Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 10

How should non-believers respond to believers? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

This chapter is rather refreshing in how it comes about as there are times in this book that Humphrys goes after the new atheists. In this, I want to highlight three points in this chapter that stands out to me. All of this comes after his interviews with the Archbishop, the rabbi, and the Muslim. (As far as we know, they sadly did not walk into a bar.)

The first is that Humphrys says like any complex work of history or philosophy, the Bible has to be interpreted for the ignorant, as well as for the informed. 100% correct. What new atheists do is think often that the Bible should just be read literalistically and that it should be immediately understandable to them. This is some of our consumeristic thinking at work. It’s also simply lazy.

Too many atheists and Christians both won’t bother reading something to help them understand the Bible. Even blog posts like this one I get pushback from atheists on as I will link something I have written on in reply and lo and behold, they won’t respond to anything in it. If you have a position that you do not want to read anything on the topic you claim to care about, whether to attack it or to build it up, you really don’t care about that topic.

He also says that too many times, atheists often because they don’t believe think themselves superior intellectually and morally. He does say he understands that as he went through the same, but it just isn’t so. This is a behavior that I see often in atheists I encounter and it really has the effect of convincing me they don’t care about truth as much as they think. They are brilliant by reason of being atheists and Christians are stupid by reason of being believers. I call it atheistic presuppositionalism.

It doesn’t hurt me at all, but it does great harm to an atheist wanting to spread their message. If you mock Christians for not studying and just believing everything and then do the same for anything you read, you’re no better. I still remember Victor Stenger on Unbelievable? saying that for his ideas on the Bible, he relies on Bart Ehrman. Yes. God forbid you read someone that disagrees with you at all. Even today I had someone give the quote to me that Magellan said of “I have seen the shadow of the earth upon the moon, and I have more confidence in the shadow than I have in the church.” Unfortunately, he never said this, but confirmation bias is just as real for an atheist as it can be for a Christian.

Finally, Humphrys writes about how the faith of believers has been a comfort to them and a benefit through struggles. He says that Dawkins and others can find that laughable and sneer, but they should be ashamed of themselves. He ends with saying believers should be treated with respect.

I agree entirely, and that sounds like a good note to end this on.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Will The Real Miss Netherlands Please Stand Up?

How do you demean women? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Too long, we have tried to say that men and women are not different. It has been said that to say women are deficient in any area in comparison to a man is something horrid to say. I still remember the time that a professor got in trouble for saying something along the lines of women not being as good at spatial reasoning as men. There were demands he apologize, which I think he did, but even though I don’t think I was studying apologetics or anything like that at the time, I still had one question.

Was it true?

If it is, then it’s true, and saying “I don’t like it!” doesn’t make it any less true. However, this does not mean that women are less valuable than human beings. There are many things women are superior at. Women tend to be more empathetic I find and compassionate. They tend to more naturally connect with children than men do.

The error many feminists made was to say that if two things are different, in this case, men and women, then that means that one of them must be overall superior and the other overall inferior. This doesn’t follow. All that follows is that the two are different, and yes, men and women are different. Thank God for that one.

Unfortunately, if you try to blur all the differences, then don’t be surprised if people take it to the next level. Most recently, this has happened with the transgender movement. The case in point here is going to be the Miss Netherlands beauty pageant.

For now, we’re going to put aside the morality of beauty pageants themselves. They happen. There’s an obvious reason they do. Women are beautiful. This is hardly breaking news. Sex sells and usually if you want something to sell, it’s not by having handsome men in your ad, but having beautiful women.

In the book of Genesis, when we hear that everything was good, that also includes beautiful. The last creation of God in the week is woman, who is the crown of beauty on God’s creation. Look up many of the noble women in the Bible and what is a common trait that they share? Beauty. Even the quick reference to the daughters of Job at the end of his book. No more beautiful women could be found in all the land than Job’s daughters.

It’s as if one of the most praiseworthy attributes a woman has is her beauty.

Now again, not talking about the morality of beauty pageants, imagine being a woman in the Netherlands and competing willfully in a contest to see if you are the most beautiful woman in the Netherlands. You have taken care of yourself all your life, practiced good hygiene and make-up, ate properly, exercised appropriately, and did all you could to reach this moment. This is going to be your chance to stand up among your fellow women.

