Worst columnist ever

Au contraire -- it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist. The very fact that the available information has not convinced us atheists of the existence of Thomas' god should tell him something about the quality of the information.

He does have a (very lonely) legitimate point there. Those who stay atheist generally do it because of the lack of evidence. Those who switch over to the Dark Side generally give in based on emotional appeal or some other non-evidential grounds. It's hard to tell how many alleged former atheists actually exist, because proclaiming to have been an immoral atheist before surrendering to God's love is a standard part of the evangelical boiler plate. Even non-stupid evangelicals such as Francis Collins use this rhetorical device. And their reasons for converting are never evidentially sound.

I hate to be overly sarcastic, but if his god is so impressive, you think he'd grant him the ability to rally better arguments.

I also have to wonder why anyone who worships a god who condemns non-believers to eternal torment. These non-believers are not necessarily bad people at all in their bheaviors, they just didn't buy the argument. Such a god sounds like a petty, infantile psychopath.

And if your god is a petty, infantile psychopath, why would you trust him anyway? Who says the big Heaven payoff is something he won't yank away from you at some point out of some childish motivation?

What with the end of the year coming around soon (for those suffering from a Western bias), what other contenders would you put in your top 10 worst columnist list? I would nominate Deepak Chopra for his whole series on... whatever it was on.

I've always figured that anyone who goes out of their way to proclaim themselves a former atheist is, if not outright lying, at least not distinguishing between apathetic and informed disbelief. As a result, I think that many such people were atheists because of some injustice they attributed to God and/or went to Christ through some sort of existential crisis. It's somewhat the same fate I fear for many of these kids participating in the Blasphemy Challenge, that they're doing it because they think it's trendy and at some point will decide that as they grow up they need to Get Right with God (tm).

Matter of fact, that's one thing I don't like about the Blasphemy Challenge, that most of the participants are kids. There really should be more grownups involved.

...pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so). That's because...

Someone teach this man how to use parentheses.

"Thomas hits rock bottom when he unearth's Pascal's inane wager."

That's one of the things I think about as I slowly migrate from a Liberal Christian to something more agnostic/deist. I suspect that by this time next year I'll be a full fledged atheist. Anyway, I've grown up with a 'by faith alone' background. And if you don't have faith, pray to the Holy Ghost to give you faith. And when you wake up the next morning and you still have doubts, you start crying during your prayers for a more effective Holy Ghost because if he doesn't get his act together and give me faith, I'm doomed.

So that leads us to just having saying you have faith even if you don't. Man, if an all knowing God can't see through that, he/she ain't that all knowing.

Au contraire -- it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist. The very fact that the available information has not convinced us atheists of the existence of Thomas' god should tell him something about the quality of the information.

Or, it should tell you something about the nature/process of regeneration which is not

1) I hear the gospel or read the bible
2) I accept it as reasonable
3) I eventually believe
4) I am regenerated (born again) as a reward for my belief

If that's the case, then you are correct in your assessment of Cal Thomas on this point. However, if the actual process of conversion (then one I believe is supported by the bible) is:

1) I, like everyone else in their natural state, find the gospel and the bible to be utter foolishness
2) Nevertheless at some point I am regenerated (not because of anything I've done)
3) I now respond to the bible and the gospel, and no longer find them foolish

then he is right (on this point.) In other words, like all atheists, especially the smarter ones, you assume that you are an atheist because you weigh and easily reject the evidence. The reverse is actually true. You have the process bass-ackwards. You are stuck, from all indications and hopefully just for the moment, on step 1 of the second flow chart.

However, if the actual process of conversion (then one I believe is supported by the bible) is:

1) I, like everyone else in their natural state, find the gospel and the bible to be utter foolishness
2) Nevertheless at some point I am regenerated (not because of anything I've done)
3) I now respond to the bible and the gospel, and no longer find them foolish

then he is right (on this point.) In other words, like all atheists, especially the smarter ones, you assume that you are an atheist because you weigh and easily reject the evidence. The reverse is actually true. You have the process bass-ackwards. You are stuck, from all indications and hopefully just for the moment, on step 1 of the second flow chart.

I am waiting to be regenerated (through no fault of my own) so that I will no longer find that comment utterly foolish.

