping:

3/4 cup all-purpose flour
2 tablespoons sugar
1 teaspoon baking powder
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup cold butter
3 tablespoons milk

Vanilla ice cream

Directions:

In a large sauce pan, combine the first eight ingredients and let stand for five minutes. Cook stirring over medium heat until mixture comes to a full rolling boil (about 18 minutes). Transfer cran-apple mixture to a greased 8-inch baking pan and dot with butter.

Combine the flour, sugar, baking powder, and salt in a bowl. Cut in butter until mixture resembles course crumbs. Stir in milk until a soft dough forms.

Drop topping by heaping tablespoonfuls onto hot cran-apple mixture. Bake at 375° for 30-35 minutes or until golden brown.

Serve warm with vanilla ice cream.

Pumpkin Spice

4 tsp ground cinnamon
2 tsp ground ginger
1 tsp allspice
1 tsp nutmeg

Google Web Fonts

Google Web Fonts, for when you want to display a $300 font family on your web site—for free.

Well, sort of. At least in my case that is true, for on this blog I am now using the Droid Serif font family, which would cost me around $290 if I were to buy the commercial version (e.g., Ascender Fonts). But thanks to Google Web Fonts I can do so for free. All I had to do was perform two very simple steps. First, I modified the HTML in the header by adding a pointer to Google’s API service:

<link href="http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Droid+Serif:400,700italic,700,400italic" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />

Second, I modified the template through the Customize option by adding the following CSS under “Advanced”:

body {
font-family: 'Droid Serif',Times New Roman,times,serif;
font-size: 12px;
line-height: 1.3em;
}

And that was it. Anyone can now have quality typography on their blog or web site.

Thank you, Google.

He rages comfortably against the truth

“If you had to choose between truth and comfort, which would you choose?”

So the question is posed by Matt Oxley rhetorically to the readers of his blog as a way of introducing his thoughts on the existential tension between truth on the one hand and comfort on the other, a tension he experienced as he progressively expunged his former charismatic Christian faith, a painful process of replacing what was comfortable with what is true. Oxley is a self-proclaimed atheist who is sharing with others the dimensions and contours of his journey away from the charismatic faith that he once held dear, an itinerarium mentis in a direction opposite of mine toward an ostensibly godless view of the world and life.

“When I began recognizing this truth,” he writes regarding the deception in charismatic churches, “it was anything but comfortable.” And this former comfort he describes as a sort of uneasy truce between how he wanted the world to be and how it actually is, a cognitive dissonance maintained by a promissory note of a celestial afterlife. Now if that accurately characterizes the intellectual life of the charismatic, well then, I could hardly fault his journey away from it. In addition to the moralist burden he describes having to shoulder (i.e., “denying your carnal desires and working to please [God] all of your life”), the intellectual anorexia would surely leave me desperate for something more authentic and honest. For some of us, a group I suspect Oxley would count himself among, such intellectual curiosity is inexorable and insatiable. But just here marks a notable difference between someone like Oxley and someone like myself; we both came to a point where we lost faith in a childish understanding of God, but I did not confuse that with losing faith in God whereas Oxley did. Having said that, there is a more important observation that I should like to make about his post.

He places such a high value on truth that often he capitalizes it, almost as though the word Truth were just as good as the word God (although on his view it is better). I should think that as a former Christian he could probably define to some extent what ‘God’ means, and he certainly defined what ‘comfort’ means, but notice the odd fact that he never bothers to define what ‘truth’ means. “The way I determine what is true,” he said, “has changed dramatically,” but then notice that he never bothers to give that account. How is it that someone who esteems truth above comfort can provide an account of the latter but offer nothing on the former? He described what his perspective on truth used to be: “I used to believe that if the Bible said it [then] it must be Truth. I didn’t even have to question that conclusion; my faith allowed for that to be so.” Yes but that was when he firmly staked his yellow Gadsden flag in the soil of comfort. “It was comfortable to me and I had no reason to question it.” Things are different now, he would have us believe. Comfort was swallowed up in truth, that principle he esteems enough to capitalize but not enough to provide an account of. He surrendered comfort to pursue truth, but was that before or after determining what is true? And this issue is made all the more salient by his comment about embracing the “standard of evidence” he knew existed but ignored most of his life, which represents a potential confusion of the metaphysical (what is true) with the epistemological (how we know it).

I can appreciate Oxley’s disdain for the way he viewed the world and life in his charismatic faith, but I find myself concerned by the echoes of Eden reverberating through his equally naive approach to this new journey. Has he exchanged comfort for truth, or just one type of comfort for another? While he says that he has a very different way of determining what is true, he does not give any sort of account of that except by means of what that way used to be and no longer is. Moreover, even his description of the way he used to determine what is true is not entirely meaningful. “If the Bible said it, then it must be truth.” For that to be meaningful there must be some way of determining what the Bible said (i.e., rules and principles of interpretation). I could go on but the point has been made. I should like to offer a challenge to Oxley for an upcoming blog post:

• “Please explain the way you now determine what is true.”

