Christianity, Conservatism and America's Pastime

As you may know, American Atheists has released a billboard in the Lincoln Tunnel making the following declaration about the tale of the birth of Jesus: “You KNOW It’s a Myth” and instructing viewers to “This Season, Celebrate REASON!” However, I am not going to address the billboard itself and fuel the controversy over it in this post; rather, I will address the claims made on the American Atheists’ website regarding the billboard (link: https://atheists.org/atheism/Christmas), section by section. And judging by the billboard itself, American Atheists wants reason, so let’s use some pretty good reason.

You KNOW it’s a Myth!

This section is just a general introduction to the article. Nothing in here requires addressing.

What do you know?

Here, we run into our first problem. American Atheists (abbreviated as AA from now on) claims that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, and therefore that original sin does not exist, and therefore that there is no need for a savior. However, it does not support the claim that Adam and Eve is a myth at all! Instead, we read the following:

“Chances are, if you’re reading this, you don’t believe in the fable of  Adam and Eve and the talking snake.  You probably think it’s a story, created out of ignorance, to explain the origin of life.  You probably don’t believe that Adam literally ate a fruit, resulting in God expelling him and Eve out of the idyllic Garden of Eden.  

“In other words, you know that’s a myth.”

But in order to make this claim, you have to back it up. Believing something is true does not make it true; rather, the evidence supporting the claim tells us whether something is true or not. If you are going to claim that the story of Adam and Eve is false, then you need evidence to back it up.

The response to this might be “But you need evidence to support your claim that the story of Adam and Eve is true, so why should I believe you?” The reason is that that is not the claim being addressed at the moment. It is AA who has made the claim that the story of Adam and Eve is false, so it is AA who must back up their claim with evidence.

Another point about this claim is that it goes against the idea that science is the only begetter of truth, a very popular atheist argument. It seems to be implying that this story is obviously false, and that this is known by intuition, not science. However, if one is claiming that science is the only begetter of truth, but is also claiming that this story is obviously false by intuition, then those claims are contradictory.

(A caveat to that argument above: I do not know if AA makes that claim about truth. However, judging by most of the popular atheist writers – many of which do make that claim – and by the writers whom AA endorses, it seems more than highly likely that many members of AA would make that claim.)

Another key point: since AA uses the “you know it” tag several more times in the article, and once more in this section, they are making a flawed claim, as they are not backing their claims up with evidence; rather, they simply rehash the idea that “this should be obvious to everyone,” which is a flawed argument, to say the least.

One final point about this section: it seems that every time an atheist tries to discount the story of Adam and Eve, they always, without fail, bring up the talking snake. It should be clear to everyone that the intent of this is to make the story seem absurd… “You seriously believe snakes can talk? I mean COME ON!!” But no matter the motive behind the claim, it still needs to be addressed, so here goes: the idea in the Adam and Eve story is that it was the Devil, in the form of a serpent, who tempted Adam and Eve. There is no claim that it is normal for a snake to talk, nor that this happened more than once. Plus, discounting the Adam and Eve story because of the talking snake presupposes naturalism; since it assumes there is no supernatural, then the story naturally becomes absurd. But since the argument presupposes naturalism, it becomes circular, as it presumes what it is proving. Allowing for merely the possibility of the supernatural means that the story is only false if naturalism is true, and as we have seen throughout many philosophical arguments, it is not.

Okay, that went a lot longer than I thought. On to the next section!

But can you really KNOW?

This one is fairly easy to answer. It is a counter to the “you can’t disprove the existence of God with 100% certainty” argument, which is a TERRIBLE argument, and one which no notable Christian philosopher uses. The question should be, “Given the evidence, what is the most reasonable thing to believe?” And given the weight of the arguments for Christianity (cosmological, teleological, moral, resurrection, etc.), I’d say it is clear that Christianity is the most reasonable argument.

Christianity stole Christmas.

There are a couple of flaws in this argument, though it is one of the more well-written ones in this article. First of all, the Bible never claims that Jesus was born on December 25, and yes, it is the scholarly belief today that Jesus was likely born in the spring. However, the claim that “early Christians changed it to mesh with other mythos” is false – the date was changed to counter pagan celebrations, not to mesh with them.

Another semi-related flaw is the link that the article provides directly after that quote: a link to a book making the old “Christian-myths-come-from-pagan-rituals” argument. That argument was actually first discounted about a hundred years ago, and only recently, among the New Atheist movement, has it been making a comeback. But worry not – there are books and scholars discounting that argument, such as Ronald Nash (deceased) and Edwin Yamauchi (alive). However, I do not have space to address all these claims now, so – moving on.

