By Living Waters

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less there is within, the more there must be without.” – Edmund Burke

From Summit Ministries’ Truth & Consequences (Feb. 2008).

Perhaps it goes without saying that the “new atheists” have arrived. Richard Dawkins,[2] Sam Harris[3] and Christopher Hitchens[4] (among others)[5] have recently published volumes capturing many intellects and imaginations. As international bestsellers, their publishing efforts are likely to produce challenges to our faith for years to come. These authors have superb rhetorical skills and deploy the English language to great effect. Dawkins and Hitchens have particular appeal with their posh British accents and witty idioms. It is not that their polemics are novel, however, nor their arguments especially successful. And they have not gone unanswered.[6] Yet it appears they have not always understood or felt the weight of their opponents’ objections.[7] For instance, Hitchens regularly denounces people, their beliefs, and their actions as “immoral.” Nevertheless, within an atheist universe it is difficult to see how such moral disdain rises above a merely emotive, “I don’t like them/that.” After all, within that perspective, what precisely is good or evil? Does atheism have the resources necessary to produce coherent accusations of immorality? It is most difficult to see moral assessment as meaningful within an atheist worldview. (more…)

Don Garlington provides a healthy review and corrective to the fearful and triumphalist promotion of John Piper’s latest contribution to Reformed and Evangelical factionalism, The Future of Justification.

. . . OBAMANATION?

Well, I awoke this morning with this neologism churning in my mind. I just feel the need to share it with the world. ;^) In all seriousness, we Americans are far too likely to vote for flash and rebellion. That was well illustrated with the dawning of Clinton’s second term. What we sow we shall reap, and it isn’t going to be righteousness and life! Not that there are any viable candidates that would promote the good, the true and the beautiful, but some are worse, and some far worse, than others.

While assessing philosophical naturalism Lewis provides the following insightful remarks regarding moral judgments expressed by adherents of that philosophical school of thoughts.

From Miracles, p.51:

For when men say “I ought” they certainly think they are saying something, and something true, about the nature of the proposed action, and not merely about their own feelings. But if Naturalism is true, “I ought” is the same sort of statement as “I itch” or “I’m going to be sick.” In real life when a man says “I ought” we may replay, “Yes. You’re right. That is what you ought to do,” or else, “No. I think you’re mistaken.” But in the world of Naturalists (if Naturalists really remembered their philosophy out of school) the only sensible reply would be, “Oh, are you?” All moral judgments would be statements about the speakers feelings, mistaken by him for statements about something else (the real moral quality of actions) which does not exist.

Atheist and Darwinist Richard Lewontin, in his review of Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World, admitted something that more commonly remains hidden by advocates of science philosophical naturalism.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

“Billions and Billions of Demons,” in New York Times Book Reviews vol 44, no 1 (9 Jan 1997); accessed online here.