The existence-of-evil dodge (NEXT! #44)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: I see so much evil in the world, I just can't be a Christian.

Response: Did you mean to say that's why you can't be a Christian Scientist? Only Biblical Christianity can make sense of the evil in the world.

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

The "scientific evidence" dodge (NEXT! #27)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: Unless you give me (materialistic) scientific evidence for the existence of God, I will not believe.

Response: ...and the materialistic scientific evidence that "(materialistic) scientific evidence" alone can and will always be dispositive of everything is...?

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

The Fruit of Their Own Way

by Phil Johnson

Prologue: I imagine lots of PyroManiacs readers are familiar with Chris Rosebrough. His blogs, The Museum of Idolatry and Extreme Theology are always insightful and interesting. His most ambitious project, Pirate Christian Radio, is a listener-supported ministry, streaming excellent Christian programing (mostly teaching and commentary) 24/7. Chris's own broadcast, Fighting for the Faith, is PCR's flagship broadcast. I listen to "Fighting for the Faith" via the podcast, and one of my favorite segments is called "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." That's where Chris analyzes sermons of all varieties, sometimes refuting a bad sermon's errors; other times underscoring the gospel message in a good sermon—and offering poignant observations of all kinds in between.     Recently I tuned in and was surprised (and a little fearful) to hear Chris say he was going to put one of my sermons under the microscope on that day's broadcast. (My sermons usually fit nicely in "The Ugly" category, in case you were wondering.) Anyway, I enjoy hearing Chris interrupt my preaching with his commentary, and his replaying of that particular sermon reminded me of the following excerpt, which I thought would make a good blogpost.

theism is a destructive belief that breeds immorality and wickedness.


If you're 25 years old or older, you probably remember Madalyn Murray O'Hair. During my childhood and adolescent years, it seemed she was in the news all the time. She wasn't an intellectual; she wasn't even particularly likable. (And that's putting it mildly. Usually she came across like a screeching, abrasive, angry old crone driven by intense hatred for God and an equally passionate craving for publicity.) She was indefatigably persistent—and completely committed to her cause.

Atheism was her god.

Mrs. O'Hair founded an organization, American Atheists, and for the past 45 years they have spearheaded a relentless campaign to eliminate God from civic life and public discourse in America.

Then suddenly Mrs. O'Hair vanished in 1995. Not a single one of her atheist "friends" even reported her missing when she first disappeared. Instead, they moved in and took over her home, her organization, and her assets. Six years later her body was discovered, alongside the bodies of her son Jon and a granddaughter, Robin. Their corpses had been burned and buried on a ranch in west Texas. A group of fellow atheists, led by an employee of American Atheists, had kidnapped the O'Hairs, tortured them for weeks, and finally murdered them in an act of revenge—apparently as payback for a mean-spirited article Mrs. O'Hair had circulated among employees of her organization.

Mrs. Murray was survived by her eldest son, Bill (Robin's father), who had become a convert to Christianity years before his mother's disappearance. He told reporters his mother liked to hire violent felons because "She got a sense of power out of having men in her employ who had taken human life." It was one of those outlaw employees who orchestrated the kidnaping, torture, and murders. That man and his cohorts were simply acting out the logical ramifications of the amoral philosophy Mrs. O'Hair had always championed.

Thus the godless culture Mrs. O'Hair promoted destroyed her in the end. As Proverbs 1:29-31 says, "They that hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord . . . shall eat of the fruit of their own way." "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man [or woman] soweth, that shall [s]he also reap" (Galatians 6:7).



More:

• "The Case of the Missing Atheist," from tru TV (Not Reality. Actuality.)
  
• Bill Murray's 1999 statement on the murders
  
• "The Murder of Madalyn Murray O'Hair: America's Most Hated Woman," from Crime Magazine
  
• Coverage of the murders from The New York Times.

---

A good reason to leave God?

by Dan Phillips

We have all heard or read stories that end "so after that, I couldn't believe in Christianity anymore."

Many of them are like the story Mike Adams tells of a man who stopped attending church when a close friend's two daughters died tragically in a car accident. "For him, God just couldn’t allow such a thing and still be worthy of worship and praise," Adams writes. (This story has a happy ending; not all do, of course.)

To my wholly subjective impression, this seems to be one of three main kinds of "deconversion stories." Most of these stories are patent fakes, told by someone who clearly had about as much Christian involvement as I have in the government of China. (To wit, I can spell "China." See? C-h-i-n-a.)

Another tries a more rational approach, claiming Science or contradictions or the like.

A third comes from the other direction, telling sad stories that amount to "not feeling it" anymore for one reason or another.

All of the stories have in common that the God of Christianity let the speaker/writer down. And that was that.

