Deeper Waters

Alright. The semester is wrapping down. I just had my last official class tonight (Although I am taking a modular next week) and I will have papers soon to turn in. I think I did very well on my final tonight and I was quite pleased to call home and tell my folks about it. This time though recently has made me really come to appreciate many things in life. I just wanted to sit down and say some things I’m thankful for.

The recent readership in my blog increasing brings me much joy. It’s good to know that one’s thoughts are appreciated and the back and forth exchange over ideas is quite pleasing.  Even though there is disagreement, I do enjoy the exchange. I enjoy being on the opposite end of the atheistic spectrum and facing it head-on. It’s also helped me see many of my friends and I’m pleased with how many of them argue well.

Let’s talk about them. I see many of the younger generation on here and I’m thankful for young minds devoted to the Christian faith. It shows me that there is hope for the upcoming generation. Tom Brokaw once wrote of the Greatest Generation. I think he had it wrong. If things continue this way, this generation of apologists growing up could be the greatest.

I’m thankful for the other ministries that have given me a chance. I think especially of Tektonics and TheologyWeb. There are also others though like Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, Stand To Reason, For An Answer, and I remember speaking in the past at times on the Narrow Mind program that’s hosted by Gene Cook.

I’m thankful for my Seminary in that the president already has me in his good favor and I’m pleased I can consider him a friend. I’m honored by the way other students treat me and quite humbled and enjoy being around them and having the exchange of ideas. I’m pleased that I’m studying under the people I have long considered my heroes.

I’m also thankful then for the new friends I’ve made here. I’m not really keen on the social scene, but I’ve managed to fit in just fine. I have several friends from all over the spectrum of the student body and I have friends at my workplace as well. I don’t really like my job, but I am thankful that I do have some source of income.

I’m thankful for my roommate who has become such a dear friend of mine through thick and thin and one I would do anything to help out. He and I have had some great adventures since we’ve come here and we’ve had our confrontations with those outside the faith. In doing so, we’ve found we make an excellent team in person. I’m thankful for a true friend like him.

I’m thankful that my family raised me in such a way that I respect morality and have a belief in God and saw church as an integral part of my life. Though we are far away now physically, they did raise me so that now I am handling it. My family wasn’t perfect by any means and we had our squabbles, but overall, I am pleased with how they did.

I am thankful for the financial blessings I’ve had. Though I am a student, the money seems to be coming in somehow. We are getting set here to spend a day to drive to the beach and relax after this semester. My roommate and I took our tax refunds also and each of us used part of that money to buy a Wii and we’ve been thoroughly enjoying that.

That brings me to my books. I’m incredibly thankful for them and it seems I do have more money for books than I realize. I take great joy in showing visitors the library I’ve amassed and I take it as humility that God has enabled a guy like me to come from small origins and be allowed to have this kind of impact and be blessed materially, although my family is by no means rich. (Pray for them. They’re in quite bad financial straits now which is effecting everything else.)

I’m thankful God gave me a mind also and I’ve been allowed to sharpen it here. I am not athletic in any way and I am not a social being, but I am thankful that I do have intelligence. It is a gift from God and to quote Spider-Man as well, it is to be used for the good of mankind. I’m thankful for the exchange of ideas and the forums I have to do that in.

I’m also thankful, of course, for God revealing himself in Christ. It is because of him that I can eternally enjoy the good things and spend eternity in the presence of God. The thought of Heaven is mind-blowing to me and I look forward to it whenever I think about it. I have gone through a lot in my few years thus far, and I am thankful there is a place where even my sufferings will be redeemed for the greater good.

That’s my list, and much more could be added I’m sure, but I find it important from time to time to mention things like this that put life in perspective.

How about you?

Thursday night, I had kind of had a brain spasm and was talking with a friend on IM when my usual company came over for Thursday night Smallville. I set up an away and joined my friend and we chatted for awhile after Smallville and then I went back to internet stuff when he left. As I was wrapping up my evening, I looked and there was my away and a question from my friend.

I’d forgotten him completely!

So I send off an apology. I really hate it when I do something like that.

The next day he speaks to me and says “You worry too much.”

Indeed, I do. I’m sure many of my readers could be of the same personality type that I am and can relate. Every silver cloud has a dark lining. Whatever goes good in life, we will find a bad way to look at it.

Relate this to another situation. Many of us would be great if we could follow our own advice. I was thinking about this with another friend of mine who around a year or so ago had spoken to me concerned about their relationship with a third friend of ours. This first friend was so worried that they’d ruined the friendship with the second friend. I told them not to worry. We too often make temporal problems into eternal ones.