Yet you are told that all that natural beauty that you possess emphasized perhaps by make-up (I really don’t care for it as I think it more often hides beauty) is said to not compare to the real winner of the contest. Who is that?

A man who says he’s a woman.

I really wish I was making this up, but I’m not.

What a great insult to a woman to tell her that her born feminine beauty cannot compare to what surgical operations do to the body of a man.

In cases where a woman loses to a woman, a woman can look and see what she can do to improve and do better next time. This applies to beauty pageants, but it also applies to sporting competitions. If she loses to a man who thinks he’s a woman, she cannot do that. She goes home and knows that she lost and there is nothing she can do about it.

Devastating.

What our world is doing to women is cruel. We are changing language to make sure we “include” less than 1% of the population all the while insulting and demeaning all the women out there. It’s not breastfeeding now. It’s chestfeeding. It’s birthing persons. It’s people who menstruate. It’s lady parts being referred to as bonus holes. It’s men being chosen to be promoters of women’s products.

For a society that says they want to fight the patriarchy, they sure don’t mind negating women.

Unfortunately, in the Netherlands, the real winner won’t be acknowledged. That’s the real woman, whoever she was, who should have won the pageant. Our women are being erased more and more in the name of inclusivity and “progress.” It’s honestly getting that if a man is competing in any women’s event, put your money on him. He’s likely to win, even if just because judges want to show how progressive they are.

May we all wake up soon.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 9

What is the core defense of Christianity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re back to Humphrys book again and at the start, he is going on the same old game that we always see. The idea of the evangelical is of course that with Jesus you can go to Heaven. Now I am a critic of this in that we treat Jesus as a means to an end, our own joy, without considering that we in response are to serve as well. We also then ignore what we are supposed to do on Earth. The purpose of Christianity is to get you to Heaven! End of story!

Humphrys does say the problem is no one can prove this. Well first off, we should take the idea of Near-Death Experiences seriously. We cannot veridically prove Heaven in some sense like that, but shouldn’t we consider that if people have these experiences, there might be something to them? I understand fully that this is not proof, of course, but it is still evidence.

Naturally, Humphrys says evangelical promises come without a shred of evidence, despite, you know, him referencing a William Lane Craig debate where he gave five pieces of evidence for belief in the existence of God and the only response was that none of it was true. Now some people could be believers on poor evidence, and I’m sure they are, but there are many intellectual people who are believers on grounds of solid evidence. Humphrys can say they’re wrong, but they’re still using evidence.

Then at the end of this chapter we’re covering, he says the core defense of Christians is that if they could prove it, it wouldn’t be faith. This is a horrid misunderstanding on many levels. For one thing, there is plenty in this world we accept as true that cannot be proven, such as scientific truths. These are inductive truths. They’re only known with greater degrees of probability.

Second, there is a great difference between not being able to prove something and having no evidence whatsoever for it. In a court of law, a prosecution is not told to prove that the defendant did the crime. They are to make a case that eliminates reasonable doubt. That doesn’t mean they get up and say “I can’t prove it, so it must be faith.”

A lawyer will produce his evidence, his opponent will reply, and then it is up to the jury to decide based on the evidence. It could be everyone agrees on the evidence presented, but the interpretation is different. This is something that you see regularly if you read mystery novels. There can be a lot of evidence that makes it look like X did the crime, but then when all is revealed, it turns out Y did it and you look back and say “Of course. Now it makes sense.” Despite that, the evidence NEVER changed. It’s the interpretation that did.

Finally, and obviously, Humphrys does not know what faith is, any more than the new atheists that he relies on knows what it is. I have written this article that I refer to time and time again. When Humphrys thinks he’s criticizing my position, he’s not. If this is what he thinks it is, I can see why he thinks the new atheists are so persuasive. Unfortunately, when you go against the real thing, it’s easy to see why they are not persuasive.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 8

What is the impact of bad sermons? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Most every speaker has had a bad presentation at times. They have had something happen where they didn’t know what to say or where they said something outright stupid. Unfortunately, when that happens in ministry, the results can be disastrous. Reviewing what I highlighted in chapter 11 where we start today, I saw one pop up immediately and as soon as I started it, I remembered how it ended because of how terrible it was.

Even worse, this took place at a funeral with the wife and kids right there. A funeral is worse not just because the people are grieving, but weddings and funerals are two of the times you are most likely going to have lost people in the church. Your average person who doesn’t want anything to do with a church can come to one of these out of deep respect, and personally, a funeral usually has the closest to a sermon.

