Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Justin Schieber on Yahweh or Myweh

Recently, Sye appeared on Justin's podcast to discuss presuppositional apologetics.  It appeared that this particular episode was arranged in order to discuss Justin's lecture on presuppositional apologetics.  However, while some of this was discussed, the two spent more time debating the issues in general.

I must say that this is one of the best encounters i've heard on this topic; probably as good, if not better, than Sye's first interaction with Paul Baird on unbelievable.  This was a fast paced contrasting of positions in a near hour of non-stop cross examination from both sides.  While I thought that Sye kept his demeanor at a very patient level, I was a bit disappointed with Justin's performance as he seemed annoyed and frustrated throughout the exchange.

Sye has also informed me that Justin's recording was edited.  I have yet to listen to the unedited version, but will make it available once Sye grants permission or posts in publicly.  At the least, there is supposed to be a transcript of the unedited recording forthcoming.

To listen to the "edited" version of the exchange, go HERE.

A "religious delusion" double standard

According to the popular atheist blogger, John Loftus,

Osama Bin Laden was probably a good man; sincere, devout and God fearing. But all it takes to make good people do evil is religion. Keep that in mind. That is the lesson of his life. He was deluded in the same way as other believers. Some delusions cause more harm than others though, and he caused a great deal of it. The problem is he will never know he was deluded. Neither will any of the rest of them. What a waste of a life.

Obviously, Loftus and other atheists think they are correct when positing such claims.  The problem is, they fail to consider the probability of their own delusion.  Consider if such words were applied to an atheist, such as Stalin:

Stalin was probably a good man; sincere and devout.  But all it takes to make good people do evil is atheism.  Keep that in mind.  That is the lesson of his life.  He was deluded in the same way as other atheists.  Some delusions cause more harm than others though, and he caused a great deal of it.  The problem is he will never know he was deluded.  Neither will any of the rest of them.  What a waste of life.

The point of the parallel is not to get into a debacle over Stalin's motives, whether they be ideological, political or whatever.  In fact, let's just grant for the sake of argument that Stalin's naturalistic worldview did not necessarily, in and of itself, motivate him to do what he did.  However, let's keep one thing in mind: was Stalin doing anything that was inconsistent with his professed worldview?  In other words, if our universe is nothing short of raw power with particles clashing against one another with no purpose or goal, then why would it matter if a glob of protoplasm (also known as, "humans") chooses to eliminate millions of other globs of protoplasm in accordance with the firing of neurons in that one's brain?  Where does one drawn conclusions of "right, wrong, disgusting, delusional, or inconsistent" from such actions?

This is why such judgments of others is completely non-sensical in atheistic worldviews.  Why does "delusional" and "worldview/religion" even matter in such a universe?  Loftus may claim that such a life is "wasted," but Osama would have probably begged to differ.  But again, how does a "wasted life" even make sense in a purely physical, materialistic universe?  Nothing is "wasted."  Instead, things just are what they are.  Atoms react when they clash against other atoms.  And in the same way, globs of protoplasm react when large flying objects (i.e. airplanes) fly into large cement structures (i.e. buildings) that are filled with other globs of protoplasm (i.e. humans).  Yet, the atheist concedes that one set of reactions is non-moral (i.e. atoms clashing against one another) and the other is immoral (i.e. flying planes into buildings).

It is readily obvious that the atheist finds such action appalling because they are made in God's image.  Furthermore, when they react to such tragedies, they are essentially cracking open their Bible's all the while denying it.  As the late Van Til once said, "Anti-theism presupposes theism."

Gene Cook Interviews an Atheist

Today I listened to a podcast that took place in early February where Gene Cook interviewed/debated an atheist by the name of Justin Shieber.  If my memory serves me correctly, I recommended that Justin contact Gene to appear on his show after learning that he's sharp, articulate, and knows how to defend his position.

When I spoke to Justin, I had learned of a moral theory called DESIRE UTILITARIANISM, which he was happy to explain to me.  Since this is a unique and non-popular moral theory (as far as I can tell), I was happy to learn that Justin had arranged to appear on Gene's show.

Anyone interested in atheism and Christianity will find this one hour cross examination intriguing.  Moral theory and epistemology are discussed and defended from both positions.

You can listen to the full dialogue HERE

Answering a question by "free thinker" Paul Baird

Paul Baird WRITES:

Every once in a while someone posts a comment on a forum that encapsulates a viewpoint brilliantly, and in this post 'emr' says

I have asked many Christians, including people on this website, whether they believe Hitler would go to heaven if he had regretted all that he'd done and given his life to Jesus a week before his death - and whether the six million Jews he killed would go to hell for rejecting Jesus. A large number respond in the affirmative - the ones that don't tend to go around the houses a bit, or invoke a re-interpretation of scripture.