Candidly, as I mentioned, I often simply do not believe the speaker or writer. A great many of these stories range from paint-thin rationalizations unable to withstand 23 consecutive seconds of rational analysis, to cut-and-paste alibis. They're concocted or borrowed simply to cover up an overruling love for a particular sin or sin-pattern. And that's just about as deep as it goes.

Observation: the speaker/writer would invariably deny that analysis, insisting on the nobler-seeming, more solid-seeming cover story. But if there's really no God, why bother with a cover? Just get on with it, no explanation necessary. Especially if you really are no more than matter-in-motion in an amoral, careening, meaningless universe. But I digress.

So let's ask: when would it be a good, valid time to leave the God of the Bible? Simple: if He does not keep His promises.

Re-inflect: if He does not keep His promises.

I realize that is a daring statement. But I think God Himself drives us to it when He voluntarily enters into covenant, as we see it in Genesis 15. After all, what is the symbolism of only the smoking fire pot and the flaming torch passing between the pieces of animals? What is God saying when He swears by Himself (cf. Genesis 22:16-18; Isaiah 45:23; Hebrews 6:13ff.)?

All of the sad stories I've heard or read, by contrast, amount to this: I left God because He did not meet my expectations. Let's try on a few of the more popular specifics:

1. Death might be a good reason to leave God if He had promised that men and women would never die. He did not.
2. A tragic death might be a good reason to leave God if He promised to prevent all tragic deaths. He has not.
3. Any death might be a good reason to leave God if He lacked the right to deal out both life and death. He does not.
4. Misfortune might be a good reason to leave God if He promised His children, let alone everyone, exemption from misfortune. He does not.
5. Inexplicable (by us) tragedy might be a good reason to leave God if He promised to prevent all such tragedies from happening. He does not.
6. Hard events befalling believers of which no sense can immediately be made, and in which no good can immediately be seen, might be a good reason to leave God if He promised that such would never happen. He does not.
7. Apparent contradictions in Scripture, even ones for which we've found no solution, might be a good reason to leave God if He promised that all Scripture would be simple, and equally immediately transparent to every reader. He does not.

8. Lack of evidence that forces the unwilling to convert against their will might be a good reason to leave God (A) if such were even definitionally possible, and (B) if God promised to provide such. He does not.
9. Lack of evidence that no one can possibly pervert, ignore, twist nor deny might be a good reason (A) if such were even definitionally possible, and (B) if God promised to provide such. He does not.
10. God's failure to meet expectations we put on Him might be a good reason if He promised to be the servant of our expectations. To say the least, He does not.

I know the dogged disbeliever's response to this, because I've heard it: "You're stacking it in such a way that there is no denying the God of the Bible. You're saying we should just believe God because He says we should."

To that, this:

1. Assuming that God is as the Scripture says He is, what would you expect? And
2. Assuming that God is as the Scripture says He is, to what higher authority could any appeal be made?

Since Genesis 3:6, fallen humanity's agenda has been the pursuit of one goal: to make the world safe for sin.

It is a goal that will surely and certainly fail in the end.

The Christian is the person who is led by God's grace to admit and embrace that truth now, thus doing willingly what all will do one day.

That's the difference. Saying it out loud is about the most offensive thing the unbelieving ear can hear, because it rips the cover right off of his dearest, doomed, damned aspiration.

But that's our calling.

---

The atheist "I-have-honest-questions" dodge (NEXT! #21)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: You're a Christian? Oho. So give me a convincing argument as to why God...?

Response A: I'll be happy to respond, but please answer mine first. How do you convince someone to accept a true, accurate and sufficient answer that he is unwilling to accept?


Response B: I'll be happy to, but please answer mine first. How does one persuade an arrogant blowhard who is unwilling to acknowledge his own biases, presuppositions and errors, and who is unwilling to answer even this question directly, to accept even a completely true and irrefutable answer that he refuses to accept? 

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

I doubt it

by Frank Turk



Phil's post this week has apparently hit a nerve with a couple of atheist internet apologists, and I wanted to pull one of the branches of the thread on God's justice up front here for the sake of filling my quota at TeamPyro this week.

Dr. Ken Pulliam has made an appearance in the comments to give us his "agnostic" view of the problem that God can order things which, if a man ordered them, he might rightly be called a genocidal maniac. However, someone called Dr. Pulliam an "atheist" in the thread, and he wanted to make sure we all knew he was actually an "agnostic".

His last comment to me in that thread was this:

I don't claim to be agnostic about every proposition only those that involve ultimate realities. I mentioned the three ways of verifying the truth of various propositions.

For example, if my wife says: "It is raining outside." How do I verify it? I step outside and see. If what I see and feel corresponds (the correspondence theory) to the accepted definitions of what constitutes rain, then I accept her proposition as true. If she says: "The lawnmower needs to be brought inside or it will rust in the rain." How do I know if her proposition is true? I know from past knowledge that if metal gets wet it will rust. Her statement coheres (the coherence theory) with other accepted and verified beliefs. If she says: "If you put a tarp over the lawnmower, it won't get wet." How do I know if that is a true proposition? I put a tarp over the lawnmower and wait till it stops raining and then see if the lawnmower is wet. If putting the tarp over the mower works (the pragmatic theory), then I know that her proposition was true.

However, if she says: "God is sending the rain." How can I verify it? I can't. Thus, I am agnostic about that proposition.

Now, do I need to believe in a deity in order to verify any of the four propositions above? Yes, the 4th one but not the first three.

Let me put it to you (Dr. Pulliam in particular, but "you-all" readers of this here bit of bloggin') this way: "agnosticism" in any form is a statement about the epistemic value of truth claims. As late as Hume the agnostic claim really placed all statements which are definitive -- statements which make a pan-physical judgments about reality; statements which are correlative of common value or nature -- in a category which requires us to have some doubt about their validity. The basis for Hume saying this was the limits of human perception and reason.

Which, let me say, is a fine bit of humility on the part of Hume, given his disdain for the idea of divine revelation. But Hume's agnosticism was an honest one which didn't limit itself to just religious claims.

This appeal to some kind of "honest" epistemological stoicism in Dr. Pulliam's examples of whether (or how) he believes his wife or not is interesting -- but really, is that how he lives? He tests the quality of the gas at the pump before he puts it in his car to make sure it is of the proper octane and isn't full of water or grit? He validates the Health Department certification of every restaurant before sitting down? You personally audit your bank to make sure they aren't doing stupid things with your money? You stop even at Green Lights because you never know who’s coming the other way?

I think he can define agnosticism, and he can parrot the theories for agnostic epistemology, but he has never spent a day in his life living that way.

When an atheist finds a Christian who lives his life like this, the word "hypocrite" comes out as if it solves the problem or wins the argument. (in fact, Dr. Pulliam has said as much in another comment in that thread -- Christians don't live the way they say they ought) I think it only identifies the problem – which is either one of dishonesty or one of immaturity. In the former case, the hypocrisy is there because it benefits the hypocrite – somehow, he is gaining something he can’t get by honest means; in the latter case, it’s a matter of discipleship – the hypocrite doesn’t mean to live against his beliefs, but he’s not really trained up rightly so he doesn’t really understand the implications of his catechism.

It’s unkind to assume the former – because I suspect that you have never made a penny from your “agnosticism”. But to assume the latter means that someday you will, in fact, act as if you really are “agnostic about every proposition that involves ultimate realities” (like whether it’s raining outside or not, or whether the lawnmower can be protected from the rain by a tarp, [as in your examples] or for that matter whether you have actually put the right octane gas in your car [which is my example using the same definition of “ultimate”]). But he will never live that way – it’s grossly impractical at best.

But here’s what gets me: it seems to me that these “ultimate” realities (things which he says he knows via correspondence or practical/utilitarian means, but for which he doesn't actually do the due diligence) are far more critical to making sure his life is impacted for his personal benefit than this debate about whether or not Jesus Christ was promised to Israel, born to a virgin, and died and resurrected to prove He was who he said he was.

So what gives? Why duck behind the "agnostic" label for "ultimate reality" when really, one is just doubtful about the claims of people with religious beliefs only?

This should be interesting ...

---

Redneck Atheism: The Hypocrisy of Secular Humanism

by Phil Johnson



've grouped two of our atheist friends' top ten taunts together, because they stem from the same faulty presupposition. Both of them impugn what Scripture says about the justice of God, and they implicitly hold up humanistic values as a superior standard:

Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and animals. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs—though excluding those in all rival sects—will spend eternity in an infinite hell of suffering. Yet, you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Of course God by definition has the power of life and death. All that He created belongs to Him and is His to deal with as He pleases. Evidence is everywhere to prove that He ordinarily deals graciously and benevolently with His creatures—that "his tender mercies are over all his works" (Psalm 145:9; cf. Matthew 5:45). According to Scripture, He is the source and the epitome of all righteousness, and the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). Goodness, justice, mercy, and kindness are defined by His character, and anyone who wants to hold Him to a different standard would need to give some valid justification for that standard—other than "well, it seems to me."

Scripture also says that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23); that all sentient persons without exception have sinned (Romans 3:9-23); and that our entire race is altogether fallen, wholly corrupted with sin, and therefore under the condemnation of God (Romans 5:12-19). Moreover, Scripture tells us God is to be feared, because He has the right either to show mercy or to kill—and "after he has killed, [He] has authority to cast into hell" (Luke 12:5).

It is by no means remarkable or hard to fathom that a righteous God, perfectly just and rightfully sovereign, would punish someone with the due penalty of sin—especially civilizations as thoroughly wicked and self-indulgent as Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Amalekites. After all, He condemned the whole race of angels who fell, casting them from heaven without hesitation and without remedy (2 Peter 2:4; Hebrews 2:16).

