Conclusion - Part 1

[bookhobbit]

Well, I meant to publish this earlier as it's been done for a while, but every school thing happened at once on Tuesday. So anyway, this is the conclusion, but it got so long that I had to split it up into 2 parts because it was almost 10,000 words and I can't do that to you. Next part will be posted immediately after so I can have this out of my life and my head.

 

I was hoping it would be mostly repetition, but Noebel says "But we have saved the bulk of our criticism for this final section. Here we evaluate in more detail how the non-Christian worldviews fail to persuade that they are true and fail to correctly interpret the world in which we live." That gives you all you need to know about the tone, eh?

All five non-Christian worldviews, to one extent or another, understand the importance of "saving" the human race.

I find this an extremely Christian perspective. I don't know that a not-culturally-Christian worldview would necessarily always see the human race as something that needs to be "saved". Which I guess highlights something I was thinking about last chapter: the fact that all of Noebel's secular worldviews come from people raised in Christian-dominant cultures. The secular perspectives he's describing are in dialogue with Christianity, and most of the prominent theorists in them had to grapple at some point or in some way with Christianity in their lives or environment.

And then there's Islam. Which is a whole different cultural tradition, not springing from Christianity at all. But the way Noebel construes it is as a distorted Christianity, as though it's Christianity's evil twin. 

The point is, he's completely incapable of understanding any worldview that doesn't reference Christianity at all. And he's completely incapable of lifting his mind out of the framework that Chrsitianity is the one, true worldview and that all others diverge from it. He can't get out of orbit.

However, a major dividing line separates the non-Christian worldviews from Christianity—that is, what each one believes about Jesus Christ. Christianity views Jesus Christ as the true and living Way (John 14:6) and the key to reality itself (Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:1-3, John 1:1-3). Early Christians were known as members of The Way (Acts 9:2). All other major worldviews reject Jesus Christ as Savior, Lord, King—indeed, some deny His very existence. Thus, an insurmountable difference exists between Christianity and its worldview competitors.

You see what I mean? I bet if you ask someone who has never been Christian "is your view on Jesus important to your worldview?" the answer would probably be no, it's just not that major a part of how I see the world. I was reading a blog on Judaism the other day and the runner was saying something like, "it's hard for Christians to grasp but our religion just genuinely doesn't teach us anything at all about Jesus." It's impossible for Noebel to understand that not everyone cares about Jesus.

Whether we choose to believe biblical Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Marxism-Leninism, Cosmic Humanism, or Postmodernism, we are accepting a worldview that describes the others as hopelessly distorted. Only one view depicts things as they really are; all other perspectives must be out of step with human nature and the universe.

Again: because fundamentalist Christians believe there is only One True Way, everyone must believe there is one and only One True Way.  I don't think that's true for every single person about every single other worldview.

Adherents to secular religious worldviews understand that if their assumptions are correct, any worldview that permits the supernatural to exist must be dangerous. 

Why "dangerous"? Presumably this is more projecting.

Marx viewed all religion as a drug that deluded its adherents—an "opiate of the masses." 

If you quoted the full "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions" it would be harder to make this misinterpretation.

Postmodernists like Richard Rorty view Christians as intolerant, frightening, bigoted, homophobic, fanatic, vicious, and dangerous."

Rorty's quote here, which Noebel has pulled three times now to fuel his oppression complex, was about fundamentalist Christians. Not Christians in general.

Some Humanists even portray Christians as mentally imbalanced. James J.D. Luce, the assistant executive director of Fundamentalists Anonymous, claims that "the fundamentalism experience can be a serious mental health hazard to perhaps millions of people." His organization works to "heal" Christians of their "mental disorder"—their Christian worldview. 

THEIR FUNDAMENTALIST WORLDVIEW. NOT THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW. He's not saying that Christians are mentally imbalanced, but that fundamentalism fucks you up. And it does. It fucked me up. Read about religious trauma as a phenomenon. Plus, from what I'm reading, Fundamentalists Anonymous targeted fundamentalism in general, not just the Christian flavor. This makes me so angry, because he's using this to pretend that Christianity is ~under attack~ when it's not at all about that.

Christianity best explains the existence of the universe and all things related to it. In a systematic analysis of the ten major components of a worldview, Christianity claims the following:

I'm going to show all of these and talk about them because I think they highlight what he really actually cares about in each discipline.

