tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87662139291396828442024-03-07T05:18:38.452-08:00A Counter Apologist BlogA Philosophy of Religion Blog written by an AtheistA Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger140125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-77498316746222992592024-03-07T05:04:00.000-08:002024-03-07T05:18:05.903-08:00Comments on Atheists I Respect Becoming Agnostics<p><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GuDJyp3JKL8" width="320" youtube-src-id="GuDJyp3JKL8"></iframe></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /> </span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><b>Note: </b>What follows is a transcription of the video.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Recently two atheists who I respect have announced that they are now agnostics. I’m speaking of Emerson Green and Matthew Adelstein who have put out a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCdTYZdFkNY" rel="nofollow">video</a> and <a href="https://benthams.substack.com/p/a-crisis-of-faithlessness?r=2248ub&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post&triedRedirect=true" rel="nofollow">blog post</a> respectively about their journey from atheism to agnosticism. If you haven’t already, I suggest taking a listen and/or read through of the linked pieces in the description. Both are quite worthwhile.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a> <span style="font-family: arial;"><br />There has been some ruckus about two atheists moving “closer to theism” on various parts of the online philosophy of religion and apologetics discourse. I find it kind of funny that if you merely search Matthew’s name on YouTube right now the top two hits are going to be his appearance on Christian apologetics channels before anything else, including this thumbnail from Capturing Christianity talking about an “incredible story” labeling him a “Former Atheist”.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />I mean the dude went from atheism to agnosticism, not a full on convert. I think it just highlights how thirsty the Christian apologetics culture is for atheist converts, especially given the broader trend in the west of most people deconverting from the major religions.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />So I wanted to put some comments out there about this and make a few observations on both stories. I certainly don’t want to demean either person and I genuinely want them to express where they feel the evidence has taken them. Full disclosure, I’ve had a good amount of interaction with and respect for Emerson, but while I’ve not interacted with Matthew I have read and watched his stuff and he’s basically in the same category of Joe Schmid from Majesty of Reason where I sit and wonder how someone that young could be so smart on philosophy.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />In fact I’d like to talk about where I completely agree with them, despite still strongly identifying as an atheist.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />I’ll start with where both Emerson and Matthew have some things in common in their approach. Both guys are interested in arguments from consciousness, they are both impressed with arguments from psychophysical harmony and in a related sense they are also impressed with arguments about a value-selection hypothesis, which to me is like a kind of fine-tuning or design argument. If you don’t know what those arguments are, go check out their work on those topics, they explain it far better than I can. In short, the arguments lead to the conclusion that the fundamental nature of reality is mental, not physical.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Importantly, it’s not like we have an instance of “two smart dudes” who just so happen to think consciousness is plausibly fundamental. I appreciate Emerson in his video quoting atheist philosopher Paul Draper saying “it wouldn’t surprise me if fundamental reality is mind-involving”. In case you’re not familiar, Paul Draper could rightly be put up there as one of the “High Priests of Atheism” in terms of being one of the best defenders of atheism today.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Now personally, I’m far more of an agnostic as it relates to views on consciousness than anything else, though I do have disdain for dualism as far less plausible than say panpsychism or physical reductionism (including the kind of Type 1 Physicalism that both Emerson and Matthew outright reject). So I will join Paul Draper in that I won’t be surprised if it turned out that fundamental reality was “mind involving”. Well I would be surprised if the kind of tri-omni monotheism turned out to be true, but I’m really talking about the other views of mind-first reality. However I also don’t think we’d ever be able to really know if reality was mind-first or not. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />I also am not particularly impressed with arguments from psychophysical harmony or design arguments because it hinges far too much on the idea that “reality didn’t have to have these psychophysical laws” or that the laws of physics “could have been different” and then applying probabilities to that. Honestly I think employing the mitigated modal skepticism espoused by atheist philosopher of religion Filepe Leon is the right course of action when it comes to those kinds of modalities. It’s just so far removed from the experiences we use as a basis to say “this could have been different” that I don’t see any basis to engage in speculation about it, let alone assign probabilities. At least not until some theists come along and say that god can do anything logically possible, which is where I think theism obviously runs into problems.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />That all said, I want to acknowledge that philosophy of mind is absolutely not my specialty and I’m pretty sure both Emerson and Matthew have read more on the topic than I have, which also dovetails nicely with one of their other common points: my epistemic peers, or even betters, have views so wildly in conflict with each other and my own that like them I am inclined to agnosticism when it comes to philosophy of mind even though I have preferences.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />This raises an important question though, because if I accept that on views in philosophy of mind, why am I not an agnostic when it comes to views on whether or not god exists? After all, that is what they’re doing with the fact that so many of their epistemic peers disagree on theism.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Well this is where things get extremely interesting and we get into a little bit of semantics.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />What do we mean by god? Or by agnostic and atheist for that matter?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Interestingly, both Emerson, Matthew, and myself are all atheists when it comes to the idea that there could be a tri-omni being of traditional monotheism who has created a hell that beings are sent to or allowed to exist in, where they will suffer Eternal Conscious Torture (ECT). The three of us all agree that no such being exists and it is impossible for such a being to exist.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Yet lots of our epistemic peers and perhaps even our betters not only believe that it’s reasonable to believe in such a being and place, but also believe that both that kind of god and hell exist! As it turns out, the position of ambiguity on certain topics doesn’t apply universally. This isn’t to say the principle is worthless, but the fact that it has limits is something both Matthew and Emerson discuss.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />So at least some positions on certain philosophical topics are just so implausible to us that we have no problems moving past agnosticism and into taking a firm stance on those issues. In fact if you watch the Capturing Christianity video that Matthew is in with philosopher Dustin Crummet, he brings up this exact point as it relates to Type 1 Physicalism in Philosophy of Mind. <br /><br />It’s also interesting to point out, that Dustin Crummet is a Christian philosopher of religion who has played a large part in Matthew’s move towards agnosticism ALSO does not believe that the Christian god subjects people to eternal conscious torture, and is a universalist. <br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">What makes this interesting is how apologists citing these moves on the atheist parts are typically channels who affirm that Christianity is true and that hell exists, yet the movement we see here is completely on the lines of universalist views of theism.<br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">For Emerson’s part, he also expressly affirms that he is convinced that the Abrahamic god does not exist, and he speaks about other kinds of limited forms of theism, or other sorts of mind-first based views of philosophy (panpsychism, the value selection hypothesis, etc). If you’re wondering what those terms mean, I strongly encourage you to listen to Emerson’s podcasts/videos on those topics.<br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Here I think it’s worth exploring what one means by “god” because that topic gets particularly thorny in philosophy of religion and especially in Christian apologetics.<br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Remember that old “New Atheist” line about how there are over 3,000 deities out there and atheists just believe in one less god than the Christian/Muslim/Jew? There was no shortage of Christian apologetic responses to that particularly cute line by pointing out that “deities” like Odin, Thor, or Osiris are not really “gods” and that god is expressly defined as the tri-omni being of Abrahamic monotheism, and so those silly New Atheists have no idea what they’re talking about?<br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Well when we get into atheists moving towards agnosticism, but expressly rejecting the tri-omni being like Emerson does when he speaks about limited forms of theism like say the god of Mormonism or concepts like Open Theism that severely limit god’s supposed omniscience, many of these apologists will gladly call these folks agnostics rather than atheists who reject the tri-omni monotheistic god. Suddenly god can be a polysemous word!<br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Now to be fair it does seem as if Matthew’s openness towards theism is more along the traditional tri-omni monotheist side, though his articles and videos that I saw didn’t see him discuss the plethora of options that Emerson has explored. But there is still an incredibly large gulf between “theism” even in the tri-omni sense and belief in an incredibly specific religion like Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. I’ve no idea of Matthew’s thoughts on the plausibility of things like the trinity, incarnation, atonement, and resurrection, but Emerson certainly rejects those things. Suffice it to say that even if one was a theist, the arguments for believing specifically in Christianity face incredibly large hurdles, as I conveyed in my article/video Countering the Argument for the Resurrection. <br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Still, both Emerson and Matthew are merely agnostics, not theists and both of them give quite forceful presentations on the Problem of Evil as the main reason why they are not theists, which I broadly agree with. In fact Matthew thinks the problem of evil is such a strong argument it would eliminate theism as an option in philosophy if not for the strength of all the other arguments in favor of theism. My difference here is that I think those arguments are not particularly good, but Matthew’s counter will be that the atheist is forced to adopt all sorts of weird stances whereas theism has a simpler answer, except when it comes to evil.<br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">There is one final topic both Emerson and Matthew embrace in their respective presentations that I want to address. Both of them reference how theism raises the possibility of an afterlife and existence in heaven, which makes sense given their universalist-only conceptions of theism that they find plausible. Matthew in particular has an exceptionally well written piece about hopeful theism and existence in universalist heaven with a reference to the movie Pan’s Labyrinth. <br /><br />It is here that I want to challenge both gentlemen with the problem of heaven. In particular, if it’s possible for a god to exist and create heaven, I don’t see a good answer as to why we are not directly in heaven from the get go, especially given the supposed power of god and ability to just make everything great by applying a little bit of that sweet sweet beatific vision to all created beings. <br /><br />I think both Emerson and Matthew have a bit of tension between both of them pointing out the utter implausibility of theodicies presented to try and answer the problem of evil, yet they both think that an existence in heaven is something to hope for. For me, the existence of heaven is simply the other side of the coin as the problem of evil. If heaven is remotely possible, a world with no suffering or evil - then why aren’t we just there to start? All the theodicies effectively have to answer that question, and all three of us agree that those theodicies are quite plainly terrible. <br /><br />I think this challenge is particularly acute to Emerson who rightly calls limited forms of theism more plausible than tri-omni theism: because if god is limited then the limited-theist has a much easier time explaining why there is evil in this world. <br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">However the problem there is that if there is a limited god who can’t help but avoid creating a world with evil in it, how are we supposed to believe that said limited god can create an eternal heaven where there is no suffering and evil? If they can create that, then why should we exist here? Why not just move all of us over there the moment the limited god figured out how to create heaven? In fact to answer this one has to give a theodicy that I think in principle would apply to the tri-omni god, which is why I don’t particularly find the limited-theism answer very compelling if you also pair it with a heavenly afterlife, especially a universalist one!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />I am ironically agnostic on the desirability of heaven, something I want to address in a future video about mortality in general, but I do want to reiterate one of Emerson’s points - if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t. From where I stand, that’s kind of what heaven seems like to me given the world we live in, which is a big reason why I’m not a theist or optimistic about a heavenly afterlife. <br /> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Finally, I wanted to make one more point about the issues there are with a universalist theism. If that is indeed the only kind of theism on offer and we really do live in the kind of religiously ambiguous world where all kinds of theism, atheism, and agnosticism are rational views - I just find it hard to care very much about the topic. <br /><br />To me it seems far more plausible to me that atheism is true for the tri-omni god, and I’m as agnostic as Matt and Emerson about limited kinds of gods, but even if I’m wrong - so what? <br />It’s not as if I’m justifying all sorts of behavior I think is immoral because I’m an atheist. I still try my best to do what I think is right, and religious ambiguity takes a lot of religion-specific supposed moral prohibitions off the table. So if I’m wrong I still end up going to universalist heaven anyway. The whole issue becomes kind of pointless, like an inverse version of the argument from meaning that apologists like to use.<br /><br />In fact it gets even worse! Let's say I was a cartoonishly evil atheist who did engage in any kind of immoral act I think I can get away with, because there is no god who wants to punish me. They get to go to heaven too, and even for such people I wouldn’t say that any amount of torture is permissible, let alone eternal conscious torture. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />We do after all think it is incredibly immoral to torture people here in this life, in America we even have a constitutional right against being tortured. So I don’t think a universalist can appeal to a limited time trip in the fires of hell to scare obedience into people who want to do wrong. Maybe a kind of finite non-tortuous purgatory aimed at rehabilitation before eternity in heaven? That seems plausibly fair, but then it doesn’t bother me much either. If that’s the case then I’ll serve my time. I certainly don’t see how say “being a Chrsitian/Muslim/Jew/Hindu/etc” gets one out of purgatory in any kind of plausible way as it is.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />In fact if we imagine such a scenario, what exactly is the reason to commit to any one of the very specific religions that bring far less plausible belief commitments than just the kind of universalist theism that my agnostic cohorts think is possible?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />I think that’s the thing. What we see among theists, generally speaking, is that they don’t really care about mere theism, but about their specific religion. That’s what they defend, that’s what they cherish, that’s what they base their specific moralities on which they then want to enforce on society. Arguments for specific religions are far worse than the heavy philosophical arguments that my newly agnostic cohorts find plausible. I actually would love to see Matthew’s thoughts on that topic, Emerson has already eloquently laid out his own. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />So that’s about it. I still have great respect for both Emerson and Matthew, and I agree with both of them on a lot of their points. I just still call myself an atheist because when it comes to conversing with the vast majority of theists on the planet, which is to say Christians, Muslims, and Hindu’s, let alone theistic Bhuddists, or the Jews and Mormons, I still very much believe their god or gods do not exist. So to them I am an atheist no matter my agnosticism towards more general kinds of mind-first fundamental reality, deism, or other limited forms of theism. <br /><br /></span></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-89245705279933709532022-10-17T20:11:00.003-07:002022-10-17T20:11:56.984-07:00The Utter Failure of the Free Will Theodicy<span id="docs-internal-guid-a9f7431e-7fff-7345-3456-f7b90b3c12c0"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zfn2hpXDig0" width="320" youtube-src-id="Zfn2hpXDig0"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Note: </b>What follows is a transcript of the video above. </span><p></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><p></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This paper takes aim at Free Will Theodicies in Christian apologetics by showing inconsistencies with other Chrsitian doctrines commonly held to by Free Will Theodicy defenders that would reconcile Free Will and gods omniscience and foreknowledge of our actions before we do them. In this project I will grant for the sake of argument that Libertarian Free Will both exists and is coherent, even though I do not think Libertarian Free Will is coherent. I do this because I don’t think arguing against LFW is a useful counter apologetic and I believe the Free Will </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Theodicy </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">fails even granting that LFW is coherent and steelmanning the position. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My goal is to show that Christian responses to the problem of evil while referencing Libertarian Free Will (LFW) are at best ineffectual at answering the problem of evil because LFW does not preclude god creating what I call “heaven world” where any natural number of created beings all freely choose to never sin and always freely choose to love god. Theistic and especially Chrsitain apologists want to deny that god could create such a world, despite it being a logically possible world and god supposedly being able to do anything logically possible by way of his omnipotence.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I have a particular interest in the doctrine of Molinism which itself aims at reconciling god’s omniscience with the libertarian free choices of creation. We will find that the doctrine of molinism ends up causing significant problems for the free will defense and undermines the ability to deny that god could create “heaven world”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Molinism states that god has full knowledge of all counterfactuals, such as “Bob will </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">always </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">freely choose X in situation Y”. In this schema, god looks at all logically possible worlds, and then chooses which one to instantiate along with the people who will be in it. Then creation plays out deterministically, where the sum total of situations of the universe god created plays out and each person god created goes through them. The key is that each person makes a “free decision” that god knew they’d pick for every situation they live through.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Molinism is tied very closely to the free will defense, where theistic apologists want to say that “god can not create all logically possible worlds” because “if a person Bob will always freely choose X in situation Y, then god can not create a world where Bob freely chooses ~X in situation Y”. They will then also insist that it is still “logically possible that Bob could have chosen ~X in situation Y”, and so we are left with the conclusion that god can not instantiate all logically possible worlds due to his creation having LFW. This in turn lets them claim that it’s not possible for god to create a “heaven world”.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What strikes me is exactly how deterministic this libertarian free will ends up being. The idea is that Bob </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">always</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> freely chooses X in situation Y, yet the theist apologist will insist that somehow it is still logically possible that Bob chooses ~X in situation Y. I believe that this is where a hidden contradiction is being glossed over. Because the word “always” ends up creating a rigid designator for the person “Bob”. Note that “A rigid designator designates the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists and never designates anything else.” (<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/">Reference</a>)</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the free will defense, the word “always” means that Bob is rigidly designated as "someone who will freely choose X in situation Y". The problem is that this means it is </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> logically possible for 'Bob' to choose ~X in situation Y. So it ends up that there are no logically possible worlds that god could not create. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Consider the alternative, what if we insist that “always” is not a rigid designator for the identity of ‘Bob’ because we want to hold that it is logically possible that 'Bob' freely chooses ~X in situation Y? In this case there is a logically possible world in which ‘Bob’ freely chooses ~X in situation Y and a logically possible world where ‘Bob’ freely chooses X in situation Y. Here it is up to god to choose which world to instantiate. If this is the case then the schema for Molinism falls apart, because then god can't have foreknowledge of which choice Bob will make in situation Y without god having to choose which world to instantiate, which in turn seems to rob 'Bob' of his supposedly libertarian free will.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What’s worse for the theist is that this alternative sets it up so that god could choose to instantiate the logically possible “heaven world”.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps an apologist will claim that the addition of the word “always” is a misrepresentation, and that god merely has knowledge of counterfactuals so that “Bob will freely choose X in situation Y” and will claim there is no rigid designator. The problem here is that we can pose exactly the same problem. We can ask if there is a possible world where “Bob will freely choose ~X in situation Y.” If the apologist says there is no world, then it is the word “will” that creates a rigid designator for ‘Bob’. If they answer yes, then the free will defense fall apart on the problem described above - because god has to choose which world to instantiate and the heaven world becomes possible for god to actualize. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Another possible response from apologists is to acknowledge that there is a rigid designator in the fact about Bob’s free choice, and so the possible world where “Bob freely chooses ~X in situation Y” is not actually ‘Bob’ but someone else entirely. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The issue here becomes “why would god create Bob?” when there seem to be infinitely many options that god has.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Lets call the base person Bob(0) who always freely chooses X in situation Y.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But what about Bob(1) who is like Bob(0) in all respects, physical attributes and prior decisions, but will freely choose ~X in situation Y?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There seems to be no contradiction inherent in the concept of Bob(1), and so the existence of Bob(1) is logically possible.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact there seems to be a near infinite set of possible people god could create, where for any given individual that exists there’s a version of themselves that would choose to love god in a given series of situations Y that make up the possible world god could create. So even if we grant the existence of rigid designators, the free will defense doesn’t rule out the possibility of a “heaven world” populated with the set of N number people who would always freely choose to do the good in all circumstances that occur in that world. N merely represents any natural number. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Common Threads of the Problem</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I hope it is clear that with whatever option the theist goes with in trying to keep free will in conjunction with god’s omniscience, it ends up undermining the free will defense. I believe this is because theistic apologists are mixing a necessary sort of determinism to solve the theodicy with Libertarian Free Will, which is defined by its incompatibility with determinism.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For example we can see problems previously mentioned pop up once we get rid of the sort of determinism necessary for Molinism to work: </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What about cases where “Bob sometimes freely chooses X in situation Y, but other times he chooses ~X?” There seems to be no room for this sort of libertarian freedom in these theodicies or in Molinism, because then we get into problems with god’s foreknowledge of free choices and god having to determine which logically possible world to instantiate. This makes the real choice happen in god’s hands, not the individuals. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact the only way these theodicies work is if there is a strangely deterministic nature to a person's “free choice”. Notice the examples above are framed that “Bob </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">always</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> freely chooses X in situation Y”. In what way can the choice be said to be free for that person if situation Y is determinative of what the choice is? If the theist says that the person’s nature determines the choice in situation Y, then it is not free because they couldn’t have done otherwise. If the theist wants to deny this common definition of Libertarian Free Will, then god could create beings who by their nature would always freely choose to do the good and love god. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Nature Problem</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am not an advocate of Libertarian Free Will, but my critique doesn’t depend on falsifying the concept or proving it to be incoherent. All I need to do is show conceptual problems between LFW, our notions of LFW, and Chrsitain theology and theodicies. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One major problem is our conflicting intuitions about the nature of free choices. Consider the following three thought experiments:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">1.) Imagine a young teenage boy, after running around all day on vacation, he is taken to dinner with his family at a restaurant, where in typical fashion the child is ravenous due to being active and going through a growth spurt. When offered dessert, the only option is ice cream but there are two flavors: vanilla and chocolate. The child has a strong preference for chocolate and so orders that flavor. Is the child's choice free?</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It seems very much to be a case of a free choice, but then the child is bound by his nature, which in turn determines his preferences. We don’t get to pick our favorite flavors, they just are what they are, so it is not much of a surprise that in this situation the choice seems determined by factors outside of the child's control, yet we would still call this a “free choice”.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">2.) Free choices do not have to be hard ones, and can be determined out to all members of our species by the nature of our species. Consider having to choose what to eat, but the only options presented are either the well rotting carcass of a dead animal or a nutritious meal. In every case for a human being capable of making an informed decision, they will choose the nutritious meal. This is because we, by our evolved human nature, are repulsed from well rotted carcasses. I hate to gross people out, but it is blessedly rare for people these days to truly encounter how terrible an experience it is to be near a rotting carcass. I didn’t experience it until I was nearly 40, so I feel compelled to describe it. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I had a small animal die beneath my deck in the winter or early spring, only to start rotting (and smelling) in the summer. I was forced to crawl under the low deck (1.5ft clearance) and get it out of there and bury the remains. Suffice it to say the smell, sight, feel of having to move it even through gloves and garbage bags, was </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">horrific</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. It was all I could do to not vomit into the layers of masks I put on to try and cover the smell.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So when it comes to the choice of what to eat, it does seem as though this choice would be a free one - after all I could choose otherwise, I just wouldn’t by my nature. So if free will is important, then god could create a world where everyone *freely* chose to always do the good and choose to love god - because it would be like deciding between eating a nutritious meal and well rotted carcass.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">3.) Let’s imagine a scenario where after death we are brought before god and are informed which religion is the true one. It seems odd to me that at this point it is “too late” for an individual to be given a choice to ask forgiveness for their sins and choose to love god and follow his will. This is arguably a far more “informed choice” that one could freely m ake than the choice we face now in terms of which religion we find to be true and worth pursuing. After all it is not as if people of other religions reject god or fail to love god - they all in fact believe they do and are aiming themselves at attempting to please god as they best understand his desires for them. Even atheists presumably would want to know if they were wrong, I know I certainly do, and when given irrefutable proof of god’s existence, why would it be “too late” to ask forgiveness and freely choose to follow god? How then could this not be a free choice? If it were somehow not a free choice because we are effectively choosing between paradise and torture, then isn’t us learning about the eternal consequences of not making the choice to love god also not free? </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God’s supposed freedom</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I don’t think that Christian apologists can deny that the choices laid out above are indeed free choices. Again we will come to a two pronged dilemma where neither option is good for the Christian theist.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Consider god, where most Christians consider god’s nature to be the ontological grounding of the good. Since it is given that no being can go against its own nature, it is literally logically impossible for god to do evil. As such, it seems to me and Christian apologists like Richard Swinburne, that god is not </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">morally free</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> when it comes to his actions. One could point out that being morally free in this scheme is not actually good, because it is not in god’s nature, but let's leave that aside.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So the dilemma is this: if god is not morally free, yet can love and be worthy of moral praise, why then do we need moral freedom to choose to love god and be saved? Or even have the capacity to sin at all? It can not be that libertarian free will is valuable, because if god is the locus of value and by nature lacks LFW with respect to morality, then it is by definition not valuable.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The alternative horn is that if god is free but it is impossible for him to do evil, then it is logically possible to create beings who would never do evil or fail to love god and yet they would still be free! As such the free will defense would fail. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now we can find apologists like William Lane Craig who can try to split this dilemma, by insisting that even though it is impossible for god to choose to do evil, he is still endowed with Libertarian Free Will.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“I do affirm that God’s being essentially good means that goodness is a property which God could not have lacked. Indeed, on my view God just is the paradigm of goodness in every possible world. This entails that God cannot do evil, since that would be contrary to His very nature.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">…</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First, you assume that freedom entails the ability to do the opposite of what one does. I’m persuaded that this is not true. Consider the well-known illustration of someone who, unbeknownst to him, has had his brain wired up with remote-controlled electrodes by a mad scientist who is an Obama supporter. When the man enters the voting booth, if he votes for Obama, the mad scientist will do nothing. But if he goes to vote for Romney, the mad scientist activates the electrodes, which trigger him to vote for Obama instead. Now clearly the man has no power in this situation to vote for Romney. But if he goes in and votes for Obama, doesn’t he do so freely? After all, the scientist did nothing in this case! It is just as if the man were not wired with electrodes at all. This thought experiment suggests that what is crucial to freedom of the will is not the ability to do the opposite but the absence of external causal constraints upon one’s choice: it is entirely up to you. In God’s case He is clearly free from such external causal constraints and therefore does the good freely. So He is not at all a moral automaton, but a free agent.”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Source: </span><a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-god-able-to-do-evil" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-god-able-to-do-evil</span></a></p><div><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWlOiop2VuRRs9QJT6OBJMxIfl64Q1HzNMeCYncmwB8h3xi-hUWerykxbXFdgt1_9Mmr2eN7bJhrtJ8lZyneMk0zfJzgg098LPWS_JPZKIhQHHvqUEYr6RiT0c1wDrZJV89fRnDbZOmscvSyXqsLr6WgPNHrYI2vOpcz6VcUCp1QsBYTvgk-4IGCA/s1151/RF-Screenshot.PNG" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="965" data-original-width="1151" height="268" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWlOiop2VuRRs9QJT6OBJMxIfl64Q1HzNMeCYncmwB8h3xi-hUWerykxbXFdgt1_9Mmr2eN7bJhrtJ8lZyneMk0zfJzgg098LPWS_JPZKIhQHHvqUEYr6RiT0c1wDrZJV89fRnDbZOmscvSyXqsLr6WgPNHrYI2vOpcz6VcUCp1QsBYTvgk-4IGCA/s320/RF-Screenshot.PNG" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are two huge problems for Craig’s view.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First is that his thought experiment is </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">demonstrably false</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Note that in the situation where the voter “freely chooses to vote Obama” and so the mad-scientist doesn’t have to trigger the device that would force the person to vote for Obama - that doesn’t change the fact that the person could have </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">chosen otherwise </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">even if they could not have </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">acted otherwise</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note that in this scenario the only thing the mad scientist could have done was identify that the voter had chosen to vote Romney and </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">then</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> would trigger his electrodes to force the arm to pull the lever for Obama. However in this scenario the </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">choice</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to vote Romney was still there even if the person couldn’t have acted on it. The Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) is not actually falsified by this thought experiment. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">in principle</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Libertarian Free Will entails you couldn’t falsify PAP because the choice is something of the mind, which is not deterministic. If the scientist could somehow trigger the electrodes to make the person </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">choose</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to vote for Obama, then it would indicate determinism was true and Libertarian Free Will would be false! As such it seems Craig fails to do away with the intuitive and widely defended definition of LFW as “the ability to have chosen otherwise”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Craig’s second problem is that his apologetic fails even if we granted his definition of Libertarian Free Will. He wrongly contends that Libertarian Free Will isn’t defined as it classically is as the “freedom to do the opposite” but rather to be “free from external causal constraints”. The problem is that by god’s very nature as the supposed necessary being, god necessarily gets to decide and control what our natures are like! </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps Craig might say that on his scheme of LFW god makes it so that we may not be free in preferring a nutritious meal to a rotting carcass, or in our favorite flavor of iced cream, but we are free in choosing to love god or not. But then he would also have to say that we are not really free in loving our children, because by our nature we have an immense attachment to them and a desire to love and protect them. Similarly children by nature trust and form bonds with their parents so long as they are not mistreated. This is not to mention the mountains of apologetics about how humans are designed to have a “longing for god” or the “god shaped hole in our hearts” which contradicts the idea that god created our natures so that we could freely choose to love god or not. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But the problem goes much deeper. In fact Craig’s entire endorsement of Molinism and the Free Will Defense itself rests on the nature of an individual person being what determines that they will “</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">always</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> freely choose X in situation Y”. This gets down to the very core of the rigid designator of any given person on Molinism, and Craig can’t avoid this without tearing down the entire molinistic framework. By choosing to create Bob(0) or Bob(1), god is deciding the nature of the individual he is creating which in turn determines what he will supposedly “freely choose” in a specific situation Y. The key here is that we are not just talking about random choice X in situation Y, but this is directly tied to “will Bob freely choose to love and follow god given the sum total of circumstances in his life?”. In such a molinist schema that Craig endorses, this freedom is entirely determined by the nature of the being created and put into the world. If it was not, then god couldn’t have foreknowledge of what each person would choose in any given situation. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fact is that Molinism as a doctrine entails that the nature of the creating beings is chosen by god, because that’s how god is able to have foreknowledge of their supposedly free choices in any given situation.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A Better Situation</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One theodicy I’ve found was put forward by Dr. Joshua Rasmussen <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/RASOTV">in a paper</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> where he attempts to deal with the problem of god not having moral free will undermines the idea of it having any value.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To quote the abstract:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Theists typically think the freedom to choose between right and wrong is a great good . Yet, they also typically think that the very best being—God—and inhabitants of the very best place—heaven—lack this kind of freedom. The question arises: if freedom to choose evil is so good, then why is it absent from the best being and the best place? I discuss articulations of this question in the literature and point out drawbacks of answers that have been proposed. I then propose a new answer by showing how freedom to do evil could result in certain good situations even if it does not contribute to the intrinsic greatness of a certain being or place.”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dr. Rasmussen claims that in a situation where a wife wants her husband to surprise her with a vase of her favorite flowers, the situation where the husband does that of his own accord rather than being causally determined to do so by his wife just seems prima facie to be a “better situation”.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I think the primary problem with this is that for Dr. Rasmussen to say the situation is “better” there must be some normative ground for assessing situations beyond simply appealing to our intuitions. After all, theists are quite fond of demanding some sort of grounding for normativity from atheists, so it seems fair to ask what grounds this evaluation. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We know the grounding can’t be in god’s nature, because god simply does not get to choose whether or not he loves us. In fact we could ask Dr. Rasmussen if it would be a “better situation” if god were not perfectly loving but could in fact choose whether or not to love us, being free to hate some of his creation - and so perhaps Dr. Rasmussen’s Christian universalist outlook would be fatally flawed and he should instead adopt some sort of Calvinist framework. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conversely if we say there is no normative ground for assessing what is and is not a better situation, then why is it not the case for other normative properties, or all of morality? </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Unfortunately Dr. Rasmussen’s theodicy just reduces down to “it seems as if free will with respect to morality seems valuable to us, even if god doesn’t have it” and I don’t see how the theist can hold to that and say that god is the greatest possible being if he lacks something that we are to find so valuable. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Logical Problem of Evil, Resurgent</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Because of these reasons, it remains logically possible for god to create a “heaven world”, where N number of people all freely choose to always do good in the sum total of situations Y that will occur in that world. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we say that a person can make “free choices” even if their nature determines what they will freely do in any given situation in a deterministic way so that god can know it, then this is a logically possible world.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If we deny this, then god can’t be omniscient and foreknow what any given individual will do in the future given a specific situation, contradicting not only millenia of theology, but also a number of stories in the Christian bible as well.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The theist must pick which way they want to go: Either the problem of evil is not defeated by the Free Will Defense, or their deity cannot be omniscient and so cannot be god by definition.</span></p><br /></span><span><!--more--></span><span><!--more--></span><span><!--more--></span><p> </p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-11257592015743525652022-08-25T02:00:00.005-07:002022-08-25T02:00:00.174-07:00William Lane Craig Cherry Picks His Standards for Christian Belief<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gqItDIuIR80" width="424" youtube-src-id="gqItDIuIR80"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p>There's been a bit of a dustup on philosophy of religion YouTube thanks to Dr. William Lane Craig's comments on a recent podcast about lowering the epistemic bar for belief in his form of Christianity and raising the bar for defeaters for Christianity. He then went on Capturing Christianity's channel to defend himself from numerous detractors and after seeing the hole he dug for himself on that show I decided to put out a detailed critique of his cherry picked standards. </p><p>Sorry for a lack of a transcript, I wanted to do this one live, so you'll just have to watch the video.</p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-80494918779477189732022-02-14T03:00:00.003-08:002022-02-14T06:24:04.846-08:00Countering the Contingency Argument & Defending Brute Facts<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xji7pmT5w2Q" width="320" youtube-src-id="xji7pmT5w2Q"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Note:</b> What follows is a transcript of the video.</span><p></p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Theistic apologists point to things like the Principle of Sufficient Reason to try and argue that there must be a necessary being underlying all of reality. This principle draws a distinction between contingent things, i.e. things that seem as if they could have been different, and a necessary thing - something that has to exist in the same way in all possible worlds. </span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-615a3891-7fff-34ef-c120-61b68285dd62"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact the PSR is premise one in the Leibnizian Cosmological argument, here’s a popular presentation of it by William Lane Craig:</span></p><br /><ol style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-inline-start: 48px;"><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its nature or in an external cause</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is god.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The universe exists.</span></p></li><li aria-level="1" dir="ltr" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Therefore god exists.</span></p></li></ol><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are a wide variety of objections to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and in turn a wide variety of modifications to the principle to try and work around those defeaters. What I want to do here is a bit different, to point to problems with what theists try to posit as “necessary”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First I want to draw some boundaries around what both sides should consider to be “off limits” in terms of how we argue about necessary things. It should be considered improper to draw a neat little circle around an entity and a description of its attributes and then simply say “well this thing is necessary”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is pretty easy for me to illustrate for theists with an example. If an atheist pointed to the physical universe and our best description of the laws of nature - ie. the relatively short equation describing quantum field theory and then they said “well this is the description of the necessary entity unwriting all of reality”, the theists would object and say “that’s ad hoc!”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But why? Well because it’s not hard to conceive of those equations being slightly different, and the atheist can’t offer any formal, logical derivation showing the necessity of those equations. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Simply put, it’s out of line to draw a neat little circle around the description of what appears to be contingent and then call it necessary. This doesn’t really provide any explanatory advantage, all it does is arbitrarily call something necessary. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My contention is that this is </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">exactly</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> what theists do when they posit god as a necessary being that provides an explanation for all of reality. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m going to start with a great example from my Christian friends. After all Chrsitians will posit god as a “necessary being” but then also describe god as a trinity. The idea that god is three persons in one being, which frankly sounds incoherent - but they make a large amount of metaphysical assumptions about the nature of being and personhood so as to avoid those logical contradictions.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem with this is that by all rights a “trinity” appears to be a contingent property, especially once we grant the assumptions necessary to avoid it being contradictory in the first place. After all, why is god only 3 persons and not 2, 4, 5, or any natural number?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’ve posed this problem before and another Christian YouTuber I have some fondness for, The Dry Apologist, took up the challenge to try and explain it. His attempt is admirable, but unfortunately for him, unsuccessful. I want to go through exactly why it not only fails, but how it is conceptually doomed from the start. Trying to explain why a trinity is necessary is like trying to have a non-violent shooting, it’s just not going to work.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now to be clear, Dry Apologist doesn’t think this argument is the reason god is a trinity, but he wants to be able to present a plausible argument as to why god is a trinity to avoid being charged with having a brute fact on his metaphysic. You can watch the video this is quoted from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ZdrUU0eKM" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</span></p><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>“The way that the trinity works is that god the father necessarily exists with unlimited being, which thereby includes having an intellect and will. And his intellect is so supreme that it reflects back upon itself like an ontological mirror and thereby sources another person from his intellect who then partakes in god the fathers being as well. The second person, god the son, then shares the same divine being with god the father and now their shared will is so supreme that it reflects upon itself and thereby sources a third person, god the holy spirit. Now if this explanation is correct, then it makes sense why god would be three persons.”</i></span></p></span></blockquote><span><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are quite a few problems here, lets start with the conceptual basics.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We start with the idea that god exists necessarily with unlimited being, but then his intellect is somehow able to reflect on itself to literally source another person, where then the divine will is now even stronger and so sources another person in the same being. There’s a lot to unpack there, but there’s first the question on whether this is already being coherent in its own terms.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God is supposed to exist without limit, but then when the second person in the trinity is created the will somehow increases? If god was already supposed to be the maximal being, how could its will increase? But if the will increases and births a person, why then does the intellect also not increase enough to birth yet another person, and so on ad infinitum? Or perhaps just have the will increase yet again to produce the same birthing of new persons ad infinitum. How so is it that both intellect AND will can both reflect on themselves and create a new person?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is still no real explanation as to why there are only three persons in one being rather than any other number, but the problem goes even deeper because god is supposed to be necessary.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Inherent in this explanation are these assumed metaphysical principles about being and personhood, the very things needed to save the trinity from incoherence, but then in addition to them are these new principles that somehow wills and intellect can “reflect on themselves” and in the process create another person - in the same being!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What’s worse is not only that these principles themselves seem ad hoc, but the Christian needs them not only to be true - the Christian needs them to be necessary. This is because if god is necessary then god must have the same properties in every possible world, meaning these principles must also hold in all possible worlds.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However all these principles seem as if they could be different! It seems possible that a will can not reflect on itself to birth a new person in the same being! Or perhaps the assumption about how there can be 3 persons in one being is possibly false and only one person could ever be one being. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This isn’t some pie in the sky theorizing, these principles are far from being non-controversial. It’s not just non-theists who reject them, even non-Christian theists don’t hold to them. This is because they are plainly ad hoc rationalizations to prop up esoteric Christian doctrines. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s also not hard to see the beginning of an infinite regress problem here. The Christian might try to appeal to some other set of principles to explain the necessity of the principles necessary for the trinity to hold up, but then those in turn would need explanation and it is hard to see how one might derive all of this from one set of metaphysical principles that themselves would seem as if they couldn’t have been otherwise. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what the Christian is stuck with is what was supposed to be out of bounds – drawing a neat little circle around some arbitrary, contingent principles, and then calling it “necessary”. If we can simply do that and call things necessary, then it is easy for a naturalist to do the same with the universe. I honestly don’t think that’s valid; I think it is far simpler to recognize that we must acknowledge that all worldviews are going to be stuck with some brute facts.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What About Non-Christians</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Other theists might be nodding along sagely with my argument so far, thinking that they can avoid this problem as they don’t believe in a trinity – but the issue extends well beyond some weird Christian doctrines and affects a wide variety of theistic views.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Take for example theists who maintain a form of the moral argument – the idea that if god does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. Typically, the Euthyphro dilemma forces such theists into the position that “Goodness is determined by the attributes of god’s nature”. The idea is that god is loving and truthful by nature, among other things, and so love and truthfulness are “morally good”.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This view is forced in turn by its own modified Euthyphro Dilemma: Are the attributes of god’s nature good because they are in god’s nature or are they in god’s nature because they are good?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here the theist does not have a way to get out of the new dilemma – they are forced to either admit that a property being in god’s nature is what makes that property good, otherwise goodness must exist apart from god’s existence. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One problem with maintaining that properties being good are only good by being in god’s nature is that it suddenly makes all the attributes of god’s nature into a brute fact!</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After all, it is not hard to ask “Why is god’s nature loving rather than hateful? Or truthful rather than deceptive?” If the theist attempts to give a reason for this, then they are simply giving reasons outside of god’s nature for why love and truthfulness are good and so must give up the moral argument.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If they don’t, then they’re left with no explanation as to why god has one set of attributes in his nature rather than their opposites, and so are again drawing a neat little circle around some contingent properties and calling them “necessary”.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What About Other Theistic Views?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps there are some theists who are not Christians and who don’t hold that goodness cannot exist if god does not exist, who are themselves nodding along sagely with my argument, but think they can maintain the contingency argument.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is another fundamental problem for theism that I think has broad applicability in terms of brute facts – namely the idea that god “freely chose” to create things in the way they are.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One might ask why god chose to create the universe or free creatures or basically picked any of the supposedly contingent things we see around us? If the answer is that god has Libertarian Free Will and simply “chose” to instantiate any of these contingent things AND there is no reason necessitating his choice – then those choices are brute. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is because </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">if</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> god had a reason that necessitated his choices, then it turns out all the things we think of as contingent are in fact necessary. In philosophy this is known as a modal collapse where literally nothing is contingent and everything is necessary.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A theist might reply that “Well that’s just what god chose to do, even though he could have chosen otherwise, we can’t go further than that” – basically the insistence that it is a valid explanation to point to god using libertarian free will to make an arbitrary choice as an ultimate explanation. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">They might argue that if you were to ask “Why did John get the chocolate iced cream instead of the vanilla?” it is a perfectly good explanation to say “Well John just prefers chocolate”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So why would it not be an explanation to say “well god just chose to make the world this way even though he didn’t have to”? </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well primarily because in this case it offers no real explanation compared to simply accepting the contingent things as brute facts in themselves compared to just being brute facts of god’s will.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After all, there simply can’t *be* a reason for god to create one contingent thing over the other, because again if he had a reason then it would have to be a necessary reason and we’re back to a modal collapse. This is disanalogous to preferences of humans where we at least give reasons for some of our preferences based on our biology or evolutionary history - all of which seem to be contingent themselves. There’s a reason I prefer something that tastes like chocolate rather than say whatever rotting meat tastes like.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">God has none of that, only necessary properties that can’t differ in any possible world. So if god has no necessitating reason for his choices then the various contingent things in existence being the way they are is effectively random – utterly brute among infinite possibilities. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The idea of free choice in this way is not functionally different from a random number generator, there’s no explanation as to why any given number came out of the generator at any specific call, just as there’s no explanation for why a free agent chose what they did. This is part of the reason why philosophers argue that libertarian free will is incoherent and the existence of it is doubted.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Theists say that in the case of the agent we accept “well that’s what the agent chose” as an explanation in our daily lives, but if it was truly a LFW choice then that explanation serves no purpose beyond being able to assign blame, not provide an actual explanation for why one choice was made over others. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As such, an atheist is perfectly justified in pointing out that if theists can get away with having these kinds of brute facts in their explanation, why is it that atheists are denied bruteness in their explanations?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I get that theists don’t like this and find it unsatisfying, but it’s not my fault that brute facts are inescapable on any worldview, that’s just the way it is. </span></p></span>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-27571775746732286602022-02-12T06:20:00.003-08:002022-02-12T06:20:38.405-08:00Debunking William Lane Craig's Apologetics<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In these ad lib videos I counter some apologetics from William Lane Craig. The first video goes over how his clarifications on objective in terms of moral values and duties ends up proving his meta-ethical theory is self referentially incoherent.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The second covers how his apologetics about why we weren't created in heaven directly, as we'd expect if a tri-omni god existed, is just a terrible answer.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="335" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MbXxwBr3ONI" width="487" youtube-src-id="MbXxwBr3ONI"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="325" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lzr7qH7wAJo" width="509" youtube-src-id="Lzr7qH7wAJo"></iframe></div><br /> <p></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-82795500128494317352022-02-12T06:15:00.004-08:002022-02-12T06:15:51.876-08:00New Videos Debunking Miracles<p>I've found a new process for myself that lets me make some quick videos that can still get good points across. The downside is that I haven't spent a long time writing a script I can just put up as a blog post. <br /><br />However I've spent some time making videos about miracles and my thought experiment of empirically verifiable miracles - so please enjoy if you haven't seen them already. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="331" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oxUnlj0J9e4" width="477" youtube-src-id="oxUnlj0J9e4"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="347" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IQ7B-ymdFO4" width="437" youtube-src-id="IQ7B-ymdFO4"></iframe></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="338" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gm21C7o1ltU" width="443" youtube-src-id="Gm21C7o1ltU"></iframe></div><br /><p></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-37014555430108692422021-12-07T08:11:00.007-08:002021-12-07T08:58:45.620-08:00An Atheist Christmas? (Yes!) Is Christmas Pagan? (No!)<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/mwHd-bwXSAY" width="403" youtube-src-id="mwHd-bwXSAY"></iframe></div><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;"><b style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note:</b><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"> What follows is a transcript of the video.</span></span></p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It’s that time of year again! When overly zealous Christians like to troll atheists about celebrating a Christmas holiday, and atheist edge lords post memes about Christmas being pagan in origin. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Is any of it true? Can atheists celebrate Christmas without being hypocrites? Is Christmas really a pagan holiday? </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">I’ll tackle the easy question first. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Yes, atheists can celebrate Christmas even though we believe there is no god, and that Jesus is not the son of god. I put up a tree and lights outside my house last weekend, stuff is hanging in my hallways, the kids are excited, we even have an advent calendar thing for each of my girls to open something each morning in December. Advent is nothing more than “countdown to Christmas” for us, both girls have no idea about anything religious.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Am I being hypocritical? No, because Christmas in its modern incarnation has become just like Halloween.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">No one, not even the Christians believe one must make “soul cakes” to distribute out to the poor so as to improve their chances of getting into heaven or that people similarly must leave food for the dead. In the old practice that trick or treat likely evolved from, a close knit community would pretend to not know who the guests were requesting said charity food, and so “guiser masks” were used to hide peoples identity. This is all a very far cry from what we now think of as traditional Halloween costumes and trick or treating. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">These days it’s just a fun holiday that has no real spiritual dimension, but it is celebrated by Christians, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s, and basically anyone in America - because it’s fun. There is no “reason for the season” in October, even though like Christmas, Halloween has taken over its entire month. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">That’s exactly what Christmas is for atheist families like my own, it’s just a fun tradition that we take the parts we like and discard the religious bits we don’t believe in. You won’t find a manger or nativity, though I am always tempted to put up the stock all white nativity cutout that looks like two T-Rex’s fighting over a table saw. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">My kids get excited, we put up a tree and lights. We make gingerbread houses, we get presents and pictures taken, we have a big meal – but my kids don’t even know the Jesus story. Same thing for Easter really, except then it’s about hiding eggs around the house or yard and the Easter Bunny. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This concept isn’t hard for Christians to understand, in fact they already do. Have you ever noticed those signs or bumper stickers that say “keep Christ in Christmas”? That’s referring to Christian backlash of exactly the scenario I’m describing. Non-religious traditions are overwhelming the religious aspects of the holiday in the wider culture, to an extreme degree that religious Christians are trying to build a movement to reassert the religious aspects. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">What I’m discussing is exactly what these Christians oppose: we’re taking the fun non-religious aspects dominating our culture and leaving behind the religious aspects. Christmas in a post Christian society will be much like Halloween already is. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">You’ll notice this is a defensive argument, providing an explanation of how non-Christians can enjoy a holiday like Christmas without being hypocritical. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Unfortunately, I think this defensive posture is taken too far by some popular atheists where they go against the historical evidence and try to claim all these fun non-religious aspects of Christmas are pagan in origin. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In fact I had shared the same sort of memes and ideas on Twitter and was corrected by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcvJWPTY64&t=0s" rel="nofollow">Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy</a> as well as <a href="https://historyforatheists.com/2020/12/pagan-christmas/" rel="nofollow">Tim O’Neill who writes the History for Atheists blog</a> (Tim is an atheist activist from Australia). I largely want to give both men credit for pointing me towards the resources linked below in the comments, and I wanted to put a video out to disseminate these ideas because I believe they’re true. The problem is that there just aren’t any good early sources for a lot of the “pagan appropriation” claims. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">An important aspect here is to draw a distinction between something being biblical or religious in nature, or a tradition that came up as part of a religious celebration that was then added to the holiday.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Certainly, early church fathers that mention Christmas, like Clement or Hippolytus would be baffled at the idea of a fat bearded man in a red suit, a decorated evergreen tree, or the exchange of presents being so closely associated with the birth of Christ. There is nothing “holy” about our modern Christian traditions because we know what actual Christian holy practices derived from the bible are. Things like consuming bread and wine in communion or the baptism of a person with water are holy sacraments derived from specifically Christian practices recorded in the bible. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">As we will see the development of our modern cherished traditions are far removed from anything religious, but that does not mean they’re pagan in origin either. The real story is far more complicated and messier.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">First let’s talk about the dating of Christmas on December 25th. Andrew Mark Henry has a PhD in ancient Christianity and he has written good information on this as well <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DHbOpS-N0c" rel="nofollow">as produced a video on the topic I’ll link in the comments</a>. Effectively there were motivations to get to December 25th because on the ancient Julian calendar that’s when they thought the Winter Solstice occurred (the ancient calendar systems had errors), so there was motivation to put the birth of Jesus on a day of cosmic significance. Effectively the theory is that by the third century Christians believed that for people with perfect lives (saints, Jesus, etc) died on the same day they were conceived. That’s obviously false, but it’s supposedly what they believed. They calculated Jesus to have died on March 25th, which would have been assumed to be the day of his conception, and if you fast forward 9 months you get to December 25th. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Was this motivated reasoning? Probably. Was it possibly there to coincide with the Roman festival of Saturnalia? Possibly, but there’s no direct evidence of that. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In fact Saturnalia is supposedly where Christmas was supposed to have stolen the idea of presents from as well as using evergreen tree limbs as decorations for the feast. The problem with this is that our earliest sources describing Saturnalia celebrations doesn’t mention anything about evergreen decorations. While they did exchange presents at Saturnalia, the practice died out along with the holiday. Gift exchanges were associated with Saint Nicholas, a 4th century bishop and gift giver, but the celebration of that wasn’t widespread in Christian countries, and when it was, it happened early in December on St. Nicholas Day on Dec 6th or around New Years eve. It was only in the 1800’s with stories and poems like “A Christmas Carol” or “The Night Before Christmas” that the practice got moved to Christmas Eve. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In fact, if one wants to tie Christmas to Saturnalia one could point out that for most of the time after Jesus’s life Christmas was a raucous, often drunk affair with social norms being upended and slaves sitting at the main table being served by their masters – something that also happened in Saturnalia. The problem with this is that these sorts of festivals were common during the winter in socially stratified societies, so any link there would be tenuous at best. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">However, it is a fact that for well over a thousand years of its life Christmas was a Mardi Gras like affair that took place over a period in December. It was tamed and transformed to be the family friendly event we know and love today by elites in the 1800’s, which is where we get the Santa Clause, presents, and the Christmas tree. The Christmas tree first became a thing in Germany and then became popularized in the west by the English Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert who was born in Germany.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">There are legends that Martin Luther originated the German practice of decorating an evergreen tree at Christmas, but this itself lacks evidence and is likely a legend of tying a popular custom to an important religious icon. Once Victoria and Albert popularized decorating a Christmas tree, it was picked up by the middle class and nobility in England and spread from there. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">My key point is that the Christmas tree didn’t really become something associated so tightly with Christmas until well over a fifteen hundred years of Christmas celebrations, far removed from anything of actual Christian religious significance. However, this doesn’t mean it came from pagan practices or customs either, it can literally just be a good idea someone had that became popular and spread across cultures. People don’t need much reason to copy good ideas, even Jewish Americans have started having Hannukah bushes that resemble Christmas trees – because decorating an evergreen with lights and ornaments is fun.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Another thing to consider is time, we need more than vague links between similar sounding events. I’ve got news for you, in the ancient world if you wanted to decorate in the winter, using evergreens is likely to be a popular method because they’re the only tree’s that are still alive in winter. So lets say that there were evergreens decorated at Saturnalia in the Roman empire or in ancient Egypt for some festival in December, so what? Those practices had died out by the time we can literally trace back the Christmas tree to becoming a cultural phenomenon during Christmas. It simply doesn’t make sense to say that some Germans in the 1700’s had stolen the idea from a pagan ritual celebrated in the 3rd century in Egypt. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Conversely, Christians shouldn’t prescribe religious significance to these ancillary non-religious traditions that became a part of what was originally a religious observance. Especially if those non-religious traditions have since outgrown the religious observance in popularity. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If an atheist is putting up a tree, lights, taking their kids to see Santa at a mall, and exchanging presents on December 25th, it’s hard to say “Jesus is the reason” for the celebration just because these non-religious traditions were at one time done in concurrence with a religious celebration. I don’t think most Christians would want to follow that line of logic everywhere it leads. Consider Mardi Gras in New Orleans, which is a feast of eating fatty or rich foods on the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday and the Lenten tradition of fasting begins – all of which are Catholic holy days and religious practices. If you’re not aware even as far back in the 1800’s Mardi Gras was a drunken party in part of the city where there’s also a tradition of young women exposing their breasts for men who give them a beaded necklace or some other trinket. This is as much a non-religious tradition that is now attached to a celebration related to a Christian religious observance as the Christmas Tree and presents are attached to Christmas. Do Christians really want to say that Jesus is the reason for shaking them titties at Mardi Gras? I doubt it. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This leads to my overall point – no one must feel bad about celebrating these different traditions. Not fundamentalist Christians who are afraid of doing something pagan in origin nor atheists who don’t believe Jesus was the son of god. At the end of the day there are all sorts of weird but fun traditions that we’ve inherited in our popular culture that we can keep or stop doing as we see fit, for the simple fact that we enjoy doing them. The significance of each tradition is unique to each individual and can take on either a secular or religious meaning depending on your point of view – which itself can change! </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">I’m an apostate, I worked heavily in my small church for nearly a decade and Christmas was easily our busiest time of year, with me spending hours on end working A/V for all sorts of services and rehearsals. I sacrificed a lot of my time to make those things happen and I thought I was doing it in service of an all-important divine being. I still enjoyed presents, putting up the tree, exchanging gifts, and spending time with friends and family even then, but I tried to make Christmas Christ-focused. Now I obviously don’t work in a church, but I still enjoy all the non-religious aspects I just mentioned, and I cherish my memories of doing these things with my kids now that I’m a parent. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">At the end of the day can’t we all just calm down and enjoy the holidays, for whatever meaning we derive out of them? </span></span></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-69070496153798680812021-12-02T07:29:00.004-08:002021-12-02T07:29:24.371-08:00What Evidence do I have for Atheism?<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NNgp5ZXrOrs" width="492" youtube-src-id="NNgp5ZXrOrs"></iframe></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Cameron from Capturing Christianity had "3 Sincere Questions for Atheists" video and since I already had something written up to address the meatiest question he had, I figured I'd put out a quick response.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The main question is "What Evidence do you have for your atheism?".</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">You can view Cameron's original video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89tcsb2aPLI&t=0s" rel="nofollow" target="">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Sorry there's no transcript for this one as I added a bit along with what I had originally written.</span></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-15099199272817217372021-10-22T07:27:00.001-07:002021-10-22T07:27:10.040-07:00Countering Frank Turek's Dishonesty, Pop Apologetics About Sex, and Diet Presuppositionalism<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="342" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4AQktvJ36mQ" width="411" youtube-src-id="4AQktvJ36mQ"></iframe></div><br /><p></p><p>A new impromptu video! </p><p>Capturing Christianity released a video with popular level Christian apologist Frank Turek that was so bad I felt it needed to be responded to immediately.</p><p>You can watch the original video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBDyBsrx-4&t=0s" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p><p>Please bear with me in this video as it's my first time attempting to do some live playback and commentary.</p><p>Unfortunately as a result of the impromptu nature of this video, I do not have a transcript.</p><p>Also I'm adding a pre-emptive correction that came after recording: Frank's book released in 2014, so this isn't a book tour to cover for a lost one during the pandemic. Frank and Cameron were just doing product placement.</p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-71743169653732543212021-09-25T21:00:00.001-07:002021-09-26T06:44:22.116-07:00Gun Politics: Terrible Arguments for Gun Control in the Supreme Court NYSRPA v Bruen Case<p><span style="font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c65nf2ArogQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="c65nf2ArogQ"></iframe></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">(Note: What follows below is a transcript of the video)</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So this is going to be a big divergence from the normal sort of topics that I cover on this channel. Today I’m going to talk about gun politics in the upcoming Supreme Court case New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen. If you were expecting any philosophy of religion here, I’m afraid you’ll have to move on. If you want to hear about gun-control arguments that are so bad they rival the sort of drivel that you’d hear from a Young Earth Creationist or Anti-Evolution apologist, then strap in! I’d appreciate it if you let me know how you feel about non-philosophy of religion videos on my channel in the comments.</span></span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-8af396f5-7fff-8d25-1679-7adde0c727cb"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you hadn’t been able to guess from my normal videos or my twitter feed, I’m pretty liberal, but actual people don’t line up perfectly with their parties. I’m a pro-gun liberal who still largely votes Democrat because on the total balance of issues, they suit my priorities best. This is just like a conservative who would support increased taxes on the rich and corporations, but votes Republican because of culture issues. However the issue has become more acute for me in the last year and a half when I became a gun owner because of the pandemic and I’ve become more interested in second amendment politics. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span></span></span></p><a name='more'></a></span><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This issue effects me directly because I live in New Jersey, one of the most anti-gun states in the nation. This means that much like 7 other states, including New York, I am de-facto banned from getting a concealed carry permit. This is because these states are “may-issue”, where they can subjectively deny any permit application if the officials feel that the person applying does not have a "good cause" or “justifiable need” for self defense. In practice this means “no-issue” to 99% of the population, but I’ll get into that a bit later.</span></span><p></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This is in contrast to 42 other states that either allow someone to carry concealed without a permit of any kind or “shall-issue” states where once a person has completed whatever requirements the state puts out - typically a training class and/or live fire exercises - the state must issue the carry permit.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The Bruen case is going to be heard by the SCOTUS on November 3rd and the case is challenging the "good cause" requirement to be issued a carry permit in New York City. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">An incredible amount of amici briefs have been filed by both sides, these are basically arguments sent to the justices where various groups or organizations state their support for one side or the other. What I wanted to focus on was <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193275/20210921160349789_20-843_Amicus%20Brief.pdf" rel="nofollow">the brief urging the court to uphold New York’s restrictive law that was filed by over 150 Senators and House members</a>, because one would think they would at least only sign on to good arguments. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What I found was simply an embarrassing set of arguments that dance around the issue rather than address it directly, while trying to avoid facts they’d rather not discuss. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’ll put a link to the brief in the description box so you can follow along and verify what I’m saying is accurate. With that said, let's tackle their first mistake. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">On page 19 in the document, 37 in the PDF we get to this gem:</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">“Unrestricted Concealed Carry Can Harm First Amendment Rights</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Civilians carrying guns into communal spaces can chill or shut down the rightful expressions of free speech and political protest that the First Amendment is intended to protect. Requiring licenses to carry concealed guns in public, and imposing reasonable conditions on licensure, is an important and effective tool for preventing these civic harms. The inability to regulate concealed firearms in public would put legislatures at a severe disadvantage in their mandate to “protect the public sphere on which a constitutional democracy depends.”