The Falsifiability of Jesus

After my last post I had an extensive and enjoyable back-and-forth with a friend about conscience and the nature of morality. Many side topics came up, but in the interest of staying on track I let them slip by. I’d like to address a couple of them separately.

At one point in this exchange I made the observation that should Christianity be proved wrong today, I’d have to go looking for the real God. The reason for this is that reality, the way I seem to observe it at least, seems to entail certain objective moral laws. For instance, I don’t believe it would ever be okay to punch babies in the face for fun. Even if all of society started punching babies in the face, and declared a National Punch Babies in the Face Day, I believe at that point we’d have merely tricked ourselves into believing it was okay to punch babies for fun. The truth, however, is that it would still be objectively evil, even though nobody remained who thought of it as such. This observation of objective good and evil is one of several major evidences I employ for my own conclusion in the existence of God. Notice, however, that if moral laws exist objectively (like the laws of mathematics, physics or logic), while this may be evidence for God, it does not follow necessarily that the god would have to be God of the Bible. When I brought up the fact that if Christianity were proved wrong I’d need to find the real God, my friend took this as a weakness in my position. He concluded that because I thought Christianity could be proved wrong, that I obviously wasn’t convinced it was true. This is not the case though.

My statement on the willingness to allow for the disproving of Christianity is simply an observation about my own epistemology. You see, I can’t even prove that I exist, and I especially can’t prove that you exist. I seem to be self-aware, and I seem to be observing you (those of you that I come in contact with anyway), but I must admit that the potential exists that I am just a brain in a jar being stimulated by electrodes, similar to the Matrix or Avatar. All of reality could be an illusion and I’m just not aware of it. There is very little in life that we can prove with 100% certainty, but that doesn’t keep us from believing them, and living our lives under the impression that those less than 100% certain things are nonetheless true observations about reality. I wrote briefly about this in the past. I still have no good reason to doubt my belief in the chair I’m sitting in, nor do I have any good reason to doubt my belief that Jesus is a real historical figure, who was put to death on a Roman cross, entombed, resurrected, and appeared to many other real people from history.

I also try to be careful not to let my thinking fall into the category of confirmation bias. This is the tendency for people to support conclusions that confirm their pre-existing thinking or beliefs. Generally speaking, this is a terrible way to come to real conclusions. In practice, I believe modern Christians as much as anybody tend to fall prey to this, especially as it relates to the use of some parts of Scripture or non-essential doctrine. Often times we’re raised in a particular dogma that is difficult to let go of. In the face of overwhelming evidence, people will cling blindly to the familiar. Sometimes when people realize their brand of Churchianity doesn’t align properly with Scripture or reality after years of being subject to their own confirmation bias, rather than an actual belief, they run the opposite direction screaming rather than stopping to see if it is all wrong, or if just parts of it have been misrepresented. People really tend to be a mess, which is why if I’m going to accept a conclusion, I will come to it on my own based on the information at hand, and not exclusively based on what somebody tells me I ought to believe. Sure there are times to call expert witnesses, but in the end I want to believe true things, not necessarily popular things. In the interest of making sure I have all the evidence and framing my worldview on what I best believe represents reality, I’m willing to hear viewpoints that oppose mine as long as they are presented respectfully. Avoiding confirmation bias in drawing conclusions can only be done by allowing for these opposing views the opportunity to be presented and considered.

Finally, this leads to a method of critical evaluation known as “falsifiability.” The notion of falsifiability says that a theory or hypothesis must have the logical possibility of being disproved if it is to be taken seriously. If an idea doesn’t have the logical possibility of being proved wrong, it can’t be proved right either. I think historical Christianity fits this model well. The best historical evidence I’ve seen, including but not limited to the New Testament itself, lends incredible support for the identity of Jesus as he is known within the classical framework of Christianity. I see no reason to discount the accounts of the New Testament writers or their extra-biblical contemporaries. In fact, the historically verifiable track record of the Bible and the vast quantity of early manuscripts make it easily the most well-supported document in all of ancient antiquity. Could I be wrong? Sure, I could be wrong. It’s possible that some ancient Allen Funt will pop out of antiquity, so to speak, and say, “Smile…” Currently though, ancient history is surprisingly devoid of naysayers, even though they clearly had their opportunity. Logically speaking, the potential exists for Jesus’ supernatural identity to be at least challenged by discovery of contrary historical documents, rather than just a priori dismissal of the possibility of God incarnate.

If I’m not willing to admit that it is logically possible that Christianity could be proved wrong somehow, I don’t think it’s possible for me to say I really believe it.  It seems to me that if one claims to have good reasons for accepting something, one must also admit that should good reasons come along to not accept that thing, that those reasons would be allowed into evidence.  I could appeal exclusively to authority or emotion to make my case, but in the end that would probably just make me a victim of confirmation bias. That might be easier, but shutting off my mind is an untenable, as well us un-Biblical, option to me. Instead, I take everything I seem to believe about reality (with more than 50% certainty), like the New Testament is a historically accurate account of Jesus, the Old Testament predicts Jesus in an eerily accurate fashion (while also pre-dating the New Testament), the entire Bible seems consistent with the reality I observe, and my personal experience with following Jesus of Nazareth seems to comport with reality as the Bible explains it. All of these things have the logical potential to be disproved. Even my own personal experiences could be a figment of my imagination should it turn out I’m in the Matrix.

So, could Christianity be proved wrong? Hypothetically speaking, yes, it could. Like I told my friend though, at that point I’d have to figure out who God really is, because I believe reality screams out with the evidence of a Creator. I believe my willingness to allow for this logical possibility is a strength of my evidentially supported belief in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus, not a weakness. Would I bet on a competing hypothesis as being the best explanation of reality? No, I wouldn’t. If I believe what I believe because I believe it to be true though, then I should have no problem leaving the door unlocked for challenges from the outside. Let the Truth prevail. After 2000 years of challenges, I believe the framework of classical Christianity still best explains reality. If Keanu Reeves shows up to get me out of the Matrix though, I’ll let you know.

My Conscience Makes Me Barf

Last time I wrote I addressed the comments of Dan Savage while addressing a group of high school students at a journalism conference.  The anti-bullying icon used the opportunity to verbally bully the young theists, specifically Christians and Jews, in the audience.  More intolerance from a supposed tolerance advocate, further evidence that the myth of tolerance is one-sided.  In any case, a thoughtful commenter on my last entry essentially posed the questions to me; Do I really think I ought to be, “lustful, prideful, angry, bitter, greedy, vengeful, and jealous?;  Is society actually telling [me] to treat other people poorly, never forgive, never compromise and be promiscuous?”; Why do I need a Bible to follow my conscience?  Let’s take a look at the reality of the answers to these questions, because I think though frequently posed by atheists, these are really pretty simple questions to answer.

To the first question on whether or not I should do these morally degenerate things, the answer is obviously: no, I don’t think I should. I think most people would generally agree with this. However, what they wouldn’t agree with is what constitutes the morally degenerate behaviors.  That is where society comes in.  We must all necessarily base our concepts of these morals on something.  The question is what are we basing them on?  In the end the atheist has a problem with where their values system comes from.  In the absence of objective moral law, I can really only get my values system from myself or from my society.  Neither one of these sources is adequate, as either one excludes you from being able to tell me my morals, or my society’s morals, are wrong.  Fortunately, on my worldview at least, we’re all created in the image of the Moral Law Giver, which means that at least to some extent, we have some similar sense of right and wrong built into us so even though our belief in the foundation of morality may differ, we can agree on some major points of morality.  Extreme things like murder, rape, theft, etc will generally be accepted as morally wrong among most individuals or societies.

However, it turns out we also have free will, which means we can defy what we know is right and wrong, and re-train our consciences into believing what once was wrong is now right, or vice versa.  We don’t believe it though, because from our own perspective we’re in the right.  History is filled with examples of people and societies whose consciences accepted things which they never should have (ie European and American slave trade, Nazi Germany).  We look back and condemn these behaviors with hindsight, but what would I really have done if I was there, and let my own conscience and society be my guide?  I suspect it would be no different from now as we normalize things like marriage hopping, porn, ladder climbing greed, and revenge seeking.  Embedded in some other culture, I’d probably have come to accept that Jews or Africans are not people.  I’d retrain my conscience to believe this to be permissible.  Moreover, I’d have no reason not to conform to society.  That is, unless I had some objective standard removed from human tendency by which to measure my own conscience.