So what does the vicar say here?

Terrible though it is to us, God grants the same freedom to cancer cells that he grants even to the most noble and virtuous of us.

Humphrys is right in pointing out that cancer cells are not intelligent agents that can move and make decisions. Of course, Christians need to be able to have a place in their worldview to explain cancer, but this is not a valid parallel at all. God does allow bad things to happen, including deaths from cancer, but are we going to put cancer cells on the same level as human beings?

Fortunately, Humphrys I don’t think sees all ministers like this, but too many will remember this. Sadly, we will have people easily remember the worst things we did to them. “Think of someone who hurt you.” Right now, most all of you have the image of someone in mind immediately.

Moving on from here, Humphrys asks about prayer. Isn’t it a pointless exercise? Isn’t the main emphasis asking for something? Well, no. The main emphasis should be worship and glorification, something I admit I need to work on as well. There is also thankfulness and the asking is not just health and material objects and items like that, but also forgiveness.

Humphrys also says in the Bible, God was performing miracles all the time. Hardly. You have an abundance of miracles in only three time periods, the Exodus and the conquest, the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and the apostolic age starting with the ministry of Jesus. Miracles are recorded not because they are common, but because they are exceptional.

Getting back to prayer after all of this, Humphrys says God hears every prayer that is offered up, and yet doesn’t bother to intervene. I daresay Humphrys knows a lot of people who can speak of an answered prayer, yet will he say that is a coincidence? It seems that he has to.

What about something like Craig Keener’s works on miracles that show miracles specifically coming after prayer? Humphrys and others who do this have a unique method. If you pray for something and it doesn’t happen, that proves God doesn’t answer prayers. If you pray for something and it happens, that proves that coincidences take place.

Rabbi Sacks thankfully does deal with Humphrys well in an interview style saying that Humphrys seems to have this idea that the world ought to be just. This is ironically where C.S. Lewis began as well. Humphrys then says it needs to be like science where we test something again and again and it is proven and religion is asking the opposite.

Well, that’s just false. Having something happen again and again in science doesn’t mean “proof.” It means that it is incredibly likely, the same as in history. It can be so likely it would be nonsense to try to do some things again. If I stick my hand on a hot stove and I burn it, I’m not going to want to try it again. If I drop something and it falls repeatedly, I’m justified in thinking, contrary to Hume, that that is what will happen every time, all things being equal.

Sacks also rightly says that Humphrys buys into a sort of soft scientism where something should be scientifically established before it is acceptable. Much of our knowledge does not come about that way, such as our moral judgments and the rules of math and any number of other ideas we hold. Most of the claims we hold dearest are those that are NOT scientifically proven, such as that our loved ones love us, or that something is good to do, or that beauty is real.

Humphrys lists a lot of things he considers evils and said this would not happen in a just world. Well first off, who said the world is just right now? In a just world, the Son of God would not be crucified when He did no wrong. God promises justice, but He never promises a timeframe to it for us. Justice delayed is not justice denied.

Briefly, Humphrys talks about biblical interpretation with the idea that we are supposed to take the texts literally, though not stating what that means. I contend you should always take the text literally, but not literalistically. If something is written as a metaphor, taking it literally is reading it as a metaphor. If something is taken as a straight forward account, taking it literally is doing just that. Literalistic reading says there can be no inflection or change in language and no stylistic ideas of hyperbole, sarcasm, etc.

So ultimately as we conclude this part, it still looks like again all Humphrys really has is evil. This has just never really struck me as a strong objection to Christianity, especially since Christianity by necessity has an evil action right at the center, the crucifixion of Christ. Christianity is about dealing with the evil in part, so how is evil a defeater for it?

Beats me.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 7

What is Humphrys looking for? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re moving ahead now to where Humphrys starts doing interviews. In this, he interacts with a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim. To his credit, he brings on people who are informed about what they believe. WIll he find God doing this?

Doubtful, especially since at the start he says he doesn’t want to convert to Judaism any more than he wants to be a Muslim or recover his Christianity, but he would like to believe in God. But why? What benefit does he get from this? Is God just a means to an end? Will Humphrys feel better about himself if he has God?

