Summer Adult Sunday School Offerings

June 2, 2010 by Bob O'Bannon
Filed under Featured, Ministry Spotlight

UntoCeasar Throughout the summer we are offering two Sunday school classes.

Pastor Brian will be leading a summer Sunday school series entitled “Rendering Unto Caesar: God’s Purpose for Government and the Christian’s Relationship to the State.” The lessons will focus on what the Bible says about government and how both the church and the individual Christian relate to the state.

JS Book Article Dr. Jim Spiegel will teach a 6-week Sunday school class on the subject of atheism. Among the issues to be addressed are these: Why is atheism a growing movement in our society? What is the biblical explanation of atheism? What arguments do atheists use to undermine belief in God? And how should Christians respond to atheists? The text for the class will be Jim’s new book, The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief.

Please consider these options as you seek to grow in the grace and knowledge of our God and His Word.

Tags:

Kevin

The person you are bringing in to teach classes on atheism has no real experience with atheism if he truly wants you to accept that people don’t believe so that they can be immoral. Many simply do not accept the bible and faith as sufficient evidence for any god. If you want to be honest with your congregation and not continue to feed them misinformation, you’d find someone more qualified to teach this subject. By having this class, you will continue to promote bigotry against people who simply see no value in believing in the supernatural.
http://tytalus.wordpress.com tytalus

Yes, talking about atheism with a fellow who wrote “The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief” certainly sounds like a reasonable, unbiased method to learn about atheism…not. I wonder if any believers will seek a more balanced perspective.

Bob O’Bannon

Tytalus — Thanks for your comment. Just to clarify, the purpose of this class is not to teach an “unbiased” perspective on atheism. It is to teach the Biblical account of how people become atheists. This is what Christian churches do — teach the Bible.

MrFungus420

It’s too bad that it can’t teach things like critical thinking. It’s too bad that it can’t teach them honestly.

Then again, this isn’t really teaching…this is pure propaganda.

You can’t point out that most atheists seem to be so because of the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a god’s existence. That would be teaching about atheism. You can’t expose your parishioners to that simple fact out of fear that they may actually begin to think for themselves.

So, instead, you have to spoon-feed them a lie. You are afraid of exposing the blindness of faith to the light of truth.

http://atheistevolution.blogspot.com/ J

Is he also going to teach how people who don’t believe in unicorns are made? Or how people who don’t believe in goblins are made? What about people who don’t believe in Harry Potter?

These are all people who lack in belief because they just want to be immoral.

Seriously, in order to be moral we all know that you need to throw your own thinking aside and just accept someone elses morality as law and do it out of threat of eternal punishment.

It is the only way to acheive order.

Wait….is that morality or just obedience?

Meh, I guess as long as they do what He wants, it doesn’t matter.

Peace

Bob O’Bannon

J — You seem to have an interest in morality, which is something you share with Christians. I am curious — how would you define “morality”?

eightfootmanchild

There is an INVERSE relationship between religiosity and morality. For a prime example, look at the violent crime rates in the most religious areas of the world vs. those in the least religious. The pattern is blatant.

Then again, fact-averse propagandists like Spiegel have no use for reality.

Bob O’Bannon

Eightfootmanchild — You are painting with a pretty broad brush with the word “religious.” That word can be used to describe any number of different faiths, which are quite different from the Christian faith. Also, you say that Dr. Spiegel is averse to the facts. I too would be concerned about this. So can you give me a few examples from his book?

eightfootmanchild

“You are painting with a pretty broad brush with the word “religious.” That word can be used to describe any number of different faiths, which are quite different from the Christian faith.”

So?

The implication is that atheism – that’s non-belief in ANY “god”, not just Yahweh – is necessarily linked to immorality. A passing glance at reality refutes this vacuous canard (I notice you ignored HughMcB’s post).

But suppose I play ball anyway. Let’s narrow the scope.

According to this: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/16/local/me-beliefs16

The least religious region in the US – by extension, the least Christian – is New England. That’s right. New England. That vile cesspool of depraved filth. I hear they even let queers get married there. Meanwhile, crime and evil runs rampant and untamed all over that area of the map.

Oh, wait. Nope. According to this: http://www.walletpop.com/insurance/safest-states/ all but one of the NE states is in the top 10 SAFEST states in the country, including the top 3 spots (New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine). Massachusetts, the only state not in the top 10, is still well below the national average http://nicic.gov/features/statestats/?state=ma .

There you have it. All the apologetic arm-chair heckling in the world amounts to nothing in the light of demonstrable fact.

“Also, you say that Dr. Spiegel is averse to the facts. I too would be concerned about this. So can you give me a few examples from his book?”

I did better than that. I refuted the central premise – indeed, the TITLE of his book – with a minute and forty five seconds worth of google research. Given that, what makes you think I’d have the least interest in reading it?

Bob O'Bannon

There are plenty of statistics that show the benefits of religion:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/12/Why-Religion-Matters-Even-More-The-Impact-of-Religious-Practice-on-Social-Stability

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Changed-World-Alvin-Schmidt/dp/0310264499/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276179048&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism-Western/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276179118&sr=1-9

You have not refuted the central premise of Dr. Spiegel’s book. In fact, I’m not sure you have taken the time to understand it. The point is not that unbelief leads to immorality, or even that belief leads to morality, but that immorality leads to unbelief.

eightfootmanchild

“There are plenty of statistics that show the benefits of religion”

I know that. I also know that the benefits are comparable to any other social activity. It doesn’t matter. You’re not going to distract me with a goalpost move.

“You have not refuted the central premise of Dr. Spiegel’s book. In fact, I’m not sure you have taken the time to understand it. The point is not… that belief leads to morality,”

Good, because that premise has no referent in reality, either. I could just have easily compared the list of most dangerous states with the most religious region (the South) and refuted that point as well, were it pertinent. Lucky for you, I don’t actually care. I’m interested in addressing the canards leveled at non-believers.

“The point is not that unbelief leads to immorality… but that immorality leads to unbelief.”

It doesn’t help him or you one whit if the argument is post hoc or pre hoc. The implication is that immorality and unbelief share a direct relation. If either situation, post or pre, were true, you would expect to see some indication of it in reality. If either situation, post or pre, were true, you would expect the most atheistic region of the US to also be the most immoral.

As I have demonstrated, the EXACT OPPOSITE is true. You cannot possibly get more wrong than that.

http://rationalskepticism.org HughMcB

Re: The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief.

I could go into a long rebuttal about how incorrect, misleading and downright offensive that book title is. However I’ll just let the statistics speak for themselves.

The most moral, well developed countries in the world with the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living are highly atheistic. Please see Sweden, France, Denmark, Netherlands, etc. All countries in the top 10 Human Development Index Ranking 2009. The rest in the top 10 all have a below average theistic population i.e. tending towards atheism.

This book (and your course) fails from the title alone.

Sincerely,
HughMcB

abcd

I think this depends on your definition of immorality. Several people in this discussion seem to that the definition of immorality is crime. Not having read the book, I’m not sure if this is something that Spiegel started, but I do not think that the definition of immorality is crime. While there are some similarities between “immorality” against God and “immorality” against the state, I don’t think we should be so quick to equate the two.

Mr C. Altair

Ad Hominem. The title of the book says it all, it’s actually quite funny.

I doubt this comment will be published, it’s not very positive in your view.

What is the point of only publishing comments you agree to? Afraid of a little criticism? Afraid of a point of view that is not shared by yourself? Thats pretty petty and shows this website is fairly fascist in it’s administration.

Other than that, I hope you have an enjoyable day.

Bob O’Bannon

Mr C. Altair — It’s interesting that your entire third paragraph is loaded with ad hominem attacks.

http://none blindfaith

bannon wrote “It is to teach the Biblical account of how people become atheists”

is that really relevant this day and age? teach why people become athiests now.

now we are educated and therefore enlightened, no longer brainwashed to believe in magic men in the sky or burn in hell forever. religious belief brings its own immorality, every man and woman on this planet at one time will be immoral, religious belief or the lack of it is irrelevent.

peace

Bob O'Bannon

Yes, the Biblical account of how people become atheists is very relevant now. Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy and law at New York University, confirms this when he says: “I don’t want there to be a god; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” He’s proving the Bible’s point.

The suggestion that educated, intelligent, enlightened people don’t believe in God is quite false, unless you think John Polkinghorne, Alvin Plantinga, Antony Flew, Peter Hitchens and Francis Collins are uneducated.

eightfootmanchild

“Yes, the Biblical account of how people become atheists is very relevant now. Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy and law at New York University, confirms this when he says: “I don’t want there to be a god; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” He’s proving the Bible’s point.”

I also don’t want there to be a “god”. That doesn’t mean it’s my entire reason for not believing.

Quote-mining is a lazy, intellectually dishonest trick. Don’t do it anymore.

Bob O'Bannon

You asked how the Bible’s teaching on atheism is “relevant for this day and age.” The quote proves that it is. Ad hominem attacks are also lazy tricks.

eightfootmanchild

“You asked how the Bible’s teaching on atheism is “relevant for this day and age.””

Blindfaith asked you that, not me.

“The quote proves that it is.”

No it doesn’t. In order for that to be true, you’d have to show that “not wanting god to exist” is his sole or primary reason for not believing.

Oh wait, you can’t, because you quote-mined it.

“Ad hominem attacks are also lazy tricks.”

Do you know what “ad hominem” means? I ask because you’ve used it twice, and neither time correctly.

Pointing out to someone that they are committing a logical fallacy – quote-mining, in your case – is not an ad hominem. That’s part of normal, reasoned discourse. Otherwise, your accusation of “ad hominem” would itself be an ad hominem.
Bob O'Bannon

Sorry about attributing blindfaith’s question to you. I’m interacting with a number of people here, so it’s easy to get mixed up.

Pointing out that a person committed a logical fallacy is not an ad hominem, but calling them lazy and intellectually dishonest is.
eightfootmanchild

I called QUOTE-MINING lazy and intellectually dishonest, which it is. You, as a person, might not be for all I know, but the practice you are engaging in is. If you want to maintain even a veneer of integrity, don’t do it anymore.
Adam Delaplane

It should be pointed out that Bob used Nagel’s quote not to dispute or disprove Atheism (which would have been contrary to the Nagel’s intent and as such considered quote-mining). But he did use Nagel’s quote to in the context of answering the question why he (Nagel) is an Atheist. Bob’s point was to show the relevance for teaching the Biblical view of Atheism, which is supported by that quote. Even if this quote does not express Nagel’s sole reason for being an Atheist (or yours for that matter) if that answer is even part of the reason for Nagel’s unbelief it makes teaching the Biblical view relevant.

Calling quote-mining lazy and intellectually dishonest is fine, however, if you look through these past posts there are numerous examples of “Fallacy of the General Rule” “Affirming the Consequent” and “Selective Reading”. These are also rather intellectually questionable ways to argue.
eightfootmanchild

“But he did use Nagel’s quote to in the context of answering the question why he (Nagel) is an Atheist. Bob’s point was to show the relevance for teaching the Biblical view of Atheism, which is supported by that quote.”

No, it absolutely is not.

The quote – which hasn’t been sourced, by the way – says “I don’t want there to be a god; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” That is ALL IT SAYS. Never mind a sole or primary reason, it is not clear that Nagel is referring to ANY reason for unbelief.

Until you can demonstrate that Nagel is referring to a reason for unbelief, you’re flapping in the breeze.

“Even if this quote does not express Nagel’s sole reason for being an Atheist (or yours for that matter) if that answer is even part of the reason for Nagel’s unbelief it makes teaching the Biblical view relevant.”

It’s not a reason for my unbelief AT ALL, thank you, and we don’t know if it’s part of Nagel’s because Bob quote-mined it from its context. It could be a quote OF a quote, for all we know. Or, since it wasn’t sourced, Bob could have made it up wholesale.

Lucky for you, I have no problem cross-checking people’s sources for them. So here it is, the context from which the quote was wrenched, from Nagel’s book of essays, “The Last Word”. Here’s more of the context:

“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Any number of atheists will tell the same thing in so many words – they don’t believe, and they don’t want Yahweh to exist. That’s “AND”. Not “BECAUSE”. You’re reading it that way because you need it to be true in order to support your vacuous line of reasoning.

Enough games. Let’s cut right to the chase. I’ve just e-mailed Professor Nagel asking for a clarification on this exact quote, specifically what role his personal distaste for the “god” concept has in his unbelief. If he gets back to me, I’ll post his response here. If it turns I’m wrong, I’ll gladly retract everything I’ve said on the matter.
Adam Delaplane

Thank you for sourcing the quote. I am interested to hear how Nagel responds. I am curious though, if you do not believe in God why do you also not want God to exist?
eightfootmanchild

“if you do not believe in God why do you also not want God to exist?”

Why not? They aren’t mutually exclusive positions.

Do you believe in gremlins? Do you want them to exist? What about planet-invading aliens? What about mischievous, malevolent demigods like in Norse legend?

There are plenty of things people don’t believe in that they also prefer not exist. Yahweh is not special in this regard.
Adam Delaplane

To answer your questions (candidly) I do not believe in gremlins, however, because I do not believe in their existence there is no point in desiring that they not exist. They don’t and as a result I have no fear of their existence and no desire for them to truly not exist.
If I did say “I don’t believe in gremlins and I don’t want them to exist” I would either be acknowledging that my disbelief in gremlins is influenced by my desire that they not exist, or I would be acknowledging that I have a fear and uneasiness associated with the idea that gremlins exist which shows that on some level I am acknowledging that they could possibly exist.

If you don’t believe in something there is no reason to state that you also hope it does not exist unless your disbelief is influenced by your desire for it not to exist or on some level you are afraid of the idea that it might possibly exist. Either way it depicts a significant influencing factor and justifies the Biblical teaching about Atheism.
eightfootmanchild

“Whether or not Nagel or any other Atheist openly acknowledges that their desire for the existence of God to be false influences their unbelief it seems very clear from that quote that it is something that has an impact on their beliefs and it is something that makes Nagel uneasy.”

In other words, you’re just going to make naked assertions and go on believing what you were already convinced of from the start.

“The fact that so many Atheists are so unsettled by Jim’s book and this class shows that deep down there is a desire to reject the existence of God and it is that desire that makes the Biblical view relevant.”

Actually, it shows that atheists don’t appreciate being lied about. You’ll really say anything to turn this into a victory, won’t you?

“To answer your questions (candidly) I do not believe in gremlins, however, because I do not believe in their existence there is no point in desiring that they not exist.”

You’re right, there is no point. Desiring or not desiring the existence of something that does not exist has no pertinence to anything that happens in reality. That wasn’t the question.

“They don’t and as a result I have no fear of their existence and no desire for them to truly not exist.”

There is absolutely no reason for those positions to be mutually exclusive.

Would you enjoy the world more or less if there were gremlins in it? If you answer yes, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

I don’t suspect you would answer, though, since you realize it undermines your thesis.

“If you don’t believe in something there is no reason to state that you also hope it does not exist unless your disbelief is influenced by your desire for it not to exist or on some level you are afraid of the idea that it might possibly exist.”

Actually, it means I’m honest about my personal tastes. That is all it means. You NEED it to mean more because your thesis is worthless without shoehorning vacuous naked assertions into the equation.
Adam Delaplane

The question does not require an answer because it is meaningless. Gremlins don’t exist and therefore I have no opinion on what the world would be like with or without them. I can speculate and conjecture from the basis of entertainment, but that does not lead to any strong opinions and certainly not to me being unsettled by educated people that believe gremlins do exist. Personal tastes are one thing, but there is a difference in the tone, Nagel’s quote shows that while he might not consider this desire a reason for his unbelief it clearly is a point of significance and weight.

You can make the accusation that I need there to be more in that assertion because my thesis is worthless without it, but by the same token you need the assertion not to carry as much weight because if it did it would undermine your thesis. The only conclusion we can clearly arrive at here is that we are both going to process the discussion through the lens of our individual belief systems. That is fine and can be done without hostile accusations, and we can actually discuss the book and the class, if you are willing to read it and have an honest discussion about it.
eightfootmanchild

“The question does not require an answer because it is meaningless.”

No it isn’t. You know exactly what the words mean and you know the implications of answering. It’s as meaningful as any hypothetical question. You won’t answer it because it will expose yet another basic flaw in your reasoning.

“Gremlins don’t exist and therefore I have no opinion on what the world would be like with or without them.”

Once again, those two aren’t mutually exclusive. You don’t get from A to B just by plugging a “therefor” between them, as if you’ve actually reasoned anything out.

“The only conclusion we can clearly arrive at here is that we are both going to process the discussion through the lens of our individual belief systems.”

You got that right. One of us cares if his beliefs are in accordance with “scripture”, the other cares if his beliefs are in accordance with reality. That’s bound to lead to different conclusions.
Adam Delaplane

“It’s as meaningful as any hypothetical question. You won’t answer it because it will expose yet another basic flaw in your reasoning.”

I agree it is as meaningful as any hypothetical question. A hypothetical question is fine for the sake of speculation and entertainment, however, as soon as the answer to that question causes uneasiness and fear it ceases to be purely hypothetical and reveals aspects of influence or doubt in the assertion.

If I were to say that from a personal perspective I do not want gremlins to exist. That response is hypothetical. However, if I also confess that I am fearful of gremlins and when I hear noises in the dark or hear educated people talk about gremlin sightings it causes me to become uneasy the response is no longer purely hypothetical. And it reveals that on one level either my disbelief in gremlins is impacted by my fear of them and my desire for them not to exist or that deep down I am not convinced of the nonexistence of gremlins.

From a hypothetical perspective gremlins were rather freaky in the movies and so I would rather them not exist, but that hypothetical thought won’t keep me up at night nor would it cause me to passionately argue and debate their nonexistence with a gremlin believer.
http://johannessiig.com JohannesSiig

I, as an atheist, do not want a God to exist because it removes the wonder of the Universe. It removes the wonder of the future, if there is something controlling the Universe. If a God existed, then all science would be pointless. It would make us mindless drones with the illusion of free will.

If Christianity, or any other religion was true, then our Universe would need to extend to the edge of the solar system, and no further. Instead, we have a vast 5-20 dimensional universe (3 of which we can perceive, 4 if you include time), filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars. Well over 99% of the universe is uninhabitable for humans and for life.

Personally, I conclude, if there truly was a God, and he created the Universe as a test for humans, he must be a pretty bad designer, since this leaves no reason to create all the other stuff.
eightfootmanchild

Professor Nagel’s reply:

—I’m just speaking for myself, but I suspect I’m not alone. And it wasn’t offered as a reason.—

Short but sweet, and the matter is settled. Not wanting Yahweh to exist is NOT a reason for his unbelief. You are wrong. Completely and unequivocally. (anyone who may doubt the authenticity of the reply can post their e-mail address and I’ll happily forward it to them)

I also linked him to this site, should he care to comment himself.

I happen to know you’ve made your congregation members aware of this discussion. The following is addressed to those who might be reading along:

This is what happens when you try and take the lazy route by using dishonest tactics to service your agenda. You will get called out on it, and you will be made an example of. I hope you’ve at least learned that much. You certainly haven’t been learning anything else about reality of late.
Adam Delaplane

Again thank you for doing the research and contacting professor Nagel. However, I would still argue that the quote does show the validity of the biblical response to Atheism. Whether or not Nagel or any other Atheist openly acknowledges that their desire for the existence of God to be false influences their unbelief it seems very clear from that quote that it is something that has an impact on their beliefs and it is something that makes Nagel uneasy.

Why else would Nagel be made uneasy by the “intelligent and well-informed people” around him that are religious believers? On some level his beliefs are being impacted by his desire for the existence of God to be false, and it is that point that makes this course and Jim’s book relevant. The fact that so many Atheists are so unsettled by Jim’s book and this class shows that deep down there is a desire to reject the existence of God and it is that desire that makes the Biblical view relevant.

Bob O'Bannon

Sorry Hugh, didn’t mean to ignore your first post. Just had some trouble posting a response to our Web site, so I sent you a private email response, which read: “For the record, I can understand how a person might be offended by the sub-title of Jim’s book – ‘How Immorality Leads to Unbelief.’ But you should understand that I, as a Christian, consider myself just as immoral (maybe more so) as atheists. The title is not meant to suggest that atheists are bad and Christians are good, because basic Christian theology teaches that everyone is born into this world bad.”

Our intent is not to “bash atheists,” but to explain the Bible’s teaching on how people become atheists. If you are going to say that Dr. Spiegel’s book is “not very Bible based at all,” you will have to provide some evidence from the Bible that contradicts Spiegel’s assertions. Quite to the contrary, you will find that passages like Rom. 1:18-20, Ps. 19:1-4 and Ps. 14:1 confirm Spiegel’s arguments.
eightfootmanchild

By the way, I should probably take the time to say thanks for posting these replies. I’ve been banned from other Christian sites for saying much less.
Loki_999

For those who don’t want to spend their time (and money?) on the course then I’ll give you the answers here:

Q. Why is atheism a growing movement in our society?
A. Because finally the power and control of the religions has finally been overthrown and people are now free to have open and honest discussions about reality without invoking God. Science is now free to provide answers to important questions without the scientists fearing that they will be tortured or killed by the church for their discoveries. And finally, because Humanity is growing up and we realize that God is just Santa Clause for grown ups.

Q. What is the biblical explanation of atheism?
A. God allows it, free will, belief, the usual explanations are rolled out for this one… and completely unsatisfactory once you think about it.

Q. What arguments do atheists use to undermine belief in God?
A. The list goes on and on. Its so easy. Start with Genesis 1 and work forwards.

Q. And how should Christians respond to atheists?
A. Like fellow human beings as long as the atheist is also treating them the same. Shouting “sinner, you will burn in hell” really won’t bother us much, because you see, we don’t believe in hell. In fact, you probably find our idea of what happens after death even more scary than hell because we believe you stop to exist.
http://rationalskepticism.org HughMcB

No need to apologize Bob, hiccups on websites happen often and as for the email you sent it must of got lost in my overflowing inbox. Not that I’m a swell guy with loads of friends mind you, but for some reason a long lost relative in Nigeria keeps emailing me telling me that I’ve inherited the family fortune. Must collect my earnings when I get the chance.

So am I right in thinking that you’re asking me to provide passages from a 2,000+ year old book in order to address the arguments set forward by Spiegel in opposition to the contemporary “New Atheist” movement? Or indeed to address the contemporary machinations of your organization against unbelievers? Isn’t that a tad unfairly restrictive?

Sure Spiegel’s book may be inspired by (or even use passages from) the Bible, but when he steps out into the modern era with critiques of Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens, along with supporting arguments on his behalf from Flew, Platinga and Calvin, then I very much think I am allowed to draw upon material that doesn’t lie deep within a few ancient texts.

It’s rather simple Bob, you can’t have it both ways, you can’t apply Biblical scripture to modern life and then not expect counter arguments drawn from contemporary sources. Is that not the whole point of your exercise here? To teach modern interpretations of the Bible? I mean you’re not teaching these kids to go out and stone atheists are you?

Or can I take it that your congregation is also taught the lessons that, “Women shalt not teach, nor hold authority positions over men.” (1 Timothy 2:11-15); “Crippled people, dwarves, those with flat noses or damaged testicles must stay away from the altar.” (Leviticus 21:18-20); “Thou shalt not wear clothes of mixed fibers.” (Leviticus 19:19); “Thou shalt not be disrespectful to thy parents, lest ye be killed.” (Leviticus 20:9); “Thou shalt not eat pork, shrimp, lobster, or any shellfish.” (Leviticus 11:7-12)?

So can I take it that your flock consists of infanticidal bigots, who refuse polyester socks and the odd crabs leg or sausage?! Come on now, we’re not all as dumb as this! Surely you’re teaching them all this in a modern context? And given that, it deserves to be critiqued as such. Stop hiding behind such fallacious reasoning as pretending this is some sort of historical recounting of ancient opinion. This is nothing more than smear campaign, which is always the last resort of a candidate with few credentials and zero credibility.

If you want to discuss the immorality of atheism then fine, please feel free to do so, but don’t hide behind some collection of ancient myths and legends to justify your modern prejudices.

Sincerely,
HughMcB

PS You debunked the main premise of your buddy’s book yourself: if you are as immoral as many atheists, and your immorality does not lead you to disblief, then immorality does not lead to disbelief. Tell Jim he’s gonna need a recall.
GT2211

After reading through the comments, I noticed some confusion. Perhaps you could clarify your personal or the church’s position to to help better advance the discussion.
The title of the book is ‘How immorality leads to atheism.’

This implies that there is a relation that goes immorality—>atheism. But you seemed to have backed away from that position as you stated you are just as immoral, but not an atheist. You also say that atheism does not lead to immorality. But as already mentioned, either way it implies immorality has correlation with atheism. This seems like a fairly simple trend to find to find in data, yet as previously noted, it does not show up. You found evidence that religion can be useful, but that isn’t the topic of the class.

Bob O'Bannon

Thank you for your good questions. One of the unfortunate developments among Christians is a self-righteous tendency to think of themselves as “moral,” and to look at non-Christians as “immoral.” But the Bible would teach that everyone at the core is “immoral” or “sinful,” and that includes Christians. At our church, we confess our sins together every Sunday morning as a humble expression of this truth.

At the heart of immorality, according to the BIble, is not just outward actions, but an inward dislike for God and rebellion against his authority. We tend to want to be independent, autonomous creatures, and the existence of God is a threat to this desire. Dr. Spiegel’s point (and the Bible’s point) is that this aversion to God influences our ability to evaluate evidence. So, the real cause of atheism is not insufficient evidence for the existence of God (not exclusively an intellectual problem), but a suppression and distortion of the evidence that already exists (primarily a moral problem).

At the same time, the fact that everyone without exception has this tendency to dismiss the existence of God does not mean that everyone persists in that unbelief. So, in my case, although I still consider myself an immoral person (in that I sin every day), I also believe in God, and even more, I believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ on my behalf is sufficient to forgive my immorality, and that the Holy Spirit is at work to make me less and less immoral throughout the course of my life.

I don’t think I actually said that atheism does not lead to immorality. (In fact, I would say that it is impossible for a coherent moral system to flow from an atheistic worldview). My point was only to clarify the thesis of the book, which is to show how immorality, not lack of evidence, is the root cause of atheism, according to Biblical teaching.
Bob

katja z

There has been a lively discussion about Spiegel’s book and his course on atheism over at Rational Skepticism. You might be interested in having a look at it (you will recognize some names):
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/new-life-church-to-offer-course-on-atheism-t8030.html

In particular, one of the posters has demonstrated, very clearly, the basic flaw in the reasoning about morality/immorality and atheism that you seem to adopt. I’m reproducing her argument here (with her permission):

“In a response to HughMcB, Pastor Bob wrote:

“But you should understand that I, as a Christian, consider myself just as immoral (maybe more so) as atheists”.

That pretty much says it all! If immorality leads to unbelief, and if Pastor Bob describes himself as being more immoral than atheists, then how is it that in Pastor Bob’s case, immorality has not led to unbelief?

Think of it this way . . . Spiegel makes the following argument, via the title of his book:

Immorality leads to unbelief [in God].

If Person A is immoral, he will become an atheist.

Yet, Pastor Bob seems to be making the following argument:

Immorality leads to unbelief [in God].

If Person A is immoral, he will become an atheist.

By Pastor Bob’s own admission, Pastor Bob is immoral, perhaps even more immoral than atheists.

Pastor Bob’s immorality does not lead him to unbelief.

Immorality does not lead to unbelief [in God].

By admitting that he is immoral [perhaps even more immoral than atheists] Pastor Bob has proven Dr. Spiegel’s thesis to be incorrect!”

Adam Delaplane

The proof used is logical and makes sense, however, it completely falls apart when you take into account the difference in the way terms are defined. We are approaching the term and idea of “immorality” from two different perspectives. As already explained in the previous responses, when Bob (and Jim Spiegel) refer to immorality they are not referring to specific actions that go against the law or opinion of normality from status quo. They are referring to the state and nature of mankind as sinful and fallen. And the thesis of Jim’s book is not to prove that Christians are more moral than Atheists, or that you can quantify belief in God and Christianity based on moral behavior or trends. The thesis is meant to explain from a Biblical perspective how mankind’s fallen and sinful nature leads to unbelief, and in so doing the response it is stirring up is exactly the opposite of what many of the posters here have expressed. Jim’s book (and the subsequent class) shows that Christians and Atheists start on the same platform as fallen sinners. He shows how the fallen state of man leads to unbelief. Again this is not referring to the specific actions of that person but the state of the heart, and in teaching about Atheism in this way the response from the reader and student is to have more compassion and understanding as they see the similarities between themselves and Atheists.

eightfootmanchild

“the thesis of Jim’s book is not to prove that Christians are more moral than Atheists”

Good for him. It would be awful difficult to argue a thesis that is in exact opposition to reality.

“We are approaching the term and idea of “immorality” from two different perspectives. As already explained in the previous responses, when Bob (and Jim Spiegel) refer to immorality they are not referring to specific actions that go against the law or opinion of normality from status quo. They are referring to the state and nature of mankind as sinful and fallen… The thesis is meant to explain from a Biblical perspective how mankind’s fallen and sinful nature leads to unbelief”

Really? That’s REALLY all there is to it? Why didn’t you say so. See, when a despicable, reprobate, god-hating fornicator like me sees the word “immorality”, he tends to think it refers to actions that are, you know, immoral. Behaviors that are needlessly or excessively harmful, etc.

Turns out, what you’re telling me that the thesis of this book/course has no referent to any immorality that is actually demonstrable or manifest in reality. That the only pertinent “immorality” is the kind that is indistinguishable from the imagination of believers.

If that is in fact all there is to the thesis, how could I possibly have a problem with it? As long as you stay confined to your imagination, preach away. Just don’t step out of bounds.