So I IM this first friend last night and ask “How are things between you and X?” And I get the reply of “Fine. Why? Is there something I should know about?” Then I remind this friend of the conversation we had so long ago.

Many of us seem to do this often. We worry and fret about something and then in a month or so, we realize that we were worrying about nothing. It all just passed away. However, at that moment, the emotions are high and we have to wait for our reason to kick back in again. The problem is not that we have emotions. The problem is when we let those emotions control our reason.

We worry too much then. We need the perspective of Heaven. Think about this. Whatever you are dealing with, it will seem like nothing in eternity when you are in the presence of God. What’s the difference? God is there!

Isn’t he here now?

You don’t see his manifest presence of course, but he’s here all the same. Isn’t his eternal perspective still the same? Yes. Isn’t he the one who tells us in Matthew 6:25-33 not to worry? Yes he is. Isn’t he the one who assures us that all things will work for our good in Romans 8? Yes he is.

Conclusion: We need to stop worrying. We do it too much. It never solves anything and it robs us of the joy of today.

Bart Ehrman recently came out with a book about Suffering being God’s Problem. I haven’t read it yet. It’s on my plans of books to purchase and read though. (I have so many books in my waiting list right now and my funds are tight and I’m about to begin a week modular class.) However, a fellow student and friend of mine is reading it and shared how he had it next to him and a professor came up and saw the title and said “Ah. God’s Problem. Bart Ehrman.”

Humorous? Indeed! However, I think there is a grain of truth to it. I think we could say Ehrman is God’s Problem. (Being gracious with my terminology as God doesn’t have problems like we do.) I have recently reviewed John Loftus’s book on here and I could say he’s God’s problem. The same goes for Richard Dawkins.

So I’m listing the atheists and agnostics as God’s problem?

Nope! I mentioned JP Holding of Tektonics on my last blog. He’s God’s problem. Alister McGrath has dealt well with Dawkins as has John Lennox. Each of them is God’s problem. The professor who joked about the book title is God’s problem. My friend who has the book is God’s problem. My roommate is God’s problem. To be even more clear, I’m God’s problem.

Does anybody see a pattern forming here?

Whoever you are, put your name in that line. Whatever human you can think of, put their name in that line. If God has a problem at all, I do not believe it is evil. I believe dealing with evil is not the primary goal in the mind of God. I would say the goal of God is to extend his love, truth, and beauty and he does that in the act of creation.

However, God wants something. He wants creatures who will love him freely. He also wants the creatures to be themselves. Finally, he wants the creatures to be like him. He knows some of them will choose evil and yet, he still thinks his goal is reachable. The topic of evil is still there, but there are secondary and primary aspects to it. God’s primary goal is not to make us happy. Oh that is one of his goals as there is a place called Heaven, but his main goal is to have us be ourselves and be like him and do so freely.

Yep. That sounds like a challenge or a “problem.”

Could it be that when we look at evil, we see the wrong problem? We think that the problem is suffering. What if it isn’t? We’re too quick to say all suffering is evil. Many of us will say much of the good we’ve had in life has come about because we had suffering. The same could be said for pain. I will assure the reader as one who has a steel rod on my spine and has even had panic attacks before, I am no stranger to pain. These events helped shape me in my life though.

What if the universe is not meant to make us happy as it is though? If that is the case, then we cannot say it is not meeting its goal. We cannot say the creation has gone awry if we do not know what the purpose of the creation is. This world was never meant to be a four-star hotel and as soon as we treat it as if it was meant to be, then we are criticizing the way it is for the wrong reasons. We might as well criticize a hammer for not being able to tighten screws.

I believe, and this will come out more when my paper on evil is put up here, that this universe is just fine for the purpose I think it was intended for. God has provided light and I believe just the right balance to see who really wants to come to the light. He has not given too little that we can’t see, but he has not given too much that all are blinded.

Is God reaching his goal? The Bible says we can be sure he is and based on the resurrection of Christ, I believe it’s reliable. The Bible has shown itself to me time and time again to be trustworthy and Revelation tells me of a great gathering that no man can number from every tribe, language, and nation on the Earth that will be in Heaven.

When we get there, we will proclaim that. Yes Lord. Your plan was perfect. Your ways were and are right. You have made us to be like you and made us to be ourselves. You have redeemed us from evil and conquered it by the blood of your Son. You have taken our scars and have turned them into monuments of your grace. How awesome you are.

