tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4174079086568548162..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Guest Post Written by Dr. Craig Blomberg on "Why I Am Still a Christian."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-313370436996537342009-01-04T21:16:00.000-05:002009-01-04T21:16:00.000-05:00I wish Dr. Blomberg could return to this thread an...I wish Dr. Blomberg could return to this thread and answer a few more of our questions...it is a shame that the commenting freeze appeared during the middle of this conversation.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46072118347365068392008-12-19T08:36:00.000-05:002008-12-19T08:36:00.000-05:00I'm not trying to be disrespectful of Dr. Blomberg...I'm not trying to be disrespectful of Dr. Blomberg. I'm merely making an honest appraisal of his contribution here.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Blomberg has shown up, good for him. But just showing up doesn't deserve much praise, and it shouldn't shield him from honest feedback.<BR/><BR/>Many people here have brought up serious, substantive points, and given Dr. Blomberg a reasonable opportunity to respond substantively. That he continues to fail to do so deserves mention.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58261210852249017742008-12-19T07:15:00.000-05:002008-12-19T07:15:00.000-05:00TYROI third Tyro's statements. While I don't find ...TYRO<BR/>I third Tyro's statements. While I don't find Blomberg's statements to be persuasive, I will credit him with showing up here and talking.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Who knows when Christian sites will return the favour and ask John to post guest posts on their sites?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Dr. Blomberg could ask around?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27511601874100896772008-12-18T16:25:00.000-05:002008-12-18T16:25:00.000-05:00I third Tyro's statements. While I don't find Blo...I third Tyro's statements. While I don't find Blomberg's statements to be persuasive, I will credit him with showing up here and talking. <BR/><BR/>I also think some of the comments being aimed at Blomberg is a result of the repetitive nature of Christians (and religious people in general) starting out with the premise that they "have the goods" to show the superiority of Christianity (or their particular religion) over other beliefs, and then failing to deliver.<BR/><BR/>But, thanks anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81804936800022672052008-12-18T15:14:00.000-05:002008-12-18T15:14:00.000-05:00I agree with what Tyro has said.Even if we do not ...I agree with what Tyro has said.<BR/><BR/>Even if we do not respect Dr. Blomberg's beliefs, it is our responsibility to respect Dr. Blomberg in our interactions with him.<BR/><BR/>He has been gracious enough to come to D.C. and talk to us, and fair enough to stick around and listen to our arguments, and debate with us. It would be really easy for him to avoid us entirely or to just leave now and have the common popular misconceptions of atheists and other non-Christians reinforced. That would be unfortunate for everyone.<BR/><BR/>I thank Dr. Blomberg for this opportunity, and I hope he comes back so we can continue this conversation.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46951204604227133992008-12-18T10:58:00.000-05:002008-12-18T10:58:00.000-05:00Let's not make this personal. Given a vague reque...Let's not make this personal. Given a vague request and unknown audience, an intelligent Christian could chose to provide a personal testimony of his belief rather than present an apologetic argument.<BR/><BR/>I too am disturbed by his use of rhetorical questions posing as an argument, anti-intellectual jokes, question begging, special pleading and arguments from ignorance. <I>However</I>, John did invite Dr Blomberg personally and has vouched for his academic credentials. Even if these short examples of his work may not impress us, I think we owe it to John to give Dr Blomberg the benefit of the doubt and extend him some respect or at least some courtesy.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27559259408492047382008-12-18T10:27:00.000-05:002008-12-18T10:27:00.000-05:00Let me amplify my last comment.I share Russ's diss...Let me amplify my last comment.<BR/><BR/>I share Russ's dissatifaction with this dicussion. I'm entirely unfamiliar with your professional work, Dr. Blomberg, so I'm unable to form an opinion on your overall scholarly and philosophical competence.<BR/><BR/>But here I've seen no philosophically substantive or evidentiary argument. Your contribution seems limited to platitudes and rhetorical question. You display little familiarity with standard nontheist polemics or modern scientific scientific theories answering many of the rhetorical questions you toss out.<BR/><BR/>When you're challenged on substantive points, you merely rephrase your position or ignore the challenge and try a different position.<BR/><BR/>Even if you believe you're writing to a philosophically unsophisticated audience, you apparently believe that Americans are typically highly educated. Do you truly have so little respect for the ordinary person's intelligence that you feel it's acceptable to present so little of substance here? <BR/><BR/>And what sort of inferences should we draw about the audience that <I>does</I> find your work persuasive?Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86088598228386395922008-12-18T07:48:00.000-05:002008-12-18T07:48:00.000-05:00Step two is to reflect on the concept of God. If F...<I>Step two is to reflect on the concept of God. If Feuerbach was right that we as humans made it up, and that it was inevitable that we made it up, why so? If it was not inevitable, then why did it come into existence?</I><BR/><BR/>The issue of inevitability is a red herring.<BR/><BR/>The question is indeed: why did belief in God come into existence? You're a scholar: have you examined the naturalistic explanations in detail? Are you familiar with Dennett's work? Dawkins'? Freud's? Do you have <I>substantive</I> counterarguments more sophisticated than knee-jerk skepticism?<BR/><BR/>Your propensity to throw out rhetorical questions as if they were arguments does not seem persuasive.<BR/><BR/><I>More intriguingly, why did the biggest and most sustained attempts to eradicate it, in Soviet and Maoist forms of Communism, fail so miserably?</I><BR/><BR/>Again we see a rhetorical question without rigorous or evidentiary support.<BR/><BR/>In what sense did they fail miserably? What were the actual intentions of Soviet and Maoist governments? What was the actual outcome? Can you make a case using actual historical facts for this position?<BR/><BR/>One might ask the same question of the religious, with more obvious historical support. Why have the concerted attempts of various religions to eliminate heresy and atheism failed so miserably? Why did the Christian attempt at government fail so miserably even after 1,000 years of Christian domination?<BR/><BR/><I>Why do 80-90% of Americans, among the most highly educated people in the history of the world, still hold to it?</I><BR/><BR/>Again, numbers. Evidence. How many of these people are truly religious, and how many are merely mindlessly repeating culturally acceptable slogans? What is the correlation between actual education and actual religious belief.<BR/><BR/>Americans, I've found, are pretty stupid people overall. Our education system is a sick joke. Why are so many more Europeans non-theists or trivial theists? Their education system is definitely superior to our own.