Recently I post a blog entry called “A (genuine) Generous Orthodoxy.” In it, I mentioned in passing that I wouldn’t rule out a non-trinitarian from being “saved” with any kind of certainty. Shortly afterwards, I received an email from someone who does in fact deny the doctrine of the Trinity yet still identifies as a Christian.

This fellow had a question for me, although it had nothing to do with my post on generous orthodoxy. The question was: If the Trinity is such an essential doctrine, why isn’t it explicitly taught all in one place anywhere in the Bible? Why is it the kind of thing that you can only understand by inferring it from a whole bunch of statements in the Bible and then trying to synthesise those statements into a coherent system? Why couldn’t the biblical writers just state it plainly and simply in one utterance, especially if it’s so important?

I think there are several things to say in response to the question, and in answering the question I think we gain a better understanding of the nature of systematic theology, as well as – in my view – the relative importance that we attribute to certain doctrines. What I have to say here is not about whether the doctrine of the Trinity is biblical or not (although it is).
Interested? Read the rest.

This random thought was prompted by me hearing a radio interview with Dinesh D’Souza today. It seems to me that in the wake of obvious defeats in public debates, some atheists throw their former champions under a bus.

When Bill Cooke debated William Lane Craig on the existence of God, Dr Cooke very clearly lost. This was the assessment of those who observed on the whole, regardless of whether they wrere a religious believer or not. The New Zealand atheists (e.g. folks supportive of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists) who were keen to see the debate happen changed their tune and decided that Bill Cooke just wasn’t a good representative of their viewpoint, and that’s why the debate turned out that way.

When John Loftus debated Dinesh D’Souza on the existence of God – and Mr Loftus unambiguously went down in flames, the atheists who were keen to see the debate happen (e.g. those supportive of John’s labours at the Debunking Christianity blog) changed their tune and decided that John Loftus just wasn’t a good representative of their viewpoint, and that’s why the debate turned out that way.

When Raymond Bradley debated Matthew Flannagan on whether or not it’s rational to think that God is the source of morality – and very clearly lost, the atheists who were keen to see the debate happen changed their tune and decided that Raymond Bradley just wasn’t a good representative of their viewpoint, and that’s why the debate turned out that way.

I wonder what those same atheists would have thought had been established if, in any of these cases, they had thought that their man had won. Would the only telling oucome have been if the atheist won? Is there anyone who would be a good representative? It seems they think their spokespeople are just devastating – until they are actually put to the test.

My random thought for the day.

If you are a scholar who has authored a book in philosophy or theology, published by a reputable publishing house, then I want to hear from you if you’re interested in what follows.

In the humanities (maybe in other fields too, but who cares), one of the best ways to have a book published is to have an already published scholar take an interest in the project and to recommend it. As this would be the first such project that I have attempted, the advice of someone who has been there and done that would be invaluable.

As indicated above, the type of book I am talking about is a book with high quality essays from a number of writers (up to 15). In order to raise the profile of the project, I would like to have a few/couple of essays in the volume to be contributed by people who are already established scholars with well received published works.

If you are someone who might be able to help in either of these roles, then I want to hear from you. If I don’t hear from anybody through this announcement/request then I will be looking around for advice on who to contact, but if you’re reading this and you think you fit the bill, then this process can be made all the simpler.

What sort of people am I looking for? You’ll need a PhD in philosophy, in theology, or in political science (or something that relates closely to one of these like jurisprudence or religious studies). You’ll need to be active in academia, preferably as a faculty member in one of these areas at an accredited university or college. You’ll have an interest in the relationship between political, moral or social philosophy or law on the one hand, and theology or philosophy of religion on the other. In particular, you’ll have an interest in the subject of religion in the public square. Importantly, you’ll have had works published in these or similar fields, and these works will be generally well received by their target audience.

If you’re interested in contacting me as someone who might take up one of these two roles, the nature of the project is as follows: The book will be a collection of high quality scholarly essays on various aspects of the relationship (or appropriate lack thereof) between religious convictions and social, political and legal arrangements. The book will be written by emerging scholars – people who have graduated with PhDs in their respective fields but who are not yet established in the literature. The book aims to be a serious multi-faceted contribution to the case against the modern western liberal democratic doctrine that religious beliefs should not serve as the basis of political or legal arrangements, doctrines or policies. My own contribution to the work will be an essay arguing that a thoroughgoing secular outlook cannot account for a descriptive doctrine of human equality, and that the doctrine is best construed as one that requires theological presuppositions.

