Discussions with Bob, the rationalist

[OzSpen]

Certainly I accept God as the Creator of all that is, was or ever will be. I see nothing in anything I have posted that would suggest otherwise. Who are you to question what I believe?

Runner,

You are on a public forum. All of us have the right and privilege to question what others believe. You are no exception.

Again, I think you miss my point. Tillich (and many others) suggest that the bottom-line religious question, the core question that religion attempts to answer, is why there is anything rather than nothing. The Christian's answer is "God." But my point was that, even at this bottom-line level, someone as brilliant as Stephen Hawking (for example) says: "No need for God. Physics has/can/will explain it." So to reach someone who doesn't even agree that this bottom-line question is a religious one, you need evidence that challenges his paradigm.

I don't miss your point. I happen to disagree with the point you are making. Tillich may say that the basic religious question is why there is something rather than nothing. I respond that the fundamental question relates to the existence of God and what His plans are for our world and us. What could be more fundamental than John 3:16 (ESV) and 1 John 2:2 (ESV)?

Accepting Christopher Hitchens or Paul Tillich's world views is not my starting point. If I were discussing with them, I would be pursuing the consequences of their world views

To attempt to convince someone who simply doesn't accept your paradigm at all that he is failing to see the truth because his senses have been distorted by unrighteousness and the creation has been corrupted by the Fall and the influence of Satan ... well, those arguments may make sense to me, but I have a hard time seeing them dent the paradigm of a hardcore atheist (unless he has been primed by the Holy Spirit, the point I have been emphasizing all along).

I do not start with my paradigm. That's where I end. I start where Paul began on the Areopagus, Acts 17:22-34 (ESV),

22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,a]">[a] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way towards him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;b]">[b]

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’c]">[c]

29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul went out from their midst. 34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Because some had another world view (like Hitchens or Tillich), it didn't stop Paul from proclaiming the Christian world view as the solution to the Greek dilemma, 'To the unknown god' (Acts 17:23 ESV). I build common ground with people and use their world view as a launching pad for discussions.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I assume you're familiar with the late world-class philosopher Antony Flew, who shifted from atheism to theism near the end of his life. He became an atheist in the first place largely because of the problem of evil. He spent his entire career pointing out the flaws in believers' philosophical arguments and "proofs." He was finally persuaded to adopt theism by: Intelligent Design. Bingo, his paradigm shifted.

Antony Flew did not become a biblical theist in his conversion. He became a Deist, as is evident in his book, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese. New York NY: HarperOne 2007). Here he states,

The discovery of the phenomena like the laws of nature ... has led scientists, philosophers, and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not - yet. But who knows what could happen next? Someday I might hear a Voice that says, "Can you hear me now?" (Flew & Varghese 2007:158).

His change of mind to Deism came in 2004 and he published this book with Varghese in 2007. He died in 2010 at age 87 and had suffered dementia.

Flew begins the introduction of his book, 'Ever since the announcement of my "conversion" to deism....' (Flew & Varghese 2007:1).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

They are convinced about their arguments because they are Christians. This is my point: Christian apologetics is largely aimed at reassuring Christians. It does provide fuel for witnessing, of course, but not to Michael Shermer, Antony Flew or the typical hardcore member of the critical-thinking community.

An eminent Christian historian and exegete, Dr N T Wright, reached Antony Flew. He reached him to the point where Appendix B of Flew & Varghese (2007:185ff) includes this topic, 'The self-revelation of God in human history: A dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright'. Here, Flew stated: 'I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful' (Flew & Varghese 2007:213).

So, it is possible for Christian apologists such as N T Wright to reach the inner being of a hardcore atheist such as Antony Flew.

Oz

 

[Runner]

You are on a public forum. All of us have the right and privilege to question what others believe. You are no exception.

Since you questioned on a previous thread whether I was a Christian at all and I answered that in considerable detail, including my time with Campus Crusade for Christ, your latest inquiry cannot be viewed as anything other than posturing. Who did you suppose I thought created the universe - the Easter Bunny? I will observe that you strike me as far more impressed with pontificating your own views than you are with presenting Jesus, which is what I meant in a previous post by my general reference to "spiritual arrogance." Just my observation, of course, but folks like Bob can typically discern this attitude a mile away. Be sure to refer Bob to some of your blog posts.

I don't miss your point. I happen to disagree with the point you are making. Tillich may say that the basic religious question is why there is something rather than nothing. I respond that the fundamental question relates to the existence of God and what His plans are for our world and us. What could be more fundamental than John 3:16 (ESV) and 1 John 2:2 (ESV)?

