How Sagan shot himself in the foot

Many atheists dismiss miracles on the grounds that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There are different ways of responding to Hume, Sagan, and their imitators in that regard, but atheism is ironically self-referential in that regard. Suppose we grant the principle for the sake of argument. As I've often remarked, naturalism posits a universal negative about miracles. So it only takes a single miracle to falsify atheism. But in that event it's the atheist who is making an extraordinary claim. It's extraordinary to dismiss every reported miracle as a false report. Consider the sheer number of reported miracles. Not to mention the sheer number of unreported miracles. Few things could be as extraordinary as the claim that every single report is false, given the incredible volume, by witnesses of every stripe under different circumstances. 

One-trick pony show

I got into a marathon debate about the Resurrection on Facebook:

Johnson 

The Resurrection argument fails its own burden of proof.

The only evidence for the resurrection that actually matters are the claimed "post-mortem appearances" since there would be no other way to confirm that an actual resurrection had taken place. So the claim solely relies on if these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death. Everything else is just a distraction. Appealing to things like the empty tomb, so called "prophecy fulfillment" and alleged martyrdom stories, etc are all irrelevant red herrings since they do not directly support the hypothesis that a dead man became alive again. Thus, the burden of proof is on the one who claims Jesus' resurrection actually happened, or put simply, they need to show these people really saw Jesus alive again after his death.

Well, according to the earliest evidence, since Paul uses a "vision" (Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19) as a "resurrection appearance" (1 Cor 15:8) then it necessarily follows that claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) were accepted as evidence of Jesus "appearing." Paul makes no distinction in regards to the nature, quality, or type of appearances. He uses the same verb ὤφθη (ōphthē) for each one as if to equate them and makes no reference to a separate and distinct Ascension between the appearances. This calls into question the veracity of the "appearances" because it totally changes the meaning of "appeared." Even though Jesus wasn't physically present on the earth, one could still claim that they just "experienced his presence" and that counted as "seeing Jesus." Based on the earliest evidence in Paul's letters, claiming Jesus "appeared" could be nothing more than feeling like you communicated with him from heaven in a vision or a dream!

It's only later, after the gospels are written that we see the appearances grow more physical/corporeal but scholars have long recognized that the gospels don't actually go back to eyewitnesses and the data they contain evolves more fantastic as if a legend is growing. Since Paul is the only verified firsthand source by someone who claimed to "see" Jesus in the first person, and the "appearance" to him was a vision, (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) which he does not distinguish from the "appearances" to the others in 1 Cor 15:5-8, then the earliest evidence suggests these were originally subjective spiritual experiences. Thus, the resurrection argument fails to meet the burden of proof - "they really saw Jesus alive again after his death."

Common apologetic response:

But Paul believed in a physical resurrection, doesn't that mean the appearances would have been physical as well?

Response: Non-sequitur. This is simply conflating Paul's "belief in the resurrection" with the "resurrection appearances" when those aren't the same thing. Even if the earliest Christians believed in a physical resurrection, it does not therefore follow that "they really saw Jesus alive again." Notice how the belief in a physical resurrection is just a belief, not an empirical observation because no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself. Rather, these people are only said to have experienced post-resurrection appearances, the nature of which is the exact point of contention. Apologists who use the red herring of appealing to the physical resurrection are making the further assumption that the physical resurrection necessarily entailed Jesus remained on the earth in order to be physically seen and touched like the later gospels describe. This doesn't follow and it is a separate claim not actually found in Paul's letters, the earliest evidence. As I've argued elsewhere, the earliest belief seems to be that Jesus went straight to heaven simultaneous with or immediately after the resurrection (regardless if it was physical/spiritual), leaving no room for any physical/earthly interactions. Thus, all of the "appearances" mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood to be of the already Exalted Lord in heaven and the gospel portrayals of a physical/earthly Jesus are necessarily false.

The 500 eyewitnesses

One of the sillier objections to Paul's appeal to 500 eyewitnesses (1 Cor 15:6) is that Paul doesn't name them. But what difference would that make? These aren't famous men. Even if he named them, few 1C readers would recognize the individuals by name. And of course, modern readers are in no position to identify them even if they were named. If Paul listed them by name, they'd be anonymous to us, given our historical distance. So the objection is just a distraction. 

