America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil?

Attitude Adjustment

How did 9/11 change America’s attitude toward religion? An interesting post on CNN’s Belief Blog says: “Before 9/11, many atheists kept a low profile. Something changed, though, after 9/11. They got loud… Criticism of all religion, not just fanatical cults, was no longer taboo after 9/11.” Indeed. Around the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, American Atheists hit the nightly news by suing to remove a steel cross from the September 11 memorial, even as others were calling it a national monument and a symbol of hope. Still, many atheists continue to say 9/11 is a perfect example of why religion itself is evil. Is Religion Evil?

Is Religion Evil?

Reminds me of reading Sam Harris’ The End of Faith years ago. I remember when he started to get popular by insisting that religion itself is dangerous and evil. Although he’s got a lot of fans, a Religion Dispatches article recently called him “more charismatic than credentialled” as a speaker. In the same article, Harris is quoted as saying, “I’m kind of self-taught in religion…I’ve never studied it formally with anyone.” But he’s not the only one who’s taken the spotlight. Another popular atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens, once called religion a poison that makes people give up their reason. But after his now infamous debate on the reasons for belief in God with William Lane Craig, even an atheist reviewer called Hitchens a “rambling and incoherent” speaker, even a “loudmouthed journalist,” saying “Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” Indeed, some are saying this debate marked the beginning of the downfall of the so-called “new atheism” in America. Time will tell.

New Atheists: Just Say “No” to Tolerance?

Still, I’m not sure why atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens think they can convince you and me that it’s unreasonable to believe in God if they’re really convinced that we won’t listen to reason. Whatever the case, some who follow the New Atheists believe that religion is intolerant–so perhaps it shouldn’t be tolerated at all in America. But over a decade after 9/11, many Americans are still asking this question: Is religion evil?

In this post, I’ll show you a quick way to explain why religion itself isn’t evil—even in a post-9/11 America.

While teaching a couple of world religions courses at local universities, I often heard students say things like, “This is just like in all religion…” But lumping all religions together just tells me you haven’t done your homework. Saying religion itself is dangerous is like saying belief itself is dangerous. Of course, we don’t just believe—we believe ideas, like “Barack Obama is the President of the United States,” “Ben and Jerry’s Cherry Garcia ice cream is delicious,” and “It is always wrong to torture babies for fun.” Ideas are powerful. And they have consequences.

Apples and Oranges

Comparing the beliefs of religious people is often like comparing apples and oranges. Or take music as an example. Imagine you’re at a CD store browsing through a new age section with a bunch of quiet stuff like Enya and Loreena McKennitt. Then you see another section with a bunch of Megadeth, P.O.D and Korn. You wouldn’t lump all this stuff together and say “all music is noisy.” After all, they’re all basically the same. They all use instruments and vocals to produce songs, right? Why do this with religion? Consider these two beliefs:

  1. It’s good to be a terrorist.
  2. It’s good to be a pacifist.

Obviously, a Muslim extremist’s belief that “it’s good to be a terrorist” is way different than a Quaker’s belief that “it’s good to be a pacifist.” For example, contrast the September 11 terrorist attacks with the Quakers’ influence on colonial Pennsylvania—which was basically unarmed as a matter of policy for about 75 years! So, is religion itself evil? Ask yourself: “Are these beliefs both dangerous or evil? Do they produce the same kinds of people or actions?”

What Would Jesus Do?

There’s a reason the teachings of Jesus has been a force of good in the world–for Christians and non-Christians alike: When Jesus said “love your neighbor,” he didn’t just mean our friends and family. He meant anyone who needs help. Historically, these Christian beliefs resulted in the invention of hospitals, the abolition of slavery, and the alleviation of human suffering through countless humanitarian missions around the world.

Terrorists who wrap their evil actions up in religious terms don’t represent everyone who believes in God any more than communist governments that have collectively murdered hundreds of millions represent all atheists.

Of course, anyone can say, “I’m religious” or even claim to follow Jesus—and then turn around and commit some psycho heinous act that’s totally against what Jesus taught. But the Apostle John actually said that you’re a total liar if you live like that (1 John 2:4-6). Reminds me of how Greg Koukl likes to say, “Not everyone who claims Christ is claimed byChrist.” Biblical Christianity shows that religion itself isn’t evil. So it’s not really religion itself that’s the problem. It’s the content of certain beliefs that we need to carefully evaluate for truth. Because ideas have consequences.

The Gardener and the Brain Surgeon

J.P. Moreland once illustrated this in a class by telling the story of the Gardener and the Brain Surgeon. And it goes something like this: Imagine a gardener thinks a special bush you planted was a weed. You hired him to come out and weed your yard and he pulls up your special bush. That wouldn’t be good, but it’s not the end of the world. Just go to the store, buy yourself another special bush and tell the gardener not to pull your new special bush. No big deal, right? But, what if you need brain surgery and you hear your brain surgeon asking one of the staff, “Now, when I operate on this guy…um…Isn’t the brain located somewhere near the heart?” Now, if that actually happened, you’d better run and find yourself another brain surgeon! Here’s the point. Sometimes being wrong about something isn’t a big deal, like the case of the gardener. Sometimes, it’s a huge deal, like in the case with the brain surgeon. As Moreland put it:

The more important the issue, the greater the harm in having a false belief. Your picture of God is more like brain surgery than gardening…How a person thinks about God has a huge impact on the way they live the rest of their lives.

Religion isn’t dangerous. Rather, it’s false beliefs about God that can have devastating consequences. In light of 9/11, William Lane Craig noted:

I think the Muslim terrorists have made a terrible mistake. And the reason is: I think they have the wrong god. The god that they think has commanded them to do this doesn’t exist. Therefore, they are terribly, and tragically mistaken.

Seems like 9/11 brought Americans together in a way no other national tragedy has—at least in my lifetime. We all stood back in horror and called it a “Day of Evil.” A decade after 9/11, even the late Christopher Hitchens wrote that this remains the best description and most essential fact about al-Qaida: Simply Evil. I agree.