You believe "the existence of God and His plans for our world" is more fundamental than why there is anything rather than nothing? "The Christian God" is only one of numerous possible answers to the core question, which is why you are unlikely to get far with a sophisticated rationalist. Your verses from John are scarcely "fundamental" to someone whose paradigm leaves no room for theism in any form, who believes the Bible is primitive hogwash, and quite possibly believes Jesus never existed at all. This is the problem with most Christian apologetics. It fails to engage the unbeliever on his own turf, expecting him to recognize The Truth if it is only presented cleverly enough - when in fact the unbeliever's starting axiom is that the apologist is simply a dolt.

Antony Flew did not become a biblical theist in his conversion. He became a Deist, as is evident in his book, There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese. New York NY: HarperOne 2007). Here he states,

I specifically said Flew became a theist, but I believe you are far more interested in strutting your answers than in what anyone else says. Again, folks like Bob can discern this a mile away. (I happened to have a copy of There Is a God before it was released. I have it in front of me right now.) Oh, I see now: you are making the formal distinction between "theist" and "deist." Well, whatever; we are duly impressed.

An eminent Christian historian and exegete, Dr N T Wright, reached Antony Flew. He reached him to the point where Appendix B of Flew & Varghese (2007:185ff) includes this topic, 'The self-revelation of God in human history: A dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright'. Here, Flew stated: 'I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful' (Flew & Varghese 2007:213).

So, it is possible for Christian apologists such as N T Wright to reach the inner being of a hardcore atheist such as Antony Flew.

Your point being what? My point was simply that what impressed a sophisticated atheist like Flew was Intelligent Design, not philosophical arguments or Bible verses. Flew did not become a Christian before he died and did not even believe in an afterlife, not to mention the fact that he was very elderly, clearly not hitting on all cylinders and, many suspect, largely at the mercy of his evangelical co-author (I'm not disputing his turn to theism). He specifically said he thought Christianity was the best of all religious alternatives regardless of whether any of it was true. Again, I'm not minimizing Wright's work (I have most of his stuff, including his massive tome on the Resurrection) or Flew's turn toward deism - but what is your point in the context of this thread?

In a letter to a London newspaper, Flew described “the God in whose existence I have belatedly come to believe” as “most emphatically not the eternally rewarding and eternally torturing God of either Christianity or Islam but the God of Aristotle that he would have defined - had Aristotle actually produced a definition of his (and my) God - as the first initiating and sustaining cause of the universe.” (Source: Flew's N. Y. Times obituary, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/arts/17flew.html?_r=0.) According to your theology, Flew is burning in Hell as we speak.

 

[OzSpen]

According to your theology, Flew is burning in Hell as we speak.

Where did I state that? Or is this your argument from silence fallacy?

If you continue to be nasty in your responses to me, I will not reply as that supports abuse.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm in discussion with Bob who calls himself a rationalist. He insists that he is not an atheist but a secularist. He supports the Rationalist Society of Australia.

When I discuss his secular life he says that his belief is that no religion should intrude in any part of life. Schools and government should be secular in a multicultural society.

He will not engage with the Bible so he won't engage with me when I use 'Bible fairy tales' (his lingo).

How would you progress in your discussion with him so that you can get him to consider the existence of God and then move towards the Cross?

Oz

I just got back from a bit of travel.
I'll take a look at the thread.
jim

 

[Jim Parker]

Tillich (and many others) suggest that the bottom-line religious question, the core question that religion attempts to answer, is why there is anything rather than nothing. The Christian's answer is "God."

While "why is there anything" may be the bottom line for Tillich and the many unnamed others, it is not the "bottom line" for the majority of religious people. For the vast majority of religious people, God is a given.

But my point was that, even at this bottom-line level, someone as brilliant as Stephen Hawking (for example) says: "No need for God. Physics has/can/will explain it." So to reach someone who doesn't even agree that this bottom-line question is a religious one, you need evidence that challenges his paradigm.

Hawking is approaching your bottom line question as a physicist.
Physics is the study of nature.
God is not part of nature and is not available for scientific study.
You have posed the (boringly trite) standard task of demanding a scientific proof of something that has nothing to do with science.
Science is based on observation.
Religion is based on revelation.
You are asking religious people to peal a potato with a clock.

iakov the fool

 

[OzSpen]

I just got back from a bit of travel.
I'll take a look at the thread.
jim

Jim,

You will see examples of the kinds of rationalists/atheists/non-religionists I encounter in Australia in the Comments section of my new article, "Is 'no religion' a new religion?" in one of our ejournals, On Line Opinion (OLO). I'm in the process of writing a few responses to the over 50 Comments right now.

Some on CFnet might also like to engage these antagonists of the faith in OLO.

This is where we get opportunities to practise Prov 27:17 (NIV), 'As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another'. More witnessing opportunities are available online these days, but it comes with wheat and chaff mixed together.

