And not because I converted.
This is a response to why choose Christianity and not something else or nothing else? It is an exercise in special pleading, appeals to authority and a case of ignorance.
The author starts by telling us most other religions are explicable without appeal to the supernatural. In his words
The naturalistic explanation, saying “men came up with myths about Zeus and others” fits all the data we have available much better than an appeal to a supernatural explanation; “men spoke about Zeus and the rest because those gods were real.”
and I ask where is the difference between this and Christianity. All the data we have point to the bible and its god[s] being a work of humans. They are created and dressed in human language and given human character just as the ancients did, except in their case, people could surpass the gods. The christian has created a monster that no matter how much effort, you can’t outdo it in cruelty and pettiness.
The author even has the mind to tell us
In this sense, atheism is a powerful ally to Christianity for the atheists help us make the case for why we reject the vast majority of religions.
The atheist rejects all gods. All includes the middle Eastern god to whom billions of Muslims, Jews and Christians around the world genuflect. To think yours is an exception is to me, the height of blind ignorance.
To make his case for Christianity, he gives, what he calls supernatural pseudo explanations. I call them pseudo explanations because they have not been shown to be true. The reasons he alludes to are
- coherency in the biblical message- while here, forget that there are two creation stories, that the story of Jacob and Isaac [?] look like cardboard copies, that we don’t know, from the supposed biographers of J. Hubris Christ his correct genealogy
- People willing to die for the claim Jesus is risen- the people who willingly died in Uganda following the advice of the cult leader must make it true
- Sudden birth and rise of christian theology- anyone who reads history would know this is not the case. Maybe he should have said the slow and violent rise of Christianity. This would be close to the facts.
- Many indoctrinated people have remained Christians. I thought if he had any sense he would see this is true of all other religions.
- His last point is so absurd I have to put it here in its entirety for prosperity –
- The supernatural explanation accounts for the big questions like “Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there life when the odds are against there being such? How did the universe get started? Why is there something startlingly different about humans compared with other animals? Why is there such a strong yearning for purpose among humans? Why do humans reflect on morality so much? Why is there evil and what can be done about it?” Naturalism struggles to explain what Christianity simply and profoundly answers.
From here on, he goes of the rails in so complete a fashion that only a brain replacement would restore him. In the example of Paul, where there are many plausible explanations, he sticks with a pseudo explanation because it is good for his script. Facts be damned.
You would expect this fellow is going to make a serious case for his religion only to repeat the trope of Jesus rose from the dead and why? It is in the bible.
Why should one become a christian? Because the bible says there is an afterlife and you may have a chance with angels if that is your kind of thing. Really? Can’t we have apologists who are reasonable and who tell us reasonable things? Or is their target audience the already