JamesKrieger

Hi, everyone.

Two of my Christian friends, in an effort to proselytize to me, gave me the book "Letters From a Skeptic" by the Christian apologetic Greg Boyd. I had started to read it a while back but never continued. I am starting over now and beginning to read it. As I finish each chapter, I'll post some of my thoughts and criticisms to this thread. Anyone else who is interested in chiming in, feel free to. Skimming through the book, Boyd uses typical Christian apologetic arguments, but also adds some of his own thoughts.

For those of you not familiar with this book, it is organized as a series of letters of correspondence between Boyd and his agnostic father. The father raised all his objections to Christianity, and Boyd provided his answers. Eventually, Boyd converted his agnostic father. The agnostic father raises the typical objections to Christianity, but the father is obvously ill prepared to critically analyze the answers that his son provides. It's easy to see how this book can look very convincing to the already-converted, and also to agnostics/atheists who aren't very well-educated in Christian apologetic techniques.

I have finished reading the preface. I will post more as I continue reading the book.

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: JamesKrieger ]</p>

JamesKrieger

Well, I just finished the first letter. In this letter from Boyd to his father, Boyd invites his father to engage in an ongoing dialogue about his objections to Christianity.

Boyd does get something right in this letter. He says, "Having one's faith challenged - whatever faith one holds - is always a good thing. If it can't 'stand the fire,' a faith isn't worth holding." Very, true, Dr. Boyd...which is why I wonder why you still hold to the Christian faith?

JamesKrieger

CORRESPONDENCE 1: WHY HAS CHRISTIANITY DONE SO MUCH HARM?

In this chapter, Ed Boyd (the father) asks Greg his first question. Why has Christianity done so much harm? Why would an all-powerful, all-loving God allow the church to do so much harm to humanity for so long (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.)?

Of course, we already can see why, by the end of the book, Ed will fall for Greg's answers and fail to see the flaws in them. Ed admits in his letter, "Also, unlike you, I'm not a trained philosopher, so if you write to me like you wrote in your dissertation, forget it! I won't be able to follow you. So you'll have to keep it simple." Thus, it is obvious that Ed lacks the ability to engage in a serious, deeply thought-out critical analysis of his son's answers. Keeping things simple leaves Ed more prone to buying into Greg's reasoning.

Now let's get into Greg's response. The first thing that jumped out to me is the following comment:

</strong>

This is where Greg makes his first mistake. A theory can never be "proven" to be true...it can only be proven to be false. A theory is generally accepted as a model to explain some collection of observed phenomena, as long as the data supports it. However, a single piece of data that fails to support the theory means either the theory must be modified to incorporate the new information, or the theory must be completely thrown away in favor of a new one. In no case, though, can a theory ever be proven to be true. A theory's strength relies on the sheer amount of evidence that there is in support of it.


</strong>

If these beliefs are most fulfilling, then why are there so many Christians that have left Christianity to become atheist/agnostic, like many of the people here on the infidels forum? How does Boyd explain that these atheists/agnostics now find their worldview more fulfilling?


</strong>

Greg fails to consider the fact that the Bible itself, God's supposed Word, has influenced people to do some of the bad things that have been done in the name of Christianity. It is the Bible that encourages hatred of homosexuals based on the OT laws that homosexuals are to be put to death. It is the Bible that teaches the superstition that witches exist and should be put to death....no Bible, no Salem witch trials. It is the Bible that condones slavery. If the Bible is truly God's Word, then God must be held at least partly responsible for these inhumane acts. If God was against slavery, then He should have made it more clear in his declared Word to man. Instead, God implicitly condones slavery in the Bible as we can see in 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." Now, to any Christian who thinks that I'm taking this out of context (a common cop-out that Christians use when you show them a problem with the Bible...kind of like the "God works in mysterious ways" answer), I ask you to show me how I'm taking it out of context.

