CADRE Comments

Christopher Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything , has been interviewed by FrontPage Magazine in an article entitled (appropriately enough) god is Not Great . (I don't know if the small "g" in god is a typo or intentional, so I left it in.) During the course of the interview, Hitchens makes a rather strange statement. As to the "good" that religion has done, I state very clearly in "God Is Not Great" that many believers have done exemplary things. But I insist that they are valued for qualities and deeds that any humanist can applaud, and that supernatural authority is not required to oppose Hitler or Stalin, say, or slavery. Whereas scriptural authority WAS required, for example, to justify racism and slavery in the first place. Now, I agree in part that religious teachings have been used (or, in the case of Christianity, misused) to support racism and slavery. I have heard (but have never looked for myself) that Islam...

It seems clear that knowing God involves both analogies and disanalogies with other kinds of knowing, such as knowing other minds, etc. One of the more important disanalogies may center around the kind of training it takes to come to know God. Coming to believe in the existence (and saving presence) of God is not a simple one-off evaluation of arguments and counter-arguments. Rather, it may involve being trained to see the same 'facts' of experience from a different angle, or 'crossing a threshold' in William J. Abraham's terminology. As Stanley Hauerwas says in relation to Christian formation, "Ethics...is not primarily about rules and principles, rather it is about how the self must be transformed in order to see the world truthfully." (Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom, p.33) A recent exponent of this view is John Cottingham. He argues that truths about God have a very peculiar metaphysical status, because of their unique object. There is a significant di...

One of my favorite books on Christianity is actually three books: The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy . The Trilogy consists of three of Schaeffer's works in one volume: The God Who Is There , Escape from Reason and He Is There and He Is Not Silent . Recently, I have been reading another Schaeffer book, How Should We Then Live? , subtitled "The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture". In this book, Schaeffer examines the way in which cultural worldviews have led to the rise and decline of various civilizations. The first chapter tackles the fall of the Roman Empire and the lessons about world views to be learned from the history of ancient Rome. In addition to the book, Schaeffer has also produced a video series by the same name. Yesterday, I learned that that the first tape of the video series is available on the Internet here . The series, as is common for Schaeffer's works, assumes that the reader/viewer has a working knowledge of history and philosophy sin...

Michael J. Penfold, primary author of the articles on WebTruth , has recently developed a new webpage specifically dealing with articles and audio critiquing Richard Dawkins' travesty, The God Delusion . The website is called AtheistDelusion.net , and according to it's introduction, AtheistDelusion.net is "merely a window pointing to articles, books, DVDs, websites, lectures and reviews on other sites that provide answers and alternatives to Dawkins' arguments on atheism and Darwinism from a number of different perspectives." The website features articles such as the following: The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum, Written by: Alvin Platinga Darwin's Rottweiler and the Public Understanding of Scientism, Written by: Peter S. Williams God Knows Why Faith is Thriving, Written by: Dinesh D'Sousa The website also features audio such as the following: Dawkins' God, by: Prof. Alister McGrath The Scientific Bankruptcy of Darwinian Evolution, by: Mic...

John Loftus is one of the lead contributors to the anti-Christian blog, Debunking Christianity. He has commented here a number of times; most recently--ironically--on the issue of whether atheists can have a coherent philosophy of morality. On May 22, 2007, he posted an entry attacking J.P. Holding. Nothing new here; Holding is enemy no. 1 for the online skeptics. Loftus began by linking to a blog by another atheist attacking Holding. Then, Loftus linked to another blog devoted to attacking Holding, in this manner: I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I'm probably not going to waste my time on him , except to point out what others are saying about him.... When you go to the referenced anti-Holding blog, you see a picture of Holding and the title of the blog, "J.P. Holding." This in itself is deceptive as such pictures and titles usually identify the ...

Hector Avalos has reflected recently on his membership in the Society of Biblical Literature and on biblical studies more generally. I cannot say that I am impressed with the maturity or the soundness of his views. In fact, I find myself disagreeing with him in just about everything he says. But it should be noted that this is not just because he is a secular humanist complaining (unjustly, I usually think) about the supposed dominance of faith-based scholarship in the academy. As a reflective Christian I welcome legitimate prophetic criticism which can help us believers remove the beam that is in our own eye when it comes to unwarranted assumptions, complacency or abuse of power. But I certainly don't think that Hector Avalos has given us such a critique. Avalos charges that "The vast majority of SBL members are engaged in an elite leisure pursuit called "biblical studies," which is subsidized through churches, academic institutions, and taxpayers. Keeping biblical...

A while ago, Richard Burridge wrote one of the most influential books in New Testament studies in the last 30 years: What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Greco-Roman Biography . At the time Burridge began his study, the prevailing view of the genre of the Gospels was that they were sui generis -- of their own unique genre as pioneered by Mark. While Burridge was undertaking his study, some stirrings had arisen questioning the majority opinion (most notably by Charles H. Talbert and his books arguing that the Gospels were ancient biographies). As Burridge began his inquiry, he expected to refute the notion that the Gospels were akin to ancient biographies, but ended up confirming the dissenting view. So influential was Burridge's argument that the majority opinion has shifted and the view that the Gospels were written according to the genre of ancient, Greco-Roman biography is ascendant. Burridge's work, however, is not easy reading. If someone is looking for the cas...

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: I am here appending in several parts some excerpts from an unpublished book of mine, originally composed late 99/early 2000, wherein I work out a progressive synthetic metaphysic. The current topic is ethical grounding, and an analysis of problems along the three general lines of ethical explanation. The previous entry, which introduced the topic and provided distinctions of explanation for discussion, can be found here. I am still in chapter 30, “an introduction of the question of ethics”. This entry features several footnote comments, which I will include as bracketed notes in the text below. ....... [text excerpt begins here] In the first class, ethics are proposed to be an invention of us humans. This is one way that ethics are proposed to be rational. [Footnote 329: But only so long as the underlying philosophy self-consistently affirms that we are capable of active reason.] Notice I said an invention, not a discovery; a discovery would entail ...

Introductory note from Jason Pratt: In relation to a discussion I was having with Paul (last name currently unknown) on a topic begun by Chris Price (aka “Layman”) down in a post here, I am here appending in several parts some excerpts from an unpublished book of mine, originally composed late 99/early 2000, wherein I work out a progressive synthetic metaphysic. The current topic is ethical grounding, and an analysis of problems along the three general lines of ethical explanation. (Meanwhile, BK has begun his own discussion of the discussion, so to speak, here. ) Please keep in mind that I am discussing these things in light of something like 510 manuscript pages of previous analysis already. Which I may decide to inflict on the journal (in a hopefully somewhat more abbreviated form), at a later date, if I am sufficiently provoked. Be warned--be very awarned. {g} (More seriously, I only mean that I am aware that a bunch of other topics really need to be discussed first. I haven't...