Does Evolution disprove Christianity?

One of those Bambi meets Godzilla debates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idyy8p4lShc&t=4616s

In addition to Jonathan's performance, a few observations of my own:

1. Jonathan McLatchie is well-qualified to discuss the issue. That said, the title is ambiguous. It could mean does evolution, if true, disprove Christianity. Or it could mean evolution fails to disprove Christianity because evolution is false.

2. A couple of issues:

i) Lim thinks disease is incompatible with God's existence, but diseases perform a necessary function in maintaining that balance of nature. In addition, most organisms were never designed to be immortal. 

ii) Lim fails to understand that there are constraints on what an omnipotent God can do by natural means. In many cases, God can bypass natural processes to produce a result directly, but if God is creating a cause/effect world, and God is using a physical medium, then that's a self-imposed limitation on God's field of action.

3. We also need to distinguish between Christianity and generic theism or perfect being theology. Even if we posit that disease is incompatible with an abstract concept of God that's a philosophical construct, the existence of disease in no way disproves the existence of the Biblical God. In Scripture, God coexists with disease. So disease in no way counts as evidence against the existence of Christian theism, but is entirely consistent with the God of the Bible.

4. Lim acts like the Genesis creation account indicates that God made all the species from the outset. But Gen 1 doesn't detail the species. Gen 1 doesn't preclude adaptation. Gen 1 refers to a few general taxonomies based on their natural habitat (land animals, freshwater or marine organisms).

5.  Since the issue of how best to interpret Genesis came up, here's a free, recent book: https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PoythressVernInterpretingEdenAGuideToFaithfullyReadingAndUnderstandingGenesis1-3.pdf 

6. Lim constantly raises hypothetical objections to Christianity, but ignores al the evidence. He mentions prayer, but there are countless examples of answered prayer. The fact that many prayers go unanswered doesn't cancel out the evidence for the prayer requests that God does grant.

7. Lim then trots out Sai Babba, but from what I've read, there's lots of evidence that he's a fraud.

8. There are multiple problems with Lim's appeal to alleged pagan parallels between Jesus and hero archetypes:

i) You can't legitimately compare a well-documented historical figure with fictional characters in pagan mythology. Jesus is a historical figure. We have 1C historical sources documenting his life. 1C sources about a 1C individual. 

ii) You also have to take into account the chronological gap between a historical figure like, say, Buddha, and the dates of our earliest sources. 

iii) In addition, you have to take into account the Jewish worldview of the NT, which precludes pagan syncretism.

iv) Did the NT writers even have access to the pagan sources? 

v) How specific are the alleged parallels?

Inoculated from skeptical arguments

@RandalRauser

Atheist Jason Long writes: “religious followers have been inoculated from skeptical arguments because they have been forewarned that skeptics are not trustworthy people. This poisoning of the well...

https://twitter.com/RandalRauser/status/1255219288929157120

It's funny how some people view themselves as well as how they imagine others view them. 

i) To begin with, I haven't been forewarned about atheists–as if my knowledge of atheists (whom Long euphemistically dubs "skeptics") is secondhand. I read a lot of atheists. I go straight to the source.

ii) It's true that I regard a consistent atheist as untrustworthy. That's because a consistent atheist is a moral and existential nihilist. Of course, many atheists are inconsistent in that regard.

iii) That's not my Christian impression of atheists. Intellectually candid atheists admit that their position commits them to moral and/or existential nihilism. Some even brag about it.

iv) More to the point, it's usually irrelevant. In general, we don't evaluate arguments based on whether the proponent is trustworthy. Trust is germane to testimonial evidence. And it's germane to expert witnesses. But in general the way to evaluate an argument is whether it's logical, and not whether the proponent is a trustworthy person. An element of trust can be a salient consideration if his argument depends on evidence, and he's not a reliable source of evidence. But many atheistic objections to Christianity aren't based on evidence, or not on specialized evidence, but how an atheist construes the evidence. Atheists aren't privy to evidence unavailable to Christians. 

Q&A with Dr Peter Atkins & Dr Jonathan McLatchie

Jesus sighted

Tim Sledge

@Goodbye_Jesus

Christians assert Jesus was crucified, rose from the dead 3 days later, appeared to some of his followers over a 40-day period, then disappeared in the clouds.