What a day that will be. Until then, I thank God for doing what he can to deal with this “problem” writing now.

This is it. We’re finally wrapping things up. The last chapter is about what if Loftus is wrong. I could go to a full review, but I want to sum up everything for this aside from the Problem of Evil. I have told my readers that that is coming at a later date so just simply wait for it. One day you’ll come to my blog and see it there. I will also note that my readership has increased and for new readers of my blog, I hope you’ll stick around. One day when you do show up, the answer to the Problem of Evil with the focus on natural evil will be here.

It will be noted that Loftus blames his problem on God even. If God exists, he should have kept Loftus from apostasizing. This was a criticism that Geisler had in his review of Loftus’s book.  That review can be found in Volume 6, No. 1/Spring 2007 of the Christian Apologetics Journal. It is far shorter than this review has been, but quite excellent.

So let’s answer some questions.

Why’d I review this?

Loftus and I go way back. We’ve known each other for a few years through the medium of theologyweb. The first question I saw him ask was “Where is God in infinite space?” I’m not saying that was the first question he asked, but it was the first one that I saw. I later found out that JPH of Tektonics ministry had already dealt with him some, but I handle the philosophical issues. At that point began a back and forth battle.

And then hurricane Katrina hit.

Loftus loves the argument from evil and I challenged him on this point and at the reception of an insult from him, I challenged him to a debate. Members of theologyweb can read the debate here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61432

I will let the reader read and decide the outcome.

It has been going on from there and I’ve seen Loftus spiral more and more into a land of irrationality, which I saw in the book and I will explain more on that later on. I saw ideas that contradicted themselves such as the view of Jonah and prophecy and ideas that seemed to strike me as wishful thinking in “maybe this is the explanation” with the only basis being that it avoids theism. I have many times offered a chance for Loftus to come clean for I see his atheism as emotions hijacking his reason.

Some readers might wonder if I have animosity towards Loftus. I don’t really. It’s very very had for me to have that for anyone. If I develop it, it doesn’t last long at all. I keep remembering in my mind that there but for the grace of God go I. I give thanks for the blessings that I’ve had in my life thus far and especially my good friends, like my roommate who has been with me through so much already. I don’t hate Loftus. I actually feel sorry for him. I wonder if he ever saw me in person if he’d realize I’m quite different than the way he might think I am.

I’ve mentioned JPH here who I visited in the Summer of 2007 while in Florida for a friend’s wedding. JPH was gracious enough to let me stay at his place so I didn’t have to get a hotel room with my strapped budget and we had many a talk. Sometimes we did talk about Loftus. He could testify that I was often quite kind in my words. There is that great sorrow I do have.

What about the account of the apostasy at the start?

This has been mentioned some in the comments, but I chose to not go into it. Loftus knows what I am talking about as he reads this and he knows some of what I am going to say. It was sin and we both know it and that is not going to change. However, I also realize that while it was sin, that I’m hardly a saint myself and I’ve had my own mess-ups. I try to keep that in mind with people. I simply ask that they confess their sins and seek to go and sin no more. I treat sin as sin and I treat persons as persons.

However, something that did concern me was the way Pop Christianity played a role. Because a church could not agree, the Spirit wasn’t really leading them in their vote on a topic. To which I want to say “Duh.” The Holy Spirit’s role is not to help us on personal decision making. It never has been. Unfortunately, Pop Christianity has built up these false ideas of what Christianity is so apostasy is from a Christianity the Bible never taught.

As for the account of the fear that Loftus would take over his own cousin’s church, as someone outside the situation, I honestly think I can see his cousin’s point. One thing that I notice immediately about Loftus and everyone else is that he does have a huge ego and that kind of ego seeks to go to the top. I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with ambition, but there is if people think you’re willing to go through anyone else to get there. Was the situation handled well? No. I’m just saying I think I can see where his cousin was coming from.

I also do think there is something with the way fellow Christians were not there. We no longer are today any more. This was not an apologetic endeavor. This was an emotional one. I don’t think it’d have mattered if you were the best apologist in the world. The problem was centered not on the mind but on the will. When Job’s friends came to see him, they did something really great at the start. They were silent for 7 days and just there. Maybe if someone had been there, things would have turned out differently.

Did you like anything about the book?

I agree with much of what Geisler said. This is an honest account and as a sympathetic guy in some ways, I could look with sorrow at the first few chapters. However, the ball is ultimately in Loftus’s court and he made his decisions and he has to take the blame for his part in each of them. The actions of others cannot be controlled, but he can control himself.

