Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf Free eBook Download: Disproving Christianity And Other Secular Writings Pdf. Posts about free pdf written by davidgmcafee. ANGELES— David G. McAfee, author of Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings. Posts about disproving Christianity pdf written by davidgmcafee. Versus Worship” from “Disproving Christianity and other Secular Writings.”.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Book Review of Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings by David McAfee - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. "Disproving Christianity and Other Secular Writings" by David G. McAfee to the Scribd page where the Pdf was stored but never got around to. purpose in writing this book is not to defend God, or even to argue for the New Atheists, my only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically . Christianity and the Bible, Richard Dawkins refers to the Books of Matthew, . other. One might assume that this would disqualify the man as an atheist.
And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: for so did the papacy start up on a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power.
L This critique by Hobbes was centered around what he perceived as the perversion of Biblical scripture and continued traces of Gentilism, primitive superstition and heathen idolatry within Catholic teachings posing as an authentic form of Christianity.
These influences had already led the people of England to rebel against their rightful sovereign, and thus was a major concern in his theory of a stable polity.
Here again we see Hobbes dislike of the Catholic Church manifesting in his writings. The second major theological goal of Hobbes was to develop a theory underpinning and legitimating sovereignty that could fit with his scientific and nominalist views of mechanical movement and reason which, when properly applied, would demonstrate that there was no inherent conflict between the obedience owed to the sovereign and the obedience owed to God by citizens of the commonwealth.
By providing both theological and political proofs for the unity of civil and religious matters under the sovereign, Hobbes hoped to offer a solution to the religious turmoil within England at the time. He was supporting in effect the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England, which had become unpopular in the s Hobbes was very clear on this point, and devoted considerable space throughout his writings to buttressing his claim that the church and sovereign need not be in competition, and that the church should be subordinate to the sovereign.
While this heterodox line of argumentation is one of the reasons later interpreters have claimed Hobbes was areligious or anti-religious, a close reading of what Hobbes actually argues for, and attention to the political and religious debates he was enmeshed in, actually confirms the centrality of his theological arguments. And therefore a Church, such a one as is capable to command, to judge, absolve, condemn, or do any other act, is the same thing with a civil Commonwealth consisting of Christian men; and is called a civil state, for that the subjects of it are men; and a Church, for that the subjects thereof are Christians.
Temporal and spiritual government are but two words brought into the world to make men see double and mistake their lawful sovereign There is therefore no other government in this life, neither of state nor religion, but temporal; nor teaching of any doctrine lawful to any subject which the governor both of the state and of the religion forbiddeth to be taught.
Who that one chief pastor is, according to the law of nature, hath been already shown; namely, that it is the civil sovereign L Here we see both the religious concerns Hobbes was addressing, the false doctrines of various Christian churches, as well as the political dangers he saw from civil conflicts arising out of struggles between competing claims to authority.
More importantly, this all served the ultimate purpose of maintaining peace in the commonwealth so that the citizens could live good Christian lives and thus be saved.
Far from being antagonistic, Hobbes saw a fusion of religious and political power as the ideal model for the commonwealth. A further examination of his discussion in Ch.
Here we find a strong theological basis for Hobbes's construction of the figure of the sovereign in relation to divine authority and as a representative of God within the political logic and structure of the Leviathan. Every man therefore ought to consider who is the sovereign prophet; that is to say, who it is that is God's vicegerent on earth, and hath next under God the authority of governing Christian men; and to observe for a rule that doctrine which in the name of God he hath commanded to be taught For when Christian men take not their Christian sovereign for God's prophet, they must either take their own dreams for the prophecy they mean to be governed by, and the tumour of their own hearts for the Spirit of God; or they must suffer themselves to be lead by some strange prince, or by some of their fellow subjects that can bewitch them by slander of the government into rebellion, without other miracle to confirm their calling than sometimes an extraordinary success and impunity; and by this means destroying all laws, both divine and human, reduce all order, government, and society to the first chaos of violence and civil war.
L 90 By linking together the power of the sovereign as temporal prophet with the authority of God in this way, Hobbes is assuring that the proper interpretation and teachings of Christian scripture will not conflict with the dictates and laws of the sovereign, but rather the two will be mutually reinforcing and complementary.
Hobbes makes this argument not only in Leviathan, but also in De Cive. In the last part of it, which is entitled Religion, lest that right which by strong reason I had confirmed the sovereign powers in the preceding discourse have over their subjects, might seem to be repugnant to the sacred scriptures, I show in the first place how it repugns not the divine right, for as much as God overrules all rulers by nature, that is, by the dictates of natural reason.
In the second, for as much as God himself had a peculiar dominion over the Jews by virtue of that ancient covenant of circumcision. In the third, because God doth now rule over us Christians by virtue of our covenant of baptism. And therefore the authority of rulers in chief, or of civil government, is not at all, we see, contrary to religion.
