1. What's the best starting-point in Christian apologetics? Is there one best starting-point?
For sometime now, a popular paradigm has been to take the resurrection of Jesus as the starting-point. Increasingly, this is paired with the claim that inerrancy is expendable.
2. The choice of starting points depends in part on the forum and who makes the first move. If, say, you're writing a book-length treatment on "The case for Christianity," then you control the presentation, and you can structure the argument according to what you deem to be the most logical sequence. Here's my basic approach:
3. But in the context of personal evangelism, with its spontaneous give-and-take, you don't have that degree of control. I agree that inerrancy is not the best opening gambit in arguing for Christianity. But what if the seeker or unbeliever initiates the discussion? What if they raise questions regarding the veracity of Scripture?
There's nothing necessarily wrong with attempting to redirect the discussion away from inerrancy. One reason an unbeliever may be an unbeliever is because he doesn't know the right questions to ask. So it can be valid countermove for a Christian apologist to reframe the discussion.
4. There are different kinds of unbelievers. Some unbelievers have a few intellectual impediments, and if you clear those up, they will be satisfied. That will create an opening for the Gospel.
If you duck their questions, they will view that as an intellectual evasion. They will take that to be a tacit admission that you lack confidence in the Bible. If you duck tough questions, that makes a bad impression. That Christianity can't stand up to rigorous scrutiny. It has no answers for tough questions.
5. There are other unbelievers who aren't listening. For every objection you answer, they will move the goal post.
So one preliminary question you might ask is: "What are your real reasons? If no matter how many objections I field, that doesn't make a dent, then this is a waste of time".
You could follow up by asking what are their best objections? That's one way to narrow it down.
6. I wouldn't make the Resurrection the starting-point. For one thing, that's a rather complicated argument.
I think it's more efficient to begin at the other end of the spectrum by debunking naturalism. Theoretically, there are intermediate options between naturalism and Christianity, but once you dispose of naturalism, the intermediate options are easy to dispose of, and many unbelievers don't take the intermediate options seriously.
I'd also focus on the argument from miracles. There's a wealth of well-documented cases. I think that's more accessible than argument for the Resurrection.
As a non-believer, I agree that the best issue about which a Christian and skeptic should begin a discussion of their world views is the issue of naturalism and the reality of miracles.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suggest that the unbeliever/skeptic begin the discussion with a concession: "I cannot disprove the existence of the supernatural. I cannot prove that science can explain all aspects of human existence. I admit that a metaphysical reality may exist."
That said, the skeptic can then state the following: "I cannot prove that my naturalist worldview is the only correct worldview, but I believe that it is the most reliable worldview. It does not bother me that my worldview cannot, at the moment at least, answer all of life's questions. Many times in human history, theists have assigned events in our world as belonging to the realm of the supernatural, but with time, science has proven time and time again that the event has a very natural explanation."
And what about the millions of miracle claims in the world?
If it is true that Christians pray about every illness, and there are two billion Christians on the planet, statistics tell us that on rare occasions, illnesses which have very low cure rates, will be cured in close time proximity to the Christian prayer for healing. Therefore, these events are most likely not miracles. They are rare co-incidences. The fact that answered prayer is so sporadic and major miracles are so rare is more evidence that these events are not miracles but coincidences.
>>>I cannot prove that my naturalist worldview is the only correct worldview, but I believe that it is the most reliable worldview.
DeleteHow can you believe it is the most reliable? I mean do you have some justification for it or is it just a belief? If your justification includes your worldview's access to the scientific method of problem solving - that method is available in, and consistent with, the theistic worldview also.
Given that we do not know for a fact even the bounds of and the possibility in the natural world - to say that naturalism is the most reliable worldview (in other worlds denying supernaturalism in whatever shape or form) is putting the cart before the horse.
>>>Many times in human history, theists have assigned events in our world as belonging to the realm of the supernatural, but with time, science has proven time and time again that the event has a very natural explanation."
1. And even if they did not, the naturalist would assume that someday we will find naturalist answers.
2. Further, even if some events were mistaken to be miracles by theists - would it follow that all events claimed to be supernatural are potentially mistaken?
3. Have all the events that theists have assigned to supernatural world demonstrated to be subject to know scientific principles.
apropos 1. If one argues that eventually science would explain every such potential event - wouldnt that be a science of the gaps argument, with the underlying presumption that naturalism is all there is to begin with (from the neutral standpoint)? (Because the scientific method can only deal with the natural world).
>>> The fact that answered prayer is so sporadic and major miracles are so rare is more evidence that these events are not miracles but coincidences.
1. What gives you the impression that miracles are not supposed to be sporadic? What law does miracles obey in order that one might predict a pattern, or even discover a pattern to recognise it to be in the category of miracles or not? Even theists dont know for sure when a miracle would happen, because it is purely the will of God.
2. If miracles were not rare, would they be miracles?
3. Personally, I dont think miracles can be proven to be "miracles". One can always argue some scientific explanation for it, or against it, or plead time for an answer, or suggest a deviant natural cause (eg. maybe in rare cases dead man can rise from the rise like Jesus - we just dont it yet, but since it happened with Jesus, it is even evidence that it happens), or the like. The theoretical possibilities of explaining away anything naturalistically is endless. All it requires is a fertile mind, and a little bit of imagination.
Oh, lets not forget the alien who could have animated Jesus just as aliens could have caused life on earth, as Dawkins once said. A fertile mind, ladies and gentlemen - that's all. :)
Delete"Many times in human history, theists have assigned events in our world as belonging to the realm of the supernatural, but with time, science has proven time and time again that the event has a very natural explanation."
DeleteThat's an atheist trope, but biblical theism and Christian theology has always distinguished between miracles and ordinary providence.
"If it is true that Christians pray about every illness, and there are two billion Christians on the planet, statistics tell us that on rare occasions, illnesses which have very low cure rates, will be cured in close time proximity to the Christian prayer for healing. Therefore, these events are most likely not miracles. They are rare co-incidences. The fact that answered prayer is so sporadic and major miracles are so rare is more evidence that these events are not miracles but coincidences."
i) We need to be clear on the burden of proof. Naturalism denies miracles in toto. That's a universal negative. Therefore, the onus is on the atheist to somehow discredit every single reported miracle. By contrast, it only takes a few well-documented miracles to discredit naturalism. The burden of proof is astronomical for the atheist and negligible for the theist.
ii) Some outcomes might be explicable on either naturalistic or supernaturalistic grounds, but other outcomes defy a naturalistic explanation, which is why atheists deny certain reported miracles outright.
iii) Are miracles rare? Miracles will be underreported because most miracles happen to nobodies.
iv) It's true that miracles are unpredictable. That doesn't mean they can be discounted as sheer coincidence. Successfully cheating the casino is rare, but that doesn't make it a coincidence.
Gary,
DeleteIt's not enough to claim that miracles are rare. They can be rare by your standards, but happen often enough to be better explained as paranormal than normal. For documentation of how often miracles are claimed and what sort of evidence we have for those claims, see here.
The larger the number of alleged coincidences that are occurring around a certain individual, group, paranormal case, etc., the less likely it is that coincidence is a sufficient explanation. We apply the same sort of reasoning when trying to detect fraud in casinos (the example Steve mentioned) and in other contexts.
The reason why your fellow skeptics see a need to argue against the historicity of the miracle reports in the gospels, for example, is that coincidence isn't a sufficient explanation. If it were sufficient, skeptics could just grant the historicity of the accounts for the sake of argument and appeal to coincidence, which would save them a lot of time and effort. How many skeptics do that, though? That tells us something.
Gary
Delete"If it is true that Christians pray about every illness, and there are two billion Christians on the planet, statistics tell us that on rare occasions, illnesses which have very low cure rates, will be cured in close time proximity to the Christian prayer for healing. Therefore, these events are most likely not miracles. They are rare co-incidences. The fact that answered prayer is so sporadic and major miracles are so rare is more evidence that these events are not miracles but coincidences."
1. This brings to mind something Chesterton once said: "Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them."
2. With that in mind, it'd be better to look at specific miracle-claims rather than take a more theory laden and driven approach like yours. For example, what do you make of these:
https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/01/19/healing-miracles/
https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/from-strength-to-strength/
https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/healed-of-als/
"The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them."
DeleteLet's substitute a couple of words in that statement and transport ourselves in time back about five hundred years:
"The believers in the belief that the sun revolves around the earth accept it (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for it---they see the sun rise in the east and set in the west only to come up again in the east, day after day after day. The disbelievers of the claim that the sun revolves around the earth deny it (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them."
Just because a lot of people believe something...doesn't mean it is true.
I read your first case. I am a general practice physician. Bizarre recoveries happen. They happen to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and to atheists. The fact that Christians do not have any lower morbidity rates and mortality rates than persons of other religions and atheists who live in the same community and are of the same social class is good evidence that either Jesus is not answering prayers or that prayers to Allah, Lord Krishna, Yahweh, and random chance (in the case of atheists) are just as effective.
Delete>>>"The believers in the belief that the sun revolves around the earth accept it (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for it---they see the sun rise in the east and set in the west only to come up again in the east, day after day after day. The disbelievers of the claim that the sun revolves around the earth deny it (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them."
DeleteJust because a lot of people believe something...doesn't mean it is true.
______________________
First, anyone holding to any fixed frame of reference, including heliocentrism, is wrong. I will qualify this below. Heliocentrism is a preferred frame of reference, not a fixed frame of reference. Geocentrism, is not wrong, even though the geocentric "model" is wrong because in the model the earth is fixed/inertial.
Back to your quote: That's a bad analogy. There are scientific reasons to reject the geocentric model, not only because it has a lesser explanatory scope in terms of mathematical prediction and movement of other celestial body like the cycles of the moon, but also because earth can be shown not to be inertial. Going against this evidence, without a just cause, would be blind belief. As a Christian with training in physics I reject the geocentric view of 500 years ago because it is too dogmatic to be useful or to even make any sense.
But do belief in miracles fall in this "blind/dogmatic" belief category? Do we have scientific evidence that miracles cannot happen because there is some theorem or law that is shown to demonstrate that laws of nature/physics cannot be broken under any circumstances? Do we even remotely understand the universe that much to make such a guess? No.
P.S. The heliocentric view makes sense only in some circumstances (eg. when you are studying the solar system, or cycle of the moon, or the path of Mercury). If for example I wanted to create a map from my house to the railway station, than I would have to adopt a McCloud-centric view. Every time you drive or take a walk, your frame of reference is Gary-centric or street-centric, and not heliocentric. Cosmologists many times adopt galactic-centric view to study specific phenomena.
Point is geocentricism as one of the many available frames of reference is a legitimate frame of reference. People without physics training often dont know this. For example, if you want to understand the strength of the Earth 's magnetic field, you would be hardpressed to adopt a geocentric frame of reference. Geocentrism as a "fixed" and "only" frame of reference is outright wrong, again, because there exists no fixed frame of reference that is correct in terms of explaining all phenomena around it mathematically or otherwise.
Australia is often referred to as being Down Under - but Australians can also legitimately say that Canada/Iceland is Down Under - because there is no fixed frame of reference.
Gary wrote:
Delete---
Just because a lot of people believe something...doesn't mean it is true.
---
The reality is, people had evidence for geocentrism, starting with what they observed with their own senses. They had reason to suspect the Earth was stationary because anyone could put a drop of water on the side of a top and give it a twirl and watch the water go flying off on a tangent line to the rotation of the top, so if the Earth was spinning that would mean we ought to go flying off its surface too.
The fact is, no matter what foolish theory you decide to pick throughout history, it was always believed because of the evidence, not due to the lack of the evidence. And the only reason that anyone ever changed their mind on a topic was when a paradigm-shift happened.
Newtonian physics could not explain the orbit of Mercury, and it took Einstein thinking outside the box to explain it better. Even then, we know for a fact that many of our current theories are still flawed because there are fundamental contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics. In a decade, people could view something like string theory in the same way we currently view phlogiston.
So what you're really trying to say is "Just because a lot of people have evidence for something...doesn't mean it is true." Because what you're attacking is not the belief, but instead the evidence provided for the belief.
If you plan on going that route, you're going to have to apply it to your own view too. Unless you don't care about consistency. But if that's the case, I don't care about what you have to say.
Gary, what's your evidence that the prayers of non-Christians are answered at the same rate as Christians?
DeleteI begin with, what are you going to do with your sin? If personal sin is denied, then I go into the internal inconsistencies of such a position and how he doesn’t live according to that creed. If he acknowledges sin, then I prefer to move toward a just and holy God who cannot wink at sin. Big discussion there.
ReplyDeleteIn the final analyses, a comparison. The difference between you and me is, I need my sins paid for and a perfect righteousness that’s not my own. The difference between us is, I believe I’m personally helpless to acquire what I so desperately need to stand before God. Whereas the unbeliever is self-righteous in the truest sense of the word, I’m full of sin and unrighteousness. I thank God that I am found in Christ, having all I need in life and death. Unbelievers hope against hope. Our God is just and merciful, full of grace. The God of the unsaved isn’t holy or just, so doesn’t need to show mercy. Justification by birth is their confession.
How do you know that Yahweh/Jesus is the correct god to worship and not Allah or Lord Krishna? Answer: You studied the evidence, just as I studied the evidence. You believe that the evidence confirms that Yahweh/Jesus is the Creator God. I believe that the evidence suggests that none of the world's religions exist. There may be a Creator God, but the evidence strongly indicates that it is not Yahweh/Jesus.
DeleteTypo: " I believe that the evidence suggests that none of the GODS of the world's religions exist.
DeleteFor one thing, Islam is self-refuting. Muhammad told people who doubted his message to consult the Christians and Jews. He made the Bible the standard of comparison.
DeleteIf Krishna existed, what kind of entity would he be? A physical humanoid being with superpowers. There's no reason to think a merely physical being has abilities beyond what's physically possible.
I'm sure you are very intelligent but I hope you will admit that as a human being you are fallible. So you could be wrong, right? It is possible that you are worshiping the wrong God! If that is the case, you will suffer the same eternal judgment that I will face.
DeleteJust believing in "God" does not help you if you have chosen the wrong god to worship. Your use of Pascal's Wager fails.
So you move the goal post. You asked me about Islam and Hinduism. When I respond, you don't refute what I said. So your examples were disingenuous.
DeleteBTW, Hinduism doesn't have the same doctrine of eschatological judgment. Likewise, Hinduism is compatible with monolatry or henotheism.
I didn't use Pascal's Wager in my response to you. That said, comparative religion is a standard topic in Christian apologetics. That's not a defeater for my position.
DeleteNo, I didn’t study all the evidence. By Word and Spirit, God himself persuaded me that I needed what only he could provide, to be found in Christ, not having a righteousness of my own but the very righteousness of God. Of course you reject that but it doesn’t make it any less true. All that’s left to do is to compare worldviews. So far, you can’t distinguish rape from feeding the poor.
Delete"How can you believe it is the most reliable? I mean do you have some justification for it or is it just a belief?"
ReplyDeleteEvery western industrialized nation on the planet uses the scientific method as the foundation/premise for its system of justice and the operation of government.
How is the scientific method the foundation or premise of Western justice? Isn't justice based on morality at least to some degree? If so, then how does scientific method discern what's moral and what's immoral?
DeleteHow would you define the scientific method?
Western justice is based on the law. Period. If western justice operated based on morality, Donald Trump would not be president.
DeleteGary, you are begging the question.
DeleteWhat is law based on? The scientific method?
The law (of your country or my country) is based on the rules which our "herd" (our particular human society) has developed for the well-being and good functioning of our herd (society).
DeleteHow does one determine what is a good function as opposed to a bad function?
Delete"If your justification includes your worldview's access to the scientific method of problem solving - that method is available in, and consistent with, the theistic worldview also."
ReplyDeleteI agree that many forms of theism utilize the scientific method as well. I have no big problem with forms of theism that utilize the scientific method AND allow science to interpret their holy books instead of their holy books interpreting and dictating science (fundamentalist forms of theism).
Professing Christians have made use of various scientific methods. Take people like Blaise Pascal, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann, Charles Babbage, James Clerk Maxwell, etc.
DeleteWhy should science be the standard by which to judge the Bible? What's your reasoning for making such an assertion?
DeleteFor example, the Bible involves morality, but how would science adjudicate what's ethically right and what's ethically wrong?
DeleteAs I said above, I don't think that the scientific method answers all of life's questions and issues. But that doesn't mean we must assume that these missing gaps of knowledge must be filled by the supernatural. Let's just admit: We don't know the answer at this time and maybe we never will. But we don't need to invent invisible beings to fill in the holes in our knowledge.
DeleteScience is cold. Science does not tell us what is ethical and moral. We need something else for that part of our lives. I would suggest democratic, secular humanism. I believe that this system of ethics is an outgrowth of our evolutionary development. As mammals we are "herd animals" and herds operate best (and are more likely to pass on their genetic material) when the herd establishes rules for the herd that are also beneficial to the individuals in the herd.
>>>Science is cold. Science does not tell us what is ethical and moral.
DeleteScience does not tell us ANYTHING. Scientists do, and scientists are biased human being who interpret different data differently. There are physicists who cringe at the way cosmology is moving on, and others who think that cosmology is on the right track. If "science" was the true arbiter of facts - why would physicists interpret these facts differently?
>>>I believe that this system of ethics is an outgrowth of our evolutionary development.
Lets say that my country passes a law in which human farms are allowed to be created where humans are specifically bred to be served as delicacy. This law ensures the native population is not affected at all.
Would that be a morally right law? On what basis can you know for sure, either ways?
If 500 years later, a tribal community starts practicing rape as a privileged right of the alpha in the group in specific situations (like if he finds a young woman alone) (maybe to encourage more men to step up to being alpha males) - and the whole tribal society is okay with that - would rape be justified in that situation?
In both the above cases, the herd would be okay with the rule.
Gary wrote:
Delete---
As mammals we are "herd animals" and herds operate best (and are more likely to pass on their genetic material) when the herd establishes rules for the herd that are also beneficial to the individuals in the herd.
---
Except clearly our view of morality do NOT operate in such a manner; they operate in opposition to this. We have compassion on the weak and sick--which not only is not Darwinian, but it actually undermines Darwinism by increasing the ability of non-ideal genetics to get passed on.
But if you really hold to Darwinism, I think you're facing a bigger problem. Atheists are a very, very small subset of people who exist. Something like 4% worldwide, according to Dawkins. I'll be generous and say 10% of the population is atheist. That means that 90% of people hold to some kind of deity.
According to Darwinistic reasoning, the only way to get to this level of disparity is if atheism harms evolution. There is some survivability advantage to believing in a God (of whatever kind) that doesn't attain for atheists.
But I'm quite sure you believe it is a *FACT* that there is no God, so you're left with a dilemma. Darwinism is selecting for something that is false. That which is NOT TRUE provides a better survivability rate than the truth does. Which is problematic on the face of it, but gets worse when you realize that EVERYTHING you think and reason about is the result of evolution, in your view, and if evolution does not select for truth then you have no basis to trust any of your beliefs whatsoever.
Gary is appealing to evolutionary psychology. But at best that only establishes moral psychology, not moral ontology. It means evolutionary psychology brainwashed us into believing certain things are right and wrong. But once we realize we've been brainwashed, we realize our moral instincts are illusory.
Delete"Given that we do not know for a fact even the bounds of and the possibility in the natural world - to say that naturalism is the most reliable worldview (in other worlds denying supernaturalism in whatever shape or form) is putting the cart before the horse."
ReplyDeleteI never said that I reject the supernatural. I simply ignore the possible existence of the supernatural as I believe that the evidence for its existence is weak. I am open to changing my mind at any time if sufficient evidence is provided.
Let me rephrase one of your sentences: "Given that we do not know for a fact even the bounds of and the possibility in the supernatural world, to say that supernaturalism is the most reliable worldview is putting the cart before the horse."
If the supernatural exists, then ANYTHING is possible. Therefore, much more is possible if the supernatural exists than if our universe is governed by inviolable natural laws.
On what basis do you as an atheist assume "our universe is governed by inviolable natural laws"?
DeleteCorrection: All scientific evidence to date suggests that our universe is governed by inviolable laws of nature/physics.
Delete>>>I never said that I reject the supernatural. I simply ignore the possible existence of the supernatural as I believe that the evidence for its existence is weak. I am open to changing my mind at any time if sufficient evidence is provided.
DeleteOkay.
>>>Given that we do not know for a fact even the bounds of and the possibility in the supernatural world, to say that supernaturalism is the most reliable worldview is putting the cart before the horse."
Why? If it can explain an event, why would it be putting the cart before the horse? If Jesus' resurrection is explained by a supernatural force, why should the supernatural force rejected prima facie?
>>>If the supernatural exists, then ANYTHING is possible. Therefore, much more is possible if the supernatural exists than if our universe is governed by inviolable natural laws.
DeleteBut how does it follow that anything is possible? Have you ever heard a Christian assert anything is possible because God is omnipotent? Can God become a non-God? Can the laws of logic change arbitrarily? Can the universe be generally governed by nature laws - AND not governed by natural laws at the same time? I am not quite sure I follow your argument.
>>>Correction: All scientific evidence to date suggests that our universe is governed by inviolable laws of nature/physics.
DeleteBut we already know that all of our theories do not work! All data is subject to explanation, and all scientific explanations are subject to formal theories.
For example, we have no idea what Dark Matter is or Dark Energy is or if they even exists (we have good reasons to "think" they exists, but those reasons reflect our confidence in our theories than facts).
>>>Correction: All scientific evidence to date suggests that our universe is governed by inviolable laws of nature/physics.
Hmm, really? How do you know that Dark Matter/Energy as an observation is not a violation of natural law? (I am not saying it is, I am asking you how do you KNOW it is NOT).
How do you know that the origin of life is not a violation of natural law?
How do you know that the origin of the universe is not a violation of natural law? We dont even understand the physics of it - all we are doing is trying to extrapolate our current mathematical understanding of how PRESENTLY the universe functions, mixed with creative imagination, assuming all of this "would eventually" hold.
Further - if we go by your argument and allow for the fact that generally nature follows certain laws - how can one argue from that that nature always follows natural law? A proper scientific stance should be that while we dont know if the laws of physics are violable because we have not been able to explain everything in nature to say one way or the other, the scientific method works on the assumption that natural phenomena can be explained mathematically and that assumption has yielded us much success. I fail to see how a scientist can go beyond this and say that the assumption (that all natural phenomena can be explained mathematically) suggests a fact - and stay true to the demands of the scientific method which only discusses what it can demonstrate/explain, not what it cannot.
Further - an argument from absence or an argument from ignorance such as yours is to be challenged because it is fallacious. You are essentially saying that because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that laws of nature are violable, laws of nature are plausibly inviolable. That would be akin to saying, since there is no evidence that Gary/James is not a murderer, he is plausibly a murderer.
I said: That would be akin to saying, since there is no evidence that Gary/James is not a murderer, he is plausibly a murderer.
DeletePoint is, absence of evidence or ignorance of evidence is not what settles a matter, but positive evidence for or against it. This is the nature of the scientific method. This is why your argument that, "All scientific evidence to date suggests that our universe is governed by inviolable laws of nature/physics," is tenuous because no evidence was ever researched to check the thesis of inviolability of physical laws. Therefore your use of the word "suggests" argues from absence of data.
@James McCloud
DeleteWhy? If it can explain an event, why would it be putting the cart before the horse? If Jesus' resurrection is explained by a supernatural force, why should the supernatural force rejected prima facie?
It's putting the cart before the horse because we cannot establish that the supernatural even exists. We are, as a matter of epistemology, locked out of the supernatural, if it exists. Without a method of investigation, all supernatural explanations, that cover the accepted fact, are equally likely. You say God raised Jesus from the dead. Somebody else could say that an imposter was put on the cross who was made to look like Jesus. We have no way to determine which of these is possible, or more likely.
Until we have a method to investigate the supernatural we should not consider any supernatural explanation to be more probable as an explanation.
Matt Dillahunty has explained this pretty well in his video Supernatural causation
Atheist Lehman,
DeleteSuppose I told you that I was a supernatural being and, to demonstrate this, I performed three actions that you didn't know how to explain naturally. I then told you that tomorrow I would die and then raise myself from the dead after a period of three days. This then happens just as I predict: the next day I die and then three days later I raise myself from the dead.
Now suppose that five hundred years later someone claims that I didn't die, but some other supernatural being made some other non-supernatural being look just like me and had him die.
It seems obvious that, supposing you lived for five hundred years, this newer claim by some person who wasn't there is less plausible than my own testimony about what I would do.
Ultimately, I'm guessing you'll want to say that we have no way to say which supernatural explanation is possible or more likely because we have no idea what the possibility space is for supernatural explanations. But we can apply this same reasoning to natural explanations: the fact is, humans have explored only an infinitesimally small space of the alleged natural order. The idea that our extremely thin slice of experience in this extremely thin slice of time hold true for all times and all places of the alleged natural universe would seem to be an unfounded assumption. Thus, your belief in a perspicuous possibility space (and hence probability) of the natural order is ad hoc, illusory.
John,
DeleteThe first problem is that we have no way to verify your claim that you're a supernatural being, or that you've used a supernatural cause. Even if you perform a set of actions, including dying and rising from the dead three days later, the fact that I do not have a natural explanation doesn't justify accepting your supernatural claims. To do so is simply to argue from ignorance.
Any supernatural explanation, without a reliable method of investigation, is simply going to be an argument from ignorance. Show me a reliable means of exploring the supernatural and we can start to talk about supernatural explanations.
Natural explanations work because we actually have a method of natural investigation that can establish causation.
"The first problem is that we have no way to verify your claim that you're a supernatural being"
DeleteIf we start with the assumption that we have a fairly good grasp of natural explanations then we can have a fairly good grasp of when natural explanations are inadequate to explain a phenomena.
If we don't assume that we have a fairly good grasp of natural explanations, then you can have no confidence in the natural explanations you accept.
"To do so is simply to argue from ignorance."
It's not an argument from ignorance to rule out certain explanations that are inadequate and, thus, turn to one's that could adequately explain the phenomena.
"Any supernatural explanation, without a reliable method of investigation, is simply going to be an argument from ignorance."
Basic rational principles are a reliable method of investigation. If you assume that rational principles don't apply to the supernatural then of course I would agree that there is no reliable method of investigation. But I don't assume that, so I have some reliable method of investigation--for an illustration cf. the one I gave above.
"Natural explanations work because we actually have a method of natural investigation that can establish causation."
You only think this is reliable because you assume that your extremely thin slice of experience is universally true. But we could expand that in the same way you're doing with supernatural explanations: we have no reason to think your concept of the possibility space of natural explanations is accurate.
If we start with the assumption that we have a fairly good grasp of natural explanations then we can have a fairly good grasp of when natural explanations are inadequate to explain a phenomena.
DeleteAnd why do you think that this assumption is justified? This smacks of the "we're so smart" and that there aren't vast areas of nature that we've left unaccounted for. You yourself seem to awccept that "the fact is, humans have explored only an infinitesimally small space of the alleged natural order". Nobody knows what the boundaries of nature are, and I don't know how we ever could know.
It's not an argument from ignorance to rule out certain explanations that are inadequate and, thus, turn to one's that could adequately explain the phenomena.
Yes, we can rule out some natural explanations, but until you've ruled out all possible natural explanations you cannot say that natural explanations are inadequate. Unless you want to claim omniscience, I simply do not see how you can rule out all natural explanations. This is why you're arguing from ignornance.
Basic rational principles are a reliable method of investigation
I would tend to disagree. Basic rationality can tell you just about anything depending on the premises you start with. The problem is that we have no way to know that any assumption is actually true, no matter how universal it is.
Basic rationality also lacks a method of confirmation, which the scientific method does have. This is part of the reason why the scientific method is superior to basic rational principles when it comes to natural investigation.
You only think this is reliable because you assume that your extremely thin slice of experience is universally true.
Do you have a better methodology than the scientific method? We're pretty sure that atomic theory is pretty accurate. We're pretty sure that evolution is an accurate explanation for the diversity of life (which certainly doesn't leap at you until you look at a lot of evidence.)
we have no reason to think your concept of the possibility space of natural explanations is accurate.
But we do have very good reasons for accepting that nature has causal power. The basal assumptions of science are all we need to get started. I don't even know what basal assumptions one would need to do methodological supernaturalism, or how we could even verify that a supernatural explanation is correct. We do have that power with nature.
So you reject the idea that we have a fairly good grasp of natural explanations, in which case, as I said, you can have no confidence in the natural explanations you accept.
DeleteYou seem to think that you can cling to some subset of natural explanations as known and know when those natural explanations apply and don't apply. But in fact if you have no grasp of the possibility space of natural explanations, then you have no idea whether or not the natural explanations you accept are not illusory. And in fact the very boundaries of what is a natural v supernatural explanation is now inscrutable.
" Unless you want to claim omniscience, I simply do not see how you can rule out all natural explanations. This is why you're arguing from ignornance."
You've reduced everything to an argument from ignorance when you reject the idea that we have any grasp of natural explanations or their possibility space.
Furthermore, you disagree that basic rational principles are a reliable method of investigation. But you think scientific methods are a better explanation. The problem is that scientific methods are not alternatives to rational principles! They are simply more narrow applications of rational principles.
"But we do have very good reasons for accepting that nature has causal power."
And what would those be?
Atheist Lehman said:
Delete---
Any supernatural explanation, without a reliable method of investigation, is simply going to be an argument from ignorance.
---
The problem for Atheist Lehman is that the word "supernatural" is superfluous in the above sentence. His form of skepticism is such that he is really asserting "Any explanation, without a reliable method of investigation, is simply going to be an argument from ignorance."
But of course, he has no way of determining what a "reliable method of investigation" is, so really he's asserting: "Any explanation is simply going to be an argument from ignorance."
And since he's said his own explanations are arguments from ignorance, I take him at his word and will treat said "explanations" as what they are: atheist whining.
"But we do have very good reasons for accepting that nature has causal power."
DeleteAnd what would those be?
One of the basal assumptions of science is that Models with predictive power are more useful than models without.
That we have been able to create models with incredcible accurate predictive power is a good reason to believe that we understand some parts of nature. We couldn't have build nuclear power plants, or even computers, if our models weren't so accurate. I've never heard of even a single supernatural model that has the kind of predictive power the most scientific models have. This is what differentiates science from other investigative methods, and why science is so superior as a method of investigation. It works so well that human knowledge has exploded in the last 200 years compared to the eras before.
Show me a method, like that of science, that can produce incredibly accurate models based on the supernatural, and I'll concede that the supernatural exists. Until then, you're arguing from ignorance.
Peter,
DeleteBut of course, he has no way of determining what a "reliable method of investigation" is...
Sure I do. One of my basal assumptions is that "models with predictive power are more useful than models without." Just show me a method of investigating the supernatural that gives us good predictive power in its explanations. Without this predictive power your supernatural explanations offer me nothing.
When you, or anybody else, can do that, I'll start to accept that the supernatural actually exists.
"One of the basal assumptions of science is that Models with predictive power are more useful than models without."
DeleteSorry, but you've already rejected rational principles, such as this, as reliable.
"That we have been able to create models with incredcible accurate predictive power is a good reason to believe that we understand some parts of nature."
Ignoring for the moment that this relies on rational principles, which you reject as reliable, given your extremely limited slice of reality, this is like me correctly predicting two coin tosses in a row and then concluding that I have incredibly predictive power.
"We couldn't have build nuclear power plants, or even computers, if our models weren't so accurate."
Sure you could. Ptolemaic astronomers could predict planetary motions.
"I've never heard of even a single supernatural model that has the kind of predictive power the most scientific models have."
This is different than claiming that supernatural claims are *in principle* unknowable. Would you take it that my original illustration of predicting my own resurrection counted, if I were to perform it?
"This is what differentiates science from other investigative methods"
Not all sciences are predictive. And confirming predictions or disconfirming predictions is actually a lot more complex than what you're letting on.
"It works so well that human knowledge has exploded in the last 200 years compared to the eras before."
This ignores the fact that you've already undermined any scientific knowledge: you deny that we have a fairly good grasp of naturalistic explanations and you have no idea what the possibility space for them might be. Furthermore, you reject basic rational principles. So you have no reason to assume that the predicted event occurred because the theory is correct or whether it was a coincidence.
"Show me a method, like that of science, that can produce incredibly accurate models based on the supernatural, and I'll concede that the supernatural exists."