<BR/><BR/><I>Why do studies of children suggest that it may almost be an inherent or inborn concept in humans that, to borrow the language of operant conditioning, has to be consciously extinguished, if it is to disappear?</I><BR/><BR/>Really... you do need to study the scientific literature on the subject and offer substantive refutations — not just rhetorical questions — if you wish to be taken seriously as an intellectual.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85973613992122011292008-12-18T00:36:00.000-05:002008-12-18T00:36:00.000-05:00Dr. Blomberg,I promise *not* to bring up Jainism o...Dr. Blomberg,<BR/><BR/>I promise *not* to bring up Jainism or anything wildly off topic again. Sorry for the confusion.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48703528726504434782008-12-17T16:16:00.000-05:002008-12-17T16:16:00.000-05:00Dr. Blomberg,I just want to tell you again that I ...Dr. Blomberg,<BR/><BR/>I just want to tell you again that I really appreciate your willingness to come here and speak to us. I promise to bring up Jainism again; it's just that I very recently took a class on eastern religion, so it stuck in my mind.<BR/><BR/>I want to ask you about this paragraph which you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Step two is to reflect on the concept of God. If Feuerbach was right that we as humans made it up, and that it was inevitable that we made it up, why so? If it was not inevitable, then why did it come into existence? More intriguingly, why did the biggest and most sustained attempts to eradicate it, in Soviet and Maoist forms of Communism, fail so miserably? Why do 80-90% of Americans, among the most highly educated people in the history of the world, still hold to it? Why do studies of children suggest that it may almost be an inherent or inborn concept in humans that, to borrow the language of operant conditioning, has to be consciously extinguished, if it is to disappear?"<BR/><BR/>You ask "if belief in a god or gods was inevitable, why did human beings make it up?" <BR/><BR/>I don't believe that human beings "made it up" so much as people thought that supernatural causes would be valid explanations for events in the natural world. From there, I believe that religion evolved. I don't know enough about psychology or neurology to tell you why supernatural belief might be inevitable. However, inevitability is also a problem for theism, specifically Christianity, such as in the inevitability of evil given the choice of free will. Free will is often a Christian defense in the argument on the PoE. If humans were given free will by a deity and chose to commit an ostensibly "evil" act (the original sin), then evil had to exist as an option for humans to choose before it was brought into human nature (according to Christian beliefs), and therefore evil was inevitable as a characteristic of human nature. Theoretically, a "fall" could have happened at any time. If human beings were created in a manner making them susceptible to evil, then what would've preventing us from choosing evil in a theoretical situation akin to a "garden of Eden"? The Christian argument hinges on the belief that our ancestors were free to make their own choice about evil, but were they really free to make a choice if evil was inevitable? Perhaps we could have had a world where Adam's children had sinned, if Adam had not sinned. Would Adam even had had children, or would the world just've been those two original people? The problem with original sin is that the Judeo/Christian tradition offers no alternative hypothesis. There's no fallback position. <BR/><BR/>Again I ask, if "sin" and evil were inevitable, then how did "Adam" or "Eve" or any human beings have "free will"?<BR/><BR/>Also you ask, why did attempts to subvert religion fail in communist countries? Well, whatever the answer is, it also applies to capitalism. Capitalism also prevailed in those countries after a sustained attempt to squelch it. The attempts to subvert religion and capitalism failed because both religion and capitalism were well-established in society already and also motivated by many traits of human nature. The attempt to subvert religion was an attempt to legislate morality, and it's practically impossible to legislate morality in societies with a certain pre-existing moral standard that does not conform to what is supposed to be imposed with legislation. Societies are resistant, ultimately, to this type of coercion, because the fabric of society in many places is stitched together with religion. Communism wanted to eliminate religion because it is a competing ideology. Communism wanted to stitch societies together, and it wanted to replace religion. Communism acted like a religious ideology by wanting to play the same role in society as religion. It failed because most people preferred the religion that they already had to communism. I don't blame them for that: authoritarian communism such as the Maoist and Soviet forms is one of the worst ideologies of all time.<BR/><BR/>You ask, why do 80-90% of Americans still believe in religion? Well, I'm not completely sure. Perhaps it is because in a largely Christian society, many people are not really forced to think about other religions or other responses to religion such as atheism. Christianity is just "normal" for most people in America. It's part of everyday life - for many people it's a basic assumption that is virtually unchecked or unnoticed. It doesn't occur to most people that their religion could be false. In any society where 80-90% of the people hold one particular belief, why are you surprised that the belief perpetuates itself? People pass their beliefs on to their children, and when those beliefs are generally accepted and encouraged in society, it is not difficult for those beliefs to fluorish. Also, I disagree with your assumption that Americans are the among the most highly educated in the world. I agree that Americans are more highly educated than most of the world, certainly, but Western Europe and Japan and South Korea probably are more educated than the United States. There are many countries that are more affluent and more educated per capita than the United States. In many of these countries, large parts of the public do not profess religious beliefs. I'm not saying that there is any causation, but I just note the correlation and that it's an interesting possibility.<BR/><BR/>Belief in religion may be inherent in human nature. I just said that it was inevitable for human beings to believe in religion, so I'm not surprised by this. However, in many societies where religion fluorishes critical thinking about religion is suppressed or avoided. Many societies (especially when influenced by Islam) reprimand and punish people for being skeptical and questioning pre-existing beliefs about religion. It's hard for religious belief not to be replicated on a widespread basis in those societies when there is so much incentive not to question. When there is more incentive in the United States to question religion than to not question it, then I believe that we will see a rise in the number of non-believers similar to what western Europe has experienced. I don't know if this will ever happen, but if it does, that is why it will happen. When people realize that they can live a meaningful life without religion, and when there is a well-established secular society, and many people already question religion making it impossible to avoid as an issue in the consciousness of society, religion tends to subside dramatically. Religion doesn't have to be extinguished; many people will relinquish it by choice under a certain set of circumstances. I doubt that religion will ever disappear, but I ask you, why is religion slowly receding among the most affluent and the most educated societies on Earth? If religion is false, this is easily accountable. If religion is not false, then this requires another explanation.