Have you ever had anyone say this? Maybe you’ve said it yourself. Two people are in a disagreement, and one of them gets sick of the discussion and blurts out “You always think you’re right!”
As happens every now and then, the blog is about to come to a screeching halt for a little while
The house that we rent has been sold and the new owners will be moving in on the 17th of December, so we need to be out before then. We haven’t found a new place yet that is suitable and which is even close to being affordable. Time is running out pretty quickly and it’s not yet clear what the next step is, but things are pretty busy at the moment with packing and trying to find a place to go. I’ll be pretty scarce at the blog until we’ve moved.
Glenn
John Dominic Crossan, the late Robert Funk, John Shelby Spong, or New Zealand’s own Lloyd Geering. All call themselves Christians, none of them believe that God exists (except in some emotive or mythological manner), and all are adamant that Christianity should change. It should give up belief in a personal creator, in myths about miracles, in nonsense about bodily resurrections from the dead, and so on. Christianity must get with the times and become relevant, and in our day and age people just can’t believe in such silliness.
One of the goals of liberal theology is to give Christianity a modern acceptability. People can’t believe in ancient superstitions these days, we are told, but they can believe in “God” if by God we mean the goodness in the world. People can believe in the resurrection of Jesus, if by “resurrection” we mean the survival of (some of) his moral teachings in the lives of his followers, and so on.
These folks don’t want to abandon Christianity, according to them. Not at all. They want to see Christianity get real, they would tell us. They are making the Christian faith credible. Or are they?
As you might know, although he seems to have a lot to say about how bad the arguments for God’s existence are, Richard Dawkins has always refused the open offer from William Lane Craig to have a debate on the subject. Well, I just spotted this on William Lane Craig’s Facebook page:
I am currently in Mexico to participate in a conference called Ciudad de las Ideas, which is a conference modeled on the TED conference in the US. It features lots of high tech people, sociologists, psychologists, economists, scientists, etc.
As part of the conference they´re having a panel of six of us debate on the question ¨Does the Universe Have a Purpose?¨ Well. to my surprise, I just found out that one of the three persons on the other side is Richard Dawkins! It´s true! I met him the other night. When he came my way, I stuck out my hand and introduced myself and said, I’m surspised to see that you’re on the panel.
He replied, And why not?
I said, ¨Well, you’ve always refused to debate me.
His tone suddenly became icy cold. I don´t consider this to be a debate with you. The Mexicans invited me to participate, and I accepted.¨ At that, he turned away.
¨Well, I hope we have a good discussion,¨ I said.
I very much doubt it,¨ he said and walked off.
So it was a pretty chilly reception! The debate is Saturday morning, should you think of us. I´ll give an update after I get back.
This should be very interesting!
In my lunch breaks I’m reading through Erik Weilenberg’s book Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe. In an earlier post, “Do Moral Facts Not Require an Explanation?” I commented on Wielenberg’s claims about moral facts not requiring any explanation.
When I first got the book, I first turned to the second section, which addresses the claim that atheism provides no basis of moral fact (yeah I know, I peeked). In “Confusing the Good and the Right” I commented on on the way that the book rather obviously confuses the idea of goodness with rightness. Now that I have begun reading the book from the beginning, I note that the first section of the book (there are five sections in total) likewise proceeds on the basis of a mere confusion of terms.
Hey everyone, I hope you’re enjoying the warm New Zealand weather (or if you’re in the northern hemisphere, this is a great time for a holiday!).
I’ll be away for a few days. We’re flying up to Auckland to be at my little sister’s wedding, coming home on Sunday the 7th of December. Don’t mess the place up while I’m gone!
Recently I post a blog entry called “A (genuine) Generous Orthodoxy.” In it, I mentioned in passing that I wouldn’t rule out a non-trinitarian from being “saved” with any kind of certainty. Shortly afterwards, I received an email from someone who does in fact deny the doctrine of the Trinity yet still identifies as a Christian.
This fellow had a question for me, although it had nothing to do with my post on generous orthodoxy. The question was: If the Trinity is such an essential doctrine, why isn’t it explicitly taught all in one place anywhere in the Bible? Why is it the kind of thing that you can only understand by inferring it from a whole bunch of statements in the Bible and then trying to synthesise those statements into a coherent system? Why couldn’t the biblical writers just state it plainly and simply in one utterance, especially if it’s so important?
I think there are several things to say in response to the question, and in answering the question I think we gain a better understanding of the nature of systematic theology, as well as – in my view – the relative importance that we attribute to certain doctrines. What I have to say here is not about whether the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical or not (although it is).
This random thought was prompted by me hearing a radio interview with Dinesh D’Souza today. It seems to me that in the wake of obvious defeats in public debates, some atheists throw their former champions under a bus.
When Bill Cooke debated William Lane Craig on the existence of God, Dr Cooke very clearly lost. This was the assessment of those who observed on the whole, regardless of whether they wrere a religious believer or not. The New Zealand atheists (e.g. folks supportive of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists) who were keen to see the debate happen changed their tune and decided that Bill Cooke just wasn’t a good representative of their viewpoint, and that’s why the debate turned out that way.
