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.

Papal Bull

My first column for the Daily Pennsylvanian student newspaper was just published yesterday. My column will be running under the heading "The Devil's Advocate." Here's the whole column, enjoy. 

During his Christmas address in Vatican City, Pope Francis reached out to atheists, saying, “I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace. [Join us] with your desire, a desire that widens the heart. Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace.” The line received an uproarious ovation, but I wish to withhold my applause.

Which nonbelievers do not already desire peace? Does he think we prefer war, death or destruction? Why not ask us to work toward peace, instead of just desiring and praying for it?

Now, before you start jumping all over me for being too pedantic, allow me to explain why I’m so hesitant to take Pope Francis’ grand gestures at face value.

In early 2013, Pope Benedict XVI captured the public interest by resigning the papacy because “God told him to.” Benedict’s tenure as pontiff was marked by a sharp turn to the right, seeking what he called a “smaller purer church.” Compared to the much beloved Pope John Paul II, Benedict was a disaster for the church’s image. So when the papal conclave elected Pope Francis, the first non-European Pope since 1272 and a man who was renowned for his kind manner and work with the poor, the contrast was incredibly stark.

Ever since, I have watched countless liberal pundits and writers proclaim Francis a godsend for progressive values. I cannot help but be reminded of 2008’s enthusiasm for Obama’s “Yes We Can” campaign. Both generated a large amount of early enthusiasm through their eloquent pronouncements before actually making policy changes — Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, and the pope was named Time’s 2013 Person of the Year.

Let us revisit some of the pontiff’s highlights from his first year:

On May 23rd, Pope Francis suggested that “even the atheists” can go to heaven. Amid the ensuing media sensation, Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica quietly released a statement clarifying that the Pope meant atheists can go to heaven … by becoming Catholic.

In a “surprise interview” on a plane back to Rome on July 29th, Francis said, “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord?” Once again, proponents of social justice lauded the sentiment as new gospel — forgetting to mention that Francis has never changed the church’s opposition to homosexuality. As recently as 2010, he called gay adoption a form of discrimination against children and claimed marriage equality would “seriously damage the family.”

It should have come as no surprise that two months later the pontiff would order the excommunication of Australian priest Greg Reynolds, who was advocating for gay marriage and the ordination of female priests.

Perhaps everything the pope says that sounds remotely liberal should be followed by an asterisk.

“But, Collin,” I hear you cry, “you’re an atheist! Why do you even care what the pope has to say?”

I care because the Catholic Church leads and influences over 1.2 billion (as it likes to boast) parishioners worldwide, with over 70 million in the United States alone.

I care because Pope Francis has made no effort to correct the lie that condom use increases AIDS transmission — a falsehood propagated in Africa by the previous pontiff.

I care because estimates suggest the church’s annual spending approaches $170 billion worldwide, 10 times the annual profits of Walmart. I say “estimates” because the church is tax-exempt, so it is not required to report its earnings.

What do you think?

I care because the Catholic Church spent over $2 million in 2012 fighting marriage equality in Maine, Maryland, Washington and my home state of Minnesota.

1

I care because Catholic hospitals account for 15 percent of hospital beds in the United States and many more worldwide, and the church’s stances on contraception, abortion and end-of-life care often dictate which medical interventions are prescribed.

I care because Pope Francis could change it all.

Regardless of your beliefs about the pope and his alleged hotline to heaven, he holds tremendous power over many of the people and issues I care about greatly. I hope I am wrong about Francis being purely a PR campaign, but actions still speak louder.

15+15 Things You Shouldn't Say To an Atheist

After having lots of conversations about religion, particularly with Christians, certain unfortunate trends have started to emerge. I started thinking there should be an atheism FAQ that should be required prior reading for anyone entering into conversation with an atheist.

While not strictly an FAQ, Hemant Mehta (The Friendly Atheist) has posted two videos along those lines.

Part 1 is a generic list of "15 things to NEVER say to an atheist."

