Monday, June 11, 2018

Excusing Muhammad

James White posted a rejoinder to Wood et al. 


1. I'll begin with a few general observations. White accused them of misrepresenting his position. I'll revisit that allegation, but for now I'd like to make a technical observation. There are two ways to misrepresent someone's position:

i) Misquote

ii) Misinterpret

In the case of (i), you misrepresent what they said by providing an inaccurate summary or paraphrase. That can be intentional or unintentional. In the case of (ii), you may quote them verbatim, but misrepresent what they meant. That, too, can be intentional or unintentional.

To some extent, we're becoming a postliterate society. Reverting to oral culture. Nowadays you can make your own video by talking into a camera, then uploading that onto the internet. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, it makes it very likely that most viewers will summarize or paraphrase what you said rather than combing through the video to find where you said something, then manually transcribing what you said. If, by contrast, you respond in writing, then it's much easier for people to locate what you said and quote you verbatim. They simply copy/paste. In some cases an automated transcript is generated. That's very helpful. The takeaway point is that if you want people to accurately represent what you said, then you need to make it easier for them to quote you by expressing yourself in writing. 

2. White recycles a number of his talking-points which I critiqued in my two previous posts. He simply ignored that. That's his prerogative. But it's a problem for him, not for me, when he ignores counterarguments. That means my objections went unrebutted. 


3. White likes to drape himself in the mantle of "the Gospel"–or what he's pleased to call the Gospel. He says the Gospel is his "matrix". His ministry is "Gospel-focussed". That's a way of putting himself on the rhetorical high ground and demoting his critics. 

Suppose I said I'm not Gospel-focussed. Suppose I denied that the Gospel is my matrix. Imagine the gasps. Imagine the hay that White would make of that admission. But is it really such a damaging admission? It all depends on the point of contrast. The Gospel is not my matrix…compared to what? What's the alternative. If I say the Gospel is not my matrix, if I deny that I'm Gospel-focussed, is that statement inclusive or exclusive of the Gospel?

Suppose I said my matrix isn't the Gospel; rather, my matrix is the Bible. Or my matrix is Christian theology and Christian ethics. Well, that sounds very different. 

White's "Gospel matrix" is reductionistic. If to be "Gospel-focussed" stands in contrast to the Bible generally, or Christian theology and ethics in general, then his formula is suddenly exposed as defective. 

Indeed, White bifurcates evangelism from ethics. He feigns concern about evangelism while his critics only care about "politics". Yet taking prudent measures to protect innocent men, women, and children from sharia, jihad, and dhimmitude isn't "politics" but social ethics. We have a standing duty to protect our families from gratuitous harm. That's only "political" insofar as social ethics overlaps with law and public policy. 

Suppose I'm a young muscular dude who's jogging in the park when I hear a lady scream. I dash through the bushes to the other side to find a pickpocket mugging a little old lady. What should I do? Whip out a Gospel tract or flatten the mugger> If I flatten the mugger, will White wag his finger because I prioritized "politics" over "the Gospel". 

Suppose I say my first order of business is to protect the old lady from being hospitalized by the mugger. Later I'll contact the chaplain to pay a visit to the mugger in jail. Will White wag his finger becasue I'm making "politics" secondary to "the Gospel"? You only have to strip away White's sophistical rhetoric and false dichotomies to see how vacuous his position really is. 

4. Moreover, he misrepresents Wood. Wood didn't say the Gospel is secondary or "tacked on". Rather, Wood made two different points:

i) Many Muslims won't give the Gospel a fair hearing unless you undermine Muhammad's credibility.

ii) Even if some Muslims deconvert from Islam without converting to Christianity, that's still an improvement over their killing, raping, torturing the innocent. That's still better than WWIII. 

5. White accused Jon, Vocab, and Wood of misrepresenting his position:

The sad fact is I had to open the windows to let all the smoke from the burning straw men escape from the room…because it wasn't my argument obviously…getting twisted…[They said] we shouldn't mock Muhammad because the Muslims might mock the Bible or the OT. Of course I never said anything remotely similar to that. 

Let's compare that to what White originally said:

But the other thing is, and this is a real problem in my perspective, and that is, this could be used in reverse. One of the things that keeps me from addressing at least in that type of fashion so much of what's found in the Hadith is the fact that I know that we have to be able to consistently provide an answer for materials for example that are found in the OT that many people fine to be extremely troubling…An atheist could very very very easily produce the kind of mocking, deriding video about the Bible that are being produced about the Hadith, and we would have to ask for fairness and balance in analyzing the background, placing it in its historical context…in the same way the serious-minded Muslim can make the same appeal to contextualize and make modern application…When someone pushes Muhammad as being the example of all things, then instead of mocking him and opening up the door for a mockery of the OT…contrast him to Jesus.

So they didn't misrepresent him. Rather, he misrepresented what he originally said. In his latest rejoinder he's adding ex post facto caveats he didn't mention in his original response, but acting like that's what he said all along, then accusing critics of misrepresenting what he originally said. He's now offered a much more qualified statement, but backdated that as if critics misrepresented what he said, when in fact they were responding to what he actually said at the time. Blaming them for failing to comment on something he said before he said it.

6. Apropos (5), his says his position is about "consistency". "Equal scales".  Having the same standard of argumentation for the Bible and Muslim sources alike. But Wood already addressed that comparison. Among other things, Wood said:

That response–you're opening up things in the OT to mockery–that's the parallel to you shouldn't criticize jihad because then people can point out that there's violence in the Bible. Well, there are lots of differences between violence in Islam and violence in the Bible…the final marching orders are different, so the takeaway message is very different about violence.