Something’s Wrong

Terrorism is evil and it’s not the way things should be. But it’s another in-your-face reminder that there’s something horribly wrong with our world. How does the Christian worldview make sense of this? Some of my friends have joined me in posting their thoughts on the issues related to evil, terrorism and religion after 9/11. I encourage you to browse through these related posts from around the apologetics blogosphere (listed in alphabetical order).*

  1. Are We All Moral Monsters? – Clay Jones
  2. Evil’s Three Faces and a Christian Response – Rob Lundberg (The Real Issue)
  3. Ground Zero: Why truth matters for preventing another 9/11-style attack – Wintery Knight
  4. The Need for Moral Choices and Consequences – Randy Everist (Possible Worlds)
  5. Where Was God on 9/11? – Stephen Bedard (Hope’s Reason Blog)
*Note: The links above don’t imply that I necessarily agree with all of the views expressed by each and every author. Biblical Christianity includes a diverse group of people from a variety of traditions united in Jesus Christ by the essential convictions of our historic faith.

Tags:

63 Responses to “America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil?”

  1. Angie September 10, 2011 10:52 AM
    #

    One thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt…everyone has their own religion and everyone thinks their own religion is true. But everyone knows good from evil and evil comes from the things we do. No where else. Evil is the sickness and Christ is the cure.

  2. Korinthian September 10, 2011 2:25 PM
    #

    Is this the William Lane Craig who defends genocide and the slaughter of children? Nothing evil about that, right?

    Don’t judge a debate on what someone said the outcome was, judge the individual arguments. Granted, taking things on authority is very Christian, but thinking for yourself trumps that.

    Oh, and in response to WWJD: What Would Abraham Do? Would he kill a child because his god said so? Would your god kill his son on a whim?

    Committing atrocities in the name of god is prevalent in your religion as well.

  3. A Soldier for Jesus September 10, 2011 3:22 PM
    #

    These atheist are guilty of equivocation, the same nonsense that says, “We can see MICRO-evolution, therefore, we can see evolution. Goo-to-you is real and observed!” John Lennox pointed out that it is absurd to equate the Amish with the Taliban because both are “religions”.

    As far as committing atrocities in the name of “your religion”, Islam says to deceive and kill the infidels. Atrocities in the name of Christianity cannot be justified in the Bible. Atrocities because of an atheistic worldview are thoroughly rampant and believable.

  4. Korinthian September 10, 2011 5:45 PM
    #

    @A Soldier for Jesus: “Atrocities in the name of Christianity cannot be justified in the Bible.”

    Slavery can. Killing “witches” can. Stoning can. Genocide, intolerance and homophobia can as well.

    It’s evident in both the book and history.

    I’d love to hear what atrocities are because of atheism. And before you say things like “Dictator X was an atheist” you should consider that atheism has no dogma, no rules to follow. So to get from point A (atheism) to point B (atrocity) you have to show a logical path between the two.

    Oh, and atheists are generally aware that some religions are worse than others.

  5. Taber's Truths Christian Blog September 10, 2011 6:58 PM
    #

    Great article my friend. You are spot on, however I can see that the Reddit ninnies are at it again. You have much more patience than me. Keep up the good work!

  6. Apologetics Guy September 10, 2011 8:07 PM
    #

    Hi, Angie. I like how you said, ” Everyone knows good from evil and evil comes from the things we do.” You’re on to something there. Reminds me of how Paul said that the moral law was written on our hearts. When we see terrible stuff like 9/11, it makes us go, “This isn’t right!” But even the fact that there’s a “way things should be” and a “way things shouldn’t be,” points us to the Creator. Thanks for your comment!

  7. Brandon September 10, 2011 10:10 PM
    #

    Sam Harris is “more charismatic than credentialed” and Christopher Hitchens is “rambling and
    incoherent”?… Wow.

    Sam Harris is a neuroscientist. He has probably forgot more about how the human brain really functions than even the most educated theologian has bothered to learn.

    Christopher Hitchens is one of the most eloquent and informed speakers of the modern era.

    Atheism is, as it has been for the last several decades, continually on the rise. It has not showed even the slightest hint of slowing in popularity, and is especially massively popular with the internet generation where the flow of free ideas is not chained down by Sunday Mass and dirty looks from your grandparents and your born again Aunt.

    This article is a farce, and its writer is so obviously biased that he has to make stuff up to even begin to have an illusion of credence. Pathetic.

  8. Korinthian September 11, 2011 5:23 AM
    #

    @Mikel “But even the fact that there’s a “way things should be” and a “way things shouldn’t be,” points us to the Creator. ”

    So is human sacrifice or killing in the name of a god how things “should be” or how “things shouldn’t be”?

    If you can’t answer it with a simple “yes” or “no,” would it imply that there is no creator? Would anything imply that, to you?

  9. Gabriel September 11, 2011 8:09 AM
    #

    Mikel, this was a thoughtful, needed post. Thank you!

  10. Arthur September 11, 2011 11:39 AM
    #

    Korinthian, you said,

    //I’d love to hear what atrocities are because of atheism. And before you say things like “Dictator X was an atheist” you should consider that atheism has no dogma, no rules to follow. So to get from point A (atheism) to point B (atrocity) you have to show a logical path between the two.//

    If you require a logical chain between the espousal of Atheism and atrocity, you must also provide one for Christianity. And you have done nothing here besides the dogmatic accusations without any grounding. The fact of the matter is you are painfully ignorant of the history of the 20th century. Read the following article and scroll down a bit to see the statistics of people killed under atheistic regimes.

    http://rob-lundberg.blogspot.com/2011/09/three-faces-of-evil-and-christian.html

  11. Boz September 11, 2011 5:27 PM
    #

    “Whatever the case, people who follow the New Atheists believe that religion is intolerant–so it shouldn’t be tolerated at all in America.”

    Specifically who believes this? I am not aware of anyone who holds this belief.

  12. Apologetics Guy September 11, 2011 8:46 PM
    #

    @Korinthian – Why the snarky comment about “taking things on authority” regarding debate? I quoted an atheist’s assessment of Hitchens’ ability to interact with Craig’s individual arguments. BTW, I have the DVD of this debate. You should be able to find it on YouTube.

    The biblical narratives describe God punishing both Canaanites AND Jews for violating his moral commands. That’s why Craig says this wasn’t an “ethnic cleansing” thing at all. According to the Tanakh, God punished the Canaanites for burning their own infants and young children alive as a worship act to Molech. BTW, do you believe this narrative is historical?

    But it seems like you’re saying genocide is morally wrong. It’s not the way things should be. But how do you make sense of objective moral values if God doesn’t exist? How can you even call 9/11 a day of evil if morality is totally subjective?

    I think people ought to examine the evidence for God with an open mind, think for themselves, and replace false beliefs with true beliefs. What are your personal thoughts about the existence of God and how did you come to hold your view?