At the same times in the past that society was normalizing morally abhorrent behavior, people like William Wilberforce and Dietrich Bonhoeffer were standing up against other people’s consciences and fighting, even dying, for what was objectively morally right.  We see now that they were correct in doing so, and that the cultures that promote slavery and genocide are wrong. You see, without some foundation, conscience becomes only a matter of popular opinion.  So yes, I do need a foundation upon which to calibrate my conscience.  That then, is why I rely on the Bible.  Why I choose the God of the Bible over other possible foundations is a longer discussion, but the short explanation is that I believe it is because it is well-supported, where other foundations are not.

I think it is actually quite apparent that people’s consciences, while useful for day-to-day guidance, cannot be fully trusted unless properly trained.  In the end, when you pose this question about conscience, the question I think the you are really asking is not why can’t I just follow MY conscience, but why can’t I just follow YOUR conscience.  You want to be the foundation of my morality.  You would prefer I give up the God of the Bible, so that you and/or society may take His place.

Anti-Bullying Bullying Makes Me Barf

Recently, MTV personality, newspaper columnist, gay-rights activist, and supposed anti-bullying advocate Dan Savage was invited to speak at a high school journalism convention.  Through a series of inflammatory remarks and fallacious rhetoric, Savage proceeded to verbally bully Christian students in the audience.  Some of these kids chose to walk out in protest, at which point Savage verbally assaulted them with name calling and claimed it was self-defense.  Not very “anti-bullying” of him, but this sort of special pleading seems to be par for the course where the “tolerance” movement is concerned (as I’ve previously discussed).

Let’s take a look at what Mr Savage had to say on the Bible.  If you watch the video linked below to get the context, you may want to make sure there are no small ears around first, as this fellow doesn’t prefer to stick to societal conventions on etiquette in public discourse.  On the other hand, if you have Jr High or High School kids that are mature enough to watch this critically, I highly suggest viewing it with them to show them what they’re up against.  They’re going to be challenged to be tolerant, all the while being bullied for their beliefs.

0:15 – Good start Mr. Savage!  You’re right, the Bible does say homosexuality is wrong, along with a host of other sexual sins, and things like murder, stealing, false gods, arrogance, corrupt conversation, hatred, bitterness, etc.

0:25 – Wait, what now?  The BS about gay people in the Bible?  You mean the part where it says it is wrong?  I don’t mean to straw man Mr Savage’s position, but he seems to be implying that things being in the Bible invalidates them somehow.  Does this mean that the part about murder being wrong is also BS because it is in the Bible as well?  That would just be committing the genetic fallacy.  An argument cannot be dismissed simply in light of its source.  You need to actually make a positive case for your side, otherwise it looks like you’re just ignoring the Bible simply because you don’t want to live according to its standards, not because there’s actually something wrong with the standard.  Simply not liking the claim it makes on your life does nothing for your position.  If he’s not implying it’s position in the Bible is what invalidates it, then it’s simply a foundationless claim, and I have no reason to believe the Bible’s claims that God has high standards for acceptable sexual relationships are BS.

0:37 – Shellfish? Shellfish were covered under the theocratic rule of God over Israel in the old covenant.  It is no longer relevant, nor is this argument (if simply saying a word is an argument).  We’re no longer living under the old covenant, or its dietary restrictions.  Perhaps a Jewish person would like to have that debate.

0:39 – Slavery? You realize slavery in antiquity wasn’t the antebellum slavery we see in the American south, right?  Biblical “slavery” was more of an indentured servitude.  A person might sell himself as way to have him and/or his family taken care of, or for forgiveness of debt, in exchange for his service.  In fact, what you see happening in Israel in terms of Biblical law is vastly different from what is seen in the pagan cultures around them. For instance, in the Code of Hammurabi we see slaves were clearly treated as property.  If you put out the eye of a slave, or broke his bones, you were to pay half the value of the slave to the master.  On the other hand the Old Testament of Israel affirms the personhood of servants.  In the same circumstance in Hebrew culture, the slave would be allowed to go free (Exod 21:26-27).  The servant was given justice in God’s theocracy, not the master.

0:40 – Dinner?  This is a new one to me.  Honestly I’m not sure what he’s referring to here.  If it is having to do with dietary restrictions see the comment above about shellfish.  We ignore those laws because they applied only to Jews living under the theocratic rule of God, not because there is something wrong with them.  At the time, some of them were largely symbolic, and others provided health benefits.

0:41 – Farming?  Presumably this is reference to Deuteronomy 22 where the Israelites were not supposed to plow with an ox and donkey together.  In fact, they had several restrictions about combining differing things.  This is likely symbolic, as a reminder that they were a people set aside for God.  They were not to mix with the pagan cultures, and therefore were given several reminders to keep themselves separate, like mixing seed in the field, mixing fibers in clothing, and plowing with a mixed team.  Again, this was special to Hebrew law under theocratic rule, and does not apply since Jesus fulfilled the old covenant.