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8435950486620055542008-12-17T16:08:00.000-05:002008-12-17T16:08:00.000-05:00Dr. Blomberg, thank you for your input. I am a fo...Dr. Blomberg, thank you for your input. I am a former pastor/apologist who deconverted. A regular visitor to this site, however its been a while since I have commented or posted. <BR/><BR/>I have a couple of comments about your post. Just because someone acts in a moral or selfless, altruistic manner does not prove there is a God who made them or established morality. Concepts of morality are subjective...in some cultures, altruistic actions are viewed as heinous and sinful. Who can know what is going on inside a person motivations? A fireman may run inside a burning inferno to save another's life...or to please his idea of God, who requires that he give his life or else go to hell and have his wife contract cancer. Firemen ran into the towering inferno, after a Muslim flew an airplane into the building in the name of God, in order to gain eternal life. How can that argument apply to both perspectives? I guess it only applies in a Christian way.<BR/><BR/>Also, you argue for the depravity of humanity. How, then, can firemen acting altruistically be a proof of God...if humanity is depraved? Or, are you arguing that all those firemen who ran into that building were redeemed, faith-filled Christians who were acting on the impulse of the Holy Spirit? Is it possible some of those firemen were atheists, or Buddhists, or Muslim? Is all altruism inspired by the Holy Spirit, and possible only by the redeemed?<BR/><BR/>And if not, how can you account for the altruistic behavior being an echo of the image of a moral God, if that humanity is fallen, depraved, and at least according to classic Christian theology, empty of imago dei?<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for your comments. It is actually refreshing to have a respected Christian scholar write to this blogsite and be so open to dialogue and friendly of spirit. I respect you very much because of that. Best to you.Don Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10624128241297548817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24044211153430335932008-12-17T13:59:00.000-05:002008-12-17T13:59:00.000-05:00I would definitely like to see real rigor in justi...I would definitely like to see real rigor in justifying the conclusions Dr. Blomberg attempts to draw from ethics and evolutionary psychology. Specifically<BR/><BR/><I>One possible inference from some of the responses is that we think it is ultimately in our own self-interest, hence part of natural selection and preservation of the species. But then that conflicts with those forms of altruism and self-sacrifice that do what appears to go against one's self-interest simply because people believe it is right.</I><BR/><BR/>First, let me note that "self-interest" is a broad concept. In an evolutionary context it's very specific: we are looking specifically at <I>selective pressures</I> that change allele frequency over time.<BR/><BR/>Also note that our big brains give us a lot of room for hypotheses, guesses, speculation and outright error. Our ideas change much faster (by many orders of magnitude) than simply by genetic evolution. Simply because a lot of people presently have some belief does not mean that belief is somehow sanctioned or selected for by genetic evolution.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58763134029007068582008-12-17T12:00:00.000-05:002008-12-17T12:00:00.000-05:00Thanks! If people are still reading, there's no n...Thanks! If people are still reading, there's no need to change the format. I should have researched the blogsite more; I erroneously assumed the audience was the whole cross-section of the blogworld interested in such topics and to do something technical would go over too many people's heads. I'll wait and see if exapologist does indeed get back to me after the new year as he promised to, and, if not, perhaps a section of your book will inspire a response of a more limited, technical nature at some point. I'll certainly get back to you; such a wonderful standing invitation is not to be "dissed." Merry Christmas (or whatever!) to you and all your readers and a Happy New Year. :)Craig Blomberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12188746177885723565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8441372706347382832008-12-17T11:54:00.000-05:002008-12-17T11:54:00.000-05:00I'm reminded again of why when people invite me to...<I>I'm reminded again of why when people invite me to speak I try to insist that they give me a topic, even though they sometimes think they are doing me a favor by saying, "you can talk on anything!"<BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/>As a result there is such a great tendency to impute motives to others based on the worst of personal experiences that we've had or can imagine, at least when people differ from us.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Point taken, and John's right, you do have a good way of writing and expressing yourself even in clarification.<BR/><BR/><I>(1) it was wonderfully concise; and (2) I thought it was hilariously funny, but it's the kind of joke you can share only selectively in Christian circles, and I thought this would be an audience that might actually laugh with me.</I><BR/><BR/>I understand that you didn't mean offence but perhaps you could pause to consider its implications and effect on you and your audience. Whether intentional or not, the joke is that scientists are too foolish to recognize what's obvious to a child. It promotes a climate of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. <BR/><BR/>Imagine spending a couple decades working in a team of fifty researchers studying all of the archaeological sites and documents of first century Palestine to create the definitive study of the culture, history and language only to have someone tell you that any yokel with common sense could tell you that you were all wrong without bothering to read the first page of your work. If he responded by saying that his joke went over well at The DaVinci Code Fan Club it would just confirm your worst suspicions.<BR/><BR/>That your joke works so well in Christian communities doesn't come as a surprise and makes me a little sad. I'm sure you're right but it just makes me sad, emphasizing the gulf that exists between different communities, especially considering that you're ostensibly an educated man making a living from your intellectual skills and so the last person I'd expect to hear making a joke about how a child has better insight into cosmology than cosmologists.<BR/><BR/>As a man who makes his living from his intellectual skills, I hoped you'd understand the complexity of these issues and you'd leap to the defence of scientists rather than play to the anti-intellectual biases of your audience.<BR/><BR/><I>But I see nothing that addresses how it is that humans alone, as far as we know, come to label certain things as good and evil</I><BR/><BR/>I hope that, should you return, you'll elaborate on this point. It's not one I've seen in other apologetic works and this rough sketch leaves me with more questions than answers.