tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post1236357249536171241..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Redneck Atheism: is Christianity really polytheism?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54162352378185541872010-03-05T05:44:03.149-08:002010-03-05T05:44:03.149-08:00To his credit, and I'm not one to go out of my...To his credit, and I'm not one to go out of my way to defend him, Hitchens' example of "sorcery and cheap magic" is the account of Jesus allowing the demons to enter the herd of pigs (this seems to be a favorite of atheists). But I don't doubt that he'd say the same thing or worse about other miracles like the resurrection.jigawatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08143042238172973060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35657276406487845452010-03-05T05:42:23.481-08:002010-03-05T05:42:23.481-08:00Aimee:
Thanks for asking. Here's the right an...Aimee:<br /><br />Thanks for asking. <a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/03/whither-redneck-atheism.html" rel="nofollow">Here's the right answer</a>.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-73985724620925785762010-03-04T13:53:36.906-08:002010-03-04T13:53:36.906-08:00(...cont)
I mean... resurrection, Hitchens? Com...(...cont)<br /><br />I mean... resurrection, Hitchens? Coming back from the dead? Seriously? That's cheap magic?CGrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257084521984285384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65313592404555289652010-03-04T13:51:22.804-08:002010-03-04T13:51:22.804-08:00Frank said: "I think what's funny about H...Frank said: <i>"I think what's funny about Hitches' complaint there is that if it was his lame foot that Jesus healed, he'd probably not call it a parlor trick, or even cheap."</i><br /><br />Indeed, I've heard the point made elsewhere that there's a <i>good reason</i> Jesus didn't come and instantly prove his divinity by summoning black holes, gigantic unicorns, or Michael-Bay-style-explosions. They wanted to see fireworks, Jesus showed sacrifice. They wanted to see power, Jesus showed humility. They wanted another Mount Carmel, Jesus gave the Mount of Olives instead.<br /><br />Jesus' response in Matt 16 could practically be speaking directly to Hitchens:<br /><br /><b>And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them, “When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.”</b>CGrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03257084521984285384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33784163020829772052010-03-04T12:49:22.787-08:002010-03-04T12:49:22.787-08:00Thanks very much for this series. I'm a high s...Thanks very much for this series. I'm a high school student very interested in apologetics, and the two posts so far have helped to answer a lot of questions for me. I love this blog, and last night discovered your "PoMotivators". Great fun. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Thanks again for your wonderful post!Aimeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17721484561046855407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77710052423459910142010-03-04T11:13:38.408-08:002010-03-04T11:13:38.408-08:00One thing that I have been learning in my PhD prog...One thing that I have been learning in my PhD program in Science Education (writing disseration even now) is that "Science is not a fixed body of knowledge!" Do not be too taken by any expert speaking arogantly as "Physics = A-B-C...Z"<br /><br />Atomic theory, which started with the Greek Democritus, has been continually revised by Christians and not so ever since. Even Quantum Physics is under constant revision...shall I say "Quarks?"<br /><br />A parallel is philosophy, which started with other Greeks, and has been continually revised by Christians and not so ever since...Shall I say "Post-Modernism?"<br /><br />General Revelation (or "natural theology" or "natural philosophy as the pre-Darwinians referred to it) has always had a lurking philosophical trap for "naturalism." If one unwisely excludes Special Revelation (see Psalm 14:1; 53:1)they will never get to the history of sin and the solution in redemption provided in Christ!<br /><br />BTW: The term "science" was coined by the Pro-Darwinists (e.g., Herbert Spencer, etc.)to avoid the obvious connotations of the older terms of "natural theology" or "natural philosophy."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17265848949115425412010-03-04T06:01:21.236-08:002010-03-04T06:01:21.236-08:00Brett,
I disagree. Relationship between God and hi...Brett,<br />I disagree. Relationship between God and his people was indeed important to the NT writers, but this relationship is derived explicitly from the relationship between the persons of the Trinity (Christ spoke of his relationship to the Father for example: "My Father", "Your Father", "Our Father") and expressed in our relationship with each other (Eph 5). More importantly, the very gospel is based on the deity of Christ as a person distinct from the Father. This is clear throughout the NT. Christ spoke explicitly of the Holy Spirit and Paul especially elaborated on how the Holy Spirit guides us. So while the term "Trinity" doesn't show up, the idea is inextricable from the core teachings of the NT writers. It's like saying that the book of Esther has nothing to do with God because God is never mentioned.