Empty suits

Christian apologist and biologist Jonathan McLatchie recently dueled with a Street Epistemologist: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm9JVm6suvg&feature=youtu.be

Street Epistmology is a wedge tactic devised by militant atheist and hack philosopher Peter Boghossian. His elvish little helpers have been dutifully implementing their Master's program. The idea is to make Christians admit doubt under questioning, then use that aperture to widen the opening, in hopes of talking them out of their faith. In the course of the comment thread on Facebook, I had impromptu exchanges with two Street Epistemologists. It rapidly becomes manifest that they are empty suits. 

(I've reformatted the exchange for clarity.) 

Hays 

Reid is completely out of his element the moment the discussion shifts to specific evidence. Then he wants to talk about hypothetical undercutters rather than discuss the actual evidence.

Reid

Oh, I don’t think we should hold our beliefs with certitude.

Hays

Does that include your belief that we shouldn't hold our beliefs with certitude? 

Reid

The belief scale question is useful for me because 100% usually means the belief is not open to revision.

Hays

Is your belief that we shouldn't hold our beliefs with certitude open to revision? You've indicated that you're 100% certain that we shouldn't hold our beliefs with 100% certitude.

On a scale of 1-100%, how certain are you that we should hold no beliefs with 100% certitude? Are you 100% certain that we should hold no beliefs with 100% certitude? 50%? 30%?

I take it that you're uncertain regarding the nonexistence of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. After all, 100% certitude regarding their nonexistence would be an unrevisable belief. So what percentile would you assign to your confidence regarding their nonexistence? Are you 70% regarding their nonexistence? What would lower your confidence regarding their nonexistence?

Reid trots out the alien abductee comparison, which is a stock maneuver by atheists:

i) One difficulty with crediting alien abductee reports is a presumption that it's scientifically impossible for aliens to overcome the vast distances. By contrast, there's no scientific or metaphysical presumption against the possibility of miracles.

In addition, there are many well-documented cases of veridical miracles. For instance, scholars like Craig Keener and Robert Larmer have published examples. 

ii) In assessing alien abductee reports, we must make allowance for the copycat syndrome, as well as the impact of science fiction movies and TV dramas. 

iii) There's a middle ground between abductees made it up whole cloth and abductees really encountered extraterrestrials. In some cases they may be reported a genuine experience, but they reinterpret their experience in terms of the cultural categories available to them. Science fiction supplies an interpretive grid. 

For instance, Prof. David Hufford (UPenn) is an expert on Old-Hag Syndrome. He thinks some abductee reports reflect a genuine encounter, yet not with extraterrestrials. Rather, abductees reinterpret Old-Hag syndrome in ufological terms, due to the pervasive pop cultural conditioning of the sci-fi genre.

Doug 

Maybe Yahweh did a miracle in helping aliens travel over great distances.

Hays

That's cute rather than acute. Christian theology is neutral on the existence of intelligent life on other planets. If Yahweh miraculously enabled aliens to travel to earth, that wouldn't be a defeater for Christianity. 

Doug

Maybe the gospels also suffer from copycat syndrome.

Hays

i) Apocryphal Gospels from the mid-2C and beyond do suffer from copycat syndrome. By contrast, the four canonical Gospels are arguably from the 1C, at least three of which probably date to pre-70 AD (perhaps all four). There are multiple lines of internal and external evidence for their historical authenticity. 

ii) Keep in mind that I don't deny that some alien abductee stories may have a basis in fact. I'm simply skeptical that the underlying fact involves aliens from outer space. And Hufford's explanation is not a naturalistic alternative. 

Doug

Maybe some experiences in the early Christian church were reinterpreted in terms of cultural categories available to them?

Hays

There was no cultural expectation that a crucified messiah would be revived. By contrast, sci-fi stories about aliens from outer space are a pervasive feature of the pop cultural environment. 

Doug

Thanks Steve, you have some great ideas, you just have to apply them to your own belief.

Hays 

And I've just demonstrated how your off-the-cuff comparison falls flat. Do you have a sequel comment you'd like me to shoot down as well? 

Oh, and I notice that you blew right past the evidence for modern miracles. We interpret reported miracles in the Bible, not merely on their own terms, but in light of similar phenomena outside Bible history.

Doug has no interest in reading material that would lower his confidence level in atheism. He's only interested is playing mind-games with hypothetical undercutters as an evasive alternative to coming to grips with real evidence for real events.

Doug

I bet everyone here who espouses "undesigned coincidences" were believers long before they even knew about it. Am I wrong?

Hays 

What's wrong with finding additional evidence to confirm a prior belief? Scientists do that all the time.

Notice how Street Epistemologists want to talk about psychology rather than evidence. Ironically, that's a revealing window into their own psychology.

Notice the diversionary tactic of discussing hypothetical undercutters rather than actual evidence. Keep deflecting attention away from actual cases involving actual evidence.

Notice that Doug hasn't cited any actual criticism from actual "professional historians," so there's nothing on the table to respond to.

Doug

As someone who is well read on the topic, maybe you could post a criticism here?

Hays 

Not my job to make your argument for you.

Doug

Ahh. Are you unaware of any criticisms of your position or just reluctant to post them here?

Hays

You were the one who alluded to criticisms of the principle of undesigned coincidences from professional historians. The onus is on you to document your claim.

Doug

Are there any criticisms of undesigned coincidences that you've read from professional historians?

Hays 

Your tactic is amusing. You made a claim, then you attempt to shift the burden of proof onto someone else to document your own claim! The evidentiary standards of Street Epistemologists is very revealing.