  13. Apologetics Guy September 11, 2011 8:56 PM
    #

    @A Soldier for Jesus – “John Lennox pointed out that it is absurd to equate the Amish with the Taliban because both are ‘religions.'” Indeed. Thanks for taking the time to drop a comment on my blog!

    @Korinthian “Slavery can. Killing ‘witches’ can. Stoning can. Genocide, intolerance and homophobia can as well.” Really? Christians fought to end slavery (I know Christians who are working to liberate slaves even today) and stopped those who were killing witches. Why? Because the teachings of Jesus actually prohibit discrimination, abuse, murder, & hatred. Recall what John wrote in 1 John 2:4-6.

  14. Apologetics Guy September 11, 2011 9:03 PM
    #

    @Taber’s Truths – Thanks for dropping by, Duke. Pray for me as I continue to minister in this area of contending for the faith. I appreciate your support!

  15. Apologetics Guy September 11, 2011 9:04 PM
    #

    @Gabriel – You’re welcome, brother! Thanks for taking the time to drop a comment on my blog. I appreciate your encouragement and support.

  16. Apologetics Guy September 11, 2011 9:06 PM
    #

    @Arthur – Thanks for chiming in. I appreciate your interaction and the link. Reminds me of how Greg Koukl says, “Ridicule is not an argument.” Blessings on your ministry, Arthur!

  17. Apologetics Guy September 11, 2011 9:40 PM
    #

    @Boz – I know. Sounds pretty self-refuting, huh. But it’s an assertion that props up Sam Harris’ entire movement.

  18. Jonathan September 11, 2011 10:27 PM
    #

    Korinthian wrote:
    So is human sacrifice or killing in the name of a god how things “should be” or how “things shouldn’t be”? If you can’t answer it with a simple “yes” or “no,” would it imply that there is no creator?

    Jonathan wrote:
    To your first part: If God exists and is necessarily good (and can do no evil), then whatever commands He issues will be good by definition, right? To your second part: Of course it wouldn’t imply that. Is there something you’re trying to argue that you’re struggling to make clear here? If you’re suggesting that an inability to provide a “yes” or “no” response to your question precludes the existence of God then I’m afraid you’ll need to unpack the hidden premises you’re smuggling into your conclusion..

  19. Boz September 12, 2011 2:22 AM
    #

    “Whatever the case, people who follow the New Atheists believe that religion is intolerant–so it shouldn’t be tolerated at all in America.”

    Sam Harris says this? Specifically where? I searched his site and could not find this assertion.

  20. Apologetics Guy September 12, 2011 2:23 PM
    #

    @Boz – Have you read the End of Faith? I’m not sure what page it’s on (I left my copy of the book in the Philippines so I don’t have it with me now), but Harris specifically says “religious tolerance” is “one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” In Letter to a Christian Nation, he also talked about a kind of atheist paradise, free of religion. He says that this is the only chance of healing our world.

    In “Science Must Destroy Religion,” he says: “While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities.”

    huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

    And when an interviewer said, “In your book you seem to argue for a kind of religious intolerance. Do you mean to suggest that we need not respect a person’s religious beliefs?” He answered, “Yes.” This interview is posted as a PDF on his Web site.

    samharris.org/press/Q&A-with-Sam-Harris.pdf

    Of course, people who follow his writings may not nuance this exactly like he does. What are your personal views on God and religious tolerance?

  21. Caitie September 13, 2011 11:13 AM
    #

    First off, love the reference to Enya and Loreena McKennitt… I grew up with them. :)

    This reminded me of Dawkin’s quote, “Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.”
    There are so many things wrong with that statement. I remember reading a blog post about this by Paul Copan, maybe it will come back to me what he said about that. But I agree with what you’re saying here. It’s unfair to lump all of religion together as “evil” based on the actions of people from Islamic faith, an inherently bad religion (I would say). To do so is not only unfair but ignorant. To base a religion of any kind completely on the believer’s actions would be unfair. I think that actions can sometimes reflect religious belief, and that is apparent when you know what the beliefs are. But as Christians, I know we are not perfect. None of us are walking, talking, clones of Jesus Christ. We are sinful, but that does not make our faith wrong, or even evil!
    I just think atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and so on have a completely misconstrued view of reality. Well, obviously.

  22. Apologetics Guy September 13, 2011 12:15 PM
    #

    Hey, Caitie.

    Glad you like the music reference. I mostly grew up with late 80s to mid 90s rock, but my wife introduced me to Loreena McKennitt at Biola. I especially like the Mummers Dance on the Book of Secrets CD. The remix is cool, too. But then, I might put on some P.O.D. when I go running! I’ve got a diverse music library.

    I hear you on the Dawkins quote. Saying “Religion is evil because Islamic terrorists flew planes into buildings” is like saying “Science is evil because Nazi doctors did horrible scientific experiments on Jewish mothers.” I’m interested in the Paul Copan blog post. Let me know if you find it again.

    Thanks for the comment, Caitie!

  23. Boz September 13, 2011 8:18 PM
    #

    Thanks for clarifying, Apologetics Guy.

    Those quotes sounded bad, until I realised Harris was talking about ideas, not people. In that article you linked, 100% of the sentences are about religious ideas, and 0% of the sentences are about religious people. I am of the position that religious ideas should not get special immunity from scrutiny, and expect that you would agree, given your handle.

    I think it is critically important to make the distinction between an idea and a person. Ideas should not be respected. People shoud be respected, not ideas. Do you respect ideas? Which ones? Which ones should I respect?

    False religious ideas should not be tolerated. False ideas should not be tolerated. Tolerance of false religious (and non-religious) ideas has led, and will lead, to millions of deaths. For example, islamic terrorists detonating a nuclear device in a city, or homeopathy-only medical treatment.

    As for gods, I’m not persuaded that any deities exist. Happy to be demonstrated wrong :)

  24. Apologetics Guy September 14, 2011 12:02 AM
    #

    @Boz – I appreciate your respectful interaction on my blog. You said, “religious ideas should not get special immunity from scrutiny” and “I think it is critically important to make the distinction between an idea and a person.” I agree. I respect you as a person, even though we may disagree on the existence of God.

    In my mind, tolerance is being respectful of people that you disagree with. But Harris’ dream of an atheist paradise–that’s free of all religion—sounds like it can’t tolerate any religious people at all. There would be no religious tolerance because there would be no religious people to tolerate! Everyone alive would agree that atheism is true. What would you do with religious people in order to attain such an atheist paradise? Especially if the caricature is true and religious people do not respond to reason?