Either you think there's no better reason to believe the Bible than there is to believe the Muslim sources–in which case I have no idea why you'd invite a Muslim to Christianity if you don't think the case is any better or any more true…or you believe the Bible is superior–in which case, mock away.

The situations are also different in that when you look at all of these very very odd teachings from Muhammad and you ask, I see tons of silliness, what reason do I have on the scales to outweigh this silliness…if you had really good reasons to believe he's a prophet…amazing miracles, so we have to trust him. Do you have that in Islam? Suppose you read the OT and you're confused about all these passages. Do you have good reasons to believe it's the word of God even if you couldn't find any justification for these passages? Yeah, you've got Jesus rising from the dead.  

Even though White's latest response was supposedly a rejoinder to what they said, he didn't begin to engage Wood's counterargument.

7. And he simply repeats his fundamental fallacy by putting the Bible and the Koran/Hadith on an equal playing field. Yet we should only treat two (or more) sources equally if they are in fact comparable. But presumably, White doesn't think the Koran/Hadith enjoys the same evidence as the Bible. So there's no presumption that the Koran/Hadith isn't as bad as it appears to be. Why is White unable to absorb that elementary distinction? 

8. White accused Wood of contextual mockery. Wood failed to acknowledge the explanations and contextualizations that Muslim scholars have been offered. But that allegation raises several issues:

i) Since White is raising the objection, if he thinks some of those explanations successfully domesticate the offending passages, then the onus is on him to present those explanations for our inspection. But if he doesn't find those explanations plausible, then why should Wood take them seriously? Even if Wood had a burden of proof to take those contextualizations into consideration, White shoulders a corresponding burden of proof. He can't shift the onus onto Wood when this is White's objection! It's incumbent on White to contextualize those passages if he thinks that's plausible.

ii) Naturally the videos reflect Wood's interpretation of the Hadith. And perhaps he's familiar with how some Muslim scholars try to defang those passages, but finds their explanations unconvincing. 

iii) Wood's interpretation doesn't prevent Muslims scholars from responding to his videos by proposing alternative interpretations. If and when that happens, the debate is joined. Wood doesn't have to make their argument for them. He can wait and see how well they respond. 

9. Just a few weeks ago, didn't White lambast Andy Stanley for unhitching Christianity from the OT? But when Wood, Vocab, and Jon cite OT precedent to authorize their methods, White's reaction is to unhitch Christianity from OT ethics!

10. The point of citing examples where apostles and prophets depart from general guidelines is to demonstrate that these guidelines are, at best, prima facie duties rather than universal, unconditional duties. If they allow for exceptions, then they're not absolute.

This is, moreover, an ironic problem with White's contention that we're not allowed to do what they say and do. A telltale mark of a false prophet or cult leader is that he exempts himself from the rules he imposes on his followers. Muhammad is a classic example. The NT warns against spiritual leaders who "lord it over" the laity (Mt 20:25; 1 Pet 5:3). That militates against a double standard, where spiritual leaders are allowed to do what's forbidden for laymen. 

11. White says Ezekiel was a specific prophet, called to a specific situation, sent at a specific time, to the covenant people of Israel. Of course, the same could be said for Moses. By White's logic, Mosaic prohibitions against rape, sodomy, and prostitution are defunct. The Decalogue is obsolete. Christians are free to commit idolatry, adultery, perjury, theft, and murder. Yet it's my impression that White subscribes to the London Baptist Confession of Faith, which says the moral law was codified in the Decalogue (19.2). So it's much too facile to dismiss OT ethics in toto. 

White is committing the same fallacy as egalitarians who contend that because Paul's teaching about manhood and womanhood was occasioned by particular situations, therefore his teaching is timebound. But the fact that some ethical injunctions arise in response to topical circumstances doesn't entail that they have no more ultimate basis. These can be general principles or universal principles which come to light as the occasion demands. There was no biblical prohibition against murder until after humans began to murder each other. That doesn't mean the prohibition is culturebound. But there's no point outlawing wrongful behavior if no one commits it. Some crimes depend on certain technological developments. But that's not what makes them wrong. Yet it was unnecessary to make it illegal it before anyone was in a position to do it. 

12. White thinks atheism is more dangerous than Islam. He cites examples like Stalin and Mao. 

No doubt both are very dangerous, but he overlooks the cumulative impact of Islam over the centuries. Stalin and Mao inflicted massive suffering while they were alive, but because Muhammad founded a world religion, he has an enduring influence that they do not. Arguably, Muhammad is responsible for far more human suffering than any other man who ever lived, due to the geographical latitude and chronological longitude of his influence. Just consider the ongoing impact of his pernicious doctrine and example in time and space. 

13. Rich Pierce asked Wood, Vocab, & Jon: 

Are you men actually accountable to elders? did you ask them to view this work before you aired it?

And in his rejoinder, White reiterated and expanded on that very point: 

They're not elders, these are laymen. Are you under the authority of elders. Do you have an ecclesiastical responsibility?

Does this mean White thinks laymen must have permission from their elders for what they say and do? Advice and consent? 

If a Christian bachelor wants to marry a woman, must he obtain the consent of his elders? If a Christian couple want to have a third child, do they require pastoral approval? Does White think elders are the official groups? 

