Writing as a Naturalist, Or Letting Characters Breathe on Their Own

Its no secret that I'm not a naturalist. Quite the contrary. However, I've been mulling over something that I feel could be of some interest. I'm writing a screenplay (well, several screenplays at the moment) that I've begun with no small feat. I, as a Christian Theist, am writing this -- as the title suggests -- from a more naturalistic point of view.

There are several reasons as to why I've chosen to write this way.

One, I believe it honors the exploration of truth, especially within the context of worldview determination. I don't want to give away spoilers (I'm known to be quite bad about that), so I won't divulge much, but if you know me personally, I came up with the idea in my Advanced Screenwriting Class while at Biola University, and finished the draft in two weeks. I got an A, obviously. Being the teacher's pet helps.

But in this way, I've begun a major rewrite with naturalism in mind. Its been enlightening to create a character who is (possibly undergoing a gender switch from male to female; this isn't part of the story, just wrestling with the idea of making the protagonist a women) a pure naturalist. There is nothing out there save for the wind in my eyes and the blood under my nails. The realism sans super (or extra) natural is the driving heart of the story. Exploring this idea is not only new to me, but also very interesting.

Two, I believe its a unique mental and spiritual exercise. This is a sub-section of point 1. Partially, I believe I want to honor my good friends and colleagues (mostly in film) who differ with me. What better way to do so by accurately representing a point of view I don't subscribe to? Partially, I think the more pressing point is that I was once a naturalist and in some way, it is a helpful reconstruction of a part of my life that I don't entirely recall. Either way, its a marvelous exercise to write about characters with whom are living and capable of writing themselves.

Three and finally, because I think it is the best way to tell this kind of story. This is not to suggest that I don't write Christian characters with happiness, but that if one can construct a world and a character who speaks on their own to the point of disagreeing with the narrator, well, then you've done something unique and helpful. Let the characters and the world breathe on their own. Step back. Engage and just copy down where they go.

This is by no means exhaustive, or even entirely coherent. Its simply an exercise for me, and hopefully an experiment that someday makes it (legally or illegally) to the small screen.

Thanks for reading this mild musing.

--Nick

Talking with Christopher Hitchens, or an issue with Christianity

To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation—is that good for the world?”

Beyond this being a pretty strong rhetorical power play, I do think it gets to the heart of two big issues within Christendom and how we are seen by others.

I was talking to a friend of mine at work, and as is usual with my life, the topic quickly turned to religion. My friend is a lapsed catholic, but he mentioned the two topics that seem to be the biggest turn off to Christianity.

Hell and the mistreatment of women.

Bertrand Russell said in his Sceptical Essays, "the infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell."

I'm not in favor of getting rid of 'noxious' doctrines just for the sake of pleasing the living and the dead, but I frankly agree with the sentiment of Hitchen's quote. When I was a kid, the notion of an eternal conscious fire that awaited me (and anyone else who didn't go to my church) terrified me. Only recently, I've changed my mind on the role of women in the church and it has been a major paradigm shift to see how this changes most everything.

So in many ways, this quote struck home for me. When my friend pointed out that Christians (I suppose specifically Protestants) seem to have a low view of women, I wasn't sure about what I should say. I mentioned that they view the issue as complicated, but I think he found that unhelpful when he laughed and rolled his eyes. I guess I agree with him in that the answer I would've given to both questions is strikingly unsatisfying.

Which doesn't mean one who would defend a traditionalist view of hell or women's rights is incorrect. But I and my friend didn't find the arguments compelling and went on to talk about what people believe about them and why.

Interestingly, my friend was surprised to discover that I don't believe in the very things Hitchen's and others decry about Christianity. I've found that the opinions I respond with are always met with a "really?" The conversation then turns immediately positive and, frankly, far more personal. So there is that.

Challenges like these force me to rediscover the Christian faith and take seriously why people object to much of Christianity. And Hitchens just makes me happy.

--Nick

God and the Atheists that Love Him

Star Trek?

I've followed Alain for a while, and I confess I love the guy. I've read his works and listened to his talks, and I've found him most agreeable. I put him right up there with Austin Dacey and Bart Ehrman as my favorite skeptics. In essence, Alain's project is God without God.

Obviously as a Christian, I'm inclined to snicker a bit. Then I stop and think. A place where atheists can search for and through religion and maintain their view of God. Some may be annoyed at this, others angry at the idea of compromise.

And, sure.

