Category Archives: Atheist

Image credit:Gerd Altmann viaPixabay.

On a new episode ofID the Future, radio host Michael Medved sits down with bestselling scienceauthorStephen Meyer to discuss the Marvel movieDr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.Medved isnt wild about the film, but he uses it as a springboard for a discussion of what he calls the madness of the multiverse namely, the proposals in physics and cosmology for the idea that our universe is just one of many universes. Meyer explains some of the early motivations among 20th-century physicists and cosmologists for proposing a multiverse. Then he turns to what he says is the main driver for interest in the multiverse in our day a desire to explain away something that is deeply puzzling on the grounds of atheism, namely that the laws and constants of physics and chemistry are exquisitely fine-tuned for life.

For the atheist, fine-tuning smells too much like intelligent design, and on a cosmic scale. The solution from the atheists: there are countless universes, they suggest, maybe even an infinity of them, and our universe is just one of the lucky ones with the right laws and constants to allow for life. In essence, we won a multiverse cosmic lottery. Meyers recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, lists multiple problems with this explanation. One problem is that these postulated universes are unobservable and that even indirect evidence for them is weak to nonexistent.

But Meyer cites a more fundamental problem: a multiverse, its broadly agreed, would require a multiverse-generating device, and its now clear that it would have to be exquisitely fine-tuned to generate even one habitable universe. So the multiverse theory doesnt remove the need for a fine-tuner. It merely moves the need back a step. Meyer says the fine-tuning of the cosmos is better explained by reference to the one type of cause that in our experience is able to look ahead and fine-tune multiple components to achieve a goal intelligent agency. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

See original here:

Listen: Dr. Meyer in the Multiverse of Madness - Discovery Institute

Theres a lot south Louisianans who grew up in the church will understand about Slow Rosarys Free WiFi in the Vatican.

The album has the trappings of a Catholic worship record theres the hymn Lord, When You Came to the Seashore and a track based around Matthew 13:44-55 (complete with red lettering on the albums lyrics page). But listeners will immediately realize this isnt a religious work: Free WiFi in the Vatican is secular, complex and contradictory. It grapples with Catholicism in its beauty and brutality.

Putting it very simply, its an expression of all of my thoughts about the faith and my relationship with it, says Rene Duplantier, the singer-songwriter at the core of Slow Rosary. That includes a song where I criticize Christian presidents and it includes criticizing the Pope, but it also includes a licensed cover of a church song.

Duplantier was born in New Orleans and grew up in a Catholic family confirmed as Saint Francis Xavier, since unconfirmed, still curious, reads the about page on the Slow Rosary website. As he reached his 20s, Duplantier found himself in a long process of leaving Catholicism, he says.

It wasnt some contentious process or anything, it was mostly that I realized that I didnt believe a lot of the things they believed, he adds.

Duplantier went to college in Arizona, and when he moved back to New Orleans, he began playing a monthly show at the Neutral Ground Coffee House. His past songwriting had been more influenced by alt and indie rock musicians like Alex G and Tigers Jaw, but around that time mixed in with the religious decoupling as well he found he was writing more folk-esque songs. He decided to call the project for those tunes Slow Rosary.

Free WiFi in the Vatican, which is out Friday, is the second Slow Rosary full-length, following up Refinery, released last August, mere days before Hurricane Ida hit. Duplantier wrote the songs on the two albums over the last four years, and they work together in a way.

I think of Refinery as kind of the narrative, the what happened, and then Free WiFi is the thought process of the main character. Its more fluid, Duplantier says.

Refinery more explicitly touches on the events of my childhood, young adulthood, a few breakups, a few moves, trips, Duplantier adds later in the conversation. Whereas this record is never things I would have said out loud. Refinery is quite literally what was happening for three or four years, whereas Free WiFi is just what I was thinking about.

Freeman tapped more than 20 friends for the new record.

The songs on Free WiFi are lush and captivating, with a bed of sounds lifting up Duplantiers folk-like lyricism. The albums lo-fi, home-recorded quality gives it the impression of stepping into a small, pretty church during the music portion of Sunday service as the band plays songs about so-called Christian presidents calling for waterboarding.

Duplantier who sings and plays guitar, bass, piano and keys on Free WiFi is at the center of Slow Rosary, and he often collaborates with drummer Blake Robicheaux along with a rotating cast of musicians. The album includes musicians Kate Gauthreaux, Zach Lannes and Dreux Gerard LeBourgeois, and Nick Rosato II also plays with the band live.

On the Bandcamp page, I tagged it as both Christian and Atheist, Duplantier says with a laugh. A lot of people who arent religious make music with religious imagery. Especially in New Orleans, for locals anyway, a lot of people grew up with [the church]. Everyone can have some easy connection to it.

More about Slow Rosary and Free WiFi in the Vatican can be found at slowrosary.com.

Music, dance, theater and more to check out this week.

Read more here:

On new album 'Free WiFi in the Vatican,' Slow Rosary reflects on the church in its beauty and brutality - NOLA.com

[originally from 10 June 2007]

***

Reformed Baptist John Knights words will be in blue.

See these articles that are referred to in the exchange:

Critique of Van Tils Presuppositionalism[10-23-04]

Critique of Presuppositionalism & Greg Bahnsen[4-14-07]

*****

I would describe myself as a Reformed Baptist, following broadly within the Van Tillian tradition, especially as developed by Greg Bahnsen on the one hand & John Frame on the other. (Both were students of Van Til.) By common consent, Dr. Van Til was a poor writer, one whose sparkling analogies sometimes appeared in the oddest places. And, no doubt, there are additional issues, clarifications, & corrections to be addressed by Christian thinkers to day & in the future. However, it is worth noting that Van Tils writings anticipated many of the important developments in 20th Century philosophy. The challenges posed by Wittgenstein, Kuhn, Quine, Sellars, Polanyi, & Plantinga to modern philosophy support Van Tils general critique of unbelief.

Thanks for your cordial remarks in the Open Forum.

. . . Assuming, of course, that you really want to get into some of the more interesting questions in the debate.

