How can I respond to the following Christian "apologetic"......

Religion and Secularism
161

Paul,

Chris, you are under many misapprehensions about what I believe, none of which I’ve given you cause for.
Maybe. Is it possible you're under misapprehensions too? If you're *sure* you're not, we wont' get far. You *sound* so sure of yourself that you've called my epistemology awful in so many words. Really. Now I'm going to - what's the word for replying to every snippet of an Internet post? But only so we can get ourselves clear of mutual rubbish.
Science has not disproved the existence of a god
True enough - but many people haven't gotten the memo. And I have no interest in that side of things. When did i say it had? YOu *sure* you're not misapprehending me? But naturally (heh) we both have a larger audience in mind, and we've just met. but to be clear: I'm not a methodological naturalist and I find it a bit bizarre to boot. It took me a while to love arguments for themselves, but here I am. So perhaps we two should shift to argue about methodological naturalism. I'm feeling you out - i'm not 'misapprehending' you. Okay?
though there are some conceptions of God that science has clearly disproved: a god with a 6,000-year-old universe, for example
There are clever folk who could make hash out of that. (Unfortunately: seeding the world with fake fossils, that sort of rubbish.) The arguments against such a crappy God are not 'scientific proofs' however - look up Al Ghazali and his opponents; they involve God's relation to the physical world.
I’m surprised that you don’t know that as a scientific naturalist I recognize that the existence of a god is not falsifiable
Ah, so you're a scientific naturalist (there's non-scientific naturalists? Maybe theoretically). As a scientific naturalist, do you reject the arguments against God's existence from evil as a good argument? (For curiosity's sake.) Well, truth in advertising: I used to be an analytical chemist in the environmental and pharmaceutical industries (as a small cog, trust me); I ended up as a philosopher with emphasis in the history and philosophy of science. Beyond that I'm a non-naturalist, maybe even a supernaturalist (tho' it's dangerous to let one's opponents describe you). I have a side-interest in ethics, partly out of force of teaching it. I tend to collect arguments from evil in a desultory way.
, and therefore is not capable of proof or disproof.
Wait, 'not falsifiable' only means you cannot disprove the thing in question. You might prove it - in a relevant sense of prove. Let's not get too hung up on technical words. (Only mathematics has proofs, technically.)
I don’t think science has rendered God irrelevant. The idea of God influences the behavior of many people around the world and is highly relevant for that reason.
Ah, but I don't happen to care about that. That's the sociology of religion. Let's not confound the *God* with *idea of God*.
You misunderstand my views on naturalism, or perhaps more accurately, persist in not understanding them.
Now now! I didn't know you were gunning for naturalism, epistemic or ontological. We'll have to take this to another room soon. In all this I've tried to keep one eye on the title of this thread; maybe that's making me intellectually wall-eyed. (Sharpening immaterial knives.) By all means, let's have a big slab of naturalism.
Of course naturalism runs into philosophical trouble if you take it far enough, trying for example to explain the “ultimate nature of reality," whatever that is and if such a thing there be. So does every other world view.
Good. Very good. You're not claiming impenetrable armor. You're not a fool.
However, naturalism is the only means by which we have acquired knowledge about nature, from subatomic particles to cosmology. Theism and theology haven’t contributed anything – not a speck, shred or iota of knowledge in the thousands of years of their history.
Add one single phrase - haven't contributed anything *to knowledge about nature*. Morals; propositions and justification; mental contents and qualia (colors, sounds, tastes) - all three of these have resisted naturalizing. In fact it can be argued (in some other thread) that they cannot ever be naturalized without simply making them what they aren't: being moral isn't being approved of or having the right feelings; being justified or valid isn't much like 'reliable'; being red isn't 'being a certain wavelength'. (But, I'd say your rider is empirically false. I can think of one example off the top of my head where belief in God helped natural science along a bad patch. Bishop Tempier in the thirteenth century had the scientists of his day claiming they'd proved that a vacuum is impossible. He pointed out that God could make a vacuum if He wanted to - that the notion *vacuum* isn't contradictory. He literally forbade scholars from claiming God couldn't make a vacuum! That allowed for fruitful argument about vacua, and more important motion in a vacuum. That's just one example where a belief in a Higher Power *encouraged* research where the scientists of the day had tried to close it off. Lucky them they had a bishop around.)
You’re overlooking the operational nature of scientific philosophy and inquiry.
