So that was interesting

In preparation for the Ravi Zacharias event at UPenn, I wrote an opinion column laying out some of my concerns about Ravi's style and beliefs. Apparently it struck a nerve.

Here's the full text of my column:

Not ready for Ravi
The Devil’s Advocate | Ravi Zacharias may be an evangelist to the intellectuals, but he's no intellectual evangelist 

Pastor Aaron Campbell of Philadelphia’s Antioch of Calvary Chapel has been independently planning the upcoming Ravi Zacharias lecture for over two years. According to Campbell, Ravi’s talk will be “one of the most intellectually stimulating lectures you have ever been to.”
I’m sorry, Aaron, but intellectually stimulating is not the same as mentally taxing. 

It concerns me greatly to see so many intelligent Penn students praising Zacharias as an intellectual heavyweight. Ravi is an expert rhetorician and apologist, but his views and arguments hardly deserve the term intellectual. 

Let us start with his reasons for rejecting the theory of evolution:
“The ascending of biological forms into more complex and superior designs also comes into conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Physics,” Zacharius wrote in his book, “The Real Face of Atheism.” This is an embarrassing and egregious misunderstanding of science propagated by anti-science organizations like the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. 

While he has repeatedly made clear that he does not accept evolution for this and other equally ridiculous reasons, accounts vary regarding what he does believe. In private correspondence he is reported to be “firmly committed to a young earth” and to have “always held to the literal six day creation.” His ministry takes no official position (usually a sign it wishes to avoid embarrassment) but apparently considers it an important enough question to put first on its website’s Q&A page. 

Not content to stop at science denialism, Ravi goes on to promote a sinister revisionist history:
“Hitler’s point was that the destruction of the weak is a good thing for the survival of the strong … as is taught by atheistic evolution’s tenet of natural selection. …We have been down the atheist road before, and it ended in a holocaust,” he wrote in “The End of Reason.”
Elsewhere in his book, he puts abortion morally on par with child pornography and claims “atheistic philosophy is having its way with our children” on both counts. The connection seems obvious to him, but escapes me.
When asked about homosexuality, Ravi said, “Sex is a sacred gift of God. I can no longer justify an aberration of it in somebody else’s life than I can justify my own proclivities to go beyond my marital boundaries.”

It pains me to realize many still consider Ravi a great moral teacher. 

However, unless someone specifically brings up these topics in a question, Ravi is unlikely to address them in his talk. He surely knows his positions will not endear himself to the Penn community at large. 

What you can expect at the lecture is Ravi routinely distorting his opponents into vile straw men. 

For example, famous ethicist and animal rights activist Peter Singer put forward an argument against animal testing which includes a thought experiment directly comparing the suffering of intelligent animals and young children of below average intelligence. Ravi twists this nuanced and clever argument into “[Peter Singer believes] that a pig is of more value than a child with a disability.” Not even a Princeton professor like Singer deserves such malicious misrepresentation. 

Ravi has similarly shown his lack of intellectual integrity by distorting the views of thinkers such as Sam Harris, Sartre, Nietzsche, Descartes, Buddha, Gandhi and others. 

As for the Q&A session, one of Ravi’s favorite toys is the red herring. When asked a difficult or uncomfortable question, Ravi will begin telling a seemingly unrelated (and usually apocryphal) anecdote. By the time he reaches the point of the story, if there is one, so much time has elapsed that most have forgotten the original question, allowing Ravi to instead answer the question he would have preferred. 

I am still planning to attend his lecture, but that’s because I have a tendency toward mental masochism. If you choose to attend, keep any questions you ask him short and memorable. Otherwise, we’ll never be able to move beyond Ravi’s rhetoric and search for the substance. 

As of this writing, the column has 272 comments, which is a new record for me and possibly the Daily Pennsylvanian. The vast majority of the comments are a few people defending Ravi's ridiculous claims that atheism caused the holocaust or arguing that homosexuality is in fact immoral.

A few comments broke the mold and instead tried to save my soul.