Absolutely! Good dialogue is an increasingly rare commodity these days. How refreshing to find someone who seems to enjoy it as much as I do, and a nice guy to boot!

As to Mr. Armstrongs comments on Dr. Bahnsens article, Mr. Armstrong returns repeatedly to the claim that Bahnsen is presenting a Straw Man of evidential apologetics by accusing evidential apologists of neutrality. This criticism appears to be Mr. Armstrongs core complaint, which he repeats throughout the article.

I dont claim to be an expert on Bahnsen. I was simply responding to the best of my ability, to what I understood his arguments to be. Sometimes one can make further assumptions about opponents underlying premises that are mistaken. Wed have to go through my replies and see where our differences lie.

And please call me Dave!

To that extent, Idothink that I have interacted with the substance of his comments.

Not if you havent gone through my reasoning point-by-point, as I am doing presently. You dont know if you have misunderstood some of my arguments or misconceived the premises lying behind them. Were all prone to that mistake (and usually unintentionally) . Its always good to look at the actual particulars of someone elses argument rather than make broad, grand assumptions which may be mistaken in part or wholly.

I hope I have done so politely & amiably.

Yes; I greatly appreciate that, as I am sick to death of completely unnecessary hostilities simply because people have some honest disagreements. Ive never fully understood that, and I dont think I ever will.

[I]t is possible that our disagreements can sorted out through a simple clarification of terms & issues.

I think that is a distinct possibility, once you fully understand my overall outlook on apologetics and philosophy. Several indications of common ground have already appeared, as I responded (below). I can tell by the people you cite (Plantinga and Polanyi, whom I love and have been highly influenced by, Kuhn, etc.; Cardinal Newman: a profound influence on my thought, has been compared to Polanyi in several ways) that we are on the same page quite often. That doesnt surprise me. It may not surprise you, either, but surely it shocks many who think that the divide in these areas is much bigger than it should be (i.e., we have much more in common than people think).

As a Reformed Baptist & recovering evidentialist, I find Mr. Armstrongs reply to Dr. Bahnsen unsatisfying. He seems to misunderstand Bahnsens critique of attempted epistemological neutrality as an attack on the sincerity of evidentialists & classicists.

Okay; well see!

Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.

This, of course, hinges on what one means by prove. I think there are relatively few things that one can absolutely prove. On the other hand, I believe in natural theology, which means that I think there are certain things that all men know intuitively or instinctively or with a properly formed intellect by virtue of logic, that Christians can then build upon in their apologetic.

What would be the basis of your argument?

My argument against Bahnsen is in my paper. I dont recall all particulars without revisiting it (as I have written many hundreds of papers). As we get deeper into this, Id like to see you examine particular arguments of mine.

Historical evidence of the Resurrection?Apart for Christian presuppositions, one can never prove that Christ rose from the dead.

I agree. Ive never claimed that onecouldprove such a thing. I think Reginald stated it well in the same combox:

In the first place, the Catholic wouldnt try to prove that Christ rose from the dead, if by prove you mean provide incontrovertible evidence. Some things must be accepted by faith. We can only remove the obstacles to that acceptance by demonstrating that the the faith is a reasonable thing and that there are good reasons for being Christian (and Catholic).

Even if you succeed in convincing the unbeliever, he doesnt have to conclude that, therefore, Christ is God. There are other options.

Thats right, though I do think most such people would agree that if the resurrection were proven, that this would constitute significant evidence towards the proposition that Jesus might, in fact, be God. They use the supposed implausibility of the Resurrection, precisely as a means to discount Jesus claims.

More generally, the facts do not speak for themselves. Facts only make sense within an interpretive framework, a point made by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, and Wilfrid Sellars, among others.

I couldnt agree more.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument?Its based on a fundamental misinterpretation of set theory. And even if the math made sense, it wouldnt prove the Christian God or even a personal god as the first cause.

I agree. What I have said is that it shows that theism is at least as reasonable as atheism. I think it is a very strong argument, though.

Even worse, the argument presupposes a linear view of time. What about the unbeliever who has a cyclical view of time, like many pagan religions?

Ones view of time doesnt eliminate their burden of dealing with causation. I think the argument can be made, at least, that time is linear back to the big Bang. Before that, we cant say (and the Christian can simply posit by faith that this was eternity past before divine creation. But in any event, unless one is anti-science, they cannot escape the fact that present-day cosmology and physics require a belief that the present universe began in that instant of the Big Bang.

The Argument from Design?While I respect the work done by William Dembski & Michael Behe, they are the first to admit that, even if their argument is correct, it only proves design. It does not identify the designer: Terrestrial life could have been designed by non-carboniferous aliens.

I agree again.

More generally, do you propose to argue from the facts to prove the existence of Our Lord?

No, because I dont think proof of such things is possible. It is only possible to create what I would call a plausibility structure whereby, as a result of cumulative evidences of various sorts brought to the table, the Christian view, or at least theism, is shown to be far more worthy of allegiance and reasonable than any alternative. In the end, faith will always be required. We cant connect the dots of faith with reason, because that would undermine the very basis and necessity of biblical faith. They are simply two different things.

Do you begin with sense perceptions & experience as you ultimate foundation of knowledge & try build, brick by brick, a tower to the heavens, finally proving the existence of God? This philosophical approach is called empiricism, and it is self-refuting. It cannot prove the existence of God because it cannot prove anything.

It requires prior belief in the validity of sensory perception. Ive written for 25 years that science requires faith to even begin. So this is nothing new to me. I accept Polanyis critique of empiricism. But in any event, I dont think you can absolutely prove that God exists. This has been my position for as long as I can remember. One can have a very strong assurance of faith that He exists, and is benevolent. But faith is not reason. It ought to be not contrary to reason, but it ultimately transcends it, as another category.

Armstrong also seems to misunderstand Bahnsens approach as mere proclamation of the Word. A quick review of the Bahnsen-Stein debate will end that illusion forever. In that debate, Bahnsen tears down the atheist world-view of Dr. Stein. Stein had built his argument on a house of sand (his atheist world-view). When Hurricane Greg tore through the auditorium that night, Stein was left without any basis to criticize or even doubt the Christian world-view, and most of the audience saw it.

