As I argued in the first post of this series, if someone views terrorism as primarily criminal acts instead of acts of war, it is unlikely they will see any justification for the war in Iraq, and that is at the root of much of the current debate. Yet even if it is agreed that we are engaged in a war on terrorism, it does not automatically follow that we should have gone to war in Iraq. In the current debate it is almost taken as a given that the Iraq war was a mistake, and even many former supporters no longer defend it. This lack of defense stems from a number of factors ranging from an actual change of opinion, to the fact that in the current debate over the war, whether or not we should have gone in the first place is seen as largely irrelevant to the question of what we should do now. Yet I believe that the question of should we have gone to war in the first place is key, for I believe we should have gone in, and the reasons we should are important to understanding why it is so vital that not only should we stay but that we must win.

The reason that most people know is Weapons of Mass Destruction or WMDs. While some were found, the large stock piles that were expected never were. As a result, for the far left this quickly became the only reason, and their absence, proof that Bush lied. The issue of missing WMD’s is so complex, and so politicized, and with still so many unanswered questions that it's ultimate unraveling, barring any new revelation, will probably be many years in the future. Of course for the Bush-lied crowd, no further answers are needed.

But for those who seek a rational explanation, serious questions remain, such as why were so many intelligent agencies around the world mistaken? (If the Bush-lied crowed is correct, Bush would have to be the smartest person in the world for he was able to discern what no one else could see!) If Saddam didn’t have them, why did he continually block the inspectors from full access? Why did his top Generals believe he had them? Why didn’t Saddam comply with UN Resolution 1441, which gave him a “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations?” The 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force has said the weapons were flown to Syria in the months leading up to the war; was he telling the truth? Others claimed that the Russians moved the weapons and destroyed evidence of their existence. Duelfer said they could not "definitively say whether or not WMD materials were transferred out of Iraq before the war" and Kay said “There is ample evidence of movement to Syria before the war -- satellite photographs, reports on the ground of a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic across the border. We simply don't know what was moved.” The only thing that can be said for certain, is that he did have them at one point (after all he used them); he did violate 17 UN resolutions asking him to account for them; and yet no large stockpiles have been found.

Despite the fact that no large stockpiles of WMDs were found, there are two reasons why this does not affect the decision to invade. The first is the simple fact that all decisions must, by definition, be limited to the evidence available at the time. It would be nice to be able to wave a wand and have all the information we would like, but then if such fantasies were possible, it would also be nice to just wave a wand and have all those who oppress and threaten others become nice friendly people. Magic wand do not exist, so unfortunately, decisions must be made in the real world, and given the evidence available at the time even most critics of the war believed Saddam had WMDs.

The second consideration is that given the fact that Saddam was in violation of UN resolution, as Donald Rumsfeld pointed out before the war, “the burden of proof is not on the United Nations or on the inspectors to prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The burden of proof is on the Iraqi regime to prove that it is disarming, as required by the successive U.N. resolutions.” It was Saddam responsibility to show that it did not have weapons, and yet they continually blocked and impeded the U.N. inspectors. If someone is holding a gun to a child’s head, and refuses numerous demands to put the gun down, and so is shot and killed by police, would it make the police’s decision to shoot wrong if it were later found out that the gun was not loaded? Of course not.

On the other hand, if we are going to focus on information learned after the invasion, along with fact that no large stockpiles of WMDs were found, we must also include the fact that Saddam Saddam intended to produce them  after sanctions were dropped and worked hard to undermined them. One thing the war did uncover was that the Oil for Food program had been thoroughly corrupted by Saddam and was being used to funnel billions to undermine the sanctions. In fact, given what has been learned, it is very likely that some of the countries which opposed the war were being influence by Oil for Food money from Saddam. Thus without the war, it is very likely that by now the sanctions would have already collapsed and that Saddam would be producing WMDs.

So if one looks at all the evidence, in context, this still is a valid reason for the Iraq war. Though admittedly one that does not lend itself to the sound-bite debates that drive current politics. Still it was not the only reason, and in the next post I will look at some of the others reasons, some of which are just as much a factor for staying as for going in the first place.

Testimony III

Listen to the MP3 

Last time, I detailed my transition from atheist to theist. But I was still a long way from form being a Christian.  In fact as I began my odyssey to follow God, I started by going in the wrong direction.

Now at the time I did not really know any Christians, or if I did, they were inconspicuous enough in their faith that I didn’t realize that I did. However I did know some people who were involved in the New Age movement which was basically a hodgepodge of beliefs drawn from the Eastern Religions, Paganism and the Occult.  Most of these taught some form of spiritual progression, which fit in pretty closely with my belief in evolution in general.

So I began to explore a whole range of beliefs, from reincarnation to astrology.  While many of these did conflict with my scientific outlook, with my change from atheism to theism I was giving things a second looks. And as I said last time, truth has always been very important to me, and I have never been afraid to explore ideas, even controversial ideas and ideas that are out of the mainstream. 

So I looked at both sides of these issues, and in the process, I learned something very interesting about scientists.  When scientists are attacking things they disagree with, they are at time so sure they are right, they get very sloppy. 

For example, I remember reading a book against astrology that mentioned a study on military recruits and the planet mars, the planet that supposedly governs war, as an example of a failure of astrology. But the study just didn’t make a lot of sense, and some of the points it made where hard to take seriously.   So I did what I normally did, and still do, in such cases; I checked out the source. 