Brett

I sense the sarchasm! Although you are an atheist, if I were to meet you in person I doubt very much I would describe you as despicable, reprobate (i.e., morally unprincipaled), god-hating (how could you actively hate someone whose existence you don’t even accept?), or a fornicator! In fact my knowledge of you by your posts doesn’t even lead me to such conclusions! Nevertheless, we clearly have different working definitions of “immorality.” Please, would you inform me as to your definition? So far, my understanding of your definition of immorality is needless or excessive harm. Please elaborate!

eightfootmanchild

Also,

—if Spiegel is not referring to immorality as “specific actions that go against the law or opinion of normality from status quo,” then why does he list the names of atheists in his book who are immoral and then go on to describe the immoral behavior of such atheists? For example, of Leo Tolstoy, he writes (or quotes from another book–I’m not quite sure) that Tolstoy was a “megalomaniacal and misogynistic; a chronic gambler and adulterer; a seducer of women and contemptuous of his wife.”

If Spiegel is not referring to immorality as “specific actions that go against the law or opinion of normality from status quo,” then why does he write, on page 47 of his book, the following:

“Among the diverse vices that characterize the intellectuals studied by Johnson, brazen sexual promiscuity is the one recurring theme. So it is not surprising that most of these men explicitly rejected the Judeo-Christian worldview.”—

Thanks to Sophie T from RatSkep for the preceding info.

Adam Delaplane

This is exactly the reason why I have been encouraging anyone wanting to discuss the book and this course to please READ the book.

First of all to answer your question, in that section of the book Spiegel is citing a study conducted by historian Paul Johnson described as “an examination of the moral and judgmental credentials of the leading intellectuals to give advice to humanity on how to conduct its affairs.” The reason behind this was not to point them out as evil corrupt sinners that should be scorned and ostracized by Christians, but to question the motivation behind their belief system. To finish the quote that you posted “Indeed, many of their scholarly and creative works openly challenge the values of this tradition, which condemns the sorts of lascivious behavior that dominated their lives.”

Secondly that quote that you posted is not from page 47 it is found on page 72 which is further proof that it is much better to debate and discuss a book that you actually have in front of you to read in its entirety and consult rather than just taking what someone else has quote-mined and read selectively.

eightfootmanchild

“First of all to answer your question, in that section of the book Spiegel is citing a study conducted by historian Paul Johnson described as “an examination of the moral and judgmental credentials of the leading intellectuals to give advice to humanity on how to conduct its affairs.” The reason behind this was not to point them out as evil corrupt sinners that should be scorned and ostracized by Christians, but to question the motivation behind their belief system. To finish the quote that you posted “Indeed, many of their scholarly and creative works openly challenge the values of this tradition, which condemns the sorts of lascivious behavior that dominated their lives.””

So it specific actions and behaviors ARE relevant to the thesis after all. Good to know.

“Secondly that quote that you posted is not from page 47 it is found on page 72″

It’s probably the e-book version.
Adam Delaplane

It may indeed be in the ebook that way, however, my point is still valid it does make it harder for you to understand or debate this section of the book when you have not read it. Specific actions and behaviors are not the basis of the thesis, but they are used in certain places for further explanation. You are correct they are relevant but they are not the basis. Discussing and reasoning purely from a title and selected passages is not an intellectual way of discussing a written work.
eightfootmanchild

“Specific actions and behaviors are not the basis of the thesis, but they are used in certain places for further explanation.”

But not when referring to actual patterns of action and behavior in reality, apparently. Once you get called out on that – by showing New England to be the most atheistic AND most moral region of the country, for example – then it’s time to retreat into the nebulous, fact-impervious realm of “Biblical morality”.

I see.
eightfootmanchild

And can I just say it’s pretty hilarious of you to accuse someone of quote-mining at this point in the discussion? Do you REALLY want to go there?
Adam Delaplane

Quote-mining is the argument you first levied and the only reason for using it is to show that while we have been constantly accused of using fallacious argumentative tactics they are in fact occurring quite a bit to attack Jim’s book and the subsequent class, and the most blatant of these is selective reading and reasoning from the title alone.
eightfootmanchild

After all, the claim was NOT that “the reason behind this was… to point them out as evil corrupt sinners that should be scorned and ostracized by Christians”. It was to show that specific actions and behaviors are in fact relevant to the thesis.

Brett

I wouldn’t characterize Bob’s statement as illogical. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian to claim 1) immorality leads to unbelief, 2) i am immoral, and 3) i believe. it is perfectly reasonable, that is, when you accept basic Christian othodoxy (i.e., God’s redemption of immoral man through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ). Bob’s statement was not a logical proof, as your argument presupposes it is. He was not making an argument (one which, as you have constructed, would be illogical), rather, he was simply admitting his own immorality of nature, and by extension, his need for a savoir (Jesus Christ) who can rescue him from his immorality and it’s effects.

I’m not sure I would disagree with your observation of the apparent absurdity of Bob’s statement, if in fact Bob were an atheist. But Bob is not. Being a theist, and more specifically a Christian theist, he believes there is a resolution to the problem you have proposed. When you accept his resolution (which is supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence), his statement is in no way illogical.

Dan Perkins

I think that it is important to recognize that there are two different conversations to be had in relation to this topic. Dr. Spiegel makes this point at the beginning of his book.
When Christians are interacting with one another, the subject of the conversation is in regards to what does the Bible teach about atheism. Why are their atheists when it is so clear that God exists.
On the other hand, when interacting with non-Christians, the subject has to be different. Discussing immorality and atheism together really does not serve much purpose in that setting. The starting point for the conversation has to be somewhere else.

The problem, as demonstrated by the above comments, is in relation to our understanding of immorality. For the atheist, immorality can probably be best defined as “actions that go against the accepted social norm.” Thus, the conversation goes to issues like safest places to live or relative crime rates.
The difference is that, as Christians, we use a different definition of immorality. Immorality, as we define it is, “actions that go against the standards set by God”. In that case, we are looking at a totally different set of actions/inactions.

The other thing to be aware of is the difference between what occurs in the class and “bashing” of atheists. I can promise you that their is no bashing that occurs. First of all, we recognize that from a Biblical perspective, Christians and non-Christians alike are immoral by nature. All of us fail to live up to the standard that God has set for our lives. That is a basis on which we build everything that we believe.

