Book Plunge: In God We Doubt

[Apologiaphoenix]

The challenge isn't much of a challenge.

----------------------

What is the challenge? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As I started this book, Humphrys seemed to write with some kindness. I thought this might be different. It's confessions of a failed atheist so maybe he would bring forth the best of both sides. As I have gone through this book, and I am still going through it, that is not the case.

The first part before chapter 1 is called the challenge, and it is not one. Right off the bat, we see where Humphrys is coming from.

I’ll tell you what’s easy. Atheism for a start. Anyone with the enquiring mind of a bright child can see that the case made for God by the three great monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – is riddled with holes. Christopher Hitchens rumbled God when he was nine – or so he tells us in his book on atheism, God Is Not Great. His teacher, Mrs Watts, had demonstrated to the class how powerful and generous God was by pointing out that he had made the trees and the grass green – exactly the colour that is most restful to our eyes – instead of something ghastly like purple.

So look people, if you don't see that the case for monotheism is false, then you don't even have the enquiring mind of a bright child. Unfortunately, Humphrys here doesn't tell us what these holes are. Later on, he will produce what he thinks is a great stumper for us. Spoiler alert: It isn't.

But as for the above, Hitchens goes on to say according to Humphrys that he knew that our eyes had become attuned to nature and not the other way around. If this did turn Hitchens into a fierce opponent of religion, then it more demonstrates childishness on the part of Hitchens. As for me, my answer is perhaps a bit of both. Does it really matter?

Humphrys does say that when it comes to the question of why is there something rather than nothing, this is hard question for atheists. Believers have an easy time. God made it all. Of course, this will get to our stumper later, though some of you can probably see where this is going.

I do not argue for intelligent design, but he says that belief in intelligent design is based on faith, hope, and a large dollop of wishful thinking. Evolution is based on reason and science. Whatever one might think about ID, they do at least present what they consider scientific data, and on some level, it is quite respectable, such as the idea of a Goldilocks zone or the anthropic principle. One could even say God intelligent designed through evolution.

In the very next paragraph, Humphrys tells us about how each cell in our body has a nucleus with two sets of the human genome and each genome contains enough information to fill 5,000 books. That's something that is meant by ID. Does that mean it's faith and hope with wishful thinking thrown in?

He also says for a believer, that whatever is happening right now is because God willed it and it is good. This might be for an extreme hyper-Calvinist, but I know several theists and I don't know anyone who would hold to this. Humphrys doesn't show us any examples either. We can say that all that God wills is good, but that not all that happens is because God directly wills it.

He talks about arguing with a well-known evangelical and asking if he would abandon belief in God if all his arguments were disproven. He said no. He would always believe in God and if it could be proved, it would not be faith. Assuming this account is accurate, I can also say that that is not at all what is meant by faith.

He then talks about the ferocity of the campaign of the enemies of faith, and with this he has in mind the New Atheists. Are they fierce? Yes, but at the same time I recall a neighbor once who had a little teacup poodle that I could hold in my hand easily and that one would turn fierce many times, and be licking my face the next. We all know of little dogs who think they are big dogs. Fierce? Yes, but that does not mean formidable, and the New Atheists are certainly not formidable.

Daniel Dennett, Lewis Wolpert, A. C. Grayling, Sam Smith, Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray. They are the masters of many disciplines – you could paper the walls of an aircraft hangar with their degrees and qualifications – admired and envied throughout academia and journalism for their knowledge and intellect. They argue their case, as you would expect, with skill, wit and passion. But ultimately they fail – at least for me.

Wit and passion can be granted, definitely passion. Skill? Not so much.

He goes on to say that it's hard to not be impressed by the arguments of the atheists. Logic and science are on their side. Well, there you go! If you disagree with them, you are obviously not on the side of logic and science. Never mind that there are plenty of people on the other side who know logic and science as well. Humphrys has accepted his conclusion already.

He goes on to say the good thing about science is that it can be proved. This is simply a false statement. Science cannot be proven. It is inductive. Does this mean we doubt it? No. It cannot be proven any more than it can be proven that George Washington was the first president of the United States. You cannot prove that, but there is not enough evidence anywhere near needed to overturn that.

What is science in one generation can be disproven by the next and should always be open to that. Many of the harder truths we know are not from science. I can easily anticipate that many of our beliefs about diet and health and other such matters could be shown to be false. I cannot anticipate that we will ever find evidence that it is okay to rape someone.