So the real mystery is not that God sometimes destroys sinners with death, but that He ordinarily shows such extreme mercy.

The destruction of infants and animals by human armies under God's orders poses a deeper moral dilemma, of course, but it is a flat-out lie to suggest that Christians "don't even flinch" when we read those biblical accounts, much less when we ponder what Jesus taught about hell. (For those wishing to investigate that whole question in more depth, a good starting point is this video by John Piper.)

But let's note first of all that incidents of divinely-ordered genocide are highly unusual and confined to one or two specific points in biblical history. It is both spiritually naive and intellectually irresponsible to compare Joshua's military campaigns with wanton, willful, routine, and random acts of terrorism or genocide done in the name of religion. It is especially fatuous to suggest that slaughter and violence in the name of YWHW is characteristic of His people through the ages. That is a convenient argument for the lazy critic, perhaps, but it's not a very good one.

Frankly, the past century of humanism, scientific rationalism, and secularist "justice" is—or ought to be—far more embarrassing to Atheism than anything an atheist might criticize biblical Christianity for. The atheist record is even worse than that of religion in general, for that matter. As bad as false religion can be, we need to remember that it wasn't Islamic terrorism, Hindu violence, or suicidal cults that slaughtered the most people in the 20th century. It certainly wasn't Christianity. It was the followers of Darwin and Nietzsche: Nazis, Communists, and other totalitarian rationalists and social engineers.

And while our atheist friends are pretending outrage over the slaughter of innocent babies, let's talk about the death-toll brought on by abortion—a favorite cause célèbre of the humanist crowd and an evil that would not be possible at all if atheism had not left its indelible stamp on western culture.

Atheism is what gave us the most violent century in human history, and the atheists now want to make this the point around which they rally to oppose the God of the Bible?

The real issue here goes back to the question of biblical authority. Should humanistic moral judgments be evaluated by the Scriptures, or vice versa?

Atheism is what gave us the most violent century in human history, and the atheists now want to make this the point around which they rally to oppose the God of the Bible?

And if you want to set an artificial, atheistic moral code above Scripture, what is your justification and rationale for doing so? From where does your moral authority arise?

Scripture says God is a righteous judge, and the Bible also gives us every reason to trust Him. The dismal record of human judgment gives me no reason to trust that.

God's final judgment, though severe, will be perfectly righteous, and in the end, every tongue will confess that. It's neither "unloving" nor "intolerant" to warn those who are in danger of that judgment—and even some of your best-known atheistic allies acknowledge that.

This barely scratches the surface of an admittedly difficult question, I know. We'll draw out some more substance in the combox, I'm sure. But it's a busy day and I need to get to work now. Talk amongst yourselves.

---

Redneck atheism: Biblical ignorance

by Dan Phillips

OK, I'll take the in-vite. Actually, a couple of them appeal to me, but let's start with the low-hanging fruit. In this challenge, I take the "you" as "you Christians," not "you, DJP."

You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Agreed! Next? 

Okay, not really, not entirely. If the point of the criticism is that a staggering amount of so-called Christians (A) have very little direct knowledge about the Bible, and, far worse (B) don't care a lick about it... how could I disagree? Don't every one of us here lament that very fact, week after week? Isn't that why the professing church is overrun with nonsense and tomfoolery in the name of Christ? Isn't that why "churches" with no Biblical definition nor mission are filled to squeaking, to say nothing of the piles of claptrap that pockmark "Christian" bookstores?

So: guilty.

Though I'd not be as quick to grant the point about how much Bible "many" atheists and agnostics actually know. In my experience, the tally there isn't always much better.

I recall my first trembling encounter, as a young Christian, with an apostate neighbor. He was a much older man, well-educated, a former Christian. Myself very new in the faith, but wanting to speak with him of Christ, I asked him why he wasn't a Christian. I trembled inwardly as I anticipated the shattering blow he was sure to deal to my newborn faith.

"Those preposterous miracles," he said.

I blinked. "Oh?" I asked innocently. "Like... which ones?"

His answer: nothing. Blank. Not one example. So — as with most if not all atheists and agnostics — the presenting story was not the real story.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that 99% of professing Christians are dirt-ignorant of the Bible, and 99% of atheists and agnostics are experts.

So? What is that supposed to prove?

You see, for that to have any evidentiary force against Biblical faith,  you would have to find me a verse that says, "Everyone who names My name will be an expert in My words." Is there such a verse? There is not.

Now, there are verses like John 8:31-32, which reads:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

So here, Jesus does say that it is a mark of genuine Christian faith that one will continue in His word, know the truth, and be set free.

Now, turn that on its head. It would mean that —

• if one has not been set free, he has not known the truth; 
• if he has not known the truth, he has not continued in Jesus' word; and
• if he has not continued in Jesus' word, he is not truly His disciple.