By Doug's logic, if a 9/11 Truther says there's evidence that the 9/11 attack was an inside job, the onus is on critics of 9/11 Truthers to provide evidence for the 9/11 Truther's claim.

Doug

What claim did I make?

Hays

Doug resorts to the evasion of "asking questions" so that he doesn't have to provide evidence for his own position or engage the evidence for the opposing position. A transparent ruse.

Doug

Are you admitting that I didn't make a claim?

Hays 

This is what you originally said: "How did the Christian determine that the criticisms against 'undesigned coincidences' from professional historians are unfounded?"

Do these criticisms by professional historians actually exist or not? If so, then it's up to you to quote them. It's hardly incumbent on me to make your own argument for you, then respond to the argument I made for you. Pull your own load.

Douglas

I know you value truth. So it would have been better to have said "This is what you originally asked". Am I wrong that there are no criticisms against "undesigned coincidences" from professional historians? Not one?

Hays

The onus lies on you, not me, to cough up the evidence, if you have any, to support your own objections.

Notice Doug's tactic: "If that were true...would it lower your confidence?" That's the wrong way to frame the issue. We should be assessing actual evidence for actual claims rather than hypothetical counterevidence pulled out of thin air. It's revealing to see the contrast between Jonathan's fact-based position and the faith-based position of Street Epistemologists who take refuge in evasive hypotheticals. We're seeing fideistic atheism on full display.

Street Epistemologists epitomize C. S. Lewis's story about the stable of the dwarves.

Once again, Doug pretends that Christians have a duty to make his argument for him, then refute the argument we made for him. Street Epistemologists are epistemological freeloaders.

Doug

Dare to step outside your ingroup!

Hays

Dare to step into the abyss of existential nihilism.

Doug

I made 2 arguments for your side

Hays

That's a promising development. Keep moving in that direction.

Doug

I'm just asking for someone here to return the favor.

Hays

Like if a Stalinist says some nice things about Christianity, a Christian should say some nice things about Stalinism?

Doug

You sent me each a link. Can you give me a sentence each of negative evidence for the reliability/historicity of the gospels like I did? Come on, its not really that difficult is it? We all value truth here don't we? Jonathan McLatchie, surely you could type a sentence here that would raise doubt on the gospels???

Hays

i) So you demand evidence, then when we give you links, you don't bother to read them, is that it? The link I gave is satirical. 

ii) I never agreed to your demand. I never conceded that there's negative evidence for the reliability/historicity of the Gospels. 

iii) I can't type a sentence that would raise doubt about the Gospels, since that's your objective, not mine, and I don't begin to grant your uninformed assumptions. 

iv) Notice how Street Epistemologists like Doug use the techniques of a hostage negotiator. They offer throwaway concessions or disclaimers to try to gain our trust. 

But the challenge for Street Epistemologists like Doug and Reid and Anthony is that we've read their playbook. It's like watching them try to bluff their way through a poker game with their back to a mirror. Having unintentionally tipped their hand, their tactical ploys no longer work.

Doug

What hand have we tipped?"

Hays

A Manual for Creating Atheists, The Complete Street Epistemology Guide, &c.

Doug

That's not my goal. My goal is to raise doubt because I think that leads to humility. 

Hays 

What makes humility a nihilist virtue?

Doug

But if people did become Atheists, your main concern is that they'll become Nihilists and go to hell when they die?

Hays

You're deeply confused. Nothing new. I've never indicated my main concern is that apostates will become nihilists. Indeed, I've never indicated that that's even a secondary or tertiary concern. 

The point, rather, is that consistent atheism results in moral and existential nihilism. That's what your alternative represents. 

Few atheists are actually that consistent. Few atheist have that intellectual clarity or the courage of their convictions. In a sense, that's a good thing. But it's a matter of clarifying what the various options really amount to.

Doug

It seems at least in your case, being a Christian doesn't guarantee joy in one's life. I can at least laugh and have fun with many Christians I talk to in my interviews, but you just seem mad.

Hays

I'm not taken in by your fake affability. As your own literature indicates, that's just a strategic pose to make Christians lower their guard around Street Epistemologists. You're mad at Toto because he pulled back the curtain to expose the conman at the microphone.

Doug

So why am I different? I love life (sure it has its ups and downs), I think I act the same way to my fellow humans like the Christians here do. Am I just a bad atheist?

Hays 

Many apostates retain a residual Christian idealism that's at odds with the implications of their secularism. Plus the preservative effect of common grace.

Doug

What's so wrong about being an atheist as long as they are inconsistent with their atheism (in your view)? Do you think they are less moral, less loving? If one can be an atheist and not be a nihilist and a productive kind member of society, what's the problem?

Hays

Secular progressives are pushing an ever more Nietzschean social agenda.

If I had a conversion testimony, that wouldn't be relevant to assessing the current basis for my religious beliefs, 40+ years after the fact.

Doug 

Please know that I have had some of the same experiences as you guys ... I've cried in worship. I've enjoyed the fellowship of the community of believers, I've 'felt' that presence of the 'HS' encouraging, guiding, etc. I know how powerful those emotions are ...

Hays

Not my experience.

Doug

I am also extremely confident that every apologist doubts.

Hays

On a scale from 0-100%, how confident are you that every apologist doubts? 

Doug

And yet usually has to keep those doubts to a small group lest the doubt spreads to others. Would either of you gentlemen be willing to share your doubts here publicly?

Hays

There's overwhelming evidence for God's existence from multiple lines of evidence–as well as other defeaters for naturalism. 

That said, notice Doug's desperate, fanatical need for an apologist to express doubt, as if that's a damaging concession to the case for Christianity.