Find Jesus and you will understand every word Ravi says, Mr Collins Boots. People who do not have Jesus in their hearts can not understand the Word, which will teach, for one, not to judge others who do not share your beliefs. He has SAVED people's souls. Evolution is nowhere near as important as that, if that's where you are going to base your argument against Ravi. As an intellectual, which you claim to be, you should be open to all arguments rather than oppress them. Why do you feel his lectures are such an attack on your own self, enough to print such a critical review. Mediocre as well, might I add. If you feel so strongly towards Ravi's lectures, I suggest you stand up and debate him yourself. Many profound men before you have done so and found themselves wanting.

...

I ache for you then, Mr. Boots and pray you will find your way back home. God be with you.

- Link

I also received a couple direct emails to the same ends:

It is by no surprise that you appose his viewpoints and presence on campus. In fact, the unadulterated Word of God says that the "natural" man cannot understand the things of the "spirit". So, it is really not your fault that you can't see the intelligence and brilliance of the sound doctrine that he speaks. You simply have rejected the Holy Spirit, which is a requirement to fully understand the relevance and power of His Word.

What I truly give you kudos for however is that it is apparent that you proclaim to be the devils advocate and your philosophies as partially articulated in your article, substantiates that you are a servant of the devil. The Word says that He would prefer for people to be either HOT or COLD towards Him, but those that are lukewarm will be spewed out of his mouth. So, you are actually in better grace with the Lord than those that are not quite sure what side of the philosophical spectrum they sit on. ...

If you attend the event from the posture of the curious student, I strongly believe and pray that your heart can be touched by the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Saul, was also a devils advocate and lived of life that persecuted the Church, but when he became Paul his life was turned around and he ended up being responsible for penning 2/3 of the new testament.

God Bless you Collin, and I pray that you enjoy your evening and that the Lord has an opportunity to be invited into your heart.

Thanks, I guess?

Another emailer was much more succinct:

I will listen in and cannot wait to hear the question that you pose.......just to see if you hold sand or like the hourglass! You have had over two years to prepare. It is sad when one can be a critic while quoting from books written by others! I like a good debate.

Actually I only had about a month, but to be fair I never stated that publicly.

My article also garnered many prayers for my soul and for Ravi on facebook:

So apparently not everyone is a fan of Ravi Zacharias... we're in Philly for an open forum at University of Pennsylvania, and Ravi's visit is causing quite a stir on campus!

Check out this column in The Daily Pennsylvanian by Collin Boots of the Penn Secular Society... in which he argues that Ravi is "no intellectual," "promotes a sinister revisionist history," and "routinely distorts his opponents."
"It pains me to realize many still consider Ravi a great moral teacher," he writes. http://bit.ly/LR73YD
This column demonstrates the intense campus environment we're going into... and we'd love your prayers for Tuesday's event as our team seeks to operate with grace and truth. #RaviUPenn" 

-Link 

This post is interesting for several reasons. First, she seems surprised that not everyone is enraptured by Ravi's sermons. I hope I'm not reading that correctly. Second, my one column apparently constitutes an "intense campus environment" and "quite a stir." The persecution complex is strong with this one.

What's more concerning though are the follow up comments.

"These pseudo-intellectuals amaze me. They don't even make sense. How can morality be immoral? I guess when it's not based on their particular view. No absolutes and no boundaries." 

"“The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?” Jeremiah8:9 Praying!!!" 

"Wow. Lord have your way in that room tomorrow night! You are mighty to save!"

"It's a shame there's no freedom of speech in America, for some people! Everyone can say anything, but once you say something about Jesus, you have no freedom to speak anymore."

I shouldn't need to explain to my likely audience what is wrong with these comments.

Apparently, Ravi himself read my column and his ministry posted a link to it and the companion letter to the editor on his website.

“I have been made aware of some of the antipathy and anxieties over our presence on campus,” remarked Zacharias. “I earnestly hope that as civil and meaningful discourse prevails, all the fears and concerns will be put to rest. Thank you to the organizers for giving me the privilege of speaking here.”

