Saturday, March 21, 2015

The Privileged Planet- DVD featuring Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards



The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery is a DVD supplementing the far more comprehensive work involved in the book of the same name in which Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards substantiate claims of scientific evidence for intelligent design.

While many oppose that the claims are in fact scientific or empirically valid, the interlocutors fail to recognize (or hide the fact) that science, even rigidly empirically validated phenomenon, are in themselves not "irrefutable" proof in that accepted science depends on inductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning is science speak or rather a philosophical term for trusting in the validity of conclusions based on evidence that cannot be deductively reasoned. To use a theological term it is synonymous with "faith".

'Paul Davis, a brilliant physicist at ASU says "that the right scientific attitude" now listen to this, Paul Davis is not a theist- "the right scientific attitude is essentially theological, science can only proceed if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is, at least in part, comprehensible to us." Einstein said " I cannot imagine the scientist without that profound faith"- note the word" John Lennox

The claims range from the reality that so much knowledge has been gained from a simple solar eclipse to the far more complex evidence from "Big Bang Cosmology". Topics such as the "Anthropic Principle"  and the "Fine Tuning of the Universe" are all part of the compelling evidence presented in their careful analysis.

The extensive work led these two to conclude that not only does the Earth sit in a "Goldilox Zone" which is just right for complex carbon-based life, but that the same criteria that make it suitable for humanity also just happen to render our place in the Universe a most optimal place with just the right parameters for observing the starry host.

From the history of science many skeptics drew the conclusion that the Theological underpinning of human knowledge appeared to have suffered a mortal blow during the Copernican revolution. The revelation that the Universe, or rather the Solar System did not revolve around the Earth did not only unseat the long held Ptolemaic System but also had far reaching impacts for the authority of the Church. But as Richards and Gonzalez point out this was not merely the view of Theologians of the time, but this was a common consensus among both the Church and the natural philosophers (early scientists). Conceding that the Earth is not the centre in a geo-spatial context in no way detracts from the many optimal conditions that exist on Earth and in its place in the Solar System and the Galaxy we call home that these two have done a thorough work advocating that indeed the Earth is a "Privileged Planet"

Friday, March 20, 2015

Book Review: Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus- A devout Muslim encounters Christianity by Nabeel Qureshi




My appreciation of this book stems from several different aspects. Significantly the first impression of Nabeel Qureshi's life as a Muslim born and raised in the United States gives a distinctly different perspective of Islam. With all the sensationalist media impressions garnered from different corners of the globe it is easy to forget that not every Muslim is intent on violence. Demographically, we can be thankful for that reality since one in five people of the world is an adherent of Islam.

Nabeel's family come across as sincere, moderate, peace-loving and family oriented people with a religious/political worldview that, while it sets them apart from the average North American, does not mean that they do not share common values that enabled them to live harmoniously with their neighbours. It is clear that Nabeels family were not part of a problem in American culture, but rather were part of the solution in their moderate interpretation of Islam. But that is not the same thing as saying they weren't particularly devout. Nor is it saying that their particular take on Islam is indicative of orthodox Islam. For that matter nor is it saying that there is such a thing as orthodox Islam. They take their religion seriously, and- if you will forgive the broad strokes- exhibited a sense of morality every bit as decent, and more often exceeding that of the average Westerner.

This unique insight into a Muslim family in America is valuable in terms of showing us an appropriate response to Islam from a Christian perspective. But there is a caveat to that. Nabeel's own admission is that the perception of Islam he grew up with was gradually diverging from that of his parent's own view of Islam- being influenced by Western atitudes, particularly in areas of critical thinking. His parents, being first generation immigrants, arrived in America with an unquestioning sense of the authority of Islam in all matters of faith and conduct. Islam does not treat doubt kindly.  While of course reasoning is also a part of Islamic culture, it is pragmatically used against other worldviews and religions and very rarely for internal criticism, such is the authority structure in Islam. In those rare occasions it is advanced in sectarian differences, but not against the most basic doctrines. "Allah is the one and only God and Mohammed is his prophet". So what influenced  Nabeel as a second generation Muslim born in America, would not necessarily apply to those whose own upbringing stemmed from a total immersion in Islamic culture.

Nabeel's book is extremely useful in introducing Islamic words, and terms that any Christian hoping to engage meaningfully with Muslims will find essential in their understanding. Yet the book commences with a gentleness and respect towards both Muslims and- as he explains in the Introduction- his "past love for my former faith" that surely would encourage a curious Muslim to read further as well.

