One of many Problems

Easter having passed, and thoughts of Resurrection problems blooming in the air, I had a chance to delve into a question I pondered long ago. Why weren’t the disciples charged with grave-robbing?

It is fun to discuss Christianity globally, and broad topics such as the Problem of Evil, and the Sovereignty/Free Will issue. But entire books have been written in those areas, and to cover it in a blog is impossible.

For many deconverts, Christianity did not fall because of one argument, or one paper, or one concept. It was the build up of many ideas, many problems, that individually would only cause questions, but exponentially grew to convincing us that Christianity is not true.

I thought I would focus on just one of these plethora of problems for a breather—the soldiers at the tomb.

Of course, as we all know, the Original Gospel of Mark has no post-resurrection happenings. It leaves us with an empty tomb, the failure of the disciples (Mark 15:40-41) an unknown young man directing to Galilee, and finally, the failure of the women. (Mark 16:8)

Mark has Joseph taking Jesus body, and Joseph rolling the rock in front of the tomb. (Mark. 15:46) No soldiers, no seal, no guard. The Gospel of Luke faithfully records Mark’s tale. (Luke 23:53) No soldiers, no seal, no guard. The Author of John, liking that Nicodemus chap from the third chapter, includes Nicodemus helping Joseph with the burial. (John. 19:39) No soldiers, no seal, no guard.

However, the author of Matthew has decided to “up the ante” as it were and include soldiers and seals on this tomb, at the request of the Priests. (Mt. 27:66) No other Gospel records these fighters. We are often informed that the reason for the various discrepancies in the Gospel accounts is that each author was focusing on differing aspects. Apparently the authors of Mark, Luke and John did not find the soldiers and seals important in their account.

But wait a minute. Luke and Mark both have the women bringing spices to anoint Jesus on the first day after Sabbath, and John has Mary approaching the tomb. While these three authors may not have found the soldiers and seal important, they still have to deal with them in their accounts! How were the ladies supposed to get around the guards? Were they to break the seal? In fact, Mark notes that the ladies DID take into account physical problems associated with getting to Jesus’ body. “Who will roll away the stone for us?” Mark 16:3.

They weren’t worried about the men with swords and spears and shields, there specifically to keep people like them out of the tomb. No, that wasn’t going to be the problem. They weren’t worried about breaking a seal that apologists inform me would result in the penalty of death. Naw, who would worry about that? The thing they were worried about is having the physical strength to roll back a stone.

While the other three authors may not have focused on soldiers and seals, this does not allow them to ignore them either! We are still well within the three-day period the priests were worried about, no reason to think the job was done. Already, we start to have serious questions about whether these soldiers really existed. The authors of Mark, Luke and John recount no knowledge of them, and the persons in their Gospels act as if they do not exist.

We are often informed they were Roman soldiers. They were not. There are four reasons we know this. First, the chief priests and Pharisees asked Pilate to make the tomb secure. Pilate tells them, “You have a guard” (they did) “make it is secure as you want.” (Matthew 27:66) Pilate didn’t offer a guard; he said “Use your own.”

Second, after the incident, who do the soldiers report to? A commanding Roman officer? No, they go back to the Chief priests. (Mt. 28:11) A Roman guard, reporting to Jewish religious leaders, and taking their advice? What is the likelihood of that? We have to assume that the authors of the other Gospels somehow missed the soldiers, now (in order to keep the story straight) we have to assume that Roman soldiers would answer to Jewish authorities. How far can we stretch credibility until it snaps?

Thirdly, the soldiers take a bribe! Mt. 28:12. How does the author of Matthew know of this? A bribe is, by its very nature, secretive. A soldier, taking a bribe from leaders of a conquered, troublesome nation, is no way for the soldier to advance their career! If this author knew it, it is very likely others did as well. The soldiers would have been severely disciplined, if not executed.

But the most important reason, is the excuse—“We fell asleep.” (Mt. 28:13) When apologists like to bolster how impossible the “stolen body” theory is, they trot out the fact that if a Roman guard fell asleep on his watch, the entire squad would be killed. “How it would have been possible for the disciples to sneak around the guards, since they would never have slept?” claims the apologist.

Assuming this for a moment—isn’t the dumbest reason in the WORLD for the guards to use for not fulfilling their job is to say, “We fell asleep”? I was just told that this excuse would result in a death penalty. Now they dredge it out. (And, if it would result in a death penalty, they would owe their lives to the priests to convince their commanding officer not to kill them. Hence, no bribery of money would have been necessary; the soldier’s very lives were in the priests’ hands.) No soldier, thinking that if they were to be accused of falling asleep at the job they would be killed, would ever use that excuse. Their response to the priests would have been, “You ignorant dolt. We say that, we are walking dead-men.”

Besides, why forget the earthquake? If “we fell asleep” would work, why not “the earthquake knocked us out”? It is there, it is convenient, and it won’t get them killed. Better, more believable, and gets around that nasty death penalty. It is as if they just completely forgot about the earthquake happening. Other Gospels do not account for it, Romans reporting to Jews, earthquakes forgotten about, excuses that result in death penalties—credibility is at the breaking point.

Unless, of course, the guards weren’t Roman. If they were temple guard, they would be under no such penalty, bribery would be necessary (since they could have fallen asleep), they would report to the priests—it all falls nicely in place.

Except one thing. If the priests were willing to pay Judas to betray Jesus, were willing to go to extraordinary lengths to have him killed, they equally could go to extra-ordinary lengths to pay off guards to say whatever they wanted them to say. Again, caught in the quandary. The apologist wants them Roman, so they could not be bribed, and then the apologist says they spread lies because…they were bribed!

We have three gospels that indicate there were no guards, no seal. One that claims there was. In the one that claims there was, we have priests, bribing their own guards to say whatever the priests want them to say. The credibility of this story of guards is now gone.

But there is more….

Assume for one moment it is true. That there were guards, that there was a seal. That we have an empty tomb to explain. We now have ready-made reasons to substantiate crimes against the disciples resulting in capital punishment. The simplest end of Christianity?

“Local Jerusalem news: ‘Disciples Charged: Death penalty likely.’” Remember, desecrating a tomb resulted in banishment at the least, death at the most.

The priests had used false witnesses before, in the plot to kill Jesus. Mt. 26:59-60. Mark 14:58-59 Now they have ready, willing and motivated witnesses to testify against the disciples.

As a generalization, religions enjoy controversy, but despise competition. Controversy allows one to rally the troops, weed out the faint-hearted, and re-instill loyalty. Jesus provided just the controversy need to substantiate the Pharisees’ position. Look what happened to him! By the time of his death, he had no followers, a mob had just chanted to kill him, and his religion was effectively wiped out. Pharisees proven again to be correct that violating YHWH’s laws only brings condemnation.