He even spent the first 5 minutes or so of his talk addressing his "critics" and the "hostile campus," making explicit references to my column 3 or 4 times. He even took the time to straw man my critique and make a glancing ad homenim. He said I decried his style for being anecdotal, and said I would have to throw out most of western culture and history if I didn't like anecdotes. Classic Ravi: fitting a straw man and an appeal to the consequences in the same breath.

What I actually said, as you can read above, is that Ravi frequently uses anecdotes as red herrings to distract from the fact he didn't answer the question. That was clearly in evidence Tuesday night.

As an aside, Ravi's website made this false claim in support of their "hostile campus" argument.

For example, posters advertising the event have been taken down, and there have been numerous articles in the campus newspaper as well as posts on social media reflecting the hostility and confusion on campus when it comes to discussing different worldviews.

What actually happened was the Ready for Ravi team violated the poster rules for several of the college halls and they were taken down for being posted in violation of house policy. That's not a hostile environment, that's not following the rules and crying "help help I'm being repressed" when you get caught.

Several people have suggested to me that my column had a mediating effect on Ravi's rhetoric. I have a knee jerk reaction against my writing being that directly influential and doubts about Ravi being so easily dissuaded or thrown off message by < 700 words. Still, it was clear on Tuesday that he put a lot less emphasis on stating his beliefs and a lot more on obscurantist rhetoric than usual. When he was specifically asked about homosexuality, he spent what felt like 10 minutes explaining why he couldn't answer that question.

I was saddened to see that the questioner seemed to think her question was in fact answered. Ravi did mention that "[homosexuals] will stand before God in judgement one day," but that was easy to miss.

Overall, I'm amazed by the response. I don't think anything I've ever written has been so widely circulated and discussed. It's been a very tiring week, but if I got nothing else out of it I have this screenshot to cherish forever:

I welcome brother Ravi into the fold, along with his 128k+ followers he tweeted my article to.

No, we are not Militant

Ian Hutchinson is coming to campus today, and I just wanted to share this clip.

I don't have the free hours required to detail every single thing that is wrong with this video so I will just leave you with this comic from JesusAndMo.

Tim Keller's No True Christian Sermon

As I mentioned earlier I attended Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC today, and Dr. Tim Keller was actually there to give the sermon. I've always liked Keller's style, voice, manner, politeness, and tendency to tailor his sermons towards skeptics and acknowledge our existence.

But today he struck against one of my few remaining triggers: "You were never a true Christian."

I haven't told my full story before and I should do that someday, but the short version is I was heavily into apologetics, Youth for Christ, theology, worship, and really did believe what I was being taught outside of a few details.  I intentionally put myself through so many unneeded struggles because of my faith and actively sought Jesus out. I wanted him to be a part of my life. I was a believer.

So when someone explains away my entire tumultuous journey with a meaningless platitude I have a tendency to lose my shit.

I've lost count of how many times this verse and others like it have been offered as a complete explanation of my conversion.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools -Romans 1:18-22

This is more than just a fallacy, it's a personal attack on my integrity, honesty, and intelligence. I cannot abide by someone calling me a liar so blatantly.

Usually Keller is good at making at least intellectual sounding arguments that require some thought to process and unpack, but this was not one of those days.

Keller kicked off the sermon by challenging skeptics directly. Painting with broad strokes he described skeptics as people who never really "got it" in the first place (people who claim they were Christians because they went to church, said they believed in Jesus, and such). He asked the skeptics in the audience "Were you really a Christian? Have you actually tried it? What is a real Christian?"

He describes the beliefs of Christianity (Apostles' Creed, Bible word of God, etc) to be necessary but not sufficient conditions for being a true Christian. After explaining exactly what that means, he enumerated four necessary and sufficient condition for being a Christian in his mind.

1. "Serving God consistently, especially during suffering."
2. "Know God deliberately (John 17:3)"
3. "Experiencing God periodically"
4. "Exhibiting God generously"

1."Serving God consistently, especially during suffering."

This means that when troubles get tough, a true Christian turns towards God not away from him. To prove his point, he turned to everyone's favorite out of context story of a patient suffering servant: Job.