I'm not overlooking if it hasn't yet been needed. Why do we need to take natural science into account when arguing for or against God's existence? Or that there is injustice in the world? Or that it is possible to argue unethically, but I reject the charge? But why on earth bring in operationalism? You know there's problems with that? Example: there are several ways to measure temperature, and different ways work best over the wide range of temps. But under operationalism, we'd be forced to say there are several different things under the name temperature, instead of one, single magnitude with different operations for measuring it. So operationalism isn't what scientists typically think of when they talk about 'the temperature' of something. (Henry Kyburg, *Science and Reason* is one source.)
And again it goes back to the same thing you keep ignoring: reality, the way things really work in the world we actually inhabit.
Well, to repeat, I reject methodological naturalism. It's unprovable. It's not a *scientific* theory. And it's *manifestly* false that somehow it has kept us tied to reality. Examples: Have we had no advance in morals over the centuries? False. Did we need more science to advance it? Doubtful. Did the Pope in the sixteenth century use natural science to argue that the Amerindians were fully human - The Spanish tried to say No. Hardly. Did the US abolitionists argue against slavery chiefly from science? Rarely, they were straightforward Christians arguing from the Bible. Was it religion that gave us the racism of the seventeenth through early twentieth centuries? It was just as much crappy biological theories. And so on.
If your epistemology isn’t the issue, then why do you keep advocating for it? And whether it is your issue or not, it is mine, among many other issues, because it is dreadful.
I see why you say this. You accuse me of being not a methodological naturalist, yes? And the only method on the table is methodological (i.e. epistemic) naturalism, right? Any other position is dreadful; therefore etc. Is this a little rude but fair to summarize your argument so? and so the rest of what you say follows, uh, naturally:
Theism’s foundation problem is that it isn’t based on any evidence. Again, that may not be your focus but I think it is essential to any meaningful philosophy.
With all due respect, Chris, you fundamentally misunderstand what I’m saying. I know that because you write: “You think that there is only what we can discover empirically - yes?" No. There may be more but we can’t make any reliable statements about it until we discover something objective that justifies making such a statement.
You know, I don't happen to think I've *fundamentally* misunderstood you. First, you must understand that you kept taking down my arguments by talking about something, epistemology, that was not *immediately relevant* to my arguments. Most other people would have gone after a weakness in the argument, or an ill-conceived concept. You know, attack the form, or attack the contents. Truly, I didn't know at first you were really arguing that *there can be no such argument of any kind of natural-scientific method-type* arguments. As I've said, I get it, but that's just too weird for me. But i'm game to argue with you about that. Second: I know the different modes of naturalism; i just happen to think the epistemic kind must lead to the ontological kind. And I happen to believe people are slightly kidding themselves to tell me otherwise. Just my opinion. So let me test this: if you could be persuaded that there is such a thing as non-naturalist argumentation, then would you be open to arguments for God's existence? Or moral facts, maybe? or logical validity and justification over and above merely reliable physical/biological processes? Not ready to be convinced by any ol' argument that comes down the road; just open that such things as good, nonnaturalistic arguments. even *exist*.
You seem to assume that we should have answers for everything. I recognize that the correct answer to many questions right now is “We don’t know."
Wow, talk about misunderstanding! No, we should *pursue* the answers to anything and everything. I am a confirmed Socratic: we do not have wisdom, we can only pursue it; what we have instead is *something* if not full knowledge. I have written a lot more than i'd care too normally, but this seems important to sort out step by step. Chris
162
Write,
the tween[s] shall never meet.
Not if the middle-school principle has anything to say about it, they won't. Chris Kirk
Are you suggesting that we teach Creationism in science classes, using the bible as the authority? If I recall this was tried already for centuries and has brought no new knowledge to science. On the contrary, it has resulted in some of the most heinous crimes perpetrated by mankind unto itself. A tween is a youngster 'be-tween' elementary school and high school. It was a joke about kids and their hormones. Chris.
163
Write,
the tween[s] shall never meet.
Not if the middle-school principle has anything to say about it, they won't. Chris Kirk
Are you suggesting that we teach Creationism in science classes, using the bible as the authority? If I recall this was tried already for centuries and has brought no new knowledge to science. On the contrary, it has resulted in some of the most heinous crimes perpetrated by mankind unto itself. A tween is a youngster 'be-tween' elementary school and high school. It was a joke. Chris. :red: Of course, I should have said "the twain shall never meet". My error.
164

Apologies to posters for the very long post. I felt it important to reply to Paul carefully and fully.
Paul, if you’re interested, maybe we should exchange e-mails. maybe we have a lot to sort out in preliminaries first? Even with such a long post I felt I was rushing through it.
Chris

165

Chris, I can barely find time to post here, so I’ll respectfully decline your offer to have a private discussion. Suffice to say, your epistemology doesn’t convince me in the least. The mere fact that a theologian happened upon a scientific discovery through his theology doesn’t mean that his theology can be credited for it; verification was still accomplished by naturalistic means. This anecdote is like the stopped clock that is right twice a day.
All fact claims should be subject to the same tests of reliability, whether they pertain to the specific gravity of a liquid or the existence of a god. Mine is a practical approach, based on what methods of seeking knowledge about nature (I agree with your clarification there) have been shown to work. Everything else you’re saying strikes me as an academic exercise that hasn’t yielded any meaningful fruit in the many centuries that people have been about it. It doesn’t interest me.

166
All of what you say depends on what God is accomplishing. Your idea is that God should create man, not give him any choice in the matter of his life, make everything pleasant for him and be sure to feed him on time. And for heaven sake, no natural disasters.
You're not answering why god didn't prevent naturals disasters before man came along. When you say "any choice" you are talking about libertarian free will which he didn't and couldn't give us in any case. And you know this because you know you can't believe my father is an alien and equally I can't believe Jesus was the son of god.
167
Theodicy, greek for 'god's justice' just is about the problem of evil, or the problem of unjust suffering (synonyms, I think)
Bold by me. Exactly. Punishing sinners in hell, I suppose, is not unjust in a Christian theology. So that needs no justification, and it cannot count as evil. So we stay at the point: the theodicy is the problem of why an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenovelent God allows evil in the world.
You're frustrated.
I would say 'irritated'. I can't discuss with somebody who says 'read this', instead of giving arguments pro or contra a position. I read extensively, but only what I am really interested in at this moment. Here on these fora I discuss. But I am happy to invite you in our philosophy study group in Lucerne, Switzerland...
As for pointing to links or quoting extensively: I just prefer to do it that way. I find that others say things better than I much of the time. Most of the people I'm linking or quoting are more learned or smarter than I, and why examine the lesser when you can get to the greater.
Yeah, and I don't like it that way. OK? If you cannot explain an argument in your own words, then better learn to do it, as clear (and succinct) as possible.
And let's face it, most of 'our' opinions were gotten from someone. Dennett, Dawkins, Lakoff. C'mon, admit it.
I admit it. But that is hardly a revelation, otherwise I would be a famous philosopher myself. But if you agree with somebody, and represent his ideas, then they are your ideas. And I can defend them independently of who had the original idea. And of course it would be honest to refer to them occasionally, or useful in referring to the one who explains it much better than I do. But if I would react on the topic of consciousness with "read 'Consciousness explained'", then that would be clearly overkill, wouldn't it? I prefer the radical other end: give your arguments in your own words, as if they are your own ideas. Then we get clear discussions in the threads, threads that one can read on. And as a small aside: as non-native speaker, I have difficulties with some posters here. Some postings I have to read twice or thrice before I understand what they are saying. Your's belong often to this category. Expressing your thoughts clearly and succinctly helps me to understand what you are saying. I am pretty sure that you, as a philosophy teacher, can do better.
168
It most certainly does. We measure time from our vantage point in the universe at this stage of its expansion. DarronS is then trying to put God in our time frame. I'm pointing out that God is not so easily put in a box of our making. Science does not belong solely to the atheist.
But relativity is absolutely silent about what is outside or before spacetime. Such a concept does not even make sense. You can say anything about what is outside, before, between, under, above or after spacetime. It is a God of a gap, this time not an explanatory gap, but a metaphysical gap.
That's because the Biblical quotation ends where I put the quotation marks. Scientific theory tells us that space-time is a part of this universe. If God created the universe, then he also create the space-time that exists as a part of it. That's a logical conclusion given the premise.
Spacetime is not 'part of the universe'. 'Spacetime' is the universe, all of it. And if your God did interfere with human history, then he is in spacetime. You just postulate a miracle God.
My belief does not boil down to 'because I believe it to be true it is true.' I'm giving you reasons and explanations for what I believe.
Sorry, but the reasons are empty. Relativity is not a reason for your belief. You just create a gap of your misunderstanding of relativity in which your God would fit.
It's corrected itself since science used to posit the universe was eternal, but it has not corrected the Bible since it has always claimed the universe had a beginning and will have an end.
So the universe is created in six days, in the way it is described in Genesis? Science did not correct that idea?
169
(Scratching chin) I guess so. Do you think this is true, or is it just one possible explanation? (In Christian apologetics, we need not prove things, except to prove our doctrines are not against reason. That's the problem Paul/LaClair is having with us.)
Eh? And when I say the opposite, which might also not contradict reason? What is the value of such explanations? If science is silent about God, I can say everything about him, as long as it does not touch some established scientific theory.
170
Punishing sinners in hell, I suppose, is not unjust in a Christian theology. So that needs no justification, and it cannot count as evil.
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. The above is an unacceptable form of relativism in the eyes of any person who truly values decency. Punishing anyone eternally with no hope of redemption is consummately evil. I can't force you to think so but if you can equate hell with justice, then you can justify any atrocity against anyone, any time you like. The notion that it is justice explains much about why Western civilization is spiritually sick.
171

