Derbyshire reviews Spencer: The seeds of defeat in the war on terror are sown by Christianity
posted at 1:29 pm on August 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I haven’t read the book so I’ll reserve comment, but how often does Robert Spencer get attacked from the right? Mmm, that’s red:
[V]ery uncomfortably for a Christian apologist like Robert Spencer (so uncomfortably he has not confronted it in this book, nor in any of the other writings of his I have perused; nor have I ever seen it mentioned in the rest of the burgeoning literature of Islamophobia), a great enabler of globalization has been the Christian tradition. If all men are brothers, heathens only a little less enlightened than Christians, they why should not a Pakistani, or a Somali, or for that matter a Mexican, come to live in the U.S.A.? Why should not ten million of each do so? Would it not in fact be un-Christian to refuse entry to those tens of millions? It beggars belief that anyone should hold such a civilizationally-suicidal view, but many Christians do—the current President of the United States, for example.
That leads more or less directly to this book’s most surprising omission: a failure to prescribe. If things are as Robert Spencer says they are, what is to be done? He offers nothing but a vague, half-hearted statement about the need for an “alliance” between “Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims [huh?—the previous 206 pages have left the rather strong impression that the only secular Muslim is a dead Muslim], and atheists.” (p. 207) What should we of the West do if such an alliance fails to appear?
Most of our Christian readers will take strong exception to the idea that Christianity is necessarily an enabler of globalization. Fair enough, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t note a striking example of Derb’s point on our own site within the past 24 hours.
I like this passage, too:
Perhaps the humane forbearance of the Prince of Peace, and the moral universalism that His teachings imply, bear the seeds of self-destruction. Those seeds were slow to germinate in the long centuries when great mass migrations of people into well-settled lands could only be military affairs. However, the globalization movement of the past fifty years has allowed millions of souls to move and settle peaceably into the old Christian lands; and our old ideals, with whatever contribution—major and critical, according to Spencer—from their Christian component, have urged us to welcome the settlers, and have called fierce obloquy on anyone who complains.
Spencer can’t have it both ways. If “even the secularists” are “rooted in the Judeo-Christian culture,” then so are their impulses to hate that culture and yield to its enemies. So what does he expect? Indeed, the secularists, with all their Christophobia, are a better bet for standing and fighting against jihadism than Christians are. If there were a proposal to impose Sharia law in your town, who would you rather see riding to your aid: Christopher Hitchens, or Bishop Muskens?
Spencer has promised PJM he’ll respond. In the meantime, anyone read the book yet and care to reply?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I have another phrase for those qualities: Humanity.
Well, at least until this afternoon, when I found out that humanity is really just an excuse.
RushBaby on August 21, 2007 at 8:16 PM
It’s not an excuse. No one will be excused because “they’re just human.”
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Gotta run. Pedestrian can carry on for me.
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 8:20 PM
PRCalDude on August 21, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Yup, it’s a rationalization employed to allow the user to avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 8:21 PM
LOL! You keep THAT up and you’re gonna’ SHAKE AP’s faith in us. You don’t want to be responsible for destroying his mental model of “what Christians are like,” do you?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 8:24 PM
I wouldn’t have come up with “Ask him how he knows he is saved.” That was awesome.
Hurry back.
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Have a great day day, PRCalDude!
Where were we? I want to go back to that two-word traffic generating mechanism. You know. “Pity me.”
No need to pity AP. He does a splendid job of it all by himself. Why tamper with perfection? I am sure that he pities himself everyday because he has to interact with “the faithful” in order to generate more hits/traffic — day after day after day. Whaddaya’ bet he feels like he’s already IN hell.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 8:30 PM
BTW, great posts INC!
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 8:37 PM
But you demand proof where none is even conceivable. Can you prove that a piece of music is beautiful? Can you prove that you love your children or that they love you? You can say it but can you prove it? No, of course not. These are beyond the idea of the merely provable.
Besides what possible proof would you accept? What categories of evidence? Can you articulate the kinds of proofs that you would deem worthy? You demand the conceptually impossible and then project your frustration onto the subject (and participants) of the discussion.
Life is not a mathematical exercise or a high school physics class. Existence continues beyond the horizons of your perceptions. Your experience cannot exhaust the universe. There is more to the world than your meager philosophy.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Read that sentence again.
aengus on August 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM
The reason you don’t see any difference or understand, is because you don’t read the whole post. You only quote part of my post. You leave out the defining statement.
Now I understand how you come to your conclusions. You only read 1/2 of what people write, and understand 1/2 of that.
And your answer to when you or your family is ill, you will forsake a Christian based hospital because they are irrational? Or you let them heal you and drop and your knees and thank God? Or you let them heal you, and then go on bashing what a foolish waste of time, to build hospitals to help humanity.
Now once again, where is that Atheist hospital located? Where are thos athiests out helping the poor and the least among us? How many “big brothers” are athiests? How much do you suck from an organization that you detest and ridicule? But when needed you come begging for help?
right2bright on August 21, 2007 at 8:56 PM
So you admit you cannot prove God exists?
Guess what? I read the sentence before this one.
No, you don’t.