Oz

 

[Runner]

While "why is there anything" may be the bottom line for Tillich and the many unnamed others, it is not the "bottom line" for the majority of religious people. For the vast majority of religious people, God is a given.

Hawking is approaching your bottom line question as a physicist.
Physics is the study of nature.
God is not part of nature and is not available for scientific study.
You have posed the (boringly trite) standard task of demanding a scientific proof of something that has nothing to do with science.
Science is based on observation.
Religion is based on revelation.
You are asking religious people to peal a potato with a clock.

iakov the fool

You obviously need to read the thread. The question is how the OP might approach a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia. For the individual the OP wishes to convince, God is not "a given." I am not "demanding a scientific proof" of anything - but it's likely a member of the RSA will not find "God is a given" or "religion is based on revelation" very convincing.

 

[Jim Parker]

oops

 

[OzSpen]

You obviously need to read the thread. The question is how the OP might approach a member of the Rationalist Society of Australia. For the individual the OP wishes to convince, God is not "a given." I am not "demanding a scientific proof" of anything - but it's likely a member of the RSA will not find "God is a given" or "religion is based on revelation" very convincing. When you're through pontificating off the cuff and have actually read the thread, do let us know.

Why don't you summarise the main issues of the thread as you have seen them, to give Jim something on which to reply. Reading through 111 posts is a tall order for anyone who is busy in ministry.

It would be good to give just a few points to Jim that you would like to discuss with him.

Oz

 

[smaller]

It is much easier and far more rational to convince an unbeliever he is in fact quite evil, inside. And to point to the world in general, as proof of this internal dilemma.

Evil is not rational, nor is it rational to say evil doesn't exist.

 

[Runner]

It is much easier and far more rational to convince an unbeliever he is in fact quite evil, inside. And to point to the world in general, as proof of this internal dilemma.

Evil is not rational, nor is it rational to say evil doesn't exist.

As a Christian, I find the fact that human nature (all human nature) is flawed in some mysterious, fundamental way, and that the world does indeed seem to be in the grip of a malevolent force that is difficult to explain except in supernatural terms, to be compelling arguments for the truth of Christianity. But no self-respecting atheist/rationalist is ever going to accept that the definition that you and I attach to "evil" is the correct one. There are certainly explanations other than the Christian God as to why humans, human relationships and the world in general might be as dysfunctional as they are. One of Frank Turek's pet arguments is that atheists "steal from God" when they concede that something is "wrong" or "evil" because moral judgments such as this can be made only by reference to a higher external standard (i.e., God), but I don't believe this argument will withstand scrutiny. So I see what you are saying as persuasive to someone who accepts the existence of a deity and is trying to decide which of the world's religions is most likely to be true, but not to someone who does not accept the existence of any sort of deity.

Which brings me full circle to my original point here: To reach someone such as Bob, I believe you need evidence that challenges his materialistic paradigm. (I am speaking entirely in human terms, of course, meaning how I would approach someone such as Bob - if God wants to claim Bob for himself at this very moment, the Holy Spirit speaking through a 5-year-old will be able to reach him.)

 

[Runner]

Your attitude is exceptionally arrogant and offensive.
If you cannot be polite, please do not address any of your comments to me.
Thanks.

Hawking is approaching your bottom line question as a physicist.
Physics is the study of nature.
God is not part of nature and is not available for scientific study.
You have posed the (boringly trite) standard task of demanding a scientific proof of something that has nothing to do with science.
Science is based on observation.
Religion is based on revelation.
You are asking religious people to peal a potato with a clock.​

One can only conclude (as I do) that "arrogance," "offensiveness" and "politeness" are in the eye of the beholder. Or perhaps, as the saying goes, it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Edited by staff]
Oops, didn't realize that was in violation of the T of S. Sorry about that.

 

[OzSpen]

It is much easier and far more rational to convince an unbeliever he is in fact quite evil, inside. And to point to the world in general, as proof of this internal dilemma.

Evil is not rational, nor is it rational to say evil doesn't exist.

dictionary.com gives this as one of its definitions of 'rational': 'having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense'.

Are you telling me that Evil involves exercising reason, sound judgment or good sense?

You have a very different understanding to mine as to the meaning of 'rational'. Yours does not agree with the dictionary's definition.

Oz

 

[smaller]

dictionary.com gives this as one of its definitions of 'rational': 'having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense'.

Are you telling me that Evil involves exercising reason, sound judgment or good sense?

You have a very different understanding to mine as to the meaning of 'rational'. Yours does not agree with the dictionary's definition.