Subjects for other essays in the volume might include:

• The major contributions that religiously motivated laws and policies have made in history to the good of society in the liberal democratic or classical liberal tradition.
• Whether or not there exists a defensible non-religious account of p, where p is some important principle needed to ground a liberal democratic polity.
• Critical and original reflections on an argument or set of arguments for the removal of religious convictions from political and public decision making and policy advocacy.
• Proposals to tackle the issue of competing or clashing religious (or secular) ideologies in a pluralistic democratic society – if we allow political advocacy for religious reasons.
• Difficulties in avoiding religious discrimination in legislation – or the levels of acceptable discrimination.

- as well as many other possibilities.

The ideal publisher for this project would be a major university press (Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Harvard) or mainstream academic publisher in the humanities such as Routledge, Blackwell, or Sage (naturally, these are examples only).

If you might be interested in one of the ways described above, please contact me using the “Contact Us” button over on the right hand side.

Glenn Peoples

OK, I start with an admission: The title of this blog entry isn’t really fair to Brian McLaren. (Incidentally, for more posters like the one at the top of this blog, check them out here).

I say the title’s not fair – that is, if taken a certain way – because as the poster illustrates, there are those who don’t think that McLaren’s approach in his book A Generous Orthodoxy is particularly generous towards those with whom he disagrees, nor do they believe he is particularly orthodox. He’s made his name as one of the kingpins of “emergent” Christianity. I have not read any books or articles by McLaren, so I can’t say for myself whether or not these assessments are correct, and yet the blog title could easily give the impression that I have read the book and agree with these negative assessments. So let me be clear: The only reason that I included the word “genuine” here is to say: “Look, if you don’t think McLaren’s book is generous or orthodox, please set that aside because what I’m about to say has nothing to do with that book as I haven’t read it. Even if you think the generous orthodoxy in that book isn’t genuine, hopefully you might still think that my generous orthodoxy is genuine.” OK? Now, down to business.

I’m genuinely orthodox as far as the Christian faith goes, and I’m also an evangelical Protestant of sorts. I embrace the classic doctrines of the Christian faith: The Trinity, the virgin birth of Jesus, the saving death and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, the return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead and so on. Those are summed up in the Nicene Creed (and if you didn’t realise that the inspiration of Scripture was covered there, look at what the Creed says about the Holy Spirit when it adds “He has spoken through the prophets”).

As far as Protestantism goes, I’m fairly theologically conservative there too. I’m most comfortable with Calvinism as an understanding of the biblical teaching on salvation (although note to my Catholic friends: this is pretty much the same as what St Augustine taught). However, I’m open minded about Molinism, and think that it’s definitely a live option (although I do not current believe that it is correct). When it comes to the “Five Solas” of Protestant theology: sola fide, sola gratia, sola Christus, sola scriptura and sola Deo gloria, I affirm them (again with the caveat that I leave the door open to Molinism).

I hold to what I call orthodoxy because I affirm these things to be true. Now, some of these things aren’t even necessary for orthodoxy. The five solas are not held by Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christians, for example, yet they still hold to what I see as the minimal standards of orthodoxy. When I say that I affirm a “generous” orthodoxy, I do not mean that I’m flexible on whether or not I think these things are correct. If someone denies the Trinity, they’re objectively, factually mistaken. They are wrong, we are right. Ditto for the resurrection of Jesus and the rest of them. Bear this in mind as you read on.
Interested? Read the rest.

It seems that statistical findings (and the way they are interpreted and reported) have occupied my attention lately.

A little while ago I looked at some unpopular stats: There aren’t as many homosexuals out there as some want us to think (who knows why), and more young Muslims condone suicide bombing than they’d like us to think.

Then I looked at stats on religious people and atheists when it comes to knowledge of religion (and Christianity in particular). There I noted that when they want to limit their group to exclude under-performers, some atheists construed atheism in a very narrow way when it results in them getting better scores (as a group) in tests on religion, but when it comes to comparisons between their knowledge of Christianity with the knowledge that Christians have, while maintaining their own narrow categorisation, they combine high scoring Christian groups with low scoring Christian groups, ensuring that atheists (narrowly defined) score better.