Theology—the evidence for the existence of a personal and holy God, a designed universe, and an earth prepared for human life outweighs any argument for atheism or pantheism.

I find it interesting that he doesn't deal with polytheism at all.

Philosophy—the notion that mind (logos) precedes matter is superior to the atheistic stance of matter preceding mind.

Apparently there's the "atheistic stance" and there's the Christian stance and that's it.

Ethics—the concept that right and wrong are objective absolutes based on the nature and character of a personal, loving God is superior both theoretically and practically to any concept of moral relativism.

Binary again.

Biology—the concept of a living God creating life fits the evidence better than any hint of spontaneous generation and macroevolution.

We could easily have evolution and God creating life, and lots of people believe that.

Psychology—understanding human beings as being body and soul, yet sinful, imperfect, and in need of a Savior, far outweighs expecting humans to be guilt-free and ultimately perfectible.

Once again, there's no other ground covered except the whole parcel of fundamentalist Chrsitian beliefs OR some random belief that he's assigned to secularism. (I don't believe either of these things.)

Sociology—the biblical definition of a family, with father, mother, and child, transcends any experiments in trial marriage, open marriage, or same-sex marriage.

Interesting what he chooses to highlight, isn't it?

Law—the notion that God hates the perversion of justice provides a firmer foundation than legal theories that cradle criminals or abort unborn human beings.

Priorities crystal clear here. We can't cradle criminals or abort babies. Nothing else matters!

Politics—the Christian belief that human rights are a gift from God protected by government is more logically persuasive, morally appealing, and politically sound than any atheistic theory that maintains human rights are derived from the state.

Morally appealing to you. Also, there's room for "human rights are not a gift from God nor derived from the state", and I find this remiss because again Marxism is pretty anti-statist and Cosmic Humanism was presented the same way.

Economics—the concept of private property and using resources responsibly to glorify God is nobler than the notion of state ownership that destroys individual responsibility and incentives to work.

I love "nobler". According to who? And why is that what matters? What about more practical? And how does state ownership destroy individual responsibility and incentives to work? He didn't really actually go over that in heavy detail in the chapter.

History—the Bible's promise of a future kingdom ushered in by Jesus Christ is far more hopeful than any Utopian schemes dreamed up by sinful, mortal humans.

And what about the idea that history just happens and isn't leading to a utopia?

In other words, in every discipline the Christian worldview shines brighter than its competition. It better explains our place in the universe, is more realistic, is more scientific, is more intellectually satisfying and defensible, and best of all, is in keeping with and faithful to the one person who has the greatest influence in heaven and on earth—Jesus Christ.

Let's first talk about some of the subjective terms: intellectually satisfying, defensible, and realistic. All of those are things that an individual could very easily have different opinions on when it comes to philosophical topics, so he's using his own worldview to define them. In other words, he finds Christianity more intellectually satisfying, defensible, and realistic because he's a Christian. This circular reasoning continues in the second half: Christianity is the best because it adheres the best to a figure only of central importance in Christianity. In summary, Christianity is best for Christian reasons.

We cannot imagine one category in which a non-Christian worldview outshines the Christian position. 

Yeah, man, we know.

For example, putting Christian economics into practice results in prosperity for the greatest number of people, while all forms of socialism, including the interventionist welfare state, guarantee various levels of poverty.

This is so interesting to me because various levels of poverty is definitely something the USA already has. The lowest poverty rates are in northern and western Europe: rich countries with stronger welfare programs than the USA has. So that doesn't bear out Noebel's claim that an interventionist welfare state inherently guarantees poverty. I absolutely admit that other factors could be at play, so I won't claim that interventionist welfare policies prevent poverty, but they literally cannot be guaranteeing it.

Putting Christian law into practice guarantees human rights as God-ordained, while the history of positive law—in France for two centuries, in the Soviet Union for seventy years, and in the U.S. for the last halfcentury—has been a history of carnage.

I'm sorry, I'm so sorry for keeping using this, but you're calling back to the time where SLAVERY WAS LEGAL as a human rights paradise? I really don't want to be trivial but I find it really hard to countenance this. He's saying the United States guaranteed human rights until fifty years ago (counting from about 2000s, when this was published). The country that did Japanese internment camps during the war guaranteed human rights? The country that broke treaties with Native people all over the country, constantly, to steal their land, guaranteed human rights? The country where we barely had labor laws until like 1938 guaranteed human rights? I don't think we guarantee human rights now, but saying "......but we did in the 1800s!" is just. FOR WHO?