But, I guess my gut tells me that to search in any direction towards truth is always something that intrigues me. I kinda love it.

What should the Christian response be to this?

For the original site, HERE.

--Nick

"They Don't Believe Because Your God Isn't Desirable"

Jeff Cook:

They Don’t Believe Because Your God Isn’t Desirable

I watched the recent debate between William Lane Craig, a Christian, and Sam Harris an Atheist. The debate (seen Here) was over the foundations of morality. The Christian addressed the philosophical question at hand with skill and insight. By the midway point the atheist struck me as seriously outmatched and overpowered.

Yet then things changed. Sam Harris began putting forth a set of arguments that had nothing to do with the topic at hand: the problem of religious diversity, the problem of pain, reflections on the character of God in the Bible. By the end I thought the Atheist won—not because he actually addressed the question at hand—on that front I thought he failed. But because I don’t recall anything the Christian said that made me want to believe in his God, yet I had a worthy list of things the Atheist said that made me think the Christian God distasteful.

Is the debate about what is rational or about desire? What do you think of Jeff Cook’s notion that desire needs to be addressed more in apologetics?

Such experiences are not uncommon. Despite solid, rational rebuttals from philosophers across the board, despite the fact that the “new atheist” clan seems hopelessly naïve about ethics and epistemology—their arguments continue to gain ground because they know something Christian apologist apparently don’t.


The debate about God in our culture is not about what’s rational.

 I think Jeff has written a challenging post. My thanks to Scot for posting it. I do remember watching the debate between Craig and Harris, and though I did think Craig technically won the debate, I was left with an odd taste in my mouth.

What Harris said didn't strike me as true, nor did it strike me as a proper debate tactic. But it worked in making this very difficult to brush off.

For the rest of the post, click HERE.

--Nick

Heathen Manifesto?

Thanks to Marius for posting this for me. Quite interesting.

Quote:

In recent years, we atheists have become more confident and outspoken in articulating and defending our godlessness in the public square. Much has been gained by this. There is now wider awareness of the reasonableness of a naturalist world view, and some of the unjustified deference to religion has been removed, exposing them to much needed critical scrutiny.

Unfortunately, however, in a culture that tends to focus on the widest distinctions, the most extreme positions and the most strident advocates, the "moderate middle" has been sidelined by this debate. There is a perception of unbridgeable polarisation, and a sense that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.

It is time, therefore, for those of us who are tired of the status quo to try to shift the focus of our public discussions of atheism into areas where more progress and genuine dialogue is possible. To achieve this, we need to rethink what atheism stands for and how to present it. The so-called "new atheism" may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.

This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism's involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.

1 Why we are heathens

It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. "Humanist" is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, "rationalist" and "bright" both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.

If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves. This is no trivial point: atheism faces the human condition with honesty, and that requires acknowledging our absurdity, weakness and stupidity, not just our capacity for creativity, intelligence, love and compassion. "Heathen" fulfils this ambition. We are heathens because we have not been saved by God and because in the absence of divine revelation, we are in so many ways deeply unenlightened. The main difference between us and the religious is that we know this to be true of all of us, but they believe it is not true of them.

There are over 12 other points. The post is irenic and quite clever and calm.

For the rest, click HERE.

--Nick

An Atheist's encounter with Rob Bell & Love Wins

LINK

The article is interesting and I agree with much of what he has to say about Rob. I'll be forthright, I like Rob but I was not blown away by Love Wins. I do think the fever people had over it was unjustified and contributed greatly to it's success. But, I'm with Ben Witherington in regards to Love Wins, and it is a work of artistic poetry, not systematic theology. It is more like Psalms, not Romans.

That does not excuse the instances of Love Wins' poor theology, but it ought to at frame the discussion.

The guest author (and atheist) Ronnie Stockton offers several thoughts in this article I found compelling as well as perplexing.

First, the perplexing.


He quotes George Bush Sr., who makes (at least it appears) an incredibly restrictivist (and also isolated) comment about how atheists should not be considered citizens or patriots. There is no citation given for the quote, and although I'm confident that Bush may have had one of his legendary slipups, to not cite the quote in it's entirely in a footnote doesn't quite aide Ronnie's case about much of "US evangelical Christianity, which can appear to be the shallow religion of a narcissistic, self-interested, rampantly capitalist society." It appears uncharitable, which is odd given that most of the article is actually pretty respectful. The quote by Ronnie is overly simplistic. 