If he finds the Christian God, for instance, that will mean repentance. That will mean humility. That will mean he has to accept that God has a good reason for allowing the evil that he complains about. If he accepts Islam, will he be willing to embrace all of the teachings and follow Muhammad as a prophet? Is he prepared to have his good and bad deeds weighed out on the scales? For Judaism, it will depend on the branch, but there’s not much emphasis from what I see usually on an afterdeath.

Humphrys gives no reason, though he admits it sounds pathetic.

But if you only want God as a means to an end for you, it’s not a shock if you don’t find Him. Why think He will let Himself be used?

One big issue he has for his interviewees is evil. This is Humphrys #1 argument against God. Now I have said before that I don’t understand what you gain from the problem of evil if you remove God. The problem is still there and you get rid of a solution of hope to the problem.

Humphrys says that most tyrants seem to die peacefully on their beds. Hitler could have had he not gone after Russia and just stayed in his own land. For Humphrys, this dispels the idea that virtue is its own reward and that God is merciful.

For the first, why would Humphrys want to be virtuous? It is not so he can please God obviously. Is he just wanting to please his fellow man? Does Humphrys do good purely because he benefits from it? These tyrants certainly didn’t care what anyone else thought of them, unless they wanted to kill them. What makes Humphrys different in the long run?

For the second, God is only merciful if He deals with evil on Humphrys timescale? Who says? If Christianity is true, God is merciful to all of us as we all deserve death right now. Of course, Humphrys would likely say he doesn’t deserve that as he’s generally a good person. What about all those evil people though?

Because it’s always someone else’s evil that needs to be dealt with. Whenever I hear atheists complain about evil, they are complaining about what other people do. They are not complaining about what they do.

Rowan Williams is shown in the interview of saying that with God, there is always hope. Of course, this is hard to explain to someone who doesn’t understand the concept of Heaven or especially of resurrection. If you think death is the end of the story, then obviously the story is terrible sometimes. Williams’s view is that it is not the end.

That doesn’t mean those words are always helpful to parents who have lost a child to cancer, but arguments aren’t the purpose of that. Charity is. This is when you come alongside and listen.

Humphrys also said that Abraham was presented with a choice that God said “If you believe in me, you must sacrifice your child.” We can question the premise, but even if we go with it, note something important. Isaac never died. It was just to show how much Abraham believed in the promise that through Isaac his covenant of offspring would be fulfilled. Abraham had to believe that either God would stop it or else He would raise Isaac from the dead.

Sacks, the rabbi, also tells Humphrys that if Humphrys didn’t have faith, he wouldn’t ask the question. I think faith is being misunderstood, but I get at what Sacks is asking. The question is asked because you expect there to be an answer. Why? If this was an atheistic universe, well, it’s just some people are going to get the short straw and tough luck it turned out to be you. You can be comforting and kind to someone suffering, but there’s really no meaning in their suffering nor any ultimate hope.

Humphrys says Sacks ultimately says that if it happened, there must be a reason why it happened and God will use it for good. Can you argue with that? Humphrys says no, which is the problem for the problem of evil. The one using it has to demonstrate that there is no good reason for God to allow evil XYZ. Quite a tall order. Not only that, he also has to deal with all the positive arguments for God’s existence, which thus far Humphrys never does.

Thus far then, color me unconvinced.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 6

Can materialism sustain a culture? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, there are only two things I really want to point out that I find interesting. Humphrys goes against the new atheist movement where he does suggest that the death of religion is not coming as quickly as some people think. If anything, it looks like the reverse is happening. There is still a growing desire for something beyond this world.

He points to an article called God Returns to Europe found in Prospect magazine and written by Eric Kaufmann. He says that it looks like religion is coming back and one reason is women who are religious tend to marry young and tend to have a lot of babies. This isn’t just Catholic women. This is also Protestant women.

I concur with this and think the same is due for America. Those on the left are busy killing their own children in abortion or rendering them sterile through transgenderism. There is a reason secular pro-life is growing here in America and I suspect it’s because they saw the impact of abortion on their generation and don’t want to see that going on anymore.

There are also more and more cases of people undergoing sex change operations and regretting it, many of them suing. I have said before that if you are going into law, this is a good field to jump into. There will be loads of lawsuits against doctors for performing these surgeries and enticing minors to go into them.

So in one case, either the population is dead, or in the second, they can’t have children anyway.