<br /><br />However, you are right that atheists worship other gods, including and especially themselves. That's one reason why I say I don't believe in atheists. I don't think they exist. Not to mention the irony of placing them in the same position of doubt that they place the true God. But it's instructive to know what atheists really do worship because too often we as believers fall into the same sin of idolatry making us practical atheists professing God with our mouths but worshiping other gods. And it's a difficult sin to mortify.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80316748989448005252010-03-04T03:09:13.214-08:002010-03-04T03:09:13.214-08:00It's not what you know but who you know! The G...It's not what you know but who you know! The Gospel invites everyone into God's company (Kingdom). The New Testament writers were not concerned with an idea called the Trinity. Father and Son and even later Holy Spirit the Jewish Christian writers believed in one God not three. It's all about relationship not abstract thinking about God's nature. It is about being right with God and feeling clean without sin(shame)before God. The problem with many Atheists is not that they don't believe in God but they become Gods in their own right. Starlin one of histories greatest Atheists denied any God but made images of himself, had giant portraits made of himself and demand the praise of his people.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07120344494722530244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23061720216579614502010-03-03T23:25:09.869-08:002010-03-03T23:25:09.869-08:00Frank: Physics is something that, frankly, is sort...Frank: <b><i>Physics is something that, frankly, is sort of the king of sciences (in my humble and ignorant opinion).</i></b><br /><br />Very true, actually. <br /><br />Frank's post made me think of something. If I go to most people and ask them to give a defense of some of things Kane mentions, they'll say, <i>well, ahem, uh, I'm not a physicst and I really don't know much, uh, physics</i> (not physic or psychic - inside joke), <i>I really couldn't really speak to this matter.</i><br /><br />And then you'll get these people who speak about the things of God who haven't really opened the Bible much and speak like experts. Interesting, they won't speak about physics, differential equations, complex analysis (negative square root stuff), but they are experts in the things of God.<br /><br />Another interesting thing: do we know why atheists work so hard proving something they don't believe exists? I mean I don't lose sleep in proving there are no green men on Mars? Oh, yeah, okay Romans 1:32.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22023067970513832382010-03-03T21:47:22.496-08:002010-03-03T21:47:22.496-08:00This was great.
I'd say it made me really reg...This was great.<br /><br />I'd say it made me really regret zoning out in physics class in high school,<br /><br />but why do I have the funny feeling that might make you mad that I missed the theological forest for the physic-al trees? :)Rachael Starkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781158372237369417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66576446475037195102010-03-03T21:27:41.099-08:002010-03-03T21:27:41.099-08:00I absolutely love this from the article: "But...I absolutely love this from the article: "But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the <b>Lamb shift</b> was born...."Rick Potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12525495561013100331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-24341062878164062042010-03-03T18:47:32.010-08:002010-03-03T18:47:32.010-08:00I think my comment got left off of Phil's orig...I think my comment got left off of Phil's original post, but this hits the issue that I would be most concerned with from his list.<br /><br />Were I asked about the Trinity by an atheist or agnostic friend, would I be right to say that the Trinity is something that must be accepted on the basis of special revelation? The concept of three yet one is logically hard to grasp, even with the common "one essence, three persons" explanation.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17434009409857416132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91287990810471292442010-03-03T17:28:56.431-08:002010-03-03T17:28:56.431-08:00I think what's funny about Hitches' compla...I think what's funny about Hitches' complaint there is that if it was his lame foot that Jesus healed, he'd probably not call it a parlor trick, or even cheap.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68067450293256111092010-03-03T16:48:22.536-08:002010-03-03T16:48:22.536-08:00In the documentary "Collision", featurin...In the documentary "Collision", featuring atheist Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Doug Wilson (Full Disclosure: Pastor Wilson says a wordy-dirty at the end), Hitchens talks about black holes as things that are awe-inspiring and beautiful, over against the miracles of the Bible, which he describes as sorcery and cheap magic. Wilson's response is classic. He says he's astonished when atheistic physicists describe things like black holes and quantum mechanics as awe-inspiring, and then turn around and reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it doesn't make sense. "Does it make sense to you that you could see the past and the future at the same time, provided you were headed toward a big black hole of nothing?"jigawatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08143042238172973060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-63688557777569125302010-03-03T14:39:27.466-08:002010-03-03T14:39:27.466-08:00Perfect.Perfect.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-17721487816955000952010-03-03T14:12:09.266-08:002010-03-03T14:12:09.266-08:00Got it. Thanks so much for defining terms.