30 comments:

  1. Re your 12th point:
    (This isn't a defense of White per se, but going off a pragmatic perspective on the issue)

    To remind ourselves of the current cultural climate:
    We live in an ever more atheistic and secularised culture, where man worships himself. Christianity is losing influence in the West. God is dead to most westerners, and we see an increasingly decadent culture where inter alia baby murder and sodomite 'marriage' are celebrated. Virtue is dead, sin is in. This cultural trend has its roots in modernity and doesn't seem to be slowing down.

    With this in mind, deconverting Muslims from Islam and ending up with even more irreligious people will further cement this downward cultural trend. It's an increase in atheism, which will hasten the day when conceptions of a transcendent reality, of a holy God, exist only in history books, in an athiest culture where nothing is holy except the right to maximise pleasure and hedonistic vice.

    Methinks that atheism in the long run is a bigger enemy than Islam. I think we should be careful in producing more atheists, and when doing apologetics to Muslims we should always present Christianity to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Me thinks that atheism in the long run is a bigger enemy than Islam"... In Western culture, this may seem so, but globally atheism is on decline. Globally, Christianity is growing. Further, Mao and Stalin were atheists, yes, but it's not correct to attribute the many killings under their rule solely to their atheism. They were absolute rulers that were hungry for power. They have been many rulers like that, be it Roman emperors, Hitler, the Japanese emperor Hirohito, or the North Korean Kim dynasty. The common denominator of those is not atheism - because not many of them were atheists - but they all used an ideology to back up their hunger for power. The Soviets did speak of 'scientific atheism' (whatever that may be), but it was just one weapon in the arsenal of persecution. They would also persecute other atheist if they were dissidents. For Hitler, it was the ideology of Arian supremacy, Nero and Hirohito called themselves divine and the Kims also turned themselves into idols. In the Middle Ages in Europe, many kings and the pope justified oppressing and killing people using their alleged call from God.
      So the question is: does atheism lead to repression and even killing per se? I don't think so - on the physical level. On the spiritual level - yes, like any other belief that doesn't confess Jesus Christ as the only One who can save us from sin and reconcile us with God the Father. There is no eternal life, no spiritual life without regeneration and no religion, conviction, ideology or belief that rejects the gospel is of any spiritual value.
      In the end, it's the fallen flesh that commits sin and endangers other people. The gospel is about dying to sin and being born of the Spirit (John 3). Without that, any change of belief is 'dressing up sinners' at best.

      Delete
    2. I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of Atheism. The real distinction that needs to be made is between those who believe in a single perfect being (monotheism) vs Atheism. Juche is atheistic, unless you count worshipping the supreme leader a form of theism. It is also pretty clear to me that Atheism fueled Lenin’s callousness, and ability to view human beings as cogs in a machine. You’re right, Stalin et al never said “I’m an atheist, therefore Gulag.” But that’s not very interesting. The main point: forms of polytheism and emperor worship aren’t all that different from Atheism as far as metaphysics and the foundations of morals is concerned. Both worldviews leave a lot of confusion in terms of moral obligation (Iliad and the odyssey are good examples. There is also Solyzhenitsyn’s account of the Soviet jailer who, while torturing another man said, “I give thanks to God who doesn’t exist, so that I can fulfill all the darkness in my own heart.”(paraphrase)

      Delete
    3. The last response was to Peter Laman.

      Delete
    4. "Juche is atheistic", "Stalin et al never said..." That's all true, before pointing to atheism as a bigger threat than islam, it needs to be shown that atheism in particular led them to do the atrocities they did. It's clear atheism didn't put up a moral barrier to them, but atheism in itself doesn't imply persecution. On the contrary, islam as it is described in the muslim sources (quran, sunna) is a religion that preaches spreading the religion by means of violence. Fortunately many muslim don't practice what Mohammad preached, but if they did, there would be no question about what's worse.

      Delete
    5. I dont understand this "argument from Muslims becoming atheists" (for a lack of a better term) that White has come up with. Don't we believe that it is ultimately God who changes hearts? Or do we believe it is "how" the gospel is presented that does? It cannot be both! At least I do not know of any scripture that suggests that.

      I mean, if God changes hearts, would such a changing of hearts depend on the timing of when the gospel is preached? Right at the beginning of one's presentation or apologia (like White) or later when the timing is right (like Wood)? I especially find a Calvinist talking about human efforts and methodologies affecting God's drawing his people very, very odd. I am not a theologian but something tells me the timing or the methodology must not matter much in bringing people to God - if God is sovereign. For example: my conversion occurred because of my uncle's conversations with me. BUT - Even if I had never met my uncle, I am sure God would have found other means of giving me to Christ (John 6:27). Further, my uncle's approach towards theology (and thus his discussion) was not conservative but liberal, but I believe that even if his presentation had been on the conservative side (eg. literal 6 day creation) I still would have converted. (In other words his conservatism or liberalism, or even his existence would not have affected me eventually coming to Christ.)

      So really, I have no idea where White is going with this. According to his own admission, an atheist will go in hell even if God gives him the right to come to heaven on the last day because he hates God (those are White's words paraphrased) - so should we really worry about how many Muslims would become atheists because of "our" efforts? Wouldnt they become atheists anyway, if not then than later? Or are our efforts (at preaching/presenting) so powerful that they can affect how God would work in that person's life? Aren't we better off leaving those kinds of worries with God?

      This argument is not neatly thought through by White. I dont see how we can believe in a sovereign God who himself draws people to Christ being thwarted by how the gospel is presented. Its absurd.