Then Peter steps up and preaches for the first time. And attracts 3000 followers. Acts 2:41. This is no longer controversy, it is becoming competition. By his second recorded sermon, the Priests and Sadducees (Luke had the right sect in power) arrest them. (Acts 4:1-3) The priests were concerned about the growing numbers. (Acts. 4:4)

What to do? What to do? Wait a minute! About two months ago, the priests had bribed their own soldiers to spread the rumor that these very men had committed a capital offense. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what to charge them with—desecrating a tomb and stealing a body. (And, don’t forget, we are assuming a resurrection. It isn’t like the disciples can have one of their own, Joseph, open up the tomb and show a body there. Not very likely Joseph or his family had time to bury another there in two months. The tomb would be empty—proof enough of a stolen body.) The priests have opportunity, motive, and witnesses. They want the disciples out of the picture? Easily done.

But what does Luke say? “They could find nothing as to how to punish them.” (Acts 4:21) Hey, Luke, why couldn’t the priests have used the crime of grave-robbing? Oh, that’s right. You didn’t write that; Matthew did. You didn’t find the guards important to the story.

The priests arrest Peter again. (Acts 5:28) Again they can’t remember using the grave-robbing accusation. Amazingly a Pharisee comes to their rescue, and recommends the Sadducees leave this growing religion alone. They did. For one chapter. The religion grew, the priests forgot the advice of Gamaliel, and execute Stephen.

Now we get the start of the persecution against the church by the Jewish authorities. At this point it became acceptable to kill them. Now, finally, can we see the Jewish authorities bring out the grave-robbing accusation? They want the Christians dead, they have a capital crime proof sitting right in their pocket, do they bring it out? Nope.

We have one witness, the author of Matthew, contending there were soldiers guarding the tomb. Every other witness does not include these soldiers. Every other participants in the story act as if these soldiers and seals are completely invisible. When it would be necessary to deal with their presence, they are ignored. When their existence would be helpful to the Jewish authorities, they are forgotten.

We have one witness, contrary to every other witness available, and his testimony does not make common sense. It does not fit with the actions, re-actions, and subsequent events. It is as if the soldiers were a part in the theatre, popping in for their requisite lines and actions, and then exiting stage left, never to be seen or heard again.

In the 60’s C.E. a Petronius Arbiter wrote a bawdy novel called Satyricaon. In Chapter 112, he wrote about a soldier, whose duty was to guard the corpses of crucified victims. The soldier was lured away, and sure enough, a corpse was stolen. As pure speculation, I wonder if the author of Matthew had heard this story, or one derived from it, and couldn’t resist incorporating it into his Gospel. An incorporation into the Gospel that gave a ready response for anyone else making the same accusation here.

Whatever the reason, the probability of soldiers at the tomb is so inconceivable, that using them as an defense to the empty tomb problem only invites more, not less, problems.

And this is just one of the very many problems with the Resurrection story…

The Bible Not Fit For Today (II)

Christians, I have some questions for you, and I would like some honest answers. These are all very important questions and I want them treated as such, with "book, chapter, and verse" from the Holy Bible. No other answers, rationalizing, speculation, or philosophizing will be accepted. I am looking for straight-up biblical answers...

To which passage will you direct me to provide me with the Bible's take on cryonics? Will it be a scriptural practice with humans once we learn how to safely freeze, and in the future, unfreeze a human to find a cure for a disease? Or are we dodging your God's will on the fact that he wants us to face the consequences of any condition/ailment he sends our way?

To which passage will you direct me to show Bible authority for the cyborgization of replaceable/repairable body parts. If I lose a hand, I do have Bible authority to replace it with a genetically engineered one, no? If I don't, are all the old people with pacemakers and artificial joints going to Hell along with me? Surely not, right? For that matter, why not show the Bible authority for removing a non-life-threatening mole or deformity, or for allowing an extremely homely person to undergo plastic surgery? If our bodies are the temple of God, how dare we alter them, right?

To which passage will you refer me in an effort to show me that life begins at conception? Which passage(s) deal with artificial insemination, invetro fertilization, test-tube babies, contraception, etc. I, for one, would love to know just how you determine as a Christian that when the first cell division occurs at conception, you have a life. I would have thought that perhaps it is after the initial cell divisions occur and the embryo splits...say, into twins or triplets, and that is the point at which life really begins, but I'm not a Christian. You tell me, and please don't fail to direct me to the Bible passage from whence you arrived at your conclusion.

To which passage of scripture would you advise I adhere to, to provide a doctor counsel on how to deal with a baby born with the anatomical parts of both the male and female sexes? Would there be any bible authority to surgically fashion a newborn baby into a complete male or female? Which passages deal with how we should treat transgender people? I would really like to know.

To which passage would you lead me to find authority and the motivation to pursue a space program? Should we even try to visit far distant planets? By what authority? As far as the Bible is concerned, we shouldn't even expect to find pond scum on those distant worlds, and their certainly wouldn't be any sentient, intelligent life out there. So why should we even bother investigating those lofty matters when earth was created as our portion for life and well-being? Should we ever discover aliens from another world who are sentient, what should we do? Evangelize them? Do they have souls? Do they have sin? On the one hand, if they have no souls and are to be considered as mere sheep and oxen, what if they are capable of doing the same moral things we humans do, like exhibiting advanced forms of love and compassion? What if they are truly moral beings? What if their morality actually exceeds our own? On the other hand, if we say yes, that they do have souls and sin, and need to be evangelized, have all those who died on their planet thus far without our "gospel of Jesus" headed to hell? These are some pretty serious issues!

Then, of course, there is the issue of cloning - where in the Bible do we find the go-ahead to proceed with this branch of science? Was it wrong to clone Dolly, the sheep, like we did back in the nineties? Will it be wrong to clone humans? Does cloning somehow encroach on God's plans for man? Will these future human clones have "souls"? Will they be able to go to hell for sins? Will they get off scott-free for wrongs committed? If these soulless things reproduce, will they be capable of having offspring with souls if one of the partners is a normal, "ensouled" human? Won't the children have to get the soul from the non-clone parent who has a soul? Or is the soul sent down from heaven at conception? Might God decide to send down souls for these clones since, for all practical purposes, they are still created in God's image?

Also, what about DNA banks, sperm banks, egg banks, and fertility treatments? Please give me the scriptures on these deep topics. I have other questions on the creation of artificial intelligence, but I think I know what the answers will be. All I want is a good and hearty "Thus saith the Lord" from the word of God to help mankind on these morally crucial matters.

