COMMENTS (PART II):

Well, I probably shouldn’t get into much of a detailed discussion on the rest of the interactions. I do want to say, Chuck, that I’m very sorry about your own personal crisis; I’ve known others who have had the same experience. I myself don’t hold to a Calvinistic perspective for a number of philosophical and exegetical reasons, but that’s a topic for another time.

Despite John’s and Chuck’s arguments against belief in God as out of touch with the evidence/reality, note the atheist Thomas Nagel’s acknowledgment in *The Last Word* (Oxford): in his desire for atheism to be true (gosh, just like John Loftus said!), he is troubled by the fact that “some of the most intelligent and well-informed people” he knows are “religious believers.” I must say, too, that in the very many debates I’ve seen Christian philosopher Bill Craig engage in with leading atheists and skeptics (and I’ve seen a lot), he consistently shows up the opposition! And then there’s the impressive *Natural Theology* (Blackwell) volume he and JP Moreland coedited, which has received significant praise from the atheist camp. I’m also reminded of Antony Flew and A.N. Wilson—outspoken atheists who reversed their positions to follow the evidence where it led them. And then there’s the apostle Paul, who once “preferred” his Judaism before something persuaded him to “prefer” Christ! I could go on, but I’ll leave it there.

Well, I must say that this discussion diverged quite a bit from some simple advice to a seminarian! Thanks again to you all for giving your input.

COMMENTS (PART I):

Now that the flurry of responses has died down, let me say thanks for your comments.

I’m grateful to Michael through Kathryn (Comments 1-9) for your encouraging words. I do hope the “seminarian letter” offers helpful perspective and guidance to others.

Then Chuck—see what you started?!—brought up “humility” and viewed it as a kind of escapism. This is, of course, far from biblical humility, and in various books like *Loving Wisdom* (Chalice Press) and *When God Goes to Starbucks* (Baker), I discuss humility as a proper appraisal of oneself in light of reality—not a failure to grasp reality. Indeed, I argue that God himself is humble in his intrinsic other-centeredness and in the Incarnation. Furthermore, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15, we ought not to believe what is out of touch with reality. If Christ hasn’t been raised, then we ought to abandon the Christian faith. This is hardly being out of touch with reality, nor is it some emotional insulation from harsh realities life dishes out (read the end of Hebrews 11!). And Jesus and his disciples were far from docile and passive, routinely challenging religious authorities and risking life and reputation since (in the case of the disciples) they could not “stop speaking about the things [they] had seen and heard.”

If John Loftus (hi, John!) is correct about people (according to sociological studies) that “we all defend that which we prefer to be true, all of us,” then all he’s doing is defending what *he* prefers to be true. Now, that’s not going to get him very far in debunking Susan’s (or anyone else’s) opposing position! Thus, if John’s view is true, it’s merely accidental and thus doesn’t qualify as knowledge.

Hodge,

Am I incoherent or defensive or, defensively incoherent?

Thanks for the explanation.

I however find it less than satisfying.

I still distrust what I perceive as disingenuous pretensions behind your philosophical explanation. I saw your choice as an attempt to defend your theology and you did it by distorting the conversation’s flow. It is a common thing passionate believers of any stripe do.

I agree that atheists and theists talk past each other but doubt there can really be true agreement.

Supernaturalists believe their inner emotional life is of primary importance when considering evidence towards truth claims while empiricists demand observable proof. I of course prefer the latter because it demands truth claims be held to a meritorious standard.

Additionally, I am not an atheist as I stated above. I am willing to admit “I don’t know” when it comes to the question of god. Are you?

Chuck,

The tree is an analogy. I didn’t say Susan actually said that. My point was that John’s counter to Susan did not address what he thought, as well as what I thought, was Susan’s assumptive claim. That was my point. If someone says A and you counter it with non-B, that has nothing to do with A. That’s all I was really trying to get at. It really had nothing to do with the truthfulness of Christianity. I would make that observation even if I was an atheist.

If I was defensive then I would have jumped on John’s first comment that was a brief reference to his testimony. I did not, however, feel that I needed to do so. But I did want to address what I thought was an imprecise use of argument. The problem with the discussion between atheists and Christians is that we are often talking past each other, caricaturing the other side, and refuting straw men. We need to counter with arguments that address what is said and assumed in the statements. That was why I said something. If I wanted to get on John’s case for anything and everything just to defend Christianity (as though it needed me to do so), then I would descend upon his blog with comment after comment. Instead, I just go there to read it.
If I may be so bold as to say, Chuck, I think that you may be the one who is defensive here, as you have read an awful lot into my intentions from a brief conversation.

Hodge,

Sorry you feel the way you do but, I consider your response further evidence of your arrogance and your defensiveness (I thought Christians were supposed to turn the other cheek by the way so, what matter is it if I think you are arrogant?)

What part of my story does not support my notion that the current practice of American Evangelical Christianity is not a control belief to assist people in facing randomness. You are correct it stopped working for me and maybe it will stop working for you too. I never said you were delusional.

I said this, “I don’t begrudge your need to feel safe but I do oppose your heuristic because it empowers dangerous obedience.”

Now, where was the tree in Susan’s question? Did you not change the question so you could advance your own theological argument? Did that argument have a decided conclusion prior to you advancing it or, were you concerned with understanding new input to help clarify your perspective? In short, do you have the universe figured out with its beginning and end based on a biblical exigesis or are you willing to admit more information would help clarify things.

