When a Christian says that all other religions are false, he is deemed narrow minded.
When an atheist says that all religions are false, she is deemed open minded.
Tags: Atheism · Bad Reasoning28 Comments
February 24th, 2011 by
-
Matthew Flannagan on Amazon
Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God Authors:Ā Paul Copan,Ā Matthew Flannagan
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Buy the paperback versionBuy the KindleĀ version
True Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of the New Atheism Eds:Ā Tom Gilson,Ā Carson Weitnauer
Today's New Atheists proclaim themselves our culture's party of reason. It is a claim they cannot sustain. Reason is the New Atheists' weakness, not their strength and in fact, the Christian faith is a far better place to look for True Reason. Making their case accessible to the first-time inquirer as well as the serious student, this top-flight team of writers presents a sound defense and a strong introduction to the true reason uniquely found in Christianity.
Feat. William Lane Craig, Sean McDowell, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Peter Grice, Matthew Flannagan,Ā et al.Buy the paperback version
In Defense of the Bible: A Comprehensive Apologetic for the Authority of Scripture Eds: Steven B Cowan and Terry L Wilder
The book begins by examining foundational philosophical approaches to the Bible as well as the methodological challenges those philosophies create for interpreting the Bible. It then addresses textual and historical challenges and how to deal with them. Finally it looks at ethical, scientific, and theological challenges demonstrating the Bible's moral integrity in relationship to contemporary moral emphases.Feat. R Douglas Geivett, William A Dembski, Mary Jo Sharp, Darrell L Bock, Paul Copan, Matthew Flannagan, et al.Buy the paperback versionBuy the Kindle version
Virtues in Action: New Essays in Applied Virtue Ethics Ed: Michael W Austin
Many philosophers have considered the strengths and weaknesses of a virtue-centered approach to moral theory. Much less attention has been given to how such an approach bears on issues in applied ethics. The essays in this volume apply a virtue-centered perspective to a variety of contemporary moral issues.Feat. Michael W Austin, Robert K Garcia, Nathan L King, Gregory Bassham, Nancy E Snow, Matthew Flannagan, et al.Buy the hardcover version
Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem Eds: Heath A Thomas, Jeremy Evans & Paul Copan
The challenge of a seemingly genocidal God who commands ruthless warfare has bewildered Bible readers for generations. A range of expert contributors engage in a multidisciplinary approach that considers this issue from a variety of perspectives: biblical, ethical, philosophical and theological.Feat. David Lamb, Paul Copan, Murray Rae, Heath Thomas, Stephen B Chapman, Douglas S Earl, Matthew Flannagan, et al.Buy the paperback version
Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics Eds: William Lane Craig & Paul Copan
The nineteen essays here raise classical philosophical questions in fresh ways, address contemporary challenges for the church, and will deepen the thinking of the next generation of apologists. Packed with dynamic topical discussions and informed by the latest scholarship.Feat. J P Moreland, William Lane Craig, Gary R Habermas, Craig Keener, Paul Copan, Matthew Flannagan, et al.Buy the paperback versionBuy the Kindle version
True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism Eds:Ā Tom Gilson,Ā Carson Weitnauer
While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
Feat. William Lane Craig, Sean McDowell, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Peter Grice, Matthew Flannagan,Ā et al.Buy the Kindle version
The difference an ‘other’ makes is quite something.
Bwahaha!
One rule for the pot another for the kettle.
When an atheist says that all religions are false, she is deemed open minded.
I dispute this. People may not call the atheist closed minded, but I don’t believe they’re automatically called open minded.
Hysterical!
What a good case for being a Muslim. š
Sorry Paul, how does one infer Islam from the above comment?
@ Matt:
That was a humourous comment. The whole debate seems to be so Christian v Atheist and to ignore the existance of all of the other faiths in the world and how they view each other.
eg a Muslim does not accept that Christianity is true – does that make him narrow or broad minded ?
It seems to me, is that the atheist states that all faiths are equally untrue (and is therefore broad-minded) it is the Christian that states “No, ours is different from all of the others” (and is therefore narrow-minded).
I’m quite happy to accept that the evidence for or against any faith is such that they are all equally true/untrue, particularly when that evidence has a supernatural basis.
