Ciarán Mc Ardle Argues Michael Jones of "Inspiring Philosophy" Should Not Be Allowed to Sit At the Adults’ Table
Ciarán Mc Ardle sends me emails. Here's an interesting one he sent:
In a recent video [Link Below], "Inspiring Philosophy" essentially argues that Christians never really believed in Young Earth Creationism until recent times.
In a hundred years time, there will be an Inspiring-Philosophy-esque apologist who will claim that no Christians ever really believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Plenty of quotes could be adduced to prove this. Even in the New Testament, Saint Paul seems only to believe in a spiritual resurrection. Quotes could then be adduced from Popes, saints, church fathers et al, spanning the 2,000 years of Christianity so as to lend credence to the notion that Christians never really believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was always viewed by True ChristiansTM as mytho-history.
It makes refuting Christianity so tiresome, because, as you put it, John, Christianity is a moving target with shifting goalposts. What we see with Inspiring Philosophy is a new-improved version of Christianity being concocted, invented and synthesised, right before our eyes. As you say, John: Christianity reinvents itself every 25 years, or so, and then amnesia as to the former version of Christianity sets in.
Inspiring Philosophy very often says that “there is debate in scholarship” concerning the real interpretation of horrific and stupid passages of the Bible. This is similar to how Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute pretend that there is debate in scholarship about evolution. The only scholars who “debate” the meaning of horrific and stupid passages of the Bible are Christian Apologists like Copan.
What I like about you is that you are not just a counter-apologist... you counter the supposed need for apologetics itself. You are like a meta-counter-apologist. That Apologetics is even necessary, is best explained, by Ockham’s razor, by atheism, rather than by theism. Less entities need to be multiplied so as to explain why apologetics is necessary under atheism than under theism. Under atheism, God is not real, and thus Apologists are necessary so as to get God off on the charge of non-existence. Under theism, we have to invent reasons why a God would choose to be divinely hidden; why a God would choose to permit horrendous suffering; and why a God, instead of explaining these reasons to us, directly, would instead choose to use human apologists—mere mammals!—as Michael Jones and Eric Manning.
Jones, in particular, cites fringe scholars who agree with him—the unscientific concept of selection bias—and then thinks that just because he has cited a PhD, that this somehow lends credibility to his bizarre arguments. There are PhDs with all manner of crank and pseudoscientific opinions... however the consensus usually converges upon the truth. Jones will choose a fringe scholar like Copan over the scholarly consensus exemplified by the likes of Kip Davis and Josh Bowen. Whatever crank opinion you have, there is usually also a crank with a PhD who shares the same opinion, somewhere, out there.
When I listen to Inspiring Philosophy, I can feel my mind being bent into contortions. Words don't mean what they so obviously mean... which is pure gaslighting. Inspiring Philosophy is Orwellian. Words can be redefined on a whim. ‘Hate’ can mean ‘love less’ if Inspiring Philosophy requires it to be so. Because of the likes of Inspiring Philosophy, Hector Avalos had to write an entire chapter in The Bad Jesus explaining that no: ‘hate’ means ‘hate’. The demented cult-leader, Jesus Christ, does indeed want you to hate your family... just like He said!
Christian Apologetics is pissing on our backs and telling us that it is raining, at the best of times... it is just that Inspiring Philosophy’s musings are the most egregious example of this.
Inspiring Philosophy is a Humpty Dumpty Apologist:
J. P. Holding was big into “muh context” as was Inspiring Philosophy.
The multi-source theory for the creation of the Pentateuch is as well-evidenced and consilient as the Theory of Evolution in Biology. One must be "perverse" to deny it. One must be obtuse—i.e. deliberately stupid—do deny it. Jones does deny this.
Whereas Holding was scorned and ridiculed, by most atheists, it is not so with Michael Jones. I think that the reason for this is Hard-science snobbery. Science, in the broad sense, is systematized academic knowledge. Tim O' Neill thinks that some atheists hold the position that the systematised knowledge found in fields such as History, Archaeology, Textual criticism, Palaeography, Linguistics etc. is of a lower value compared to the systematised knowledge found in the Hard Sciences such as Physics and Biology.
I think that because Michael Jones gives lip-service to his not being a Young-earth creationist, he is allowed, by some atheists, to sit at the Adults’ table. This is really the only appreciable difference between Inspiring Philosophy and James Patrick Holding. Holding is a Young Earth Creationist, whereas Jones is not. However, in my view, atheists should charge a higher fee for sitting at the Adults’ table. As I said before: Inspiring Philosophy is the Ken Ham of Biblical studies. Inspiring Philosophy should really not be allowed to sit at the Adults’ table. Inspiring Philosophy’s lunatic beliefs concerning History and Biblical Studies are just as lunatic as Ken Ham’s lunatic beliefs concerning Biology.
In the below video, Inspiring Philosophy pretends, several times, that there is debate in scholarship when there really isn’t. Among non-Christians and non-Jews, and even among many non-fundamentalist Christian and Jewish scholars, the heinous and stupid passages in the Bible really are just heinous and stupid.
I have said some rather harsh things about Inspiring Philosophy, however, none of this is personal. He has a need to believe in this stuff because he suffered trauma from being bullied at school. Such trauma and such need to believe should excite our sympathy and compassion, and not our total disdain. However, Inspiring Philosophy is a Gish-Galloper extraordinaire. His lies-and-distortions-per-minute count is probably the highest amongst Christian Apologists. Inspiring Philosophy spreads more lies, misinformation, and disinformation concerning Biblical Studies and History than I could ever possibly hope to refute.
LINK to video.