This time I’m prompted by a couple of comments that were made during my discussion with Arif Ahmed on the Unbelievable radio show with Justin Brierly (the recording of this show should be available via the unbelievable podcast any day now I think). We were discussing whether or not there can be moral facts in the absence of God. As a kind of aside, our host Justin asked us what we thought the world would be like if everyone was an atheist – or a Christian, for that matter. My response was that we can’t really gaze into a crystal ball on this one. I did add that anecdotally I knew of plenty of people who were no longer Christians at least partly because they wanted to indulge in a lifestyle that fell outside the moral constraints of Christian ethics. (Incidentally Jim Spiegel’s book, which I reviewed, covers this in a little more depth).

Arif’s reply was that there’s no evidence that Christian belief makes people more moral, and there’s good evidence of an “inverse relationship” between religious belief socially dysfunctional behaviour (from memory, the example he used was crime). He didn’t name the study, but it’s one that is widely cited, although usually very briefly. It’s covered in a paper by Gregory Paul in the Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 7 (2005). In brief – and I don’t dispute the findings of the study – in parts of the world where there is a high degree of religiosity (actually for accuracy’s sake we should say “a high degree of religiosity existing alongside a minority of unbelief”) there also exist a higher level of what many or most of us think of as social ills: “homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion.” Again in the interests of accuracy, it should be noted that the kind of religious belief in question was stipulated to be ant-evolutionary belief in a creator. In looking at the countries (and states) referred to, the reader will correctly deduce that the alternative belief is generally some form of young earth creationism.

But does this really mean that there’s “no evidence” (Arif’s phrase) that Christian belief has a positive moral affect on those who hold it? No, it doesn’t. In fact we know of precisely such evidence.
Interested? Read the rest.

You know, it’s actually hard work coming up with new subjects to write podcast episodes on. I’ve done thirty-seven so far and you’ve all just sat back and soaked it up.

So now it’s time to get involved. I want to hear from listeners about what they’d like to hear episodes on. Anything in philosophy, theology, biblical studies or anything you think might suit Say Hello to my Little Friend. You can leave a comment on this blog entry, or (and) get in touch via the “Contact us” button over on the right.

The short answer is: No.

You may have noticed a bit of buzz recently about a new survey that (so the buzz is saying) shows that atheists know more about Christianity than Christians do. I’ve seen self professed atheists make this claim online before, and now their bias confirmation tendencies have kicked into overdrive with the release of a recent Pew Forum study.

Let’s do some checking (sorry infidels.org, it’s what some of us do).
Interested? Read the rest.

I’m not a physicist or a cosmologist. When Stephen Hawking’s recent book came out, and his media releases gave the impression that he had some new theory and had now shown in some new way that God didn’t create the universe, I made an unwarranted assumption. At first sight, I made the assumption that other atheists who were also physicists would latch onto Hawking’s claims with gusto.

Now, obviously Christians who are physicists – and those who aren’t – wouldn’t buy Hawking’s claim. But what has proved really interesting (to me, at least) is the way that atheists are turning on hawking. Not atheists in general necessarily. Internet discussion boards about how irrational and stupid religion is are, of course, stuffed to bursting point with triumphant comments about how amazing and devastating Hawking’s work is against religious faith. That would be a given regardless of what was between the covers of the book, I daresay. But those comments aren’t coming from physicists, they’re coming (usually) from students with too much time on their hands.

I have come to see that this was all bluster and bluff. The reality (not to be confused with rumour) is that Hawking’s claims are anything but the stuff of triumphant announcement. In fact some of the most highly regarded people in Hawking’s own field are portraying the book in a rather unfavourable light.
Interested? Read the rest.

Jeremy has posted the September 2010 Biblioblog rankings. It ranks a bunch of serious blogs that cover theology and biblical studies (and it also includes John Loftus’s blog – we all feel bad for the guy). Apparently I’m number 8. For now.

Recently I was interviewed on the Theopologetics podcast, which is run by Chris Date. The title of the episode was “Let’s Get Physical,” and Chris invited me to discuss my belief in physicalism as a philosophy of mind from a Christian and biblical point of view. Check out that episode here, or at the iTunes store.