Given that you have no clear concept of what is "natural" it's not clear you have any idea whether what you're asking even makes sense. If the supernatural is a personal agent, why think a predictive model should apply to it?
Atheist Lehman assumes that the supernatural operates the way the natural does, conveniently forgetting that the supernatural is the result of interactions of a divine *person*. Your asking for predictive explanations treats it as if the supernatural has no will or agency, as if God is just an impersonal force. But that's not what we believe.
DeleteIf you want to get a more accurate understanding, ask yourself how you would prove the existence of another *person*. Not even a divine person, just another person in general. How would you prove that anyone else exists?
You look for signs of intention, will, desire, motivations, etc. You look for signs of order, design, and thinking. You don't look for predictability.
I mean, think of it this way. If every time you called your neighbor she always responded with "Hi" and her second sentence was always "I'm fine" and her third sentence was always "Thanks, you too" no matter what you said, would you conclude "My neighbor is totally real" or would you conclude "My 'neighbor' is nothing but a program that responds in a set way no matter what"? Clearly, real people are not necessarily going to respond in a way that is predictable or the same each time.
God is a person, not a force. Why would you look for evidence that He's a robot instead of evidence He's a person?
>>>It's putting the cart before the horse because we cannot establish that the supernatural even exists. We are, as a matter of epistemology, locked out of the supernatural, if it exists.
DeleteJust because we cannot demonstrate it to exists in a physics lab does not mean we cannot assess the validity of the belief in the supernatural - however it is defined.
You are assuming, or so it seems, that the scientific method is the sole arbiter of facts. I dont share that assumption.
>>>Without a method of investigation, all supernatural explanations, that cover the accepted fact, are equally likely. You say God raised Jesus from the dead. Somebody else could say that an imposter was put on the cross who was made to look like Jesus. We have no way to determine which of these is possible, or more likely.
Just because there can potentially be multiple supernatural theories of an event, does not mean that supernaturalism by itself is to be ignored as an explanation. Just as just because there are many cosmological models, does not mean that all cosmological models should be dumped. I am giving physics as an example because it is an empirical method, and even that empirical method does not allow your reasoning.
One may deny that the resurrection is the best "supernatural" explanation, but to deny the supernaturalism itself as having any explanatory scope is a weird reasoning.
>>>About the link you gave: If you can sum up Dillahunty's comments I may give it a shot.
I said: "You are assuming, or so it seems, that the scientific method is the sole arbiter of facts. I dont share that assumption."
DeleteThat was an incorrect phrasing. Here is a correct one:
You are assuming, or so it seems, that the scientific method is the sole arbiter of truth. I dont share that assumption.
>>>>>>Without a method of investigation, all supernatural explanations, that cover the accepted fact, are equally likely.
DeleteThey are not all equally likely. If you employ the method of elimination along with other evaluative disciplines like philosophy, history etc., you can discover that some theories have more explanatory scope than other. Example - the problem with Islam is that it is a self-contradictory system - so the law of non-contradiction rules it out. If one assumes Krishna raised Jesus up, we can discover from history that Krishna is a part of Hindu mythology who was never believed to have existed by historians. If one theories that a rival god or the devil did it - likewise relevant disciplines like philosophy/theology can be employed.
The only problem occurs if you want to test/evaluate/analyse supernaturalism with the scientific method, and its demands (such as theorizing, predictability, repeatability etc.) The problem occurs because the scientific method is not designed to deal with anything not natural, and therefore its demands cannot be arbitrarily imposed on non-natural/physical concepts. It would be akin to trying to measure the length of a cloth with a weighing machine, or the like. Wrong system of evaluation. You get the drift.
Atheist Lehman,
Deletei) Physical processes are highly predictable. Personal agents are far less predictable.
ii) Appeal to the supernatural is appeal to personal agency. Appeal to personal agency is not an argument from ignorance. Even if it's possible, given a sufficiently convoluted explanation, that the apparent murder victim actually died of natural causes, an accident, suicide, it's not an argument from ignorance if the homicide detective concludes that a personal agent (murderer) killed the victim rather than a Rube Goldberg contraption.
iii) Atheists aren't open to a naturalistic explanation for every reported event. Atheists don't think there's a naturalistic explanation for biblical miracles. Rather, because they think there's no naturalistic explanation for most biblical miracles, they deny that the reported event ever happened.
BTW, I assess Dillahunty's approach last year:
Deletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-liconadillahunty-debate.html
If we found strange markings on the face of a rock on a desert island, we'd conclude that those were left by humans. It would be irrational to attribute them to a natural process, even if they were indecipherable, just because we couldn't rule out some unknown natural cause.
DeleteJust because we cannot demonstrate it to exists in a physics lab does not mean we cannot assess the validity of the belief in the supernatural - however it is defined.
DeleteWhy believe that the supernatural exists when we have no means to access, or investigate, it? How do you know it even exists?
You are assuming, or so it seems, that the scientific method is the sole arbiter of facts. I dont share that assumption.
No, my position is that the scientific method is the most reliable method of investigation that we have, not that it's the only one. You don't need to use science to investigate reality, but your results will probably be less accurate than if you had used science.
Just because there can potentially be multiple supernatural theories of an event, does not mean that supernaturalism by itself is to be ignored as an explanation.
No, it's to be ignored because we have no way to determine which one, if any of them, is most likely to be correct. Aside from explanations that are incoherent, you really have no way to say that any one of them is wrong.
Just as just because there are many cosmological models, does not mean that all cosmological models should be dumped.
Your analogy doesn't really work though. Given natural hypothesis H1, and the null hypothesis H0, we have a methodology to try and overcome the null hypothesis and determine that H1 is a better explanation This also extends to Hn hypotheses, and we can (at least in principle) determine if any of them are better than the null. The problem is that I don't know how, even in principle, you do the same thing with supernatural hypotheses. If you have no way to overcome the null hypothesis with any supernatural hypothesis, how can it ever be rational to accept that hypothesis as true?
Atheist Lehman
Delete"Why believe that the supernatural exists when we have no means to access, or investigate, it? How do you know it even exists?"
What makes you think the scientific method is an appropriate way to investigate the nonmaterial or immaterial? I would say that's like using a CT scan and expecting to find the immaterial mind. A CT scan will show what's observable via a CT scan such as neuroanatomical structures of the brain, but it won't show what's not observable via a CT scan such as the mind or consciousness, yet it's arguable one is warranted to believe in the existence of the mind or consciousness, at least one's own mind or consciousness if nothing else, even though the mind cannot be shown to exist in an empirical sense like in a CT scan.
Also, I believe in the existence of logical truths but I can't discover logical truths using the scientific method.
By the way, there's no single scientific method. There are multiple scientific methods which need to be designed in order to appropriately investigate the phenomenon in question.
In fact, the scientific method presupposes logical truths exist.
DeleteAtheist Lehman assumes that the supernatural operates the way the natural does, conveniently forgetting that the supernatural is the result of interactions of a divine *person*. Your asking for predictive explanations treats it as if the supernatural has no will or agency, as if God is just an impersonal force. But that's not what we believe.
DeletePsychology and sociology are two social science that are able to build models with predictive power over how humans behave. It's a complicated field of science, but it's able to make some generalizations. Why can't we do that with supernatural beings?
Frankly, if the supernatural has no predictive power, I don't see why I should care one iota about it. How does my life change one way or the other? How does it help me to make more informed decisions?
Sometimes what people who say "the scientific method" really mean is empiricism. But empiricism has its limitations.
DeleteAtheist Lehman said:
Delete---
Given natural hypothesis H1, and the null hypothesis H0, we have a methodology to try and overcome the null hypothesis and determine that H1 is a better explanation
---
By using the word "better" you are undermining your position and giving away everything (not that I expect you realize it). How do you determine which view is "better"? Perhaps you would argue that the better option would be the one that is closest to the truth. But how do we know which one is closest to the truth unless we *already know* what the truth is? And if we already know what the truth is, why do we need a hypothesis to get us there?
Perhaps you'll instead say that it's the one that provides the most answers. But of course, you can come up with ad hoc explanations for everything.
Perhaps you'll then add on that it's the one that explains the most in the most simple manner. But that presupposes that you know what really is simplest in the first place, and furthermore it presupposes that reality always is the version that is simplest, when we have lots of experience (especially when there are other personal agents involved) that show us that sometimes the simplest solution is the one that is most wrong.
So, really, when you boil it down, the "best" hypotheses are those that match what we most wish and hope to be true all along.
Prove me wrong.
>>>Your analogy doesn't really work though. Given natural hypothesis H1, and the null hypothesis H0, we have a methodology to try and overcome the null hypothesis and determine that H1 is a better explanation This also extends to Hn hypotheses, and we can (at least in principle) determine if any of them are better than the null. The problem is that I don't know how, even in principle, you do the same thing with supernatural hypotheses. If you have no way to overcome the null hypothesis with any supernatural hypothesis, how can it ever be rational to accept that hypothesis as true?
DeleteYou are again making category errors. Science is one of the best tools to investigate physical phenomena and I am not disputing that. Supernaturalism make have its interaction with the physical world, and that can be tested when it occurs - but supernaturalism by itself is not a natural/physical phenomena - which means by definition science is the worst way of trying to investigate it. I dont know how you can get around this fact.
If your chosen method of investigation is incapable of investigating what you are wanting it to investigate, that method of investigation, no matter how useful otherwise, is useless here. Hypothesis testing can only be useful after the method of investigating those hypothesis is settled on, and that is the whole point of contention here.
BTW, I also shared with you other ways in which supernatural claims can be evaluated. These methods may not be as clear cut as some "think" science is, but supernatural claims can be assessed using several disciplines which can include science only and only if there is energy-matter interaction with the supernatural (a ghost levitating a coffee cup, for eg). (Just as an aside: even science is not clear cut many times (usually with advanced science)... because of reasons such as human bias (which is spoken of in journals such as Nature), lack of data, limits on testing, different emphasis on different evidence, human ignorance, inadequate theories, and so on.)
Unless you can tell me why you think the scientific method is best suited to investigate phenomena that does not include energy-matter interaction, we will be at an impasse - and it would be futile to pursue this discussion. My problem is with your (mis)application of the scientific method. The reasons for that must be more sophisticated than a variation of the claim "science works".
If an investigator proceeds to use the principles of investigating energy-matter interactions (in any and all its form) on a phenomena which precludes both energy and matter in perceivable way - fails miserably because he cannot even proceed with the said investigation - I fail to see how such an investigator could then turn and blame that principle of investigation that worked for what it was designed to investigate OR blame the supernatural's inability to be investigated with the said method and therefore declare it as non-existent or useless or indiscoverable or make any other judgments. One might even see circular reasoning in such a attempt.
DeleteI can expect proponents of scientism employing this farce - but I cannot imagine those open to other disciplines of inquiry to persist on using a method of investigation in an area it is by definition not designed to investigate.
Science just cannot deal with non-energy matter interaction. Period. This is the limitation of this otherwise beautiful method. This is why abstract thoughts/concepts such as logic, mind etc. are outside its bound.
Atheist Lehman
DeleteSome helpful stuff from Peter Pike and James McCloud! To add to what they said:
"Psychology and sociology are two social science that are able to build models with predictive power over how humans behave. It's a complicated field of science, but it's able to make some generalizations. Why can't we do that with supernatural beings? Frankly, if the supernatural has no predictive power, I don't see why I should care one iota about it. How does my life change one way or the other? How does it help me to make more informed decisions?"
1. The "supernatural" is so vague. That could mean a lot of different things. However, let's talk about agency. That's more specific. What makes you think certain agents don't have "predictive power"? For example, suppose the devil or Satan is real, which presupposes the biblical worldview is true. Suppose Satan is a real living agent in the world. If so, then we know Satan is evil. We know he is a liar. We know he is a murderer. We know he hates what's good. We know he wants to kill and destroy and devour others. So in this respect, Satan is indeed "predictable". We can predict how he'll act, at least in a general way, just like you said: we can "make some generalizations" about Satan.
2. If atheism (naturalism) is true, why should your "life" matter in the end? How does your lfie change one way or another? Who cares? Why should anyone care about anyone else in the grand scheme of things? You're just one person who happened to live at a particular time in history, but eventually history will end. Eventually the universe itself will end. You'll live for ~100 years, then die. That's what happens to all living organisms. They live, they die. That's it. Some live more fortunate lives than others, while others are born into misery and die in misery. Short, brutish, nasty lives.
"We need to be clear on the burden of proof. Naturalism denies miracles in toto. That's a universal negative. Therefore, the onus is on the atheist to somehow discredit every single reported miracle. By contrast, it only takes a few well-documented miracles to discredit naturalism. The burden of proof is astronomical for the atheist and negligible for the theist. "
ReplyDeleteI do not know as a fact that no miracle has ever occurred. I do not know as a fact that fairies and leprechauns do not exist. It is absolutely impossible to prove that miracles do not happen just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of fairies and leprechauns. As I have stated above, the supernatural may very well exist. However...due to a lack of good evidence, I choose, at least for the time being, to ignore its possible existence. Ignoring the possible existence of something is not the same as denying its existence.
If a man walks into a restaurant and claims that he just met thirty, three-foot tall, green, atennae-toting Martians and their space ship a few miles out of town, is the onus on the patrons of the restaurant to disprove this man's incredible claim or is the onus on the claimant to provide sufficient evidence for his claim?
I think you know the answer. In our culture, the onus of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant of a very extra-ordinary claim and not on the skeptics of that claim. We naturalist do not have to prove that the supernatural does not exist. It is perfectly acceptable in our culture for us to remain skeptical. The onus is on supernaturalists.
Actually both sides have an onus to argue for their claims. Both sides come with their own presuppositions. For example, you are coming in with secular presuppositions, but what makes you assume secularism is the correct worldview? You'd have to argue for why you think secularism is correct. You can't just assume secularism is the standard or default without argument or rationale. That'd be irrational and prejudicial.
DeleteYou're speaking from "our culture", but there are tons of other cultures around the rest of the world let alone throughout history. It's narrow minded to think your culture is the default standard. Consider how other cultures would regard your claims.
DeleteGary,
DeleteYou're recycling village atheists tropes that I and other contributors to this blog have repeatedly debunked. You need to get up to speed.
Take the "fairies and leprechauns" trope. That's a slipshod comparison. To begin with, there's reason to think entities like that are impossible. And there's no evidence for their existence. That's hardly analogous to God's existence or evidence for miracles.
"If a man walks into a restaurant and claims that he just met thirty, three-foot tall, green, atennae-toting Martians and their space ship a few miles out of town, is the onus on the patrons of the restaurant to disprove this man's incredible claim or is the onus on the claimant to provide sufficient evidence for his claim?"
That's another standard village atheist trope. Notice that you're not engaging actual case-studies of miracles. Specific evidence for specific miracles. Instead, you wish to shift the discussion to deliberately ludicrous examples.
"In our culture, the onus of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant of a very extra-ordinary claim and not on the skeptics of that claim."
What's your frame of reference? It's not extraordinary that miracles occur in a world where God exists. It's only extraordinary if you take naturalism as your frame of reference.
Your burden of proof only works if we already know what kind of world we live in–a world where miracles never happen. But that's circular. That preemptively discounts massive evidence to the contrary. Yet our understanding of the kind of world we inhabit ought to be based on evidence, which includes ostensible evidence for miracles.
"Take the "fairies and leprechauns" trope. That's a slipshod comparison. To begin with, there's reason to think entities like that are impossible. And there's no evidence for their existence. That's hardly analogous to God's existence or evidence for miracles."
DeleteI never said that there is no good evidence that suggests the existence of a Creator God. I believe that there is. However, I believe that an alleged entity acting within the our universe that violates the laws of physics such as a "resurrected three day brain dead corpse" is impossible.
That's a classic uncomprehending objection to miracles. According to the laws of physics, certain kinds of events can't happen so long as nature operates as a closed system. It doesn't "violate" the laws of physics if an external agent intervenes to redirect the course of nature. Human agents routinely intervene to create outcomes that wouldn't occur if they let nature take its course.
DeleteYour objection is strange. Back when you were a professing Christian, did you imagine that the Resurrection was naturally possible?
"Miracles will be underreported because most miracles happen to nobodies."
ReplyDeleteHow convenient.