    BTW, thanks for sharing your view on God. Do you make a distinction between specific beliefs held by religious people? For example, “It’s good to be a terrorist,” and “it’s good to be a pacifist.” You also said, “False religious ideas should not be tolerated.” Do you think there are any true religious ideas? Should we even make a distinction between “religious” ideas and “non-religious” ideas?

  25. Boz September 14, 2011 11:53 PM
    #

    Apologetics Guy said: “But Harris’ dream of an atheist paradise–that’s free of all religion—sounds like it can’t tolerate any religious people at all. There would be no religious tolerance because there would be no religious people to tolerate! Everyone alive would agree that atheism is true. What would you do with religious people in order to attain such an atheist paradise?”

    Specifically Where does Harris say this? In my poor recollection of The End Of Faith, and his website, Harris only ever disparages ideas, never people. Maybe it is that weasel word: ‘Sounds Like’, and Harris has never actually said this.

    Apologetics Guy said: “Do you make a distinction between specific beliefs held by religious people?”

    No, all religious beliefs are the same. :\ Yes, of course.

    Apologetics Guy said: “Do you think there are any true religious ideas?”

    There are many true religious ideas. Yet, I cannot quickly think of any true religious idea, which has been discovered to be true through the religious method alone, or a faith-based method alone. Every true religious idea is confirmed through history or science. Only then can we say that it is true.

    Apologetics Guy said: “Should we even make a distinction between “religious” ideas and “non-religious” ideas?”

    Probably not. Though, searching for religious ideas is an easy way to find false ideas. Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam, for agreed examples.

  26. Chris September 16, 2011 5:34 AM
    #

    All it takes to become an Atheist is to read the bible. As you do, keep asking your self…. Are these the words of the creator of the universe as we now know it? 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, yet another 100 billion galaxies. And this creator authored inspired the bible? There is nothing in the bible that could not be written by a person who though the wheelbarrow was emerging technology. Further, the evil that is in the bible would impeach its author and show it for the monster it is. Its 2011 people, read that book and tell me the morality of keeping slaves (Exodus 21), Ethnic cleansing (Numbers 31) – murdering baby boys and keeping their virgin sisters. Duet 21 – is completely wicked. The rules on accidental death and rape are to put it – insane. To call yourself a christian is to advertise your acceptance of the bible and the evil thats in it. Think about it – rationally.

  27. Chris September 16, 2011 5:45 AM
    #

    Question:

    What if you had been born in Mecca? What god would you be praying to and ministering for today?

  28. Chris September 16, 2011 5:53 AM
    #

    Boz said:

    “Probably not. Though, searching for religious ideas is an easy way to find false ideas. Mormonism, Hinduism and Islam, for agreed examples.”

    Have you *read* the bible? I would think Deuteronomy 22 – the rules on rape would be false. What do you think – am I going out on a limb here. One might take the editors eraser to the entire section.

  29. Randy Everist September 16, 2011 2:43 PM
    #

    Hi Chris, I don’t want to sound rude, but I have to be as brief as I can since I don’t have much time (hence, I ask you give me the benefit of the doubt when it comes to tone). That said, I don’t think it follows that if there are objectionable or false ideas contained in the Bible that the proposition “God does not exist” has been shown to be true! In fact, without any further argument, it doesn’t even follow that “Christianity is not true;” for why would the fact that the proposition “there is an error in the Bible X” necessitate or imply “Jesus Christ was not raised from the dead?” Indeed, without any further argument, it does not follow that if what you say is true, the Bible is not the Word of God. For without any argument, one may appeal to the lack of inerrancy and still affirm God exists, Christianity is true, and he inspired a particular text or portion thereof; or that the writers misunderstood, etc. But even further still, without further argument, it does not even follow that inerrancy is false, for one is only examining copies. In short, the case hasn’t even been opened, much less shut.

    Finally, there are very good answers to all of your (irrelevant–in the direct sense of the question of whether or not God exists and as to whether or not the concept of religion in America in post-9/11 is evil) questions to be found in multiple scholarly publications and articles, and even an accessible book: Paul Copan’s Is God a Moral Monster? I suggest reading it (it can easily be finished by an average reader in less than a week) and then, if you still disagree, pointing out why you think his arguments are incorrect. Until then, it seems Christianity is well-safe from these kinds of accusations.

  30. Randy Everist September 16, 2011 2:49 PM
    #

    Also, Chris, your second comment is simply an instantiation of the genetic fallacy, if you mean to affirm or imply that somehow Christianity is false because of the origin of one’s belief. Alas, you do not draw a conclusion, and hence I cannot be sure. But if it wasn’t some conclusion about Christianity’s falsehood, then I am not sure why it was brought up. If it was, it was either the genetic fallacy or an argument missing one or more premises. Have a great weekend!

  31. erik September 16, 2011 3:24 PM
    #

    “Question:

    What if you had been born in Mecca? What god would you be praying to and ministering for today?”

    Answer: By pointing out where a person was raised does nothing to falsify the claims of Christianity. That’s just the genetic fallacy. You cannot invalidate a position by criticizing the way a person came to hold it. Pointing out where one was raised has no relevance to the truth of the beliefs. One could say that your rejection of religion is because you’re a product of being born in Western society in the 20th century and therefore your atheism (assuming your an atheist) is unjustified. Obviously, that’s fallacious.

  32. Waitwhat September 16, 2011 5:01 PM
    #

    “All it takes to become an Atheist is to read the bible.”

    1. I’ve read the bible and I am not an atheist, therefore you assertion is false.

    2. This claim is self-refuting and makes it virtually impossible for Christianity to even exist today. For the first person who read the bible would have been an atheist, so why promote a religion they don’t believe in?

    “Are these the words of the creator of the universe as we now know it? 200 billion stars in the Milky Way, yet another 100 billion galaxies. And this creator authored inspired the bible?”

    Well….What other creator would you be making comparisons from?

    How exactly do you know how a creator SHOULD act?

    What gives you the credibility to speak on behalf of what a creator “Should” do?

    Do you own a Cambridge Companion: (God edition) on how the Divine SHOULD act, that we don’t know about?

    What does the size of the Universe have to do a creator being incapable of communicating with life inside the Universe, no matter how much life is in it?

    “Have you *read* the bible? I would think Deuteronomy 22 – the rules on rape would be false. What do you think – am I going out on a limb here. One might take the editors eraser to the entire section.”

    First off according to you if I *read* the Bible I would be an atheist. Next, I don’t recall Christians following old Jewish laws that involve a temple, in fact do any Jews today still follow this?

