by 2 people |
This lens seeks to respond to Mr. Sam Harris' article "Ten Myths, Truths About Atheism" (Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, December 27, 2006). In his article, which is enumerated from one to ten, he lists the "myth" and responds with the "truth." Therefore, following his format, we likewise have enumerated the myths and responded to his truth claims.
One aught to appreciate honesty and Mr. Harris certainly makes his endgame crystal clear; his goal in life is to bring about the utter obliteration of any and all religions—"faith" based beliefs. Yet, not only beliefs and rituals but the very language used to define and describe them. He writes, "Words like 'God' and 'Allah' must go the way of 'Apollo' and 'Baal,' or they will unmake our world...Faith-based religion must suffer the same slide into obsolescence."[i] Mr. Harris is against any and all religious expression, the orthodox/fundamentalist and the liberal/moderate. He wrote, "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss."[ii]
We do not mean to oversimplify Mr. Harris but we must point out that, ultimately, what he succeeds in accomplishing with his writing of books and articles and with his lectures and interviews is a non-succinct version of John Lennon's song "Imagine": "Imagine there's no heaven, It's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky...And no religion too" and here is the punch line, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one." According to this worldview the world will be as one when religious people forsake their beliefs and accept, on dogmatic authority, absolute materialism.
Also note that Mr. Harris introduces his myth busting by lamenting the following statistic, "According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president." Yet, what is his response? Elsewhere, he looks forward to a time when "making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we'll start laughing at people who believe…We'll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power" (emphasis added).[iii] Actually, Mr. Harris must be thrilled at the progress that atheists are making since a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll conducted in March 2007 has 48% answering "Yes" 48% answering "No" and 4% answering "Don't know/other." Apparently, religious people should not keep atheists from our halls of power but atheists should keep religious people from our halls of power—two wrongs...
[i] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[ii] Sam Harris, The First Ten Pages
[iii] Blair Golson, Sam Harris: The Truthdig Interview
Atheism info
Below You will Find...
The 10 "Myths" are as follows:1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
In addition, we have included an essay entitled:
"Let Him Who is Without Faith Cast the First Stone"
This essay contains the following sections:
Cherry Pickers, Part I-II
The Gospel of Stoning?, Part I-III
Leading By Word and Example, Part I-II
Seeming Cessation of Symbolism, Part I-III
The Bottom Line, Part I-III
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless
On the atheist view, life has meaning because we give meaning to life. Yet, the issue is that they must give meaning to life because, according to their worldview, life has no absolute-intrinsic-objective meaning. Life is meaningless and so any meaning they concoct is necessarily self-induced consoling delusion, which is the very thing of which they accuse theists.Please understand that for the atheist this fact is nothing short of a complement. That is to say, they would take pride in the fact that they do not need a supernatural entity to tell them what the meaning of life is; they are intelligent enough to find their own.
However, there have been atheists who have made their purpose to slaughter millions upon millions of people in order to gain, and maintain, their political power. In such cases how could other atheists condemn such personal prescriptions of meaning? Perhaps the only way would be to borrow from theistic moral systems.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history [Part I]
Mr. Harris makes some interesting points here in making reference to the personality cults and dogmatism that were inherent in regimes such as Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's. He reasonably states, "Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok."Moreover, he actually blames the brutality of people who were atheists on religion:
"People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational...In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: The anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity."
In his "Myths" essay, he does not bother commenting on the atheistic Communists and blames Christianity for Nazism. Mr. Harris is certainly not the first with a superficial enough understanding of Christ's teachings so as to contrive an undeserved association to Nazism. Adolf Hitler stated, "When understanding of the universe has become widespread...Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity." Consider the following:
"People often describe the Holocaust as the climax of 2,000 years of Christian mistreatment of Jews. Some invoke the Shoah [Hebrew for "catastrophe" referring to the Holocaust] as the ultimate reason for Jews not to believe in Jesus. Jewish believer Moishe Rosen challenges that view: 'The phrase '2,000 years of history leading up to the Holocaust' is more than a reference to past prejudice and persecution. It is an indictment against Christianity that misinterprets Christ's message and intent. Anyone who gives credence to such an accusation bestows upon Hitler the power to change theology.'"
A small sample of the estimated casualties of non-religious wars offered by Mr. Matthew White are:
First World War (1914-18): 15,000,000
Second World War (1937-45): 50,000,000
China: Mao Zedong's regime (1949-76): 48,250,000
USSR: Stalin's regime (1924-53): 20,000,000
First World War (1914-18): 15,000,000
Cambodia: Khmer Rouge Regime (1975-79):1,650,000
Resource List
- Matthew White
- Source List and Detailed Death Tolls
for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history [Part II]
These atrocities are made all the worse by the fact that they took place in an era of enlightenment, rational, scientific empiricism and were perpetrated mostly by people who rejected religion/theism and embraced atheism/secularism.In "30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century" Mr. White writes:
"We've got rich countries and poor countries; industrial and agrarian; big and small. We've got people of all colors - white, black, yellow and brown - widely represented among both the slaughterers and the slaughterees. We've got Christians, Moslems, Buddhists and Atheists all butchering one another in the name of their various gods or lack thereof. Among the perpetrators, we've got political leanings of the left, right and middle; some are monarchies; some are dictatorships and some are even democracies."
Mr. Harris fails to account for the fact that the innovators of suicide bombings were Buddhists and Communist. The Buddhists, whose worldview premised upon atheism, were the Kamikaze ("divine wind"). Buddhists have engaged in justifying bloody warfare by appealing to their beliefs for centuries.
Zen Master Harada Daiun Sogaku:
"If ordered to march: tramp, tramp or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest wisdom of enlightenment. The unity of Zen and war...extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war now under way."
Sugimoto Goro:
"Warriors who sacrifice their lives for the emperor will not die. They will live forever. Truly they should be called gods and Buddhas for whom there is no life or death. Where there is absolute loyalty there is no life or death."
Shaku Soen, one of the great fully enlightened Zen Masters of our time stated:
"I wished to inspire our valiant soldiers with the ennobling thoughts of the Buddha, so as to enable them to die on the battlefield with confidence that the task in which they are engaged is great and noble. I wish to convince them...that this war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating an evil...an inevitable step toward the final realization of enlightenment."
Rinzai Zen Master Nantembo stated that there was "no bodhisattva practice superior to the compassionate taking of life."
Resource List
- Matthew White
- 30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century
- Josh Baran
- Zen Holy War?
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history [Part III]
Sawaki Kodo, "also advocated, as did other Zen teachers, that if killing is done without thinking, in a state of no-mind or no-self, then the act is a expression of enlightenment...in 1935, he testified, 'I was in an absolute sphere, so there was neither affirmation nor negation, neither good nor evil.'""This total betrayal of compassion did not just take place during World War II. For six hundred years, one Zen Master bragged, the Rinzai school had been engaged in 'enhancing military power.' For centuries, Zen was intimately involved in the way of killing."
The Communists were: "The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" aka "Tamil Tigers" (established in the 1970s, they have committed 168 suicide bombings between 1980-2000). The "Tigers" murder innocent civilians in their attacks upon commuter trains, buses, villages, temples and mosques, they recruit child soldiers, assassinate political figures, engage in ethnic cleansing and execution of POWs.
Mr. Harris should also consider that a tremendous number of violent acts have nothing whatsoever to do with religion/theism. Some examples are violence committed in the name of: riches, poverty, territory, material goods/resources, politics, racism, emotions, abortion, sexism, science, rage, jealousy, envy, lust, hopelessness, domestic violence, gangs, freedom, and atheism.
A very important point to make here is that both atheists and theists have engaged in oppression and brutality. However, and we will now speak from a Judeo-Christian perspective and not a generic theistic one, when someone calling themselves a Christian does such things they are condemned by the very beliefs that they claim to uphold. In this case, their violation of these beliefs would prove that they are not what they claim to be-"you will know them by their fruits." However, when an atheists does such things who will condemn them and on what basis, on what absolute basis? Not atheism, at least not without borrowing absolute morals from theistic systems.
Resource List
- Wikipedia
- Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
- Gregory Koukl
- The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?
- Henry Schuster
- Suicide Bombings as Military Strategy
Expert: Attacks Motivated by Logic, Not Religion
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history [Part IV]
Note that Mr. Harris was responding to the "myth" that claims that "Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history," which it most certainly has been. But, what he is doing is redefining atheism to the point that, for example, no atheists can be dogmatic (and no atheist can be violent). We deal with this point in the next section.For now, we note that Mr. Harris has taken it upon himself to determine what an atheist is and what an atheist is not, what an atheist believes and cannot believe, what they can do and cannot do. Moreover, Mr. Harris is not the only atheist who has made such dogmatic pronouncements (see our essays that touch upon these issues referenced in the link list below).
Note that Christopher Orlet has made reference to "A sectarian split among atheists." Jay Lindsay wrote, "Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out." Wikipedia reports, "Some of the strongest criticism of The End of Faith has come from an unexpected quarter - the humanist press." Jean Barker has pointed out that "atheists criticized him for supporting Buddhist meditation."
Harris' Book Reviews
- Noel Rooney
- The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
- Michael P. Jensen
- The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason
- Michael Patrick Leahy
- Sam Harris' Big Lie
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history [Part V]
In this section we got a very clear glimpse of just how deeply ensconced Mr. Harris is in his self-appointment role as arbiter of all things atheistic. Communists were self-proclaimed atheists, they established atheistic governments upon atheistic premises and thereby pushed their atheistic agendas. But Mr. Harris has deemed them unworthy of the title "atheist." Yet, those atheists chose to be dogmatic (to use Mr. Harris' term) and they chose to form a personality cult (to use Mr. Harris' term). Yet, Mr. Harris' fundamentalism excludes them from being considered true atheists. Against which absolute atheist standard is he judging them? Who appointed him priest, prophet and Pope of atheism? Elsewhere, Mr. Harris also acts as the self-appointer arbiter of all things Buddhist.Vladimir Lenin:
"Our party program is in its entirety built upon a scientific hence materialistic world view...Thus our program necessarily contains the propaganda of atheism." "Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific Socialism. In accordance with their fundamental philosophical outlook, Marx and Engels always called themselves materialists."
E. Yaroslavsky,
"The program of the Communist International also clearly states that Communists fight against religion...Remember that the struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism."
Lastly, we must not miss the greater point being made by Mr. Harris as he condemns any and all evil of any sort perpetrated by any one - theist or atheist. He does not provide any absolute moral standard by which to condemn any such actions. Below (in number 10) we will see that he presupposes, without the least bit of neither proof nor attempt at a proof, that moral intuitions are (at some level) hard-wired.
Ravi Zacharias on Amazon
Real Face of Atheism, The
Amazon Price: $10.87 (as of 07/10/2009) 
Can Man Live Without God
Amazon Price: $11.19 (as of 07/10/2009)
The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha
Amazon Price: $9.99 (as of 07/10/2009)
Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message
Amazon Price: $10.19 (as of 07/10/2009)
Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith
Amazon Price: $11.69 (as of 07/10/2009)
Resource List
- Jay Lindsay
- Atheists Split on How to Not Believe
- Christopher Orlet
- True Unbelievers: A Sectarian Split Among Atheists
- The Dennis Prager Show
- Interview transcript demonstrating Mr. Harris
attempting to defend his positions
3) Atheism is dogmatic
Mr. Harris denies that atheism is dogmatic.Dogma is "a belief or set of beliefs that a political, philosophical, or moral group holds to be true."
Thus, Mr. Harris' statement immediately begs the question, "Is that so?" What would his answer be to such a question? "Absolutely"? "Unalterably"? "No true atheist can think otherwise"?
Please understand the point: he is being dogmatic in claiming that atheism is not dogmatic.
Moreover, he states "An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous." This, again, is a dogma-like generalization. How does he know that atheists have considered the claims? Read the books? And found them ridiculous? We should not doubt that this is true of some, or even many, atheists but in fact, we have provided examples of atheists who have done no such thing. They were raised by their parents to be atheists, they have never seriously considered, nor read, they simply do not want God to exist. Elsewhere, Mr. Harris himself states "I had a very secular upbringing."