I do think the objections raised while weak are still important and this is a blessing to others I think. When you go through a review like this, you examine each argument closer and you see more flaws than you do at first. It helps you sharpen your mettle. Take the advice of that great philosopher of our time, Conan the Barbarian. “Whatever does not kill you, only makes you stronger.”

I was pleased that at least Loftus does read some in philosophy and theology, which makes this quite different from reading something like “The God Delusion.” (Though Loftus does lose points for quoting that travesty.) However, that being said, the arguments just aren’t there. It seems some of the objections are based on things that Geisler calls “High School Apologetics.”

For an example, consider the idea on the problems of a God incarnate. The first one is that God is uncreated but humans are created. Therefore, Jesus is created and uncreated. This is a simple one that I did answer in my review. However, when I see a weak objection like that, it makes me get further conviction that one isn’t really thinking rationally here. Now some weaker Christian might be led astray by that, and that shows our failure in the church in training Christians in apologetics.

That’s another reason to review books like this and the God Delusion. It shows that there are answers to those in the faith who have just encountered opposition for the first time and don’t know how to handle it. C.S. Lewis spoke of how for some of our brethren who aren’t gifted in intellectual skill, we are their only line of defense.

I also agree with Loftus on the witness of the Holy Spirit that Dr. Craig uses as an argument. I have great respect for Dr. Craig, but I sincerely think he’s wrong on this one. I, as a Christian, will say that I do not have any such experience and it is not what I fall back on. I fall back on the case that I have for the truths of the Christian faith. Now I do think Craig could argue, for instance, the livability of the Christian faith or the effect that it can have to change one’s life, and that would be valid. I’d even like to see something like the argument from beauty, one that apologists sadly don’t use as they should today.

It does no good though to say that you have an inner experience testifying that what you believe is true to an atheist. For any Christian skeptical, consider this. When the Mormon knocks on your door and says he has an inner witness from the Holy Spirit that he received because he prayed about the BoM in accordance with Moroni 10:4-5, do you convert? No. You think his experience is false as I do. Why should an atheist think differently about your experience if you have one?

Sadly, it’s my understanding that when the five arguments are attacked, this is the one that gets hit the most. The weak arguments detract from the strong ones, and Craig definitely has strong arguments! I have no problem with evangelism in a debate or giving a gospel message. In fact, when I do a debate, I end it with a call to salvation for any who are reading and/or listening. I’d just like to see a better argument.

I do agree with Geisler that it’s good that Loftus shows us his emotions in this one, but I do still say that is where the problem lies. I counter the false arguments because that is what I do. I am an apologist. I want to show others the arguments are wrong so they can have the assurance of their faith and so that those who do look up to me can see a good presentation.

I take such a position seriously when I realize some people are looking up to me. I find it humbling. I take the advice of Glenn Miller to avoid a big head with compliments. Just enjoy it for the time and then say “We have work to do.” It gets me focused on my mission. I try not to deny the compliments, but it’s not all about me. If someone wants to learn, I’m willing to teach. There are many of my young friends that have answered in here and I’m quite proud of how they’ve done.

That wraps it up. What are my recommendations at this point? Pray first off. It’s something I need to do more of also. Pray for the hearts of those hardened to the faith. Pray for the hearts of those in the faith that they may speak as they ought and learn as they ought. Pray this for myself as well. It’s a hard battle and I can’t do it alone.

Where will we go with tomorrow’s blog? I guess you’ll have to tune in to find out.

We now come to the final part of this chapter. Loftus starts by saying that if his worldview is true, there is no ultimate meaning in life. It’s all we’ve got. If this is the case, then Christians who think they have a reasoned hope are living a delusion. I agree entirely. In fact, so did the apostle Paul. “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” (1 Cor. 15:19) Paul is even stronger. Not only are we deluded, we’re the most sorry cases of all in the universe.

That is, if Loftus is correct. I again agree with the apostle Paul though. Loftus is wrong and Paul is right. We have hope for this life because of the life of Christ. Since he lived, we too shall live. (John 14:19) If Loftus is right, then eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Drown your sorrows that your life is ultimately meaningless.

However, it’s interesting that again, Loftus says Christians live under a load of guilt. How said this is! If we live under guilt, it is because we fail to recognize the truth of Scripture and who God is. For my part though, I don’t really. I know I’ve screwed up in the past, but what matters is how I’m living my life today. This moment in time is the closest moment I have to eternity.

