My neighbor two houses down, JP Chavez was recently listening to a different podcast in which William Lane Craig was being reacted to.
There was a video clip of Craig – a Christian apologist with a more formally academic and philosophical type bend – being asked about the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and Craig was doubting that the first part of Genesis is to be taken as literally true.
The striking thing the reactors pointed out was Craig’s tone, and that he seemed to be trying to appease atheists in academia who point to things like the first eleven chapters of Genesis as why they can’t take the Bible seriously. Science has allegedly debunked the claims about origins made in the Bible, et cetera.
Now it does seem as though that kind of atheism isn’t quite as prevalent these days compared with years ago. But there are at least two kinds of atheists.
The first kind of atheist I would call the scientific atheist. In this camp belong those who say that modern Science has debunked the claims of the Bible, therefore we must reject the Bible and God as invalid.
The second kind of atheist I would call the moral atheist. And in this category are those who say that the God of the Bible is a villain, and that those who believe in God and the Bible are oppressed and oppressive by virtue of their faith.
The question JP asks is this, if he will forgive me for paraphrasing him:
'Which kind of atheism do we need to spend more of our time and energy trying to equip our kids to defend against?'