Yes, carnage in the United States: 1.2 million unborn babies killed every year by abortion.

Ah. I should have known. I won't say the stuff about living humans being more important than fetuses (which I truly believe), because fundamentalists don't agree that that's true, and they never will. His numbers, by the way, are okay for the early '00s (abortion rates have been dropping, and were well under a million in 2017; in 2018, just above half a million) which is actually kind of shocking to me. Anyway, what I really want to address is if Noebel cares about human life so much he should be a lot more anti-war and pro-healthcare than he is.

His criticism of Islam is just a comparison of Jesus and Mohammad in the Quar'an. It's by Norman L. Geisler, not by someone actually educated in Islam. This is the comparison:

Jesus in the Qur'an -- Muhammad in the Qur'an

Virgin born -- Not virgin born

Sinless -- Sinful

Called "Messiah" -- Not called "Messiah"

Called "Word of God" -- Not called "Word of God"

Performed miracles -- Did not perform miracles

Ascended bodily into heaven -- Did not ascend bodily into heaven

Geisler says this will be "extremely helpful for witnessing to Muslims about the Christian faith.". I can't see why. "Hey, did you know that in your holy book, Jesus fits OUR standards for godhood, while your prophet doesn't?" It's your standards, not theirs, so why should they care? The sinfulness of Muhammad (peace be upon him) could make him a better guide for sinful humans, for example?

I'm not going to pick at his arguments for this further, because they really do come down to "so? Islam isn't Christianity". Basically, what he's done is said "okay, the things that are true of Jesus are the standards for the Savior of Humanity, and since they don't apply to Muhammad (peace be upon him), there's no way he can be a savior". But that really makes no sense. You're judging by internal logic, and it won't be likely to convince any Muslims you're trying to "witness" to.

We begin our evaluation by noting the many common teachings between Muslims and Christians about Christ. Then, we will note the tension between the superiority granted to Muhammad by Islam (by claiming he is the last and "seal" of the prophets) in light of the obvious superiority given to Christ in character, titles, and actions in the Qur'an.

Obvious to whom? You. A Christian. 

In light of these, it is ironic that evangelicals have far more in common with orthodox Muslims than we do with liberal Christians!

I mean...here's the thing...I don't know that "orthodox Muslims" would agree with that so I don't want to put too much stock in it, but also...fundamentalists will be fundamentalists you know?

They also give "Jesus spoke at his birth in the Qur'an" as evidence for his godhood which I find SO fucking funny. He didn't even do that in the Bible, does that mean the Qur'an supports his godhood better than the Bible and we should start using it as the basis for Christianity?

When Jesus' alleged followers used the sword (in the Crusades) it was contrary to the teaching and example of their Leader, but when Muslims use the sword it is consistent with the teaching and example of their leader.

I bet the Crusaders didn't think it was contrary to the teaching and example of their leader, so I'm not sure this is a very strong argument.

Then some more stuff comparing them, but from different authors. It's all pretty trivial and repetitious, so I won't go over it. Now we're moving on to a section that combines secular humanism and marxism, which Noebel has seen fit to critique together in this last section, because apparently he's realized he didn't give them enough distinct qualities in the first place. This is by far the longest section in the book, and we're going to have to break it up.

This critique does not treat Marxism and Secular Humanism as mutually exclusive for the simple reason that "Marxism is humanism."" The body of this text makes it clear that most of the foundational or theoretical assumptions of Secular Humanism and Marxism are virtually indistinguishable, with the notable exception being that Marxism treats economics as primary, while Secular Humanism tends to concentrate on philosophy and biology.

So why....did you even treat them as two different things...instead of just making note of that in the economics section or something.... He also notes that this encompasses "the atheism of postmodernism". In other words, "I've realized that I made bad choices in how I wrote this book but it's too late now".

He starts off by summing up and restating the materialist atheistic naturalistic position and contrasting it to what he sees as the Christian one -- as he puts it, either matter created mind or mind created matter. 

Further still, Marxists and Secular Humanists believe that dead, disordered matter eventually organized human beings capable of inventing bicycles, jokes, and Hamlet. The faith of Christians pales in comparison to the credulity required to believe that such diversity and complexity arose by chance.

