Youth Defence Blog Post Review: Discussing Disability

"I’d tell you I love[sic], but then I’d have to kill you" This mangled attempt to reproduce the title of one of the author's "favourite spy books" may have slithered past Youth Defence's editor. Or perhaps it was shown mercy - given the inexhaustible supply of errors that constitute the remainder of this blog post a mere discarding of the sixth word of the title (the word 'you') may have been allowed stay to better lower the expectations of its unfortunate readers.

I assume of course that Críostíona speaks of that well known classic, I'd Tell You I Love You, But Then I 'd Have To Kill You by Ally Carter. I'm assured it's popular with both pre teens and young adults alike. Of course, perhaps I err. It rests not outside the realms of possibility that Youth Defence members have access to works that encourage lethal responses to admissions of eros, as suggested by the offered title. Still, the former seems the most charitable reading so I'll progress with the assumption that Críostíona intended to commence her piece with a reference to a teenager who lies to most people she meets in the protection of a secret mission. (For those unduly troubled by excess free time the plot summary is here.)

What mission does Críostíona execute in this blog post? We discover by examining the first sentence to follow a rather hamfisted link with aforementioned book title:

Lennox, Scherer, and the giant floating forest hypothesis

While first reading "God's Undertaker" I noticed a reference to "Evolution - ein kritisches Lehrbuch" by Professor Siegfried Scherer. I'll admit I didn't pay it much heed at the time - the review was already unwieldy in length, my German was rusty, and tracing down every last error would have been something of a time sink.

But a couple of months later I amused myself with a dictionary and skimmed a few pages of the book Lennox had used to justify the following quote:

"Siegfried Scherer of the Technical University in Munich suggests that living things can be classified in certain basic types – a classification slightly broader than that of species. A ‘basic type’ is defined to be a collection of living things connected either directly or indirectly through hybridization, without regard for whether the hybrids are sterile or not. This definition incorporates both genetic and morphological concepts of species, and, according to Scherer, research so far indicates that ‘in the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types’." -God's Undertaker, Page 109

I'd thought that the 'basic type' sounded suspiciously like the Biblical 'kind', used by Creationists to mean something between species and clade, meandering between both possible definitions depending which chapter of Genesis was at stake.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? Bad Arguments

<- Previous

"The New Atheists never tire of citing Bertrand Russell’s reply when he was asked what he would say if God were to ask him after his death why he had not believed: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.” But then a curious thing happens. When evidence is offered to them, they refuse to examine it. I have already mentioned Richard Dawkins’ contemptuous dismissal of the resurrection in our God Delusion debate; so his attitude is clear. Furthermore, I know of no serious attempt by any of the New Atheists to engage with the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (Emphasis mine.)

I commend Lennox for the extraordinary efforts he has surely expended to avoid atheist writing on what he calls evidence for the resurrection. Perhaps he merely read the copyright information of "Not The Impossible Faith" by Dr Richard Carrier, missing the lengthy discussion therein that spawned debates with William Lane Craig and others. He must have hidden from Dan Barker, former preacher and now co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation who speaks of little else. Robert M Price has doctorates in both Theology and NT studies and discusses the subject at inordinate length. I could go on, and those interested in further examples are invited to consult the search feature of Amazon, a step Lennox has obviously not bothered to take.

If God Then What? - Disappointingly Good

Over the last year or so I've tried to read at least one book I disagree with a month, generally on Christianity. It's an odd hobby. Sometimes it's laborious work. On several occasions I've had fun combing texts for errors, contradictions and absurdities. Some I've broadly liked, but separating where I agree with the author and where we differ has always seemed a tough review to write. I'd like to tell you why Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and Atheist Delusions are both worth reading despite my disagreements in areas, but It's easier to point at ID authors who think all languages originated at the Tower of Babel.

A few weeks ago, after a year of off-and-on blogging, I was asked if I'd read the recently released "If God Then What?" and discuss with the author on a radio show called Unbelievable?. Despite my accent I do love the sound of my own voice so I leapt at the opportunity. I expected a fun week of debunking, drawing up lists of flawed arguments, rehashing old debates and preparing to retaliate for slights against my fellow atheists. I'd heard the author, Andrew Wilson, on radio shows before and he seemed the sort who'd enjoy a vigorous debate.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Hitler and the atheist baptisms

You may be aware that Mohandas Gandhi was posthumously baptised into the Mormon faith. The same industrious folk also converted the parents of famed Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal. The noteworthy are not their sole targets; their net is cast so wide that a performer in this proxy baptism charade sued the church for back injuries sustained while performing two hundred immersions.