</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The section goes on to describe a peaceful protest for racial justice in the summer of 2020 in Omak Washington that then ran into an unauthorized and armed militia group facing them with others on nearby rooftops that the protestors thought were “ready to act as snipers”. They argue that this causes a chilling effect on the protestors. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Now on its face, this doesn’t immediately sound like a blunder. I don’t intend to debate laws permitting the open carrying of firearms, specifically in this case rifles. In fact I can completely grant every premise here and it has absolutely ZERO bearing on the case at hand.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This is because the arguments the NYSRPA are making are about the "good cause" clause for getting a New York City permit to concealed carry a handgun! The state will still be regulating who can carry.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Nothing in the case is requesting that New York must amend its laws to permit the open carrying of rifles or long guns, it doesn’t even challenge the notion that people have to apply for a permit - it challenges the portion of the law that New York and other states use to deny permits to otherwise law abiding citizens who can demonstrate they can safely handle a handgun. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If you have a concealed carry permit and you pull out your weapon, that’s known as brandishing which is itself a crime unless the concealed carry holder had what the law says is a “reasonable fear for their life or the life of a 3rd party”. For reference a jury is who decides what fears are reasonable or not in specific cases. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So if the Supreme Court were to strike down the law then all it means is that New York and the other 7 states will have to become shall-issue states for concealed carry permits only, not permitless carry or permit the carry of long guns of any kind. They will still only allow carry by license. It doesn’t mean protesters will have to face an unauthorized militia. The entire case is about whether a "good cause" is a “reasonable restriction” on the issuance of licenses which this argument doesn’t address. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is one other reason we should reject this argument is because 42/50 states are either shall-issue or permitless carry states, constituting roughly 75% of the US population. It is simply absurd to say that 75% of the country can not exercise their free speech and assembly rights because those states allow for the</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">concealed carry of handguns</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. If it is anything it 's an argument against open carry of handguns and/or long guns - that's it. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The second terrible argument they make is similar to the first, on page 21 (38 in the PDF):</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">“The presence of unlicensed firearms in public can also threaten free and fair elections culminating in smooth transitions of power. Last year, a number of states saw their efforts to count ballots and certify the election delayed and inhibited by firearms in the public sphere. “</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">They then go on to describe two individuals in Philadelphia who were carrying rifles outside an area where votes from the 2020 election were being counted, creating a hostile and fearful environment for election officials.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I certainly agree that such a display will cause that effect and I also don’t support any efforts to intimidate election officials counting votes in an area known to heavily favor one party. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Again this is an instance where all of the comments from the previous section about the case not being about open carry of rifles applies here, which invalidates the argument off the bat. It also doesn't challenge laws banning carry in polling places or other government buildings like courthouses, which exist in shall issue states. However, what's hilarious is that they even admit in the brief that the people carrying the rifles were arrested - because they didn’t actually have permits to carry the weapons! </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The next hilariously bad argument made is on page 23 (40 in the PDF), referencing the January 6th insurrection: </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“While most participants in the January 6 insurrection came to Washington, D.C. from other states and appeared to comply with the District’s laws prohibiting gun possession and public carry by out-of-state visitors, some insurrectionists illegally brought firearms to the District and inside the Capitol in an attempt to thwart the democratic process.”</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This argument is what really takes the cake for me in terms of being so bad they may as well be arguing the opposing position for the justices to strike down the "good cause" requirement. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Let me state the obvious: I found the insurrection abhorrent and I hope the people who tried to usurp our democratic process to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I was a Biden voter in 2020, despite the fact that he is terrible for the second amendment. On the whole of other issues, I found him to be the best candidate.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That said, the point is that insurrectionists who brought weapons to DC were doing so </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">illegally</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. So the point has nothing to do with the case’s objective of striking down the “good cause” section of New York’s concealed carry permit law. Even more devastating is the fact that Washington DC has been a “Shall Issue’ jurisdiction since 2017’s Wrenn v District of Columbia! In fact if NYSRPA wins the case all that would happen is the court will force the 8 “may-issue” states to adopt the kind of carry laws in Washington DC!</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The fact that literal insurrectionists, people trying to overthrow the US Government carrying out the democratic process of a free and fair election - followed the still restrictive DC carry laws, not bringing their guns because they didn’t have DC carry permits - is evidence that there is no real risk to New York City if it is forced to adopt the exact same shall-issue system that DC now uses!</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Why “Good Cause” or “Justifiable Need” Laws are Unconstitutional</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Next I want to show where the legal arguments in favor of upholding the “good cause” laws not only fail, but are being argued in bad faith.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A lot of the argument hinges on the idea that good cause may-issue laws have been upheld by various US District Court of Appeals, surviving what is called “intermediate scrutiny”. To avoid a lot of details, there are 13 different district court of appeals covering various regions of the country. Intermediate scrutiny refers to the sort of test courts use to determine the constitutionality of the law, basically low, medium, or high bars to clear. As the name implies, intermediate scrutiny would be a medium sort of test.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The idea is that courts have determined that 2A laws should use the intermediate scrutiny standard, and when the district courts have used that standard - the may issue laws have passed the test in all the circuit court decisions that have considered it.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This is where things get misleading. First is the fact that district courts tend to mirror the regions they cover - so the circuits in the swathes of the country that have shall-issue or permitless carry laws don’t hear challenges to may issue laws because there are none in those regions. Conversely the circuits where may issue laws were tried tend to be pro-gun control and have upheld these laws - except not always.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you know about Illinois, you’ll know it’s a heavily blue state that wants a lot of gun control, except it is oddly a shall-issue state. This is because </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the 7th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in Moore v Madigan in 2013 that Illinois “no-issue” permit system was unconstitutional and the decision heavily implied they needed to adopt a shall-issue system. The court gave 180 days for the legislature to draft such a law, or they would strike down the existing system, leaving unrestricted carry in place. The governor wanted to challenge the case to the supreme court, but the Democratic legislature didn’t want to take the risk and overrode his veto of the new shall-issue law. As such the governor's appeal was moot, and the courts decision isn’t counted against “may-issue” laws.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Similarly we have the heavily blue and pro gun-control city of Washington DC. They had exactly the sort of “good cause” may-issue laws that the 8 states in question have, and it was struck down by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Wrenn v District of Columbia in 2017. As stated, Washington DC is now a shall-issue jurisdiction - exactly what the plaintiffs in Bruen want. However since that court is not technically in the “circuit courts” because DC is not a state, its decision is not counted by the pro gun-control briefs arguments. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Here’s where we see the 8 states and gun control organizations are arguing in bad faith - because DC wanted to appeal Wrenn to the Supreme Court, however the deliberations played out far more publicly than in Illinois. The 8 may-issue states governors and attorney generals, as well as the national gun control organizations publicly and privately urged DC officials to avoid appealing to the Supreme Court because they feared it would strike down all may-issue laws. In fact when announcing their decision to not appeal, the DC officials stated exactly this concern - having had the Supreme Court Heller decision in 2008 overturn DC’s ban on handguns and establish an individual right to own a handgun. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The point of all this is that not all courts of appeals have agreed that may-issue laws will survive intermediate scrutiny. Furthermore there has been a concerted effort by the 8 may-issue states to avoid having this issue come before the Supreme Court because they fear their laws will be struck down.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">However, the strongest argument that “good cause” may issue laws being unconstitutional is not in the details of conflicting decisions from US courts of appeals. It is because such laws violate basic notions of fairness and equality of rights under the law. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Rules For Thee, but Not For Me</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">There are two classes of people that universally get granted concealed carry permits under the sort of “good cause” may-issue laws: The rich and famous and retired police officers. In some states there is an ongoing problem of a third class - those just wealthy enough to bribe local officials.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">There is a famous case in California of an Apple executive sending a literal pallet of iPad’s to the police precinct that would approve his concealed carry permit, as well as other cases in New York and other states where police officers have taken bribes to issue carry permits.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">However not all bribes in the US are illegal, as our campaign contribution system lays painfully self-evident. Do you want to know who had New York City concealed carry permits, decades back when they were Democrats donating millions to Democratic, gun control candidates locally and nationally? Donald Trump and his two sons Eric and Don Jr. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Various other wealthy New York City residents get their carry permits too, but sometimes straight campaign contributions aren’t even necessary and sheer fame can get someone through - like Howard Stern, though it is unclear if it was fame or a combination of contributions which got him his carry permit. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">That said, there is the final class that gets their carry permits - retired police officers. Most of the time the government has to use them as the deciding authority on whether to deny or grant permits, and in order to make sure they don’t get too permissive in what counts as a “good reason” to have a carry permit, realizing they will want one once they retire. So they have written the laws such that retired police officers are granted their carry permits - often getting to waive hundreds of dollars in application fees in New York City specifically. This extends to district attorneys, local judges, or their friends and family. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">But what about the normal citizen? Well by statute just a simple desire for self defense is insufficient as a “good reason” for a carry permit. What’s worse is that normal citizens not rich or politically connected are regularly denied even if they’ve been repeated victims of violent crimes! In one case in New York, the police denied a person their carry permit despite them applying after being robbed at gunpoint in their neighborhood. By the time the application was processed it had been 3.5 years since the robbery and the police concluded that the individual was no longer in extraordinary personal danger. Perhaps if he was a victim of armed robbery more recently they would have granted his permit? I doubt it. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The fact of the matter is that normal law abiding citizens have no chance of being granted a carry permit. In fact the pro-gun control briefs basis for their argument is that effectively no one is granted permits under the may-issue laws and so those places are safer. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">What’s more is that the plaintiffs in NYSRPA v Bruen are only arguing that these last 8 states with 25% of the US population must become “shall-issue” states. As we’ve seen in anti-gun jurisdictions forced by court order to become shall-issue, Illinois and Washington DC specifically, they impose extraordinary hurdles to getting their carry permits in an effort to dissuade citizens from carrying. Both places require a 2-Day training course as opposed to the single day class required in states with class requirements. There are a variety of fees, a long waiting period, etc.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Still, gun-control advocates want to create an aura of unjustified fear if the supreme court gives gun owners their rights back. I’ve covered why these arguments are bad, but additionally there is the wealth of data available that show that concealed carry permit holders are <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463357" rel="nofollow">among the most law-abiding populations in the country</a>!</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> This doesn't stop them from being unfairly used as scapegoats, like in 2005 when Philadelphia was experiencing a surge in gun homicides, then Mayor John Street blamed the increase in murders on the fact that city residents can get concealed carry permits because of Pennsylvania law. He actually wanted to stop issuing carry permits in the city because of the increase in murders. The problem for Mayor Street was that exactly zero of any of the murders in the city were committed by citizens who had a concealed carry permit. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This shouldn’t be surprising, since these are the people who have gone through the process to get government approval to carry a handgun concealed in public, whereas the overwhelming majority of the gun homicides and other crimes are committed by people who did not obtain their firearms legally. </span></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It is for these reasons that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn these may-issue laws (I hope), freeing the last 25% of the country to carry once we jump through the hoops our states put in front of us. It’s also the reason that other people do not need to see such a ruling as catastrophic or something that decreases public safety.</span></span></p><br />A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-5449528557698305422021-06-21T03:00:00.007-07:002021-06-21T04:09:37.041-07:00Countering Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology & Randal Rauser's Apologetic<p><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8vWgjQtutRw" width="320" youtube-src-id="8vWgjQtutRw"></iframe></span></div><p></p><br /><br />(Note: What follows is a transcription of the video)<br /><br /> In this video I’m going to be responding to both Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology as well as Randal Rauser’s wider apologetic effort, with particular emphasis on his new book ‘Jesus Loves Canaanites’. While these two topics seem disconnected, Randal is an ardent and capable defender of Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology and I believe his wider apologetic effort reveals a problem for both his apologetic and Plantinga’s properly basic belief system.<br /><br />We will begin with Randal’s apologetic. Randal is far from your average internet apologist that merely knows the ins and outs of the various families of theistic philosophical arguments. What makes Randall so interesting is that I think he correctly identifies the key contemporary problems that are driving people away from the Christian church in the US, EU, and Canada. <br /><span><a name='more'></a></span><span>Most of this is not unique to Randal, though some is. I chose Randal because he is prolific and an excellent teacher, but I don’t mean to critique him specifically. I chose Randal because he is helpful in highlighting this development in Christian theology and apologetics. I’m using him as a stand-in for what I see as the most effective protestant apologetic.<br /><br />He sees there are hot button issues that arise out of common Christian teachings that are contradicted by either science or our moral intuitions that lead believers to begin to doubt more core Christian doctrines and eventually apostatize.<br /><br />The problem for Christian apologists is that unlike mere theism which can easily be abstracted to a philosophical concept, Christianity carries a lot of baggage that can be hard to defend in contemporary times. Randal acts like a trauma surgeon, looking at the Christian church hemorrhaging believers and even more worryingly, he sees the other doctor’s treatments are making the problem worse!<br /><br /><br />Does Eternal Conscious Torture in hell as a doctrine seem to falsify the idea of a loving god? Defenses of ECT from popular apologists like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek just making the problem even worse? Randal will defend annihilationism and even talk about being a hopeful universalist!<br /><br /><br />Do LGBTQ sexual relationships just seem to be morally permissible, even laudable? At least in a monogamous married context? Michael Brown and William Anderson’s defenses of the traditional Christian stance not convincing you the bible is right? Randal still affirms the view that the bible morally prohibits such relations, but he will defend LGBTQ affirming interpretations of the bible as consistent with “mere Christianity”. After all, it’s better to have someone be a Christian in a LGBTQ affirming denomination than for them to be an atheist!<br /><br /><br />Did your church teach you Paul’s theology about Adam being fallen and Jesus having to save us, but evolutionary biology falsifies the idea that there was a historical Adam? Does Dr. S Joshua Swamidass theory that humans generally evolved as described by science, but that god specially created Adam and Eve out of dust, then had the fall happen in the garden of Eden, and then their kids just banged the Neanderthals and other proto-evolved-humans so as to disseminate the “imago dei” throughout our species just sound incredibly ad hoc and silly? Randal will give you the different hermeneutics to read Genesis and Paul so you can give up belief in the historical Adam and retain belief in Jesus and the resurrection!<br /><br />I could go on, but my point is that it’s not like other Christian apologists will shy away from these hard topics but like the examples show they generally affirm the hard doctrine and try to make the alternative seem undesirable or provide some sort of justification.<br /><br />Randal often goes in the opposite direction, often denying or redefining these old doctrines and then using his philosophical skills to maintain coherence with what he defines as mere Christianity; often by reframing the issue into something that becomes inherently unfalsifiable.<br /><br />In fact, reducing issues that by all appearances are falsifiable down into something that is inherently unfalsifiable is one of Randal’s primary strategies. This shouldn’t be surprising, as it’s the general strategy whenever an apologist runs into a problem where Christian teaching becomes falsified as we accumulate more knowledge about the world.<br /><br />Let me illustrate with a few examples.<br /><br />One of the most basic falsification criteria for the concept of theism would be to find a contradiction in the definition of god. God is typically defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent being.<br /><br />The issue is that high level concepts like god or omnipotence are malleable things. In fact throughout the history of philosophy of religion contradictions have been found between stated definitions of the tri-omni properties, but then theologians don’t stop being theists – they merely update their understanding of one of the attributes that has caused a problem (ex. omniscience).<br /><br />Randall heads even that problem off by endorsing what is known as perfect being theology. Here god is “the being that exemplifies the maximal set of compossible great-making properties” and things like omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence are all great-making properties.<br /><br />You'll notice that baked into the definition of perfect being theology is the phrase “maximal set of compossible” – which means that if we find attributes of omnipotence that are incompatible with omniscience, for example, then that’s not a problem for theism, because we’ve already defined god in such a way that the concept of god can’t contain any logical contradictions. So if we find one, well that’s just not part of our concept of god!<br /><br />The next example moves us from the conceptual to the factual.<br /><br />Biblical Inerrancy is another doctrine that Randal will defend, though he will state that it is not essential to being a Christian. While he calls it non-essential, biblical inerrancy is very widely held in the church and if one abandons inerrancy of the bible it opens all sorts of problematic questions about which parts of the bible are to be trusted and which are not.<br /><br />The problem is that the bible is full of claims that science has falsified. I’ve already mentioned the historical Adam, but the worldwide flood of Noah and the decimation of all but a few animals is strictly false, scientifically speaking. That’s the most glaring example, but there are others. Viewers are likely aware that when faced with abandoning inerrancy or dismissing modern science, there is a not-insignificant sect of Young Earth Creationist Christians who will dismiss science so as to preserve their belief in the inerrancy of scripture. They are largely responsible for painting Christians as anti-scientific fundamentalists and have been cited as a catalyst for many apostates leaving the church.<br /><br />Randal is eager to disassociate YEC from Christianity, but he is keen to keep the doctrine of inerrancy. How does he do this? Well he endorses a view defended by Christian scholar Kenton Sparks in “Gods Word in Human Words” which redefines inerrancy as a concept. Creationists like Ken Ham hold to inerrancy as the belief that the bible is literally true in all its claims. Sparks and Rauser view inerrancy as the belief that the bible does not contain errors in what it teaches.<br /><br />Did you notice the shift? It doesn’t matter if the bible says the earth was covered by a global flood, because theologians like Sparks and Rauser can interpret the passages in such a way that the story of Noah does not aim to teach that the earth was covered by a flood, it teaches some other lesson. What is that lesson? Well that depends! There are thousands of different Christian denominations and there is a huge amount of disagreement about what various parts of the bible try to teach. For the purposes of defending inerrancy it doesn’t really matter, all that matters is that so long as theologians can interpret just about any other lesson from the story they can safely discard the falsified passages as “not the point of the lesson of the passage”. It also means that it’s literally impossible to prove that the bible has any errors in it given this definition.<br /><br />The final example moves us from the factual to the moral, and here we will discuss Randal’s latest book “Jesus Loves Canaanites”.<br /><br />Beyond factual errors, the Christian bible is replete with examples of god doing morally horrible things. From permitting and regulating the keeping of non-Isrealite slaves as chattel to be passed down like a house, to the explicit command to commit genocide - with express instruction that women and infants were not to be spared.<br /><br />The logic to falsify the idea that even if there is a god, Yahweh - the Christian deity, cannot be god is straight forward:<br /><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">1. God, if one exists, is all good.<br />2. An all good being cannot command an evil act<br />3. The bible’s description of Yahweh’s explicit actions are factually accurate (Christian assumption)<br />4. The bible shows Yahweh explicitly commanded killing infants on the basis of their race/nationality<br />5. Killing infants on the basis of their race/nationality is an evil act<br />6. Yahweh explicitly commanded an evil act.<br />7. Therefore, Yahweh is not all good<br />8. Therefore, Yahweh cannot be god</blockquote><br />This is a particularly powerful argument against Christianity in particular, and its power is compounded by the fact that some of the most popular apologists working today will defend the Canaanite genocide as a justifiable act by a loving god! William Lane Craig expressly states that it was morally obligatory for the Israelite soldiers to put broadswords into babies. Paul Copan wrote an entire book either minimizing or justifying the Old Testament atrocities and he got the various big names in conservative apologetics to endorse it! As an atheist looking to help move people away from Christianity, this is basically a gift. Nothing discredits a Christian apologist faster than having them present the moral argument for god’s existence and then in retort force them to become an apologist for slavery and genocide.<br /><br />To be clear, I don’t think Randal’s approach is taken because the traditional approach is turning people away from Christianity. I think he is genuinely and rightly horrified at the description of events, finds the conclusion of the argument above unpalatable, and see’s the traditional approach failing spectacularly.<br /><br />So what does he do? He performs a Moorean shift – he insists that since the Christian god exists and can’t command a genocide, we must find a way to read the bible so that Yahweh didn’t actually command the thing the bible says he expressly commanded.<br /><br />This is a particularly hard feat because Randal will find no solace in literary or textual criticism. The relevant parts of the Old Testament are written in the genre of history, not even using the more figurative language found in other parts dealing with the creation of the universe.<br /><br />So how should one read biblical texts which so blatantly violate our basic moral judgements? Randal proposes 5 principles:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">Perfect God Principle – The bible is the product of a perfect god.<br /><br />Two Authors Principle - every biblical text has both a human author with human authorial meaning (ie. the literal sense) and a divine author and the divine meaning (ie. the plenary sense); which these senses may be identical they may also differ. When they do differ, the plenary sense is the controlling and authoritative sense of the passage and by which the literal sense should be understood.<br /><br />Canon Principle – The entire biblical text should be interpreted as a unified whole such that some individual texts within the entire canon should be interpreted in light of other texts which serve as interpreted control passages; one identifies which texts should serve as control passages by way of careful theological interpretation of the whole cannon, it’s meaning and purpose.<br /><br />Jesus Principle – the primary control texts for interpreting all of scripture, including morally problematic violence like the Canaanite conquest are those that comprise the life and teachings of Jesus.<br /><br />Love Principle – In light of the Jesus Principle, all texts should be interpreted in such a way that they increase the love of god and neighbor; consequently any reading of a text which diminishes love of god and/or neighbor should be rejected as an incorrect reading of the passage.</blockquote><br />My point here isn’t to critique the specifics of Randal’s hermeneutic principles, but to point out what is the clear motivation and outcome of his project.<br /><br />The motivation and outcome is to deem “incorrect” any reading or interpretation of the bible that has Yahweh doing something immoral. It takes what is a clear falsification point of Christianity, that its own holy book contains depictions of its god engaging in evil actions, and proposes a hermeneutical rule which renders it unfalsifiable by interpretive fiat. If this means you must disregard the explicit words of the text, the literary genre of the text, and the traditional understanding – then so be it.<br /><br />The first critique of Randal’s move here is to point out that he is engaging in a systematic program of rendering his religion unfalsifiable when it clearly was able to be falsified. The problem isn’t just the systematic program or Randal’s specific efforts, that merely helped me realize the problem I’m presenting. The problem is that Christians and apologists engage in this kind of motivated rationalization to make their doctrines unfalsifiable when those doctrines conflict with reality.<br /><br />I am not advocating for a form of logical positivism, or falsificationist epistemology here – literally everyone is eventually going to be stuck believing some things that can not be falsified in principle. But one does not have to be a logical positivist to point out that when a belief system is constantly defended in this way, it should be a blaring warning sign that something is wrong.<br /><br />The second, stronger critique is because Randal’s project goes against another part of his apologetic program – his endorsement and rigorous defense of Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology.<br /><br />Reformed Epistemology states that belief in god is “properly basic” a kind of foundational belief that does not depend on evidence. Plantinga famously argues that belief in god is a lot like our belief in sense perception, going so far to say that god created us with a sensus divinitatus, or a sense of the divine, which reveals gods existence like a literal 6th sense. Plantinga even extends this to revealing the truth of a particular religion like Christianity as surely as my eyes reveal the existence of my chair.<br /><br />Randal defends this view and even extends it to testimonial beliefs. Consider my young child’s belief that electricity is what makes our lights turn on; she has no concept of what electricity is or how various light fixtures work – however her belief about what powers our lights is justified by my testimony. Randal then extends belief in Christianity to this model, so that a child is rational in holding that Christianity is true because a trusted source, their parents, have told them as much.<br /><br />In order to avoid a complete free-for-all in terms of what can be believed and called properly basic, reformed epistemology holds that certain beliefs, like belief in god, can be properly basic so long as it is absent a defeater.<br /><br />That is if someone holds a belief to be properly basic, but is faced with a defeater for that belief, then that belief is no longer properly basic.<br /><br />The clear problem is that apologists espouse belief in god generally and Christianity in particular as properly basic but have systematically gone through Christianity so as to reframe any possible objection in unfalsifiable terms.<br /><br />We see this when it comes to falsifying Christianity in conceptual, factual, or moral issues present in their theology or their bible. Christians might try to object that Christianity can be falsified if we were to find a tomb with the remains labeled “Here lies Jesus of Nazareth”. The problem here is that it is extraordinarily improbable that a random peasant like Jesus would be given burial in a tomb, have the tomb and remains survive intact, and be labeled. This is especially the case if we take the Christian story on its face that Jesus was crucified as a criminal who at best would have been left to rot on the cross or thrown in a mass grave. Even if we grant that the character Josephus took Jesus’s body and put it in a tomb, there was no talk of the tomb being labeled. We don’t even know where the actual tomb is supposed to have been.<br /><br />This is no falsification criteria, we know because Christians have written fictional stories of finding such a thing, but then the story ends with the revelation that the tomb was a fake and that Christianity is vindicated. I have no doubt that if such an unlikely thing were actually to be found, there would be charges that it’s a fraud created by atheists or non-Christians.<br /><br />My point here is that apologists touting reformed epistemology have sold us a bad bill of goods – they claim that their properly basic beliefs need to be open to defeaters, but then systematically remove any possibility of falsification by doing a Moorean shift any time the multitude of baggage inside Christianity is brought up to defeat their beliefs.<br /><br />This relates to what Plantinga called “The Son of the Great Pumpkin Objection” in his published works. For young people who don’t know, the Great Pumpkin is a concept from the old Peanuts comic strip and cartoon show from back when Plantinga was young. It was a fictional entity that would descend on the pumpkin patch every Halloween and manifest itself. The problem for reformed epistemology is the charge that it completely relativizes what is rational to different community groups, so that a community that raises a person to believe in the Great Pumpkin can not be charged with being irrational by people outside their group.<br /><br />Plantinga’s response is to say that the presence of defeaters – such as the repeated failure year after year of the Great Pumpkin to materialize every Halloween would serve as a defeater, which would render belief in the Great Pumpkin no longer properly basic. So falsification is far from being incidental to Reformed Epistemology, it has a critical role that discarding brings strong consequences.<br /><br />In fact Plantinga’s example of the Great Pumpkin failing to materialize year after year on Halloween being a defeater is ironic – after all Jesus is the one whose message started with “Repent for the kingdom of god is at hand!” the same person who supposedly said that the kingdom of god will come before his generation passes away – two thousand years ago! Many scholars will say that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and his original message was that the end of the world was soon at hand. Telling people to “sell all your things and follow me” makes a lot more sense in this context.<br /><br />And yet Christians will do mental gymnastics to deny that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, or they’ll acknowledge it and then build their theology around the problem. No repeated failure to arrive after over two thousand years can falsify Christianity; but a few years with no pumpkin is supposed to be enough?<br /><br />Let's put this in another context. I wonder what Plantinga would say to the group that holds belief in the Great Pumpkin to be properly basic but respond to his “defeater” by embracing the same kind of metaphysics that Catholics use to say that the wafer and wine literally transform into the body and blood of Christ during communion? They make a distinction between the “accidents'' and the “substance” of things, and the “substance” changes from bread and wine to flesh and blood, but the “accidents” such as the molecules and physical properties stays as it was.<br /><br />So if the Great Pumpkin believer responded by saying the Great Pumpkin actually came back to every pumpkin patch every Halloween by simply changing the substance but not the accidents of the most worthy pumpkin in every patch, only manifesting fully on the final or perhaps the grandest Halloween – would the Great Pumpkin believer be justified in retaining belief in the Great Pumpkin as properly basic? I don’t see how they wouldn’t on Plantinga’s scheme. In fact I can see them chide Plantinga for only engaging in the most rudimentary versions of Great Pumpkinism and avoiding ‘sophisticated Pumpkinology’.<br /><br />The main difference between the Great Pumpkin and a religion like Christianity, at least from a pre-evidentiary standpoint that Plantinga moves the debate to, is that there is no great number of Great Pumpkin believers – and so no legions of Pumpkin apologists and theologians who spend careers working to refine their theology and smooth over the problems that are baked into their ancient religion. Consider two basic tenants of Christianity, the Trinity and the Incarnation – concepts that by normal description would entail a contradiction at the heart of Christian theology. God is three persons in one being. Jesus Christ is fully man and fully good.<br /><br />How does this not just disqualify Christianity off the bat?<br /><br />Well if you close your eyes and concentrate, you can have your Sensus Divinitatus hear the beeping as Christian apologists back up the metaphysical dump truck to unload the amount of ad-hoc assumptions about being and personhood necessary to avoid the “apparent contradictions''. For some reason these assumptions aren’t widely held among non-Christians, even theists, almost as if it is a perfect case of motivated reasoning.<br /><br />If we were to give an equivalent amount of metaphysical assumptions to the Great Pumpkin I’m certain we can render it just as coherent and unfalsifiable.<br /><br />Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology was supposed to be a “modest project” whose purpose was for Christians to avoid the charge of irrationality from atheists for “believing something without sufficient evidence”. Plantinga’s answer was to attack the evidentialist assumptions inherent in that statement and his solution was to talk about warrant – the sort of thing that makes a belief into knowledge. His conclusion was that belief in god or Christianity can be properly basic as described, and that Christian belief is warranted if it is true. Plantinga doesn’t attempt to show that Christianity is true, his purpose is to show that it is rational to believe in Christianity absent any evidence.<br /><br />My purpose here was to show that Plantinga’s criteria for rationality of properly basic beliefs fails because it cannot actually answer the Son of the Great Pumpkin objection – that Plantinga’s criteria for properly basic beliefs results in a full blown epistemic relativism, even for things that we would all agree is irrational – like belief in the Great Pumpkin.<br /><br />This puts Christians in a bit of a dilemma:<br /><br /><ul><li>Either they must give up Reformed Epistemology and come up with another response to charges of irrationality based on evidentialist objections or<br /><br /></li><li>They may keep Reformed Epistemology but must abandon defenses of their otherwise falsifiable beliefs by rendering them completely unfalsifiable.</li></ul><br />Option 1 is a problem because metaphysical arguments always leave room for doubt and the arguments for god’s existence are open to many counterexamples and responses that deny their conclusion. Arguments for Christianity in particular are in even worse shape, if you’ve watched my Countering the Argument for the Resurrection video.<br /><br />Option 2 seems to put contemporary Christian apologists like Randal in a bit of a bind, because the only alternative is the traditional defenses of biblical slavery, genocide, the global flood, and denial of evolution, etc. – the very things that he sees driving Christians out of the faith.<br /><br />As an atheist I have to agree with Randal’s assessment of the traditional defenses. I think it’s a win every time we can force a Christian apologist to become a Slavery or Genocide Apologist and we should force them to do that at every opportunity.<br /><br />So it seems that the Christian apologist is stuck. I can have some sympathy for a genuinely kind soul like Randal in this situation, but honestly it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving religion.<br /></span>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-11027199607695282612021-03-30T18:58:00.002-07:002021-03-30T19:00:55.630-07:00Reflections on the Resurrection Argument w/ Randal and Robert<p><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Last year after publishing my <a href="https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2020/08/countering-resurrection-argument-full.html">Countering the Resurrection</a> video I participated in an informal discussion/debate with one of my favorite Christian apologists, Randal Rauser to discuss it. We were on Robert White’s YouTube channel and had a very friendly discussion.</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-50e94ba0-7fff-a808-bb2b-8881630cfa7c"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Looking back on it, I appreciate both Randal and Robert’s time and I wanted to recount areas of the discussion where I think there were mistakes in points they or myself brought up, and to reflect on how I’d revise things in light of the good faith criticism I received in the discussion. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">With Easter being around the corner, I figured now would be a good time to finally get moving to produce something to help strengthen my argument against their objections. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you want to watch the hour long discussion you can view it <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQKD26p_hqw">here</a>.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><p></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Natural/Supernatural Distinction</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first issue Randal pressed me on was to clarify exactly what kinds of explanations were prohibited by the methodological naturalism I was arguing for. In my paper I wanted to avoid tying my argument to a specific conception of the Natural/Supernatural distinction because I thought the argument was stronger for not having to endorse any specific view on that particularly thorny problem. I still think that’s the case, but Randal is correct to point out that I should have been more specific on what kinds of explanations are ruled out by methodological naturalism.