What does this entire hypothetical have to do with anything I said or anything anyone else has said in this thread? Or is it just something you wanted to get off your chest in attempts to gain a perceived moral high ground on me?
No matter how many of these stupid questions you ask it won’t change the fact that your God does not exist, and really, I’m sorry for that.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 9:04 PM
No matter how many times you claim that it likewise does not make it so, nor does the fact that I cannot prove he exists prove that he does not exist. The only thing that is proven by your insisting on stating as a fact something that you cannot prove is just how arrogant you are for making a claim to know for certain something that in fact you cannot prove.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 9:08 PM
It proves that you believe in something that you cannot prove exists. Which is why believing in your God is just as logical as believing in Russel’s teapot or the Matrix et cetera.
I can prove your God doesn’t exist, I can prove the Greek gods don’t exist, I can prove that the Muslim God doesn’t exist. What I can’t prove is that a God doesn’t exist.
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 9:13 PM
Do it then……
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Hm if Allah wants to generate the ultimate HA post he needs to find a story that comprises Creationism, Catholic-Protestant Sectarianism and Amnesty all in one go. Good luck!
aengus on August 21, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Before I go about writing I would like to know what needs to be proven to you to say “God doesn’t exist.”
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 9:23 PM
That would be like the bloggers version of the orgasmitron.
Gotta’ go. It’s been fun. Thanks for the dissonance.
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Ah, these threads are like a roaring, crackling fire. Fun to drink a beer while looking at it, but touching them is dangerous.
SouthernDem on August 21, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Not many people try to prove that God exists. They just experience him. The ending of Contact is like that, were the evidence points to the traveler having just fallen a short distance, where in her experience she traveled to another world. She experienced it, but she can’t prove it.
Christians also don’t claim that they did anything to achieve their faith. The Bible is quite clear it is a gift.
(There is a debate whether they had to accept it of their own free will, but that’s another thread.)
The fact that AP has his heart open to an invisible friend leads me to think he will believe (again) sooner or later. It happens to a lot of people to want to really think things through carefully before accepting them as an adult, and part of that is to live out the alternative for a while.
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Nonfactor on August 21, 2007 at 9:23 PM
All you have to do is prove by application of scientific method that Jesus Christ was not exactly who he claimed he was.
doriangrey on August 21, 2007 at 9:33 PM
Silly review by Derb, sillier comments by AP.
Justice is not cruelty.
corona on August 21, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Of course I admit that God cannot be proven to exist. No serious theologian has tried to do that for several hundred years. But you fail to understand that the terms you are using to debate this are meaningless gibberish. The “existence” of God is not within the realm of the provable. Within the crude and very simple terms of your discussion God does not “exist” because God is not like Mount Everest or the number 10.
But you live your life everyday on assumptions you cannot prove. David Hume famously demonstrated that cause and effect is a function of own mental interpretations and cannot be prove through your own perceptions. You can prove that when A happens B follows. But this does not prove that A causes B. But you live your life quite happy with cause and effect though it is beyond proof; indeed the whole concept of proof assumes cause and effect. Without cause and effect nothing can be proven.
You act like Christians think God is an old man in the sky or that we can spot Heaven with telescopes. Such silliness. No Christian over 5 believes that. 2000 years of theology offer far richer and infinitely more subtle insights than you seem to know about, much less appreciate.
Thomas the Wraith on August 21, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Darn. Only 424 comments.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Seriously?
On those issues, draw the conclusions you choose to, but my only point is that I haven’t necessarily given you information.
I’ve known people who took the pill for health reasons, and I’ve known married people who took awhile to have sex.
Either I’m a married person who has sex, which is something you don’t want to know, or I’m a married person who doesn’t have sex, which is something you also don’t want to know.
Honestly, I think this is a strange thing for you to hit on, especially considering you know nothing about me as a person other than my claim that I’m a Christian who doesn’t listen to the pope.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I guess it takes you over an hour to do this, or are you just hoping we’ll all go away and forget this thread?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Exactly and a pretty good analogy too. That’s why I have a lot of genuine empathy for people who don’t feel God’s love. Having the gift, imho, is not necessarily tied to being pious. Personally, I did little to earn it beyond accepting and appreciating it.
TheBigOldDog on August 21, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Which is essentially how we all feel about our own belief system, otherwise we’d believe something else, but for some reason Christians are supposed to feel that other people are right too. Even further, we’re supposed to believe that our belief isn’t any better than others.
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Whew!
I just returned. Now I gotta read all of these posts to “play catch-up”!! :-)
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 10:58 PM
I missed this.
The fact that some secular progressives are impressed with their own “goodness” doesn’t disprove the fact that some Christians are also.
(Obviously one has to scroll back up to the time hacks to get the context.)
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Yeah, I agree with ya. Allahpundit is really cool. But I really like Texas Rainmaker and also “The View from 1776″.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 11:23 PM
My bad.
I meant Baldilocks is a very, very close SECOND to HotAir.
Sorry for the uh, well, typo….
:-)
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I heard a good comment to describe Christianity. It’s one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread.