Maybe that makes me broad-minded. š
Oh come on Matt, Paul’s point is obviously right: If a Christian is justified in saying that all other religions including Islam are wrong, it’s obviously true that a Muslim is justified in saying that Islam is the truth.
Isn’t that obvious? š
@ Glenn:
“Oh come on Matt, Paulās point is obviously right: If a Christian is justified in saying that all other religions including Islam are wrong, itās obviously true that a Muslim is justified in saying that Islam is the truth.”
No, Glenn, but thanks for jumping in with the comment anyway. Perhaps if you reread my post again and have another go.
“eg a Muslim does not accept that Christianity is true ā does that make him narrow or broad minded ?”
No simply accepting or rejecting a position does not make one narrow minded.
“It seems to me, is that the atheist states that all faiths are equally untrue (and is therefore broad-minded) it is the Christian that states āNo, ours is different from all of the othersā (and is therefore narrow-minded).”
The Christian holds all non Christian religions are false. He does not believe his own religion is false
The atheist holds that all non secular perspectives are false. He does not believe his own secular perspective is false.
@ Matt:
“The Christian holds all non Christian religions are false. He does not believe his own religion is false
The atheist holds that all non secular perspectives are false. He does not believe his own secular perspective is false.”
Indeed, but on what basis ? I can accept that there may be some hardcore atheists who take the view that no gods exist, period. However, I think that most atheists substantiate their position with some investigation, albeit to a varying degree.
When you, Madeleine or Glenn became Christians did you do so by first evaluating other faiths and reaching the conclusion that Christianity, out of the bunch, was the one most likely to be true ?
As John Hick observed on PCR’s Unbelieveable show (and the view is not new), most theists accept the faith of the parents, their society and their country. There is little or no evaluation of any alternative before deciding, if indeed there is any conscious decision at all.
This is not simply a criticism aimed Christians by sceptics, but the all of the major faiths. It is also a serious critism of the role of faith schools in our society.
For the record my children are atheists, although my teenage daughter is threatening to become a Christian if I don’t give her more pocket money. š
Why is Islam false, or at least unacceptable from a Christian perspective?
The Koran claims to be a direct revelation from Allah. Not just “inspired” as Christians describe the Bible, but literally dictated. It makes specific claims about Jesus, however those claims are frequently in conflict with what the Bible claims about Jesus.
The Koran is dated to 6-700AD, the Gospels (at the latest) 100AD. By the criteria used evaluating historical documents the Gospels are more likely to be correct than the Koran.
However if the Koran is claimed to be the dictates of Allah, and yet contains known falsehoods, then Islam is falsified.
Learning about other religions before declaring them all equally false is generally the mark of an open mind.
Declaring them false, but betraying such ignorance about the differences between them? Well let’s just say that’s the opposite of an open mind.
As for the “children adopt the religion of their parents” meme. Genetic fallacy for the win.
Hi Matt and Madeleine,
Just tried to sent you guys an email, got an “over quota” mail delivery notification failure, which I guess means you need to clear your emails!
As John Hick observed on PCRās Unbelieveable show (and the view is not new), most theists accept the faith of the parents, their society and their country. There is little or no evaluation of any alternative before deciding, if indeed there is any conscious decision at all.
This proves to much, most peoples acceptance of things like the equality of women, that wife beating is wrong, that we should not entertain ourselves by watching people kill each other. That the world is round, that evolution is true, are accepted the same way
In fact if most skeptics had been brought up in 10th century spain they would not be skeptics, its only because they were raised in 2o-21st century west that they are.
Lucia thanks for letting us know that, we’ve been reading our mail online and not downloading it… downloading it all now!
Try mattflannagan@gmail dot com in the meantime – we both check that address daily.
Oh I though you were saying the cartoon was a good argument for being Muslim…
@ Matt:
“This proves to much, most peoples acceptance of things like the equality of women, that wife beating is wrong, that we should not entertain ourselves by watching people kill each other. That the world is round, that evolution is true, are accepted the same way ”
I’m not sure I’ve understood your point – could you restate it ? Thanks.
As an atheist, I can agree with some of what Matt says:
“In fact if most skeptics had been brought up in 10th century Spain they would not be skeptics, its only because they were raised in 20th – 21st century west that they are.”