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance
Mr. Harris begins this section with a dogmatic statement, "No one knows why the universe came into being." How does he know this? Perhaps millions of people know, they tell him about it, and he rejects it. But, to be fair, we suppose that he, being an absolutist-materialists, is stating that we cannot run a reproducible experiment or otherwise observe the beginning and its cause. Incidentally, some may deny that he is an absolute materialist since he embraces Buddhist meditation/mysticism but it would seem that, in his view, if psychic phenomena/reincarnation are facts then they are based upon materialistic processes that we, as of yet, do not understand. As Richard Dawkins puts it, "If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural."He further states, "it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the 'beginning' or 'creation' of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself." Understand that atheists will, at this point, assert one of two extremes: they will either avoid the pre Big Bang scenario at all cost or they will retreat into the atheistic supernatural realm, the multi-verse.
Mr. Harris presents a quote from Dr. Richard Dawkins that is not less than fascinating since it states, "...we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection." Did you catch that? Mr. Harris intends on proving that he, Dr. Dawkins, and all atheists, do not believe that "everything in the universe arose by chance" but he quotes Mr. Dawkins as stating that everything is, "not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection." It is not chance but yes chance (and natural selection). Note also that Mr. Harris jumped light-years ahead of the issue, he commented on what is already here while not discussing how it got here in the first place. He appears to have missed his own point. Actually, Dr. Dawkins' view is that life began by pure chance and then evolved but not by chance because natural selection selects in a nonrandom manner, even though it has no foresight, no goal to which it is aiming its selections.
J. Budziszewski on Amazon
How to Stay Christian in College: An Interactive Guide to Keeping the Faith
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law
Amazon Price: $11.56 (as of 07/10/2009)
What We Can't Not Know: A Guide
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment
Amazon Price: $22.45 (as of 07/10/2009)
Ask Me Anything: Provocative Answers for College Students
Amazon Price: $10.39 (as of 07/10/2009)
5) Atheism has no connection to science
Mr. Harris is kind enough to state "it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God - as some scientists seem to manage it." Yes, "some." What is "some"? Perhaps he should have stated, "Some of the greatest scientists that the world has ever known. In fact, the very ones who established virtually every field of scientific research/methodology." Indeed, elsewhere he does state, "Christians invented physics."He then quotes statistics stating that "engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith...of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not [believe in a personal God]."
What we should ask is, "Why is that?" It may, in part, be due to an absolutists redefinition of science as involving pure materialism/naturalism. Consider the words of Scott C. Todd, Department of Biology, Kansas State University, "Even if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Another possibility may be self-aggrandizement. Please understand that the effect that atheism has on an individual is that it removes any being, any thing, higher than themselves. This removal of a higher being also takes other forms. For instance, this is, in part, why atheistic movements, such as Communism, come about. Since there is no God the highest thing is government-the god of this world, if you will. The opiate of the people who giveth and taketh away.
Elsewhere, Mr. Harris himself states, "the foundation of all real science, is the very antithesis of religious faith." He also wrote an article entitled Science Must Destroy Religion. These are examples of scientific dogmatism by which if the theory conflicts with the evidence one does not change the theory but rather, proclaims that something is wrong with the evidence (for many other examples of this, please see our essay Scientific Cenobites). This brings us to an interesting hypocrisy within atheism's view of science: first they claim that science does not deal with the supernatural but then they claim that science has disproved the existence of the supernatural.
Harris' Book Reviews
- Chris Lehmann
- Among the Non-Believers-
The Tedium of Dogmatic Atheism - R. Albert Mohler, Jr
- The New Atheism?
- R. Albert Mohler, Jr
- The End of Faith-Secularism with the Gloves Off
Ronald Nash on Amazon
Worldviews in Conflict
Amazon Price: $13.25 (as of 07/10/2009)
Faith and Reason
Amazon Price: $15.59 (as of 07/10/2009)
Life's Ultimate Questions
Amazon Price: $25.07 (as of 07/10/2009)
Concept of God, The
Amazon Price: $14.07 (as of 07/10/2009)
Is Jesus the Only Savior?
Amazon Price: $13.25 (as of 07/10/2009)
6) Atheists are arrogant [Part I]
Here Mr. Harris denies that atheists are arrogant yet, judge for yourself if the following statements could be considered are arrogant or not:"atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society," they find religious claims "to be ridiculous," "it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God - as some scientists seem to manage it," apparently, it is possible to be a scientist and still be ignorant enough to believe in God. He refers to theism as "wishful thinking," "self-deception" and "consoling delusion." Elsewhere, Mr. Harris refers to those with whom he disagrees as possessing "encyclopedic ignorance." He refers to the "hallowed travesties that still crowd the altar of human ignorance." He looks forward to the day when raising one's children according to ones religious faith will "be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is." He refers to Intelligent Design "theorists" (he quotes the word theorists) as "scary religious imbeciles." He states that "the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish." He makes reference to "the abject stupidity of religious fundamentalism," and calls their beliefs, "these preposterous things," and further claims that "they are clearly committed to a massive program of self-deception." He calls religion in America a "thriving marketplace of ignorance." As noted above, he looks forward to a time when "making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we'll start laughing at people who believe...We'll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power." He refers to Chris Hedges, whom he describes as a religious moderate, in stating, "I really could not have hoped to find a more lumbering, bellicose, and sanctimonious perpetrator of this obscurantism."
6) Atheists are arrogant [Part II]
Richard Dawkins, a fellow militant atheist, refers to, "religious idiots like Bush or those who voted for him." He also wrote that Mr. Harris' book, "The End of Faith," "is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land." And what is Mr. Harris' own view of his book "Letter to a Christian Nation"? Apparently, it is an atheist proselytizing tract, "It's a book that a person could simply hand to a member of the religious Right and say, 'What's your answer to this?'"Lastly, we point out that, elsewhere, Mr. Harris wrote, "'respect' for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses...the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete." This, coming from atheism, the worldview that believes that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Moreover, this is coming from the same Mr. Harris who wrote, "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them."
One time atheist, and later Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis wrote:
"If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race has always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view."
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience
Mr. Harris defines "spiritual experience" as "experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe." These he claims are experienced and sought by atheists. But, he claims, "What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences." The problem is that they do.Atheists have life experiences upon which they build their worldview. They rely on their authorities to tell them what the facts of life are, what the nature of the universe and life are, what truth is, etc. Apparently unbeknownst to him, Mr. Harris comes closer to the truth than he may have realized.
Referring to personal betterment, he states, "Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely - because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences." Moreover, he states that knowing whether Jesus wore a beard, was born of a virgin or rose from the dead "are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate." To be perfectly fair, there are believers who simply state, "I have faith because I believe, I believe because I have faith, I just believe what I believe on faith and I have faith in what I believe," or some such thing. This is not only sad because it is not up to the intellectual standards of atheism but because it is not the manner in which the Bible functions. For instance, regarding the resurrection Paul does not say, "See how you feel about it, pray about it, just believe it," but he points out that, at the time of his writings, eyewitnesses were still alive, "...He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep" (1st Corinthians 15:6). Get the point? Paul is saying go and ask them! Luke did just that (see Luke chapter 1).
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding
Mr. Harris' response to this "myth" is perhaps the most incoherent of his apologetic. He states, "Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not." Yet, is it virtually a tenet of "religious people" that it is precisely because of the "limits of human understanding" that God has given revelation.He then speculates about whether there might be "complex life elsewhere in the cosmos." If there is, they might have developed a more sophisticated understanding of the universe than us. If they have done so, then they might be even less impressed by the contents of the Bible and the Quran than atheists are. In other words, he has retreated into the realm of sci-fi wherein extraterrestrials side with atheists-need any more be said?
Lastly, he makes a good old fashioned baseless claim, "the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe." Not only is this baseless but he does not bother explaining just how they trivialize it.
Norman Geisler's "When...ask" Series on Amazon
When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
Harris' Book Reviews
- Gus Van Horn
- The End of Faith, by Sam Harris -
A Book with Broad Media Exposure - Gus Van Horn
- No End of Faith
- Michael Brendan Dougherty
- Dear Maniacal Rubes
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society
Interestingly enough, while Mr. Harris seeks to debunk the "myth" which states that "atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society," he does just that.He ignores this fact and instead points out that this benefit fails "to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine," which was not the "myth" that he sought to dispel. Mr. Harris ends this section by appealing to a myth of atheism's own making which basically states that only atheists have pure motives.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality [Part I]
Here Mr. Harris, apparently and in his own mind, proves that atheism most certainly does have a basis for morality "moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness." Elsewhere, Mr. Harris makes reference to "fresh moral imperatives" and "conceptual revolutions."First we should ask how he knows this and secondly what it means. What is hard-wired? How did it get hard-wired? When was it hard-wired? Why is it hard-wired? Why should we heed this moral intuition? What happens if we do not heed it? Who administers this moral "law"? If I am hard-wired what happens if I short-circuit? In fact, there are atheists, like Richard Dawkins, who believe that we are just apes, "We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes." Moreover, in his The Descent of Man, p. 180 Charles Darwin wrote, "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term 'man' ought to be used."
What is of the utmost importance to note, when an evolutionary concept is appealed to in order to account for hard-wired absolute morals, is that, as Mr. Harris does here, what is being told to us is a story. He does not produce one shred of evidence but merely tells us a tale and asks us to believe him that this did occur (based on what, dogmatic authority?). This is such a common fallacy in atheistic arguments that I have termed it: the fallacy of validation by projection.
Elsewhere he writes, "If we better understood the workings of the human brain, we would undoubtedly discover lawful connections between our states of consciousness, our modes of conduct, and the various ways we use our attention. If we ever develop such a science, most of our religious texts will be no more useful to mystics than they now are to astronomers."
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality [Part II]
When does this moral intuition apply to us and not to our less evolved ancestors? And please do not miss the greater point here: if, as Mr. Harris posits, our moral intuition has be undergoing refinement for millennia this intuition is tentative. How do we know when the intuition will change, in its refining process, and bring about different morals? How can Mr. Harris condemn any past actions of theists or atheists since they were merely following their moral intuitions, the intuition that was refined to a certain degree? How can he condemn today's actions since our morality is constantly undergoing this refining process? It may changing at this very moment.Moreover, Mr. Harris states that "If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Quran - as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine." First we should ask how he knows that that no one can discover that cruelty is wrong by reading the Bible. Again, and again, he is basing his comments on gross generalizations. He does this again in stating, "Whatever is good in scripture - like the golden rule - can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe." But it is precisely theistic systems that have brought us the golden rule, which has influenced millions upon millions of people. What has atheism's moral intuition brought us? "God is dead" just does not seem to be of then same caliber.
Harris' Book Reviews
- Matthew Simpson
- Unbelievable-Religion is Really,
Really Bad for You - Debbie Moon
- The End Of Faith
- Daniel Blue
- A Fear of the Faithful Who
Mean Exactly What They Believe
Norman Geisler on Amazon
I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Amazon Price: $10.87 (as of 07/10/2009)
Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith
Amazon Price: $11.69 (as of 07/10/2009)
To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview: Essays in Honor of Norman L. Geisler
Amazon Price: $21.90 (as of 07/10/2009)
Philosophy of Religion: Second Edition
Amazon Price: $32.85 (as of 07/10/2009)
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker Reference Library)
Amazon Price: $34.64 (as of 07/10/2009)
Resources Relating to Atheism
Audio and Transcripts of Debates
Some links go directly to relevant material and some to searchable audio recourse home pages
- Paul C. Vitz
- The Psychology of Atheism
- The Craig-Atkins Debate
- What is the Evidence For/Against
the Existence of God? - The Craig-Washington Debate
- Does God Exist?
- The Craig-Jesseph Debate
- Does God Exist?
- The Craig-Tooley Debate
- Debate on the Existence of God
- John Frame
- Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin
- Douglas Wilson & Farrell Till
- Justifying Non-Christian Objections
- Douglas Jones, Keith Parsons & Michael Martin
- Is Non-Christian Thought Justifiable?
- Phillip E. Johnson & Kenneth R. Miller
- How Did We Get Here?
- Bob and Gretchen Passantino
- The 2002 Great Debate:
Atheism vs. Christianity Testing the Case:
Which View Prevailed? - James White & Dennis McKinsey
- Letters to an Anti-Theist
- Impact Apologetics
- Apologetics
- Mars Hill
- Audio
- Stand to Reason
- Archived Radio Broadcasts
- Reasons to Believe
- Radio Network
- Apologetics.com
- Is God Necessary?