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Humans are the only animal with labels, period. That means that, yes, humans are the only animal with labels for good and evil, but we're also the only animal with labels for blue, clover and daisy. Surely your issue isn't with labels but with something deeper, only I'm not sure what. Is it that you think humans are the only animal that thinks there should be less suffering? I don't know how you could argue that since other animals will risk their lives to save others and reduce suffering indicating that they feel a powerful objection to suffering (at least as much as they are capable). Is it that you think humans are the only animal to specifically punish bad behaviour and reward good? I'm not aware of any animal groups with formalized laws but then I'm not aware of any primitive human groups with these either. We see social animals have behavioural norms which they enforce with rewards and punishment, we see animals reacting to fidelity and infidelity, to theft, to violence. Looking strictly at human and non-human behaviour, what specifically makes us so different? Bigger brains yes, but are our moral actions any better and by what standard?<BR/><BR/>Can you point to anything specific which you feel is inconsistent with evolution?<BR/><BR/>Invoking God raises far more questions than it solves - what about psychopaths or sociopaths who have radically different moral senses, why don't humans all start with the same moral compass? Why is it so hard for me to contemplate harming another human but so easy for others? Is God totally incompetent or is God intentionally inflicting harm upon us my creating these human monsters and releasing them into our societies?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Which leaves me wondering just what you think the PoE is for atheists. The PoE as it's conventionally stated is no problem. If you do see another problem, I would be grateful if you could lay it out more explicitly. Perhaps it is a serious issue we've not considered, perhaps it's a misunderstanding which can easily be resolved.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But then that conflicts with those forms of altruism and self-sacrifice that do what appears to go against one's self-interest simply because people believe it is right.</I><BR/><BR/>No conflict, just a question of how we know what is right. When you look deeply you'll see that our morals aren't merely consistent with evolution but are necessitated by it. On the other side, if you believe our morals are intelligently designed by a god, you have some irreconcilable difficulties.<BR/><BR/>We can start with the principle that our morals arise from our genes which of course have no intelligence and can only influence us using heuristics. This leads to some counter-intuitive results which aren't just explained by evolution but are actually predicted. <BR/><BR/>I hinted at one of these aspects earlier that's related to altruism - handcuffing. This is the observation that animals (humans included) react disproportionately and sometimes uncontrollably when we perceive a threat, an insult, a slight. It's not far from the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction or the madman-at-the-switch. To some triggers our reaction is disproportionately strong which makes no sense except that people know this and so it serves as a valid threat. We know that when people get cheated out of $50, they will often spend hundreds in order to punish that person and so we generally act fairly. We know that if we are caught in infidelity our partners may become so enraged with jealousy that they could beat or kill us even if it means they will go to jail for decades.<BR/><BR/>All of these certainly go against our self-interest in the short-term but having these traits makes it less likely that we will be cheated or abused in general.<BR/><BR/>Self-sacrifice also exposes the evolutionary origins of our morals. People who jump into burning buildings or freezing lakes to rescue people don't describe a careful, reasoned process but an unthinking instinctual response. We see this reaction triggered most often to our offspring, slightly less often to siblings, slightly less to family, and still less to our neighbours. As the joke goes, I'd give my life for my child, two brothers or four cousins.<BR/><BR/>The interesting bit comes when we start confusing the issue through adoption, imprinting, and co-habitation. Our genes aren't intelligent and the attachments we form arise through hormones, pheromones and other physical cues which can be tricked. I won't go into all of the details here but they're worth reading about.<BR/><BR/>If our morals are divine, why do we defend offspring more than siblings, siblings more than cousins, cousins more than neighbours, neighbours more than strangers? If our larger brain and intellectual capacity distinguishes us from other animals, why is self-sacrifice an unthinking, instinctual act?<BR/><BR/><BR/>How do we know that other animals don't have an equally strong moral intuition? When we see a dog risk its life to save another dog or an elephant defend its child don't you think they are demonstrating that they have equally powerful beliefs about what is right and wrong? I'm sure you can assert that non-humans are incapable of beliefs which comes back to my earlier point: we can't know what's inside the mind of other animals so to be fair we must look just at actions and using actions non-humans show altruism and compassion just as humans do.<BR/><BR/>So how is any of this a problem for atheists? Evolution shows we're at one end on the mental scale but it's a smooth scale like all other attributes. We have minds because other animals have minds.<BR/><BR/>It seems to be heartbreakingly cruel for a god to give non-humans emotions and the feeling of pain when there is so much suffering for them, and this has been going on for millions of years. I think it's Christians who have some explaining to do.<BR/><BR/><I>The comment that this may simply be a part of the much larger issue of humans' much greater ability to reflect consciously on things may be right on target, at which point the question must be raised if sociobiology has adequately explained human consciousness and self-reflectivity.</I><BR/><BR/>We know very little about consciousness (save that it is a natural process), but how is ignorance "inadequate"? Unsatisfying perhaps, but inadequate? Should we really jump to conclusions based solely on our present ignorance even when we continue to make advances in our understanding of the brain?<BR/><BR/>Would you have us conclude consciousness is granted by a god until we develop the tools and insight to understand this and then He stops? Should we believe that any phenomenon is supernatural until we develop an "adequate" explanation?<BR/><BR/>We understand how thunder and lightning work now but we had no "adequate" explanation as little as 500 years ago. Was it appropriate to use this as a mark in favour of Christianity or supernaturalism back then?<BR/><BR/>Christianity (and theism in general) doesn't have adequate explanations for miracles of any sort, the origin of god, the composition of god, the capabilities of god, or any actions of god let alone issues like the PoE. Why aren't you tormented by these inadequacies? If ignorance about a subject is a problem for you then why do you only apply it in one direction? Since I don't think you're hypocritical it's hard to see this as a serious objection.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38217802800700598992008-12-17T09:30:00.000-05:002008-12-17T09:30:00.000-05:00One thing you might consider, since for now you pr...One thing you might consider, since for now you prefer a blog format as opposed to a discussion board, is to have only the title for of each new topic display.<BR/><BR/>It's unfortunately all too easy to lose sight and interest in these debates, simply because it presently takes only a couple of days for the topics to scroll off the screen [3 topics], and only about 3 weeks [I counted 42 topics] to disappear from the first page entirely.