Sundaily Hilarity: Jim Jeffries On Religion

Totally hilarious:

Thanks Shane for the heads up.

Your Thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • Chris

    Devil’s being the bigger man.. he’s not responding to god’s book LMAO

  • mikespeir

    Is there a Christian anywhere who believes Satan runs Hell? This isn’t a case of challenging a belief not shared by all believers; I don’t think anybody believes that. I know this is supposed to be comedy, but as a Christian I would have rolled my eyes and called this guy a dolt.

    • Daniel Fincke

      There are innumerable depictions in the culture of Satan being in charge of hell. I have no idea whether it is the official theological position of anyone but I would imagine with as many depictions of him in this manner there’s many a lay Christian who does think this. But, regardless of that, since that’s the popular depiction, Jeffries is addressing that story, whether or not it’s a theologically approved one.

  • mikespeir

    Well, Daniel, I would challenge you to find a Christian who really does believe that. I understand it’s a popular depiction, but not one that’s part of anybody’s theology, as far as I know. There’s no way to make the Bible teach it. It looks like Jeffries is merely batting at a straw man. Which is his right, I suppose; but I hardly see the point, since he’s not contending with anyone’s actual beliefs. What this does is make us look ignorant and like we’re not willing to engage real Christian theology. Yeah, we get charged with that a lot, often falsely, but sometimes it’s true.

  • Daniel Fincke

    It looks like Jeffries is merely batting at a straw man. Which is his right, I suppose; but I hardly see the point

    The point is comedy, period, case closed. It’s not an argument, it’s a comedy routine. It does not make us look ignorant, it just makes us look funny.

  • Turnipseed

    So Mike has his nose out of joint because God is not getting proper credit for running Hell? Now I really have heard it all!

  • mikespeir

    My nose wasn’t out of joint until I read your comment, Turniseed. I don’t even believe in God. I don’t give him credit for anything. But, contrary to Daniels’s last post, this isn’t just comedy. It’s ridiculing a belief that isn’t, in fact, held by anyone. I mean, seriously, does anyone here sincerely believe Jeffries was not trying to poke fun at Christianity? And yet, I can’t identify any Christianity that fits. The religion is being ridiculed on the basis of a false pretext. I mean, come on, there are a lot of genuinely ridiculous things about it. Why not aim for the bull’s eye?

  • mikespeir

    Hey, you guys need to put your philosophical genius to a good use. We could use some help against “Nick” over at Evangelical Realism: http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2011/01/09/a-question-for-nick/#comments

  • Daniel Fincke

    I’m not sure what there is to oppose Nick over. What’s the problem?

  • mikespeir

    I expect you would see it that way, because you can easily operate at his level and beyond. What I see him doing is spewing a bunch of highfalutin crap, trying to snow us all. It mostly amounts to namedropping, I think; but unless one is familiar with those names and conversant in their thinking, it’s hard to form a rebuttal that sounds like much more than, “Nuh-uh!”

  • Daniel Fincke

    Well that’s all he’s doing that I can see. But more to the point he’s attacking Thomism, which is Christianity’s best hope for a philosophically coherent picture of things. It’s not an anti-atheism argument, it’s a complaint against a theist. So why are we involved in this?

  • mikespeir

    Nick is arguing for Thomism, in opposition to Deacon Duncan’s critique of C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. Nick seems to think Lewis was a Thomist and, thus, his arguments bear more weight than is apparent from the book. Nick, I think, is getting away with making his case seems stronger than it is simply because no one else is as familiar with Thomist reasoning.

  • Daniel Fincke

    He’s saying he would like it if Lewis and Thomism made sense but he’s pointing out he does not know how they overcome an apparent problem. Sounds like an honest question to me, especially since it leaves hanging a potential problem with his position.

    I just am totally unclear on what ways exactly Lewis is being presumed to be a Thomist or what exactly Nick thinks the problem with his position is.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X