I am not sure I can entirely relate to Oxley’s experience of existential tension between truth and comfort. I am a critical skeptic by nature, an intellectual attitude that I had not only prior to my conversion to the Christian faith but one that has been deeply cultivated by that faith; that is to say, I have always pursued that which shakes me up from intellectual comfort, constantly seeking out things that challenge my beliefs. I am not sure why someone would prefer comfort over truth the way Oxley did; it is a foreign concept to me. But that just goes to underscore the point I had implicitly made earlier, that one does not need to lose faith in God in order to abandon a childish understanding of faith in God. Truth, logic, reason, knowledge, science, etc.; such things thrive under Christian theology, notwithstanding some weak charismatic faith that cowers with a contrary opinion. I applaud Oxley for turning his back on an intellectual wasteland, but I do not understand his choice of embracing another one.

----------

Matt Oxley, “Truth over comfort,” RagingRev (2011, August 25).
http://ragingrev.com/2011/08/truth-over-comfort/

Reopening this blog

All right, I have decided to resurrect the Itinerarium Mentis blog. Although I will still be contributing articles to the Aristophrenium as my primary commitment, I have chosen to reopen this blog for material that is geared more toward personal introspection and informal engagements and whatever else I feel is not exactly suited for the design and purpose of the Aristophrenium. I also reserve the right to modify or expand upon something that I have written here and cross-post it over there.

That is all.

(NB: I have also got to do something with that ‘categories’ list. What a mess. I’ll revamp that later.)

New Home

CLOSED

I have suspended activity on this blog for the time being. I have invested in a domain and created a web site to publish not only my own writing but that of others too, as a growing collaborative enterprise of authors with a range of view points exploring and examining ideas and topics related to philosophy, religion, and science. I am publishing from the perspective of Christian theism, of course, while another gentleman, Håvard Skjæveland, is publishing from the position of agnostic atheism. I am hoping that in time the site will be home to five or six intelligent and eloquent writers who all share the same interest in open-minded but critical thinking.

www.Aristophrenium.com

---

Update (1 Feb 2010): Site no longer a collaborative blog between myself and Skjæveland. Site overhaul in design, purpose, and content. Now a team blog of Christian writers: Mathew Hamilton, Duane Proud, Adam Morgan, Luis Dizon, and myself.

Problem of Suffering: Doug's Rebuttal

A reader who I will call 'Doug' had a rebuttal to my Problem of Suffering critique:

Your argument seems to be that gratuitous suffering cannot exist because a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent would not allow it. The problem is that the presence of gratuitous suffering is the test; we must establish that it does or doesn't exist without deferring to the conclusion we're trying to establish. We can't just hand-wave away suffering as 'not gratuitous' by simply assuming it must have some purpose if we are right that there is a God. It's an empty argument, and one instantly seen-through by anyone with a passing knowledge of the logical fallacies.

You seem to have misunderstood what my argument is. It is not simply that God "would not allow it." Rather, it is that gratuitous suffering stands in contradiction to a God whose attributes are omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence—in the same way that an 'immovable object' stands in contradiction to an 'irresistible force'. Either gratuitous suffering exists or God exists; it is logically impossible (by the very definition of the terms involved) for them to both exist. That's the sticking point. It's more than theologically untenable; it is logically impossible. This is why presupposing the existence gratuitous suffering commits the question-begging fallacy.

Pointless Belief

From the EthicalAtheist.com web page "Questions for God" [1]:

Why don't you show yourself? You supposedly made us and want us to believe in you, right? Why the big mystery? You're also omnipresent, right? Why don't you show yourself to all of us at once and have a personal discussion with us? You can pick the date and time, we'll all stop what we are doing, I'm sure.

Why doesn't God dance when you want him to, and to the tune of your choosing? Why doesn't God put on some righteous cosmic magic show to convince you that he exists? Allow me to submit what I think is a far more pertinent question: "What would be the point?"

Imagine for a moment that God does your bidding. Whatever it would take to convince you that he exists, let's assume for the sake of argument that he produced it. Presto, you affirm that indeed God exists.

Now what?

So you now believe he exists. Well that's fantastic but, if I may be so bold, "So what?" What does this profit you? Are you so ignorant and out of touch that you think God will love you and accept you just because you assent intellectually to his existence? Are you so presumptuous as to dismiss with a wave of the hand your tremendous debt of moral culpability and (even worse) God's righteousness and sovereignty? Is God supposed to be so overwhelmed with gratitude for your cognitive approbation that he will just ignore the holy demands of justice? It's great that you now believe he exists. But so what? Will you now obey his commands? Do you throw away your ethics and other philosophical commitments and subject yourself fully to the will of God and what he demands?

No.