In a hundred years time, there will be an Inspiring-Philosophy-esque apologist who will claim that no Christians ever really believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Plenty of quotes could be adduced to prove this. Even in the New Testament, Saint Paul seems only to believe in a spiritual resurrection. Quotes could then be adduced from Popes, saints, church fathers et al, spanning the 2,000 years of Christianity so as to lend credence to the notion that Christians never really believed in a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was always viewed by True ChristiansTM as mytho-history.
It makes refuting Christianity so tiresome, because, as you put it, John, Christianity is a moving target with shifting goalposts. What we see with Inspiring Philosophy is a new-improved version of Christianity being concocted, invented and synthesised, right before our eyes. As you say, John: Christianity reinvents itself every 25 years, or so, and then amnesia as to the former version of Christianity sets in.
Inspiring Philosophy very often says that “there is debate in scholarship” concerning the real interpretation of horrific and stupid passages of the Bible. This is similar to how Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute pretend that there is debate in scholarship about evolution. The only scholars who “debate” the meaning of horrific and stupid passages of the Bible are Christian Apologists like Copan.
What I like about you is that you are not just a counter-apologist... you counter the supposed need for apologetics itself. You are like a meta-counter-apologist. That Apologetics is even necessary, is best explained, by Ockham’s razor, by atheism, rather than by theism. Less entities need to be multiplied so as to explain why apologetics is necessary under atheism than under theism. Under atheism, God is not real, and thus Apologists are necessary so as to get God off on the charge of non-existence. Under theism, we have to invent reasons why a God would choose to be divinely hidden; why a God would choose to permit horrendous suffering; and why a God, instead of explaining these reasons to us, directly, would instead choose to use human apologists—mere mammals!—as Michael Jones and Eric Manning.
Jones, in particular, cites fringe scholars who agree with him—the unscientific concept of selection bias—and then thinks that just because he has cited a PhD, that this somehow lends credibility to his bizarre arguments. There are PhDs with all manner of crank and pseudoscientific opinions... however the consensus usually converges upon the truth. Jones will choose a fringe scholar like Copan over the scholarly consensus exemplified by the likes of Kip Davis and Josh Bowen. Whatever crank opinion you have, there is usually also a crank with a PhD who shares the same opinion, somewhere, out there.
When I listen to Inspiring Philosophy, I can feel my mind being bent into contortions. Words don't mean what they so obviously mean... which is pure gaslighting. Inspiring Philosophy is Orwellian. Words can be redefined on a whim. ‘Hate’ can mean ‘love less’ if Inspiring Philosophy requires it to be so. Because of the likes of Inspiring Philosophy, Hector Avalos had to write an entire chapter in The Bad Jesus explaining that no: ‘hate’ means ‘hate’. The demented cult-leader, Jesus Christ, does indeed want you to hate your family... just like He said!
Christian Apologetics is pissing on our backs and telling us that it is raining, at the best of times... it is just that Inspiring Philosophy’s musings are the most egregious example of this.
Inspiring Philosophy is a Humpty Dumpty Apologist:
‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”’-- Through the Looking Glass (1871) by Lewis Carroll (1832-1888).Words mean exactly what he wants them to mean in a given moment. God hating Esau—the Hebrew word, ‘sonei’, in Malachi and the Greek word, ‘miseo’, in Romans—well, ‘hate’ doesn’t mean ‘hate’... in these two instances.
J. P. Holding was big into “muh context” as was Inspiring Philosophy.
The multi-source theory for the creation of the Pentateuch is as well-evidenced and consilient as the Theory of Evolution in Biology. One must be "perverse" to deny it. One must be obtuse—i.e. deliberately stupid—do deny it. Jones does deny this.
Whereas Holding was scorned and ridiculed, by most atheists, it is not so with Michael Jones. I think that the reason for this is Hard-science snobbery. Science, in the broad sense, is systematized academic knowledge. Tim O' Neill thinks that some atheists hold the position that the systematised knowledge found in fields such as History, Archaeology, Textual criticism, Palaeography, Linguistics etc. is of a lower value compared to the systematised knowledge found in the Hard Sciences such as Physics and Biology.
I think that because Michael Jones gives lip-service to his not being a Young-earth creationist, he is allowed, by some atheists, to sit at the Adults’ table. This is really the only appreciable difference between Inspiring Philosophy and James Patrick Holding. Holding is a Young Earth Creationist, whereas Jones is not. However, in my view, atheists should charge a higher fee for sitting at the Adults’ table. As I said before: Inspiring Philosophy is the Ken Ham of Biblical studies. Inspiring Philosophy should really not be allowed to sit at the Adults’ table. Inspiring Philosophy’s lunatic beliefs concerning History and Biblical Studies are just as lunatic as Ken Ham’s lunatic beliefs concerning Biology.
In the below video, Inspiring Philosophy pretends, several times, that there is debate in scholarship when there really isn’t. Among non-Christians and non-Jews, and even among many non-fundamentalist Christian and Jewish scholars, the heinous and stupid passages in the Bible really are just heinous and stupid.
I have said some rather harsh things about Inspiring Philosophy, however, none of this is personal. He has a need to believe in this stuff because he suffered trauma from being bullied at school. Such trauma and such need to believe should excite our sympathy and compassion, and not our total disdain. However, Inspiring Philosophy is a Gish-Galloper extraordinaire. His lies-and-distortions-per-minute count is probably the highest amongst Christian Apologists. Inspiring Philosophy spreads more lies, misinformation, and disinformation concerning Biblical Studies and History than I could ever possibly hope to refute.
LINK to video.
0 comments:
Post a Comment