PZ Myers is on his anti-Christian tirade again, but that alone is not noteworthy. Except in this case he has specifically targeted his visceral barbs directly at Francis Collins’s interview on the Sunday Times. (See TT’s post on this) Frankly, I am not surprise of Myers berating Collins this way. I expected it to happen sooner or later. (see A Proud Heretic)
PZ’s strategy is to first eliminate the Christians then the “useful idiots”.
Myers once refer to Collins and Miller as evolutionist’s religious “leading lights”. I guess as long as they tow the party line. Watch out Miller or you might suffer the ire of Myers.
Still up to this point there is nothing noteworthy from Myers that warrants a posting. Except in his tirade, Myers mocked at C. S. Lewis’s trilemma argument.
And dear gob, he was convinced by Mere Christianity? The “liar, lunatic, or lord” argument? Mere Christianity is a book that leaves atheists baffled at how anyone could find such drivel compelling –it’s a set of exceedingly weak excuses that believers find congruent with their preconceptions, but as a recruiting tool– man, it might sway a lunatic, and a liar might find it a useful tool, but lords need not apply.
While his visceral attack on the argument is poignant, it lacks the critical and objective thinking that he claims to cherish. What is it that is exceedingly weak about the trilemma? Is it just because Myers does not find it convincing due to his own blind predilection to Atheism? Or is it because he is just lazy and never studied the reasoning behind Lewis’s argument. If Myers does possess some knowledge or faculty for logic to his diatribe, it was never demonstrated. It would be wise to at least know your enemy, even if you disagree with him. Myers’s enemy, being Lewis, (ultimately God) was a former atheist then embraced eastern religion and finally turning to Christianity, Lewis was a master of mythology. Doesn’t it make sense for Myers to spend a bit of that critical thinking power that he claims to possess, to study the reasoning behind his enemy’s argument and demonstrate his counterargument in a slightly more concrete manner?
What did he find exceedingly weak about Lewis’s trilemma? Was it the historical manuscripts? Was it testimony and actions of the apostles? Or was it the entire Jewish and Roman historical record of the first century that he disputes? It seems to be that Lewis’s argument has substantially more evidential support than Myers’s Darwinian mythology. What sort of evidence does Myers have to support his atheistic myth? Look here is A, and here is B. A slowly turned into B but we just don’t have any detail historical evidence to show how and what was change for A to become B. This is really good critical thinking Myers. You are no doubt a legend in your own mind.