As a former minister, I myself tried many times to find the answers to these questions in the "good old book", but never could. I give up! I am curious to see the Bible's teaching on how to proceed on these subjects from some current believers who are confident that they can do better than I did. I am now fully convinced that the Bible doesn't have these answers, and therefore, is a book that is far from fit as a reliable and applicable guide for matters of life today. Maybe someone can yet prove me wrong on these things.

Now I do hope that any wayfaring Christians who take to answer these questions will realize how much I appreciate their effort in doing so, but I also hope they realize that if their answers don't match up with the answers of their fellow believers, then this suggests that their book does not clearly offer these answers, if at all. Either all that is in the Bible is only what we have authority for (then we'd have to eliminate anything extra-biblical, like cars and planes, etc.), or the Bible implicitly authorizes and guides us today, authorizing a number of extra-biblical things that must be carefully and tediously studied out. However, it is worth stating that this has proven to be an impossible task to undertake, since no one has yet reached a consensus on these "answers" provided by the bible.

Stereo instructions for a type of stereos might be well written, useful, and relevant for a whole product line of a given stereo type, but as time passes, those instructions will inevitably become obsolete. Time and learning will render them useless. The same, I contend, is true of the Bible. It cannot be a valid means of answering today's complex questions and issues. We must look for answers elsewhere.

(JH)

To David and All Others Who So Flippantly Dismiss Our Past Faith

In this post, a gentleman by the name of David Poehlein has been asking why anyone would spend their time discussing a belief they don't hold. He also did what many other Christian commenters have done here as well, dismissed our past faith.

I consider the following an open letter to all who do so.

David,

Do you not notice how presumptuous you are being here?

You come into a forum in which the writers describe a gut-wrenching journey away from faith and you write:

I do not believe that people "lose" faith. I believe they never had it. Maybe they wanted it or convinced themself they had it, but never did.

So, you come in and invalidate all of our experience.

You were no part of my journey. You don't know what it is like to see your faith slowly drained from you. To fight, kicking and screaming, to maintain it. To cry, pray, seek counsel, force yourself into a Church, pray some more, cry some more.

I am/was an ordained minister. From five-years-old until thirty, I believed that Jesus died for my sins and was the love of my life. Never, for one second, during all of that time could I have imagined that I would ever be anything other than a Christian.

I didn't want to leave the Church; I loved it. I loved preaching, singing, praying, teaching, the Bible, seminary, all of it. I stayed, for a while, even after my faith was gone, just because I couldn't imagine life without it. It was horrific.

And, then, you bop in here and flippantly dismiss everything I experienced. You say it was all a delusion. Well, pardon me for not running to embrace what you have to say.

You keep asking why we/I would spend time on Christianity after leaving it.

Read this.

There are a lot of reasons why I post. One is compassion. I don't like to see people brain-washed and hurt by any religion. Another reason is political. Christianity has become a political organization attempting to impose Christian "morality" (if you can call it that) on everyone else. So, I care about individuals, and I care about government. That's why I write.

What if you are wrong, David? I never thought I could be. I got a degree in biblical studies from a very conservative Bible college, a master of arts in theology from the largest Evangelical seminary in the country, and a master of divinity from the tenth largest Evangelical seminary in the country. I was an associate pastor in four different churches. I was ordained, "called" to be a church planter by a large denomination, and given a large grant to do so. I never expected to spend my life any other way than in service of Jesus. I didn't have a suspicion during all of that time that one day, I would be at this point. I was you on many occasions. I came into these kind of forums and actually attempted to give reasons for my faith, and most of the time, I would more than hold my own.

How do you know that you will endure David? How do you know that one day you won't be here on the other side?

I believed Jesus' words, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. . . And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

Do you know how many times I lay face-down on my floor crying to heaven for God to fulfill this promise? Do you know how many times I screamed the prayer of that helpless father in Mark 9:24, "I do believe; help my unbelief"?

Will that be you one day, David? Will you be grasping onto whatever faith you can muster, begging God for help in your unbelief? How do you know, David? How do you know?

The apostle Paul wrote, "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall." Do you think you stand, David?

Maybe, David, you should be concerned about your own reasons for faith. Maybe instead of entering forums and writing off peoples' experiences without knowing anything about them, you should take the time and examine your faith. You should think about why you believe and why your belief is correct and why the beliefs of the vast majority of individuals who have ever walked this earth are wrong. It is very presumptuous, indeed, to come here unable to "give an account for the hope that is in you," to dismiss the beliefs of most of the people who have ever lived and who ever will live on this earth.

Why don't you do this? Why don't you explain to us why your belief is true? Why don't you say something besides the dogma of your religion? Any Buddhist, Muslim, or believing Jew could do that. They could come in and spout their dogma. If your faith is "true," you should be able to explain why, right? Why don't you let that be your method instead of presuming to know us and simply dismiss what we have to say? We welcome your reasons. We welcome a rational defense of your faith. Try us, okay?

Presuppositionalism: Arguments 4, Supports 0

In this brief post, I will address four arguments made by presuppositionalists. I will contend, that all four are left unsupported by the proponents of this argument.

Argument One

Greg Bahnsen writes, "In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary."

Bahnsen believes there are only two worldviews, the Christian worldview and the non-Christian worldview. He believes that the Christian worldview can be proven true because all other worldviews are contradictory and cannot make sense of logic, science, or ethics. He writes, "It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible."

Bahnsen believes that only one of these "two" worldviews (i.e. the Christian worldview or the non-Christian worldview) can be "intellectually justified." He writes, "Whose perspective is intellectually justified, the Christian's or the non-Christian's?" (emphasis added) Going back to his contention that the Christian worldview is correct because of the impossibility of the contrary, we can formalize this argument in a disjunctive syllogism.

Q v P
~P
:.Q

So that, "The Christian worldview is true or the non-Christian worldview is true. The non-Christian worldview is not true, therefore the Christian worldview is true."

Given the premises, the argument is valid. It is up to the person making the "contention," however, to support the premises.

First, then, one must support the claim that the first premise is correct. It must be shown that only one worldview can be true and the other false.

This premise could be easily established if the Christian worldview merely stated that all other worldviews are false. If this was the Christian worldview, then if another worldview could be true alongside of the Christian worldview, the Christian worldview would then be false and the first premise would hold.

So, easy enough, right? Just show that the Christian worldview states that it and only it is the true worldview.

But how is this proven? By reference to the Christian Bible? Well, that assumes (1) that the Christian Bible is a unified body of literature that says only one thing about this subject, and (2) that the Christian worldview is beholden to the Bible in the first place for definition of its worldview.

