Children taught from the Bible in Sunday School learn that they were made by a loving God who cares for them — and then move on to learn much more about what the Bible teaches. No “secular parable” can compete with that.

In terms of what? Warm-fuzzy feelings? Believing in the false promises of religion might be more comforting than facing the hard realities of life head-on, but that has nothing to do with establishing which worldview is actually correct.

In a strange way, the rise of atheist Sunday Schools illustrates the central dilemma of atheism itself. Try as they may, atheists cannot avoid talking about God — even if only to insist that they do not believe in Him.

“Central dilemma”? Hardly. (What a pompous, arrogant assertion.)

We atheists talk about matters of religion not because we secretly believe in Big Sky Daddy, but because the issue of whether or not there is such a being has tremendous practical implications.

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/06/why-do-we-care.html

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/omnipresence.html

Still waiting for time to respond fully. I recently was browsing a favorite blog of mine. I came across this interesting story:

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1061

Check it out!

You theocrats are so wrong on the issue of church-state separation that, if your position weren’t so scary, it would be hilarious.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues

—–

I hope you hold to this position consistently. Are you opposed to environmentalists preaching to our high school students in public schools? I have no idea where you are on the topic of conservation. I am all for recycling, being wise with resources, etc. However, there is a huge religious commitment to Nature out there—one that has received vast academic and so-called scientific support. But the fact is, these people worship the earth. They bear a remarkable resemblance to the ancient Egyptians in their deification of Nature. And they have a strong influence on public education. Do you oppose this religious teaching in schools?

To my knowledge, no mainstream environmental group makes any religious (supernatural) claims about the earth. If you can come up with an example of people who believe the Earth is a deity, pray to it, worship it, evangelize in the name of it, etc. — and are trying to force their beliefs on others via taxpayer-supported schools — let me know and I’ll certainly oppose them as well. In the meantime, we’re talking about the worship of an invisible personal god, not the deification of a planet.

—–

Well, here’s an invitation to you personally. I invite you to attend the class I teach every Sunday morning.

Thanks, but I decline. I am willing to address your assertions (to a point) on this blog, but I have no interest in attending any form of religious service or class.

—–

I’m not sure you’re really being fair to the biblical text [...]

At this point, our positions on the original blog-post issue are thoroughly on the record and I’m not interested in re-hashing them.

—–

You have faith in the non-existence of God—which is a proposition that is just as hard to scientifically prove (at least according to the scientific method I was taught in basic science years ago) as the existence of God.

The main argument for atheism is quite simple: positive assertions need to be justified with evidence, and there is no evidence justifying the existence of any supernatural entities.

In any area of debate, the burden of proof rests with the party making a positive assertion. For example, in American courts, it’s not enough for a prosecutor to claim that a suspect committed a crime; the prosecutor needs to come up with enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The same applies to religious assertions: if you claim that deity X exists (whether that is Yahweh, Allah, Budda, Zeus, Thor, or any of the other gods that humanity has invented), it’s up to you to provide proof, and rational people are completely justified in ignoring you unless you can put on a convincing case.

Because atheism makes no positive assertions — in other words, doesn’t posit the existence of any imaginary entities — we bear no burden of proof. How could one possibly prove a negative? Can you prove the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus? How about Allah, Budda, Zeus, or Thor? I doubt it. Yet you don’t accept the existence of these gods. Why not? Atheists simply hold Yahweh to the same standard.

—–

Two other matters which I think might be challenges for your science only perspective would be your foundation for morality and you foundation for aesthetics. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these matters.

You are making an assertion that morality and aesthetics require an invisible man in the sky. I reject this as being self-evidently silly, but if you wish to attempt to convince me, feel free to do so. You should read the following essays first:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/lifeofwonder.html

You said:
“Rather, I’d oppose that because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and an inappropriate use of taxpayer resources.”