<BR/><BR/>What would be the drawback of a format that doesn't display so many lines on the first page? If you used just one or two lines, you could probably display 15 topics on one screen, and 200 on the first page.<BR/><BR/>The topics are getting "old" too quickly! :(ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69984136434065609352008-12-17T07:56:00.000-05:002008-12-17T07:56:00.000-05:00Craig, people usually subscribe to a thread when t...Craig, people usually subscribe to a thread when they comment, so everyone who commented is still reading. If you'd like to revise this last comment of yours I'll post it separately. I appreciate your willingness to get into the lion's den. I personally haven't commented since you'll be getting my book but also because it may seem difficult enough for you to almost singlehandedly defend Christianity here.<BR/><BR/>When I said write on anything I had thought you'd write on something of which you were an expert in. You are still welcome to do this.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65016973401663241242008-12-17T06:43:00.000-05:002008-12-17T06:43:00.000-05:00If its not through evolution and naturalistic lear...If its not through evolution and naturalistic learning that we decide morals of what is good or bad etc.<BR/><BR/>Then why is it only just lately that we have maybe started to change or ways of thinking regarding matters such as the pollution and global warming etc.<BR/><BR/>Surely if any Gods had any real influence on our ways of thinking then we would have known these things already.And with religions being such a major force in the world then surely things would not have got to the situation of where we find ourselves at now.<BR/><BR/>We evolve and learn as we go whether it be through triumph's or mistakes.No God has finally stepped in now and said "look what you are doing here is wrong" .And in fact i wonder if not in some way some of the teachings within these religious books has not helped create some of these very problems we now face today.<BR/><BR/>How can it ever be so hard to think and accept that we can evolve to learn right from wrong in such simple ways.Surely if i was to slap somebody in the face and find that in return i received a slap back it would be easy to see and understand that a moral could evolve that suggested "do unto others as you would have them do unto you also"etc.And that if i chose to not return a slap,(turn the other cheek) sometimes i might change that persons thoughts of the real need for any aggression towards me.<BR/><BR/>Surely to suggest we humans could not ever have evolved to learn these simple things is to suggest we have no brain developed.Yet we still see even animals evolving and learning new things.<BR/><BR/>Prolonged Concentration of the mind on an afterlife naturally brings about a certain peace of mind ,no less than that what also can be experienced through meditation and things such as yoga.All things are possible within the mind, and the same can work in reverse with these long (indoctrinated beliefs) instilling fear on the deathbed of some of those who`s minds may wander in those very last moments wondering if they were wrong and should maybe have believed religious beliefs also.<BR/><BR/>But without real proof it is still only a pascals wager ,a wager that still gambles and messes with the lives of many on this earth.Sadly all to often in an adverse and detrimental way.<BR/><BR/>Sadly the faith of to many does not allow them to consider these things that much in great depth as they forge ahead full steam,their thoughts of personal salvation only in mind.Altruism and matters of whats actually good for all humanity, takes back seat as selfish thoughts of a nest egg in the suggested after life become first and foremost.<BR/><BR/>Even non believers asking for verification of evidence for the need and good reason for these beliefs,are often met with claims from some believers that the onus lies with that of the disbeliever.A rather selfish stance to take i personally suggest maybe even more akin to egoism,keeping in mind the worldwide effects these beliefs often have.Often even on many of us who dont even choose them.<BR/><BR/>And so many believers in such oblivion cannot even understand why a disbeliever might even bother to question.Its automatically judged that its only through evil. <BR/><BR/>John great idea inviting Dr Blomberg to post and thanks to him for accepting.<BR/><BR/>And very interesting discussions taking place.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4539925302101761532008-12-17T00:02:00.000-05:002008-12-17T00:02:00.000-05:00I'm reminded again of why when people invite me to...I'm reminded again of why when people invite me to speak I try to insist that they give me a topic, even though they sometimes think they are doing me a favor by saying, "you can talk on anything!" I originally thought I'd be doing something on the view of the historical Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet at the request of "exapologist" but then he decided he didn't have the time right now to interact as fully as he'd like to. So John graciously said, "write anything." I just had to make some educated guesses based on a wide range of past conversations as to what kind of post might touch on a number of things where hopefully many readers would find something of interest.<BR/><BR/>Blogs certainly allow all kinds of people to communicate with each other in ways that didn't used to be easy but they are still no substitute for getting to know someone, hear tone of voice, see body language, etc. As a result there is such a great tendency to impute motives to others based on the worst of personal experiences that we've had or can imagine, at least when people differ from us. I sense that John works hard to avoid this and Paul Harrison's post was also very sensitive and insightful. Many others could learn from them.<BR/><BR/>A quick illustration of what I mean by imputing motives. The only reasons I used my daughter's comment about a big bang requiring a big banger were because (1) it was wonderfully concise; and (2) I thought it was hilariously funny, but it's the kind of joke you can share only selectively in Christian circles, and I thought this would be an audience that might actually laugh with me. Oh well. . .<BR/><BR/>It's also unclear to me how many of the people who added to this thread after my response to the first batch of replies read my response. I addressed a number of their concerns there, and, in general, it seemed like most of the more recent replies were still responding to the initial post, unaware of my follow-up clarifications and additional comments. Perhaps that's inevitable when threads get this long, but I'm scarcely an expert on blogging!<BR/><BR/>The threads (i.e., all three of them--this one and the ones in response to Hector and the Outsider Test)--anecdotally confirm what polls have somewhat more empirically shown, that the problem of evil is the single biggest reason for people choosing atheism vs. some form of theism. The point I've tried to make, probably not too successfully, is that the existence of the concepts of good and evil may be the biggest problem ALL of us have to explain. I've read in these threads, and elsewhere, a lot of information, a little bit of it new and helpful, on the current state of theories of evolution, which I've already acknowledged I accept in broad strokes. But I see nothing that addresses how it is that humans alone, as far as we know, come to label certain things as good and evil. One possible inference from some of the responses is that we think it is ultimately in our own self-interest, hence part of natural selection and preservation of the species. But then that conflicts with those forms of altruism and self-sacrifice that do what appears to go against one's self-interest simply because people believe it is right. Ethicists will recognize the debate between teleology and deontology here. And the more that scientific studies can show certain forms of altruism going way back in the evolutionary chain, the more the tension between those two approaches simply grows.