Right Reason

I recently finished reading Erik Wielenberg’s book Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe. I’ve already commented a couple of times on crucial junctures in that book where the author’s argument against theologically grounded ethics depends heavily on conceptual confusion and misrepresentation.

It would get a bit tedious to write a blog entry every time I come across a significant shortcoming of this sort in the book, just because – with all due respect – there are quite a few at various junctures. Although there are more examples that could serve as the basis of more short posts identifying and responding to what I think are errors of one sort or another in this book, this will be the last such post. At some point in the future if I have time I may write a review and put it in the articles section.

After addressing – so he thinks – the view that God must exist if there are any moral facts, Dr Wielenberg begins to consider what value and virtue look like in a world where God does not exist. One of the claims he makes – and this is the subject of this blog post – is that if atheism is true, then we can perform a much more moral deed than we could ever perform if Christianity were true. Now of course, I think this claim collapses from the outset because I don’t think Wielenberg – or atheism in general – is able to provide a cogent account of moral facts at all, but I’m setting that aside for now for the sake of focusing on a different claim.

Read More

[Time for another foray into biblical studies. I thought it might be fun (???) to post some excerpts from previous work I have done at the University of Otago when completing my Master’s Degree in Theology. This is the first such example, slightly adapted from my thesis on the modern role of biblical law.]

One of the issues that will affect the discussion of the continuity of the law’s authority is the question of categories of law. When theologians and biblical scholars speak of categories of law, what is usually in mind is a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. Can we legitimately speak of categories of biblical law, and if so, how do we go about recognising them?

Read More

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

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.

Read More

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).

Read More

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.