You seem to be someone who would like to accumulate knowledge but, you also seem to be someone who thinks he has it all figured out.

Which is it Hodge?

I hold to what I wrote. I see nothing but defensive arrogance in your comments. Defensive meaning you look to defend what you think is the one true meaning of life and arrogance in believing that belief is true.

Thanks Susan.

I’m glad your marriage is working out.

I don’t care if I am one of the elect or not (no offense). Those ideas seem silly to me.

I love my wife and treat others with respect and look to find honesty to what I see as true.

I doubt I could operate as a Christian in our culture anyway. I am pro-gay marriage, pro-stem-cell research and pro-choice. All of these positions are held on what I consider moral grounds tied to ideas born from enligthenment thinkers like Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and Locke.

I am skeptical of supernaturalism because it affords meaning without observable evidence and therefore does not enforce accountability on someone making an assertion. It is dangerous.

Chuck,

Your incoherent rant is typical of your brand of “agnosticism.” I didn’t make a single argument in favor of Christianity. You might want to use the empirical knowledge gained from actually reading what I said. I was critiquing a counter argument, rather than producing an argument to defend Christianity myself. Assertions, even though multiplied, do not your case make.

BTW, I think it is interesting how the new conversational trump card (“you’re arrogant” rather than “you’re a racist” or “you’re a liberal”) is so easily dealt out by those who come on to Christian sites and verbally abuse Christians as delusional people who just believe in their Christianity for comfort (ironically, a claim you make that is then negated by your own story). Please show me where I attacked a person rather than an idea. Then read your own comments and show me where you attacked an idea rather than a person. Pot meet kettle…

Wow, Chuck! Thanks for your story. That sounds truly brutal. I’m sorry for your suffering. Actually, I have to admit that I’m of the Calvinist persuasion. I can see where one might be greatly tormented by thoughts of wanting to be one of the elect but concluding that they are not. I can assure you that psychological torment and depression are not indication that one is not of the elect however. Possibly those symptoms are attributable to thinking you were a true convert when you actually weren’t. Please believe me when I tell you that I am not speaking off the cuff here. Furthermore, when a person is a true convert they are an adopted child of God, and it is impossible to become ‘unconverted’. There most certainly are many false-converts however. My husband was one for many years. When I married him he thought he was a believer (true convert) and so did I. After all, he had gone forward in a church in response to an alter call. It’s a long story, but after 21 years….painful years, of marriage it began to occur to me that maybe the reason there seemed to be no evidence of Christ in his life…was that Christ wasn’t in his life. He suffered some torment of his own during those years….not clinical depression, but fear, depression, stress….very anxious and uptight person…..and angry. He went to church with me…and our kids, every Sunday though. Like I said, it’s a long story, but a year and a half ago he came to a point of true conversion. As near as I can tell the thing which was lacking in his original ‘conversion experience’ was that he was not really contrite about his sin. He told me recently that he went forward because he was ‘scared to death to go to Hell”. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily carry with it the brokenness over one’s sin which is essential to true conversion and acceptance by God. “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”. This is well illustrated by the story Jesus told of the law-keeping Pharisee at the temple who expressed his thankfulness before God that he was not like the thieving tax collector. Meanwhile the tax collector beat his chest and said, “have mercy on me, the sinner!” It was the tax collector who was forgiven and received by God.

In spite of where you are now in your thinking, Chuck, I think that it is entirely possible that you ARE one of the elect. Being elect isn’t necessarily something that one is aware of throughout their lives….but God knows.

Susan,

For clarification, I am not an atheist. I don’t believe atheism or theism are rationally coercive and therefore choose to be agnostic when it comes to supernaturalism. I don’t know what you believe is consequentially true and if you are honest neither do you. You don’t know what will happen to you when you die but, by faith, you do believe in a certain outcome.

I don’t see concerning myself with that outcome adds any value to my life.

I once believed in what you believe within a Calvinist context (total depravity, unmerited grace) but then suffered a nervous break-down due to an untreated anxiety disorder that led to a major depressive disorder and hospitization. My depression convinced me that my Calvinism was real and my psychological pain was evidence I was not one of the elect. This led me to believe suicide would be better than living as one of the damned. I have come to understand that my perceptions were both theologically supported and, evidence of illness. I received medical help and my pain was alleviated. Part of the medical help is to look at the beliefs I held which helped me cooperate with my disorder. Phenotypes in regards to neurological genotype mutations become active due to both genetics and environment. Changing my thinking has helped alleviate the pain of depression. I no longer look to prove any supernatural claims because I realized my desire to do so was rooted in my fear of living outside the approval of my community. It was control belief that, for a time, mitigated the pain from my anxiety disorder. Since my deconversion, I have suffered the disappointment of many who believed I was a righteous Christian man but, I choose not to care because I have achieved a level of peace that Wesley saw in the German Christians.

Mine is rooted in the knowledge of who I am relative to my experience and probable science and not what a particular book of scripture tells me I am.

I am in agreement with John. In the face of randomness, the best path to workable truth is to hold a skeptical opinion. If I had done that I believe my cognitive disorder would have been diagnosed before major depression occured and would have limited the probability of suicide. I, however, held theistic beliefs that supported my anxiety as evidence of my sin and perpetrated a level of denial which intensified my illness through the dependence of inefficacious measures like prayer and repentence.

Oh, hi Chuck. Looks like we were posting at the same time..but you beat me to the button. Thanks for responding. You are right….no tree in my question….no Pascal either.