A casuistry in equivocation and imprecision

The atheists are acclaiming a new book in their armament. Peter Boghossian, a philosopher from Portland State University, has written A Manual for Creating Atheists.

Disclaimer: I have only read the foreword and first 2 chapters of the book.

From the description of the book,

A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value critical thinking, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace rationality and reason.

While I support a more rational approach to theology and encourage Christians to think more deeply, the early parts of this book do not aid this endeavour and I suspect the subsequent chapters will fail also.

I will refrain from commenting in detail on Michael Shermer's foreword here save to note that his understanding of Christianity (despite his previous claim to salvation) is somewhat shallow. The first chapter "Street Epistemology" is a encouragement to fellow atheists to evangelise the world for unbelief and offers hope for a utopia free of religious constraints and political correctness—ironic given Boghossian's use of "she" for the generic person; as well as his promotion of fornication, gay "marriage", abortion, euthanasia, and opposition to (school) corporal punishment, all the trendy ideologies brought to us by the same men who gave us political correctness.

More concerning is the chapter on faith. Faith is a somewhat difficult term in that it does have more than one meaning. But for all his discussion on faith he fails to mention the common meaning attributed to the word by both the Bible and Christian theologians. The closest he gets is the quote from Hebrews which he dismisses as a "deepity"—a pithy phrase that has the appearance of profundity but is in fact meaningless on any level except the surface level. Well, let's take the surface level.

• Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb 11:1 KJV)
• Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. (NIV)
• Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (ESV) 

Faith is defined here as a confidence or assurance in that which we hope will be the case. Not a hope that is a wish, but a hope that is looked forward to. Not the hope that my stock will rise tomorrow, but the hope an engaged woman has for her approaching wedding day. It is the assurance or conviction of things unseen, or yet to be seen; the certainty of what we know is the case but is not visible, or not yet formed.

The reason men are approved for their faith relates to whom the faith is in, not the mere presence of faith, an attribute that is hardly limited to pious. We can also understand what Christian faith means by the fact that the Bible translates the same word variably as "faith", "belief" and "trust".

Conversely, Boghossian invents meanings for this word. Meanings that "faith" has never had in it long existence are now attached to it. Apparently no human has ever known what he meant by the word "faith", but now we can know thanks to Boghossian's belated discovery of the meanings. Of course this makes dialogue so much easier as the atheist does not need to understand the person they are taking with, the atheist can instead ascribe the new meanings to the word and inform his opponent of what he really means.

The meanings? Faith can either mean

1. belief without evidence; or
2. pretending to know things you don't know.

The first is almost the opposite of what faith does mean. The very issue with faith is that there is evidence. Perhaps not evidence of the actual event (which may still yet be future), but evidence of the faithfulness of the person teaching us or making us promises. The child who has faith that his father will buy him a bar of chocolate on the way home from soccer (as he said he would) may not have the evidence of the chocolate bar in his hand but he does have the evidence of chocolate bars after every previous game and probably a thousand other promises besides.

The second definition is just hubris. Perhaps I may be making claims about things I don't know, perhaps not, but how do you know that I don't know? Where did Boghossian gain the knowledge that when he disagrees with the theist that the theist is not only incorrect, the theist cannot possibly know what he claims to know?

We are shown several examples of definition 2 where the atheist can apply the author's rhetoric: "My faith is beneficial to me" can now be understood by the atheist to mean "pretending to know things I can't know is beneficial to me". But the list of examples has at least 2 broad categories of "faith" here. "Faith" is analogous to "trust" or "belief" in several examples but it is also used as a metonymy for "religion". If a word has a definition this does not apply when it is used as a metonymy. That we can use "crown" for "government" does not mean that the definition of "government" is "a jewelled headpiece". For a philosopher this is incredibly imprecise!

Next we are informed that

Faith and hope are not synonyms. Sentences with these words also do not share the same linguistic structure and are semantically different—for example, one can say, "I hope it's so," and not "I faith it's so."

I agree "faith" and "hope" are not synonymous, though they are related. But the rest is just nonsense. "Faith" is a noun in English not a verb. "Hope" is both a noun and verb. Boghossian forms a sentence using "hope" in its verb form then shows that you can't replace a verb with a noun without modifying it. Well no you can't. But convert "faith" to a verb-form and it makes sense. How about

I have faith it's so.

or

I trust it's so.