The first assumption may be easily proven. I can't think of any support off hand for the idea that the Christian Bible is anything but hostile to other worldviews (except, perhaps, Jesus' statement in Luke 9:50 ". . .for whoever is not against you is for you." but this is questionable, at best).

The second assumption, however, is not so easily demonstrated. How can it be proven that the Christian worldview is beholden to the Bible for its definition of its worldview. Many people who claim to be Christians do not believe this. They believe that they receive messages from God that tell them how to live. Others believe that the Bible is simply a human record of God's interactions with humanity and that their own interactions with God shape their worldview, not the recorded interactions of others long ago.

Must an unbeliever choose sides in this internal debate? When the presuppositionalist tells us that only one worldview can be true, must we believe them and disbelieve others who also say they are Christians but who claim that more than one worldview can be true at the same time?

This dispute may be a little easier to resolve between certain atheists and Christian theists. Most atheists believe the Christian God does not, and never did, exist. If an atheist has a materialist/naturalist/physicalist worldview, part of which says the Christian God does not, and never did, exist, one can justify the first premise of this disjunctive syllogism by reference to theistic beliefs.

The second premise of this argument, however, is that it is not the case that any non-Christian worldview is true. This is more difficult to support.

As I see it, presuppositionalists use three arguments to support their assertion that all non-Christian worldviews are not true.

Argument Two

Presuppositionalists use the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG). Bahnsen writes that if "predication, reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, substance, being, or purpose, counting, coherence, unity, or system in experience or in a conception of a 'universe,' logic, individuating of facts, unchanging 'natures' or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality, avoiding contradictions, avoiding the irrationalism or scepticism which arise from the tension between knowing discursively and knowing-asystematic, etc," are possible, then God exists. These are possible; therefore God exists.

Or, formally:

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

Though, I think the second premise of this might be harder to justify than many presuppositionalists admit (these are some pretty weighty philosophical questions), I want to concentrate on the justification of the first premise.

How does the presuppositionalist support the assertion that the existence of any of the concepts mentioned above necessitates the existence of the Christian God?

The only thing I've seen from presuppositionalists is a slight-of-hand trick. Instead of justifying their own assertion, they demand that their opponent prove it wrong. Instead of supporting their assertion, they ask something like, "Show me how universal laws of logic (or any of the other concepts listed above) can exist in the non-Christian worldview?"

This, however, is not a support of their assertion. It is, instead, the introduction of a new argument. It is an implied argument, that I haven't seen explicitly stated, but it is present in almost every presuppositionalist argument I am aware of.

Argument Three

This implied argument can be stated formally.

Let:

E = the predication "cannot account for everything that exists"
T = true
n = all non-Christian worldviews

So that,

(x)[Ex-->~Tx]
En
:.~Tn

Verbally, this implied argument states, "For any worldview, if that worldview cannot account for everything that exists, then that worldview is not true. All non-Christian worldviews cannot account for everything that exists, therefore all non-Christian worldviews are not true."

The first premise of this may well be true enough. One would think that a "true" worldview could account for everything that exists.

It is the second premise, however, that the presuppositionalists must support. How do they do that? How do they show that all non-Christian worldviews do not account for everything that exists?

To actually "prove" this, the presuppositionalists would have to prove a non-tautological universal negative. They would have to demonstrate that no existing or possible non-Christian worldview can account for everything that exists.

I would be very interested to hear support for this one. I, personally, don't think it would be possible.

At this point, though, the presuppositionalists that I am aware of pull another trick. They form a new argument that they would never voice, but quietly assume.

Argument Four

This new argument goes like this--

P1: If a non-Christian debate opponent cannot account for all that exists in terms of his or her worldview, then that non-Christian worldview is not true.

P2: This non-Christian debate opponent cannot account for all that exists in terms of his or her worldview.

C: Therefore that non-Christian worldview is not true.

Here, P1 must be justified. How is it the case that a worldview is not true just because a particular proponent of that worldview cannot account for everything that exists? The non-Christian opponent's ignorance does not invalidate the worldview he or she may hold to. There might be a way to account for those concepts that the non-Christian debate opponent is simply unaware of.

To hold this argument is to hold an ad hominem fallacy. It says that a person's belief is not true because of the person's inability to demonstrate it. [An equivalent argument would be, "My old pastor couldn't justify the existence of evil in the universe given an all-wise, all-powerful, benevolent, free God. Therefore, there is no way to justify this reality."]

***

This is the lack of support and trickery that I have observed in presuppositionalists.

First, they cannot, in every case, justify their claim that only one worldview can be true. In cases where they can justify that claim (as mentioned above), they cannot support the claim that all non-Christian worldviews are not true.

Second, in the argument that is meant to support the claim that all non-Christian worldviews are not true (i.e. TAG), they cannot support their first premise that the existence of logic (and the other list of concepts above) demands the existence of the Christian God.

Third, in an attempt to support the claim that all non-Christian worldviews are not true, they adopt an argument that states that a worldview that cannot explain everything that exists is not true. While this may well be the case, they cannot support the second premise of that argument that all non-Christian worldviews cannot account for everything that exists.

Fourth, in attempting to support the premise that all non-Christian worldviews cannot account for everything that exists, they assume an argument that states that if "a non-Christian debate opponent cannot account for all that exists in terms of his or her worldview, then that non-Christian worldview is not true." This argument, however, commits a fallacy (i.e. ad hominem).

We see, then, that the presuppositionalist argument is smoke and mirrors. It has been successful in the past because it takes the presuppositionalists' opponents by surprise. If the argument has proven anything, it proves that there are some tough questions in philosophy.

The presuppositionalist thinks that s/he can easily answer any of the difficulties of justifying basic beliefs. The word "God" is invoked like some kind of magical, cure-all elixir. As a team-member here similarly stated, Why is the sky blue? God. Why are bumble-bees yellow and black? God. Why do babies die? God. How can I prove there are other minds? God. How did the universe get here? God. How can a universal exist? God.

That word just fills every gap. You can squeeze it anywhere. The presuppositionalists have a ready answer for problems in philosophy. It's "God."

"What does that mean, though? Define God for me."

"God is powerful."

"Powerful like a truck?"

"No, powerful in a way that you have never experienced. Powerful in a way that you cannot imagine."

"Then what does this tell me about your God?"

"God is benevolent."

"You mean benevolent like volunteers for Doctors without Borders? He heals everyone he can?"

"No, God has actually ordered people to kill children and infants, donkeys and cattle. He is 'benevolent' in a way beyond your understanding."

"Then what does this tell me about your God?"

". . ."

Gees, that word "God" is a convenient bugger though, isn't it? You don't even have to define it intelligbly and you can use it to explain any problem in the world!