The next point made in this article is that “none of the trappings of Christmas are Christian” and then goes on to list the histories of Yule logs, Santa Claus, and Christmas trees to their pagan beginnings. So? No one is claiming that Yule logs, Santa Claus, or Christmas trees are Christian traditions. What is Christian is the birth of Christ himself, and it is that that is the focus of what we celebrate at Christmas.

*********************************************************************

(Side point that I feel needs addressing: a side link from the article goes to a supposed debunking of the Nativity story: most notably addressing these points:

• Differences in the Matthew and Luke geneologies
• The virgin birth

Fortunately, both of these claims have answers.

There are two different possible responses to the geneology problem: that one geneology is of Joseph and one is of Mary (which the AA site attempts to counter), and that one is the direct ancestral geneology and one is the legal geneology. I’m not sure which of these is correct, but the point is clear: there is still an answer.

Interestingly, the AA site preempts this claim by arguing that “Matthew and Luke failed to collude and conjure up a perfect geneology” (paraphrased), so it calls them both liars. However, if the geneologies did match up exactly, then undoubtedly the AA site would have claimed that they’d colluded to conspire a perfect geneology, and still would have called them both liars! Can you see the catch-22 here? Or is it just me?

To address the virgin birth, the site makes two claims: that the virgin birth was taken from pagan stories, and that biology shows that only females can result from virgin birth. However, both these claims are utterly false. Again reworking the “pagan traditions” argument, the site lists several pagan gods that supposedly were born of virgins. However, none of them actually were! The most notable example is Mithras, who was not actually born of a virgin, but was carved out of a rock. The other pagan gods mentioned have the same flaw: by their own legends, they weren’t virgin-born.

The flaw in the second argument assumes that the virgin birth, if it were real, would be a natural birth. However, the virgin birth was supernatural, so it follows that God could have created a male fetus in Mary, despite her virginity.

Okay, that also went longer than I thought. Side point over.)

*********************************************************************

Back to the next section of the AA article:

Happy Holidays!

This one addresses the whole “war on Christmas” controversy over not saying “Merry Christmas” at the malls, etc. The only thing I will say on the matter is that this is an example of political correctness and all-inclusiveness, and one which I think has a slight flaw in it, especially when the argument is brought from an atheist perspective. They say that “inclusiveness is better than divisiveness,” and thus think that it is wiser for corporations to be inclusive and not single out a single holiday. However, if “inclusiveness is better than divisiveness”…

…then why put the billboard in the Lincoln Tunnel?

AA is completely self-contradictory here, promoting inclusiveness while bashing Christianity (and don’t even try to say that the billboard doesn’t single out Christianity; it calls a specifically Christian doctrine a myth!), saying that its followers are unreasoned. On a similar note, Elon’s atheist club uses the acronym SANE, and I know that I’m not the only one who sees the attack in that – that Christians, and all who believe in God, are insane. I’m not going to say any more on this matter; I think it speaks for itself.

A Federal Religious Holiday?

This section complains about how everyone is forced to observe a Christian holiday, and complains about how Christians get all uptight when atheists focus on the commercialization, saying that since they don’t believe in God, of course they’re going to focus on the commercialization. As such, Christians should not be complaining. However, this misses the real reason that Christians are upset at the commercialization of Christmas; we’re upset that people are forgetting God, which is truly a tragedy.

As for the first claim, well, I know nothing about why Christmas is a federal holiday while other religious holidays are not. Nor do I know why Christmas was made a federal holiday in the first place. So I cannot answer that claim. However, I think part of the reason that it is still a federal holiday is because of the cultural and commercial connections. Most people celebrate it for presents, trees, and Santa Claus, not for Jesus. As such, it has a connection to American culture that extends beyond religion.

In the end

The article’s conclusion has a number of separate points to address, so to do so, I can think of no better way to go than to respond to the conclusion one sentence at a time.