These are perfectly fine. Or use "hope" as a noun and change it to faith. Compare

I have hope that you will return.

with

I have faith that you will return.

Further, these examples show that "hope" and "faith" are related concepts.

There are a couple of other problems in this chapter. Atheism is defined as not having enough evidence to believe in God but be willing to change one's mind if evidence is presented.

[The atheist] simply thinks the existence of God highly unlikely. A difference between an atheist and a person of faith is that an atheist is willing to revise their belief (if provided sufficient evidence); the faithful permit no such revision.

The example of the author of his foreword notwithstanding, why would one stop believing in someone he has met? Does (perceived) lack of evidence really compete with actual evidence. The atheist merely needs evidence that God exists, but the theist needs strong evidence that overrides what he already knows.

Is not this atheism just agnosticism? But the author does not like the term "agnostic", further he considers it superfluous. Yet what to call the person who really does not know? And despite the so-called willingness to change one's mind, do not most atheists assert that there is no God?

Boghossian has some relevant things to say about objective and subjective belief. He rightly notes that religion makes objective claims (which he views as false). He then tries to show how wrong belief, or rather belief based on faith and not reason which he implies will invariably be incorrect, leads to bad consequences. How does he do this? Appeal to the fruit of Islam as seen in Afghanistan and several other states that follow Sharia law. Why Islam? Presumably because he could not do this with Christendom which has led to most of the markers of prosperity that he names: exports, imports, literacy, economic aid, public health, life-expectancy, infant-mortality, household income, GDP. (He also quotes the Happy Planet Index, I had to look that one up). And thanks to the 20th century we have an atheist comparison. The atheist governments killed millions of their own people, fared poorly on Boghossian's markers of prosperity, and were failed states, or escaped demise by abandoning their economic policies.

I realise that it may seem unfair to review a book that remains partially unread. There is some merit in this complaint. Unfortunately I am not particularly willing to commit my money and time given the significant faults in the opening chapters.

Book review: Caring for Creation

A book review by bethyada on Caring for Creation written by Dick Tripp.

I was given a copy of Caring for Creation by Avery Bartlett Books for review. Caring for Creation is book #23 in Dick Tripp's series Exploring Faith Today. I have not read any other books in the series; the titles cover a range of issues on Christian theology and Christian living. Tripp, now retired, worked in the Anglican clergy. Judging by various comments in the text and his appeal for conversion in the conclusion, it appears that his beliefs are reasonably orthodox and he has a strong desire for men to come to follow Christ. He runs the website Exploring Christianity which I have not reviewed.

Caring for Creation is Tripp's adjuration for Christians to both pay attention to environmental issues and address them. The book is roughly divided into 3 sections; he starts with giving an overview of the recent environmental movement and Christian involvement over the centuries; followed by the main section—an overview on how he sees the Bible addressing environmental issues throughout its pages; and then an appeal to the church to act. There is an extensive Scripture index.

Some minor niggles: The style could be improved upon. Topical flow was hesitant at times. An extensive number of quotes were included. There were a substantial number of assertions. The footnoting was inadequate (quote references included inline, and an appended reading list); several statements would have benefited from reference and this lack makes it difficult to critique. Nevertheless, these are relatively minor issues and it was a reasonably readable book. This is not my complaint.

What is commendable? Tripp rightly identifies that environmental issues are addressed by Scripture. The Christian worldview touches all of life: living, dying, art, politics, science, law, etc. Most issues are moral issues, thus it is important to know what the Lawgiver allows and proscribes. Our current concerns may seem modern but antiquarian biblical revelation is contemporary revelation. Quoting Bradley in the introduction,

Greening Christianity does not involve grafting it onto some alien philosophy but simply restoring its original character.

But, as they say, the devil is in the details.

Several current crises are noted in the opening chapter, all of which could demand a book in themselves. Tripp identifies: Climate change; Ozone loss; Waste; Water; Overfishing; Forests; Hunger and poverty; Animal and plant extinctions; Air pollution; Acid rain; Topsoil erosion; and Desertification. I concur with several of these, though it seems that some are not real issues, some are potential issues but may not be crises, and some do not seem to be primarily environmental. They are important because the rest of the books assumes them. But people who have sympathies for a pleasant earth are on both sides of these questions; to assume predominantly Politically Green conclusions as are commonly encountered is to beg the question.