If you read Craig Keener's two volume work "Miracles", the most quoted resource regarding miracles, you will find something very interesting:
-Keener admits he did not spend one dollar on researching the miracle claims in his book. He simply collected thousands of anecdotal claims. Here is a typical example:
Eg. "Missionary Bob, who I trust, told me that a woman in Nicaragua, whose integrity he trusts, told him that she watched someone recover from a terminal case of pneumonia after she and her church prayed for the person."
-the overwhelming majority of the most stupendous miracles happen in the Third World.
-the overwhelming majority of the miracles occur among members of one sect of Christianity: Pentecostals.
-Some of the miracle claims are just downright stupid. Any educated Christian with a college degree should be embarrassed that Keener included these claims in his book. One such claim is that a woman who had previously undergone a complete hysterectomy prayed to Jesus for a child and nine months later she delivered a healthy child. If that story is true, that is more miraculous than the virginal conception of Jesus!
I cannot prove that all the miracles in Keener's books are hysterical misperceptions of reality by mostly poorly uneducated, lower class, third world, Pentecostal peasants, but I would bet a large percentage of them are. Think about it: Why does Jesus do so many BIG miracles for Pentecostal Christians and so few for Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and traditional evangelicals??
This reflects your cultural bias. You look down on "poorly uneducated, lower class, third world, Pentecostal peasants". It's no different from what David Hume thought as an 18th century supposedly enlightened Englishman about African tribes. At this point, it's just snobby disdain. But where's the argument?
Delete"How convenient."
DeleteNo, not just convenient, but in the nature of the case.
If one happens to know enough Christians, some of them will tell you their experience of miracles. So there's a vast cache of unreported miracles.
And not just Christians. Many people who are not orthodox Christians have had uncanny, naturally inexplicable experiences. If you talk to enough people, that surfaces.
"He simply collected thousands of anecdotal claims."
That's yet another thoughtless atheist trope. Anecdotal evidence is generally insufficient to establish a pattern. The sample is too small for purposes of extrapolation. However, anecdotal evidence can be quite sufficient to establish that something exists or that something happens.
"I cannot prove that all the miracles in Keener's books are hysterical misperceptions of reality by mostly poorly uneducated, lower class, third world, Pentecostal peasants, but I would bet a large percentage of them are. Think about it: Why does Jesus do so many BIG miracles for Pentecostal Christians and so few for Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and traditional evangelicals??"
Once again, percentages are irrelevant. One only needs a tiny sample to establish that something exists or that something happens.
And it's not just third world witnesses. There are medically verified miracles.
Gary,
DeleteYou're the stereotypical apostate. You lose your faith, you bone up on the flashcard objections to Christianity, which you dutifully copy from atheist authors, then you scout around for opportunities to challenge Christians by repeating the same hackneyed objections, as if we haven't been over this ground umpteen times. It's the mentality of the adolescent who, because this is the first time for him, acts as though this is the first time for everyone else.
Here are the books that I have read and studied regarding the truth claims of Christianity:
Delete“The Resurrection of the Son of God” by NT Wright
“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” by Richard Bauckham
“The Death of the Messiah, Volumes I and II” by Raymond Brown
“Making the Case for Christianity” by Maas, Francisco, et al.
” The Resurrection Fact” by Bombaro, Francisco, et al.
“Miracles, Volumes I and II”, by Craig Keener
“The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
“Why are There Differences in the Gospels” by Michael Licona
“The Son Rises” by William Lane Craig
“The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” by Raymond Brown
“The Resurrection of Jesus” by Gerd Luedemann
“Resurrection Reconsidered” by Gregory Riley
“John and Thomas—Gospels in Conflict?” by Christopher Skinner
“The Argument for the Holy Sepulchre” (journal article) by scholar Jerome Murphy-O’Connor
“Israel in Egypt” by James Hoffmeier
“The Bible Unearthed” by Finkelstein and Silberman
“The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices” by Craig Evans, (newsletter article) The City, a publication of Houston Baptist University, May 4, 2016
“Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” by Jodi Magness, SBL Forum
“Genre, Sub-genre and Questions of Audience: A Proposed Typology for Greco-Roman biography” (article) by Justin M. Smith, St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
“Cold-Case Christianity” by J. Warner Wallace
“The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel
“Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman
“Jesus, Interrupted” by Bart Ehrman
“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman
“Jesus Before the Gospels” by Bart Ehrman
“Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman
“Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus” by Asher Norman (endorsed by Talmudic scholars for its accuracy in presenting a Jewish perspective of Jesus and the Christian New Testament)
“The Book of Miracles” by Kenneth L. Woodward
“Why I Believed, Reflections of a Former Missionary” by Kenneth W. Daniels
“Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne
“Masters of the Planet-the Search for our Human Origins” by Ian Tattersall
“Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh and Sean McDowell (currently reading)
“The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins (currently reading)
The likelihood that someone has read these books (and understood them) and yet could make the sort of facile claims that you've made (e.g., the resurrection is *impossible*) is close to zero.
DeleteI have found that no quantity of books or study by the skeptic will ever satisfy some Christians. They will never be satisfied until the skeptic CONVERTS.
Delete*I have found that no matter how many book titles I claim to have read while making ignorant assertions will satisfy some Christians.
DeleteFixed that for you ^
Gary wrote:
Delete"Keener admits he did not spend one dollar on researching the miracle claims in his book. He simply collected thousands of anecdotal claims."
Keener includes accounts of his own experiences with miracles, interviewed eyewitnesses of other miracles, consulted medical documentation, read the reports of other researchers who had studied other miracle reports, etc. I linked you to a series of posts that documents where Keener discusses such matters in his book. I cited page numbers, quoted some of the relevant passages, and so on. Your description of his book is tendentious and misleading.
You go on:
"the overwhelming majority of the most stupendous miracles happen in the Third World."
You provide no documentation, provide no definition of "overwhelming majority", ignore the miracle reports that don't fall into your category, don't tell us what qualifies as "stupendous", make no effort to address the other miracles, and provide no justification for your dismissing of "the Third World".
You claim:
"the overwhelming majority of the miracles occur among members of one sect of Christianity: Pentecostals"
Once again, you provide no documentation and no explanation for your reasoning, even though the reasoning behind your comment is far from apparent.
Pentecostals are far outnumbered by non-Pentecostals. As Keener explains in his book, even Christian groups who tend to make fewer miraculous claims, such as Presbyterians, report experiencing or witnessing a miracle at high levels (percentages well into the double digits). Keener estimates that more than a third of Christians who are neither Pentecostal nor charismatic claim to have witnessed at least one healing (239). And healings are just one type of miracle.
Even if your claim about Pentecostals were true, what significance would it have? If a Pentecostal carelessly claims to have experienced hundreds of miracles, even though he actually only experienced one, whereas a Baptist more carefully and accurately claims to have experienced only two miracles, it would be true that the large majority of miracle claims came from the Pentecostal. It would also be true that the large majority of the miracle claims made by the two individuals were false. But all it would take is one miracle to falsify your belief system, and the existence of so many false miracle claims wouldn't prevent us from verifying the true miracle claims. Furthermore, a majority of miracle claims could occur among Pentecostals even if a majority of people who claim to have experienced a miracle aren't Pentecostal. In the example I cited above, the Pentecostal is making the large majority of miracle claims, but he's only half of the miracle claimants.
You write:
"Some of the miracle claims are just downright stupid. Any educated Christian with a college degree should be embarrassed that Keener included these claims in his book. One such claim is that a woman who had previously undergone a complete hysterectomy prayed to Jesus for a child and nine months later she delivered a healthy child. If that story is true, that is more miraculous than the virginal conception of Jesus!"
Again, you need to provide documentation, so that we can more easily evaluate your claims.
And how does being "more miraculous than the virginal conception" equate to being "downright stupid"?
You write:
"I cannot prove that all the miracles in Keener's books are hysterical misperceptions of reality by mostly poorly uneducated, lower class, third world, Pentecostal peasants, but I would bet a large percentage of them are."
Keener provides a lot of documentation, including polling data. Your response is to tell us what you'd "bet", even though you "can't prove it".
Gary
Delete“Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman
“Jesus, Interrupted” by Bart Ehrman
“How Jesus Became God” by Bart Ehrman
“Jesus Before the Gospels” by Bart Ehrman
“Did Jesus Exist?” by Bart Ehrman
So I was correct that you're parroting Ehrman.
Given what Jason Engwer says above, it's obvious Gary hasn't read Keener's book. At least Gary hasn't seriously read in order to engage Keener's book.
DeleteBy contrast, Gary is all but a mouthpiece for Ehrman.
This suggests where Gary's true sympathies lie. I'd wager Gary didn't become an atheist because of the books he claims he has "studied" but because he read books like Ehrman's books more sympathetically than he read books like Keener's books.
I have found that no quantity of books or study by the skeptic will ever satisfy some Christians. They will never be satisfied until the skeptic CONVERTS.
DeleteGary purports that some Christians operate according two options only, to be satisfied by skeptic literature or to pursue the skeptic until he converts. I believe that to be an extreme distortion of the norm, and I’m 100% certain that such a modus operandi is not the testimony of the apostles, the prophets and the Lord. A third option is not to cast one’s pearls before those who’d trample them under foot.
Gary,
ReplyDeleteAre there moral absolutes?
No.
DeleteSo, rape isn’t absolutely wrong. Thank you. I’ll revisit moral absolutes again later.
DeleteOn to knowledge. How do you know there aren’t moral absolutes?
There are only the rules of the herd, my theistic friend. There is no such thing as absolute morality. It is a human construct. That is why at one point in your religion's history it was considered perfectly moral to target the infants of your enemies for slaughter and now it is not.
DeleteGary is an expert on All The Things(TM). Don't believe me? Just ask him!
DeleteThere are only the rules of the herd, my theistic friend. There is no such thing as absolute morality. It is a human construct.
DeleteYes, you already answered “no” to moral absolutes. So, rape isn’t absolutely wrong. I said I’d get back to morality later. Be thinking about how you’re going to deal with questions pertaining proximates given no absolutes.
For some reason you didn’t respond to my follow-up question. So, again:
How do you know there aren’t moral absolutes?
[Gary] "It is a human construct. That is why at one point in your religion's history it was considered perfectly moral to target the infants of your enemies for slaughter and now it is not."
DeleteSo what does that get you, Gary? According to you, it's a human construct either way. If now it's not considered perfectly moral, that's not because it's actually wrong. By your own yardstick, both positions are equally arbitrary.
In a godless universe, a child's death is no more significant than a hyena killing a leopard cub while the leopardess is away hunting. A child's death is only tragic in the Christian universe you reject. Only in a Christian universe does anyone have any hope beyond the grave. So how is your position supposed to be an improvement?
Since Gary responded without answering, I’m going to assume he would have answered in the negative, that he doesn’t know that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong. That’s a skeptic’s answer, and Gary fancies himself as a skeptic. My inference is reasonable.
DeleteGary’s alleged worldview doesn’t afford him any way to distinguish between rape and charity. Moreover, being a professing skeptic, his creed is that he can’t know there even is a moral difference. Morality, so he claims, is a “human construct.” We “follow the rules of the herd,” as it were.
Gary is arbitrary and inconsistent. He’s arbitrary because he chooses some herds but not other herds to follow. These choices are moral in nature, yet there is no moral basis upon which Gary chooses (so his creed would inform us). He’s also inconsistent. There are competing moralities among the various herds. Yet surely Gary doesn’t always base his moral choices upon sociological / statistical analyses among people groups etc. so that he might follow the correct herd. (What even is correctness in Gary’s world?). Neither is it pure conditioning that causes Gary’s choices. He acts according to conscience, which would explain why Gary follows some herds and not others. That’s why he breaks out of certain herds to join with other herds. Would Gary condone a fraternity herd on a college campus that practiced certain gang activities?
My job as an apologist is finished when an infidel stands up to the microphone and announces that there is no absolute morality. Gary refuses to admit that he has transgressed God’s law, the law written on his heart. The law that accuses him daily. Gary pretends there is no law, and he works hard at trying to get himself to believe his own lie. He projects to himself a lie about himself and then tries to suppress what he knows about himself so that he might believe with more conviction what he would like to believe is true about himself. Suppression and self-deception is dangerous. The lie may win. But one day, Gary will bend the knee and admit the lie. But for now, the Bible recognizes Gary as a “fool.”
No law, no transgression. No transgression, no need of redemption. That’s Gary’s hope. There’s no backdrop for the gospel. Gary likes it that way. There’s not even a whimper of, “What must I do to be saved?” Gary would sooner hope against hope than admit he is a sinner. I believe the biblical precept is to shake the dust off my feet and move on in sorrow for Gary.
“That is why at one point in your religion's history it was considered perfectly moral to target the infants of your enemies for slaughter and now it is not.”
DeleteGod gave a moral imperative that pertained to a context. The command expired along with the context. Therefore, moral absolutes aren’t undermined by this tired appeal.
"The larger the number of alleged coincidences that are occurring around a certain individual, group, paranormal case, etc., the less likely it is that coincidence is a sufficient explanation. We apply the same sort of reasoning when trying to detect fraud in casinos (the example Steve mentioned) and in other contexts."
ReplyDeleteIf two billion people always pray to Jesus when they are ill, then statistics tells us that there are going to be millions of instances in which the person recovers from that illness shortly after praying to Jesus. It's just basic math, folks.
"The reason why your fellow skeptics see a need to argue against the historicity of the miracle reports in the gospels, for example, is that coincidence isn't a sufficient explanation. If it were sufficient, skeptics could just grant the historicity of the accounts for the sake of argument and appeal to coincidence, which would save them a lot of time and effort. How many skeptics do that, though? That tells us something."
The problem with the Gospels are many:
-they were written over 20 centuries ago.
-the authors do not identify themselves.
-most scholars believe that the Gospels belong to the literary genre of Greco-Roman biographies, a genre which allowed extensive embellishments to the core story.
-the majority of scholars do not believe that the authors of these four books were eyewitnesses nor associates of eyewitnesses.
-the majority of scholars believe that these non-eyewitness authors were writing decades after the alleged events they describe and in lands far away from the events described.
Not exactly the best evidence to use for proving the historicity for any alleged event.
Sounds like your parroting Bart Ehrman. I'll have to reply later when I'm back home.
Delete"If two billion people always pray to Jesus when they are ill"
DeleteThat's quite an assumption. For starters, I'm one of the two billion professing Christians but I don't always pray to Jesus when I'm ill.
Gary, we're not going to reinvent the wheel for every village atheists and apostate. Once again, you're recycling flashcard objections that I and other contributors to this blog have refuted on multiple occasions. I'm not going to repeat myself for your benefit.
Delete"If two billion people always pray to Jesus when they are ill, then statistics tells us that there are going to be millions of instances in which the person recovers from that illness shortly after praying to Jesus. It's just basic math, folks."
DeleteAnd how are you going to establish what the baseline "random" recoveries should be? What if the reason the common cold isn't fatal more frequently is because Christians pray? Does this even enter into your mind to think on? Of course not, because you have a drum to pound and you're going to pound it.
You've mentioned several times that the rate of miraculous healing between atheists, Muslims, Hindus, etc. is all the same, but this conveniently overlooks the fact that Christians do not pray ONLY for Christians, but also for non-Christians. Indeed, sometimes we pray more for non-believers than we do for believers, because we know that if a believer dies he or she is going to heaven whereas the non-believer will go to hell. It is far more important to pray for the non-believer's recovery than the believer's. But again, it doesn't even enter into your mind to think about that aspect.
Expand your horizons. The box you inhabit is far too small.
Gary,
Delete>>>Not exactly the best evidence to use for proving the historicity for any alleged event.
Out of curiosity, and to know where you and I stand:
1. What evidence would convince you that the supernatural exists?
2. What would have been satisfactory evidence for you, theoretically speaking, of Jesus' resurrection?
JM
It would take very little for me to believe in Lord Jesus. Ask Jesus to levitate my coffee table three feet off of the ground for three minutes and I will believe.
Delete"Ask Jesus to levitate my coffee table three feet off of the ground for three minutes and I will believe."
DeleteWhy would something that Derren Brown can emulate be enough to convince you that Jesus is Lord?
This inadvertently exposes a fundamental problem for you. You hate God so much that you don't even know what would count as evidence. You pretend that it wouldn't take much evidence to convince you, but what you ask for is a magic trick. And not only that, but one that can be performed by dozens of people in ways you would never be able to catch. Penn & Teller could perform a levitating table trick for you right now and you wouldn't be able to tell how they did it. Does that count as evidence they are divine? Of course not.
So when you say that's what it would take for you to believe Jesus, you obviously lie. Why?
I mean that seriously. Ask yourself. Why is it you insist on giving trials that would not prove the thing you're requesting in the first place? Were you really blinded to it? If so, what would be sufficient to blind you to how obvious this is? Perhaps a sin nature at enmity with God?
>>>It would take very little for me to believe in Lord Jesus. Ask Jesus to levitate my coffee table three feet off of the ground for three minutes and I will believe.
DeleteGood. But why wouldn't you assign reasons for such levitation to something else? Why only Lord Jesus? How would you know the difference?
I am merely trying to understand your method of evaluation.
How do you know you wouldn’t look for a different explanation, like a cheap magician’s trick?
Delete“Why would something that Derren Brown can emulate be enough to convince you that Jesus is Lord?”
DeleteJust saw this and what followed. I’ll step aside as it’s what I’d pursue. I’ll keep with my moral absolute inquiry...
Gary wrote:
Delete"The problem with the Gospels are many"
I pointed out that if the gospel accounts could be dismissed as coincidences, your fellow skeptics probably would take that approach toward the gospels, which they don't. Instead, they argue against the historicity of the gospel accounts. You respond by arguing against the historicity of the accounts. You're not refuting my point. You're corroborating it.
And your arguments against the historicity of the gospels are weak and have been addressed by us many times over the years. You show no knowledge of our material on the subject and make no effort to interact with what we've said.
What evidence would it take to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ?
DeleteIf the Son of Man came back through the clouds with a heavenly host of angels in full view of the tribes of the Earth to judge the nations and separate the righteous from the unrighteous; if this Son of Man then established God's Kingdom on the Earth for the meek and righteous while consigning the unrighteous to eternal punishment; if he and those he appointed to rule alongside him then reigned over this Kingdom for ever and ever. And if all of this happened within the lifetime of Jesus' original followers, as he promised and predicted it would, then, and only then, would I be able to believe in him.
Neil wrote:
Delete"And if all of this happened within the lifetime of Jesus' original followers, as he promised and predicted it would, then, and only then, would I be able to believe in him."
That's a demonstrably false objection that we answered at length a long time ago.
I am familiar with Gary. He is one of three reactionary atheists (Im Skeptical and Pixie are the two others) that have come on the Christian CADRE the last few years with their short-sighted atheist tactics. They won't believe no matter what because they already think of Christians as stupid and unscientific.
ReplyDelete"Science does not tell us ANYTHING. Scientists do, and scientists are biased human being who interpret different data differently. There are physicists who cringe at the way cosmology is moving on, and others who think that cosmology is on the right track. If "science" was the true arbiter of facts - why would physicists interpret these facts differently?"
ReplyDeleteOnly a fundamentalist theist believes this.
What? Is science ANIMATE to TELL us something?
DeleteAnd that is to be taken seriously?
You dont seem to understand the scientific method. Science is a discipline, not a person to have a will of its own and "tell" us anything. Practitioners of science give opinions which is what I said.
You just dont seem to get that scientific data is, many times, interpreted differently - which is bound to happen as scientists are people who give different weightage to different evidence. See for instance the number of cosmological theories competing with the Big Bang!
Point is, if I asked you what science tells us about cosmology, you would not be able to answer that as a variety of models give different answers. Not to mention that it is ridiculous to even assert that an inanimate concept/discipline talks.
Correction: Point is, if I asked you what science DEFINITIVELY tells us about cosmology, you would not be able to answer that as a variety of models give different answers, and physicists disagree with each other on many important point.
DeleteThe Big Bang is the most popular model, but it is by no means a definitive one, especially given the limitation of GR.
I have never claimed that science (scientists as a whole, using the scientific method) can answer every question or that scientists are in agreement on all topics. However, when there is a strong consensus on a subject (the theory of gravity, heliocentricity, evolution, etc..) I believe that a society functions best if the general public accepts the scientific consensus as fact. A society in which every person, regardless of education and training, considers himself/herself an expert on all topics is a dysfunctional society. It is a society in chaos. Is the consensus of experts always correct? No. But again, a society functions best when the general public accepts and respects expert consensus opinion. If the overwhelming majority of experts on an issue find out they are wrong and change their position then we non-experts should follow suit.
DeleteYou are absolutely correct that there is no consensus on the issue of the origin of the universe. That is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist. Once a consensus of experts is reached on that subject, I will either be an atheist or a theist. However, there is a consensus on the Big Bang at this point in time so I accept the Big Bang as fact (until the consensus of experts says it is not).
"If the overwhelming majority of experts on an issue find out they are wrong and change their position then we non-experts should follow suit."
DeleteExcept, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, scientists don't change their position even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They just die while the new generation doesn't believe what the old one did.
That's how scientific consensus changes through time.
Gary,
DeleteI can no longer perceive correctly what you are arguing against. You keep moving your stance every now and then.
This will be a long reply because it is my final attempt to explain what I am saying. I am not habituated to repeating myself over and over again, and therefore a conversation with you is turning out to be difficult given below.
You quote my reply above where I denied science tells us anything, but scientists do and they disagree. Then you accuse me of being a fundamental theist because I said that. I reply to that demonstrating in no uncertain way how bizarre, not to mention foolish, your claim of science telling us anything is and now you switch to say you meant science has consensus and that is what you meant.
Anyway, Strong consensus is NOT equal to "science telling us" anything. You are making arbitrary judgments here. If that were true, no scientist would have been allowed to theorise against such a consensus. There are no authorities in science. There are expert. And experts opine. Opinions fall in favour and disfavour all the time. Consensus change. So if you are personifying current scientific consensus as authoritative ("telling us") - then science keeps changing its mind per your logic. Scientific theories are revised constantly.
>>>However, when there is a strong consensus on a subject (the theory of gravity, heliocentricity, evolution, etc..)
While gravity as a phenomena is not debated, the theories that best explain it ARE DEBATED. The current consensus is that GR best explains it, but we already know for a fact that GR is inadequate which means we are WAITING for another theory to replace it. No scientists gives this consensus the weight you give or suggest others give.
See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Alternative_theories
About heliocentricism - heliocentricism is a frame of reference, so what consensus are you referring to? It is infuriating that you are not only ill-informed on the scientific method nor are you up to date on its advances, but you are not subject to correction when your views are shown to be false. Earlier above I wrote: P.S. The heliocentric view makes sense only in some circumstances (eg. when you are studying the solar system, or cycle of the moon, or the path of Mercury). If for example I wanted to create a map from my house to the railway station, than I would have to adopt a McCloud-centric view. Every time you drive or take a walk, your frame of reference is Gary-centric or street-centric, and not heliocentric. Cosmologists many times adopt galactic-centric view to study specific phenomena.
Point is geocentricism as one of the many available frames of reference is a legitimate frame of reference. People without physics training often dont know this. For example, if you want to understand the strength of the Earth 's magnetic field, you would be hardpressed to adopt a geocentric frame of reference. Geocentrism as a "fixed" and "only" frame of reference is outright wrong, again, because there exists no fixed frame of reference that is correct in terms of explaining all phenomena around it mathematically or otherwise.
to be continued.
You ignored this correction, and repeated this nonsense that there is a strong consensus on heliocentrism. What part of the concept of "frame of reference" you are unable or incapable of understanding is beyond me. THERE IS NO FIXED FRAME OF REFERENCE IN SPACE for there to be consensus on it.
DeleteOn Evolution: While evolution as a means of speciation and variation is accepted, the "how" of it is debated. Science is a self-correcting mechanism, but this mechanism can be slowed by human bias and other non-human factors.
One more thing - gravity is a law. We know it exists beyond doubt. In other words, gravity is a FACT. Dont confuse this law with the gravitation theories that try to explain this law. Heliocentrism is not a law, nor is evolution. The former is a frame of reference used per convenience and relevance, the latter is a model that tries to best explain all the facts on the table pertaining to it.
>>> I believe that a society functions best if the general public accepts the scientific consensus as fact.
Wrong. Consensus only implies CURRENT popularity of the said argument. The general public must apply the basic principles of the scientific method like not calling those things facts which are NOT proven to be facts. Consensus by definition is not a fact, and it would be ridiculous to assert it as such. Consensus may be at best referred to as the best commonly accepted explanation pending other contrary evidence or change of consensus. Nothing beyond this.
>>> But again, a society functions best when the general public accepts and respects expert consensus opinion.
You are talking outsides the bounds of the scientific method, and the results of that method now, which is what we were discussing. You went from accusing me of being a fundamental theist because you bizarrely disputed my statements which were factually true - and when cornered, you are resorting to a different argument disconnected to what you in fact disputed above. This argument is a red-herring.
>>>However, there is a consensus on the Big Bang at this point in time so I accept the Big Bang as fact (until the consensus of experts says it is not).
If you are so gullible as to call opinions that are currently disputed as facts, which scientists themselves dont consider as facts - that probably is a cue that I am arguing with the wrong person.
>>>A society in which every person, regardless of education and training, considers himself/herself an expert on all topics is a dysfunctional society.
DeleteStrawman. Researching varied view points and forming your own opinion based on what you understand does not make you an expert. It makes you informed, and an informed public is critical for any society's flourishing.
>>> If the overwhelming majority of experts on an issue find out they are wrong and change their position then we non-experts should follow suit.
With regards to the "should follow suit" - wrong again.
1. Argument from authority
2. The non-experts must try to find contrary opinions to any position they are invested in and its explanatory scope compared to the consensus. This is particularly indispensible if you as a non-expert are funding their researches (as an individual or as a tax-payer). Opinions must be formed, and decisions taken based on data, not sweeping assumptions like yours that consensus reflect reality! That comes straight from the principles of the scientific method. While I have training in physics, I dont have training in advanced mathematics employed in string theory - but I can read arguments for and against it, and make judgments on scientifically accepted principles if string theory is worth buying into.
Your argument could work for an illiterate, dumb, disinterested fellow who would not make an effort to figure out why he believes what he believes. I believe the society should be more informed, more interested, more educated, and generally making decisions on facts, rather than laziness, and the views you are propagating are a hindrance to pursue that. While no society is perfect, a society can and must strive to be more informed.
Lastly, so far I did not find your arguments scientifically coherent. Your blind allegiance to consensus is as unscientific a perspective as I can imagine. But that is not as unfortunate as is the fact that you dont even seem to realise it.
>>>Except, as Thomas Kuhn pointed out, scientists don't change their position even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They just die while the new generation doesn't believe what the old one did.
DeleteThat is true many times. Peter Voit expresses that frustration in his book "Not Even Wrong."
McCloud: "Why? If it can explain an event, why would it be putting the cart before the horse? If Jesus' resurrection is explained by a supernatural force, why should the supernatural force rejected prima facie?"
ReplyDeleteIf the resurrection had good evidence that it occurred, I would believe it. But the evidence is very poor for this claim. The overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe that the Gospels are eyewitness sources. These books are hearsay, written by non-eyewitnesses writing in a genre that allowed extensive embellishment.
>>>If the resurrection had good evidence that it occurred, I would believe it. But the evidence is very poor for this claim.
DeleteI asked you what evidence for resurrection would work for you. You did not answer. Your answer would have helped me understand your exact position.
>>>The overwhelming majority of scholars do not believe that the Gospels are eyewitness sources. These books are hearsay, written by non-eyewitnesses writing in a genre that allowed extensive embellishment.
The gospels are argued to belong to a specific genre.... So? Just because the gospel is a product of its time and falls into a genre (which is theorising to be sure, but be that as it may), it by definition has embellishment? One can argue that it "may" have, but one would have to demonstrate those embellishment, and why one believes those are embellishment - else you are merely poisoning the well - which again is fallacious.
Second, how can the scholars know for certain which accounts are eyewitnesses? (They cant; they are merely theorising, and there are other counter perspectives to those theories offered).
Third, for a man arguing from science, you lay a lot of weight on consensus. That is again not the way a scientific mind should work. A scientific mind must evaluate arguments and evidence - not take a poll on popular opinions. Scientists throughout the last 500 years had wrong, or inaccurate general opinion about reality until it was challenged. And it was challenged not by the conformists, but those who evaluated the scientific explanatory scope of older arguments (theories in this case).
If you have good arguments to doubt the credibility of the New Testament - that can be discussed. This "majority believe" argument is not worth anyone's time. Not to mention this is ALSO a FALLACY (Argumentum ad populum)
What I am trying to demonstrate here is that your familiarity with the methods of a discipline (science) you seem to respect is very poor. (You think that science as a discipline "tells" us something - you have personified science here - and this is important because a person generally has one definitive opinion - so maybe you are implying science has a definitive opinion on things. When I clarified that it is scientists who tells us something (and not science which is inanimate - it is weird that I have to spell this out), not only was that factually true (which you bizarrely disputed), but it also showed that there are a lot of difference of opinion on most of the things in the scientific community.). Or if it is strong, you are so biased against Christianity that you are refusing to employ sound evidence based judgments that a scientific mind would employ.
So far all I have got from you is argument from absence of evidence/ignorance, an appeal to the majority and poisoning of the well (make sweeping statements that since gospel represent a genre they are by definition unreliable). This is hardly impressive.
"The gospels are argued to belong to a specific genre.... So? Just because the gospel is a product of its time and falls into a genre (which is theorising to be sure, but be that as it may), it by definition has embellishment? One can argue that it "may" have, but one would have to demonstrate those embellishment, and why one believes those are embellishment - else you are merely poisoning the well - which again is fallacious."
DeleteIs it wise to believe everything you read in a book unless you can prove the statements of fact in the book false? Of course not. You wouldn't do that for any other book from Antiquity. When Homer mentions "Cyclops" in his "Iliad" should we believe in the existence of these creatures until someone proves them as fictional?
Of course not.
We only accept very unusual claims of fact when there is very strong evidence presented for their veracity.
"Second, how can the scholars know for certain which accounts are eyewitnesses? (They cant; they are merely theorising, and there are other counter perspectives to those theories offered)."
DeleteI agree with you. When evaluating texts which were written almost two millennia ago, we can only discuss probabilities. The correct statement then would be: "The consensus of NT scholarship is that it is very unlikely (very improbable) that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels."
We cannot establish 100% certainty when discussing events from so long ago.
"Third, for a man arguing from science, you lay a lot of weight on consensus. That is again not the way a scientific mind should work. A scientific mind must evaluate arguments and evidence - not take a poll on popular opinions. Scientists throughout the last 500 years had wrong, or inaccurate general opinion about reality until it was challenged. And it was challenged not by the conformists, but those who evaluated the scientific explanatory scope of older arguments (theories in this case). If you have good arguments to doubt the credibility of the New Testament - that can be discussed. This "majority believe" argument is not worth anyone's time. Not to mention this is ALSO a FALLACY (Argumentum ad populum)."
DeleteModern, advanced, industrialized societies could not function if the general public refused to accept expert consensus opinion. Doing so has proven much more advantageous to societies than when everyone considering himself an expert on everything.
Respecting the majority opinion of experts on topics that one is not an expert is not a logical fallacy. It is considered being intelligent and mature by most educated people in our society.
Since you brought up the fact that we should listen to experts, Gary, how are you an expert in anything you're talking about. This includes the "consensus of NT scholarship"--are you an expert in NT scholarship? Note, I'm not asking if you're an expert in the NT (that comes later) but if you are an expert in what constitutes genuine NT scholarship. What is your degree in? Prove your credentials.
DeleteThis isn't my standard, it's yours. Until you live by your own standard, kindly shut up.
"there are a lot of difference of opinion on most of the things in the scientific community."
Delete---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding heliocentricity? No.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding the belief that the universe is billions of years old? No.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding the belief that life on earth began millions of years ago? No.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding the veracity of any of the so called "laws of physics"? No.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding evolution and the origin of species? No.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community (geologists and anthropologists) regarding whether or not the entire world has experienced a flood? No.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community (anthropologists and archaeologists) regarding the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan as described in the Bible? No.
You fundamentalist theists always like to paint science as very wishy washy and unsure of its claims. That is ignorant nonsense. Science tells us A LOT about our universe and with far more accuracy than your ancient middle-eastern holy book ever hopes to.