I've had someone ask me why all prominent Christians don't act like Jesus and pray for their enemies and those that persecute them. I answered because these days, if you want to see Christians being truly persecuted, go to China or the Middle East.

But even then, the issue seems to be a superficial view of the prominence of some rather than the sincerity of most. I will concede that too much of Christendom is shallow, uncritical and self-interested. And it must be changed. But too much means that there ought to never be such a thing. His question is a generalization based upon a stereotype. The issue with stereotypes and the people that break them is that often those who break stereotypes are labelled simply as exceptions and dismissed. "Just because you've become enlightened doesn't mean your system or your camp is correct" is often what this can become.

Ronnie then offers a distinction between Rob Bell and George Bush. I'll let you chuckle over the obvious differences between both men. He points to Rob's inclusive statement about Jesus, citing this as clear and honest. And I agree. But Rob Bell is not the only theologian, scholar or pastor who is inclusive about Jesus. Roger Olson, Greg Boyd, Jurgen Moltmann and many others are great examples of people who hold to the same inclusive love.

Now, I disagree with Rob Bell when it comes to inclusivism, as I am an exclusivist. But this is not something I care to die upon. Just to note it. There are better and more scholarly examples to offer than Rob Bell on this subject. I may explore inclusivism in the future, if anyone is interested.

So I'm not convinced that the dichotomy built Bell and Bush is correct.

Lastly, the compelling.


I appreciate, first and foremost, Ronnie's honestly. By the end of the article, he has shown to be considerate and without condescension (except for the notes above). The attitude helps quite a bit in furthering genuine dialogue.

Ronnie's openness to Rob has nothing to do with Rob. I think Rob would say the same thing, and point Ronnie instead to Jesus. Which, it seems, Ronnie is now beginning to investigate for himself. I also agree with Ronnie specifically about factional politics within the United States. After watching the debate between Jim Wallis and Al Mohler, I was struck by how different both men approached Jesus. Both had a systematic lens, but through very different methods. Both are Christians and love Jesus, but the emphasis is different. To someone seeking a more rigorous and apologetic-driven case, Mohler is appealing. To someone seeking a more open and practically-driven case, Wallis is appealing.

People need both systems. I see no reason to separate the two and think if one can figure out a solution to combining them, we might have something magical on our hands. If anyone has a book to recommend, hit me up in the comments.

Rob's emphasis on God's love for us seems to be quite appealing to many atheists. I know of several who have paused quite a bit when I mentioned God's overwhelming love for us, especially if it is transcendent and something they can experience, even so dimly. It seems that Ronnie desires a relationship with Christians and, simply put, to talk about who we are. Nobody likes being talked *at* but people love talking about themselves.

Its time we sat down and let them speak. The more we learn about them, the more we can empathize and love them. Even Ronnie admits that what Bell did was point him to Christ.

"What is increasingly apparent to me though of course is that Rob Bell is talking about Jesus – thus the story that speaks to me is the story of Christ. Before this recent stage of my journey, I positioned my atheism from the perspective of someone who does not believe in organised religion. But now I want to explore the ties that bind my ethical beliefs to the perspective of faith. What I’m learning is that the Christian message chimes far more tunefully with my own than I had realised."

I'm not certain how I feel about him believing Rob Bell is a spokesperson for a generation, as I think Bell has quite a ways to go to figure out his theology, but I understand the sentiment. I do not think the progressive politics and theology are necessary, as Ronnie seems to indicate in his final paragraph. I know many conservatives who are open and honest with their doubts, their fears and their love for Jesus. I count myself as one of them. Progressive politics and theology does not equal openness.

But, at the end of the day, I admire atheists who are honest, irenic and seek truth. If the evidence leads them to Jesus, then I'm glad Rob Bell wrote Love Wins. This does not mean Love Wins was a particularly good book. But it caused a great many of people to think in ways they have never done before, including Ronnie. I would only hope that they progress towards Jesus and his teachings, and not rest until they've found him. I think Ronnie's final words written sum up everything nicely.

"Furthermore, from a self-interested perspective, although not ‘a believer’, I feel more involved and included and, most importantly, open and curious towards faith and the message of Jesus."

To future dialogues and to truth alone. God bless.

--Nick

Atheism & "The God Wars"

This was enlightening. Several atheists sat down and discussed various differing opinions about their aversion/respect towards religion. Some even suggested very non-mainstream atheist approaches that backfired on them.