He then says the atheist demands proof while the theist turns to mystery. That might work for your average Christian in the pew, but the Christians I interact with in this field would never say that. Humphrys puts his opponents in the worst light and his allies in the best light.

He also says what the New Atheists have done is like a blitzkrieg and compares it to a boxing match where he wants to say at one point "Enough! Your opponent is down! You can stop hitting him!" You can search this blog for where I have reviewed New Atheist literature. It is not a blitzkrieg. It is barely even a spark.

He then describes how belief in God was going down and then the twentieth century was a real test of faith in a God of peace. Why? Yes, he is right that we killed and maimed each other more than ever before, but seems to ignore that perhaps this is because we did abandon that God of peace and He has no obligation to save us from ourselves. This was not a test for theism. This was a test for atheism, and atheism failed.

One final thing he says is that he doesn't think people are stupid if they believe in God. No. He just says you don't have the intellect of an enquiring bright child and you aren't on the side of logic and science. But hey, you're not stupid. He has already cut off that branch. Excuse me if I question the fruit he says comes from it.

We will continue next time.

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

Do we long for God?

-------------------

What do I think of John Humphrys's book? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let us continue looking at Humphry.

Humphrys is in England and talks about being raised going to church, except for his Dad. For Humphrys, there was no question that he would, but the problem of the father not going doesn't surprise me. Humphrys admits that he was usually quite bored and had no idea what was meant by "The quick and the dead" or the Holy Ghost, or the Trinity. That is certainly a failure on the part of us to educate our youth.

He also said he read the Bible from cover to cover, but it might as well have been the phone book for all he got out of it. Again, there is this emphasis on experience. Could we not be overdelivering and not properly preparing people? I wonder about people who say "I get something new out of the Bible every day!"

He talks about the first time he took the Eucharist and how he expected something grand to happen since he was taking the body and blood of Christ. Well, it didn't. I wonder how common this might be, and anyone in the Anglican or Catholic or Orthodox traditions can tell me. Again, could we be overdelivering? Is this not more a danger of putting the emphasis on experience. (That being said, he does say the words and the solemnity of the Eucharist still stays with him.)

He talks about being thirteen and the priest talking about the blood of Jesus and he's sitting there and wanting to get between two of the girls in the church. What thirteen year-old boy doesn't? I dare say he is not alone in this. Not condemning that either.

He also talks about how even after he left church, he still had prayer, but he doesn't feel like he connected with anyone. Again, what does this mean? Do we gauge how well our prayer life is by how we feel as a result?

He does have what I think is a proper criticism of too many preachers. When trying to reach unbelievers, they will use the Bible as their authority for what the unbelievers should believe. The problem is that if they already believed the Bible, wouldn't they agree? If they don't believe it, then why share what they don't believe?

If anything, Hanby at least shows that man does seem to have a spiritual desire of some kind wanting there to be something more, which is perhaps why it is really difficult to be an atheist. I daresay that I do not think anyone consistently lives out atheism. Someone like Nietzsche if he was here today would be stunned at the new atheists and tell them that they need to give up on these ideas of something being good if they get rid of Christianity and of God. Keep in mind, he also spent the last years of his life in a mental institution as he had gone insane.

We'll continue next time.

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

The lines in the sand.

-------------------

What are the battle lines? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In chapter 2, (And we won't always be going one chapter a day) Humphrys starts what he calls the battle lines. He has said that only recently in history have we been allowed to question the existence of God. I cannot help but wonder what history he is reading. These are usually people who don't understand either the Crusades or the Inquisition, or both. The treatment of Galileo and Bruno (To be fair, we don't talk about Bruno), also misunderstood, didn't even happen during the so-called "Dark Ages."

Yet then he goes and points to the Enlightenment as the dawn of rational debate. Seriously? What was going on between Augustine and Faustus? In the medieval schools of thought, debate was taking place regularly. The rule was even you couldn't comment on your opponent's view until you could say it in your own words to his satisfaction. (Would that we had that today!)

Naturally, he also has the line about debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. While in a sense, this is a real question to discuss, it was never one discussed in that period. It was one made up later on to mock the kind of discussions that took place in that period. Mission accomplished, I suppose.

He then writes about figures like William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins, and Alister McGrath. He notes Alister McGrath as saying he converted to Christianity because it worked. He says that it actually brought purpose and dignity to life. I can accept this provided that by works we don't mean something like Christianity meets emotional needs since as Lewis once said, if he just wanted to be happy, a bottle of port could do that. If he means it makes sense of the world we live in, that is fine.