OK, it's official, I'm not smart enough to follow this conversation. God help me ;)

A small clarification:

"a morality based on a selfish fear of what happens to you after you die"

That's only one school of thought - the alternative is "Do as you're damn well told, because {I love you / you owe me / you will respect my authoritah}!" (take your pick for the exact reason).

There is a serious point there (as serious as discussion of sky-fairies can be, anyway) - many Christians argue that you shouldn't do certain things because you're afraid of their god, but because it's his due as your creator. That to me is a more acceptable argument. Still totally bogus, but it's something".

And if your god is a petty, infantile psychopath, why would you trust him anyway?
Because they have created a god in their own image. Why do you think that Bush is so popular with these types?

In his defence, he only says atheism is in vogue because the question that he was supposed to answer was, "Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"

I thought the paragraph on information is rather ironic, since it implied that something more than the available evidence (like blind faith) is needed to believe in God. And then he goes on to say that atheism requires more faith. I'm not sure whether he considers faith a good thing or bad thing.

It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him. It is also intellectually lazy. You have to believe the vastness of the universe "happened" without a Designer and that unique things like fingerprints and snowflakes occurred by pure chance

I hear the first part of this one all the time. I wonder if the people who make this claim also think it takes more faith not to believe that my neighbor's garden gnomes are actually three dimensional manifestations of hyperdimensional superbeings who control the fate of the universe.
And come on, Cal, snowflakes as proof of God? Does Cal actually think that his omnipotent superbeing sits around handcrafting individual snowflakes instead of tending to warfare, starvation and disease? Strange priorities his deity has there.

2? Nevertheless at some point I am regenerated (not because of anything I've done) 3) I now respond to the bible and the gospel, and no longer find them foolish

Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit to me, given that whatever the trauma was, it caused a major loss of the critical faculties.

I remember hearing somewhere that a vast majority of people with diagnosed schizophrenia either believe they are god or that god speaks directly to them. (My older brother is one of them, so I have some limited but first-hand experience with this.) I'm starting to wonder whether the kind of nonsensical babble David Heddle offered (which, sadly, is not that uncommon among folks that "got religion") is actually a manifestation of a milder form of schizophrenia: not being god or hearing god's voice in one's head, but somehow, magically, knowing god's mind and realizing that, in fact, up is down, black is white, and nonsense is sense. Maybe we don't recognize it or name it as mental illness only because it's just so damn so common.

Given that, in the majority of cases, you belong to the religion that your parents, neighbors and friends belong to, if Cal Thomas were born in Bhagdad, would he be a terrorist or an insurgent? Judging by the example of our President, I think the former.

I must say that I am grateful for people like James and those commenting here. I just don't have the stamina occasionally to make sense of the nonsense spouted by religious nuts.

However, if the actual process of conversion...

The "actual process", in virtually everyone in North America -- at least -- who goes through it, is based on having been pummeled throughout one's life with religious propaganda. Rarely does it seem to be through much actual study of the Bible and those carefully selected gospels the church decided to not throw out.

You know, in fairness, Christians, as far as I know, honestly don't think of it in terms of "recite the mumbo-jumbo and the mean bastard in the sky won't torture you forever". The whole idea is that Captain Jesus would really like to save you from eternal torment, which is your own darn fault because of all the evil things you've done, but he just can't unless you ask him real nice-like. Yes, evil. I know you think you probably haven't done anything evil enough to deserve eternal torment, but any evil is enough. Apparently (my theology here is coming from Chick tracts, so please correct me if I'm wrong), when you die, Captain Jesus and his Sorting Hat have to either put you in the glow of his own sinless glory, or toss you in the lake of fire. There apparently isn't an option for "generally decent but not quite perfect" folk, which seems like a shoddy way to run a universe, but who am I to argue?

All of this, of course, makes perfect sense as an answer to "why should I sacrifice pigs, or ten percent of my income, to your figment?"; it's only confusing when you actually start to think about it.

I know some atheists who are pro-life (though they have an inadequate base for being so)

A biologist can't be "pro-life"? Weird!

grendelkhan,

The whole idea is that Captain Jesus would really like to save you from eternal torment, which is your own darn fault because of all the evil things you've done, but he just can't unless you ask him real nice-like.