Bicycles, jokes, and Hamlet. Anyway, the point is that there's a narrative for how matter eventually organized, if you want to put it that way, which means that the faith required doesn't "pale" in comparison, it just requires trusting different things and different types of evidence. To Noebel it looks foolish because it's alien to him not to trust the Bible and only the Bible.

This is one of the most glaring flaws of Marxist and Secular Humanist theory —it asks us to believe in a reality that currently moves from order to disorder (according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) moved in exactly the opposite direction for billions of years in the past.

That's not....that's...that's not....what???

Of course, Marxists and Secular Humanists ignore, or at least downplay, the teleological nature of the universe and the wonder of human beings in an effort to mask this inconsistency but they cannot hope to sway any individual with an open mind about the mysteries and manifest intelligence of the universe.

This is an extremely emotional argument. If you see someone saying things like "they cannot hope to sway anyone with an open mind" as their only rhetorical tactic that probably means they have no facts to back up their assertion and have to rely on bluster.

It comes down to this: did life and intelligence and humor and design come from a living, intelligent God who loves order and joy, or did they arise randomly from dead matter?

Dead matter. Next question. (But seriously, there's absolutely no way to definitively answer this question and Noebel knows it. And also, inorganic matter isn't "dead", and it annoys me that he keeps saying it.)

A naive student might be persuaded that life and order arose from nonliving matter, but even the most gullible cannot swallow that the human mind, which has pierced the atom and conceived The Brothers Karamazov, came about by the chance workings of matter.

The Brothers Karamazov...Hamlet...bicycles...jokes...he just keeps...pulling random stuff. I can't. Anyway, if "even the most gullible cannot swallow" this, why is it such a popular perspective? Clearly at least some people have swallowed it, leaving aside the question of their gullibility.

Further, experience suggests that mind acts creatively on matter, rather than vice versa.

Well, I mean, we have minds, so obviously that would be our experience.

Altruism is another concept that we cannot account for naturally.

Not true. It's easy to account for evolutionarily because it's very useful for survival of a species. You don't have to go that direction and I know there are big problems with evo psych, I'm just saying you can and it's not even hard.

No scientist, including the world's finest neurosurgeon, has ever held the idea of altruism in his or hands for inspection or dissection. The same can be said for the idea of love, justice or a scientific theory.

Materialism doesn't necessarily hold that literally everything in the entire world can be physically touched? That would be silly. We have thoughts.

But as we have stressed throughout this text, it is irrational to consistently portray the mind as random chemical firings of synapses in the brain and a mere reflection of the physical universe and then expect one's own mind to comprehend and process reality accurately.

And I still don't understand why!!! I mean, how would we even know if we comprehend and process reality accurately? We don't know! We can't know! We only know that we comprehend and process something! That's perfectly explicable through reference to the brain! (They're not really random, I don't think?? I think synapses fire as a result of Stuff happening outside? Which means they're shaped by the physical universe? Which is what we can understand reality through?)

Furthermore, no one trusts a mind whose ancestral roots trace back beyond monkeys' minds to mindless amoebas and even to mindless, inorganic, chaotic matter.

FUCKING WHY? Why? Why? Why not? Also clearly not "no-one", lots of people do, but like, why? We are not currently inorganic matter, so why should it matter that billions of years ago our deepest ancestors were?

Naturalistic theologies and philosophies that begin with matter are incapable of explaining not only the teleological nature of the universe but also the capabilities of human minds and souls.

The universe isn't inherently teleological. The teleological argument is, like, a specific hypothesis.

What can naturalists do with mind, soul, altruism, creativity, rationality, conscience, song, and laughter?

They don't have to do anything with them particularly, but a lot of these are perfectly explicable through naturalism. I mean, laughter? Song? Birds sing, so it doesn't require human consciousness. Some people think that rats are altruistic. What does it even mean to be rational? 

He then starts talking about spontaneous generation again. AND AGAIN HE CITES PASTEUR. THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT EXPERIMENT MEANT, FOR THE THIRD TIME. He quotes George Wald from 1954 (!!) to say that evolution can't be satisfactorily explained. He references A.I. Oparin's work and suggests it was a failure, not noting that Miller's test of his theories was in 1953 and not noting that more stuff has happened since then. And there's a bunch of cherrypicked quotes to suggest that scientists support his assertions. This allows him to say this:

Thus, we discover in secular religions a faith more profound and more unfounded than that of the most rudimentary religions. 