Those of us who are Christian do tend to believe that marriage is for life and that children are a good thing. We also want our children to be raised with our values and will instill them in them. Of course, the culture will get some of them, but as the cultural power wants, it returns back to the hands of the Christians.

The second is that Humphrys says we are more materialistic than we have ever been, and yet we want something more. Those of us who are Christians are not shocked at all at this finding. With material things, one usually always wants more and it is never enough and yet it is also the case of diminishing returns.

Man wants more than just hedonistic pleasure in this life and we usually look down on those who just live for that pleasure. We can enjoy the movies Hollywood puts out, but few of us would really want to be like the people in Hollywood.

We were promised Utopia and it didn’t deliver. If anything, as I pointed out recently, the breakdown of religion could have unleashed something atheists think is worse. Could it be that in the end, we will find those principles we abandoned turned out to be good ones? Could it be maybe the family really is what is important? Could it be that the pushback to Pride last month is starting to open the eyes of people?

None of this is a shock to us. We knew this wouldn’t work long-term. How many of us have enjoyed a day of great pleasures and in the end still said, “There has to be something more.” We are often like the children on Christmas day who open their gifts and wonder “Is there not anything more?”

No. None of this establishes theism, but it is a pointer to it. If a worldview can’t be lived out, there’s a problem with it. Are we opening our eyes at last to the bankruptcy of materialism?

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: In God We Doubt Part 5

How does an agnostic describe Christianity? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The main point of this chapter of John Humphrys’s book I want to comment on is something he says in response to Cargo Cults. After describing them, he says we might find them to be ludicrous, but imagine going back in time and having to explain Christianity to people of the past. What would it look like?

I can assure you that my explanation would be nothing like what Humphrys says. This is a large part of the problem. Humphrys knows intelligent Christians. He could have easily ran this by them and all of them I am sure would have said “I don’t believe that!” Naturally, he didn’t. The description is too long to quote entirely, but as I read it, I didn’t recognize the worldview that I was reading.

He says that your God had His Son born of a virgin (Which I do affirm) and yet He was somehow the Son of God despite that, and He is a God of love who loves so much He had His own Son brutally killed to atone for everyone’s sins, but this was good since after He died He rose again and ascended into Heaven. Even if you are a non-Christian, just look at that introduction even. Does that sound anyway like how a Christian would present their message?

Let’s say something about this God of love part. Yes. God is a God of love, but the problem is so many people think He’s JUST love. Consider marriage as an example. Love is foundational to a marriage and greatly important, but while everything revolves around love, it is not just love. It’s building a life together, planning out finances, deciding about children, having a healthy sex life, learning to deal with conflict, etc.

As for what happened to Jesus, it is so much more than that. It is also about Jesus being the king of the world. Jesus is now the judge sitting at the right hand of God who will return to judge the world, but for now He rules and we are all to be in service to Him.

Okay, but that’s it. Right? That’s not so bad. Oh no. Humphrys has more to say.

He goes on to say you eat his body and blood which is not really His body and blood and it’s not one God, but three, because there is Father, Son, and a Holy Spirit. When asked about sacrifices, you say that they are not needed, but if you were honest, your God is also a mass-murderer and that millions have been killed in the name of His religion. As for blasphemers, Humphrys decides to switch to what you might say about Muslims and concludes your listeners might wonder who is primitive and who is civilized.

Except this isn’t an honest representation. It’s entirely a straw man. Humphrys would balk if we presented evolution as from goo to the zoo and then to you. Not only that, but he would be right to do so. Your opponents should be presented in their best light. That Humphrys doesn’t do this leads me to conclude he’s not really honest in his presentation.

On a minor point, he does have a comment about the Shroud of Turin which he says is a fake. Unfortunately, this is something still hotly debated and I have numerous books I can refer to that make a compelling case for the Shroud being authentic. Would it have killed Humphrys to consider presenting the case?

Finally, one statement he does get right a professor of divinity or an archbishop to know that if Jesus did not rise body and soul from the dead, then He is a mere mortal. There might be a great church in His name today, but He is a mortal, and he rightly quotes Paul saying that if Christ is not risen we are still in our sins. At least that much is right.

When we return to this work, Humphrys will start talking about the state of the nation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

David Silverman’s Regret

What happens when you defeat your opponent only to unleash something worse? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Remember the new atheists? For a while, they were all the rage with people talking about them regularly. They made atheism more public than it had been before. While they had declared a war on religion, it was mainly Christianity. After all, Sam Harris began writing The End of Faith when 9/11 took place, and yet most of that was not geared towards Islam but Christianity.

And what is Sam Harris doing today? He’s well-known now for his remark about the 2020 election that he didn’t care if Hunter Biden had the bodies of dead children in his basement. All that mattered was getting Trump. Whatever you think of Trump, Harris’s statement is extremely problematic. He was willing to go with a known lie and sacrifice truth and lie to the public because, well, he knows what is better for them.

Silverman looks at what he saw and is aghast at it. I was recently pointed to an article he wrote on substack.

I cannot quote it entirely seeing as it is behind a paywall. (Remember, I have a Patreon below) However, I do have a friend who quoted a large part of it in sharing it. Basically, it’s about how the new atheism was supposed to destroy religion and thus create a utopia of freethought and rationalism where the days of insane religious ideas was behind us.

It didn’t work out that way.

First off, I am in no way saying the new atheists were really a formidable force. They weren’t. I have several blogs here on that front. However, they were certainly a force rhetorically. They had cute little slogans that seemed sensible, but most people weren’t interested in the unpacking necessarily to show their numerous errors.

Second, I am also sure if he were alive today that Christopher Hitchens would be one against this movement as well. That cannot be known for sure, but I do remember him as being one very interested in American history. When he visited SES for a debate, I was told he was impressed by the seminary and even offered to teach a course on Thomas Jefferson.

Third, and this is really important, I do want to commend Silverman on this. It takes a lot of guts to write a public article and say “I was wrong.” Silverman did that. We should not be attacking him for this. We should be commending him.

Now let’s look at the part that I have to quote.

I failed to consider that the members of my movement could reject skepticism yet label this rejection as skepticism to excuse their actions—and get away with it! I never envisioned that every significant player in the movement (save the fledgling Atheists for Liberty, on which I currently serve as Advisory Board Chair) would abandon our core principles and embrace the political hard Left, forsaking every belief and individual that was even slightly to the Right. I did not anticipate that the movement would leave the movement, become swallowed in Critical Social Justice, and lose its relevance and effectiveness in the process. I did not see it coming.
Man by nature is a religious creature. If you remove something for him to worship, he will find something else. That something could be himself, his own happiness. God is often a restraint in many ways on what a man can do. If a man knows there is a judge that He will stand before someday who has all the omni qualities, that can affect his living. If he knows what he does impacts for eternity, that should definitely affect his living.
While there is often something consistent between Christians and the right, the atheist movement saw it necessarily so. So why jump on the bandwagon to defend the LGBT group? Well, they oppose the Christians so let’s go for it! Anything that opposes Christianity is a friend since Christianity is seen as a great evil that has to be eradicated.
If man becomes the god, ultimately, that will pass to the state and who will become the new rulers? It will be those who consider themselves the elites. (Perhaps the term “brights” comes to mind?) It is a parallel with how the new atheists saw Christianity. After all, their opponents were the ones who were people of faith (Which they did not understand) and the new atheists were the people of reason. Obviously, reason is superior to faith. Right? Obviously then, what should be rejected are the standards the Christians lived with.
Thus, get rid of all of this outdated morality, especially when it comes to sex. Get rid of anything that is said to be “Faith-based” (A term I don’t like anyway.) If the Christians tend to want the people on the right to be our governing leaders, then we will reject that. Whatever we can use to paint Christians as the enemy, it will be done. If your identity is not to be found in Christ, then it will be found in your tribe instead.
So, what has happened since we “killed God”? Not atheist Utopia. We won the booby prize—the religion of wokeism has completely taken over the Left side of politics, splitting both families and the nation itself. Riding on a wave of vapid emotion and a juvenile refusal to apply skepticism, the Woke Left—mostly atheists—have embraced this belief system as though it were the greatest new religion ever. Maybe it is.
Any attempt by man to bring about Utopia on Earth has always failed. Always. My ex-wife was once going through a book about how what was being sought was progress and not perfection. Progress though requires a true goal. If progress is just wherever you are going, then everything is progress. However, if you are going the wrong direction, progress is turning around and going the other way.
Silverman is also right in that this has split families and our nation. The best way to split the nation is really to split the family. The family is the foundation. Remember that meme that was shared years ago before the Supreme Court redefined marriage about what would happen if “same-sex marriage” was allowed?
That bottom one? Yep. Happening now. It didn’t start falling apart when marriage was redefined, but that was a killing blow in many ways. I blame a lot of this going all the way back to the sexual revolution. We unleashed a power that we did not know what it was capable of.
And ironically as a Christian, I think what the chart says would happen didn’t, since two people of the same sex can’t marry each other no matter what the court says.
Could it be the sexual standards of Christianity had a point? Could it be there was a reason abortion was a great evil and reproduction was a great good? Could it be that there was a reason that marriage should be for life for the majority of people and that marriage isn’t about your personal happiness? Could it be there’s a danger that happens when sex is removed from the confines of marriage? Could it be there was a reason marriage was established as between one man and one woman?
The new atheists also saw Christians making their decisions based on emotion alone, something I have spoken against as well here, but made a mistake of thinking themselves immune to that. After all, they were the men of reason. They would not fall to such a thing. Unfortunately, they have. One of the surest signs you will fall for something is that you think you cannot fall for it.
I have said before that I am the man who has avoided pornography throughout my life. So in my dating life, I throw caution to the wind. Right? Wrong. Nowadays, I don’t go up elevators alone with women or ride in cars with them and if on a date, I would never go back to her place or have her come to mine. The moment I think I am above the temptation, I have started my fall.
However, lacking a deity, it allowed wokeism to reside within—and be propagated by—the state. This is why the Left has adopted it. We may have subdued the lion of Christianity, but we failed to eradicate religion; we merely revealed that the lion might have been safeguarding us from the Woke Kraken. This creature is now unshackled, entrenched in our government and education system, and is literally coming for your children.
Pay attention to that first part. Remove the deity, and the deity becomes something within. What is the means of the new evangelism? It is the State. When the Christians disagreed with you, they disagreed. They didn’t try to force their way. When the left disagrees, here comes the power of the State!
Silverman did not eradicate religion as was his goal. He instead just moved it somewhere else. He defeated in his mind what was the greater evil without realizing that that “evil” was keeping something else at bay. Chesterton said years ago that before you remove a fence, you should see why it was put up in the first place.
Christianity did serve to contain man’s great evil and propel him to something greater than himself, and not the state. It still does for many of us. It teaches us that there is a real king named Jesus and we owe our allegiance to Him. It teaches us that there is a real right and there is a real wrong and there is a purpose to our lives here and we are to seek more than just the temporary good.
This idea—that atheists should stop resisting and instead actively promote Christianity, perhaps even joining churches, in an attempt to fortify it so that it may defeat wokeism—is gaining traction. Evan Riggs wrote in the European Conservative: “This is a call for sheer pragmatism… Of the two inescapable religious choices before us, Christianity is undoubtedly the better option.” My friend Peter Boghossian echoed a similar sentiment, tweeting, “Better to believe that a man walked on water than all men can give birth.”
I have been pleased with what I have seen from Boghossian and Lindsay lately on this front, two writers I have critiqued on their work on atheism before. However, a word of caution to the atheist movement. You might just wind up seeing that there is a lot more reason and truth to Christianity than you thought. Be prepared. The king will not be used. Christianity is not a means to an end. We go with Christianity not because it produces the best end result, which it does, but because it is true.
Maybe you should consider that question as well.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Why I Do Not Celebrate The 4th of July

What are we to celebrate on this day? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

I’m writing this a day in advance so that people will have enough time to think about what I have said and thus think about how they will celebrate this holiday. Some of you will be puzzled by what I say. I am a patriotic American after all aren’t I? Whether one agrees with my opinions or not, have I not been politically minded at many times on this blog? Do I not state my position as a conservative?
Despite all that, I want it to be clear that I do not celebrate and I will not celebrate the 4th of July.

The reason I don’t is that I am an American and I celebrate what I am supposed to celebrate.

When December comes around, we don’t all gather around and talk about how we’re looking forwardto celebrating the 25th of December. Happy couples don’t  go and make plans for what they will do on the 14th of February. Little kids don’t get busy picking out a costume while parents pick out candy to deal out on the 31st of October. Nope. We talk about Christmas, Valentine’s Day, and Halloween instead.