Why doesn't he show himself? Why doesn't he put on a cosmic magic show to convince atheists he exists? Because it would be pointless. It profits him nothing. It profits the atheist nothing. The atheist's intellectual assent is barren and impotent. For Satan himself believes that God exists, and he will believe that all the way to hell. The problem is not in the atheist's head but in his heart. When it comes to a relationship with God, the atheist's problem is not an intellectual one, but a moral one—on several different fronts.

As Rabbi Harold Kushner so eloquently put the matter:

Paul, whose conversation with me ultimately flowered into this book [2], assured me that while he did not believe in religion, he believed in God. I asked him what he meant by that, and he told me that when he contemplates the beauty and intricacy of the world, he has to believe that God exists. That’s very nice, I told him, and I’m sure God appreciates your vote of confidence. But for the religious mind and soul, the issue has never been the existence of God but the importance of God, the difference that God makes in the way we live. To believe that God exists the way that you believe the South Pole exists, though you have never seen either one, to believe in the reality of God the way you believe in the Pythagorean theorem as an accurate abstract statement that does not really affect your daily life, is not a religious stance. A God who exists but does not matter, who does not make a difference in the way you live, might as well not exist.

Britney (Bebo Norman)

(To listen, click here)

Britney, I'm sorry for the lies we told.
We took you into our arms, then left you cold.
Britney, I'm sorry for this cruel, cruel world.
We sell the beauty but destroy the girl.
Britney, I'm sorry for your broken heart.
We stood aside and watched you fall apart.
I'm sorry we told you fame would fill you up,
And money moves the man, so drink the cup.

I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
You never see it coming back.
I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
But I can see it coming back for you.
Yes, coming back for you.

Britney, I'm sorry for the stones we throw.
We tear you down just so we can watch the show.
Britney, I'm sorry for the words we say.
We point the finger as you fall from grace.

I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
You never see it coming back.
I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
But I can see it coming back for you.

Britney, I do believe that love has come.
Here for the broken, here for the ones like us

I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
You never see it coming back.
I know love goes around the world. We know.
And you never see it coming back.
But I can see it coming back for you.

It's coming back for you.

---

The Story Behind the Song (in Bebo Norman's own words)
(taken from CCMagazine.com)

"Britney" is a song about what our culture says and does to young women these days. It's a collective apology for the struggle girls face growing up too fast in today's overly adult-oriented world. The song confesses, "I’m sorry for the lies we told / We took you into our arms, then left you cold / I'm sorry for this cruel, cruel world / We sell the beauty but destroy the girl." It's about the lies we tell them: about fame, and money, and what’s beautiful, and what will give them life. It's an apology for those lies. But more than that, it's an invitation to the truth about a God who is bigger than the pain this world so often leaves them in."

"I was up late. Couldn’t sleep, watching some news channel when yet another story about Britney Spears came on. My first instinct was to scoff and write it off. But then there was this freeze-frame shot of a look on her face of utter and absolute despair and confusion and brokenness—a look that I recognized. And I remember thinking, "This girl is a child of God." Suddenly I saw her story not as something to mock but as a real-life tragedy that is desperate for redemption and hope—a story not so different from any of our stories. Take away all the lights and cameras and it's really just a narrative of a girl so clearly in need of love, so clearly in need of the redeeming love of our God."

"And suddenly all I wanted to do was just apologize, over and over. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. On behalf of this fallen world. On behalf of our consumerism that so consistently devours what it wants and leaves the remnants in the wake of the search for the next fix. On behalf of believers, like myself, who mock and hurl stones rather than scribbling a message in the sand."

"I think that night I saw her through the eyes of Jesus for the first time. I imagined what Jesus would say to me in my darkest hour and realized that those are the words we should speak to this world, to this culture—and even to Britney Spears—in their darkest hour. "I'm sorry. Hope is here."

Sam Harris and the Problem of Evil

Cleaning up and organizing my blog this evening, I noticed this brief excerpt from Sam Harris sitting as an unpublished 'Draft' in my index of blog posts. Evidently I had intended to compose a response but for some reason forgot all about it. It is a succinct Problem of Evil argument which I pulled from his "An Atheist Manifesto" [1]:

[God is responsible for human suffering. There is no other way to properly frame the issue.] This is the age-old problem of theodicy, of course, and we should consider it solved. If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.

After listing some examples of human suffering—Hurricane Katrina, the Holocaust, genocide in Rwanda, etc.—with rhetoric guaranteed to stir up the emotions of his readers, he then asks them to think rationally. If it is the case that his readers are supposed to think rationally about the issue, why did Harris invest so much energy into fomenting their emotions in the ten preceding paragraphs? Because his readers must react emotionally in order for his argument to work. If his readers truly were to think critically armed with reason, the embarrassing holes in his argument would become immediately obvious.

What ought to be the philosophical rebuttal to his PoE argument? Harris believes that pious readers "will now execute the following pirouette: God cannot be judged by merely human standards of morality" (which he finds ludicrous because, according to him, "human standards of morality are precisely what the faithful use to establish God’s goodness in the first place"). Well no, that is not the response Harris can expect to his argument. Even though it is true that God cannot be judged by human standards of morality (for a complex of reasons that Harris' dogmatic bigotry would likely prevent him from anticipating), that would not be the right critical response.