Here follows a synopsis of Job according to Keller (paraphrased):

Job was a great guy going above and beyond the call as a Christian (though Christianity didn't exist yet). Then Satan comes along and says to God: "God, you know he's just in it for all the benefits you give him right? Make the cost higher and the rewards lower and Job will turn his back on you." God takes away everything Job has, but while Job still questions and is very upset with God he is still taking his problems to God and not turning away from him. Job passes the test and is greatly rewarded for his trouble. God vindicates Job because he went to God in his time of need.

If that was actually the story contained in Job, it would indeed help Dr. Keller's case. As Keller tells it, Job is "vindicated" for sticking with God through thick and thin. However, Keller left out some crucial details. Here's my take:

Job was an upstanding man doing everything God told him to. Then Satan comes along and says to God: "God, I bet if you kill Job's kids, family, cattle, and everything else in his lands he'll be pretty mad at you." God says "You're on! Go kill his family for me, we'll see who wins this thing." Satan goes and kills his family, gives him boils, and does all kinds of horrible stuff with God's explicit permission. Job says "WTF God? What did I ever do to you?" Job's friends alternately try to convince him to curse God or blame himself for just punishment. Job insists he's innocent and demands an explanation from God, because God must have a good reason. He's God after all. God comes down and says "Who do you think you are coming and asking me to explain myself to you? Did you make all this happen? I don't have to explain myself to you." Job is a little frustrated but gives in and stops pestering God. As compensation, God gives him a bunch of new kids (because having another kid exactly makes up for another one being killed right?).

Job is the story of God slaughtering an entire family and more over a bet with Satan and when confronted about it responding with "Why? Because I'm God. Don't ask questions, just take it like a puny little man."  If God was Job's husband, would we praise him for sticking with God through all this abuse? HEELL No.

To me, the story only serves to illustrate why I wouldn't worship God even if he did exist. According to Keller though, you're not a real Christian unless you stay with  God even after he beats you. I hope he doesn't give the same advice to women and men in abusive relationships.

2. "Know God deliberately (John 17:3)"
This segment was the embodiment of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. According to Keller, if you ever left Christianity you only ever had a 2nd hand experience of Christ. If you had only been a real Christian and had a personal relationship with Jesus and really understood that he died for you and you are washed in his blood you would still be with us today.

I agree with Keller that I never had a personal relationship with Jesus, but then again I don't think anyone has.

But if you can look at my friend Jerry DeWitt or Dan Barker or Matt Dillahunty or Seth Andrews or most of the atheists in the US and honestly say that their experience, belief, and commitment was "insufficient" then no "Christian" I have ever met in my life could possibly be a real Christian.

3. "Experiencing God periodically"
Point 3 articulated the unspoken notion in Keller's interpretation of Job that we are here to serve God and our own concerns are secondary to that. You are in it for God's sake, not yours. God NEEDS and DESERVES your praise and adoration, and if you won't give it to him you are being selfish.

Now all of this is completely Biblical. I completely agree with Keller on this point. Where we differ is that I see this demand of worship to be abhorrent, not praiseworthy.

4. "Exhibiting God Generously"
I could barely keep my jaw off the floor with how openly Keller used his final point to beg for money. I couldn't get over my shock fast enough to record the exact quote, but he was only a couple words away from saying "real Christians give generously to the church. Are YOU a real Christian?"

The impact of this shameless guilt trip was made even greater by the inclusion (and in sermon emphasis) of this chart.

The Redeemer operating fund goal is $11.4 MILLION dollars and they just exceeded their goal for 2012 by 8% (a 16% increase from 2011), and already they're asking for more money. By itself, asking for money is nothing to be ashamed of. Buildings cost money; staff costs money. Even tax free organizations need capital.

But Keller didn't ask for donations. He essentially said "thanks for all your money last year, now give us more or you aren't a real Christian" Of course not 2 minutes later the offering plates went around.

Telling me I was never a true Christian is insulting and irritating, but saying the same thing to a professing Christian who believes in eternal torture is nothing less than a veiled threat.