The study was published in The Journal of Irreproducible Results.  I found this to be a puzzling name for a scientific journal, as science is built on the ability to reproduce the results of an experiment.  As I looked through the journal, however, the reason for my puzzlement became clear.  The Journal of Irreproducible Results is not a serious scientific journal, but a journal of scientific humor.  The study cited, was not a serious study refuting astrology, but was a joke, and many of the things that I found hard to take seriously in the study were meant to be funny.

This was more than just sloppy research.  It showed that the scientist who wrote that book was so busy rejecting, that he did not really understand what it was he was rejecting.  The absurdities meant to bring a smile were completely missed. The study seemed to support his position, and that was good enough.

Long after I had moved on from astrology to other explore and test other things, the lessons I learned about the fallibility of scientists remained. It is one of the reasons I find many of the arguments against the Bible, and creation to be so flawed, as the scientist putting forth the arguments have very often not take the time to really understand what it is they are trying to refute.

Another thing that happened during this period, was that my general anti-Christian views were strengthen and deepened and given substance.   While there was a range of religious views in the New Age Movement, one thing most agreed on was that orthodox Christianity was at best false, and often evil and corrupt. 

For most in the New Age Movement, the teachings of Christ had been corrupted by the church father who rewrote the Bible at the councils so they control the masses.  Now at the time this seemed plausible, as I still did not know very much about Christianity.  For example, I remember reading a book at about this time where the main character was betrayed by “a Judas kiss.”  But I didn’t know what “a Judas kiss was, so I asked my future wife if she knew, and she explained it to me.

So without anything to counter these views, I accepted them. When I went to the library to check out the “Christian” side of the story, the books I came across were from liberal scholars who also were critical of the Bible. While checking out the “Christian” view of Genesis, for example, the books I read rejected the authorship of Moses.  So while I thought I was getting both sides, in reality I was only getting two versions of the same side.

So what had been a uniformed rejection of Christianity, over time became a much more informed rejection.  Vague reasons began to be replaced by specific arguments.  Eventually, I became committed enough in my rejection that I thought I needed to become better informed and so I bought a Bible and began complying a list of contradictions and errors.

But at the same time, I was becoming increasing dissatisfied with the New Age Movement as a mass of conflicting and often incoherent beliefs, and was beginning to look elsewhere.  I still believed in God and I was still seeking him.  Thankfully God was still not done with me and thankfully He was and is very patient.  More next time.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.  

Listen to the MP3 

I was recently asked about how I came to Christ and after writing a brief summary was asked for more details. So here goes. I reached my teenage years as a fairly committed atheist. My family was at best nominally Christian, and church played virtually no role in my childhood. In fact, the only time I can remember going to church was, when as a Cub Scout, I need to attend once to get a merit badge.

Now perhaps I was sheltered, but I never received any of harsh treatment the neo-atheist now claim befalls atheists to silence them. Sure people would disagree when I would express my atheism but that was about it. Some would try to tell me that I was not really an atheist, but rather an agnostic. But rather than feel threaten by such challenges, I would simply point out that I knew the difference. I was not claiming a lack of knowledge about God’s existence, but rather that God did not exist. I was an atheist.

But then truth has always been very important to me, and I have never been afraid to explore ideas, even controversial ideas and ideas that are out of the mainstream.

The roots of my atheist were not in any problem or bad experiences with religion, or any serious thought through position. Frankly I knew very little about religion. Nor was there anyone in particular who “led me astray.” Somewhere I did pick up a general rejection of Christianity, but that may very well have been because it was the most visible religion and thus suffered the most from my general rejection of religion.

Instead my atheism was more an expression of my interest in and love of science. This was the 1960s when science and technological advancements were still seen as positive developments that were improving life rather than threatening the environment, though that was beginning to creep in. Early in the decade my father as stationed at Vandenberg AFB in California, which is the west coast site for launching missiles and I loved watching the missiles go up. Not too surprisingly I was very interested in the Space program, and 2001 A Space Odyssey was my favorite movie.

For me God was simply what people believed in before science. Religion was simply and outgrowth of the belief in God. I do remember at some point saying the Atheists prayer – God if you are there show me. But that is about as far as it went. While I was an atheist, it was not that big of a deal with me, so I did not spend a lot of time on religion, it was not true, and therefore was a waste time.

Exactly when I changed from an atheist to theist is unknown to me, and since I don’t know when, I also cannot say how. But I do remember very clearly when I realized I believed in God, as it came as somewhat of a shock. I was driving west-bound on I-10 between Redlands and Loma Linda CA. It was a beautify day with bright sunshine and billowing white clouds. I don’t remember date, but given the weather and the lack of smog, my guess is that it was the spring time in 1974. I was praying to God, when it suddenly stuck me what I was doing. I was praying to God. Not some abstract prayer, not some just-in-case-you-are-there prayer, but a real sincere prayer. That’s when I realized that I believed in God, and like I said it was a shock.

Almost simultaneously with this realization something else happens, something that I really cannot put into words. What I now know to be the Holy Spirit let me know that this was an answer to my prayer about whether God existed. This was for me clearly a spiritual experience. It was not just a change of opinion; it was an answer to prayer where God touched my heart.

Thus this was a double shock, for not only did I realize that I had ceased to be an atheist, I now believed in God, a God who was more than an intellectual concept, but real presence, a God who answer prayer.

My first response was to tell God that I wanted to follow him. But I still had a long way to go for I can remember praying “Show me how to follow you, show me the true way, don’t bother with Christianity, I know it is false. I want to really follow you.”