• It’s not a war on Christmas, rather it’s a war on intolerance and ignorance. — Then explain the billboard to me again. Doesn’t it directly address Christmas (the Nativity/birth of Jesus)?
•  It’s a war on false gods, false prophets, and false promises. — Except that God is not false, nor are his prophets and promises, as the evidence shows. Again, this claim is singling out Christianity – check out the billboard again if you’re not sure.
•  It’s a war on unearned rights, unwarranted exclusivity, and unrighteous divisiveness. — Truth is exclusive by definition; if something is true, then something else is false. Since AA claims that atheism is true, and Christianity is false, aren’t they exhibiting “unwarranted exclusivity” and “unrighteous divisiveness”? Also, I have no idea what is meant by that “unearned rights” claim.
• It’s a good and just war, fought without violence, against a behemoth known as organized religion. — But it is definitely fought with hate. I can show you a billboard if you’re not sure about that. And the whole “behemoth” thingy – how is organized religion a behemoth? Also, last time I checked, atheism was definitely a worldview, and since AA exists, it’s definitely organized…couldn’t we consider this “organized religion” as well?
• We are outnumbered and outfunded. Our only weapons are the truth and the means to spread it.  Hence the billboard, the web site, the magazine, the TV show, and the convention. — Except that you don’t exactly have the truth. I could throw in a handful of arguments here, but I’ve done so above. And just a minor technical point: in this technological age of America, pretty much anyone has the means to spread any idea.
• It’s working.  We’re growing.  Atheism is the fastest growing segment of the population in respect to religious belief (or the lack of it) in the country, and the future looks bright. — So? Popularity does not necessarily correspond to truth. Plus, as Timothy Keller points out in his book The Reason for God, not only is atheism growing, but so is organized religion. What is decreasing is nominal believers…as he puts it, the world (and America) is polarizing.
• American Atheists has been protecting the separation of church and state since 1963, and we will continue the fight until we achieve true equality in the laws, as well as the hearts and minds of America’s citizenry. — Then why single out and bash Christianity? That doesn’t sound very equal to me.
• Atheism can never go away, because it’s the unassailable, provable, logical truth. — Except that it isn’t. I refer you back to the arguments.
• But then again, you knew that too. — No, I didn’t. And no, it’s not “patently obvious” to everyone. Need I mention the arguments again?
• Happy holidays, and pass the eggnog. — No thanks, I don’t like eggnog. (Seriously, I don’t.)

So there you have it. American Atheists, under the cloak of equality, has tried to take an axe to Christianity. And that is the main problem of atheism, especially New Atheism: under the guise of inclusiveness, atheism divides.

I know I’m early for this, but why not…

Merry Christmas, everyone.

In my Ethical Practice course here at Elon, we briefly discussed American philosophy and what makes it up. Just in that discussion, lasting just over one full class period, I noticed several flaws in this philosophy. That scares me, since American philosophy guides what is taught to the youth today; if the philosophy is flawed, yet it is taught anyway, many people will be led astray.

First, I will give a basic synopsis of American philosophy, as was given in my class. American philosophy incorporates the following ideas:

• The rejection of modern philosophy (of dualism), and thus an acceptance of naturalism.
• Genuine pluralism – the belief that we cannot currently know anything about whether or not there is a god, and that every unique reality is legitimate.
• Fallibalism – the claim that all claims are subject to correction.
• Radical empiricism – that we can only speak about things that are part of our ordinary interactive experience.
• Meliorism – the idea of improving the human condition.
• Pragmatism – taking action on one’s beliefs.
• The continuity of philosophy and science – the idea that only claims that are testable by science are allowed to be considered.
• The centrality of the community.

Looking at that summary, I am willing to be that either you are already spotting some problems with this, or that this is sounding mighty attractive. Although, there might be some of you out there to whom this idea doesn’t quite seem right, but you can’t pinpoint where. Whichever person you are, keep on reading.

As I listed them, the most important and most foundational ideas for American philosophy are listed first, and the rest come later down. I will address them in reverse order, concluding by tackling the very basis of American philosophy. However, I will skip the lowest one on the list – the centrality of community – until later.

So let’s start off with a biggun’: that science is the only begetter of truth, and that no theory should be considered unless it can be proven by the scientific method. You’ve probably heard this argument all over the place; clearly, it is popular. The problem is that it is flawed, and who better to point out exactly why than one of the best Christian philosophers today, William Lane Craig. In a 1998 debate with Peter Atkins, Craig points out five truths that cannot be determined by science alone. They are:

• Logical and mathematical truths
• Metaphysical truths
• Ethical values
• Aesthetic judgments (judgments of beauty)
• Science itself

(The clip can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco)

So clearly, science is not the only begetter of truth. Now let’s go one step deeper: to the idea of pragmatism, or acting on your beliefs. There’s not much debate on this one: it is a good thing to act on your beliefs. However, problems arise when one acts on incorrect beliefs. The Nazis believed Jews needed to be exterminated; was there something wrong with this? Pure pragmatism, especially when taken in conjuction with pure pluralism (to be discussed later), would say no. And I will leave it at that.