      Delete
    6. Editing one comment I made for accuracy:

      According to his own admission, an atheist will CHOOSE TO go in hell even if God gives him the OPTION to come to heaven on the day of judgment because he hates God (those are White's words paraphrased).

      Delete
    7. @James McCloud: I don't know JW well enough, but if he's a Calvinist who believes stricly in predestination, yes, then his position is odd. But in that case, I wonder what the point is of doing apologetics anyway.

      Delete
    8. He is a staunch Calvinist. I just did not understand this point. I am not a Calvinist and yet even I dont think that any particular gospel presentation would keep me away from Christ. (I mean God would find a way to change my heart (Rom 8:38, John 6:39). But for a Calvinist to make that argument is even more weird.

      Delete
    9. James and Peter,

      Yes, White is a Calvinist; Wood is not. I've been intentionally avoiding that aspect of it so far because I think it over-complicates the issue that is already overly complex. But, I'm thinking it probably will need to be addressed at some point because I share your confusion about White's consistency regarding God's effectual calling regarding Muslim repentance.

      Delete
    10. ***There is a typo in my verse reference in my first reply. I meant to refer to John 6:37 instead of John 6:27.

      Delete
  2. I dont understand this "argument from Muslims becoming atheists" (for a lack of a better term) that White has come up with. Don't we believe that it is ultimately God who changes hearts? Or do we believe it is "how" the gospel is presented that does? It cannot be both! At least I do not know of any scripture that suggests that.

    I mean, if God changes hearts, would such a changing of hearts depend on the timing of when the gospel is preached? Right at the beginning of one's presentation or apologia (like White) or later when the timing is right (like Wood)? I especially find a Calvinist talking about human efforts and methodologies affecting God's drawing his people very, very odd. I am not a theologian but something tells me the timing or the methodology must not matter much in bringing people to God - if God is sovereign. For example: my conversion occurred because of my uncle's conversations with me. BUT - Even if I had never met my uncle, I am sure God would have found other means of giving me to Christ (John 6:27). Further, my uncle's approach towards theology (and thus his discussion) was not conservative but liberal, but I believe that even if his presentation had been on the conservative side (eg. literal 6 day creation) I still would have converted. (In other words his conservatism or liberalism, or even his existence would not have affected me eventually coming to Christ.)

    So really, I have no idea where White is going with this. According to his own admission, an atheist will CHOOSE TO go in hell even if God gives him the OPTION to come to heaven on the day of judgment because he hates God (those are White's words paraphrased) - so should we really worry about how many Muslims would become atheists because of "our" efforts? Wouldnt they become atheists anyway, if not then than later? Or are our efforts (at preaching/presenting) so powerful that they can affect how God would work in that person's life? Aren't we better off leaving those kinds of worries with God?

    This argument is not neatly thought through by White. I dont see how we can believe in a sovereign God who himself draws people to Christ being thwarted by how the gospel is presented. Its absurd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apart from this, I've seen quite a few David Wood videos and debates. His goal is definitely to present Christ to muslims rather than just making them leave islam. However, sometimes people need some help to make clear in what terrible place they are before they are willing to leave and go somewhere else.

      Delete
    2. Peter, Islam is THOROUGHLY anti-Christian. I dont know if you have stayed among Muslims - I have. A few of my friends genuinely inquired why Christian believe in the absurdity of a man becoming God (although they put it gently). It is an anti-Christian religion in its very creed. You cannot go to a Muslim with a standard presentation of the gospel like you could to a Sikh or a Jain or a Hindu. Even with them you'd want to understand their position but these other faiths dont have a creed on Christ so you are free to fill them in. That is why Muhammad needs to be knocked down first.

      Man, they revere Muhammad almost more than a average Christian reveres Christ. Maybe a conservative Christian would revere Christ as must as a Muslim. White really thinks his contrast-with-Christ approach - which he hopes would appeal to their intelligence would work? Of course there is nothing impossible with God which is why I would never stop White - but can we get real here?

      That is not the case with Islam and that is what bugs me. White knows this.

      Delete
    3. ***There is a typo in my verse reference in my first reply. I meant to refer to John 6:37 instead of John 6:27.

      Delete
    4. I completely agree with you. There are these uninformed Christians who think muslims worship the same God and that there are so many similarities, because some biblical topics are also in the quran. Well, heaven and hell are both about eternity, but there are no similarities! Islam focuses on denying the core truths of the gospel: The deity of Christ, Jesus being the Son of God, the death of Christ on the Cross and the resurrection. These denials make every possible'similarity' irrelevant.
      Yes, I know muslims and talk to them. Most of them are half-informed about the real message of islam themselves and, trying to do 'dawah', they often present islam as a friendly religion. Many of them are well-meaning, but islam is deadly poison.

      As for the approach, I can see many examples of powerful words used in the bible to. Some of these could have been experienced as offensive by those who heard them.

      Acts 14:15 - "...ye should turn from these vanities..." The people of Lystra thought Paul and Barnabas were gods and they wanted to bring sacrifes to them. Paul flatly calls this 'vanity' and in fact he wiped away the entire religion.

      This is just one example. Love does not imply we always need to use velvet words. Truth needs to be told, als if this means breaking down false beliefs.

      Delete
  3. A Pew Research Center survey of U.S. Muslims. The survey found approximately 1/4 of U.S. Muslims raised Muslim leave Islam for something else. Among those who have left Islam for something else, 55% do not identify with any religion, 22% identify with Christianity, and 21% identify with other religions (e.g. Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism) or simply as "spiritual".

    To be fair, it looks like the biggest group of U.S. Muslims who have deconverted from Islam are Iranian immigrants (22%). Presumably most of them either were familiar with life in secular Iran prior to the Ayatollah Khomeini or have family members that were. As such, this survey of U.S. Muslims may not be representative of Muslim deconversion elsewhere in the world. It's possible elsewhere in the world not as many Muslims deconvert to atheism (which is typically associated with secularism), but to other religions including Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anybody can convert to atheism these days because people dont understand the scientific method that the atheists flaunt. I have studied physics at a degree level course and I love science. But science has limitations that the atheists exploit which the "religious" cant tell. One needs to know the scientific method to understand the difference, and by knowing I mean actually experiencing it. That explains, partly at least, the atheistic tendencies on the part of many Western people disillusioned of some religion or the other.

      I am amazed at the simplistic assertions, almost juvenile at that, that merely lack of belief in God causes atheism. Why isn't the scientific method discussed in Christian apologetics? Or at least the philosophy of science? This is why I am against presuppositional apologetics because it makes people lazy. Christians from this perspective dont even want to know what the scientific method (the supposed opponent) is.

      In summary - conversion to atheism among Muslims is a different subject. It has more to do with the peddling of rationality that atheists do, and much less to do with Christian methodologies.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, James McCloud. An interesting perspective which I largely agree with. If I might, I'd like to share my thoughts too:

      "Anybody can convert to atheism these days because people dont understand the scientific method that the atheists flaunt. I have studied physics at a degree level course and I love science. But science has limitations that the atheists exploit which the "religious" cant tell. One needs to know the scientific method to understand the difference, and by knowing I mean actually experiencing it. That explains, partly at least, the atheistic tendencies on the part of many Western people disillusioned of some religion or the other."

      I'm in a scientific field as well (doctoral level).

      I agree there are a lot of scientifically illiterate people who are too easily persuaded by atheism simply because atheism touts they're on the side of science as opposed to religion or faith.

      Of course, the real debate isn't between science and religion or faith, but between atheism and theism (Christianity in our case). After all, just as there are plenty of world class scientists who are atheists, so too there are plenty of world class scientists who are theists.

      "I am amazed at the simplistic assertions, almost juvenile at that, that merely lack of belief in God causes atheism."

      For a corrective, here is Graham Oppy's definition of atheism (Oppy is a leading philosopher and atheist):

      Atheism is the rejection of theism: a-theism. Atheists maintain some or all of the following claims: that theism is false; that theism is unbelievable; that theism is rationally unacceptable; that theism is morally unacceptable." G. Oppy, "Arguments for Atheism," S. Bullivant & M. Ruse, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism (OUP, 2014), 53.

      Delete
    3. "Why isn't the scientific method discussed in Christian apologetics? Or at least the philosophy of science?"

      While I'm no Christian apologist (at best I'm a dilettante in Christian apologetics), from what I've seen and understand, I agree it'd be good if more of this was discussed among Christian apologists.

      That said, there are Christian apologists who do discuss these issues and more. Several fine Christian philosophers of science include: Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, J.P. Moreland, Del Ratzsch, Alvin Plantinga has weighed in in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies, Tim McGrew though more from a historical perspective (e.g. Paley, Reid), John Lennox, David Wood would probably enjoy bringing philosophy of science issues to a popular apologetics level rather than Islam, Jonathan McLatchie is not a philosopher but he's a scientist (PhD in molecular and cellular biology if I recall) but he's certainly quite competent in the philosophy of science at a popular level, etc.

      As an aside, I don't think there's a single "scientific method" that's agreed upon by all scientists. Most scientists mean things like observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and inductive reasoning when they refer to "the" scientific method. But how each of these is instantiated in practice can vary significantly. Not to mention there are other arguably legitimate scientific methods which don't neatly fit into these categories.

      "This is why I am against presuppositional apologetics because it makes people lazy. Christians from this perspective dont even want to know what the scientific method (the supposed opponent) is."

      Personally, I don't completely hold to a single school of apologetics. However, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss presuppositional apologetics. You might check out someone like James Anderson for a start. He's a professor at RTS and an excellent presuppositionalist. I think his book Why Should I Believe Christianity? is an excellent read from a presuppositional perspective. And he's certainly not lazy! :)

      "In summary - conversion to atheism among Muslims is a different subject. It has more to do with the peddling of rationality that atheists do, and much less to do with Christian methodologies."

      A good book to read in this regard is John Lennox's Has Science Buried God? as well as his Gunning for God.

      Delete
    4. James McCloud,

      You have made some good observations in various threads on this Wood versus White issue, but you got slightly carried away with your strange broadside against presuppositional apologetics. While some presuppositionalists are indeed very lazy, presuppositional apologetics itself, when rightly applied, is very far from a 'lazy' method of apologetics. A good presuppositional apologist certainly ought to be familiar with the scientific method and the philosophy of science. I fear you have encountered the lazy presuppositional alologists, and have made a rash, some might say 'lazy' generalisation of presuppositionalism :)

      Delete
    5. @James McCloud - You asked "Why isn't the scientific method discussed in Christian apologetics?" Some do, like William Lane Craig, or John Lennox. Last year I read the book "Jesus among secular gods", by Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale. They do cover the subject.

      My own background is in computer science and math and I am well aware of the merits, but also the limitations of science.