That was 2,000 years ago & Jesus hasn't been seen or heard from since.

But he's coming back any day now. #HeIsNotRisen

https://twitter.com/Goodbye_Jesus/status/1250068066790236161

I don't normally comment on Sledge. I only became aware of him when Jeff Lowder began retweeting him. Sledge is an apostate Baptist minister who's laboring to parlay his apostasy into a career. He repeats all the canned objections to Christianity. 

Unfortunately for him, the market niche for apostates is very tight. Bart Ehrman is the star attraction. Other wannabes are fighting for crumbs.

What I'd point out is that there are many reported Christophanies throughout church history right up to the present. That includes a collection published by Oxford University Press:

https://epistleofdude.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/visions-of-jesus/

In addition, the Muslim world is undergoing a quiet Christian revival due to reported dreams and visions of Jesus. This has been documented in books by Tom Doyle and David Garrison, among others. 

My point is not to vouch for every reported Christophany. But there's lots of prima facie evidence that Jesus has been seen and heard in the intervening 2000 years. And we'd expect Christophanies to be underreported since it's not like there's a team of researchers in every generation going door-to-door to interview people.  

The "religious exemption"

Atheists like Jeff Lowder and Richard Dawkins, as well as apostate Randal Rauser have been expressing outrage at a CNN report about "at least 14 states exempting religious gatherings from stay at home orders."

(Strictly speaking, Lowder simply retweeted someone else, but it's safe to say this reflects his own consternation.)

Dawkins said:

A church is an enclosed space where people right next to each other sing their lungs out into the air. A church is virus heaven: a focal point where people get infected, then go out & infect others

https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1246350531297042433

There are several issues that need to be sorted out:

1. There's a distinctively American issue. The "religious exemption" is a Constitutional exemption: the free exercise clause in the first amendment. This isn't an exception that some mayors and governors are inventing for churches and synagogues. Rather, this is a case of mayors and governors defending a Constitutional right. The Bill of Rights contains a number of exemptions from the heavy-hand of gov't. It's no different than freedom of speech, assembly, the press, the right to bear arms, 4th and 5th amendment protections and civil liberties. 

2. Then there's the ethical issue. Dawkins' point seems to be that we have no right to endanger others. If that's his point, it's simplistic and needs to be qualified:

i) Church attendance is voluntary. It's not like parishioners attend at gunpoint. Insofar as attending church carries the risk of infection, parishioners mutually consent to the risk. And that's hardly unique to church.

Shopping at Lowe's, Home Depot, Target, Walmart, Fred Meyers, &c. carries the risk of contracting the virus, then spreading it to others. Yet shoppers assume that risk by mutual consent. 

ii) At the same time, they are putting others in the community at risk who did not consent to becoming infected by the shoppers because some of them didn't shop at Lowe's or Home Depot, &c. 

Yet critics of churchgoers presumably don't think it's wrong to expose others to potential infection because you went shopping at Home Depot but they didn't. Presumably, critics of the churchgoers accept a generalized risk where a shopper at Home Depot might infect a shopper at Target.

iii) Presumably, critics of churchgoers draw the line because they think drugstores, bulk stories, supermarkets, &c. provide "essential goods and services"–whereas public worship doesn't provide an essential good or service. So the risk is warranted or unwarranted depending on whether you classify the transaction as an essential good or service. 

Of course, that just means many critics have a secular view of Christianity. But that begs the question. Christians are hardly obligated to share the same view of Christianity as atheists. 

iv) Jeff Lowder lives in a state that legalized pot. As a rule, decriminalizing a product or behavior makes the usage or behavior more prevalent. Driving under the influence endangers the life and health of the other drivers, bikers, cyclists, and pedestrians. But how many critics of churchgoers are equally critical of legalizing pot? If the objection is that it's wrong to put others at risk, and if they were morally consistent, then they'd be opposed to legalizing weed. 

v) In addition, I've read that many pot shops have been exempted from lockdowns. Pot shops are treated as if they provide an essential good or service–unlike churches. Do critics of churchgoers regard pot shops as essential businesses? There's a lack of moral seriousness in the criticisms and comparisons. Lots of irrational, contradictory indignation. 