When John Loftus debated Dinesh D’Souza on the existence of God – and Mr Loftus unambiguously went down in flames, the atheists who were keen to see the debate happen (e.g. those supportive of John’s labours at the Debunking Christianity blog) changed their tune and decided that John Loftus just wasn’t a good representative of their viewpoint, and that’s why the debate turned out that way.
When Raymond Bradley debated Matthew Flannagan on whether or not it’s rational to think that God is the source of morality – and very clearly lost, the atheists who were keen to see the debate happen changed their tune and decided that Raymond Bradley just wasn’t a good representative of their viewpoint, and that’s why the debate turned out that way.
I wonder what those same atheists would have thought had been established if, in any of these cases, they had thought that their man had won. Would the only telling oucome have been if the atheist won? Is there anyone who would be a good representative? It seems they think their spokespeople are just devastating – until they are actually put to the test.
My random thought for the day.
If you are a scholar who has authored a book in philosophy or theology, published by a reputable publishing house, then I want to hear from you if you’re interested in what follows.
In the humanities (maybe in other fields too, but who cares), one of the best ways to have a book published is to have an already published scholar take an interest in the project and to recommend it. As this would be the first such project that I have attempted, the advice of someone who has been there and done that would be invaluable.
As indicated above, the type of book I am talking about is a book with high quality essays from a number of writers (up to 15). In order to raise the profile of the project, I would like to have a few/couple of essays in the volume to be contributed by people who are already established scholars with well received published works.
If you are someone who might be able to help in either of these roles, then I want to hear from you. If I don’t hear from anybody through this announcement/request then I will be looking around for advice on who to contact, but if you’re reading this and you think you fit the bill, then this process can be made all the simpler.
What sort of people am I looking for? You’ll need a PhD in philosophy, in theology, or in political science (or something that relates closely to one of these like jurisprudence or religious studies). You’ll need to be active in academia, preferably as a faculty member in one of these areas at an accredited university or college. You’ll have an interest in the relationship between political, moral or social philosophy or law on the one hand, and theology or philosophy of religion on the other. In particular, you’ll have an interest in the subject of religion in the public square. Importantly, you’ll have had works published in these or similar fields, and these works will be generally well received by their target audience.
If you’re interested in contacting me as someone who might take up one of these two roles, the nature of the project is as follows: The book will be a collection of high quality scholarly essays on various aspects of the relationship (or appropriate lack thereof) between religious convictions and social, political and legal arrangements. The book will be written by emerging scholars – people who have graduated with PhDs in their respective fields but who are not yet established in the literature. The book aims to be a serious multi-faceted contribution to the case against the modern western liberal democratic doctrine that religious beliefs should not serve as the basis of political or legal arrangements, doctrines or policies. My own contribution to the work will be an essay arguing that a thoroughgoing secular outlook cannot account for a descriptive doctrine of human equality, and that the doctrine is best construed as one that requires theological presuppositions.
Subjects for other essays in the volume might include:
- The major contributions that religiously motivated laws and policies have made in history to the good of society in the liberal democratic or classical liberal tradition.
- Whether or not there exists a defensible non-religious account of p, where p is some important principle needed to ground a liberal democratic polity.
- Critical and original reflections on an argument or set of arguments for the removal of religious convictions from political and public decision making and policy advocacy.
- Proposals to tackle the issue of competing or clashing religious (or secular) ideologies in a pluralistic democratic society – if we allow political advocacy for religious reasons.
- Difficulties in avoiding religious discrimination in legislation – or the levels of acceptable discrimination.
– as well as many other possibilities.
The ideal publisher for this project would be a major university press (Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Harvard) or mainstream academic publisher in the humanities such as Routledge, Blackwell, or Sage (naturally, these are examples only).
If you might be interested in one of the ways described above, please contact me using the “Contact Us” button over on the right hand side.
Glenn Peoples
I’ll start with an admission: The title of this blog entry isn’t really fair to Brian McLaren. (Incidentally, for more posters like the one at the top of this blog, check them out here).
I say the title’s not fair – that is, if taken a certain way – because as the poster illustrates, there are those who don’t think that McLaren’s approach in his book A Generous Orthodoxy is particularly generous towards those with whom he disagrees, nor do they believe he is particularly orthodox. He’s made his name as one of the kingpins of “emergent” Christianity. I have not read any books or articles by McLaren, so I can’t say for myself whether or not these assessments are correct, yet the blog title could easily give the impression that I have read the book and agree with these negative assessments. So let me be clear: The only reason that I included the word “genuine” here is to say: “Look, if you don’t think McLaren’s book is generous or orthodox, please set that aside because what I’m about to say has nothing to do with that book as I haven’t read it. Even if you think the generous orthodoxy in that book isn’t genuine, hopefully you might still think that my generous orthodoxy is genuine.” OK? Now, down to business.