Would...Got it. Thanks so much for defining terms.<br /><br />Would it then be fair to say that in addition to refuting redneck atheism, you're more importantly refuting a form of "redneck christianity"?Larre Sloanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02850933532103657605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19508505341124348912010-03-03T13:55:22.670-08:002010-03-03T13:55:22.670-08:00Larre --
That's a great question.
Here's...Larre --<br /><br />That's a great question.<br /><br />Here's one way to think about the answer:<br /><br />It seems to me that, in the first place, the categories you mention or of two different kinds. The category "atheist" is a category that a person self-selects into -- it's what one wants to be. Most atheists are people who don't wnat to believe in God, and they have erected a fairly-ornate fortress around that for themselves to see to it that this is who they are.<br /><br />The other category -- the "unquestioning christians" -- are really a conflation of two groups. The first is the group of Christians who really are unthinking and unquestioning. I'm not going to name names here because that will undoubtedly derail this discussion, but there's no question that there are christian sects which suppress the image of God in people to the place that people rebel; they lay on the law so thick that people are simply taught to hate God for being just but unloving. Those sects cause some people to want out -- and becuase those sects have an a-systematic view of the faith, stuff like the Trinity and the Cross and the Incarnation simply make no sense, and they are just an excuse to leave what seems like a cult intent on making people into robots.<br /><br />The other group is the Christian in the imagination of atheists. It's the Christianity which is somehow always oppressing the world through slavery and torture. There are certainly bad people in the Christian household, but what the atheist cannot and will not concede is that they are the small minority -- and they use the false stereotype of Christianity to bolster their own biases against the Gospel.<br /><br />So I think it's worth thinking about these things and these categories -- if for no other reason than these are categories the atheist will use.<br /><br />Make sense?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91263245362163479372010-03-03T13:10:56.351-08:002010-03-03T13:10:56.351-08:00Frank:
I truly appreciate the thought and effort ...Frank:<br /><br />I truly appreciate the thought and effort that you and Phil are putting into this. I have learned a lot and look forward to learning more in future posts.<br /><br />However, it seems that the thought and effort betray the premise. The ten signs being addressed are directed to "unquestioning christians." From what I've learned here, it's my understanding that atheists or unquestioning christians simply don't exist as valid Biblical categories.<br /><br />If so, isn't the real answer to these "signs" simply that , "There's no such thing as an unquestioning christian."?Larre Sloanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02850933532103657605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35257738059840456282010-03-03T13:02:26.347-08:002010-03-03T13:02:26.347-08:00This is why most of the theologians in the science...This is why most of the theologians in the science building are found in the physics department.<br /><br />Actually, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle isn't a cop-out. The fact is that we use small particles to measure things. There's just a problem with measuring the small particles themselves - what do you measure them with? You have to capture one to measure it, but the act of capturing it causes it to lose the kind of information you were trying to gain about it.<br /><br />In any case, while we know that matter and energy are at some point interchangeable and can actually cause some matter to become energy, we don't have a firm grasp on the principle by which this happens any more than we understand precisely how gravity works. So we didn't replace Newtonian physics with relativity - we simply refined Newtonian physics with relativity. As such, physics continues to be refined. And we can be amazed by the fact that there seems to be no end to the intricacies, even to concluding that matter is merely a function of form and the most fundamental reality.<br /><br />On the other hand, if we can accept the fact that time does not pass uniformly based on the relative movement of matter, then we should be able to understand how this makes quantum physics behave quite strangely to the point where we should expect the important distinction between the trinity and polytheism to be a trifling thing to understand.