Tag Archives: Christianity

Commentary

Brian Auten posts book review of “The Faith of the Fatherless”

1 Comment

The book review is here on Apologetics 315.

Excerpt:

Vitz begins by laying out his hypothesis and the underlying principle behind it. He proposes that “atheism of the strong or intense type is to a substantial degree generated by the peculiar psychological needs of its advocates.”2  He notes that the theory that God is merely a projection of one’s needs is a popular position, but “the psychological concepts used so effectively to interpret religion by those who reject God are double-edged swords that can also, indeed easily, be used to explain their unbelief.”3  He makes clear one of the underlying assumptions of his study: “First, I assume that the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but can be called, in a general sense, psychological.”4

The psychological angle that Vitz examines is the role and influence of one’s father in the formation of beliefs about God. The author notes that “Christianity is in many respects distinctive in its emphasis on God as loving Father.”5 Vitz points out that “Freud makes the simple and easily understandable claim that once a child or youth is disappointed in or loses respect for his earthly father, belief in a heavenly father becomes impossible.”6 It is with this thesis in mind – the lack of a father plays a strong role in one’s psychological disposition towards rejecting God – that Vitz engages his case study comparing the lives of famous atheists and theists: “I have selected for study those who are historically famous as atheists. These are great thinkers, typically philosophers, whose rejection of God was central to their intellectual life and public positions.”7

Brian also cites Vitz explaining his own journey into atheism:

Just as I had learned how to dress like a college student by putting on the right clothes, I learned to think like a proper psychologist by putting on the right – that is, atheistic – ideas and attitudes. I wanted as few impediments to my professional career as it was possible.14

[…]In my own case, I now see that it was because of my social need to assimilate, my professional need to be accepted as part of the world of academic psychology, and my personal need for independence and an agreeable way of life that I chose to be an atheist. Hence, the intellectual basis for my atheism, like that of countless others, appears in retrospect to be much more of a shallow rationalization than an objective rationale.

I just ordered the book last week on Brian’s recommendation. You might also be interested in a lecture that Paul Vitz delivered on the psychological causes of atheism. (That link contains the MP3 file)

Related posts

Commentary

Does the Bible support redistribution of wealth or private property?

8 Comments

Article here. (H/T C.S. Lewis Society)

Excerpt:

The fundamental question for those who consider the Bible authoritative is not whether it advocates charity or helping the poor. Obama, Wallis, and other statist Christians are not arguing for charity. They are arguing for government appropriation of property. The issue isn’t charity, but property rights. If the Bible rejects the notion of a right to property, then these people may have a basis for their perspective. But if the Bible supports a right to own property, safe from government redistribution to others, then their policy proposals are unbiblical.

What follows is an analysis of what the Bible says, in both the New and the Old Testaments, on the subject of property rights. Whether the Bible, or parts thereof, should be considered authoritative or useful for Christians I will leave to theologians. My concern is with the text itself.

I would like to be able to report that the Bible argues firmly for an absolutist view of property rights. I would like to be able to write that the Bible is a strictly libertarian document. It is not. Yet in the balance and taken as a whole, the Bible support the individual’s right to own property and hold onto it. Briefly summarized, the Bible’s teachings are that humans are stewards of God’s property in a rental relationship and are accountable to him, not to the state, for the disposition of that property. The Bible advocates charity for the poor and condemns the parsimonious, but it does not grant authority to the state to act on God’s behalf to redistribute wealth. It is mostly a laissez-faire system of ideas, which libertarians should not forfeit to statist misinterpretations.

The Bible suggests three central principles regarding property rights. One is the prohibition against theft, enshrined in Exodus 20:15 “You shall not steal.” The second is the idea that the world ultimately belongs to God (not to the state), as exemplified by Psalm 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world and those who dwell in it.” The third is a corollary: humans are temporary tenants upon God’s property, as King David said in 1 Chronicles 29:15: “For we are but sojourners before You, and tenants, as all our fathers were.”

Worth reading even if you disagree, because it’s well-written. I’d like to see a good debate on this topic, wouldn’t you? Jay Richards vs. Jim Wallis, maybe? I’d like to see that.

Events

Two movies for Christians to see

Leave a comment

The first is called “The Blind Side”.

Story here.

Excerpt:

The best Christian film of 2009 is actually a secular film. The Blind Side, starring Sandra Bullock (The Proposal), which depicts the remarkable true story of All-American football star Michael Oher, may go down in history as one of the best Christian stories of our time. However, it is not a “Christian” film, but a universal story about a godly family who lives up to their convictions.

[…]Director John Lee Hancock (The Rookie) understood the story to be one of faith, but delivered it more universally. “It really is two different stories, one of which is more of a question: Who is Michael Oher and why did the stars align to shine so brightly on this kid from the projects in Memphis? And then on the other side, it’s a great story about how this unique family evolved, and the unconventional mother son relationship at its center. The journey that Michael and the Tuohy family go on is the heart of the movie.”

And “To Save a Life”:

Story here.

Excerpt:

The goal of the film is twofold: to bring hope to hurting students and to empower young people to reach out to the hurt and lonely. “If you’re a follower of Christ, you’re called to be an imitator,” Britts says. “You’re never more like Jesus than when you’re reaching out to the hurt and lonely. There’s not a page in the four Gospels where Jesus doesn’t reach out to the hurting, lonely, left out, and lost.”

But Britts says they never set out to make a faith-based film—they set out to create a story any teenager would automatically connect with. “In the film, we don’t make a blanket statement separating Christians from non-Christians. Instead, the bad guy is actually the senior pastor’s son,” Britts says. “There’s definitely hypocrisy in the church. People who’ve seen the film have told us us, ‘You’re not trying to push something on me. You’re telling it in an authentic way.’”

Also interesting is Britts’ intentional decision to communicate that becoming a Christian won’t automatically mean all your problems will be solved. After the main character, Jake, becomes a Christian, his life actually falls apart and he’s left questioning whether the whole God thing is working out. “It asks the question, Are you going to trust God because he’s going to make your life great or because you need him?” Britts says.

Two good movies to watch!.