Can Michael Shermer Be Good without God?

Fellow atheist/skeptic PZ Myers drops this hand grenade on Michael Shermer's credibility, who wrote a book along the lines of the title of this post.

I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do, I can do no other. I will again emphasize, though, that I have no personal, direct evidence that the event occurred as described; all I can say is that the author is known to me, and she has also been vouched for by one other person I trust. The author is not threatening her putative assailant with any action, but is solely concerned that other women be aware of his behavior. The only reason she has given me this information is that she has no other way to act.

What do you do when someone pulls the pin and hands you a grenade? by PZ Myers

The Law is Just (pt. 5): Exodus 21:28-36 - Animals, Manslaughter and Slaves

In our previous post I alluded to the fact that our attention would turn towards property rights as we approach the end of chapter 21 going into 22. Specifically, the end of chapter 21 contains some interesting case laws pertaining to property, manslaughter, and the question of justice as it relates to slaves. The passage reads:

“If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, then the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be acquitted. But if the ox tended to thrust with its horn in times past, and it has been made known to his owner, and he has not kept it confined, so that it has killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owner also shall be put to death. If there is imposed on him a sum of money, then he shall pay to redeem his life, whatever is imposed on him. Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

“And if a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls in it, 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money to their owner, but the dead animal shall be his.

“If one man’s ox hurts another’s, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the money from it; and the dead ox they shall also divide Or if it was known that the ox tended to thrust in time past, and its owner has not kept it confined, he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead animal shall be his own." (Ex. 21:28-36 NKJV)

The first observation to be made about this text is that it exemplifies both a high view of property rights, as well as responsibilities, as it pertains to human life. In keeping with the sanctity that is placed on human life throughout the Torah, even an animal is required to suffer the death penalty if it kills a human being. This is keeping in line with the theology of common grace that appears in the Noahic covenant. Recall that God said to Noah:

"But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man." (Gen. 9:4,5 NKJV)

Some may argue that this is cruel to the animal, in that animals often kill human beings without intent, and certainly aren't aware of the concept of "murder." However, it must be recognized that in the Biblical worldview animals are subordinate to man, yet still valuable as creatures of God (as we will see later in the law). The law is primarily about our duty to God and man, and underneath our duty to man is the assumption that man is God's unique image bearer, who is the crown of his creation. Therefore, it is appropriate in the Scriptural worldview for the life of man to be placed over the life of animals in virtually all circumstances. Therefore, a rampaging animal was made a subject of capital punishment in light of the life that was taken and other lives which could be spared by putting the creature down. The latter point (the protection of other lives) is implied by verse 29 where the owner becomes responsible if this is a known behavior that he has failed to prevent. In that case, the owner of the animal is legible for the death penalty. In other words, the Bible here upholds what we commonly refer to as laws against manslaughter. That is, the reckless taking of human life, without evidence of premeditation or evil intent. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Imago Dei as introduced in Genesis 9. In a modern context, texts such as these legitimize consumer advocacy which seeks to regulate the sale of goods and services to the end that they be safe for human use/consumption. Unfortunately, in our day, in the name of "libertarianism" many Christians have opposed such activism and laws, even though their concern can be perfectly in line with the general equity of the Law. So the law has a very high standard to protect all of human life. But what about when the text says, "If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned"? Are slaves not as valuable as non-slaves?

As I pointed out in the first post of the series, and have repeatedly reiterated, Old Testament slavery must be viewed in its ancient near-eastern context. Biblical slavery is non-Chattel, debt-bondage slavery, which was limited by term and basic rights given to the slaves (ie freedom and payment if they were physically abused). However, while they were given basic rights and a limit of term, God did not ordain slavery as an institution that was to be made attractive. After all, God had redeemed his people from slavery in Egypt. They were not to be lifelong slaves to debt, as most people are today. So while the Torah places sanctity on human life, along with that it also upholds a high view of justice in human relationships. Debtors were to be slaves to their masters, until the debt was paid. And until that debt was paid, their identity and life revolved around the fact that they were indebted. Hence why they were to participate in the institution of slavery. Therefore, the number one thing hanging over their heads was the property which was to be restored to its rightful owner (who presumably had loaned it to them with no interest). Of course the creditor could always forgive the debt, but in unstable agrarian economies of the ancient near-east, this was unlikely. The whole economy would be effected by mismanaged debt, as our own was recently, but in a much more dramatic fashion. So while slaves were protected, and still viewed as human, the debt hanging over their head was of number one concern. This can be observed in the text, where the animal is stoned for killing a human (the slave is still above animals), but the punishment for the anima'ls careless owner is 30 pieces of silver rather than his life. That was a hefty sum which would easily compensate for the lost of labor/wealth from the slave who is no longer able to replace it. But what is interesting in the text is the juxtaposition that is made between sons/daughters and slaves. The text says, "Whether it has gored a son or gored a daughter, according to this judgment it shall be done to him. If the ox gores a male or female servant, he shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned." The loss of a child required a loss of life from the animals owner, but the loss of life of a slave required 30 shekels of silver. Now observe what Paul says in Galatians 4:1-7:

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born[a] of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of[b] God through Christ."

As Paul tells us in Philippians 2, Christ took on the form of a servant (slave), even though he was the eternal Son of God. And he took on the form of a servant to pay the debt that we all owe as fallen image bearers of God. Christ fulfilled the positive righteousness that we owed to God, as well as taking the covenant sanctions of the eternal wrath of God upon Himself, on the cross. When Christ was handed over the price was thirty pieces of silver.

"Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?” And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver. So from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him." (Mt. 26:14-16 NKJV)

The chief priests paid the price of a slave to Judas, as they were about to hand Jesus over to the Roman beast, to be trampled under foot. Because of that, Christ has paid our debt, so that we receive the adoption as sons of the Most High. So again, we see the context for the Gospel being formed through the stipulations of that "archaic" Old Testament law. God's law prepares the way for His grace in Christ.

The rest of the text deals with the issue of animals and property and expands upon the notion of justice as it applies to animals killing each other, or facing accidental death on property of someone else. Again, the principle here appears to be "eye for an eye," or a strong "equivocal" view of justice. However, nothing here contradicts the notions of justice common to most societies, or the precepts of the rest of God's Word. In our next installment we will look closely at some more examples of property rights out of the book of Exodus and how it applies to our contemporary justice system.

A Monument to the Fool

Starke, Fla--On Sunday, June 30th, a monument to Atheism was unveiled at the Bradford County Courthouse. The unveiling comes after an unsuccessful effort by atheists to remove a five ton granite slab that contains the Ten Commandments.

Atheists sued to have the Ten Commandments removed, but, during mediation on the case, they were told they could have a monument too. So the atheists took the stance that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

The monument was designed to be functional and has a bench for people to sit on. This is supposed to reflect the atheist focus on the real and tangible. The monument has several quotes by Madelyn Murray O'Hair, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. It also has a list of punishments for breaking the Ten Commandments. The atheists made sure to point out that the punishment for atheism is death.

Atheists have hailed this monument as a victory for free speech and atheism. Local Christians see it as an intrusion of outsiders upon local values of those who live in the "Bible Belt." Freedom of Speech is granted to the atheist as well as the Christian, but I do wonder why atheists from Washington DC, have to go out of their way to put up a monument in Florida? It seems to me to be an in-your-face reaction to Bible Belt values. It is interesting that there are some atheists who do not agree with the approach of those who have erected the monument. I wish more atheists would take a less in-your-face approach and take a more humble approach to dialogue. I say the same for Christians, too. We need to be more gentle and respectful, as the Apostle Peter tells us (1 Pet. 3:15), when we give an account of the hope within us.

At any rate, I'm actually fine with atheists putting up monuments to their godlessness. Let atheists boldly portray their irrational belief in a materialistic universe so others can view for themselves how utterly nonsensical atheism is. If they want to be fools and say there is no God, let them be fools publicly. The public nature of their foolishness allows Christians, then, to publicly expose atheism as an irrational belief.

I am appreciative of one of the quotes on the monument from Benjamin Franklin, who was not an atheist. The quote says, "When religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its supporters are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

I see some wisdom in this quote. Christians need to remember that for over 2,000 years the gates of hell have not been able to prevail against the Church, and as far as Christ is concerned, the future doesn't look good for the gates of hell either. So when an atheist organization places their monument next to the Ten Commandments, we don't have any reason to worry. Let atheists erect their monuments to the fool. In the end, all their monuments will be ground to rubble, and all their foolishness will be exposed when Christ appears in glory.

The Presuppositional Approach to Doubt

Can we use the presuppositional method of apologetics in cases of doubting believers? I answer this question in this paper I wrote for an apologetics class. Here is the link to my paper on google docs.

The Law is Just (Pt. 4): Exodus 21:22-27 - On abortion, miscarriages, and the treatment of slaves.

Thus far we have examined Exodus 21 on laws concerning servants and laws concerning violence. We have seen that when one considers the historical context and the genre of "law" in Hebrew, the Mosaic law turns out not to be the moral monstrosity that skeptics often claim it as being. As we wrap up our examination of laws pertaining to violence we come across a law which liberals and skeptics actually agree with, but only because they misunderstand it. And then finally we find a statement which again grants human rights and protection to slaves. Moses writes:

“If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth." (Exodus 21:22-27 NKJV)

Notice first, that the beginning of our text deals with injury to a woman that results in a "termination" of her pregnancy. As I mentioned above, this is a verse that many skeptics and liberals actually like. According to them these verses do not grant human rights to "fetuses." Now of course, many of them will claim this is because the Mosaic law only grants such rights to "male property owners," but still, they will argue that our own holy book expounds a view of human beings in utero similar to their own. But where do they get this idea? Well first, it comes from several translations that incorrectly render the phrase in the New King James "gives birth prematurely," as "miscarriage." The most famous example of this comes from the outdated Revised Standard Version, a favorite amongst liberals and secular academics. It says:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage [...]" (Ex. 21:22a RSV)

Those who take the pro-abortion interpretation of this verse will then point to the fact that the death penalty is not required for this miscarriage, just merely a payment to the husband. When the text says, "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life," by a process of elimination it is presumed that this therefore must refer to the life of the mother. In other words, the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the child, and the lack of a death penalty for the murder of the child demonstrates that "it" is not a human.

In response to that we must first recognize that there is a problem with the RSV translation of this verse (which has been corrected in the NRSV). The Hebrew word used here is Yasa, which literally means "to depart." It is used throughout Scripture to refer to the normal event of a child leaving the womb. This is the word that God used in Jeremiah 1:5 when he told the prophet, "Before you were born (lit.: came forth out of the womb) I sanctified you." This is also used throughout Scripture for untimely birth that does not necessarily result in a death of the infant (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423). This is exactly why every other translation of Scripture renders this as "give birth prematurely" or a variant of that meaning in English. Therefore, when a fine set by the father/husband is required by the law as a punishment, that is meant as a compensation for the difficulty/stress of the situation in light of the other man's carelessness. However, if "harm follows," whether it be to the child or the mother (which often happened), then punishment up-to-and-including the death penalty could be enforced in response to the level of harm. This verse does not support abortion, it supports the rights of a human being to grow in the womb unharmed.

Then finally in verse 26-27 we find further reinforcement to the argument I made in parts 1 and 2 of the series; that slavery was a temporary institution in ancient Israel which, while limiting a persons rights, did not absolutely void them. This can be clearly observed here at the end of this section on violence. If a man took disciplinary action, whether justly or unjustly, on one of his slaves and permanently injured any of their body parts, they were to be set free.

The Mosaic law, in setting down principles of justice in cases of violence, takes care to protect the most vulnerable in society; from the developing person in the womb, to slaves trying to pay off debts. The law is just.

Next we will move forward through Exodus and examine what the law says about property and property rights.

What Does It Mean That Christ and Scripture Are Self-Attesting?

There are two starting points for presuppositional apologetics: 1) the self-attesting Christ and 2) the self-attesting Scriptures. The presuppositional apologist will not and cannot have any other starting point than these two things. In seeking to persuade the unbeliever about the truth of Christianity, he does not begin with evidences to lay a foundation upon which claims of Christ and the Scriptures might stand. Rather, he begins with Christ and the Scriptures and seeks to persuade from there. But is this a case of circular reasoning? Doesn't this undermine the plausibility of the apologist? Aren't the claims of Christ and the claims of Scripture under scrutiny? Don't they need to be proven true by rational arguments and evidences? Why, then, does the presuppositional apologist begin with them?

It is important to understand that the presuppositional apologist is not opposed to rational arguments and evidences for the Christian faith. They are tools at his disposal, and he may use them as needed. But they are just that: tools. Tools are useful for building a house, but a house does not stand upon tools. It needs a foundation. In the same way, the truth of Christianity does not stand upon the tools of the apologist, but upon the firm foundation of Christ and the Scriptures. You see, it is a question of foundations. What establishes the truth of Christianity? Is it rational arguments? Is it evidences? Or is it Christ and the Word of God?