My point is that if that is the theistic concept of a loving god, one that punishes for eternity people who do not believe in him, and rewards for eternity people who commit the most terrible atrocities, then the whole concept falls flat on its face. Whatever your personal standards of love, justice, morality and goodness are, none of those standards would or could include torturing someone for eternity. If a god exists who can torture someone for eternity and still be considered 'good' then that god must be operating by completely separate standards from our own - and given that from our perspective we can have no idea what that standard is, statements like god is good, god is loving, god is just, god is moral become completely redundant and meaningless.

Well, I'd like to hear a Christian rebutt that.

The question/objection is based upon a faulty premise and interpretation of Scripture:

Crime #1: Person kills millions of people 

Crime #2: Person doesn't believe in Jesus

According to the objection, the second of the two crimes is less serious.  And in some sense, i'd agree, which is why I said that the question is built upon a faulty premise.  The questioner seems to think that because a Jew is a good, morally upright person, then they are not deserving of God's wrath.  But this is not what the Scriptures teach:

“for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” “THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,” “THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”; “WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”; “THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.” “THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”” (Romans 3:9–18) 

Here we see that, Scripturally speaking, Jews do not incur God's wrath simply because they rejected Jesus.  Instead, they incur God's wrath because they are sinners.  Of course, the Bible is not arguing that all sinners will be equally punished, as some will receive a greater judgment (Matt. 10:15).  But it must be understood that both Hitler and the unbelieving Jew will receive their just punishment unless they repent and accept the only one who can save them from God's wrath, Jesus Christ (John 3:36).


As Paul would probably anticipate, I must raise a question: in a naturalistic worldview, why would it matter if a Jew receives a greater punishment than Hitler?  In the natural world, both "good" and "bad" people suffer.  Do you shake your fist at the universe when good people needlessly suffer?  Of course not, because the universe doesn't care.  Yes, you may object, "But I care!"  And that's the thing.  I have my worldview that is based upon God's judicial reckoning and you have your worldview that says, "Paul Baird is the judge of all things."  And if this is not the case, then who are you to say that my theological persuasion "isn't fair?"  I am one bag of cells uttering one thing and you are another bag of cells uttering something else.  Who judges who is right?  


The God of the Bible isn't simply a loving God; He is a just God and can only judge in accordance with His Holy and Righteous character.  But there is a reason why the Bible calls the gospel "foolishness" to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:23).  The following should illustrate:

“And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.“The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’“But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’“I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9–14)   

 

Kill the suffering babies

I can sympathize with the speechless, deer-in-the-headlights-looking lady as Virginia Ironside expresses her views on abortion.  God help us if this becomes the outspoken view of abortionists worldwide.  Of course, we've all heard that unwanted pregnancies are akin to "suffering" on behalf of the mother as well as a "suffering" child who might grow up living in the slums.  In both cases, the child is better off dead (according to abortionists).  To my utter shock, Ironside takes it a step further and would willingly kill a child outside of the womb.  The reason why this is a shock to me is because abortionists typically view children as human when their location is outside of the womb.  Of course, this makes no sense, which is why I think Ironside is a consistent abortionist.

This is what materialistic atheism leads to when it becomes consistent.  Children, whether inside the womb our outside, are nothing but bags of cells.  So why not put a pillow over their face when they have been diagnosed with a disease or mental illness?  Why not take it a step further and kill them when they act up in school?  Or maybe you lose your job and can no longer afford to feed this bag of cells; so drown it in the bathtub?

How consistent will unbelievers become?  I fear it will grow worse as God lifts His hand of restraint from them as they grow in their hatred of their Creator and Lord.

“So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart.” (Ephesians 4:17-18)

“To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both the mind and their conscience are defiled.” (Titus 1:15)

Richard Dawkins on absolute morality

Its so easy to get away with such statements without debate or cross examination isn't it? Something that constantly amazes me about atheists are their repetitions of age-old canards. For instance,

"An absolute morality that a religious person might profess includes...stoning people for adultery? Death for apostasy? Punishment for breaking the sabbath?...I don't think I want an absolute morality."

It is quite unfortunate that Dr. Dawkins is unable to be corrected at the moment, due to the fact that his ears are filled with cement and refuses to debate anyone who might have the theological capacity to say, "um, Dr. Dawkins...did you know that the morality you mentioned was under a particular cultural and political context? Have you ever heard of Jesus and that thing he established called the New Covenant?" However, we all know how Dawkins might respond to such; "Oh, so you just pick and choose what you want to believe in the Bible!" I would challenge Dawkins or anyone to even begin to formulate an exegesis which would lend any credibility to the idea that, given an objective reading of scripture, the old covenant administration can and should apply today in our modern, western, political/cultural context. But as we know, Dawkins probably doesn't even know what "exegesis" means, and probably doesn't care. But that's atheistic ethics! Since the universe is nothing but raw matter and energy, what in the world is "honesty" anyway? The universe doesn't care about honesty.

"I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, and discussed."

So...as long as "morality" follows this criteria, you'll agree with it? What if it is "thought out, reasoned, and discussed" that a particular race be wiped off the face of the earth? "No, no no, that would be wrong! That is causing harm to society!" Again, in a universe that is simply matter in motion, all you would be doing is wiping out complex bags of cells. The universe doesn't care!

"We don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals...these are things that have very little basis in Biblical or Qu'ranic Scripture...We've grown out of [religious morality] because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion."

Without the God of the Bible, you have no basis by which you can establish morality, other than "moral consensus." But Dawkins and other atheists don't really believe that. Why? Because there are entire societies out there with moral systems which the atheists find to be morally repulsive. But what happened to moral consensus? Those millions of globs of protoplasm in Islamic nations think that it is quite all right to imprison and kill apostates. What happens when they convince western nations to do the same? It sounds like Dawkins will be quite happy with the results, given that it would happen under "rational" discussion! But no, Dawkins and most atheists will reject such a consensus because they are made in the image of God and seek to borrow from the Christian worldview when push comes to shove.

(ht: Richard Dawkins.net)

Michael Brown vs. Bart Ehrman: Debate on suffering and the Bible

When we hear the name "Bart Ehrman," those who are familiar with him know that he is a textual critic as well as a historian. I never thought of him as a theologian nor as a philosopher. But Bart Ehrman is certainly notorious for crossing those lines both in print and in debate. And this event was no exception. Recently, Ehrman released a book on suffering. This came to me as a surprise for one who's expertise was in the realm of textual criticism. But once we realize that Ehrman does, in fact, have a theological background (as well as experience in teaching on this very subject), we should not be so quick to dismiss Ehrman in going outside his field of expertise.

At any rate, in this debate, we get to have an inside look at what Bart Ehrman really feels about God. It was Bart Ehrman's position to articulate why he didn't believe the Bible presents an adequate answer to the "problem" of suffering. And to the opposite, it was Michael Brown's job to defend the Bible. With the exception of his recent encounters with James White on the subject of Calvinism, I knew very little about Dr. Brown other than his books on answering Jewish objections to Jesus. And though Michael Brown is more arminian than calvinistic, I thought he did a really good job in defending his position. However, like most who debate Ehrman, Brown was far from "mopping the floor" with him. And i'll explain why.

When we try to explain suffering, we can do so through two categories of "why's." There is the primary category, where we explain the big picture reality, and the secondary category, where we explain the immediate reality. Biblically, the big picture of why we have suffering is based on one simple reason: Adam sinned. And according to Genesis 3 and Romans 8, all of creation is affected by the curse. Though Brown certainly alluded to this here and there, I am baffled as to why this wasn't the central theme of Brown's thesis. Don't get me wrong though. I think Brown did a good job of answering Ehrman's arguments. But I still think that Genesis presents the best big picture response to any "suffering" objection that the skeptic can thrown our way.

For example, Ehrman argued that the Bible presents such contradictory "answers" to suffering, that we can't really know why there is suffering. For instance, in Amos and the other prophets, there is suffering because God is directly punishing people for their sins. But in books like Job, there is suffering because God is "teaching a lesson." Therefore, when we look at tragedies like the earthquake in Haiti, is God punishing them for their sins, or teaching them a lesson? According to Ehrman, we simply cannot know based on the Bible.

I think that Brown did a good job of answering these objections specifically, but didn't spend enough time on the big picture. Wouldn't it have been easier to say, "In the case of Job and the minor prophets, or any other reason the Bible presents for suffering, the bottom line is; anyone and everyone suffers because Adam sinned and brought a curse into this world." Problem solved. Ehrman can bring as many "contradictory" reasons that he wants for suffering in the Bible, but they all stem from the fall in Genesis 3.

Next, I thought Michael Brown could have spent a lot more time addressing Ehrman's epistemology. How does Ehrman know what he knows? Why does Ehrman believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil? And what is his basis for believing as such? Ehrman offered the usual line of reasoning, "Suffering is wrong because it causes people harm. And we define what is good and evil based on that." Brown should have hammered him hard on this point. The reason being, Ehrman's worldview is easily dismantled when it is shown for what it really is: matter in motion. Ehrman is an agnostic, but more specifically an atheist when he claims to "not believe in God." And if there is no God, then we are nothing more than globs of protoplasm wondering around in a universe that is nothing more than atoms banging around. In this worldview, how in the world can one define "suffering" or "evil?" Ehrman defends his view as if "suffering" is some sort of objective thing. But his worldview gives no basis in which one can objectively define good and evil. That is, some societies feel that is best to love one's neighbor. But others feel that it is best to eat one's neighbor. It is my conviction that Brown could have hit a home run if he would have elaborated more on this point.