Paul,
You said

I'll respectfully decline your offer to have a private discussion. Suffice to say, your epistemology doesn't convince me in the least. The mere fact that a theologian happened upon a scientific discovery through his theology doesn't mean that his theology can be credited for it; verification was still accomplished by naturalistic means. This anecdote is like the stopped clock that is right twice a day.
Bishop Tempier's injunction is not a mere anecdote, but one example among many. A good modern history of science in the West would be helpful. For a contrast in how religion did stab science in the heart, recall the debates surrounding Al Ghazali's occasionalism (God makes cotton burn, not the match; He does it 'habitually', on occasions where burning matches touch cotton). These debates about the role of God in relation to the natural world were not scientific but metaphysical; and yet were important to the health or decline of natural science in European Christian and the Muslim ambits. Unfortunately (heh) there is no such thing as an atheist culture where science arose, so a comparison is tough to make, true. For more 'mere facts' try the atheist historian of science online Tim O'Neill's Armarium Magnum]. He's good for straightening out the falsehoods perpetrated about Christians and science. I'm a fan of The Renaissance Mathematicus] too. he specializes in the Scientific Revolution and Early Modern period.
All fact claims should be subject to the same tests of reliability
That seems a mere assertion. Different kinds of facts should be subject to different kinds of tests. You're presuming what no-one believes, that God is just the same kind of putative fact as propylene on Titan, or cows in a field. You understand, don't you, that the Soviet cosmonaut who came back from his trip in space and claimed he didn't see God or Heaven was a fool, right? Not just mistaken or lacking in scientific rigor - a fool. So, yeah. Here we are. You can't understand how anyone intelligent can use anything but Science (trademark) to answer any question, and i can't understand how all the most wonderful natural science in the world makes an argument for (or against) God's existence *unethical* epistemology. We lack common ground. Time to shift that ground to something we can agree on. Chris
172