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28617681118708321372010-03-03T12:24:50.862-08:002010-03-03T12:24:50.862-08:00excellentexcellentlawrencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269079315500219992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49170636921504294712010-03-03T12:14:38.888-08:002010-03-03T12:14:38.888-08:00Whew, I didn't think I was going to be able to...Whew, I didn't think I was going to be able to stick with you through all of the physics and quantum whatchamacallits, but glad I hung in there. I've fallen in love with the Trinity anew and afresh in recent days and you have added a little fuel to my fire. I'm one of these guys who knows just enough about philosophy to be dangerous, but I was dabbling in that whole "one and many" problem the other day and was delighted again to see how the Trinity resolves this and is the basis for so much of our lives. <br />BTW - I have always prided myself (in a humble Christian way of being proud) on having the biggest Swiss Army knife of anyone I know, but you've got me beat with the one in the pic - where can I get me one of those?David Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09648513894596145179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53112537461571028222010-03-03T11:21:08.561-08:002010-03-03T11:21:08.561-08:00Frank
I certainly didn't take Merlin's com...Frank<br />I certainly didn't take Merlin's comments to be a dismissal of science. Rather, I view them as a balanced view of the limitations of science, stated in the context of a world that increasingly views science as not just "useful," but all-knowing.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46659333979771890412010-03-03T11:15:32.599-08:002010-03-03T11:15:32.599-08:00Thank you, Frank! I'm going to have to read yo...Thank you, Frank! I'm going to have to read your article again (and again), because I didn't do that well in my high school physics class. Your analogy is very helpful, however.<br /><br />"You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Trinity God."<br /><br />How unsophisticated of the atheist to see the Trinity as something as simplistic and crude as polytheism. Polytheism is easy. Just make up a god of water, god of fire, god of plants, god of animals...doesn't take much brainpower.<br /><br />But try explaining the Trinity! One God in essence, but 3 persons. Not 3 manifestations of the same God (like the modalists believe), not 3 separate gods (like the polytheists believe), but one God in 3 persons. 1 but 3, 3 but 1.<br /><br />If I think about it too long, my head will explode! Just more proof Christianity isn't made up. If we made it up, we could easily explain it.Janicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00068730909608389307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-86453354483932060602010-03-03T11:03:16.392-08:002010-03-03T11:03:16.392-08:00Just to keep things likely, I'd be careful say...Just to keep things likely, I'd be careful saying what Merlin has said here for two reasons. The first one is that the Heavens declare the glory of God -- even if we're talking about the subatomic heavens. That science is describing something fantastic and amazing which we have to observe in order to understand should not cause us to be scientific agnostics. We're blogging on the internet for pete's sake -- the Bible didn't reveal how to make the bandwidth, did it? Science is ueful, helpful, meaningful work.<br /><br />It's simply not the the same kind of work <i>special revelation</i> gives us.<br /><br />And this leads to the second point: as the JW's say, the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. This fact has been always at the feet and on the minds of the fathers who, before us, labored hard to discern the false teachings about God, Father-Son-Spirit, and the true teachings which the Scripture demands from us. In that, when the concept "Trinity" is used, we have to be especially careful not to say more than Scripture says about the subject, and not doubt one iota of what it actually teaches us.<br /><br />So as we pooh-pooh the Physicist for his evolving theories and equations, let's remember that it took 300 years for the church to define with a small-set definition what the Bible has always taught -- and that changing <i>us</i> to match what is actually <i>revealed</i> -- whether by Scripture or in creation (which, when rightly understood, will not cotradict each other) -- is the right-minded humility of orthodoxy.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43072806744127615722010-03-03T09:59:00.591-08:002010-03-03T09:59:00.591-08:00That is a really good point Merlin. The heisenberg...That is a really good point Merlin. The heisenberg uncertainty principle has always struck me as a huge cop-out, although I never articulated it as consciously as you did. I have many of the same feelings about when science names a phenomenon they can't explain, just to make it seem like they understand it (although I recognize there is nothing wrong per se with naming a phenomenon of unknown origin). I think about hawking's p-branes and while I "understand" what he is saying with those, they are only constructs or props used to explain a phenomenon, they are not the phenomenon itself. <br /><br />There is a lot we don't understand. My view is that as a Christian, I'm mature enough to realize that I don't understand the universe. Many atheists, I believe, are afraid to admit that they can't explain the universe, and retreat behind quasi-theories to make it seem to themselves and to others as though they do.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.com