I understand that presuppositionalism is about questioning the premises of opponents. I highly relate to that because my usual methodology is socratic. I do the same thing all the time (and become veryunpopularin some circles for doing so, believe me!). So what I did to presuppositionalism (in myfirst major paperon it) was to subject it to the same treatment that it gives to others, by examiningitspresuppositions. And, of course, it turns out to be radically circular, which is unacceptable.

Bahnsen, by the way, recorded a sermon or lecture on the Pauls Mars Hill presentation. He makes a good case that Paul was a presuppositionalist.

perhaps you can outline that argument as we proceed. Id be interested in seeing it. I think all Christians should have much in common, epistemologically, and we often do far more than we imagine. Note above, for example, how many times I agreed with your own premises and major aspects of your approach to questions of proof and apologetics.

[sometimes below I will be replying to points John made in response toothers]

I have two sets of questions

1.) Are [you] claiming that there is no definitive proof for Christian theism?

If by that one means airtight rationalistic proofs that no sane man could possibly doubt, yes. Thats how I interpret the word proof: within the framework of rationalism and/or empiricism. But then I believe in the assurance of faith and the reasonableness of accepting Gods revelation in faith, based on a number of other supporting factors.

Are you claiming that your apologetic provides only probable proof for Christian theism? Or even some lower standard?

I think one can achieve a very high degree of certitude (Cardinal Newmans word, I believe, in hisGrammar of Assent) by revelation and reason together, as well as other things. I think there are many beliefs that are (in Plantingas terms) properly basic and perfectly plausible and permissible for rational people to believe. So, in sum, I think my evidentialist apologetic could provide an exceedingly probable basis for belief: as much as is humanly possible through reason alone (reason that men of all kinds can agree upon, based on the universality of logic, scientific method, etc.).

2.) Is this position the consensus at this website?

Its my website, and my position, is as just described, so that is the position here! Commenters may show a spectrum on these matters. Catholics can have differing apologetics. I tend to combine aspects of different schools.

Please keep in mind that I never claimed that Catholics would use the historical argument. (I skimmed the index, and I didnt see it presented on this site.)

Ive written an entire book,Mere Christian Apologetics, that uses such arguments, in an attempt at a general Christian apologetic (not distinctively Catholic at all in that book). A second similar book,Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism, tries the same approach, but geared towards atheists and agnostics.

I asked how a non-presuppositionalist proposes to vindicate the claims of Christianity, and summarized the inadequacies of three popular approaches, two of which do appear on this site, IIRC.

I have given a thumbnail sketch of how I do so.

Mr. Armstrong seemed to suggest that the presuppositional approach abandons argumentation for proclamation.

Sometimes it does do so, I think, either directly, or in effect or strong implication. In fact, one might argue that it must do this, insofar as it holds that believer and non-believer hold so little in common that they can scarcely communicate with each other (and incorporating the effect of Total Depravity or the unregenerate state).

That debate provides a clear counter-example to this misapprehension.

Perhaps. Id rather stick to dialoguing with you at the moment.

***

Presuppositions are inevitable. One cannot even ask questions without relying on presuppositions.

This is correct.

The difference is between non-Christian presuppositions that lead to irrationality & contradictions

I agree.

& Christian presuppositions which provide solid foundations for knowledge, for reason, for induction, for math, science, moral obligations, language and so on.

Our worldview is coherent and consistent in all aspects of life. It doesnt follow, however, that overtly Christian presuppositions are required for things like math and language.

***

If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.~Ludwig Wittgenstein

*

True.

*

I cherish reason, logic, science, mathematics, & history. I wish to give them a firm foundation. How can I do that apart from Christian presuppositions?

*

Take courses on those subjects in some school. One doesnt have to start with Christian presuppositions to learn any of those things. But being a Christian helps one to become a relatively better historian or scientist because secularist and rationalist baggage brought to those tasks obscure the best science that could be done.

I agree that the presuppositionalist can & should use evidentialist arguments. For example, he can present the historical evidence for the Resurrection, based on number & date of manuscripts, internal consistency, external consistency & so forth. Of course, the hard-core unbeliever will deny that this evidence proves the Resurrection. [Or maybe not. An existentialist might acknowledge thefactof the Resurrection without attaching any significance to it. Os Guinness recounts one such incident.] The apologist is then in a position to force the unbeliever to defend his theory of historical knowledge.

I agree. Thats exactly what I would do. Ive done similar things many times in my numerous debates with atheists.

Or, as the proverb says, Argue with a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own eyes.

*

Indeed.

On the other hand, any argument that takes man as the ultimate source of knowledge is a rejection of divine authority. It is also dangerous to use bad arguments to defend the faith. It discredits the faith & leads to intellectual confusion.

Or, as the proverb has it, Do not argue with a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him.

[Proverbs 26:4-5]. I love this couplet of passages, with the one counseling the opposite of the other, so that the varied application depends on situation and prudence.

It is a pleasure to be welcomed into friendly disagreement.

Likewise; especially in light of certain criticisms from certain quarters that were not shall we say particularlygracious, to put it mildly . . .

As I pointed out in response to your analysis of an old article by the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Bahnsen is not attacking the good intentions of classicists & evidentialists. He is instead pointing out the futile nature of trying to prove the truth of Christian theism from non-Christian presuppositions.

That would have to be unpacked as to exactly what it means. I suspect that I could agree with it entirely or in large part, once it was elaborated upon in greater specificity.

Whatever other mistakes we may make, I hope we can all avoid attacking the good intentions of our brothers in Christ.

I dont attack anyones good intentions or sincerity (and that applies to even my severest critics). It must be noted, however, that since Bahnsen was an anti-Catholic, he would not consider a fully observant, orthodox Catholic (such as myself) as his brother in Christ in the first place. And when that is done, it is very difficult for human beings to avoid being condescending, with such a huge category mistake in place.

I look forward to better understanding your apologetic outlook while helping you better understand my perspective & the outlook of my fellow presuppositionalists.

Yes; same here. How refreshing.