- SermonAudio.com
- Huge library of audio resourses,
including debates
Let Him Who is Without Faith Cast the First Stone
When considering Sam Harris' comments about faith, religion, theism, the Bible, Islam, creationism, etc. it may be noteworthy to keep in mind that we are considering the opinions of a man who believes that "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live." A man who seeks to "present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances." A man who wrote, "Mothera Teresa's compassion is very badly calibrated if the killing of 1st trimester fetuses disturbed her more than all of the suffering she witnessed on Earth." What more can be said? We are dealing with a man who believes that his worldview is the one true way.In Mr. Harris we are also dealing with a man of whom Daniel Blue has written:
"Under pressure, Harris reveals ideological biases that will trouble some readers...He seems to loathe Islam with a fury the more surprising because he doesn't seem to know much about it. (His quotes on the subject stem mostly from the works of Bernard Lewis and a university Web site.)"
Mr. Harris' Biblical references also appear to be no better researched as his mis-quotations, mis-citations and mis-applications are famous/infamous.
Cherry Pickers, Part I
Sam Harris has lamented that his writings have been misquoted, and ergo misapplied, as he refers to:"...the fine art of selective quotation to make me appear to hold positions which I do not hold...While I stand by everything I have written in 'The End of Faith'...I cannot be expected to parry every malicious sampling of my text. It is unfortunate..."
While misquotations and misapplications, purposeful or due to sloppy scholarship, aught to be criticized and rectified we seek to demonstrate how Mr. Harris himself has engaged upon this practice.
Mr. Harris made the following statement during an interview:
"...the real word of God in Islam is that if you change your religion, you should die for it. Isn't that also the case in the Bible? Don't we see similar edicts and punishments for apostasy? Yes...most Christians think that Jesus brought us the doctrine of grace, and therefore you don't have to follow the law. While it's true that there are other moments in the New Testament when Jesus can be read as saying that you have to fulfill every 'jot and tittle' of the law (this is in Matthew)-and therefore you can get a rationale for killing people for adultery out of the New Testament-most Christians, most of the time, don't see it that way. The Bible is a fundamentally self-contradictory document. You can cherry-pick it."
Articles by Vox Day
Cherry Pickers, Part II
Perhaps we should ask if Mr. Harris could provide one single example of one single text that cannot be cherry-picked. As we read above, Mr. Harris himself complained that his own writings have been cherry-picked. We human beings have an amazing, and perhaps unique, desire and ability to justify our actions. Just because someone quotes a verse, or even an extended text, does not mean that they are doing so viably.
We can cherry-pick any text yet, it is its original context that determines if the cherries are good fruit. Otherwise, we may find that we are taking a text out of context as a pretext for a prooftext.
Let us also point out the importance of citations. Mr. Harris states that what he was referring to "is in Matthew." Fine, but just where in Matthew? How many of Mr. Harris' supporters, or for that matter anybody, knows the context? In which of Matthew's 28 chapters is it? In which of Matthew's 1,071 verses? How many know where in Matthew it is in order to find the context? How many would read the entire Gospel of Matthew in order to ascertain the context? Perhaps we should give Mr. Harris a break since he did refer us to Matthew. Although, more detail would have been nice even if the Blair Golson, who was conducting the interview, would have asked for a more precice citation, or provided one in brackets after further research.
We can cherry-pick any text yet, it is its original context that determines if the cherries are good fruit. Otherwise, we may find that we are taking a text out of context as a pretext for a prooftext.
Let us also point out the importance of citations. Mr. Harris states that what he was referring to "is in Matthew." Fine, but just where in Matthew? How many of Mr. Harris' supporters, or for that matter anybody, knows the context? In which of Matthew's 28 chapters is it? In which of Matthew's 1,071 verses? How many know where in Matthew it is in order to find the context? How many would read the entire Gospel of Matthew in order to ascertain the context? Perhaps we should give Mr. Harris a break since he did refer us to Matthew. Although, more detail would have been nice even if the Blair Golson, who was conducting the interview, would have asked for a more precice citation, or provided one in brackets after further research.
The Gospel of Stoning?, Part I
Let us consider the Matthew text. Jesus states:"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-18).
We immediately notice that while Mr. Harris stated, "Jesus can be read as saying that you have to fulfill every 'jot and tittle' of the law," Jesus actually stated that He will be fulfilling. But, this must mean that Jesus was not only in favor of stoning but was to conduct a stoning Himself. Cleaver arguments aside, there are at least three ways to consider what is being said here without committing logical or hermeneutical (relating to or consisting in the interpretation of texts) fallacies.
These are:
Was Jesus given an occasion to carry out a stoning-and if so, what did He do?
Did Jesus teach His Apostles/Disciples to carry out stonings-and if so, did they do so?
At anytime in the history of Christendom has the Church practiced stoning-and if so, did they viably justify their actions by appealing to the Matthew text or any other?
First, we note that Jesus was given an opportunity to command a stoning for adultery as found in John 8:2-11:
"Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?' This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.' And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, 'Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?' She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said to her, 'Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.'"
Harris' Book Reviews
- Kenan Malik
- Non-Believers Can Be Bigoted Too
- Bill Vallicella
- Is Religion the Problem?
- John Gorenfeld
- Sam Harris' Faith in Eastern
Spirituality and Muslim Torture - The Claremont Institute
- Imagine There's No Heaven
The Gospel of Stoning?, Part II
Mr. Harris claims that "you can get a rationale for killing people for adultery out of the New Testament," but Jesus must have missed this.
Secondly, Jesus taught that no such thing should be done and we have no indication of a stoning being carried out by the Apostles/Disciples.
Thirdly, the Church has never been known to have practiced stoning. And if the Church has attempted to justify its occasional violent and oppressive conduct it has done so in a wholly unviable manner.
Thus, while Mr. Harris claims that "you can get a rationale for killing people for adultery out of the New Testament," we find that in the two thousand years of Christendom no one seems to have noticed this. Jesus did not conduct a stoning (and in fact, rejected an invitation to do so). The Apostles/Disciples did not conduct a stoning. The Church has not conducted a stoning.
Just because "you can get a rationale" does not mean that it is in the least bit viable. In fact, as we saw, "you can get a rationale" for torturing entire families from Mr. Harris' writings (if you cherry-pick), which is particularly what he was complaining about , but not viably. It would seem safe to conclude that: either Mr. Harris is the only person in two thousand years who has correctly understood the text of the New Testament or that he is one of many people who for the past two thousand years have sought so diligently to discredit the New Testament that they end up discrediting themselves.