Looking back now I can see that I still needed a lot of work. While I saw God as a personal God who did answer prayers, my idea of ‘salvation’ was more a spiritual evolution toward the truth. And while my view of God had changed, my view of Religion had not. I still saw a distinction between science and religion with science being clearly on the side of truth, which by default placed religion on the side of errors.

So I set off on my odyssey to find the true way to follow God by going in exactly the wrong direction. Thankfully God was not done with me and thankfully He is patient. More next time.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

This week in my review of Christopher Hitchens, “God is not Great,” I will look at what Hitchens calls the “four irreducible objections to religious faith.” According to him religious faith “wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.” (p 4)

One immediate objection to these objections, is that Hitchens is committing a mistake common to so many atheist critiques, which is that theses objections don’t really apply to religion as a general concept for religion is simply too diverse. They really apply mainly to Christianity. But casting them in terms of religion in general allows the atheist to talk of the problems of one religion as if they apply to all religions.

Frankly, it is hard to apply them even to all of Christianity. For example, Hitchens first objection is that religious faith misrepresent the origins of man and the cosmos. Yet within Christianity, there is a whole range of opinions on origins, from a special creation in 7 days all the way to views that are virtually indistinguishable from those held by Hitchens, except that they would ultimately say that God was behind it all.

Now perhaps Hitchens considers merely attributing the origin of man and the Cosmos to God as objectionable, but even here there are problems. One huge problem is that scientist can’t explain the origin of man or the cosmos, and as I describe in my book Evidence for the Bible there are serious problem explaining how the process started in the first place.

Similar problems apply to his second objection that religion combines “the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism.” Frankly it is not even clear how this really applies to Christianity, much less religion in general. Granted the NT does teach that we are servants of Christ, but I find this hard to square with Hitchens’ claim that this is the maximum of servility as our position is also the Children of God who can say of God “Abba Father.” (Romans 8:15-16) As for his claim that religion is at the same time, the maximum of solipsism, or extreme egocentrism, this is a complete mystery. One could try to guess at what he means, but an argument that has to be guessed at is hardly a cogent one.

Hitchens third objection is “that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression.” Again his one size fits all objection, hardly fits at all. After all can one really describe some of the other first century religions whose worships centered around visits to the temple prostitute, as sexually repressed? Sure an over regulation of sex has been a feature of some religions, and some forms of Christianity, but some is not all.

There is also the problem that what constitutes sexual repression is somewhat of a relative concept. For some any restrictions on sex is “sexual repression.” Is saying that sex should be restricted to the confines of marriage, sexual repression? We are certainly seeing the results of 40 years of sexual freedom, and they are not good. The breaking of the link between sex and marriage, has resulted in a huge increase in single parent households and the problems they bring. And often it is the children who often suffer the most.

Contrary to the modern myths, men and women are different, and sex can have consequences. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control released this week, one in four teenagers, aged 14–19 has at least one sexually transmitted disease. In African-American girls it the rate is 50%. And the study did not even include all sexually transmitted diseases. According to an article the Baltimore Sun “There are 19 million sexually transmitted diseases in the United States - costing the health care system $15 billion a year - and almost half occur among the 14 to 25 age group.” And this is with modern medicine, antibiotics, and birth control. Given all these problems and we have only mentioned a couple, is it really all that unreasonable to think that when God said that sex should be only between a husband and wife, that perhaps he was not just trying to be a killjoy, but perhaps he really did have our best interests in mind?

Hitchens fourth objection is that religious faith is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking. There is a rational problem with considering this an objection to religious faith, because it tends to be circular. The purpose of Hitchens objections is to say that religious false. But to say something is grounded on wish-thinking is to say that something is false. Thus, Hitchens is basically saying that religious faith is false, because it is false which is a circular argument and thus irrational.

So Hitchens four irreducible objections to religious faith, are hardly even sound objections to religious faith in general, much less Christianity in particular. That he sees them as some insight into religion is sad.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

This week I begin my review of Christopher Hitchens, “God is not Great,” the third of the big three in the current crop of atheist books. In some respects, Hitchens’ offering is much better as it seems to have a deeper understanding of religion, than Sam Harris’ The End Of Faith, or Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”, but it is much more uneven as serious argument is suddenly marred by outbursts that are little more than cheap shots, hatred and at times bigotry.

Still Hitchens arguments, while often better stated, share many of the same problems I have already discussed in my reviews of Harris’ and Dawkins’ books. For example, early on in chapter One Hitchens attempts to describe what atheism is, or at least, what it is not.

“Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason… we do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning “punctuated evolution” and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication.” (pg 5)

Now there are several problems is this passage. First I have to admit that I find this somewhat amusing for a rather abstract reason. At various times in the history of Christianity something referred to as negative theology has been popular. Negative theology is the attempt to describe God by saying what he is not, as in statements such as God is not a created being. One of the criticisms of negative theology is that such negations ultimately say very little if anything. Which is somewhat how I felt after reading Hitchens definition of atheism; as the more I read it, the less it seemed to say.

And this goes to the heart of one of the problems with atheists’ arguments. If Hitchens’ definition above is read very strictly, it says little more than that there is no organization in atheist belief and that while they may share some things in common there really is no such thing as atheism. For example, I have had many self-proclaimed atheist say that they rely solely on science and reason. But this flatly contradicts Hitchens’ negative definition of atheism. So are these people atheists?

But that is the thing about atheists, while they believe that the religious are a coherent group where anyone who is religious must defend anything ever done by anyone else who was religious, whatever their motive, or how nominal their belief, atheism on the other hand is not a group, or as Hitchens put it, not a belief or faith. They as atheists never have to defend what others atheists have done, unless of course they like what they did, then they can claim it as an expression of atheism.

