The Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Religion Report recently reported on the Atheist Foundation of Austraila's recent failed bid to engage APN Outdoor to run advertising on Australian buses.
In the report, David Nicholls, President of the Foundation, outlined three slogans that were rejected in turn. 'Atheism, because there is no credible evidence', 'Celebrate reason - Sleep in on Sunday mornings', and 'Atheism - Celebrate reason'.
I'd like to suggest that perhaps APN Outdoor did the Foundation a much bigger favour than Mr. Nicholls realises. Besides of course the fantastic media opportunity of atheists being able to claim religious discrimination, (that their ads were rejected because of their beliefs). I submit that the Foundation's claims would probably have wound up coming afoul of certain 'truth in advertising laws'.
The first slogan, 'Atheism, because there is no credible evidence', presents what on the surface appears to be a statement of fact. Of course if one considers it a bit further, it becomes obvious that it is simply a statement of opinion. Unless of course, the Foundation wishes to assert that every piece of evidence that supports belief in a deity (any deity) has been examined and found wanting, and that they also possess an individual who possesses the charism of infallibility, to proclaim such definitively. Also there is the matter of the veiled insult to the billions of people on the planet who do find the evidence, such as it is, 'compelling'.
The second slogan, 'Celebrate reason - Sleep in on Sunday mornings' is perhaps the least problematic from the point of view of any 'false advertising' type claim, but also the one that, while clearly intended to be humorous, does most to display a complete failure to reason. One must ask, Why and/or how does sleeping in on Sundays promote good reason? Rather this statement most clearly shows the religious zeal of the 'True Believer' atheist seeking to convert people from the prevalent Judeo/Christian worldview to their own belief system.
Finally, with the third slogan 'Atheism - Celebrate reason' we have the veiled insult is doing a provocative strip tease. The common feature of such slogans throughout the advertising world is the implication of the converse. By equating atheism with reason, the Atheist Foundation is implying the converse, that 'all theists are unreasonable'
The other thing about the piece that really caught my attention was Mr. Nicholls 'definition' just what atheism is 'Atheism is not a lack of belief, atheism just doesn't see any evidence.' Well I did a quick search of dictionary definitions of atheist, and every definition I came across defined 'atheist' as one who lacks belief in the existence of God(s), or holds the positive belief that there are no Gods, (or is a technical death metal band from Florida, USA). Even on their website, the Foundation defines 'ATHEISM is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.' So it seems that either the Foundation is seeking to misrepresent it's beliefs, by attempting to redefine the words atheist and atheism, or what we really have is a bunch of sceptics who chose the wrong word when naming their organisation.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Kevin, Scripture and illogic?
Over the past week or so I've been following a dialog between David Armstrong and Kevin Davis. This dialog began in a combox from Dave's blog, continued in a post & comments in Kevin's blog, and ensued some more in a subsequent post & comments on Dave's.
In this exchange, both tend more often than not to 'talk past each other' rather than interacting with each others arguments, which wound up being frustrating for most of us attempting to follow the discussion (based upon the comments on both blogs). One can say that at least in Dave's case this was not entirely inappropriate as Kevin was the one challenging Dave's assertions on the illogical nature of Sola Scriptura and yet failed to seriously interact with Dave's stated reasons for holding that position.
So, in the interest of all those irritated by the lack of interaction, I will attempt to directly address some of Kevin's arguments.
Kevin starts his line of argumentation with 'A real question for the Protestant is determining what is revelation from God, but this is equally a real question for the Catholic.'
Indeed for anyone who has determined that there is a God this is a logical next step. 'The Catholic has determined that the Church is the vehicle of God’s revelation and, as such, requires the assent of faith.' Not how I would phrase it but essentially correct.
'The Protestant has not determined any Church to have such authority, but he has determined that certain texts (scripture) proclaim God’s revelation and, as such, requires the assent of faith — but the Church does not therein play an inessential role.' Here is where we find the very subtle distinction that Kevin is trying to make between how he sees Sola Scriptura working out and how he thinks Dave sees it. The distinction being between 'The Protestant has not determined any Church to have such authority' and 'The Protestant has determined all Churches to not have such authority'.
This seems to be the crux of Kevin's argument. If I understand him correctly, he is asserting that he is not asserting the lack of an authoritative Church, but rather that he is only asserting the authority of Scripture. As such he finds no reason why this authoritative scripture should necessarily address all contingencies, such as whether scripture is scripture, and whether there is an authoritative church or not.
If this were what most people meant by Sola Scriptura then I could accept his point, and perhaps that point does apply to him personally, but generally accepted definitions of Sola Scriptura assert that the bible is the only authoritative source of revelation, meaning 'there are no others' not that 'it's the only one we accept'.
