A review of Evidence for the Bible

Christopher Smith,a Master’s student in Christan History at Wheaton College, has written a review of my book,  here is my response to his first installment:

Let me first thank you for both your review, and for the kind introductory remarks. As for your more critical comments, I think they somewhat miss the mark, for a couple of reasons.

First, writing any book involves a whole series of choices and tradeoff. One of the decisions I made was to make this a more popular book rather than a more scholarly one, aimed at the educated non-Christian, rather than the biblical scholar. Because of this I drew on more popular books and addressed arguments my target audience would likely have encountered, such as in an introductory class in religion at a secular college, or in a popular best seller, or magazine, etc.

I knew at the time this would not satisfy the scholarly minded, but then that was not my audience, and space is limited. Granted, I may not have mentioned the particular scholars you wanted to see (part of which may be that these are expanded and updated versions of an early work). On the other hand, at least I do cite a number of critics, many scholars, and much of the book is dealing with their arguments, which is far better than most of the critics, who for the most part completely ignore all conservative opposition, or if they do mention it, do so only as an off handed dismissal.

One particularly annoying comment in its pettiness, and one which I found to be at best somewhat misleading was when you commented “Hushbeck’s ignorance, of German, moreover, is painfully evident. In one place he refers to “the German scholar Frank” (meaning, apparently, Franz Hermann Frank) and spells two German words in the title of “Frank’s” book incorrectly. The omission of the author’s first name, the publisher information, and a page number makes it altogether evident that he’s relying on Josh McDowell’s partial citation of this work.”

First let me plead guilty as charged to having no real working knowledge of German. In fact, there are a whole range of languages that I have no working knowledge off, and in some cases no knowledge at all. But then I never claimed otherwise. Considering that these two misspelled words appeared only in an endnote, they hardly are a substantial incitement against the book itself. As for relying on McDowell for this quote, again I plead guilty, though I am somewhat puzzled while you needed all of those clues you cited to make this “evident,” when the citation you mentioned included “quoted in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict Vol. II (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Pub., 1975) p. 7”

As for me not bothering to check these, you speak from ignorance. While, there was no way you could have know, the research for this book took me several years, and I went to great lengths to check out the quotes in the book. Now at the time, I was working for JPL and traveled across the country, to Europe and Australia and thus was able to visit libraries such as at Harvard, and the National Library in Australia. During this time was able to find almost all of the works cited. I believe that the quote you cited is the only quote in both books I was not able to verify, which is why I cited it the way I did. Hardly an unknown practice, even among scholars and certainly not worthy of criticism.

Frankly of far more interest to me than the irrelevances of whether or not searching all these libraries constitutes “bothering” is whether or not the quote is accurate. If the quote is accurate it really does not matter how it came into the book. If it is not, then I would really like to know so that I can remove it. So is it accurate?

As far as the sources tending to be from a conservative perspective, that is simply false. The general pattern for the book is to cite the critics and then deal with what they are saying. As result, I cite both critical and supportive works, and do cite scholarly critics.

Much the same can be said for the two chapters on science, though you ignored most of both chapters to focus on the last section that dealt with evolution. But even here you seem to have missed the point. The focus here was not so much to argue that evolution is wrong, but rather to address the question why is it that so many Christians question evolution. Perhaps a few words on theistic evolution should have been included, though I would point out that my personal experience with my target audience is that while they are well aware of theistic evolution as an option, and I do say there is a diversity of opinion in this area, most have never seen a serious treatment of the arguments against evolution, for these arguments have been pretty successfully suppressed outside Christian circles.

As for simply “parroting” Christian apologists, sure I cite some, where it is appropriate, just like I cite critics such as Carl Sagan, Robert Jastorw, and semi-critical scientists such as Steven Hawkings. I would point out that Dallas Willard, hardly someone uninformed in on these matters, told me that he had never encountered some of these arguments when I wrote them in a paper for him, which was why he encouraged me to publish. As such this charge is hard to see as anything other than slanting.

In summary, I would say that your review so far has been long on accusation, and short on substance. Perhaps in later posts you will get into more detail, but so far you have demonstrated the academic’s over preoccupation with citations, rather than actual argument, at times drifting very close to ad hominem attack when you at least imply that certain sources are to be rejected While you praise me for dealing with so much in so few pages, (and length was a key consideration when writing the book, and much was left out or cut), you turn around and are very critical for not going into greater detail. Again I think the audience I was targeting address most of these criticism. More to the point, nothing you have said so far actually challenges the any of arguments I make in the book.