"Alain De Botton is the most recent and, consequently, the most shocked victim. He has just produced a book, Religion for Atheists: a Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, mildly suggesting that atheists like himself have much to learn from religion and that, in fact, religion is too important to be left to believers. He has also proposed an atheists' temple, a place where non-believers can partake of the consolations of silence and meditation. 

This has been enough to bring the full force of a neo-atheist fatwa crashing down on his head. The temple idea in particular made them reach for their best books of curses.
“I am rolling my eyes so hard that it hurts," wrote the American biologist and neo-atheist blogger P Z Myers. "You may take a moment to retch. I hope you have buckets handy." Myers has a vivid but limited prose palette.  

There have been threats of violence [as well]. . ."

To continue, NewStatesman article

--Nick

Why Satan is more powerful than God: a brief (and hopefully) thoughtful critique

First, the (kinda cool) image:

I will be responding to each line. First, a summation.

There are numerous assumptions either hidden or shown via this picture. The classic "problem of evil," which cannot be dismissed these days, seems to be one such assumption. This is not a negation of the problem of evil, nor is it in anyway praising it. I realize and have struggled with the problem of evil in the past, though mostly due to not having a developed theodicy and simply not knowing how to respond to objections.

But, the issue is not about heaven or hell, or Satan being more powerful or intelligent. It seems to be far more indicative about the nature of God, and how this person sees him.

Line one:

I'm not certain I disagree. However, the verses cited in support do not necessarily support an eternal conscious existence. The verse cited in Romans specifically mentions death, not hell. Revelation is an ambiguous passage that simply states that there are people outside the gates -- gates that never shut. I'm currently reading a book by Brad Jersak called "Her Gates Never Shut" that explores the concept of Revelation and the 'gates that never shut.' More to come.

This does not necessarily support the idea of "hell" as "hell" or hades, is thrown into the lake of fire earlier in chapter 20. Which leaves it open for a possible discussion as to what happens. Many would disagree, but I think there is plenty of room for interpretation.

Line two:

There are MANY other verses that support the idea of God desiring/willing that all men would be saved. Arminians wouldn't disagree, nor would Calvinists (though they have a different take on the phrase "all men.")

I Timothy 2:4 speaks of God's desire to save all men/ Romans 11:32 speaks of having mercy upon all/ Lamentations 3:22 & 3:31-33 speak about God not rejecting forever and being bountiful in love/ The (almost annoying) cliche verse John 3:16.

I'm not certain much more needs to be said. Just that God's love is far greater than one verse. I'm also not convinced that this a secondary goal or desire of his, and indeed I would question the assumption that God's primary goal is to glorify himself. But that is a conversation for another time between friends (hopefully) over alcohol.

Line three:

Wikipedia is not a necessarily valid source of information. I prefer redditt. There are many books written about Biblical prophecy, and simply reading them for yourself is best.

In short, this line ought to be dismissed until actual evidence is offered.

Line four:

I would argue that there are some great reasons (somewhat controversial reasons) that support this claim. But, sure, I don't disagree about what Christ's death accomplished. I prefer the classical view of the atonement versus Penal Substitution, but I'm not interested in dying on any particular hills this evening.

Line five:

I'm not certain Luke 13 is necessarily a parable or not. Instead, it seems that again Jesus is drawing a specific parallel between the people who claimed his name and did not act according to his teachings and the people who acted in accordance with Christ. In fact, I think verse 30 (which was not cited) sums up the entire thrust of the section:

"Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

See the story of Jacob and Esau, as one the lesser will rule the former. And yet they were reconciled at a later time.

This fits perfectly with the parable about the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. It does not seem to speak specifically about eschatological judgment, or even "hell", but of right action inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is, of course, based on the brief memory of an F.F. Bruce commentary on the NT where I think he mentioned something along those lines. I could be mistaken, but it seems to make some sort of sense right now. If shown wrong, I'll re-write. We are very quick to jump upon any teaching about 'hell', but we're also very quick to miss the simplicity of many parables. I think this is a classic example.

So, indeed, v30 of Luke's gospel doesn't necessarily explain eschatological judgment, but provides us with what Christ preached about how we are to act now in accordance with his teachings. Reversalism seems to be the main thrust of the passage, and is amply supported by multiple other Scriptures.

Line six:

I think all Christians would dispute this. My analysis is very brief and simplistic, and I attempt no caricature.