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I do want to comment on our digression on the Natural/Supernatural distinction, which highlights exactly why I wanted to avoid the rabbit trail in my argument and why I should have been more prepared for the discussion going into the video. After a digression on the Draperian view of natural vs. supernatural, I put forward the idea where the actions of non-embodied minds would be barred by methodological naturalism, Randal put forward the idea of Panentheism – the view that the universe is god’s “body” and so on the Panentheistic view god’s actions wouldn’t be barred by methodological naturalism.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I bring this up because I want to point out the oddity that even if we grant all this, the Christian theist would be forced to give up a wide variety of core doctrines held by the vast majority of Christians throughout history – god creating the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). Or the idea that god as a necessary being with an unchangeable nature, unless the Christian also gives up the contingency argument about the properties of the physical universe, but even then I don’t see how god’s nature could be unchangeable. Randal points out that there are Christian’s who adopt a panentheistic view, but that’s because Christianity, like many religions can be stretched almost infinitely to cover an incredible variety of views. I believe you’d find quite a few Christians who would call such a view heretical, much like Gnosticism is considered heretical, but there were still Gnostic Christians. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I had pointed out these issues in the discussion and alluded to the fact that this was a rabbit trail, because the natural/supernatural distinction is contentious, with a variety of competing views in philosophy with no consensus. Randal responded that he’s OK with this state of affairs because he does not buy into methodological naturalism and so he doesn’t need to provide a good definition of the natural/supernatural distinction. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This position became a problem later on in the video when Randal spoke about the process Christians and theists should go through in order to determine whether or not a miracle has occurred. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Randal says he would first begin with natural explanations (32:45) – which I couldn’t contain myself and interjected that he couldn’t even define it. Randal’s reply was that he could define it and that natural explanations would pertain to nature and the processes of nature.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the discussion I specifically refrained from going back down the definitional rabbit trail, but here I can expand on the problem Randal just opened. It turns out he does need to provide a definition of the natural/supernatural distinction! I could simply amend the definition of methodological naturalism so as to exclude explanations that are not natural explanations, and I could do this while only defining natural explanations as Randal does.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact all the proponent of methodological naturalism has to do is note that the natural/supernatural distinction is a thorny problem that both sides need to answer; and I believe the atheist can even use the theists definition.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After all, the occurrence of a miracle as a distinction from natural events is necessary for Christians to make the point I’m trying to counter: that the resurrection of Jesus is a miracle which provides evidence for the theological and philosophical teachings of the miracle worker.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A theist who believes in miracles needs the distinction between natural and supernatural just as much the methodological naturalist, because they acknowledge such distinctions in our everyday life. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For example, if a theist eats three Doritos Burrito Bel-Grande’s and then a few hours later is fighting diarrhea, they won’t be sitting on the toilet exclaiming “Holy shit! It’s a miracle!” No, they’ll believe that is the result of purely natural causes and effects. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What’s worse, if the theist wants to try and come up with some kind of definition that weaves the miraculous into the mundane; then they run into the same dilemma posed in my original argument. It’s sort of like the villain’s ethos from the first Incredibles movie: If everything is a miracle then nothing is.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the end, Randal and other theists are just as stuck with the natural/supernatural distinction as anyone else in this debate, and arguments around how we define that aren’t going to blunt the force of arguments for methodological naturalism. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A-priori vs. Evidential</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A lot of the time in the discussion Randal continued to refer to insisting that history be bound by methodological naturalism as an a priori ruling out of possible explanations. The problem here is because my assessment is not before considering the evidence, it’s about considering the total type of evidence we have for miracles as a whole.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I spent a lot of time breaking down the various types of non-verifiable miracle claims and the wide variety of them that we have available from contradictory religions and then comparing that to the complete lack of contemporary verifiable miracles from literally any religion.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is compounded by the nature of verifiable miracles – that they quickly can lapse into being non-verifiable, and that the bible and other holy texts from contradictory religions make reference to a large amount of miracles that would have been empirically verifiable at the time. The fact that these sorts of verifiable miracles just seem to have conveniently stopped for no reason and left us with only the unverifiable miracles claimed by all religions is evidence against those miracle claims being true. I even pointed out that if verifiable miracles started to occur in the context of only one religion – I would convert, even to Christianity again.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Randal’s response here in the discussion (31:39) was a wonderful rhetorical flourish that at the time I didn’t fully catch. He accuses me of begging the question because “your problem with miracles is that they’re miracles”.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Randal then partially defines a miracle as an “extraordinary event” and my complaint is that miracles are not “mundane” where I can verify that they happen. In the discussion I pushed back hard on this aspect of avoiding the problem I pose – a verifiable miracle occurring every mass, like turning the water into wine will still be extraordinary every single time it happens. The highlight of every single service. </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Randal is conflating “extraordinary” with “rare”, which simply isn’t the case and it’s also a particularly poor definition of miracle. After all, even if the transmutation of water into wine every mass was eventually considered mundane, I don’t think anyone in such a world would deny that it’s occurrence is “no longer a miracle”. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In responding to this point and the fact that the bible is full of instances of disciples after Jesus’s death doing verifiable miracles, Randal ends up being the one that begs the question; stating that “miracles happen in clusters when god is active in the world”. He references miracles happening around the Exodus, then Elijah and Elisha, then around Jesus, and then around the establishment of the church. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem here is that to make this kind of knowledge claim about when god is performing miracles is to already assume that the Christian god exists and that the Christian/Jewish miracle claims happened. How can Randal claim that those verifiable miracles happened where as the other stories of verifiable miracles of Joseph Smith and Sathya Sai Babba didn’t happen? </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact it gets even worse, because later in the video Randal says that he is open to other miracles of contradictory religions happening – but then if that’s the case then miracles don’t happen in clusters or the definition of “clusters” gets expanded to just about any old reported occurrence of a miracle gets counted as a new “cluster”.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This ends up contradicting Randal’s other works defending miracles in his books and his blog where he recounts the story of non-verifiable miracle claims and the rational basis on which Christians can believe those miracle claims. Randal recounts a story he was told by someone who supposedly experienced a miracle on a missionary trip and Randal believes him; but how can this be if miracles are supposed to come in clusters? </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is it that only verifiable miracles happen in clusters but non-verifiable miracles can happen at any time? If so this is a particularly ad hoc and convenient principle, but then Randal is stuck on the previous problem of verifiable miracles performed by non-Christian holy figures – and the whole cluster idea goes out the window.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Finally, as I pointed out in the discussion, once we allow that god could act in performing miracles in other religious and theological contexts then the Christian gives up the idea that miracles, and specifically the resurrection of Jesus can provide unique evidence for the theological truths of Christianity. Perhaps those other religions are true and the Christian stories are just instances of god acting in the world for unknown reasons. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But What About The Evidence</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There was a key point in the debate when I had gone through the most forceful part of my case about how the variety of equally or better attested miracle claims from exclusive religions along with the complete lack of contemporary verifiable miracles results in a kind of methodological naturalism we would employ in our everyday lives, especially in a court of law - and then in response, Randal wants to “get back to the evidence for the resurrection” and how I personally account for it.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Indeed Robert makes the comment about how the resurrection is an area where skeptics seem to be the ones trying to fit a square peg in a round hole (as opposed to say theists dealing with the problem of evil); because “you have to deal with the evidence”.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem with this is that my argument against miracle claims justified only by testimony are rightfully discarded in our everyday lives; so how I account for the stories is irrelevant. Our background knowledge leaves us in a position where if we were to hear claims of miracles, magic, or science fiction like technology indistinguishable from magic - we do not accept those explanations; especially not in the most serious situations like say in a court of law. In fact if a god wanted to rectify this, it could just make contemporary verifiable miracles happen only in the context of it’s one true religion. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Further, if the theist wants to insist that we must allow history to justify belief in miracle claims then they are put in a dilemma of other contradictory religions miracle claims being equally justified -or- they must give up the idea that a miracle counts as evidence for the theological truths of the miracle worker. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But there are further problems here that I want to point out. A substantial amount of our time in the discussion was about how I would deal with Paul or Peter’s testimony. When I point out that they could have been mistaken (from a hallucination) or lying, I’m told “there’s no evidence for that!”.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well these things happened over two thousand years ago in a mostly illiterate part of the world; what survived was the records most preserved by religious believers. So even if there were somehow records of Paul or Peter being of ill repute, or prone to fancies, or whatever else, the chances of such information surviving is small. Given my background knowledge about how if a god exists, it does not engage in the sort of verifiable miracles told in the bible and other holy texts in our time, and the contradictory and equally well attested miracles of other religions - I think it is more plausible that they were either mistaken or lying than a miracle occurred. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is extremely easy to have a naturalistic explanation for any kind of testimony of this sort: the people were lying, or hallucinated, or suffered emotional trauma that led to weird beliefs - and so these stories came out. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To ask me “but what about the empty tomb accounts!” is just nonsensical because if I were to make up and augment a story involving miracles, magic, or science fiction it is not hard to make up ancillary facts as part of the story that are only explicable if the non-natural elements of the story were true.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If I told you a story that related to me by Bob from Phoenix about how he saw a Superman equivalent superhero bring a plane back to the ground in the middle of the Arizona desert after the engines failed in mid air, and a skeptic were to tell me they don’t believe it - it doesn’t do much to insist “well how do you explain the multiple accounts of an airplane sitting in the middle of the desert!?” It especially doesn’t do much if you back that up with “Bob said there were hundreds of people at a burning man event who witnessed the hero land the plane in the desert!”. It becomes even more problematic when Bob’s story continues on that the gov’t came in and cleaned up all the evidence of a plane and took all the passengers to their eventual destinations so as to hide the existence of a superhero.” This is because the facts of the story make it so that any publicly available accounts sure look a lot like there was no superhero or downed plane.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When you’re making up a story to explain lies or hallucinations, it’s not hard to come up with facets of the story that make the narrative unfalsifiable by nature. Given that we have good reasons to think the gospel narrative grew in the telling over a number of years, it’s not hard to see this kind of narrative forming to account for a lack of hard evidence.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conclusion</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I often hear a YouTube apologist ask the rhetorical question “Why is it that the bible is always assumed guilty until proven innocent?” and the answer is because it is full of miracle/magical claims we would immediately discount in a court of law - and that’s with a living breathing person giving said testimony.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The ultimate problem for Christians trying to make the argument for the resurrection to prove the Christian theological claims is that if I am to take the bible’s incredible stories seriously, then I have to take seriously a lot of other stories of miracle claims that justify contradictory theological truths. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.295; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The dichotomy gets another level - if the Christian grants the other miracle claims can also be true because god acts in other ways, then the central point of arguing for the Christian miracles - to prove Christian theology - is completely undercut. </span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is the dichotomy for Christians trying to make the resurrection argument, and why we are entirely justified in methodological naturalism on the basis of our background knowledge, whether mere theist or atheist, and why if we give up methodological naturalism, the argument for the resurrection doesn’t achieve its goal of proving that Christianity is the one true religion.</span></p><br /></span>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-75212328529876683032020-11-02T05:06:00.006-08:002020-11-02T07:03:58.948-08:00An Interview with Elephant Philosophy<p><span style="background-color: white;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6AUoU1Z1OX0" width="320" youtube-src-id="6AUoU1Z1OX0"></iframe></span></div><span face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><p style="color: #030303;"><span face="Roboto, Arial, sans-serif" style="color: #030303; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><span style="font-family: arial;">A few weeks ago I came across a theistic YouTube channel named Elephant Philosophy and I really came to appreciate his approach even though we disagree. His video on how his views changed seemed almost exactly like my journey except he started as an atheist and then ended up as a Christian theist.
He really focuses deeply on the latest in philosophy of religion and I knew I would love to sit and have a chat about our respective journeys.
You can check out his great channel <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFAApTW3CQHEClUvNALUTcg">here</a>.</span></span><p></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-44890861602782893282020-10-29T18:39:00.005-07:002020-10-29T18:42:41.161-07:00The Nature of the Atheist/Theist Debate (A Response to Braxton Hunter)<p><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nDaGXifrjCI" width="320" youtube-src-id="nDaGXifrjCI"></iframe></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Note: What follows is a transcription of the video)</span></span> </p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hi folks and welcome to a more impromptu video where I wanted to respond to YouTube Christian Apologist Braxton Hunter, despite the fact that I largely agree with his video posted today about “What kind of atheist are you?”</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-dfd17634-7fff-6249-937b-9777101c7f2a"><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Braxton talks about categories of atheism put forward by atheist philosopher William Rowe, where it describes an atheist’s disposition towards the rationality of theism. The scale ranges from unfriendly atheism where they believe theism is irrational and unjustified, indifferent atheism where they have no beliefs about the rationality of theism, and friendly atheism where the atheist says that while theists are wrong, they can be rationally justified in their theistic beliefs. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Braxton continues by saying Internet Atheism and New Atheism are the equivalent of Unfriendly Atheism and he proceeds to critique that view by pointing out the atheistic giants of philosophy of religion all readily concede that theism is rational. He then invites atheists to be friendly atheists in their disposition towards the rationality of theism. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By and large I agree with Braxton here. I think theism is rationally justifiable, even where I think it is false. I also have to admit that when I started working on my channel I was certainly more in the “unfriendly atheist” camp - I’ve changed my views because I’ve grown. I think a lot of anger as a newly convinced Christian apostate certainly fuels that sort of view, but the cold hard study of philosophy of religion certainly tempers that if one aims to be fair when looking at how the field works.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I want to be clear what I’m not saying. I’m not saying I find any of the arguments for god’s existence to be convincing. In fact I really don’t like the scale Braxton references in his video as a way to gauge one’s non belief in god (-100) to agnosticism (0) to theism (+100).</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am still firmly at -100. Nothing about the traditional arguments for theism or Christianity give me the slightest pause or nudge the number towards theism. I can literally counter all of them, and I find theistic responses to arguments against god’s existence to be entirely unconvincing. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Part of me wants to self censor so that I may better extend the olive branch of peace, and I certainly am trying to extend that olive branch, but I don’t want to lie about how I feel on the matter. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I don’t think this means I am failing to take theistic arguments seriously as Braxton says of unfriendly atheists. Yet I also readily grant theism is rational, and that theists and atheists need to find some way to make peace with one another. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This needs to be reconciled. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My feelings on the matter are that any argument for or against god’s existence is a matter of metaphysical debate. Like other areas of philosophical debate there is quite literally no way to adjudicate metaphysical debates other than showing one position as logically incoherent. Still, even then it’s not hard for anyone to modify their metaphysical views to resolve the contradiction once it is shown and then get to much of the same original view that they had to start with. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For instance if I were to point out a contradiction in a Christian theological view of omnipotence or omniscience I do not expect the theologian to renounce their theism. They would likely just thank me for the contribution to their work and then amend their understanding of the problematic concept and go right on being theists. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The dirty secret here is that much the same can be done by theists to atheists; and the atheists can just as readily amend what views we have and go right along our merry way being godless heathens.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I can’t prove my atheism and they can’t prove their theism, so should we all be agnostics?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I don’t think so. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The issue with metaphysical debate is that ultimately one looks at the arguments presented and then you identify what seems more or less plausible to you, and then you follow that path.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For me, arguments from hell, hiddenness, the argument from heaven, and of course evil all end up being decisive reasons to reject theism. When it comes to arguments for theism I simply find the variety of rebuttals too convincing for the arguments to have any weight.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The olive branch comes in acknowledging that this is my subjective perspective. As much distaste as I have for specific religions, if I’m going to take my views about metaphysical arguments seriously I have to grant that any Jew, Christian, Muslim, Mormon, Bhuddist, or Hindu is as justified as I am in evaluating these arguments on their own terms. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So yes, my dear godless heathen friends, please - let us be friendly atheists.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But let’s not be doormats, either.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While I agree with Braxton I feel the need to point out that “New Atheism” isn’t the only party at fault here. A brief survey of apologetic literature for nearly any religion, but certainly Christianity will find calls about how atheism is irrational, or that it is unreasonable, or that “it takes more faith to be an atheist”. In fact the more conservative the apologist, the more likely one is to find this view. Popular level apologetic books are rife with this kind of thing.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is no nuanced acknowledgement about how the other side is rational in their objections. If anything strawmen are just as hastily constructed and burned in apologetics books as they are in YouTube atheist videos. How many times have you heard apologists claim that atheists have to believe everything came from nothing?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even the “kings” of apologetics like William Lane Craig are not immune from this criticism. While too smart to say something as indefensible as “atheism is irrational”, the nuance found in sober philosophy of religion books is nowhere to be found in his debate videos or popular works. His overconfident approach is part of his trademark.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The moral argument he has defended for decades is a great example. Craig is well aware of platonism or non-natural moral realism to name two atheist compatible moral realist views; yet he has contended for decades that the atheist has no basis for objective morality. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Oh sure, Craig believes those views have problems and counter arguments. He also seems to pretend that his moral realist position does not suffer its own set of problems and counter arguments because he has answers to </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">those</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> objections. Well the issue is that defenders of the other views can answer his objections just as readily, and they find Craig’s answers to their objections just as unconvincing as he finds theirs.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The more defensible moral argument is where one says that theism offers a better explanation of objective moral values. You’ll notice that Craig will use that kind of argument when dealing with more philosophically formidable opponents, but he still uses the other one in his popular level books and debates. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s a great example of exactly how metaphysical debates about thorny topics like “the ontological ground of morality” boil down into argumentative stalemates settled only at the subjective level of intuition we are all stuck with.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our great intellectual champions of theism and atheism? All they do is carefully explore the options available and show how they can build a coherent web of philosophical views that is defensible. All sides of the debate can do this, and it’s high time all of us cut the crap and presented the argumentative battlefield for what it actually is.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I can’t emphasize that last point enough, and I want to explain why it’s important we acknowledge the rationality of our ideological opponents positions and start extending olive branches all around.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We are too polarized, and these divisions are harming all of us. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m posting this merely 5 days before the US presidential elections in what is an extremely volatile situation where people on both sides are afraid the other won’t concede defeat in anything but a blowout. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What undergirds so very many of our differences, especially in the ‘culture war’ issues that are at the literal heart of why Christians largely stand behind Republicans and atheists or “nones” largely back the Democrats - is that it breaks down along the lines of our base assumptions about reality.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our irreconcilable notions of what it means “to live the good life” or our basis for morality will drive wedges between our views on abortion, LGBTQ rights, drug use, and even how the justice system should be utilized.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We are not like other countries where one side has an unshakable electoral advantage and so can dominate to the point where these issues are no longer wedges. We have got to learn to find amicable ways to split our differences or we will end up in a bad place as a people and a country.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is not easy, most if not all of these issues seemingly can’t be reconciled which is why politicians find them so useful as wedges to divide us. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But if we are going to find a way to get through this we are all going to have to recognize where the fault lines are at the heart of this, identify the subjective stalemate of the debate, and start being friendly atheists and friendly theists, because we can’t even start to have the conversation about how to resolve these issues and coexist peacefully until we take that first step. </span></p><br /><br /></span><p> <br /><br /><br /></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-90791125974868677482020-09-27T07:36:00.004-07:002020-09-27T07:43:55.378-07:00Arguments when I was a Believer<p> So I woke up this morning and saw this tweet in my feed that prompted enough thought in me (and the fact that it's a quiet Sunday morning and the kids are playing nicely) that I decided to write on the topic.<br /><br /><br /></p><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Non-theists, what arguments (if any) for Theism did you find convincing when you were a Theist? What changed your mind?</p>— Adherent Apologetics (@AApologetics) <a href="https://twitter.com/AApologetics/status/1310024703386488834?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 27, 2020</a></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>This is a very interesting question! I started to think about it and it made me realize that there weren't any explicit arguments that had me believing. There certainly were some that I was effectively indoctrinated with that aimed to reinforce my faith in a bubble, but nothing like the arguments I'm intimately familiar with now. I also distinctly recall being entirely unimpressed with apologetic arguments when taking a "evangelism training" seminar/class at my church. </p><p> So lets get into the specifics here.</p><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>When I was born my family was Catholic, my parents were the good kids of Sicilian immigrants. That said they weren't <i>that good</i>, lets just say mass attendance was spotty at best, even when the church was literally on our block. </p><p>In fact the Catholic church was more relevant to my parents and especially me, as where I went to school. My parents and extended family made it sound like going to public school was going to be terrible and told me many times "you don't want to go there"; so I was enrolled in Catholic schools. I took my first confession and communion and those were a big deal, but my family converted to being Baptists before I took my first confirmation. </p><p>In terms of religious beliefs it was just a given. I've said before that I was taught that god exists and Jesus is the son of god at the same time that I was taught 2+2=4 and that water is wet; and by the same people no less.</p><p>When I was in evangelical Christian schools I was fed anti-evolution propaganda, taught misrepresentations of what it was that showed "how silly it is". I was told humanists worshiped Satan. Islam and Hinduism were misrepresented, though hardly covered, and I was told the Jews didn't understand their own bible which so clearly showed why Jesus was the messiah. </p><p>All of this, including an incredible amount of church attendance plus all the bible classes and chapels at school made belief in god as normative and axiomatic as possible. I went to a secular college due to disillusionment with Christian schools and because engineering programs weren't particularly strong at the places on offer. </p><p>In college I was certainly challenged and I dropped my YEC beliefs. My beloved adviser/mentor, a Muslim, taught me how to reconcile god and modern physics. By this point I just kind of slotted into the easy secular pluralism that pervades the north east US; religious disagreements just weren't talked about in depth. </p><p>While I certainly "backslid" in college (aka having sex), I converted my wife to being evangelical and we found a church to go to because we knew we'd be getting married soon even before I proposed. I also had this incredibly deep seated belief that people needed to be "saved" and while I couldn't save everyone I could save those closest. </p><p>Wait, why go over all this in a post about arguments? Because I want to highlight how unimportant arguments were to my deeply felt belief. Was my Christianity nonintellectual as a result?</p><p>I don't think so; I just focused on internal Christian issues. I remember getting older and paying attention to the sermons once I was no longer going to children's church (or helping my parents teach it). I wondered at kenosis in the incarnation, how the atonement worked, Paul's theology of Jesus as the last Adam, etc. The sorts of things you can think about once you accept all the Christian stuff as a baseline. </p><p>The problem was as an adult, things got harder. <a href="http://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-deconversion-story.html" target="_blank">I've covered my deconversion before</a> so I won't re-hash that. I do recall looking for ways to evangelize because I had this growing group of friends that had non-Christians in them. So we took a evangelism seminar at my church that had someone come in to teach what was basic apologetics and evangelistic techniques. I remember distinctly sitting in this class and hearing the arguments and thinking "that doesn't work, they'd object this way" and being particularly unimpressed at the conversation steering techniques. It seemed to be the sort of stuff the "pervasive secular pluralism" of our area was precisely designed to avoid or at least make very awkward. </p><p>I remember leaving that seminar particularly disillusioned, seeing that the arguments wouldn't work, especially on people of other religions. If anything the only target it would work on was getting lapsed Christians to come back into church. That was a bit of cognitive dissonance I was living with for a few years before my deconversion really took hold. </p><p>And then when I deconverted and tried to go back, that was when I found all this heavy apologetics stuff for the first time and read philosophy seriously. I specifically avoided philosophy and other humanities classes in college because I wanted to take as much STEM classes as possible so that I could be as well prepared as possible to get an engineering job. In hindsight that actually worked out extremely well for me professionally, even though now I realize the value of the humanities in education. </p><p>So when I found apologetics I was already in crisis mode, trying to find a reason to believe again. I don't think those arguments work to do that. I think they're largely aimed at preventing people from leaving the fold. The premises aren't really plausible unless you're already in the religious sub-culture; in which case they can reinforce your faith.</p><p>In fact I can recall hearing somethings about apologetics as a teenager in middle and high school but the arguments were pretty straight forward and it was a "oh ok, look another way <i>we</i> are correct", and I didn't particularly think very deeply on the topic at the time. It was just one of the hundreds of things thrown at us in the schools that reinforced how our view of the world was correct and everyone else was wrong and/or evil. </p><p>Of course once I got out into a secular university I only learned how about half of that stuff was false (yay science!), and I learned to live with the fact that I was wrong about certain things but not everything. Eventually over time it took an emotional shock and much intellectual dissonance to actually question the core thing that had been axiomatic for my entire life: Why do I believe in a god in the first place? </p><p>Once you're at that point, having been in for so long, I just didn't find any of the arguments to be particularly plausible once I was ready to study them in depth as an adult. </p> <script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-91897919972238454722020-09-16T05:22:00.005-07:002020-09-16T05:23:47.665-07:00Resurrection Discussion with Randal Rauser and Robert L. White<p>So last night I took place in a informal discussion with Randal on Robert L. White's YouTube channel.</p><p>I had a very good time and more importantly I think we demonstrated what a polite, thoughtful exchange can look like, even though we don't agree.<br /></p><p>I hope you take the time to watch, Randal and I spoke for about an hour as he had a night class to teach after our debate, and then Robert and I spoke for another 20 minutes or so.</p><p>There were a few things I think the debate clarified for me and some issues I'd like to address in a future post, so keep an eye out!</p><p><br /><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UQKD26p_hqw" width="320" youtube-src-id="UQKD26p_hqw"></iframe></div><br />A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-43548632903327926302020-08-31T12:45:00.001-07:002020-08-31T12:45:00.486-07:00Countering the Resurrection Argument (Full Version)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zz6GapB6DMI" width="320" youtube-src-id="zz6GapB6DMI"></iframe></div><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Note: What follows is a transcription of the video) </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">
What if I told you that I believed that god raised Jesus from the dead, but that I did not believe that Jesus was the son of god, and denied that belief in his death and resurrection was the path to salvation and eternal life in reconciliation with the one true god, Yahweh.</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-7441a12c-7fff-ddea-f727-40436427fbf9"><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That would just sound crazy. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Right?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I want you to think about why that sounds crazy. It’s not hard to find an answer: Because we assume that miracles are evidence for the truth of the philosophical and theological teachings of the miracle worker. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This assumption goes unstated when apologists use the argument for the resurrection, but it is absolutely central to the argument. The principle is even endorsed in the bible in 1 Kings 18:</span></p><div><span><br /></span></div><a name='more'></a><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.” 38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. 39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD—he is God! The LORD—he is God!”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The story of Elijah is about him demonstrating that his god is the true god where as the prophets of Baal worship a false god, because Elijah’s god can work miracles but the prophets of Baal can’t get their god to do the same. The idea is that like god sending fire from the sky to burn a wet alter or a person rising from the dead, it would be evidence for the truth of the teachings of the miracle worker.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I want you to keep this thought in the back of your mind as we go through this video countering the argument for the resurrection of Jesus.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am countering the resurrection argument in a very specific way, my aim is to debunk the argument as it is used specifically as a means to convert non-Christians into Christians, as well as to counter the idea that Christians remain in their faith due to any supposed strength that is in the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Typically the resurrection argument is presented as the capstone to a “cumulative case apologetic” presented by Chirstians to convert atheists and agnostics into new believers. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The plan is to first use a series of arguments to convince the skeptic that a monotheistic god exists, and then to bridge the gap from theism to Christianity with the argument for the resurrection. My purpose here is to show exactly why this doesn’t work.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The argument for the resurrection comes in many forms, but they all eventually come back to referencing the bible’s stories about Jesus being crucified and resurrected. They all are based on testimonial evidence for a miracle occurring in the past, and unfortunately for Christians – testimony can not be used in an evidential way to justify belief in a miracle claim in the world we live in.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That’s what my first argument will be addressing.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What if I told you that I woke up in my bed in New Jersey this morning, then had lunch on the moon, but then was home here on earth for dinner?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You probably wouldn’t believe me.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now let’s pretend we were in the universe of Star Trek The Next Generation, my same statement about waking up on earth, eating lunch on the moon, and then being back on earth for dinner would be extremely plausible and you wouldn’t bat an eye at that same statement if you were living in that universe.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The difference is the background knowledge in each case. In Star Trek, there are transporters that can span an incredible distance in a second, not to mention galaxy class starships that make such a feat possible. In the real world, only a handful of human beings have undergone the training and incredible journey via rocket spacecraft to make it to the moon, a process that takes a lot longer than a day. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now what if my statement was about me doing something physically impossible that no level of technology can overcome? How much more unbelievable is that?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our entire lives we build on this background knowledge of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">how the world works</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Science reveals to us that the regularities in the way the physical world behaves can be quantified by certain mathematical equations. It is predictable, it always behaves according to these equations - which have come to be called the laws of nature.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When philosopher David Hume formulated this argument, he defined a miracle as a “violation of the laws of nature” which he admitted a god could do, if one existed. I think it’s a pretty good definition, but many apologists spend a lot of time attacking it for some reason that I don’t quite understand since the argument doesn’t depend on that definition at all. So for our purposes we could still formulate the argument saying that god governs the behavior of physical reality according to specific mathematical equations so that it behaves that way regularly, but a miracle is when he allows that regularity to be interrupted. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The end result is the same - the regular way the world behaves is incredibly reliable. So reliable that I have never experienced something physically impossible happening. I’ll bet you’ve never witnessed something physically impossible happening either. In fact among my social group I have not heard of anyone experiencing anything in their lives that was literally physically impossible. Given that I’m addressing the use of the resurrection argument on someone who was presumably an atheist or agnostic until the cumulative case argument recently made into some kind of mere theist - chances are they haven’t experienced something physically impossible happening; otherwise they probably wouldn’t have been an atheist and agnostic.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what is it that is supposed to convince us that something physically impossible has happened? After all, just because we have never experienced something, doesn’t mean it can’t happen - right? We can’t simply </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">assume</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> miracles </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">can’t</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> happen.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Christians and other religious believers would tell us the testimony of others should be enough to justify belief in miracles. After all, we get an incredible amount of our beliefs purely through testimony from other people. All that cool science we learn about? Most of us don’t do the experiments to prove anything, we simply learn about it, maybe from a more trusted source like a peer reviewed text book, and we simply accept it and move on.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem is that while testimony is absolutely a valid way to infer knowledge, testimony also has its faults. Many of us have been lied to. Or someone was just incorrect and by trusting their testimony we were incorrect by inference. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So at the end of the day we have to weigh two sources of knowledge and see what we trust more: The reliability of our inductive experience of the world where presumably you’ve not really experienced anything physically impossible happening vs. testimony claims about physically impossible things happening in ways you can’t verify.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Given the two, my first argument is that I trust my inductive experience of the world more than I trust testimony which I know can be faulty. I have a lot more inductive experiences of the way the world works adhering to the laws of nature than I do of testimony always being reliable. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This was Hume’s point - testimony in principle can’t overcome our inductive experience of the world. My argument is that this is true in almost all cases, with only one exception for young children getting testimony from their parents when they are too young to do anything but accept that testimony from a reliable source and treat it as knowledge. That said, in almost all cases we are </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">right</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to be skeptical when someone tells us something that wildly violates our background knowledge. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This doesn’t mean our background knowledge is always correct. After all, some of the most memorable science lessons involve learning something that generally violates our background knowledge - and then having that fact be demonstrated to us in verifiable experiments. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I want to stress that this conclusion holds even if you are a mere theist, especially a “recently convinced mere theist”. After all, a god can exist but just not interfere in the physical world. Even if a god could resurrect someone, in your inductive experience of the world how many times have you witnessed god raise someone from the dead? It’s a virtual certainty that even if a god exists, it doesn’t do that.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Does my moon lunch scenario become any more plausible if I amend it to say “God transported me to the moon for lunch and then sent me back home to Earth for dinner that same day”?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If I were to try and use a defense in a murder trial that my concealed carry gun levitated out of my holster and fired on my hiking companion in the middle of the woods all to the sound of a demon taunting us, would the jury accept or reject that claim? Would you </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">want</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the jury to accept that claim?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Perhaps you might be thinking that this is a little too quick of a dismissal, regardless of how practical my inferences above might be. After all, this is supposed to be about the resurrection argument being used on a newly converted mere theist who now believes that supernatural agents can interfere with the material world.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Wouldn’t it be closed minded to just reject the total evidence we have available regarding the physically impossible occurring, even if the counter evidence we have is all based on testimony?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I still think that even in this scenario, when the newly convinced theist starts to consider </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the total amount of evidence</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for miracle claims, they should still reject the testimonial evidence for those miracles occurring or be forced into disconnecting a miracle occurring from providing evidence for the truth of a religion. Let’s talk about why.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Different Levels of Miracles</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even Christian apologists will differentiate between levels of miracles.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first level of miracles I like to define are those kinds of events that in principle could be the result of random chance and have a purely naturalistic explanation, but seem unlikely and so one is at least tempted to infer supernatural causation due to a religious context.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This level of miracle has two sub classes:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Minor Improbable Miracles - Events that are physically possible though surface level unlikely, but seemingly too trivial or likely to have occurred anyway. These events are the sort that your average believer might say that probably was just pure chance and good luck rather than divine intervention. This would be like praying to find your keys and then when you open your eyes you immediately see them.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Major Improbable Miracles - Events that are physically possible but highly unlikely to occur, but do occur in a religious context. Now it’s admittedly </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">possible</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> these events could happen by chance and no divine intervention occurred, but it seems very unlikely and the religious context makes believers want to admit this as a miracle. A good example would be a person diagnosed with cancer going back to the doctor a few weeks after their initial diagnosis, but the night before they went to their church and were prayed over by the entire congregation. Lo and behold when they get their next check the cancer has gone into spontaneous remission. That happens naturalistically, albeit in a small percentage of cases including in non religious contexts - but the religious context gives the believer a reason to think it was a miracle.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Very often, atheists and skeptics will say that in either of these scenarios we should immediately reject the supernatural explanation because any possible naturalistic explanation, however unlikely, is far more likely than a divine agent causing a miracle. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This has some weight with me personally, but then I’m still an atheist, and I tend to weigh my inductive experience of the regularity of the physical world very highly. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But I do think that is not the only reason I think we ought to prefer the naturalistic explanation for these miracles. Still, atheists often go too far with this line of reasoning, they go so far to claim that the theist is being unreasonable or irrational for believing these kinds of possible-but-improbable-miracle claims. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the best defenses of the reasonableness of justified belief in these miracle claims comes from Christian theologian and apologist Randal Rauser.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here he references Alvin Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology, where he points out a Christian who has a properly basic belief in Christianity, either due to an innate sense of the divine telling her Christianity is true, or just being raised in a Christian context and being given testimony from his trusted authority figures in life like her parents. What’s key here is that this Christian belief is a Properly Basic Belief; it is pre-evidential. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Given this set of background knowledge, it is entirely rational for this Christian to come across testimony of a Major Improbable Miracle happening in a Christian context and attribute that event as the divine action of her god. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is because literally </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">everyone</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> assesses the plausibility of a claim on how it comports to their background knowledge. Since the truth of Christianity is part of this Christian’s background knowledge due to the rules set out in Reformed Epistemology, it’s </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">reasonable</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for her to believe it’s a miracle. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Conversely, Randal readily admits that what is doing the work here is the background plausibility structure of the Christian’s life experience - not the evidence of the specific miracle claim. Indeed Randal readily admits that an atheist hearing the same evidence is similarly rational and justified in rejecting the miracle claim and attributing the event to purely unlikely natural circumstances. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I happen to think that Randal’s account here is a good one. If there is anything wrong with his account it is because there is some problem with Plantinga’s Reformed Epistemology, which I am granting as valid for the sake of argument here.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But wait, if I am granting that it’s rational for a Christian to believe in these Improbable Miracles, wouldn’t I also have to grant it is rational in the case of a newly convinced mere theist to be convinced these miracles have occurred?</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No, because what is doing the work in Randal’s scenario is the pre-existing basic belief in a specific religion, which the mere theist does not have. The mere theist in this hypothetical case is not considering the total amount of evidence on offer.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Let me demonstrate this by way of a few examples of Improbable Miracles. I’m going to use some audio from Christian apologist Mike Licona recounting his “reasons to believe reality has a supernatural dimension” from his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzQgxwmwc-0">debate with atheist Matt Dillahunty</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“Pat when she was a junior in high school she was awakened early one sunday morning and it was dark in her bedroom. And then she closed her eyes and when she opened them then about three feet from her was the illuminated face of a friend she hadn’t seen for several years. She thought this is weird, it’s kind of freaky, about 3 feet in front of me illuminated in the dark just this face looking at me. She closed her eyes but when she opened her eyes again that face was still there but right to the side and behind it was now the face of what she interpreted to be Satan or a demon. It was red, it had a wicked smile and it frightened her. She thought she was dreaming or hallucinating and she closed her eyes, pinched herself, still there when she opened her eyes. She closed her eyes, pinched herself, biting her tongue, opened her eyes….it’s still there! </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now she’s really terrified. She closes her eyes and does the last thing she knows to do: she prays the lord's prayer. When she opens her eyes both faces are gone. She looks over at the clock and it’s 2:30 in the morning. That’s Sunday morning. Sunday comes and goes, she wakes up Monday morning and she comes downstairs, her mom is fixing breakfast, her dad’s reading the newspaper at the table. When he sees Pat he puts the newspaper down, turns it around, pushes it towards her and points to a picture on there, you can see on the right. He says Pat isn’t this a friend of yours that you hung out a few years ago? She said yeah, why? He said Saturday night she was at a Logits and Mescina concert in Norfolk at the Scope, that’s the big like arena there. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After the concert her and a bunch of friends went up to the top row and they were just hanging out and she leaned up against a curtain, she thought there was a wall behind it, well there was no wall! And so when she leaned back she fell down 20 feet, hit concrete, they take her to the hospital, and she died at 2:30.”</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Here I will reference a miracle of Sathya Sai Baba, <a href="http://saibaba.ws/miracles2/heart_surgery_cancelled.htm">recounted here</a> (apologies for any mispronunciations): </span><a href="http://saibaba.ws/miracles2/heart_surgery_cancelled.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></a></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sathya Saibaba, the Master of miracles cancels an ardent devotee’s heart surgery.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">An old lady from Madras once had a sharp pain in her chest. Her husband rushed to their family doctor, who in turn referred them to a heart surgeon. The lady was put to a through test. To the shock of her husband and her, the doctor revealed that there appeared three blockages in her heart. The doctor also suggested that an immediate heart operation has to be done. The lady however refused to undergo the operation without the consent of the Lord of her heart, Sri Sathya Sai Baba. She also ignored the medicines prescribed for the pain.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Lord is the only succor for a lost heart. That night, the lady had a wonderous dream where Sathya Saibaba took a piece of paper, drew a heart and crossed it. The lady woke up with tears of ecstasy, “Baba I know not the significance of the dream, but I am aware that my heart problem has been taken care of!”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A miraculous cure just came about naturally!Can there be a dearth of miracles by Sathya Sai Baba in the devotees’ lives?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The next day, the elderly couple visited the doctor again and the lady went through the same tests, a second time. To the utter astonishment of everyone, the results simply did not show any trait of a heart ailment. The blocks were absent and hence the heart surgery was ruled out! The husband related to the doctor, the wonderful dream that his wife had the previous night. He however wanted to make sure about the medicines that she had to take for her heart condition to be stable. When the prescription was produced, the doctor just crossed it exactly the way Satya Sai Baba had done in the dream! Surging gratitude from the heart flowed down as tears on the cheeks of the devotee!</span></p><br /><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now here is another story Mike Licona tells from his debate with Matt Dillahunty. He is recounting an email from an atheist describing a case of extreme answered prayer:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And my dad was a deacon in a church and we went to church. And we had this all night prayer meeting, it was a small church, but we really needed money and we had this all night prayer meeting. Well now I’m going to pick up the email and quote him verbatim. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One time my church desperately needed $7,641 in order to keep going. After an all night prayer meeting my dad went to go pick up the mail and in it was a check for exactly $7,641 from someone who didn’t even know the church needed the money, but had heard one of the pastors speak a few years ago. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My dad contacted the giver and she said that after she had heard the pastor speak she felt god wanted her to put some cash into an annuity and give it to our church. The process took several years and just days before she decided to close the account and send the accrued money to the church and it happened to be the exact amount that was needed - right after an all night prayer meeting. </span></p><br /><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Next I will interject with two miracles performed by Joseph Smith, the founder of the mormon religion, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Joseph_Smith">referenced here on Wikipedia</a> that contains further references for the claims: </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Oliver B. Huntington reported that, in the spring of 1831, Smith healed the lame arm of the wife of John Johnson of Hiram, Ohio. This account is corroborated by the account of a Protestant minister who was present. However, he did not attribute the miraculous healing to the power of God.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After apostatizing and denying that Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse avers that this was not a fake healing. However, she attributes it to an occultic or otherworldly power not directly associated with God.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now I could go on and on, recounting Mike’s retelling of Near Death Experiences and then reading Near Death Experiences of people around the world who observe non-Christian faiths talking about how they saw things that were in line with their religion’s version of the afterlife, and those who claim to have seen figures of all the world's religions co-mingling in some kind of feel-good-afterlife party. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What Licona and many apologists do is commit the fallacy of understated evidence. This is where the general fact of a situation supports one's conclusions, but the specific facts of that same situation end up undermining your conclusion.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The general fact that there are a lot of non-verifiable, implausible miracle claims would seem to support the idea that a supernatural realm exists. However once we look more closely at the data, the specific details undermine the idea that the supernatural exists, or at the very least that miracles can serve as evidence for the truth of a specific religion. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We see a wide variety of equally well attested miracle claims that would be strong evidence for contradictory religions. This ends up putting the theist in a trilemma:</span></p><br /><ol style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><li dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some of the miracles occurred, but not the others - but we are left with no objective way to determine which were true and which were false.</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of the miracles occurred, but then miracles can’t be used as evidence for the truth of the theological teachings of the miracle workers</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">None of the miracles actually occurred and the testimony is based on fabrications and legends.</span></p></li></ol><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To understand why we are left thinking the most probable option in the trilemma is that all these improbable miracle claims are false we need to look at that second class of miracles I alluded to earlier.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Miracles that have no natural explanation</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The second class are miracles that do something physically impossible. These miracles would have no naturalistic explanation whatsoever. Examples of these sorts of things abound in religious texts and other accounts. Raising people from the dead after a sufficient period of time has elapsed past death would be a great example.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This category, much like the previous one has two types.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The kind that are not empirically verifiable, like one off events. One example would be if a prophet were to tell a scientist who is measuring the momentum of a particle that particles exact position. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can not know the exact momentum if we also measure the exact position, so it would be a miracle to have both values - but we could never verify if the value given was correct. Miracles could be empirically verifiable in the moment, but then quickly lapse into being non-verifiable; like Jesus walking on the surface of unfrozen water. While verifiable to those present it quickly would become unverifiable once he got off the water</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The other version of this miracle are kind that are empirically verifiable*, so ones where we would have extensive empirical evidence regarding someone having an amputated limb and living that way for some time (reliable medical records, photos, videos of them without the limb, etc) only to have the limb re-grow; preferably with the miracle taking place via video. Another could be a set of rocks floating in the air continuously for thousands of years in an area that spell out “I am the lord god and Jesus is my son” written multiple times in multiple languages. Finally there is a third example that is not often considered: God continually working miracles that are physically impossible through adherents of the One True Religion consistently and in empirically verifiable ways. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This last example is very important because in all but a few cases, the empirical verifiability of a miracle is a time-limited thing. An amputation a couple hundred years ago healed by prayer would be empirically verifiable to those at the time but would not be verifiable today. The event lapses into being non-verifiable. Only the second kind where the miracle was done in perpetuity could it be verified over time; or where we have believers able to do the miracle throughout generations.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now when evaluating this second class of miracles we should note that the first class of these physically impossible miracles are a lot like the other classes of what I call “improbable miracles” they’re not verifiable. In order for either side to not beg the question, we can not really know whether these miracles actually occurred. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What’s more if we just accept all testimony about these kinds of non-verifiable miracles at face value, then various contradictory religions around the world have many testimony based claims of this sort; meaning that the miracles no longer can count as evidence for the truth of the theological teachings of the miracle workers.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So much like the previous category we are left with a trilemma:</span></p><br /><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-7441a12c-7fff-ddea-f727-40436427fbf9"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some of the miracles occurred, but not the others - but we are left with no objective way to determine which were true and which were false.</span></span></li><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-7441a12c-7fff-ddea-f727-40436427fbf9"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of the miracles occurred, but then miracles can’t be used as evidence for the truth of the theological teachings of the miracle workers</span></span></li><li><span id="docs-internal-guid-7441a12c-7fff-ddea-f727-40436427fbf9"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">None of the miracles actually occurred and the testimony is based on fabrications and legends.</span></span></li></ol><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What gets interesting is that the final category of the physically impossible miracle ends up being evidence for the option where none of the miracles have occurred.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Why?</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Because in principle there is nothing categorically impossible or different about the empirically verifiable miracles happening vs. any of the other kind. In fact, all the kinds of miracles are exactly on a par for god to enact. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fact is that the kind of repeated, empirically verifiable demonstration of otherwise physically impossible miracles would be the best kind of evidence for a supernatural being, and if such miracles were only able to be performed by followers of one religion, then it would constitute incredible evidence for the truth of that religion over the others. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Why? Because then our experience of the world would give us contemporary evidence to interpret miracle claims from the past – and allow us to discern between the wide variety of miracle claims of contradictory religions. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is a case where the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We are told that miracles of this sort used to occur in the past. The Christian bible portrays the apostles and prophets performing verifiable miracles, some even after Jesus’s death. We are given no reason to believe that these types of miracles should have stopped while the other non-verifiable ones supposedly continue, yet we don’t see verifiable miracles occurring. So, their contemporary absence counts against the historical claims being true.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is one of the principles that justifies the use of what is called Methodological Naturalism - the idea that in science, history, and other areas of study, as part of our methodology we presume that metaphysical naturalism is true. Much like a random person telling you god whisked them away to the moon for lunch with Jesus but sent them back to earth in time for dinner at home, we disregard these unverifiable miracle claims. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note that this is the case </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">even if we are a theist</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Theists would reject my lunch on the moon claim just as much as an atheist would, and for the same reasons. They just make a special exemption for their specific miracle claims, and when pushed why they make an exemption for their preferred miracles the only answer they can resort to is their subjective religious experience. While this may provide a rational basis for the specific believer, it carries no weight when convincing someone else – because every religion’s believers have contradicting subjective religious experiences to justify belief in their miracles. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Christian apologists really don’t like Methodological Naturalism. Here we can listen to Mike Licona on the subject from his debate with Matt Dillahunty: </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Second, Matt goes by methodological naturalism to say that in science we are bound, or barred I should say from investigating the supernatural. That’s bunk. We are not barred. Now a lot of scientists tie their hands behind their back - that’s called methodological naturalism where they’re not allowed to consider the supernatural but let me tell you methodological naturalism simply stated is a safe space for skeptical scholars and scientists where they can hide from serious consideration from solutions that involve supernatural or god, you know those trigger words for them because it makes them uncomfortable. </span></p><br /><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">OK, before we get to the meat of his objection to methodological naturalism, I wanted to point out Licona’s invoking culture war terminology like “safe spaces”. Licona knows he’s playing to an audience of Right Wing Conservative Christians, they are the ones who pay his bills after all. The point is that he’s invoking what is culture war rhetoric to tie the idea that belief in the resurrection is justified by the methods of history to cement his position as one opposed to methodological naturalism which is espoused by “snowflake liberals and atheists” to shield against Christianity.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Such rhetoric has no place in a serious consideration of philosophical argument, but since he went there I feel it’s important to point out his blatant hypocrisy. As someone who grew up in the 1980’s inside the evangelical culture bubble I’d like to point out that Evangelical Christians are the ultimate champions of all time when it comes to creating “Safe Spaces”. Note that Licona is a professor at Huston Baptist University, a private Christian college whose mission: </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"seeks to develop students of character and competence by providing opportunities to engage in a Christ-centered community focusing on academic success, spiritual formation, interpersonal development, and physical well-being." </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That certainly sounds like a particularly expensive “safe space” Christian parents send their teenagers to in order to insulate them from doubts about their faith. If you doubt that really is a Christian “safe space” then you should look at the by-laws of the University Licona works for: </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“To assure the perpetuation of these basic concepts of its founders, it is resolved that all those who become associated with Houston Baptist University as a trustee, officer, member of the faculty or of the staff, and who perform work connected with the educational activities of the University, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old Testament and New Testament, that man was directly created by God, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, as the Son of God, that He died for the sins of all men and thereafter arose from the grave, that by repentance and the acceptance of and belief in Him, by the grace of God, the individual is saved from eternal damnation and receives eternal life in the presence of God; and it is further resolved that the ultimate teachings in this University shall never be inconsistent with the above principles.”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">that</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is a “safe space”. With that over with, let's get on with Licona’s take on methodological naturalism. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Well so what if I were beheaded here on stage by some terrorists and they fled leaving my headless corpse here on the stage. And then you all leave the auditorium and an hour later you’re outside of the auditorium and you’re talking to the police and media and I come walking out of the auditorium, head attached, smiling, scars on my neck and I said I’ve been to heaven. And god brought me back to verify the truth of Jesus’s gospel message. And by the way Matt while I was up there I talked to this relative of yours that died 10 years ago and they shared with me a private conversation that only you and that relative had that I could not have possibly known. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So is a miracle the least probable explanation? And since historians must choose the most probable we’d have to say anything, even group hallucination is more probable? No. That’s methodological naturalism. That’s the safe space for skeptics.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Licona makes the mistake that atheists, scientists, and historians are committed to the principle of methodological naturalism </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">a priori</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, as a general first principle not to be violated before engaging in their analysis of any given situation; being ridiculously unable to say anything about an obvious verifiable miracle occurring before their very eyes. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But it is not an </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">a priori</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> commitment, it is in part justified by the past failure of the supernatural to demonstrate itself, let alone do so in consistent ways that would add evidential weight to the teachings of any specific religion. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A good skeptic, scientist, or historian would be open to theistic explanations if the evidence was there; but it’s not. In fact, we have a long history of supposedly miraculous perpetual miracles which are then debunked; leaving us with only the non-verifiable kind.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Licona's second mistake is to use an example of the kind of empirically verifiable miracle that would disprove methodological naturalism as an example of why it's untenable; as if we wouldn't abandon the principle when an event occurs that disproves the rationale we have for believing in said principle! In fact, this kind of miracle is exactly the kind of evidence that many atheists and skeptics have said would convince us that a god exists, to the point where it's a serious argument against the existence of god - the problem of divine hiddenness. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What is striking is that the apologetic answer to hiddenness objections, specifically versions of the argument about god doing empirically verifiable miracles is at complete odds with Licona's thought experiment, but also with the history of miracles depicted in the bible. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Often apologists will cite how god doesn't use obvious miracles because he doesn't want to "force" non-believers into a relationship with himself, even though such miracles occurred in biblical times and places. Were those people "forced" into a relationship or belief in god? If not then such reasoning wouldn't apply here. If god loves all people equally as a maximally loving being, then why do people in the bible get such preferential epistemic treatment? In fact what justification is there for ceasing all verifiable miracles not long after Jesus's ascension? </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This point cannot be understated, because the key aspect here is that the imposition of methodological naturalism is a direct consequence of the way the world is right now. If a god exists, then god wants this ambiguity about religion to persist. Consider this thought experiment of a world where methodological naturalism would not be held when it came to historical evaluation:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine our world as it is now, except at every mass in every Catholic church when the priest goes to do communion, he pours water into a clear glass and after saying a prayer the water turns into wine before the entire congregation. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine that this can be studied under controlled conditions. Scientists could verify the water pre-prayer, inspect the priests, control their garments, inspect the wine afterwards. The wine could even be the same type and molecular composition, every time, regardless of the type of water put into the cup ahead of time. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Far from becoming mundane, this would be the highlight of every service, especially since no other religions could replicate this kind of empirically verifiable miracle. One wonders if there would even BE other religions if this world was real. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In such a world with this kind of background knowledge informing our beliefs, we would be able to interpret historical Christian miracle claims in a way not available to miracle claims made by competing, contradictory religions. We would have a solid basis for concluding that the Christian miracle claims were true and reason to doubt the others as false. We wouldn't even have other denominations of Christianity if only Catholic priests could do the miracle!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine how many more people would be Christians in this hypothetical world! Some apologists try to say that even in light of such evidence many would not convert; instead believing like the demons do. In fact to avoid issues with the argument from divine hiddenness they might say that none who do not believe already would become Christians in light of this new evidence, but this doesn't pass the smell test.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ask yourself if you would believe in this scenario. If you already believe now, would your faith be stronger or weaker?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I for one know with certainty that if such evidence were available, I would convert. Issues with the problem of evil and hell would be overcome by evidence that the Christian god exists. The theodicies I find unconvincing now would be suddenly more plausible and I would have to radically reconsider my notion of what "the good" is. So it cannot be true that no one would convert who does not believe now, because I would!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But this is not our world, and even if a god existed, it wants this kind of ambiguity and a world that is indistinguishable from a world where a god either does not exist or is deistic and doesn't interfere with the universe it created. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If an apologist says god wants the ambiguity then they are conceding this argument about evaluating historical miracle claims including the resurrection, because god wants such claims to be ambiguous.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In philosophical terms, my main point has been that our prior probability of any miracle occurring is extremely low. My second point has been that in most cases, even Christian believers will not believe in new miracle claims based only on testimonial evidence; because such evidence can not overcome our incredibly strong prior probability that miracles don’t occur.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Apologists defending the resurrection argument typically make two points when they address this.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The first and weakest response is that they will appeal to an argument for god’s existence as proof that supernatural causes are live options that should be considered. Both Frank Turek and J Warner Wallace will typically appeal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument as if it were sound, stating something to the effect that “if god can make something come from nothing, then god could interact with our world to raise Jesus from the dead”. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The easy answer here is that arguments for natural theology don’t work. OK that’s my atheistic bias showing through. Stating things in the most sympathetic terms, all arguments from natural theology have counter arguments that rely on competing metaphysical principles that can consistently and rationally be held by others. Whether or not a natural theology argument “works” really boils down to whether or not a person subjectively finds one set of metaphysical principles more plausible than the alternatives. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That said, often when these apologists refer to something like the Kalam they wildly misstate the science on the matter and pretend as if contemporary cosmology proves that the universe came into existence out of nothing, which is strictly false and I recommend watching my video series on that argument for an explanation on why.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The second response apologists will make to my arguments about prior probability is to argue that while the prior probability may be extremely low, we also need to look at the probability that we have the evidence we do for the resurrection if one had occurred vs. if it had not occurred.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I agree we should assess these probabilities; the problem is that the probability of having stories about a charismatic religious figure performing miracles, even on atheism or a non-interfering deism is not low! As covered earlier we can dig up an incredible amount of miracle claims from around the world for contradictory religions. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You may have noticed throughout this presentation that I’ve largely steered clear of criticizing the bible directly, because my arguments don’t inherently depend on whether or not the 5 accounts in the bible of Jesus’s resurrection were good or bad; merely that our evidence amounts in total to 5 pieces of testimonial evidence and that by itself is a problem regardless of the specifics of said testimony.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is here that apologists may want to interject to appeal to the specifics of the biblical account to try and salvage the argument, often trying to appeal to a “minimal facts” approach. The problem is that a “minimal facts approach” is inherently flawed because it cherry picks specific things the apologists want to focus on and ignores the larger picture that discredits their story. The response to any “minimal fact” apologetic is to say that skeptics don’t believe all of the supposed “facts” are true, that they were made up as part of the story. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Given the first part of my argument, we ought to be very skeptical of any miracle accounts as being trustworthy </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">simply because they contain miracle accounts</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. However the case against the resurrection gets much stronger once we consider that the 5 pieces of testimonial evidence in the bible for t he resurrection give us a lot of additional reasons to doubt the accounts.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The tale grows in the telling</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The earliest accounts of the resurrection do not occur in the first four gospels in the New Testament. It is in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 – where Paul relays what is believed to be an oral tradition: </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is quite a far cry from the detailed accounts in the gospels, but it covers the basics. What is interesting is that Paul mentions an appearance and puts himself on a par with the apostles; but we know from Acts that Paul only saw a vision of Jesus. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">From there we move to the four pseudonymous gospels, each written decades after the supposed resurrection. The names of each gospel were not attached till much later after their publication and each is not written as a history, but more as an evangelistic tract. Each was written in Greek which was certainly not the native language of the Aramaic speaking apostles in 1</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: 0.6em; vertical-align: super;">st</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> century Isreal. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Gospel of Mark is the earliest gospel, even Christian scholars and historians agree was the first to be written. It is written in a “lower” version of Greek, basically something that the common people would have spoke, not what the educated and privileged few would have. It does not technically include the actual resurrection of Jesus, or at least with the appearance of an resurrected Jesus if we end it at the proper place, all we are left with is an empty tomb. It’s stylistic theme is that of the “Messianic Secret” where Jesus doesn’t really reveal to the masses that he is the messiah. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The gospels of Matthew and Luke were written next, largely copying word for word from Mark, and where they do deviate in the wording it’s largely to “clean up” the Greek into the more high-class version of the language. Each gospel contains their unique and common additions, but roughly 60% of Mark is replicated in Matthew and Luke. This isn’t readily obvious to readers because while Mark is copied, the stories and passages are taken and jumbled up in order, interspersed with new material. Matthew and Luke are also where we see the evolution of the Jesus story where now he was born of a virgin, and it is where we get our first resurrection appearances of Jesus. Each gospel has its own themes, but in each Jesus is far more open about being the messiah than he is in Mark. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Finally, there is the gospel of John, written much later than the others between 90-100AD (Jesus would have been crucified roughly in 33AD). John does not copy from Mark, though lately biblical scholars have arguments about John’s literary dependence on Mark. Still, this is the highest form of the gospel with a far more fully developed theology, with Jesus being the “word of god” present at the creation of the heavens and the earth. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is the more general fact about how the story grew. We can also see the evolution of the resurrection narrative in each of the gospels. Joseph of Arimathea is a key figure for the argument as he is the person who requests Jesus’s body from Pilate to be “buried in a tomb” appears. This part of the narrative is key because apologists like to point to “the empty tomb” as a piece of evidence for the resurrection, even though the common practice for crucified prisoners was to leave them rotting on their crosses, to be eaten by wild animals or to have what little remained thrown into a common grave.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In order to get an empty tomb narrative, the gospel writers had to invent a way for Jesus to not suffer the traditional fate of those crucified – enter the character of Joseph of Arimathea who asks Pilate for his body and then buries it…for some reason. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mark tells us that Joseph was a respected member of the very same council that Mark says “all condemned him [Jesus] as deserving death” for blasphemy. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The story gets weirder because the character of Joseph of Arimathea evolves: </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Matthew he is a rich man from Arimathea who was also a disciple of Jesus, laying Jesus in what was supposed to be Joseph’s own tomb.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Luke, Joseph is now a good and righteous man who was a member of the council but did not agree to their plan and action. He buried Jesus in a tomb that had never had anyone laid in it.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In John, Joseph is again a disciple of Jesus, but we learn he is a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, which seems odd because he presumably was a Jew himself. This time he and his buddy Nicodemus wrap the body with spices in linen cloths according to the burial custom of the Jews and lay it in a tomb where no one had been laid before. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The evolution of Joseph of Arimathea is important because as we stated it is extremely odd that anyone would go and bury the body of a crucified criminal in 1</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-size: 0.6em; vertical-align: super;">st</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> century Israel. It is especially odd that such a man would be going to Pilate to request to bury the body of the man he had just condemned. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Apologists like to explain this away as the Jews not wanting dead bodies outside Jerusalem around Passover, hastily burying them before the Sabbath started. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This begs the question of why would Joseph request </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">only</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the body of Jesus and not also the two thieves crucified besides him, and so instead of an empty tomb we’d have a tomb with only two bodies instead of three? If Joseph hadn’t condemned Jesus but was a secret disciple because he feared the Jews, despite being Jewish himself – why would he publicly request the body from Pilate? Eventually the council would have noticed that the body of only Jesus was conspicuously gone, and when they inquired about what happened to it, Joseph would have been outed. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The story doesn’t make much sense, unless the early Christian writers wanted to find a narrative mechanism to somehow preserve Jesus’s body from being eaten/destroyed/decomposed. As the original lie grew in the telling, so did the character, eventually getting secret motivations for his extremely odd actions. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But why think this is a lie if one is not already overly skeptical of the resurrection account? Because we already know that false supernatural claims were added to the gospel narratives over time.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">False Supernatural Claim #1</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I alluded earlier that Mark ends without any actual appearances of the risen Jesus. That’s not in the vast majority of Bibles today, which does have an appearance. This is because our earliest manuscripts end abruptly at Mark 16:8. However the later version have verses 9-20 where Jesus not only appears but makes demonstrably false supernatural claims about how to prove that Jesus had risen:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">"And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is akin to my example of continual, empirically verifiable miracles being done by Catholic priests turning water into wine at every mass. Imagine if we could dispense with complex metaphysical arguments of apologetics and just prove Christianity with a trip to the zoo and some bleach. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Obviously Christians aren’t performing these miracles, and such things were falsifiable even at the time the story was added to the bible. So the authors literally added something everyone who cared could have shown was false. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">False Supernatural Claim #2</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In Matthew 27:52-53 we learn that on Jesus’s death many of the bodies of the saints were raised, and then at his resurrection they came out of their tombs and appeared to many in the city:</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problem with this is that it (and the associated claims of the temple veil tearing, an eclipse, and an earthquake coinciding with Jesus’s death) do not appear anywhere else. Not in extra-biblical sources like first century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus or even anywhere else in the gospels.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is a problem because as resurrection argument proponents say, we should consider the probability that we would have or lack this evidence based on whether or not it occurred. The fact that we don’t have accounts from any sources of such an astounding event happening is evidence that Matthew simply added a false supernatural event to the resurrection narrative. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We also have other reasons to think that Matthew has a habit of literally making things up in his gospel.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">False Prophecy Fulfillment</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This comes from Bart Ehrman’s book “Jesus Interrupted”. One of the things that the early Christians did was search through their holy texts, what we now call the Old Testament, and look for ways to explain why what they believed had occurred. In many cases we see the stories about Jesus being written in the gospels to retroactively fulfill OT prophecies. This can be hard to prove, but we have one instance where we can know this occurred. Things got weird because these largely Greek Christians who wrote the gospels were reading the OT translated into Greek, not the original Hebrew.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The author of Matthew, writing in Greek, quotes Zechariah 9:9 where it says the king will enter Jeruselem “on a donkey” and then “on a colt the foal of a donkey”. What the author of Matthew didn’t realize was that part of Zechariah was written in something called “synonymous parallelism” where two lines of poetry say basically the same thing in different words. This is a well understood fact about the Hebrew Bible, known by Old Testament scholars; but Matthew had no idea about it. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So unlike the other gospels Matthew doesn’t have Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, he wants Jesus to fulfil the prophecy! So the author has Jesus ride on both a donkey AND a colt at once. The divine groin muscles must have been miraculously flexible. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is certainly not the end of the examples I could give, but it is enough to show that we know the gospel authors were adapting the story in order to fit the evangelistic narrative they wanted to tell. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Suspiciously Revised Theology</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">One thing not often appreciated about the early Christian church was that it was not particularly big in first century Israel. While the first Christians were obviously Jewish, the religion really took off in the other parts of the Roman empire, among the Gentiles (non-Jews). This posed a problem because the early church still held to specifically Jewish laws that made getting converts particularly troublesome. Then, lo and behold a revelation came down from god to revise the troubling bits of Jewish law that held back new converts!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We see this in Acts, where it is mentioned that Peter is given a vision from god that Kosher laws no longer apply to Christians, thereby allowing new Gentile converts to continue on happily with their old cuisine. However this wasn’t the end of theological accomodation and a bigger barrier was the male Gentile penis.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jews believed that newborn males must be circumcised, and oddly in the Old Testament, Yahweh was described as particularly pleased when the foreskin was removed from Jewish penises (no kink shaming). The first Christians thought that new converts had to keep the Jewish law, which meant Moyles were going to have to operate on some adults rather than Jewish babies. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This obviously posed a problem, a “yoke” or “burden” as described in Acts. Paul was primarily the person bringing the religion to the Gentiles, and he had to have a theological council with Peter and James in Jerusalem. He pointed out exactly how hard this doctrine made it for him to win converts, and eventually the book of Acts tells us that Paul prevails. Peter and James declare that gentiles no longer have to keep all the old Jewish laws, merely abstain from food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, the meat of strangled animals, and from blood. Oddly only one of those really seems to have remained relevant these days, but more importantly there is no basis for why new Christians must follow this subset of the old Jewish laws but not any of the others?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The point is that revising theological doctrine to make life easier makes one more skeptical of the truth of your doctrines in the first place. It’s easier for Christians to see this by giving them an example from a non-Christian religion:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In 1978 the leader of the Mormon church had a divine revelation! He rescinded the long existing ban on black people or people with “questionable heritage” (aka having a black ancestor) serving in the priesthood roughly when there was a large amount of Mormon converts in Brazil and a new Mormon Temple was built there. The temple would have been non-functional without the ban being rescinded; along with threats that Mormon affiliated BYU would lose access to federal funds due to racist policies.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do any Christians really think that there was a timely divine revelation to the Mormons in the late 70’s? Why should we think that there was an expedient revelation in the first century? </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">How the Gospels Got Written</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When apologists charge skeptics to provide an account of how the testimonial evidence was produced if there was no resurrection it is not hard to come up with answers. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We have cases throughout history where when the teachings of a charismatic leader are empirically falsified, there are cases where the believers re-interpret the teachings in a non-falsifiable way. I’ll provide one example, from 1844 and the Millerites.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A man named William Miller predicted Jesus would return on March 21, 1844. When that didn’t happen the prediction was revised to October 22, 1844. This inspired a large movement in the US with many giving up their earthly possessions in anticipation. When it failed the movement coped in different ways, with one being what led to the Seventh Day Adventist denomination which exists to this day. Hiram Edison reinterpreted the “cleansing of the sanctuary” that was predicted to have occurred in heaven, not on earth as the Millerites mistakenly predicted.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what happened when Jesus died? Perhaps one disillusioned disciple, maybe Peter, had a dream or grief inspired hallucination. The idea that Jesus died for our sins and redeemed us, that he has ascended into heaven. Perhaps they even thought that god gave him a new heavenly body to replace his destroyed one that was thrown in a mass grave. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Once the story spreads from Peter, others bereaved followers have similar dreams and religious experiences and over time the story grows in the telling. Eventually Paul is stricken with guilt at his violent persecution of the new cult, perhaps even having a seizure and a vision of Jesus. Eventually taken to the Christians and proclaiming his conversion, his sight eventually returns in their care and a new zealot is born. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Over an even longer period the story evolves further into the gospel narratives among Christians in Greece who scour the greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures to find ways Jesus fulfilled the messiah prophecies. Eventually the story is written down by a crude literate follower, which then adapts and evolves to be cleaned up and grows in the telling in the other gospels. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As for murdered followers or why someone would “die for a lie” we have even worse evidence that most of the disciples themselves were actually persecuted than we have for the initial miracle claims themselves. For the cases where we do have good evidence of a disciple being killed for their Christian beliefs we can point to plenty of cases where religious believers die for their beliefs. Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism was killed by a mob in a jail, after he and his disciples suffered violent persecution continually throughout the United States. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Skepticism of the Bible</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The point of all this is to show that we have good reasons to be highly skeptical of the early Christian sources who wrote our primary testimonial accounts that serve as “evidence” that Jesus rose from the dead. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This, combined with the fact that when testimonial evidence is presented for non-Christian miracle claims, even Christians will reject that testimonial evidence, even in cases where we can find living witnesses providing testimony of non-Christian miracles. A Christian may claim that their special divine revelation of a properly basic belief in Christianity gives them rational justification for accepting their Christian miracle claims and rejecting other religions miracle claims – but then they have to give up the </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">argument</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for the resurrection as being established on historical or any kind of objective grounds. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It doesn’t make much sense to say that the argument for the resurrection only works if one already believes Jesus rose from the dead based on special divine revelation!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Finally, it’s important to note that this isn’t pure atheistic dogma. I’m not insisting on methodological naturalism being part of how we evaluate historical claims because we must operate as if there was no god in order to be objective. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even if one is a mere theist, recently converted by apologetic arguments that a god exists, you still would be stuck operating on a kind of methodological naturalism. If you don’t then you have to give some kind of basis to reject the mountains of testimonial evidence we have for non-Christian miracle claims and yet retain the Christian ones. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some apologists attempt to give us a basis for doing so, saying that Jesus’s teachings seem incredibly moral vs. the teachings of other religions, but this is a poor argument. Appealing to things like the morality of the teachings gets Christians nowhere. Morality is often cultural, and culture is awash in traditional religious teachings which is then dependent on the area. In the US and EU, Christianity informs some of our sense of what is moral, or what we consider as “traditionally prohibited”. But in India, Hindu morality would largely impact what one would traditionally think of as moral or immoral. In the middle east, Islam would. In each case of course the teachings of the miracle workers in that area would seem “more moral” than the teachings of miracle workers of religions dominant in other areas.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The point is, even if apologists could get someone to give up the methodological naturalism I espouse, they’d be stuck with having to accept the same kinds of evidence for contradictory religions. This then undercuts the entire point of miracle claims – they would no longer serve as strong evidence for the truth of a religion’s theology and philosophy! Imagine believing god raised Jesus from the dead, but not being a Christian, it sounds absurd!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At this point, the only thing left for a Christian to base their religion on isn’t arguments and evidence, it’s purely subjective religious experience and supposed divine revelation. The “properly basic belief” espoused by Christian philosophers and apologists. The justification that works equally as well for any other religion’s theology and dogma. I’m not actually arguing against this as a rational justification for belief. What I am arguing is that the argument for the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t work on its own to convince skeptics or mere theists that Christianity is true. Maybe a Christian will respond that they accept the resurrection argument and reject the other miracle claims because of their “properly basic” belief that Christianity is true - but they must recognize that what’s doing the work there is their subjective religious experience, not anything specific to the evidence regarding the resurrection!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The question I leave any believers with is whether or not they actually feel as if they have this special divine revelation from god that their religion is true, especially in a pre-evidential way. Do you </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">really</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> have that? And if you do, why should non-believers take your word over the experiences of another religion’s believer?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">These are hard questions that I don’t think have any actual answers.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thanks for watching!</span></p></span><span></span><br />A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-41859441132745284322020-08-31T12:45:00.000-07:002020-08-31T12:45:00.169-07:00Countering the Resurrection Argument (Short Version)<p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X78blLAlnO8" width="320" youtube-src-id="X78blLAlnO8"></iframe></div><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">(Note what follows is a transcript of the video)</span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; white-space: pre-wrap;">What if I told you that I believed that god raised Jesus from the dead, but that I did not believe that Jesus was the son of god, and denied that belief in his death and resurrection was the path to salvation and eternal life in reconciliation with the one true god, Yahweh.</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-b2b4d737-7fff-0252-b8b4-bb1ccf2c058e"><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That would just sound crazy. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Right?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I want you to think about why that sounds crazy. It’s not hard to find an answer: Because we assume that miracles are evidence for the truth of the philosophical and theological teachings of the miracle worker. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This assumption goes unstated when apologists use the argument for the resurrection, but it is absolutely central to the argument. </span></p><div><span><br /></span></div><a name='more'></a><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We see this in bible stories like when Elijah called down fire and the prophets of Baal could not, the crowd called out to Yahweh as the LORD because the miracle was evidence of Elijah’s teaching. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In this video I’m going to give a condensed version of a much more detailed video countering the argument for the resurrection of Jesus. If you like what I say here or want to challenge me, I encourage you to listen to or read the full video with the link in the description. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I am countering the resurrection argument in a very specific way, my aim is to debunk the argument as it is used specifically as a means to convert non-Christians into Christians, as well as to counter the idea that Christians remain in their faith due to any supposed strength that is in the historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Typically the resurrection argument is presented as the capstone to a “cumulative case apologetic” presented by Chirstians to convert atheists and agnostics into new believers. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The plan is to first use a series of arguments to convince the skeptic that a monotheistic god exists, and then to bridge the gap from theism to Christianity with the argument for the resurrection. My purpose here is to show exactly why this doesn’t work.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The argument for the resurrection comes in many forms, but they all eventually come back to referencing the bible’s stories about Jesus being crucified and resurrected. They all are based on testimonial evidence for a miracle occurring in the past, and unfortunately for Christians – testimony can not be used in an evidential way to justify belief in a miracle claim in the world we live in.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That’s what my first argument will be addressing.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What if I told you that I woke up in my bed in New Jersey this morning, then had lunch on the moon, but then was home here on earth for dinner?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You probably wouldn’t believe me.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now let’s pretend we were in the universe of Star Trek The Next Generation, my same statement about waking up on earth, eating lunch on the moon, and then being back on earth for dinner would be extremely plausible and you wouldn’t bat an eye at that same statement if you were living in that universe.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The difference is the background knowledge in each case. In Star Trek, there are transporters that can span an incredible distance in a second, not to mention galaxy class starships that make such a feat possible. In the real world, only a handful of human beings have undergone the training and incredible journey via rocket spacecraft to make it to the moon, a process that takes a lot longer than a day. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now what if my statement was about me doing something physically impossible that no level of technology can overcome? How much more unbelievable is that? Our entire lives we build on this background knowledge of </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">how the world works</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Does my moon lunch scenario become any more plausible if I amend it to say “God transported me to the moon for lunch and then sent me back home to Earth for dinner that same day”?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If I were to try and use a defense in a murder trial that my concealed carry gun levitated out of my holster and fired on my hiking companion in the middle of the woods, would the jury accept or reject that claim? Would you </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">want</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> the jury to accept that claim?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even if someone was recently convinced by apologetic arguments to be a “mere theist”, why should the regard the 5 pieces of testimonial evidence we have to the resurrection of Jesus over the other pieces of testimony we have for a wide array of miracle claims for contradictory religions like Hinduism, Mormonism, or Islam?</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Apologists like Mike Licona like to argue that reality has a supernatural dimension and list off a few cases of miracles, but when they do this they commit the fallacy of understated evidence. This is when you quote a general fact when it supports your conclusion but the specific detailed facts actually count against your conclusion. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The general fact that there are a lot of non-verifiable, implausible miracle claims would seem to support the idea that a supernatural realm exists. However once we look more closely at the data, the specific details of miracle claims that happen in support of contradictory religions undermine the idea that the supernatural exists, or at the very least that miracles can serve as evidence for the truth of a specific religion. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><br /></span></p><br /><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This leaves the Christian with a trilemma: </span></p><br /><ol style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><li dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some of the miracles occurred, but not the others - but we are left with no objective way to determine which were true and which were false.</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of the miracles occurred, but then miracles can’t be used as evidence for the truth of the theological teachings of the miracle workers</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="font-family: arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; list-style-type: decimal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"><p dir="ltr" role="presentation" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">None of the miracles actually occurred and the testimony is based on fabrications and legends.</span></p></li></ol><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">My next point is to show how the skeptic position that none of the miracles actually occurred is the most likely. This is due to the nature of the types of miracle claims.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Miracles can come in two types, each with two subsets for a total of four categories:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Minor Improbable Miracles</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - An event where something that seems unlikely occurs in a religious context but the event can have a naturalistic explanation. Like praying to find your keys, opening your eyes and then immediately seeing them. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Major Improbable Miracles</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - An event where something that seems very unlikely occurs in a religious context but never the less the event can still have a naturalistic explanation. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In both cases the fact that a miracle occurred is completely unverifiable. It’s possible for it to have happened, but neither side can prove it, and neither the skeptic or the theist can assume their side to be the case without begging the question. This does not mean either side is unjustified or irrational in holding to their respective opinions on the matter, but that’s a complex rabbit trail I explore in the longer video.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The next two kinds of miracles are as follows:</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Non-verifiable Physically Impossible Miracles</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - These are supposed events where something physical impossible happens, but it is claimed in a non-verifiable context or time or the type of miracle itself is inherently unfalsifiable by its nature. The resurrection of someone in the far past would be a good case. It should be noted that some of these miracles would be verifiable in a specific timeframe, but would lapse shortly after their conclusion. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Verifiable Physically Impossible Miracles</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - These are the kinds of events we can say we do not have any instances of - because if we did they’d be demonstrated. This is the sort of thing where we have strong empirical evidence of an amputee having a limb regrown, or better yet continual miracle of rocks floating spelling out “Jesus Christ is God’s Son Who Died for Your Sins” in a holy place. Or the best example - only believers in the One True Religion being able to perform a specific physically impossible miracle. In fact god supposedly performed these kinds of verifiable miracles in the bible, at least in the time-limited sense, including by apostles after Jesus’s death with no explanation of why they stopped. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Since three of the four kinds of miracles are of the sort that can’t be verified one way or the other, and we lack any examples where we can empirically verify a physically impossible miracle occurred we have come up with something called Methodological Naturalism. This is the idea that in science, history, and other areas of study, as part of our methodology we presume that metaphysical naturalism is true.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Apologists like Mike Licona argue against methodological naturalism saying that if an empirically verifiable, physically impossible miracle occurred in front of a scientist's face, they’d be bound by the principle to not say anything about it.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This however is a caricature since skeptics, scientists, and historians don’t hold to methodological naturalism as an a-priori first principle to not be violated. It’s held posteriori, after consideration of the evidence. If we gain instances of an empirically verifiable physically impossible miracle occurring, you can bet we would drop methodological naturalism. </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact this is the kind of thing atheists and skeptics have asked believers for in order to convince us. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To illustrate this, consider this thought experiment. Imagine our world as it is now, except at every mass in every Catholic church when the priest goes to do communion, he pours water into a clear glass and after saying a prayer the water turns into wine before the entire congregation. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine that this can be studied under controlled conditions. Scientists could verify the water pre-prayer, inspect the priests, control their garments, inspect the wine afterwards. The wine could even be the same type and molecular composition, every time, regardless of the type of water put into the cup ahead of time. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Far from becoming mundane, this would be the highlight of every service, especially since no other religions could replicate this kind of empirically verifiable miracle. One wonders if there would even BE other religions if this world was real. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In such a world with this kind of background knowledge informing our beliefs, we would be able to interpret historical Christian miracle claims in a way not available to miracle claims made by competing, contradictory religions. We would have a solid basis for concluding that the Christian miracle claims were true and reason to doubt the others as false. We wouldn't even have other denominations of Christianity if only Catholic priests could do the miracle!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This sort of situation is an example of a tough argument against theism: The problem of divine hiddenness. The issue is that when apologists reply to the hiddenness argument, their answers are at odds with the resurrection argument. To avoid a rabbit trail the point is that apologists have to argue that god wants to remain hidden for morally justifiable reasons, like not robbing people of their free will to believe or disbelieve. However if that’s the case then they have to give up the </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">argument</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> for the resurrection because god wants his existence and revelation to be ambiguous. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This all might seem too quick a dismissal of miracle claims, but even if the apologist comes up with a reason to reject methodological naturalism they’re still left with the problem of not having an objective, principled reason to accept their miracle claims yet reject others of contradictory religions. The problem is that the probability that we’d have the testimonial evidence of a charismatic religious leader performing miracles in the past is not very low at all! We have all sorts of miracle claims with that kind of testimony or better!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">After all, the only evidence we have for the resurrection is testimonial evidence from 5 mostly pseudonymous sources, with most of them written decades after the event. We can find living witnesses testifying to miracle claims of Sathya Sai Baba and other gurus, mystics, or preachers.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If they can’t give us an objective reason to accept their claims over the others, then after their cumulative case apologetic they’re left with at best a “mere theist” believing that all the miracles occurred but that none of them provide evidence for any specific religion. Or perhaps that none of the miracles occurred and at best we’re left with a deistic god.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Things get even worse if you look specifically at the bible and consider the total evidence rather than just cherry picked “minimal facts” that are typically presented.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact we know that the story of Jesus’s life, miracles, and resurrection grew in the telling as sources closest to the event are the most sparse, with the latest testimony having the most developed theology and mystical attributions to Jesus. We also know that at least two false supernatural claims were added to the bible stories. The earliest manuscripts of Mark end without a resurrection appearance, but the later copies that are included in almost all bibles today have Jesus appearing and claiming that believers will be able to drink poison and handle snakes without being harmed, as well as being able to heal the sick.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This was falsifiable even back in biblical times. Imagine if we didn’t need apologetics to prove christianity was true, we would just need a trip to the zoo and some bleach!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The other story is in Matthew where it is claimed that on Jesus’s resurrection the saints rose from their tombs and entered Jerusalem and appeared to many. This is an extraordinary event that is claimed nowhere else in the gospels, and lacks any mention from contemporary extra-biblical sources like first century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. In this case we would expect evidence, so absence of evidence actually is evidence of absence! </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I go on at length in the longer video with other problems in the bible to give us even more reasons to be skeptical of it’s miracle claims; but the main thrust is that we do have specific reasons to be skeptical of them and accept the obvious - these stories just aren’t true. Perhaps it started with a single bereaved follower’s dream or hallucination who spread their story and other disillusioned followers had sympathetic dreams themselves and the stories grew in the telling and a new movement is formed, resulting in a early creed that Paul quotes maybe 5 years after the crucifixion. Eventually the storys grow into what was written down decades later in the gospels by pseudonymous greek Christians. </span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At this point, the only thing left for a Christian to base their religion on isn’t arguments and evidence, it’s purely subjective religious experience and supposed divine revelation. The “properly basic belief” espoused by Christian philosophers and apologists. The justification that works equally as well for any other religion’s theology and dogma. I’m not actually arguing against this as a rational justification for belief. What I am arguing is that the argument for the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t work on its own to convince skeptics or mere theists that Christianity is true. Maybe a Christian will respond that they accept the resurrection argument and reject the other miracle claims because of their “properly basic” belief that Christianity is true - but they must recognize that what’s doing the work there is their subjective religious experience, not anything specific to the evidence regarding the resurrection!</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Remember if you liked what you heard here or have objections, please give my longer video a listen or read! </span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thanks for watching! </span></p></span>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-86062593337217665732020-08-23T05:42:00.005-07:002020-08-23T06:29:56.052-07:00Book Review - Conversations With My Inner Atheist by Randal Rauser<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtXUgPK27eRmRkh4rTx0kgz6A1WCbXWhfSuTnUFd1MJESMF4cgu_cMx_9K9NFBiOZBo0tanI5ECKlY6nnr3HUDBCfNFVyH27sDqlHg42BCWFA-_w1fPsUStEwe_MWo9awVLQEmOyzDLFM/s1595/RR-Convo.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1595" data-original-width="997" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtXUgPK27eRmRkh4rTx0kgz6A1WCbXWhfSuTnUFd1MJESMF4cgu_cMx_9K9NFBiOZBo0tanI5ECKlY6nnr3HUDBCfNFVyH27sDqlHg42BCWFA-_w1fPsUStEwe_MWo9awVLQEmOyzDLFM/s640/RR-Convo.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Noted Christian theologian and apologist Randal Rauser has a new book with a rather provocative title: <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Inner-Atheist-Christian-Apologist-ebook/dp/B08G4ZWLY7/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=conversations+with+my+inner+atheist&qid=1598180257&sr=8-2">Conversations With My Inner Atheist</a>. I've seen his snippets of promotion on Twitter and while Randal and I have gone back and forth (sometimes testily) on topics for literally years, I have to admit that I like the guy. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In fact I don't just have a positive disposition towards him, he's helped me become a better atheist. This isn't to damn a Christian apologist with faint praise, it's that I've learned a lot about doing philosophy, various stances on a host of issues, a thing or two about the nature of the debate about gods existence, philosophy of religion, and how one should best defend ones views.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Given that, I felt a little indebted to the guy and so I wanted to read his new book and give it an honest review. I've done this with plenty of his works in the past and he's got a good track record, even if I end up disagreeing with his conclusions. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>Spoiler Alert:</b> Randal doesn't disappoint. Let me tell you why.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u>The Premise</u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Randal’s introspection with his inner atheist takes the form of him writing for his own “devils advocate” named Mia which he then engages with throughout the book. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is not a new technique for apologists or Randal specifically for the matter. He did it in his book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Swedish-Atheist-Apologetic-Rabbit-Trails/dp/145965255X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+Swedish+Atheist%2C+the+Scuba+Diver+and+Other+Apologetic+Rabbit+Trails&qid=1598181224&sr=8-1">The Swedish Atheist, the Scuba Diver and Other Apologetic Rabbit Trails</a>. That said, all apologists are not created equal and while I’ve read plenty of apologetics books where the author sets up a strawman and dutifully tears it down, that’s absolutely not what Randal is doing here. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Quite the opposite he specifically says he is out to “steelman” his opponents position, stating it in the strongest and most faithful terms he can, and then goes after that position. I think he succeeds admirably in both presenting a strong articulation of the atheist position and then replies to it with well reasoned arguments.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Yet here I sit, still an atheist. How could I give this book a genuinely positive review if I don't find his answers convincing?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Well lets talk about good apologetics vs. bad, and the nature of the debate about the existence of a god.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u>How This All Works</u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The hard truth about arguing about god's existence is that it's a philosophical debate. It's the kind of question that by the nature of question you can't really settle on a conclusive answer. Contrary to popular presentation by both atheists and theists alike, there is no amount of pure "logic, reason, and evidence" that can be run through to conclusively show one side is correct. I must indict myself in this as much as anyone else, especially in my earlier years of doing this.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Note that this does not mean that there isn't a correct answer to the question "Does god exist?".</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This also does not mean that one can not be justified and rational in believing that a god does or does not exist. I think both positions can be held rationally, and arguments marshaled on either side.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What it means is that where we end up in answering that question is going to be incredibly subjective because of the framing and plausibility structures we're going to bring to our approaches to the question. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is itself a deeper topic I hope to cover in the future, but that's beyond the scope of this book review. What I want to point out is how Randal's approach in the book is so good because it acknowledges this rather messy and uncomfortable fact and then works from there. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Far too often apologists on both sides want to present their position as an absolute knockdown open and shut case that once you have followed the logic of their arguments you will inevitably come to the conclusion that their side is the right one. <br /><br />I tend to get rather disgusted with that kind of over confident approach that is taken far too often in Christian (especially conservative) apologetics.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEaqOl1D7IU1VY1MujmLecBDermahID3GocPjs-5RRRhPrzNZfxvzebwtiOAcVhWOld5vIukzW6mdnl25EWg3AN3dGjArc3nyLXXtX3BaFg4g-M_e8x5rxXV0wDMT-18cJEsLm33HQc0k/s640/comforting-lies-vs-unpleasant-truths-640x480.webp" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="480" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEaqOl1D7IU1VY1MujmLecBDermahID3GocPjs-5RRRhPrzNZfxvzebwtiOAcVhWOld5vIukzW6mdnl25EWg3AN3dGjArc3nyLXXtX3BaFg4g-M_e8x5rxXV0wDMT-18cJEsLm33HQc0k/s0/comforting-lies-vs-unpleasant-truths-640x480.webp" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i>Far too often, the apologetics industry is about telling people what they want to hear</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Randal does not take that approach; he starts with the unpleasant truth of the nature of the debate and our hopelessly biased approaches to the topic and then lays out his best defenses against objections to his beliefs. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is one reason why I consider Randal to be one of the best Christian apologists around. I think he's particularly effective in the present moment and I think his style is the future of impactful apologetics as we proceed (happily from my view!) into a post-Christian society here in the US, Canada, and the EU. <br /><br /><u>The Book</u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Randal takes the reader through 26 different topics for a Christian to answer. Some questions are easier than others like "How can a Christian academic have intellectual freedom?" but then others are much harder such as "Why does god torture people in hell?" and "What about non-Christian religious experiences?". Along the way he even touches on contemporary issues that act as catalysts for deconversion (such as my own) like "Why can't gay people just marry?". Of course there's a section on the problem of evil.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In each case Randal doesn't just provide a neat theodicy and move on. As per the gravity of the question he lays out a variety of responses a Christian can give while still staying true to the core tenants of the faith. At times he'll even point out that he's not sure which of the variety of rich theological positions he's sure of, but he knows that god has sufficient reasons for the tension and that options exist to go with so as to retain ones Christian faith in the face of such forceful objections.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As someone who has followed Randal's work for some time, this approach is nothing new. This is not to belittle him or his enterprise. It's quite clear that keeping Christians in the faith by removing issues that lead to apostasy is a large part of his mission and he approaches the topic admirably. This book isn't about winning new converts, Randal does that in other works (and neatly references them for future study).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">What makes the book valuable is that he condenses all this into a mere 202 pages. I read the book in a few short hours and it was engaging. Randal's day job is a seminary professor and the book showcases his teaching bonafides as he illustrates complex philosophical and theological topics with easy to understand stories, examples, and plain good writing.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u>But isn't he wrong? How can you like this and disagree?</u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><u><br /></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">What I like a lot is how Randal doesn't pull punches on himself. Indeed sometimes Randal raises a question that he knows he can’t quite answer like in chapter 3 about the bible not being a good roadmap to salvation. What he does is provide an apologetic about how we shouldn't want the bible to be a roadmap - in fact because it’s not a roadmap it’s evidence that god never intended to give us one and that Randal is grateful for the complex book we have. <br /><br />But then at least he gives Mia (his devil’s advocate) the last word in the chapter, coyly pointing out that the question was never really answered.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">This is hardly the norm, but it's indicative of the books overall point and afterword - that a believer is going to be left with lingering questions and they have to wrestle with them. What Randal is doing is providing them with a well reasoned framework to use in that journey. It's this honesty and call to an active faith that doesn't shy from doubts that I'm sure thoughtful believers will appreciate the most. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">While I disagree with much of his conclusions and I feel I could argue the point further in each chapter this isn't unexpected given the nature of the topic as I described earlier. That said, I don't ever feel as if Mia was cut off prematurely so that Randal could make a neat apologetic point. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><u>Conclusions</u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">While I'm an atheist "counter apologist" and I in particular want to see less Christians and less theists, I appreciate Randal's honesty and approach. I can happily concede that many will find his arguments persuasive even where I do not. <br /><br />Inevitably there will be Christians who doubt that will remain in the faith and if that's going to happen I'd prefer it was done with the well reasoned and honest arguments Randal presents instead of the false confidence pop-apologetics all too often instills in its readers. At least those Christians will appreciate the true nature of the debate being had.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Also I should point out that the book is a mere <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Conversations-Inner-Atheist-Christian-Apologist-ebook/dp/B08G4ZWLY7/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1598184067&sr=8-2">$4.19 on Amazon Kindle</a>! I've paid far more for far worse books written by lesser apologists. If you're interested in the debate at all (and who can't use some reading material in a self isolating pandemic) go buy a copy, for god's sake! </div></div><p></p>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-39577505213282719932019-12-01T11:11:00.001-08:002019-12-01T13:39:27.708-08:00Love, HIddenness, and Why I'm Nearly DoneI'll be honest, lately I've been wondering about why I stay in the game. I've gotten a bit sick of hashing through arguments that can never really be answered, which is what the overwhelming majority of arguments really hit on when it comes to philosophy of religion.<br />
<br />
This is a critique you'll hear often against metaphysics or philosophy in general, but I wanted to give a concrete example.<br />
<br />
Enter this <a href="https://capturingchristianity.com/responding-to-the-problem-of-divine-hiddenness/" target="_blank">Capturing Christianity article</a> aimed at responding to Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness Argument. The author Brett Lunn is describing Christian philosopher Michael Rea's response.<br />
<br />
I don't really mean to address the entire article so much as I want to point out the parts that exemplify the point I want to make here.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Schellenberg's argument is pretty straight forward - if god is supposed to be maximally loving as theists so define him, he would be open to a relationship with any human being who wants to be in a relationship with god. Problem is that there are beings who are non-believers who would be open to a relationship with god, and so that means no loving god exists.<br />
<br />
The argument works because many of us understand what love is, we have (or are) loving parents, or spouses. If the object of our intense love, like say our children, were to be in distress because they weren't in as good a relationship with us as they wanted, we would immediately work to rectify that.<br />
<br />
This is after all how god is often portrayed - as a loving heavenly father.<br />
<br />
Often times responses to the hiddenness argument try to undercut the idea that there are or have ever been any non-resistant unbelievers which seems implausible; but this author takes a different approach - he attacks our understanding of what it means for <i>god to love</i>.<br />
<br />
This is referred to as "light transcendence":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "lato"; font-size: 16.3px;">"Simply put, our language applies to God straightforwardly and just as it is. We are same speakers when speaking about love for both humans and God. Equivocal language uses the same word in different ways. Analogical language uses the same word in similar ways. Univocal language uses the same word in the same way."</span></blockquote>
Basically if we hold god to the same standard we would hold a human being to when we judge whether or not the human being is "loving" towards another human, god fails the test spectacularly. That's why the hiddenness argument works.<br />
<br />
Obviously this poses a problem so Brett and Rea want to argue against it. What's their justification for rejecting this interpretation of transcendence?<br />
<br />
The argument from divine hiddenness!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Lato; font-size: 16.3px;">"From a purely philosophical point of view, one might take the hiddenness argument itself as reason to reject very light interpretations of divine transcendence." </span></blockquote>
<br />
What's his second line of justification for rejecting this view of light transcendence? Because the bible reveals god as not being completely loving towards humans!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "lato"; font-size: 16.3px;">"To put it mildly, it is very hard to see how the God of the Christian Bible can sensibly be described as unfailingly good, loving, merciful, toward humanity as a whole if divine love, goodness, and mercy are understood according to what might be called “human” or “creaturely” standards." </span></blockquote>
<br />
So to get around this thorny problem of the bible describing god as loving humans but at the same time depicting him as pretty obviously not loving towards us at all? Rea proposes a new understanding of divine transcendence. Brett describes this view as having the following consequences:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "lato"; font-size: 16.3px;">"That view will have two implications: (1) no concept of an instrinsic attribute of God is fully transparent and non-revealed; and (2) we should have humility about violated expectations; that is, no violation entails, justifies, or makes probable that sentences predicating a property of God are not true."</span></blockquote>
First, it's important to really get past the jargon about light transcendence vs. divine transcendence; this is about how we understand the phrase "god is loving towards humans".<br />
<br />
Second, this is a classic case of apologetics counting the hits and discarding the misses.<br />
<br />
So the bible can tell us god is loving towards humans, and when the bible shows god making a sacrifice for us, it comports with our understanding of a loving relationship. But when god say commands a genocide including murdering infants, well you see the idea that god is loving towards us needs to be understood as not fully transparent and while this action by god violates what we understand loving to be about, we axiomatically take it to not falsify the proposition that "god is loving". Despite the fact that we would take the same scenario with a human being instead of god as completely falsifying an equivalent proposition.<br />
<br />
Count the hits, discard the misses. It's particularly useful when theism as a concept can't survive having <i>any misses</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Different Questions, Same Answer</b><br />
<br />
It's an appeal to mystery, because god is "divinely transcendent", we can't hope to understand god's plans, priorities, or reasons.<br />
<br />
<br />
If that sounds familiar it's because it should, this is the same kind of appeal skeptical theism makes when it comes to the problem of evil. If god doesn't comport with our understanding of the concept, we amend our definition of the concept <i>as it applies to god</i> so that we can no longer hope to understand it.<br />
<br />
After all, what does it mean to be "loving towards humans"? The concept has some elasticity to it.<br />
<br />
This is the basic problem with metaphysical questions in general. When empirical facts on the ground falsify your principle, just amend the principle so that it can't be falsified.<br />
<br />
This is especially apt when it comes to debates about "does god exist"? Apologists like William Lane Craig claim that theism can be falsified if we were to show a logical contradiction in the concept of god, except that's not quite true.<br />
<br />
Show a theologian a contradiction in their theology and they will not become an atheist, they will genuinely thank you for contributing to their work and accordingly amend their theology to avoid the contradiction.<br />
<br />
This is readily apparent in other aspects of religious apologetics. I remember in my deconversion reading Kenton Sparks's book God's Word in Human Words, a treatise in the inerrancy of scripture.<br />
<br />
Sparks lambasts the young earth creationists who insist on a global flood which is so thoroughly disproven by modern science, but then asks if we are going to reject the literal word of god when it comes to a global flood, does that mean Christians are forced to become atheists or at least give up innerancy of scripture?<br />
<br />
He argues that all they need to do is take a view of inerrancy that means that "god's word is inerrant in all that it aims to teach". One is prompted to ask: what does god aim to teach in any given passage?<br />
<br />
Who the fuck knows! All we need to know is that if something is demonstrably false in the bible, then it can't possibly be part of what god was aiming to teach with said passage, <i>so it doesn't matter if it's false - we can still call the bible inerrant.</i><br />
<br />
It's defining your theological concepts up front in such a way that they can't be falsified. That's probably a good definition of "Sophisticated Theology".<br />
<br />
<b>Takeaways</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I insinuated that I'm nearly done with the hobby of counter apologetics, and this post has laid out a good part of the reason why. I've come to the conclusion that when we are stuck arguing the topic of theism vs. atheism, the concepts are far too elastic to be useful. Theistic apologists of any stripe can always amend their principles to account for whatever argument you're going to put forward - and to be fair atheists can do much the same thing. It's the nature of the debate itself.<br />
<br />
The argument never really ends, and there is never any real winner. The real "winning move" is to not play. Apologists love debates about god, they can go all day and if they're practiced enough they can avoid looking like they've ever really "lost" a debate. This is why when two skilled philosophers debate, both sides think their person won.<br />
<br />
This is why I believe it's time to switch gears and hit apologists where they are weakest. Atheists have been too focused on trying to undercut all of religion by arguing for atheism. The prize is so big that we are getting lulled into a game that cannot be won.<br />
<br />
It's time to question what we want. I don't quite care so much if someone is a theist. I want to stop harmful beliefs prevalent in my culture that cause harm. For me here in the US, that means undermining Christianity specifically.<br />
<br />
In fact there are hardly any apologists who are really just concerned about "mere theism", what they really want is to convince someone to be a theist so that they can convert them to their specific sectarian religion. That's why there are "Christian apologists" and "Islamic apologists" and so on.<br />
<br />
So what's the goal? Don't aim at disproving god, aim at showing how poor an apologists justification is for believing in their specific religion. Attack the arguments for the resurrection and Christian specific doctrines. That's where they are at their weakest, and in any fight you always end up winning by hitting them where it hurts the most.<br />
<br />
That's where I want to focus my attention going forward.A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-9861117839902589842019-06-11T12:20:00.001-07:002019-12-01T12:05:39.037-08:00Anti-Theism doesn't lead to atrocitiesPieces by Christian apologists trying to link atheism to mass murder and oppression are as common as they are wrong. What surprised me was seeing an atheist hero of mine, <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/" target="_blank">Jeff Lowder</a>, agreeing with a more nuanced take by John Reynolds.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/JMNR?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JMNR</a> forcefully argues for a conclusion I've held for many years: while antitheism does not entail mass murder, antitheistic governments are highly likely to engage in mass murder. <a href="https://t.co/f8Hko8sG4V">https://t.co/f8Hko8sG4V</a><br />
<br />
1/</div>
— Secular Outpost (@SecularOutpost) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecularOutpost/status/1137481341094645760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The title certainly isn’t very nuanced: <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2015/04/hoping-atheists-do-not-kill-us-this-time/" target="_blank">Hoping Atheists (Or at Least Anti-Theists) Do Not Kill Us This Time</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The main thrust of Reynolds article is that when anti-theist bent atheists seize power, they start killing people and engage in human rights violations.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I call Reynolds take nuanced in that he strains to make a difference between atheists and anti-theists. He argues that while mere atheism doesn’t entail mass killing or persecution, anti-theism does seem to lead to it. He goes so far as to say that anti-theism was a chief motivation in the lives of Trotsky, Stalin, and Lenin and they picked their worldview to go with their anti-theism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This strikes me as impossible to prove any more than to prove that a belief caused an action. We could just as easily say that those men were devoted to a communist ideology which took their atheism in a more stringent direction: as they became more totalitarian in enforcing their political and economic views, they became more totalitarian in enforcing their atheistic views.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before I go too deeply down into the areas where Reynolds goes off the rails, I should note where I do agree with him.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I do agree that if anti-theists grabbed the reigns of power and tried to enforce state mandated atheistic beliefs, forced anti-theistic arguments to be taught in schools, or required one to officially proclaim atheism to join the only allowed political party – that would be (and is!) wrong and terrifying.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
My issue here is that government mandated belief systems and a lack of freedom of thought is what’s harmful, full stop. When any kind of authoritarian or totalitarian regime limits freedom of thought it’s an atrocity to humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What should give atheists pause is the fact that our own beliefs have no protection against these bad impulses. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Conversely, the idea that atheists themselves are particularly prone to this kind of abuse of power is plainly false. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reynolds concedes the fact that theists do it too (it’s easy to find Islamic, Hindu, and even Jewish oppression in modern times), but he insists that Christian teaching repudiates this behavior since “Christianity teaches to love thy enemies” and so killing and torturing is against a core Christian teaching. Of course Christianity teaches that “God loves all humans” but this god has no problem condemning billions of humans to eternal conscious torture in the most widespread versions of Christianity. Jesus also says “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” The Christian god commands in the old testament to stone people to death for certain sins, allegedly drowned nearly the entire human population, and a host of other atrocities. My point here is that “Christian love” allows for a whole lot of killing and torture, and that the bible’s teaching on these matters is contradictory, to the point where specific interpretations are necessary to avoid said contradictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
The fact is that the members of the Inquisition believed they were acting out of love. If they could get people to recant, or to not preach non-Christian religions, they were saving their (or others) eternal souls from eternal conscious torment! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Modern Christians have the benefit of being forced to temper their authoritarian impulses, at least at the national level, over the past few centuries. We don’t have to go back very far to when it was Christians persecuting atheists, Jews, or Muslims; no one may expect the Spanish Inquisition, but we’re certainly not going to forget them. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apologists like to argue that whatever the failings of Christian nations in medieval Europe, atheist regimes in the 20<sup>th</sup> century killed far more than they ever did. I would argue that while technically true it is only the case because the tools of oppression were far more advanced in modern days vs. what could be accomplished by a nation in medieval times. I shudder to think what the crusades would have looked like had the countries had access to communications technology, modern supply chains, let alone firearms and air support. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Freedom of Religion<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br />
</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s important to point out the reason the US and European countries have freedom of thought and freedom of religion is because those countries witnessed years and years of different factions of Christians persecuting each other. Our secularism isn’t because our founding fathers weren’t Christian (though some weren’t), it’s because they recognized that sectarian religious violence was an impediment to running a stable country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the time of the US founding there were still hyper religious factions that wanted the constitution to say that we were an explicitly Christian nation, they simply failed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Modern day Christian dominionists of course put the lie to the idea that modern Christians are somehow immune to trying to force a theocracy. They certainly have no theological problems justifying their views and regularly criticize their Christian critics as “not real Christians”. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
In areas of the country where Christians dominate it is not hard to find instances of anti-atheist or non-Christian persecution. Just go read many instances of it at <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/" target="_blank">Godless In Dixie</a> or the many cases of local populations trying to impose Christianity via their public schools that the <a href="https://ffrf.org/" target="_blank">FFRF</a> has to get involved in. The entirety of backlash of the religious right to the removal of forced school prayer by the SCOTUS is evidence of their desire to use parts of the state to force their religion onto children. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Still, none of this is to dismiss the appalling human rights abuses by atheistic totalitarian regimes.<br />
<br />
What the USSR did was horrific, what China is doing now is horrific. The point is not to excuse atheistic abuses, it’s to point out that abuses aren’t unique to anti-theism and that Christian teachings don’t really provide a rebuke to such persecutions. Interpretations of Christianity can provide a rebuke, but atheist compatible meta-ethical systems can similarly provide a rebuke to atheist abusers.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Cherry Picking Counter Examples</b><o:p></o:p><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Reynolds wants to avoid the obvious counter examples to his thesis that exist in post-Christian Europe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He states that “We will all rest easier when there is an atheistic regime that does not plunge into anti-theism and kill people.” but then goes on to claim that European nations where this is the case don’t count because the populations aren’t completely atheists, or have inherited a “Jewish/Christian morality”.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here Reynolds is playing a bit fast and loose with what atheism and theism mean. For instance, in his footnote against using Sweden as a counter example he says that 18% of Swedes believe in a traditional god and 45% believe in a spirit or life force and so Sweden is not a “majority atheistic” country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, he also refers to North Korea as an oppressive atheistic regime, ignoring the fact that for decades the country fostered worship of their supreme leader as a kind of spiritual deity. This was in fact widespread in North Korea if we are to believe the testimony of people who have escaped. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
If “believing in a spirt or life force” means that one isn’t an atheist, then North Korea can’t count because they fostered belief in the Kim’s as deities. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is just an internal inconsistency, my main problem here is how loose apologists can be with what a god is when they want to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have an atheist bring up the “I’m an atheist in 3000 gods, you’re an atheist in 2999 of them” kind of argument and you’ll get all sorts of theological opining on how the definition of God is an omniscient, omnipotent, omni-benevolent being, probably with some additional parameters of being a necessary being, or the ground of all being, and as such there can only ever be ONE of those in existence, so comparing Yahweh to Thor is making a category error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reynolds has <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2019/05/the-monotheistic-turn-toward-philosophy-and-science-against-polytheism-and-atheism-heraclitus/" target="_blank">posts from just last month</a> that bring out this theological distinction.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
But then what is an atheist? Someone who believes God does not exist.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So if an atheist believes there is no God in the strict sense that apologists insist we must use as a definition in other contexts, then someone who says they do not believe in the “Traditional god” (aka 82% of Swedes per Reynolds own quoted stats) are definitionally atheists, even if they still believe in other supernatural entities like ghosts, life forces, or karma. They may not be naturalists, but they are certainly still atheists. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In fact when you look at a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion" target="_blank">list of countries by irreligion</a> you can see that the WIN-Gallup International Association shows the totals for “not a religious person” and “a convinced atheist” combined, we get a host of majority irreligious European countries (and more) that do not have human rights abuse records. This would include Sweden, the UK, Belgium, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Canada. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Perhaps you can quibble that not all of these people should be counted as atheists; but they do count for the purposes of Reynolds argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Reynolds argument hinges on the idea that at least Christians or other religions can rebuke supposedly pious leaders who persecute people as not following their specific moral teachings where as an atheist who behaves well merely chooses not to embrace a Randian selfishness or a totalitarian ideology.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But since these countries have a majority that is at least irreligious, then they by definition are doing what Reynolds says will allow him and other Christians to breathe a sigh of relief – a majority irreligious society that can supposedly “choose” its values is choosing to not impose an authoritarian anti-theistic regime that limits freedom of thought. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Everyone Chooses Their Morals</b><o:p></o:p><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So by Reynolds own criteria we can show he is wrong, but he gets a few other important things wrong when it comes to atheists being alone in “choosing” their morals.<br />
<br />
This is no less something that any religious believer does, including Christians. There is no shortage of apologists trying to pair down a “mere Christianity”, decoupling popular Christian beliefs (eternal conscious torment in hell, penal substitutionary atonement, young earth creationism, Noah’s Ark/global flood being historical, evolution denial/historical Adam) from “Christianity itself”. This extends to a host of moral issues from marriage to LBGT rights. As LBGT rights gain acceptance we’re finding more and more Christians who insist the bible has no such prohibitions on those kinds of relationships or identities.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are 30,000+ Christian denominations with wildly different interpretations of what Yahweh finds morally permissible, or how a Christian should act within society (Dominionists aren’t exactly pluralistic).<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My point is that there is no singular moral teaching of Christianity on the question of freedom of thought or freedom of religion. If anything it is hostile, as the freedom of religion is the freedom to commit blasphemy and violate multiple of the 10 commandments that religious conservatives are so keen on erecting on government property in the US. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The point is, Christians no less than atheists ‘choose’ which version of their religion to follow, which can be good or bad. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you want to talk about Christians and religious persecution, look no further than Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism who wrote “On the Jews and their Lies” and advocated for explicit persecution of the Jews!<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Atheists vs. Anti-Theists</b><o:p></o:p><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My final point is that I seem to be a walking contradiction to Reynolds framing. I’m an atheist and I think as someone with a podcast and YouTube channel dedicated to refuting religious apologetics I think that counts me as anti-theistic. I don’t think theists should be denied rights or even necessarily be treated badly, but I think the evidence is on my side – much like Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindu’s) think it is on there’s. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Yet I still condiment he actions of the USSR, China, and other places that persecute Christians or any other religious person, even when I think those religious people hold morally abhorrent views. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
So the problem isn’t anti-theists vs. atheists vs. Christians or theists. It’s advocating for secularism and freedom of thought that Reynolds is really getting at. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This has never been something expressly Christian so much as it has been something that’s developed over time in areas where society has had to repeatedly deal with religious sectarian strife.<br />
<br />
This is a general idea and one that we in “the West” have found to work well, there is no reason to think that atheist majority societies wouldn’t carry this forward, in fact the kind of society Reynolds defines as being at risk for this sort of behavior is already carrying it forward in these liberal western European and other countries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even here it certainly isn’t being carried forward because those places have Christian heritages (South Korean and Japan are counter examples), but rather because they had to develop secular/pluralistic norms in order for their societies to grow. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-89527760883982618792019-06-04T06:44:00.000-07:002019-06-04T10:04:46.271-07:00Good Omens: Reflecting on death, heaven, and hellSo there's a new Amazon series called "Good Omens" which seems to be a BBC-like show about an angel and a demon who have been tasked by their respective sides to stay on Earth and win souls for their masters. It's a bit lighthearted on how it tackles the supernatural battle between heaven and hell, though it has serious moments trying to break through.<br />
<br />
I've not finished what is released so far so please don't be posting spoilers, but having watched the first 3 episodes last night I did get struck by one key moment that has relevance for the atheist/philosophy of religion game.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The premise of the show is about how the demon and angel have become unlikely friends over their centuries on earth and are taken aback by their sides starting the events which will kick off Armageddon, the war to end the world. They are now working diligently to try and avert the Antichrist from coming into his power as an 11 year old boy to kick off said end of the world.<br />
<br />
One episode takes us through their friendship through the centuries. Eventually they get close enough that the demon Crowley asks the angel for a "suicide pill" in case things ever go pear shaped. Aziraphale, the angel, immediately refuses; saying he can't risk helping a demon in such a capacity.<br />
<br />
A few hundred years later we see the demon planning a robbery on a church with some followers, afterwards we see the angel show up unexpectedly, not wanting Crowley to risk getting harmed at the robbery he has delivered to him what he wants to steal - the suicide pill - holy water.<br />
<br />
It is then revealed that Crowley is to be very careful with the container, because the holy water will not just destroy his body, but everything about him. A real "suicide pill" for a demonic spiritual being, something that will truly end his existence.<br />
<br />
Now I've no idea if it gets used or will be destroyed before Crowley uses it, but given that there supposedly will be a Season 2, I'm guessing not yet.<br />
<br />
Still, this sort of 'loophole' to the generic concept of being stuck in either a heaven or a hell that is central to the Christian mythos is pretty interesting. The show is allowing for a "third way" to simply cease to exist.<br />
<br />
Honestly, I think if I found out that there were such things as heaven and hell I would so desperately wish for a suicide pill option, something to avoid either heaven or hell. There's just something about the idea that my ultimate destiny is beyond my control that I find repulsive; I'm ultimately a pawn that will be cast into one of two piles and frankly if those are the options, I wish to be able to avoid playing the game entirely by being able to cease to exist.<br />
<br />
EDIT: I've realize that ceasing to exist when I die is as much beyond my control as being forced to go to heaven or a hell when I die; so the above point is not quite right. I believe what I'm really feeling here is that I take solace in the fact that when I die, I cease to exist. I find comfort in the idea that if everything goes pear shaped, if I want off this ride, I can get off.<br />
<br />
I think if I made it to heaven I'd probably ask that of whatever god ran the place; if going into heaven didn't so fundamentally change me that I no longer wanted to cease to exist.<br />
<br />
<b>Preserving Autonomy</b><br />
<br />
The latter point is what Christians think solves any of the apprehensions some have to the idea of an eternity in heaven, especially if it turns out to be some kind of perpetual church service where we just praise god <i>for eternity. </i>The idea is "well you'll <i>want to do that</i> once you get there!".<br />
<br />
The thing is, I'm not sure the idea of an infinite church service is all that appealing, even when I was a believer. I mean I accepted the latter explanation, that if it was, that when I'm in heaven I'll just want to be doing that, but there is something to be said of preserving my autonomy.<br />
<br />
What does preserving my autonomy mean? It means being able to maintain my desires and preferences.<br />
<br />
Consider a scenario where you don't like a particular activity, lets say golf for example.<br />
<br />
If you hear that heaven entails a never ending golf game, where you just continually tee off for all eternity and not get sick of the game. That's not particularly appealing if you currently don't like golf in the first place. Heck it's not appealing if you love golf but the idea of only playing the same thing for eternity is going to wear thin after a while.<br />
<br />
Saying that "Well don't worry, when you get there you're going to be in a state where you want to do nothing but play golf!"isn't going to help if I don't want to "want to" play golf. I'm perfectly happy in my non-golf enjoying state; I happen to like other games far more, what about playing those?<br />
<br />
At this point you're effectively talking me into a pleasure machine thought experiment. Once I step into the pleasure machine it won't matter what happens, I'll just axiomatically be happy, even if things happen which I would currently believe would make me incredibly sad, or things that ought to make me sad.<br />
<br />
The thing about pleasure machine thought experiments is that ultimately we are horrified by the idea of just axiomatically being in one state, even if it's pleasure, regardless of what's going on. The thought experiment reveals to us that our autonomy is important to us.<br />
<br />
<b>Wanting to Change?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
That all said, I'm not completely sure I'm convinced that autonomy is the end of the story, or the highest priority. After all it is not hard to think of situations where I want to be able to change things about myself. A common refrain you hear from some LBGT people who find themselves in a society/family that oppresses them is that they wish they could just 'take a pill' and be straight/cis/whatever so the problems society pushes on them would go away. I can think of areas in my own life I wish I could change about my disposition - that I enjoyed exercise more or that I'd be able to control my appetite better. So my attachment to preserving my autonomy it's not purely about preserving my current states as they are right now.<br />
<br />
Still, part of my preferences now are that I wish to improve my willpower and dedication to doing things good for myself, including want to improve my diet and exercise regimen. Perhaps I will be able to accomplish that goal, or I must make peace with what I am and accept it. Still, I can also say that while I can think of areas I may want to change, I can think of areas where I wouldn't want my preferences to change. I am prone to sarcasm and humor, joking often even in serious situations or while working in stressful situations where I'm part of a team under pressure. That's part of what makes me, me. We are in some part, maybe fully, defined by our desires and dispositions. I don't want to not be that guy in the group, or to change that facet of my personality.<br />
<br />
<b>The Theistic Counterargument</b><br />
<br />
I think this plays into the theistic response to the line of argument I'm developing here. I believe the Christian or theistic counter argument to all this is to say that "but praising god is praising goodness itself, and so you should want to be such that you always do the good thing, which would entail wanting to exalt the good!"<br />
<br />