0:42 – Menstruation? Again, I’m not sure Mr Savage has made an attempt to understand the Biblical narrative rather than just reading single phrases and attacking them out of context.  First, a menstruating woman was not morally unclean (if that’s what Savage is getting at), just ceremonially unclean.  There were a lot of other health-related distractions that put both women as well as men in this ceremonially unclean condition.  Second, blood was a symbolically sacred thing to the Hebrews, so there are numerous regulations regarding it. It doesn’t strike me as especially controversial.  Coincidentally, it is the narrative of blood as the source of life via atonement that is taken right up to the last sacrifice made, which was Jesus, the Messiah, on the cross.  The only thing required to be ceremonially clean now, is acceptance of the Messiah as a sacrifice on behalf of all people.  It’s a lot easier!  Again, this sort of ceremonial law regarding menstruation is part of the old covenant that God had with Israel.  There were similar laws that applied to men.  Not really relevant to Mr Savage’s point unless he’s talking directly to Jews who don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah.  It doesn’t seem that way though.

0:43 – Virginity?  See 1:45 when Mr Savage brings this back up, but I think he’s confused about his details again.  Peculiar for a journalism conference!

0:44 – Masturbation? Actually the Bible doesn’t say anything at all about this in and of itself.  Catholics in particular might try to use the account of Onan in Genesis 38 to say it is there (as well as using it to lobby against family planning), but in context Onan was simply punished for being wicked in light of his refusal to obey the law of levarite marriage which protected a family’s inheritance rights in the event of the untimely death of a husband.  A male relative of the deceased, in this case a younger brother, was directed to marry his brother’s widow and carry on the family line.  He stubbornly chose to ignore the law.  Coincidentally we later see a similar law applied successfully with Ruth and Boaz, which eventually leads to David, and finally Jesus.

0:50 – Mr Savage and I can’t agree that what is in the Bible is BS, but we can agree that we do, in fact, ignore things in the Bible about all sorts of things.  This is not the question though.  The question is SHOULD we ignore things in the Bible, and does the Bible contain a real claim on our lives and the way we should live, or just a bunch of ancient made up mythology?  Savage seems only interested in the former and not the latter.  His logic is that because we, as a culture, seem to be already ignoring some things, we might as well ignore them all.  His reasoning, doesn’t seek to determine what is right or wrong, but merely appeals to the culture to define what we should or should not do.  Relativism!  Taken to the absurd like our mothers always did, Mr Savage, if all your friends were to jump off a bridge, sir, would you follow?  This is the logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, or the appeal to popularity.  Just because a bunch of people are doing something, it does not follow necessarily that it is the right thing to do, otherwise we’d have to conclude Hitler’s Germany was justified in its actions.

0:55 – The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document because slave owners waved Bibles over their heads during the Civil War?  Again, Mr Savage seems to be a big fan the genetic fallacy.  If Hitler waved a chocolate bar over his head during WWII saying, “Chocolate made me do it!”, would it follow necessarily that chocolate lovers are anti-Semites?

1:02 – Again, since Mr Savage is just throwing out unsubstantiated rhetoric and bald-faced assertions with no explanation, it’s difficult to tell what he’s referring to.  He refers to “the shortest book in the New Testament”, but that is 3 John, which obviously was not written by Paul and has nothing to do with slavery.  I think he must be referring either to Paul’s letter to Titus, where he addresses how Christian slaves should behave, or the 3rd shortest book of the New Testament, Philemon, where Paul request that Philemon release his dear friend Onesimus.  It almost seems like he’s just hodgepodging them together.  In the first case Paul only talks about what Titus should teach slaves, not how Titus should own slaves.  In his letter to Philemon Paul IS clearly asking Philemon to release his friend Onesimus.  Paul is in the position to make demands of Philemon, but appeals to Philemon to consult his relationship with Christ, and his relationship with Paul as a friend, and do the right thing.  Contrary to Mr Savage’s claim, Paul IS asking his friend to set his servant free.  However, it’s quite plausible given the culture that Onesimus owed some sort of debt to Philemon, and so Philemon would be under no obligation to do so.  Paul even suggests as much, and offers to have the debt charged to himself instead (Philemon 1:18) rather than Onesimus, so that Philemon might see Onesimus as the brother that he is.  Further, while ranting from the pulpit about how apparently he doesn’t like the way some Christians tell other people how they should live, Mr Savage is saying Paul should be more forceful in the way he tells other people how to live.  Your circular logic confuses me, sir.  I can’t tell what you really want.