Coming into the service I had a great deal of respect for Keller due to his ability to make direct critiques of atheism that required some thought on my part (at least compared to some). I left this service with a much lower opinion of not only his arguments but his character.

Redeemed in New York

Back when I was a Christian my best friend and I were very in to a New York megachurch pastor named Tim Keller. He's the author most famously of The Reason For God which I still hold to be one of the more thought provoking (if not convincing) apologetic works in existence.

I became an atheist a couple years ago now about the same time that my best friend did a summer long training camp with the Navigators and redoubled his faith. We've had a couple interesting conversations since then but haven't seen each other much.

But this weekend we're getting together in New York with his fiance and another friend from high school and as part of the trip he suggested that we go to Redeemer Presbyterian Church for Sunday service. Not exactly the first thing on my mind during my first day in New York, but it should be a very interesting experience.

Apparently Keller rotates which service he leads, so hopefully we'll get to see the man himself.  I'm strangely looking forward to the experience.

I'll be sure to share my experiences afterwards. Maybe I'll even take notes.

Ravi Zacharias Blames Darwin, Nietzsche for Moral Decline of Society

Ravi Zacharias is featured in a new video from Focus on the Family  explaining how we got to this state of moral decline in our society.

Full Transcript: emphasis added

How we got to where we are today...It has not happened without warnings, that is for sure.
If I were to take one hinge on which this slide was hanging, I would say it was Fredric Nietzsche the German Philosopher.

When he popularized the phrase "God is dead", and uh [unintelligible] in the 19th century he said then we are going to live either with megalomania or erotomania: the drive for pleasure or the drive for power, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner. It's exactly what happened. 

Going back even slightly before Nietzsche, Charles Darwin in his Descent of Man...Darwin had said that if his Naturalistic Framework were taken as a scaffolding for metaphysical extrapolations and judgments and so on, he said the violence that would break out would be unparalleled.   

Because if Naturalism is all we have, man is nothing more than nature, then we have got no moral framework to look to.  He talked about the violence that would come. Nietzsche said that the 20th century would become the bloodiest century in history, because of the philosophical ramifications of the death of god. So how did we get here?  We got here starting off by killing god, then killing ethics, now we are killing men.

Now Nietzsche did write "God is Dead," though the words were uttered by a character he created called the Madman.  Nietzsche also wrote that "there will be wars the like of which have never been seen on earth before." Also it is generally accepted that the 20th century was the bloodiest in history.  But here ends Ravi's overlap with reality.

Nietzsche's "prediction" that the 20th century would be the bloodiest century never existed.  He never said the 20th century, the next century, or anything like that.  He also did not attribute the wars to a moral failing in God's death, as Ravi asserts.  Here is what he actually said. Sorry that it's so long, but context is important here. I've highlighted the important bits.

I know my fate. There will come a day when my name will recall the memory of something frightful—a crisis the like of which has never been known on earth, the memory of the most profound clash of consciences and the passing of a sentence upon all that has before been believed in, demanded and sanctified. I am not a man, I am dynamite. And with it all there is nothing of the founder of a religion in me. Religions belong to the rabble; after coming into contact with religious people I always feel that I must wash my hands. I do not want "believers”, I think that I am too full of malice to believe even in myself; I never speak to masses. I have a terrible fear that one day I shall be considered "holy”. You will understand why I publish this book beforehand—it is to prevent people from wronging me. I refuse to be a saint; I would rather be a clown. Maybe I am a clown. I am nevertheless, or rather not nevertheless, the mouthpiece of truth; for nothing more false has ever existed than a saint. But my truth is terrible: for hitherto lies have been called truth. The Revaluation of all Values, this is my formula for mankind’s greatest step towards coming to its senses—a step which in me has become flesh and genius. My destiny ordained that I should be the first decent human being and that I should feel myself opposed to the falsehood of millennia. I was the first to discover the truth and for the simple reason that I was the first who became conscious, to sense the lie as a lie. My genius lies in my nostrils. I contradict as no one has contradicted before and yet I am the very opposite to a negative spirit. I am the herald of joy the like of which has never existed before; I have discovered tasks of such a height that has never been seen before my time. Mankind can only now begin to hope again, now that I have lived. Thus I am necessarily a man of Destiny. For when Truth battles against the lies of millennia there will be shock waves, earthquakes, the transposition of hills and valleys such as the world has never yet imagined even in its dreams. The concept "politics” then becomes entirely absorbed into the realm of spiritual warfare. All the mighty worlds of the ancient order of society are blown into space—for they are all based on lies: there will be wars the like of which have never been seen on earth before. Only after me will there be grand politics on earth.