It's not rocket science

Militant atheist Fasta Parian argues:

you cant philosophically reason a rocket into space and you cant philosophically reason something into existence.

1. Not surprisingly, Fasta Parian is confused. There are multiple lines of arguments for the existence of God. And there's nothing illogical or unreasonable about arguing for God on the basis of logic and reason which are the tools of philosophical inquiry.

2. For that matter, science itself is argued for on the basis of logic and reason. Science can't even get off the ground (pardon the pun) if the scientist abandons logic and reason.

3. Science qua science can't prove the existence of God, but science qua science can't disprove the existence of God either. However science can provide evidence which supports premises in an argument for God. Of course, the atheist could say science can provide evidence which supports premises in an argument against God. If so, that's fine. My point is at worst science qua science is neutral with regard to the existence of God (but see #2). The real debate over the existence of God lies deeper than what science qua science is able to demonstrate.

4. Besides, it's not as if Fasta Parian even attempts to substantively interact with any reason for the existence of God. For example, I already gave Fasta Parian medical scientific evidence for the existence of the supernatural, the paranormal, miracles, and related phenomena (e.g. NDEs) - and keep in mind it was Fasta Parian who asked for the evidence - but Fasta Parian impatiently dismissed it all.

5. However none of this affects me nor bothers me as a Christian. Why should it? After all, the Christian can present reason and evidence for the atheist, but it's up to the atheist to do whatever he wishes with the evidence. If he wishes to ignore it or mock it rather than interact with it, then that's on him. The Christian doesn't lose anything. All the loss is on Fasta Parian's end.

It's like if a physician tries to save the life of a dying patient, but the dying patient just hurls insults and ridicule at the physician and refuses treatment (rather than asking honest questions about the treatment). That's fine, the physician can simply move onto someone else, while the patient can remain in their condition until they expire if that's their wish. No one is harmed except the patient, but that was their choice. Just like it's Fasta Parian's choice to reject reasonable arguments and evidences for Christianity.

OT slavery

(I've updated my post with a round 2 and a round 3.)

Fasta Parian:

Leviticus 25 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Yep. The bible has no issue with slavery.

My response:

Is God malevolent?

Atheist philosopher Stephen Law has been hawking this argument for years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiufsmxiUiU

i) There's empirical evidence for angels, demons, and ghosts. 

ii) Is good the price a malevolent deity pays for evil? Why would a malevolent deity give human beings freewill? To make them morally responsible? But why would he care if humans are morally responsible? He just likes to see people suffer for his sadistic pleasure. It isn't necessary that they deserve to suffer. In fact, being evil, he'd take greater pleasure if they suffer for no good reason. If they suffer unfairly. 

iii) Law's basic argument, from what I can tell, is that the mix of good and evil in our world is equally consistent with a benevolent God or malevolent God. 

One problem with that argument is that moral good and evil are asymmetrical. It's arguable that moral good cannot exist unless it's grounded in a benevolent God. And it's arguable that moral evil can coexist with a benevolent God. 

But if that's the case, then moral good cannot exist if God is evil. By the same token, God can't be morally evil if moral evil can't exist without moral good as the standard of comparison. 

So Law's argument can't include moral good and evil. At best, he means good and evil in terms of pain and pleasure, happiness, misery, and cruelty.

v) Suppose we try to improve on his argument. Just as certain goods are contingent on certain evils, certain evils are contingent on certain goods. For instance, much suffering is the result of losing something you care about. It maybe something you used to have, or it may be a lost opportunity. Suppose we rehabilitate his argument by saying the malevolent deity gives humans experiences of happiness to make them miserable by when he deprives them of what made them happy? Does the argument go through on those terms?

A problem with that argument is that some human lives are much happier than others. In their case, the pleasant experiences greatly outweigh the unpleasant experiences. 

vi) Suppose we grant for discussion purposes that the mix of good and evil is equally consistent with the existence of a benevolent God or a malevolent God. It doesn't follow that if we can't rule out one, that rules out both candidates. Law's conclusion is fallacious. 

vii) There's also the question of why a malevolent God would take any interest in human beings. We're so inferior to him, why would he find it enjoyable to torment us? By contrast, it's not mysterious why a benevolent God would take an interest in human beings. 