Overall, this was a great debate. Both speakers are articulate and passionate. And though Brown is not Reformed, I believe that this topic could have been addressed and defended from either side by sticking to Genesis and moral epistemology. But because Brown didn't, most reformed folk will have disagreed with his approach. And perhaps this could be one complaint that I have with many reformed theologians: they would bring God's sovereignty into the picture when there isn't necessarily a reason for doing so. After all, in Genesis 3, the issue of God's sovereignty isn't even brought up. And this means that though there might be inconsistencies in either position, I feel that one could adequately defend the Bible on the problem of suffering without even going there.

You can listen to the entire debate HERE

(ht: Apologetics 315)

Are you simply a complex arrangement of stardust?

This is what naturalistic materialism is reduced to: stardust. You are the result of an exploding star. That's it. Create whatever "purpose" you want in this life, but that's all you are.

These are the conclusions of Lawrence M. Krauss, Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics Department, and Inaugural Director of the Origins Initiative, at Arizona State University. Though I have no reason to believe that Dr. Krauss is an immoral person, I can't help but point out the inconsistency of his materialistic worldview. That is, when men strap bombs to themselves and blow people up in buildings, are they simply scattering "stardust?" In Dr. Krauss' view, apparently so! However, this man would never admit to such a horrible conclusion. And the reason being, he chooses to act like a Christian when it comes to morality. Instead of viewing bombings as the scattering of globs of protoplasm, he sees humans as having dignity and purpose, and therefore is appalled (and rightly so!) when humans are murdered. But this is not as a result of his materialistic worldview, but from being made in the image of God.

"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:21-22)

(ht: Ken Ham)

Collision Review

Collission is documentary based on several interactions between a Christian, Douglas Wilson, and an atheist, Christopher Hitchens. The film rolls in with about an hour and a half of "never a dull moment" filming. I'm not much of a cinematographer, but this appears to be some really well done camera work.

As far as the content, Hitchens and Wilson are followed by a camera crew throughout a series of discussions and debates on the topic, "Is Christianity Good for the World?" Obviously, with a book title like, "God is not Great: how religion poisons everything," (Italics mine) Hitchens takes the negative position. Though Hitchens is a very witty and talented individual, i've never been impressed by anything he said. Once you pretend that he doesn't have an English accent and look at the actual content of his arguments, it becomes pretty apparent to me that Hitchens doesn't really have much to offer.

Douglas Wilson, on the other hand, really cuts to the chase and "removes the iron mask," so to speak. That is, he calls it like it is, demonstrating that the atheist has no leg to stand on when it comes to morality. And I found that, time and time again, Hitchens would refuse to deal with what Wilson was actually arguing. When it comes to naturalistic materialism, how do you derive "morality" from matter in motion? The atheist can argue all day long, as Hitchens did, that morality is derived from what benefits humanity. The problem is, as Wilson argued, what may be "best for humanity" to you may not be what's "best for humanity" according to me. Therefore, it is every man for himself.

I did not want to spend much of this review in presenting arguments (that's what the film is for), so i'll refrain from this point on. I would highly recommend watching this documentary for many reasons. But one of the main reasons is because Wilson presents an apologetic that is very different from most mainstream apologists. That is, he is a presuppositionalist. If you aren't sure what a presuppositionalist is, then you need to watch this film. Though I don't like to limit myself under one apologetic framework, I find that there is much power in the presuppositionalist approach that the evidentialist simply doesn't have. That is, it starts with God's Word and builds the case from there.

If you are interested in watching the film, you can order it or read more about it HERE.

An atheist cross-examined by a presuppositionalist

This was an obviously one-sided discussion that was controlled by the Christian, but an interesting discussion to say the least.

The words of a very consistent Atheist

This is from Paul Myers, professor at the University of Minnesota, on the purpose of life:

First, there is no moral law: the universe is a nasty, heartless place where most things wouldn't mind killing you if you let them. No one is compelled to be nice; you or anyone could go on a murder spree, and all that is stopping you is your self-interest (it is very destructive to your personal bliss to knock down your social support system) and the self-interest of others, who would try to stop you. There is nothing 'out there' that imposes morality on you, other than local, temporary conditions, a lot of social enculturation, and probably a bit of genetic hardwiring that you've inherited from ancestors who lived under similar conditions.

(Reference)

If there is no God, and "reality" is limited to matter in motion, then what does "right" and "wrong" mean? I think Myers is on to something. He is being a consistent atheist.

(ht: Answers in Genesis)