You can see this in his claim that a “proper statistical inquiry” would find that “the faithful” commit more crimes of greed or violence than atheists. If “the faithful” is defined broad enough, and “atheist” narrow enough, I have no doubt that this would be true, but it would only be as valid as the definitions. The recent Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey claims that 78.4% of Americans are Christians and 89.7% are religious, while only 10.3% are secular, with only 1.6% claiming to be Atheists.

Given these statistics I am sure that the nearly 90% who are religious would have a higher rate of violent criminality than the 1.6% who are atheists. But, I am also sure that most pastors would be happy if just everyone who attended Church regularly, about half of those who claim to be religious, were fully committed to serving the Lord. But most atheist lump all believers from all religious beliefs together as if they were the same.

As for his statement that “we do not hold our convictions dogmatically” such claims are often only in the eye of the beholder. One only has to point out one of the many problems with evolution, to an atheist to see a display of dogmatism in action.

In addition, as I point out in my book, Christianity and Secularism, everyone has beliefs that ultimate must depend on faith to some extent. This includes atheists. So while atheists like to portray themselves as driven by reason and evidence while theist are driven by dogmatism and faith, such a view is not only self-serving, but false.

There are quite large difference among Christians on a whole range of issues such as was the earth created in 7 literal days less than 10,000 years ago, or is the earth billions of years old? Even Christians who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, can be found on both sides of this question, and contrary to Hitchens implications, most get along quite nicely, often worshipping together.

Sure if one judges all religions and all followers as essentially the same, and focuses on the worst actions of the followers of religion, then religion comes off pretty bad. But then if you focus only on the negative, anything can be rejected. But if one looks at the larger picture, weight both the pros and cons, the picture is nowhere near as bad as Hitchens tries to paint it, and in fact Christianity come off quite well.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

Besides the issues on which McCain and I differ, there is another aspect about a McCain Presidency that greatly troubles me.   This is the issue of leadership, which has troubled me since the first Bush Presidency.  Presidents are more than simply Chief Executives; they function as both the leader of the country, and the leader of the party.

One of the things that amazes me, is how decisions can ripple.  George HW Bush owes his presidency to Reagan and Reagan’s very successful eight years.   While I supported Bush, I was concerned because I knew that every president wants to put their own mark on the presidency, and this would be especially true for a former Vice President.  Thus I knew that Bush would seek ways to differentiate a Bush presidency from Reagan’s. Given the conservatism of Reagan, this would mean that Bush would move left.  

This is important because I do not support conservative principles because I am a conservative, I support them because I believe they work, and are what is best for the country.  The country was in really bad shape in 1980.  The economy was in huge trouble and Communism was spreading to country after country.  Paul Johnson’s fantastic history of the Twentieth century, Modern Times, which at the time ended in 1980, saw little hope for the West. 

Then came three people who quite literally turned it around: Margret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan.  Conservatism worked, and in fact worked so well, people quite literally forgot how bad things had been.  So Bush moving away from the principles that had worked so well could not be a good thing.  My fear was that he would move to the left, things would get worst and conservatism would be blamed, which is pretty much what happened, as the four years of Bush lead to Clinton.  Yes, I realize that it was a little more complicated this, but I believe the summary is still accurate.

Now Democrats argue that Clinton moved the country to the left, increased taxes and gave us eight wonderful years. However that is not quite what happened.  True, once taking office, having inherited a rebounding economy that was growing, Clinton abandoned his promise to cut taxes and increased them instead. He (or Hillary) also move take over control of health care.  The result was that the economy stalled, and in 1994 Republicans won control of Congress for the first time in my life.   They pushed a conservative agenda of tax cuts, balanced budget, and welfare reform over the objections of Clinton, though he did claim credit later when they worked.   It is simply a fact that the economic boom of the 1990s started with the Republicans winning Congress in 1994, not Clinton in 1992.

But without leadership, the Republicans lost focus, and began to abandon conservatism.  When the current President Bush ran in 2000, while more conservative than his father,  he was still not really a conservative,  especially on domestic issue where he touted a “compassionate conservatism.”  We had that in California under Governor Pete Wilson, and it basically meant a large increase in social spending. 

 This concern has become a reality.  While ok on the war, his failure to stand up for or even defend conservative principles is one of the main reason we are in the position we are in now.  He proposed bigger domestic spending and it is just a fact that it is very difficult to fight against a president of your own party.  We see the result in the dispirited and angry base, and the subsequent loss of Congress;  A loss that in many respects can trace its roots back to a decision made by Ronald Reagan in picking a Vice President.

But where Bush showed a lack of leadership, McCain is a big unknown. On the one hand he argues for solid conservative principles of limited government and has the reputation of a budget hawk.  But on the other hand, he supports big government, budget busting proposal such as Global warming.  He holds generally good positions on social issues,  but has hardly been a leader in these areas, and I heard one Republican Senator claim that he often blocked progress in these issues behind closed doors.

So what will be the ramification of a McCain presidency? Where will McCain lead the party? Will he continue to anger the base, further weakening the Party?  Will the once supportive press becoming negative as it supports the democratic nominee, drive him move him more to the conservative side or will it cause him to reach across the aisle even more than he does now?

Conservatives in California were told they needed to support the moderate Pete Wilson for Governor because it was the only way to win.  They did, and were rewarded with Wilson attempt to move the Party sharply to the left, resulting in a fracture and devastated party, and as a result California is solidly a Blue state.