Praying for protection

Atheists read the bible!

@AtheistsRead

Isn't it a little arrogant to pray for protection from a virus God created? Either God wants you to die or not. Who are we to question God's actions? We couldn't possibly understand his mysterious ways.

https://twitter.com/AtheistsRead/status/1241872142733643781

It's funny how atheists think comments like this are so insightful and clever and intelligent and devastating, as though they've got the Christians cornered. As if this is such a humdinger for Christians. 

i) How God answers the prayer by or for someone mortally ill is, in itself, an indication of whether he wants them to live or die.

ii) One of the purposes of suffering is to inspire prayer. 

iii) Regarding a phenomenon on the scale of a pandemic, there's no reason to think God has one and the same intentions for everyone impacted by the phenomenon. 

Are we in agreement that prayer doesn't work?

Expanding on a reply I left on Facebook:

Has anyone tried asking God to end the Coronavirus or are we all agreeing that prayer doesn't work?

That's a simplistic approach to prayer. 

i) Whether or not a prayer-answering God exists isn't determined by unanswered prayer but by answered prayer. To seize on a particular example of unanswered prayer is arbitrarily restrictive, as if God granting that petition is the only salient evidence for a prayer-answering God. 

ii) A pandemic is, by definition, a complex event, in this case becoming fairly global in scale. So it's not as if there's only one kind of prayer for God to answer in that situation. The fact that God doesn't prevent or halt the pandemic in toto doesn't mean God hasn't answered many prayers involving particular instances of the pandemic.

The pandemic impacts many people in many different ways, so I don't expect an undifferentiated response from God. Rather, I expect God's response to prayer about the pandemic to be varied and individualized. 

iii) In a cause/effect world, just about every event has a domino effect, the more so with large-scale events like the pandemic. Evils like the pandemic can also be a source of good. Some goods things will happen as a result of the pandemic that wouldn't happen if God prevented it. So it's a question of balancing the tradeoffs. Mitigating the pandemic in some respects without eliminating the beneficial side-effects.

Boomerang

@SecularOutpost

I've heard people speculate that the most militant anti-LGBT people are probably in the closet about being LGBT themselves.

https://twitter.com/SecularOutpost/status/1240884872601669633

In some progressive circles that is a popular preemptive defamatory allegation. In consistency:

1. The most militant animal rights activists are probably closet trophy hunters.

2. The most militant atheists are probably closet Christian fundamentalists.

3. The most militant opponents of racism are probably closet skinheads.

4. The most militant opponents of the Second Amendment are probably closet gun nuts.

5. The most militant gay activists are probably repressed heterosexuals.

Virus factories

David Silverman

@MrAtheistPants

If you went to church yesterday, you should feel guilty. You didn't need to go - you should have stayed home and prayed, but instead you went to a crowd when you know it's a virus factory and could lead to people dying (because you could be a carrier). Think about that next week.

Home is a virus factory. If one family member gets sick, that usually infects other family members. Families are contagious. Is that a novel concept for Silverman? Or does he live alone?

A tavern is a virus factory. Why didn't he do a tweet on that?

If you went to the bar yesterday, you should feel guilty. You didn't need to go - you should have stayed home and gotten intoxicated by yourself, but instead you went to a crowd when you know it's a virus factory and could lead to people dying (because you could be a carrier). Think about that next week.

A gym is a virus factory. Why no tweet on that? Why single out churches? 

A supermarket is a virus factory. A drugstore is a virus factory. Bulk stores like Target, Costco, Walmart, and Fred Meyer are virus factories. Dollar stores and 7/11s are virus factories. Fastfood joints are virus factories. Passenger planes, with folks crammed in, breathing recirculated air, are virus factories. 

Suppose you're infected, so you stay home and order delivery pizza or delivery Chinese food? At least, that's what you were going to do until the governor/mayor ordered a mandatory lockdown on "nonessential businesses," so now you're out of luck. 

Church attendance is voluntary. Keeping churches open doesn't put a gun to your head. It doesn't force you to go. It simply gives you the freedom to do so. 

