Tag Archives: hitchens

Apologetics

The “Bronze Age Mythology” fallacy

4 Comments

A common tactic from New Atheists is to use the term bronze age mythology to dismiss Biblical views, as if the time period when truth claims were documented can be used to categorically refute them.

But the age of an idea does not impact its truthfulness.  Older ideas have usually gone through more scrutiny than newer ones and are often better supported.

Sure, many old ideas were wrong.  But they weren’t wrong because they were documented a long time ago, they were wrong because they were didn’t correspond to reality.

So the bronze age dig proves nothing, and even if it was true it would undermine atheistic arguments as well. The real bronze age myth is that you can live how you want and never be accountable to your creator.

As Psalm 14:1 points out, the claim that there is no God is also bronze aged:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds . . .”

And of course, Romans 1:

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

And as you can see from reading St. Augustine and others, the arguments of the New Atheists aren’t new at all.  They are the same old arguments presented with less civility and with the volume turned up to 11.

So don’t buy into the myth that the bronze age argument means anything.

Christian - misc.

Guest post: A Catholic says, “Thank God for the Protestants and Evangelicals.”

Leave a comment

While I always contend that the Reformation happened for good reasons and they are still valid, I thoroughly enjoy LCB’s diplomatic and well-thought out comments. Therefore, I’m publishing this guest post of his. Dive in!

—–

It’s been a rough few weeks to be Catholic. Really rough. “I wonder what’s going on with the Eastern Orthodox these days” type of rough. For many devout American Catholics (and I don’t mean the Nancy Pelosi type of devout) it’s been brutal. Worse than the “Long Lent” of 2002 (when the Boston Globe set off the scandal here in the States, as the period is often called in Catholic-shorthand). In this Easter season, for the first time in my life, I am thanking God for the Protestants and Evangelicals in general. Not just particular Protestants and Evangelicals (who I have been thankful for in the past), but the entire groups. I know a number of other Catholics who are feeling the same.

Central to the agony of the last few weeks has been a series of unrelenting and baseless attacks upon Pope Ratzinger. The media, unable to connect the man to wrongdoing, has instead adopted a policy of radical slander, ad hominem attacks, innuendo, and even outright lies. Run a false headline on the front page one day, print a small retraction of the entire story the next day on page Z-99, in 6 point font. Run a quote from a plantiff’s lawyer as if it were unbiased, only mention 30 paragraphs later (or not at all) that the man has made millions on sexual abuse lawsuits, and is currently trying to permit the Vatican to be sued in US court. I could go on. And on. And on.

The worst part has not been the Catholic Church’s liberal branch (AKA “The 5th Column”) who have gleefully joined in on the assaults. We’ve been living with them being the main quoted Catholic “balance” in AP and NYTs articles for two generations now. The worst part is that the media has been so brazen in attacking Catholicism that Catholics who are trying to defend against the attacks can’t manage to get any coverage at all. Bishops and Cardinals speak out to correct mistakes, no coverage. Bill Donahue screams something into a microphone (seriously, I like him, but he needs to learn about the “inside voice” rule), no coverage. Catholic intellectuals release detailed counter-points, no coverage or publication.

The pall of silence and non-coverage of authentic Catholic responses to the attacks has is so bad that the Catholic League has resorted to taking out a full page ad in the NYTs in order to present its rebuttal to the NYTs own coverage. Let that sink in for a minute. The only way Catholics can now reply to the NYTs hatchet jobs is by spending $50,000+ for a full page ad.

But there are voices that the MSM will listen to, and will still publish, and is even writing articles about. These voices are the Protestants and Evangelicals who are speaking out in defense of truth, who recognize that this assault is about much more than abuse that occured in Wisconsin in the 1950s. It’s about an attempt to silence a voice that speaks with moral authority. In the midst of this constant media assault the Protestants and Evangelicals are arriving on the field of battle (since, in the end, it remains we Christians vs. the World and its prince) even as our own 5th column is turning on us like never before. And the Protestants and Evangelicals are saying (quite loudly at times) “It is wrong to smear the good name of a good man who has a decades long reputation of trying to fight this problem. Smearing people with lies is wrong, and what you in the press are doing is wrong.”

It hasn’t just been in the media, either, where my fellow brethren in Christ have shown their dedication to Truth above all else. It’s been in a multitude of personal interactions and local sermons where good men and women have spoken out against what they see to be wrong. Where my voice is ignorned (“Oh you’re just a Catholic of course you’ll say that”) the voice of my brethren has been heard and they have given a mighty witness to Christ in the process.

Now UN Judges are calling for war crimes charges to be brought against Pope Ratzinger. Dawkins and Hitchens are funding a legal team to try and have a warrant issued against Pope Ratzinger before his visit to Britain… and they may likely find a sympathetic judge who will do just that. The charges? “Crimes against humanity” and a great many Anglicans are rising up in defense of the Pope (that’s a sentence one doesn’t type every day) on this matter.