MC Hobbes makes similar claims elsewhere in De Homine when he says that the state is the proper authority to decide public forms of worship and religious ceremony. And we find a similar argument about the power of the sovereign over religious matters when Hobbes talks about the will of God being known through the will of the state. Therefore, according to the customs of men, god among all peoples hath as His possessions the lands, rights, and other goods especially consecrated to Him.
But He doth not have these things unless it be so constituted by the state. For, since the will of God is not known save through the state, and since, moreover, it is required that the will of Him that is represented be the author of the actions performed by those who represent Him, it needs be that God's person be created by the will of the state MC As the various examples above illustrate, and as I have argued, Hobbes was working on two parallel tracks in Leviathan and other writings.
The first was to offer a systematic attack on the corrupting influences of various Christian denominations, in particular the Catholic Church, and to show how this was leading to religious strife and civil war. The second was to reconcile his scientific views with his theological claims in such a way that religion could be salvaged from superstition while simultaneously subordinated to the rule of the sovereign.
The ultimate goal of this mix of science and reason was to form a stable society in the guise of a Christian Commonwealth, better known as the Leviathan. This was a massive intellectual undertaking, one which entailed numerous difficulties, both philosophically and politically.
Luckily for Hobbes, the firestorm his writings ignited never ultimately caught up to him. Keeping all of this in mind, I want to now turn to the two central concepts in the writings of Hobbes which I outlined in the opening, which are the state of nature and the laws of nature.
By looking at these various themes in Hobbes's writings, Leviathan, De Homine, De Cive, and The Elements of Law, I hope to show that a theological reading of Hobbes provides not only a more accurate understanding of what Hobbes was saying in his arguments, but also that such an approach is necessary for a holistic view of Hobbes philosophical project.
The State of Nature The state of nature is a fundamental building block in the political theory of Hobbes, and as such, seems an appropriate place to being our investigation into Hobbesian theology.
This state for Hobbes is both a theoretical possibility and a concrete reality; theoretical in that it is an always existing possibility for states during civil war and strife to revert back into, and real in terms of a European past and variously existing savage peoples, such as in America L The problem arises in that this very freedom and equality always leads to someone wanting more than their share and resorting to force to gain it.
For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all What I want to call attention to here for our interests is the connection between right reason and the state of nature, as this is one of the points of attack by secular readers of Hobbes, such as David Gauthier in his The Logic of Leviathan If we accept Hobbes's view that man is a self-maintaining engine, then we can establish the basic nature of human motivation.
Men want, and necessarily want, to preserve themselves. Therefore, whatever can be shown to be a condition of human preservation, is thereby shown to be a means to man's end.
Gauthier wants to argue that there could be other motivations besides self-preservation at work, and cites what he sees as the weak response by Hobbes to the issue of suicide as merely some defect of reason in that person. However, I think Gauthier misreads Hobbes here, or more precisely, his exclusion of theological considerations blinds him to why Hobbes argues self-preservation is the primary human motivation.
As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them, that assault by force, to take away his life; because he cannot be understood to aim thereby, at any good to himself L 88 But this necessity doesn't simply appear out of nowhere for Hobbes, rather it derives from moral philosophy and the laws of nature, which manifest through the use of right reason, which is given to each by God.
He then goes on to add that these are not laws in the sense of speech laws made by the sovereign, but more properly laws commanded by God. So for Hobbes, the primary motivation in human nature driving us towards self-preservation is linked to our use of right reason, and this reason is a part of God's law.
Furthermore, this right reason, combined with our passions in the state of nature, necessarily leads us to seek peace and self-preservation.
Therefore it is clear that for Hobbes, self-preservation as the fundamental motivation in humans is not a normative statement as Gauthier wants to claim, but a necessary position drawn from factual premises dictated by Christian theology and discoverable through the use of right reason. From this first critique Gauthier claims a second logical fallacy in Hobbes—based on his assumption that he has proved his first point, which we have shown here to be false—that we must therefore revise Hobbes notion of human rationality as well.
Gauthier argues that Hobbes requires the rational human to seek whatever will help achieve the desired ends of that person, but that there may be other factors besides ends to consider. The problem with this claim, if I understand Hobbes correctly, is that he says the exact opposite of what Gauthier claims, and I must admit I am at a loss to understand how Gauthier thinks this quote supports his argument.
In the passage quoted above from Chapter XV, Of Other Laws of Nature, Hobbes is discussing the fool a label Hobbes uses to refer to atheists who claims there is no such thing as justice, or that injustice can somehow be allied with reason, citing examples of heathen beliefs about Jupiter punishing injustice and Coke's arguments about the legitimacy of killing a king to claim his title.
Hobbes appears to be refuting just such an abuse of reason to justify any ends, rather than as proof that reason can support any ends, as Gauthier want to claims.