BTW, while I thank you for the promotion, I only have two masters degrees, not a phd.

A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part XVI

 Listen to the MP3  

In the last installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at Dawkins’ arguments for why we can’t use the Bible as the basis for our morality. But if we cannot use the Bible then where should we get our morals?

For Dawkins, the answer to this question is the Moral Zeitgeist, which Dawkins sees as “a consensus about what we do as a matter of fact consider right and wrong: a consensus that prevails surprisingly widely.” (pg 262).

Now there is some truth to this statement.  Certainly there is a Moral Zeitgeist, a general consensus about right and wrong, and Dawkins easily shows this by pointing out a whole list of historical examples of things that were acceptable during their time, but which would be condemned today. 

In fact as I have frequently argued, to properly understand people in the past one must understand the general consensus of the times.  While very common, it is grossly unfair to condemn those in the past who broke with the conventions of their day to move society forward, simply because they did not quite meet our current standards.

So when it comes to the existence of a Moral Zeitgeist, Dawkins is on solid ground. Where he runs into problems is when he goes beyond the existence of the Moral Zeitgeist and argues that this should be the foundation for our morality, something it cannot be. His claim that it is, is simply irrational.

To see this consider the following statement by Dawkins, “The Zeitgeist may move, and move in a generally progressive direction, but as I have said it is a sawtooth not a smooth improvement, and there have been some appalling reversals.” (pg 272)

While a seemingly innocuous statement, it actually completely undermines Dawkins claim. If Dawkins were correct and the Zeitgeist did in fact define our morality, then there could be no concept of progress or reversal.  Whatever the Zeitgeist said was good, would be good, and whatever the Zeitgeist said was evil would be evil. In those areas today where the Moral Zeitgeist allow slavery, slavery would be good. In those areas where family members should kill a daughter who was raped to so as to end the dishonor to the family, then it would be a good thing to kill a daughter who was raped.  That would be the moral Zeitgeist.

If slavery were to be reintroduced, or honor killing introduced into 21st century America, and sadly both honor killing and slavery, though thankfully rare are beginning to occur here, it could not be seen as a step backward, but merely a change, for again it would be the moral Zeitgeist that ultimately determined right and wrong, and thus there would be no way to say that one Moral Zeitgeist was any better than any other Moral Zeitgeist. 

The very fact that Dawkins talks of a “generally progressive direction” and “appalling reversals,” shows that there must be something beyond the Moral Zeitgeist that is actually the foundation for morality. 

In fact without such a foundation, there would be no reason to even change the Zeitgeist.  Slavery was ended when Christians argued that it was immoral, regardless of what the Zeitgeist said.  In fact most of the improvements Dawkins cites were brought about by people, often with Christians in the lead, arguing that these things were wrong, thereby changing the Moral Zeitgeist of their time.

Ultimately, Dawkins view is completely unworkable, for if it were true, how could anyone argue anything it terms of morality?  In fact all of Dawkins arguments discussed earlier about the immorality of the Bible would be meaningless. They would not be things to condemn as Dawkins attempts to do, they would simply be a different moral Zeitgeist and again there would be no way to say that our current Zeitgeist is any better or worse than any other Zeitgeist.

In short, Dawkins wants to have it both ways. His view of morality is firmly grounded and should be accepted, so much so that he condemns those who disagree with his view.  Yet if we subject his moral views to the same scrutiny, they fall apart.

Whether one agrees with Christian morality or not, at least Christians have a foundation upon which to base their moral views. At least Christians have a basis to say that Society has improved, and not just changed.  At least Christians have a track record that puts them in the forefront of the moral advances that society has made. Christianity does not by any means have a perfect record, but it is a good one that on the whole Christians should be proud of.  The strongest criticism that can be mounted against Christian morality is that Christians have not always lived up to the teaching of Jesus.

In place of this Dawkins proposes a muddled view that is at best logically inconsistent, and one that conflict with his own claims. It is a view that places the greatest good on the same level as the greatest evil, with no means of saying one is any better than the other, except that one may happens to be part of the general outlook of the time.