So, for the first time in my life, I am saying “Thank God for the Protestants and Evangelicals.” Not just particular individuals, but for the groups entirely. The witness of standing up for what is right is a mighty witness for Christ– especially in this Easter season. It’s been a long road since October 1517. The attacks and persecutions against the whole of Christianity have consistantly brought the brethren closer together in Roman Times, under the Ottomans, during the French Revolution, in the Soviet Union, and in modern China. In times and places of great trial Christians with extreme doctrinal divides have united in defending Truth and presenting the Gospel of Christ and His saving love to the world in ways that have radically changed history.

It is my sincere prayer that, just as Christ’s suffering on His Most Holy Cross brought about mankind’s unity with one another (in the Body of Christ, the Church) and with God the Father in and through the power of the Holy Spirit, that so too may our current suffering bring about greater unity among we separated brethren and bring about the conversion and salvation of many souls throughout the world. Especially those that seek to attack Christ and the Church.

Favorites, Intelligent Design

Materialistic philosophy: A heaping mound of FAIL

Leave a comment

. . . nobody will ever die from thinking God created the universe or having some doubts about the proposition that hydrogen is a substance which, if you leave it alone for 13.5 billion years, will turn into Angelina Jolie.

Mark Shea (Hat tip: regular commenter LCB)

By materialistic philosophy I don’t mean the “acquire all the things you can” way of life.  I mean the worldview that everything is material and that nothing is spiritual.  It is also called evolutionary, Darwinian, macro-evolutionary, naturalistic and other terms.  Think of it as the nothingness-to-molecules-to-man / elephant / fish / caterpillar-butterfly / etc. worldview (or just meditate on the opening quote).

This worldview has six fatal flaws:

1. It isn’t true.  The facts do not support it — the Cambrian explosion, the rarity of beneficial mutations, irreducible complexity, time required, and so much more.  Twisted facts and unethical suppression of tough questions and the truth prop up the worldview for now, but it is crumbling.

2. Even if evolution could happen the way materialists describe it, it doesn’t prove that it did happen that way.  Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it happened.  Darwinists commit this error daily.

3. Even if it did happen that way, it doesn’t prove that there isn’t a God.  Remember, macro-evolutionary theory  just tries to explain how life evolved.  Despite major efforts it can’t explain how chemicals came to life, let alone how the chemicals came into being in the first place.

This is the top error that people like Richard Dawkins make.  They are quick to assume that support for evolution disproves God’s existence.  Their transparent lack of logic just makes them poster boys for Romans 1.  They aren’t dispassionate scientists.  They are on a mission to ignore God and science is just their tool of choice.

Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

4. Even if it did happen that way and there is no God, then it is the cause of all religious beliefs, including my belief that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the facts agreed to by nearly all historians.  Therefore, pride about not being religious is illogical for materialists .

If all we are is a series of chemical reactions, then life is truly deterministic and I have no choice in any of my decisions.  My chemical makeup and circumstances fated me to go from atheism to Christianity.

5. Even if it did happen that way and there is no God, then there is zero grounding for morality.  Those are just chemical reactions making you think there is such a thing.  Of course, macro-evolutionists rarely go three sentences without making a moral claim, but that inconsistency doesn’t seem to trouble them.

6. Courtesy of commenter Bubba, I offer another fatal flaw:

[Materialistic naturalism] also cannot account for human rationality, which the supposedly rational atheists affirm even if they deny the reality of the moral law.

If human thoughts are merely the result of physical and chemical processes, then they can be no more rational than the by-products of other biological organs — the bile of the liver, or the carbon dioxide from the lungs.

And if human rationality is illusory, then we cannot draw any trustworthy conclusions about the world around us.

Materialism is ultimately an argument that all arguments are invalid, and the philosophy is therefore self-defeating.

Other than that, materialistic philosophy is a great idea.

To recap, materialist / macro-evolutionary / Darwinist philosophy fails because:

  1. It is not supported by the evidence.
  2. Even if it was possible it doesn’t mean it happened.
  3. Even if it did happen it doesn’t disprove God’s existence.
  4. Even if it did happen and there is no God then it “created” religious beliefs.
  5. Even if it did happen and there is no God it doesn’t ground morality.
  6. It can’t account for human rationality.  It selects for survival, not truth.

P.S. Here are some definitions from the good folks at Dictionary.com:

Materialism:  The philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Naturalism:  The view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.  The belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

Apologetics

The “Bronze Age Mythology” fallacy

Leave a comment

A common tactic from New Atheists is to use the term bronze age mythology to dismiss Biblical views, as if the time period when truth claims were documented can be used to categorically refute them.

But the age of an idea does not impact its truthfulness.  Older ideas have usually often gone through more scrutiny than newer ones and are often better supported.

Sure, many old ideas were wrong.  But they weren’t wrong because they were documented a long time ago, they were wrong because they were didn’t correspond to reality.

So the bronze age dig proves nothing, and even if it was true it would undermine atheistic arguments as well. The real bronze age myth is that you can live how you want and never be accountable to your creator.

As Psalm 14:1 points out, the claim that there is no God is also bronze aged:

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds . . .”

And of course, Romans 1:

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

And as you can see from reading St. Augustine and others, the arguments of the New Atheists aren’t new at all.  They are the same old arguments presented with less civility and with the volume turned up to 11.

So don’t buy into the myth that the bronze age myth argument means anything.