This could not be more wrong. People do not ask (nicely or otherwise), they are drawn (John 6:44.) If you are going to criticize/mock Christianity, at least try to address something close to reality, not a caricature.

1) I, like everyone else in their natural state, find the gospel and the bible to be utter foolishness
2) Nevertheless at some point I am regenerated (not because of anything I've done)
3) I now respond to the bible and the gospel, and no longer find them foolish
then he is right (on this point.) In other words, like all atheists, especially the smarter ones, you assume that you are an atheist because you weigh and easily reject the evidence. The reverse is actually true. You have the process bass-ackwards. You are stuck, from all indications and hopefully just for the moment, on step 1 of the second flow chart.

Geez, David, for someone so well educated, you can say some really dumb things!

Dave, the regeneration you speak of is imaginary. No evidence for it. None. That's the problem. You've even admitted (under duress) that you have no actual proof for any of your religious beliefs. You choose to believe it in the absense of any evidence whatever. Why do you expect everyone in the world to suspend disbelief in just the same way you've chosen to? Why isn't it just as 'logical' for everyone to become a Muslim or a Hidndu?

Your magical reading of the minds of atheists makes no sense. Back to the drawing board.

David, so if they are not 'drawn', is that their fault? Are they condemned to eternal damnation?

If you are going to criticize/mock Christianity, at least try to address something close to reality, not a caricature.

So many things to mock, so little time.

DragonScholar wrote:

"I hate to be overly sarcastic, but if his god is so impressive, you think he'd grant him the ability to rally better arguments."

Personally, I'd rather be granted the ability to Turn Stupid People, or maybe cast Fireball at will. :-)

If my wife and I have a son, does this make us objectively pro-life?

If you are going to criticize/mock Christianity, at least try to address something close to reality, not a caricature.

Christianity is a caricature, though.

I'm starting to wonder whether the kind of nonsensical babble David Heddle offered (which, sadly, is not that uncommon among folks that "got religion") is actually a manifestation of a milder form of schizophrenia

I think there is alot of truth in the above. These comments he posted here show what a religiously addled mine spews and actually think make sense. They don't call them memes and delusions for nothing.

This could not be more wrong. People do not ask (nicely or otherwise), they are drawn (John 6:44.) If you are going to criticize/mock Christianity, at least try to address something close to reality, not a caricature.

YOUR Christian views are a caricature of their beliefs to many. You don't speak for Christianity and certainly not the breadth of belief involved in it. 1000's of other religious 'thinkers' would gladly tell you that you are incorrect and then you can get on that merry go round that has been going on for 1000's of years.

Dave, the regeneration you speak of is imaginary. No evidence for it. None. That's the problem.

David Heddle obviously thinks he has evidence for it in his own life.

These comments he posted here show what a religiously addled mine spews and actually think make sense. They don't call them memes and delusions for nothing.

Who are "they"? Dawkins and his chamchas?

Thomas also manages to betray his complete lack of understanding of evolutionary biology with his use of the phrase "evolutionary accidents." There is nothing accidental about eons of natural selection operating on a species' physiology, morphology and behavior. And even if it was [sic], why would that grant us license to abuse each other?

Natural selection may be deterministic but genetic variation is stochastic.

Thomas hits rock bottom when he unearth's Pascal's inane wager. Can there be anything more offensive to any religious sensibility (not to mention common sense) than the proposition that one should pretend to embrace the ways of religion just in case a god exists? Thomas, however, argues that we should abandon atheism even if we don't really believe in a god. What god is going to fall for that? Not one that I would consider worshiping.

It's hard to believe that Thomas actually believes this argument has any merit whatsoever. In any case, we atheists can't by definition "wager" anything by refusing to buy into superstition. How could we? Remember, we don't believe we have an immortal soul.

Pascal's Wager is properly addressed to the believer who might harbor some doubts, not a committed atheist.

The problem with pascal's wager beyond the moral dimension is that the proposition isn't properly set up. It is set as either there is no god, or there is one. The implication is that god must be the christian God. This however is not logically true. One should if one was fair consider all deities ever worshipped by man. When this is taken into account their are three possible solutions. 1) there is no God, 2) there is a God and by some great chance you recognized his nature, 3) there is a God but you are not worshipping the God that does exist which puts you in the same place as the atheist.