So all we learn, granting the 99% figure, is that 99% of those who say they are Christians are not really Christians.

Which has zero evidentiary force against Biblical faith.

In fact, quite the contrary, from two perspectives:

1. The Bible itself is quite clear that many will claim to know Christ, but the claims will be false (Matthew 7:21-23). Calling Him "Lord" is meaningless, if the call is not adorned by obedience (Luke 6:46; John 14:15: 15:14). Yet many will do so, and will ultimately apostatize (Matthew 24:10-12). So actually, a high number of false professors confirms what the Bible says... sadly so, but undeniably so. But what's more....
2. This admission from the "skeptic" will come in quite handy later. Because, if he's true to form, pretty soon he'll fall to ad hominems. He'll want to talk about his loony Aunt Betty, and his hypocritical dad; and then maybe it will be the Crusades, or Benny Hinn, or some such. 

And when he tries this, well, we'll be all set, won't we? We'll just remind him that, as he himself said, a whole lot of people who say they are Christians really aren't.

See, then we can get back to talking about Christ. Because Christ is the issue. Our aim isn't to preach Christians. Our friend's greatest need isn't to believe in Christians, or accept Christians. We want and need to preach Christ, because it is Christ who our friend needs. Everything else is a fruitless, pointless dodge.

Next?

---

Redneck Atheism: Science vs. Enthusiasm?

by Frank Turk

So from the list of Redneck Atheist complaints, we have this interesting affirmation:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Some posts write themselves.

Listen: it turns out that Christianity actually appeals to "history, geology, biology and physics". That is: the simple claim of the Gospel is that something actually happened which a person ought to be aware of and take note of.

This is how John the Apostle says it:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. [ESV, 1 John 1]

No tongues there -- no "Holy Spirit Hokey Pokey". Simply Jesus as a real person making God known, and witnesses making what they saw and touched and heard known.

Anything else I would say would be piling on. Which, really, is what the comments are for.

---

Redneck Atheism, Part 3: Prayer

by Phil Johnson

his week is Shepherds' Conference so I don't have a lot of time to write detailed blogposts. Incidentally, you can watch the livestream of this morning's session at 9:00 PST here. I'll be preaching from 1 Corinthians 16:13 ("Act like men!").



we're in the process of replying to our Atheist friends' Ten Most (currently) Popular Sneers against Christians. Given my jammed schedule, I've decided to take up just one of their arguments today, and on top of that, I'm picking the easiest one:

You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God.

I can't speak for people who deliberately pray for things that are manifestly opposed to the will of God, but my prayers are all answered. While I don't tabulate the answers statistically, I'm confident that the majority of my prayers are answered with some kind of yes—often far more abundantly than anything I could ask or imagine (cf. Ephesians 3:20).

In any case, your exaggerated (and obviously undocumentable) statistic is pathetic evidence of how desperate you are to discredit the One whom you are clearly obsessed with yet adamantly insist doesn't even exist. I doubt even the most wild-eyed, biblically-illiterate, superstitious, name-it-claim-it charismatic could honestly say only .01% of what they pray for goes unanswered. If they follow Christ even nominally—enough to pray once a day or so for "our daily bread"—I'll guarantee the "success rate" (as you so elegantly put it) is much higher than one hundredth of a percent—one in ten thousand.

Anyway, if a person takes time to learn to pray by studying the Lord's Prayer (and the other prayers in Scripture); and then prays diligently, importunately, and sober-mindedly—not "ask[ing] wrongly, to spend it on your passions" (James 4:3)—that person will certainly have no reason to take such a cynical attitude toward prayer.

---

Whence 'Redneck' Atheism?

by Frank Turk



Vigilant reader ‘Aimee’ who is a High School student asked this relevant question regarding this series of posts:

After all of these highly intellectual people have commented, I feel sort of silly, but I have a question. Why are you calling this series "*Redneck* Atheism"? I am not technically a redneck myself, but I think that you might be misusing the term "redneck". Having been raised in the South, using "atheism" and "redneck" together sounds like an oxymoron to me. All of the rednecks I've ever met were kind, smart, hard-working people, and many were sincere believers. I get that you're not trying to paint all rednecks as atheists or vice versa, but I am honestly confused and would love to hear an explanation. I hope I haven't been disrespectful.

Which, of course, is a reasonable question.

Since I coined the term, I’ll unpack it for y’all.

First, let me say that I would agree with Aimee’s assessment that the people I know who are actually rednecks tend to be salt-o’-the-earth sort of people who work hard, play hard, and love the people they love hard. You shake hands with an actual redneck, and his (no offense, ladies) hand feels like the hand of a man who works – and not at a keyboard all day blogging or some such nonsense. So the usage I’m thinking about here is not regarding people who self-select into this group.

Wikipedia is a good help to start the disambiguation of the matter:

Southern comedian Jeff Foxworthy defines "redneck" as "a glorious absence of sophistication," stating "that we are all guilty of [it] at one time or another."

Redneck has two general uses: first, as a pejorative used by outsiders, and, second, as a term used by members within that group. To outsiders, it is generally a term for white people of Southern or Appalachian rural poor backgrounds. In the West Coast, there are regionally specialized versions of the term, namely Okie and Arkie, for poor rural white migrants from Oklahoma and Arkansas, displaced from the Great Plains by the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s.

I’m thinking of the way an outsider to the group would use the term, and the reference to Foxworthy is especially useful – since he is the popularizer of the infamous series of books and jokes which begin “You might be a Redneck if ...”

You know -- you might be a Redneck if:

• You ever cut your grass and found a car
• You think the Stock Market has a fence around it
• Your wife has said, “Come move this transmission so I can take a bath.”
• Your mother-in-law has “ammo” on her Christmas list
• There are more than 5 McDonald’s bags in your car
• You’ve ever financed a tattoo

You see what I’m sayin’? I an sure this will make for a frothy meta to this post.

That said, the point of calling the problems referenced in the top-10 list from the atheists in question “Redneck Atheism” is two-fold:

1. Unabashedly, they are trying to cash in on the popularity of the “you might be a Redneck if ...” meme. In spite of the fact that it’s played out. So pointing out their less-than-timely attempt to ride th coat-tails of a fad is somewhat satisfying on its own terms.

2. But more importantly, the complaints themselves are specifically unsophisticated. They are in their own way, laughably ignorant of the subjects they are speaking of – and the real irony there is that the actual atheists riding this John Deere into their own intellectually-overgrown front yard where they may yet find all manner of items due for the philosophical junkyard are proud to be the purveyors of this sort of ignorance regarding what they allegedly disdain.

Not all atheists are “redneck atheists”. But the ones rolling out this jalopy with the red-tape tail lights, a giant crack in the windshield, and a “Chiggers On Board” window decal certainly are.

So enjoy the spectacle. I admit that I am.

Thanks for asking.

---

Redneck Atheism: is Christianity really polytheism?

by Frank Turk

There are so many things about the list Phil provided already that I enjoyed that it’s hard to start in the middle like this and not want to go back. But a lot of the principles carry over from one thing to the next, so I’ll just enjoy talking about this nifty little aphorism and be content with my 3 pages of joy. They say you might be an unquestioning Christian if you laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God.

Now, a basic defense of the Trinity seems to be the straightforward approach to this reproach, but let me be honest: I’ve never met any Atheists converted to robust Christian faith by a sudden dawning of the truth of the Nicean Creed. If you have, please line it out in the meta as it will undoubtedly be instructive.

Instead, I want to talk about Physics for a minute. Physics is a brilliant thing – because it deals with things as the actually exist in nature. People who are really good at physics tend to be good at other stuff, too – like chemistry and engineering. They make things work, and who can’t actually admire that?

Physics is something that, frankly, is sort of the king of sciences (in my humble and ignorant opinion). It’s because of physics that we can take a gallon of a smelly liquid, set it on fire one drop at a time, and convert the force that comes out of the tiny explosion over and over again into enough kinetic energy to drive to work in the morning. It’s one of those things where you know for a fact that the amount of force that comes from setting two drops of gasoline isn’t anything at all, and the force of dropping a match on a gallon of gas is enough to probably kill you if you’re standing close enough, but if you manage the drop-sized explosions closely enough, you can drive 20 or 30 or 50 miles with the air conditioner on. And while there are a lot of things in play there, one which is necessary is the law of the conservation of energy.

Anyway, the people who figure that kind of stuff out will enjoy without any end of the glee this article from Scientific American from 09 Oct 2006. The most of the rest of you would rather read about supralapsarian reprobation and God’s hidden will, and the flabby-bottom rest of you can follow me to the comic book shop to discuss the recent apparent death of the Red Skull.

Ahem.

My point in linking to the SA article is this gem:

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above.

Now, before anyone starts blustering about the way this is phrased, these are the words of Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor who probably knows something about this. Probably more than you. So if this doesn’t meet your critical assessment of the issues, please do yourself a favor and take it up with him.

BTW, what I’m about to say here next is not attributable to Dr. Kane, and I have no idea if he’s a Christian or not.

What I’m about to say is this: I think we should believe our friends the philosophical naturalists when they put it to us that quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy. We should trust them. This is what they do.

But is it reasonable to trust them? Do we actually know for a fact – a fact almost as old as physics itself – that the energy is a closed system cannot increase or decrease – only change state? Should we have a massive “AHA!” when we find ourselves listening to otherwise-reasonable men who say, “well, yeah, usually, but in this case we know it for a fact because we saw it ourselves. I probably can’t show you, but I can show you the guys who wrote all this down. And some of it might not make any sense because they’re had to invent new words to really describe what’s happening. Maybe you would just take my word for it and enjoy your radio and your snake-egg magnets and your computer and leave the rest to me.”