It's natural for an atheist like Silverman to view churches as nothing other than danger zones, but that's hardly a Christian outlook. Worship services save lives. Not just "salvation" in the spiritual sense, but saves many people from self-destructive or suicidal behavior. They need the fellowship. 

David Silverman

@MrAtheistPants

I look out my window at the normally busy but now empty street. The ice cream store is open, as is the take out seafood place. Nobody is there.

I've decided to go have some take-out seafood and ice cream for lunch. Gotta patronize.

But he might be an asymptomatic carrier. He might infect the waitress, cashier, or ice cream scooper. He didn't need to go, but he went there even though it could lead to employees dying. He should feel guilty. Will he think about that next week? 

Our errant brains

Of course we well know people believe, and have believed, tons of obviously false supernatural nonsense, and done so because our brains were not intelligently designed and make countless errors in evaluating reality, unless we tame our errant brains with more reliable methods. 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15834

How do defective brains retrain themselves? How do defective brains fix themselves? How does an errant brain recognize its errant wiring and rewire itself? 

According to Carrier, our brains are how we perceive reality. If the organ we use misperceives reality because it wasn't intelligently designed, how is that brain in a position to devise more reliable methods? 

Take a defective industrial robot. It keeps manufacturing defective products. It is unable to self-correct. 

Of take someone high on acid. As long as he is tripping out, he's in no position to distinguish reality from hallucination. The organ he uses to interpret reality misinterprets reality, so he has no standard of comparison to fall back on. 

Carrier bungles the argument from miracles

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16120

Living gods don’t need ancient poorly attested miracles as evidence of their creeds. Living gods can work living miracles. The reliance, therefore, on long dead tales to support the existence of living gods, is a fallacy of the first order. It would only be necessary in a world without gods. Which is why we can know such is the world we live in.

i) There's a grain of truth to his statement. However, a chronic weakness of Carrier is that he's addicted to hyperbole, so his statement is, at best, a half-truth.

ii) I myself have said that when it comes to the argument from miracles, many Christian apologists are stuck in a rut. There's an overemphasis on the Resurrection, and overemphasis on ancient documentary evidence for miracles in the distant past. There's nothing wrong with including that in your case for miracles. But it should be augmented by evidence for modern miracles. 

iii) I don't agree that biblical miracles are poorly attested. 

iv) A living God is a God who acts in the past as well as the present and the future. If he performs miracles, then he performs them in the past as well as the present. So there's nothing sneaky or untoward about appealing to past miracles, anymore than we appeal to past evidence for past events generally. 

v) Ancient history is Carrier's specialty, so it's duplicitous for him to automatically discount "long dead tales". 

If he performed miracles anciently, he should be doing so presently, indeed all the more, as the population in need of them is now a thousand times in size—so miracles should be thousands of times more frequent. 

i) It may well be the case that the number of miracles has increased over time. But according to Scripture, God never performed miracles just to meet the need for a miracle. There was never a miracle for every problem that only a miracle could solve. Jesus healed people who came to him. He healed people who were brought to him, or brought to his attention. But the Gospels don't record him healing people in general. In the OT, God doesn't perform miracles for pagans generally. Indeed, God doesn't perform miracles for individual Jews generally. In Scripture, God never performs a miracle for everyone in need. Not remotely. 

ii) For that matter, not all biblical miracles are beneficial. Some are quite destructive. They may help some humans by harming others. 

You can explain your way out of that with a bunch of made-up “assumptions” about how God would behave differently than any other person in the same circumstances; but such “gerrymandering” your theory would only reduce the probability of that God existing, not rescue it from disproof as you might irrationally have thought.

Actually, there's a good reason why God would behave differently than any other person in the same circumstances. Unlike shortsighted human agents, God has foreknowledge and counterfactual knowledge. Just about every miracle has a snowball effect. Every miracle alters the future. So the miracles that God performs must be consistent with his plan for world history. Performing additional miracles results in a different world history. 

What remains is scenario one: God performed tons of miracles in antiquity—parted seas, rained fire from heaven, turned people into salt, transformed sticks into snakes, raised the dead, turned water into wine, became incarnate, flew into space, mystically murdered thousands of pigs, erased the sun. On and on. But now he doesn’t.

i) Yet another example of Carrier's penchant for hyperbole. Despite the fact that the Bible is a very long book, the number of recorded miracles is about 150+. So the ratio of miracles to the span of Bible history and the number of individuals is quite scant, percentage-wise. 

ii) The sun was never erased. 

iii) Jesus never flew into outer space. At the Ascension he levitated, and was then enveloped by the Shekinah. 

iv) It isn't possible to murder pigs. And Jesus didn't consign thousands of pigs to drowning. It was just a herd of domesticated pigs. 20? 50?

iii) The Red Sea crossing happened once. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah happened once. The fate of Lot's wife was a one-time event. Jesus raised three people from the dead. 

And that’s why miracles are never believable. If the world were the sort of place miracles really occurred, we’d have tons of solid evidence of that fact by now. Yet we have accumulated no solid evidence of it. None. 

That raises a nest of epistemological issues:

i) Miracles aren't like tree rings, where you have permanent cumulative evidence. Rather, miracles are more like fruit trees producing cumulative perishable fruit. Every year the tree bears fruit. Over the course of a productive lifetime, it may bear a lot of fruit. But while there's a cumulative total, that's not the same thing as cumulative evidence, because most of the fruit perishes. It rots or is eaten. There's no permanent record of the total produce. Like so many other things, miracles are cumulative, but the direct evidence is usually ephemeral rather than enduring.

ii) Take someone who undergoes miraculous healing. In a sense, that individual is evidence for a miracle. Yet the evidence may be indirect. It may not be apparent that the individual ever had a medical condition requiring a miraculous cure. Just looking at them, you can't tell. So you'd need some before and after evidence to provide a basis of comparison.

iii) In addition, the individual will eventually die, so in that sense the evidence will die with them. 

iv) Most miracles, if they happen, are basically private underreported affairs. They happen to nobodies. They are known to handful of confidants. 

v) Some people are reluctant to talk about uncanny experiences they had for fear people will say they are crazy. Indeed, the sneering attitude of atheists like Carrier is a disincentive. People don't like to be ridiculed, so they're selective about who they share things with. 

vi) Because miracles are discontinuous with the past, they don't leave a long chain of evidence. The trail goes cold. There's the situation before the miracle. Then the miracle marks a new start. A reset. So we're limited in our ability to trace a miracle, unlike linear cause and event which extend back indefinitely to antecedent conditions leading up to a particular event as well conditions leading away from the event. 

Philip Pullman: siding with Satan

https://michaelnazirali.com/articles/app/archive/10-2019/title/philip-pullman-siding-with-satan

How to listen

Over the years I've noticed a pattern regarding respondents to Christianity, social conservatives, and sectarian theological debates. My impression is based on the following sample groups: YouTube commenters on public Christian/atheist debates. The Q/A session after a Christian/atheist debate. The Q/A session after a Ben Shapiro speech. Comments on Catholic videos. Internet Arminians commenting on Calvinism. Reddit atheists/Facebook atheists. Based on this, I'd do a breakdown of different kinds of respondents:

I. The cheerleader

Blind partisans. Loyal teammates. They rubber-stamp whatever someone on their side says. They will quote or applaud a bad argument for their position so long as they agree with the position. 

It's not about the content but the label and group solidarity. They don't listen. They're partisans rather than ideologues. It's not about the position, but belonging to the club. 

A classic example is pollsters who ask trick questions. They will identify a respondent as a progressive or Democrat. They will quote a statement by a social conservative which they attribute to a progressive or Democrat. The respondent will enthusiastically agree, even though the statement is diametrically opposed to the identity of the political respondent. The respondent doesn't listen for content or consistency. They just wait to hear the label. Does it have the approved label? 

II. The seeker

They are undecided. They want to hear both sides of the argument. Some are ripe for conversion while others are temperamentally noncommittal. Some seekers always want to keep their options open.  But others want something to believe in. 

III. The smart ass

This is the counterpart to the cheerleader. They go to a public debate with a prepared question (or screed). They plan to stand in line after the debate and spring their question on the spokesman for the opposing side. They don't listen. They tune out everything the spokesman for the opposing side says during the whole debate. They don't think it's possible that he could have anything intelligent to say. His position is self-evidently wrong, stupid, and evil. 