When first I heard of these tales I pictured two fresh-faced elders of the Mormon church, dressed in trademark black slacks and short sleeve shirts, knocking at the doors of hell and asking politely if they could take the insipid word of Joe Smith to the complex's residents. I dismissed it as an oddity, peculiar to the Latter Day Saints.

Until I found John Lennox trying a similar trick.

Considering the multitudes in his ambitious plan I hope he has opted not to perform proxy immersions. Rather than attempting to swell the ranks of Christianity his goal is to deplete them. Throughout Gunning for God he strives to separate the wheat from the chaff. The True Christians^TM are kept and celebrated, those he discards as failing his almighty judgement are assigned to the atheist pile.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Chapter 2 Part B. Pilate, Prophecies and Lost in Translation

 
Chapter 2: Is Religion Poisonous? - Part B Pilate, Prophecies and Lost in Translation

<-- Previous Chapter

I ended my last blog post halfway through chapter 2. I did this partially because there is much to discuss, but also because I was rather happy with the closing line and did not wish to see it wasted on a midway point.

In the previous section Lennox went to great lengths to refute himself and then failed to seriously engage with what we Irish euphemistically call "the troubles". There followed a clean division whereafter he returned to Biblical interpretation. Lennox plays a game of association, often enlisting atheists to his cause to confirm the existence of a historical Jesus who was crucified in first century Judea, then making reasonable arguments for an empty tomb. But then he'll glide on to a discussion that presumes the accuracy of all New Testament texts, often with his own interpolations or additions, as seen by his modification of the Ten Commandments and unsubstantiated discussion of Peter's swordfighting ability discussed in previous posts.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Chapter 2. Lennox refutes Lennox, Northern Ireland conflict.

Chapter 2: Is Religion Poisonous? - Part A, Lennox refutes Lennox, Northern Ireland conflict.

<-- Previous Chapter

Reviewing a book in-depth can be a time-consuming task, so it's always a joy when the author takes the time to refute themselves. Take this quote from Lennox:

"However, the New Atheists undermine their own case in astonishingly naïve fashion by lumping all religions together indiscriminately, as if all religions were equally guilty of the charge of fomenting dangerous behaviour. One would not expect such unscholarly, crass oversimplification to come from authors who loudly praise their “scientific approach”. In this connection it is to be noted that Prospect magazine, which had earlier voted Dawkins a world-class intellectual, described his book The God Delusion as “incautious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory”. After all, it does not take one to be at the cutting edge of academic research into religious thought, to see that classifying the peace-loving Amish with Islamic fundamentalist extremists is culpably and dangerously naïve." (Page 61)

From this it is reasonable to assume that all "New Atheists" consider all religions to be equally dangerous. He cites the example of Amish and Islamic fundamentalists. Let's contrast this with some later quotes:

"It should be noted, however, that Sam Harris appears to have grasped the inadequacy of his colleagues’ approach — possibly because he seems to have certain quasi-religious notions of his own. Consciously breaking ranks with Dawkins and the others, he calls on them to attend to the differences among the world’s religions..." (Page 64)

 Lennox has lost one of the four horsemen. Let us proceed a little further, to where he quotes Dawkins in support of non-violent nature found in Christianity:

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Introduction and Chapter One

I recently had the pleasure of finishing Gunning for God by John Lennox. Read into my phrasing what you will.

Introduction

Lennox opens by listing some of the atheists who have earned his ire. Dawkins takes the lead, a seemingly odd choice for primacy as he is followed by Hawking to whom Lennox recently devoted an entire book. The "lesser calibre" atheists that follow are Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and the "more junior Sam Harris". His targets are spread further afield when he lists Frenchman Michel Onfray and Italian Piergiorgio Odifreddi. Note at this time that Richard Carrier and Dan Barker are not listed. I'll come back to this.

He makes a reasonable criticism of Dennett's attempt to rebrand the godless as 'Brights'. This stillborn move never garnered the sympathy Lennox implies; all he can offer in support of his profession of its popularity is the fact that they possess a website. Is that really a mark of overwhelming adoption? And have the religious not similarly erred? Could we point to a single individual who describes himself as simultaneously the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God, and say that we are not alone in occasionally letting marketing get the better of us?