If Loftus thinks I am wasting my life, he is wrong. It doesn’t come down to this at this point though. We have to look at the presuppositions. If Christianity is false, I am wasting my life. If it is true though, then for Loftus, the case is far more serious which is, in fact, the next chapter of his book. (And the last.) That will be looked at tomorrow, but let us finish today.

There is time spent reading the Bible. That is true. I am at the time though reading many other books and learning many great things. I spend time with movies and TV shows and the Wii my roommate and I recently got gets a lot of use around here. We don’t spend our time in only religious activities. There is a necessary time for play.

I do not get drunk, no. I do not want to. I like being in control of my mind. I do not know the love of the lady yet, but I am waiting and doing what I can to keep myself as pure as possible for the sure enjoyment of that, and my understanding is that the wait is well worth it. I know many other of my fellow single men are in the same boat and we all look forward to it.

I do evangelize others, that is true, but that does not mean time is not spent with family and friends. We are friendly terms with everyone we’ve evangelized for instance and I have a friend who comes over with me every Thursday night after class just to watch Smallville with me and we usually end up with some games and maybe some theological and apologetic and philosophical discussion because that is just what we enjoy doing. At the moment, some of us are planning a vacation day at the beach.

No. My life is quite good right now. I look at what I see in Loftus’s work and I don’t think I’m missing much. I’m getting an education, making friends and spending time with them, getting to live a life of adventure and wonder, and having fun doing it. It seems Loftus is simply wanting us Christians to spend time in guilt. It makes me wonder what kind of Christians he was really with. They sure aren’t the kinds I know and they don’t sound like the kinds I’d want to know.

Philip Yancey said that legalism fails at the very thing it’s designed to do, instill obedience. Only true grace leads to obedience. Legalism only hardens a heart.

I think we’ve all seen that.

Last chapter tomorrow.

Alright everyone. Time to continue onwards. Let’s look at the fifth objection.

Loftus tells us that there are non-ultimate reasons for being good. For instance, humans don’t like pain. He grants the exception of athletes who see pain as a reward. However, I have a few concerns with this.

First off, granted we don’t like pain, but does that mean pain is necessarily bad? Take what he says about financial pain. If anyone knows about this, it is young seminary students. I am in financial pain in some ways. There are many worse off than me though. One of my secrets is that the experience when I started of being on my own forced me to learn to budget my money.

Ironically, because of that pain, I was never happier.

When I first moved out, I found myself limited in what I could buy. Oh I bought things every now and then, but it was extremely limited and I had to save up. That made me appreciate what I had all the more. By contrast, I remember a friend back where I came from who we would go to a bookstore. I’d buy an apologetics or philosophy book or maybe two. He’d buy a bunch of books about TV shows and such and then call me and say he was bored.

There’s a difference there.

As for mental pain, my time with depression and anxiety taught me much about life and I thank God I went through it although I hated it immensely at the time. For physical pain, I think Loftus would have to say I have him beat in that department. That is, unless he’s had his back cut open and about a foot of steel attached to his spinal cord. I run today though, and I thank God for it.

Consider cases outside myself. Leprosy patients are incapable of feeling physical pain. (I’m referring to a specific type of leprosy of course. This isn’t the same found in Scripture.) They can have rats chew off their fingers and they don’t know it. Pain is good at times. It alerts us to danger that is there and helps us to prepare. We may not like it, but not liking something doesn’t mean it is ipso facto evil.

I’ll also say that I agree that tolerance, family, and friendship are good things. By tolerance, of course, I mean the right of a person to say what they want to say within reason. (The old, “You can’t go into a crowded building and yell “FIRE” if there isn’t one.”) I disagree with Loftus greatly, but I tolerate his saying what he says. He has all right to.

What about family though? Consider that in the Republic, family isn’t really seen as that great a thing. In fact, it’s Christian times that really brought the family to life. When Paul gave the orders on how a house was to live, it was revolutionary. The idea of male and female being equal in the image of God is a concept from the Judeo-Christian faith. I’d like to see the atheistic basis for human equality.

And as for friendship, I seriously urge my readers to get a copy of C.S. Lewis’s “The Four Loves” and read what he says about friendship. I’ve learned much about friendship in the past few months from living with a roommate. He’s been a great help to me and I hope I’ve been a great help to him and will continue to be one. We’ve also had dialogues with non-Christians over here and we’ve found we make a great team together. (By the way, if you do go to the library for “The Four Loves”, see if they have it on audio. It’s the only book we have a voice recording of C.S. Lewis himself reading.)