    In Matthew, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:5 as a Great Commandment. Early Christian authors interpreted Deuteronomy’s prophecy of the restoration of Israel as having been fulfilled (or superseded) in Jesus Christ and the establishment of the Christian church (Luke 1-2, Acts 2-5), and Jesus was interpreted to be the “one (i.e., prophet) like me” predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15 (Acts 3:22-23).

    but, but, but that all doesn’t matter, because one has to ask the atheist one simple question….

    What makes something “Evil” Under atheism?

  33. Tom Gilson September 16, 2011 6:37 PM
    #

    Two atheists’ positions here can be summed up by the attitude expressed by Korinthian, “If you can’t answer it with a simple “yes” or “no,” would it imply that there is no creator?”

    It’s a little hard to understand his use of the negative there, but I take it he is saying that if there is a Creator, there ought to be a simple answer to the questions he was asking. All of the atheists’ positions here seem to rely on quick, slogan-ish questions to which quick and simple answers are expected.

    For instance, from Korinthian, “Is this the William Lane Craig who defends genocide and the slaughter of children? Nothing evil about that, right?”

    That’s a simplistic distortion of Craig’s position.

    Then Chris, who wrote, “All it takes to become an Atheist is to read the bible.”

    Slogans. Now, what is it about reality, spirituality, and the transcendent that causes them to assume that every answer ought to be simple?

    The fact is that there are matters in the Bible, as in all of life, that require more than two seconds’ thought and a two- or three-letter one-word answer. Anyone who expects anything else is distorting reality in their own minds, and distorting arguments.

  34. Lisa October 12, 2011 4:37 PM
    #

    From a simpleton’s point of view, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, “Still, I’m not sure why atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens think they can convince you and me that it’s unreasonable to believe in God if they’re really convinced that we won’t listen to reason. ”

    And debate with most atheists is just about as pointless. It is indeed a work of the Holy Spirit to turn the lightbulb of Christ on in their dark world!!

    Great article – and I can’t wait to read the other links as well!

  35. Apologetics Guy October 12, 2011 11:18 PM
    #

    Thanks for the comment, Lisa. I appreciate your encouragement! :-)

  36. Nathaniel December 17, 2011 2:49 PM
    #

    I will start by saying that I am an atheist and I do not think religion is implicitly evil. And if there were no religion the world would not be a paradise. This idea ignores the fundamentals of our nature. Afterall, other animals do not have religion in the same sense we do and yet they still kill each other over territorial disputes, for mates, for competition, out of fear, etc. Religion is used to justify many evils but it is not the root of evil. I strongly recommend “the Lucifer Principle” by Howard Bloom for a comprehensive study on the evils of human nature and how they relate to the evils in other animals’ natures.

    I also want to address this idea that “without God there is not objective morality”. Firstly, I want to point out that morality is subjective regardless of whether or not a god or gods exist. If God exists and is our standard for morality then morality is subjective to God. Morality, by its very nature, is subjective. Morality is mostly built on the foundational idea that “I don’t like to suffer” or “pleasure is preferable to suffering”. This may be oversimplistic, but you can base almost all morality on this idea.

    The thing that makes religion particularly dangerous is that it can be used to convince people to believe in crazy things, things that completely contradict this idea of morality. We all want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves and many of us will sacrifice our reason in order to indulge. That’s a common pattern among people- when we get together in big groups, we will do atrocious things that defy all reason for the sake of being a part of the group. Mobs do this. Militaries do this. All you have to do is objectify someone who is not a part of your group and then it becomes okay to do anything to them for the sake of the group.

    One thing in particular that I want to address in the article itself was when it said “being a terrorist is good”. Do you really think that the Muslims involved in Al Quaeda really think of themselves as terrorists? Of course not! They think they’re doing Allah’s will. It is we who objectify them by calling them “terrorists”. They are people, just like us. On the other hand, they do us the same ill by calling us “infidels”. It reminds me of the proverb “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

    • Apologetics Guy December 17, 2011 5:12 PM
      #

      Hi, Nathaniel.

      Thanks for interacting with the other comments on this page. Glad we agree that religion itself is not evil. There may be specific religious ideas that are evil, however. So, yes. I think we do need to carefully analyze the actual truth claims of a given faith (so we don’t end up believing in crazy things).

      You asked, “Do you really think that the Muslims involved in Al Quaeda really think of themselves as terrorists?” It doesn’t matter, Nathaniel, and here’s why—Take away the label and you can still contrast the following ideas and get my point in-context: “It is good to hijack planes and murder people in the name of God” and “it is not good to hijack planes and murder people in the name of God.”

      BTW, if you think morality is totally subjective, you basically have to say, “I don’t prefer terrorism.” Deep down, we all know about objective moral values and duties. For example, “It is wrong to torture babies for fun.” Do you really think that’s the kind of thing that is best described by subjective preference or whim?

      -Mikel

  37. Nathaniel December 17, 2011 3:16 PM
    #

    @A Soldier for Jesus
    ““We can see MICRO-evolution, therefore, we can see evolution.”
    There is no difference between “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution”. Tell me, where do you draw the line? When does something suddenly become “macro-evolution” rather than “micro-evolution”. How do you quantify the degree of change?

    “Atrocities in the name of Christianity cannot be justified in the Bible”
    Sure it can. I think the prejudice against homosexuals that is practiced by many Christians is abhorent, and I know that you get that from the Bible.

    @Mikel
    “even the fact that there’s a “way things should be” and a “way things shouldn’t be,” points us to the Creator.”
    How so?

    “According to the Tanakh, God punished the Canaanites for burning their own infants and young children alive as a worship act to Molech”
    Firstly, since when was fighting fire with fire an appropriate moral response? “They’re killing some of their children, therefore let’s go in and kill ALL of them and their children too”
    What was the justification for the slaughter commanded in Deutoronomy 7?

    “Because the teachings of Jesus actually prohibit discrimination, abuse, murder, & hatred. Recall what John wrote in 1 John 2:4-6.”
    What does that have to do with the prohibition of discrimination, abuse, muder and hatred?

  38. Nathaniel December 17, 2011 8:10 PM
    #

    ” It doesn’t matter, Nathaniel, and here’s why—Take away the label and you can still contrast the following ideas and get my point in-context: “It is good to hijack planes and murder people in the name of God” and “it is not good to hijack planes and murder people in the name of God.””

    Are you saying that there are no circumstances in which it would be good to murder people in the name of God?

    “BTW, if you think morality is totally subjective, you basically have to say, “I don’t prefer terrorism.”
    You’re correct.

    “Deep down, we all know about objective moral values and duties. For example, “It is wrong to torture babies for fun.” Do you really think that’s the kind of thing that is best described by subjective preference or whim?”

    Morality is subjective because it is not something that exists independent of mind or perspective. It is mind-dependent. It doesn’t matter if every single living thing that exists and can think about morality agreed that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, it would still be subjective. There’s a difference between normative morality and objective morality.

    Do you think that morality exists independent of God?

  39. Nathaniel December 17, 2011 8:28 PM
    #

    The very fact that you think that without God there is no morality suggests that you believe morality is actually subjective. Think about it- if the existence of morality depends on the existence of a god then morality is subjective to that god.

    That’s the purpose of the Euthyphro Dilemma. It states that “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
    If the prior is true then God is unnecessary. If the latter is true then morality is arbitrary and akin to just taking commands (and subjective).

    • Apologetics Guy December 19, 2011 4:12 PM
      #

      If you mean that the moral law requires at least one mind, then yeah. I’d agree. But “subjective to that god” misses the point. When I say morality is objective, I mean the moral law is independent of people’s opinions. The moral law seems to impose itself on us from the outside, such that it can’t be grounded in a created being. Rather, it’s got to be grounded in the nature (not the opinions or preferences) of a transcendent mind, the Moral Law-Giver: God.

      The Euthyphro Dilemma suggests a false dichotomy. It ignores the idea that God wills something because He is good.

      See, if God doesn’t exist, morality is just something that evolved or something society made up. But I don’t think that’s the best explanation for what we know about the moral law. You said, “It doesn’t matter if every single living thing that exists and can think about morality agreed that it is wrong to torture babies for fun, it would still be subjective.” I’d agree…if there is no God.

      I think it’s self-evident that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong and it wouldn’t matter if every human on earth disagreed. If God’s real, objective moral values and duties are real. If not, all you’ve got is preference and morality is totally subjective. Do you really think this is the case with things like murder or rape?

      Aren’t at least some things really wrong, regardless of human opinion? I’m serious. Do you really think there’s no moral difference between saving a drowning baby and torturing a baby for fun?

  40. Nathaniel December 19, 2011 8:59 PM
    #

    “If you mean that the moral law requires at least one mind, then yeah. I’d agree”
    Viola! The very definition of subjective.

    “moral law is independent of people’s opinions. The moral law seems to impose itself on us from the outside, such that it can’t be grounded in a created being. Rather, it’s got to be grounded in the nature (not the opinions or preferences) of a transcendent mind, the Moral Law-Giver: God.”
    This statement is demonstrably false. Here’s why: if it is true that there is one moral law that is “grounded in the nature” of each person, then you’d expect that every person and every culture in the world (and throughout history) would share many if not most moral standards. What we see is exactly the opposite. Don’t believe me? I can name a culture that not only accepted child rape, but required it for manhood initiation. I can name a number of cultures that accepted cannibalism. I can name a handful of cultures where child-sacrifice was accepted (a few still exist). And when has there every been a culture that has not accepted murder under certain circumstances?

    “The Euthyphro Dilemma suggests a false dichotomy. It ignores the idea that God wills something because He is good.”
    So, something is morally good because God says it is good?

    “See, if God doesn’t exist, morality is just something that evolved or something society made up. But I don’t think that’s the best explanation for what we know about the moral law.”

    Is your alternative demonstrable?
    Here’s a fun fact: warm-blooded animals are the only animals that experience the emotion we call empathy. Want to know why? (yes, I’m going somewhere with this)

    ” If not, all you’ve got is preference and morality is totally subjective. Do you really think this is the case with things like murder or rape?”
    Absolutely. I don’t prefer these things there are plenty of people who do.

    “Do you really think there’s no moral difference between saving a drowning baby and torturing a baby for fun?”
    There is an objective difference between these two actions; and there is an objective difference in whether or not such an action would be beneficial to the human species (as in, beneficial for our survival); but as far as moral value is concerned, that is up to the individual.

    I’ll ask again, are there any circumstances in which it would be acceptable to murder in the name of God?

    • Apologetics Guy December 23, 2011 12:19 AM
      #

      You exclaimed, “Viola! The very definition of subjective.” No. In ethics, this refers to the subjective view that moral judgments are just expressions of our positive and negative attitudes. Take caution with you tone, Nathaniel. Either you misunderstand the term, or you’re just being dishonest. See “Subjectivism” in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.

      I didn’t say the moral law was grounded in the nature human beings. In fact, the moral law is independent of people’s opinions. You said, “This statement is demonstrably false.” But you’re confusing the existence of the moral law with the knowledge of the moral law. Just because people might disagree on the morality or immorality of certain actions, it doesn’t mean subjectivism is the best explanation for the moral law.

      You asked, “So, something is morally good because God says it is good?” No. Again, the Euthyphro Dilemma suggests a false dichotomy. Before we proceed any further, let me make sure I understand your beliefs:

      1. You believe rape is not wrong
      2. You believe torturing babies for fun is not wrong

      If you’re right—and nothing is really wrong—then it follows that murder (for any reason) is not wrong. But why should I believe a thing like that?

  41. Arthur December 23, 2011 8:43 AM
    #

    @Nathaniel, first, your initial claim that morality would also be subjective for God completely misses the point of subject/object differentiation, but since you claim that morality is relative, this doesn’t really matter.

    Ok, now onto your untenable position of relativism. Generally speaking I hope you realize the flaw of a relativist trying to tell an objectivist that he is wrong, actually about anything. Relativism is intrusive and pointless, a bit like screaming out “I love the color blue!”in a crowded movie theater – utterly pointless and intrusive, to which a simple response of ‘good for you!’ should be a sufficient.

    Further down you said, // I can name a culture that not only accepted child rape, but required it for manhood initiation. I can name a number of cultures that accepted cannibalism. I can name a handful of cultures where child-sacrifice was accepted (a few still exist).//

    So what? I can name 23 students who got different answers on a math problem. This doesn’t in any way argue that all answers are equally valid, and that there is no one right answer. To make things worse, I think you’re confusing moral epistemology, moral action, and the wide range of psychological self-manipulation as means to argue for moral relativism. It doesn’t work.

    And why would you make morality objective within specific cultures? Is it because of enculturation? If this is the case, why would anyone born in a specific culture argue against (in your view) “supposed injustices” of that culture? Was Martin Luther King Jr. wrong for arguing against the practice of slavery in the United States? Do you slavery is Ok for some cultures?

    If morality is relative, not only could we not hold Hitler accountable for his actions but we should question whether or not we should have stopped him. Should we have held Hitler accountable? Should we have stopped him? So would you make the argument that there is nothing wrong with holocaust?

    The fact is that in its direct application, without objective moral laws we lose the foundation for being able to resolve many problems, including international disputes and condemning such intuitively realized evils such as genocide and torture. In this world everyone is entitled to their own opinion regardless of hostility and/or damage, but objective moral laws are not at the mercy of personal or cultural whims, and within a reality in which cultures clash, there would be absolute pandemonium without an objective moral law to govern ALL of humanity.

    I don’t think moral relativism is sustainable by ANYONE! It only takes one instance of something happening in your life that will wake your slumbering need for justice, and then your conscience will scream out for it like you never imagined!

  42. Nathaniel December 23, 2011 1:52 PM
    #

    @Mikel
    “I didn’t say the moral law was grounded in the nature human beings”
    I apologize; I misread the original statement.

    “Euthyphro Dilemma suggests a false dichotomy”
    But you haven’t demonstrated why it’s a false dichotomy, as far as I can see. Saying “God is good” doesn’t contradict either side of the dilemma. The problem is a question of origin: is the goodness within God or God within the goodness? If God is our standard of goodness, is it not correct to say that “____ is morally good because God said so”?

    I’m going to take a step back and address the semantics because I think this is a large part of our disagreement. When I say “morality is subjective” I’m using a dictionary definition of subjective which is “subjective: adjective, a. proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world b. particular to a given person; personal”
    This comes from the American Heritage dictionary and a synonymous version of this definition can probably be found in any dictionary.
    “Objective: adjective 1. of or having to do with a material object 2. having actual existence in reality”
    I colloquially like to define subjective/objective as mind-dependent/mind-independent.

    An example of an objective statement: “Stravinsky’s ‘Le Sacre du Printemps’ has more textural and rhythmic complexity than Justin Bieber’s ‘Baby'”
    A subjective statement would be, “Stravinsky’s ‘Le Sacre du Printemps’ is better than Justin Bieber’s ‘Baby'”

    As it applies to morality, an objective statement would be “If a mother feeds her baby, the baby will have a better chance of survival”
    Subjective: “feeding your baby is better than letting it starve”

    Does that make sense? You can decide, objectively, what conducts would more likely lead to a happy life for you and the people around you, but first you have to decide, subjectively, what a happy life is. Musically you can decide, objectively, what music is better than other music but first you have to decide, subjectively, what the qualities are desirable in music. If the Bible is an accurate presentation on God’s moral standards, you can decide, objectively, that homosexuality is wrong but first you have to decide, subjectively, that God’s moral standards are good.

    This doesn’t mean that morality cannot work. We humans are social creatures and we are all very similar to each other so it is to be expected that there will be a convergence of desire. We can decide collectively that torturing a baby is wrong because we have collectively decided that preventing human suffering is more important than allowing pleasure; so if one person’s pleasure is another person’s suffering, we have generally made laws against it.

    Again, are there any circumstances in which murdering someone in the name of God would be the right thing to do?

    @Arthur
    “your initial claim that morality would also be subjective for God completely misses the point of subject/object differentiation”
    Read my above definitions of subjective/objective.

    “Ok, now onto your untenable position of relativism”
    This is a strawman. I’m not a relativist.

    “Generally speaking I hope you realize the flaw of a relativist trying to tell an objectivist that he is wrong”
    Strawman. I never said that objective truths don’t exist; I only said morality, by definition, is subjective…which it is. Under a dictionary definition of subjective, morality could never be anything but subjective.

    “I can name 23 students who got different answers on a math problem. This doesn’t in any way argue that all answers are equally valid, and that there is no one right answer”

    Comparing ethics to mathematics is a bit like comparing opinion to fact. No wait, that’s exactly what it is.

    “And why would you make morality objective within specific cultures?”
    Better question: how could you make morality objective within specific cultures?

    “Do you slavery is Ok for some cultures?”
    No I don’t. But most people do.

    “If morality is relative, not only could we not hold Hitler accountable for his actions but we should question whether or not we should have stopped him”
    Why would we ignore our collective social standards on what actions are and aren’t acceptable?

    “So would you make the argument that there is nothing wrong with holocaust?”

    This all goes back to semantics.
    Objective statement: “Killing and enslaving millions of people would cause a lot of suffering”
    Subjective statement: “Killing and enslaving millions of people is wrong”
    Again, our society has come to a general consensus that preventing suffering is more important than allowing pleasure. Hitler and the Nazis thought they were doing God’s will by killing the Jews; our society disagreed.

  43. Nathaniel December 23, 2011 9:28 PM
    #

    Let me make one more point. Arthur, you mentioned mathematics and how, on a given math equation there can be only one correct answer. That is because mathematics is objective. Given the axioms of arithmetic, 2+2 will always equal 4 and never anything else; there is no dilemma in mathematics because there can only be one answer and that answer is true regardless of what anyone thinks.

    So I guess my question is: for something that is objective, can a dilemma ever exist?

  44. Arthur December 24, 2011 9:25 AM
    #

    @Nathaniel, so much for your definition of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’!

    You just went through the trouble of enlightening us with your wisdom, all for naught. Surely, someone so well versed in the semantics of words and sentences could detect when another was making a subjective statement and not an actual argument, and hence did not need to necessarily be “corrected” with nonsensical statements in response, such as “this is a strawman” I thought maybe since you were enlightening us, you would know these things.

    //“And why would you make morality objective within specific cultures?”
    Better question: how could you make morality objective within specific cultures?
    “Do you slavery is Ok for some cultures?”
    No I don’t. But most people do.//

    You keep jumping back and forth and playing word games. First you make it appear as though society at large gets to lay subjective claims to morality. Then you reduce that to cultures (i.e. “our society”), than you move them to the personal realm (“I don’t, but most people do”). I’m having a hard time following you.

    Your counterexamples fail to give us any basis for why we should think of those other cultures/peoples/etc. as living in agreement with their subjective moral values and duties, as opposed to those people subjectively generating a psychological cocoon in order to avoid objective moral values and duties. I would argue that everyone has equal access to the realm of objective moral truth with many people simply making it subjective in order to live within their wicked desires.