Secondly, Jesus taught that no such thing should be done and we have no indication of a stoning being carried out by the Apostles/Disciples.
Thirdly, the Church has never been known to have practiced stoning. And if the Church has attempted to justify its occasional violent and oppressive conduct it has done so in a wholly unviable manner.
Thus, while Mr. Harris claims that "you can get a rationale for killing people for adultery out of the New Testament," we find that in the two thousand years of Christendom no one seems to have noticed this. Jesus did not conduct a stoning (and in fact, rejected an invitation to do so). The Apostles/Disciples did not conduct a stoning. The Church has not conducted a stoning.
Just because "you can get a rationale" does not mean that it is in the least bit viable. In fact, as we saw, "you can get a rationale" for torturing entire families from Mr. Harris' writings (if you cherry-pick), which is particularly what he was complaining about , but not viably. It would seem safe to conclude that: either Mr. Harris is the only person in two thousand years who has correctly understood the text of the New Testament or that he is one of many people who for the past two thousand years have sought so diligently to discredit the New Testament that they end up discrediting themselves.
The Gospel of Stoning?, Part III
But just how did Jesus fulfill the law, by keeping every single commandment i.e., by stoning people? No. It may be useful to point out that while there are 613 commandments, Jews, as individuals, never had to keep 613 of them. This is because some of the 613 were just for priests, some just for kings, some just for certain tribes, some just for men and others just for women etc.The ultimate fulfillment of the law/commandments appears to have taken place by Jesus' life and death. Having lived a life that did not violate the law He therefore fulfilled it. Finally, upon breathing His last breath He declared the fulfillment complete. He kept the law and thus became the perfect advocate, or intercessor, for humanity.
"So when Jesus had received the sour wine [or vinegar], He said, 'It is finished!' And bowing his head, He gave up His spirit" (John 19:30).
Moments before His death on the cross Jesus cried out "It is finished" or "Paid in full." The Gospel writers used the Greek word "Tetelestai," which is the perfect tense of the word "tel-eh'-o" which means: finish, fulfill, accomplish, pay, perform, expire, to bring to a close, to end, passed, complete, to pay. The word "tel-eh'-o" comes from "telc-os" which means: end, uttermost, finally, ending, termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be, the last in any succession or series, that by which a thing is finished, its close. The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past: once and for all, not needing to be repeated. The Bible repeats over and over that Jesus suffered once, once for all, once and for all in order to pay the price for sin.
Leading By Word and Example, Part I
There is further evidence in the New Testament that rejection of the Gospel is to be reacted towards with patience and freedom rather than besmirchment, oppression, or violence.One such instance is when Jesus invited a young man to follow Him:
"Now behold, one came and said to Him, 'Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?' So He said to him, 'Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.' He said to Him, 'Which ones?' Jesus said, ''You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'' The young man said to Him, 'All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?' Jesus said to him, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.' But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 'And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God'" (see Matthew 19:16-24, Mark 10:17-25 & Luke 18:18-26).
Jesus point out that the young man's wealth was holding him back from true freedom, he was keeping himself from salvation by his reliance on worldly goods. Jesus shared the truth and let the young man make his own decision.
Ron Rhodes on Amazon
The Complete Book of Bible Answers
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
Why Do Bad Things Happen If God Is Good? (Rhodes, Ron)
Amazon Price: $10.99 (as of 07/10/2009)
Christianity According to the Bible: Separating Cultural Religion from Biblical Truth
Amazon Price: $12.99 (as of 07/10/2009)
The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena
Amazon Price: $9.99 (as of 07/10/2009)
Answering the Objections of Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics
Amazon Price: $11.04 (as of 07/10/2009)
Leading By Word and Example, Part II
Another example of how to deal with the rejection of the Gospel is found in the following text:
"and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, 'Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?' But He turned and rebuked them, and said, 'You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy mens lives but to save them.' And they went to another village" (Luke 9:52-56).
This text could not be clearer-should we kill them for rejecting us, Jesus, the Gospel? God forbid!
It may be that unfathomably malicious "Christians" have held to a twisted concept such as: unbelievers are going to hell, so believe or I will send you there right now. However, the New Testament's concept is that since unbelievers are going to hell we should warn them against going there, share with them the way out, and leave them to make a freewill decision.
"and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, 'Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?' But He turned and rebuked them, and said, 'You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy mens lives but to save them.' And they went to another village" (Luke 9:52-56).
This text could not be clearer-should we kill them for rejecting us, Jesus, the Gospel? God forbid!
It may be that unfathomably malicious "Christians" have held to a twisted concept such as: unbelievers are going to hell, so believe or I will send you there right now. However, the New Testament's concept is that since unbelievers are going to hell we should warn them against going there, share with them the way out, and leave them to make a freewill decision.
See my essays that elucidate the issues of hell and goodness
- Why Would Your Lord Send You to Hell?
- Is "send" a Misnomer?
- On Hell
- Basic intro
- Exclusivism, Part I:
- Is Only One Worldview True?
- Exclusivism, Part II:
- Is There Only One Way of Salvation?
- Oh, My Goodness!!!
- Who and What is Good, and Who Does Good?
- "Love" and "Hate"
- Defining Terminology
- "A Good Person"
- What does that mean?
Seeming Cessation of Symbolism, Part I
Mr. Harris wrote:
"While the stoning of children for heresy has fallen out of fashion in our country, you will not hear a moderate Christian or Jew arguing for a 'symbolic' reading of passages of this sort. (In fact, one seems to be explicitly blocked by God himself in Deuteronomy 13:1-'Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.')."
We must be careful when reading the works of Mr. Harris, as he tends to either pepper his statements with statistics or, as in this case, make very bold and emotionally charged statements. While in and of themselves, bold and emotionally charged statements are not inaccurate, we advise caution because it is easy to get so caught up emotionally that research, citations and context seem irrelevant-how does one argue against an emotion?
Let us begin by opening up the Bible and seeing what Deuteronomy 13:1 states:
"IF there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder."