What does he get right? He made several points that I think are correct. The vastness of the universe testifies to the majesty of God (p.74), we need to trust God daily (p.30), and it is God who ultimately provides for man and animals (p.76). The Christian doctrine of the Fall is the most reasonable explanation for our situation (p.87). Our actions cannot help but affect others (p.26), and local community action is often better than central governmental action (p.29). Activities may have unintended consequences, such as transferring a species to a new environment (p.24) (though this action may also be beneficial). People can exaggerate the suffering of creation (p.62). And in modern society, scientists have taken the place of priests and this (presumably philosophical materialism) has made us consumerists (p.32).

Unfortunately I think Tripp concedes too much to the environmental movement. Further, and of more concern, is much of his biblical reasoning for environmentalism.

Economic prosperity is frequently maligned as being ecologically damaging, yet often times it is not; it may be far less damaging to the environment, especially when comparative amounts of food is considered. Modern clean burning fuels produce far less soot and limit the requirement of wood for fuel.

Complaint is made about removing or damaging the resource base of the poor with regards to water, energy, food, and medicines (p.27); meaning streams, wood, gardens and plants. But how much better would the same poor be if these were replaced with clean water, cheap fuel, cheap food and effective medicines. Why is a farmer making small dams and ponds to ensure water for his crops deemed good, but a city building a large dam to ensure constant water supply for the residents bad? Sure, a government could be unfair in its distribution, but a subsistence upstream farmer could do the same by diverting water, using excess water, or polluting downstream water.

DDT is disparaged (p.35) yet the banning of this chemical must have been one of the worst decisions in the history of the modern environmental movement. It is by no means clear that DDT causes cancer or genetic damage. It may be considerably safer and cheaper than some alternatives. It is plausible that the banning of DDT has negatively impacted the fight against malaria and that the death rate is now higher than had we continued to use it. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas frequently have bad consequences.

Water and pesticides are only two examples of several, but these are important to get right as more than half of childhood deaths in the developing world are caused by infectious diseases; the biggest three being pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria.

The larger concern is the questionable exegesis of Scripture in places. A couple of examples will suffice, though I had several concerns. On the prohibition of the tree of knowledge of good and evil Tripp writes (p.31),

When God set up humans in the Garden of Eden, though providing them with abundance, he did set limits on their use of available resources (Genesis 2:16,17).

I had not previously seen this interpretation ever proposed, though have encountered it since. That man should limit what he takes from the earth—regardless of the veracity of this proposal—just does not exist in this verse. The tree was a test of loyalty and faithfulness, it was the sole limitation for the man and woman, and it was not off bounds because of limited resources. Such an interpretation comes from prior opinions concerning appropriate use of the earth's resources. It may not be original with Tripp, but it is transparent eisegesis.

Later Tripp comments that the word “world” in John 3:16 is the Greek “kosmos” and that this means universe, not just the world of people (oikoumene). But this reasoning ultimately works against him as John also uses “kosmos” in 1 John 2:15,

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Context is important. Clearly the latter verse alludes to coveting and living for temporal things. This does not mean that Jesus only loves the people, but the scope of “kosmos” in John 3:16 needs to be expanded and defended. “World” has a semantic range. What is the semantic range of “kosmos,” and does “world” or “universe” better convey this? Tripp has several other word studies that may suffer from the same contextual problems, such as his suggestion that “work the earth” in Genesis 2:5 means “serve the earth” (p.81).

Contrasting Christianity with other worldviews on caring for creation, Tripp concludes with these words,

Christians have reasons that are more profound and satisfying as they are based on the truth of the God who really exists, humans as they are intended to be, and the world as it really is (p.144).

Which is very true. Which makes it deeply ironic that much of what Tripp presents in the book as the problems and solutions of current environmental issues are not that different from popular environmentalism; and the latter frequently subscribes to these false worldviews. True, Tripp's foundations differ profoundly, but one would therefore expect that the issues identified and solutions offered would frequently be divergent. Interestingly he quotes a study showing congregations that have the greatest commitment to biblical authority and inerrancy were the least concerned about ecology (p.43). It is difficult to know what “concern” means here, or what the issues were; but it is well worth contemplating that people with high regard for the Bible lack concern for the things that fill green secularists and pagans with fear .