Humphrys goes on to say that there is a lot of dogmatism on both sides of the debate, but to call Dawkins non-thinking is a bit below the belt. Of course, it was entirely acceptable to say in the first part that anyone with the mind of an inquisitive child can see through the arguments for the existing of God. No harm in implying that your opponents don't think that well, but if you say something about the new atheists, well that's just mean.

Do I think Dawkins is non-thinking? No, but he has a gigantic flaw many atheists have in their approach. When Dawkins writes about science as science it is beautiful. I imagine I could read him for hours as he describes the wonders of especially the animal world. Dawkins is a magnificent writer there.

However, he then takes the mindset that because he understands this, then he is also qualified to speak on theology and philosophy and history. The new atheists seem to assume that anything religious is nonsense and stupid and so they don't need to study it. Many internet atheists do this today, and when they do, they make embarrassing blunders and cannot see it no matter how many times it gets pointed out to them.

So yes, when it comes to writing on religion, I do consider Dawkins to not really be thinking. There's no real attempt to engage with the substance matter. If you want to see this, consider what I wrote on the shoddy research of the new atheism.

Humphrys says the approach of someone like Dawkins won't work on many because they weren't reasoned into their faith. They were born into it or indoctrinated or had a Damascus Road experience or something like that. It never seems to occur to him that that can happen on atheism as well.

There can be many non-intellectual reasons for being an atheist. They could have had an experience with evil and don't understand why a good God would allow it, or they could not like the political stance of Christians, or they could even just want to have a free sex life without the idea they are doing something wrong. It is foolish to say that most Christians come to their position emotionally, but atheists don't have that problem. News flash. Humanity has that problem.

However, when it comes to choosing a belief system, one should take the best proponents of it. Consider their arguments. Just as I as a Christian have to put up with bad arguments and reasons from fellow Christians that can make me cringe, atheists have to do the same. As Michael Ruse has said:

Their [the new atheists] treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.

This is an accurate description. My copy of The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath and his wife had a quote by Ruse on the front along the lines of "Dawkins makes me embarrassed to be an atheist and the McGraths show why."

The problem with Humphrys when he fails to do this is the hidden implication that if you are a Christian, it is most likely for emotional reasons, but if you are an atheist, well that is most likely for intellectual reasons. He himself does this without dealing with the arguments for theism. As we go along, we will see that that happens consistently. I have not finished it thus far, but so far, I have not seen him dealing with the arguments, just with the arguers.

But we will see more next time.

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

[rogue06]

I concur that Dawkins is an absolute pleasure to read when he writes about what he knows -- science. But when it comes to religion he falls into broad brushing and stereotyping. And those are his better bad habits.

[Apologiaphoenix]

How do you refute Craig?

----------------

What happens when worldviews debate? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

In this chapter, Humphrys writes about an interaction between a Christian, William Lane Craig, and an atheist, Lewis Wolpert. It was a debate done in England and done to a packed house. Humphrys freely admits the reason for that was Craig. He also says most of the audience consisted of Christians.

So how does he describe Craig's opening statement?

Craig had these arguments. The first is that God explains the origin of the universe in that whatever begins to exist had a cause and since the universe began to exist, it has a cause beyond it found in a personal God. Also, God fine-tunes the universe. Third, God makes sense of the reality of moral values. Fourth, the case for the resurrection of Jesus shows that Christianity is true. Fifth, God can be personally experienced. If you've seen Craig debate, you know all of these arguments already.

Now I have been paraphrasing, but when he gets to Wolpert's response, I can easily quote him. This he says is the essence of Wolpert's rebuttal:

It's bunkum.
All of it.

He then says that of course, he said more with wit, but how can an atheist intellectually engage with a believer? This is an astounding claim. So Humphrys admits that five arguments are made and Wolpert's response is just "It's bunkum" and the problem is on the side of the believer?

For Humphrys, it boils down to one question.

"If God created the universe, what created God?"

Of course, if Humphrys had someone on like Edward Feser, he would find this question simple to dispense with. Naturally, Humphrys uses Dawkins's quote about how complex the designer of the universe must be. All this assumes God is a material being composed of parts. As a strict holder of divine simplicity, I deny that outright. God's very nature is to be and asking what made Him is like asking "What created existence?" It would have to be something that exists and then you get into a contradiction. Those looking to read Feser can go here. The second objection he deals with that is not serious is the one about "What caused God?" I will quote his final paragraph.