<BR/><BR/>The comment that this may simply be a part of the much larger issue of humans' much greater ability to reflect consciously on things may be right on target, at which point the question must be raised if sociobiology has adequately explained human consciousness and self-reflectivity.<BR/><BR/>Someone asked me for a definition of a Christian. Following the earliest known Christian creed or confession in Romans 10:9-10, I take it to be someone who, within a theistic framework of belief in God, follows Jesus as their ultimate Guide, believing him to have been uniquely resurrected to eternal life and thus qualified as a divine spokesperson. Yes, there are countless permutations within that, just as there are among atheists.<BR/><BR/>The kind of assignment that some respondents wish I had been given or wish I had chosen to write on was a more rigorously epistemic one. Mind you, I am a professional New Testament scholar. I spend most of my time immersed in the particulars of Greek grammar, ancient history, methodology of biblical criticism and exegesis, comparative linguistics, the mechanics of oral tradition, reception theory, philosophical hermeneutics, and the like. In our highly specialized, compartmentalized and information-inundated world, I can't hope to impress everyone with state-of-the art familiarity with every development in epistemology, ethics, zoology and Jainism.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, the question deserves a broad brush-strokes reply. For people who like labels, it's more of an evidentialist than a presuppositionalist epistemology, though I acknowledge value in the latter in certain contexts. I take it that shared human experience raises questions that all humans can potentially reflect on and discuss: Why do I exist? Why does the universe exist? Do I have a purpose and if so what is it? Do the concepts of good and evil make any sense? Why or why not? If so, what do they mean and where do these concepts come from and why does the universe exist with the specific proportions of good and evil that I perceive in it?<BR/><BR/>Step two is to reflect on the concept of God. If Feuerbach was right that we as humans made it up, and that it was inevitable that we made it up, why so? If it was not inevitable, then why did it come into existence? More intriguingly, why did the biggest and most sustained attempts to eradicate it, in Soviet and Maoist forms of Communism, fail so miserably? Why do 80-90% of Americans, among the most highly educated people in the history of the world, still hold to it? Why do studies of children suggest that it may almost be an inherent or inborn concept in humans that, to borrow the language of operant conditioning, has to be consciously extinguished, if it is to disappear?<BR/><BR/>Step three is to reflect on the major world views--whether religions that claim revelations from God such as various alleged sacred Scriptures or the so-called irreligious world views’ functionally non-negotiable affirmations,to assess strengths and weaknesses, to rank probabilities of different approaches, and so on.<BR/><BR/>I take it, and I am scarcely alone in this conclusion, that a reasonable result of such a process, however partial it may be, is to suggest that a God might well exist but that not much can be known about him/her/it apart from divine revelation if such a God does exist. I then find that the answers supplied to these kinds of clusters of questions from the Bible better pass such tests as correspondence to reality as I have experienced it, internal coherence, and existential viability or livability, than do the answers supplied by other putative divine revelations. This hardly solves the countless, very important, but still somewhat more peripheral questions that one can and should raise of all alleged revelations, but it creates in me a hermeneutics of consent rather than of suspicion, to use the language of Peter Stuhlmacher, and I find it important to then study the history of the interpretation of the documents, recognizing that countless others have perceived all the tensions and problems before me, yet many of them have found satisfactory answers. What are they? Do any of them satisfy me? At least I try not to pass judgment on belief systems without recognizing the interpretive frameworks that have claimed to make sense of them--and interact with their strongest rather than their weakest arguments.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this should have been my initial post. Perhaps now that I see John is already on to a new topic on a new day it is already too late. But if anyone is still reading, here it is. Again, many, many thanks for letting me “drop in” on your conversations.Craig Blomberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12188746177885723565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91174893321062740322008-12-16T09:35:00.000-05:002008-12-16T09:35:00.000-05:00I tend to see religion and belief in God as someth...<I>I tend to see religion and belief in God as something that will never go away because it is an essential part of human creativity and ingenuity for survival, comfort, health, and meaning.</I><BR/><BR/>I think it's easy to overstate how important this really is. Yes it's true that many Christians cite this as something that's important but we know from basic psychology that humans are adept at finding explanations for decisions after the fact.<BR/><BR/>When we look to Europe, much of Canada, several large US cities and other secular regions do we find a more compelling story? I don't think so. We do find more security, predictability and control over one's life. Distanced from the vagaries of weather and drought, provided with universal health care, decent old age care and pensions, it seems religious beliefs fades quickly. I think it's no accident that with the economic downturn churches report seeing a surge in membership. (I wonder how many religious leaders would welcome an increase in infant mortality and disease if it meant a corresponding increase in faith.)<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>On the most basic level, evolution selects for the genes that best propagate themselves, not the individual creatures. Therefore, evolution will select creatures which cooperate with their own relatives, which share similar genes.</I><BR/><BR/>A good summary of "The Selfish Gene". There are many subtleties which lead to predictions which happily have been confirmed. Reputation is key - without the ability to remember interactions, co-operation fades quickly. This also explains why people can get worked up into a rage when they have been betrayed - this is a form of handcuffing which acts as a deterrent to unethical behaviour. If you can imagine getting cut off by some catcalling idiots while driving on the highway and getting so mad that you chase them, endangering your life so that some minor social slight gets punished then you can imagine the darker side our altruism. Makes good sense evolutionarily, little sense if it was a divine gift.<BR/><BR/>And lets not forget that altruism isn't confined to humans, to apes, to primates, or even to mammals. The single-celled bacteria E. coli will expend a lot of fuel and energy to bind together when facing food stresses in order to more efficiently gather and process food even though many will die in the attempt. There are some which will "renege" on this agreement and these anti-social individuals will prosper in the short-term yet these are only ever a small minority.