Loftus also speaks of him and his wife giving to good causes. I hope so. I would encourage them to do so. Notice something here. I am not complaining about what he does. I simply ask the question, is it really good? Upon what standard in atheism is it better to give than it is to hoard everything for yourself? Why should we have the golden rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” instead of the Godfather’s rule of “Do others before they do you.”?

Loftus says that you don’t need an ultimate anything. There aren’t any ultimates. That very same paragraph though, he speaks of one saying that what he does ultimately matters.  He also says he is living without the guilt of Christianity.

Insofar as we experience this guilt in Christianity having confessed our sins and repented, we are not living in the light of Christ. We are not seeing God as he is. We say being Christlike is our goal. Indeed it is. It is not just ours though. It is God’s goal for us as well. Should we not think that he will do all he can to help us reach that goal? Does he not want us to reach it more than we do?

Loftus quotes Russell talking about how we need to help our fellow man in his struggles. I agree. I have hard that Philo once said “Be kind, because everyone you meet is fighting a harder battle.” Even if he didn’t say it, it’s an excellent quote. For those readers of mine who don’t know me, I will go on and assure that yes, even the Deeper Waters blogger bleeds when he’s cut and fights hard battles.

The question though is still, “Why?” Can there really be any reason? What is the reason for doing good grounded in? What is the basis for goodness itself?

What about self-seeking people who want everything and are willing to harm anyone who gets in their way? (Which we all are at times.) Loftus says we lock them up. I agree. Why though? Consider how this fits in with where he talks about sociopaths, thieves, and sexual predators. Loftus tells us that they aren’t doing what society considers the norm and it’s not rational either.

Let’s look at this. Because society considers something the norm, it’s right? That would lead us to cultural relativism which would lead us to moral relativism. If that is the case, then the problem of evil goes out the window. Now I do think that there is something that if many societies think something is right, it probably could be, but societies agree on things because they are right. They are not right because societies agree. C.S. Lewis lists such ideas in “The Abolition of Man.”

What about rational though? Rational would mean that their brain is functioning the way it ought. Ought though presupposes a designer and it even presupposes one with a moral law for if the brains are functioning as they ought, then they will be functioning in accordance with the moral law. Why should this brain that results from an accident though have any relation to what’s going on in other accidental brains in an accidental world?

Finally though, Loftus says that Christians with ultimates are far more dangerous. Granted Christians do evil things many times, but atheism has shown what it can do as well. Do we really need to talk about Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot? When atheism comes to power, it quickly becomes a tool for evil. The difference is, can it be shown that that is inconsistent with atheism? If there is no ultimate ethic, how can it be?

Note I’m not saying all atheists are evil people. I’m not. Many of them could put us Christians to shame. I am saying though there is no basis in atheism for being a good person. There is no basis for condemning an evil one. There is no basis for good and evil period and without that, there is no way to be inconsistent in morality.

Tomorrow, we shall look at the sixth and final argument.

In this argument, Loftus wants us to be wary of those who claim to have ultimate values. (Yes. That value of loving your neighbor as yourself is deadly.)  He speaks of the Crusades for instance. What books has Loftus really read on the Crusades? Unfortunately, none are given. Why is it so awful that the Christians wanted to free Jerusalem? Does Loftus need to remember that this was in response to the Muslims going on their raid first?

Is it necessarily bad just because Christians fought it? Now I won’t defend all of the Crusades, but I don’t see how you can just make a blanket statement that all of them were wrong. Actually, I do see how you can do that. You can make such a statement if you don’t read the historians on them and instead assume that what you are told about them from anti-Christians is correct.

And slavery? First off, slavery was not just done by the Jews. It was done by everyone. It was seen as a way of life. Aristotle even told us that some people were meant to be slaves. However, this slavery was far different from anything seen in the Civil War time period. In fact, it was the coming of Christianity that eventually ended slavery.

Loftus also talks about scientific progress being impeded by Christians. I just wish he’d have given an example. The other crimes include forbidding same-sex marriage, impeding the progress of feminism, and intolerance and bigotry towards atheists and agnostics.

Let’s see. We think the first one is a sin and harmful to both parties and society as a whole. You need to show we’re wrong first. The second, we have nothing against women moving up in the world, but we have a problem if it’s a feminism that sees women as superior to men. As for the last, I’d like more agnostics and atheists to speak up. Go on and show how bankrupt your arguments are.