In order to steelman this idea a bit, I think we should explore what it means.<br />
<br />
The reply effectively boils the entire debate about preferences for heaven vs. non-existence away and makes it about the nature of the good. I'm ignoring hell here since hell is defined in such a way that you axiomatically don't want to be there.<br />
<br />
On reflection the areas I wish I could change myself are in areas that are normative: health being one, but moral. All of us could stand to be better people, to always be kind even when we're having a bad day or circumstances make us predisposed to be a pain (my lack of sleep caused by my toddler is an acute example).<br />
<br />
By making goodness center on the nature of a god, we axiomatically would want to change such that we better reflected goodness. Any desire we'd have to preserve our autonomy in ways that go against that good would be rooted in a sinful/rebellious nature.<br />
<br />
<b>Does it work?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Here's where I'm supposed to be The Counter Apologist and explain why such a theistic response <i>obviously </i>fails. Thing is, I don't think I can say it fails. I don't think it necessarily works either.<br />
<br />
I think it punts.<br />
<br />
Much like in Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, Christianity has warrant "if it is true". I've heard this called "the punt to metaphysics" in his epistemology and I think we come to the same kind of point here.<br />
<br />
If goodness is really rooted in the nature of a god, then the counter argument works. If it does not, then our instincts to preserve our autonomy in our preferences is not misguided and the idea of heaven actually is as revolting as I now imagine it to be.<br />
<br />
Reflecting on it leaves me still on my side of preferring non-existence to heaven. Much like the LGBT example, the story ends up with the truth that those people realizing that they can't (nor should they want to!) change themselves in their dispositions, and so the stories with a happy ending is them changing the society they find themselves in (by leaving their situation) and living in a place that accepts them for who and what they are.<br />
<br />
But it's incredibly important to know WHY I come to this conclusion: <u>Because I'm not convinced theism, let alone Christianity is true.</u><br />
<u><br /></u>
<b>I Could Be Convinced</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Lately I've had a lot of debates about the resurrection of Jesus and miracles in general. A repeated theme is the fact that verifiable miracles do not occur, at least in our present day. I hold that if those were to start occurring and I could get a scenario where I can empirically verify a miracle was happening, I'd convert. I've already <a href="http://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2017/02/are-there-rational-justifications-for.html" target="_blank">written about how verifiable miracles could be used to prove the truth of Christianity specifically</a>, let alone theism more generally.<br />
<br />
If that were to happen, I'd have a <i>lot</i> to change. I'd have to completely rework my conception of what "goodness" is in general, moving from a view that goodness doesn't exist in it's own kind of platonic form but rather is relative for "goodness for" something to embracing goodness being it's own entity based on nature of god.<br />
<br />
As it is, given my lack of miraculous demonstration, and my evaluation of what goodness is, I don't see the theory of goodness being rooted in god's nature as very plausible.<br />
<br />
<b>The Lynch Pin</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Ultimately this kind of thing is what under girds so much of the theist-atheist disagreement.<br />
<br />
The problem of evil, or gratuitous evil follows from what one thinks about good and evil in general.<br />
<br />
The Christian can say that goodness is rooted in god's nature and so therefore there are no gratuitous evils because god could only create a world where the evils that exist are the ones that have moral justification for allowing, even if we don't know what that justification is.<br />
<br />
An atheist accepting another account of good and evil (say non-natural moral realism of Derek Parfit) would be able to point to some examples of evil that would consequently have no justification for their existence under that moral theory, and so would instead say that yes, gratuitous evils exist, therefore there is no god.<br />
<br />
"One person’s modus ponens in another persons modus tollens." comes into play here, and our pre-commitments to seemingly unrelated views are going to inform our conclusions on this kind of side issue.<br />
<br />
One thing I'm stuck with after all this reflection is just how seemingly impossible it is to be able to prove one side or the other; regardless of how strongly I feel about my convictions.<br />
<br />
What I'm left thinking is that if I'm going to continue the atheist advocacy hobby of mine, it's going to necessitate a change in approach.A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-13278447992172578052019-05-10T10:41:00.000-07:002019-05-10T10:44:56.000-07:00Randal on Miracles and Historical ExplanationBelow is a response to Randal Rauser's <a href="https://randalrauser.com/2019/05/miracles-resurrections-and-historical-explanation/" target="_blank">blog post</a> about our exchange on the resurrection argument. Please do check out Randal's blog for some background info.<br />
<br />
Your first reply is that we can discuss the resurrection question without invoking the concept of a 'miracle'; but I think the example you give is seems flawed in a number of ways relevant to the argument for the resurrection of Jesus (RoJ) and I think you may be smuggling in a 'miracle' through the back door when we get to RoJ.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"All one needs is to look for evidence that a person was alive at T1, dead at T2, and then alive again at T3. If a person begins to live after having been dead, that is resurrection (at least in a minimal sense, if not the robust eschatological sense assumed in Christian theology). And one can look for evidence of that type of occurrence without ever considering whether it constitutes a “miracle” or whether it is, in some sense, “supernatural”."</i></blockquote>
<br />
Its possible that I could agree with your statement, though it's going to depend on what you mean by 'resurrection'. This is going to be related to what you talk about in your second reply however, because these things are interrelated.<br />
<br />
For instance, I have no problem thinking a 'resurrection occurred' after reading about a medical procedure where a person was alive at T1, declared dead at T2, and then alive again at T3 - with only a specified minimal amount of time passing between T2 and T3; or perhaps some kind of explicable technology keeping someone in a kind of biological stasis between an extended T2 and T3 - but even then it'd require some kind of additional explanation and pretty good evidence for the latter occurrence, since we have no knowledge or experience of such technology working.<br />
<br />
The details of T1, T2, and T3 matter. Given what we know of the world today, it's not too surprising to hear of the sequence of T1-T3 if the time frame is short between T2 and T3. But then I wonder if such an account counts as a 'resurrection' in your view?<br />
<br />
This is because as many apologists argue during debates about RoJ, the thesis is not that "Jesus rose from the dead naturally; but rather that god rose Jesus from the dead'". In which case, a resurrection only occurs when 'god raises a person from the dead' - then I think you are necessarily invoking a miracle when you're trying to prove that someone was 'resurrected' in this sense.<br />
<br />
This isn't just a fact about resurrections, it's about things that wildly violate our background knowledge. God, if one exists, doesn't just raise people from the dead. He could, presumably, go about doing that around the world today, if he so wanted. So even on granting theism, our background knowledge of god raising people from the dead is extremely low.<br />
<br />
A parallel example would be about someone being on earth at T1, being on the moon at T2, and then being back on earth again at T3. We have an instance of multiple people fitting that criteria in our history, but again the details of time difference between T1, T2, and T3 matter here. If I told you I was on Earth at 1PM EST 5/10/2019, and was on the moon at 1:05PM EST 5/10/2019, and then back on Earth again at 1:10PM EST 5/10/2019 - you'd require some pretty extreme evidence of such a thing because our background knowledge about how one travels to the moon, the time it takes to get there, and who gets to go there is very specific. If I tried to assert that god or aliens transported me there in a fraction of the time it'd take to make the trip as a human, doesn't really decrease the amount or quality of evidence we'd need to justify a belief in such a thing.<br />
<br />
This is what I mean when I say our experience of the present is used to interpret the past; not some nonsensical principle that <i>"for X to be a legitimate explanation of a past event, X must be presently observable (i.e. “regularly and verifiably in the present day”)."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
After all, if we had regular contact with aliens, or we sufficiently advanced our technology to Star Trek levels, it would not at all require much evidence to believe that moon sequence I discussed above.<br />
<br />
So it is with claims about resurrections and our current experience of the world. I have no problem with a resurrection being investigated between T1-T3, in fact I may well accept some of those claims (if resurrection doesn't by definition require god's actions), for specific times between T2 and T3. But when we get to the argument for RoJ, the time between T2 and T3 is sufficiently large that for 'resurrection' to be the best explanation of the evidence we have, it's going to take a lot more evidence than what we have in the gospels + Christian bible to believe it as the most probable thing that occurred.A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-51152859418924255492019-01-03T04:43:00.001-08:002019-01-03T04:44:02.521-08:00Responding to Critiques on Grief<div class="tr_bq">
The response to <a href="https://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2018/12/grieving-as-atheist.html" target="_blank">my video/post about grieving as an atheist</a> has been overwhelmingly positive. I've had a lot of messages come back to me privately and on the various platforms I've posted it on and I've appreciated all of the wonderful feedback.</div>
<br />
What surprised me was to see that the <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/12/grieving-as-atheist.html" target="_blank">infamous Calvinist blog</a> mentioned briefly in the original post decided to do a response/takedown of my post. It's a bit rambly and it gets an incredible amount wrong, though it does so in a way that allows me to expand on some key points I made in the original post, so I'm going to do a rebuttal.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Instinct</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The piece weirdly begins by attacking my mentioning of my parental/protective instincts being set off at the idea of sending my daughters to a Christian church:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"</i><i>One problem with an atheist appealing to or relying on instinct is that in naturalistic evolution, instincts are amoral. Some animals instinctively protect their offspring while other animals instinctively eat their offspring–or eat the offspring of their rivals. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>So there's the question of what lies behind the instinct. In Christianity, we have some God-given instincts. Transcendent wisdom lies behind the instinct. But naturalistic evolution is a fumbling, pitiless process."</i></blockquote>
First, it's odd that he tries to say how instincts are amoral because unlike humans, some other animals instinctively eat their offspring, but then he says on Christianity we have god-given instincts. But on Christianity, that same god gave those other animals the instincts to eat their offspring!<br />
<br />
Second, he doesn't even actually refute any appeal to instinct, he only says that on naturalistic evolution there is a fumbling, pitiless process behind our instincts. So? That has zero bearing on whether or not we should follow the instincts, or if we have those instincts for a reason. On naturalistic evolution we have those instincts because they directly contribute to the propagation of our species. For humans and our biology, we instinctively protect our young. That's "good-for" humans both individually and collectively in that it contributes to our flourishing.<br />
<br />
Steve gets this wrong in a further appeal, later in the post when he attacks my preferred meta-ethic:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"In naturalistic evolution, there's nothing things are for. Natural selection isn't goal-oriented. It's a blind lumbering process."</i></blockquote>
Here he illustrates his misunderstanding of how natural selection works. It does have a goal: the survival of a species to procreate the next generation, which must in turn be able to do the same. That's literally what is "selected for" by the blind, pitiless process. Still, that isn't necessarily related to my point or to my meta-ethic which is about what is "good-for" humans. There I'm talking about what contributes to our well-being or flourishing. There are very many objective facts about that which are determined by our biology and yes, by evolution. Yes, evolution is amoral, but what I've appealed to isn't a system where evolution determines what is right in a naturalist-fallacy (ie. what happens in nature is what is good).<br />
<br />
What I'm saying is that evolution has largely determined what is good or bad for us, and acting in accordance with those brute facts in a way that contributes to our flourishing is what is good or moral.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<b>Dealing with Death</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Steve attacks my appeal to the words of Epicurus, misrepresenting the entire point. In case you didn't see, here's the quote I appeal to:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And once it does come, we no longer exist.” – Epicurus (paraphrased)</i></blockquote>
<div>
First Steve accuses me of holding a double standard in saying that instincts can't be normative while at the same time appealing to Epicurus to hold off an instinctive fear of death.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Second he alleges that this outlook on death means that there's nothing tragic about dying young, or that a murder victim isn't really harmed.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is incredibly wrongheaded. I think instincts can be normative, such as our protective instinct towards our children, while at the same time realizing the limitations of our instincts. We do have an instinctive fear of death which is rather useful, but the point of the quote is that we shouldn't be troubled by the fact that we will inevitably die. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Secondly just because the fact that we shouldn't be afraid of the fact that we will die has no bearing on whether or not dying young is a tragedy or that a murdered person is wronged. The dead do not suffer, but we see that had misfortune not fallen on someone they would have lived longer, presumably happy lives (or at least a life they'd want to continue living).<br />
<br />
But wouldn't some prefer to live forever? Sure, but that's impossible. What someone can reasonably expect is to live 6-8 decades, possibly more. Ideally in such a way that they'd want to continue living. To have that taken away from them, while they could still realistically achieve that, is what makes a premature death a tragedy.<br />
<br />
Next Steve alleges I've contradicted myself by admitting that I'm not afraid of death because I'm privileged enough to think it very likely I won’t be dead for some time:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"But that's a tacit admission that the Epicurean argument is a failure. What's comforting isn't the Epicurean argument but the buffer between life and death provided by relative youth."</i></blockquote>
The Epicurean argument is only there to stave off any existential fear based on the fact that I know I will someday die. What I meant to convey with my comment about privilege was about how I can expect a long life given that I live in an area with good medical care and I have the means (insurance) to afford it. Barring something completely unforeseen (and unlikely), I will not face some kind of debilitating disease, and I don't have to fear about a random illness being the cause of my death in the near future (as opposed to pre-modern times).<br />
<br />
The point is that I am privileged enough to think that I won't be dying sometime soon. Part of that is relative youth, part of it is my situation. That said, I don't believe I'll be any more afraid of death when I'm in my 60's or 70's. I may be more likely to die then, but I will have had a pretty full life by that point, especially given my current position.<br />
<br />
After all, though I'm not an Epicurean (I just liked this particular bit of wisdom), they did fear having a painful or agonizing death. The quote doesn't address that at all, it's not even meant to. This would refute Steve's examples of knowing I'd end up in a vegetative state where my mind was active but my body was paralyzed.<br />
<br />
Ironically in those cases the philosophy I do align with (Stoicism) speaks about suicide as an answer. In those cases I would want to end my own life. In these cases the fact that I will experience nothing after death <b>is a comfort all its own!</b> The worst thing isn't experiencing nothing, it's experiencing unending, hopeless pain. The fact that "the door is always open" to end my existence is itself comforting in the face of such contingencies. This is why I will have a living will about ending my life if I were to end up in that kind of state.<br />
<br />
Finally, what gets me is that Steve disdains appealing to philosophies like Stoicism:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Notice that he's grasping at the secular alternatives. Epicureanism plus Stoicism."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Except that like most atheists, he's in denial. He takes sedatives like Epicureanism and Stoicism to numb the gnawing pain of his position."</i></blockquote>
What is so strange is his painting of Stoicism or Epicureanism as a "secular alternative" or as a salve. Atheism is one singular position on one metaphysical question. It is not equivalent to nihilism, nor does it entail nihilism.<br />
<br />
In fact Stoicism, Epicureanism, or even a host of other philosophies are compatible with atheism. Those are indeed full fledged philosophies, which address things like what it means to live a good life. These aren't "alternatives" to atheism. They're philosophies. If you want to address atheism, you're going to have to deal with atheists who hold to these philosophies, but poor Steve doesn't want to do that. That'd be hard.<br />
<br />
It's much easier for him to build a strawman of atheism entailing nihilism and burning that rather than dealing with positions atheists actually hold.<br />
<br />
This ties in to the next topic where Steve goes off the rails.<br />
<br />
<b>Hell</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Steve alleges I've got a cartoon version of hell that is "theologically immature" (LOL). He goes on to furnish his own idea of what hell is supposed to be like:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>"Although I think damnation is conscious and eternal, I doubt it's uniformly "torture". I think hell is probably an extension and intensification of what we find in this life. People make their own hell. Consider nightmares, which are a product of our own imagination. Hell may well be like a bad dream that you never awaken from–which makes it worse. A projection of your own character and imagination. The more evil you are, the worse hell will be for you because your evil imagination will furnish the infernal dreamscape.<br />Indeed, it's like a collective nightmare which you share with others. It mirrors their character. Externalizes what lies within. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>It wouldn't surprise me of hell is compartmentalized. In some cases there may be solitary confinement. In other cases, people of the same kind may share the same space. Worse people with worse people. It may also be the case that all the damned become progressively worse over time. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>That's theological speculation, but if an atheist is trying to make me squirm, that's only effective if his objection matches my idea of hell. If he's operating with a different idea of hell, then his objection bounces off my own position."</i></blockquote>
Elsewhere he goes on to say:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>i) It doesn't bother me if some of the damned are screaming in hell. Some of the damned took fiendish delight in making their victims scream when they were alive. So their eternal fate is poetic justice.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>ii) I doubt all the damned are screaming in hell. That's a cartoon version of hell. </i></blockquote>
First off, Steve immediately admits that at least for some, hell is eternal conscious torture - and he likes that fact! He's glad that some of the damned will scream forever because of how bad they were in life!<br />
<br />
This is incredibly immoral by any standard. Here on earth, in the USA, we have a constitutional amendment banning the use of torture as punishment. We consider it immoral to torture, even the worst offenders among us. Are we more moral than Steve's god, who supposedly will torture at least some of the people in hell?<br />
<br />
Second, if anyone has a cartoon version of hell, it's Steve. It's a cartoon entirely of his own making, to avoid the force of the argument from hell against his version of Christianity. He says that it wouldn't be torture to be forced to endure an unending nightmare. I wonder if he thinks that in the upper portions of hell where people share space if there will be any joy or happiness in there. Like the jokes about bikers saying how they're going to be drinking beer with their pals for eternity in hell. What about sex? Will there be lots of fornication I wonder? Or is it all bad, deprived from having any joy and happiness, forever?<br />
<br />
So at best, this would be a kind of mental torture, distinct from the burning flames Steve thinks some of the damned will suffer from. Of course mental torture is still torture, and any kind of eternal existence would be torturous if one doesn't want to live forever in any state.<br />
<br />
I wouldn't want to live forever, heaven or hell. At some point, I'd want to have my existence end. Being forced to exist forever would itself be torture.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, this is all the more ironic given Steve's criticism of how I'd handle hard truths as being hopeless vs. hopeful. There is literally nothing more hopeless than the idea that the majority of humanity is going to be stuck in an eternal hell!<br />
<br />
What Steve gets wrong again is that having no experiences at all (ie. death on atheism) is infinitely preferable to continued suffering for eternity. Much like a quick death is preferable to going into a mind-trapped paralysis where you slowly wither away for years in a bed before death finally claims you.<br />
<br />
As I said in the original post, atheism is <i>far preferable</i> to his Christianity.<br />
<br />
Before I move on, I'd just like to point out the silliness of Steve's "theological speculation" about hell. First off, the bible is full of references to hell as including fire, burning, suffering, etc. Some Christians try to metaphor that away as best they can, but when their head honcho, one crossy-boi Jesus Herschel Christ tells a parable that includes a depiction of hell, it is someone burning, begging for a tiny bit of water to cool his tongue.<br />
<br />
It's incredible to interpret that away as a description of hell given all the other biblical references of hell include notions of burning and despair.<br />
<br />
But hey, it's basically impossible to argue scripture with believers. They can just adopt a hermeneutic to interpret whatever conclusion they want from their holy texts.<br />
<br />
<b>Sin</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Steve tries to alleviate some of my criticism about Christianity having to convince you that you're sick in order to sell you the cure of Jesus.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Quite apart from Christian revelation, humans are often miserable, and make each other miserable, even when all their material needs are provided for. We need love, yet we have a great capacity to hurt and be hurt by those we love the most. Not to mention a cruel streak. Consider all the atrocities humans commit. Consider the divorce rate. Consider how often we turn to drugs and alcohol because we find life unbearable, even in–or especially in–affluent cultures. You can put humans in an earthly paradise, come back in a few years see how they made it hell on earth. Why is that?</i> </blockquote>
First off, his ideas don't map to reality. He's painting only the bad parts of our existence and leaving out the good. For all the atrocities committed, there are still those who love and care for each other. There is still joy, people living happy, fulfilled lives. His idea that you could put is in an earthly paradise and come back to find it a hell on earth is ridiculous. The happiest places on earth right now are largely atheistic, or have majority non-Christian populations. Entire generations of people have lived and died in those societies, many of whom have lived happy fulfilled lives. Nothing will ever be perfect, but we have have societies that generally provide for human well being, allow us to flourish, compared to other societies. On the whole we already know what those places can look like, we don't have to go much further than Scandinavia.<br />
<br />
<b>Hard Truths</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
First we come to the idea of why Steve framed his question in terms of a 6 year old girl vs. a 50 year old. I had accused him of poisoning the well by going with the framing of a young child. Here he replies:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"No, the reason I asked about the 6-year-old rather than the 50-year-old is because the original context was about talking to a child about death. Indeed, your very own child. <b>And I flipped it around to a dying child rather than a dead grandparent because that's a more emotionally acute example.</b>"</i></blockquote>
Emphasis mine. So he used the framing of a 6 year old because it was about talking to a child about death...and the fact that a dying child is more emotionally acute. There's a reason he didn't frame it as "what how would you tell a 50 year old that their 6 year old grandchild is dying" or the other example. There's no clear symmetry here, he's simply admitting to doing exactly what I accused him of because it's more emotionally acute.<br />
<br />
Next, consider where I spoke about what I'd tell my 6 year old daughter if she had a terminal illness and I thought she could handle the truth:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"If I was an atheist (which I used to be, as an adolescent boy), I'd have no hesitation in telling my dying child a comforting lie. Why does he think he has a duty to tell a dying child the truth if a lie would be more comforting? Is his priority about protecting the child's feelings–or protecting his own feelings?"</i></blockquote>
<br />
He then addresses the immediately following section where I talk about what I'd do if I thought my daughter couldn't handle the truth about an immanent death and so I wouldn't tell her she was dying, but would just comfort her instead:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"He's right that we need to give age-appropriate answers." </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Actually, that's the response of a conflicted parent who's torn between comforting a child and telling a child the truth." </i></blockquote>
What Steve misses is the fact that in the case where the child could handle the truth I would tell them because we all have an overriding desire to know the truth. Most of us would rather know what's really going on if someone told us they could tell us the truth or give us a comforting lie. Of course if the child couldn't handle the truth emotionally, I would tell them the comforting lie anyway to save them from worse pain.<br />
<br />
This paints the situation as bad (on atheism) if I were to not tell the lie to the young child, regardless of whether or not they can handle the truth. The implication is that on theism, Steve would have a reason to tell the truth.<br />
<br />
But this is where Steve ends up in exactly the same position I espouse! He says he'd effectively lie when presented with the Christian's version of the dilemma about telling a child someone they loved was in hell:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"That depends on what the child is able to grasp at that age. No point giving them an answer they can't understand, even if that happens to be the right answer."</i> </blockquote>
So it's OK for the Christian to not tell a hard truth to a child that can't handle or understand the answer. Presumably, if the child could handle the hard truth, Steve would then actually tell them the truth...which is exactly what I said I would do in that situation as an atheist.<br />
<br />
Isn't this then Steve giving "the response of a conflicted parent who's torn between comforting a child and telling a child the truth?"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSmTvDDjq1zahFFJq-AlsWpBkSADGEE0fckDaBmTNavg5YQfxWP-ey8URnJfbN-kA14PAkQofvgEjpUzdziDXaAI6tnaVnQ2ahFW4H81ClDbFmGpBcRVu42DpFNfdOmyez5cS3zvwmAlc/s1600/WTF-jc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="396" data-original-width="625" height="202" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSmTvDDjq1zahFFJq-AlsWpBkSADGEE0fckDaBmTNavg5YQfxWP-ey8URnJfbN-kA14PAkQofvgEjpUzdziDXaAI6tnaVnQ2ahFW4H81ClDbFmGpBcRVu42DpFNfdOmyez5cS3zvwmAlc/s320/WTF-jc.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Steve tap dances around the idea of a child's loved one being condemned to hell, saying how a Muslim or Hindu would hate to be stuck in the Christian heaven, not quite mentioning how they'd prefer non-existence to suffering for eternity in the Christian hell.<br />
<br />
He tries to paint Christianity as better equipped to deal with "hard truths" because on Christianity there are no "hopeless truths":<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"there are some answers–if true–that no one could emotionally process if they were honest with themselves."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"There is, though, a crucial difference between hard answers and unmitigated despair. There's nothing to redeem the grimness of atheism. Atheism is unremittingly bleak all the way down."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
First off, he's gaslighting by saying that I or other atheists are not somehow emotionally processing the fact that my father is completely gone, and that I will someday be gone. He alludes to this earlier by saying that a Stoic would feign resignation and resolve, but it would be play acting.<br />
<br />
The entire point of my post was how I'm processing grief and how I'm helping my child process it as well. I'm utterly honest with myself with what the situation is and I'm OK with it. My child is also doing OK with it.<br />
<br />
However his second point makes even less sense because as I mentioned before nothing could possibly be more hopeless than being stuck in an eternal hell which his Christianity entails!<br />
<br />
Like I've said before, atheism is far preferable to his Christianity. There is no eternal suffering, and when there is even hopeless finite suffering in this life, there is always "an open door" to end it. This is because there are far worse fates in this life than death (suffering paralyzed and unable to communicate for years, torture, etc), and there are far worse fates than non-existence if life after death were even possible (eternal existence, hell).<br />
<br />A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-69609068806963376262018-12-17T20:47:00.000-08:002018-12-17T20:47:48.871-08:00What christians get right about deconversion <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I've been following Christian theologian and apologist Randal Rauser's <a href="https://randalrauser.com/2018/12/the-problem-of-christians-becoming-atheists/" target="_blank">interview series</a> with apologist John Marriott on his book about deconversion and how to prevent it. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There is quite a lot I'd like to say on the topic, at least in critique of why John's (and purportedly Randal's) solutions are ultimately not good reasons for someone to remain a Christian; but that's not my aim today. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here I want to offer some agreement with their assessment of deconversions and one key area of why they happen that they touched on in their <a href="https://randalrauser.com/2018/12/the-solution-to-christians-becoming-atheists-part-2/" target="_blank">final post</a> in the series.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The idea is that of plausibility structures and how Christians need to maintain a plausibility structure through the use of their churches.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Here's the relevant part of their discussion:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">JM: The third counter measure we can apply in helping believers maintain faith in the midst of a secular culture that makes them feel akin to an adult believing in Santa, is to find good communities of faith that reaffirm the biblical narrative we indwell. Authoritative communities like local churches (and to a degree the global church) act as plausibility structures, the necessary social framework for belief maintenance. Space prevents me from saying too much here about plausibility structures and the crucial role they play in faith formation. But I would encourage readers to pick up Peter Berger’s The Sacred Canopy. In it Berger demonstrates the role and importance of the church, specifically church communities, in providing legitimacy to the biblical narrative. This was true not only in the Middle Ages, but also in our own. Being around healthy, biblical communities that reinforce the truth of Christ through preaching his word, worshipping him and loving each other well, can powerfully counter the faith draining effect our secular age can have on faith formation and maintenance.</span></i></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I agree that modern life in 'western' or secular nations make maintaining belief in traditional religions like Christianity hard. I think that's largely for good reasons, as modern life falsifies a number of Christian moral teachings, but that's an aside. I want to talk about how staying in a church or in a connected community of believers is going to help believers keep their faith. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I want to give some anecdotal evidence to help support John's conclusion here, based on <a href="http://counterapologist.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-deconversion-story.html" target="_blank">my own deconversion</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">I was very active in my church, spending 8 years on the sound team, being the first to arrive on Sundays most of the time, being a trustee, and being in a small group. When I started to have my doubts about the truth of Christianity, being in the church had a socializing effect that at least could assuage my doubts in that it made me not focus on them quite as acutely as I otherwise would have. This is key, but I need to lay out some ancillary issues to highlight why.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">As John and Randal get into earlier in the series, other doctrinal issues in Christianity are stumbling blocks: belief in a young earth, believing the falsity of evolution, the doctrine of hell, theories of atonement, views on the morality of LBGT relations, etc. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">I didn't have all of those beliefs, but I had some of those issues that while their falsification were a big part of my deconversion it wasn't quite in the way John and Randal describe.<br /><br />Their idea is that once we have those ideas tied to our notion of Christianity, the falsification of one of those ideas leads to the entire edifice of Christian belief tumbling down. Their solution is to have Christian belief be as minimal as possible (and while they don't say it, as unfalsifiable as possible). This would allow a variety of views on these 'side' doctrinal issues while preserving the number of people professing what they call 'mere Christianity'.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />My main problem with this approach is that my deconversion wasn't as simple as they allege and I doubt it was for most others, especially those who go from Christian to atheist. I had explored alternative views, LBGT affirming interpretations, universalist interpretations, etc. Interpretations where the flood was allegorical, the genocides weren't actually commanded. I simply didn't find any of those views remotely plausible. Of course they are trying to address general cases, and in their view my case may be an exception rather than the norm.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">What I've long suspected is that the key to apostasy is getting oneself to the emotional place where you are ready to really question the foundation of your beliefs. I believe the issues John and Randal identify have the problem of being falsifiable questions which when tied to the overall Christian belief in an individual, forces them to either abandon a shallow belief (as John and Randal believe is the general or common case), or to truly question core Christian and metaphysical beliefs and subject them to the kinds of evaluation standards we'd apply to other problems - which leads to non-theism or atheism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The latter is what happened to me, and it's why I'm now an atheist. But how does this relate to my point of agreement with Randal and John about churches being vital to maintaining belief in a secular age?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">It boils down to the fact that humans aren't completely rational animals. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Let me be clear, I think on a purely rational appraisal of the evidence for and against any specific religion (say Christianity) or even theism in general, one is going to end up at least as a non-theist.<br /><br />But we are not purely rational, we are swayed by emotion, instinct, and our social context. When you're in a church and part of your social circle is strongly influenced by the commitment of ones belief to certain doctrines, as it will be in a church social community - you're going to be inclined to rationalize away the problems with your view. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">In my own case, I had two very distinct sets of social groups with near zero overlap. I had my church friends and my geek friends. My wife and I were closer to our geek friends, but we still liked our church friends. In fact not long before apostasy we were involved in a close church small group for I think 2 years.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">What changed? I took a temporary work assignment to live in another country, Randal's own Canada. Because my wife had recently been laid off before the opportunity arose, she got to come with me and live there while my employer paid for accommodation and meals the entire time.<br /><br />I worked a minimum of 50 hours a week, often far more, so we weren't really going to church services on a Sunday, as that was one of the brief times we'd have to spend together. Plus there's the whole "what church do we go to in this foreign place?" question. Especially since a lot of churches in that part of Canada had services in French rather than English.<br /><br />It was then that my doubts intensified significantly, and I was "socially free" to explore them without any recluse to my church and small groups to provide an emotional need to anchor myself back into belief when the fundamental questions came up. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">I think that in this case, I was left to just work through the rational side alone, and per above, I came out a non-theist at best. By the time the assignment had ended and I was back in the states, I tried to talk to my small group and pastors, but near zero progress was made. I tried to go back to my faith as my wife didn't immediately deconvert, but that process eventually convinced her that Christianity was false as well, and we had little desire to attend services as that process wore on. Even while I was an atheist trying to go back, my wife was somewhat disillusioned with the conservative aspects of our church anyway (especially given the questions I was raising about hell and LBGT issues). Those issues caused cognitive dissonance before, but we had stayed previously for the people. <br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">In fact we really missed some of the people, especially those in our small group, but the apostasy made us not really want to interact with them, our main connection effectively severed. What's more is that we had our own social group that consumed most of our time, and not long after our first child was on her way. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">I'd like to think that had I not taken that business trip, I'd still be an atheist today, it just would have made the journey take longer and be more painful. But if I'm honest, I can't say that with complete certainty. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">If we had our first child while still attending church, it would have increased the social costs of apostasy by orders of magnitude, depending on when the doubts would have really taken hold of me vs. the age of my daughter. There is a reason the most effective ministry for bringing new members to our small and dwindling church was the children's ministry.<br /><br />All of this relates to what I like to think of as 'the psychology of apostasy', which is an often neglected aspect of both atheistic arguments and apologetic discourse. I think I can present the best case for atheism possible, that on a logical and evidenced based evaluation of the situation, one will come out a non-Christian and a non-theist; but if the social costs for the recipient of this are too high, there's always going to be an out - a logically possible way for them to reconcile their beliefs somehow.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">And if I'm 110% honest here, the inverse is likely true. I don't think that one can make a logical and evidence based case that really gets one to the truth of Christian (or Islamic, Judaism, etc) theism; but if there was, if the social costs were high enough for a secular or atheist person, they can rationalize their way into staying in their unbelief as well. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">That fact should probably inspire some humility in all of us who engage in these conversations. </span>A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com5