<BR/><BR/>Altruism and self-sacrifice at the bacterial level, strange but true.<BR/><BR/>Dr Blomberg had said that evolution does not have an explanation but actually the behaviour of life is much better explained of by evolution than any god, unless this god is rooting equally for humans as for the germs which infect and kill us, our parasites and our predators. Any god-based explanation starts looking pretty thin and ad hoc.<BR/><BR/>Dr Blomberg says that an appeal to god is the best explanation for why we think about values and act upon them. We see that all animals act as if they had a moral code, including animals. All animals appear to know what is "right" or "wrong" for them. No doubt we think more but is this really the only difference? Are humans really so different than dogs or cats? Do I really have the freedom to decide that it's right or wrong to beat my postman to death? By all accounts these moral codes are as integral as they are to other animals, we just have better means of rationalizing them after the fact.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Re testimonies - interesting but we all have testimonies. We all have a path behind us which got us to where we were. Since we're all alive and presumably all content, our path has worked for us. That says little about the truth value of this path nor about the actual utility of the path. Had I been born in a different time or region, my religious beliefs would likely be very different. Would Dr Blomberg be a Christian if born in rural India or in secular Scandinavia?<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to learn about different humans but it is no guide to understanding why one was on the path. A much shorter and frankly more honest and insightful essay could be "I'm a Christian/atheist/Hindu/Muslim because I was born in the right time and place to the right parents with the right peers." It doesn't satisfy our need for justification and story but it is probably more accurate. I think we can take it as a given that most people here understand well why people are Christians (or at least we have seen similar testimonials). What we should try to understand is why people remain Christians and why they believe Christianity is likely to be true. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps for next time we can focus less on the stories and testimonials and more on the veracity of the underlying beliefs.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to Dr Blomberg for participating, I find myself wanting more.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20897854310016823902008-12-16T09:00:00.000-05:002008-12-16T09:00:00.000-05:00Dr Craig, thank you for coming here and sharing yo...Dr Craig, thank you for coming here and sharing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>If i could look at just one of your points for a moment, that of the firefighter rushing into a burning house to save another. Where does his goodwill come from you asked?<BR/><BR/>Well, i know a few people who entered the fire service so let me attempt to answer. Firstly, firemen are not pillars of moral goodness. Most are certainly decent people and most possess excellent levels of bravery but i'm sure a root around the web will bring up a few instances of murders or rapes committed by people who happen to be firemen. Most people entering the fire service do not do so out of the desire to save more people from burning to death. It is a well paid and well respected (rightly so) profession. Firemen undergo extensive training and simulation to enable them to conquer their fear and go into situations that the rest of us would be too scared to (why would we be scared if we knew that heaven awaited us, especially since going into burning buildings to save people will only serve us well on judgement day). They are also well trained to survive dangerous situations that the rest of us would die in. <BR/><BR/>I'm not meaning to knock firemen with this, but we should not build them up into pillars of morality. Firemen can overpower the evolutionary urge to avoid blazing buildings through willpower, training and bravery. Thats the answer to your question.<BR/><BR/>One could equally transfer your question to the soldier that risks open ground and enemy snipers to hunt and kill his enemy when evolutionary behaviour would be to run away. Would you like to argue that the soldier intent on killing his foe is acting in a moral and good fashion? Note again, i am not meaning to disrespect soldiers, but i view the the existence of standing armies as a necessary evil. We need soldiers and i find that sad, but i accept it. I do not hold soldiers up to be moral or decent people because of what they do although i can admire their bravery and skill.<BR/><BR/>More later<BR/><BR/>GribbleUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00736338251480507015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71906748720594926742008-12-16T03:47:00.000-05:002008-12-16T03:47:00.000-05:00Steven, to be fair, Lewis used fiction to explain ...Steven, to be fair, Lewis used fiction to explain his beliefs. One could even call "The Republic" a novel as well.Jason Longhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10288789613402007006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80010103233513181242008-12-16T03:18:00.000-05:002008-12-16T03:18:00.000-05:00One comment on what I believe is the most easily c...One comment on what I believe is the most easily corrected error. If you fancy yourself a theistic evolution, you should not be saying things like this:<BR/><BR/><I>But I also marvel at those who can say that atheistic evolution can account for all of human behavior.</I><BR/><BR/>This is akin to saying that yeah, you believe in evolution, but you just don't think it's possible for evolution to produce new species. There is in fact a lot of research on the evolution of cooperative behaviors, with more ideas than I can keep track of, and I don't think you have any business dismissing it out of hand any more than you have business dismissing any other science.<BR/><BR/>I'm far from an expert, but here is my short explanation: On the most basic level, evolution selects for the <I>genes</I> that best propagate themselves, not the individual creatures. Therefore, evolution will select creatures which cooperate with their own relatives, which share similar genes. Also, if creatures frequently find themselves in "prisoner's dilemma" situations, evolution often selects creatures that tend to cooperate. Finally, it is "difficult" to program a creature's brain to instinctively cooperate in very specific situations, and it's much easier for genes to simply make creatures which are all-around altruistic. Therefore, evolution often selects the latter. Lastly, our behavior is not completely determined by evolution.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62419118074046600892008-12-16T01:33:00.000-05:002008-12-16T01:33:00.000-05:00CRAIGTo clarify C. S. Lewis’ views, read his wonde...CRAIG<BR/>To clarify C. S. Lewis’ views, read his wonderful little novel, The Great Divorce. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Novels?<BR/><BR/>Not a fact-based book?<BR/><BR/>Craig wants us to read works of fiction to find out about a religion?<BR/><BR/>CRAIG<BR/>Of course, if it were just two or three people who died with a belief in the afterlife, the delusional theory would be attractive. But when it has been the vast majority of people in the history of the world, including today, it gets a little harder to appeal to. <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>It seems atheists have once again become are a tiny minority.