Comments on: The Missionaries of Anti-theism http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:47:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-6357 Jonathan Sarfati Tue, 20 Feb 2007 02:17:03 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-6357 See also <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4900/" rel="nofollow">Atheist with a mission: A review of <i>The God Delusion</i> by Richard Dawkins</a>. Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane See also Atheist with a mission: A review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4536 Bill Muehlenberg Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:22:35 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4536 Thanks, but not quite Ben. Coming to Christ means submitting to his Lordship. The Lordship of Christ means we follow him as he commands us in Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to simply believe in Jesus and then do what we like or believe what we like. A disciple of Jesus is one who keeps his commands as outlined in Scripture. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks, but not quite Ben. Coming to Christ means submitting to his Lordship. The Lordship of Christ means we follow him as he commands us in Scripture. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to simply believe in Jesus and then do what we like or believe what we like. A disciple of Jesus is one who keeps his commands as outlined in Scripture.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Ben Carter http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4429 Ben Carter Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:46:20 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4429 Hi Bill As I've commented on a previous Jill Singer piece and made largely the same points as yourself, I won't belabour my agreement with you. However, I do have a minor quibble with the conclusion of your commentary - the reference to pre-revolutionary France. I think we need to be extremely careful with this sort of historical analysis. The Church (in this case the Catholic) was constitutionally part and parcel of the ancien regime. Cardinals like Richelieu and Mazarin virtually ran the French state for years and the selection of churchmen had more to do with teh circumstance of your birth than your competence as a minister of the word. History is replete with examples when the Church, as an institution rather than a faith movement has contributed to some horrendous situations. I am the first to advocate that in any judgement of the Church, the good must be balanced with the bad, but its hardly surprising that people will judge the Church harshly when its corporate identify obscures its faith. This feeds into another point that I have also made before; that it is the reality of the Church as an institution and not soley as a faith community which over over many hundreds of years has laid the foundations for many of the disagreements we see played out in pages of our newspapers and on this site. I see many facsinating and intelligent points of view made on this great site of yours Bill - discussions about creationism and evolution, the age of the earth and many other complex issues besides. But interesting and important as it is, for me it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a person is a Christian or not. The only defining crucial and defining critieria about what makes someone a Christian is whether they believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God; that he was crucified under Ponitus Pilate, suffered and was buried and one the third day rose again. Everything else is utterely irrelevant as to whether you are a Christian, including the ability to accurately quote from the bible. Cheers Ben Carter Hi Bill

As I’ve commented on a previous Jill Singer piece and made largely the same points as yourself, I won’t belabour my agreement with you.

However, I do have a minor quibble with the conclusion of your commentary – the reference to pre-revolutionary France. I think we need to be extremely careful with this sort of historical analysis. The Church (in this case the Catholic) was constitutionally part and parcel of the ancien regime. Cardinals like Richelieu and Mazarin virtually ran the French state for years and the selection of churchmen had more to do with teh circumstance of your birth than your competence as a minister of the word.

History is replete with examples when the Church, as an institution rather than a faith movement has contributed to some horrendous situations. I am the first to advocate that in any judgement of the Church, the good must be balanced with the bad, but its hardly surprising that people will judge the Church harshly when its corporate identify obscures its faith.

This feeds into another point that I have also made before; that it is the reality of the Church as an institution and not soley as a faith community which over over many hundreds of years has laid the foundations for many of the disagreements we see played out in pages of our newspapers and on this site.

I see many facsinating and intelligent points of view made on this great site of yours Bill – discussions about creationism and evolution, the age of the earth and many other complex issues besides. But interesting and important as it is, for me it has no bearing whatsoever on whether a person is a Christian or not. The only defining crucial and defining critieria about what makes someone a Christian is whether they believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God; that he was crucified under Ponitus Pilate, suffered and was buried and one the third day rose again.

Everything else is utterely irrelevant as to whether you are a Christian, including the ability to accurately quote from the bible.
Cheers
Ben Carter

