The Nature of the Atheist/Theist Debate (A Response to Braxton Hunter)

(Note: What follows is a transcription of the video) 

Arguments when I was a Believer

 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.

Non-theists, what arguments (if any) for Theism did you find convincing when you were a Theist? What changed your mind?

— Adherent Apologetics (@AApologetics) September 27, 2020

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. 

 So lets get into the specifics here.

Resurrection Discussion with Randal Rauser and Robert L. White

So last night I took place in a informal discussion with Randal on Robert L. White's YouTube channel.

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.

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.

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!

Countering the Resurrection Argument (Full Version)

(Note: What follows is a transcription of the video)

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.

That would just sound crazy. 

Right?

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. 

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:

Countering the Resurrection Argument (Short Version)

(Note what follows is a transcript of the video)

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.

That would just sound crazy. 

Right?

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. 

This assumption goes unstated when apologists use the argument for the resurrection, but it is absolutely central to the argument. 

Book Review - Conversations With My Inner Atheist by Randal Rauser

 

Noted Christian theologian and apologist Randal Rauser has a new book with a rather provocative title: Conversations With My Inner Atheist. 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. 

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.

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. 

Spoiler Alert: Randal doesn't disappoint. Let me tell you why.

Love, HIddenness, and Why I'm Nearly Done

I'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.

This is a critique you'll hear often against metaphysics or philosophy in general, but I wanted to give a concrete example.

Enter this Capturing Christianity article aimed at responding to Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness Argument. The author Brett Lunn is describing Christian philosopher Michael Rea's response.

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.