I mean: I can be honest and say that I really don’t know anything about solid-state electronics and magnetic fields, so the idea that an electron is sometimes not an electron makes me a little woozy. It doesn’t actually make any sense to me – but you know what? Making fun of it will not make the Physicist change his mind.

Which brings us back to the statement of our atheist friends: aren’t you an unquestioning Christ if you laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God?

Well, I think the answer is “NO.”



Because let’s face it: first of all, Trinitarianism isn’t polytheism any more than virtual particles are some sort of pixie dust. Polytheism is always a system which describes the world as a place where chaos reigns due to the capricious nature of the urges of beings who are generally much greater than men, but under some sort of inexplicable hierarchical rule which requires them to quibble without actually overthrowing the order of things. And in these systems, the “gods” are either completely apathetic toward mankind, or somehow aligned with mankind in order to divide mankind – and often the gods did not even create mankind.

But the Bible speaks to something different. The essence of Trinitarianism is the unity of God. That is to say, in the act of creation, all of the Godhead were in agreement. In the act of judging man’s sins, all agreed. In promising to redeem or correct man’s error, all agreed. And in counting the cost and setting forth the price in grace and love, all agreed.

Yet in this unity, there is diversity. What the Son has done, the Father agreed with – but the person of the Son accomplished it. What the Spirit did and does the Son agrees with and requires – but the Spirit accomplishes it. And in this, we say rightly, God is unique.

Secondly, the unique attribute of the Triune God is his call of all men to himself. All men are qualified and indeed obligated to be his unique possession.

But there is a final fact which must be true: whatever it is that God is, He cannot be anything else. It seems a little less than candid to listen to Dr. Kane say with certainty and authority, “Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy,” without abandoning all hope for reasonability or comprehensibility – let alone the hope that your car will go when you press the gas pedal – but to demand of God – whom even the atheist must agree is in some way greater than us -- that there be no moments when we have to admit: it is what it is, even if it looks like a logical contradiction or an absurdity. Those of us who know God must confess that He is what He is, and nothing less, and nothing else. It doesn’t matter if it seems to be some kind of contradiction.

So for a laymen to point and laugh at Dr. Kane’s description of virtual particles and what happens to them even though that description has a seeming contradiction is unwarranted – and to frame it as something it is not (insert your own punchline here) is simply dishonest. In the same way, to frame Trinitarian descriptions of God as somehow another kind of polytheism is itself simply a crass and reductionistic approach to something someone simply doesn’t want to understand, and doesn’t want to have confidence in. (there's an interesting hypothesis for why this is true, and a book recently published which explicates this. Remind me to tell you about it some time.)

God is what he is. We have an obligation to say he is what he is. And to hear someone rebuff that by saying, “well, you’re a little foolish to reject what he is not since I say all these other things look suspiciously like him,” sounds ill-considered to me. You wouldn’t do that to Dr. Kane, so have a little consideration for the maker of Dr. Kane.

---

Redneck Atheism

by Phil Johnson

n the busyness of all my preparation for this week's Shepherds' Conference, I almost forgot Monday is my day to post. Sorry this is 6 hours late. I got up early this morning to write it, after staying up late to watch the tail end of the Olympic closing ceremonies.

And let's not forget to say congratulations to Challies and all the other hosers up north who read our blog, eh?



Last week I proposed a series of posts answering the points in this popular atheist meme, which is currently plastered all over the internet. (Incidentally, I don't want to hog this project; Dan and Frank are welcome to jump in if they like. Or not. I never tell them what to post. My original intention was to deal with the atheists' "Ten Signs" myself on the days I post, but I would also be happy if Frank wants to apply his golden wit or Dan his trademark thoroughness to the project.)

Anyway, as I said last week, some of our atheist neighbors have treated this Top Ten List as if it contains all the best ironclad arguments against Christianity. Atheists generally cultivate a totally unwarranted air of intellectual superiority. I'm pretty sure it's part of the job description (Psalm 14). But if these are the best reasons someone can come up with to reject Christianity, I'd say whoever compiled the list is desperate to justify a bad worldview. (Which we know is in fact the case—Romans 1:28-32).

This morning I'll give my thoughts about the first two of the atheists' allegations, with this caveat: I want to come back to #1 at the end of this series, because I think it's foundational to the not-so-subtle argument our atheist friends are making. This morning I'll reply to it in abbreviated fashion, then when it's time to wrap the series up, we'll revisit it.

And by the way—one of my goals here is to keep all my answers as brief as possible. There's no need for me to write a long essay in response to a trifling point:

You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your God.

Well, yes (except for the histrionic assertion that I "feel outraged" when I see people trying to do what Romans 1:21-32 says we all try to do).