]]> By: Charlie Swift, Virginia, USA http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4314 Charlie Swift, Virginia, USA Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:05:43 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4314 Ewan, thanks, but my goal was not to convince Bronwyn of the truth of Christianity by just telling my beliefs about an old earth created by the God of the Bible. I was simply saying that the decision on old earth/young earth is not an obstacle to being fully and actively Christian. It is to Bronwyn’s credit that she is willing to ask serious questions about the Bible and its claim to be authoritative in our world today. There are very many biblical and historical reasons to believe the Gospel, to believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ and the point that he lived, taught, was crucified, was resurrected from the dead and accomplished for Israel and for humanity, redemption which they could not do for themselves. These are facts that can be known historically and rationally accepted, not diluted or compromised by creation date disagreements. The best I can do for atheists is not to argue with them but to keep the invitation open to check out the Gospel. Research in the past 50 years has contributed so much to our understanding of the Gospel and to the history of the people and the land in which it was written. I do hope Bronwyn and others will take up on the invitation to check out the historicity of the bible. Yes, there are many critics out there for them to read, and that’s fine, but hopefully they will not just read the critics but read some of the better historical exegetes so they can compare and judge for themselves. Thanks again Bill, for the opportunity to participate in your blog. Charlie Swift, Virginia, USA Ewan, thanks, but my goal was not to convince Bronwyn of the truth of Christianity by just telling my beliefs about an old earth created by the God of the Bible. I was simply saying that the decision on old earth/young earth is not an obstacle to being fully and actively Christian.
It is to Bronwyn’s credit that she is willing to ask serious questions about the Bible and its claim to be authoritative in our world today. There are very many biblical and historical reasons to believe the Gospel, to believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ and the point that he lived, taught, was crucified, was resurrected from the dead and accomplished for Israel and for humanity, redemption which they could not do for themselves. These are facts that can be known historically and rationally accepted, not diluted or compromised by creation date disagreements.
The best I can do for atheists is not to argue with them but to keep the invitation open to check out the Gospel. Research in the past 50 years has contributed so much to our understanding of the Gospel and to the history of the people and the land in which it was written. I do hope Bronwyn and others will take up on the invitation to check out the historicity of the bible. Yes, there are many critics out there for them to read, and that’s fine, but hopefully they will not just read the critics but read some of the better historical exegetes so they can compare and judge for themselves.
Thanks again Bill, for the opportunity to participate in your blog.

Charlie Swift, Virginia, USA

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4276 Bill Muehlenberg Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:18:56 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4276 And it is actually 94% of the leaders of the National Academy of Scientists who are atheists. That simply tell us more about the Academy than it does about science as a whole. It simply means that many so-called scientists have accepted on faith the presuppositions of philosophical naturalism. Such prior faith commitments are not what science is about, but scientism. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch And it is actually 94% of the leaders of the National Academy of Scientists who are atheists. That simply tell us more about the Academy than it does about science as a whole. It simply means that many so-called scientists have accepted on faith the presuppositions of philosophical naturalism. Such prior faith commitments are not what science is about, but scientism.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Bill Muehlenberg http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4275 Bill Muehlenberg Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:13:43 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4275 Thanks Neil Unless there is an independent judge to arbitrate between your “electro/chemical processes” and mine, then we are wasting time. To reduce all mental activity, reasoning, and truth claims, to mere physicalism, is in effect to deny their validity. Chemical processes are neither true nor false, they just are. So why are you bothering us with your arguments if there really is no such thing as truth? And if right and wrong comes solely from “people’s brains” then the same problem applies. Electro/chemical processes are neither right nor wrong, they just are. You and I are simply slaves to physical processes. Dawkins is much more honest and consistent than you are here. There is simply no right and wrong in such a reductionist scenario. Dawkins knows that. Why don’t you? Objective moral laws are easy for me to explain, because there is an objective moral law-giver. You are the one who has no ability at all to explain morality. Under your scheme, both Hitler and Mother Teresa were simply following what their DNA programmed them to do. Therefore neither one is either blame-worthy or praise-worthy. Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch Thanks Neil
Unless there is an independent judge to arbitrate between your “electro/chemical processes” and mine, then we are wasting time. To reduce all mental activity, reasoning, and truth claims, to mere physicalism, is in effect to deny their validity. Chemical processes are neither true nor false, they just are. So why are you bothering us with your arguments if there really is no such thing as truth?

And if right and wrong comes solely from “people’s brains” then the same problem applies. Electro/chemical processes are neither right nor wrong, they just are. You and I are simply slaves to physical processes. Dawkins is much more honest and consistent than you are here. There is simply no right and wrong in such a reductionist scenario. Dawkins knows that. Why don’t you?

Objective moral laws are easy for me to explain, because there is an objective moral law-giver. You are the one who has no ability at all to explain morality. Under your scheme, both Hitler and Mother Teresa were simply following what their DNA programmed them to do. Therefore neither one is either blame-worthy or praise-worthy.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