According to the Webster's Dictionary 'belief' is 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing, 2: something believed, such as a tenet or body of tenets held by a group, 3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon.

The state of believing is necessary as long as the evidence is not available or incomplete. If there were enough evidence for the existence of God, He/She would not be a belief anymore, but a fact. Similarly, evidence for His/Hers nonexistence should nullify the belief in Him/Her (though I am doubtful in this respect where the real religious nuts are concerned). Either way, God's existence will be the belief of the religious and the disbelief of the atheist, respectively, as long as evidence is lacking. The only difference between the religious person (believer) and the atheist is that only the former will have to change his/her state of mind when the evidence, for or against the existence of God, is in.

Also regarding Pascal's wager:

You also have to consider other possible gods: after all, why assume that all the possible gods have their own religion? Take the "philosophers' god" as an example. this particular deity would punish anyone who held beliefs that defied the available evidence. This would make being a theist a risky proposition and ensures that there is no solution to the wager, making it useless.

If you are going to criticize/mock Christianity, at least try to address something close to reality, not a caricature.

Every version of Christianity is considered a caricature (or worse) by the members of at least one other version of Christianity (never mind atheists).

Christianity is not a religion, but a family of distantly related religions with a common origin. (What does that remind me of?)

Read this:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3707

I always hated Pascal's Wager as an argument because even when I was young and foolish, and thereby a Christian, I came to the conclusion that it represents a "weak faith" of the kind that Christians rail against. If I am only following religion to hedge my bets, what will Peter say when I get to the Pearly Gates? "Yeah, you bet on red and the ball stopped on red, but you also bet on black. House wins, you lose, watch your chin as I open up this trap door to Hell."

Someone later presented this to me in a "wise man" tone that he reserved for "pronouncements." I had a hard time suppressing my laughter.

Cal Thomas makes everyone who reads him stupider, and his column should only be approached with proper tinfoil hat in place.

Robert O'Brien's suggestion that Pascal's wager is meant "for the believer who might harbor some doubts, not a committed atheist" misses the point. Regardless of the target audience, the argument asks the target to embrace a belief -- or abandon doubt -- in case the god is real, not because of any conviction that the god is real. And that's just plain silly.

In spite of the many ways people have said "you don't speak for all Christianity" (who, in here, is the official spokesperson for atheism?) my first post stated IF the process of regeneration is (the second way) then Thomas's point was valid. James (the author of the post) is absolutely correct: atheists weigh the evidence and find it lacking. As did I. That second process I posted states that you find it foolishness because you haven't been regenerated. Cause and effect are exchanged.

This was meant as a logical point, not a theological one. That is: if it is correct, then it explains the data. If you must be regenerated before you find the gospel sensible, then all atheists would necessarily find it foolishness. It's a circular argument, which doesn't make it wrong; it just cannot be offered as a proof.

That's it. I understand that all atheists think my regeneration was imaginary. Why bother even bringing that up? The point was not over the reality of the gospel, the point was, as I said, a logical one.

As for how lunatic fringe that view is (which boils down to this: regeneration precedes faith, not vice versa) it is quite mainstream. Furthermore, as the parenthetical phrase suggests, there are not 1000's of views but only those two. The view that faith comes first has been the dominant view only since the rise of the modern evangelical movement (and it is now waning--some Southern Baptist leaders have stated that the current increase in Calvinism among young adult Baptists is their biggest threat.) However, the dominant view among early Catholics and Protestants has been that regeneration must come first. Those theologians that championed this position are people like Augustine (he formulated original sin, the cornerstone of this view), Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Schaeffer, and many others. Among those who support the "ask first" view that most atheists treat as the only view (it is much easier for you to attack, as James did) are Arminius, C. S. Lewis, Bill Graham, and Jerry Falwell.

So while I have no interest in a theological discussion, the point that my regeneration is imaginary is simply begging the question, and the implication that there are thousands of conflicting views within Christianity (on this issue of soteriology) is wrong. There are only two. The Roman Catholic view on salvation is still aligned with Augustine, although it is a more complex because of the advent of Catholic system of penance.

