Last night I mentioned two articles from Wednesday's paper on whether or not we should study the Bible. I discussed the pro-Bible study article last night (see the blog below). Tonight, I'd like to take up the con article. This particular article is written by Sam Harris, who has authored at least two books that seek to inculcate an anti-Christian (and, actually, an anti-"religion") worldview. What are we to say in response to this?
Well, the first thing I would like to say about Mr. Harris' article is that we, as Christians, should welcome the chance to engage men and women like him on an intellectual level about the claims of Christianity. We Christians have nothing to be ashamed of or timid about. We have THE Truth. Let us not relegate the intellectual front seat to the so-called "scientists" of our world. God made our minds, and He made them for His glory. As Christians, we ought to use our minds and engage our world in a battle for reclaiming the mind for God.
The second thing I would like to say is that I'm rather disappointed that Mr. Harris chose not to offer factual evidence to support many of his claims in the article. He did not skimp on the rhetoric, to be sure; he let that fly full tilt. But he omitted offering supporting evidences to back up that rhetoric. For instance, at one point he claims that "[b]ooks like the Bible...get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong." But he does not explain what he means by "every significant fact." It's hard to argue against him when he does not give supporting evidence. We can discuss whether or not a specific "x" or a specific "y" is, first of all, a significant fact and, second of all, something that the Bible gets right or wrong. But it's hard to argue against a nebulous statement like, "the Bible...get[s] almost every significant fact...wrong." It's kind of like trying to nail JELLO to the wall.
The third thing that I would like to say is that when Mr. Harris does give an example of what he means, he leaves his own flank exposed to counter attack. Let me explain what I mean. At one point, Harris says: "There is no question that many people do good things in the name of their faith--but there are better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak than the belief that an Imaginary Friend wants you to do it. Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy" (emphasis added).
Where are all his "better reasons to help the poor, feed the hungry and defend the weak"? Does he mean to suggest that compassion and ecstasy are better reasons to do these things? I would considerately beg to differ for at least the following three reasons. First, compassion and ecstasy are NOT deeper than religion; they are actually part and parcel of the Christian religion. And, I would argue, they are not only part and parcel of it but lie at its very heart.
Second, Mr. Harris has no objective basis for his ethic of compassion and ecstasy. His belief system (atheism, I presume) offers no basis for claiming that another person besides himself OUGHT to pursue compassion and ecstasy. If he believes in the value of compassion and ecstasy, that's fine. But his belief system does not allow him to impose his values on any one else. In other words, you cannot be an atheist AND have an objective ethical system (one that says that ALL people ought to do such and such). Where is the basis for Harris to say that we, who must then be evolved from the apes, are to be compassionate? Says who? You have to have a theistic worldview, like that of Christianity, to be able to impose an ethical system (whether it be one of compassion and ecstasy or something completely different) upon ALL people. And that's what Christianity does. It says that because God made all people, they belong to Him. And they are subject to His rules and commandments, to His ethical system.
Third, not only does Mr. Harris have no objective basis to command me or you or anyone else to live according to the laws of compassion and ecstasy, he also does not have any basis to motivate me or you to keep that command. He says that compassion and ecstasy are deeper than religion. Well, why should I be compassionate? Where is the motivation for atheists, who are evolved from the apes, to be compassionate? Why not pursue survival of the fittest? Once again, you have to assume a theistic worldview, like that of Christianity, to be able to give an objective motivation for us to be compassionate or to follow any other ethical guideline. Christianity says that Christ's death is our motivation. As Christians, we are to be compassionate, for instance, because Christ was; and we are to be loving, because God showed His love for us in this, that while we were yet His enemies, Christ died for us. As Christians, we love because God first loved us. That is true and objective motivation!
In the end, I would like to encourage you not to be swayed by rhetoric but to think through the claims such rhetoricians are making. And I would also like to encourage you to read your Bibles! Soli Deo gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment