What is Baptism and its significance?

Fr Schmitz, a popular YouTuber has some interesting things to say on this subject.

Problematically, they seem to be on the exclusionary (reductionist) side.

In this episode (taken from my YouTube channel - The Christian Humanist) I dissect some of the problems that afflict Fr. Schmitz's take on the first Catholic Sacrament.

Richard Dawkins is known for two things mainly: His criticism of God and his espousal of an atheistic worldview, both of which are built on his unwavering profession of the scientific doctrine of Darwinian evolution. Whilst much attention has been given to Dawkins's critic of 'God', which in practice translates into a (rather rudimentary) critic of religion; it is one that has been steadfastly buttressed by his reliance on the theory of evolution. The problem with Dawkins's critic of religion is that assumes the explanatory sufficiency of evolution with respect to the question of life. One that has become increasingly problematic in recent times in light of new challenges to the conventional understanding of evolution. However, in Dawkins's defense, despite the many shortfalls that underlie evolution, the theory does evolution does carry a number truths.

The premium that is placed on the replication value of an organism; the capacity of an organism or species to survive, thrive, and dominate its environment; the ability of the organism to outcompete and eventually outlast rival species. Realities of evolution that function at an individual level and at the collective, and at virtually all levels of the taxonomy that make up life. The problem with Dawkins's critic of religion is that it fails to, or simply ignores the evolutionary value of religion, vis a vie, God, to the question of survival in relation to human populations at the collective: That is the value that religion confers to human life in terms of the communal, familial, social and ultimately cultural and even political dimensions are points which are routinely ignored by the critics of religion. And for Richard Dawkins, as a major proponent of Darwinian evolution, this omission is all the more problematic.

When it comes to evolution, the one key principle that its critics and supporters can agree on is the importance it places on survival, endurance, and continuity. As the full title of Charles Darwin's book reads: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life'. Mmm.. Pretty hefty stuff.  You see friends, Romans, and countrymen one of the key factors which argue in favor of religion is the survival benefit that it confers on people as individuals and as members of a larger community, like cultures, nation-states, or ethnic groups, when they embrace the religious dimension. It ought to be evident that parts of the world that have secularized are predominantly in the West. And these cultures are (or were) predominantly Christian. Including Dawkins's homeland, Great Britain. So what has been the natural consequence of its religious decline? The answer is the demographic (or controversially, the ethnic decline) of its (formerly) Christian populace. As studies have shown that the rise in secularism goes hand in hand with the declining fertility of the respective society. So what does this mean for the future of a secular Europe and an increasingly secularizing West? The answer is that the future, at least in the mid-to-long term is going to be a religious one: Islam.

Hello Everyone. Welcome to the New Humanist Podcast. I am Damian.

This is the first episode. The topic, to start things out, is the problem with religion (notably Christianity) in relation to its overt moralistic focus.

Questions require comprehensive answers. This episode is the start of an attempt to make better sense of these.

Richard Dawkins is arguably one of the foremost critics of religion and by extension "God" in the world. And is one of the central figures of the New Atheist movement. Richard Dawkins is noted for his contributions to the modern secular critic of religion and at the same time for being one of the foremost defenders and advocates of Darwinian evolution: the particular understanding of evolution that lends itself most strongly to the atheistic cause. Richard Dawkins has built a reputation (a global one seemingly) by attacking religion, most notably via a number of bestselling books. Among the most notable are The God Delusion (2006), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), and The Selfish Gene (1976). All best sellers. The latter two books, were notable in advancing a critic of religion by advancing the plausibility for the emergence of complex life via purely naturalistic processes: Notably Darwinian evolution.

My critic of Richard Dawkins focuses on the apparent conclusiveness of his worldview. His espousal of Darwinian evolution, which has been well noted, is one of a number of problems with his worldview. In his bestselling books his ideas on God, religion, life, and its significance (or insignificance in relation to undirected evolution) have been outlined. At one level, Dawkins's success comes down to his writing ability and his capacity for weaving wonderful analogies which seem to simplify apparently complex scientific phenomena into packets of info that are digestible for the laymen. But that is also where the problem lies: the question of life, origins, its complexity, and development are immensely complex subject matters that seem to be waved away by invoking the theory of (Darwinian) evolution.  Which today has become something akin to a secular dogma.

This critic will engage Dawkins's views on God. For which I have selected a number of quotes from the said biologist. These quotes focus on the underlying sensibility that Dawkins has when it comes to the idea of God and religion in relation to the theory of evolution, which Dawkins, as I will point out, values, if not worship. Further, Dawkins critic of religion/God, nonetheless masks a deeper urge for the unknown, and potentially mystical, which seems to find in the theory of evolution.  Richard Dawkins in all of his attempts to demystify the world through the study and pursuit of science, to my understanding has come full circle in mystifying science itself.

Daniel Dennett is the person I least understand among the new atheists. For starters, his area of expertise (based on his Wikipedia page) seems quite vague: with the focus on philosophy, the study of mind, along with mentions his outspoken critic of religion. Notable in his book Breaking the Spell (2006), which put him more in the category of a sociologist, or sociobiologist (evolutionary psychology). Though I am not sure he would accept such a characterization.

Daniel Dennett to me is a science popularizer. Or better a Charles Darwin popularizer. Besides the fact that he has borrowed certain (albeit prehistoric) "fashion" points from the famous British Naturalist, much of Dennett's works exist to pay homage to the man who gave the secular world of science the supposed means of explaining how life evolved. But that is really the problem. Since Dennett is so enamored by the works, and life (and possibly looks) of Darwin, he as a thinker is not offering anything new to this debate on life, its origins, development. The problem with Daniel Dennett, that is evident in almost all of his speeches on the topics of life, evolution, religion, and society is that he is heavily reliant on the thinkers who came before him, which combined with his uncritical acceptance of those ideas makes him look like an intellectual imitator.

The two most notable ideas that Daniel Dennett espouses seemingly without question is the mechanism of evolution propounded by Charles Darwin in his book, On the Origin of Species; the other being The Tree of Life. The latter tells us that life evolved gradually, over a period of many hundreds of millions of years, increasing in complexity and diversity over time. The problem with Darwinian evolution today, one that many even in the scientific community find problematic lies with its mechanism. Its supposedly unguided and undirected character, whereby natural selection to give rise to complex life. In spite of the mounting evidence coming from the scientific field against, not evolution per se, but specifically against the neo Darwin synthesis: one that combines natural selection, mutations with Mendelian genetics.

Dennett's espousal of the tree of life framework to chart the course of All life on Earth has been challenged by discoveries relating to the Cambrian Explosion (Around 540 million years ago). Further, the continued usage and reliance on this framework or metaphor (a descriptive term used by the pro (Darwinian) evolution Bio logos group), for me indicates that Dennett is not someone who is really interested in looking at the science that underlies the complexities of life. Most notably as it pertains to the complexity that relates to all life. One that presents the information enigma, which Dennett is knowingly or otherwise, ignorant of.

This is a tricky one since Lawrence Krauss's critique of Christianity/religion is potentially the most scientifically grounded (Though it actually isn't). And I'm not a physicist. However, given the character of Krauss's critic of Christianity, it soon becomes evident that the governing thought process of this atheist (i.e. antitheist) is the belief in the importance of undermining religion as an end itself, and in the process set science 'free': That is to make it untethered from any moralistic concern that may emanate from a religiously inspired teaching or worldview. Writing in the New Yorker in 2015, Krauss states: "In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. No ideas, religious or otherwise, get a free pass. The notion that some idea or concept is beyond question or attack is anathema to the entire scientific undertaking". The problem with this view is that, if everything is subject to question and scientific scrutiny, then why not the fundamental rights that govern modern societies: That of life, liberty, and freedom from oppression, and to pursue one's happiness. A notable point of Lawrence Krauss's critic of God/Religion is his arguments for the origins of the universe. Supposedly from nothing. A matter that Christian apologists and scientists alike have confronted. With most notable secular push back against Lawrence Krauss's position and subsequent book: A Universe from Nothing by David Albert in the New York Times in 2012.

My problem with Lawrence Krauss is a somewhat different one. You see the thing about people like Lawrence Krauss, whose beliefs and actions are driven by their obvious vendetta against religion is the very real impact that it is likely to have on Western culture and Western civilization. This is a much bigger subject that cannot be engaged here. But what the anti-religious critic advanced by the likes of Lawrence, notably against Christianity-since this is the religion of the West-the only real place where the scientific enterprise developed and as arisen to the lofty standards that it has today-is that it translates into a logical critic or attack on the spiritual foundations of the West. To undermine Christianity: intellectually, culturally, and ultimately politically only works to weaken the foundations of Western civilization.

Further problematic is Krauss's elevation of science as some self-contained reality. That can or ought to operate with a mind of its own. Understand this, science in and of itself does nothing. Science is basically a set of rules and processes on how to go about studying the nature of reality: Which involves steps like forming hypotheses; collecting data to support or contradict it, developing theories; carrying out experiments, testing the results to validate or invalidate the original theory or hypothesis, etc. This scientific process in and of itself does not tell us what kind of experiments to conduct, what kind of scientific theories are worth developing and pursuing. And needless to say what kind of scientific applications are good or bad in terms of their immediate or ultimate effects on humanity and the world. This requires a moral framework that cannot be reduced to the scientific method, as there isn't one in the world of science. Krauss's attack on Christianity, and by extension Western culture, only works to undermine the very society that gave rise to the scientific method: one that is for the most part values the human.

Christopher Hitchens, the English (later American) polemist, political commentator, and writer is probably the only person among the New Atheist list that I respect. For at one point in the past I did think quite highly of the New Atheists, notably Sam Harris but that opinion has changed rapidly in the past few years. When comes to Mr. Hitchens, I, like many liked the way he spoke: His command of the English language, and the manner in which articulated himself-notably in debates against Christian apologists is something that I enjoyed. Further Hitchens as a person with deep knowledge of history, geopolitics and culture was admired for other reasons. His commentary on such subjects were advanced with typical flare.

I have followed the works of Mr. Hitches for some time, as I only came to learn about him, following his passing. This included his commentary on current affairs, his many debates, and importantly having read a number of his books: God is not Great (2007), The Missionary Position (1995) and Arguably (2011). The latter tome is a collection of his important writings on a range of subjects. The aim of this episode is to critique Hitchens's critique of God. Which in practice essentially, as it is the case with all these New Atheists, is a critique of his view of religion.

The main problem with Hitchens critique of God is that it only qualifies as a critique of religion. And this critic itself is very simplistic. Problematically, as those who have followed his engagements the likes of Dinesh Dsouza, and William Lane Craig, and William Dembski would note; his critique of religion is sporadic and unstructured. It rapidly jumps from one problem of religion to another, just as it jumps from one religion to the next. Nonetheless Hitchens' criticisms directed against religion as messy as they are, do contain a lot truth. For in part Hitchens does get a number of things right, but a number of glaring problems, as I shall elaborate do exist. The sort which Hitchens keeps repeating in his polemics and debates, which his critiques/Christian apologists hardly engage. Here I will engage three notable problems with Hitchens's critic of God/religion and in the process I will engage other shortfalls in his attack on faith.

Salvation is one of the central concepts in the Christian faith. An immensely complex matter that I cannot even start to unpack in a 30-minute episode. So what I will proceed to do here is to outline the general understanding of the subject of salvation, and engage certain problems that arise in our approach towards it. So the problem with Salvation that I am seeking to deconstruct is primarily one of understanding.

When it comes to better understanding the idea of Salvation let's start with the obvious: Salvation refers to the saving of mankind (or humanity) from the power of Evil, which is a result of Sin. In other words, we are getting into the realm of Christian metaphysics. In Christianity Evil as a reality predates the entry of Sin into this world through the Fall, which points back to Satan. The problem with Sin (a human problem) comes to life either through act(s) of disobedience to God or in thought: through man's subconscious defiance to God's will. Through which we bring about the consequence of Sin, which is death. Death, in its fuller metaphysical understanding, does not only correspond to 'death' in a physical sense but also the 'wages of Sin': where death as a living (or dying) force manifests itself as an insidious, metastasizing power whose effects carry over into the spiritual realm. The power of Evil, powered by Sin, giving rise to 'death' manifests in the world spirit and the flesh.

Serious stuff! But this is not even the start. Since Christian understanding of Salvation revolves around the deliverance of man from the power of Evil, and its primary operative force: Sin, the question is what does this mean for you and me today? The common understanding of the doctrine of Salvation centers on the Redemptive mission of Christ. God in order to save a Fallen humanity sends His Son on a rescue mission, which involved Him ultimately dying as a sacrifice for our sins, so that God (i.e. His Father or in other words Himself) could forgive us! Clearly, there is much to the idea of Salvation. As the reader (and listener) will know, and much of the present disillusionment towards Christianity in the West, felt particularly by the NONEs, stems (rightly) from our view towards this central dogma of Christianity. In this episode I will engage the problem with Salvation by looking at three points: