Nonsensical Logic From The New Atheist Camp

Its not a secret that the group of intellectuals who refer to themselves as “The New Atheists” have made it a mission to promote a conversational intolerance of any religion. Their belief, and I want to emphasis the word “belief”, is that the societal removal of religion from human practice and thought would somehow be a “victory” for human kind, ending the supposed and implied oppression, intolerance, and irrationality that they believe is a natural bi-product of faith.

I’ve posted in the past numerous logical fallacies, errors, and just flat out falsehoods perpetuated by these clowns, but this one is especially telling. Neil Degrasse Tyson, one of the most well respected scientists in the world, is a virtual superstar. He made science “cool”, he’s a hero to young aspiring science enthusiasts from virtually all ages and all walks of life. More importantly, he’s honest. Claiming to be basically agnostic, though tolerant and even almost indifferent to faith or religion, he asked a very crucial question of Sam Harris here in the above video years ago in an open forum. Sam Harris is basically the young rockstar of the New Atheists, though he’s found no new ways of regurgitating the same misinformation that Dawkins, Hitches, or Krauss have been preaching for years.

Tyson wants to know, that if religious people are otherwise not effecting other people with their beliefs, why is it so important to remove it from humanity? I ask the same question, and I’ll use myself as an example. I believe the Bible cover to cover. Jesus is my Lord and Savior, I believe I’m a sinner in need of salvation and because of Him, I have it. I also have no problems learning, and in fact enjoy learning, much of what mainstream science has to offer. I teach my kids the same science, evolution, cosmology, physics, etc, that mainstream science wants me to. I oppress no one, I violate no one’s civil or human rights. Why then, is it important I shed these “bonds” I’m supposedly bound in? How am I negatively effecting my fellow man? How am I holding humanity back? Sam Harris’ answer to Tyson was very telling. You’ll notice he immediately passes over the main point of Tyson’s question, that being that people are not harming others, and goes to the most extreme examples he can think of. But the fact remains, say in the U.S. for example, most claim to believe in God. They read their Bibles, they go to church. They also have their kids in the same schools, learning real science, and go about their daily lives effecting no one.

The burden of proof here is on atheists like Sam Harris to DEMONSTRATE how the general concept of faith and putting it into practice is bad for mankind. See, the name of the game gets exposed when asked questions like this, because their accusation all along is that all religion, all faith, is EQUALLY dangerous and EQUALLY immoral and EQUALLY irrational. If that’s the case, why when confronted with the fact that most people of faith are not only not harming mankind, but are in fact productive within it, are they forced immediately to jump to the most extreme examples, such as Islamic fascism? Its time the New Atheists, instead of attacking the position of faith, to start defending the weaknesses and flaws in their own position. Because its a matter of verifiable fact, as history proves, that man can believe in God, serve Christ, and not only not “oppress” his fellow man but he can also work to set him free. More to come on that later.

Challenge To “New Atheists”

So basically the group calling themselves “The New Atheists” has a seemingly superstar cast of intellectuals championing their cause. Many in the world would recognize the names Sam Harris, Laurence Krauss, the late Christopher Hitchens, and of course Richard Dawkins. The goal of these thinkers is clear: promote a conversational intolerance in both the public and private sectors to anything religious. According to The New Atheists, religion and people who practice any particular faith need to be challenged on their individual merits at every occasion in order to get religion out of the way. Here is their mission statement.

So according to this group, religion is “in the way” of progress. The obvious problem is that atheists and agnostics alike that engage in this issue have no idea how to even define what they mean by “progress” because they have no idea what the “goal” is. Without the obvious goal at the end of the road, you have no idea if you’re progressing or regressing. But that’s for another day. For now, let’s just examine the grosser fallacies in this crusade of the New Atheists. The falsehoods and flat out untruths I’m about to list are not untrue based on my perspective or opinion, but as a matter if logical fact.

1. Science: you’ll notice that in their mission statement, and certainly in almost every debate any of these people have been apart of, that the theme here is that religion is somehow corrupting objective science and education as a whole. This is completely untrue. While there are those in the religious world that deny evolution and haggle about the age of the earth, there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever that suggests religion is in any way shape or form blocking “progress” in science or education. As a matter of fact, Richard Dawkins, who made the claim “you can’t do science objectively if you have to account for miracles” said as such in a debate with John Lennox, a mathematician. I’ve addressed this in a previous post. Did Lennox’s math change because of his beliefs? Did Ian Hutchinson, the nuclear physicist at M.I.T. have his results corrupted because of his believe in the Bible? No. Christian physicians for that matter are of an overwhelming number and they practice medicine as good as any atheist. So the largest and most contentious point of the New Atheists is already proven false simply by observing the reality of humanity in this world.

2. Morality: Its fashionable for militant atheists to talk callously of Christian and Muslim violence, how much of the war and death humanity has suffered stems from religous belief and that without religious belief such violence would not happen. But why is it then that the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history? Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all atheists, and between the three of them the death toll sits currently at 134 million people. Hitler wasn’t even mentioned. Now Dawkins or Harris would point out that these murderers didn’t do it in the name of atheism, which is quite right. But the obvious fact is that they were atheists who killed more people than every death calculated in all the wars combined in human history collectively, and they did not do it in the name of a god or religion. Hitchens in a debate with John Lennox tried to confuse the issue with a convoluted rant about how the church was involved in some indirect way with Stalin but its a simple lie.

In the end, I challenge any atheist to show empirical evidence that religion is holding humanity back. I have no oppressive beliefs, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ freed me, He didn’t enslave me. The New Atheists can sit on their intellectual soap box and make blanket assumptions about people but they don’t speak for me. They don’t get to decide with any authority that I’m “oppressed” in my theism. Its interesting how they can demand those of faith to defend their positions while they feel they can make sweeping generalizations and obtuse speculations without a hint of verifiable evidence as if by simply the nature of being atheist that whatever declaration they make, the onus is on the theist to prove them wrong. Sorry Dawkins, sorry Harris, sorry Krauss, it doesn’t work that way. You make the claims, you back them up. This is absolutely a popularity contest, and groups like the New Atheist will continue to lose precisely because they can’t defend their own arguments on their merits, something they demand of everyone else.

Richard Dawkins: Exposing About Himself What Most Of Us Already Knew

Richard Dawkins, considered in most circles to be one of the great scientific minds of our time, has at various times exposed his true personality throughout the years in his many lectures, debates, and books that involve the question of the existence of God. For some bizarre reason, he and others who call themselves “The New Atheists” have a crusade to save humanity against the evil forces of religious belief. The above video is a simple but very telling example however, of not only the total lack of objectivity on the part of Dawkins but the complete lack of concern for the humanity he’s supposedly trying to unbrainwash. (Not that “unbrainwash is a word)

How do I draw this conclusion? Its very simple. As Ravi Zacharias points out in the video, Dawkins tells the multitudes to mock various religious beliefs with “contempt”, and to do so publicly. To him, these beliefs deserve to be ridiculed. Yet, as Ravi rightly states, Dawkins has no intention of going to Iran to mock their beliefs. Why is that I wonder? Because Dawkins, a man who claims, along with his “New Atheist” brethren, that all religions are equally destructive, knows full well that not all religions are equally destructive. Otherwise he’d accept the challenge. Dawkins, throughout nearly every debate he’s ever been a part of in regards to religion vs. science, has never been able to do much other than to make wild accusations, assumptions, and making sweeping generalizations, of which no one ever asks him to verify with any sort of logic or evidence. When you get past all the rhetoric and intelligent wordplay, he’s basically sticking his fingers in his ears while screaming “la la la you’re irrational”. Okay. But I’ll address some of his inconsistencies and flat out lies in another post. But for now, let’s compare what Dawkins is campaigning for to that of the person who responded to his nonsense in this video: Ravi Zacharias.

See, Ravi actually did, once upon a time, visit the middle east, in fact visited a sheik who was a notorious terrorist leader of the Hamas regime during Arafat’s reign. Ravi and he discussed various points of Christianity, and eventually when Ravi was leaving and attempting to get in his car, the sheik ran toward his car, embraced him, kissed him on both cheeks, and with tears in his eyes, said “You’re a good man, I hope to see you again some day”. That’s an Islamic terrorist, a murderer, who embraced a man who just rejected Islam on his own soil and professed Jesus Christ as the Messiah. But because of Ravi’s authenticity in his concern, compassion, and love for humanity, because of his desperation to see someone learn the truth, the sheik was moved tears. Could Dawkins have gotten that reaction? Is he even interested?

The problem with Dawkins is that he really could care less who believes in God. He’s not promoting science, or atheism, or secularism. He’s promoting Richard Dawkins. His anger is completely unjustified what’s more, because he falsely tried to attach some noble connotation to it. He claims that he nor anyone can’t do science objectively if they have to worry about miracles being “smuggled” into the equation. But John Lennox, a mathematician from Oxford whom Dawkins has debated twice, believes in the Bible word for word. Did the numbers change because he believes in God? No. Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear physicist at M.I.T., believes in the Bible word for word, is he less of a scientist? Can Dawkins verify how the their science is negatively effected by their belief? If religion is so in the way of “progress”, how then do atheists like Dawkins reconciled over 135 million deaths at the hands of atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao? There are plenty of claims these New Atheists make that they have no interest in supporting, yet their entire campaign is to demand Christians account for and verify their own faith at every turn. But what we do know, what we can verify, is that Dawkins is an angry individual, but that anger has nothing to do with honor, nobility, truth, or any concern or love for the humanity he claims to try “free” from the religious belief.

Sam Harris: He’s Not As Smart As He Thinks

This is a great little snippet from one of Lee Strobel’s television shows earlier this year, where Sam Harris, a member of the New Atheists group, is pushing his latest book, entitled “The End of Faith.” Hugh Hewitt is the other guest meant to somehow challenge Mr. Harris on the premise of his book.

First of all, the entire idea behind the New Atheists group is utterly preposterous, as its its core goal is to stamp religion and faith not only out of the public sector but to push what Sam Harris calls in this clip a “conversational intolerance” of religion. But unlike his counterpart Hugh, I don’t have a problem with this. Not at all. Bring it Sam. Why? Because his entire argument is that faith and the claims made by theists need to start being challenged publicly more and more so we can move beyond the dangers of religion as a civilized society. That’s great. Because a lot of the claims of Christianity are easy to demonstrate, or at least support. What isn’t easy to demonstrate, in fact could be impossible, are a lot of the claims made by Sam and those of his ilk. For example:

1. Sam claims that there is no evidence that a personal God wrote any of our books. That’s true, and Christianity doesn’t claim that God wrote them either. Christianity claims that the Bible is inspired by God.
2. Sam accuses religion, as having justified cruelty that rational people would otherwise not justify without religion. But not all religion justifies cruelty, and even in some cases where Christianity in particular is accused of justifying “cruelty”, its a subjective view of what is “cruel”. That is the claim that militant atheists like Sam refuse to acknowledge in their zeal to get theists to justify their own beliefs.
3. Sam falsely claims that while Christianity has progressed over the decades and over the centuries from beyond things like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, that the only reason we’ve progressed is not because of faith or religion, but because of scientific and social progressiveness. This is patently false and totally unsubstantiated. First of all, he assumes without evidence that science can progress, social interaction can progress, but understanding of religion is never allowed to improve. In other words, Christians are incapable of coming to a better understanding of their faith in Christ, and are not allowed to improve on that knowledge, but scientists and sociologists are allowed to come to better understandings of the world around them. This is so flabbergastingly nonsensical and devoid of any basis in fact its a wonder smarter people haven’t challenged Sam Harris on this before. He then contradicts himself when he asks why there aren’t suicide Christian, Palestinian bombers. That’s the point Sam. All religions are NOT the same, not all faith is destructive, and not all theists promote beliefs that get people unjustifiably killed. I couldn’t have made the point better myself. So even atheists like Sam can see the difference between a faith like Islam and a faith like Christianity, yet he lumps all theism into one pot and wants to boil the faith right out of it, assuming that if religion is removed, that man will have no reason to harm man.