Another way to look at it, you’re either the thief on the left or the thief on the right. Jesus was crucified between two criminals, one joined him in paradise that day, and the other didn’t. Neither deserved it.
Mojave Mark on August 21, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Hey buddy,
I am still re-reading the previous comments. But I wanted to quickly comment on your comment here.
To be honest with you, I used to think the EXACT SAME THING years ago. Until someone explained to me carefully the Biblical requirement of Heart Surgery occuring before ethical change.
The Bible states that there must be cardiovascular heart surgery first, in order for present and future conduct to change, in order for Christian ethics to be meaningful and powerful. Transformed lives occur out of and from transformed hearts by the Divine Cardiologist.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Thanks for saying so, even though I think that you have committed the sin of lying. ;-)
Dead on.
baldilocks on August 21, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Maybe so, but if you believe in predestination, then wouldn’t you also believe that you were destined to either have the heart surgery or not have it?
Esthier on August 21, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Bravo. Very well stated reasoning.
Tennman on August 21, 2007 at 11:37 PM
That is why Christian apologists prefer to argue, transcendentally, on key philosophical questions arising out of the same common ground—-nature of logic, epistemology, justification for morality—which theists share in common with atheists and skeptics. We argue transcendentally so that nobody can accuse of performing “slight of hand” tricks.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 11:43 PM
ColtsFan got busted!! :-)
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Yes, I believe God transformed my heart first, then my human response was one of genuine, authentic faith in Christ alone.
We haven’t defined predestination yet. But most Calvinists do believe in the faculty of the human will. As a former Arminian, I used to debate the Calvinists all the time. I gave up once I realized that the Bible supports it, and also when I realized that Arminianism has a whole host of different problems than does the Calvinist.
ColtsFan on August 21, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Truth be told, in all the excitement here I didn’t actually read the Derbyshire article. The part I like best is how it’s all of a sudden the evangelicals to blame for our pluralistic society.
Usually the founders who set up the “wall of church and state” are the Men of Enlightment, who while deists, surely weren’t the knaves that currently carry on. All of a sudden it’s more convenient to say that this country is run by suicidal Christians. Never mind that the 1st amendment was orinally written to keep the feds away from the state constitutional provisions that decided which denomination each state was to be.
pedestrian on August 21, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Not sure it’s worth it. We’re not gonna” break the 1300+ comment threshold with this one. I guess my collie didn’t infuriate enough of the participants. (I am waiting for Nonfactor to say “How convenient. Blame it on the dog.”)
My collie says:
CyberCipher on August 21, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Nonfactor,
Sorry, I am still trying to play “catch-up.”
I do not want to interrupt your dialogue with others.
But if you have….
both time and interest, can you please point out the contradictions in the “Theistic Argument from Truth” as outlined in a sketchy form here and also here.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:01 AM
We easily could if it was put on “top picks.” This is the problem with AP, he never does that with the religion threads. I think he’s afraid we’ll upset too many of his beliefs if it carries on too long.;)
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 12:02 AM
AP’s hostility towards Christians DEFINITELY registers on MY radar. He’s gotta’ work a bit on the anger/hatred part though, since he does not yet seem to foam at the mouth like Hitchens. Of course, he’d probably deny that Hitchens is his role model. ;)
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Nuance.
Sir Loin on August 22, 2007 at 12:12 AM
As a former Arminian, I say…
Arminians are not “off the hook either.” They have an enormous “problem of evil” to deal with from a theological perspective.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Do you care to elaborate (in the spirit of learning– not meant to be any kind of challenge)?
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 12:20 AM
I don’t think he’s hostile. I think he’s somewhat curious, but not enough to actually understand what we believe, and much of what he does understand, he doesn’t like. He relies on too many appeals to outrage and emotion, which is what Hitchens also does. You should read Douglas Wilson’s debate with Hitchens on Christianity today. Wilson pwns him.
PRCalDude on August 22, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Good point. And that is why us Protestants try to patiently interact with our Catholic friends over the issue of justification by faith alone. It is not because we enjoy discussions over semantics or diving into “word games.” It is not because we are trying to be divisive or cause division.
It is because Christ came to Earth because there was no way possible for us to follow the law perfectly.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Yes, I would respectfully like to.
Can I ask you one question though before we begin?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Shoot.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Your collie bit me the other day while I was walking down the street carrying John Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion in my hand.
My lawyer wanted your mailing address……
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Couldn’t have been my collie. I’ve long suspected that he’s Calvinist too ya’know. I’ll wager that the dog that bit you was an atheist.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 12:31 AM
BTW, your lawyer can e-mail me at CyberCipher@comcast.net
Did I mention that my lawyer is NOT a collie? He’s a pit-bull. He may be hard to reach right now though. He’s busy working on the Michael Vick case.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 12:35 AM
Speakin’ o’ lawyers, they sure get a bad rap. The ones that I know are real friendly. For example, my ex-wife’s divorce lawyer voluntarily visits me once a year (on October 31st). He dresses kinda’ funny though — always wearing that long cloak from head-to-toe that sorta’ hides his face, and carrying that argricultural instrument with the long handle on it. Whaddtheycallthatthing? A scythe or something like that?
Gotta’ turn in now. My collie’s already asleep.