The most amazing thing about Dawkins’ claim is that he really believes he is the one with the rational position.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.  

The Problem with McCain

There is a lot of silliness on the part of McCain supporters when it comes to why conservatives are having such trouble with McCain. It is because they are don’t’ control him, or because they don’t like his style, or because he isn’t pure enough,  implying that he has only minor deviations from core conservative principles and conservatives just need to get over themselves and support him.

Such arguments are at best counterproductive.  One of the worst things you can do when trying to win over someone is to misrepresent or distort their grievances, as this only leads at minimum to a renewed effort to be understood, and more likely a hardening of the divisions.

While I by no means speak for all conservatives, I do think my views are fairly common among conservatives.  Long before McCain’s political resurrection to capture the GOP nomination, I believed there were six main issues of importance in the upcoming election.   The War on Terrorism, the Economy, the Courts,  Health Care, Global Warming, and Immigration.

McCain is said to have solid credentials on war, and for the most part this is true.  Yet he has also been a pretty consistent critic at the same time, particularly over water boarding and other tough interrogation methods, arguing if we do these, then others might use these methods on our soldiers. Not only do I disagree with such reasoning, I find it very troubling.  Does McCain really believe that when He, Hillary or Obama gets in the White House next year and announces that we will no longer use such practices, that suddenly Al Qaeda will start treading any soldiers they capture by the Geneva Convention?  If not, then why use this argument?

As for the broader war effort, McCain has spent so much time taking credit for the surge, that I don’t really know where he stand on the broader war on terror, but my assumption is that he is probably ok,  but I would like him to speak a bit more on issues such as Iran.

But this goes to another key problem with McCain.  He is not a conservative, is a politician who has largely voted conservative, thought less so in recent years.  Frankly I never know where he will come down on a given issue. 

In short, McCain on the war is Ok, but there are several key question marks.   This is also my concern with the courts.   He has made some good comments, and has been reported to have made some troubling ones.  But when it comes to judges, will the Conservative McCain pick them, or will the McCain who reaches across the aisle pick them?  I don’t know.

When it comes to the economy,  McCain has admitted he does not know very much, as was demonstrated by voting against the Bush Tax cuts.  He now says he wants them extended, but it is very hard not to see this as driven by the campaign.  It would not at all surprise me should he become President, to see him taking a page from Bill Clinton and claiming “I tried as hard as I could but…”  

He seems to be getting some good advisors, but what troubles me the most is that given his lack of understanding he does not realize the effect of some of his other proposals will have.  Given some of his other proposals, and his past history, I would not at all be surprised to see a net tax increase under a McCain administration. Thus for me this is a slight negative.

On Health care, McCain’s propensity to reach across the aisle combined with his lack of understanding of how economies work cause me to be very concerned.  The current strategy of the Liberals is to incrementally move towards single payer, Government run health care.  Will McCain take a strong stance for individual freedom and control over their own health care, pushing for a solution based on market forces, or will he link up with a Senator Clinton to reach a bi-partisan (read liberal) solution?  Again his history is hardly comforting in this area.  His comments about the drug companies are very troubling and make this a negative.

When it comes to the last two items Global Warming and Immigration, McCain is clearly and solidly on the other side.   I consider both to be very important issues.  Global Warming represents a massive shift of power away from individual people to have control over their lives, giving it to the Government.  This is yet another indication of why McCain so troubling. He claims to be a low tax, small government conservative, yet he supports Global warming initiates that will greatly increase the tax burden, along with the size and scope of Government.  This is a big negative.

As for Immigration, while he claims to have “listened and learned” he clearly hasn’t. The biggest message from last years’ failure of the immigration bill was, build the fence, enforce the laws, and after this is done, then we will talk about those who are still here.  Yet, a recently campaign commercial here in Wisconsin sounded like it could have been said by McCain during last year’s debate, except that he has added the phrase “listened and learned.” Another big negative.

So on the six issues that are most important to me, on none does he get my unqualified endorsement.  One is at best a big question mark, one is a slight negative, one is a negative and two are very large negatives.

So when McCain supporters claim that conservative opposition is simply about style, purity, or control, they are just showing me that they really don’t have a clue, or they do and are just lying.  It has been a very unusual year and perhaps McCain will be the first President elected without the support of the base of his party.   For me, my current plan is to vote for McCain in November, and I will detail my reasons why in a future post.