      By its very definition, the scientific method rests on observation, which implies that it is limited by what can objectively be observed. God is supernatural by definition and He can never be subjected to a repeatable scientific experiment. That is simply a limitation of the scientific method. So the claim made by many atheists they don't need to believe in God, because they have science, is nonsensical. He is of a different order. It doesn't make sense to look for God as if He is inside the natural world, since we know he isn't. If He were, He wouldn't be greater than the natural world, so he wouldn't be God in the biblical sense. The idea of finding God as part of nature is self contradicting.
      John Lennox recently said: "There is no confict between science and faith, but between theism and atheism. There are brilliant scientists on both sides. 65% of all scientific Nobel Prize winners in the 20th century believed in God.".
      Science can't say anything about the existence of God.

      The sad thing is that an increasing number of people think science has disproven God and therefore they no longer believe.

      Delete
    6. Epistle of Dude,

      In my reply above I said, "Why isn't the scientific method discussed in Christian apologetics?"

      I guess that qualifies as my most carelessly worded reply in the last decade. I was so fixated on critiquing White that only his approach came to mind. Of course I am aware of Dr. Craig, Turek, Licona and the gang.

      >>>For a corrective, here is Graham Oppy's definition of atheism (Oppy is a leading philosopher and atheist):

      I see many atheists not subscribing to that definition anymore. One example I can think at the top of my head is Matt Dillahunty.

      >>>As an aside, I don't think there's a single "scientific method" that's agreed upon by all scientists.

      I am aware. All definitions change, and in cosmological physics the definitions become even more loose-handed. How else do you explain the bizarre confidence in the multi-verse theory, to give one example. Carrol and Weinberg consider it a strong possibility - based on what? Math?

      >>>I think his book Why Should I Believe Christianity? is an excellent read from a presuppositional perspective. And he's certainly not lazy!

      I mean if the scientific method (the most basic iteration of it which would factor observations, theorising, testing and predicting) is not even factored in your approach, in modern discussions especially origins-related questions or evolution-related questions - you will be at a huge disadvantage. Personally I think that person will loose on intellectual grounds.

      I'll explain it below as I not exceptionally unclear in my last reply. :)

      Delete
    7. Danny,

      >>>You have made some good observations in various threads on this Wood versus White issue,

      Thanks. :)

      >>>but you got slightly carried away with your strange broadside against presuppositional apologetics. While some presuppositionalists are indeed very lazy, presuppositional apologetics itself, when rightly applied, is very far from a 'lazy' method of apologetics.

      Well - I wasn't very clear on what I wanted to say, and in fact (accidentally) uttered a remark which was factually wrong. I did view the Bahnsen debate, and it did come across as intelligent - but I am not sure how he would have managed to answer some of the other questions people of the science age would have.


      >>>I fear you have encountered the lazy presuppositional alologists, and have made a rash, some might say 'lazy' generalisation of presuppositionalism

      To be fair, my exposure to presuppostionalism is restricted to its use by some apologists - and I have not extensively read on the matter. So yes, I guess I could be completely wrong. Maybe I have only come across the lazy ones (and the perspective of my post was White and he definitely is lazy with respect to accounting for science). You see, unlike White I do entertain the possibility of being wrong - wouldn't be the first time. :)

      Delete
    8. REASON FOR INTERJECTING PRESUPPOSITIONALISM TO WOOD/WHITE CONTROVERSY

      Disclaimer: My views are based upon how I have seen presuppositionalism used in apologetics, especially by White, so (some of) my comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

      I guess some clarifications are in order. Much of what I said in my first reply was in the context of White/Wood controversy. White has a simplistic view of the world. For him, apologetic methodologies (presentation of the gospel) is the major variable (since he did not mention any other variable) that can move a disillusioned Muslim to atheism. But this alone would not explain the deconversion of Christians in Christian churches to atheism, not to mention the increasing of the nones. Atheism is projected not only as a viable option, but a truly rational one. That is the real pull towards atheism that is unique to the last few decades. Atheism is projected as based on facts - data. The new definition of atheism is, "it is a lack of belief in God," (as in because of lack of evidence) a cleverly worded definition that makes it look like a fact-based approach.

      That is one of the major reasons why, IMO, atheism is on the rise. I admit there are many other factors, but the "intellectual satisfaction" and the social acceptability of being scientifically oriented is very powerful. White ignores this problem, because he feels the scientific method is not worth discussing.

      Relevance here? Well, the relevance is Dr. White. Wood is not the first Christian apologist White has gone after. All the names mentioned in the above replies, and their non-presuppositional approach, or their positions are vehemently critiqued by White. Check his DL for topics on Mike Licona or William Lane Craig. I have seen a few other Calvinists espouse similar feelings. Their solution is that the gospel is best defended by way of presuppositionalism, and that alone. And that is a problem. And that is why I went after it (because it is White's only recommended apologetics methodology, and since we are talking about the problem of atheism, it serves discussing it.)

      Personally, I dont have a problem with presuppositionalism itself, if its proponents leave others alone to use their methodologies. But White doesn't. I dont find presuppositional apologetics (or at least the way White uses it) convincing as someone who has studied science. I dont find the answers presup-apologists come up with (supposedly by their application and use of presuppositionalism) overly convincing, and that is important because if your primary approach in reaching to people is an approach that squares you against current scientific understanding - would it be surprising to see that some people move away from supernatural religion?