Another reason to commend this book is because he reveals the effectiveness and essential nature of reaching people for Christ through Christian apologetics. His bright mind and no doubt Western influence had begun to take root in his life such that he was at length in the place where he was able to both critique the claims of Christianity in a somewhat more rigorous (and yet more just) fashion than he had been taught as a Muslim apologist and, conversely, also to question with academic rigour the basis of his own faith in Islam. Christian apologetics is the discipline of examining various worldviews with a view to defending the Christian faith fairly and honestly. Because the standard of investigation is able to be applied both to Christianity and other religions and philosophies it is an objective measure for the truth.

This was not only a process of his ongoing tertiary education, but also largely in thanks to his everpresent friend and Christian sparring buddy- David Wood who provided both the hand of Christian friendship and the elbow in the ribs to spur Nabeel on in his fervent search for truth. This nuanced book reveals something of the anguished internal struggle to let go of deeply entrenched beliefs within full view of the consequent cost involved. It also speaks of both the necessity of apologetics and its real limitations. When all is said and done- once the intellectual barriers of faith are firmly and ineradicably erased- we are still faced with the existential barriers. I know it's the truth, yet I cannot bring myself to that place where I can bow my knee to Christ. Oh who will deliver me from this body of death?

It is in this place that Nabeel finally finds himself still in great need of a power that can shift him from a place of a grudging mental assent to that of firm commitment to Christ. And here the Holy Spirit comes into his own. Through a series of visions and dreams Nabeel finally capitulates body and soul to Christ. In doing so, Jesus reveals himself as the epitome of true meekness, willing not only to answer all the intellectual difficulties through his friend David, and other Christian apologists, but to extend his mercy to the extent that he almost seems to pander to Nabeels excessive need for irrefutible certainty. This not only serves to exemplify the humility of God, but manifests the powerful grip of a life steeped in an unquestioned and unquestionable tradition.

Nabeel Qureshi distinguishes himelf as a writer with a combination of warmth and scholarship that I would hope one day would make his parents proud.

Book Reviews- Faith Of The Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism by Paul C. Vitz


God as an extension of human imagination:

How often have you heard the phrase "God is merely a mental crutch" or perhaps "God is simply the projection of wish fulfillment"?

This statement has filtered down to an almost unquestioned maxim in some secular nations, such as New Zealand.  The historical background is particularly important in relation to the argument and how it relates to a crisis of absent or abusive fathers that we find ourselves in at this present time.

News Headlline: "Charges over drunk 9-year-old boy"

How many people armed with the idea God is a psychological crutch have disregarded any evidence or further inquiry into the existence of God based on this idea- which in contemporary thought- has its genesis in the mind of psychology pioneer- Sigmund Freud? Though in reality the idea had an earlier champion in the form of Ludwig Feuerbach.

In his Phd thesis "Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis"  Steven Jon James Lovell (2003) writes:
The general outline of a Freudian critique of religious belief is well known. It was certainly known to C.S. Lewis. Moreover, a broadly Freudian critique seems, in the minds of many, to be a genuine obstacle and objection to accepting a religious worldview. This fact is remarkable in itself since Freudian psychology holds little weight among contemporary academics.
In other words, despite the fact that among academics of our age Freudian psychology is largely discredited or ignored, the momentum or impetus of Frued's critique of Theism remains perversely intact. The question is: Does this belie a significant bias against theistic belief? Perhaps overstating it will clarify: Is it plausible Freud could have been wrong about everything except religion as wish fulfillment?

Lovell continues:
Freud concludes that religion is therefore an illusion and, on the basis of this, goes on to claim that religion is “the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity, like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of the relation to the father”
Atheism, or the non-existence of God as wish fulfullment: 

Professor of Psychology, University of New York Paul C Vitz has no objection in principle to the idea that for some people, perhaps even many, there are psychological underpinning reasons for subscribing to the idea of the existence of God. But, he hastens to add, if there are such reasons, then is it possible to explore whether or not there are equally valid psychological reasons that might underpin why some people do not believe in God?
 If the affirmative proves to be the case, then this would appear to cancel each others objections out. From this point the existence of God may move forward from ad hominem attacks to the real issue: Does or does not-God exist? It is clear- at least in Vitz's mind- that psychology precedes philosophy and theology and these issues have been used to unfairly critique religious belief, and in particular belief in the Christian God.
After all, it is quite obviously true that people may come to the conclusion that God exists for weak or inappropriate reasons, yet that does not say anything to the question itself- whether or not God exists.
Not to put too fine a point on it: It may be childish of me to believe that babies are born in a cabbage patch, in fact quite wrong to believe that's how they are born- but I am not wrong in that they are actually born- babies do exist. What one personally believes about the existence of God and my reasons for doing so, bear no relation to whether or not God exists. This is the crux of an ad hominem argument. What we believe about reality does not change what is.
Eduard von Hartmann said nearly a century ago: “it is perfectly true that nothing exists merely because we wish it, but it is not true that something cannot exist if we wish it.”
With the emphasis hinging on the words "merely because we wish it" the case is firmly put that desiring God to be real does not in itself make God real, yet, C.S. Lewis goes on to formulate an argument for the existence of God through "The Argument From Desire" This also was echoed long ago by Saint Augustine when he said: “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You.”
C. S. Lewis had also aniticipated Vitz's research when he penned "The Pilgrims Regress" and the riddles where Madam Reason rescues John the Giant.