They only go to the debate to embarrass the speaker by posing a snarky question during the Q/A. Online, the smart ass will pose one-liners on YouTube videos and Facebook comment threads mocking Christianity. 

The smart ass has no deep firsthand knowledge of Christian theology, philosophy, church history, archeology, science, or apologetics. Moreover, they don't read the most sophisticated representatives of atheism. That's way over their heads. They get their objections and applause lines from hack atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dillahunty, YouTube celebutantes. It's all about projecting a flattering self-image of moral and rational superiority. They are the mirror-image of the anti-intellectual "fundamentalists" they disdain. 

This has parallels with internet Arminians and Catholic apologists who always recycle the same stale objections and argument. Catholics who rarely invest in mainstream Catholic scholarship on Scripture and church history. Arminians who rarely study the philosophical literature on freewill. They just go by the seat-of-their-pants. 

IV. The intellectual atheist

There's a fraction of atheists who think atheism is true, but they are genuinely curious to hear the best Christian answers to their questions and objections. They acknowledge that there are some very bright, astute Christians. They are open to the possibility that there may be good answers to their questions. When they go to a debate, they hope the Christian debater will be intelligent. They want an opportunity to ask probing questions. They don't want to embarrass him. Rather, they are hoping for an intelligent exchange of views. They still think they may have something to learn. They are willing to changing their views. 

I've been picking on particular types, but as I've pointed out in the past, this has a counterpart in the "confessional Calvinist" mentality, who just check the right boxes.  

Why didn't God preserve the originals?

@RandalRauserQuestion for inerrantists: If God would assure that his revealed text would be without error, why wouldn't he ensure either that subsequent copies of that texts would be without error and/or that the original copies (autographa) of the texts would be preserved through all time?

Oh Gosh. Progressive theologian reheating Ehrman's stale objection to inerrancy. Pity the fried maggots when Rauser pops his rotten meat into the microwave. 

1. The question is ironic because, even though Rauser thinks the Bible teaches moral and factual falsehoods, he pretends to believe in Biblical inerrancy. He has an "appropriation" model of inspiration which drives a wedge between God's intentions and the intentions of the Bible writers. He treats the books of the Bible as a collection of error-ridden writings, but the collection is "inspired" and "inerrant" because it somehow serves God's overarching purpose. So Rauser's objection to inerrancy, which he camouflages as a question, contradicts his "cross my fingers behind my back" affirmation of inerrancy. 

2. It's a speculative question, so only speculative answers are available. A plausible reason God didn't preserve the originals is because they'd become trophies in the cult of relicts. Religious wars would be fought to keep or capture the originals. They'd be venerated with superstitious awe as talismans.

3. As for why inerrancy doesn't extend to copies, God made a kind of world where there's an interplay between natural and supernatural factors, miracle and providence. On the one hand, everything that happens is not a continuous series of miracles. On the other hand, everything that happens is not closed continuum. The physical world operates much like a machine. But natural processes can be circumvented by spiritual agency. 

If, on the one hand, if every event was a miracle, life would have no stability or predictability. Life would have no continuity. Human experience would be radically disjointed. There'd be no presumption that the same antecedent conditions yield the same outcome. Any kind of future could fork off from the same past–at any time, all the time. That would be literally nightmarish. Scenes abruptly and constantly changing. 

On the other hand, we're not trapped in a clockwork universe where prayer can't reach. The machinery has a manual override. Spiritual agents or agents with spiritual power can bypass physical cause and effect. God struck a balance between a closed system and chaos. 

4. Regarding the textual transmission of the Bible, God hasn't done more than is necessary. Inerrant copies are inessential to preserve the message. For one thing, biblical teaching is redundant. It doesn't teeter on a particular reading of a particular verse. 

In addition, most scribal errors are trivial, recognizable, and correctible. If natural ability will suffice, then supernatural empowerment is unnecessary. 

5. In theory, God could use direct, private revelation for every individual. But human beings are social creatures by divine design. The Christian faith has a corporate life in the fellowship of the church. Having a public revelation as a common a frame of reference unites Christians. Yes, there's a sense in which the Bible can be theologically divisive, but even then we disagree about the same thing. We share a common struggle. We debate each other. We're not cubicle people.