Nietzsche predicts that there will be wars not because "God is Dead" and we have no grounding for morals. He said when the religions, so entrenched in society, began to be exposed as lies they would not go quietly.

Nietzsche laid the blame for these predicted wars directly at the feet of those who would seek to defend lies against Truth.  The shockwaves and conflict would come from the overturning of the paradigm, not a destruction of morality.

But Ravi would clearly never give this quote context because he simultaneously holds up Nietzsche as devil and prophet, destroyer of God and clairvoyant. If Nietzsche held such great predictive power, would Ravi accept his judgement of religions as lies?  I doubt so.

Still, Ravi at least twisted Nietzsche's actual words to his purposes.  In contrast, he appears to have invented from whole cloth Darwin's fears of a naturalistic world. Despite my best efforts I could find nothing remotely close to Ravi's words in Descent of Man or in Origin of Species to be generous. I challenge the reader to find the source Ravi draws from, but until a textual origin is found for the sentiment I must assume that Ravi has extracted it from a rather unsanitary orifice.

Miracles and Historic Method

Richard Carrier has some fringe ideas when it comes to the historicity of Jesus, but he is trying to convince others and change consensus within the community of historians.  In pursuit of that goal, he has a lot of useful things to say about historical method and how it's been applied (and should be applied) to miracle claims.

Carrier recently spoke about historical method at Skepticon 5.  I love this talk because it is just full of juicy tall tales from the time of Christ that Christians don't believe.  What I love more is that most of those stories where obviously and definitively made up by Christians.

Robert Price Takes on William Lane Craig

Today I was reminded of my favorite Robert Price speech.  In his opening statement when debating William Lane Craig, he spends the full 20 minutes detailing the intellectual dishonesty of his opponent and why Craig's entire methodology is nothing but shameful.  It seems to be a modified version of his online essay "By This Time He Stinketh."

Unfortunately, this allowed Craig to literally laugh off his entire opening statement as not being relevant to the topic of the debate.  The speech should be completely devastating to anyone who still thought Craig was arguing in good faith or had any scholarly methodology behind him.

Watching the rest of the debate however, I can see why Price said the best part of the debate was when it was over.

The Ontological Bomb Shelter

Via Jesus and Mo

The best of all possible bomb shelters must exist, because if it didn't exist it wouldn't be a very good bomb shelter now would it?

"From one previous atheist to another"

So I just got back from the Midwest Freethought Conference.  It was a blast!  I met a lot of old friends and made a few new ones.  The speakers were great, and the conversation was better.

But then this happened:

My friend Josh was at a Starbucks wearing a "Born Again Atheist" t-shirt Sunday morning, when a young woman walked over and handed him this letter.  Apparently she had seen the shirt and wanted to do something about it.

Here's the transcription:

From one previous atheist to another. 

Hello Sir, 

I know you might think me approaching you was rude or not very comfortable.  But couldn't help but notice you look like a man of great wisdom & truth.  If you are curious or if you like science you should look up the protein Laminin & its purpose. 

Funny right? I am a science major this took me by surprise.  I grew up in a broken home.  My mom was an alchoholic, I has an abusive step mom & started drugs at an early age and raised my brother and sister.  Plenty of people have the same situation, I understand.  But I wonder how many people with this background & anger find a solution.  I studied philosophy my favorite was Friedrich Nietzsche.  Existentiallism -> shortened purpose for existence.  That we control how our life to be.  I was determined to find my destiny.  I searched.  I hated God so that wasn't an option at the time I was an atheist you could say.  I continued to