GdB,

I am happy to invite you in our philosophy study group in Lucerne, Switzerland
Yeah, and I don't like [gesturing to a lot of links]. OK? If you cannot explain an argument in your own words, then better learn to do it, as clear (and succinct) as possible. . . . if I react on the topic of consciousness with "read 'Consciousness explained'", then that would be clearly overkill, wouldn't it? I prefer the radical other end: give your arguments in your own words, as if they are your own ideas. Then we get clear discussions in the threads, threads that one can read on.
Well, that's very kind of you to invite me! I'll pack - oh, it's online. Well, that's good too :) Let me know how to join. What specific topics do they discuss? I've given my reasons for quoting others and asking people to read. I should add more, because it's important. I do this *in context* of this forum. (1) Some people just don't do due diligence, and IMO this forum could use a lot more quoting. (IMHO.) I might not do so much linking in a different forum. Another forum I visit likes links - a lot. Curious differences. (2) As for 'I better do it your way.' Heh, I hope that's a translation blunder! But this *is* a public forum, and you're free to ignore me. God knows I might ignore me sometimes. (3) I feel *very* strongly that it is a service to direct people to relevant information. (4) People here often refuse to believe me or accept my word just on the grounds that I am a Christian. There's a thread where one poster refuses to even look at a link because, since the link was written by a professional rabbi, it couldn't be trusted. That's extreme; but IMO, linking is essential for *me* to participate and make some real contribution. (5) You might well be going too far to gesture to a whole book by Dennett, for reasons you can discern. I have linked to short articles and pages easily accessed, most tailored for the rushed Internetter. Have some sense of proportion. Most people here know how to Google, too. I haven't demanded anyone read the entire *Republic* - though a man could do far worse.
And as a small aside: as non-native speaker, I have difficulties with some posters here. . . I am pretty sure that you, as a philosophy teacher, can do better.
You now are too optimistic about me! But I'll work harder at it. I am in fact a poor writer. Sentences wander without a period in sight. I've gotten addicted to the semi-colon, the colon, and - worse - the dash. I use 'and' a lot for subordinate clauses. The "-ing" gets worked like a sheepdog. Fortunately, I'm better in front of a class, and class notes tend to be in a rigorous outline style to avoid just these problems. Chris
173
All of what you say depends on what God is accomplishing. Your idea is that God should create man, not give him any choice in the matter of his life, make everything pleasant for him and be sure to feed him on time. And for heaven sake, no natural disasters.
You're not answering why god didn't prevent naturals disasters before man came along. Yes, I am. Why God created this world to include natural disasters is dependent on what God is using this world for. He's using it for the purpose of raising up sons from among mankind. This was his plan before he created the world and it was his plan before he created man. That means that the order in which each was created doesn't matter.
When you say "any choice" you are talking about libertarian free will which he didn't and couldn't give us in any case. And you know this because you know you can't believe my father is an alien and equally I can't believe Jesus was the son of god.
I agree man cannot act outside his nature. However, I also believe God can change man's nature if man desires him to do so. Have you ever desired a quality in your life, but it just wasn't in your nature? No matter how good your intentions were, you always failed to be different from what you are. What if God, or whatever you believe is responsible for your design, offered you the ability to be something you weren't but wanted to be? A program upgrade of sorts. By accepting the offer, you could be a different person. In Christian teaching, God offers man the forgiveness of sins and the ability to overcome the temptation to sin through faith in Christ. Christians don't change themselves, but receive a new nature from God. It's called living by the Spirit, rather than the sinful nature. That's why Jesus said you must be born again of the Spirit. You must receive a new element in your life that makes you a different person--a righteous person in the eyes of God. So it isn't about man remaining the same and simply choosing to behave differently. It's about man desiring to be something he isn't, and God providing that new nature for him.
174

Chris, before I would get to any of the questions you pose I would have to have a reason to take the proposed existence of a being who predated matter and created the universe out of nothing seriously in the first place. Of course, you can posit another kind of god if you want to, and many have, but then I would have to have a reason to take that hypothesis seriously. The reason I don’t is not just that there isn’t any evidence for a god but also because the history of these beliefs, coupled with an understanding of human psychology, makes crystal clear where these beliefs come from. People wish to believe that someone is in control of all things, so they imagine that there is a god, or gods. There’s no reason to consider the matter beyond that, barring some new development that has not occurred.