]]> By: Jonathan Sarfati http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4266 Jonathan Sarfati Sun, 21 Jan 2007 01:46:25 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4266 Once more, Bronwyn resorts to elephant hurling to shore up her own misotheistic faith. She hasn't actually refuted anything about Genesis (laughably claiming that the likes of Hugh Ross are authorities to refute Russ Humphreys model, to say nothing of Dr John Hartnett's refinements), but whinges about the lack of publication in nsecular journals. But as I have explained before: <blockquote>But all this nonsense that <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3486" rel="nofollow">“creationists don’t publish in refereed journals”</a> is really the last refuge of those who can’t refute the arguments. And they know perfectly well that overtly creationist papers are almost always censored. One “intelligent design” paper that slipped through the “paper curtain” was Dr Stephen Meyer’s one on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion, published in the peer-reviewed journal, <i>Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington</i>. However, groups like NCSE wrote to the journal railing that the article was substandard—before they’d even read it (not reading things may be no deterrent for Dr Scott—consider her closing comments about Dr. Humphreys’ paper). Then the Biological Society’s governing council backtracked, claiming that had they known about it beforehand, they “would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings,” and promised that “Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal].” So it’s ironic for evolutionists like Scott to pontificate that a scientific movement must publish a peer-reviewed article in order to be considered legitimate, and then turn around and complain that it wasn’t legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from that movement!</blockquote> I should also point out that <a href="http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3530#papers" rel="nofollow">Dr Hartnett has published in the secular journals</a> his demonstration that the Carmeli metric does away with the fudge factors of the big bang such as dark matter and dark energy, and it happens that his metric also explains distant starlight. BTW, the C-14 in coal and diamonds were measured by secular labs, so it remains a glaring problem for her faith in billions of years. As for her "We can’t know until death whether eternity is true", actually we <i>can</i> know if someone has returned from the grave to tell us, as Jesus has done. While Christians believe this because of <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html" rel="nofollow">evidence for it</a>, Bronsyn rejects it because of a dogma against it. Charlie Swift is mistaken about the days in Genesis, but this certainly doesn't mean that he is not a Christian! Certainly the Hebrew <i>yom</i> can have other meanings than "day" in <i>some</i> contexts, it doesn't follow that it can have any of these meanings in the <i>specific context of Genesis 1. </i> Mr Swift commits what Dr Don Carson called: <blockquote><b>Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field.</b> The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range.’ (<i>Exegetical Fallacies</i>)</blockquote> Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane Once more, Bronwyn resorts to elephant hurling to shore up her own misotheistic faith. She hasn’t actually refuted anything about Genesis (laughably claiming that the likes of Hugh Ross are authorities to refute Russ Humphreys model, to say nothing of Dr John Hartnett’s refinements), but whinges about the lack of publication in nsecular journals. But as I have explained before:

But all this nonsense that “creationists don’t publish in refereed journals” is really the last refuge of those who can’t refute the arguments. And they know perfectly well that overtly creationist papers are almost always censored. One “intelligent design” paper that slipped through the “paper curtain” was Dr Stephen Meyer’s one on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. However, groups like NCSE wrote to the journal railing that the article was substandard—before they’d even read it (not reading things may be no deterrent for Dr Scott—consider her closing comments about Dr. Humphreys’ paper). Then the Biological Society’s governing council backtracked, claiming that had they known about it beforehand, they “would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings,” and promised that “Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future issues of the [journal].” So it’s ironic for evolutionists like Scott to pontificate that a scientific movement must publish a peer-reviewed article in order to be considered legitimate, and then turn around and complain that it wasn’t legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from that movement!

I should also point out that Dr Hartnett has published in the secular journals his demonstration that the Carmeli metric does away with the fudge factors of the big bang such as dark matter and dark energy, and it happens that his metric also explains distant starlight.

BTW, the C-14 in coal and diamonds were measured by secular labs, so it remains a glaring problem for her faith in billions of years.

As for her “We can’t know until death whether eternity is true”, actually we can know if someone has returned from the grave to tell us, as Jesus has done. While Christians believe this because of evidence for it, Bronsyn rejects it because of a dogma against it.

Charlie Swift is mistaken about the days in Genesis, but this certainly doesn’t mean that he is not a Christian! Certainly the Hebrew yom can have other meanings than “day” in some contexts, it doesn’t follow that it can have any of these meanings in the specific context of Genesis 1. Mr Swift commits what Dr Don Carson called:

Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range.’ (Exegetical Fallacies)

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

]]> By: Ewan http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4248 Ewan Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:14:36 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4248 Unfortunately Charlie, Bronwyn is unlikely to be convinced of the truth of Christianity just by telling her that one "can be an active, thriving and serving Christian and not believe in a young earth creation." To her credit, Bronwyn, like many atheists, has demonstrated that she is at least consistent enough in her reasoning to know that if one cannot believe in the Genesis creation account then there is no reason to trust any part of the Bible. Such is the problem when Christians (albeit sometimes with good intentions) compromise Scripture to make it accommodate the 'scientific' fads of the day. Ewan McDonald, Victoria Unfortunately Charlie, Bronwyn is unlikely to be convinced of the truth of Christianity just by telling her that one “can be an active, thriving and serving Christian and not believe in a young earth creation.” To her credit, Bronwyn, like many atheists, has demonstrated that she is at least consistent enough in her reasoning to know that if one cannot believe in the Genesis creation account then there is no reason to trust any part of the Bible. Such is the problem when Christians (albeit sometimes with good intentions) compromise Scripture to make it accommodate the ’scientific’ fads of the day.