</strong>

If humans are not acting out a divine preplanned program, then how can prophecies be possible? One of the arguments Christians make to support the idea that the Bible is the Word of God is the existence of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. Of course, many of these prophecies are more imaginary than truly fulfilled prophecies, which I'll address at another time, but let's assume for a moment that there are fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. This would entail that human action is predetermined, and thus controlled by God. Otherwise, prophecies would be impossible. Actually, the Bible teaches the doctrine of predestination and that God does control us like robots. Ephesians 1:11 "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" This brings up an interesting question. Is not God's will for everyone to be saved? Obviously, according to Christian doctrine, not everyone will be saved. So that means God's will has already been thwarted, has it not? And that would also mean that God is not all-powerful if His will can be so easily thwarted. Either that, or God doesn't want everyone to be saved, which hardly makes him a loving God.

</strong>

Greg is now operating on a number of assumptions. First, he's assuming God exists...he has not shown any evidence for the existence of God. His entire discussion is dependent on this assumption that God exists. If there is no God, then it makes all of Greg's ramblings futile. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a God.

This leads to the second assumption that Greg makes. He assumes that what God wills and does is always good, and anything that is not good does not come from God. He provides no evidence for this claim. If anything, the Bible (assuming it's God's Word, of course) is evidence that what God wills and does is not always good (either that, or the Bible is not the Word of God). For example, God sends a plague to the Israelites for eating the meat that He sent to them (Num 11:33). There are numerous other examples in the OT of God's cruetly and sadistic tendencies (Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16, Proverbs 20:30, Amos 3:6, Deuteronomy 13:8, Psalms 3:7, Psalms 52:5). Now, any Christian who thinks I'm taking these verses out of context, please demonstrate to me where and why they were taken out of context.

Now, some Christians will respond that God's ways are higher than ours and we are not to question his actions. This is simply the "might makes right" philosophy....that whatever God does is good simply because of His power over us and not because of the nature of the action or its consequences. By this logic, whatever a parent does to their children (including physical abuse, psychological abuse, etc.) is good simply because of their power over their children. If God is held to different behavioral standards then men are, that simply makes God a hypocrite. "Do as I say, not as I do" is what God is telling us. This brings up the question...if it's not OK for men to mass-slaughter a group of people, then why is it OK for God to command such a slaughter (see Dueteronomy 20:17)? Likewise, if it's OK for God to command such a slaughter, then why are men expected to behave differently?

</strong>

What about Hell? If Hell is not good, then that would mean that God didn't create everything. If God created everything, and everything God does is good, then that must mean Hell is really a great place! So we infidels are really going to have ourself a party once we get there!

Not only that, but if everything God creates is good, that would mean that man is good as well. Thus, how can man be as depraved as Christians say, when everything that comes from God is good?

</strong>

What about the teachings of Jesus and adultery? According to Jesus, ANY man who divorces a woman and marries another for ANY reason other than sexual immorality commits adultery (Matt 19:9). Jesus is very clear about this and there's no misinterpreting this passage. Does such a teaching really bring good? Or only guilt, if someone divorces from a marriage where the differences were irreconcilable?

[ March 24, 2002: Message edited by: JamesKrieger ]</p>

Kosh

I can't help but wonder how much truth there is
to the scenario of this book. The whole thing
smacks of a convenient setup for apologetics.

Any idea?

JamesKrieger

Here is what Greg says in the foreword:

"One further word should perhaps be said about this correspondence. My father and I, in conjunction with the publishers of this work, have sought to preserve the original correspondence between us as much as possible. A certain amount of editorial work was necessary for the purposes of clarity and organization (i.e., the original correspondence did not flow as thematically as it does in its present form), but we have kept as much of the original wording as possible. In most instances, for example, we did not seek to "clean up" my father's language as we felt that the omission of this would have weakened the authenticity of our dialogue."

JamesKrieger

CORRESPONDENCE 2: WHY IS THE WORLD SO FULL OF SUFFERING?

In this chapter, Ed asks the question:

</strong>

Greg responds with the "free will" defense:

</strong>

The problem with this analogy is that loving parents intervene in their child's lives all of the time...as well they should. To not do so would actually be unloving and uncaring. What if Boyd's daughter decided to use her five dollars to buy a drug from a local drug dealer who roams by the schoolgrounds? Would Boyd still not intervene? To not intervene actually would be unloving...by leaving his daughter, who may not have the mental capacity at a young age to understand the consequences of what she is purchasing, vulnerable to the possibility of a lifetime of drug addiction. No loving or caring parent gives their children complete free reign. Truly loving parents limit (not eliminate) their children's freedoms at young ages, and then gradually increase the freedoms as a child grows older, matures, and becomes more responsible.