Given that in 10th century Spain I would have been probably killed for voicing my lack of beleif, I doubt I would have had the convistion to make my atheism public knowledge.
What is even sadder though, is that even today, so many people still live with similar threats of violence and intimidation if they do publicise their atheism and I’m not just referring to Islamic states either.
However, I do take comfort from the fact that at different points in history, in various places arouind the globe, similar struggles have had to take place to change peoples opinions with regard to the accepted norms of the society, such as womens rights, human rights, racial prejudice, etc.
So I believe that given time these things will change.
I think Matt meant to type
“This proves too much…”
ie stating that most people are the product of their upbringing and environment is so true of almost everything about them that it adds nothing to the discussion
” similar struggles have had to take place to change peoples opinions with regard to the accepted norms of the society, such as womens rights, human rights, racial prejudice, etc.”
Mostly lead by deeply committed Christians.
I find it quite ironic that you are looking for someone to struggle against prejudice against atheists and that history suggests you will need Christians to lead it.
@ Jason:
“As for the āchildren adopt the religion of their parentsā meme. Genetic fallacy for the win.”
Does that also apply to the language spoken by their parents too ?
@ Jeremy and Matt and bearing in mind Glenns turn of humour:
“ie stating that most people are the product of their upbringing and environment is so true of almost everything about them that it adds nothing to the discussion”
I would argue that it does. Perhaps a different take would be the language angle as we seem to be getting caught up in defending particular faiths.
Generally speaking do people learn their languages in an open minded or closed minded fashion ?
@ Jeremy:
“Mostly lead by deeply committed Christians.”
I like the use of the word ‘mostly’. š
“I can accept that there may be some hardcore atheists who take the view that no gods exist, period.”
hardcore atheists? That’s what atheism is, the belief that there is no god.
“Iām not sure Iāve understood your point ā could you restate it ? Thanks.”
Sorry my point is that your argument proves too much.
Hick objects to theism on the basis that “, most theists accept the faith of the parents, their society and their country. There is little or no evaluation of any alternative before deciding, if indeed there is any conscious decision at all.”
My point here is that what he says about theism applies to all sorts of beliefs which no one would castigate as irrational. Consider my belief that rape is wrong, or that wife bashing is wrong, or that stoning women for pre-martial sex is wrong. Most people accept these beliefs because they are taught them implictly or explictly, by there parents, their society and their country. There is little or no evaluation of any alternatives before deciding, if indeed there is any conscious decision at all. I don’t know of anyone who said, I am not sure rape is wrong, seeing the burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim I will assume its not true rape is wrong until I have examined the arguments rapists give and the arguments opponents of rape give, and evaluate them. Do you?
If Hicks argument shows theism is irrational it must also show that belief that rape is wrong is also irrational.
My point about skepticism is the same, the kind of skepticism contemporary atheists expound assumes a whole lot of epistemic attitudes which are a product of post enlightenemnt western culture, they would not have been accepted by people in other cultures, so the argument Hick gives against Christianity applies equally to skepticism.
My points not new Van Inwagen makes a similar argument in his critique of John Hick, and Plantinga also makes the point in WCB and also in “Ad Hick”
āIn fact if most skeptics had been brought up in 10th century Spain they would not be skeptics, its only because they were raised in 20th ā 21st century west that they are.ā
Given that in 10th century Spain I would have been probably killed for voicing my lack of beleif, I doubt I would have had the convistion to make my atheism public knowledge.
What is even sadder though, is that even today, so many people still live with similar threats of violence and intimidation if they do publicise their atheism and Iām not just referring to Islamic states either.
Ok here you change the subject, you admit that your scepticism is contingent on the cultural environment you were raised in. So the very reasons you cited against Christianity apply to your own scepticism, so they cannot be a basis for such scepticism.
Changing the subject to the fallicous “historical atrocities” argument doesn’t change this fact.
A point worth noting here, some religions “the identity movement” claim that racism and anti Semitism is good.
Others deny this.
Some religious perspectives deny evolutionary theory, others do not.
To claim all religions are equally ridiculous, and the arguments against one apply to all, is to suggest there is no more reason to deny racism than to affirm it, or that the evidence is no more in favour of evolution than against it.