I strongly disagree with your revision of history here. I would think the best interpreters of any literature (at least the best literal interpretation of literature) would normally be the original authors of that literature. So why, in our nation’s history, is the removal of God from public education such a recent development? I mean, do you really think the 1st amendment could have ever meant what you say it means to the original authors when virtually all of its ratifiers simply assumed the use of the Bible in grade school education all across America? This is a documented fact—I’m not playing with words, I’m not taking a leap of faith. I’m referring to historical data—scientific evidence.

You said:
“If you want to teach delusional beliefs in a private school, go right ahead. That irks my rational sensibilities, but as a Libertarian, I respect private property rights and would never try to use the force of government to interfere with private religious instruction. However, government-run (taxpayer-funded) schools are not the place to preach to children.”

I hope you hold to this position consistently. Are you opposed to environmentalists preaching to our high school students in public schools? I have no idea where you are on the topic of conservation. I am all for recycling, being wise with resources, etc. However, there is a huge religious commitment to Nature out there—one that has received vast academic and so-called scientific support. But the fact is, these people worship the earth. They bear a remarkable resemblance to the ancient Egyptians in their deification of Nature. And they have a strong influence on public education. Do you oppose this religious teaching in schools?

You said:
“However, this particular post was directed against isolationist, fundamentalist Christianity. The portion of your handbook which I quoted paints a clear picture of your church’s position on raw, open debate: those advocating anything other than Christian doctrine are “to be avoided”.”
Well, here’s an invitation to you personally. I invite you to attend the class I teach every Sunday morning. It’s a class for 20 and 30 year olds (though we often have other ages with us). We are currently studying Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. You are welcome to come and participate in the class.
See Kevin, you are misunderstanding the meaning of the statements in our church covenant/membership booklet. When we speak of false teaching we are speaking of the official teaching of our church. You are certainly right, we aren’t going to allow an atheist to be a member of our church staff. But we would never stop an atheist from amiably joining us for a church service or any of the other public meetings we have. We regularly discuss the challenging issues that the biblical text presents in our Sunday morning Adult Bible Fellowship. I regularly interact with critical scholarship. I would gladly field any arguments that you present to the lesson that I teach. So again, I extend this sincere offer to you, visit Maranatha. I would love to meet you. I’d enjoy meeting and discussing these matters with you personally over coffee after class as well.

You said:
“Thank you for bringing up I Peter 3:15. (It’s a verse I often use in debates with Christians when they try to claim that they bear no explanatory burden of proof.) Does that directive conflict with other Scripture, such as the verses quoted by your handbook? Absolutely! This is a problem only if one takes the position (as you have) that Scripture is the divinely-inspired inerrant (or at least infallible) word of a deity. For an atheist such as myself, this scriptural contradiction isn’t the result of an incorrect interpretation of the text, but rather further evidence that the text itself is nothing but a jumbled, non-supernatural mess.”

I’m not sure you’re really being fair to the biblical text here (which is, of course, convenient for argument, but gets us nowhere in a discussion). Where is this contradiction? On the one hand God tells Christians to face those who do not hold to their faith with a willingness—even an immediate readiness—to explain the reason for their faith (so, faith has its reasonableness). The other passages that you are speaking of, those that say the church should not allow “false teachers” in its midst, are speaking of church leaders who are preaching/teaching a religion that it contradictory to the one revealed in the New Testament. Very simply, the idea is, don’t allow these people to direct the education of your congregation. I’m not sure how you can turn this into an internal contradiction within Scripture. It might not fit within the relativistic world we live in—but it certainly coheres within the Christian system. So again, I don’t see incoherence here. I’m quite familiar with many attempts to show contradictions in Scripture. This is one that it appears to me, you’ve made up on the basis of your assumptions about Christianity, rather than an honest look at what the text itself says.