Now, one might argue that a child does not have the psychological capacity to make good rational, moral decisions which is why a parent needs to step in. An adult, who has matured psychologically and is considered responsible (whether they truly are or not), should be given the freedom to make this choice, and to take away this freedom would be unloving. The adult must be free to suffer the consequences, or benefits, of their personal actions, and other innocents might suffer or benefit around them as well. This is the
argument that Boyd makes when he states, "To be significantly free is to be morally responsible, and to be morally responsible means being morally
responsible to each other. What is the freedom to love or not love unless it is freedom to enrich or harm another?"

Even if we accept the premise that adults, not necessarily children, should be given the freedom to make choices, be they good or bad, there is still a problem. Let's say that I have a family of children that have all grown to be adults. I give them freedom to make decisions for themselves because they are adults and I love them all. Now, let's say that I find out somehow that one of my children is planning on murdering another one of my children. As a loving parent, do I intervene by calling the police or some other
action, or do I do nothing? Obviously, any loving parent would intervene in some way. By not intervening in the potential death of one of my children by the hand of another one of my children, can't I actually be viewed as indirectly responsible for my child's death? To not intervene in this situation would be anything but an act of love.

According to the Christian worldview, are not all humans God's children? If so, then how can God be considered a loving God if he does not intervene when one of his children tries to murder another one? Can't God be considered indirectly responsible just as the parent in my contrived
situation would be? The situation is exactly the same as the one I presented in the previous paragraph, just on a grander scale. Is this not
exactly what happened in the WTC tragedy? Some of God's children murdering some of his other children?

Now, one might argue that, in my parent analogy, the loving parent is not truly interfering with the free will of his children. Instead, the parent
is using an indirect means (such as calling the police) of stopping one of his children from murdering the other. Let's look at this in relation to the WTC tragedy. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God knew that this tragedy would happen, he could have easily intervened without interfering with the free will of his children. He could have left an anonymous note or phone call that would have given clues to the FBI, so they could have stopped the terrorists before they got on the planes. God could have caused engine problems in the 4 planes that would have prevented them from taking off in the first place. God could have created horrible weather that would have prevented the planes from taking off. There are a number of things God could have done without interfering with the free will of human beings. The very fact that God did not do anything calls into question his omnibenevolence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his existence.

I had brought up these points a while back in relation to the WTC tragedy. SingleDad had some great things to add onto that regarding the concept of "free will." I will quote him here:

</strong>

woodchuck

That is one of my favorite books!- it's too bad you're reading it just to destroy it. I think you should read the whole thing first because Boyd covers allot of the things you ask during your "criticisms". Anyway- have fun criticizin'!

And I just want to add that I don't think everyone needs to be some philosophy expert to find life's truth... if that's the case we're all screwed, especially me.

-EEf

Kosh

I've got a fishing lure which seems to be a
favorite of the local Trout. That don't make
it a good thing for them...

Clarice

The Problem of Evil is all well and good, but really doesn't address the core issue dividing theists and atheists/agnostics - and that is whether there is good evidence for any type of god at all. I wonder if this is addressed later in the book, or whether the book starts with the presumption of the Christian God, sets up arguments against His existence, then knocks them down.

Ron Garrett

Conversely Chuck, do you read everything uncritically, accepting it hook line and sinker, or do you reserve that kind of preassumed purity only for those sources who reinforce your uncritically held beliefs?

I don't dispute that Boyd's work reads well and his arguments sound reasonable to someone who simply doesn't know any better, as any good snake oil salesman's pitch will. I even suspect Boyd is sincere to a degree, but I also suspect he's smart enough to know where the holes are in each of his arguments. But again, like any good salesman, he's overcoming objections as his first goal, not educating someone on the issues that damage his case.

This is a skeptics site where you would and should expect that we do not base our lives on a slick sales pitch, but rather on the verifiable truth. Christianity is not only not verifiably true, but many of its claims are verifiably false.

And while you don't have to be a philosophy expert, a little training in classical rhetoric and Aristotelean logic will help you out in all kinds of areas of life. Otherwise you'll go through life doing stupid things for invalid reasons and wonder why nothing works the way you thought it would.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ron Garrett ]</p>