This is, after all, one of the fundamental truth-claims of Scripture: "For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): 'I am the LORD, and there is no other'" (Isaiah 45:18; cf. vv. 5, 22; 46:9; Joel 2:27).

Belief in the God who made that decree has been the foundation of both Judaism and Christianity for millennia. It's not as if some acne-faced postmodern twenty-first-century apologist invented the God of Scripture out of thin air as a rhetorical device—like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the allegation seems to want to dismiss the God of Scripture as if He were no more important to human history, human belief, and human understanding than Tinkerbell. You'd have to be hopelessly jejune or intellectually dishonest to think an argument like that carries any weight.

And surely you need to come up with a better first argument than "You always think you're right and everyone else is wrong." When I was 7 and my sister used that argument, I knew she had run out of real, substantial arguments.

Indeed, the atheists' List o' Ten instantly gets even weaker:

You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

The accusation utterly miscontrues creationist concerns. (Furthermore, it implicitly seems to want to deny basic scientific facts that are not even in dispute.)

What's most troubling about the evolutionary hypothesis is not the claim that humans descended from other primates but the assertion that homo sapiens is even now nothing but an advanced ape—morally and spiritually equivalent to an animal.

The scientifically demonstrable (!) biblical truth that we "are dust, and to dust [we] shall return" (Genesis 3:19) has nothing to do with the dignity of man. On the contrary, it illustrates how ignoble we truly are. Our fallenness (and the fact that we all are prone to do evil) further underscores how vile we have become as a species. Biblical Christians don't chafe at or ignore that truth; we emphatically affirm it.

The "dignity" of the human race, however, is bound up in the fact that we bear God's image. And that is just what materialistic evolution denies. Contrary to atheistic claims (but supported by a century and a half of the political fruits of Darwinism) the materialists' denial that humanity bears God's image removes society's moral foundation and breeds all kinds of evil. That's more "dehumanizing" than all the other stupid atheist ideas combined.

---

"Unquestioning Christians" and Atheistic Bluster

by Phil Johnson



   don't encourage anyone to hang around the infidel sectors of the Internet or interact on a large scale with the many missionaries of skepticism who inhabit those districts. They love to vent their hatred of God along with copious amounts of profanity, smutty language, lewd innuendo, blind rage, and pathologically pugnacious attitudes wherever they can find an unmoderated forum. Face it: a sewage-flow like that is not a healthy thing to expose oneself to.

That's not to suggest I think Christians should be unaware of or unprepared to meet atheists' pet arguments against Christianity. In fact, it is every believer's duty not only to sanctify the Lord Jesus (i.e., honor Him as holy) in your heart; but also to be "prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15). (The how is crucial, too: "do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame"—vv. 15-16).

Well, the atheists of cyberspace have had this little meme going for months called "Signs That You Are An Unquestioning Christian." Actually, the 10-list has been around for at least five years, but someone made it into a really badly-formatted motivational-style poster and the jpeg has recently been cropping up all over the place. Here's the bad graphic, followed by the list in a more readable format:

Ten Signs You Are an Unquestioning Christian You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your God. You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God. Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and animals. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by prehistoric tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs - though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend eternity in an infinite hell of suffering. Yet, you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving." While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity. You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Now, let's be clear: no sound Christian suggests that blind, "unquestioning" credulity is a good thing. A puerile kind of fideism—faith in faith itself—often masquerades as Christianity, but it's not. There are a lot of false Christians out there, and some shallow self-styled "evangelicals" who absolutely fit the descriptions of nos. 8 and 10. Shame on them. But for the record, those aren't characteristics of true, historic Christianity.

Apparently, this list is also supposed to represent some of atheism's most iron-clad nuclear arguments against Christianity per se. (At least that's the way the atheistic consensus on the Web seems to regard the meme.) I find it totally unimpressive as an apologetic for atheism, but I do occasionally hear from Christians who have been confronted with one or more of these arguments (or others like them) who want help giving an answer.

So that's what I propose to do here at TeamPyro over the next couple of weeks. We'll take these ten arguments two or three at a time and examine them. What are the claims and presuppositions these ten arguments make? Are they really accurate? Is there a biblical answer to each of these challenges, and is it a reasonable answer?

If you are stumped by any of these ten arguments, you certainly don't need to be. Let's talk about them together. We'll start today with a preliminary question: Which of the ten arguments (if any) troubles you the most?

Bonus: Be sure to see this comment from the February 2005 post linked above, where the agnostic woman who made the post emphatically proclaims her own superior open-mindedness, then immediately declares the conversation over with this curt dictum: "I don't want to talk about this anymore. We will never agree, and I have better things to do."

---

The Existence of God (NEXT! #2)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: I don't see God.

Response: [hold hands over eyes] I don't see you.

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---