Phil describes his recent adventure in “Atheist-land!” A pastor decides to try atheism for a year, and is surprised to find his denomination doesn’t want to keep paying his salary! And one of Christian’s best friends stops by for a visit! Faith, fun and friends – all in one podcast!
Listen to the episode | Download this episode | Find this episode on iTunes
Love the podcast, however… “why don’t atheists have really inspiring art or music?” Listen to Tim Minchin lately? “White Wine in the Sun”, or “Not Perfect”, or the soundtrack for Matilda (esp. When I Grow Up, or My House). Ever read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley? There has been a lot of amazing lit and music made by fully fledged atheists. I don’t think that’s an argument you should continue to make!
Frankenstein is an excellent piece of modern literature, but I would hardly call it “inspiring.” In fact, the story’s culmination is about as distraught and hopeless as Ecclesiastes seems to be. Atheism isn’t trying to “inspire” anyone — it generally is making the claim that there is no higher purpose or deeper meaning by which to be inspired.
This is a completely separate argument from whether or not there is intriguing or stimulating art, music, literature, etc., to be found in atheist circles. (read: haven’t seen the podcast yet) It is possible for a thing to be challenging and even, perhaps, enriching without being inspiring.
I tossed off the above comment too quickly, naming a couple of atheist artists/authors who I do, actually, consider inspiring (yes, even Mary Shelley in an odd way). But I’m sorry I put my name to it without the proper effort to clarify what I meant.
Broad generalizations like, “no atheist ever created really inspiring art or music” cheapen and destroy your reasoned, researched, and reasonable arguments against atheism. Define “inspiring”. Give a definitive checklist of whether or not something has made the grade. Whether or not a specific artwork is “inspiring” is a matter of opinion, even among educated critics, and to make the statement that Skye does in this podcast makes me think less of his other, and more reasoned, arguments and opinions.
Wikipedia has failings, but here is a link to a (probably flawed) list of “Atheist Musicians”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_music
Ralph Vaughan Williams, Dmitry Shostakovich, Camille Saint-Saens, Rimsky-Korsakov, Prokofiev, Berlioz, Bartok, Bizet….none of them created “inspiring” music?
Authors (again, probably flawed…):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_authors
Albert Camus, Chekhov, Arthur Miller, Douglas Adams, E. M. Forster, George Eliot, George Bernard Shaw, Robert Graves, Stephen Fry, etc….none of them of great artistic worth? None that would inspire a person to greater acts of human kindness or even to think deeply about their spiritual condition?
Visual art: harder to find, but…Maurice Sendak, Picasso, Claude Monet? None of their art is inspiring?
Again, my point is not that atheists make the best art, but that you should not generalize one way or the other. If Skye wants to present himself as a reasonable person–one who approaches intellectual subjects with reason–having researched and thought things through (which I have found he generally does) then please, please, quit using broad generalizations, and especially quit using this one. It’s just not defensible, and to my (somewhat) informed opinion, it is just not true.
goodreads.comI wanted to comment on Peter Boghossian’s claim of what would cause him to believe in God. He is making a claim that only something that is literally impossible to occur will change his beliefs. There are two possibilities that could cause Peter’s scenario to occur: the first is that he, and everyone else in the world would be hallucinating and experience seeing their name written with the stars at the same time. The way he has stated this claim, at least how you have described it on the podcast, implies that every star is used to actively spell the letters of his name and that the rest of the sky would be dark. Were this to occur through hallucination or a similar effect, I assume that Peter would claim that it was not in reality that it occurred and would therefore discredit its validity, as any atheist making this claim likely would. This would allow him to continue his belief that there is no god completely unharmed.
Another issue with this possibility is that his claim involves the nighttime sky and every person on the planet. The stars are never visible to every individual on the planet at the same exact time, even with the possibility of everyone using a telescope at the same time, as the earth is awful big and gets in the way of people viewing all the stars at the same time. You can’t see Polaris in the southern hemisphere, for example. So in order for Peters claim to work every living person would need to be in relatively the same area as one another. While this is not completely impossible, the logistics of its occurrence are so that we may consider it to be so.