If Christ is who He claims to be, then He is of necessity self-attesting. If He is the Lord of glory as the apostles testified (1 Cor. 2:8), then there is no higher witness than Himself. True, Christ did say that He did not testify to Himself, but claimed another testimony, that of His Father (John 5:31-36). Yet Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30). The Spirit also testifies concerning Jesus (1 John 5:6). But neither the Father nor the Spirit are ontologically superior to Christ. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is a higher witness than Christ; they are witnesses with Christ and to Christ.

Christ came to teach us about the Father, and to provide a way for sinners to be reconciled to Him (John 12:45; 14:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:19). Everything that He did cannot be separated from who He was. As the Son of God, He is one with the Father, and as God there is no one on earth who is higher in authority than Him. Therefore, there is no higher court of appeals than the witness of Christ. There is nothing outside of Christ that can add to His authority or truthfulness. All other witnesses, whether the Church, reason, or general revelation are subordinate to Christ. As subordinate witnesses, they cannot establish the truthfulness of the claims of Christ, only confirm what Christ has said.

Unbelievers cannot appeal to reason or general revelation as witnesses higher than Christ. They are subordinate to Christ. Christ has created all things, and all things were created for Him (Col. 1:16). Reason and creation can only attest to Him, not against Him. But they are subordinate to Him; therefore they cannot be appealed to as an higher authority.

Scripture, too, carries the full weight of God's authority. Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:1-14). Scripture is the written Word of God. Like Christ, the Word, Scripture has no higher authority outside of itself. All that is written in Scripture cannot be separated from the ultimate author, vis., the Holy Spirit.

It is true that God used fallible men to write Scripture, but these men wrote under divine inspiration. 2 Peter 1:21 says that these men spoke from God as they were being carried (φερόμενοι) by the Holy Spirit. Since, then, Scripture is ultimately of divine origin, though proximately written by men, it is of divine authority. We do not appeal to a higher authority than Christ, for there is no higher authority. Likewise, we do not appeal to a higher authority than the Word of Christ (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Christ and Scripture agree because Scripture was spoken by the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9).

Unbelievers, then, cannot appeal to reason and science, as if they are an authority higher than Scripture. All evidence outside of Scripture comports with Scripture, and, if rightly interpreted, fully supports Scripture. But the evidences brought forth by reason and science are subordinate to Scripture and cannot serve as the foundation of the truth of Christ and His Word.

Christ and Scripture possess divine authority. The authority that they possess is foundational and is sufficient for establishing the truth. Furthermore, since it is divine authority that they possess, the proper response of those to whom their truth claims are made is reverence and submission. The call of the gospel is not "Once you figure out that science and reason are compatible with Scripture, then you may believe." Rather it is "Repent and believe!" Reason and science are not enough to establish the credibility of Scripture because they are limited in their ability to reach beyond the realm of this cosmos and understand spiritual things. Furthermore, there is a fundamental flaw in the human ability to understand things beyond the creational realm.

The things of God cannot be understood by unbelievers because their hearts are darkened by sin. "God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). But the unbeliever "does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). The unbeliever, not science and reason, is at odds with Christ and Scripture, because he is not able to discern spiritual things. It is only by faith that anyone can fully understand the world around him and the God who created all things (Heb. 11:3).

This is, then, what is meant by Christ and Scripture are self-attesting. They are the ultimate authority in all the matters that they address. There is no higher authority to appeal to beyond them. Reason, science, and evidences are helpful in meeting the arguments of unbelievers, but the unbeliever must ultimately submit himself to Christ and His Word. He cannot submit himself to science and reason first and then submit to Christ. If he does so, he has not rooted himself in Christ (Col. 2:6-7), as Scripture calls us to do, but he has instead been taken captive by philosophy and empty deceit (Col. 2:8). He does not stand upon a firm foundation, who stands upon anything else other than Christ and His Word.  

Calvin on Evidences and Establishing the Authority of Scripture

Presuppositional apologetics is simply Reformed apologetics. There is nothing new under the sun:

Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputations are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God's Sacred Word from man's evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Isaiah very aptly expresses this connection in these words: "My Spirit which is in you, and the words that I have put in your mouth, and the mouths of your offspring, shal never fail" [Isa. 59:21p.]. Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God's Word. As if the Spirit were not called both "seal" and "guarantee" [II Cor. 1:22] for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts! (The Institutes, Book I, Ch. VII, Sec. 4b)