The next point, meliorism, also rests on the basis of American philosophy, so as before, I will skip this one for now, and return to it later. So does radical empiricism, which rests 0n both the rejection of dualism and the acceptance of naturalism. But the next point back, fallibalism, has a very clear flaw, especially when combined with the rest of American philosophy. Fallibalism claims that all claims are subject to correction – in this way, we can never really know if anything is absolutely true, because someday there might be some scientific discovery that disproves or corrects it. But what about the claim of fallibalism itself? Is fallibalism subject to correction?

Obviously, this is a dilemma for the fallibalist: if fallibalism is subject to correction, then there is no reason to accept it. If it is not, then it is a false claim, as at least one claim – that of fallibalism itself – would not be subject to correction. A naturalist might attempt to squirt out of this dilemma by claiming that there is not yet any evidence to reject fallibalism, and that it just currently happens to be the most reasonable belief. However, it is at this point that further problems arise. The ideas listed above are the essential parts of American philosophy, and the philosophy accepts these ideas as true. Would they not be subject to correction, as fallibalism claims? Especially the very basis? Again, we reach a dilemma. If the naturalist returns to the old “not-yet-any-evidence” argument, you can then point out that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God.

Onward, then, to pluralism, the belief that all views are equally valid. Again, we have a self-contradiction, as pluralism rejects particularism (the belief that there are true and false beliefs), which is against the definition of pluralism. When taken in conjunction with the rest of American philosophy, pluralism falls even flatter. For instance, American philosophy claims that all views are equally valid, but also claims that science is the only begetter of truth, as well as a certain claim that is the basis of this whole philosophy. So what happens when someone holds a view that claims that science is not the only begetter of truth, or does not agree with the certain basis? Is that view valid or not? Another clear contradiction.

We’re almost at the end now, or should I say the beginning. We have reached the first claim of American philosophy – the rejection of dualism and the acceptance of naturalism. And it is this argument that is the most essential to tackle, as everything else is based on it. If naturalism is true, then radical empiricism is true, and the only things that are legitimate to talk about are those that come from our experience. If naturalism is true, then meliorism is true…wait a sec, tangent time.

On second thought, even if naturalism were true, then meliorism might not be true. It claims that the best thing for man to do is to improve the human condition. But that begs the question, why? Why should we try to improve our condition, when there is absolutely no point to it? I do not think that naturalism has an answer to this.

OK, back on track now. In any case, naturalism, in fact the whole of American philosophy itself, rests on just one claim – on just four words.

We.

Are.

Just.

Organisms.

And if that is true, then naturalism is absolutely correct. If all we are is organisms, then there is no purpose to life, and there is no point in talking about a God.

Tough to think about, isn’t it? Well, unfortunately, that is the logical conclusion of naturalism – there is no purpose. Everything John Lennon sang about, with all the people just living for the day, is utterly meaningless.

However, this is not what life is truly like. Naturalists claim that the reason for the rejection of dualism (and thus, the acceptance of naturalism) is that there is no evidence that God exists, that we have souls, et cetera, et cetera, and that talking about people as if we are both physical and spiritual is totally absurd – which, if we are only physical, is true. But we know that this is not the case: there is a God, and not only has He saved our butts from sin, but He has also given us an abundance of evidence to show that He is there, and that we are more than flesh and bones and all that. All we have to do is point it out, and let God work in the hearts of many.

In conclusion (boy, I sound like I’m writing a paper for school, don’t I?), not only is American philosophy riddled with internal contradictions and errors, but it is based on a false claim. Now, what are we as believers to do? Sit idly by? Not a chance.

But, you may ask, how are we to approach others? Well, this is something I don’t know the answer to, and a question I have been struggling with myself. There are a couple things I can say, though: Be persistent, but not pushy; if someone else brings up a false claim, correct gently; and above all, let God tell you where to go, and don’t try to do it yourself. That’s gotten me into trouble, and I am still learning to listen. I hope and pray that the same doesn’t happen to you, and that you may be vessels for the Light.

Oh, one last thing: don’t just let God be seen in your words, but in your lives as well. The old saying “actions speak louder than words” is true and true again. The way you live is much more important than any argument you might have…but that’s a whole post in itself, and for another time.

God bless you all, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” – John 8:12