'The use of the term, “determination,” should perhaps be replaced with “recognition,” since the Christian, in union with the Church, does not ascribe authority to scripture but, rather, acquieces to it, as he comes to faith by the Holy Spirit — a Spirit at movement with his fellow believers in the Church.' Again not how I would phrase it, but a fair point nonetheless.
The Protestant does not come to a collection of writings and then set about determining which are to be held as sacred. The Protestant becomes a Protestant, which is to say, becomes a Christian, in the Church, and it is with the Church that the Protestant joins in recognizing scripture. This is to say that the Protestant comes to believe in the inerrancy of scripture through the lived tradition of the Protestant group he joins, the same tradition that they will be taught to treat as suspect.
He would not even know the gospel if it were not for the Church, but the Church herself would not know the gospel if it were not for God’s election of Israel and Jesus Christ, which is also the election of the Church (the new Isreal). This covenantal revelation is recorded by the body of believers, Israel-Church, in writings which are then held as authoritative as they are the bearers of this revelation directly from God. We do not turn to Augustine, Thomas, or Barth in order to determine what God has revealed of Himself; rather, we turn (with Augustine, Thomas, and Barth) to the scriptures and confess accordingly. In these last two sentences we make the jump from logical arguments to statements of faith. Here Kevin moves from saying that the scriptures are accepted in faith to saying that they are accepted because 'they are the bearers of ... revelation'. And the reason that one doesn't look to Augustine, Thomas, or Barth as scripture? Because that is the tradition of the group one has accepted.
'In the first centuries of the Church, it was her task to confess scripture, which includes confessing what should be included as scripture.' Again a statement of faith? or maybe opinion? and one that by definition cannot be found in scripture. Rather the task of the church was then, and remains to this day "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Mt 28:19-20 That in the process of fulfilling this commission, to teach, some of those things were at some later stage, recorded in written form in no way abates the command to teach 'all nations', not advise, and not 'give them a book and let them figure it out for themselves'. This commission existed in the early Church prior to any of the New Testament being recorded, and to the best of my recollection, nothing in scripture attests to the necessity of any of it being recorded. This is not to deny that the New Testament is not inspired or inerrant, or indeed a great boon to Christians everywhere, but not strictly necessary to the mission of the Church.
The Christian joins with the Church in this confession, not with the understanding that the Church is infallible in its declarations here or elsewhere but with the understanding that this Church is the elect of God, given God himself in the Holy Spirit with a redeemed vision of His Word. Thus, the Church can err, but it is the Church which is given the commission to proclaim the gospel. The Church varied in multiple ways in what she considered scripture during the early centuries, and even in the Church of Rome of the 16th century there were disputes over the OT deuterocanon, with faithful cardinals taking the Jewish-Protestant position. But this did not put the Church of the 16th century in any more of an “illogical” position than the Church of the 4th century. The Protestant does not see the variations here and obvious indeterminancy as a threat to the holy mission of the Church, which nonetheless must include a confession of scripture. All of this, of course, leaves open the possibility that a Protestant may reject a certain writing as non-scriptural, just as the Church has collectively and variously, but not without due and weighty reference to the collective wisdom (under the Spirit’s tutelage) of the Church. It’s not to be taken lightly, to say the least; which is why a healthy pragmatism and understanding of God’s providence over all things makes the revision of the canon an unnecessary consideration for most Protestants.
Rather than trying to address this passage piecemeal, I'll instead make a few comments on the whole. One of the things Kevin does here is set up a straw man argument by pitting 'members of the Church' against 'The Church' and yet referring to both as 'The Church'. Then he goes on to admit that the Protestant is free (regardless how weighty the collective wisdom the tradition he has chosen to embrace may be) to disregard that tradition (which his tradition tells him is suspect anyway) and reject the inspiration, and/or inerrancy of any or indeed all books of the bible while still being a 'good Protestant'. Indeed there is nothing preventing him from adding the Lord of the Rings as a second Apocalypse at the end of the bible (if he feels so moved by the Holy Spirit) and still remain a 'good Protestant'.
Now, the question of circularity seems rather an odd charge. The Catholic believes in the divine authority of the Church, not because the Catholic Church simply “says so,” but because a comprehensive consideration of God’s revelation, in scripture and Church, and in history and in nature reveals this charism of the Church, and logic and reason do not contradict same. The Catholic can be wrong here just as much as the Protestant can in his determination of authoritative revelation. I respectfully disagree. Hopefully these observations will lead to both sides moderating their claims, especially the charges of logical fallacy.
I somehow don't think so.
In this exchange, both tend more often than not to 'talk past each other' rather than interacting with each others arguments, which wound up being frustrating for most of us attempting to follow the discussion (based upon the comments on both blogs). One can say that at least in Dave's case this was not entirely inappropriate as Kevin was the one challenging Dave's assertions on the illogical nature of Sola Scriptura and yet failed to seriously interact with Dave's stated reasons for holding that position.
So, in the interest of all those irritated by the lack of interaction, I will attempt to directly address some of Kevin's arguments.
Kevin starts his line of argumentation with 'A real question for the Protestant is determining what is revelation from God, but this is equally a real question for the Catholic.'
Indeed for anyone who has determined that there is a God this is a logical next step. 'The Catholic has determined that the Church is the vehicle of God’s revelation and, as such, requires the assent of faith.' Not how I would phrase it but essentially correct.
'The Protestant has not determined any Church to have such authority, but he has determined that certain texts (scripture) proclaim God’s revelation and, as such, requires the assent of faith — but the Church does not therein play an inessential role.' Here is where we find the very subtle distinction that Kevin is trying to make between how he sees Sola Scriptura working out and how he thinks Dave sees it. The distinction being between 'The Protestant has not determined any Church to have such authority' and 'The Protestant has determined all Churches to not have such authority'.
This seems to be the crux of Kevin's argument. If I understand him correctly, he is asserting that he is not asserting the lack of an authoritative Church, but rather that he is only asserting the authority of Scripture. As such he finds no reason why this authoritative scripture should necessarily address all contingencies, such as whether scripture is scripture, and whether there is an authoritative church or not.
If this were what most people meant by Sola Scriptura then I could accept his point, and perhaps that point does apply to him personally, but generally accepted definitions of Sola Scriptura assert that the bible is the only authoritative source of revelation, meaning 'there are no others' not that 'it's the only one we accept'.
'The use of the term, “determination,” should perhaps be replaced with “recognition,” since the Christian, in union with the Church, does not ascribe authority to scripture but, rather, acquieces to it, as he comes to faith by the Holy Spirit — a Spirit at movement with his fellow believers in the Church.' Again not how I would phrase it, but a fair point nonetheless.
The Protestant does not come to a collection of writings and then set about determining which are to be held as sacred. The Protestant becomes a Protestant, which is to say, becomes a Christian, in the Church, and it is with the Church that the Protestant joins in recognizing scripture. This is to say that the Protestant comes to believe in the inerrancy of scripture through the lived tradition of the Protestant group he joins, the same tradition that they will be taught to treat as suspect.
He would not even know the gospel if it were not for the Church, but the Church herself would not know the gospel if it were not for God’s election of Israel and Jesus Christ, which is also the election of the Church (the new Isreal). This covenantal revelation is recorded by the body of believers, Israel-Church, in writings which are then held as authoritative as they are the bearers of this revelation directly from God. We do not turn to Augustine, Thomas, or Barth in order to determine what God has revealed of Himself; rather, we turn (with Augustine, Thomas, and Barth) to the scriptures and confess accordingly. In these last two sentences we make the jump from logical arguments to statements of faith. Here Kevin moves from saying that the scriptures are accepted in faith to saying that they are accepted because 'they are the bearers of ... revelation'. And the reason that one doesn't look to Augustine, Thomas, or Barth as scripture? Because that is the tradition of the group one has accepted.
'In the first centuries of the Church, it was her task to confess scripture, which includes confessing what should be included as scripture.' Again a statement of faith? or maybe opinion? and one that by definition cannot be found in scripture. Rather the task of the church was then, and remains to this day "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Mt 28:19-20 That in the process of fulfilling this commission, to teach, some of those things were at some later stage, recorded in written form in no way abates the command to teach 'all nations', not advise, and not 'give them a book and let them figure it out for themselves'. This commission existed in the early Church prior to any of the New Testament being recorded, and to the best of my recollection, nothing in scripture attests to the necessity of any of it being recorded. This is not to deny that the New Testament is not inspired or inerrant, or indeed a great boon to Christians everywhere, but not strictly necessary to the mission of the Church.