So I repeat: if you want to argue beyond you guys are idiots (or schizophrenic) (and, for the most part, I don't think you do) then you must understand that which you wish to attack.

re:Pascal's Wager

Many people, both atheists and Christians, are well versed in Pascal's Wager, but few seem to have actually read his Penses from which it comes from. Pascal was one of the first philosophers to wrestle with existential nihilism and lose. Before Blaise Pascal became a devout Christian, he was a brilliant scientist and mathematician, but, unfortunately, as brilliant as he was, he soon realized his ultimate place in the universe (ala the Total Perspective Vortex in Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy) and it scared the crap out of him. It's a theme that would later be picked up by Camus, but with a far different conclusion. Anyway, as you read through the Penses, you find yourself reading along as a brilliant scientist falls into total despair over the meaninglessness of his existence and yet cannot convince himself of God's existence. His last act of desperation is set up a game of chance (Pascal was a notorious gambler) to convince himself that God exists and gives his life meaning. After converting, he gave up all science and devoted is life to the Church. It's a rather depressing read, but laid the groundwork for existentialism. Most Christians who think the Wager is clever trap for unbelievers don't realize that they are really arguing in favor of existential nihilism.

Pascal's Wager: Christianity is a mindless game to distract you from the utter despair you feel about the meaninglessness of existence.

Mustafa Mond, FCD said:

... what other contenders would you put in your top 10 worst columnist list? I would nominate Deepak Chopra for his whole series on... whatever it was on.

It was a review of the dust jacket of The God Delusion.

James:

I am partial to the decision-theoretic approach to Pascal's Wager:

Decision-theoretic arguments

The above criticisms are addressed explicitly in a generalised decision-theoretic version of Pascal's argument, with probabilities interpreted in the Bayesian sense of expressing degrees of belief, and each option carrying certain utilities or payoffs.

This leads to the following matrix, where a, b, c and d are the utilities arising from each of the four options:
God exists (G) God does not exist (~G)
Belief in God (B) a b
Non-belief in God (~B) c d

The total utility for believing in God is then aP + b( 1 â P ) while the total utility for non-belief is cP + d( 1 â P ), where P is the probability of the existence of God. Belief in God is thus optimal in decision-theoretic terms for all P > 0 if the values for the utilities satisfy the inequalities a > c and b ⥠d. The first inequality is relatively uncontroversial, as it requires simply that one considers a well-founded belief in God to have a higher utility than an ill-founded disbelief in God. However, the second inequality holds only if one regards the benefits of an ill-founded belief in God to be no less than those from a well-founded disbelief in God. This is patently a matter of personal choice. Many people maintain they do indeed get tangible benefits here and now from their belief in God, and that these exceed those that would accrue from not having such a belief (e.g. no requirement for regular observance of religious practices). On the other hand, many agnostics would argue the opposite case. The analysis shows atheists are not absolved from having to assess the utilities through setting P = 0; they must also be confident that d > b.

This requirement for such an assessment of utilities suggests that Pascal's Wager should be regarded as a criterion by which the coherence of one's existing beliefs can be judged, rather than as a method of choosing what to believe.

Remember, the bit about Pascal's Wager failing because your belief is not sincere only applies to those cults who hold to "salvation by faith."

Other Christian cults allow for "salvation by works," in which case the atheist might get in by doing good works. This fails on a different fallacy, that moral behavior is linked to religious belief.

So many fallacies to choose from.

Coming from a "salvation by faith" Wisconsin Synod Lutheran background, bummer!

David Heddle says: "if you want to argue beyond you guys are idiots (or schizophrenic) (and, for the most part, I don't think you do) then you must understand that which you wish to attack."

David, I can understand your desire to have conversations about your religious philosophy go beyond the superficial. Really, I can. But the fundamentally different frames we bring to what that conversation should look like will prevent that from happening in any mutually satisfactory way. The unavoidable reality is that, to someone like me who does not believe in Christianity, the statement "I became regenerated and therefore I now believe the correctness of the Bible" is equivalent to "I became mentally ill and therefore I now believe nonsense is sensible." So where would a deeper conversation about Christianity go? If I encountered someone on a street corner who was loudly talking about how the CIA was communicating to him through the fillings in his teeth and that his tin foil hat protected him, I would not think that it would be especially useful to talk about his view of the CIA, how his fillings act as a receiver, or the physics of tin foil as a barrier. Knowing the details of a delusion doesn't make it any less delusional, nor do I think it would help him better cope with reality.