For your convenience, I've compiled a text version of the list:

1. Where do you get your morality from?
2. Do you not believe in anything? Your life must be so EMPTY!
3. Why are you MAD at GOD!?
4. You can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
5. What if you're WRONG?
6. You just have to have FAITH!
7. Just OPEN your HEART to God.
8. You were never REALLY religious. (aka You were never a true Christian!) This one's a personal pet peeve of mine.
9. What happened in your CHILDHOOD to make you an atheist?
10. Have you read the BIBLE?
11. I'll PRAY for you.
12. Do you worship the DEVIL?
13. You aren't really an ATHEIST, you must be an AGNOSTIC.
14. Isn't atheism a RELIGION?
15. Why are you so ANGRY?

Part 2 is specifically for a Christian audience: "15 Things Christians Say to Atheists (And Shouldn't)"

Text version:

1. You don't believe in God because you just want to SIN!
2. You're an Atheist? You don't ACT like an Atheist.
3. When you are SUFFERING, you will call out to God!
4. [Atheism] is just a PHASE you're going through!
5. I don't have enough FAITH to be an Atheist!
6. Have you heard about JESUS? 
7. Where will you go when you DIE?
8. So we all came from MONKEYS?
9. Isn't evolution just a THEORY?
10. But where did the UNIVERSE come from?
11. Where did the MOUNTAINS[/ANIMALS/ANYTHING ELSE] come from?
12. A lot of SMART PEOPLE are Christians.
13. Why do you only PICK ON CHRISTIANS?
14. But what will you teach your CHILDREN?
15. Do you eat BABIES?

I didn't include any of the answers to these comments here because the videos have pretty good responses already. If you are even thinking about asking me these questions, watch the videos first. It will be 10 minutes  now that will save us both a lot of pain and suffering later.

Penn Secular Society Sign Vandalized

Running a secular group at an institution like the University of Pennsylvania has a few unique challenges. Unlike many schools across the US where secular groups are outcast and face opposition at every turn on religious grounds, at UPenn groups like the Christian Association, the interfaith group PRISM, and most of all the Chaplain's office have been our greatest outside supporters. Groups that would oppose us tend to keep to themselves. Penn has such a diverse religious life that most people have become extra accommodating to people of other beliefs, and I'm glad they've begun to include non-believers in that umbrella.

All of this love and support can be a burden as well when it comes time to ask the hard questions some of our members want to ask our classmates. Questions like "what good is faith?" Or "why do you put so much value on a book that supports slavery?"

This culture of interfaith cooperation is naturally resistant to any cross examination. Certain venues do exist for this type of discussion, but most are Christian organizations like InterVarsity, Cru, and Veritas Forum which have varying degrees of evangelistic missions.

Last week, the Penn Secular Society attempted to strike a balance by appealing to common ground. On the main campus walk, the PSS banner proudly displayed a partial list of "Gods you probably don't believe in."

On the right side in soft, non-pushy writing sat the lingering question: "so what's one more?"

We reasoned that this would be inoffensive enough to our religious classmates (seeing as we stuck with Gods no longer widely worshiped today), yet it would encourage people to think about their beliefs in a hopefully new way.

Apparently, not everyone felt that way.

It's hard to see in the picture, but by the end of the week someone had torn down page one and thrown coffee on the middle of the banner. The banner's fine, but very sticky.

When the vandalism came up at the next meeting, the unanimous decision amongst those present was to respond with something a little more provocative. We decided to go with some popular Abrahamic holy books' views on women. Three verses were selected and quoted without commentary, followed by a message:

"Do you dislike this display? Please don't deface our banner - find us on Facebook and tell us why."

Not 5 hours had gone by when we noticed someone hadn't read the instructions:

So in a new record for Penn Secular Society, someone has thrown soup on our 5 day long banner campaign less than 5 hours into the week.

We've decided to not clean the banner this time, in the hopes that passers by will take notice of the vandalism and hopefully learn something.

Minnesota Family Council Reacts to Gay Marriage Rulings

I just wanted to quickly share this email I got from the Minnesota Family Council following the two SCOTUS rulings regarding gay marriage last week. I won't comment on it here other than to note they asked for money 4 times in the same email. At least Obama had the courtesy to send you three separate emails.