Gary,
DeleteOh so now you're an expert in defining the "scientific community" too, eh? What are your credentials, Garebear? A PhD in Google-Fu? What fields are you an expert in? Who did you study under? What makes your words of whizzdumb so important that anyone should listen to you?
You're a gasbag of randomly arranged atomic particles that somehow has self-awareness but which will pass into nothing the instant you die. This isn't what I believe--it's what you believe.
So why should anyone care about one word you've said? C'mon. Put up your dukes or hightail it out of here like the inconsistent coward you are.
And yet, the lives of millions of people across cultures and ages, have been changed and a Man who walked the dusty roads of Palestine changed the world without a military or a political movement. Yep, the evidence is pretty poor...
DeleteWhich "scientific community" are you referring to, Gary? There's no single homogeneous "scientific community". There are many topics in which scientists may present a united front to the general public, but if you read the debates between scientists in that field or subject, there's plenty of disagreement about fundamentals.
DeleteTake the cure for cancer. In general, scientists present a united front about seeking a "cure for cancer" when asking for research money from the government (e.g. NIH/NCI) or private funding. However, almost every scientist (e.g. MD/PhD) involved in cancer research is fully aware there's no single "cure for cancer". At best, that's extremely unlikely. That's because cancer isn't a single disease. For example, see this comic which illustrates the problem well for laypeople.
Another scientific area which "appears" united is the theory of evolution i.e. neo-Darwinism. However:
DeleteAs we know, neo-Darwinism is the mainstream accepted paradigm when it comes to evolutionary theory. Neo-Darwinism centers on three main tenets: (1) small-scale random mutations leading to macroevolutionary changes in body plans ("from micro to macro"); (2) natural selection as the main cause of adaptive change; and (3) heredity, ultimately tracing its way back to a universal common ancestor.
However, there have been challenges to neo-Darwinism. I'm not referring to, say, creationism or ID theory. Rather, I'm talking about challenges to neo-Darwinism from fellow secular scientists. Here's a list of alternative contenders to neo-Darwinism, taken from Darwin's Doubt (chapter 16) by Stephen Meyer:
1. Symbiogenesis (e.g. Lynn Margulis, Michael Syvanen). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with all three - random mutations, natural selection, and heredity.
2. Natural genetic engineering (e.g. James Shapiro). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations and natural selection.
3. Facilitated variation (e.g. John Gerhart, Marc Kirschner). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations.
4. Evolutionary developmental biology (e.g. Sean Carroll, Rudolf Raff, Jeffrey Schwartz). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with random mutations.
5. Self-organization (e.g. David Depew, Stuart Kauffman, Mark Newman, Bruce Webber). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with natural selection.
6. Neutral evolution (e.g. Michael Lynch, Arlin Stoltzfus). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with natural selection.
7. Neo-Lamarckism (e.g. Eva Jablonka, Massimo Pigliucci). This challenges neo-Darwinism by disagreeing with heredity.
"[Gary] You wouldn't do that for any other book from Antiquity. When Homer mentions 'Cyclops' in his 'Iliad' should we believe in the existence of these creatures until someone proves them as fictional?"
Deletei) I think you mean Polyphemus in the Odyssey.
ii) Antiquity is not the issue, but genre and witness reliability.
iii) According to Greek mythology, Polyphemus was the son of Poseidon. Well, if there's reason to deny the existence of a sea god, then there's reason to deny the existence of his offspring.
"We only accept very unusual claims of fact when there is very strong evidence presented for their veracity"
You take presumptive naturalism for granted, but whether supernatural claims are "very unusual claims of fact" is the very issue in dispute.
"The consensus of NT scholarship is that it is very unlikely (very improbable) that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels."
There is no consensus in NT scholarship. There's a basic division between those who operate according to methodological atheism and those who don't.
"Modern, advanced, industrialized societies could not function if the general public refused to accept expert consensus opinion."
Compare that to Michael Crichton's Caltech address:
http://s8int.com/crichton.html
Truth, scientific or other truth, isn't decided by consensus. It only takes one person to be correct for the truth to be true, as it were. There's no need for any "scientific community" to agree if a single scientific experiment or explanation demonstrates a claim is true.
DeleteWhat on Earth is "methodological atheism"?
DeleteHi Lehman. My interest in this conversation is waning. If you feel like it, take over, my non-supernaturalist brother! You are more than capable of dealing with this set of supernaturalists.
DeleteGary
Delete"Hi Lehman. My interest in this conversation is waning."
As Gary said earlier, "how convenient"! :) The truth is it's not so much that Gary's "interest" is "waning", but rather that Gary has nothing left to say after using up his atheist tropes.
I suspect it's pretty hard to stay interested when people keep pointing out how you're not following your own standards.
DeleteGary still hasn't given his credentials either, so I'm assuming he has none.
LOL, Peter! :)
DeleteGary,
DeleteYou fundamentalist theists always like to paint science as very wishy washy and unsure of its claims. That is ignorant nonsense. Science tells us A LOT about our universe and with far more accuracy than your ancient middle-eastern holy book ever hopes to.
What a laughable conclusion. Just because I am not on your train I am a fundamental theist? Try harder, Gary.
You on the other hand is the fundamental atheist who is twisting my arguments. Lets deflate your foolish accusation, and demonstrate some of your ignorance, shall we:
You said: ---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding heliocentricity? No.
Demonstrates you dont understand the concept of frame of reference.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding the belief that the universe is billions of years old? No.
Demonstrates your ignorance on cosmology. That is not a belief, it is a measurement.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding the belief that life on earth began millions of years ago? No.
Demonstrates how you are eager to twist my argument. Consensus on when life began does not ignore the debated issue on how life began, evolved, etc. This argument is a strawman.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding the veracity of any of the so called "laws of physics"? No.
Did I say there is? Have I not assumed in my entire discussion here that natural law holds? I disputed opinions ON the natural laws (theories explaining those laws) - not the veracity of the said laws.
Another strawman.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community regarding evolution and the origin of species? No.
Are you familiar with the continuing evolution of the evolution theory, and the debated issues therein? Have scientist figured out the explanation for origin of species? Does an overarching consensus implies consensus in all parts of that study?
Your argument is a fallacy of composition.
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community (geologists and anthropologists) regarding whether or not the entire world has experienced a flood? No.
Huh? Where are you drifting to?
---Is there a lot of difference of opinion in the scientific community (anthropologists and archaeologists) regarding the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan as described in the Bible? No.
What do you mean to say a "lot of"? If there is some disagreement that wouldnt count? Besides, you are arguing against something I have not put forward. This is both a red-herring and a strawman. My primary point involved disagreements in natural sciences, and I gave examples of those disagreements in the natural sciences that you have chosen to ignore because you dont seem interested in an honest dialogue where you actually address what people (in this case I) argue.
All your above points hinge on the fallacy of composition. You are trying to establish that because there is little disagreement in some overarching fields, there is either no disagreement in the studies within the field or that those disagreements arent noteworthy - which I suggested it was. Scientists disagree. This is a demonstrable fact.
Your fundamentalist mentality makes you immune to such facts! You are the first person I have come across who disputes that there are widely debated opinions within most scientific field. The first, Gary. The first!
And I dont mean that as a compliment - just clarifying given how spectacularly you have twisted my comments.
DeleteSince you brought up the fact that we should listen to experts, Gary, how are you an expert in anything you're talking about. This includes the "consensus of NT scholarship"--are you an expert in NT scholarship? Note, I'm not asking if you're an expert in the NT (that comes later) but if you are an expert in what constitutes genuine NT scholarship. What is your degree in? Prove your credentials.
This isn't my standard, it's yours. Until you live by your own standard, kindly shut up.
Precisely. I find Gary's position to be inconsistent logically (double standards - and use of fallacious arguments including argument from authority which seems to be his favorite), and incoherent scientifically (denying scientist bias (as if scientists are not human or as if this is not known or spoken of by scientists themselves), alternate theories as serious difference of opinions, misunderstanding of scientific concepts like frame of references which I learnt in my undergraduate physics class when I was like 16/17).
He reminds of the KJV-Onlyist who has made up his mind, and will use any reasoning no matter how facile to support his view. Others had warned as such, but not it is demonstrably clear.
Gary says about himself that he's a "Seeker of Truth" and "Give me good evidence for your belief system and I will examine it with an open mind." See original or here.
DeleteHowever, as is in evidence in this very thread, Gary isn't serious about seeking truth or being open minded. He dismisses reasonable argument and evidence a priori. He's committed to his atheistic worldview, even though he pays lip service to not being committed to any worldview, to seeking the truth, to being open minded, and so on.
>>>Gary says about himself that he's a "Seeker of Truth" and "Give me good evidence for your belief system and I will examine it with an open mind.
DeleteThat probably was said in humour - but I am guessing.
Most of what Gary says is humorous even though it's intended to be serious. :)
DeletePeter Pike: "This inadvertently exposes a fundamental problem for you. You hate God so much that you don't even know what would count as evidence."
ReplyDeleteWhich god are you speaking about? I don't have anything against Lord Krishna but I don't know that much about Hinduism. I don't really care for Allah or Yahweh. Both seem to be capricious, bloody thugs. Lord Jesus seems like a nice god, but since I don't believe that brain-dead corpses ever come back to life, I highly doubt that he exists. I'm open to the idea, but if he can raise himself from the dead, he can raise my coffee table three feet off of the floor for three minutes. I will be a faithful believer if he does but since I am told that Jesus won't do parlor tricks on demand, I have to assume that he is just another imaginary friend. Imaginary friends never want to prove their existence for some strange reason.
I definitely do not hate the Creator God. I believe that good evidence exists that can be used to support belief in a Creator. But to me, the evidence indicates that if there is a Creator God, he (she/they/or it)...
...has no interest in identifying himself (herself, themselves, itself).
...is indifferent or impotent regarding the massive human and animal suffering on our planet.
...has ordained that the supernatural not operate within our universe.
I demonstrate respect and honor to the (possible) Creator God by picking up my trash at the beach, recycling my plastic containers, and not wasting water.
Still trying to figure out what you're an expert it. It's clearly not rational thinking. But I figure you're a shoe-in for a PhD in avoiding the point. Perhaps you can market your +5 Dodge underpants.
DeleteGary stated above he's a "general practioner". But today American physician don't use that term anymore, as far as I'm aware. The only exceptions are the old guys who trained eons ago. I think they're considered family physicians, though I don't know if they actually had to do a residency in order to become a family physician, or if they were just grandfathered in or something.
DeleteRegardless, Gary isn't an expert in the Bible, theology, philosophy, physics, math, etc.
McCloud: "I asked you what evidence for resurrection would work for you. You did not answer. Your answer would have helped me understand your exact position."
ReplyDeleteI want the same quality of evidence that every one of the original disciples of Jesus and Paul (allegedly) required to believe: I want Jesus to appear to me. I want to talk to him. I want to touch him.
If that is what it took for the disciples to believe, why is it wrong for me to ask for the same standard of evidence???
Gary
Delete"I want the same quality of evidence that every one of the original disciples of Jesus and Paul (allegedly) required to believe: I want Jesus to appear to me. I want to talk to him. I want to touch him. If that is what it took for the disciples to believe, why is it wrong for me to ask for the same standard of evidence???"
John 20:29-31: "Jesus said to him, have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
I want the same quality of evidence that every one of the original disciples of Jesus and Paul (allegedly) required to believe: I want Jesus to appear to me. I want to talk to him. I want to touch him.
DeleteHow would you know that it was Jesus, and not a figment of your imagination, or a hallucination or a magic trick or some other god or an alien?
If that is what it took for the disciples to believe, why is it wrong for me to ask for the same standard of evidence???
Until you can show how you would evaluate that it was Jesus and not some other explanation, you would never be able to get convinced about Christianity in the way his apostles were. His apostles took it on faith that what they saw was Jesus, the same faith that they had before his death - the faith that you clearly dont have.
Therefore Jesus appearing to you would be inconclusive or even useless for your conversion and therefore I can imagine why he would not want to waste his time appearing to you - following that logic.
Gary wrote:
Delete"I want the same quality of evidence that every one of the original disciples of Jesus and Paul (allegedly) required to believe: I want Jesus to appear to me. I want to talk to him. I want to touch him.
If that is what it took for the disciples to believe, why is it wrong for me to ask for the same standard of evidence???"
That's like arguing that since Paul persecuted Christians before becoming one, Christians should have no objection to non-Christians persecuting them today. Neither the New Testament nor any other early Christian source commends the unbelief of the individuals who doubted the resurrection until they saw Jesus themselves. To the contrary, their unbelief is portrayed negatively, as something unreasonable (Luke 24:11, 24:25, John 20:29, Acts 26:14). They're even referred to as persisting in unbelief to some degree after Jesus appeared to them (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:38), which is especially irrational. But only a small minority of the earliest Christians are referred to as only believing after they saw the risen Jesus. Most of the earliest Christians aren't referred to as having received an appearance of Jesus after his death, yet they believed in his resurrection (John 20:29, Acts 1:14-15, 2:41). They had historical evidence for it, such as what Peter mentions in Acts 2: the previous miracles of Jesus (verse 22), the empty tomb (verse 29), the testimony of eyewitnesses (verse 32), fulfilled prophecy (verses 34-35), etc. 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 refers to hundreds of resurrection witnesses, and only a small minority of those are referred to elsewhere as having initially doubted the resurrection.
Among the earliest Christians, the biggest group whose conversion to belief in the resurrection is described for us is the group in Acts 2:41. And Peter's use of historical argumentation led up to their conversion. Similarly, we today have more than sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection. The resurrection appearances were intended, in part, to set aside certain individuals as apostles (Acts 1:21-22, 10:40-41, 1 Corinthians 9:1). There's no need for an appearance to every individual to justify belief in the resurrection. Given how poorly skeptics have explained the evidence they already have, they're in no position to claim that they need more evidence.
Listen to scholar NT Wright on the subject of the authorship of the Gospels:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FszDfiERnhk
To my knowledge, NT Wright is better known for his work on the historical Jesus as well as, infamously, for his work on justification. To my knowledge, he's more historian than careful exegete or NT scholar. Not to mention NT Wright doesn't seem to have any problems commenting on a host of issues for which he's not expert. Is there a biblical topic NT Wright hasn't written on or talked about?
DeleteWhat's more, as others have pointed out, NT Wright often says one thing, then takes it back at a later date when corrected by other scholars, then restates it in another manner, etc. As Don Carson, another NT expert who is an exact contemporary of NT Wright's (Wright was at Oxford while Carson was at Cambridge at the same, as I recall), Wright tends to foreground what should be in the background and background what should be in the foreground.
In any case, lots of other NT scholars disagree with NT Wright including Don Carson and Doug Moo for starters.
Gary
ReplyDelete"I read your first case. I am a general practice physician. Bizarre recoveries happen. They happen to Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and to atheists. The fact that Christians do not have any lower morbidity rates and mortality rates than persons of other religions and atheists who live in the same community and are of the same social class is good evidence that either Jesus is not answering prayers or that prayers to Allah, Lord Krishna, Yahweh, and random chance (in the case of atheists) are just as effective."
1. You're a general practioner, but the other examples are from or involve specialists. There's an obstetrician and gynecologist, there are a couple of neurologists, and there's a pathologist. (By the way, I'm in medicine too, but almost no American physician I know uses "general practioner" anymore. The only handful of exceptions I'm aware of are the really old guys who trained decades and decades ago.)
2. Sure, "bizarre recoveries happen", but are you just going to stop there and throw up your hands? That's a very unscientific mindset. If you're a physician worth you're salt, you'd want to figure out why. It could be you've dug, and there still aren't any answers. But at least you've made a serious attempt. Right now all you're doing is dismissing it out of hand. Were you lying when you said you're always open-minded and willing to consider the evidence? Because your actions belie you: your words say one thing, but your actions say another. ou're dismissive rather than detective.
3. As you should well know, these cases aren't about "lower morbidity rates and mortality rates". You're changing the subject as well as (I guess) attempting to use buzzwords in a sorry attempt to awe laypeople or something.
4. No, these are specific cases with specific pathologies with specific courses that under normal circumstances would prove hopeless. After all, how many patients have you ever had that fully recovered from Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD)? How many patients have you ever had who had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis but then after prayer no longer had ALS? And so on and so forth.