In all of this though, Loftus needs to wake up to the reality of what happens when there are no absolute values. Gulag Archipelago anyone? Would he prefer we jettison absolute values? If that’s the case, then he’s also just thrown out his argument from evil which is so precious to him. Never mind that we could just ask him the absolute value he’s appealing to to say these things are absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

I wish we could say there’s more, but sadly, there isn’t. It’s the kind of pedantic whining that seems to repeat itself constantly. We’ll look at argument five tomorrow.

I really look at a case like reason #3 and wonder what I’m expected to reply to. All it seems we have is assertions that do not have a basis to them. The start is that religion is seen as a search for meaning. Why should I believe that though? Is it hard to believe that religion could have started off instead as a search for truth since man did ultimately believe in some kind of higher power?

Besides, if we were on a quest for meaning, we would probably make religions a lot differently than they are. For some pagan forms, who would make a religion where they were required to sacrifice that which was most dear to them, such as burning children on altars? We might see some basis in sexual practices, but that also is an aspect of the transcendent. There was a day and age where people saw sexuality as something greater than themselves instead of merely a mechanical and/or biological process. What better way to get in touch with the divine than the highest experience this side of eternity?

It certainly though would not explain the Christian faith. My life would be a lot easier if I was not a Christian right now. (Ultimately, I do not think better, but the Christian faith is not a faith for the faint of heart.) I have left my family and friends behind and come to a new area and am spending money that I could spend on other things to learn about my faith. I am having to make sacrifices as well in moral areas as there are some corners I will not cut. I have to learn to practice self-control and learn how to love that person that annoys me to no end.

At the apologetics conference last year, Dinesh D’Souza spoke on the same thing in talking about the Ten Commandments and saying “I can think of three I’d scratch off right now.” No. If I was wanting a Freudian wish fulfillment, it would be somewhere else.

Loftus thinks this meaning is why we believe in God and not because of arguments pro and con. (Awfully odd for someone writing a book supposedly full of con arguments.) Now I’ll grant for some people, that is the case. For myself though, it is intellectually fulfilling to be a Christian. It does answer the biggest questions I have of life and I find a meaningless life to be a self-refuting position.

Now we can try to find an evolutionary cause, but it is quite amazing that an evolutionary cause is never sought for atheism. That belief is true for reason apparently, but for religion, you have to find a reason. Could it simply be a priori assumptions that are coming in trying to find an evolutionary cause for everything that they disagree with?

Tomorrow, we’ll look at point four.

We now continue with our look at why Loftus believes what he does.

The second starts with saying that if anyone thinks a non-Christian society can’t be good, they need to look at the Roman empire, the Greek empire, the Chinese, etc. (Interestingly, the Islamic empire is mentioned in here. This from the guy who in the paragraph before said that we need to be on guard against Islamic terrorists that are seeking our demise.)

Pray tell what made these societies such beacons of morality? We’re never told how they were good. Just that they are.  Now I’ll grant there was much that was good in these societies, but there is much that is better in a Christian society.

For instance, for all his talk about slavery, is Loftus just going to waive his hand at the passages in Aristotle talking about how some people are meant to be slaves? Is he going to overlook all the wars that were constantly going on in this time period? Is he going to say the Roman persecution of the Christians was a sign of a moral empire?

Instead, I suppose Loftus just wants to take it on faith.

Of course, he tells us Medieval Christianity would have had us all burned at the stake. Source on this? None whatsoever. Of course, when listing ideas in the Bible that show we don’t have true Christianity supposedly represented there, what is mentioned.

The dispute involving Ananias and Sapphira. (Lasted just barely part of a chapter and ended immediately.)

The dispute involving widows and food in Acts 6.

And how the Galatian heresy threatened to split the church.

Uh huh.

Yeah. That’s signs of a hideous moral depravity right there….

Loftus says he could go on and talk about the Crusades, the Inquisition, black slavery, witch trials, treatment of minorities, etc.

But he doesn’t.

Which simply means, please take this on faith even though I am not backing it and assume popular opinion which has no bias against Christianity at all is totally correct. (Kind of like how most people today believe the medievals thought the Earth was flat.)

We now hear a citation from Charles Kimball arguing on when religion becomes evil. He says it becomes evil when five aspects are there.

#1-When it has absolute truth claims. (Yeah. That absolute claim of humans bearing the image of God is hideous. Let’s totally forget that all claims are absolute truth claims.)

#2-Demands blind obedience. (No problem there.)