      Tying this back to White/Wood controversy: White said/implied that Wood's video series would drive Muslims to atheism simply because the gospel was not mentioned. But even if the gospel was mentioned, would a critical Muslim (the Muslim leaving Islam could be safely assumed to be critical) not want to reanalyse his very belief in God? Would that Muslim not want to see what critics of Christianity say? He/she would have already found out the truth about Islam from its critics, wouldnt they want to double check Christianity to ensure history does not repeat itself? And if per White, other apologetical methodologies are removed, if this person only had access to presuppositional apologetics would he still want to remain a religious person, much less a Christian? Not necessarily, but that is White's implied assumption and I am questioning it.

      Delete
    9. continued...

      Let me justify, with but one example, why I find presuppositional apologetics scientifically challenging in the way I have seen it used, especially but not limited to White. It is not so much presuppositionalism itself, but some of the conclusions its adherents come to. You ask White how the universe was created, after establishing the problem with each of our presuppositions, he is likely to tell you that Genesis 1 is how it happened literally. But if you push him to explain the physics of it - he will likely deflect your question or not even entertain it (I have not even seen him discussing the scientific ramifications of that claim - and while he may not be a scientist, he is supposed to know what his conclusions would pit him against). Would White come across as someone having an intelligent position? Not if you have done physics, and if you remotely take the scientific method, not to mention the discipline itself - seriously. Not even if you have NOT done physics (or any science), but critically consider these things. In fact, many ex-Muslim atheists reject religion as a sham, because such questions - which currently have scientific answers - are not addressed properly these apologists. More on this later.

      While I did not get a chance to directly discuss these issues with White, I did get a chance to ask Jonathan Sarfari on these issues on Facebook last year. He suggested that the earth was created in 6 days, and the laws of physics that we observe now basis which we back track our time to 13.7 billion years was actually introduced 6000 years ago. (I dont know if Sarfari is a presuppositionalist, but his conclusions are that of White.) I replied, "Great! Now can you show me your cosmological model in math? Because if you want scientists (physicists in this case) to take you seriously, you need to give a proper physics theory." He completely ignored that. Sarfari is a physical chemist himself, and is far more qualified in his field than I am in physics - yet such scientific considerations escape him. Now imagine a disillusioned Muslim, or even a lay Christian, witnessing our interaction - which would sound more intelligent? Playing by the rules of physics which works, or merely asserting something based on an ancient text.

      This debate at the Bahsen conference is also a fine example where presuppositional apologetics does not come across as very intellectually persuasive to me, yet that approach is the ONLY approach that Dr. White would have us use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKIVV48LOk

      Again, all of the above is in the perspective of White talking about the rise of atheism, and the sole use of his methodology. If your sole methodology does not even DISCUSS the main so-called (pseudo-) competition out there (science), in this age you are toast.

      Most ex-Muslims, the popular ones at least, I have heard talk who are now atheists is because they find religion to be a scam, because God is a myth. They base that conclusion at the feet of our scientific understanding of how the world works. They finally have access to a world-view that they feel is intellectually not only justifiable, but also the most probable. Science has made atheism lucrative.

      When the apologist who reaches out to Muslims has views contrary to the current scientific understanding, and without scientific reasons - you will grant the atheism the intellectual edge.

      Delete
    10. Peter,

      >>>So the claim made by many atheists they don't need to believe in God, because they have science, is nonsensical.

      I don't think its that simple. The real problem is not the incapability of science in dealing with God, but the "need" to believe in that "hypothesis"? In a scientific world where our scientific understanding helps resolve all of our physical problems (to the extent it can) why would someone want to believe in God? I think that is the prevailing mindset among modern atheists.

      But there are other problems, especially with regards to Christianity. The biggest problem from the scientific perspective with Christianity are its teaching in Gen 1 and 2 literally being taken to be true. There are other miracles, but those can be explained away by saying, "it was a miracle so by definition scientific laws would not apply," but the cosmological origin and evolution question cannot be dodged that easily.

      White's methodology forces him (or it appears to be forcing him) to ignore that problem or undermine that problem. So does a rational person go with where the evidence takes him (our current scientific understanding of the above questions - even if they are far from settled - or does him choose to interpret Gen 1/2 literally because a particular approach suggests that. (Again, the context is White's application of pre-sup arguments).

      Delete
    11. Danny,

      >>>I fear you have encountered the lazy presuppositional alologists, and have made a rash, some might say 'lazy' generalisation of presuppositionalism

      One final comment on this: When the ones I come across who subscribe to presuppositional apologetics keep ignoring the scientific-method, it is fair to assume that that methodology makes them do that. I don't know if that would make me lazy, but it would make objections prima-facie in nature based on my experience.

      But you did make an interesting point, and I plan to reassess my views. To balance my views on pre-sup apologetics - can you share names of people who have subscribed to presuppositionalism while discussing the scientific method or scientific "issues" pertaining to Christianity? Video or book recommendations would also help.

      Delete
    12. Hi James McCloud! :)

      I think you raise a lot of good and important questions and concerns over the best approach to atheism, science, presuppositionalism, and so on. All worthy issues to discuss! And many issues I'm likewise quite interested in. That said I don't want to derail the post which is about Wood vs. White's approach to Islam. So I'll just make a few remarks if that's okay:

      1. While James White is a fine apologist in terms of defending the NT and dealing with Christian cults/religions (e.g. Mormonism, Catholicism), I would not say James White is the best person to go to when it comes to atheism, science, or any philosophical issues (such as transcendental arguments for God aka TAG, which is a bread and butter argument in presuppositionalism). In fact, I would say White is quite weak when it comes to science and philosophy.