I think most atheists are willing to argue beyond "you guys are idiots (or schizophrenic)" but generally not based on the frame that there is actually any rationality to Christianity. For most of us, arguing beyond the declaration of idiocy or illness would require talking about causes, consequences, and treatments. My brother and I have been talking about the voices in his head for more than 30 years now, and no amount of discussion about the details of what the voices say makes a damn bit of difference. The only thing that helps him is his medicine, and so the only useful conversation with him is about how the family can help him stay on his medicine.

The only useful conversation I can have with a devout Christian about the nature of religious belief is "how can I help you get the treatment you need to get healthy?"

Re: M. Mond: (1) Every religion begins as a cult, but not every cult becomes a religion. There's something akin to natural Selection at work, in the theological meme pool... Cal Thomas' belief are very robust, having survived a long time. Hard to throw an attack on them that they can't easily reply to from the database of old replies. Makes it very close to unnecessary to actually think.

(2) My son tells me of a cartoon he saw where the elves in Santa's Workshop are crafting individual snowflakes. A sign on the wall behind them reads: "Remember, no two alike!"

also to M. Mond: (3) "non-stupid evangelicals such as Francis Collins" is an intriguing example. I've watched him on TV interviews, though haven't read his Big Book. He sounds very good on TV, even when in debate with scientists whom I know personally. I doubt his axioms, but he does make me think, in effort to find the very subtle flaws in logic. Can't deny that he at least understands evolution, at the gene level!

also to M. Mond: (3) "non-stupid evangelicals such as Francis Collins"

What to say about Francis Collins? "Selectively stupid"? He seems competent within his own specialty (genetics) and does a decent job of speaking up against ID, but does not accept work being done on evolutionary aspects of morality. He seems to accept the writings of C.S. Lewis without analysing them too deeply. Here's a good review of Collins' book by Gert Korthof at Talk.Reason.

Steve T:

So where would a deeper conversation about Christianity go?

It could at least advance to the point where the (as you see it) lunacy you argue against is a reasonable facsimile of what Christianity actually teaches--not a caricature. The arguments many presented here are no more developed than those of a creationist wanders onto PT and asks, "What good is half an eye?" as if his simplistic question will end the debate.

David Heddle: "It could at least advance to the point where the (as you see it) lunacy you argue against is a reasonable facsimile of what Christianity actually teaches--not a caricature."

Your point is well taken. I can't speak for others, of course, but the trouble I have with arguing against anything other than what might seems to be a caricature is that it is not at all clear how to describe what Christianity actually teaches. When people ranging from Kent Hovind to Thomas Berry, Ken Miller to Pat Robertson, and David Koresh to Paul Tillich all consider themselves to be Christian, coherent statements about Christian belief are impossible. I can think of almost nothing that unites Christian beliefs: the actual vs. metaphorical resurrection of Jesus, papal infallibility vs. a denial of papal authority, the nature of salvation, the nature of grace, god's view of homosexuality, literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, the meaning of the Gnostic gospels, the age of the Earth, the fate of babies who die before being baptized, the responsibility of humanity toward non-human nature, trinitarianism vs. unitarianism, the importance of faith vs. works, the true nature of Mary's divinity, tolerance vs. jihad (or as Christians like to refer to it, The Crusades) ... the list goes on and on. In fact, in terms of agreeing on what Christianity means, Christians have not come very far from the state of their affairs at the time of the Council of Nicaea.

In contrast, all evolutionary biologists can answer the question "what good is half an eye" with pretty much the same answer. The caricatures of evolutionary theory advanced by creationists are ones that creationists made up. The caricatures of Christianity that atheists advance tend to actually represent views held by some Christians, views that can then be denounced as inappropriate or incomplete caricatures by other Christians who disagree.

Hey, it's Thomas' hell, he can rot in it.

"the implication that there are thousands of conflicting views within Christianity (on this issue of soteriology) is wrong. There are only two."

First of all; 'Soteriology' by definition only actually refers to the question of salvation through faith (or the 'word') - which excludes the regeneration hypothesis from the get go, but whatever - can't expect theologians to keep their terminology consistent (in fairness, there are similar challenges across sciences).

Secondly; Only TWO, huh? Seems a tad reductionist - just going to the source material, one finds:

If one believes, one is saved. Nothing else required. (Romans 3:28 + John 3:16)

Except... Belief in what, exactly? This is what could be described as a non-trivial question (what with eternal damnation awaiting the wrong decision). The authors of Paul typically emphasized belief in the ressurection. The authors of John felt that the divinity of christ was decisive. Both are preserved in the Nicene creed (Or, 'theists hedging their bets again).

Then there's the (theologically newborn) requirement to 'accept' (believe?) in Jesus as "one's 'personal lord and savior"... This is functionally different from the two preceding formulations.

But wait! Don't buy now!! Gotta do good works TOO. (James 2:24). Nah, scratch that, forget belief of any kind, good works are enough ALL ON THEIR OWN! (Matthew 25:34ish)

But hey, wait just another minute! You ALSO gotta have love, which inspires faith (Galatians 5:6 + the Beatles). Corinthians 13:4-13 takes this a step further by explicitly elevating love above faith in the heirarchy of 'good things'.

There's some other stuff about not having wealth (something about camels and sewing implements... or Jerusalem's architecture - details to eternal salvation might-a-gotten lost in translation in there somewhere. Oops.)

Then there's the whole 'one must be called/reborn from above' ('Murrican thinkers on the subject, seeming to believe that Jesus spoke 'murrican, have seen fit to accept translation of the Greek Anothen as 'again' - hence be 'Born Again'...) (Romans 9:11 + John 3:3 + 6:44/45). In fact, Paul in Romans weighs in heavily on the subject of predestination, which throws a spoke in the whole 'free will' thing and strongly inclines me to quote me some Epicurus on the problem of evil (solved! The answer is that it comes from god across eternity! Nice). Anyway...

Of course, the METHOD of regeneration seems open to interpretation: It is also the basis of Baptism/Confirmation, but as these are rituals initiated by humans (and nnot even the human being saved, in the case of infant baptism), it seems fundamentally distinct from being called by god.

THEN there's the fairly odd concept involving salvation through the intercession of saints and guardian angels (Revelations 5:8 and Matthew 5:10) basically, the idea that the prayers of others, conveyed to god through saints and angels (lobbyists, basically), can move god to offer salvation to you even after you have died unsaved.

Then there are a number of interesting side discussions:

1. Can one who is saved lose that status through later action? The whole conceit (and I use the term advisedly) of being 'elect' (Romans 9:11) says NO. However, John 1:6-7 says YES. Catholics of course offer repentance, which implies that one can fall in and out of being saved sorta regular-like. Does this require a new regeneration? Is there a warranty on the new, improved, sin-free body??

2. Can one not hearing the word be saved at all? Revelations 20:15 says, er, 'hell no'. Lakes of fire are invoked. Matthew 25 strongly suggests yes. As does 1 Timothy, but of course there is speculation that 1 Timothy is a forgery that slipped through the divinely guided bible book selection process... Which amuses me hugely.

Also, the Vatican II council ruled that:

"The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience".

Cardinal Ratinger (while still capped in scarlet) took a more restrictive view and one gathers that the universe may have restructured itself to suit as he now enjoys papal infallibility...

But this is all crap, you know. Mental masturbation - kind of fun every now and then, but not actually all that useful. The Bible can be made to say just about anything, and once you toss in all the religious thinkers since... Yeesh.

Yet, in order to 'engage' theists squarely, we atheists are expected to engage in theological discussions...
As per Orr's criticism of the God Delusion: "You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology in Dawkins's book.

Forget about it! Besides conceding the field of battle befor battle is even joined, to do so would immediately invite another eternally receding 'gaps' style argument as they cherry pick from an everlasting trough of crap: "Oh, but wait - have you fully considered Aquinas's position on biblical literacy? No?? OK, but what about..." Ad nauseum ad infinitum...

I'm open to compromise, however: How about we atheists spend as much time mounting well-reasoned and footnoted theological arguments as the theists spend mounting valid scientific arguments based on actual evidence? Sounds fair to me...

Similarly, I'll give serious thought to the complaint that we caricaturize religious beliefs (I'm not generally convinced that we do), when theists stop making 'what use is half an eyeball' and 'evolution = random chance' type arguments.

"! You ALSO gotta have love, which inspires faith (Galatians 5:6 + the Beatles)."

:) laughlaughsnort.

" I understand that all atheists think my regeneration was imaginary."
No - I think it was (likely) real - just, well, real. That is, I assume/believe that it was an event with natural rather than supernatural causes, likely within the realm of psychology (as well as sociology & anthropology). Which is not to say that I think that Christianity is akin to a mental illness, or you mentally ill, just that the simplest and most reasonable explanation is that your experience is similar to other life-changing events ultimately understood to be natural occurrences.

You, of course, will judge this view to be the result of me not being regenerated (makes me think of starfish . . .), but I'm sure you can understand why this kind of appeal to special/secret/supernatural knowledge & understanding isn't very convincing. Which is one big difference. A lot of science, for example, may be very hard to understand, but at least in theory it's potentially understandable, at a basic level, by anyone, given a certain baseline intelligence, education, and effort, just like driving a car or playing a sport or working at some job or other. Making this kind of supernatural claim in these domains would be looked on as rather odd or silly, I think.

Let's remember the subject of this blog message namely, "the worst Columnst Ever." Cal Thomas's position as a syndicated journalist in America and the vast audience that reads and listen to his drivel are telling symptoms of the sorry condition of American society today. When a scientific hypothesis is on the verge of being replaced by an explanation based on faith (evolution vs. intelligent design); when a war is being promoted as an act supported by God (President Bush's decleration); when many believe in angels, devil and miracles, it is not surprising that extremists like Cal Thomas find fertile ground to preach their nonsense.

With all due respect to this and other bloggers, much more must be done than simply exposing the Cal Thomases of the world on a science blog if we are to survive as a democratic, freely-thinking society.

"much more must be done than simply exposing the Cal Thomases of the world on a science blog"

I don't know if I would go so far as the following bit about this being necessary to survive etc., but in terms of combatting this sort of ambient and widely-spread anti-atheist prejudice, the bit about squeaky wheels and grease-getting is one small thing to do. Complain. Loudly. Every time. (to editors, etc.). Remember that thing a few weeks ago when a NPR reporter made that old crack about no atheists in foxholes, got deluged by complaints, and basically apologized, saying he never quite knew what it meant, and won't use it again? I wouldn't expect much more than something like that - a bit of recognition from an NPR person, who should know better - for quite a while, but y'know. Water, mountain.

Dan,

By "much more must be done" I meant mainly education-wise, starting at early age (grammer school) and by completely separating, at least in public schools, between church and state, science and bible, Disney World and reality.

Cal Thomas has been a burr on my ass for years now. His Fox-News-friendly stupidity runs two or three times a week in my local VA paper. If you keep track of anything he writes, you'll find the same tired old bits repeated ad nauseum. For a fun experiment, pick any of his columns, no matter the topic, and watch for a non-sequitor bit about either (A) the glory and infallibility of Israel, (B) "the murder of innocent babies," or (C) "godless liberals/progressives/secularists."

Thomas is a sad, pathetic, ill-informed, fear-mongering, repetitive, and shrill one-trick-pony. And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

it is precisely information that atheists demand before they switch sides. Information, in the form of empirical evidence, is the basis for belief for an atheist.

we atheists can't by definition "wager" anything by refusing to buy into superstition. How could we? Remember, we don't believe we have an immortal soul.

A quibble: this describes a rationalist, not an atheist. Just because someone doesn't believe in any gods, that doesn't mean that that person doesn't believe in all sorts of other silliness, including souls, reincarnation, healing crystals, and feng shui.

Granted, there's a lot of overlap between between atheists and rationalists, but the two sets are not identical. (See Gene Ray, the time cube guy, for example.)

The discussion seems a bit parochial to me. Again, tell me why Vishnu, Ganesh, etc. are superior to atheism, I know that Christ/God stuff is ludicrous.