Therefore we need to look at the entire passage in context. This specious reasoning is nevertheless false. Because we are using right reason to determine how to best achieve this good, we are already always making multiple moral calculations—be they egoistic, familial or religious—part of our consideration of ends. Hobbes is quite explicit on how the function of reason leads us to rational calculation of our actions in De Cive. David van Mill makes a similar point in his discussion of the link between rationality and good in Hobbes's philosophy.
Not only does he argue that there has to be a common link between our rational train of thoughts and our actions, but he also requires that these thoughts and accompanying actions are to be guided by the natural law.
The laws of nature provide the guidance that allows us to promote the key primary goods upon which our broad life-plan should be based. These primary goods for Hobbes are peace, order, reduction of the fear of death, and commodious living.
So contrary to what Gauthier claims, Hobbes does not allow for any ends to be justified because they benefit the actor. If this were in fact the claim Hobbes makes, then it is hard to see how his argument for why the citizen cannot rebel against the sovereign if he sees desirable ends could be possible. Such a claim would undermine the entire foundation of Leviathan, and is directly counter to what Hobbes claims.
He addresses this very issue in Ch.
So far from allowing for any ends to be justified by reason, right reason actually prevents such actions which would be against the state or divine law. So on this matter Hobbes is quite clear, rebellion cannot be justified because a person thinks the ends will achieve some ultimate good. Therefore we can dispense with both of Gauthier's central critiques of human nature and rationality as premised in his failure to properly recognize the underlying theological basis of Hobbes's argument as a necessary part of his overall theory.
The problem, of course, is that Hobbes does ground his theory of obligation in theology, so to claim that the Taylor-Warrender thesis fails because it forecloses a secular reading of obligation in Hobbes is simply to say that his argument is correct because it offers a secular reading, while theirs is false because it does not. But what does Hobbes have to say on this matter? XXX in Leviathan.
And the same law that dictateth to men that have no civil government what they ought to do, and what to avoid in regard of one another, dictateth the same to Commonwealths; that is, to the consciences of sovereign princes and sovereign assemblies; there being no court of natural justice, but in the conscience only, where not man, but God reigneth; whose laws, such of them as oblige all mankind, in respect of God, as he is the Author of nature, are natural; and in respect of the same God, as he is King of kings, are laws.
L Martinich also addresses this issue of obligation in Hobbes and its theological basis, and re-affirms the centrality of a theological underwriting of obligation in Hobbes by reminding us of the importance for Hobbes of irresistible power for both the sovereign as well as God in his theory. Hobbes takes the omnipotence of God as the basis of all obligation. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected… In the Gospels , Acts , and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater.
That is, whether the Masoretic text which forms the basis of the Protestant Old Testament , or other translations such as the Septuagint , Syriac Peshitta , and Samaritan Pentateuch are more accurate.
Responses to these criticisms include the modern documentary hypothesis , two-source hypothesis in various guises , and assertions that the Pastoral Epistles are pseudonymous. Contrasting with these critical stances are positions supported by traditionalists, considering the texts to be consistent, with the Torah written by a single source,   but the Gospels by four independent witnesses,  and all of the Pauline Epistles, except possibly the Hebrews , as having been written by Paul the Apostle.
While consideration of the context is necessary when studying the Bible, some find the accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus within the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, difficult to reconcile.
Sanders concludes that the inconsistencies make the possibility of a deliberate fraud unlikely: "A plot to foster belief in the Resurrection would probably have resulted in a more consistent story.
Instead, there seems to have been a competition: 'I saw him,' 'So did I,' 'The women saw him first,' 'No, I did; they didn't see him at all,' and so on. VIII Those who believe in the inspiration of scripture teach that it is infallible or inerrant , that is, free from error in the truths it expresses by its character as the word of God. Infallibility refers to the original texts of the Bible, and all mainstream scholars acknowledge the potential for human error in transmission and translation; yet, through use of textual criticism modern critical copies are considered to "faithfully represent the original",  :Art.
X and our understanding of the original language sufficiently well for accurate translation. The opposing view is that there is too much corruption, or translation too difficult, to agree with modern texts. See also: Unfulfilled Christian religious predictions God reveals himself to Abraham in scripture and he is seen here with three angels.
By Giovanni Battista Tiepolo. A look at morality. Historical factoids of interest. How Christianity in America impedes social progress. A look at mainstream Christian theories that McAfee debunks. Good stuff I wish he had elaborated some more. According to this logic, God is credited for helping some people possibly millions who suffer from diseases, but has never healed a single amputee or anyone suffering from a life-threatening but physically visible issue.
The meat of this book revolves around biblical contradictions that demonstrate its fallibility and hence the disproval of Christianity. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
An interesting look at polytheism. A section on minor biblical contradictions was provided. The endorsement of slavery is in my opinion the nail on the proverbial coffin.
Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Misogyny rears its ugly head. The conclusions resonate.