I saw an interesting post today on Thinking Christian commenting on one of Richard Dawkins’ opinions expressed in the recent Dawkins / Lennox debate (and also in Dawkins’ book The God Delusion).

Read it here: Religion Leads Logically To Violence, But Atheism Doesn’t–Richard Dawkins

I agree with Tom Gilson’s opinion on this issue, and this is an issue that is raised often (and will continue to be raised given the fact that it is often repeated by the new atheists) so it’s worth thinking about. I haven’t yet watched the debate but it should be interesting.

Here’s a video where Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra discuss the meaning of faith. Click the link to see the streaming video. (6:22 long)

Chopra seems to love saying what people want to hear rather than saying things that actually make sense. Is sin merely ignorance as Dr Chopra says? That seems ridiculous. Certainly if a person truly isn’t aware that what they are doing is immoral then we cannot blame them for what they are doing. But that is not what sin is. Sin is when people do things they know are wrong … and if we are honest with ourselves we know that we sin all the time.

On the topic of sin, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron encourage an evangelism style that confronts people with the Ten Commandments. They ask people if they’ve broken the Ten Commandments, and then when people inevitably admit that yes, of course they have, then therefore they are “sinners” in need of forgiveness. While true in a sense, a non-Christian could easily simply deny the Ten Commandments and their argument falls apart. After all if a person doesn’t believe the Bible is the word of God, why should they give credence to the Ten Commandments? However, IMHO it’s totally unnecessary to bring the Ten Commandments into the argument, and it works just as well without even mentioning them. Here’s why:

Regardless of whether a person is Christian or not, everyone has their own moral standards; aka their moral conscience, or moral rules. And whether a person accepts God’s moral rules or not, every person must admit that they have broken THEIR OWN moral rules.

The question then becomes: Who do you think has higher standards when it comes to morals … you or God? If you say God has higher standards, then we’re in a heap of trouble, because we’ve already admitted that even by our own standards we don’t measure up, so that means we fall WAY short of God’s own standards, whatever they may be. If someone were foolish enough to claim that we have higher standards than God, then they would be claiming that we have greater (more just, more accurate) moral standards than the God who is the source of all moral standards, which is absurd.

Greg makes a great comment near the end of the video regarding “guilt”, which is also made in an article on Greg’s website:

Folks, we don’t get rid of guilt through denial . We get rid of guilt through forgiveness. And that forgiveness can only come from the One whom we have offended. The One who gave the law in the first place. (Read Greg’s full article here.)

Further reading:

• I’m essentially a good person! What’s wrong with that? - Read one of my previous articles where I discuss what it means to be a “good person”.
• Why did Jesus have to die? - He paid the price for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to. The beautiful thing about grace is that it’s unfair: We don’t get what we deserve.

Lately I’ve been hanging around Foru.ms (formerly known as ChristianForums.com, RIP), mostly in the Apologetics, Christian Philosophy & Ethics, and College / Bible College forums. Recently I observed a fine example of a fallacious sort of argument that we might call “argument from overwhelming”.

Greg Koukl might call it the steamroller tactic. In its electronic, forum-based version, a person will post (usually as his/her first and only post(s) on a forum) a ridiculous amount of information, usually copied and pasted from other websites. Then, they will add their own comments as the last paragraph of the post, something along the lines of “See Christianity has been proven wrong!”

Now, I’m sure people of every religious persuasion are guilty of doing the very same thing. But this sort of tactic is dishonest regardless of who is doing it. The perpetrator can confidently fold his or her arms and gloat, since it’d be practically impossible for someone to respond to everything that has been pasted into the thread.

Anyways, the post on CF demonstrated a second fallacy. The thread I quote from below has been rightly deleted as trolling/spam, but I saved a copy of the post before it was removed. Here’s a portion of what the author actually wrote him/herself:

The truth is that all religions were simply made up by ancient peasants that didn’t have the science and facts we do today and just took a guess based on nothing which is that a ghost with magical powers created everything.

Here we have an example of the fallacy of chronological snobbery. (Which, I just learned, was coined by C. S. Lewis and friend Owen Barfield.) Essentially, it is the unjustified assumption that all thinking, art, science, etc of previous eras is inherently inferior to our own. (As an aside, this comment also uses loaded language as its author builds a straw man depiction of God.)

Chronological snobbery assumes that all “ancient” people were ignoramuses who can’t be trusted. Where the line is to be drawn in history to divide these supposedly ignorant savages from today’s enlightened, intelligent thinkers is never explicitly stated, but likely lies just prior to the birth of the person espousing such a view. I certainly hope that, a hundred years hence, everything we think and believe isn’t dismissed out of hand by those living in 2107 just because “Everyone in 2007 was ignorant of modern science.”

Even though ancient peoples were indeed ignorant of many areas of modern science, they still knew how to make accurate historical claims. For example, people knew that, generally speaking, dead people stay dead. Unless, of course many independent witnesses were convinced, to the point of their own deaths, that a dead mad had risen …

Related reading:

• The Facts Concerning the Resurrection - Dr Gary Habermas explains why even if we don’t accept the Bible as “inerrant” we can build a case for the resurrection using only facts agreed upon by the vast majority of critical scholars.
• Good people - What makes a person “good”? What did Jesus say when he was asked this question?

Melinda Penner made a thoughtful post on the nature of faith on the Stand to Reason Blog today … I think she’s “in rare form, as usual”¹:

It’s common these days for people to talk about how their “faith” will get them through a difficult and trying experience. This is said without qualification of what the faith is placed in and of anyone who exhibits faith. It seems as though “faith” is usually treated as a quality which, in and of itself, has the power to endow strength, endurance, and hope.

• Click here to continue reading the full post! (It’s really short )

¹ Extremely obscure STR inside joke