You said:
“Regarding faith vs. reason, which is, of course, the core of the theism/atheism issue, here is my position. Reason, logic, evidence, science, honest non-dogmatic inquiry, etc. constitute a position I’ll hereafter refer to as “rationalism”. Rationalism is axiomatic — it is foundational to the human experience. Without rationalism, there would be no point in having any discussion on any subject, or trying to make any decision about any issue. Rationalism is what confers meaning upon all forms of communication.”

I’ll use “reason” and “rationalism” separately. Rationalism as a worldview—a form of religion closely associated with modernism. Your term rationalism is what I would call reason.

You said:
“This should not be terribly controversial. Philosophers with too much time on their hands can debate epistemology until they are blue in the face, but for all practical purposes, we live our lives according to the principles of logic and reason. (If you want to say that I have “faith” in reason itself, go for it. I view this as a particularly silly non-starter: how could one possibly have an unprovable belief in the validity of requiring provable beliefs? That makes my brain hurt.)”

Epistemology usually hurts mine too! I don’t think I could have figured that sentence out in my head to even get it on paper, so you’re ahead of me there!

The problem for you is, I don’t say you have faith in reason. I say your faith is rationalism. See, reason is only good as far as it goes. Reason has its limits. You claim to bottom line with “reason” but you are actually filling in some very important portions of your worldview with “rationalism.” “Reason” isn’t a worldview—it’s the process all worldviews attempt to use (with varying success) to prove the validity of their worldview. In your case your, I’d identify your worldview as atheism/rationalism, not “reason.” So no, you don’t have faith in reason. You have faith in the non-existence of God—which is a proposition that is just as hard to scientifically prove (at least according to the scientific method I was taught in basic science years ago) as the existence of God.

Two other matters which I think might be challenges for your science only perspective would be your foundation for morality and you foundation for aesthetics. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these matters.

You said:
“The primary issue at hand, then, is whether to go beyond reason into faith; that is, whether to accept certain assertions without, or even in spite of, evidence. A closely-related secondary issue is that of deciding *which* propositions to accept without evidence, since there are plenty of contenders and, by definition, there is no logical or evidential basis for making such a judgment. I have never heard *any* theist of *any* stripe give a satisfying answer to either question (”Whether faith?” and “Which faith?”). If you’d like to try, be my guest. Be warned, however, that I’ve heard it all before. “I feel the Holy Spirit in my heart”, to name one popular example, is an insult to intelligence. How would one know that a particular inclination in the mind came from Yahweh, as opposed to Allah, Zeus, Thor, Baal, or purely natural processes? I eagerly anticipate your response.”

Well, as you state, you’ve heard it all before. I appreciate the offer. Let me make a counter offer. If we’re going to get that far in conversation, let’s do so personally.

The Bible and any other religious book was written by man.

A sheep is still a sheep, even if by another name.

Regarding your specific example of proselytizing in a public school, yes, I would absolutely have a problem with that. However, my objection would not stem, as you suggest, from a desire to keep “dangerous” falsehood away from impressionable people (the desire expressed by your church’s handbook).

Rather, I’d oppose that because it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and an inappropriate use of taxpayer resources.

If you want to teach delusional beliefs in a private school, go right ahead. That irks my rational sensibilities, but as a Libertarian, I respect private property rights and would never try to use the force of government to interfere with private religious instruction.

However, government-run (taxpayer-funded) schools are not the place to preach to children.

–

My “what are you afraid of?” characterization of Christianity does not constitute a straw-man attack. I will certainly concede that not all Christians are paranoid avoiders of debate (for example, see comment #3, which was written by a close friend of mine who is a liberal Christian).

However, this particular post was directed against isolationist, fundamentalist Christianity. The portion of your handbook which I quoted paints a clear picture of your church’s position on raw, open debate: those advocating anything other than Christian doctrine are “to be avoided”.

(If you still feel that I’ve engaged in any straw-man arguments — or any other logical fallacies, for that matter — I would ask that you point out specifically what you mean.)

–

Thank you for bringing up I Peter 3:15. (It’s a verse I often use in debates with Christians when they try to claim that they bear no explanatory burden of proof.)

Does that directive conflict with other Scripture, such as the verses quoted by your handbook? Absolutely! This is a problem only if one takes the position (as you have) that Scripture is the divinely-inspired inerrant (or at least infallible) word of a deity.

For an atheist such as myself, this scriptural contradiction isn’t the result of an incorrect interpretation of the text, but rather further evidence that the text itself is nothing but a jumbled, non-supernatural mess.

–

Regarding faith vs. reason, which is, of course, the core of the theism/atheism issue, here is my position.

Reason, logic, evidence, science, honest non-dogmatic inquiry, etc. constitute a position I’ll hereafter refer to as “rationalism”. Rationalism is axiomatic — it is foundational to the human experience.

Without rationalism, there would be no point in having any discussion on any subject, or trying to make any decision about any issue. Rationalism is what confers meaning upon all forms of communication.

This should not be terribly controversial. Philosophers with too much time on their hands can debate epistemology until they are blue in the face, but for all practical purposes, we live our lives according to the principles of logic and reason.

(If you want to say that I have “faith” in reason itself, go for it. I view this as a particularly silly non-starter: how could one possibly have an unprovable belief in the validity of requiring provable beliefs? That makes my brain hurt.)

The primary issue at hand, then, is whether to go beyond reason into faith; that is, whether to accept certain assertions without, or even in spite of, evidence. A closely-related secondary issue is that of deciding *which* propositions to accept without evidence, since there are plenty of contenders and, by definition, there is no logical or evidential basis for making such a judgment.

I have never heard *any* theist of *any* stripe give a satisfying answer to either question (”Whether faith?” and “Which faith?”). If you’d like to try, be my guest.

Be warned, however, that I’ve heard it all before. “I feel the Holy Spirit in my heart”, to name one popular example, is an insult to intelligence. How would one know that a particular inclination in the mind came from Yahweh, as opposed to Allah, Zeus, Thor, Baal, or purely natural processes?

I eagerly anticipate your response.

Thank you for your friendly response.

Kevin, you are right. In regard to my statement that you would fight to protect your audience from error, I was wrong. I don’t know that about you. So let me approach through questions rather than assumptions.

You state:

“I am all for open, uncensored debate. I have nothing to fear from my ‘audience’ being exposed to false teachings such as Christianity, because religious assertions are straightforward to rebut using logic, evidence, and reason.”

Lets talk about this in terms of a real life school classroom context. Would you be opposed to me teaching a class at Clarkston High School on the merits of Christianity, where I make direct claims in class that what I am saying is exclusively true?

I’d like to say more than this, but I don’t want to repeat mistakes. I don’t know how to proceed until I know how you will answer that question.

_____

On a separate note:

I think that your experience of Christianity has been different than mine. You speak of religious leaders stifling “dangerous” ideas. You make it sound like what happens in Christianity is comparable to Communist China. The Christian education I have received as been far from propaganda. I don’t think it is an honest treatment of Christianity to caricature it so. I have read plenty of counter opinion voices in my Christian experience. My parents, church, and Christian leaders encouraged questions (too varying degrees of course).

You said nothing in response to my first post’s statement about your strawman attack on Christianity. Do you have a response? I will work very hard not to treat your arguments in such an unfair manner.

_______

You said:

“Those warnings are in the Bible as a defense against rational inquiry, plain and simple.”

Kevin, that’s quite the claim. There simply is nothing “plain and simple” able your statement. By plain and simple I get the impression you mean that anyone with common sense would read the claims of Scripture that demand that the church protect herself against attack, and realize that by this the church means to guard herself against common sense and rational inquiry.

Man, I don’t know where you are getting your hermeneutic, but that is a very free interpretation. What you have said is not an honest representation of Scripture. Take 1 Peter 3:15 for example “But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess.” Here the Apostle Peter challenges his audience to do the very thing you say Scripture tells Christians not to do, that is, take up the intellectual questions that are brought against your faith and give answers to them!

