|
My graphic depiction of the disconnect between Bible literalists and the scientific worldview. Images from Wikimedia Commons, public domain license. |
I admit I have not been very regular in writing on this
blog. I made the cardinal mistake of assuming I should have something real to
talk about, with real substance behind it, before I delved into the business of
putting the idea into words. Lately, I decided that, if I wait for that kind of
inspiration, I probably wouldn’t write another word for months. So I took a bit
of advice from
this helpful article
and decided to just pick something that irritates me. Unfortunately, it still
took me 2 days to put together the whole post (mainly because of visiting
relatives and annoying constant interruptions-yeah, I’m making excuses!)
If you’ve seen my
Twitter profile, you’ll read that I
identify myself as an “apathetic agnostic,” which is lazy-speak for “I’m not
religious, and I don’t really care about the fine points of religion.” Somehow
that doesn’t ring completely true though, when I decide my favorite podcast of
the week is Seth Andrews’
The Thinking Atheist , which explores the human side
and the social realities of being atheist in a predominantly Christian society
(middle America). The fine points of the atheist vs. Christian worldview often
escape me, but I found my interest growing when I realized how intrusive
religious dogma was becoming, extending now to children’s classrooms here in
Tennessee, where the so-called “Monkey Bill” has opened the door to allowing
degreed scientists (who should know better) to spread misinformation and lies
to the open minds who will lead the next generation. That way lies the new Dark
Ages, and that is what really scares me. But on to Presuppositional
Apologetics, which I consider to be somewhat of a dishonest parlor game, rather
than an honest attempt to prove God’s existence.
Few things irritate me more than blatantly ignorant
assertions that refuse to allow dissension or even a peep outside the narrow
world of the proponent. The field of Presuppositional Apologetics has got to be
the single most annoying and closed-minded mind trick that literalist
Christians have come up with thus far to redefine reality. Proponents Eric
Hovind (son of “Maximum Security Kent” Hovind) and his bulldog Sye ten Bruggencate
have been making the rounds of atheist talk shows online lately, spreading the
massive headache that cuts off all possibility of rational communication.
I blame tenBruggencate in particular for ruining my
enjoyment of DPR Jones’ The Magic Sandwich Show and Seth Andrews’ The Thinking
Atheist podcasts with his willful refusal to allow arguments based on fact and
reason. In fact, I think the succinct and peremptory response of the folks at
the
Fundamentally Flawed podcast had the right idea. I don’t even think Sye got 30 seconds in, because he refused at the outset to
abandon his insistence that the Bible must be taken as the basis of all
knowledge before he would even begin to allow an exchange. No neutral ground
here…
That’s the real problem with this dishonest philosophical
framework known as Presuppositional Apologetics. The very premise it dictates,
that the Bible is the source of all knowledge and nothing can be known without
“presupposing” its integral part in reality, then anyone attempting to argue
for a reality without reliance on literal Biblical inerrancy cannot even begin to set
forth an argument. It is basically “ Bible Blinkers ,” disallowing any
worldviews that do not take the Bible as canonical reality at the outset. Who
can argue with someone who will not listen even to your first utterance?
So, like Jim, Alex and Kat at Fundamentally Flawed, it seems
wise to say “Bye-bye Sye” and simply focus on using reason and testable
evidence to prove the existence of reality that makes a literalist Biblical
approach less and less probable simply by accretion of proof that contradicts
Young Earth Creationism and other small-minded outgrowths of the unfortunate
phenomenon of Christian literalism. What ever happened to an acceptance of
Bible stories as allegorical tales? The literalists are shooting themselves in
the foot when they assert that a thousands-year-old book can tell us scientific
truths about our modern world. It is backward-thinking and poses a danger to
the younger generations who will carry the human race into the future.
I am no debater, nor am I a theologian or philosopher, so I cannot speak to
the finer points of this doctrine of presuppositional apologetics, but I’ve
seen it play out in conversation, and it is not pretty. My scientific training
causes me to cry out in disgust of the blatant disregard for the testable
nature of reality
as it is observed in the natural world.
It is the very worst of closed minds
championing a lost cause, hanging on to a crumbling world view simply on the
power of wishful thinking. If you want the best ammunition against a
presuppositionalist, I highly recommend this
counter-apologetic from C0nc0rdance,
another of the regulars on the biweekly Magic Sandwich Show. In a way,
this clear-thinking answer to the frustrating deafness of Sye ten Bruggencate
vindicates the efforts of DPR Jones and the rest of the MSS crew, who were
obviously massively put off and somewhat taken by surprise by Sye’s refusal to
engage in adult discussion from a neutral ground. Now that the beast of Presuppositional Apologetics has lost its shock value, we can see that it has
no real substance, and it can now join the ranks of dishonest arguments that only hurt the
cause of Christianity.
I mean, really. Why don’t mainstream Christians denounce
these nutcases? Their aggressive, bullying tactics only make the whole of
Christendom look bad. At least Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury
had a civil, polite and decorous conversation, each retaining respect for the
other through polite disagreement. Even William Lane Craig’s “I win because I
say so” arguments follow the rules of debate. Eric and Sye belong in time-out
on the kindergarten playground. Their methods are evasive and dishonest. Is
this sort of con game what Christians want to represent their world view?
Some frustrating and/or amusing encounters between atheists
and presuppositionalists Hovind and tenBruggencate, along with some postgame
analysis :