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 12:48 AM
What’s really funny about that book is the insults Calvin uses to describe the heretics of various stripes. CyberCipher’s collie may have bitten you because he didn’t like being compared to a Pelagian.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 AM
Hehehehe. Haha. :-)
Your collie is a Calvinist? Give him a big juicy steak for me. Give him some A-1 sauce on it too.
Here we go.
Short answer: get the excellent book, THE MANY FACES OF EVIL: THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
author: John S. Feinberg
ISBN: 0-310-59891-5
Long answer:
As we both know,
thea difference between Calvinist and Arminian models of soteriology center around the question of the faculty of the will. “How free” is the free will that is talked about so much? Is the faculty of free will FREE in a DETERMINISTIC sense or is the same faculty properly understood in a libertarian free will sense? Applying this to the problem of evil, for the Arminian the “Free Will Defense” is needed to address the problem of evil. Because the “Free Will Defense” depends on the hidden assumption of full-blown libertarian free will, the Calvinist cannot use it at all at the risk of logical incoherence in his theological model.Instead, the Calvinist uses “the Created Human Beings” defense against the problem of evil.
Now, let me be clear. I do believe the Alvin Plantinga “Free Will Defense” “does work” indeed as a (theoretically possible) proper and useful defense against all naturalistic objections rooted in the prolem of evil. The problem is just that I, as a Calvinist, cannot use it and be internally consistent.
I do not use it because I believe the Bible does not teach it.
Returning to your original question (sorry for being long-winded here—I am typing fast), the “Arminian solution”
opens up problems like
***in an indeterministic world, could Jesus ever accomplish His purposes, given that God cannot force or control the indeterministic choices of his libertarian free will human creatures?
***in a world that contains evil, could God ever answer prayer?
***The Calvinist admits that God ordains evil. The Arminian notion of the Fall of Man makes it sound like that God just “goofed and made a mistake” when he created humans.
For some interesting information here on the problem of evil.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Hehehe. Ha.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:54 AM
Some interesting articles here are listed on the topic of Calvinism vs. Arminianism on the Problem of Evil
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Allah, dude, I am trying to get the page views up man, really high. So you can get your iphone.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:09 AM
I think Hebrews 9:27 implies that it is futile t pray for the salvation of souls after they have died. There are other Biblical verses which I could point to, but I am afraid that the caffeine effects of my earlier Diet Mountain Dew appear to be disappearing…
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:16 AM
The following article is found here and also here.
Libertarian Free Will & Prayer
by John Feinberg
Excerpt from John Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, Foundations of Evangelical Theology, pp. 705-706.
If I [believe in libertarian freedom and] plead with God to remove my friend’s illness, that is not absurd, for God can answer that prayer without negating anyone’s freedom. But what about the request that God change the attitudes and actions of my friend’s tyrannical boss? What about petitions that ask God to move those processing applications for graduate school to accept my friend? Or what about prayers that ask God to keep my enemies at work from bothering me? And what about pleading with God to save a dear relative or friend? In all of these cases, what am I asking God to do, if libertarian free will obtains? I am either asking God to override others’ freedom, or I am asking him to move them to do something freely in spite of the fact that my belief in libertarian free will means that I believe Gold cannot get anybody to do anything freely. If I truly value libertarian free will as much as libertarians say they do, why would I ask God to override it just because of my petition? . . . Libertarians may be asking God to try to persuade their friends, but I repeat that God can only guarantee their persuasion by casual determinism, and that abridges libertarian free will.
On the other hand, if I am not asking God to override someone else’s freedom, then I’m asking him to do something which I believe he cannot do (make it the case that someone else does something freely). I may ask him to try to persuade the person, but I know that without God overriding their freedom, he cannot guarantee that they will change. In fact, since at the moment of free decision making nothing decisively inclines their will, regardless of what God or anyone else does or says, the matter may be hopeless. In light of such problems with interceding with God to change someone’s incompatibilistically free actions or attitudes, there is good reason for anyone committed to libertarian free will who understands the implications of the position to think twice before offering intercessory prayers of the kind mentioned. In fact, prayer to change either our or others’ actions seems problematic.
——————————————————————————–
Foundations of Evangelical Theology, pp. 705.
…[W]ith libertarian free will many prayers make no sense. . . .
…[C]onsider petitions about ourselves that do involve our free will. Suppose we ask the Lord to help us be more faithful in Bible reading, prayer, and witnessing. Or suppose we pray that the Lord will help us treat our family or neighbor better. I maintain that if libertarian free will obtains in our world, these are to a large degree absurd requests. For what are we asking God to do? In order for me to be more faithful in Bible reading, prayer, and witnessing, won’t I have to decide to do these things? But if I have libertarian free will and am allowed to exercise it, how can God fulfill my request? If he doesn’t override my libertarian freedom, he cannot guarantee the fulfillment of my request. So what am I asking him to do? Override my freedom? Make it the case that I freely decide to do these things? But here libertarians tell us that, if God brings it about that we do anything, we don’t do it freely. It seems that God cannot be certain to grant my request unless he overrides my freedom, but why would God want me to engage in these spiritual exercises because I’m forced to do so (according to my libertarian free will, I would be forced, but God wants my love and devotion freely!)? Shouldn’t I, then, petition myself in an attempt to convince myself to do these things? After all, only I can freely effect what I choose to do, given libertarian free will. But if I did petition myself, wouldn’t that usually mean I had already decided to do these things, and if so, the petition becomes unnecessary? I submit, then, that unless I really want God to override my freedom, what I ask him in these cases is absurd. If he doesn’t tamper with my libertarian free will, he can’t do what I ask; only I can, but petitioning myself engages me in the further absurdities mentioned.
——————————————————————————–
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Ya’ll are killing me. :-)
A pat on the head and a Scoobie snack for the dog.
baldilocks on August 22, 2007 at 1:31 AM
Allahpundit and Libertarian Free Will: An Essay Designed to Increase Page Views
Atheists may hold to libertarian free will. Many Christians do, and they are called Arminians. Many Christians hold that the Bible does not teach libertarian free will per se, and we are called Calvinists. Calvinists believe and teach that free will is consistent and compatible with some form of determinism. Thus, Calvinists are often called compatibilists.
Now it is a mistake to say that all forms of atheism or naturalism logically entail Determinism. Some atheists, like Daniel Dennett, I think, are libertarians along with Paul Kurtz, I believe. Most are determinists though. Just like it is a mistake to say that all forms of Christianity or Theism entail Libertarian Free Will.
Atheistic Determinism (AD) is not equivalent in any shape or form to Compatibilism as understood by the Calvinist. AD is often defined to be reduced to biology, then to chemistry, and ultimately to physics. AD is reduction to physics. Compatibilism is not at all identical or equivalent to AD. Compatibilists do not deny that free will exists, only that it is compatible and co-existent with some form of determinism.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:34 AM
My friends…
Please, stop this pointless bickering about abstract metaphysical stuff. All we have to do now is to defeat our common existential enemy. We’ll have a chance to discuss the “nuances” of our old religions and atheism later, when (and if) we defeat mohameddan jihadists. We have to stay together in order to achieve this victory.
Yours truly,
Syndic Nuruodo - a russian-born pro-western Israeli atheist. :)
Syndic Nuruodo on August 22, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Are we up to 100,000 comments yet?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:36 AM
Don’t me to interrupt your discussion on sex… But have you taken a good look at this theology book on sex? It is a pretty profound book. Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, written by John Piper.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Very true.
I also think it’s amusing how with
two words(financial reimbursement for some of us) you pretty much guarenteedanother 30 comments.sleep deprivation.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 1:55 AM
Check out the “Free Will Theorem” by Conway and Kochen. It seems to be taken quite seriously in the physics community. It says thats if physicists have free will, then sub-atomic particles have non-deterministic behavior. I don’t understand why, but it seems that the tendency in that community is to expect that people do have free will, so this theorem has force. I would have expected otherwise of physicists. I don’t believe in free will, so the theorem is not bothersome since the pre-condition does not hold. But it is fascinating to see the issue keep coming up in quantum mechanics even though scientists would like it to go away.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 2:05 AM
Does Conway and Kochen’s work derive from Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics? Or is it totally separate and unrelated? If the former, then the Heisenberg Principle with its supposedly, allegedly proof of relativity, is based on an epistemological ***measurement in-accuracy*** and NOT an ontological conflation of categories.
All Calvinists believe in free will. We consistently teach that free will is compatible with some form of determinism. The Bible does teach both free will and determinism. The Arminians refuse to acknowledge the latter.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 2:15 AM
Good night Gentlemen, Ladies and AllahPundit. (It’s only 11:23 PM here on the west coast and I must get my beauty sleep. But before that, I must check out Levy on Red Eye.) See you tomorrow.
baldilocks on August 22, 2007 at 2:25 AM
I’m not a physicist, but I believe their axioms are more fundamental than what Heisenberg stated. It’s related to Bell’s theorem, whose purpose was to prove that either there are no hidden variables (ie. Heisenberg’s uncertainty is not just measurement error but true undeterminism) or some pretty fundamental axiom is wrong. Most physicists are now ok with no hidden variables, and thus with free will. Sadly I don’t have the time now to really learn that stuff, so I look forward to eternal life to further my studies.
Anyway, that kind of free will is useless to the theologian, though, because if your decision are based merely on quantum fluctuations then why are you morally responsible for them? I haven’t seen a definition of free will that doesn’t have critical contradictions in it, so I don’t see the big deal in having it. It’s quite distinct from consciousness, which to me is the critical connection to out of the physical world and on to God.
Instead of free will, I believe we are exactly what we are created to be, including all of our decisions. The fact that we observe no contradictions between our actions and our thoughts is simply a sign of the perfection of our creation. I sometimes think that Proverbs 16:1 is evidence for compatibalism, but I think it really means that what we feel in our heart is what we really are, and what we are is what we are created to be. You are correct that Calvin and most Calvinist’s do go that far. So sad.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 4:07 AM
correction: Calvinist’s don’t go that far.
pedestrian on August 22, 2007 at 4:09 AM
You’ve misunderstood the meaning of the ending of Contact. It’s a lot more obvious if you read the book and then see the movie.