I guess that the ultimate purpose of what I am saying is that we can continue to debate the merits of this class if you would like, but ultimately it is going to be unsuccessful because we are arguing our points from imcompatible view points.
Now, if we want to discuss the arguments for/against the existence of God, and THEN the definition of immorality, that can get us to a place to discuss the merits of this class.
http://rationalskepticism.org HughMcB

Dear Pastor,

I am rather disheartened to find a rather sudden change in events as of late. I see that not only have you set about the systematic removal of posts from your website, but you also have taken it upon yourself to alienate those people (like myself) who were genuinely trying to hold a discourse with you over this proposed class on offer at your church. I must say I was duped into thinking that you were a pretty open and reasonable man of the cloth, but it turns out, upon reading a transcripts of your sermon, along with the removal of my comments from your website, that I was very very wrong indeed.

First things first, may I ask why you chose to remove my comment (along with I may add, rejecting a comment I subsequently made)? I made sure in all of my comments not to use profanity or ridicule you in any way, as I was aware that your congregation may view it and I wouldn’t like to upset any of the devout who could take these matters very seriously. I only wanted to critique the teaching of a book that so obviously teaches falsities and cultivates hatred towards others, a very un-Christ-like lesson. Therefore, within reason, I was courteous to my utmost to both you and the rather offensive course that you were offering to you flock in the hopes of reaching a mutually beneficial debate on this topic.

Secondly I would like to ask, why are you now preaching falsities to you congregation in order to score points against the “wicked”? Surely if God was on your side you would not have to stoop to such dishonesty. You claim that there was a debate going on over at your website, but I am quite perplexed as to how one “debates” where one of the debaters is not only unduly censored, but actually has their arguments stricken from the records? I broke no rules nor gave any justifiable cause for this action, except of course perhaps that I wrote something you might not want your congregation to see once you encouraged them to go look at your website. A copy of which, I still have on record by the way. We atheists may be immoral, evil sinners, but dumb is not too often in our vocabulary.

With regard to your sermon, I particularly like your comment of how this exchange between atheists and yourself over on your website “has been growing”. I must admit it rather humors me that your definition of “growing” seems to go hand in hand with deletion of comments made by the opposition, along with the full suspension of publishing all further comments from said parties. Perhaps it’s just me, but I would of categorized this as being the very antithesis of “growing”.

robing a little more into your sermon, I seemed to be smacked in the face with astounding accusations of atheists speaking with “malice” and “scoff” from the beginning, which seems inconceivably ironic coming from a person who endorses a smear campaign of misrepresentation and active indoctrination of bigotry against “the wicked” and “immoral atheists” long before any comments were made by us on such matters. And what’s all this fascist talk about Bob?! I believe the only comment made about fascism (which did not make it beyond your moderation by the way by the way) was made in relation to your systematic and malicious censorship of posts which may of compromised you and your website through reasoned, logical arguments.

So let me get this straight, not only to you censor and delete comments which you feel are detrimental to your cause, but then, you use a person’s comment’s that this censorship was “fascist” behavior and turn that around as propaganda to make yourself look even more vilified to your flock?! Well Bob, if the smear campaign combined with your censorship and deletion of posts was not enough, I’m fairly confident that your distortion of words and misrepresentation of events to suit your ends, well and truly solidifies your actions as laying well and truly within the realms of fascism.

What I can never understand is how a man of the cloth, a righteous, devout, holy man of Christ, is using such underhanded, malicious and dishonest tactics that you have shown here to preach a message of divine enlightenment. As I said, once I saw you were engaging in conversation I sincerely came to your site seeking a rational discourse with you over a subject that deeply concerned me. I thought we could present our differing arguments rationally and perhaps, if not find a solution, at least we would understand each other a little better and take away something to be learned from the experience. All I can say for my new found knowledge on this subject is, don’t trust this preacher.

So in light of these events Pastor, I challenge you to post this letter on your website for all of your congregation to see. I challenge you to repost my reasonable and leveled arguments put forward to you in my last comment that you so maliciously deleted. I challenge you to show the truth to your congregation by publishing our comments, to let them see first hand whether this bunch of wicked immoral atheists really deserve the scorn you have shown. I challenge you to read this letter to your congregation and do your utmost to discredit this one, particular, wicked and evil atheist. I challenge you to let the good people of your congregation decide what they think for themselves. And lastly, I challenge you to engage me again in reasonable, rational discourse, either on your website, or on the one which I frequent, rationalskepticism.org. I believe you already are aware of the discussion we are having about this proposed course on our site.

I await your response to these challenges, however judging by your behavior to date, I don’t think I’ll hold out much hope that you will rise to the occasion in defense of your inexcusable position. I sincerely do wish however, that I am gravely mistaken in all this and that you can reasonably explain this recent spate of bizarre events. If so, I will be more than happy to retract any and all of my accusations of fowl play and deliberate dishonesty.

Regards,
HughMcB

Bob O'Bannon

Hugh — Be assured that we are not removing or deleting posts. Some posts have not been made public simply because we don’t have anyone who has the time to read and/or respond to all the messages we have been getting. (Our Web administrator sent you an email about this a few days ago, which you hopefully received).

We are a relatively small church with a small staff, and personally I haven’t been able to read any comments since last Tuesday morning, when I submitted a few replies. We are still working through how to manage the traffic effectively. The accusation of being “fascist” was one of the first comments received and was therefore expressed before we even read any of the posts, and much longer before we had a chance to make any decisions about what to approve.

Having said all of this, we are happy to post your message. In fact, I am eager to allow the “good people of (my) congregation” to witness the way the attitude of some atheists discredits their worldview. There is a certain hostile tone in your messages, and in many other messages that we have received (but not all of them), that makes me question whether you want to enter into a “mutually beneficial debate” or just start a fight. I too would genuinely like the opportunity for us to understand each other better, as you have said, but I am not convinced that this is your true goal.

Regarding the “astounding accusations” of atheists speaking with malice and scoff, you will have to address your concern to the writer of Psalm 73, and ultimately to God himself, who inspired the writing of the psalm, because this idea comes from Him, not from me.