Do what I advise and look it up for yourself, that is all that the verse states. However, perhaps the Bible does state what Mr. Harris claims but does so elsewhere. We find that Mr. Harris was actually referring to Deuteronomy 4:2, here is the statement from verse 1-6:
"NOW, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. 'You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Baal Peor; for the LORD your God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you. Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'"
"While the stoning of children for heresy has fallen out of fashion in our country, you will not hear a moderate Christian or Jew arguing for a 'symbolic' reading of passages of this sort. (In fact, one seems to be explicitly blocked by God himself in Deuteronomy 13:1-'Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.')."
We must be careful when reading the works of Mr. Harris, as he tends to either pepper his statements with statistics or, as in this case, make very bold and emotionally charged statements. While in and of themselves, bold and emotionally charged statements are not inaccurate, we advise caution because it is easy to get so caught up emotionally that research, citations and context seem irrelevant-how does one argue against an emotion?
Let us begin by opening up the Bible and seeing what Deuteronomy 13:1 states:
"IF there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder."
Do what I advise and look it up for yourself, that is all that the verse states. However, perhaps the Bible does state what Mr. Harris claims but does so elsewhere. We find that Mr. Harris was actually referring to Deuteronomy 4:2, here is the statement from verse 1-6:
"NOW, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. 'You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Baal Peor; for the LORD your God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you. Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'"
Seeming Cessation of Symbolism, Part II
In this case Mr. Harris mis-cited the quotation. He was also careful enough to include a qualifier to his statement-did you catch it? Reread it carefully. He stated, "...seems to be explicitly blocked by God himself..." The qualifier is "seems" which is fair enough because he did not conclusively state that the Bible states what he claims, but it seems to do so. Although, he makes the rest of his statements as though the Bible most certainly does. Now we can seek to ascertain whether or not the Bible actually states it or merely seems to do so.The context is God's triumph over Baal of Peor, a god whose adherents, to name just one rite, sacrificed their children by fire. God is commanding that such rites not be added to His word. This has nothing to do with neither interpretation nor symbology. But how do we know this? Is it just a convenient loop-hole in an attempt at "'moderation' in religion" as Mr. Harris puts it?
Let us see what the Bible actually states, rather than what Mr. Harris thinks that it seems to state.
Ezra, the priest and scribe, and some fellow scholars and Levites:
"brought the Law before the assembly...read distinctly from the book, in the Law of God; and they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading" (see Nehemiah 8:1-9).
This is indication of reading the text and interpretation (gave the sense). But why do interpretations exist? The very moment that someone asks, "What does that mean?" Behold, an interpretation is born. However, all interpretations are not created equal.
Now let us consider Daniel's vision of the image who's "head was of fine gold; his breast and his arms were of silver; his belly and his thighs were of bronze; his legs were of iron; his feet were part of iron and part of clay" (Daniel 2:32-33). There it is, a statue and nothing else, right? Daniel tells King Nebuchadnezzar, "You are this head of gold" (Daniel 2:38). But a moment ago, it was a statue with a head made of the substance known as gold. Is this a contradiction? No, it is symbolism. Daniel then goes on to explain other bits of symbology, "the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron" (Daniel 2:40). Iron was meant to symbolize the strength of iron and so on.
Essays by Various Authors
- Ron Rhodes
- Strategies for Dialoguing with Atheists
- Ralph McInerny
- Why the Burden of Proof is on the Atheist
- Stephen M. Barr
- The Atheism of the Gaps
- Alvin Plantinga
- Theism, Atheism, and Rationality
- Michael Novak
- The Godlessness that Failed
- Gregory Koukl
- Is It Rational to Believe in God?
- Ralph Allan Smith
- Why Bertrand Russell Was Not A Christian
- Ralph Allan Smith
- Answering Michael Martin's "Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape"
- John W. Robbins
- Ayn Rand, 1905-1982
- Robert M. Bowman Jr.
- Answers to Atheists United
- J.P. Holding and Contributors
- You May be a Fundamentalist Atheist if...
- J.P. Holding
- Calculated Contempt:
Why Bible Critics Do Not
Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt - Doug Erlandson
- A New Perspective on the Problem of Evil
- Ray Cotton
- The Holocaust: Ideas and Their Consequences
- Jonathan Barlow
- A Reformed Response To Richard Dawkins
- Paul Copan
- The Presumptuousness of Atheism
- John Piper
- Is God Less Glorious Because
He Ordained that Evil Be? - Richard J. Vincent
- The Problem of Evil and
The Cross of Christ - William Lane Craig
- The Resurrection of Theism
- Hugo Meynell
- Hume, Kant, and Rational Theism
- Bob and Gretchen Passantino
- Imagine There's No Heaven:
Contemporary Atheism Speaks
Out In Humanist Manifesto 2000 - Bob and Gretchen Passantino
- Atheism vs. Christianity,
A Response to Unanswered Questions - Chuck Colson
- Atheism: a Dialogue between
Chuck Colson and An Atheist Friend - Rick Brownell
- What if God Were Very Good?
- Gannon Murphy
- Can You Prove That God Exists?
- Fred Klett
- The Absurdity of Atheism
- Douglas M. Jones III
- Is Christianity Unintelligible?
- Jason Engwer
- Are Secularist Claims About
American History Reliable? - Dustin Shramek
- Atheism and Death:
Why the Atheist Must
Face Death With Despair - Kenneth R. Samples
- Putting The Atheist on The Defensive, Parts One and Two
- Rick Wade
- A Conversation with an Atheist
- Rick Wade
- The Enlightenment and Belief in God
- Jimmy Williams
- Does God Exist?
- John A. Bloom
- Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer?
- Byron Barlowe
- Science & Religion: Oil & Water?
Leadership University Editor/Webmaster
provides many resourses/links - Stephen M. Barr
- Retelling the Story of Science
- Otto J. Helweg
- Scientific Facts and Christian Faith:
How Are They Compatible? - J.P. Moreland
- The Real Issue:
Is Science a Threat or Help to Faith?
A look at the concept of Theistic Science - Henry F. Schaefer, III
- Scientists and Their Gods
also known as Science and Christianity:
Conflict or Coherence?) - Brian Harvey
- The Democratization of Science
Seeming Cessation of Symbolism, Part III
Moreover, Jesus is known for his parables which are stories whose purpose is that they carry a symbolic meaning.Consider that Mark 16:15 states, "He said to them, Go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to all the creation" or as the older King James Bible states, "he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." To "all the creation" and or "to every creature." But it is utterly unknown in the history of Christianity that missionaries have preached the gospel to chinchillas, pineapples, mollusks, or lava. Are they not keeping the great commission? Of course they are, but people who read the Bible in order to understand it, instead of simply to disprove it, takes such things such things into consideration.