In other words God is imaginary and you admit it. I don’t know what we’re arguing about now. You say God is imaginary so do I; I don’t doubt that people believe in him and get some meaning for their belief, but that does not make him real.
I’ll try and do so before the weekend. When I respond it’ll probably be in this thread.
Nice links. I have my own take on “The Problem of Evil” which I’ll add in brief in my other response.
The easiest way to refute the statements of Jesus as claimed by the Bible is to refute the idea of “original sin” (Psalm 51:5). If there is no original sin not only is there no need for a savior, but Jesus himself is misstating his divinity, not to mention the fact that it would mean Genesis is a lie and thus the entire Bible itself.
I realize trying to engage in a conversation like this with Christians is probably futile considering that if you can believe in a nonphysical thing without evidence what’s to stop you from not believing in the physical evidence contradicting this nonphysical thing. Another futility lies in the fact that many people who claim the title of Christian believe in numerous different things (see: student on August 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM). But anyway, I’ll try, not because I need to prove it [Genesis is a lie etc.], but because I said I could. And before someone accuses me of negative proof I’m not claiming “God doesn’t exist because there is no proof he exists” (although in cases like this Occam’s razor does apply and it is certainly true that if someone were to claim God exists in this vein it would be just as logical to claim the existence of Russell’s teapot), what I am claiming is “God does not exist because The Bible upon which the Christian God is predicated upon is false.” Now to prove the falseness of The Bible, and more specifically (due not only to time and interest, but knowledge), Genesis.
A few claims made in Genesis:
1) Man was created from dust and woman from a man’s rib.
2) People were once lived to be older than 400 years.
3) There was no Garden of Eden and thus no original sin.
4) There was a flood of the (then largely sinful) Earth and Moses was tasked with restarting civilization.
It would be best to let out the knowledge that many Christians figure the story of creation to be more metaphoric that factually accurate, but I obviously take exception with this. It’s indicative of Christians picking and choosing what segments of the Bible to take as true and which to dismiss; when evidence comes out to suggest that sections of the Bible aren’t as true as they say they are Christians won’t admit the Bible is lying, but rather they’ll state the Biblical story is metaphoric. Can you say cop-out?
1 - All scientific evidence shows us that mankind (homosapiens) originated in Africa about 210,000 years ago. There are numerous links to this fact online, but I find the most interesting and in depth observation of this fact to be in books. Two of my favorites are The Journey of Man by Spencer Wells and The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris.
2 - This is probably the easiest claim to repudiate. We already know that human civilization started in Africa about 210,000 years ago (human as in homosapien) not in the Garden of Eden and not via dust for men and a rib for women. But now we get the claim that humans lived more than 10 times the normal lifetime in the Biblical world. Of course this is false as all fossil evidence will show us (although I’m sure there are many religious people who take exception to fossil evidence in general).
3 - If the above are true (and all scientific fact tells us they are) then the story of Genesis and the Garden of Eden are directly contradicted. If the Garden of Eden did not exist and was simply a story used to explain the unknown it follows that original sin doesn’t exist either. Aside from science already proving parts of Genesis untrue it also proves thusly that the entire story of the divinity of a prophet named Jesus untrue as well.
4 - I love this story as it appears simply to be a mulligan for God. And yet again the fossil record comes to the rescue disproving this story let alone the logistical problems with loading up two of every animal in the world (and we can give it to the revisionists and simply say the area) and repopulating the planet.
Now these aren’t nearly all the sections in Genesis that contradict fact, science, and evidence, they are simply the easiest ones I wanted to use as examples, and seeing as how it’s pretty late here I decided not to use as many examples as I was going to. If I was writing a research paper I’d include much more, but seeing as this is HotAir and I’m writing to a hostile audience that largely thinks horribly of me anyway, I’m not going to be bothered to do much more. And there you have it–proof God doesn’t exist.
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 4:27 AM
I think it was drinking milk as a child–all those killers did it.
student on August 22, 2007 at 7:27 AM
What does this mean, exactly? I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make any sense at all; it’s just mumbo jumbo designed to avoid addressing the question at hand. If you really believe that stuff or if you want to make it the basis of the debate, then there’s noting to discuss because you’ve defined the central question out of existence.
student on August 22, 2007 at 7:48 AM
I sure am sorry to hear that. But it’s not a consequence of his acceptance of Christianity. It’s more a consequence of his misunderstanding of Christianity in light of the current culture. And this happens a lot! His attitudes and actions don’t make you want to be like him, do they? American Christianity has become divisive and self-serving. I don’t believe that it’s anything like what Christianity is supposed to be. There is a TREMENDOUS failure of true discipleship in American Christianity… to the point that there is little proper teaching. Not that I’m an authority…
BNCurtis on August 22, 2007 at 8:57 AM
1) Let’s get this straight, God can speak a universe into existence but creating a man is too hard for him. Riiiiight…
2) Over 900 years old.
3) There was a Garden of Eden in Genesis and its location is given. Death is the evidence of the existence of sin. Your point makes no sense.