I had no idea about any discussion at rationalskepticism.org about Dr. Spiegel’s course (which is not merely “proposed,” but is about to enter its fourth week). But if the bravado there is as thick as it is here, then don’t expect me to show up any time soon.
Bob

Stone

Does the book deal carefully and systematically with the actual history of atheism? There are ten chief pathbreaking atheists who introduced the concept to their respective cultures, starting with ancient India and ending in 19th-century Europe. There are profound differences from one to the other. At a minimum, shouldn’t these ten figures be carefully described in any responsible survey of atheism?

What does the book say about Brhaspati, Leukippos, Democritus, Critias, Theodorus, Straton, Vanini, Knutzen, Meslier and Marx and the differences among them? And what original contributions did each of them make in terms of either immorality or morality? And how was each one different from the others in terms of each one’s individual morality?

Among other things, studying atheism also entails studying the history of an idea and the various contexts in which that idea has been pioneered in culture after culture. In assessing these ten pathbreakers, what does this book show about the various contexts in which this idea has continually been introduced in new settings, and what does the book say about these ten specific figures who pioneered this idea in different places and eras?

I have a hunch that the respective morality and/or immorality of each of these ten figures can easily be learned by some of the readers here, using only their own resources, including the Web. Now that would be an interesting challenge. Can readers here try matching the book’s store of information? — if the book is systematic enough to cover these ten pioneers in the first place, that is.

Stone

Adam Delaplane

First of all neither the class nor the book is meant to be a survey of the history of Atheism. (If that were the case it would be much longer than 128 pages.)

Also please see the comments and responses by others in regards to the purpose of the book/class and the difference in the way you are defining immorality (actions, deeds, and social trends) as opposed to the way Christians define immorality (mankind’s sinful and fallen state).

Adam Delaplane

I would like to offer up a challenge those posting here, and that is to please read Jim’s book before making wild or even logical accusations based solely on the title. The way to debate any written work is to first of all READ it, determine and understand the thesis and then evaluate whether or not the thesis was proved in the end. While there are some very well written arguments and perspectives put forth in these post they fall short not because of their rational but because they fail to understand the perspective of the book and thus the perspective of the class.

From an intellectual and logical perspective it seems premature to begin debating a book and a class before you have taken the time to read and familiarize yourself with anything more than the title.

Stone

Candidly, Adam Delaplane, I would only be interested in reading it if it deals with any of those ten pathbreakers I already cited (Brihaspati [Lokayata pioneer], Leukippos, Democritus, Critias, Theodorus, Straton, Vanini, Knutzen, Meslier and Marx). My interest in this topic is genuine, insofar as these unusual pioneers are concerned, and I am happy to read anything on these ten that I can find — from any perspective, truly. So I’m still sincerely interested — please? — and not for debating purposes at all — in whether or not this book surveys these chief pathbreaking atheists through the millennia. Thank you.

Since you evidently do have a working knowledge of the book, anything you can tell me on those ten in the book would be greatly appreciated, since I do remain very interested in anything that’s out there on those ten — of which there is precious little, candidly (save on Democritus, Vanini and Marx). If those ten are surveyed, I’d be interested in reading this. If not, then I already have so many books, from all perspectives, on this very theme that obtaining this might very well be a “been there, done that” proposition.

Many thanks,

Stone

Adam Delaplane

There is information provided about many different Atheist thinkers/leaders, but it is not formatted in the sense of a historical survey or biography. So I am afraid you would probably not find it very useful or informative in providing further knowledge on any of the ten path-breakers you cited.

I completely understand the dilemma of having thousands of books and only hundreds that have been read. That is one place where I am sure we can all agree. There is never enough time to read all that interests us. That said if you find time I think reading Jim’s book will most likely not give you a different perspective on Atheism, but it will hopefully give you a different perspective on Christianity and the way Christians are called to respond to Atheism. I would encourage you to read it, if for no other reason than it would be wonderful to hear your perspective on what is said.

eightfootmanchild

“The fact that so many Atheists are so unsettled by Jim’s book and this class shows that deep down there is a desire to reject the existence of God and it is that desire that makes the Biblical view relevant.”

Can I just expand on the asininity of this assertion for a minute?

If this were true, no one could ever hope to defend themselves against any kind of accusation because any attempt at defense would be a subverted admission of guilt.

Me: All Catholics are child molesters.
Catholics: Ne we aren’t. That is demonstrably false.
Me: Ah-hah. The fact that you are so unsettled shows that deep down there is a desire for you to molest children.

I don’t believe for one second that you are so deluded as to think this line of reasoning is anything other than absurd. You’re only using it to try and ad hoc your way out of the corner you’ve painted yourself into.

Adam Delaplane

There is a difference between responding to an accusation and levying radical insults and belligerent remarks. I am really not referring to the discussion taking place here, but more the comments we are unable to post here because of the unnecessary malice and inappropriate content, and more so than that I am referring to the numerous emails Jim gets on a daily basis that contain not logical and sincere responses but petty name calling personal threats. I hope you would agree that when a person responds to something like that it is more telling than a mere response to an accusation.

eightfootmanchild

I don’t agree that it’s more telling.

Me: All Catholics are child molesters.
Catholics: Ne we aren’t, ***hole.
Me: Ah-hah. The fact that you are so unsettled shows that deep down there is a desire for you to molest children.

I don’t approve of directly insulting someone (in most cases), but the same line of reasoning doesn’t magically become valid or sound if the other person throws in some yucky words.

Adam Delaplane

There is a difference in tone that can be detected that that can add weight or validity to the point being made.

However, I was not illustrating or putting out a universal assertion. In this situation when we are talking about the validity of the Biblical perspective on Atheism the fact that so many are unsettled by the book and subsequent class is telling. The fact that many are responding not by reading the book or informing their arguments but instead are jumping to conclusions and levying personal insults and threats towards Jim does add validity to the Biblical view. It either shows that they have read and understood what Jim’s book says and rather than engage in an intellectual discussion they resort to name calling or they refuse to read the book which shows an unwillingness to understand another perspective and that mindset validates the Biblical perspective as well.

Categories
Archives
- 2012 (12)
- 2011 (136)
- 2010 (90)
- 2009 (8)

Summer Adult Sunday School Offerings

New Life News & Updates

my.newlife Login

Sunday Morning Worship

Categories

Archives