Three Paradoxes of Atheism

Neil Shenvi's Three Paradoxes of Atheism is worth chewing over.

 

The whole article is worth reading. This is his conclusion:

 

In conclusion, I want to summarize the paradoxes I believe are inherent to the atheism.

1. Truth-seeking. If a truth-loving God doesn't exist, then truth-seeking is neither intrinsically good nor morally obligatory. Therefore, paradoxically, the Christian has grounds to urge all people to seek the truth and to claim it is their moral obligation to seek the truth whereas the atheist has no grounds to urge others to seek the truth or to claim it is their moral obligation to do so.
2. Moral reflection. Suffering and evil in the world is so prolific and horrendous that we instinctively avoid thinking about it to preserve our happiness. If Christianity is true, then all suffering and evil will one day be destroyed and healed. If atheism is true, suffering and evil are pointless and will never be rectified. So, paradoxically, a Christian gains the emotional resources to reflect honestly on suffering by reflecting on reality (as he perceives it) while an atheist gains the emotional resources to reflect honestly on suffering only by ignoring reality (as he perceives it).
3. Moral motivation. If Christianity is true, then all of our moral choices have tremendous, eternal significance. If atheism is true, then none of our moral choices have any eternal significance. So, paradoxically, the Christian gains the motivation to act morally by reflecting on reality (as he perceives it) while the atheist gains the motivation to act morally only by ignoring reality (as he perceives it).

None of these observations imply that atheism is necessarily false or that Christianity is true. But I hope that they do cause atheists some serious reflection. At least in these three areas, there is a conflict between the general perception that atheists live a life of realism, facing the truth about reality squarely, and the philosophical and psychological reality of atheism itself. In contrast, Christianity not only provides a basis for the idea that truth is of intrinsic value, but provides resources to enable the Christian to conform his beliefs and behavior to the truth. I would like to gently suggest that those who value truth-seeking and realism should consider whether atheism can justify or support either of these ideals.

Old Earth Creationism?

There is a wealth of interesting information on this page about biblical scholars who are open to the possibility of the universe being very old..

Has the author of Hebrews been found?

In this blog post, Aimee Byrd tells us that she finds David Allen's arguments for Luke being the author of Hebrews to be quite persuasive.

So do I. We don't know for sure, but I think there is a lot going for this suggestion. It is much more likely that it is Luke, than any other New Testament writer.

It is well worth chewing over Allen's book, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews

David Alan Black's The Authorship of Hebrews: the case for Paul is also interesting, but not nearly as convincing.

Hebrews has more in common with Luke and Acts than it does with Paul's letters, I think.

Fundamentalism is not the real problem

It's not how strongly you believe, but what you believe, argues Clint Roberts.

IS and Israel in Joshua's time: similar or different?

Andrew Shead, of Moore Theological College, Sydney shares some thoughts on how today's Islamic State's actions might relate to Israel's in the time of Joshua, in the Old Testament.

NIVAC commentaries ebook sale

NIVAC ebooks sale gives you all of the NIV Application Commentaries available at about $5 each, and at last, properly hyperlinked with a decent Table of Contents.

Ebooks with a decent table of contents are not much good! Especially the ones you wouldn't normally read from cover to cover, or need to refer to particular sections thereof.

Can't promise the sale will continue, but the current price is reasonable.

The problem of evil revisited

Dan Phillips has an interesting article on the famous syllogism about God and evil.

You know the one:

1. If God is all-powerful, He can prevent evil.
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. Evil exists.
4. Therefore, there is no God. (Or: God is either not all-powerful, or He is not good.)

Dan says:

But it's a loaded syllogism — well, both loaded and unloaded, if you follow my meaning. It snips a couple of Biblical truths, but holds them in isolation from everything else the Bible teaches.

A more honest version would be:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil if He wished.
2. If God is good... I can't think of a reason why he would not prevent evil.
3. Evil exists.
4. Therefore... um, I don't know why God might choose to permit evil.

That's a lot more truthful, and it leaves the problem where it belongs: not on God, but on the arguer. Here's another:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil.
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. But I don't believe in God anyway, so I can't have an opinion on what "evil" is or whether it exists.
4. Therefore, what's for dinner?

Or this:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil if He wished.
2. If God is good, He would want to prevent evil.
3. I have the vague feeling that the Bible says more about God than that He's almighty and good, but I just really haven't cared enough to study it out for myself.
4. Therefore... well, nothing about the God of the Bible. But the God I made up might have issues.

Here's the best of the lot:

1. If God can do anything He wishes, He could prevent evil if He wished.
2. If God is good, He will not allow evil to go unpunished or reign forever.
3. Evil exists, will be punished, and it both has been and will be dealt with permanently.
4. Therefore, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus, or be part of that evil that will be judged and dealt with.