Calvinists would say that God chose specific people in accordance with his purpose and for his glory. This includes only the elect. They would say that God only intended to save the remnant, and thus this satisfies his plan of which the elect are saved.

See John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Gordon Clark. 

Arminians would affirm that God loves everyone, but allows for human freedom and rejection. God does accomplish his plans, but human freedom trumps His ultimate desire for the salvation of all men. His plan to save all according to his foreknowledge, and the fact that all will eventually know of God, is complete. That some do not go to heaven is on the shoulders of those that refuse the free gift of grace, but God's plan on offering salvation is complete.

See Roger Olson, Jacob Arminius, Howard Marshall and Thomas Oden. 

Universalists (specifically Christian and exclusively through Jesus) affirm that God accomplishes his entire will, and that He factored human freedom into his sovereign will, or that through the unlimited election of all souls in compliance with the 4 other points of Calvinism, all shall be saved. This concludes the simple fact that He will save everyone in the end.

I think this option has a lot more weight than previously thought.

See Thomas Talbott, George MacDonald and Robin Parry.

All of the three systems triumphs over Satan, as Satan is genuinely defeated in the end -- either through imprisonment, ultimate death or reconciliation. The elect is saved. All of humanity is without excuse to reject God. All of humanity, regardless of Satan's attempts, will be saved.

Either way, the question is answered and the assertion is ultimately insufficient in it's overall critique.

--Nick

For a different and more Reformed perspective, check out this link from my friend Brandon:

http://www.brandonmelton.com/?p=1737

Glenn Peoples, "Are Theodicies Ad Hoc?"

Glenn Peoples posted this. I found it quite compelling in his response to Stephen Law. They had an interested debate on Unbelievable so go check that out.

Beretta Cast -- Are Theodicies Ad Hoc?

--Nick

Why Satan is more powerful than God -- the image part I

I will post my brief critique in the morning. For now, let me know what ya'll think. For it's (grave) flaws, it's definitely artistic. Dig the style.

By the way, this is NOT my photo. I found it. On the side of the road.

--Nick

Penn Jillette on "Why Tolerance is Condescending"

Penn is often times a breathe of fresh air, though I (obviously) disagree with him. Worth checking out the video below. 


Penn & Tolerance

Physical senses as objective lens?

1) A physical reality that his perception does not change. If you look at a tree, then turn away, the tree is still there. 

But what if people do not see the tree? What if you don't see the tree, but only think you do?

I'm not convinced that Penn's claims are objective only in the sense that he pits his own feelings about what is objective (his senses) against what other people "feel" (their mind). It seems to be a false equivocation and by implication, I'm not certain his love for objective truth is all that objective. Though I share his belief in that objective truth exists, I think other criteria is better attested than my sensory perception.

If his senses are what define objectivity (which I find odd given that his senses can only really apply to himself given that they are HIS senses, which seems to make his claims of objectivity entirely subjective), then it makes sense if only within the realm of his own mind that he appears to be objective. After all, within his own sensory perspective, everything seems to be objective. 

2) "I can't prove it but I've got a feeling in my heart. . . "

First, I'm not convinced that an emotional appeal to such a thing is even necessary given other criteria for God's existence. 

Second, I'm not certain, given Penn's criteria, that he would even be able to critique such a view in the first place.

Third, there is a difference between God and The Beatles, even if John Lennon was close to his original claim. Of course I don't even like The Beatles, so this is irrelevant. 

Fourth, there is also a difference between murder and benevolent belief in a deity. Unless that deity tells you to kill Sharon Tate, then ehh, maybe she had it coming. 

3) His honesty

I appreciate his commends about honesty. It is genuinely refreshing. I find Penn to be a dude I'd love to kick back and smoke something with. Being "busted on our bullshit" is a necessity, and I expect the same here if I am incorrect. 

So, bravo sir. I love reflection and I expect to get along very well with Penn in the new world.

4) Religious Tolerance and My left Foot

Here, I entirely agree with Penn on religious tolerance. I tend to get along with people who listen to what I have to say, mull it over for a bit, and come back with a damn good comment that I don't have an answer for.

I love that. Being nice to me is all well and good (and it helps get me into a nicer mood to discuss), but overall I think Penn is entirely correct in his comments here. I get along with liberal Christians as people, but I prefer to be discussed with instead of dismissed as "my own truth or opinion." Which, of course, is indeed my own opinion.

Thanks Penn. You've made another fan.

--Nick