In fact, in the case of the patient with CJD, I believe the neurologists are still alive and contactable, so if you really and truly wanted to "dig deeper", then you could email them or call them. But how serious are you about being "open-minded" and "following the evidence" like you claim you want?
I am a board certified family physician if that is important for you to know.
Delete"In fact, in the case of the patient with CJD, I believe the neurologists are still alive and contactable, so if you really and truly wanted to "dig deeper", then you could email them or call them. But how serious are you about being "open-minded" and "following the evidence" like you claim you want?"
DeleteThere are millions of miracle claims by Christians. And there are millions of miracle claims by Muslims, Hindus, and persons of other religions. Where do I start????
I have better things to do with my time than investigate superstitious claims. You should give me credit for reading Keener's two volume book. Like I said above: If Jesus wants me to believe, he can levitate my coffee table. Until that happens, I think Jesus is just an imaginary friend for adults.
Gary
Delete"I am a board certified family physician if that is important for you to know."
Personally, I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. However, as I've already said, the examples I've given involve specialists, not general practioners/family physicians. Are you more of an expert than a neurologist when it comes to neurology? No. Yet in the case of the patient with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), two neurologists found the patient's recovery from CJD astounding and even miraculous.
"There are millions of miracle claims by Christians. And there are millions of miracle claims by Muslims, Hindus, and persons of other religions. Where do I start????"
Where do you start? Why don't you start with the specific examples I gave you! You never dealt with a single one of my examples except with hand-waving the first example away.
That's not to say the cases are true, but you don't even make an attempt to argue why you think they're false.
Take the ALS case. A pathologist himself claimed he had ALS and recovered from ALS after prayer. Now, the pathologist could be wrong, but you'd have to start by arguing the pathology with him.
Have you tried to contact the pathologist in the ALS case or the neurologists in the CJD case? Yet, if you're as serious about investigating such claims and following the evidence as you supposedly say you are, then at the very least you should contact the pathologist and neurologists who are still alive as far as I'm aware. Just tell them you're a medical colleague in family medicine who is interested in their cases. I've given their emails in my post. Then come back and tell us what you learned. That is, if you're truly "open-minded" as you claim you are, and haven't already made up your mind to be an atheist.
"I have better things to do with my time than investigate superstitious claims."
Delete1. On the one hand, Gary asked for evidence for God's existence. On the other hand, when we attempt to provide him some evidence, Gary calls the evidence "superstitious claims" without bothering to investigate it further. Hence, the fact that Gary prejoratively labels the claim "superstitious" before investigating further tells us all we need to know about whether Gary truly is "open-minded" or "narrow-minded"!
2. Also, the fact that Gary believes there are "better things to do" than resolve the question of whether God exists tells us where Gary's priorities really lie. Whether or not God exists isn't a priority for Gary. That's the real reason he doesn't care. In that case, there's no use arguing with Gary. He pretends to be open-minded, but the truth is he's already made up his mind. No facts or evidence will change his mind because he dismisses everything in advance.
DeleteGary
"You should give me credit for reading Keener's two volume book."
I would give you credit if you actually read it with a modicum of understanding. What Jason Engwer points out about you and Keener's book is correct.
"Like I said above: If Jesus wants me to believe, he can levitate my coffee table. Until that happens, I think Jesus is just an imaginary friend for adults."
1. How is that a rational attitude? I won't believe J.K. Rowling wrote Harry Potter unless she comes to my house in person and signs an autographed copy for me, just for me, and only me!
I won't believe Paris is the capital of France unless a Frenchman brings a piece of the Eiffel Tower itself to my house, just for me, and only me!
I won't believe the flightless bird native to New Zealand known as a kiwi exists unless a New Zealander brings one over to my house, just for me, and only me!
2. If Jesus is who he is, then why should he do that for you? God isn't a genie in a bottle to serve you at your every whim or fancy.
>>>1. On the one hand, Gary asked for evidence for God's existence. On the other hand, when we attempt to provide him some evidence, Gary calls the evidence "superstitious claims" without bothering to investigate it further. Hence, the fact that Gary prejoratively labels the claim "superstitious" before investigating further tells us all we need to know about whether Gary truly is "open-minded" or "narrow-minded"!
DeleteGary is your run-of-the-mill New Atheist! And he does not understand the scientific method properly - so you have been warned. According to him, scientific consensus are to be accepted as facts. That says a lot.
"[Gary] There are millions of miracle claims by Christians. And there are millions of miracle claims by Muslims, Hindus, and persons of other religions. Where do I start????"
Deletei) You could start with the Cambridge Companion to Miracles. That's scholarly. Does lots of sorting and sifting. Considers miracles from the standpoint of comparative religion. But even though the treatment is ecumenical and pluralistic, the upshot is that there's nothing comparable to the quality and quantity of reported miracles in non-Christian religions.
ii) Non-Christian miracles are compatible with the truth of Christianity.
Gary is essentially arguing science has done away with the need for God. That science has buried God (as John Lennox has put it in his book).
ReplyDeleteHowever, whether or not we agree with Gary, the point is that the claim "science has done away with God" (or similar) is no longer a scientific claim. Rather it's a philosophical claim. Hence by making such a claim Gary is not arguing scientifically but arguing philosophically. (Not that the two don't intertwine, but I'm talking about the fundamental issue.)
Given Gary has stated he's a "general practioner", and not a philosopher or theologian, then Gary is no better than any other layperson when it comes to the philosophical and theological issues involved.
Indeed, the real debate is not between science vs. religion (e.g. there are plenty of renowned scientists who are religious), but rather between atheism vs. theism.
In addition, what Gary fails to see is that science itself relies on philosophical assumptions.
DeleteFor example, Gary stated above: "All scientific evidence to date suggests that our universe is governed by inviolable laws of nature/physics."
I asked Gary on what basis as an atheist he believes this to be the case. But he didn't offer a response except to repeat what he said.
That's a deficient answer. It's a non-answer. My point is, given Gary's atheism/naturalism, he has to assume certain things in order to do science. Such as the fact that "our universe is governed by inviolable laws of nature/physics". How does Gary know the entire universe is governed by such laws? Has he explored every nook and cranny of the universe to ensure the entire universe is governed by the same laws? How does Gary know these laws are "inviolable"? Where's his argument? Or is it just an assumption he has to make in order to do science? How does Gary know the universe is rationally intelligible to human minds? Why should the universe be intelligible rather than unintelligible or even absurd? Perhaps it's an illusion to us that the universe is what it is, e.g. rationally intelligible, while we're really just stuck inside a Matrix-like computer simulation. Likewise, has Gary ever heard of the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN)? What is the EAAN is correct? What's Gary's counter-argument or counter-evidence to the EAAN?
Anyway, I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before and said better by others. I'm just pointing out basic questions that Gary hasn't even considered let alone wrestled with. Gary has to make a lot of assumptions in order for science to get off the ground. So the question is whether those assumptions make better sense given an atheistic/naturalistic worldview or given a theistic worldview.
Once again: I never said that my world view is the one correct world view. I never said that every aspect of my world view has been proven to be a fact (such as your suggestion that the laws of physics may not operate in some far off corner of the cosmos). I simply stated that I believe that my world view is the most reliable world view discovered so far in evaluating how our universe functions. Maybe one day we will find a better method of investigating how our universe operates.
DeleteGary
Delete"Once again: I never said that my world view is the one correct world view. I never said that every aspect of my world view has been proven to be a fact (such as your suggestion that the laws of physics may not operate in some far off corner of the cosmos)."
I'm surprised by how you can't even follow your own argument. I myself never "suggested" that "the laws of physics may not operate in some far off corner of the cosmos". Rather, this was the question I posed to you given your atheism. That is, given your atheism, on what basis do you assume the laws of nature are uniform throughout the entire universe? It's obvious you've never heard of uniformitarianism.
"I simply stated that I believe that my world view is the most reliable world view discovered so far in evaluating how our universe functions. Maybe one day we will find a better method of investigating how our universe operates."
Yes, the real debate is between atheism vs. theism. Or more specifically, in our case, naturalism vs. biblical theism. So the question people should be asking is whether atheism or theism (or naturalism or biblical theism) better explains "life, the universe, and everything".
Gary
ReplyDelete"I read your first case. I am a general practice physician. Bizarre recoveries happen."
If "bizarre recoveries happen", then why not a person rising from the dead? If you accept the "bizarre" can occur on no other basis besides your impression that they "happen", then why do you draw the line where you do?
People do come back from the dead (depending on how you define "death") all the time. It is called a "resuscitation". Anyone who has worked in an emergency room has seen one of these amazing events. Someone's whose heart has stopped and who is no longer breathing is "brought back to life" by CPR and advanced life support measures.
DeleteBut people who are brain dead do not come back to life. Ever. It is a medical impossibility because once cells are dead they cannot be revived (in a case of resuscitation, the most of the body's cells are still alive).
Therefore, the only way someone could be brought back to life from a truly brain dead state is for the laws of physics to be violated and I have never seen any good evidence that such an event has ever occurred.
Looks like you missed the point!
DeleteYou draw the line at "brain death" in the case of the deceased coming back to life. That's fine.
However, then I could just as easily say, if someone is diagnosed with x, then "I have never seen any good evidence that a healing of x has occurred". Yet, at least on the face of it, the evidence exists in the very examples I cited to you earlier! But you don't deal with them.
In any case, read "The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth" (McGrew).
When Jesus puts back together the thousands of pieces of tissue of a victim of a bombing, or reattaches the head of someone who has been decapitated, or reattaches a severed leg from an amputee, you will have my full attention. Until then, since prior investigations of "miracle" healings have demonstrated that there is always a possible (and more probable) naturalistic explanation (such as the previous chemo and radiation treatment finally kicked in), I'm not buying your magic tales.
DeleteYou are living in a world of fantasy. I'm sorry to tell you, "Dude", but Never Never Land does not exist. Come out of the darkness of ancient superstitions and into the light of reason and science.
Come out of the light of Christianity into the darkness of moral and existential nihilism.
DeleteThat stipulates an artificial example when there are many examples that debunk naturalism.
DeleteGary B
Delete"When Jesus puts back together the thousands of pieces of tissue of a victim of a bombing, or reattaches the head of someone who has been decapitated, or reattaches a severed leg from an amputee, you will have my full attention."
1. Ah, yes! The old atheist chestnut of why doesn't God heal amputees? Like others have pointed out from the get-go, you just recycle common atheist tropes that many others have alredy answered without bothering to look at their answers.
2. Here's an obvious problem with your request. Atheists argue God doesn't heal amputees because it's medically and scientifically impossible for amputees to be healed. However, suppose God did heal amputees. In that case, I have no doubt atheists would argue that the amputee being healed must mean there's a medical and scientific explanation for the healing.
3. If you had actually bothered to read Keener's 2-volume book like you claim to have read, you would know Keener has mentioned he has found multiple cases of healed amputees. Whether or not they're credible accounts is a different story, but it's not as if you've ever bothered to lift a single finger in explaining why you think what Keener has noted is incredible.
4. Once again, it becomes increasingly obvious you're either lying when you said you read Keener's book or you lacked enough basic reading comprehension to understand what Keener wrote even though what Keener wrote was not exactly very difficult to grasp. If the former, then you're duplicitious and arguing in bad faith. If the latter, then you're not exactly the brightest bulb, which would explain your atheism.
5. Here's another question: Why doesn't God heal people of their stupidity? Why doesn't God heal atheists of their atheism? Why doesn't God just make every single person a believer from the moment they're born? Why doesn't God feed every single person who is starving? Why doesn't God make every single person who's poor wealthy enough to survive? Why doesn't God make the world a perfect place according to my standards of what's perfect?
"Until then, since prior investigations of "miracle" healings have demonstrated that there is always a possible (and more probable) naturalistic explanation (such as the previous chemo and radiation treatment finally kicked in), I'm not buying your magic tales."
Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who refuses to look into actual evidence when it's provided for him. Gary just pays lip service to being a "truth seeker", being "open-minded", and so on. However, when evidence is provided for him to investigate, he says "I have better things to do with my time than investigate superstitious claim". The question is, how does Gary know it's "superstitious" (maybe it is, maybe it isn't) before he has looked into it?
"You are living in a world of fantasy. I'm sorry to tell you, "Dude", but Never Never Land does not exist."
Delete1. If atheism is true, this life is all there is. If atheism is true, then once we die, then oblivion. If atheism is true, then you existed for a time, then it's like you never existed. If atheism is true, you'll never exist again. If atheism is true, then what Richard Dawkins has said is true:
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
How is atheism an improvement upon anything?
2. In fact, suppose everything Gary has said is true. Suppose God doesn't exist. In that case, why shouldn't someone live in "a world of fantasy"? If atheism is true, why should believing in the cold harsh truth be a duty or obligation? If atheism is true, why not live like Cypher in The Matrix: "I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss."
"Come out of the darkness of ancient superstitions and into the light of reason and science."
Plenty of accomplished philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians who don't see serious conflict between science and religion. Take people like Blaise Pascal, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann, James Clerk Maxwell, etc. All of them were far more intelligent, far more reasonable, and far more scientific than Gary.
Gary says,
Delete'But people who are brain dead do not come back to life. Ever. It is a medical impossibility...'
1. The Christian agrees that generally people do not come back to life. We can all agree that dead people generally do not rise from the dead. This is uncontroversial. The Christian claim is that *Christ* rose from the dead. Statistical irrelevancies aside, that is the claim you must tackle.
2. A 'medical impossibility' is neither here nor there. Leaving aside the fact that an omnipotent God of creation is the ultimate physician, we are talking about a supernatural act of God.
Gary continues,
'...Therefore, the only way someone could be brought back to life... is for the laws of physics to be violated...'
That is old. And woeful.
1. Again, on Christianity, there is no self-evident reason to believe that the God who set these 'laws' in place cannot just as well 'violate' those laws without causing a rippling catastrophe in those 'laws.'
2. As has been argued by Robert Larmer, God can intervene in creation without 'violating' any known 'law.' Paraphrasing Larmer in his Questions of Miracle, if someone were to throw a billiard ball into the mix of a game of billiards, disrupting the game (or 'stuff') for the sole purpose of disruption, then is the 'law of motion' violated? Is the general principle of motion disrupted one iota? Manipulating the 'stuff' of which the 'law' *describes* in no way violates that 'law.'
Likewise, if God wanted to manipulate the 'stuff' of nature to cause a miraculous or unusual event such as the resurrection of Jesus, then he violates no 'law' by acting on the 'stuff' of which the 'law' describes.
Gary out of one side of his mouth:
Delete"Some of the miracle claims are just downright stupid. Any educated Christian with a college degree should be embarrassed that Keener included these claims in his book. One such claim is that a woman who had previously undergone a complete hysterectomy prayed to Jesus for a child and nine months later she delivered a healthy child. If that story is true, that is more miraculous than the virginal conception of Jesus!"
Out of the other:
"When Jesus puts back together the thousands of pieces of tissue of a victim of a bombing, or reattaches the head of someone who has been decapitated, or reattaches a severed leg from an amputee, you will have my full attention. Until then, since prior investigations of 'miracle' healings have demonstrated that there is always a possible (and more probable) naturalistic explanation (such as the previous chemo and radiation treatment finally kicked in), I'm not buying your magic tales."
So, Gary apparently wants Jesus to produce miracles that he's already dismissed as "downright stupid" in principle.
Look, guys. The entire Resurrection story could very easily have been the result of something happening very similar to what happened in Knock, Ireland last summer when hundreds of devout Christians were certain they had seen the Virgin Mary when all that I see in the sky is a bright light. Check it out:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb94GRFF0E0
That's an argument from analogy minus the argument. In what ways do you think Jesus' resurrection is like what happened in Knock?
DeleteI think it is possible that individuals and groups saw something in their environment (such as a bright light) and believed it was the risen Jesus.
DeleteNot everyone is as gullible as you are, Gary.
DeleteGary, are you an MD or DO?
DeleteGary
Delete"I think it is possible that individuals and groups saw something in their environment (such as a bright light) and believed it was the risen Jesus."
1. Is this just a wild guess or is it actually based on something?
2. If you accept the Gospels as historically reliable enough about Jesus, then how do you pick and choose which portions you accept or reject? For example, it's not easy to simply reject the miraculous components, because sometimes the miraculous components are so bound up with the historical components that the miraculous can't be removed without critically affecting the historical components and vice versa.