A Review of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion Part XV

Listen to the MP3   

In chapter 7 of his book, “The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins, turn the issue of morality and the Bible.  Dawkins lays down his goal pretty clearly in the opening paragraph when he says that the Bible, “encourages a system of morals which any civilized modern person whether religious or not, would find – I can put it no more gently – obnoxious.”  As for the millions of people who do get their morality from the Bible and yet somehow seem to be civilized and modern, Dawkins claims that “they either do not read it, or do not understand it.”

As a Christian friend of mine is fond of saying when confronted with such statements, “And yet here I stand.” The simple fact is that there are many people who do read and understand the Bible, probably a lot more than Dawkins, who reach vastly different conclusion.

It is true that on the one hand there are the extreme fundamentalists who insist that any deviation from how they read the Bible is heresy. In fact, in some cases they even argue that if you don’t read the same translation they do, you must be a heretic.  Yet on the other hand there are the skeptics like Dawkins who, if you deviate from how they read the Bible you are picking “which bits of scripture to believe” (pg 238).  Other than the conclusions they reach, I find very little difference between the two groups, as they both have a very superficial view of scripture, and dogmatically reject any deviation from their view.

Again Dawkins is not completely at fault here for he relies on the work of liberal scholars who are also critical of the scripture, such as Bishop Shelby Spong. But as I detail in my book, Evidence for the Bible, Liberal scholars are often little better than these other two groups. For example a while back I heard Bishop Spong being interviewed on the radio and he said that the Gospel of John that was anti-Semitic, and he knew of no scholars who would argue differently.  This means that he was completely unaware of those scholars, for they certainly do exist.  D. A Carson for example, in his Commentary on John’s Gospel, lists other possible understandings and argues quite convincingly from the text that anti-Semitism simply does not fit.

Dawkins’ analysis of the Bible starts out by listing the acts of God he considers immoral such as Noah and the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah. There are two main problem Dawkins faces with these arguments. The first, as discussed in earlier installments of this review, is on what basis of morality are we to make such criticism?

A bigger problem however, is that to really judge the morality of an action, we need to have all the relevant information the person had at the time.  Without that information, an act that seems immoral could in fact have been moral in light of the addition information.  For example, if all you knew was that John cut Mary with a knife, that might seem immoral until you find out that John was a doctor removing a cancerous growth.

The simple fact is that we can never hope of have all the relevant information available to God so as to be in a position to pass judgment on God.  Nor does this really matter, in terms of our morality, as even in the Bible these are special cases, and not models for us to follow today.

Another problem in Dawkins critique is that he at times fails to distinguish between the Bible describing what happened, and the Bible telling us how we should act. For example, he cites the instance in Judges where a priest cut up his concubine into 12 pieces (Judges 19).   But as the book of Judges says about the period, “in those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” (Judge 21:25)  One of the unique aspects of the Bible is that it does not present the main figures as perfect and noble, but as flawed.   We are not so much to follow their actions, but frequently to learn from their mistakes.  But Dawkins often is too busy ridiculing to notice such distinctions.

One of the stranger side trips Dawkins takes, is when he condemns “America’s Ten Commandment tablet-toters” arguing that they should be praising the Taliban for their destruction of Buddhist statues.  He says “I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca—or Chartres, York Minster or Notre Dame,  the Shew Dagon, the temples of Kyoto, or of course, the Buddhas of Bamiyan.” (pg 249)  Apparently Dawkins is unaware that much of the controversy in the U.S. is over the removal of Christian religious symbols such as crosses and the Ten Commands.  In short, those in the U.S. acting like the Taliban in their intolerant seeking to remove religious symbols they disagree with are not Christians, but atheists.

Finally Dawkins fail to consider the historical context of the time. For example, he asked if a whole range of offenses should have the death penalty, starting with cursing your parents. This was nothing new to the age, in fact even today; in some cultures parent have the right and even the duty to kill their children that dishonor them. What was new in the Bible’s command was that parents had to “bring him to the elders at the gate of his town.”  The change the teaching of the Bible brought about was that the power to kill was removed from the parents. But like in so much of his analysis, Dawkins missed the point of the passage.  