1:20 – The Bible got slavery wrong?  The Bible doesn’t particularly take a position on slavery itself, only how to treat slaves.  I know I already said this, but I’ll say it again.  It also is definitely not referring to slavery like we think of when we imagine it in the antebellum South, which seems to be where Mr Savage is likely still trying to make a connection.  The Bible merely addresses the master/servant relationship that exists in both ancient near-eastern and then, later, the Roman empire.  Frequently a voluntary contract of servitude, or a necessary contract of servitude to pay off a debt.  I have no doubt that just like other institutions people establish (like high school journalism conventions) that people abused their position of authority.  However, in both cases the Bible defends the servant’s right to be treated with fairness and dignity, which was unheard of at the time.  In Titus 2 he’s addressing Christians who are slaves, not saying Christians ought to take slaves.  In Philemon he’s appealing for the release of a slave.  Mr Savage, again, resorts to logical fallacy by setting up a straw man for use in his rhetoric. He changes Paul’s position to be that Christians support slavery and then attacks that position, rather than addressing what Paul really said.  It’s poor form.

1:25 – Mr Savage’s fallacious appeal to authority with reference to Sam Harris’s book does nothing for his argument.  Sam Harris is a neuroscientist, not an ancient history or Biblical scholar.  Two unqualified people making naked assertions and taking the Bible out of context doesn’t make the position any more defensible.  In fact, to see the weakness of Sam Harris’s position on morality without God, watch his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig.  It’s a couple of hours, but well worth the investment no matter where you currently stand with regards to your view of theism.

1:40 – I don’t agree that the Bible “got slavery wrong, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Bible did get the slavery issue wrong.  How do you arrive at the conclusion that it got sexuality wrong with 100% certainty?  This just seems to be affirming the consequent.  If the Bible was wrong on the issue of slavery, does that mean it follows necessarily that it was also 100% wrong on other issues?  Perhaps because it was wrong on slavery (for the sake of argument) it was also wrong on theft and it is okay to steal from people?  Or perhaps this form of reasoning could be used like this: If a gay person has ever molested a child, then gay people are dangerous.  A gay person has molested a child.  Therefore, gay people are dangerous.  The conclusion does not follow necessarily from the premises, even if we were to accept premise #1 (which I don’t in either example). It’s logically flawed.

1:50 – If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she should be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death?  Mr Savage’s failure to bother with details about the thing he’s so against shows through apparently here, as it appears he is combining two distinct laws from Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in order to create one law of his own.  In the former case, the engaged virgin woman AND the man are both stoned outside the city gate, because they’ve consentually committed evil by violating a marriage under the theocracy of God. A good example of the high regard God has for marriage, and why it should be taken seriously. The latter circumstance is similar, except in this case the virgin woman is not engaged, so there was no marriage that was violated.  In this case the man is to pay a bride-price (50 shekels) to the father of the girl and he is to marry her.  This is for the woman’s protection, as a woman who was not a virgin would likely not be easily married.  Again, neither of these laws apply outside of God’s direct and personal rule over Israel.  If Mr Savage were to take even a moment’s time to attempt understand what is going on in the theocracy of ancient Israel, perhaps he would at least get his facts straight.  If this the sort of accuracy they’re promoting at journalism conferences, its no wonder the media is so inept.

1:55 – I don’t get the reference to Callista Gingrich.  Savage’s faithful seem to appreciate the comment, but I’m not sure what he’s driving at there.  Could somebody please explain this one?

2:10 – There’s no efforts to make stonings legal…at least not yet because we don’t know where the GOP is going?  More ridiculous rhetoric!  Here Mr Savage resorts to the slippery slope fallacy. This can actually be a valid form of reasoning if you can logically tie related events together to arrive at the conclusion, but Savage makes no attempt to do so, because it would not be possible. He’s made the statement based on his previous strawman account of the Biblical text in order to solicit the shock value and get laugh.  Again, perhaps it would be good fodder from a super PAC sponsored political attack ad, but not very responsible reasoning from a public platform.