Come on, presuppositionalists! There is a reason that your view is ignored by so many. The argument is so full of holes, Swiss cheese is jealous.

Justifying TAG? Part 2: A Response to Paul Manata

I am very glad that Paul Manata has responded to my various posts on presuppositionalism and laws of logic (the most recent post being this one). His response has been a long time in the making and I was beginning to wonder if it would ever arrive.

Below, I will comment on his response.

First, I should say this. I actually do have a good deal of respect for Paul. We've had some very valuable discussions in the past. I believe that he is well-reasoned and articulate, and I enjoy our dialogue because I feel that he pushes me to be more exact with my language.

Every now and then you will see me "trading barbs" with Paul in various comment boxes. I've more or less simply adopted the prevailing language of blogging, and the "insults" are meant to be playful banter and not taken seriously. [I suspect Paul thinks likewise about his barbs as well, and doesn't really believe I am an "ex-brainer."]

That said . . .

Paul states that the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) is "person varied." When he states TAG,

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

the "P" is that "which the skeptic accepts." Quoting Bahnsen, he fleshes this out:

If predication, reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, substance, being, or purpose, counting, coherence, unity, or system in experience or in a conception of a "universe," logic, individuating of facts, unchanging "natures" or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality, avoiding contradictions, avoiding the irrationalism or scepticism which arise from the tension between knowing discursively and knowing-asystematic, etc, are possible then God is the case .

Predication, reason, explanation, interpretation, learning, certainty, universals, possibility, cause, substance, being, or purpose, counting, coherence, unity, or system in experience or in a conception of a "universe," logic, individuating of facts, unchanging "natures" or laws in a chance universe, uniformity, science, connecting logic and facts or predication to reality, avoiding contradictions, avoiding the irrationalism or scepticism which arise from the tension between knowing discursively and knowing-asystematic, etc, are possible.

Therefore God is the case?

Though the question mark at the end seems out of place for a Reformed Christian, I won't make anything of that.

Essentially, Paul is asserting that if any of these things are possible, they are unfounded without reference to the Christian God. Which brings me back to the original question that I started with in my most recent post. Why is this the case? Why is the possiblity of any of these things unfounded without reference to the Christian God?

I stated that, in my experience, presuppositionalists do not attempt to give evidence of this assertion, but instead, they try to shift the burden of proof to make their opponent disprove their assertion.

Paul responds:

i. If the argument was that you could not account or make sense of logic within your worldview, then you'd need to show how you can.

But that IS NOT the argument! At least not the one that you presented. Your argument was:

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

I.e. If some concept accepted by a non-Christian exists, then the Christian God exists; some concept accepted by a non-Christian exists, therefore the Christian God exists.

There is nothing about accounting for or making sense of logic within a world view. You make an assertion here. You state that a concept accepted by a non-Christian demands the existence of the Christian God.

Elsewhere, you may have stated that atheists can't account for held beliefs in their "world view" (see here for correction of this language), but we are talking about your transcendental argument, right? Why do you feel the need to change the subject here? Why not accept your burden to prove your assertion? You are the one presenting an argument, you should be the one to support its assertions.

ii. Since you have a burden as well, you need to show how you can reason autonomously. If you assume that you can have logic without God then you're begging the question against my worldview. So, you can't just assume you're autonomous and not expect to have to justify your autonomy.

Again, I don't have a burden in this transcendental argument. You are the one saying that a concept accepted by a non-Christian demands the existence of the Christian God. You are the one who must demonstrate this.

I have, elsewhere, dealt with my burden of the argument that you have introduced as a red-herring to shirk your obligation to prove your first premise in your TAG argument.

Let's remember that my question was about TAG. You have left that discussion and have introduced another argument that would, essentially, read, "If you can't 'account [for] or make sense of logic within your worldview,' then your world view is not true; you can't 'account [for] or make sense of logic within your worldview,' therefore your world view is not true."

This is a bad argument in its own right (one that, maybe, we can take up another day), but I want you to see that you have changed the topic. We aren't talking about the TAG that you presented any more. I want you to justify your first premise in your TAG argument.

iii. We're debating entire worldviews.

Not in the TAG argument you stated above! We are only debating if your first premise in your argument is true. You should be explaining your assertion that a concept accepted by a non-Christian (like the ones you quoted from Bahnsen above) demands the existence of the Christian God. Maybe later we can debate "entire worldviews," right now, though, we should be talking about your assertion in your first premise of TAG.

iv. If your argument assumes universal laws of logic then you must offer an account of how such things are possible, unless you just want some freebies.

I didn't make an argument, you did!

We are talking about your TAG argument. You are the one who is begging for "freebies" here. You want me to simply accept your first premise without asking that you support it. Why would I grant you this "freebie"? Why should I accept your first premise?

v. There's a two-step method in play. The first is to argue negatively, i.e., you can't account for logic given what you say about the world. The second is to show how, say, logic does presuppose God's existence.

So, let's look at your two-step method.

Step One: Are you now suggesting that your first premise is proven because it can't be disproved? Argumentum ad Ignorantiam! Are you saying that if logic exists, then God exists because I can't show otherwise? So, purple unicorns exist somewhere in the universe because you can't prove otherwise?

No, I don't think you are actually making this mistake. You are too smart for that. What you have done, though, is, again, forgotten that we are talking about the TAG argument that you presented. You are still referring back to your red-herring argument that you introduced so that you can neglect your responsibility of supporting your first premise of that argument.

The first step of your "two-step" method assumes that we are talking about your argument that I can't account for logic in my "world view." But that isn't what we are discussing. We are talking about the TAG argument you presented above, remember? I asked you to justify the first premise of that argument. I did not ask you to justify the first premise of the argument that you have introduced to avoid justifying the first premise of the argument you presented above.

Step Two: Now, this is the step I am actually asking about, and now we are actually talking about the argument you presented above. In this step, you must support your assertion that "logic does presuppose God's existence."

But wait, where is that support? Not in this comment. The next maybe?

vi. The argument is usually retortive in that the attempt is made to show that by denying the transcendental claim you do so only by performing it.

But how is this helpful?

I get what you are saying about transcendental arguments per se, but we are supposed to be evaluating this particular transcendental argument.

In other words, I agree that a transcendental argument for the existence of logic per se would be shown because any logical denial of the existence of logic would be a performance of logic which must exist. But your TAG is something else entirely. By "performing" logic (or any of the other items in Bahnsen's list above), I am only demonstrating that that item exists (whether in reality or perceived reality).

The only way that your argument would be "retortive" would be if by denying that the Christian God exists, I was affirming that the Christian God exists. Now, you do believe I am doing this, but only indirectly. You correctly identify my denial as an act relying on logic, but then you assume that the existence of logic demands the existence of the Christian God.

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE FIRST PREMISE OF YOUR ARGUMENT THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT!

Pardon the yelling, but it is a little frustrating. You are assuming the premise that I have asked you to support in order to prove the premise. Following that argument makes me dizzy, and I yell when I get dizzy.

Next, Paul begins to address my assertion that Greg Bahnsen's "TAG" (as presented here), doesn't sound like a modus ponens argument to me.

I see this as a peripheral issue to the one stated above. If there is a response to this post, I hope that the response focuses more on everything I have stated above rather than this part of my post.

The question I am most concerned with is, "How is the first premise of TAG justified by presuppositionalists?"

What follows is simply an issue I have with understanding how Bahnsen seems to put the argument.

In Bahsen's article, he writes, "Whose perspective is intellectually justified, the Christian's or the non-Christian's?"

I translated this to be:

P v Q

(i.e. the non-Christian's perspective is "intellectually justified" or is the Christian world view "intellectually justified")

He goes on to write, "In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary."

I translated this to mean,

~P
:.Q

(i.e. the non-Christian world view is not "intellectually justified" (i.e. it is not "true"), therefore the Christian world view is justified).

Paul responds to my assertion.

i. The Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary. We're not trying to prove just "if logic, then God" but rather the entire worldview.

Well, according to TAG, the Christian God is true because logic (or one of the other items on Bahnsen's list) exists. And since this is part of your argument, I asked you to justify it.

ii. Transcendental Arguments take the form of modus ponens. I'll sidestep debate here because the burden is one you, considering the fact that you're the only person in the history of the world who has made the stricture of a TA a disjunctive syllogism.

But my point was that Bahnsen made it sound as if TAG was a disjunctive syllogism. I know the structure of TA's. I'm not arguing about how TA's should be stated per se. My point was about Bahnsen's structure, not TA's generally.

Here's what might have confused me. I was under the impression that, according to presuppositionalists, "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist" was the transcendental argument. Bahnsen writes, "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary."

I therefore reasoned:

T = F
C = F
:. T = C

(i.e. The transcendental argument is "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist"; the "impossibility of the contrary" is "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist"; therefore, the transcendental argument is the impossibility of the contrary.

The assumption that I probably got wrong was that Bahnsen was referring to TAG when he named "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist."

But I think you can understand my confusion on this point. Throughout your post, when you were supposed to be discussing TAG, you have really been discussing this impossibility of the contrary argument. If TAG is not the "impossibility of the contrary" argument, then you, presuppositionalists, should be more clear on this. You seem to confuse the two throughout your post.

Additionally, you admit that the impossibility of the contrary argument really preceeds TAG.

You see, there are only two worldviews and all I've been doing is giving illustrations on how many different ways I can refute that worldview in its various forms. The non-Christian worldview is like a family in that there are different family members who look a bit different, but they are all members of the same family. Likewise, atheism and Buddhism are just distant cousins. So, my argument is not as you have set it up, rather, it is:

C v ~C

~~C

:.C.

You use TAG to demonstrate ~~C (which I'll give you the "freebie" of assuming that you don't mean everything that is not the Christian world view).

The first argument of a presuppositionalist is disjunctive. Either the Christian world view is true or another one is. In order to establish that another world view is not true, the presuppositionalist employees TAG. TAG states that all other world views hold a belief that can only be justified by the existence Christian God.

The problem, though, is with the justification of TAG. You must justify that argument before you can prove ~~C. And this is what I asked you to do in your response. And this is exactly what you didn't do in your post.

iii. Notice that EB misstates his symbols above. He says that the argument is "the Christian worldview or the non-Christian worldview." He translates that as:

P v Q.

Really, that would be translated P v ~P.

You really should be careful when accusing me of misusing formal logic. I'm pretty good at it.

If P equals "the Christian world view," ~P would equal "not the Christian world view." My cat is "not the Christian world view." So, are you saying that the Christian world view is true or my cat is true? That would be a mistake, huh?

I used Q as a "non-Christian world view" because I needed a symbol that could be used to describe world views, not everything else in existence besides the Christian world view.

We can engage in these formal logic pissing contests more if you want to, but I wouldn't recommend it, for your sake.

Okay, that was parts (2a) and (2b)of your post. In the heading, you said that you would (1) address some comments made by others on this blog, (2) Answer my question about how the first premise of TAG is justified (which is what I think you were trying to do in the pre-Bahnsen discussion above), and (3) refute an argument I have made in the past about the laws of logic.

I feel no need to comment on your first goal as it has nothing to do with me. Above is my response to your second goal (and I believe my response to part (a) shows that you failed to achieve that goal). I will respond to your third goal in a subsequent post (I have a paper due in class and need to attend to that).

I do enjoy the dialogue, Paul. Thanks.

By the way, I am still interested in a real justification of the first premise of the transcendental argument if anyone has one.

apologists are experts

Let's face it - the vast majority of people who have spent a great deal of time studying the Bible believe it is the word of God. That's an inescapable reality. Should we leverage some credibility to the claims based on the position of the authorities? Let us consider the ramifications of doing so.

Let us suppose that there is a hypothetical dichotomy that the experts must decide upon. If 90% of the scholars agree with the position that favors Christianity, I would feel extremely confident that about 90% of the scholars came into the field as Christians. The opinion of such authorities, who began with the conclusion before considering the evidence, cannot be trusted simply because they are authorities. One simply cannot trust those with huge emotional investments to be objective on critical issues. You cannot trust a car salesman when buying a car; you should trust a consumer report. You cannot trust an Islamic scholar when studying Islam; you should trust a scholar who had no opinion going in. You cannot trust a Jewish scholar when studying Judaism; you should trust a scholar who had no set opinion going in. You cannot trust a mother of an artist when determining which artist made the best painting; you should trust an art critic with no knowledge of the artists. For this reason, I put little stock in the opinions of people who began studying Christianity years after they accepted the notion of a talking snake.

Apologists and the bunch ignore counterevidence when they find it, or find someway to rationalize it with the Bible. This practice isn't localized to one religion either. Muslims, Mormons, Jews, etc. will interpret according to their preconceived notions. The importance of the fact that such adults were indoctrinated with beliefs from childhood cannot be overstated! How else do multiple religions survive in the age of scrutiny and reason? This is why apologists must excuse me for wanting authorities, if they appeal to them, to have no religious preference. Practice of religion clouds judgment. Understanding of religion does not.

Not only does the problem reach outside of Christianity, it continues outside of religion. Think of other fields that skeptics and rationalists consider to be based on myths. What percentage of people who are UFO experts believe that UFOs are flying saucer vehicles piloted by aliens? I don't have the statistic with me, but should we not feel confident that the vast majority are UFO apologists? People with such interests will naturally join such fields, entering with the notion that they are flying saucers and beginning with the determination to validate their beliefs. UFO apologists don't pay much attention to evidence and explanations that debunk their beliefs; they find ways of making it consistent. They do not like simple explanations for sightings, so they begin with premise that the sighting is authentic, and mold explanations without breaking the premise. Does this not sound familiar? Have you ever seen the pseudoscientific techniques and equipment used by ghost hunters? Does this not sound familiar as well?

The same can be said for those who study Bigfoot, Nessie, yetis, psychics, ESP, ghosts, homeopathy, faith healing, etc. The believers become the experts; disbelievers have no interest. Every now and then, you will find rationalists dedicated enough to devote time for debunking such nonsense. These people, who have studied with great interest but without preconceived notions, are the ones who offer natural explanations. There is no reason that we shouldn't feel confident that people with no interest in the field who take the time to learn both sides will agree with the natural explanations offered by skeptics. The skeptic knows that Bigfoot is based on myth and that the evidence doesn't support the claims because he has no emotional investment in Bigfoot. Despite no good evidence, the believer is going to continue believing what he wants to believe, thanks in part to his bad reasoning. The Bigfoot enthusiast will not listen to reason because he convinced himself long ago of the veracity of his beliefs. Very rarely do we see disbelieving experts become believing experts. Even with years of conditioned reinforcement from their environment, the number leaving greatly outweighs the number joining.

Yes, the overwhelming majority of biblical experts believe in the veracity of the Bible. To someone who had never heard of such matters, however, Yahweh and Bigfoot should be no different. Smart people believe dumb things because they are very gifted at coming up with scenarios that maintain their beliefs. Have you ever read the explanations on why Matthew and Luke contradict on when Jesus was born? Debating the existence of Yahweh is no more of an issue to me than debating the issue of Bigfoot. I see this simply as a matter of exploring the best options to make Christians understand this very concept.

Atheism and Evangelism

Even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights: the right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities, provided only that he does not try to inflict them upon others by force; he has the right to argue for them as eloquently as he can. But he has no right to be protected from the criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.
H.L. Mencken

Given that religious persons feel motivated to save our souls by their own beliefs, and thus evangelize us, are they morally wrong, in following what they truly believe, an in trying to "help" us?

By the same line of reasoning, those of us who feel that some religious systems promote and induce unethical behavior, intolerance, ignorance, anti-scientific and anti-intellectual attitudes, theocratic tendencies, etc., may be ethically motivated to try to argue against these systems, or at least to reasonably present our alternatives to those willing to listen. Are we, therefore, evangelical atheists? Are we wrong, in following what we see as the truth?

Brian Flemming, of The God Who Wasn't There, is now behind a campaign to plant his DVDs, and generally anti-Christian materials, in churches for their Easter services. The aim appears to be to "hide" these things within churches so that worshippers on Easter Sunday will discover them, and hopefully watch/read them. This appraoch, in my opinion, crosses the line of ethical behavior and decency. I do not claim that my ethical framework is universal and absolute, but I think that when people want to gather together around a common focus, we ought to allow them to do so without antagonism. How would we handle unsolicited evangelists at a skeptics conference, standing up and preaching? Now, that said, I think that standing out in the parking lot [of the church, or wherever], holding a sign like this one, is completely innocuous.

What are your thoughts on the balance between promoting a worldview [or one aspect thereof, like atheism within the broader context of Materialism] and "going too far" in "evangelizing"?

Read this interesting take on positive atheism, and comment away.

This is not a tame God

Last time I talked about the Free Will premise, now let’s look at the opposite end of the spectrum—the Sovereignty of God. Rather than defend various stories and precepts about God that He holds Free Will in such esteem so as to allow evil, the Sovereign defense claims that God can do what God wants, when He wants. He made the universe, He can crush the universe. Often an attached claim is that evil has some purpose which God uses for a greater benefit.

This has as many problems as Free Will, upon inspection.

The most illuminating passage for this position is Romans 9:20-24. The famous “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.” One can also look at the verses where God caused the tragedy of the Ten Plagues, to show His own glory. (Ex. 14:4) Or Isaiah 45:7, where God admits to creating calamity.

I have also traditionally seen this claim in defense of God killing babies and children in the flood, God killing babies and children in Egypt, God killing babies and children in Moses’ genocide, and God killing babies and children in Joshua’s genocide, and God killing babies and children in Samuel’s genocide. That since humans are created creatures, they are in no position to question what the creator does, up to and including killing them. “Who are you to question God?” (Job 40:2 paraphrased.)

One can’t help but question, though, what God’s purpose is behind these actions, and how that purpose is being served.

Picture some Apatosaurus frolicking with his dinosaur friends on a Saturday afternoon. Because of nothing that it has done, God must drown it. As well as all his Apatosaurus buddies. What purpose does this serve? To glorify God? Who is glorifying God? The other dinosaurs? They are all dead. The mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and fish? Dead, dead, dead, dead and dead. Humans? I am sure Noah was thinking explicitly about that Apatosaurus when getting so drunk he passes out. Gen. 9:21-22

I rarely see Christians talk about the Glory of God displayed in killing all the animals because of something Humans did. Non-believers choke on the idea that God has to kill, kill, kill because of the actions of some humans. No body seems to talk about the Glory of God in destroying all the monkeys, zebras, dogs, cats, snakes, parrots and pike. The only one that seems to see glory in this is—God Himself. Why does God have to kill to make himself feel good?

Further, if a purpose of Evil is to Glorify God, and God glorifies Himself, in order to fulfill this purpose (which has a higher priority than morality/immorality, remember) He can certainly commit an act that is evil. It glorifies Him. The Sovereign Defense cannot limit God to solely moral acts!

But I digress--we are talking about Sovereignty. The explanation for why God could kill baby boys. (Num. 31:17) If God created it, he can do what he wants with it. At the end of the Flood, God gives a curious promise to Noah: “I will not destroy every living thing as I have done.” Gen. 8:21. “Excuse me…uh…God? In point of fact, you haven’t destroyed every living thing. In fact, many, many years from now people will still be debating how you managed to fit all the animals, birds, fish and insects in the ark. Some will argue dinosaurs were wiped out, others argue they were not. How did you destroy every living thing?”

Under God’s Sovereignty, is He bound by this promise? It creates a conundrum. On the one hand, God can bind himself to this promise. On the other, since he is sovereign, he is within his power and ability to withdraw this promise and repeat the action. Or can he, within his sovereignty, say he meant only by flood, and can use fire, dirt, a wayward asteroid, earthquake, pestilence, disease, war and any other means destroy every living thing as he had done? Not exactly comforting.