#3-Tries to establish the ideal society. (I suppose we should try the less than ideal.)

#4-Utilizes the end justifies the means when defending their group identity. (An example of this would have been nice.)

#5-When they see themselves in a holy war. (Not entirely. A Jihad is quite different from Ephesians 6.)

He ends this with a quote from Kimball. “A strong case can be made that the history of Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of most other major religions.”

How I wish this case could have been made at least in some part….

Of course, we have the argument from Richard Dawkins that God is the most unpleasant fictional character of all and attacks religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world.

As Dinesh D’Souza says “This is what happens when you let a biologist out of the lab.”

Dawkins knows biology well, but this just isn’t his area and I want to laugh when atheists say they want Christians to read the God Delusion. I wish more would. It’d give them a good example of pathetic argumentation.

Loftus says he just doesn’t see why Christian society is better and if we want to say it’s because they started charities, hospitals, universities, etc. we are told that these would have been started anyway.

Well why weren’t they?

Does Loftus want to tell us about the Hospitalers in the 11th century? (You know, that hideous time called the Crusades going on.) Does he want to tell us about how hospitals really began then and how exquisite care was given to patients? Does he want to tell us about the universities that got started during this same time period? Does he want to tell about the charity work going on in India?

But these would have happened anyway…..

It must be nice to make claims like that with no evidence. Just wishful thinking.

And oh yeah, these probably weren’t started out of altruism but to convert people.

Because, you know, you just have to make any good on the other side look really bad…..

More claims without evidence. Must be nice to live in that world. Part three tomorrow.

Loftus now describes what life is like without God. (To be fair, I’d think life without believing God exists. He has yet to experience life without God.) He gives us six points to discuss on this so my dear friends, guess how many blogs we’re going to have on this chapter. After 27 short blogs…..Nah! We’re going to go with six blogs.

Loftus does say that our lives have no ultimate meaning beyond this life. I agree that if atheism is true, that is the case. I’d say though that they have no meaning in this life. The only meaning that is there is the meaning that is created. That is not a real meaning though. It is a meaning imposed on reality that is in fact denying reality. It makes one think of those great lines in Bertrand Russell’s “A Free Man’s Worship.”

“Brief and powerless is Man’s life; on him and all his race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way; for Man, condemned to-day to lose his dearest, to-morrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere yet the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that ennoble his little day; disdaining the coward terrors of the slave of Fate, to worship at the shrine that his own hands have built; undismayed by the empire of chance, to preserve a mind free from the wanton tyranny that rules his outward life; proudly defiant of the irresistible forces that tolerate, for a moment, his knowledge and his condemnation, to sustain alone, a weary but unyielding Atlas, the world that his own ideals have fashioned despite the trampling march of unconscious power.”

And of course,

“Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins–all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

To which the late Christian philosopher (Ah. A hero of mine. Always sad to refer to him as “Late”) adds that the only thing Russell needed to add was “And oh yes, have a nice day.”

Loftus doesn’t think though that this means he shouldn’t be a good person who seeks to be good to other people. One wonders if it means that he should though? One wonders even how we got this idea of good? Is good a meaningless idea? If all that we see is that which can be described only in material properties, then yes, good is a nonsense concept. There is no good. Things just are.

One point Loftus wishes to respond to is that our morality has declined due to our having rejected Christianity. Now Loftus does accept that we are in a decline. One indication of this is that we are producing many narcissists in the West.

The irony of this statement is enough that I’m tempted to pause for an hour.

Loftus says though that this is because Christianity was a myth that united us and we just need something new to unite on. He thinks human dignity, freedom, and Democratic Capitalism should unite us.

Paging Stark. Paging Rodney Stark.

Sure! I have no problem with those! I’m a strong Capitalist for all who don’t know, but what is the basis for those beliefs? It’s not enough to just say that humans have dignity. Why should I believe such a thing?

Loftus also claims that the enlightenment has been breaking it apart piece by piece. I find that amazing since we’ve actually been finding more and more confirmation since the Enlightenment such as the plethora of biblical texts, the findings in the anthropic principles, new philosophical arguments that are being raised, archaeological discoveries, etc.

In fact, Christianity I would say is growing more and more. The ones who claim that it is dead will die long before Christianity ever could. (Which it won’t.) Voltaire once said that within a hundred years of his death, the Bible would be a forgotten book. Within that time of his death, the Geneva Bible Society bought a house of his and used it to print Bibles.

Rest assured, God has the last laugh.

We will look at the second argument tomorrow.