Mm. "Rudimentary". Hm. The latest non-Christian text he quotes is from 1971, yet he says that evolution is "unfounded dogma" and "a myth". That's just...that's completely untrue? It's just not true.

The plain fact from which McGowan is shielding his eyes is this: the more honest members of his own camp admit that not one transitional fossil exists.

"More honest" by Noebel's lights. But transitional fossils do exist. There are loads of them. This was such a shock to me when I started learning about evolution -- there's no particular absence of transitional fossils at all. This is just something creationists say.

In fact, no less august an authority than the late Colin Patterson, a paleontologist with the London Museum of Natural History, admits that he does not know of any evidence, "fossil or living" that provides "direct illustration of evolutionary transitions."

This is from Chris McGowan, In the Beginning, 1984. Patterson, then living, said that his quote had been taken out of context; he was not a creationist.

According to F. B. Livingston, it would take approximately 20,000 generations, or 400,000 years, for an advantageous gene to spread among the hominid populations of the Pleistocene Era.

No citation for this? I can't find F.B. Livingston, and I can't find a source for this claim. I've googled it like five different ways.

What should surprise us is that so much of the world and, tragically, so many Christians, swallowed the entire theory and allowed it to gain such ascendancy among worldviews.

Here's the thing: if it's so incredibly widely believed by such a wide array of people, AND you can't even cite your evidence for the fact that it's false, and all you can do is say that it's obviously wrong....maybe you should question that?

The consistent evolutionist perceives human nature as morally perfect in its pristine state. 

No? This is very Christian! The consistent evolutionist perceives human nature as morally neutral, I should say. We don't ascribe moral value to the nature of animals, so the most consistent position would be that humans are similar to other animals.

We are not responsible for our wrong-doings—we are only an automaton that responds to the stimuli forced on us by society.

No! I don't think anyone thinks that and I think Noebel knows it. He's just putting it as drastically as he can to make it sound silly.

Secular and Cosmic Humanists as well as Postmodernists opt to move the same way, attacking the traditional family and encouraging experimentation, including bisexuality, homosexual marriage, open marriage, pederasty, and abortion as a means of birth control.

I do think it's interesting that he consistently attacks bisexuality separate from homosexuality, only in that biphobic queer people claim that bi people have "straight passing privilege" and thus that the religious right must hate them less. As you can see, that is not so. Also, the idea that secular culture encourages pederasty is just blatantly untrue.

Christians believe that such attacks on the traditional family form the groundwork for many of our social ills, including AIDS, drug abuse, and crime.

It's funny, he thinks that there's absolutely no way that social stimuli could cause wrongdoing or problems, and yet he keeps saying that if you remove the traditional family you get AIDS, drug abuse, and crime. This is a social stimulus. 

Examples of the cause-and-effect role the family plays in society are everywhere: poverty is epidemic among families headed by single women; young men and women between 17 and 24 years old are far more likely to abuse drugs or commit crimes if they come from fatherless homes; 

No way that the wage gap could be relevant to that first one, huh? I'd like to know where this information comes from, too. There's no source given.

legalized abortion has cheapened human life to the point that many are no longer shocked by euthanasia and child abuse rates have risen in tandem with abortion rates. 

These aren't even really concrete claims, let alone sourced.

According to the Biblical view, these destructive social tendencies can only be corrected as children are raised in loving families. 

That's an ~environmental factor~, David. It's the argument you were just saying was untrue when it came from secular sources. I don't think anyone disagrees that coming from a loving family or environment in general seriously improves children's health and well-being. The only difference is that Noebel has different standards for "loving".

How do we know whom to trust as an architect of this perfect society, since all people are theoretically tainted by their present environment? Can we trust Marx or B. F. Skinner since they were both influenced by their respective societies? Is Corliss Lament's belief that the perfect society will be socialistic fostered by his inherent goodness or a reflection of the negative impact American society has had on him? We cannot know. It is impossible to find a perfect person to shape a perfect society.

This is bewildering. Now, first of all, I personally don't think there ever will be a perfect society, but even if we assume that utopia is possible, the idea that only a perfect single person can lead to a perfect society is very, again, Christian. We don't need Secular Jesus. Hundreds of imperfect people working together to build something greater than themselves would probably be more what these particular folks are picturing. There's a very strong purity culture undertone here, I think.

Let's do a section break here. I'll pick up on the next post.