4) Don’t flaunt your ignorance. It’s not Moses, it’s Noah. Sheesh!
Did you attend the Al Gore school of theology?
Mojave Mark on August 22, 2007 at 9:07 AM
Hey nonfactor, you call my quote of it “makes me kind of smile” as “lashing back”? You consider that an attack, lashing you with destructive words? Obviously can’t take much of a “lashing”.
I shudder to think if I wrote, “It makes me grimmace”, you would ask to have me banned.
Do you type with a blankee?
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 9:13 AM
And this is no different than William Wallace saying, “They can take our lives, but they can never take our FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!”
That type of loyalty was never Ceasar’s to command, and without people like that being true to themselves, other Christians would have continued to be persecuted.
Esthier
Well, movie William Wallace and real William Wallace are different folks, save for the fact they went about the countryside beating the holy crap out of everyone with the intent of keeping my people (Yay CELTS!) free of the English, and probably the Welsh. I’d be all about getting the Welshmen out.
The notion of “it’s better to die on your feet than live on your knees” is what I’m talking about. That’s what early, pre-centralized church Christians were not doing. Content to live and die on their knees (WORDPLAY!!).
Most of the violence within Christianity came about as the religion adapted to win converts. You aren’t going to get too far with the Germanic tribes preaching peace and servility, for instance.
Never a matter of having no country per se. It was a matter of a philosophy of non violence at any price because they wanted to emulate Jesus and his hippy ways, which were there prior to the Nicean council. Most of that got expunged. Just a different, and I would opine, more crushing way of controlling the population of the empire.
They were a bunch of idealists, that early lot and they nearly went extinct. Had it not been for the intervention of the Emperor, it probably would have done just that.
Krydor on August 22, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Thanks for framing the Calvinist/Arminian debate. I know it’s a lot a work to put those posts together. I appreciate it. While you were working, I was sleeping.
You better go back a check the numbers. I am quite familiar with the work of Spencer Wells. He DOES NOT call for the origin of man (in his current configuration of DNA) at 210,000 years ago (as you cited above). The figure that he has been peddling is more like 60,000 years ago. It is his colleagues (like Oppenheimer) that are working on mitacondrial DNA that are calling out numbers in the 100,000s of years.
Dude, if you can’t get the numbers right and quote people correctly, what else have you mucked-up? How can we trust ANYTHING that you say in these threads?
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 9:25 AM
mitacondrial DNA == mitochondrial DNA
mea culpa
CyberCipher on August 22, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Let me see where do we start?
Scientists can’t decide how the earth was formed, therefore there is no earth?
Democrats argue on what is a Demo. so there are no Demo?
There is debate on how we evolve, so their is no evolution?
There is debate on how the universe is formed, so there is no universe?
Disease, multitude of debate on how to treat many dieseases, so they must exist.
Your logic is that if there is an argument, it must not be true. I do not understand that, and since I am argueing and have a different point of view, that argurment must not exist or be true.
You have used that argument before, I think now you will discard it and replace it with another.
Moses, Noah, ha…BTW, Genesis is the old testament, it is not just a Christian perspective, but a Judeo-Christian. That may help you in your assesment and analysis.
Christians are primarily involved with the new testament, FYI (which fulfills the prophets of the old).
bible study 101, take it and learn.
right2bright on August 22, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Oh, I wasn’t saying that sex or even enjoyment of sex is sinful. In fact, I was actually admitting that I have no idea how any Christian can make such a claim.
I’m growing in the realization that everything on the planet is a gift of God and should be treated as such, enjoyed but not abused.
So this is a little confusing here. If your heart was fully changed, then I can’t see how you had any other option but to respond to Christ as you did. If that’s the case, then all men are not given a choice to either become or not become a Christian, in which case, why bother with the Great Commission.
If however, your heart was not fully transformed, then it seems your heart was simply prepared for Christ, like John the Baptist coming before Jesus, which implies that you had full choice in either accepting or not accepting the potential change.
The latter is the perspective I come from.
Arminians are not “off the hook either.” They have an enormous “problem of evil” to deal with from a theological perspective.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 12:15 AM
I don’t see how. People are given a choice and can choose evil; therefore, evil exists.
Jesus didn’t force anyone to do anything. I’m confused on your point here.
Of course, but His answer isn’t always “yes.”
I wouldn’t say it was a mistake. By putting the tree in the garden, God gave Adam the option of choosing evil, and without being able to choose evil, how can anyone choose good?
God already had the angels when He created us, yet for some reason He still created us. I believe it had something to do with the way we could love Him because we have complete free will in the matter.
I disagree. People pray for something to happen, but God isn’t Santa Claus. If you’ll notice, God merely hardened Pharaoh’s heart; He didn’t force Pharaoh to go after the Israelites and only pushed Pharaoh into that idea.
But Pharaoh always had the option of leaving them alone and accepting that the god of the slaves was God.
I’ve prayed to God asking Him to change my heart, but that doesn’t mean that I have to accept what He’s done. The same applies to other people. God doesn’t force others to not bother you just because you’ve asked. For all you know, that person is bothering you for a reason.