Dear Friends, As you already may have heard, the United States Supreme Court issued opinions on two marriage cases involving the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  The Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) and dismissed an appeal regarding a constitutional California marriage amendment called Proposition 8 which was passed by more than 7 million voters in 2008.

Many of you have asked: “What do the decisions mean and how will they affect our religious freedoms?

Proposition 8 Ruling
The Proposition 8 ruling is the most disturbing.  The Court chose not to rule on the merits of the case and instead ruled that the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 had no standing to appeal the case.

(After voters passed Prop 8 in 2008, a lawsuit was filed to challenge it. The California government refused to defend the law and the defense was conducted by private citizens.  Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that those private citizens who defended the law did not have the legal ability to do so.)

By not ruling on the merits of the case, the Court established a “terrible precedent, ruling that citizens who pass an initiative (Prop 8 or other Marriage Amendments) do not have the legal right or standing to defend that law when elected officials refuse to do their job and defend the duly enacted law in court.”

The effect of this ruling will play out in both the federal district court and in California state courts in the upcoming days and weeks, and the fate of CA’s Proposition 8 is still unknown. The ruling applies narrowly to California and has no effect on Minnesota.

Please consider making a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May.

DOMA Ruling
The High Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as between one man and one woman for federal law purposes. This means that the same-sex “spouses” of federal employees will receive federal benefits as if they were spouses in a natural marriage in states that have redefined marriage.

The Court’s ruling on the DOMA case completely misinterprets the principles of federalism it purported to affirm. Federal government has the authority to make federal law for federal purposes, just as states have the authority to create state marriage laws for state purposes. The disappointing ruling declares that Congress does not have the right to maintain a federal definition of marriage.

More disturbing, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy implies that the members of Congress who passed DOMA were motivated in part due to “improper animus” towards gays and lesbians.  This is simply preposterous.  Please take the time to read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent as he sounds a “chilling warning” that the DOMA ruling deliberately uses language and reasoning that will encourage future legal cases that will allow the Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states.

What Is The Bottom Line?
The good news is that the rulings demonstrate that there is no constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”  The Court’s rulings affirm that the conversation about marriage can continue among citizens in the states. The Court found no constitutional right to same-sex "marriage.”

The decisions by the Supreme Court today affirm that the debate about marriage CAN and SHOULD continue…and it’s in YOUR hands.

As Minnesotans who understand the biological, historical, and transcendental reality of marriage, as well as the public purpose of God’s design for marriage, we now more than ever have the RIGHT, DUTY, and RESPONSIBILITY to stand in defense of 1 man-1 woman marriage. Promoting the good of marriage as an institution that uniquely encourages children to be raised by their mother and father if at all possible is GOOD policy and works to limit government’s involvement in our personal lives.

Here is what you can do.
Please make a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May.

And, find out how your REPRESENTATIVE and SENATOR voted on Minnesota’s same-sex “marriage” bill and take action.  Contact them to thank them for voting against the bill or let them know that you are disappointed that they voted yes and you will be working to hold them accountable in the next election.

“Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”  (Philippians 3:13-14) Many of you have asked: “What do the decisions mean and how will they affect our religious freedoms? Proposition 8 RulingThe Proposition 8 ruling is the most disturbing.  The Court chose not to rule on the merits of the case and instead ruled that the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 had no standing to appeal the case.  (After voters passed Prop 8 in 2008, a lawsuit was filed to challenge it. The California government refused to defend the law and the defense was conducted by private citizens.  Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that those private citizens who defended the law did not have the legal ability to do so.) By not ruling on the merits of the case, the Court established a “terrible precedent, ruling that citizens who pass an initiative (Prop 8 or other Marriage Amendments) do not have the legal right or standing to defend that law when elected officials refuse to do their job and defend the duly enacted law in court.” The effect of this ruling will play out in both the federal district court and in California state courts in the upcoming days and weeks, and the fate of CA’s Proposition 8 is still unknown. The ruling applies narrowly to California and has no effect on Minnesota. Please consider making a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May. DOMA RulingThe High Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as between one man and one woman for federal law purposes. This means that the same-sex “spouses” of federal employees will receive federal benefits as if they were spouses in a natural marriage in states that have redefined marriage. The Court’s ruling on the DOMA case completely misinterprets the principles of federalism it purported to affirm. Federal government has the authority to make federal law for federal purposes, just as states have the authority to create state marriage laws for state purposes. The disappointing ruling declares that Congress does not have the right to maintain a federal definition of marriage. More disturbing, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy implies that the members of Congress who passed DOMA were motivated in part due to “improper animus” towards gays and lesbians.  This is simply preposterous.  Please take the time to read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent as he sounds a “chilling warning” that the DOMA ruling deliberately uses language and reasoning that will encourage future legal cases that will allow the Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. What Is The Bottom Line?The good news is that the rulings demonstrate that there is no constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”  The Court’s rulings affirm that the conversation about marriage can continue among citizens in the states. The Court found no constitutional right to same-sex "marriage.” The decisions by the Supreme Court today affirm that the debate about marriage CAN and SHOULD continue…and it’s in YOUR hands. As Minnesotans who understand the biological, historical, and transcendental reality of marriage, as well as the public purpose of God’s design for marriage, we now more than ever have the RIGHT, DUTY, and RESPONSIBILITY to stand in defense of 1 man-1 woman marriage. Promoting the good of marriage as an institution that uniquely encourages children to be raised by their mother and father if at all possible is GOOD policy and works to limit government’s involvement in our personal lives. Here is what you can do.Please make a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May. And, find out how your REPRESENTATIVE and SENATOR voted on Minnesota’s same-sex “marriage” bill and take action.  Contact them to thank them for voting against the bill or let them know that you are disappointed that they voted yes and you will be working to hold them accountable in the next election.  “Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”  (Philippians 3:13-14)

The Bible Paraphrased parts 3&4

Dusty is back and more BA than ever.

Mixed Messages

I don't have time for a full debrief of the Veritas Forum discussion with Ian Hutchinson, but I just wanted to upload these pictures.

Hutchinson was pushed on the evolution question and actually conceded the point of common ancestry while using deflationary language about the explanatory scope of evolution. This was not a surprise, since he is a theistic evolutionist.

But at the doors on the way out, these little books entitled "Why Genesis Matters" by Jason Lisle were being handed out for free.

This is a propaganda book from none other than the Institute for Creation Research. Here is just a sampling of the book's contents.

I am royally pissed about this, in no small part because our secular group co-sponsored this event. 

Update:
Reportedly, Veritas had no prior knowledge of this and it was an independent group coming in to distribute the materials. I still don't understand how they were allowed to set up a table at the door inside the venue and I remain irritated that anti-science nonsense was distributed at an otherwise reasonable event.

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.

Scientism and other Straw Men

Ian Hutchinson is participating at a Veritas Forum event here at University of Pennsylvania tomorrow and I've been doing a fair amount of research in preparation for the discussion afterwards.

Hutchinson typically has only one issue that he talks about: "Scientism."

Scientism as Hutchinson defines it is "the belief that the only meaningful knowledge is science." Even though he readily admits that almost no one says that's their position, he still believes it is pervasive in our culture.

But Hutchinson, as an applied physicist, clearly defines science to be only the "hard" natural sciences like Physics and Chemistry. Defined this way, clearly there is knowledge beyond science and believing science can explain everything is absolutely ridiculous.

But whenever Hutchinson gives an example of "scientism" they invariably means something entirely different by "science." Usually when a freethinker or skeptic refers to science, we mean science in a much broader sense: a systematic method of discerning knowledge while accounting for cognitive biases. Psychology, history, and sociology for example (fields at which science is incompetent according to Hutchinson) are systematic academic disciplines that produce experimental results that can be externally verified just like any hard science.

Even then, most skeptics wouldn't say science is the only way of knowing (though we'll often say justifiably that it's the best we've come up with so far).

It seems to me that Hutchinson is setting up a strawman in all sincerity. I accept that he believes scientism is a big problem in our society, but I also think he is completely wrong and attacking a boogieman.