I think that the difference between us is, in some ways, probably much smaller than conventionally thought. In other ways, it is very large, but perhaps we can begin to bridge that gap.

I think so.

In my understanding, the key difference between the archetypal Presuppositionalist & the Evidentialist counterpart is not any particular argument. Evidentialists often use arguments that attack the presuppositions of the unbeliever.

I certainly do all the time, because that is what socratics do.

As noted above, C.S. Lewis used an Argument from Moral Law of that type inMere Christianity& an Argument from Reason of that type inMiracles.(Whether or not Lewis deserves to be called an evidentialist, most evidentialists claim him as one of their own.) Likewise, I personally use a version of the Argument from the Resurrection, usually considered thesine qua nonof evidentialist apologetics. Presuppositionalist Thom Notaro has even written a short book on the use of evidence in Van Tillian apologetics.

Read more here:

Dialogue on Presuppositionalism with a Baptist | Dave Armstrong - Patheos

Good heavens, this show!Fleabagmade our hearts quiver and brains wander by casting Andrew Scott as an unnamed 'hot priest' in season 2 who successfully did two things- a. Preach the word of God and b. Make our ovaries explode.

The excruciatingly charming priest is witty and intuitive and if we say we were simply gushing over him, it would perhaps be an understatement.

After binge-watching the orgasm-inducing moments of the hot priest, we bring to you the tantalizing moments that prove he's the 'father' women truly crave.

Just a question and we screamed THEY ARE MEANT TO BE.

Two seconds ago she'd admitted that she was an atheist but the priest was all she'd been praying for since the time they met. Cue Fleabag realising, 'Oh God, I fancy a priest.'

'oooh'- That's it. That's literally it.

Can't lie I could watch him all day as his eyes gleamed while talking about God or... the fox.

We knew he was here to f-king stay.

That neck, though.

I'd be lying if I said we didn't knowthe mere thought of the hot priest thinking about her tits made Fleabag orgasm.

When they winded up in a steamy make-out in themidst of the church, I literally gasped.

There, he said it.

He says this before the inevitable sex happens, of course.

I am not crying, you are.

My heart didn't soar but twinge in pain.

Out of all the unavailable men we've ever been fascinated with, this one ranks first.

See original here:

12 Hot Priest Moments From 'Fleabag' That Prove He's The Father Women Truly Need - ScoopWhoop

GAINESVILLE, Texas A theater group in a North Texas istelling the story of Jesus gathering his disciples, using a modern lens that strips away stereotypes.

Godspell, a musical by John Michael Tebelak and Stephen Schwartz, debuted this week at the playhouse in downtown Gainesville.

We wanted to do something thats light and that speaks to the idea of unconditional love and acceptance, said Gene Matthews, Butterfield Stage Players director.

Matthews has performed in and directed multiple shows at Butterfield since 2016, including the last four summer musicals. He was eager to share a new take on the musical for Gainesville theatergoers.

I really wanted the opportunity as an atheist to direct a show about God and whittle it down to its basic concepts of unconditional love, acceptance and joy, said Matthews. People have misinterpreted Godspell over the years to be a musical about Jesus coming down back to Earth and leading his people through the story of his life, but its not about Jesus. Its about a bunch of lost individuals who rally around this one charismatic individual who helps them see there is more out there, that there is more to believe in, more to love, that they arent alone.

This message becomes clear in the casting.

This show is traditionally cast with five men and five women. I decided to be more open-minded about my casting choices and not necessarily stick to those traditionally gendered roles, said Matthews.Ive cast a plethora of people, some of whom dont believe in God; I am an atheist. Politically, weve got Republicans, weve got Democrats, weve got conservatives, weve got liberals. And when it comes to beliefs, weve got people who believe in all manner of different charities or social justice situations or social justice causes. Ive got members of the LGBTQ+ community onstage, and since they are playing exaggerated versions of themselves, I absolutely encourage them to bring some of their own life to their representation of themselves on stage."

There are only two characters in Godspell who arent listed as playing themselves: Jesus and Judas. However, according to Matthews, the actors are still playing themselves. Eryka Kitundu, a black woman, plays Jesus a casting decision that has raised a few eyebrows and led some Butterfield patrons to pass on seeing the show.

Nonetheless, Kitundu relishes this opportunity.

Its inspiring that I could get an opportunity like this, especially in a small town, said Kitundu. Im playing someone who is very controversial, especially in this day and age, and people dont see him as my skin color. I also have to tackle that issue when putting on this show, but Im still going to rock it, because I got casted for a reason.

Matthews stands by his casting decision.

I didnt cast a black woman as Jesus. I cast Eryka as Eryka. Shes listed in the playbill as Jesus so that audience members know that this woman is meant to represent a charismatic individual who has all the qualities of Jesus, said Matthews. Its never been about sex or gender for any of these roles."

In researching the show, Matthews discovered that Stephen Schwartz originally wrote the song "Beautiful City" back in 1972 for the release of the film version of "Godspell." But after the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, he rewrote the lyrics to better reflect of the racial tensions present then and now in America.

One of the contributing factors that led to the 1992 Los Angeles race riots was the killing of Latasha Harlands, a 15-year-old African-American girl, which happened only 13 days after the brutal, videotaped beating of Rodney King, said Matthews. I think its appropriate and beautiful that we have cast a Black woman as Jesus, and that we will get to experience her singing this song, which was reconceived as an anthem to the beauty of Black lives, the fact that they do matter, and to show that in a world where so much hate can seem overwhelming, sometimes one person standing up to that hate can make a difference."

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the article here:

Director, actors offer new spin on classic musical 'Godspell', without stereotypes - Weatherford Democrat

Courtesy of Pixabay

In my last article, I (and Matthew Graham) responded to atheists claims of greater rationality and consistency in the atheistic position. In this article, we tackle more responses to my appeal. As before, The Latin Rights response is listed under TLR Answers. Any corrections will be to grammar only. Thank you.

Response #4

Illithid

Wow, Im so very late to the party! Quote any of this you wish. For whatever its worth, I trust you to do so honestly, which I cannot say for some (*cough* Dave Armstrong).

A few of the things you cite as appealing about atheism, I do find appealing. Mostly 3 through 6. Number one is a relief for those previously indoctrinated into belief in Hell, but I wasnt raised with much religion, so it hasnt been an issue for me. And I find that I dont require meaning in the way that many say they do. But those arent reasons to be an atheist, just cool things about it. The reason to be an atheist is one from your list: objective truth. A rational epistemology which leads to verifiable, objective truth in other areas of life leads naturally to disbelief in religion, just as it leads to disbelief in astrology, homeopathy, and psychics.

For a rationalist, belief isnt a choice (I dont claim to be a perfect rationalist, but I try). Pending good evidence, I can no more believe in gods than I can believe in ghosts or magic spells, or that the world is flat. And I find it interesting to observe the mental gymnastics that intelligent and otherwise rational people will undertake in order to preserve their religious beliefs.

For example, my MIL is an intelligent and independent woman with a legal education. Shes no easy prey for scams or con artists. She understands rules of evidence and burden of proof. And all that flies straight out one ear when she goes to church, where she will swallow any fool thing that preacher says, on any subject whatsoever. Because hes a man of God, and so, trustworthy. Thats a flawed and dangerous mindset, and Im pleased not to share it.

I find it interesting that tough minded atheists place such a high value on objective truth. This is something I think thoughtful Christians have in common with such atheists. Unfortunately, most of the atheists I have dialogue with use lay church goers and pastors as their intellectual foil. Unfortunately, most church goers and even pastors are underwhelming in their ability to understand and or defend historic Christianity.

I appreciate the tough minded atheist. We may not agree on what is true, but I think we both have a dedication to the truth. I do wonder, why would you want to be a rationalist? That philosophical school doesnt really carry much weight these days. The empiricists and then Immanuel Kant moved philosophy away from a rigid form of rationalism. Im not familiar with any philosophers who think we need to go back to Descartes or Spinoza.

Good epistemology doesnt demand claims be verifiable (certainly not empirically verifiable) to be warranted. Im not sure if you are going in this direction, but empirical rationalism/verificationism/logical positivism have long been set aside due to numerous problems they present as restrictive criteria for knowledge.

In sum, I appreciate your dedication to the truth! But I wonder if there is some work to do in your underlying epistemology if in fact you lean towards some kind of rational empiricism/logical positivism.

Response #5

Zizzer-Zazzer-Zuzz

I am an atheist simply because of the fact that I have not seen any compelling argument or evidence for a deity.

What is your account for the existence of matter and consciousness? You are also a mind that uses reason, correct? In what way is a belief in another higher mind irrational? To me, the most convincing proof God exists is existence itself. I simply find it irrational to believe that something came from nothing without a cause. It seems like magic to me.

Like what you read? Please check out my other writinghere.

Please like and follow me onFacebookandTwitter.

View post:

Answers for Atheists Part 2: Objective Truth and No Evidence for God - Patheos

Having spent a good amount of printer ink writing about the religious experience I had on pilgrimage in Mexico, it is only a logical progression that my tangled mind should turn its energy toward my new favorite atheist.

My old favorite, Christopher Hitchens, passed away years ago may God have mercy on his soul so I have been in the market. If my new favorite atheist heard me say, God have mercy on you, he would likely not be as visceral as Hitchens, but I can almost guarantee his retort would be funny, incisive, and I would have to go back to Chesterton or Fulton Sheen to refute it.

British actor/writer/comedian Ricky Gervais is an exceptionally talented guy with a long history of success, and it is another logical progression that he would create a series that has a powerful and even spiritual component to it, but cemented in his own deep disbelief in God.

The Netflix series After Life is not suitable for family viewing, but even in its more offensive and adult content, there is something of value here. Gervais talent and thoughtfulness is worth exploring. If anyone was going to make a limited-run comedy series about a man horribly damaged by the death of his one true love and make a throughline of the main character seeking to destroy himself to stop his pain, Gervais is that guy.

His character is devastated by the premature death of his wife to cancer, and she becomes an integral cog in the story arc, as Gervais character constantly watches old digital videos of her on his computer. He is still deeply in love with her, and all the videos are slices of a life of bliss and happiness.

The corresponding sadness that we see in Gervais widower colors every aspect of his life, whether it is dealing with the cast of screwball characters he works with at the local village newspaper, where he is a most disinterested human-interest reporter, or the equally odd inhabitants of the village where he makes his home.

There is a beautiful relationship that develops between Gervais widower and a widow. They meet regularly on the bench in front of the graves of their respective spouses. The widow becomes his muse, and in Gervais fashion, also shares his views that believing in an afterlife is for other people, not them.

Yet, she is positive about life and positive about the memory of her dead husband, just as Gervais character is consumed by grief over the loss of his wife. It is through her that Gervais character begins to slowly climb out of the psychic black hole he inhabits and discovers by acting kindly and mustering herculean forbearance, his character begins to get better and believes he is doing what his late wife would have wanted for him.

Gods feelings about lying are so strident that he had them written in stone, so the whole idea of lying for a good reason is theological quicksand. Yet Gervais character tells a beautiful lie in the series. He is doing one of his mundane human-interest stories in the mundane little village he covers when he finds himself in the pediatric cancer ward of the local hospital.

The topic of heaven comes up, and one of the sick children asks Gervais character if he believes in heaven. The pain and conflict his character is feeling is palpable. He then says, of course he does. It makes the sick child feel good even though we know Gervais is lying.

The series really is all about his characters search for meaning in a world without a prime mover. Of course, it would be a journey wrought with detours and dead ends that we see him come up against. But there is one thing his character does believe in with all his might: love.

And a door opens just a crack he discovers that love survives the death of his wife. He cannot see love. He cannot touch or see the love of his dead wife, but it is so real to him that his character does not believe he can live without it. And whether the writer/performer Gervais realizes it, he is making a compelling case for the supernatural and the place everlasting love has in this world and beyond.

No spoiler alert needed here. There is no way, at least not now, that a series created and written by Gervais is going to end with an epiphany or choir of angels escorting him into the Beatific Vision. But what he does come to realize at the end of the series, and what makes this rewarding, in its own, weird way, is a faith in the now invisible love of his late wife.