Esthier on August 22, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Okay. I was just recommending a pretty cool book that has some profound theology in it
that will increase the comments section to 100,000.ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 10:25 AM
That’s cool. I’m sure it’s a good book.
We actually studied the Song of Solomon at my church, and the sexual implications are extremely obvious, which still makes me wonder how any Christian can view all sex that isn’t done for the purpose of procreation as sinful.
Esthier on August 22, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I was thinking that while my theology is not based on quantum fluctuations, it is kinda nice just to see if there are any support or inconsistency with science.
And the problem of consciousness is the main problem for materialists in the philosophy of mind.
The compatibilist says that our desires in our heart constrain or decisively influence our choices. The Bible teaches that God ordains whatsoever happens, but with the fact of our compatibilistic human free will remaining intact. We are responsible for our choices because we have free will. Maybe not full-blown libertarian free will, but we do have compatibilistic free will in that our desires of our own hearts constrain or limit or decisively influence our choices.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Blah .. blah … blah …
One sentence:
You can’t beat something with nothing.
corona on August 22, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Esthier,
by the way, unlike the discussion of justification by Faith alone, the complex subject of predestination is not essential or necessary for salvation.
I do believe predestination and Reformed Theology are in fact strongly taught in the Bible. It is just that “making comments in this section” can sometimes add to confusion, and I do not want to be guilty of making a big deal out of a **secondary issue** instead of focusing on primary, ultimate issues like, “who is Jesus Christ? What is salvation? What is our standard for determining truth? Do human works contribute to our salvation in any form?”
Secondary issues, like predestination, are just secondary issues. As a former Arminian, it took years for me to study all of the side issues in this complex debate.
In response to your good question above, here is a response on this secondary issue:
God the divine cardiologist chooses some sinners, and passess over other sinners, not because the latter sinners are worse or more evil than the former group, but simply because God’s choice. Without God’s prior changing of the heart, conversion will not happen because that is what the Bible teaches.
Divine heart surgery must occur before conversion. Repentance, turning away from sin, is a product of conversion.
I remember the Christian philosopher William Alston commenting on how the Christian life is really just one of grace and grace alone. He had spent a lot of time doing hard-core work in epistemology and philosophy of religion, and then one day, he noticed his heart had changed, and he wanted to begin asking new questions like, “how in the world is my life and actions pleasing God? How do I begin pleasing God now?”
The Great Commission is a human command given by God. Since it is a command, we are to obey it, period. Remember, Calvinists are compatibilists, we believe that some form of determinism is indeed compatible with free will. Calvinists do believe in free will. But the Bible over and over and over again declares that the human heart is totally enslaved to sin, that the human heart is a 24-hour, 365 day a year, IDOL FACTORY. Out of the flow and thoughts of the human heart come idols, whether it is idols of money, sex, pride, you name it. The human heart has built it. The Divine Cardiologist is required because Scripture teaches that every aspect of our human heart is fallen and enslaved by sin.
ls
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Because some churches unfortunately view the Book of SS as a “spiritual allegory” between Christ and the non-literal Church. That is the reason why one religious tradition teaches that sex outside of procreation is bad.
Since I believe that “sola Scriptura” (Scripture alone) is my only epistemological standard, I now have the freedom to look at the Biblical text in SS itself as well as the biblical data in Ezekiel and Jeremiah which is what the above John Piper books dives into more deeply.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:03 AM
You are welcome. :-)
By the way, here is a more serious question…
Am I still “on good terms” with your collie? (referring to the juicy steak with A-1 sauce that I threw to him last night…)
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:07 AM
493 comments.
Can we get to 500?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Nonfactor on August 22, 2007 at 4:27 AM
Sorry I just cant take anyone so factually challenged seriously. Remember when I said “People who don’t have the slightest clue about the subject that they are ranting about do not gain creditability by exposing their ignorance on the subject of their rant”.
Having a discussion with you on the subject of God’s existence or non existence is like having a discussion on quantum gravity with a five year old. Except that the five year old probably knows more about quantum gravity then you do about God’s existence.
With this post of your you have proven incontrovertible that you do not know or understand the subject at hand. You are at best parroting things you have read on atheist websites or books, which sadly you clearly did not bother to pay much attention to nor understand.
You have on the other hand quite effectively removed yourself from any possibility of being taken seriously in this discussion.
No I have no intention of going through point by point and showing each and every factual inaccuracy in your post, the fact that you made such a glaringly inaccurate post in the first place clearly indicates that you really have no interest in accuracy and prefer mindless demagoguery.
doriangrey on August 22, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Esthier, these, in my humble opinion, are the essential, primary issues or primary doctrine truths taught in Biblical Christianity. I think this website and this one are helpful places to begin to just broadly study Reformed Theology. I also forgot to mention this excellent website as well.
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Still only 496 comments?
We need to break 500!!!
For the sake of the Free World, we must break 500 comments!
Where in the world is that collie when I need it?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I wonder how many comments we now have?
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:32 AM
ColtsFan,
Including this comment: 499
Don’t give up the ship yet. The Free World is depending on you to make 500!!
Sincerely,
ColtsFan
ColtsFan on August 22, 2007 at 11:37 AM