The Christian joins with the Church in this confession, not with the understanding that the Church is infallible in its declarations here or elsewhere but with the understanding that this Church is the elect of God, given God himself in the Holy Spirit with a redeemed vision of His Word. Thus, the Church can err, but it is the Church which is given the commission to proclaim the gospel. The Church varied in multiple ways in what she considered scripture during the early centuries, and even in the Church of Rome of the 16th century there were disputes over the OT deuterocanon, with faithful cardinals taking the Jewish-Protestant position. But this did not put the Church of the 16th century in any more of an “illogical” position than the Church of the 4th century. The Protestant does not see the variations here and obvious indeterminancy as a threat to the holy mission of the Church, which nonetheless must include a confession of scripture. All of this, of course, leaves open the possibility that a Protestant may reject a certain writing as non-scriptural, just as the Church has collectively and variously, but not without due and weighty reference to the collective wisdom (under the Spirit’s tutelage) of the Church. It’s not to be taken lightly, to say the least; which is why a healthy pragmatism and understanding of God’s providence over all things makes the revision of the canon an unnecessary consideration for most Protestants.
Rather than trying to address this passage piecemeal, I'll instead make a few comments on the whole. One of the things Kevin does here is set up a straw man argument by pitting 'members of the Church' against 'The Church' and yet referring to both as 'The Church'. Then he goes on to admit that the Protestant is free (regardless how weighty the collective wisdom the tradition he has chosen to embrace may be) to disregard that tradition (which his tradition tells him is suspect anyway) and reject the inspiration, and/or inerrancy of any or indeed all books of the bible while still being a 'good Protestant'. Indeed there is nothing preventing him from adding the Lord of the Rings as a second Apocalypse at the end of the bible (if he feels so moved by the Holy Spirit) and still remain a 'good Protestant'.
Now, the question of circularity seems rather an odd charge. The Catholic believes in the divine authority of the Church, not because the Catholic Church simply “says so,” but because a comprehensive consideration of God’s revelation, in scripture and Church, and in history and in nature reveals this charism of the Church, and logic and reason do not contradict same. The Catholic can be wrong here just as much as the Protestant can in his determination of authoritative revelation. I respectfully disagree. Hopefully these observations will lead to both sides moderating their claims, especially the charges of logical fallacy.
I somehow don't think so.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
The US Election and 'Clouds'
The expression goes that 'every cloud has a silver lining'. So what 'silver linings' can we find in the election result?
Prop 8 won in CA!!! Yay!!!!
I think a great many people voted for Obama without the slightest idea of what he stood for. The Australian election earlier this year was similar. The main theme of the opposition parties in both cases was 'Change' with very little emphasis put on what should change, just 'anything different from what we've had the last 13 (8 in your case) years. Over the next four years those people who voted for the first time will hopefully come to realise the consequences of their actions, and next time won't have that air of 'a historic opportunity to elect the first African-American president in US history'.
The other extremely positive thing I find in the election result is that you will soon have a Catholic Pro-Choice VP!!!! What??? you say?.
Here's what I mean. The US bishops have been (for them) remarkably vociferous during this election campaign. A large proportion of this is in response to comments by Nancy Pelosi, and now VP elect Biden. Both crossed the line of separation of Church and State, but in the opposite direction than most people are used to thinking of.
After the John Kerry debacle, the pro-choice Catholic 'thing', the 'wafer wars' as they were dubbed by certain sections of the media, died a quick death in the press.
Not this time. This time we have a pro-choice Catholic one heartbeat away from being the most powerful man in the (secular) world. The US bishops have a huge challenge, and yet a huge opportunity to make this issue 'current' for the next four years.
Either Biden publicly renounces his views, publicly gives up his claim to be an 'ardent Catholic' or drags this issue into the mainstream for the next four years.
Could be an interesting ride
Prop 8 won in CA!!! Yay!!!!
I think a great many people voted for Obama without the slightest idea of what he stood for. The Australian election earlier this year was similar. The main theme of the opposition parties in both cases was 'Change' with very little emphasis put on what should change, just 'anything different from what we've had the last 13 (8 in your case) years. Over the next four years those people who voted for the first time will hopefully come to realise the consequences of their actions, and next time won't have that air of 'a historic opportunity to elect the first African-American president in US history'.
The other extremely positive thing I find in the election result is that you will soon have a Catholic Pro-Choice VP!!!! What??? you say?.
Here's what I mean. The US bishops have been (for them) remarkably vociferous during this election campaign. A large proportion of this is in response to comments by Nancy Pelosi, and now VP elect Biden. Both crossed the line of separation of Church and State, but in the opposite direction than most people are used to thinking of.
After the John Kerry debacle, the pro-choice Catholic 'thing', the 'wafer wars' as they were dubbed by certain sections of the media, died a quick death in the press.
Not this time. This time we have a pro-choice Catholic one heartbeat away from being the most powerful man in the (secular) world. The US bishops have a huge challenge, and yet a huge opportunity to make this issue 'current' for the next four years.
Either Biden publicly renounces his views, publicly gives up his claim to be an 'ardent Catholic' or drags this issue into the mainstream for the next four years.
Could be an interesting ride
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)