Somehow, when we get to this day, we name it by the day on the calendar. Why? There is a specific reason for this day just as there is for the other day and many other holidays you want to mention. (Obviously, Easter and Thanksgiving aren’t the same since those fall on different days each year.) What is it that we celebrate on the day that falls on the fourth day of July?

We celebrate independence. We celebrate that we are a free people. We celebrate that we are self-governing and no one else rules over us. We have people who fought and died when it was extremely risky to do so. They did it so we could be free.

So am I celebrating the 4th of July? No. That’s just a calendar date. I am celebrating Independence Day. I am celebrating that at least for the time being, I live in a country where I have more freedom than I do most anywhere else in the world. I can go to church on Sunday and not fear persecution. I can speak freely if I want to. I have the right to bear arms.

I say about forthe time being because freedom is just a generation away from being wiped out every time. All it takes is for one generation to not care. They might say that they want us to be a free people, but these people will value something else more than freedom and they will see fit to curtail the freedom of others for what they deem to be a greater good. One most often is the concept of security. Just sacrifice a little bit of freedom and you can be safe. It doesn’t work. There’s a saying that those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

So Tuesday, I’m celebrating not a day on the calendar, but Independence Day, and I will call it that and not “The 4th of July.” This day has a meaning. The word means something. I will keep that word.

Happy Independence Day!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

The Loss of FInal Causality

What happened to the why questions? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We all know about little children. The constant question they ask is “Why?” Many groups will try to claim them as their own. Those include scientists, journalists, lawyers, philosophers, theologians, etc. There are many professions where one of the questions you ask is “Why?”

Except we don’t really ask that much anymore.

There’s a quote said to be from Polkinghorne where he gets asked the question “Why is water boiling on the stove?” One such answer is “Because heat is being applied to the water thus causing its molecules to move further apart and thus turn from a liquid state into a gas state.” There’s another answer to the question as well.

“Because I am going to fix tea.”

Too often in our scientific age, we think the answer is the first one, but that is not what we have in mind. The first question merely describes what is going on. The second question asks a different question, the question of purpose.

In Aristotelian thought, a final cause is the reason why something is. What purpose does it serve? What is the end goal? This does not imply that the agent is acting intentionally. Kudzu grows and spreads. So do viruses. It’s not said that these are acting with an intentional plan.

Thomist Philosopher Edward Feser gives an example of an iceberg floating through water. As it goes on its way, the water in its area of effect becomes colder. It does not become cotton candy. Yes, this gets us into the fifth way for the existing of God, but that is not the point today.

Even if one holds to evolution, evolution depends on final causality. The goal is the passing on of the genes so that the most fit can survive. It’s literally described as the survival of the fittest.

Over a week ago, I saw an atheist make this argument in a group. I only still have it because it’s so monumentally stupid that I couldn’t believe anyone made it. Lo and behold, the capacity for human stupidity ever increases. So here is one of the stupidest arguments ever in all its infamy.

If God created everything and created everything perfect. Than God created the man’s anus to stretch large enough to fit a raccon inside of it. Just think that’s only part of humans body God created to stretch that big. God certainly wanted men to have big stuff in there

Leaving aside if God created everything perfect, it was one of those arguments that I had to have it register a bit before I said anything. I just couldn’t believe someone said something so monumentally ignorant. However, they did and so I asked a simple question.

I don’t remember the exact words, but it was asking what was known about final causality.

Because if you know what the final cause of the anus is, you know that the argument just doesn’t work. It violates that order.

When debates happen in “Pride Month”, we forget that final causality. We don’t know the purpose of so many things today. We don’t understand the purpose of sex, the family, and marriage, for a start. We think we can just change what any of these are and we’ll all get along fine.

We won’t, and I’m sure that a lot of people now are asking “What really is wrong about showing items of a sexual nature to extremely young children?” This is the normalization of pederasty starting.

When we treat sex as if it’s just a recreational activity and it doesn’t even matter the sexes of the people involved, we are lowering sex and ourselves. When we treat a family as just any group of people together, we are lowering the family. When we make marriage just a long-term relationship that anyone can leave at any time for any reason, we are lowering marriage.

Will that impact our society?

Look around and tell me what you think.

This is not to deny the role of the gospel in our society, but the gospel doesn’t dwell in a vacuum. We need good thinkers who can apply the principles of the gospel to life and in studying God’s world just as much as we should His Word, then we need to understand why the universe is the way it is. Why did God make things the way He did?

Bring back final causality.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)