So, to ask “What caused God?” really amounts to asking “What caused the thing that cannot in principle have had a cause?”, or “What actualized the potentials in that thing which is pure actuality and thus never had any potentials of any sort needing to be actualized in the first place?”, or “What imparted a sufficient reason for existence to that thing which has its sufficient reason for existence within itself and did not derive it from something else?” And none of these questions makes any sense. Of course, the atheist might say that he isn’t convinced that the cosmological argument succeeds in showing that there really is something that could not in principle have had a cause, or that is purely actual, or that has a sufficient reason for its existence within itself. He might even try to argue that there is some sort of hidden incoherence in these notions. But merely to ask “What caused God?” – as if the defender of the cosmological argument had overlooked the most obvious of objections – simply misses the whole point. A serious critic has to grapple with the details of the arguments. He cannot short-circuit them with a single smart-ass question. (If some anonymous doofus in a combox can think up such an objection, then you can be certain that Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, et al. already thought of it too.)

Humphrys says that Craig and his followers dismiss the conundrum. I'm not defending Craig's version of the cosmological argument, but it is not the classical one that was used by Aquinas and others. Theirs was not about the origin of the universe. We who use this one do not dismiss the question. We show why the question is a nonsense question. I suppose I can just easily say "But Humphrys and his followers dismiss any such interaction on those grounds and want to stick with what they think is a stumper."

Along these lines, he also makes the case about Bertrand Russell's teapot. I have already dealt with this here.

He then goes on to talk about Douglas Adams and says that when Adams put the words into God's mouth that "I refuse to prove that I exist for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing", he got to the essence of religion.

It's really embarrassing seeing what these people think is a powerful argument.

I challenge them to go back and see the word that was used in the time of Jesus, pistis, and show me where it was meant to be "Belief without evidence" and before they gleefully turn to Hebrews 11:1, nope. That's not it. These people have bought into this false notion so long they've come to have "faith" in their idea of faith.

He then goes to Keith Ward who is a Christian and in response to his idea of God creating, asks why would God create the world if He already had everything for His happiness in Himself? Now you must understand that for an atheist, their fault with Christians is they ask questions and don't do science to say "Let's find out!" However, if you're an atheist, you can just ask the question and the question alone is the defeater. Obviously, brilliant Humphrys has thought of a question that no one in 2,000 years of Christianity ever thought about.

The reply generally has been God's desire to spread love beyond Himself. God created because creation is good and extending love is good and God wants to create other beings who will come into the joy that He has. It was said in the past, I think by the Celtics, that the Trinity has been in a dance of love for all eternity and mankind is made to join in the dance.

He then later says that if you are a Christian philosopher, don't you already have the conclusion beforehand and find the arguments? This is simply a genetic fallacy. Even if that is the case, the arguments stand or fall. Could I not say to Humphrys "Don't you already have the conclusion of Wolpert that it's total bunkum and thus have the conclusion before the arguments? Sauce for the goose and all that.

He then goes on to say that something Craig said was foundational in his conversion was a smiling girl who got him to become a Christian. Naturally, Humphrys thinks Craig has stayed there. He has to after all. It can't be the arguments. Gotta love atheist psychologizing. Craig's arguments remain untouched. The man, on the other hand, has to be analyzed to find out why he's really holding these positions.

I come back to what I said in the first part. Humphrys says someone with the mind of an inquisitive child can see past the arguments for God. Therefore, it must be a psychologizing thing. It's too bad Humphrys doesn't treat his skepticism the same way.

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

[rogue06]

New Atheists keep rediscovering hoary old arguments that are nothing but PRATTs today.

[Apologiaphoenix]

How bad can you present your opponent?

-----------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

Can Materialism satisfy?

----------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about evil?

---------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus far then, color me unconvinced.

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

[Diogenes]

From a the point of view of simply whether a creator God exists or not, the problem of evil is the most laughably pathetic "argument" against "God". The God of deism is God simpliciter and the God non-theists rarely target. The focus is primarily on the strawman God of "classical theism".


Edit: The "problem of evil" is even more laughable and dishonest as the very non-theists who use it rarely are moral realists.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I notice those who complain about evil do often turn around and say it's all relative.

The problem of evil can be rhetorically persuasive from an emotional standpoint.

From a logical standpoint, it's a total failure.

[rogue06]

I notice those who complain about evil do often turn around and say it's all relative.

That.

And as an aside, I've got some awfully evil relatives tucked up in the family tree.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'll take things not to say at a funeral for $800, Alex!

-----------------

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

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

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

So what does the vicar say here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beats me.

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

When you don't know the position of your opponents.....

---------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Apologiaphoenix]

At least some things in here are good.

---------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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