News Flash: Victor Reppert Continues to Kick Against the OTF Goads

Let's see if I can make a few numbered statements that might help him understand.

1) If he was raised in another part of the globe the odds are extremely high he would be a child of the times and believe what they do. It's always remotely possible he wouldn't, but I'm not talking about what might be remotely possible.

2) I'm not specifically talking about him either. I'm talking about the statistics. The statistics are that most people accept the religion and culture that they were raised in.

3) I've also pointed to statistics that show 90% of us think we came to our conclusions rationally whereas we think 90% of other people came by them irrationally. These statistics provided by Michael Shermer are lopsidedly contradictory. This is called attribution bias. 90% of us think we fit into the 10% who come by their conclusions rationally. Vic seems to want to claim he's more likely to be in the 10% crowd, as do 90% of us. Therefore one must take seriously that he is deceiving himself as do most of us, which is the point. Again, Vic focuses in on what's possible rather than what's probable

4) I'm not claiming infallibility. No one can. Again, he's claiming that I must either be infallible or I'm wrong. That's a high standard Vic. Why must you ask that of me? Once again your epistemic standard is what is possible; that unless I can infallibly prove that you would believe differently in another culture then you can go along your merry delusional way?

5) Vic once again rails against the sciences (what else is he doing?), claiming scientists disagree with each other, as if that is a reason to object to what science has produced in so many areas that it make our heads spin. Vic only objects to the sciences in those limited areas where it contradicts an ancient set of superstitious writings. If the ancients said one thing then modern science must be wrong. And this goes for the scientists he mentioned. In the National Academy of Science only 7% of scientists believe in god, Vic. So why the double standard for you and the believing scientists you mentioned? You and they accept the overwhelming results of science except in those few rare areas where you and they were taught to believe differently on mamas knee as she read from an ancient pre-scientific book.

6) Look, science is run by scientists so they have their own biases. The method is good, but the people who use it have misused it. But there is no other alternative. Science is our only hope for breaking down any biases we have. If we refuse to trust the sciences then all hell is broke lose. Eventually the evidence wins us over if we let scientists do their work rather than continually pointing out that they disagree. Where's the agreement among religionists?

7) Vic ignorantly claims science is based on Christianity. All I can conclude is that he refuses to read Richard Carrier's chapter on that subject in The Christian Delusion, because he has at least touched the cover of it in a library. Why does Vic refuse to interact with it?

8) To rely on the authority of Richard Swinburne, a non-scientist who has concluded that if there is a god then it's 97% probable Jesus arose from the dead, is foolish at this point.