If his readers were to think critically armed with reason, they should immediately note (or at the very least suspect) that Harris' argument committed the fallacy of bifurcation or false dilemma, which involves "a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options" [2].

Since God is said to be omniscient and omnipotent—i.e., he knows these calamities will happen and possesses the power to stop them—then indeed he obviously "does not care to" stop them; he is infinitely able to but for some reason doesn't stop these calamities. Now, this leads Harris to conclude that God is therefore "evil" but such a conclusion does not follow reasonably from the stated premises. Harris is operating from a premise that is suppressed. Like I said, God is infinitely able to but for some reason doesn't stop these calamities. That is the closet in which can be found the hidden premise that Harris drew his conclusion from.

Only if God's reason (for not stopping this or that calamity) is rooted in "malice" can he be considered evil, if he did it out of some sick enjoyment of inflicting gratuitous harm on others or watching people suffer. But what if his reason is rooted in justice, such that a calamity fell upon people who deserved it? Moreover, what if his just reason for allowing some calamity to befall one person led to not only strengthening their personal development but also to a net greater good in the future for hundreds or thousands of others? In such cases God is not evil at all for allowing the calamity, which firmly proves the fallacy of bifurcation Harris committed. God can know a calamity will happen and possess the power to stop it but nevertheless allow it to happen and not be evil for doing so.

So now the readers need to decide which is more plausible, and I will tell them how they can do that. I can cite multiple pieces of evidence showing where God allowed egregious calamities to occur for the purpose of justice or a greater good, whereas Harris cannot cite one single example of God doing so for the purpose of malice. Not even one. Harris can assume malice out of baseless assertion or personal incredulity but he cannot prove it from evidence. So if I have several pieces of evidence for my contention (e.g., Gen. 50:20; cf. Gen. 45:4-11) and Harris has zero for his, where should the reader think the plausibility lies? The answer is pretty obvious.

The Problem of Evil argument presented by Harris is fallacious and bankrupt. He needs to go back to the drawing board and firm up his suppressed premise, next time exposing it honestly.

Broken (Lifehouse)

The broken clock is a comfort. It helps me sleep tonight.
Maybe it can stop tomorrow from stealing all my time.
And I am here still waiting, though I still have my doubts.
I am damaged, at best—like You've already figured out.

I'm falling apart, I'm barely breathing,
With a broken heart that's still beating.
In the pain there is healing,
In Your name I find meaning.

The broken locks were a warning: You got inside my head.
I tried my best to be guarded; I'm an open book instead.
And I still see Your reflection inside of my eyes
That are looking for purpose; they're still looking for life.

I'm falling apart, I'm barely breathing,
With a broken heart that's still beating.
In the pain is the healing,
In Your name I find meaning.

So I'm holding on (I'm still holding)
I'm holding on (I'm still holding)
I'm holding on (I'm still holding)
I'm barely holding on to You

I'm hanging on another day,
Just to see what You will throw my way.
I'm hanging on to the words You say.
You said that I will be okay.

The broken lights on the freeway left me here alone.
I may have lost my way now; haven't forgotten my way home.

I'm falling apart, I'm barely breathing,
With a broken heart that's still beating.
In the pain there is healing,
In Your name I find meaning.

So I'm holding on (I'm still holding)
I'm holding on (I'm still holding)
I'm holding on (I'm still holding)
I'm barely holding on to You

A Horrific Anachronism

When someone wishes to criticize 'X' despite possessing a demonstrable ignorance thereof (e.g., a creationist attack against evolution by someone who does not even understand the basics of evolution), what would that be called? There simply must be something more excoriating than "ignorant." Is that really the most censorious term available? It hardly seems adequate.

I need something that will adequately characterize such moronic arguments as those presented by "Vjack" who, in his blog about an Atheist Revolution [1], presents some of the most torturous logic I have ever had the misfortune of encountering. I cannot remember the link trail I was following but I ended up discovering a blog post of his from nearly four years ago (March 2005) entitled "Bible Commands Christians to Kill Nonbelievers" [2]. Obviously that grabbed my attention, as it was probably intended to. But the sheer incoherence of his argument is truly a phenomenon.

Although I read the entire article (thankfully it is brief), I certainly didn't need to, having noted the biblical reference his argument was calling upon, pulled from the book of Deuteronomy. Really, Vjack? Deuteronomy? This material, written nearly a thousand years before there were any Christians, was composed with instructions for them? Does the word "anachronistic" [3] mean anything to you, sir? I should suppose that Vjack has good reason to think these mitzvot (commands) in fact do not form "extensive laws, admonitions, and injunctions to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan" [4; emphasis mine], that he surely has good reason to think these instructions were actually for Christians.

And if he does, he forgot to include it in his blog post.