So in the end, while guys like Sam Harris write entire books about how theists need to be challenged more to demonstrate their claims, they are making sweeping, blatant, wild generalizations, speculations, and pushing theories that have no basis in fact, which is why no facts are given to support their views. That is why I’m all for the “conversational intolerance” that he speaks of, because it will put militant atheists like himself in the uncomfortable position of proving their own speculations.

In God We Trust

This website will never be political, ever. There are too many of those blogs where people engage in internet battles of wit as it is. But given what happened in Congress last night, the state of our country and its leadership, I felt it prudent to write something meaningful.

The fact is in my experience Christian liberals and Christian conservatives alike seem to think Scripture supports their political views and their political views alone, and if you don’t vote to legislate that way, you’re “not being very Christian”. I would not only encourage Christians not to question the spirituality of their brothers and sisters in these matters but would also warn them of the grave danger in judgments of that nature. For example, I’m against a universal healthcare system for America. But would I really question the authenticity of a liberal’s Christianity simply because they disagree with me about a governmental policy? Seriously? Just because I can point to Scriptures in Proverbs that talk of being rewarded for one’s own hard work? Also, while I’m certain homosexual behavior is sinful, am I really to have my spirituality brought in question because I don’t think the government should legislate against people having those relationships? Did Jesus ever even speak on those matters? No. He spoke to the heart of the individual, their motives, their personal thoughts, actions, and choices.

What Christians need to remember is that these are all matters of policy. That’s it: policy. That isn’t to trivialize the debates or the issues, they are important and should certainly be discussed, and even passionately discussed. But when they get to the point that we are so concerned with just being “right” that we close off all reason and openness to the possibility that we might be wrong, when we get to the point that we are actually questioning our brothers/sisters relationship with Jesus, not because their motives are poor but because we question their knowledge and the veracity of their policy, then we need to search within ourselves and ask whether or not our motives are pure. If being “right” trumps being a brother in Christ, then I’m of no use to Christ at all. If being a “conservative” trumps loving my fellow man because my fellow man is a liberal who disagrees with me about an economical policy, than the Kingdom is probably better off without my contribution. I encourage all, when discussing important issues, that as important as they are, they are finite, and of little to no account when one considers our relationship with Christ. I leave you with this: “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” (Matthew 6:33 NASB)

Btw, as an aside, I know I’ve been sporadic with my posting, often taking months off at a time, but I plan to write on a more regular basis from here on out, as this site and the Bible research and introspection that comes with it is a form of ministry for me. Looking forward to any contributions and insight anyone is willing to make.

Gay Marriage And Christianity

Though this isn’t a political site, nor do I want it to be, I thought it necessary to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s latest decision concerning gay marriage. Christians far and wide have let their displeasure heard over the decision to allow federal benefits for those same sex couples who are legally married in the states that allow same sex marriage.

But I disagree with the displeasure, at least partly. First, I’m against government involvement in marriage at all. There shouldn’t be tax breaks or benefits on the federal level because I fell in love, and there shouldn’t be tax breaks because I have babies. Both were my choice. Second, I’m appalled at the idea of same sex marriage. However, I don’t believe this battle is a battle for the courts. Its not the federal government’s job to protect true marriage. That is the job of us Christians.

Until the cultural devolution in this country is steered in reverse, fighting in court will get us nowhere. A gay couple getting married doesn’t devalue my marriage in any way, and my marriage and family isn’t threatened by it. The real issue is that, as basic as it may sound, people in this country need Jesus Christ. That’s it, and that’s all. The rest will take care of itself. Christianity is the new counter culture, and its up to those of with with mouths, brains, Bibles, and the Holy Spirit to protect true marriage, not through the oppression of laws written by an overreaching government, but through the spread of God’s Word.

Christianity and Martial Arts

Martial arts have been at the forefront of my life for some years now, ever since I started training in muay thai and my 7 year old son likewise in Gracie’s Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. Those two disciplines are two of the most popular sports/styles right now thanks largely to the growth of the UFC and mixed martial arts as a whole in the past 10 years. 

What has amazed me though is the amount of mixed martial artists (cage fighters) who are not only of the Christian faith, but actively wearing their Christianity on their sleeves, right where its suppose to be. These fighters are every bit as public about their faith as any Tim Tebow but of course MMA hasn’t quite reached the status of the NFL yet. But its the fastest growing sport in the world. Brazil is pretty much the martial arts capital of the world thanks to the Gracie family’s Jiu Jitsu and its prevalence in the UFC and cage fighting. So its not surprising that most of those fighters are Christian, as Brazil is a very catholic country. But the number of American and European fighters who are publicly and actively professing their faith and using fighting as a platform seems to be growing by the day. Most notably is Benson Henderson, the current world champion in UFC’s Lightweight division. He’s a dominant fighter, but walks out to Christian music, is active in ministry, and a great ambassador. He’s only one example but I could go on. 

Its an odd dynamic, the art of punching/kicking another man in the face while professing Jesus Christ. While I’m not training for MMA, the muay training I do will lead to a fight at some point in the future, and even the sparring is very intense. Muay Thai is generally considered the most brutal form of striking in the world, while BJJ is probably the number one best form of self defense and submission grappling in the world. Is it sinful to do that kind of damage to another man’s body for sport? Its an interesting discussion to have. People are cashing in on this new dynamic as well. There are even Christian MMA apparel companies, such as “Jesus Didn’t Tap”. Its my favorite, and the short I train in have that logo. 

Some have strong feelings about the idea of fighting for sport while representing the cross of Christ. But for me, its exciting to see Christianity blowing up in my favorite sports like muay thai, Brazillian Jiu Jitsu, and MMA. The rise of the UFC is encouraging as most of these fighters are under contract with the organisation. The possibilities that come with the best and most popular fighters in the world in the fastest growing sport in the world, using to reach people for Christ, are simply endless. For me, its a very exciting time. 

Hitchens vs. Dinesh

A long debate, but worth the look of you have the time. Obviously it touches on a number if issues and questions in regards to the debate over the existence of God, but I’ll focus on only one here.

At about 1:13:00 Hitchens is railing away at how we as humans should not claim to “know” why we are here as humans or how “it” all began. Its good he acknowledges that its a very good and very important question, but that the question should remain open, the questions “sharpened”, and all the infinite possibilities explored. Well, there are some issues with that:

1. He and most of his atheist crusaders, while claiming that we can’t “know” yet the true meaning of our own existence, have rejected literally every explanation that doesn’t deal in the scientific realm of possibilities.
2. If we can’t “know”, than rejecting any possibility as irrational, not just religious explanation but ANY explanation, is just as fallacious as claiming to “know”.

The first issue is an issue for simple reasons: the true meaning of our existence can’t be quantified in scientific terms, because to answer that question one must go beyond the “beginning”, if any, and science can’t do that. Ever. Science is the study of the natural, observable world we live in and whether you believe in a big bang, or some other mechanism, science can’t look beyond the formation of the natural order.

The second issue is the problem with most atheist crusaders. They claim to have a lock on what makes a belief “rational” without ever demonstrating what makes a belief rational or irrational. They simply chant over and over again that Christianity and all other forms of religion are irrational. But the fact remains, in their worldview built supposedly on verifiable, empirical evidence, they have none to validate their accusation that belief in a Creator, which is obvious to 2/3ds of the world’s population, is irrational.

So Hitchens is right, we can’t “know” in the factual sense why we are here. But the Christian explanation, built on the completely logical conclusion that the natural order had a beginning and that life cannot be formed from nonlife, coupled with the verifiable evidence that supports the reliability of the Bible, is still far better an explanation than the ultimate idea that there is no reason why we are here, we just are. Unfortunately for atheists like Hitchens, since they reject all “unscientific” explanations to a question that can’t be answered by science, that is the only answer left for them.

