I want to begin by saying that I am biased. I am a student of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of which Dr. Mohler is president. I am also a regular listener to his radio show. Basically I’m a fan. Now in regards to the content of the book; I am a Theist, a Christian, an Evangelical, and a Baptist. Now with all (maybe not) of my biases on the table, let me say this is a good book. In a very succinct way Dr. Mohler addresses and exposes the errors of the New Atheists. A worthwhile read.
The New Atheists that Dr. Mohler highlights are what he calls the four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse. They are in no particular order Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. He selects these four due to popularity and book sales. These are the first atheists to really strike a chord in popular culture instead of simply remaining in a passionate minority, the book sales show that something new is happening.
These four are serving as something new, they are evangelists for atheism. Not content to sit in ivory towers among other elites they are taking their message of non-belief on the road. They are bold, they are consciously rejecting faith in any God but the Christian God in particular, and they believe that theism of any kind is a cultural evil (to different extents) and that it should and will be eradicated. They also believe that it is time to abandon religious liberty (once again to different extents) since faith in God is so dangerous and they go so far as to question the right of parents to teach faith in God to their children.
Dr. Mohler evaluates the critiques of both Alistair McGrath and Alvin Plantinga. He finds both extremely helpful but underwhelming because both share the New Atheists acceptance of evolutionary theory. So in conclusion he contends that we must not advocate of defend the idea of God, but rather the personal God who has revealed Himself in the Bible.
Mohler is careful to point out that most of the people that we will share the Gospel with are not going to identify with the New Atheists, but they may be aware of their arguments and be influenced by them. However the New Atheists have picked the right battle. It is only the personal, supernatural God of the Bible that matters, and that is worth all the fuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"These four are serving as something new, they are evangelists for atheism. "
You must have never heard of Ignersol or Epicureous. They where both "big deals" in the popular culture of the day. Epicurean became a by word for atheism in the Roman Empire- so much so that Christians had to differentiate themselves. Ignersol was 19th century and did speaking tours through the country expounding his lack of belief. He believed the church was a malign influence and lobbied for basics like sex ed.
"They are bold, they are consciously rejecting faith in any God but the Christian God in particular, and they believe that theism of any kind is a cultural evil (to different extents) and that it should and will be eradicated."
They are antitheists- they are against not only belief in God, but religion in general... well, some of them are.
"They also believe that it is time to abandon religious liberty (once again to different extents) since faith in God is so dangerous and they go so far as to question the right of parents to teach faith in God to their children."
The truth is NOT statistical. In fact, there are certain beliefs the government will lock you away in "special" places for... "special" people.
"both share the New Atheists acceptance of evolutionary theory."
The theory of evolution by natrual selection and common descent is one of the bedrocks of modern biology. You are free to doubt it- but you would be a fool.
"Mohler is careful to point out that most of the people that we will share the Gospel with are not going to identify with the New Atheists, but they may be aware of their arguments and be influenced by them. However the New Atheists have picked the right battle. It is only the personal, supernatural God of the Bible that matters, and that is worth all the fuss."
... Don't ya hate it when you agree with your opponent?
I think the nature of this blog in general and this post in particular make clear that I am not an expert in Atheist history, so I am not shocked that you exposed my ignorance in that area. Kudos to you.
Now on the theory of evolution I do think that you may have stepped too far. I don't think that all the biologists in the world would suddenly retire if the theory of evolution was disproved to their satisfaction, no they would continue to observe and theorize about the biological world.
And to the minds of most americans, evolutionary theory remains just that, a theory that we do not find convincing. I have never been shown convincing proof that species change has ever occured. Adaption, sure the whole finch beak thing, absolutely species adapt to their environment or die, but they do not change species. (I may be using the wrong scientific lingo, but you get the point).
Also evolutionary theory cannot answer questions that Biblical theism can, human consciousness, human morality, the strange persistence of belief in God in every culture, why the law of entropy applies to everything but the development of life forms.
Love to hear back from you, stimuilating comment, thanks.
I'm not an expert- more of a jack of all trades. Don't expect mastery.
Biologists, as scientists, would continue... but a large number of them would probably declare that the world is insane. Similar to what would happen if it was discovered that magic exists.
The term is speciazation. To this...
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=125705
Anyway, on speciazation, I believe that humans are an exaple of that- the other hominids were seperate species.
"Also evolutionary theory cannot answer questions that Biblical theism can, human consciousness, human morality, the strange persistence of belief in God in every culture, why the law of entropy applies to everything but the development of life forms."
Except that it does.
- Concoiusness is an adaptive trait- it is an emergent property of our brain wiring. It evolved because it is useful for understanding the environment and other individuals actions.
- Morality is also easy- just look at the problems that socipaths have to deal with. In a small group, the downsides would be more severe.
- Belief in God would be a cultural trait- the human brain is primed for dualism. As an example of a long lasting (and false) idea, look at Valen's books on medicine, which were completely accepted until the 1500s and beyond, despite being heavily off base- it is where bleeding comes from, for example.
Mr. Skinner I'm afraid that our disagreement is not going to be settled by discussing evolutionary theory, the deeper disagreement centers around our worldviews. You are committed to a naturalistic worldview. That worldview makes your explanations "easy" or obvious, but for a person who does not share your committment to naturalism your "easy" explanations are not convincing.
I'm not convinced that consciousness or morality would actually be evolutionary beneficial. The point would be the continuing of life. Consciousness and morality complicate that committment to life. Mom's throwing themselves in harms way for their children seems foolish to me according to an evolutionary worldview.
I honestly did not understand your explanation of belief in God according to evolutionary theory, probably my fault, not yours.
I fear that your committment to naturalism is closing your mind to wider possibilities. This committment makes viable your evolutionary theories that are simply not proven or provable, but if you are committed to naturalism then something like these theories must be true, but if you are open to supernaturalism then your theories sound very implausible.
BTW, I am really enjoying our discussion, feel free to continue commenting, I'm also curious whether you are a regular reader and what you think of the blog, in general.
Post a Comment