      2. By contrast, militant atheist types typically deploy arguments involving science and philosophy. Hence James White wouldn't be the best equipped Christian apologist to handle these arguments. Instead I'd recommended people like:

      James Anderson (two PhDs, philosophy and computer science, both from the Univeristy of Edinburgh)
      Doug Axe (PhD, chemical engineering, California Institute of Technology)
      William Dembski (two PhDs, mathematics from the University of Chicago, philosophy from the University of Illinois at Chicago)
      Ann Gauger (PhD, biology, University of Washington)
      Guillermo Gonzalez (PhD, astrophysics, University of Washington)
      John Lennox (two PhDs, mathematics from the University of Cambridge, philosophy from the University of Oxford)
      Jonathan McLatchie (PhD, cell biology, University of Newcastle)
      Stephen Meyer (BS in physics, PhD philosophy, University of Cambridge)
      Tim McGrew (PhD, philosophy, Vanderbilt University)
      J.P. Moreland (BS in chemistry, PhD philosophy, University of Southern California)
      Alvin Plantinga (PhD, philosophy, Yale University)
      Del Ratzsch (PhD, philosophy, University of Massachusetts)
      Neil Shenvi (PhD, chemistry, UC Berkeley)
      James Tour (PhD, chemistry, Purdue University)
      Greg Welty (PhD, philosophy, University of Oxford)

      3. This is just a list for starters too. I'm sure I've forgotten to include many others who are very good. And I haven't bothered to include secular scientists and philosophers, even though ironically they can be a source of dissent against other secular scientists and philosophers!

      4. Both Graham Oppy and Matt Dillahunty are atheists, but I daresay Oppy is far more intelligent and accomplished than Dillahunty! There's just no comparison. Oppy is a world class philosopher of religion who holds a bachelor's degree in mathematics and a PhD in philosophy from Princeton University with many notable publications on his CV. I don't know if Dillahunty even holds a single degree. (Not that degrees are everything, but they're not nothing either.) Dillahunty operates at a popular level, which is important to address because that's where the majority of people operate, but Dillahunty is more akin to the Ray Comfort or Ken Ham of atheism than the likes of Oppy or, heck, even another populist like Christopher Hitchens.

      5. As far as presuppositional arguments, James Anderson has compiled a good list here.

      Likewise Steve Hays has addressed presuppositionalism and related issues on Triablogue if you run a search (e.g. here, here, and here).

      6. Last but not least, Star Fox is a fun game, James McCloud! :)

      Delete
    13. >>>Dillahunty operates at a popular level, which is important to address because that's where the majority of people operate, but Dillahunty is more akin to the Ray Comfort or Ken Ham of atheism than the likes of Oppy or, heck, even another populist like Christopher Hitchens.

      The atheists are winning at the popular level, brother. The arguments from New Atheism are nothing more than sophistry and rhetoric - but they come across as convincing at first glance - and for most people, their opinions are formulated at first glance. A well-read person will know the criticism from atheists philosophers themselves of the New Atheist arguments - but does your regular Joe know it?

      Second, if some atheists do not want to subscribe to a classical definition of atheism, can you force them? The new definition, "atheism is absence of belief," (subject to evidence provided being the implied line) - is created to remove atheism outside of a belief-system. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of one, they say. Can you really make a case that other atheists shouldnt use a definition because a smart philosopher on their side defines it differently? I am not sure you can, or that it would be fair. I think it would be fair to rebut that definition, but an argument from authority would not help. BTW, I think one atheist philosopher has rebutted that definition - Dr. Craig mentioned in passing - and the rebuttal is on the lines of "if atheism is the lack of belief in God, my dog is an atheist, my chair is an atheist," in other words, the definition is too vague and therefore meaningless.

      Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

      Coming back to the topic, did you read Ryan's post on alpha and omega ministry blog? What a load of sophistry. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2018/06/11/bricks-of-salt-in-the-hands-of-believers/

      Two quick responses. Ryan said,

      "This line does in fact exist, as difficult to discern as it might be, and we have plenty of examples of these types of lines that shouldn’t be crossed throughout scripture. Consuming alcohol / Drunkenness (Galatians 5:21), Eating food / Gluttony (Proverbs 23:20-21), Resting / Laziness (Proverbs:30-34, 1 Timothy 5:8), Seasoning with Salt / Coarse Jesting (Ephesians 5:4)"

      My response: all of those things are ACTUALLY doing it. David did not actually suckle on a nipple. Or is he suggesting that even to act like a drunkard is a sin (when one is not really drunk?)?

      >>>"Quoting Vocab, how does someone “show the absurdity of sin, without sinning”, in regards to Ezekiel 23, using a visual medium such as YouTube? Can we all agree that an Egyptian male with the member of a donkey and the issue of a horse is absurd? I think we can. Since that’s the bar or line Acts17Apologetics is employing, does that mean Christians are free to visually represent it? This is your degree of offense that Christians aren’t supposed to surpass, right?"

      My response: Why would you want to show that? Because you want to satirise the "weird stuff" (White's description) of the Bible? More importantly, and even if you do,:

      1. If you don't show the actual penis in any way (I didnt see breasts in David's videos), AND
      2. Dont have someone (or some horse) ejaculate on camera, AND
      3. You are doing it to bring people to God as a first step (which would be weird considering you want to satirise the Bible - but David's videos are seen by him as a first step in preparing for the gospel so this context is relevant).

      THEN I think it should be fine. If it is good for the goose, its good for the gander.

      But given that you would be at least failing condition 3, no, a Christian should not engage in such a satire against the Bible. Sorry, poor analogy.

      Delete