If the Freudian argument is true, (that beliefs are formed because of pschological predispositions) can it not also be true of atheists, even Freud?

Professor Paul C. Vitz:
Psychology as an argument [against theism] cuts both ways...I got interested in this question for two reasons- One, I'm a former atheist...in addition I had another reason- Freud said- [paraphrasing] "nothing is more familiar than to find a young person stop believing in God as soon as he loses respect for his earthly father"- in other words it's hard to believe in God if your own father is unworthy of respect or is in some important way defective... Freud never followed this up.
I came up with a hypothesis...and it can be called "the defective father hypothesis" In other words: that a father- if he's defective, sets up a strong pressure, not a totally determining one, but a strong pressure toward atheism on the part of his children.  Particularly I would think young intelligent, intellectually oriented boys.
For Vitz it was the unlikely source of Freud himself which helped spark his investigation into why people might be set up psychologically to disbelieve. He goes on in the book to document a strong case involving high profile atheists who answer in a general way this criteria and the subsequent loss or absence of faith.

Lovell referring to Christian apologist and author Alistair McGrath who quotes Freud's own confession of prejudice against belief in God:
The honest reader cannot but feel that Freud’s historical work is rather tenuous and that
he has ‘shoe-horned’ his history to fit his Oedipal theory. This feeling is only
strengthened when we read his [Freud's] comments on his historical research: “I am reading books without really being interested in them, since I already know the results; my instinct tells me that”
Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and senior research fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford concludes of Freud's religious views:
“Freud's atheistic view of the origin of religion comes prior to his study of religion; it is not its consequence.”
In other words Freud had already decided prior to his research God did not exist and therefore the reason for the existence of religion must lie elsewhere- ie in psychology.


Speaking of Vitz's research, Phd candidate Lovell writes:
Vitz goes on to collect evidence for this hypothesis by comparing prominent atheists
and theists with respect to their relationships with their fathers. A pattern emerges.
While not all of the atheists which Vitz studies had ‘defective fathers’ the large
majority did. By way of contrast, the theists were found, in nearly every case, to have
had good relationships with their fathers. Striking confirmations of the ‘defective
father’ hypothesis occur in the lives of atheists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, David
Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Arthur Schopenhauer,
Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Sigmund Freud, Madalyn Murray O’Hair and Albert Ellis.
He also observes:
..to note a few other possible psychological factors that may provide an impetus towards atheism. The first of these is a desire to fit in or to gain the respect of one’s peers. In an environment where atheism is the norm, perhaps especially among ‘intellectuals,’ there will be a strong pull towards conformity. The second is the desire for personal autonomy...
Lovell again:
If a Freudian explanation is possible for any belief we have, and if such arguments undermine our reasons for holding those beliefs then a serious question arises: can the Freudian approach avoid undermining itself?

The answer to this question must be in the negative. C.S. Lewis was here before us.
 I personally find it fascinating that Richard Dawkins regularly presents the Freudian concept of wish fulfullment in his rants against religion::
I think there is something wonderful about facing up to the universe. Because we are increasing our understanding we can throw away childhood obsessions – imaginary friends who comfort us and the need for some kind of parent figure to turn to.

