The Blasphemy Challenge: A Few Responses
I could not help but post on this latest stunt of the Rational Response Squad (RRS), because of the impact it appears to have had on so many people. The challenge itself is based in logically fallacious thinking which makes me concerned for why so many people find this challenge so “cool,” …especially if the promoting organization using “rational” in their name.
First, let me explain the premise of the challenge. The RRS has set a challenge for people to commit the “unpardonable sin” of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is to deny his existence. It is based on the Scripture from Matthew 12:31. The first 1001 people to upload a You Tube video denying the Holy Spirit get a free DVD of “The God Who Wasn’t There.” There’s more to unpack here, but even the very premise of the challenge, denying the Holy Spirit’s existence, shows a lack of attention to and knowledge about Christian theology.
Christians discuss, and conflict, on what constitutes this blasphemy. None of them, however, say it is denying the existence of the Holy Spirit (at least to my knowledge). Conversely, here’s one explanation of this Scripture from R.C. Sproul:
If the Holy Spirit has opened your eyes and caused you to see that Jesus is the Christ, and then, after knowing by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Son of God, you accuse Jesus of being satanic, you have now committed the unforgivable sin.
Sproul states that this explanation would mean that the sin is theoretically committed by a believer in God, not an unbeliever. Whoa! Talk about getting your stunt mixed up. Sproul backs this potential explanation up with the context of the previous verses, which involves Jesus healing a demon-oppressed man and afterward being accused by the religious leaders of doing so through the power of Satan. So, the passage is not technically addressing atheists. And before anyone gets theologically spicy with me, even Sproul states that this is only a theoretical situation described by the unpardonable sin when he exegetes the passage (check it out in the full article). He further acknowledges the theological doctrines that would be affected if a genuine believer could indeed commit an unpardonable sin. So again, this is not the only historic theological explanation, but I think it’s a good place to start an investigation. The basic point here is to demonstrate the faulty thinking behind the blasphemy challenge that failed to consider how Christians have historically interpreted the passage (and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy).
Second, let me explain a further logical problem of this challenge. A person is supposed to deny the existence of that which they already believe does not exist. So, the atheist is making a claim that is very close to, if not the same as, a tautological claim, such as “an atheist is an atheist.” Tautologies do not provide any new information between the subject and predicate of a sentence, so they don’t really say anything.
The statement of “I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit” can, in effect, be a statement of the denial of God’s existence when it’s in accordance with Trinitarian Monotheism. The Holy Spirit is the third person of God, one in essence with God. Due to this theological commitment, to deny the Spirit’s existence is to deny God’s existence…if, again, we are dealing with actual Christian Trinitarianism. So, again, the challenge in light of Christian Trinitarianism amounts to atheists denying the existence of God. Therefore, the premise of this challenge seems to be to publicly verbalize that “An atheist is an atheist.” Or, perhaps, more specifically, the challenge amounts to an identity statement of “I, an atheist, deny the existence of God.”
Third, The Blasphemy Challenge seems to be a media stunt for those who already agree with the RRS, leading an emotionally-charged public condemnation of Christianity towards building a certain kind of atheist camaraderie (not all atheists would condone or engage in this kind of activity). One thing I noticed is that the RRS is not challenging people to blaspheme any of the other religious ideas of god or gods. This challenge is specifically targeting Christian Trinitarian Monotheism. [1] Perhaps, targeting religious minority groups in our society would be viewed as grossly, or negligently, intolerant, bringing too much undesired heat to the challenge. So the organization might be purposefully avoiding condemning those beliefs about God. Lacking a fuller philosophical spectrum of denouncement of belief in God, or gods, this challenge seems more gimmicky, giving a sort of fan-service to the internet new atheist.
Finally, as C.S. Lewis stated, “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” Though the RRS is attempting to do something splashy to get people to think rationally about belief in God, it appears that they have really done the opposite through the use of logical fallacy. A person cannot blaspheme that which they deny. A straw-man theology of Christianity doesn’t communicate anything true about it. A tautological statement is not helpful in thinking through beliefs. And finally, in taking the challenge, people commit to the premise that their denial means something, which implies their belief in the reality of God…and I’m guessing that’s not the desired outcome.
MJ
______________________
[1] Someone will inevitably say, “But Christianity is the only one claiming the ‘unpardonable sin,’ and so that’s why it’s the only religion addressed. My response is two-fold: 1) that seems theologically and philosophically lazy or disingenuous, because 2) other religions have statements that could be similarly utilized as ‘tests’ for true believers, as well as punishments or consequences for disbelievers and/or sin (even if also pulled out-of-context). Further, it is culturally fashionable and acceptable, at this time, to denigrate the Christian religion (and possibly some forms of atheism), but not necessarily other belief systems.