It does not bring him an inch closer to God this is Ricky Gervais after all but his understanding of the eternal aspect of love is at least a start.

See the article here:

Where theres love - Angelus News

Catholic legislators who voted for legislation to enshrine abortion rights and defy Catholic leaders' request to not partake of the Eucharist commit a sacrilege and live in contradiction, behavior that, under church teachings, can only be remedied byrepentance and absolution.

But the Catholic leaders said the church won't monitor whether the 10 Catholic members of the General Assembly who voted for House Bill 1279 the Reproductive Health Equity Act that affirmed the right to abortion in state law abide by that request. Instead, the Colorado Catholic Conference, which wrote the open letter, said that burden rests on the legislators whom they described as having committed a "gravely sinful action" to follow their conscience.

"Voting for RHEA was participating in a gravely sinful action because it facilitates the killing of innocent unborn babies, and those Catholic politicians who have done so have very likely placed themselves outside of the communion of the Church," Colorado Catholic Bishops said, criticizing legislators, particularly Catholic members, who voted in favor of the bill as it was moving through the General Assembly in March.

The law, signed by Gov. Jared Polis on April 4, affirms a woman's right to abortion or contraception. Democratic lawmakers said they wanted to ensure that, if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision expected this month, Colorado maintain abortion rights.

The issue pitted Republicans against Democrats, but it also illustrated the clash of religious teaching and public policy. That conflict is often more pronounced among policymakers who consider themselves Christians but also support abortion rights.

One of the bill's supporters, a legislator that the Colorado bishops had directly named in their advocacy against abortion, described the letter as frustrating.

Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Democrat from Denver, also called the Catholic bishops "out of touch" with their congregations.

"Like most Colorado Catholics, I trust a pregnant Coloradan to make their own decisions about their own body. Im in line in my advocacy for RHEA, affirming the right of any pregnant Coloradans, whether faithful, atheist or agnostic, and put the trust in them to make their decisions, free from government interference," Gonzales told Colorado Politics. "I would invite them to read the language of the bill that affirms that decision that should be free from government interference."

Gonzales also noted that testimony on the abortion bill included comments from Coloradans who said they were driven by their faith to continue pregnancies, despite a doctor's advice to discontinue those pregnancies to save the life of the mother, and they now have healthy toddlers.

"It is trusting pregnant Coloradans to make that decision for themselves," she said.

"I think that church leadership has strayed too far from its principles around Catholic social teaching," Gonzales said. "This type of politicization of the pulpit is disheartening and out of line with where most Colorado Catholics find themselves."

"Christ did not stop Judas from taking Holy Communion during the Last Supper, but it was on Judas conscience and soul to do so," said CCC Director Brittany Vessely. "Similarly, this pastoral letter to Catholic politicians and Faithful places the burden on their conscience."

The June 6letterwas authored by Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila, Denver Auxiliary Bishop Jorge Rodriguez, Pueblo Bishop Stephen Berg and Colorado Springs Bishop James Golka. In the letter, the bishops said by voting for the abortion law,legislators regarded the "pre-born babies" as "worth less than those who have had the gift of being born, according to this morally bankrupt logic."

That act placed them in "mortal sin," they said.

"Receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is sacrilegious because it is 'a failure to show the reverence due to the sacred Body and Blood of Christ,'" the bishops, encouraging the Catholic lawmakers who voted for HB 1279 to voluntarily refrain from taking communion.

The "yes" vote is considered a direct defiance of Church teachings, according to Vessely.

It is not ordinary bread and ordinary drink that we receive in the Eucharist, but the flesh and blood of Christ, who came to nourish and transform us, to restore our relationship to God and to one another, the bishops said.

As noted by the Colorado bishops' letter, voting "yes" on the abortion law puts lawmakers outside a state of grace.

To be absolved in the eyes of the church, the 10 Catholic legislators would have to publicly repent, discern their actions through prayer, and seek absolution through the confession, Vessely added.

Vessely told the Gazette the issue came up in November 2021 at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, when the group of religious leaders wrote "The Mystery of Eucharist in the Life of the Church," a document which explains the importance of the sacrament. Colorado's four bishops decided to write their own open letter after their request to meet privately with Catholic lawmakers was ignored.

Vessely compared the power of politicians to that of celebrities in that they have the power to sway public opinion by their actions.

As politicians, they have public influence both in their speech and in their vote. Their sin is a public one and thats why the bishops asked for public repentance, Vessely said.

Indeed, in crafting the letter, the bishops drew upon the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' 2021 documentoutlining Catholic teaching on the Eucharistand why it's important for Catholics to partake of the sacrament or not to do when under a state of mortal sin.

The document says the bread and wine "become the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ," and that the "real, true, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the most profound reality of the sacrament." Catholics believe the Eucharist is the "representation of the sacrifice of Christ by which we are reconciled to the Father," according to the document.

Vessely wouldnt identify the 10 Catholic lawmakers who received the letter. She insists the letter was written in a pastoral vein and not a political one.

"We dont fit into any partisan box. We worked with Democrats on the death penalty in 2020. We've also consulted with them on immigration and we have worked with Republicans on life issues," Vessely added.

In a 2014 Pew Religious Landscape Study, 65% of Colorado Republicans said they believed that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases compared with only 20% of Democrats who felt the same way. In the same poll, 27% of Republicans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 56% of Democrats agreed with that sentiment. The remaining respondents either leaned one way or another but did not feel strongly about the abortion issue.

Efforts by the Catholic Church against the abortion bill appeared to rely in part on 2019 nationwide polling that showed Hispanics are slightly more opposed to than in support of abortion. One alert from the Colorado Catholic Conference prior to the bill's March 17 Senate hearing specifically mentioned two Democratic senators the bishops said are Catholic: Gonzales and Robert Rodriguez, both of Denver.