Will we end a McCain presidency in a stronger position like we ended the Reagan presidency? Or will the party be split, fractured and devastated in much the same way Wilson left California?  It is impossible to say.  It all depends on what McCain chooses to do, which is pretty much unpredictable? And that concerns me a lot.

Listen to the MP3

Make reference to the “Christian Religion” around other Christians and you are likely to be told something to the effect that ‘Christianity is not a religion is it a relationship.” Now there is some truth in such statements as a key element of Christianity is one’s personal relationship with God. But I believe there is a lot of error, and even some danger as well with such views.

Often the claim that Christianity is not a religion is said in an attempt to avoid some of the problems that people have with religions. These problems generally fall into two main areas, historical such as with the Inquisition or more personal reasons such as a bad experience. But attempts to avoid these problems rather than confront them are not only misguided, the chance of their working is at best slim.

Like it or not, it is just a fact that evil has been done by Christians. Whether acting as a result of a relationship, or as a religion, Christians have at times done evil in the name of God. To say otherwise is simply not being truthful and it is well to remember that along with saying that he was the way, and the life, Jesus said he was also the truth. (John 14:6)

This is also a sobering reminder that as Christians we are representing God and people are watching. We often think of witnessing as something we do occasionally, and probably should do more. The fact is that we are always witnessing. If you are a Christian, unless you hide your Christianity very well, you will be witnessing. So the real question is not will you witness, but rather what kind of witness will you have. Will you live your life in such a way as to draw people towards Christ, or will you live your life in such a way as to push people away.

But back to people’s problems with religion, rather than trying to avoid the historical problems, a much better strategy is to acknowledge the failings, put them in perspective, and point to the great good that Christians have done, and continue to do, from big things like the abolition of slavery, to small things like helping people in their neighborhood. For example, how many people know about Mission Aviation Fellowship? MAF is a Christian ministry that flies 2.9 million miles a year to serve remote areas that are otherwise unreachable. MAF not only file missionaries, but also supports critical needs such as transporting doctors and medical supplies.

The danger in these attempts to restrict Christianity to a relationship is in the implied rejection of rituals which is often at the core of such statements. Rituals are out of fashion at the moment as the formalized structure of ritual does not fit in well with our current causal approach to God. Rituals are seen as dry, meaningless, formalize, the epitome of all that is wrong with religion. Yet it is important to note that God must have thought that ritual were important to have included so much of it in the Bible. It is certainly true that ritual by itself is hollow, but it hardly then follows that ritual is the problem.

Rituals serve many important functions. When rituals are imbued with meaning, they can focus and magnified belief. Rituals also serve as a teaching function. In fact a very good case can be made that it was the central role of ritual in Jewish life that help preserved the Jews for nearly 2000 years without a homeland.

Perhaps one reason people find ritual so dry and meaningless, is that they were never taught the meaning and significance behind them. This is critically important today, as it is becoming increasingly common that when children leave home, they leave the Church as well. As I have cited before Josh McDowell has documented in his book, “The Last Christian Generation” how many young people see church as just a series of events with little impact on their spiritual life. (pg 59 – 61)

Ritual teaches a habit of worship, a worship that is not based on feelings or mood. We all have ups and downs in our spiritual life. During the good times rituals amplify and focus our worship to make it even better. During the lows ritual can carry us through to return to the good times.

One other benefit of ritual is that it can help maintain the view of the Holiness of God. Much of our understanding of God is a balancing of seemingly conflicting views. We cannot understand how God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and yet God is one. We cannot understand how Jesus could be God incarnate. We do not always understand how God’s Love lines up with God’s justice. Currently the idea of God as our Father and friend is dominated, and he is. But at times this attitude about becomes so casual as to conflict with another truth, the truth that God is God almighty.

Here is a quick test, what does the Bible mean when it says that “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty” (Rev 4:8)? What does the Apostle Paul mean when he says “we know what it is to fear the Lord?” (2 Cor 5:11) If these verses don’t have much meaning or even seem to conflict with your view of God, perhaps you could use some more ritual in your worship.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

The following is an outline of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”

Part I - Chapter One
Three major problems with Dawkins’ approach

Part II - Chapter One
Discussion of the “educated elite,” and how it is a negative term. How the errors of the educated elite are similar to the errors of atheism.

Part III - Chapter One
How Dawkins statements show that hope and faith disguised as science are a major factor.

Part IV - Chapter One
Dawkins’ claim that there is a belief that religion should not be attacked.

Part V - Chapter Two
Dawkins’ view of God, and his idea that theology “has not moved on in 18 centuries.”

Part VI - Chapter Two
Dawkins discussion of the Founding Father.

Part VII- Chapter Three
Aquinas arguments for the existence of God.

Part VIII - Chapter Three
Dawkins main rebuttal to Aquinas, the problem of the definition of Natural and Supernatural.

Part IX - Chapter Three
More problems with Dawkins attempt to rebut Aquinas – the wrong type of sequence.

Part X - Chapter Four
Point 1- 3 of Dawkins central argument of the book.

Part XI - Chapter Four
Point 4- 6 of Dawkins central argument of the book.

Part XII - Chapter Five
The origin of Religion - the freedom of speculation, in absence of evidence.

Part XIII - Chapter Six
The origin of Morality - the role of chance and meaning.

Part XIV - Chapter Six
The origin of Morality - the evolution as a tautology – evolution as a source for morality.

Part XV - Chapter Seven
Morality in the Bible – Dawkins errors of interpretation.

Part XVI - Chapter Seven
The Moral Zeitgeist as a moral foundation

Part XVII - Chapter Seven
The role of absolutism and Summation

There is a lot of silliness on the part of McCain supporters when it comes to why conservatives are having such trouble with McCain. It is because they are don’t’ control him, or because they don’t like his style, or because he isn’t pure enough,  implying that he has only minor deviations from core conservative principles and conservatives just need to get over themselves and support him.

Such arguments are at best counterproductive.  One of the worst things you can do when trying to win over someone is to misrepresent or distort their grievances, as this only leads at minimum to a renewed effort to be understood, and more likely a hardening of the divisions.

While I by no means speak for all conservatives, I do think my views are fairly common among conservatives.  Long before McCain’s political resurrection to capture the GOP nomination, I believed there were six main issues of importance in the upcoming election.   The War on Terrorism, the Economy, the Courts,  Health Care, Global Warming, and Immigration.

McCain is said to have solid credentials on war, and for the most part this is true.  Yet he has also been a pretty consistent critic at the same time, particularly over water boarding and other tough interrogation methods, arguing if we do these, then others might use these methods on our soldiers. Not only do I disagree with such reasoning, I find it very troubling.  Does McCain really believe that when He, Hillary or Obama gets in the White House next year and announces that we will no longer use such practices, that suddenly Al Qaeda will start treading any soldiers they capture by the Geneva Convention?  If not, then why use this argument?

As for the broader war effort, McCain has spent so much time taking credit for the surge, that I don’t really know where he stand on the broader war on terror, but my assumption is that he is probably ok,  but I would like him to speak a bit more on issues such as Iran.

But this goes to another key problem with McCain.  He is not a conservative, is a politician who has largely voted conservative, thought less so in recent years.  Frankly I never know where he will come down on a given issue. 

In short, McCain on the war is Ok, but there are several key question marks.   This is also my concern with the courts.   He has made some good comments, and has been reported to have made some troubling ones.  But when it comes to judges, will the Conservative McCain pick them, or will the McCain who reaches across the aisle pick them?  I don’t know.

When it comes to the economy,  McCain has admitted he does not know very much, as was demonstrated by voting against the Bush Tax cuts.  He now says he wants them extended, but it is very hard not to see this as driven by the campaign.  It would not at all surprise me should he become President, to see him taking a page from Bill Clinton and claiming “I tried as hard as I could but…”  

He seems to be getting some good advisors, but what troubles me the most is that given his lack of understanding he does not realize the effect of some of his other proposals will have.  Given some of his other proposals, and his past history, I would not at all be surprised to see a net tax increase under a McCain administration. Thus for me this is a slight negative.

On Health care, McCain’s propensity to reach across the aisle combined with his lack of understanding of how economies work cause me to be very concerned.  The current strategy of the Liberals is to incrementally move towards single payer, Government run health care.  Will McCain take a strong stance for individual freedom and control over their own health care, pushing for a solution based on market forces, or will he link up with a Senator Clinton to reach a bi-partisan (read liberal) solution?  Again his history is hardly comforting in this area.  His comments about the drug companies are very troubling and make this a negative.

When it comes to the last two items Global Warming and Immigration, McCain is clearly and solidly on the other side.   I consider both to be very important issues.  Global Warming represents a massive shift of power away from individual people to have control over their lives, giving it to the Government.  This is yet another indication of why McCain so troubling. He claims to be a low tax, small government conservative, yet he supports Global warming initiates that will greatly increase the tax burden, along with the size and scope of Government.  This is a big negative.

As for Immigration, while he claims to have “listened and learned” he clearly hasn’t. The biggest message from last years’ failure of the immigration bill was, build the fence, enforce the laws, and after this is done, then we will talk about those who are still here.  Yet, a recently campaign commercial here in Wisconsin sounded like it could have been said by McCain during last year’s debate, except that he has added the phrase “listened and learned.” Another big negative.

So on the six issues that are most important to me, on none does he get my unqualified endorsement.  One is at best a big question mark, one is a slight negative, one is a negative and two are very large negatives.

So when McCain supporters claim that conservative opposition is simply about style, purity, or control, they are just showing me that they really don’t have a clue, or they do and are just lying.  It has been a very unusual year and perhaps McCain will be the first President elected without the support of the base of his party.   For me, my current plan is to vote for McCain in November, and I will detail my reasons why in a future post.

Listen to the MP3  

The latter part of the Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”  becomes increasingly speculative as he applies his view of atheism and religion to topics such as homosexuality, abortion, and children and these issues would be better treated in more general discussion of the individual topics than a specific review of Dawkins’ slant on them.

One point Dawkins makes, however, is worthy of comment and on this point I will conclude my review.  It is when he talks about the “dark side of absolutism.” (pg 284) There is a lot of truth to Dawkins’ comments on this subject, and yet because they are true, they actually undermine Dawkins main point at the same time.

As he has throughout his book, Dawkins points to examples of religious people being so sure they were correct that they made their beliefs into law, or in some other way forced their beliefs on others. Such as a Pakistani Doctor sentenced to death for blasphemy because he said Muhammad was not a Muslim before he invented Islam.

The problem for Dawkins is can be seen in his claim that “Such absolutism nearly always results from strong religious faith.”  To see the problem in Dawkins statement we need to consider that nature of this dark side of absolutism and what makes it so bad.  At its core absolutism, is simply enforcing what you believe to be true on others. All societies do this to some extent. After all, that is what a law is; it is the power of the state forcing people to do some things and prohibiting them from doing others.  For example, we as a society are pretty absolute and downright intolerant when it comes to child molesters, and I would argue this is a good thing.