Nicky Gumbel Puts His Footnote In It

In Alpha, Questions of Life, Chapter 1, Nicky Gumbel describes evidence for Jesus. I'll quote a brief section then discuss:

For example, the Roman historians Tacitus (directly) and Suetonius (indirectly) both write about him. The Jewish historian Josephus, born in AD 37, describes Jesus and his followers thus:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. ^7"

Signature in the Cell Part 3 - The Book Of Numbers

"I went up to Meyer at the conference and asked him, "You wrote that 'information theorists' (plural) talk about specified complexity. Who are they?" He then admitted that he knew no one but Dembski"
 - Jeffrey Shallit, http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/07/stephen-meyers-honesty-problem.html

The Book of Numbers in the Old Testament starts with a census to count the able-bodied capable of defending God's chosen people. In Meyer's book, its case so dependant on numbers, we should count the mathematicians  therein who answer Meyer's rallying cry.

One name dominates.

My previous chapter in this saga was a long digression on Dembski, outlining his theological motivation for both embracing and promoting ID. I showed that he considers the bible to inerrant and superior to scientific discovery. I noted how his continued employment is contingent on professing these views. For flavour I spoke of his affirmation of a worldwide flood and questioned if his belief in a Genesis 11, Tower of Babel-based origin of the world's various languages would lead to a new field of intelligent linguistics. What I didn't make clear was how much he contributed to Signature in the Cell.

Signature in the Cell - Part 2. A digression on Dembski

In Part 1 of my review I ended by observing that Meyer is unwilling to draw any conclusions as to the nature of his proposed intelligent designer. Thankfully we have at our disposal an ID proponent relied upon by Meyer who is willing to oblige. William Dembski is a Biblical inerrantist. He believes in a global flood, a literal Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark.

"... Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality."

"As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible ... I accept that the events described in Genesis 1–11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors." (William A. Dembski, http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristianity.pdf)

Lennox, evolution and honesty

If you have a moment, perhaps you could add a comment to my Amazon review of God's Undertaker? There are four creationists commenting on it at present (generally polite chaps) and regrettably I don't have the time to give all of them lengthy replies.

Book Review: God's Undertaker

It's easy to view creationists through the lens of caricature. From Dr Kent's belief that dinosaurs died out due to spontaneous nasal combustion, to the belief that the 300 mile Grand Canyon formed in about five minutes, we can find instances of claims that would have to work hard to be considered merely absurd. But still, it is perhaps unfair to judge a group based on the worst of its members. Though I have yet to hear good creationist arguments I do know smart creationists. With that in mind I was quite happy to receive a recommendation to read Professor John Lennox's book on the subject, God's Undertaker.

I went in with high hopes - my initial readings on evolution were prompted back in 2003, when I studied evolutionary computation. Lennox's background in mathematics would surely mean he could speak with authority on this area.

He was born on the same island as I, a coincidence of birth which admittedly does not make him more likely to be correct, but caused me to warm to him nonetheless.

He's also a talented linguist, speaking Russian, German, Spanish and French in addition to his native English. He has been published and has given lectures in many languages.

Does God heal today?

*Edit: Ajay Gohil sent me a very polite e-mail confirming his existence and inviting me for coffee. Bear that in mind while reading - it rather annihilates many of my arguments. I've asked him if he's comfortable with me releasing details of his church and will update with more details when he gets back to me. My thanks to the members of Unbelievable? who pointed me in his direction.*

This is the title of the 13th chapter in Nicky Gumbel’s “Alpha: Questions of Life” book and it appeals to my literal mind. It can be rare to find verifiable claims in this literary genre; it was refreshing to see Gumbel nail his colours to the mast as a believer in faith healing and to provide a case study for those who are unconvinced.

For those of you who don’t know the Alpha course is a charismatic introduction to Christianity, typically held over several evenings. Bear Grylls speaks highly of it. I speak highly of it. You’ll meet pleasant people, get free dinner and interesting conversation. I have issues with the accuracy of some of the course material, but not with the genuine, good-natured people I met on the course. I even enjoyed Nicky Gumbel's jokes and am somewhat jealous of his rhetorical skills. One of the evenings includes a discussion of faith healing, and the story of interest begins with “There are so many wonderful stories of God healing that it is difficult to know which to give as an example.”