God and Science: John Stossel Moderates A “Debate”

This video actually has been posted in 4 different parts, feel free to look up the other 3. Its a ridiculous “debate”, as a scientist and a “skeptic” (I guess that makes him smart) try to explain to a nuclear physicist from MIT and one of the smartest apologists on the planet that their belief in God is irrational.

Funny thing though, they never actually demonstrate how the belief in God is irrational. I thought skeptics were all about empirical evidence when debating logic and reason? They agree in the video that over 2/3’s of the world’s population agree on the consensus of an intelligent creator, if not the identity. So 2/3’s of the world are irrational, or have at least one irrational belief? And as the video demonstrates, many of that population work in the same field/fields as those who are “skeptical”, having the same level of intelligence?

The fact is, most skeptics who debate these sort of things are forced repeatedly to concede that science is incapable of proving/disproving the existence of a God, yet when they argue against that existence, its always based on scientific theory or lack thereof. Its hysterical how they carved themselves a comfortable little niche: demand natural evidence of the supernatural, knowing that if such evidence existed that it would make the evidence natural by default, not supernatural. So circular reasoning wins the day for the skeptics again.

If You Don’t Like Christmas Don’t Celebrate It

Now that its nearly Christmas its time for the annual self-righteous bashing of the way we celebrate Christ’s birth in December rather than His actual birthdate. A friend sent me this article via email and it made my stomach turn.

When this subject is broached, many Protestants and Catholics become quite emotional, often becoming firmly entrenched concerning the December 25 date in spite of the facts. Many simply enjoy the season and feel that the actual day of Christ’s birth is irrelevant. Biblical and historical scholars are equally divided over this question as well. Christmas, however, is founded on the premise that Jesus was born on December 25, and a person who is truly striving to follow the Bible will see that the celebration of Christmas is based upon falsehood.

The author is right in that many feel the actual birth date of Christ is irrelevant. Or more correctly put, relevant but our faith doesn’t hinge on the actual date. The author is completely wrong when he says the celebration of Christmas is based on a falsehood. The article goes on with a well researched argument as to why the December 25th date is actually not Christ’s real birth date, and I’ll leave that to my readers to look at.

Why is it important that we know when Jesus was born? We certainly do not use this knowledge to celebrate His birthday—He tells us to commemorate His death, not His birth (I Corinthians 11:23-26). The true date, however, destroys the entire foundation of the Christmas holiday. It also points to the proper time of His ministry, crucifixion and resurrection, helping to disprove the Good Friday—Easter Sunday tradition also. Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it renews our faithin God’s Word—that it is true, verifiable and historically accurate.

Here is the point the author is missing: almost everyone already knows all of this. We don’t care. The “true date” doesn’t destroy any foundation of Christmas, because regardless of when Jesus was born, December 25h is when we celebrate the holiday. Period. Its no more disrespectful or detrimental to the Christian faith than my celebrating my son’s birthday on the Saturday before the Tuesday he was actually born. I’m also insulted at the ridiculous notion that we’re not to celebrate Christ’s birth. While I agree His death and resurrection are far more crucial and should be celebrated far more than what they are, to simply write off His birth as something we shouldn’t celebrate is just flat out stupid. At Christmas we decorate trees with our families and buy gifts for our loved one’s in Christ’s name while celebrating His birth and that is something that doesn’t get diminished in God’s eyes by one date or the other. While its true that church leaders backin the day decided to celebrate Christmas in December on the 25th to answer many pagan rituals that transpired during that time and to bring happiness to an otherwise depressing season, those goals aren’t exactly “heathen” and if Christ’s birth is so irrelevant as the author claims than it shouldn’t matter that we hang holly and buy presents on the 25th or any other day. While secular society has indeed commercialised Christmas into the biggest holiday event of the year its not up to the author or any other man to decide for themselves that Christmas should not be celebrated in the winter. To place such theological importance on this is so mind-bogglingly fruitless its no wonder atheism has gone up a few percentage points.