It's not a new tactic. In 2004, then-Archbishop Charles Chaput weighed in on the abortion issue, stating that Catholic politicians who ignore church teachings, especially when it comes to abortion, are not real Catholics and should refrain from taking communion. Chaput made the comments during the election season, when two Catholics fought for the U.S. Senate: then-Attorney General Democrat Ken Salazar and Republican Pete Coors. Salazar was pro-abortion, Coors was anti-abortion.

Gonzales, who was singled out by the bishops, said she was raised "culturally Catholic." That is, her family members are Catholic, but they gave her the ability to make her own decision when she went through catechism classes. She decided not to be baptized, an important distinction, and said she chose not to become Catholic because there were too many questions around why women couldnt be ordained or surrounding women's subservience.

Those were "questions that the Catholic faith could not resolve for me," she said.

But being "culturally Catholic" is vague, according to Vessely.

"We didn't look up the legislators' baptism records," Vessely said. "I don't know what 'culturally Catholic means. If she's calling herself Catholic, that's why the bishops reached out to her."

Gonzales told Colorado Politics the June 6 letter frustrated her, arguing the church is not consistent in its advocacy. She pointed out she had been a co-prime sponsor of the 2020 bill to abolish the death penalty and said the church did not send out letters to Catholic lawmakers who opposed the repeal. At least one Catholic Republican, Sen. Jim Smallwood of Parker, voted against the repeal.

"Catholic social teachings speak about advocacy for the poor or the stranger among us," Gonzales said.

But the church, she argued, had not sent out letters to lawmakers who support anti-immigrant or policies against the poor.

The Catholic church has argued for a more humane approach to America's immigration issues, arguing Catholics a "moral obligation to treat the stranger as we would treat Christ himself."

Mykala Aguilar, deputy director of the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR), said her group conducted a survey last year that showed of those polled, 66% believed in expanding access to abortion, and the view cut across party lines.

"Thats what were seeing in our communities," she told Colorado Politics. "So many support access to abortion because of their faith, not despite it."

Aguilar also noted that the winning "no" vote margin on Proposition 115 in 2020, which sought to ban abortions after 22 weeks, resulted from the Latino community's opposition.

"It's incredibly sad to see the Catholic church to being so divisive and targeting Latino legislators," Aguilar said. "We would like to see the Catholic church take on other issues important to Latinos."

Those issue, Aguilar said, include climate change and the pandemic, which disproportionately affected people of color.

See the original post:

Bishops to Catholic legislators who voted for abortion bill: Don't take communion - The Denver Gazette

Raised By Wolves

Death can be very unpleasant when youre intelligent. ~ Father, from Raised By Wolves on HBO Max.

Sometimes, a TV show lives beyond its expiration date. A show like Fear The Walking Dead shuffles on in perpetuity, even as it loses its best cast members and despite its diminishing quality. Weve just witnessed Season 7 take the AMC zombie drama to new lows, and yet a Season 8 has already been greenlit.

Sometimes, a TV show is sent to an early grave. Netflix has been notorious for cancelling shows that still had plenty of life in themlike The Dark Crystal: Age Of Resistanceor that had almost wrapped up the storylike GLOW.

But I admit, I expected more from HBO. I dont know why. The rushed, botched ending of Game Of Thrones should have taught me to keep my hopes and expectations in check. Now, HBO Max has cancelled perhaps the best science-fiction show on TV: Raised By Wolves. It seems that the shakeup over at Warner Brosand merger with Discoveryhas claimed this casualty. It wont be the last.

Mother (Amanda Collin) and Sue (Niamh Algar)

The Ridley Scott-produced space opera is something unique in the TV landscape. Raised By Wolves ifs intelligent and well-writtenbut also something of a fever dream to watch. Theres almost a bit of a vintage feel to it, like something plucked from the weird science-fiction of an older era. Its dark and intriguing, exploring not just the division between AI and humanity, but between religious zealots and equally radical atheists and the aftermath of a war that left Earth completely destroyed.

The show delves into the mysteries of humanitys new home on Keppler-22b, a habitable-but-hostile plane, replete with acid oceans and terrifying monsters. Creator Aaron Guzikowski has spun a deftif absolutely bizarretale of shifting alliances, power struggles and humankinds last ditch effort to survive so far. The story isnt done yet, however.

Raised By Wolves also boasts a stellar cast. Travis Fimmel, fresh off his role as Ragnar in Vikings, plays Marcusan atheist who has disguised himself as one of the religious Mithraic soldiers along with is wife, Sue, played by Niamh Algar. Fimmel does a tremendous job as we see Marcus descend into madness, somehow possessed by what seems to be the planet itselfa powerful and twisted entity they refer to as the Mithraic god, Sol.

Travis Fimmel as Marcus

Meanwhile, Amanda Collin plays the AI Mother across from Abubakar Salims Father. These two androids have been tasked by the atheists with raising children on Keppler-22b ahead of the arrival of the atheist colony ship, and are the first to start uncovering its dark secrets.

Collin is simply brilliant in this role, at once portraying Mother as a caring, sympathetic nurturer and one of the most terrifying AI youll ever come across in any movie or TV show.

Salim is equally adept at portraying Father as Mothers cautious, and much less dangerous, counterpart. Hes just so damn likeable, you cant help but root for him.

Children make up much of the cast and all these younger actorsmost notably Winta McGrath who plays the OG Keppler-22g child, Campiondo a terrific job as well.

The acting, the special effects, the set design, the costumes, the weird music, the phenomenal world-buildingits all great and it all just feels extraordinarily unique and unlike any other show on TV. Its truly tragic that Warner Bros has pulled the plug on it. I have a feeling this will become quite the cult classic, and its just so frustrating that the storywhich was just getting going!wont get the ending it and its fans deserve.

Yes, Im sure its very expensive. Season 2 had a bigger cast and more special effects and just more of everything and there was certainly a part of me that was nervous this might happen. Its so weird and so different and so obviously expensiveand it doesnt have the same big draw as something like Westworld, though if I had to choose Id much prefer they cancel that showwhich did a fine job wrapping up its best story arc at the end of Season 1.

Abubakar Salim as Father

Salim maintains that there is still hope that Scott Free Productions could find a second life for Raised By Wolves elsewhere. This would not be unprecedented. Weve seen shows like Brooklyn Nine-Nine get cancelled and find a new home at a different streamer. The Orville left Fox and moved to Hulu for its third season.

Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Paramountany of these would be wise to snatch this premium sci-fi show up as quickly as possible. It would bring some much needed top-tier content and a flood of grateful fans. Netflix, which has been struggling lately and will soon have another content problem when Stranger Things 4 airs its final two episodes in July, could especially stand to gain here.

Ill be crossing my fingers. And fans of this show should make their voices heard. As Salim wrote on reddit, Im asking that you show that love, and have your voice heard throughout socials and help us find a new home.

Theres a petition you can sign here and a fan-made website with some resources to help spread the word. Get on social media, share posts like this one on Twitter and Facebook, do whatever you can to save the show.

Maybe it will all come to nothing, but it never hurts to try. Each of the big streamers could use a genuinely good science-fiction drama to add to their rosters.

Make some noise.

I made a video about this as well.

Spread the word!

Also, this is nice:

Excerpt from:

Raised By Wolves Cancelled, But This Sci-Fi Masterpiece Deserves A New Home - Forbes

(RNS) When he first felt called to be a pastor, Tom Ascol thought God was playing a joke on him.

Ascol grew up in a troubled family in a house owned by a Texas church where his dad was a deacon and Sunday school teacher. When the family couldnt pay the rent, a pastor tried to kick them out until a deacon intervened.

The experience left him bitter toward pastors. Complicating his view of church, his dad led what amounted to a double life: one as a respected church leader and another as a drunk and a womanizer and an abuser, Ascol told Baptist Press, the official Southern Baptist news service, in a recent interview.

Were Baptists, and you know, my dad had no business being a church member, much less a deacon and a Sunday school teacher, he said. That created a lot of angst. Not just in me, but in the community.

Once he accepted his own call, Ascol decided he did not want to be an ordinary pastor. Instead, he wanted to do things by the book, the way the Bible said things should be done.

That approach to ministry has stuck with Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, and leading candidate for president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The theme of his candidacy can be summed up in four words: We have a book.

But Ascols focus on the Bible has led him to become a vocal critic of the SBC in recent years. Liberalism, critical race theory and women preachers are leading the denomination away from Scripture, he believes. Ascol has long argued that Southern Baptists have been too eager to embrace pragmatic ideas on how to attract people to church and have been too accommodating to the broader culture.

In a recent essay for Founders Ministries, a Florida nonprofit that Ascol heads, he argued that Southern Baptists are embarrassed of the teachings of the Scripture.

His complaints arise from Southern Baptists who have urged the denomination to come to terms with its history, welcoming ideas drawn from academia about racisms pervasiveness in society. Resolution 9, passed at the SBCs 2019 annual meeting, referred to critical race theory and intersectionality as useful analytics tools. Ascol views the resolution as an intolerable distraction from biblical truth.

Brothers and sisters, it should not be this way, he wrote in his Founders Ministries essay. The word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and will not return void. But if we muzzle ourselves out of a misplaced desire to placate the culture, how can we expect the Word to have that effect?

RELATED: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to Trojan horse of social justice

Resolution 9 and Ascols concerns about the liberal drift of the SBC are the subject of a documentary from Founders Ministries called By What Standard, which includes footage from the 2019 SBC meeting. The films trailer begins with Ascol saying, Weve been played.

The film also captures part of a conversation between Ascol and Georgia Baptist pastor Josh Buice, in which they say that asking women to take a role in the church that God did not intend is abusive. Ascol has also argued that churches that have women preach during worship services have no place in the SBC.

Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries. Video screen grab

Much of Ascols support comes from the so-called SBC pirates, a coalition of SBC-related groups that claim the denomination has drifted away from the Bible toward liberalism. Those groups include Founders Ministries, which promotes Calvinist beliefs; a Christian nationalist group called Sovereign Nations founded by a cruise organizer who works closely with atheist hoaxer James Lindsay; and the Conservative Baptist Network, founded by allies of disgraced SBC legend Paige Patterson. Those groups all share concerns about CRT, social justice and conservative politics Ascol himself has done interviews with a series of Trump-friendly podcasts and media outlets in the run-up to the election.

His positions, he says, are driven by a concern about the health of local SBC churches. In an interview last year, Ascol told Religion News Service that pragmatism has resulted in Southern Baptist churches being filled with people who think they are Christians but who really are not. Its an alarm he has been sounding for decades, calling the SBCs membership statistics a sham because so few church members actually show up in church.

RELATED: At Founders event, Southern Baptists urged to choose Bible over paganism, CRT

While Southern Baptist churches claim 13.7 million members, actual attendance at church services both in person and online was closer to 5 million people in 2021. Ascol sees the discrepancy as a sign that Southern Baptists no longer practice regenerate church membership the idea that only true believers who have been born again, been baptized and are active in the church, should be counted as members.

In 2008, he supported a resolution about regenerate church membership passed at the SBC annual meeting that called on churches to maintain accurate membership rolls and to discipline wayward members. Ascol told the Conservative Baptist Network in a recent interview that more work is needed in this area for the SBC to be healthy.

I think if we were to practice regenerate church membership and church discipline more carefully than we have, our churches would look more like what the New Testament calls churches to be, and the message that we preach would be more commended by the way that we live, he said.

If elected, Ascol would be the first SBC president in decades who is not a megachurch pastor: Grace Baptist has 224 members and an average worship attendance of 280 people, according to data from the congregations SBC profile.

He believes in the primacy of the local church in the polity of the SBC: Its a message he stressed at a forum for SBC presidential candidates, saying that churches, rather than the convention, should lead any response to sexual abuse.

It is hard, but its not complicated, he said. And we just need the faith and the humility to look to the Word of God and say, this is what God tells us to do. Were going to do it and were going to leave costs and consequences to him. And I believe if we were to do that, we would find ourselves caring very well, much better than we have in the past.

RELATED: Anti-woke preachers Voddie Baucham and Tom Ascol to be nominated as SBC leaders

Read more from the original source:

Tom Ascol, would-be SBC president, worries churches have lost hold of the Bible - Religion News Service