    //This all goes back to semantics.
    Objective statement: “Killing and enslaving millions of people would cause a lot of suffering”
    Subjective statement: “Killing and enslaving millions of people is wrong”
    Again, our society has come to a general consensus that preventing suffering is more important than allowing pleasure. Hitler and the Nazis thought they were doing God’s will by killing the Jews; our society disagreed.//

    LOL…my goodness, Nathaniel; if you think killing and enslaving millions of people is just a matter of preference, I don’t really think there is _any_ common ground here to discuss this any further. And, you couldn’t be more wrong about the motivation of Hitler and the Nazis. I don’t think you have adequate justification for making that _objective_ claim. It wasn’t religious. It was racial, grounded by the way in Nietzsche’s ideal of the “Übermensch” bolstered by the theory of evolution.

    Take care and Merry Christmas!

  45. Nathaniel December 24, 2011 11:10 AM
    #

    “You just went through the trouble of enlightening us with your wisdom, all for naught.”
    There’s no need to be snide. But whatever.

    “nonsensical statements in response, such as “this is a strawman” ”
    You attributed a viewpoint to me that I don’t actually hold and then attacked that viewpoint. Is this not a strawman?

    “You keep jumping back and forth and playing word games. First you make it appear as though society at large gets to lay subjective claims to morality. Then you reduce that to cultures (i.e. “our society”), than you move them to the personal realm (“I don’t, but most people do”). I’m having a hard time following you.”

    I’m not intentionally ambiguous. When you asked me if I think it is okay for some societies to practice slavery, I said no which is my subjective opinion. The second part “but most people do” was actually a kidney shot at the apologetic justifications of the slavery endorsed by God in the Bible. But I don’t really want to get that far off topic which is why I didn’t state that explicitly.

    “Your counterexamples fail to give us any basis for why we should think of those other cultures/peoples/etc. as living in agreement with their subjective moral values and duties, as opposed to those people subjectively generating a psychological cocoon in order to avoid objective moral values and duties.”

    I don’t really follow any of that. What I think you’re saying is that people actually all know about an objective morality but avoid it because they don’t want to believe in objective morality. Is that more or less correct?

    “I would argue that everyone has equal access to the realm of objective moral truth with many people simply making it subjective in order to live within their wicked desires.”

    Okay, good. Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? Can you demonstrate that I’m wrong and there are not moral dilemmas? Can you demonstrate where exactly objective morality resides and how we observe it?

    “I don’t think you have adequate justification for making that _objective_ claim. It wasn’t religious. It was racial, grounded by the way in Nietzsche’s ideal of the “Übermensch” bolstered by the theory of evolution.”

    Hitler quotes:
    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

    “The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will”

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”

    And there are many, many others. As for the idea that Hitler used the Theory of Evolution to justify his actions, well, he didn’t believe in evolution. In fact, Darwins “On the Origins of Species” was one of the books largely targeted by Nazi book burnings. Hitler publicly denounced Darwin in a number of instances. I can provide quotes for that too if need be.

  46. Apologetics Guy December 30, 2011 6:56 PM
    #

    Nathaniel, I’m not sure how productive this discussion can be.

    You keep asking, “are there any circumstances in which murdering someone in the name of God would be the right thing to do?” No. But I don’t know how you could say the 9/11 terrorists were really wrong.

    Again, it seems like all you’ve got is preference if you say morality is totally subjective. I asked, “Do you really think this is the case with things like murder or rape?” You said, “Absolutely. I don’t prefer these things there are plenty of people who do.” So:

    1. You believe rape is not really wrong
    2. You believe torturing babies for fun is not really wrong
    3. You believe murder is not really wrong

    I believe it is self-evident that murder, rape and torturing babies for fun are really wrong. Even naturalist philosophers like Michael Smith at Princeton and the late Renford Bambrough at Cambridge would disagree with moral subjectivism and emotivism. I dare say the burden of proof is on you to give me a good reason to take your view seriously.

    -Mikel

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Do all roads (and flights) lead to God? | Sarcastic Xtian - September 10, 2011

    […] America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? […]

  2. The Three Faces of Evil and a Christian Response « The Apologist's Pen - September 10, 2011

    […] America After 9/11 – Is Religion Evil?- Apologetics Guy […]

  3. On September 11th, 2001, harmless things became fearful « J.W. Wartick -"Always Have a Reason" - September 10, 2011

    […] America After 9/11, Is Religion Evil?- Is it? […]

  4. 9/11: "Full Cognitive Meltdown" and Its Fallout - Thinking Christian - Thinking Christian - September 10, 2011

    […] America After 9/11 – Is Religion Evil?- Apologetics Guy […]

  5. Church Ministry Center America After 9 11 – Is Religion Evil? | Apologetics Guy - September 10, 2011

    […] Blog Search- Read More Church Ministry News Here: America After 9 11 – Is Religion Evil? | Apologetics Guy Destiny Image Films endeavors to tell inspirational stories that will touch and change lives. We […]

  6. Ground Zero: Why truth matters for preventing another 9/11-style attack « Wintery Knight - September 10, 2011

    […] Apologetics Guy: America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? […]

  7. Did God Allow the Attacks on 9/11 for a “Greater Good”? | The Gospel According to Erik - September 10, 2011

    […] Apologetics Guy: America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? […]

  8. The Problem of Evil: Whose problem is it? Is it a problem? | TilledSoil.org - September 10, 2011

    […] America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? by Mikel Del Rosario @ Apologetics Guy […]

  9. Divine Commands Post 9/11 | MandM - September 11, 2011

    […] Cross of Christ Take Two: Remembering 9/11: A Young Californian’s Perspective Apologetics Guy: America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? Apologetics 315: Resources on the Problem of Evil The Real Issue: The Three Faces of Evil and a […]

  10. Divine Commands Post 9/11 - September 11, 2011

    […] Zeros” (Reasons for God) “Suffering and the Cross of Christ” (Hieropraxis) “America after 9 11:  Is Religion Evil?” (Apologetics Guy) “Resources on the Problem of Evil” (Apologetics 315) […]

  11. Where was God on 9-11? « Neil Mammen's Blog - September 11, 2011

    […] Apologetics Guy: America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? […]

  12. Christian Carnival 14th September 2011 | Beyond Belief - September 17, 2011

    […] itself evil? Mikel Del Rosario presents an easy way to say “No Way” in the post America After 9/11: Is Religion Evil? posted at Apologetics […]

  13. September 11 – Is Religion Evil? | College Golf Fellowship - September 10, 2012

    […] Apologetics Guy, Mikel Del Rosario for College Golf Fellowship. Adapted from America After 9/11 – Is Religion Evil?  Share this:FacebookTwitterEmail ← Romans 13 – Submission to […]