<BR/><BR/>I wonder why there is so much suffering in the world when 'the vast majority of people in the history of the world' share the belief that Craig has.<BR/><BR/>CRAIG<BR/> It was G. K. Chesterton who once wrote that the depravity of humanity is the most empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith! <BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>No wonder there is so much 'depravity of humanity' when 'the vast majority of people in the history of the world' are not at all deluded about the reality of the Christian afterlife that Craig beliefs in.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Why are 'the vast majority of people in the history of the world' going to Hell, when Craig praises them for not being deluded about God , Heaven and Hell?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20511370672071342572008-12-16T01:26:00.000-05:002008-12-16T01:26:00.000-05:00Hi Dr. Blomberg,I am a year shy of your age and li...Hi Dr. Blomberg,<BR/>I am a year shy of your age and like you was "born again" in high school. I read C. S. Lewis (all his religious works and essays and many letters in print), the Inklings, Chesterton (30+ works), Francis Schaeffer (all his works), to name a few of the Christian authors I read during that time. I began to have questions after graduating from college. <BR/><BR/>My story of leaving the fold is online and also in a book I edited that features nearly three dozen first-person stories of conservative funda-gelical Christians whose religious views changed over time. <BR/><BR/>The first section deals with those who simply grew more moderate or liberal, the second section includes a few testimonies of people who left fundamentalism for other religions, and the remaining sections are people who became agnostics, people who became atheists, and a section of historical figures from all categories who helped liberalize religious views in their era. <BR/><BR/>I hope after reading John's book you'll consider taking a peek at Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Some of the testimonies might catch your eye enough to read them. I bet a copy is in the campus library where you work. Phil Yancey has read it and gave it a thumbs up, sent me a little card saying he appreciated the tone in which it was written. I also cite G.K. Chesterton on "original sin" in one of the two introductory chapters, and mention an alternative to that concept. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Ed BabinskiEdwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46367794952276393662008-12-15T22:20:00.000-05:002008-12-15T22:20:00.000-05:00Oh well. I had hoped for some interesting discuss...Oh well. I had hoped for some interesting discussion. I feel that Dr. Blomberg didn't really address the responses. Admittedly, I think his original article could have been significantly refined. Parts of it were merely reciting his various articles of faith ("He sent Jesus to die for human sin"). There were parts of it that I didn't respond to merely because he was explaining his view of the world, not actually answering the question, "Why I am still a christian". And the whole part about "a big bang needs a big banger"; I don't think he meant this as a defense of Christianity - I think he meant it as "this is how I view the world". There are many possible explanations for the origin of the universe which have nothing to do with Christianity, so it cannot be part of his reasons of why he is a Christian. (Maybe I am wrong about Dr. Blombergs view, but he seems to confirm that "origin of the universe" isn't a good argument for Christianity in his later comment.) Of course, that leaves the question of why it was even brought up in an article titled "Why I am still a Christian" if it's not part of his explanation.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, the parts of the essay which actually attempt to answer the question, "Why I am still a Christian" are:<BR/><BR/>1. Christians are happy and Christianity changes them:<BR/><I>[At the] Campus Life club, [I met kids who's Christianity] was clearly making a difference in their lives.... Christians have helped make the world a substantially better place.</I><BR/><BR/>2. No matter how confident you are that you have good counterarguments against Christianity, he's can answer all of them. As a result, atheists are evasive and rude because they haven't got the answers. The fact that he can out-argue most atheists gives him confidence that Christianity is right. (What these arguments are, we don't know, so we can't address them.)<BR/><I>A delightful church history professor once told us ... it was impossible to be an evangelical Christian and maintain one’s intellectual integrity... we had a good library... that convinced me he was wrong.<BR/><BR/>[I heard] major challenges to Christianity,... and seminary enabled me [to find] good answers to some of the questions.<BR/><BR/>[Atheists] respond to my questions either by changing the subject or by ridiculing or getting angry with me.</I><BR/><BR/>3. Your worldview doesn't make as much sense as Christianity:<BR/><I>I haven’t found any other world view, ideology, religion, or –ism that makes nearly as much sense of all of the pieces of the world as I have studied and experienced it... [atheists can't answer why good exists, why altruism exists] ... atheistic evolution [cannot] account for all of human behavior.</I><BR/><BR/>The first two might give Dr. Blomberg confidence that he is right about Christianity, but they're woefully lacking as real arguments for Christianity. I think you'll find that educated people can often put uneducated people onto the defensive. Heck, I know the Bible well enough that I can put Christians on the defensive and make them change the subject. The fact that you can put someone on the defensive doesn't mean you're right, it means you've got your arguments and counterarguments on the ready. Other people don't spend nearly as much time thinking about religion, or how to debate with someone who's on the other side of the debate. (I would compare it to the Bill O'Reilly situation - he can outargue people not because he's right, but because he's experienced and he's got all his preparation done to come in with guns blazing. Conservatives love him because he makes them feel that they have the best position, and those wiley 'liberals' can't withstand the onslaught of real logic and reason.)<BR/><BR/>Only the third one is really a logical argument, and I think we've sufficiently answered it.<BR/><BR/>I also agree with other commenters here about rhetorical strategies used by Dr. Blomberg. For example, the rhetorical strategy of quoting his daughter to imply that intellectuals are just too darned dumb to understand what his young daughter understood intuitively (that thunder needs - I mean, uh, the big bang needs a big banger).<BR/><BR/>I wish Dr. Blomberg would pare-down his essay, though, so that we could avoid all this noise about peripheral issues not connected to the original question.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, I think it's a pretty open and shut debate here. We think he doesn't have a leg to stand on, he seems to think that his explanations are a strong foundation for believing in Christianity.<BR/><BR/>(It's also interesting to hear that Dr. Blomberg is at the Denver Seminary - which puts him about 5 miles away from me. And, that he's in Strobel's book, since I've been doing a long-term critique of Stroble's earlier "The Case for Faith".)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com