When we grow up we need to cast these things aside and stand up tall in the universe. It is a cold place. We are not going to last for ever. We are going to die. Facing up to that is a nobler way of getting through life than pinning one’s hopes on childhood delusions.
and yet the god he goes on to (mis)represent could hardly be anyone's genuine desire. Who for instance would desire this sort of god? :
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” ― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
As some wit  famously said:
 "Well Richard I don't believe in the god you don't believe in either!" 
For those who never have, may I recommend G.K. Chesterton's witty book Orthodoxy which I here refer to as an appetizer. At this point he recalls the dawning of the realization that rather than everything being wrong with Christianity, he began to be aware that perhaps there was something wrong with every one of its critics! :
 A slow but awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind- the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. For not only (as I understood) had Christianity the most flaming vices but it had apparently a mystical talent for combining vices which seemed inconsistent with each other. It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. 
The book Faith of the Fatherless offers an interesting counter-perspective to the debate re the existence of God. There is no doubt that a persons psychological makeup has a bearing on whether or not people will ascribe to theism or not, and just being aware of the fact of the existence of both the predisposition for belief and against belief is enough to forewarn us that our faith- whether it be in atheism or theism- ought to allow for a personal bias and we do well to ground ourselves thoroughly in the evidence. If Vitz has proven any point, it is that there are as many if not more psychological reasons leading to atheism as consequence of wish fulfullment as there are to believe in God. As it has been said elsewhere: A person cannot find God for the same reason that a thief cannot find a policeman! We must look beyond our own bias.


For a fuller understanding of Vitz's work watch this interesting video clip. 



And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13



Book Review- The Cost of Discipleship by Deitrich Bonhoeffer.







The first impact of his powerful work unravelling the difference between cheap grace which we bestow on ourselves and costly grace which may ultimately cost a disciple his life but in the end offers him the only true life sets the bar that this is indeed a serious work. Typical of his forceful expression is the passage where he shows how cheap grace becomes just another law to bind people to a selfish lifestyle while all the time masquerading as the gift of God. In his own words "Grace interpreted as a principle, pecca fortiter as a principle, grace at a low cost, is in the last resort simply a new law, which brings neither help nor freedom.Grace as a living word, pecca fortiter as our comfort in tribulation and as a summons to discipleship, costly grace is the only pure grace, which really forgives sins and gives freedom to the sinner.

We ........have gathered like eagles round the carcase of cheap grace, and there we have drunk of the poison which has killed the life of following Christ."

The fine distinction between following a correct doctrine but abusing it and following Christ in the dynamic of grace is masterfully handled in this work which desperately needs airing in this day of cheap grace.

Discipleship takes on a new meaning as he discusses the differences between being obedient to Christ by prescription and following Christ in a living relationship with him in a contemporary world. All the more remarkable is this book as we recognize the circumstances under which it was written and the price which Bonhoeffer ultimately paid in order to live by what he had written.

"When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die"- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship.

Book Review- Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths by Bruce Feiler




As a Christian I am interested in the phenomenon of Abraham as the progenitor of three of the main religions on earth. Of particular interest was the portrayal of this character through the lenses of the two other belief systems that I am not so familiar with. In an easy to read format this is at once a book for the curious without the need for serious scholarship,and will therefore be appealing to a wide readership. Coupled with this is the current apetite throughout the world to understand better the problems of the middle-east and also the clarion-call for religious tolerance and reconciliation. All of this may be found in this book which will therefore guarantee its success as a money spinner.

What I find disturbing is the tendency of the writer not so much to find the truth of Abraham, but how to reconcile the different faiths. There is the overarching but unwritten goal to find the common ground by which these three religions may be reconciled. It reminds me of the saying "peace at any price is too high a price" It seems to me to beg the question "is the reconciling of differences really worth the sacrifice of truth?"

It seems never to enter the writers mind that actually one of the faiths representation of Abraham might actally be true as an historical fact and therefore is a sound basis for faith.

The book never seriously offers Abraham as the embodiment of a life lived by the truth, and that to agree with a fabrication in the name of tolerance is actually to undermine the basis for living in harmony.

Abraham as understood through the various "manipulations" of each of the different faiths theologians over a long period seems as far as I am aware to be represented fairly and without bias by Feiler, but to say that Feiler doesn't have any presuppositions or is indeed a neutral seeker of truth is a far different thing. In the end I have to say that what is tacitly ignored in this book is the fact that truth by its very nature is exclusive, but that is not a popular thought in todays pluralistic and relativistic culture. Not to explore the possibility that actually one of those views of Abraham is true and the other two false is a serious flaw in his work, but completely understandable, given todays religious climate.

All in all well worth the read but disapointing in seeing the pervasiveness of the modern maxims in yet another author, move over Dan Brown :

a) God is a construct of theologians.

b)There is no such thing as absolute truth.

C)Tolerance is more important than truth.

d)To defer to tolerance is a guarantee of neutrality.

e)To be intolerant of misbeliefs is to be bigoted.

f)History is dependent on the flavour of todays revisionists.