Oz

What you'll usually find is that rationalists don't accept evil as an internal matter. But it is and it's NOT rational to say otherwise, given the preponderance of evidence. With hard core resistors of the Gospel it's very easy to tell them they don't believe because they can't, the evil within them can not be "honest" and will instead, resist and pawn them.

 

[smaller]

As a Christian, I find the fact that human nature (all human nature) is flawed in some mysterious, fundamental way, and that the world does indeed seem to be in the grip of a malevolent force that is difficult to explain except in supernatural terms, to be compelling arguments for the truth of Christianity. But no self-respecting atheist/rationalist is ever going to accept that the definition that you and I attach to "evil" is the correct one. There are certainly explanations other than the Christian God as to why humans, human relationships and the world in general might be as dysfunctional as they are. One of Frank Turek's pet arguments is that atheists "steal from God" when they concede that something is "wrong" or "evil" because moral judgments such as this can be made only by reference to a higher external standard (i.e., God), but I don't believe this argument will withstand scrutiny. So I see what you are saying as persuasive to someone who accepts the existence of a deity and is trying to decide which of the world's religions is most likely to be true, but not to someone who does not accept the existence of any sort of deity.

Easier to just tell them they are pawns of evil and can not accept the Gospel, because they are internally pawned and blinded. People, even rationalists, HATE to hear that they are slaves to internal evil. The hope is that they are led to rebel, basically against themselves.

Which brings me full circle to my original point here: To reach someone such as Bob, I believe you need evidence that challenges his materialistic paradigm. (I am speaking entirely in human terms, of course, meaning how I would approach someone such as Bob - if God wants to claim Bob for himself at this very moment, the Holy Spirit speaking through a 5-year-old will be able to reach him.)

Ya tell 'em like it is. Yes, God really does HATE you. Christians pander to them with Gods (intangible to them) LOVE, when they should just tell them scriptural reality.

 

[OzSpen]

What you'll usually find is that rationalists don't accept evil as an internal matter. But it is and it's NOT rational to say otherwise, given the preponderance of evidence. With hard core resistors of the Gospel it's very easy to tell them they don't believe because they can't, the evil within them can not be "honest" and will instead, resist and pawn them.

smaller,

At #120 you back-quote what I wrote at #119, but you mention not a word about what I write at #119. When you don't deal with the content of what I write and are dealing with what you want to talk about, it's called the avoidance of a red herring fallacy (please read this link to understand what you do).

You and others do this so often, it becomes very tiresome and ruins attempts to be rational in our conversations. I'm not at all surprised you find evil to be rational when you don't want to pursue rational discussions with me. Logical fallacies promote erroneous reasoning.

Isa 1:18 (ESV): '“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool'.

Oz

 

[evenifigoalone]

(ToS 2.4)
Address issues/ideas, not persons or personalities. Do not insult, publicly post derogatory opinions of others, post insinuation to belittle or discredit, or otherwise create a hostile environment. Present evidence for support or rebuttal during debate. Bashing the author of another view or opinion is not evidence.

This goes for more than one person.

 

[smaller]

smaller,

At #120 you back-quote what I wrote at #119, but you mention not a word about what I write at #119. When you don't deal with the content of what I write and are dealing with what you want to talk about, it's called the avoidance of a red herring fallacy (please read this link to understand what you do).

With regards to unsaved rationalists, play by their imposed rules, end up with their imposed results.

You and others do this so often, it becomes very tiresome and ruins attempts to be rational in our conversations. I'm not at all surprised you find evil to be rational when you don't want to pursue rational discussions with me. Logical fallacies promote erroneous reasoning.

The approach I refer to was certainly used by Jesus whom I might consider The Ultimate Rationalist with His Own Rules.

Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Isa 1:18 (ESV): '“Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool'.

I've yet to witness to an unsaved rationalist that concedes to the facts of sin, it's habitation in the flesh and the dominion of it's slaveship over the rationalist mind. If you like the reasoning in Isaiah 1, then use it:

4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

smaller,

At #120 you back-quote what I wrote at #119, but you mention not a word about what I write at #119. When you don't deal with the content of what I write and are dealing with what you want to talk about, it's called the avoidance of a red herring fallacy (please read this link to understand what you do).

I reject the majority of your claims in the above charge. Just because you fail to grasp relative points, meaning those who don't submit to your sole impositions, doesn't mean the other people's observations equate to "red herrings." Tossing that term around is also a red herring detractor to conversation.

Unsaved rationalists are not provided any external material or scientific evidence for matters of faith. Even in christian rationalist measures of creation by first cause believers think it's a rational claim. But it is a claim rejected outright by science.

Witnessing does require Holy Spirit assistance from our end in any case. The Holy Spirit tends to be more truthful than people care to listen to. The same Word of God that lifted Moses, hardened Pharaoh. The Word works His Own Things.