Author Bruce Sheiman approaches the debate between theists and atheists about whether God exists from a unique point of view. He is a professed atheist who defends the right of religious people to have their faith. He touts the psychological and physical health benefit one may derive from placing hope and faith in their Creator. Sheiman coined a term to differentiate himself as an atheist (one who doesn’t believe in God personally) to Richard Dawkins and his fan club as antitheists, meaning people with a militant atheistic agenda. Antitheists not only reject God for themselves but actively campaign to eradicate faith in others. It’s very helpful to understand the difference. In a section of his book titled "Scientific Materialism and Relativism" Sheiman writes, In the traditional evolutionary view, there is no difference between humans and animals, since both are driven by the same survival and gene replication imperatives. On the plus side, this may lead many people to respect all living creatures. On the negative side and in the extreme, this can lead to species relativism: the idea that humans are not the pinnacles of creation; we are no different from other creatures. (p41) A little later Sheiman clarifies that point, adding, …[b]ut the second implication is very disturbing. If humans are animals and our lives are not divinely inspired, the edifice of Judeo-Christian morality about the sanctity of human life is discredited. God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to other animals. … [Read more...]
Never Discuss Religion With a Unitarian
I've never liked to fight with people. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I've thrown a punch in anger since my junior year in high school, more than forty years ago. It isn't my natural instinct to start an argument. I've only had one formal debate in my entire life, and it wasn't my idea in the first place. By the same token, I'm not afraid of a challenge, or to defend my personal beliefs. My opponent on that momentous occasion was a former president of American Atheists, a guy named Ed Buckner. He proposed our debate only a couple of months before my book Counterargument for God was published, so I saw his challenge as an opportunity to test the substance of that argument. Personally, I liked Ed. If he ever wants a rematch, I'd only have two conditions: I don't want to argue cherrypicked verses from the Bible all night, and a second debate should be held on Ed's home turf, the normal meeting place for freethinkers in the Atlanta area. I've come to believe there are two kinds of atheists -- the kind that hate Christianity and religion in general (anti-theists), versus others who also don't believe in a supernatural God, but without the latent hostility toward people with religious beliefs. A handful of my virtual friends on Facebook are the latter variety of atheist, and those are some of the friendships I value the most. Recently one atheist friend took the time to send me this message: After years of (dogmatically) thinking creationists as ignorant/dogmatic etc. (much like many feel about atheists), you are the one who has taught me otherwise. I'm glad you … [Read more...]
People who think they know everything
[FULL DISCLOSURE: Herman L. Mays, Jr. recently published a somewhat ruthless review of my book Counterargument for God, which may lead some readers to conclude this particular article has been written to gain some measure of revenge. However, after reading the rather vitriolic exchanges between academic/intellectual types such as Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier, I'm convinced that hostile rhetoric is now a perfectly acceptable form of criticism. Therefore, I won't be mincing my words, either.] Professor Herman L. Mays, Jr. teaches at Marshall University, and he's probably a very nice guy (Anybody who can make me laugh out loud can't be all bad in my book). And when I read the following sentence his review of my book, I literally burst out laughing: To say Leonard's book should be taken with a grain of salt gives undue credit to the power of salt to ease the swallowing of the foulest of meals. I have to admit, that's a pretty clever zinger. Could his rhetoric be exaggerated? That's not for me to say. Because my brain often works in strange and unconventional ways, when I read his little quip my mind wandered back in time to revisit an old installment of the comic strip Bloom County, in which Opus the Penguin wrote a scathing review of the movie Benji Saves the Universe. He described the movie as achieving "new levels of badness" -- could I be as equally untalented a writer? Given his perspective as an academic who earns his paycheck teaching evolutionary biology, it shouldn't be terribly surprising that Professor Mays took exception to my criticisms of Darwin's … [Read more...]
Iterative creation
[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Fourth installment in the series of articles originally published as the Atlanta Creationism Examiner about existential questions and the theory of evolution.] Iterative creation A new Facebook friend sent me a link to an article by a scientist advocating his version of Divine Evolution, another reason I now think iterative creation might have been a better name for my own personal philosophical beliefs. Stuart Kauffman wrote in the Edmonton Journal, I believe that we no longer need a Creator God, we need God's creativity. In other words, Kauffman believes in a form of theistic evolution ala Francis Collins, where we have a creator God who doesn’t really do anything but get the ball of evolution rolling, more deist than theist. Creation theory is concerned about the origin of things. If there is reason to believe that a supernatural entity of extraordinary intellect caused our universe to happen, why not believe that same Creator is directly responsible for the origin of life? Why would God put in all the work to set up the universe for life but lose interest before creating it? What exactly are we saying here? Do "we" believe that God suffers from some sort of Attention Deficit Disorder, or what? The so-called facts of evolution and the scientific evidence used to support my hypothesis of iterative creation are one and the same. The conjecture about evolution is where the theories significantly differ. Iterative creation begins with a bang. Actually, it begins with the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory makes sense, mostly because scientific … [Read more...]