My post is becoming objectionably long and I haven’t yet answered the main question that you asked me. You question my idea of a rational faith. I’ll admit, epistemology’s relation to faith is a tricky one. I’ll further admit that this is probably the most interesting theological/philosophical question looming on my personal study radar screen. I’ve written several papers throughout my undergrad and postgraduate work on the topic because I find it simultaneously so stimulating and so challenging. So don’t think me naive. I’m not going to solve in one post the age old question of the relationship between faith and reason. Volumes have been written that I’ve yet to read along these lines!

To take the defensive first, I believe that you can throw any objections at my worldview and I can offer a response that both coheres within my worldview, and corresponds with the world we live in. So I would say that my faith is not irrational because in a world where faith matters, faith makes sense. I believe we live in that “faith matters” world.

In order for you to argue that my faith is irrational you have to show me that you don’t believe anything…that is, you don’t exercise faith on any level. As I understand basic atheism/rationalism, the idea is that if you can’t rationally prove something, then it can’t be reasonable. So faith is blind. Faith, according to you, is fundamentally irrational. This, however, is not what the Bible calls faith. Yes, faith goes beyond scientific evidence, but it isn’t contra scientific evidence, its just beyond evidence.

Well, nuff said, for now.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you for your comment. Though we stridently disagree about the veracity of your religion, you are more than welcome to comment here, and I will do my best to respond.

There is a world of difference between arguing your position in an open marketplace of ideas and attempting to “protect” those over whom you have influence from being exposed to opposing ideas in the first place.

Your assertion that I “would fight tenaciously to protect [my] audience from being subjected to what [I] think is error” is false, and indeed, how could you know such a thing about me?

I am all for open, uncensored debate. I have nothing to fear from my “audience” being exposed to false teachings such as Christianity, because religious assertions are straightforward to rebut using logic, evidence, and reason.

While I certainly think the world would be a much nicer place if people were never exposed to religion, I’m not going to try to use my influence to stifle the discussion of “dangerous” ideas.

Do you see the difference? If your religion were true, why would you need to tell your congregation to stay away from evil, nasty unbelievers and their ideas? Wouldn’t their faith be strengthened by, say, a reading of an atheist book (such as The God Delusion) followed by a (hypothetical) fact-based rebuttal of it? Those warnings are in the Bible as a defense against rational inquiry, plain and simple.

Regarding your assertion that your “faith is no irrational faith”, I would be interested in hearing you expound on the topic. Faith, in the religious sense, is by definition the acceptance of propositions without sufficient evidence. How is that not irrational?

I happen to be a young assistant pastor. I find it interesting to find my church’s church covenant quoted here on your blog, so I thought I’d interact here with you about the comments you have made.

I’d like to suggest that all people who believe anything have a tendency towards exactly what those biblical reference command the New Testament church–that is, to protect what you believe against attack. Take, for example, yourself. I would bet you’d fight pretty hard if you walked into a classroom where a teacher was teaching any subject from a biblical worldview. Am I right? Well, why would you do so? Because you don’t want people to be poisioned by what you think is falsehood.

I’m not about to tell you that there have never been oppressive religious movements. I’m not about to tell you that people who claim to be genuine New Testament Christians of the sort that I claim to be, have never held their faith blindly, depending on religion, or the pressure of leaders, etc. But I can tell you, that my faith is no irrational faith. Now, that being said, your view of what is rational is a bit different than mine, so we might be at an impasse there.

But please, don’t miss the point–you too would fight tenaciously to protect your audience from being subjected to what you think is error. So why should it be such a strange thing that a Christian community seeking to follow Christ (of whom the world has imagined millions of false replacements) should look to clear biblical text that demand they protect their community from “wolves?”

I think that Christians should embrace challenges and encourage dialog about basic questions such as the validity of the Bible and the existence of God. Both sides of the argument stand to benefit