Absolutism becomes dark when the truth being enforced becomes uncertain, and it is this dark absolutism that we generally are referring to when we talk of absolutism.    This is a difficult area to discuss because people do not see themselves as being on the dark side of absolutism, they see themselves as standing up for the truth, or right, or good.

For example, currently there is a major debate over man-made global warming. Those who believe in it are trying to pass laws to prevent it. Those who do not believe it label these laws as part of the dark side of absolutism. Thus whether or not this is an example of the darker side of absolutism largely depend on what you believe.

Dawkins is certainly correct that throughout the history of religion the dark side of absolutism has been a factor.  What he fails to see is that, contrary to his statement, such absolutism is not at all restricted to religion, and in fact it is even a prominent part of modern day atheism. 

For example, almost everyone in western civilization, if not the world, would agree that the Taliban destruction of the Buddhist statues was an example of the dark side of absolutism. But at its core, how is this action any different than the atheist demanding the removal of a tiny Cross that was in seal of the city of Redlands, or any of the numerous other examples of the atheist desire to expunge society of religion.  Was the Taliban’s was seeking to remove any vestige of religion symbols they disagreed with really that different than the atheist desire to remove religious symbols they disagree with, particularly if they are Christian.

But that is the problem with such absolutism; it is very difficult to see from the inside. This is particularly true when the belief that one is correct, is coupled with corresponding view that others are wrong.  Dawkins and other atheist undoubtedly sees themselves as defending reason and science, when in reality they are often guilty of the same sort of intolerance and in some cases bigotry that they are so critical of in religion. 

I said earlier that Dawkins comments on absolutism undermine the main point of his book.  If one takes Dawkins comments on such absolutism to heart, then it is hard to reach any other rational conclusion than that it is this dark absolutism which is the real problem not religion.  In fact if you remove all the example of religious absolutism from Dawkins book, what remained would be some theories of the existence of God, some comments on the reliability of the Bible, and very little else. In short, though aimed at religion his book is really more an indictment of this dark absolutism in religion, something I and I believe most Christians also condemn, even if we don’t accept all of his examples.

To sum up this review, Dawkins’ book fails at almost every point, except his criticism of religious absolutism, but even here he mistakenly see this as an indictment of all religion, rather than an indictment on absolutism.  He is quick to point out any flaw of particular religions or religious believers as automatically an indictment of all religion. Yet, any positive quality or action is either ignored or written off as due to something other than religion.  More damming is that his knowledge of religion is often superficial if not actually in error.  Ultimately Dawkins book is more an example of atheist’s absolutism than any serious attack on religion much less Christianity.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Let me first thank you for both your review, and for the kind introductory remarks. As for your more critical comments, I think they somewhat miss the mark, for a couple of reasons.

First, writing any book involves a whole series of choices and tradeoff. One of the decisions I made was to make this a more popular book rather than a more scholarly one, aimed at the educated non-Christian, rather than the biblical scholar. Because of this I drew on more popular books and addressed arguments my target audience would likely have encountered, such as in an introductory class in religion at a secular college, or in a popular best seller, or magazine, etc.

I knew at the time this would not satisfy the scholarly minded, but then that was not my audience, and space is limited. Granted, I may not have mentioned the particular scholars you wanted to see (part of which may be that these are expanded and updated versions of an early work). On the other hand, at least I do cite a number of critics, many scholars, and much of the book is dealing with their arguments, which is far better than most of the critics, who for the most part completely ignore all conservative opposition, or if they do mention it, do so only as an off handed dismissal.

One particularly annoying comment in its pettiness, and one which I found to be at best somewhat misleading was when you commented “Hushbeck’s ignorance, of German, moreover, is painfully evident. In one place he refers to “the German scholar Frank” (meaning, apparently, Franz Hermann Frank) and spells two German words in the title of “Frank’s” book incorrectly. The omission of the author’s first name, the publisher information, and a page number makes it altogether evident that he’s relying on Josh McDowell’s partial citation of this work.”

First let me plead guilty as charged to having no real working knowledge of German. In fact, there are a whole range of languages that I have no working knowledge off, and in some cases no knowledge at all. But then I never claimed otherwise. Considering that these two misspelled words appeared only in an endnote, they hardly are a substantial incitement against the book itself. As for relying on McDowell for this quote, again I plead guilty, though I am somewhat puzzled while you needed all of those clues you cited to make this “evident,” when the citation you mentioned included “quoted in Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict Vol. II (San Bernardino, CA: Here’s Life Pub., 1975) p. 7”

As for me not bothering to check these, you speak from ignorance. While, there was no way you could have know, the research for this book took me several years, and I went to great lengths to check out the quotes in the book. Now at the time, I was working for JPL and traveled across the country, to Europe and Australia and thus was able to visit libraries such as at Harvard, and the National Library in Australia. During this time was able to find almost all of the works cited. I believe that the quote you cited is the only quote in both books I was not able to verify, which is why I cited it the way I did. Hardly an unknown practice, even among scholars and certainly not worthy of criticism.

Frankly of far more interest to me than the irrelevances of whether or not searching all these libraries constitutes “bothering” is whether or not the quote is accurate. If the quote is accurate it really does not matter how it came into the book. If it is not, then I would really like to know so that I can remove it. So is it accurate?

As far as the sources tending to be from a conservative perspective, that is simply false. The general pattern for the book is to cite the critics and then deal with what they are saying. As result, I cite both critical and supportive works, and do cite scholarly critics.

Much the same can be said for the two chapters on science, though you ignored most of both chapters to focus on the last section that dealt with evolution. But even here you seem to have missed the point. The focus here was not so much to argue that evolution is wrong, but rather to address the question why is it that so many Christians question evolution. Perhaps a few words on theistic evolution should have been included, though I would point out that my personal experience with my target audience is that while they are well aware of theistic evolution as an option, and I do say there is a diversity of opinion in this area, most have never seen a serious treatment of the arguments against evolution, for these arguments have been pretty successfully suppressed outside Christian circles.

As for simply “parroting” Christian apologists, sure I cite some, where it is appropriate, just like I cite critics such as Carl Sagan, Robert Jastorw, and semi-critical scientists such as Steven Hawkings. I would point out that Dallas Willard, hardly someone uninformed in on these matters, told me that he had never encountered some of these arguments when I wrote them in a paper for him, which was why he encouraged me to publish. As such this charge is hard to see as anything other than slanting.

In summary, I would say that your review so far has been long on accusation, and short on substance. Perhaps in later posts you will get into more detail, but so far you have demonstrated the academic’s over preoccupation with citations, rather than actual argument, at times drifting very close to ad hominem attack when you at least imply that certain sources are to be rejected While you praise me for dealing with so much in so few pages, (and length was a key consideration when writing the book, and much was left out or cut), you turn around and are very critical for not going into greater detail. Again I think the audience I was targeting address most of these criticism. More to the point, nothing you have said so far actually challenges the any of arguments I make in the book.

BTW, while I thank you for the promotion, I only have two masters degrees, not a phd.

 Listen to the MP3  

In the last installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at Dawkins’ arguments for why we can’t use the Bible as the basis for our morality. But if we cannot use the Bible then where should we get our morals?

For Dawkins, the answer to this question is the Moral Zeitgeist, which Dawkins sees as “a consensus about what we do as a matter of fact consider right and wrong: a consensus that prevails surprisingly widely.” (pg 262).

Now there is some truth to this statement.  Certainly there is a Moral Zeitgeist, a general consensus about right and wrong, and Dawkins easily shows this by pointing out a whole list of historical examples of things that were acceptable during their time, but which would be condemned today. 

In fact as I have frequently argued, to properly understand people in the past one must understand the general consensus of the times.  While very common, it is grossly unfair to condemn those in the past who broke with the conventions of their day to move society forward, simply because they did not quite meet our current standards.

So when it comes to the existence of a Moral Zeitgeist, Dawkins is on solid ground. Where he runs into problems is when he goes beyond the existence of the Moral Zeitgeist and argues that this should be the foundation for our morality, something it cannot be. His claim that it is, is simply irrational.

To see this consider the following statement by Dawkins, “The Zeitgeist may move, and move in a generally progressive direction, but as I have said it is a sawtooth not a smooth improvement, and there have been some appalling reversals.” (pg 272)

While a seemingly innocuous statement, it actually completely undermines Dawkins claim. If Dawkins were correct and the Zeitgeist did in fact define our morality, then there could be no concept of progress or reversal.  Whatever the Zeitgeist said was good, would be good, and whatever the Zeitgeist said was evil would be evil. In those areas today where the Moral Zeitgeist allow slavery, slavery would be good. In those areas where family members should kill a daughter who was raped to so as to end the dishonor to the family, then it would be a good thing to kill a daughter who was raped.  That would be the moral Zeitgeist.

If slavery were to be reintroduced, or honor killing introduced into 21st century America, and sadly both honor killing and slavery, though thankfully rare are beginning to occur here, it could not be seen as a step backward, but merely a change, for again it would be the moral Zeitgeist that ultimately determined right and wrong, and thus there would be no way to say that one Moral Zeitgeist was any better than any other Moral Zeitgeist. 

The very fact that Dawkins talks of a “generally progressive direction” and “appalling reversals,” shows that there must be something beyond the Moral Zeitgeist that is actually the foundation for morality. 

In fact without such a foundation, there would be no reason to even change the Zeitgeist.  Slavery was ended when Christians argued that it was immoral, regardless of what the Zeitgeist said.  In fact most of the improvements Dawkins cites were brought about by people, often with Christians in the lead, arguing that these things were wrong, thereby changing the Moral Zeitgeist of their time.

Ultimately, Dawkins view is completely unworkable, for if it were true, how could anyone argue anything it terms of morality?  In fact all of Dawkins arguments discussed earlier about the immorality of the Bible would be meaningless. They would not be things to condemn as Dawkins attempts to do, they would simply be a different moral Zeitgeist and again there would be no way to say that our current Zeitgeist is any better or worse than any other Zeitgeist.

In short, Dawkins wants to have it both ways. His view of morality is firmly grounded and should be accepted, so much so that he condemns those who disagree with his view.  Yet if we subject his moral views to the same scrutiny, they fall apart.

Whether one agrees with Christian morality or not, at least Christians have a foundation upon which to base their moral views. At least Christians have a basis to say that Society has improved, and not just changed.  At least Christians have a track record that puts them in the forefront of the moral advances that society has made. Christianity does not by any means have a perfect record, but it is a good one that on the whole Christians should be proud of.  The strongest criticism that can be mounted against Christian morality is that Christians have not always lived up to the teaching of Jesus.

In place of this Dawkins proposes a muddled view that is at best logically inconsistent, and one that conflict with his own claims. It is a view that places the greatest good on the same level as the greatest evil, with no means of saying one is any better than the other, except that one may happens to be part of the general outlook of the time.

The most amazing thing about Dawkins’ claim is that he really believes he is the one with the rational position.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.