tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7825465975533008125..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: People Believe and Defend That Which They Prefer to Be TrueUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65039945337846053982010-08-03T11:23:13.939-04:002010-08-03T11:23:13.939-04:00Late to the discussion, but it interests me, so I&...Late to the discussion, but it interests me, so I'll add my two cents. I don't disagree with your statement as a general rule, but think it misses a small but significant nuance related to the not so uncommon state of self awareness. Simply put, if I defend and believe what I prefer to be true (which I most certainly do) and I am aware of this contingency, then I am also consciously choosing what I believe. This, is the human condition. Evidence itself is always and everywhere subjected to our own choice (conscious or unconscious) concerning what we are willing and unwilling to believe. Do we choose to believe the presenter of the evidence? Do we choose to believe the tools used to measure or document the evidence? Do we choose to believe our own senses? These are all choices that all people make when choosing what to believe. So yes, as a Christian, I choose to believe because, yes, I prefer the Christian world view. You, as an atheist, choose not to believe because, likewise, you prefer the atheist world view. The only difference, if there is one, may be that my choice is a conscious one while yours may not be conscious (but I don't like to jump to conclusions). You may dismiss this analysis as an example of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy but I assure you, it is not, in that I have no interest whatsoever in debunking your thesis; to the contrary, my purpose is simply to point out that your thesis may actually be more accurate than you think.jeremyemiliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13951402614711939337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52011181272370318972010-07-30T17:40:06.811-04:002010-07-30T17:40:06.811-04:00Just put in a request to my library's interlib...Just put in a request to my library's interlibrary loan for The Christian Delusion. Will let you know what I think.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68393745030068209302010-07-30T08:01:48.807-04:002010-07-30T08:01:48.807-04:00I gotta say Vic that I have usually enjoyed our di...I gotta say Vic that I have usually enjoyed our discussions, so thanks for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47795031784529737242010-07-30T07:04:54.856-04:002010-07-30T07:04:54.856-04:00Most (not all) believers grew up believing what th...<a href="" rel="nofollow"></a><br /><br />Most (not all) believers grew up believing what their parents believe,and they rarely question what they were taught; for if they<br />did, they would find that the arguments traditionally given to support and justify their belief,<br />have some serious flaws. But no rationalization is too far fetched if someone wish to hold on to the believe that those ancient superstitions are true. And they have virtually no problem ignoring<br />overwhelming evidences against it.Charles R Marquettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07332993129219919428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33580598359078175902010-07-30T02:31:56.271-04:002010-07-30T02:31:56.271-04:00I think there is a plausible argument to be made h...I think there is a plausible argument to be made here, and that has been made, namely, that certain seminaries and colleges require faculty to sign on to inerrancy in order to teach where they teach, so you have to question their objectivity if, surprise surprise, they say we have good reason to believe Scripture to be inerrant. Talbot Seminary requires this, and I think Trinity Evangelical does as well, and these are both places where William Lane Craig has worked. However, he may be at those places because he was persuaded originally to hold those beliefs, so I don't think you can ignore his arguments because of something like this. <br /><br />But there are plenty of scholars who, like Lewis and myself, are supernaturalists but are also not inerrantists. (Well, a broad enough definition of inerrancy might include me, but, for example, I couldn't care less whether Ruth is fictional or historical, I don't think the Pentateuch was a finished product coming directly from Moses, and even if some aspects of the Gospels are products of the early Church, I would hardly consider the foundations to have been shaken). So, if John is arguing that my faith is false because inerrancy is false, he's going to have to take that up with the Triabloggers instead of me.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64350812017479905952010-07-30T02:00:19.180-04:002010-07-30T02:00:19.180-04:00Hi John
"But I see it everywhere in a mother...Hi John<br /><br />"But I see it everywhere in a mother who believes her child truly is special, in a bad Karaoke singer who really thinks he can sing despite what others say, in a union man who hated Ronald Reagan for breaking the airline strike in his day, in the poor who think nearly all rich people are out to steal them blind, in nearly all countries that have dealings with the US who hate us because we're rich, in the mother who believes in the innocence of her boy in a court of law despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt ...."......<br /><br />or the proud father watching his boy graduate from West Point at the marching out parade, and wildly exclaiming, "Look! There's my boy! The only one in step."<br /><br />CheersPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40775021389890690622010-07-29T22:39:45.417-04:002010-07-29T22:39:45.417-04:00OK, lost my train of thought. That wasn't a qu...OK, lost my train of thought. That wasn't a question after all...GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4226466985605980492010-07-29T22:01:39.575-04:002010-07-29T22:01:39.575-04:00Question:
If I can deduce the conclusions in a sc...Question:<br /><br />If I can deduce the conclusions in a scholarly tome by reading the "About the Author" blurb in the jacket flaps ("Christian Scholar, PhD, was educated at XYZ Bible Academy, etc., blah blah blah...), I'm not going to waste my time reading his convoluted apologetics.<br /><br />He was biased before he walked in the door.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19773477005777597102010-07-29T21:56:26.219-04:002010-07-29T21:56:26.219-04:00If I may:
VR: "But I thought that bombastic ...If I may:<br /><br />VR: "But I thought that bombastic claims that real biblical scholars don't accept any claim that Scripture is special revelation seems a little no-true-Scotsmanish to me."<br /><br />Maybe John meant to qualify that?<br /><br />Was he saying that "...real biblical scholars [that aren't already (biased) committed Christians] don't accept any claim that Scripture is special revelation..."?<br /><br />Am I close?GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85203018273646040822010-07-29T21:21:26.679-04:002010-07-29T21:21:26.679-04:00I don't know if the last one got through or no...I don't know if the last one got through or not. <br /><br />I didn't say your works weren't scholarly. I said you were not a credentialed biblical scholar. I'm not either. We can, of course, aspire to be well informed laypeople, which is fine. But I thought that bombastic claims that real biblical scholars don't accept any claim that Scripture is special revelation seems a little no-true-Scotsmanish to me. Clearly there are non-inerrantist scholars who do think, for instance, that Jesus rose from the dead. Inerrantists may fail to be mainstream, but inerrancy isn't essential to Christianity. <br /><br />Second, I think I take an argument that you present here on its merits and point out what is wrong with it without knowing about your work as a whole. In particular, I think arguments from motive, such as the Wishful Thinking objection to Christianity, have what I consider to be classic rebuttals, and in fact the entire class of Arguments from Motive is considered in logic books to be guilty of the fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56798620963269923342010-07-29T21:01:44.609-04:002010-07-29T21:01:44.609-04:00Well, hostile or not, let's get back to the ce...Well, hostile or not, let's get back to the central point at issue. I have been arguing that arguments from motive, or claims that people tend to believe what they prefer to believe, are bound to be tangential to the central discussion of the question of belief in Christianity. Motivation on these matters is too complex, and cuts in too many directions, for these considerations to be anywhere near decisive. If skeptics want an explanation as to why Christian belief is so plentiful in spite of a bad evidential situation, perhaps they can help themselves to this sort of thing, but it's really not an argument against belief in Christianity. Whether we want to believe it or not, we can look at evidence and evaluate it. I don't make it a practice to psychoanalyze people who hold positions that I not only think are false, but think are crazy. I just say that being rational is kind of difficult, and leave it at that. <br /><br />There are what seem to be to be good arguments against psychological arguments in general, which have to be met before you can start making heavy weather out of statements like "People Believe an Defend That Which They Prefer to Be True." You criticized me for committing the tu quoque fallacy, but isn't your argument a classic example of the ad hominem circumstantial?<br /><br />I simply pointed out that you are not a credentialed scholar in biblical studies, and neither am I. However, we can aspire to be well-informed laypeople, which is fine. I'm not denying that your book is scholarly. The only thing I wanted to point out was that there are certainly better scholars than either you or I who take moderately conservative views on biblical studies, and that your idea that REAL biblical scholarship leads to a denial of any authority to Scripture seems hard to credit in my mind. There's something no-true-Scotsmanish about that kind of claim. <br /><br />If I make an argument you think is bad on DI, you have every right to criticize it on its terms, independently of what I might have said elsewhere. And I think I have the same right to criticize what I think is a mistaken argument on DC.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-47515904710572987822010-07-29T20:46:37.513-04:002010-07-29T20:46:37.513-04:00"I heard a very impressive paper by Marilyn M..."I heard a very impressive paper by Marilyn McCord Adams on the miracle stories in Acts in which she argued that the attempt to deny the miraculous skewed the interpretation of those miracle stories, and given the failure of Humean (and Bultmannian) arguments against miracles, scholars should consider accepting those miracle claims."<br /><br />A Christian scholar? Bringing forth an argument supporting Biblicl claims of miracles?<br /><br />NO WAY!GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31694906287115355372010-07-29T20:32:05.656-04:002010-07-29T20:32:05.656-04:00Fundamentalism? Oh dear, the long F word.
I'...Fundamentalism? Oh dear, the long F word. <br /><br />I'm not much of an inerrantist, neither was C. S. Lewis, and neither was Art Wainwright, my Bible professor. There are numerous moderate biblical scholars who aren't strict inerrantists, but who accept such doctrines as the miraculous character of Jesus' career and his resurrection from the dead. I heard a very impressive paper by Marilyn McCord Adams on the miracle stories in Acts in which she argued that the attempt to deny the miraculous skewed the interpretation of those miracle stories, and given the failure of Humean (and Bultmannian) arguments against miracles, scholars should consider accepting those miracle claims. Adams is a universalist, and far from being a fundamentalist. People like Jeremias, Cullmann, Vincent Taylor, Bauckmann, Thistleton, Luke Timothy Johnson, etc., are not fundamentalists. <br /><br />I remember the days when Bob Prokop, Joe Sheffer, and spent hours in Hobo Joe's coffee houses tearing apart what we called "fundamentalism."Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16019335873318481392010-07-29T20:29:59.477-04:002010-07-29T20:29:59.477-04:00Vic if I appear antagonistic to you lately it'...Vic if I appear antagonistic to you lately it's because you have sunk into the mire with the Triabloggers by taking personal pot shots at me, continually criticizing me when you have no clue about my books or why so many scholars are willing to write chapters for me, dissing me as a non-scholar when others think I am.<br /><br />I'm just tired of it. Put up or shut up. If you do not wish to read my books then fine, idiot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26697053587387597892010-07-29T20:17:16.629-04:002010-07-29T20:17:16.629-04:00I think there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus ...I think there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. Atheists and theists can reasonably agree on this fact. <br /><br />John: You do have other sources besides your books for your views.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73543902452492030712010-07-29T20:14:51.478-04:002010-07-29T20:14:51.478-04:00Vic, philosophy is being used to defend so many ri...Vic, philosophy is being used to defend so many ridiculous ideas it's amazing you think it's helping us get at the truth. When Swinburne can argue that given the existence of God it's 97% probable Christianity is true is a testament to the failure of philosophy to solve the problems we seek to solve. <br /><br />Philosophy is useful for clarification and logic, yes. But one man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens, as you know. And fallacies? Come on now, philosophers commit them all of the time in defense of indefensible ideas. <br /><br />Philosophy is all to often used to serve other interests. It's a biased discipline. Keithe Parsons once wrote me that if the first thing Plantinga ever wrote was on Reformed Epistemology he would have been ignored, the argument is just that bad. Ask him. Go ahead.<br /><br />Philosophers start with an assumption and then with that assumption try to work out what follows from it given the rules of logic. It's useful when we see philosophers rigorously applying logic to an assumption to see what they get out of it. Hume was brilliant at this starting from the assumption of empiricism.<br /><br />But here's the rub. You start with conclusions gained by conservative scholars and seek to confirm what they say. That's why I said if the Bible didn't exist you wouldn't know what to believe, because biblical scholarship, REAL biblical scholarship tells us the Bible as the authoritative word of God does not exist. Did you read Paul Tobin's defense of his chapter? Well, his chapter is better than his defense.<br /><br />You start with ignorant Bible thumping assumptions. And then surprise, you defend them with philosophy. I am simply not impressed. Your Christian philosophy is not much more than <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/12/jaco-gericke-fundamentalism-on-stilts.html" rel="nofollow">fundamentalism on stilts</a>, and in that sense you are ignorant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12288576788284404092010-07-29T20:06:34.126-04:002010-07-29T20:06:34.126-04:00I gotta get a copy of that, when I can afford to s...I gotta get a copy of that, when I can afford to spend money on books again...GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53803941652974502462010-07-29T20:01:54.585-04:002010-07-29T20:01:54.585-04:00I find it interesting Vic, that you have never rea...I find it interesting Vic, that you have never read my books and yet you take personal pot shots at me like the Triabloggers and you think they have answered me, even equating me to "Does God Hate Amputees." You have no clue. Hallquist's book is good on one specific topic but does it have the recommendations my WIBA does?:<br /><br /><b>Tom Flynn, editor of Free Inquiry April/ May 2010:</b> "Doubting Christians beginning to doubt will find this book a juggernaut....If you seek an encyclopedic compendium of arguments against almost any imaginable defense of the Christian faith, this is your book....[T]he reader seeking a comprehensive disproof of Christianity as contemporary evangelicals defend it can do little better than to consult this volume."<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br /><b>Edward Tabash, Chair, First Amendment Task Force, Council for Secular Humanism:</b> “This is a wonderful book! After a couple years of reflection and comparison with other books, and based on the number of copies of your book that I give out, I am now willing to say that if any sincere Christian approaches me with an honest intent to examine the faith, yours is the first book that I either give them or recommend. I believe that there is no ex-theist who has done a better job of profoundly refuting the claims of religion. You are one of the most precious intellectual treasures an otherwise benighted society can have.”<br /><br />And surely you've read your friend Keith Parson's blurb about TCD.<br /><br />And yet...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44935289809874560602010-07-29T18:43:31.273-04:002010-07-29T18:43:31.273-04:00While I'm waiting for the youtube to load from...While I'm waiting for the youtube to load from VR's link, let me say as well that even with the title of the website I linked (www.jesusneverexisted.com), I'm OK with the thought that there probably was an itinerant rabbi named Jesus wandering around in Judea. But was he the miracle worker described in the New Testament?<br /><br />Maybe.<br /><br />I think it more likely that if such a man existed, his life story and activities were probably co-opted by fanatics to promote their cult after he died. It's as good a story as any other, and has the added benefit of being perfectly reasonable without needing "magic" to defend it.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2679741748138104312010-07-29T18:33:05.282-04:002010-07-29T18:33:05.282-04:00@ VR:
You didn't read the website. I haven...@ VR:<br /><br />You didn't read the website. I haven't finished it and I've been picking at it in my spare time for several days. If you look, I said it could be a naturalistic alternative. For you, since you asked. I'm not talking about Ehrman or Loftus here. Let them attend to their own thoughts.<br /><br />What do YOU think?<br /><br />The site seems (at least on the surface) to be well-referenced, but I haven't been able to devote more time to the sources yet. <br /><br />Whether you agree with the source material is up to you, but if you don't look, you won't see.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70885562119361839652010-07-29T17:47:55.888-04:002010-07-29T17:47:55.888-04:00Hoping that something is true may cloud your think...Hoping that something is true may cloud your thinking, or it may prompt you to major in philosophy so as to be able to hear all the best counter-arguments sooner rather than later. Resentment toward a Christian community that might have let you down is another motivating factor. <br /><br />These motivational and sociological arguments aren't going to do much for people if they think that they have evaluated the evidence and that is comes out in favor of Christianity. <br /><br />If someone began believing something, and wanting to believe it, and then changed their minds, whether it's C. S. Lewis or Dan Barker, all that shows is that, on whatever side the error lies, the error cannot be fully and completely explained in terms of wishful thinking. Each world-view has psychological upsides and downsides, and people who are "at home" in one world-view find it uncomfortable, at first, to move to the other, just as moving from Phoenix to Tokyo would cause some initial discomfort. <br /><br />On not having read your book, there are lots of people's books I haven't read, many by Christians and many by atheists, so don't feel singled out. I happen to be working my way through Chris Hallquist's UFOs, Ghosts, and a Rising God at the moment. <br /><br />By the way, you have made the claim that the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology doesn't address the credibility of Christianity, but only theism. That's not quite true, since Timothy and Lydia McGrew's essay on the Argument from Miracles is an argument in defense of the Resurrection.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75815755425583740472010-07-29T17:24:13.688-04:002010-07-29T17:24:13.688-04:00GHE: Your might try convincing highly skeptical sc...GHE: Your might try convincing highly skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman. Or John, for that matter, who agrees with BE on this issue.<br /><br />http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2010/07/bart-ehrman-defends-historical-jesus.htmlVictor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3693360365615857572010-07-29T17:16:55.935-04:002010-07-29T17:16:55.935-04:00Yes, and you can read Lewis's description of h...Yes, and you can read Lewis's description of himself as the most reluctant convert. These arguments cut in all directions and cancel each other out. <br /><br />Changing world-views is a painful and difficult process no matter which way you go.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43921913285774980442010-07-29T16:59:00.208-04:002010-07-29T16:59:00.208-04:00Victor said,
"...My sense that Christianity ...Victor said,<br /><br />"...My sense that Christianity is likely to be true, as I have pointed out earlier, could be affected by a good, believable naturalistic story about how Christianity came to be founded."<br /><br />I present this as a possible alternative, a "good, believable naturalistic story about how Christianity came to be founded."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/" rel="nofollow">Welcome to Enlightenment</a><br /><br />Dismissed out of hand, or a viable possibility? You choose.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24605964373590120102010-07-29T16:24:15.041-04:002010-07-29T16:24:15.041-04:00Yes, Vic, sometimes what we hope is true, is true....Yes, Vic, sometimes what we hope is true, is true. Okay. There's agreement between us. <br /><br />Look at it this way. There is little worse to cloud our thinking than hoping something is true. We will be wrong more often when we investigate into a claim if we have a preconceived notion of how things will turn out. This is not being objective with the facts, can cloud our judgment and lead us to discount the available evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com