So why is he doing it? What's his motivation? Why continue to push this one issue to the exclusion of all others?

To understand, I think we have to look more broadly at attempts to reconcile faith with science. In general, I've observed five different approaches to this problem that fall roughly on a spectrum.

1. Faith should be discarded outright (Harris, Dawkins, etc)
First is the common view among the New Atheists that in the conflict between science and faith, science should always win. Moreover, since this is always the case and science is getting better and better, why preserve faith at all?

2. Science's presumption of naturalism is too restrictive. We should allow supernatural explanations into science (Behe/Intelligent Design)
Proponents of this reconciliation argue that science restricts itself unnecessarily to naturalism and should begin to include supernatural elements. "If the actual answer is beyond the natural world," they reason "why should science be forever forbidden from accepting that?" This is a ploy to capitalize on the popularity and success of science. While they still privately hold to faith as the primary source of their knowledge in these realms, they believe that science would justify their faith if only it where not constrained to what we can observe, test, and falsify. 

3. Science and Faith are Non-Overlapping MagisteriA (NOMA/Gould).
Steven J Gould is the most well known popularizer of NOMA, arguing that faith deals in realms science can't touch (the supernatural) and at the same time faith doesn't touch the natural realm where science is king. On this view, questions of faith can't be formulated scientifically so they cannot be in conflict.

4. Shrink science with accusations of scientism and restrict it to the hard sciences (Hutchinson)

People taking this track will hold up science as a paragon of human ingenuity and progress, but only in very narrow specific fields. Meanwhile, they will paint every other field as inaccessible to science. They claim that science has exploded the boundaries of its validity when it tries to address historical claims (like can a dead man come back to life), sociological claims (like is religion purely a product of culture), psychological claims (like is glossolalia meaningless babble).

See the pattern here? Hutchinson is an extreme example of this because he narrows science so much, but many religious scientists make valiant attempts to keep some gap in scientific knowledge available for God to act in the world. Ken Miller for example leaves the randomness of quantum mechanics up to God's will, by which he can control all of reality through subtle undetectable methods.

5. Discard science altogether (Answers in Genesis) 

This is the young earth creationist approach of decrying science as a flawed human endeavor and holding up faith and revelation as the only valid path to knowledge.

Except for the first and last approaches that completely reject one or the other, each of these tries to rectify the apparent conflict between faith and empiricism without destroying either. Why has Hutchinson gone with option 4? Because he recognizes that including supernaturalism into science (a la Behe) would destroy it utterly, and as a scientist he doesn't want that. Instead, he wants to leave room for Purpose in a world that could potentially be described in a completely deterministic and purposeless way. 

By barring science from touching on any human characteristics such as imagination, judgement, morality, free will, or meaning of life, he intends to leave the door open for God to enter in with those answers.

Bringing Back the Memories

If any of you were Youth for Christ kids like me or any kind of youth group, this should sound a little too familiar. Jessica Misener has posted a list of  "33 Ways You Know You Were A Youth Group Kid."

I personally hit 22/33 (with a little stretching). Here are a couple of my favorites.

1. You were so excited that your crush was also going to the lock-in.

Via: newlifedenton.org

2. You know ALL the hand motions to "Lord I Lift Your Name On High."

Via: 1.bp.blogspot.com

4. You at one point decided to kiss dating good-bye.

Via: sovereigngraceministries.org

5. You jumped on one of these at camp every summer.

Via: whitneyorth.com

6. This was the greatest album you'd ever heard.

Via: covers1.img-themusic-world.info

7. Or this.

Via: 0.tqn.com

8. No, wait, THIS.

Via: patheos.com

17. You had this shirt.

Via: afterbaby.com

20. You prayed at school during "See You at the Pole."

Via: urbanchristiannews.com

21. You rode all around town in one of these.

Via: farm5.staticflickr.com

26. You had that one girl who would always cry and be dramatic when praying out loud. (Or you WERE that girl.)

32. Your parents would only let you listen to TruthFM, WayFM, The BridgeFM, HopeFM, LightFM, ShineFM, or PraiseFM. (Safe for the whole family!)