175
But relativity is absolutely silent about what is outside or before spacetime. Such a concept does not even make sense. You can say anything about what is outside, before, between, under, above or after spacetime. It is a God of a gap, this time not an explanatory gap, but a metaphysical gap.
I'm not claiming the theory or relativity says anything about what's outside or before the universe. I'm simply pointing to it to explain that time IS relative and is a part of the universe, and therefore God is not bound by our time frame.
Spacetime is not 'part of the universe'. 'Spacetime' is the universe, all of it. And if your God did interfere with human history, then he is in spacetime. You just postulate a miracle God.
Spacetime is not matter. Matter is also a part of the universe. My God designed human history. That's my point. He does not interfere in it, it is his creation. A creator does not have to be in his creation or subject to his creation to affect it.
Sorry, but the reasons are empty. Relativity is not a reason for your belief. You just create a gap of your misunderstanding of relativity in which your God would fit.
No, just like you I take what I've learned from the latest science and incorporate it into my understanding. The difference is I start from a position of belief in God, as many scientists do, and you start from a belief that there is no God and organize the information you learn into that worldview.
So the universe is created in six days, in the way it is described in Genesis? Science did not correct that idea?
No, science did not correct the six day creation since it cannot say what time frame the six days were measured in. Genesis teaches that God existed. He then created the heavens and the earth. How do you measure the passage of time at that point--before the sun and earth were put in their place, before the universe expanded to its current size. What do you use to measure the first day? On the seventh day God rested. In scripture we are exhorted to enter that rest. For all I know, we are still in the seventh day--the day of God's rest.
176
I'm simply pointing to it to explain that... The difference is I start from a position of belief in God, as many scientists do, and you start from a belief that there is no God and organize the information you learn into that worldview.
You're starting to sound desperate. When someone uses phrases like "I'm simply...", that's a sign they understand their own points are weak. I don't start from a belief that there is no God. I start from of a point of using what faculties I have, God given or not, to best understand the universe where I find myself. Thomas Aquinas pointed the "West" in that direction, and we have come a long way since then. If I were "organizing information" into a predetermined worldview, then I would be going against everything I believe about how to discover truth.
177
No, just like you I take what I've learned from the latest science and incorporate it into my understanding. The difference is I start from a position of belief in God, as many scientists do, and you start from a belief that there is no God and organize the information you learn into that worldview.
No, that is NOT how science works. We start with a question, formulate a hypothesis which is then tested, and retested, and then we see what the answer is, then others test it to see if you did it right and it can be reproduced. If it is a great breakthrough, and can be reproduced by others, the science community awards you. Conversely, if you upend something thought to be true for a very long time, you get an award. It is crystal clear you do not understand science.
178
You're not answering why god didn't prevent naturals disasters before man came along.
Yes, I am. Why God created this world to include natural disasters is dependent on what God is using this world for. He's using it for the purpose of raising up sons from among mankind. This was his plan before he created the world and it was his plan before he created man. That means that the order in which each was created doesn't matter. He could have prevented all natural disasters before man and just started them off once man came along. Although why natural disasters are part of the plan at all is still mysterious. He could also spare all animal suffering in natural disasters and makes sure only man suffers.
I agree man cannot act outside his nature. However, I also believe God can change man's nature if man desires him to do so.
Yes perhaps. But that's *can if...* Can if circumstances were different. (edit: if there was something different about us) What God knows is we are merely lucky or unlucky that circumstances are not different since he created the circumstances. We merely get the desire god gives us (or it appears out of nowhere for no reason at all). There is no way out of this Lily. What you are arguing for is logically impossible.
179
You're not answering why god didn't prevent naturals disasters before man came along.
Yes, I am. Why God created this world to include natural disasters is dependent on what God is using this world for. He's using it for the purpose of raising up sons from among mankind. This was his plan before he created the world and it was his plan before he created man. That means that the order in which each was created doesn't matter. He could have prevented all natural disasters before man and just started them off once man came along. Although why natural disasters are part of the plan at all is still mysterious. He could also spare all animal suffering in natural disasters and makes sure only man suffers.
I agree man cannot act outside his nature. However, I also believe God can change man's nature if man desires him to do so.
Yes perhaps. But that's *can if...* Can if circumstances were different. (edit: if there was something different about us) What God knows is we are merely lucky or unlucky that circumstances are not different since he created the circumstances. We merely get the desire god gives us (or it appears out of nowhere for no reason at all). There is no way out of this Lily. What you are arguing for is logically impossible. Ms. Smith continues to lay bare her abhorrent theology. A loving parent doesn't create children for his own use. Every parent knows that each child is born with an inborn temperament; we all hope that each child will be born with the best inborn qualities possible. This notion that a just and loving god would start us off with anything less than the best is ridiculous. But of course, theists like Ms. Smith need corrupted human nature to explain suffering. Problem is, their explanation is absurd.
180
I disagree in the strongest possible terms. The above is an unacceptable form of relativism in the eyes of any person who truly values decency. Punishing anyone eternally with no hope of redemption is consummately evil. I can't force you to think so but if you can equate hell with justice, then you can justify any atrocity against anyone, any time you like. The notion that it is justice explains much about why Western civilization is spiritually sick.
Eh? From where do you read that I agree that some Christians think this way????