2:15 – People are dying because we can’t clear this one last hurdle?  Really?  That’s weird.  I’ve never agreed that homosexuality, nor any form of heterosexual sin was right, yet I’ve never killed anybody.  That would seem to suggest to me, that the problem is not the belief that a certain action is objectively morally wrong, but only that there is another objectively morally wrong action being perpetrated that is the root of the problem.  Let’s say I hate the hiccups (I do)…a lot (really)…and perhaps I murder my neighbor because he has a bad case of the hiccups. Does anybody, even for a second, believe that my problem was really that I disliked the hiccups? This is a red-herring. Nobody is being harmed because of a belief that homosexuality is sinful. They’re being harmed because people believe it is okay to harm somebody verbally or physically with whom they disagree. That is the fundamental character flaw in play. Moreover, this is not unique to people who try to hide behind the Bible for their moral crimes. Some people might try to hide behind, for instance, the cover of a high school journalism convention to harm people they disagree with. That doesn’t make high school journalism conventions objectively wrong.  It just means somebody abused their understanding of its purpose.

2:50 – Beatings justified by the Bible?  I could also attempt to justify beatings using, say, the words of an anti-religious zealot from MTV.  That however, would not necessarily be his intent.

2:55 – More name calling from the speaker who is there to present on anti-bullying.

3:00 – Snarky apology fixes his rhetorical bullying.  Yay!  He’s just defending himself, but the kids that removed themselves from his assault are “pansy-assed”?  He’s just pointing out the hypocrisy of being “anti-gay”, while spewing anti-Christianity during a supposed anti-bullying speech?  Sneaking in yet more fallacious reasoning to wrap it up by throwing in some special pleading: it’s okay for him to be a bully from the stage because he’s been bullied, but Christians ought not do it or they’re hypocrites. Reality check Mr Savage – hypocrisy is wrong from all sides!

3:14 – Don’t even get me started on calling people who disagree with you bigots!  That’s just more straw men!  It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with people’s positions without attacking them personally. Not everybody who disagrees with you is out to get you. Sure Ford and Chevy truck owners can’t relate to each other in this way, but I see no reason why people can’t disagree on other important things without the name calling.

Conclusion:  Listen, I’m no pastor, or Bible scholar, or historian.  I’m simply another random internet dude trying to make the best sense of reality as it appears to me.  It takes me only an evening of effort not only to figure out what Mr Savages obscure references are supposed to be too (since he doesn’t want to point them out specifically, or even get their literal gist accurate), but to also discern some real meaning within the context of those passages’ place in scripture and history.  Make an effort!  Both theists and atheists need to quit with the rhetoric and actually try to understand the other side’s position.  Dan Savage clearly doesn’t have an accurate view of the Bible, but then again, neither do many Christians so how would he!  This type of fallacious reasoning is rampant on both sides.  Get rid of it and have a real discussion!  Also, take some time to understand the context of these difficult parts of Scripture that people throw around carelessly.  I recommend a book by Paul Copan called “Is God A Moral Monster?”  It addresses many of the issues skeptics have that Savage brings up here.  Clearly much of his position is based on misinformation and/or misunderstanding of the text and/or history.  In the end, many people are going to reject the Bible outright, simply because the don’t like the claim it might have on their life if it were to be true, or their pre-supposition that supernatural events do not occur and never have.  This is the precarious position Mr Savage finds himself in.

Finally, our kids need to understand that no matter what the claims of the opposition, Christianity is not the unreasonable nonesene that some skeptics claim it is.  Even though they claim it with certainty, the claims are typically laden with poor logic, poor facts, and grand rhetoric.  It will be our kids’ job to defend their faith (1 Peter 3:15) respectfully, but diligently, and bring the dialogue back to reality.  This sort of rhetoric isn’t unique to the growing militant side of atheism.  Christians fall into it frequently as well.  Teach your kids to be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.  Regardless of our beliefs, we’re all able to disgree without resorting to personal attacks.  I’ve heard plenty of atheists who are very good at this sort of constructive dialogue.  They need to be encouraging their brethren to do the same, perhaps starting with Mr Savage.  Jesus used sound reasoning to debate his opponents, we need to do the same.

I heard one discussion recently between a Christian and an atheist, where they agreed on the central tactic of interactions with other people.  The theist presented it as Jesus himself presented it…”Love they neighbor.”  The atheist’s way of summing up the same sort of thought, though lacking the active quality of love, was also quite good…”Don’t be a jerk!