David Silverman and "Top 10 Atheist Myths"

David Silverman is the Communications Director for the web site American Atheists [1], which describes itself as an organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, a total wall of separation between church and state, and providing information about Atheism [2]. A philosopher could almost make a career out of critiquing the ideas and propaganda that are published at that site, but in this piece here I want to critique one specific article: the list that Silverman published about the "Top Ten Atheist Myths" [3]. (I am trying to ignore my pedantic itch to indicate that the title implies myths which atheists have; i.e., it ought to say "Top Ten Myths About Atheists.") And I want to be clear that I am writing from the perspective of a Christian philosopher, not from that of a generic theist (which would include any religion that advocates a deity or deities, e.g., Islam, Hinduism, etc.).

Out of the ten alleged myths that Silverman claims theists have about atheists, he successfully identifies only one: Myth #4, and only assuming that I have correctly understood the alleged myth. The other nine are either not myths (e.g., Myth #1) or they are not about atheists (e.g., Myth #10). The only myth he manages to successfully identify—assuming I have correctly understood it—is the myth that atheists must be able to prove that God doesn't exist in order to be atheists. That is indeed a myth. However, he is wrong that it's one which theists have. Hardly any theists think that. That is a popular myth only amongst brainless Protestant Christian fundamentalists (especially Myth #2), which is a very tiny fraction of those who are theists.

But that is the other problem with Silverman's article. Despite his constant allusion to theists, Silverman spends no time whatsoever on theists; the context of his responses are seemingly geared toward only one select demographic (brainless fundies) of one select branch (Protestant) of one select theism (Christianity), evidenced probably nowhere better than Myth #10. Furthermore, Silverman spends most of his time defending Secular Humanists, not atheists. He needs to change the title of his article to "The Top One Myth That Brainless Protestant Christian Fundies Have About Atheists."

1. "Atheists are all the same."

I am not even sure what this means, quite frankly. And despite the considerable extent of my experiences in philosophical education and discourse, both casual and academic, not once have I ever heard this supposed myth. Something this obscure certainly does not belong on a Top Ten list. Having said that, if I were to make an educated guess at Silverman's meaning, I would assume that he is calling it a myth the notion that all atheists can be lumped together.

Despite his contention, that is actually not a myth. It is a fact that atheists can all be lumped together—under 'atheism', which he nearly recognizes by his statement that atheists "are bound only by our atheism." It is true that atheists quickly diversify ideologically beyond their atheism; e.g., one atheist may be a Buddhist, another may be a Secular Humanist, etc. But what Silverman apparently fails to realize, having tripped over his own equivocating fallacy [4], is that this is also true for theists. It is likewise a fact that theists can be all lumped together—under 'theism' (being bound only by their theism). And it is likewise true that theists quickly diversify ideologically beyond their theism; e.g., one theist may be a Christian, another may be a Hindu, etc. It is unfortunate but Silverman did not address this so-called "myth" accurately or fairly.

Additionally, Silverman insists that "believers must be bound by much more than a simple belief in God." But this is erroneous, too: it is not true that a theist is bound by more than a simple belief in God. Although specific types of theists may be committed to a number of additional beliefs (e.g., Muslim), this is also true for specific types of atheists (e.g., Secular Humanist). A 'theist' is nothing more than a person who assents intellectually to the existence of a deity or deities, whether emphatically or agnostically, just as an 'atheist' is nothing more than a person who consciously rejects the existence of any deities, whether emphatically or agnostically. Moreover, a theist's beliefs are no less a choice than an atheist's beliefs; i.e., indeed atheists freely choose their beliefs, but so do theists. Understand that clearly. There is no "must" in a theist's beliefs substantively different from the compelling motivation that drives an atheist to his beliefs. Both camps are comprised of those who affirm their convictions zealously (fanatic) and those who may not have explored their beliefs very much at all (apathetic).

Furthermore, he states that atheists are Republicans and they are Democrats, they are both men and women, they are gays and straights, blacks and whites. The same is true for theists, Mr. Silverman. There are Republicans who are Jews, Democrats who are Muslim, men who are Sikh, women who are Baha'i, gays who are Christian, straights who are Zoroastrian, etc. There is diversity in both camps, atheism and theism alike.

Finally, he claims that atheists "accept every person, as they are, as equals." That, unfortunately, is a bold generalization that fails to square with reality, a delusion in virtue of being contradicted by evidence. It is true only for those atheists who affirm the system of values described by Silverman's statement. It is not true for atheists who are racist, for example, who do not accept every person as equals. Does the fact that they don't share his system of values mean they are not atheists? Of course not, which leads to another problem with his statement: it reaches beyond what atheism is, in itself. Atheism is a position on the question of deities, not on the question of ethics (i.e., morals and values). For the latter, one must reach beyond atheism to something like Secular Humanism, for example—which is atheistic, but it is not atheism. Yet atheism is precisely what the subject of this list is supposed to be. This is not a list of myths about Secular Humanism or any other atheistic belief system, but rather atheism itself.

2. "Atheists have no morals, since they don't believe in God."

I am willing to believe that there are people who "seriously say that humans need to fear eternal damnation in order to do good," but I have good reason to believe that they are very few in number. It almost seems as though Silverman is taking the extreme views of certain Protestant Christian fundamentalists and pretending that this characterizes theists nationwide (Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Tenrikyos, Christians, Baha'i, Sikhs, Rastafarians, Jews, etc.)—all of whom are theists and who are the ones that Silverman wishes to disabuse of these ten myths ("the myths about atheists that are popular among theists"). In actuality, Mr. Silverman, it is "a sad world" when so many like you think that 'theist' means brainless Protestant Christian fundamentalist, a very narrow definition in the extreme which excludes hundreds of millions of other Christians and, worse yet, billions of theists.

No intelligent theist believes that "atheists have no morals." No intelligent theist thinks that "just because [atheists] are different from them" it somehow makes atheists "inherently bad." If Silverman is writing for unintelligent theists, then I fear he is wasting his time and efforts. Unintelligent theists do not typically appreciate rational discourse (assuming they can even recognize it) nor is that what shapes their ideas and beliefs. Silverman ought to be writing for intelligent theists with whom his arguments would have a far better chance of finding traction. And, as I said, no intelligent theist believes that atheists have no morals.

At any rate, Silverman argues that "humans have the idea of 'right and wrong' imbedded in them by their own brains, as well as [by] their upbringing and society." This statement of faith is obviously something that Silverman himself believes, but the reader needs to realize that although it may be atheistic it certainly is not atheism. That is to say, it is myths about atheists that Silverman is supposed to be addressing so he needs to broaden his thinking to include all those atheists who don't necessarily agree with his statement. Although there are some atheists who do share this belief in common with him, there are certainly many who do not. There are, for example, atheists who believe there is no such thing as 'right and wrong' in any real or meaningful sense (e.g., Sartre, Nietzsche, etc.), that such ideas are nothing more than certain firing patterns of neural activity in the human brain in a causal relationship with the universe's physical laws (the only consistent atheists, I submit). If Silverman is going to cherry-pick the atheists his list is supposed to defend, he ought to be honest about it within the article itself. Otherwise he should stick to myths about atheists that can apply to all atheists, instead of espousing these ethical theories that atheism has nothing to do with.

As for Silverman's remarks about the number of self-identified atheists in the nation, as well as those in various stages of the correctional system, I have no idea how that relates to myths about atheists, refutes the Christian philosophical argument on metaethics, or is any sort of criticism of Christian theology in general. Although Silverman would like to think that he has thus far successfully proved that "religion and ethical behaviour are not even slightly related," it has been exposed here that (a) he has not even come close and that (b) it would nevertheless be utterly irrelevant to the task he set before himself: clearing up myths about atheists.

Do his statements thus far truly "piss off the theists"? Of course not. For one thing, his statements have been incredibly weak at best, being mostly irrelevant. For another, his statements have pretty much ignored theists, seeming to concentrate instead upon a select demographic of a select branch of a select type of theist. There are millions upon millions of theists throughout the United States who would be scratching their heads wondering why Silverman is not more honest, editing his article to address brainless "Christian fundies" (which it does) instead of intelligent "theists" (which it does not).

3. "Atheists believe in evolution, but that doesn't answer as many questions as creationism."

Once again, completely irrelevant to the task of clearing up myths about atheists. Period. This should not even be on a list like this. First, practically all atheists do believe in evolution. That is not a myth, sorry. It is an easily verifiable fact. And whether or not evolution answers "as many questions as creationism" has absolutely nothing to do with myths about atheists in the first place. There is literally nothing here for me to address. It is that irrelevant.

But I do have to address one particular point. Silverman claims that "believers are loath to discuss where God came from, or what he was doing before the creation." This could not possibly be any more false. It is in fact contradicted by volumes of evidence, rendering his claim delusional. (Yes, I know that Silverman is again speaking of a specific type of theist, i.e., those who believe in one eternal God who personally created the world.) They are not loath to discuss the question: they have answered it, directly and repeatedly, and there are countless articles online and in print where it can be found. The question is identified as being fallacious; it commits the plurium interrogationum logical fallacy [5] by assuming within the question a God that no monotheist believes in (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). In order to ask where God came from, one has to first assume that God came from somewhere. But such an assumption fails to correspond with the monotheistic belief in an eternal, self-existent God. In other words, he did not "come from" anywhere; he has always been. The question fails to address that God. As for what God was doing before creation, that too has been answered numerous times throughout the centuries: no one knows because (a) no one was there and (b) no one has been told. (I have chosen to refrain from nitpicking the fact that "before" is temporal language that is meaningless outside the existence of 'time', to which it stands in relation.)

4. "Atheists cannot know there is no God, since you cannot prove he doesn't exist."

This, too, does not belong on a list like this because it's not a myth about atheists. It is not a myth but a fact that atheists (a) cannot know there is no God and (b) cannot prove he doesn't exist. That is true. And I have read a number of atheistic scholars who have admitted as much (e.g., Michael Shermer). So what could Silverman have been trying to address here?

Judging by the context of his response, it seems that he is addressing a myth that atheists must be able to prove that God doesn't exist in order to be atheists. If that is the point he is addressing, and I certainly believe that it is, then he is right to address it. Atheism does not explicitly affirm the non-existence of God (although individual atheists can, and some do); atheism is simply the conscious rejection of theism, typically a refusal to believe that God exists. Etymologically, an atheist is someone who is "without God," someone who views the world and lives his life as though God does not exist, "godless," in the same way that something is asymmetrical when it is "without symmetry." Whether or not God actually exists is irrelevant; Silverman can be an atheist even if God does exist, because 'atheist' describes the nature of Silverman's belief system without saying anything about God.

5. "Atheists seek to remove religion from society, and to force all people to be atheists."

This is not a myth, although it certainly is a sweeping generalization that fails to square with reality. In other words, it is not true of all atheists—but it is not a myth either. There certainly are a number of atheists, both contemporary and historically, who this accurately characterizes (e.g., The End of Faith by Sam Harris). So although this is not false—not a myth—it is true of only some atheists and should, therefore, be properly qualified (e.g., "There are atheists who seek...").

6. "Atheists are so closed-minded, they can't see that miracles happen every day!"

This is not a myth, as demonstrated by Silverman himself within his own response! In the event that you are wondering what 'irony' is, please read his response. His stated intention is to identify and clear up at least ten myths about atheists, and yet on this point his response went toward establishing that it's not a myth. When it comes to whether or not miracles exist, Silverman proclaims that "they never do." The irony is thick, and certainly amuses this author.

7. "Atheists are pushing a negative sentiment, and have a dreary life."

Silverman's response to this one is simply erroneous, which will be addressed in a moment. First I want to point out the fact that (a) the first clause is true by definition and (b) the second clause is not a myth, although its truth does not bear out in every case; in other words, it is true of many atheists but not of all atheists.

It is not a myth that "atheists are pushing a negative sentiment." It is true, and that by definition; i.e., the very definition of atheism is a negative, insofar as it's the negation of 'theos'. That is the "negative sentiment" which all atheists push, by being atheists: the negation of God from every equation.

The second clause is not a myth, although it is not necessarily true in all cases or at all times. It is a sweeping generalization and those never succeed. There are some atheists who for the most part lead content and rewarding lives, and there are many whose lives are dreary at times and rewarding at times. But certainly there are some whose lives are mostly dreary. The sticky part (for whoever tries to make such a suggestion) is trying to prove that this dreariness is a result of their atheism. The best of luck with that. It can be done, of course, but neither easily nor categorically.

So what was erroneous about Silverman's response? Quite succinctly, his response defended something other than atheism. It promoted a number of sentiments that had Secular Humanist characteristics, but here is the problem: not all atheists are Secular Humanists. And yet it is myths about atheists that Silverman is supposed to be identifying and clearing up. Throughout his article Silverman almost routinely conflated Secular Humanism with atheism, the same way he almost routinely conflated Christianity with theism. These are the equivocations he commits repeatedly.

It is very interesting to note that he refrains from identifying who this "false deity" is, but it's good that he refrained because the moment he identifies it he's committed to a logical fallacy that is impossible to escape (argumentum ad ignorantiam, "Since X has not been proven true, it is therefore false").

8. "If atheists are right, then religious people are wasting their time, but at least they're happy. No harm in that! If religious people are right, then atheists are going to hell. It seems logical that atheists should become religious just to be safe."

This is not a myth about atheists. This is Pascal's Wager [6]. There is literally nothing to respond to here. (And did Silverman really state that "drug addicts go through life happy"? Really?)

9. "There are no such things as atheists." a.k.a. "There are no atheists in foxholes."

This is not a myth about atheists. It's a denial that atheists exist. There is nothing to respond to here.

10. "This country was founded by Christians, on Christian values, and should therefore be a Christian country."

This is not a myth about atheists. There is nothing to respond to here. (It does, however, support my contention that Silverman routinely conflated Christianity with theism. Christianity is theistic, but it is not theism.)

Another Question on the Problem of Evil

I had a Christian lady send me a question by email about the Problem of Evil (PoE)—pertaining to her specific case, having been confronted by an atheist on the issue. Evidently this atheist told her that the PoE "proves that the God of the Bible doesn't exist." I told her I can guarantee that the argument he produces to support that claim will be invalid in at least one way, possibly more. She later shared with me what his argument was, which quite forcefully stated, "Since suffering exists and there is no reason for it, that defeats the belief that an omnibenevolent God exists"—and furthermore, that "no theologian has ever offered a successful solution to the PoE."

Does his argument shoot itself in the foot, as I had guaranteed it would? Absolutely.

Where his PoE invalidates itself is at the premise "there is no reason for [suffering]." By having assumed in advance that gratuitous suffering exists, his argument excludes the God of Christianity from the criticism. The argument has nothing to say about our God. How so? Quite simply: the God of Christianity is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; consequently, given those attributes in concert, there can be no such thing as gratuitous suffering. They are mutually exclusive, in the same way that an Irresistible Force precludes an Immovable Object.

If he persists in presupposing the existence of gratuitous suffering in an argument that is supposed to address the God of Christianity, then he is guilty of committing the fallacy of Begging the Question. How so? Because, like I said, gratuitous suffering and those attributes of God are mutually exclusive; i.e., by assuming in advance that gratuitous suffering exists, his argument has assumed that God as defined by Christianity does not exist, and then it concludes that he does not exist. The only way he can escape this dilemma is by proving that gratuitous suffering exists, instead of simply assuming it does. His assuming its existence is what's invalidating his argument.

And the absence of a coherent theodicy does not salvage his argument. "You are not required to provide a solution for the PoE," I told her, so that aspect of his contention is irrelevant. And I went on to say:

It almost seems like he is saying, "My PoE argument is true if you can't prove it false," which is the fallacious irrelevancy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'. His PoE argument stands or falls under its own merits, not on your ability to provide a theodicy (which is what solutions to the PoE are called). PoE arguments and theodicies are two different things.

And he is wrong, of course. Many Christian philosophers have produced successful theodicies (James Moreland, Greg Bahnsen, Alvin Plantinga, John Frame, etc.). Until he can cite every theodicy ever developed and unequivocally refute them all, his statement is nothing more than wishful thinking: (a) if there are any theodicies he has failed to unequivocally refute, his statement cannot be true; (b) if there are any theodicies he has no knowledge of, his statement cannot be true.

I'm More Scrooge Than Scrooge

So I just received an email from yet another reader who wanted to wish me a 'Merry Christmas'. Make no mistake, I sincerely appreciate the warm wishes, the fact that these people think of me and take time out of their day to write me such endearing sentiments. That really means a lot to me personally and I am grateful.

But it was another reminder of this wretched holiday. Bah, I deplore it. Christmas. A humbug, that's what Scrooge rightly called it (although he was ultimately weak because he gave in to the nauseous trappings of the 'holiday spirit', along with the equally weak Grinch). I have not held a favorable view of this holiday season since I was a very young boy and still naïve about most everything. So much of the Christmas season has become repugnant to me; through its bloated commercial excess it has lost most of its authentic value. I do appreciate the importance of families getting together and celebrating their love and solidarity. Absolutely and without reservation. But for me that is accomplished at Thanksgiving—which really makes Christmas superfluous on that score.

And, let's be honest, there is nothing Christian about the holiday season. From the decorated tree to the festively wrapped presents to the egg nog and Mandarin oranges to Santa Claus and his reindeer and the stockings hung by the chimney with care, at the end of the day Christ is not to be found anywhere in the truly predominant features of the holiday (ignoring the fact that he was almost certainly not born on the 25th of December). Aside from our nods to nativity scenes and the tradition of recounting the gospel narratives of his birth, what exactly does Christ have to do with Christmas? Nothing, if we can be honest about it. It is a facade impotently concealing the fact that this season and its traditions originate in pagan religions.

When is Thanksgiving? It’s around the middle of October for Canadians and around the end of November for Americans. And then there is New Year’s Eve at the close of December. Those are holidays I genuinely appreciate and can get into the spirit of. But what is this ‘Christmas’ inserted in between them? I could really do without that superfluous holiday.

Misfortunate Friends

Nothing proves who your real friends are quite like misfortune.

When misfortune hits—and what form it takes rarely matters—a real sense of loneliness can envelope me. The perception of that loneliness is not an illusion; I am genuinely alone because, when misfortune befalls me, a number of so-called friends are suddenly nowhere to be found. And that loneliness is palpable because it is precisely in those moments that I need friends the most. Why do so many friends vanish?

Because I was never their friend. That's the dirty little truth. I was nothing more than a notch on their social network belt, whose value was measured by the contribution my acquaintance made to their status quo, which diminishes by the degree to which I am perceived as a liability. When misfortune befalls me, I become 'high maintenance'. I am worthy of their time so long as I don't require anything of them, even more so if I can be of use to them.

But if I am not of use to them or if I have some kind of need, I'm treated like a pariah and soon find myself experiencing a poverty of social contact. So it is in those moments of misfortune that I have to retreat to that small, select group of people who are genuine friends. Misfortunes make demands on my attention and energies, which cannot be wasted on frivolities like self-absorbed ingrates. And that group is small indeed because precious few are those who I consider worthy of my true self. When misfortune hits and causes my social contacts to evaporate, creating that perception of real loneliness, it is then that my true friends stand out in stark contrast. And I look at those who disappeared and I say, 'This has been added against your account.'