Lastly, consider the Book of Revelation that includes a statement that is much like the one that Mr. Harris alluded to from Deuteronomy:
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).
However, the Book of Revelation is known to be saturated with symbolism, much of which is explained right then and there. For instance:
"The mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands which you saw are the seven churches" (Revelation 1:20).
Mr. Harris proposed that symbolism seems to be explicitly blocked by God Himself yet, we have seen that it has not.
Various Authors on Amazon
The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World
Amazon Price: $10.17 (as of 07/10/2009)
Answers for Atheists, Agnostics, and Other Thoughtful Skeptics: Dialogs About Christian Faith and Life
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
Reasoning With an Atheist
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
The God Who Is There
Amazon Price: $10.20 (as of 07/10/2009)
Mere Christianity
Amazon Price: $10.97 (as of 07/10/2009)
The Bottom Line, Part I
Is the issue that Mr. Harris hears Bible believers asserting a literal reading of the text, then takes them to task, and thus demonstrates that Bible believers are not being consistent but are cherry-picking the text? Or is the issue that Mr. Harris, and others, do not apply hermeneutics? It appears that they do not take into consideration: historical context, grammatical context and cultural context. They do not consider that to take something literally means to take it as it is intended. For example, if there is a historical reference, we take it as a historical reference. If something is symbolic, we take it as symbolic. If it is a metaphor, a figure of speech, etc., etc. we take it as it comes across in the text.
What Mr. Harris is not taking into consideration, what ultimately causes him to discredit himself despite of his witty and emotionally charged statements, is that the greater context of he Law of Moses is a judicious system. Not one had the right to instantly pelt someone to death with stones. Each case in which the law was thought to have been broken was carefully adjudicated. This began with Moses himself and, with time, only became more refined:
What Mr. Harris is not taking into consideration, what ultimately causes him to discredit himself despite of his witty and emotionally charged statements, is that the greater context of he Law of Moses is a judicious system. Not one had the right to instantly pelt someone to death with stones. Each case in which the law was thought to have been broken was carefully adjudicated. This began with Moses himself and, with time, only became more refined:
Further Elucidation of Interpretive Issues and Basic Scholarship
- A Lie About Goliath?
- Apparently Not
- Show Me the Scripture!!!
- ...context...context...context...
- All Interpretations
- Are Not Created Equal
- How do You
- Read the Bible?
The Bottom Line, Part II
"...Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. So when Moses' father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, 'What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?' And Moses said to his father-in-law, 'Because the people come to me to inquire of God. When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.' So Moses' father-in-law said to him, 'The thing that you do is not good. Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.' So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves" (see Exodus 18:13-26). The Bottom Line, Part III
Consider the "eye for an eye" concept which has lead to the inaccurate statement an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. An "eye for an eye" does not mean that if you cause someone to loose their vision (in one or both eyes) that the payback will be made to loose your vision. What would happen if a blind man causes you to loose your vision? How would he pay for your eye/vision with his? No indeed, since the context is a judicial system, an "eye for an eye" means that your make amends for the value of an eye.
One of the major pits into which Mr. Harris, and many other skeptics, falls is that they appear to not take into consideration that reading is about context. Context expands: if a sentence is unclear, consult the sentence before and after it. If the paragraph is unclear, consult the paragraph before and after it. If the chapter is unclear, consult the chapter before and after it. Take the whole work into consideration. If we don't do that we may end up cherry-picking the text and end up claiming something unviable such as: the Bible does not allow symbolism and you can get a rational for stoning people from the New Testament.
One of the major pits into which Mr. Harris, and many other skeptics, falls is that they appear to not take into consideration that reading is about context. Context expands: if a sentence is unclear, consult the sentence before and after it. If the paragraph is unclear, consult the paragraph before and after it. If the chapter is unclear, consult the chapter before and after it. Take the whole work into consideration. If we don't do that we may end up cherry-picking the text and end up claiming something unviable such as: the Bible does not allow symbolism and you can get a rational for stoning people from the New Testament.
All of Mariano's Online Essays
- "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
- "Blogger" Version
- "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"
- "Squidoo" Version
- Gospel of Judas
- "Blogger" Version
- Gospel of Judas
- "Squidoo" Version
- Thank God for The Da Vinci Code
- "Blogger" Version
- Thank God for The Da Vinci Code
- "Squidoo" Version
- Atheism Dissected
- The Expansive Version
(38 essays regarding atheism) - Atheism Succinctly
- The Introductory Version
- Life and Doctrine
- Various Topics and Links to Various More
- Life in Albuquerque
- One Resident's Musings
- Apologia
- Succinct Description of Apologetics
and Links to Various Resources
(books, audio, video, ministries,
charities, music, etc.) - The Bahá'í Faith
- Essays About The Bahá'í Faith
- Islamicus
- Essays About Islam
- Mormonism
- Essays About Mormonism - LDS Church
- Maryology
- Essays About The Catholic Views of Mary
- Eucharist
- Essays About Catholic Eucharist - The Real Presence
- Purgatory
- Essays About Catholic Purgatory
- Grand Design Graphics
- Great Shirts, Frugal Prices
- No End Books
- Great Books, Frugal Prices
- Sam Harris-Myth Buster or Myth Maker?
- "Blogger" Version
- Richard Dawkins - Scientist or Activist?
- Various essays about Prof. Dawkins
- Dan Barker - One of America's Leading Atheists
- Essays about the Freedom From Religion Foundation's very own Mr. Barker
- Atheism is Dead
- Multi-author site discusses atheism from various perspectives.
Various Authors on Amazon
The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life
Amazon Price: $11.70 (as of 07/10/2009)
Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions
Amazon Price: $11.55 (as of 07/10/2009)
Escape From Reason: A Penetrating Analysis Of Trends In Modern Thought
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine
Amazon Price: $10.88 (as of 07/10/2009)
God is Revelant: Finding Strength and Peace in Today's World
Amazon Price: (as of 07/10/2009)
by Mariano
Shalom; I have traveled to the United States of America, Peru, Mexico, Israel, The Bahamas, Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire--Earth is nice. (more)