The resurrection usually takes an evidential line of argumentation. There are historically three categories for an apologetical starting point:
ReplyDelete1. Classical apologetics. These arguments are generally focused on challenging metaphysical presuppositions. The assumption is that the person's metaphysical understanding is erroneous and a little logic will straighten them out.
2. Evidential apologetics. These arguments presuppose a naturalistic epistemology. Use this as a common presupposition in an attempt to prove that the Christian faith is more likely to be true than anything else. This has been the means to convince many people over the years. Ultimately, however, if such people don't change from a naturalistic epistemology to a revelatory one their metaphysics will be erroneous.
3. Presuppositional apologetics. These arguments challenge a person's ethics by assuming that the Bible is true in revealing that we all have the law of God written on our hearts. That gives us the common ground the other two fail in providing. It doesn't guarantee success, but it is the most theologically consistent approach.
So if we understand the resurrection as an apologetic, we will be inclined to present it evidentially. We will certainly be challenged on that level more than any other. However, we can present the resurrection revelationally. The only problem with that is that it isn't the most natural way to present the resurrection and if we want to start with the resurrection, we face an uphill battle to escape the epistemological questions and get to a more central line of argumentation. It's best to keep the resurrection tangential in a presuppositional methodology.
A couple of comments from Gary over at his own weblog:
ReplyDelete"Hi Bruce! After receiving a few nasty, personally demeaning responses to my comments on Triablogue, I started to recognize the handiwork of JP Holding. Isn’t he one of the owners of Triablogue? His primary strategy on every blog in which he is involved is to personally attack and demean the skeptic to shut them up. His minions follow suit in the personal attacks."
1. The irony is Gary has left some rather less than pleasant comments in this very thread, but I guess Gary only has a problem with other people's comments, not his own!
2. In any case, there have been reasonable responses to Gary in this very thread. Of course, Gary doesn't agree with the responses, and no one expects him to agree. However, the issue is that Gary doesn't even bother to address the reasonable responses. Basically Gary just dismisses the responses out of hand, though he's fairly verbose in saying nothing. And now I guess Gary is trying to use "personal attacks" as a reason he doesn't need to address the reasonable responses to him.
"Levitating my table would be enough for me. You are absolutely correct, it could have been levitated by a demon, or Allah, or Lord Krishna, or Zeus, but…it would still be enough for me."
See, this is another addled answer from Gary. On the one hand, Gary claims if Jesus levitated a table in front of him, then that'd be enough for him to believe in Jesus. On the other hand, Gary says it's possible the levitated table could be from a demon or Allah or Krishna or Zeus. If that's true, if the levitated table was from Allah, then that's no reason to believe in Jesus! Yet if Gary believes in Jesus even though it was Allah who levitated the table, then what does that tell you about Gary? He's not exactly the most logical person in the world! (Right, right, now I'm "personally attacking" Gary...)
That's a shame. I caught the thread rather late so refrained from piling in as Gary had his work cut out with several of you. But I remember thinking, This is a refreshing, pleasant discussion. While Gary's arguments are tired and woeful, I thought he showed some decorum in his manner compared to most atheists nowadays. It's a shame if he is sniping elsewhere.
DeleteOh, and JP Holding? Really? I bet Mr. Hays has a wee smile to himself when he sees that.
Ah, I just followed the link over to that blog. What a shame. Much back patting and caricaturing of the arguments presented against Gary. They are all so confident it is a wonder they haven't steamed over this side to back up Gary.
DeleteI think the really funny part is that he took something I wrote, attributed it to James McCloud (at least, I assume that's who he meant by "James, conservative Christian"), thought that I was JP Holding, and STILL expects us to take him seriously when he questions who wrote the Gospels.
DeleteHey, guys. I seriously doubt that we are going to change each other's minds. This is just becoming another nasty food fight between Christians and naturalists.
ReplyDeleteI bet that you will agree, the real battle is for the "hearts and minds" of the up and coming generations. It is my hope that enough skeptic/naturalist/secular humanist information gets out on the Internet that future generations of Americans will stop taking supernatural claims seriously. We non-supernaturalists will probably never be able to prove that Yahweh, Allah, Lord Krishna, and Lord Jesus do not exist, but we can, I believe, convince young people that the likelihood of their existence is very slim. The possible existence of these alleged beings can be ignored just as we all now ignore the possible existence of Zeus and Jupiter, beings to whom almost the entire known world at one time worshipped as the Creator.
Some advice that I would give my fellow skeptics: Stop arguing about the existence of "God" the Creator. A Creator may very well exist. But he most definitely could not be Yahweh. Yahweh couldn't pass a third grade science quiz. A "firmament" above the earth??? Get serious.
I believe that naturalism is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of America's youth. The declines in church membership and baptisms in practically all US Christian denominations is good evidence for this.
Time will tell.
Gary
Delete"Hey, guys. I seriously doubt that we are going to change each other's minds. This is just becoming another nasty food fight between Christians and naturalists."
1. I, for one, never expected to change your mind. My impression is people who become apostates (let alone more militant atheists like yourself) rarely return to Christianity. For example, you go from one Christian weblog to another Christian weblog to lecture rather than to learn. As such, it's easy enough to surmise you're not the type of person who's willing to have his mind changed.
2. However, it might be helpful to other people who are reading but not commenting to respond to you. That's because some readers might not have ever heard common atheist tropes. That's because some people might have heard common atheist tropes but might still be helped by various Christian apologists' takes on common atheist tropes since there's more than one way to skin a cat. And so on.
3. Of course, it would have been much better if you had good arguments against Christianity or good arguments for atheism. That's because it's generally better to tackle the best arguments against Christianity or for atheism, not the worst arguments against Christianity or for atheism. Unfortunately, your arguments are bottom of the barrel type arguments. The polar opposite of arguments from atheists like Mackie or Oppy.
"I bet that you will agree, the real battle is for the 'hearts and minds' of the up and coming generations. It is my hope that enough skeptic/naturalist/secular humanist information gets out on the Internet that future generations of Americans will stop taking supernatural claims seriously. We non-supernaturalists will probably never be able to prove that Yahweh, Allah, Lord Krishna, and Lord Jesus do not exist, but we can, I believe, convince young people that the likelihood of their existence is very slim."
1. I don't know what you consider the younger generation. I presume teens and 20-somethings would count, but would 30-somethings count? Because there are plenty of who are 30-somethings and younger who have thought through and good reasons for our Christian faith. Indeed, since you praise science and math so much, there are plenty of Christian apologists who have scientific and mathematical backgrounds (e.g. Peter Pike, Jonathan McLatchice, Neil Shenvi).
2. Atheism has been around for thousands of years. Secular humanism for hundreds if not thousands. That hasn't ever been an intellectual impediment to Christianity.
3. Also, even in the advent of modern science, there have been plenty of scientifically and mathemtically trained Christians who still see no conflict between Christianity and science. I've already given names like Blaise Pascal, Leonhard Euler, Bernhard Riemann, James Clerk Maxwell. Likewise other greats like Newton and Faraday, though I wouldn't count them as orthodox Christians, but still they believed in the Christian God and science.
4. Today, there are Christians like Francis Collins who is a physician-scientist and obviously famous as the former head of the Human Genome Project to sequence the human genome, John Lennox an Oxford professor of mathematics, and William Dembski (PhD, University of Chicago, mathematics).
DeleteThe younger generation would include the aforementioned Peter Pike, Jonathan McLatchie (PhD, molecular and cell biology), and Neil Shenvi (PhD, chemistry). Likewise David Glass a professor of physics, Luke Barnes a Cambridge University educated physicist, James Anderson a professor at RTS and former computer scientist (PhD), etc.
Plenty of others I'm sure I'm forgetting.
Point being, younger generations of Christians are both excelling in science as well as their Christian faith. No serious conflict.
5. By contrast, there's more serious conflict between science and atheism. See Alvin Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies for starters.
6. Existentially, there's just no comparison between Christianity and atheism. Why would anyone in their right mind want to become an atheist? You never say. A reasonable-minded person would realize atheism ultimately offers absurdity, meaninglessness, death and oblivion. That's no way to live.
"The possible existence of these alleged beings can be ignored just as we all now ignore the possible existence of Zeus and Jupiter, beings to whom almost the entire known world at one time worshipped as the Creator."
How is Yahweh comparable to Zeus? You never say. You just assume all gods are the same based on...your disbelief in all of them. But that's a circular argument.
"Yahweh couldn't pass a third grade science quiz. A "firmament" above the earth??? Get serious."
That shows your tin ear for reading the Bible. It's like you expect the Bible is supposed to be an astrophysics textbook. That's just dumb.
"I believe that naturalism is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of America's youth. The declines in church membership and baptisms in practically all US Christian denominations is good evidence for this. Time will tell."
1. How sure are you about that? My impression is denominations like Catholicism, the various Eastern Orthodoxies, and mainline Protestants are in decline. However, conservative evangelicals (in which I'd include the Reformed) seem to be on the rise.
2. Globally, it doesn't matter even if (evangelical) Christianity declines in the West, because Christianity isn't dependent on any particular nation. Christianity could decline in the West, but increase in the rest of the world. In fact, today Christianity does seem to be moving to the Majority world. Places like China, many parts of Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, parts of S. America, even a hostile place like the Mideast is showing encouraging signs of evangelical Christian growth.
For better or worse, the West is in decline overall, not just in demographics.
3. The Pew Research Center predicts: "Atheists, agnostics and other people who do not affiliate with any religion – though increasing in countries such as the United States and France – will make up a declining share of the world’s total population."
Therefore the answer is: we need to get the rest of the world's population greater Internet access! There seems to be a correlation between better access to multiple sources of information and decline in religiosity/superstitious belief.
Delete
DeleteGary
"Therefore the answer is: we need to get the rest of the world's population greater Internet access! There seems to be a correlation between better access to multiple sources of information and decline in religiosity/superstitious belief."
1. That's your takeaway? To conflate "religiosity" with "superstitious belief"? You should at the very least attempt to argue why you think a religion like Christianity is superstitious. Instead, you just assume religion and superstitiou go hand in hand. That may be true for some religions, but how is it true for Christianity? You don't even bother to argue why. That itself is unintelligent.
2. There are plenty of secularists and atheists who are superstitious. Lots of secularists and atheists who are anti-vaxxers, who believe in astrology, who believe in UFOs as extraterrestials who have visited Earth, who believe in conspiracy theories like the 9/11 truthers, who believe in urban myths or legends involving chain emails or crime stories, etc.
3. Historically, atheism has always been in the tiny minority. It doesn't seem to have changed much today either. Existentially, atheism offers no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose. Read this post.
4. Here and in an earlier comment(s), you come off like you're a white British imperialist who looks down in pity upon the "colored peoples" of the world, as if they're savages living in huts who need to be civilized.
The Wall Street Journal (2008) reports in their article "Look Who's Irrational Now":
DeleteThe reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us.
"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians...
This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.
"Existentially, atheism offers no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose."
DeleteAtheism is not a worldview or a lifestyle. It is simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities. I suggest that a better worldview and lifestyle is democratic secular humanism!
I believe that the best numbers regarding the status of Christianity in North America is found in church membership, and its not just the RCC, EOC, or mainline Protestants. The number of baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention has plummeted. Young people are leaving the SBC in droves.
I believe that a major reason is the Internet. Never before have humans had so much information at their very finger tips. If one had doubts about his religious beliefs prior to the Internet, where did he turn? The library??
The Internet is shining the light of reason and science into the dark corners of superstition. We are living in a momentous time period!
"I bet that you will agree, the real battle is for the "hearts and minds" of the up and coming generations."
DeleteBut why would Gary care about that? He's a gasbag that gained sentience for a short time before he dies, at which point he'll return to the nothing he was before.
What's the point of fighting for the "hearts and minds" of anyone if you're an atheist? What does it accomplish? You shout loudly into the abyss, "There is no point to anything" and then you die? Well, bully for you! Color me impressed.
We are nothing, we return to nothing, but somehow, in between all that, Gary will insist that we must battle for the hearts and minds of others...to no end whatsoever.
Look, Gary, Julius Caesar is more famous than you'll ever be. Do you think he cares that someone named a salad after him? Do you think he gives a toot that someone from the backward country of Britania would someday write an epic play that school children in a land he never knew existed are required to read?
Nope. He doesn't care. He's dead.
Just like you will be.
Just like everyone else will be.
Yeah, let's go capture those hearts and minds, buddy! Tilt at them windmills, Don Quixote!
(but somehow, it's the religious believer who's delusional....)
DeleteConversely, the Internet is a global medium of Christian evangelism.
DeleteDemocratic secular humanism has no explanatory power. No inherent meaning, no objective purpose, no future, and an oblivious and pointless end. Everything you or anyone else does in this life is awaiting that all engulfing fireball of stellar destruction expected in about 5 billion years. Phsssst!
DeleteGary
"Atheism is not a worldview or a lifestyle. It is simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities."
That's not how Graham Oppy (who is both an atheist as well as a world famous philosopher of atheism) defines atheism. Here's how Oppy defines atheism:
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.
People should prefer Oppy's definition rather than yours because Oppy is an actual scholar of atheism, whereas you don't have the relevant credentials, right?
"I suggest that a better worldview and lifestyle is democratic secular humanism!"
As an atheist, how do you adjudicate between what are better or worse forms of government? Why is democratic secular humanism "better" than (say) dictatorship?
"I believe that the best numbers regarding the status of Christianity in North America is found in church membership, and its not just the RCC, EOC, or mainline Protestants. The number of baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention has plummeted. Young people are leaving the SBC in droves."
What's your source? I've given you mine (above).
"I believe that a major reason is the Internet. Never before have humans had so much information at their very finger tips. If one had doubts about his religious beliefs prior to the Internet, where did he turn? The library??"
What's your source? I've given you mine (above).
"The Internet is shining the light of reason and science into the dark corners of superstition. We are living in a momentous time period!"
Did you just discover the internet today? It's been around for decades, you know.
"If one had doubts about his religious beliefs prior to the Internet, where did he turn? The library??"
DeleteWhat's wrong with the library? I'm from California. For example, the University of California has plenty of fine libraries. You don't have to be a student either. You can enroll as a member of the public for a fee.
Gary, you act like someone who just discovered color television exists when everyone else is watching live streaming television.
Delete"The Internet is shining the light of reason and science into the dark corners of superstition. We are living in a momentous time period!"
DeleteGary, if you think the internet is so great, I can't wait until you discover dabbing and furry fans.
To say nothing about Atheism+, creepy polyamorous atheist Richard Carrier's sex scandals, atheists devouring other atheists (e.g. PZ Myers), etc.
DeleteGary "Atheism is not a worldview or a lifestyle. It is simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities."
DeleteClassic village atheist trope. Low-grade apostates like Gary don't bother to read how the intellectual leaders of atheism define it:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/what-is-atheism.html
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
"I suggest that a better worldview and lifestyle is democratic secular humanism!"
I've done multiple posts documenting how candid atheists regard naturalism as equivalent to moral and existential nihilism.
"I believe that the best numbers regarding the status of Christianity in North America is found in church membership, and its not just the RCC, EOC, or mainline Protestants."
Another village atheist trope. For a corrective:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/22/new-harvard-research-says-u-s-christianity-not-shrinking-growing-stronger/
"I believe that a major reason is the Internet. Never before have humans had so much information at their very finger tips."
Cuts both ways. The internet is a fund of Christian apologetics.
Classic village atheist trope. Low-grade apostates like Gary don't bother to read how the intellectual leaders of atheism define it
DeleteI don't give a sweet rat's patootie how your so-called "intellectual leaders of atheism" define atheism. They don't speak for me like atheism is some kind of cult. They are, of course, free to define atheism however they want, as am I.
I've done multiple posts documenting how candid atheists regard naturalism as equivalent to moral and existential nihilism.
So? Let's just suppose for a second that your statement is actually true, How can this possibly tell us that any gods, let alone the Christian God, actually exists? As far as I can tell this is simply an appeal to emotion, and appeal to consequence, fallacy.
Gary said:
ReplyDelete---
It is simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities.
---
Atheism is not simply a lack of belief in the existence of deities, anymore than if I claimed "I don't believe that 2 + 2 has a solution" is merely the lack of belief in the existence of the number 4.