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.  

Liberals and Conservatives

Liberals and conservatives differ in many ways but three of most significant and the easiest to see differences are in how they view themselves, how they view each other and how they see freedom and equality. Conservatives for the most part see themselves as conservatives.  They are one part of a spectrum of ideas all of which are competing for power.  They see those who differ as being wrong.  They believe liberal ideas however well intentioned should be rejected because either they do not work, or world lead to greater problems.  Since liberal solutions to problems normally involve a larger government, they are in addition a threat to freedom, for as government grows freedom must correspondingly be restricted. For conservatives freedom is more important than equality.

Liberals, on the other hand, for the most part do not see themselves as liberal. In fact, they frequently reject all such labels as meaningless, or even worst divisive.  Rather they see themselves as independent thinkers, not tied to any ideology, but willing to go where the facts and their hearts lead them.  Those who differ are either putting their ideology ahead of the facts, or worst, are heartless or have some other moral deficiency.   Since liberal are only seeking to do what is right and good, those who oppose them must therefore be seeking to do what is wrong and evil.  Finally, for liberals, while freedom is important, equality is more important.

These differences are at the heart of the reason why conservatives do so well on talk-radio, while liberals haven’t.  Conservatives, since they see themselves as one part of spectrum of ideas all competing for dominance, tend to think in terms of battling ideas; of reasons and intellectual arguments supporting a position vs. reasons and counter-arguments opposed to a position.  They listen to the arguments used against them; find their flaws and weakness so as to make counter arguments. They are prepared to not only compete in the marketplace of ideas, they are prepared to win. 

Liberals don’t see that they need to compete.  After all, what good is an intellectually argument, when someone is ignoring the facts and following their ideology? What good is an intellectual argument when someone is heartless and has no compassion, or is greedy and seeks wealth and/or power? As for the arguments conservatives use against them, they are normally simply ignored without any real consideration. After all, from the liberal view these arguments are grounded in either ideology, or heartlessness and therefore don’t deserve any serious consideration.

This difference can be seen in the debate over health care.  Many liberal seek a single payer health care system that would guarantee that everyone has equal access to medical care. They see the opposition as greedy corporations such as the drug companies who seek to profit off the suffering of others.  After all such systems are working in Canada, and most of Western Europe, so why can’t it work here? Conservatives oppose a single payer health system because, while they provide equal access to all,  such systems have been show to deliver a greatly reduced level of health care than is currently available in the United States, and  at a much greater cost.  Those countries that current have them are struggling to pay for them. In short they do not work very well. Since they involve a large Government they corresponding restrict freedom. 

Conservatives deal with the arguments of liberals by analyzing them and pointing out their weaknesses. The US drug companies by far lead the world in discovering medicine that not only prolongs people’s lives, but give people a much better quality of life in the process.  It is a system, that whatever its flaws, has produced a tremendous and direct benefit to people.   Why would we want to change from a system that has produced such clear benefits to a system that, as can be seen in countries with single player systems, does not work as well?  Liberal, on the other hand, normally write-off these arguments as inspired by the drug companies and since they are greedy, their arguments cannot be trusted.

Much the same can be seen in the debate over man-made global warming.  Liberals put forth their evidence from scientist who supports the theory of man-made global warming, Conservatives counter with evidence from scientists who reject or question the theory of man-made global warming.  Liberal normally write-off this evidence as inspired by the oil companies and since they are greedy, their arguments cannot be trusted. 

This is also why it is so difficult to have discussion and debate between liberals and conservatives. While liberal frequently see themselves as open minded and tolerant, their way of viewing the world actually leads them to be closed minded  and intolerant, at least when it comes to conservatives.  Their tendency to see conservatives as greedy, heartless, etc, also insulates them and effectively closes their minds.   In addition, because they value equality more than freedom, and equality is viewed as a right, they tend to see their position as supporting rights, and those who challenge them as infringing on rights.  As a result they feel justified in suppressing the opposition against them, after all they are not so much suppressing opposition, but merely defending basic human rights. 

As a result, conservatives, on the rare occasions that they do get a chance to speak at  those most liberal of all institutions, Universities, frequently require body guards, have their speeches disrupted by protestors, or are even attacked on the stage by those who claim to be open minded and tolerant.

« Previous Page — Next Page »