“godless”–by Dan Barker: An Extended Book Analysis (Part 3: Science, Morality, and the Bible)

We now come to my third post about Dan Barker’s book godless, in which I will discuss chapter 6 which is entitled, “Refuting God.” In it, Barker covers sixteen typical arguments for the existence of God and attempts to refute them all. They all can be categorized the following way: (1) Arguments 1-4 and 14-15 really boil down to the standard “creation/evolution” arguments and other science-related things; (2) Arguments 8-9 deal with the concept of a universal moral law or standard; (3) Arguments 10-11 are rather thin responses to the arguments of Pascal and Aquinas; (4) All the rest are just a hodgepodge of various arguments—a few of which I will mention.

Science and the Spirit

In regard to Barker’s comments on the scientific arguments, both the arguments and his comments are really based on a faulty premise. One cannot “prove” the existence of God in any scientific sense because (a) science only deals with studying the natural world, and (b) God, if He exists, is a being that is above and beyond the natural world. Yes, one can make the argument that things in the natural world point to and infer the existence of God, but they cannot “prove” it.

With that said, one of Barker’s comments deserve mention. Early on in the chapter he states, “Words like ‘spirit’ and ‘supernatural’ have no referent in reality, so why discuss a meaningless concept?” (104). As I said in the previous post, this statement simply reveals Barker’s presuppositional bias of philosophical materialism. He has already defined reality as “only nature,” and by doing so, he can justify instantly dismissing even the talk or possibility of the supernatural. That is a problem in my book. A further problem imbedded in that statement is his clear misunderstanding of the Christian notion of the “spirit” and “spiritual.” It is clear from Barker’s comments, both here and throughout his book, that he defines “spirit” and “spiritual” as things that are not material—i.e. a “spiritual world” is some sort of “other world” that is filled with non-material, ghost-like “spirits.”

This is simply a very anemic, and ultimately false, understanding of the New Testament understanding of “spiritual.” The New Testament does not old to this kind of dualistic, split-level view of reality, where “spiritual things” are “up there” in some non-material realm and “material things” are “down here” in the natural realm. Indeed, the entire biblical witness is that the matter and the material world is good—it is the creation of God, and it is within that material world, within human history, that God interacts with mankind.

In particular, when one reads in the letters of Paul his contrasting of “the flesh” and “the Spirit,” it would be wrong to think Paul is talking about what Barker seems to imply the Bible is talking about. For Paul, “the flesh” is not a reference to “material reality,” and “the Spirit” is not a reference to “non-material reality.” For Paul, these two designations have to do with the overarching Jewish/Christian worldview regarding the present “old age” in which sin, death, and bondage reigns and the coming “new age” of the Kingdom of God, in which there is eternal life, transformation, and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. This “new age” is not conceived as some sort of “non-material spirit realm” to which believers will fly away to as spirits after they have shed their mortal coil.

That very idea is, quite frankly, completely unbiblical. The very “good news” of the Gospel is that God will renew this material creation and transform it, not that He will get rid of it. Hence, when one reads Paul’s discussion of the difference between the “natural/soulish” body and the “Spiritual body” in I Corinthians 15, he is not saying the first is “material” and the second is “non-material.” He is saying the current natural body is the Energizer Bunny with a battery that will eventually run down and die, whereas the Spiritual body (note: ‘S’piritual, as in empowered by the Holy Spirit; not “non-material”) involves the empowerment of that Energizer Bunny with a battery that will never die. Both bodies are material, but one will inevitably run down and die, whereas the other one will not succumb to death.

Therefore, to get back to Barker’s comment, his casual dismissal of all things “spiritual” simply illustrates his misunderstanding of what the very biblical understanding of “Spiritual” is.

Moral Law and Standards

The next thing I want to address is Barker’s comments regarding the concept of the Moral Law and Standard of right and wrong. This one caught my eye because the idea of a universal moral law is something that C.S. Lewis argues in his book, Mere Christianity. Without going into full detail, Lewis’ argument was basically this: what we call the “laws of nature,” really aren’t “laws” in the sense that things in nature choose to obey. They are, in fact, what we might call descriptive laws—description of things in the natural world that just are. We don’t choose to obey gravity and we don’t accuse a lion of “murdering” a gazelle. These are just things that happen “in nature.”

When it comes to human beings, though, we find within ourselves a certain “something” that we find pressing upon regarding what we ought and ought not do. It is this ought/ought not within us that is quite different from anything else in nature. This sense of morality that humans alone have isn’t just an instinct we have, and it isn’t just something we are taught. It is something quite unique. Lewis then uses that “unique something” to argue that that inner sense of ought/ought not, that sense of right and wrong, is not only unique to human beings, but it also points to the possibility that human beings have been given this sense of right and wrong, what Lewis calls the moral law, by some sort of high power or being.

Obviously, there is more to it, but that is pretty much how Lewis starts his argument: (A) human beings seem to have this sense of right and wrong, (B) it is something completely unique compared to anything else in nature, so (C) where did it come from? Lewis’ answer: that is an indication that some sort of higher power, or God, is the source for that sense of right and wrong. It is an argument that I still find very convincing.

Barker, obviously, doesn’t feel the same way. His claims about our sense of morality and where it comes from, though, are simply not convincing to me. He asserts, “Ethical systems are based on the worth humans have assigned to life: ‘good’ is that which enhances life and ‘evil’ is that which threatens it” (112). Furthermore, he asserts, “There is no ‘universal moral urge’ and not all ethical systems agree” (113).

As for the second statement, that is simply not true. The mere fact that not all ethical systems agree is not proof that there is no universal moral urge. There does seem to be some sort of “universal baseline” of morality. Different cultures and societies might have different variations in their ethical systems, but you will never find such absolute differences that render them totally unrelated. C.S. Lewis discusses this very thing in Mere Christianity.

As for the first statement, that ultimately says that ethics and moral are ultimately arbitrary. It is all a matter of what human beings decide is enhancing or threatening to life. It sounds nice, but in reality, it simply isn’t true. Let’s use good old Godwin’s Law and use Hitler as an example. He justified killing 6 million Jews on the grounds that ultimately killing them enhanced the health and happiness of the human race as a whole. Leaving them alive threatened the well-being of the human race. I’m sure Barker would vehemently object to such a barbaric and hideous claim. But why? Because he knows deep down that ethics are not a mere matter of just human beings deciding what enhances and threatens life. Despite Hitler’s claims, Barker would say such genocide was evil, despite Hitler’s justifications.

Let’s take another example: abortion. Not matter how you justify it, abortion does threaten, and indeed destroy, human life. Using Barker’s rationale for morality and ethics, one would assume he is against abortion—but he isn’t. My point is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of abortion, but rather to simply point out that Barker’s attempt to root morality and ethics in an arbitrary decision regarding over-generalized concepts of “enhancing life” and “threatening life” simply is not sufficient. What Barker’s attempt to explain morality comes down to is this: “Human beings’ sense of morality is human beings’ sense of morality.” Of course, that is true, but that isn’t really saying anything.

There is one more statement Barker makes during his discussion of morality and moral standards that I want to comment on. He says the following: “The demand for ‘absolute’ morality comes only from insecure religionists who don’t trust (or have been told not to trust) their own moral reasoning. …Mature people are comfortable with the relativism of humanism since it provides a consistent, rational and flexible framework for ethical human behavior—without a deity” (113).

Now, to an extent, this is true. Among the more extreme Fundamentalists, such demands for “absolute” morality almost always degenerate into extreme Pharisaism and legalism and almost always have devastating effects on the lives of people. That being said, I can’t help but notice that, despite his claims, Barker proves himself to be rather obsessed with the very same thing. If one reads his books, he spends the vast majority of his time decrying the immorality in the Bible by ripping random verses out of context and denouncing them according to his absolute standard of morality. He doesn’t apply his concept of a “flexible framework for ethical human behavior” on the Bible by trying to understand the historical contexts and situations of that time. Ironically, his thinking seems to be, “The Bible claims there is a God, therefore I must condemn all of it according to my own absolute moral standard.”

And, of course, in doing so, Barker proves that he still is, despite his atheism, a Fundamentalist at heart.

The Reliability of the Bible

The final item from chapter 6 that I wish to address is Barker’s comments on the historical reliability of the Bible. In a nutshell, he says that the Bible isn’t historically reliable, is contradictory, and since it claims miracles happen, should be held to a higher standard of proof.

Here are the quotes:

“The bible reflects the culture of its time. Though much of its setting is historical, much is not. For example, there is no contemporary support for the Jesus story outside the Gospels, which were anonymously written 30-80 years after the supposed crucifixion” (116).

Now, yes, the Bible obviously reflects the culture of its time, but the way Barker characterizes it is wholly misleading. First of all, let’s be clear, when it comes to ancient history of anything, there is no “contemporary support” for virtually anything. We don’t have “contemporary on the ground reports” of hardly anything in history. Everything we know about ancient history comes from writings that were written long after the events themselves happened. This is one trick I find some atheists often use when it comes to Jesus. They say, “Show me contemporary corroborating evidence from Roman records of the life of Jesus that was written during the supposed life of Jesus. If he was such a big deal, surely Roman historians would have written about him at that time.”

I will leave it to the reader to see how ridiculous that is.

Secondly, Barker makes it sound like having the Gospels written 30-80 years after the life of Christ render them wholly unreliable, because that is supposedly such a long time between Jesus’ life and the writing of Jesus’ life. Well, to the contrary, in comparison to other examples of ancient history writing, 30-80 years is a veritable video recording of the events. To put it another way, if a writing 30-80 years after the event renders the writing wholly unreliable, then we might as well throw out everything we think we know about ancient history, for virtually everything we know about ancient history comes from writings that were written hundreds of years after the events in question.

Barker though, has one more objection to the reliability of the gospels: miracles. For him, the mere fact they claim Jesus did things like heal the sick and resurrect renders them worthless and outrageous. He writes, “Outrageous claims require outrageous proof. A criterion of critical history is the assumption of natural regularity over time. This precludes miracles, which by definition ‘override’ natural law. If we allow for miracles, then all documents, including the bible, become worthless as history” (116).

Despite the fact that scholars agree that the gospels are, in fact, examples of ancient historical biographies, Barker says, “Nu-uh! Not history! They contain miracles!” Thus, demonstrating how his presuppositional worldview of philosophical materialism overrides his ability to even wrestle with accepted facts of reality: namely, even though they contain miracle accounts, the gospels really are written as historical biographies. A truly honest and objective person will recognize that and at least entertain the possibility there is something he doesn’t know. A propagandist with an agenda won’t.

The fact is, fundamentalist atheist Dan Barker is as 100% certain of his beliefs as the former Fundamentalist minister Dan Barker was. The beliefs have changed, but the same Fundamentalist mindset hasn’t. It is absolute. It is certain. And it is hell-bent on attacking the supposed enemy at every turn. Of course, the “enemy” is often a windmill.