You said that “Christianity appears to be the only faith structure in America that can be blatantly made fun of, denied, and generally not tolerated without a major march on Washington.”
I think the reason why Christianity is more of a target of ridicule in the United States than other religions is because Christianity is the dominant religion, so dominant that professed Christians control all three branches of government and the vast majority of governorships.
Also, The overwhelming majority of human beings our nation has conducted large-scale military attacks against for the last half century are non-Christians, mostly Muslim. If the worst we have to deal with is that some kids on Youtube get a good laugh at a confusing verse of Scripture, it’s embarrassing to complain. As believers we have to take up a cross. Kids laughing at us isn’t it.
Sincerely,
Joshua Blanchard
Joshua,
You have some good comments here. The point of the article was not to show how persecuted Christians are through silliness like YouTube. I am merely responding to the attempt at discrediting Christianity in the name of logic, while really being illogical in the approach. I do view this as important. Whenever untruths are spoken about the belief structure of Christianity, that merits attention by an apologist.
What alerted me to blog on this issue was the report on the challenge by Fox News.
I do think you have a good point about Christianity’s prominent position in the history of the U.S. That does make it a larger target for ridicule. Does that mean the ridicule is therefore merited, as well?
Joshua, what are the specific attacks you are referring to? Desert Storm and the war in Iraq?
If that is the case, the wars are much more complicated than targeting a people group or a belief system. Perhaps my terminology, “march on Washington” instigated this comment. The point was that if the United States is going to be a nation that tolerates all belief systems…why not tolerate Christianity as well?
Thanks for posting!
MJ
Have you read what I wrote about the Unforgivable Sin?
Re-posted.
Anonymous,
The logical fallacy is the blaspheming of nothing. An atheist does not believe that God exists. It is illogical to deny that which does not exist. The real problem is to deny God through refusal of the Son’s salvation work on the cross. This needs no outward expression; each man decides for himself in his mind and heart. By denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, they have essentially used wording that is out of its context to deny a non-existent (in their minds) being.
MJ seems to have a stubbornly poor understanding of the Rational Response Squad and what they are trying to do. Telling children that they or their friends might go to a real lake of fire if they don’t believe a fanciful myth is torture. The RRS is demonstrating that is OK to not believe. By demonstrating that they are not afraid, they hope to convince others to have no fear.
Okay, I will address a couple issues here.
I do not claim to be an expert on the RRS, but I have a sufficient understanding of their challenge to have responded.
It is unfortunate that there is not a greater concern about the evidence surrounding the resurrection of the person, Jesus. I will be posting a series called “The Minimal Facts” based on the research of Gary Habermas on the historicity of Jesus Christ. Dr. Habermas has cross-referenced the past 30 years of scholarly writings on the New Testament, whether they are from atheist, skeptic, or conservative scholars (over 1400 scholars and growing). He found that there are facts about the person of Jesus that virtually all scholars agree fit the criteria of well-evidenced events of history (as high as 95% of them). The four facts I will be presenting are so well-evidenced that the scholars who study the New Testament writings do not dismiss them, but offer alternative explanations (mainly naturalistic) to the Christian conclusions, instead.
For further study of this material, please visit Dr. Gary Habermas’ Website. He has a few articles there on this subject.
Many of the scholars’ names are listed in the endnotes of chapters two and three of his book, “The Future Jesus and Risen Hope”
As to your reference to the supernatural realm: If God is a possibility, then a place of separation from him is feasible due to his necessary attributes. Our wording of that place or description of it does not make it untenable; unfavorable, yes.
On the fear issue: If God is the Prime Mover, He has made all that exists. I believe I would use the term, reverence, or perhaps, awe. This would have to be a greater kind of awe than when looking at distant nebulae or at the expanse of the Grand Canyon, because it would be reverence for the One that transcends even these incredible things. I think that is where the term ‘fear’ is placed into the Christian language. It is a respect due to an understanding of what a God-being would necessarily be in the monotheistic sense: the one that transcends space and time and is responsible for space and time.
I would appreciate any comments on the minimal facts posts.
Thank you,
Mary Jo
Not sure if these were directed at me or someone else on Facebook:
About Chrisitianity having unrivalled explanatory power. That is a blatant falsehood.
I will be constructing an argument to support this statement in the minimal facts posts. I would welcome criticism, especially with references.
About consciousness–I guess you have not heard of Descartes.
After taking ethics and philosophy courses, I have not only heard of and read Descartes, but have read many later philosophers who agree and disagree with him. Please write your argument so I can better understand your point.
MJ
2/20/07 8:51 PM