As well as the issue of literacy, not every person can read and can recognize their name spelled in the stars.
So far every part of this explanation renders his claim either practically impossible or in the case of hallucination, easily discredited.
The alternative to this scenario is that God were to actually move the stars to achieve Peter’s challenge. God simply couldn’t do that. I”m not saying that God cannot move the stars, but rather achieving this claim is logically impossible.
While I’m certain that it is possible to arrange the stars that every name can be seen by every person, there are a few requirements that it would need.
1) God would be allowed to use infinite space.
2) The luminosity of every star would be so that they can be viewed at all infinite distances.
3) The speed of light would need to be so that light travels infinitely fast and does not require time to travel (light takes 8 minutes to reach earth from the sun, for example).
4) The luminosity of every single star would have to be distributed equally so that every star is visible at all times (Peter did say EVERY star).
5) Being that our sun is also a star, life on earth would have to occur without the energy given by our star.
6) Gravity cannot influence the movement of the stars.
7) Every star would need to be transported immediately to its required position (Peter said spelled, not being spelled).
8) The necessity of the constraints of human viewing stated in the previous scenario must also be addressed.
Given all of these then I believe it would be absolutely possible for God to move the stars in such a manner. Unfortunately the world we live in exists under laws of physics that cannot ever be broken. This particular version of the argument reminds me of the square circle argument or what is better known to some as the law of noncontradiction. My response to this I feel is best started by C.S. Lewis:
“His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.
If you choose to say, ‘God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,’ you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, ‘God can.’
It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”
Quote used from following link: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/28243-his-omnipotence-means-power-to-do-all-that-is-intrinsically
Hey Phil, my daughter heard you speak at Wheaton College Chapel and she told me about the podcast in November. I love any good discussion about theology that doesn’t take itself too seriously but helps us think through current issues. 🙂 So, I’ve only ever known the podcast as a video feed and I love it.
Here is something I’d love to hear you discuss… Since you used this phrase, “God showed up!” on the podcast today, I’d like you to comment on its current popular use vs the Biblical accuracy and tone of it. Kevin Vanhoozer says to be a theologian is to speak well of God, and I just find this phrase, to be highly disrespectful to God. I know what people mean by it, and their intent is to honor God at work in their lives. But to me it disregards how God is ALWAYS at work for our good Rom 8:28 and even allowing the very cells of our body function so that we can take another breath of the air God provides as we utter the phrase. I guess it seems to promote a self centered theology where God is here to meet my needs. To me it smacks of the new term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism which would say that God is not involved in my life except when I need Him. Of course it wouldn’t be as fun to say, “I showed up to see God work in a powerful way” but I find that to be slightly more accurate and respectful. What are your thoughts on the accurate use of the phrase and Skye’s thoughts as a Pastor on how it shapes our view of the way God works?
It was great to hear Sarah Murdock share about her experience in Africa. As one who was raised an MK in Spain, and who is now working in ministry in Mexico, I can identify with some of what she shared about herself as well as about her kids. I left Spain to go to college (Wheaton) and remember that sense of being an American foreigner in your own soil. Some might hear what she said about the American church and her unwillingness to point out a specific flaw or weakness as too afraid to boldly state what she might be perceiving. However, it is good when people who might be able to give an “expert,” “external” and “objective” perspective about the American church, choose to point out that there is good and bad in church contexts throughout the world. Her diplomatic response was humble and wise and I applaud her for it.
Hey Phil, I’ve got some news about an upcoming event involving Boghossian that I think you’ll be very interested to hear about. Just shoot me an e-mail and I’d love to provide you with more details. Thanks!
Just wanted to say that i have been having a friendly and respectful debate with a friend of a friend on social media. It’s great timing, isn’t it? It’s mainly been on the topic of Hell and people who never have the chance to believe in Jesus. And the point was made that many other religions have gods, so why believe the Christian God only?
Some of the atheist conversation should have been pushed out of the plane. Give more time to the guests. Sarah needed at least half the time. Let her close out with her poetry to mix things up a bit. But thanks for putting on a missionary to remind us of brothers and sisters in a different cultural context.