Ewan McDonald, Victoria

]]> By: Neil Crellin http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4195 Neil Crellin Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:18:27 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4195 Bill, You wrote "If your thoughts are simply physical processes alone, then so are mine. So why waste time trying to say one is right and one is wrong". That is an absurd question. Any neurologist will tell you that thoughts definitely are electro/chemical processes. The success of neurosurgury is evidence of that fact. But why does that make thoughts any less real or important? I would suggest that you are profoundly ignorant of modern neurological research. CS Lewis reveals a similar ignorance. He was utterly wrong, as you are. If you claim that the sense of right and wrong comes from elswhere except in people's brains, then where does it come from? If you claim some "holy" book as your source, by what criterion do you choose which book, and which bits of it. I would suggest that you choose exactly the same way that I do, using your own evolved capacity for kindness and altruism. What you have written demonstrates yet again the proud ignorance of religiousity. This is exactly why the USA is the laughing stock of the world at the moment. However, as 93% of the top scientists in the USA do not believe in a god, I still have the hope that the once great USA will emerge from this cocoon of medieval superstition. Neil Crellin Bill,
You wrote “If your thoughts are simply physical processes alone, then so are mine. So why waste time trying to say one is right and one is wrong”.

That is an absurd question. Any neurologist will tell you that thoughts definitely are electro/chemical processes. The success of neurosurgury is evidence of that fact. But why does that make thoughts any less real or important? I would suggest that you are profoundly ignorant of modern neurological research. CS Lewis reveals a similar ignorance. He was utterly wrong, as you are.

If you claim that the sense of right and wrong comes from elswhere except in people’s brains, then where does it come from? If you claim some “holy” book as your source, by what criterion do you choose which book, and which bits of it. I would suggest that you choose exactly the same way that I do, using your own evolved capacity for kindness and altruism.

What you have written demonstrates yet again the proud ignorance of religiousity. This is exactly why the USA is the laughing stock of the world at the moment. However, as 93% of the top scientists in the USA do not believe in a god, I still have the hope that the once great USA will emerge from this cocoon of medieval superstition.

Neil Crellin

]]> By: Charlie Swift, Virginia http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/comment-page-1/#comment-4095 Charlie Swift, Virginia Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:51:53 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/01/12/the-missionaries-of-anti-theism/#comment-4095 Bronwyn, I would have to respectfully disagree with Chloe Marshall from Gelong. One can indeed not only become a Christian, but can be an active, thriving and serving Christian and not believe in a young earth creation. To Ms Marshall I would say that I can believe the Genesis story of God being the author of creation without believing that a day in this story refers to a 24 hour period. The Hebrew text from which the English is translated allows that possibility. Bronwyn, it is clear that there are many 'side' issues that Christians disagree upon and are continually discussed and debated. If you are interested in seeing some of the old and new earth theories discussed, as well as academic work by Christian Professors in the sciences, humanities and social sciences, I would recommend this link: http://www.leaderu.com/index.html If you are interested in historical research on the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament, I recommend my favorite author Tom Wright at this link: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/ The main thing I would stress to you is that a Christian who is practicing his/her faith can not hate an atheist. We are to love, pure and simple. As Mr. Muehlenburg said, that doesn't mean we have to be sappy about it, but that love must be real or we (I) have work to do on our(my)selves. Bill, thanks for this forum. I found it as I was looking for info on Tom Wright and encountered an article you wrote on one of his books. Charlie Swift, Virginia Bronwyn, I would have to respectfully disagree with Chloe Marshall from Gelong. One can indeed not only become a Christian, but can be an active, thriving and serving Christian and not believe in a young earth creation. To Ms Marshall I would say that I can believe the Genesis story of God being the author of creation without believing that a day in this story refers to a 24 hour period. The Hebrew text from which the English is translated allows that possibility.
Bronwyn, it is clear that there are many ’side’ issues that Christians disagree upon and are continually discussed and debated. If you are interested in seeing some of the old and new earth theories discussed, as well as academic work by Christian Professors in the sciences, humanities and social sciences, I would recommend this link:

http://www.leaderu.com/index.html

If you are interested in historical research on the historicity of Jesus and the New Testament, I recommend my favorite author Tom Wright at this link:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

The main thing I would stress to you is that a Christian who is practicing his/her faith can not hate an atheist. We are to love, pure and simple. As Mr. Muehlenburg said, that doesn’t mean we have to be sappy about it, but that love must be real or we (I) have work to do on our(my)selves.

Bill, thanks for this forum. I found it as I was looking for info on Tom Wright and encountered an article you wrote on one of his books.

Charlie Swift, Virginia

]]>