Tripp is correct to identify Scripture as the foundation for Christian Ecology. I disagree with some of his text choices and several interpretations he offers. Despite Tripp's admirable concern for the lost, I cannot recommend Caring for Creation for people wishing to gain a better understanding of these issues.

Electronic book software

I downloaded the Kindle Reading App for my computer and phone. I may read a few books on it. But I was interested in what is available for reading books in other formats. It seems that epub is the default and open standard for publishing electronic books.

Here is a nice review of various electronic readers.

I have installed Calibre which, amongst other features, allows you to convert a pdf to epub. It is not really designed as a reader but does fine. I have also installed the EPUBReader plugin for Firefox, but have yet to try it.

Vanquishing Atheism's Vanguard

I reviewed Vox Day's book The Irrational Atheist for Tekton Apologetics Ministries and the review has recently been uploaded. The Tekton rating system is a 1–3 thumbs down for negative reviews and 1–3 thumbs up for positive reviews (with no neutral option). I gave the book 2+ (ie. a 4 on a 0–5 scale)

The review is at Tektonics and I have reproduced it below.

---

Vanquishing Atheism's Vanguard

A Review of Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist

by Joel Bethyada

I had high expectations for this book. This concerned me somewhat as it increased the chances of being disappointed on reading it. Suffice it to say that it met my prior elevated expectations.

Vox is witty. He is both very clever and very funny. When you are laughing just reading the contents page you know it is going to be a good book.

What is useful in this foray into the New Atheist territory is that Vox lets them choose the battlefield and the weapons. And while Vox has no hesitancy in demolishing the arguments with his opponents' swords, he frequently just sharpens them before handing them back leaving the New Atheists to eviscerate themselves!

The first few chapters cover the ground rules. Subsequent chapters are devoted to various popular atheists exposing their foolishness or duplicity. Despite the subtitle (Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens), Vox also has chapters on Dennett and Onfray. That they are not referred to in the title is due to Vox's admiration of the former's honesty, despite his mistaken conclusions; and the consistency of the latter's position, albeit a horrifying one.

He then discusses objections to Christianity that have been raised by several of New Atheism's statesmen or are commonly used by contemporary atheists. Vox suggests that Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist, but likely pagan; briefly dismissing the genetic fallacy that Hitler was raised Christian by noting that so were Dawkins and Hitchens. The Inquisition is dismissed mentioning themes that have previously been raised by other apologists, and also making the astute observation the the precipitating cause had a higher body count than all the inquisitors over several centuries combined. He then covers the Crusades. And finally human sacrifice in religion suggesting that often times political subjection was a primary motivation over piety. I am less certain the ancients made as great a distinction from the spiritual as modern day secularism.

Following along the lines of the Christians-behaving-badly arguments, the tables are turned and the New Atheists are forced to answer for unprecedented mass murder of the more powerful atheists (and only atheists!) of the 20th century.

As a theological addendum, Vox takes on theodicy and determinism using analogy with computer games. The analogy is quite a useful one but because of some theological errors, minor equivocation and pushing the analogy further than it is capable of, this section, while interesting reading, is less compelling than the atheist trouncing.

The style is slightly difficult at times (but made up for in the humour); the arguments are reasonable to follow but some sentences take slow focused concentration or re-reading. Vox makes frequent reference to his vast knowledge of topics and persons and reading the electronic version may be preferable to allow quick searches on esoteric comments. (The electronic version is available free online).

The book's strengths include a offence approach—though perhaps a little aggressive, if one is going to take someone to task about minor mathematical errors he best be sure to make none himself—and arguing within the atheist paradigm. Weaknesses include allowing his opponents to label scientific that which is certainly not empirical evidence and better labelled historical, and the discussion of complexity where Vox fails to identify the real flaw in Dawkins' argument and his fractal designer rebuttal is incorrect.

Will this book affect persons on either side of the debate? I hope so. Certainly the more noble of the atheist crowd will ponder its conclusions and it may perhaps draw them away from the dogmatic assertion that "God is not." It will certainly encourage Christians who have thought the New Atheist arguments held water to realise they are hot air—if they can overlook any theological disagreements they have with the author. And for those who were already convinced of the New Atheist stupidity it certainly adds more ammunition to their armoury.