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.