The biggest problem with the Sovereignty Defense is that we lose all grip on what God can or cannot do. Being completely Sovereign, he can change his mind at will, and it is acceptable. There are no guarantees in the Sovereign Defense world.

Today, Murder is punishable by banishment (Gen.4:15) Tomorrow Murder punishable by death (Gen. 9:5) Next week Murder is punishable by inflicting disease on the Murderer’s family (2 Sam. 3:29) The following month, Murder is punishable by killing the Murderer’s baby. (2 Sam. 12:14) Since God is Sovereign, he can change the rules at whim.

Today burnt animals are pleasing to God (Gen. 8:21), tomorrow God prefers killing Humans (1 Sam. 15:22) next week God hates sacrifice (Isa. 1:11) next month God finds the whole idea of animal sacrifice as a forgotten relic of a past history. Heb. 10:8-26

Today wearing Gold is acceptable (Ex. 3:22) tomorrow it is not. (1 Tim. 2:9) Yesterday we could not eat a BLT, (Lev 11:7) but today we can. (Acts. 10:14) Tomorrow, we may or may not be able to, depending on our conscience. (1 Cor. 8:7-12)

What God will do next is a complete uncertainty. The Son of Sam claimed that God (through the neighbor’s dog) ordered him to kill people. How could a Sovereign Defense argue that point? God is Sovereign, he certainly could do such a thing. God gave one set of holy writings. Updated it with a second set. Why couldn’t he update it with a third, or fourth? What prohibits the Qur’an from being the “Newest” Testament?

When can a person, using this claim, ever say, “God can’t do that.” Why not? He is sovereign. If he can do whatever he wants with his creation, he can empty Heaven, and fill Hell, or vice versa or even rotate, and there is absolutely nothing a person claiming a Sovereign God could argue about it.

Perhaps (and this is a guess) the person claiming this defense would say even God could not violate truth, regardless of Sovereignty. But there is no real way of knowing that, is there? This is just a guess. As humans, we value human life as more important than truth. In Ethical Dilemmas 101 the situation is presented, “What if a murderer asked where your family is hiding? Do you tell the truth to protect them, or lie?”

God clearly does not value Human life. On what grounds do we value life more than truth, yet this person claims God values truth more than life? Is this one of those things that got switched in the Fall?

And there are hints with God being limited in his Sovereignty.

Recall David’s census. Third worst individual sin recorded. (If measured by punishment.) A sin worthy of 100,000 – 200,000 deaths. If Murder is only worth one death, this is 100,000 times worse than murder! A bit of a sticky wicket that comes up is the fact that God incited David to commit this sin. 2 Sam. 24:1. Christians find that problematic. A common resolution is that, if one reads the verse, “God was angry at Israel…” is the precipitating cause. Therefore, God was justified to inflict this punishment, because of the sin of the people killed.

But this is blurring a fact. If the people sinned, God could punish them directly. Within David’s reign, God had no problem levying a famine for their sin. (2 Sam. 21:1) Why would God go through the charade of pushing David to sin, just to punish some Canaanites? As if God’s sovereignty was limited in some way, that he could not exact punishment, despite his anger.

This is not a pretty picture. God angry, but not at sin? God pushing someone to sin, to appease his anger since God is restricted in releasing it? God then inflicting death, but not necessarily on the sinner? What limitation was there on God’s sovereignty, so that he was pissed, but the only way to work off the anger was to make some body, anybody sin?

Pharaoh. Second worst individual sin. Again, God wants to show his Glory, but somehow his Sovereignty is not enough to simply do it. God has to get involved, forcing Pharaoh to sin (in some unclear way.) If God was sovereign, to show His glory, all he had to do was execute the Plagues, one right after another.

Adam. Worst individual sin. Because of this act, God curses the ground. (Gen. 3:17) What did the ground do? Why is God punishing an inanimate object? But when we get to Noah, God says he will never curse the ground again. (Gen. 8:21) Was the Flood another punishment of the ground? Why does God hate dirt? And why does he enact his rage upon dirt for other people’s actions? This is one scary sovereign God!

Reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield joke:

“You call that school tough? My High School was so tough, after our football team sacked the quarterback, they went into the stands after his family!”

That’s the sort of God the Sovereign Defense presents.

And, exactly as the Free Will argument, the Sovereign Defense is presented for the sole issue of why God does bad things, and then quickly abandoned in the pragmatic application of Christianity. If God is truly considered Sovereign over anything He creates, he is not bound by truth, life, promises, covenants, books, time, communication, anything.

Does the person holding to a completely Sovereign God really believe that they can do all the correct steps, yet God can still throw them in Hell, because they are created, and God can do whatever he wants with his creation? Of course not. What the person is really saying is, “God can do whatever he wants with you because he is Sovereign, but he won’t with me because….well…..because he just won’t—that’s why.”

They pray to God, believing He will provide. Why? Being Sovereign, it is his choice, not your prayer. They believe a destiny of Heaven awaits them. Why? Being Sovereign God could change the rules today, tomorrow or 10 Million years from now. There is no guarantee of Heaven. They believe this God hates sin. Why? Being Sovereign, he uses sin to Glorify himself, and release his anger.

If Hell is truly a separation from God, when God gets angry in heaven, who else will he have to kill but those holding to the Sovereign God. And we wouldn’t expect any complaints.

It boils down to simple questions—if God is Sovereign, how is he limited? And if he is limited, how is he Sovereign? Again, what I see are humans, manufacturing excuses for a God they can’t quite stomach either.

What Is The Goal In A Debate?

I’ve been in several debates over the years. They’re sort of fun, and they help to bring the best out of the debators. Recently there have been a few debate challenges issued in the comments sections here and here.

I’m not opposed to debates. I’m having one in front of an audience with David Wood of Answering Infidels on the problem of evil this coming Fall. I know Dr. Craig and Dan Barker do them often too.

But sometimes it just seems to me that debate challenges are motivated by the desire to be the top dog, or something like it…that is, “who knows the most about the topic at hand?” Is it true that only the most informed person on an issue has the right to believe or not to believe? Surely that cannot be!

This Blog is a debate challenge. Every post of ours is an ongoing debate about some aspect of Christianity. We ask for relevant comments to sharpen our understandings, and this happens on a daily basis. We’re thankful for any intelligent, non-demeaning and relevant comment.

But my unbelief does not depend on winning a debate; just like my opponent's faith does not depend on winning a debate, either. So, what are the specific reasons for having a special one-on-one debate, and why do people issue these debate challenges so often?

I'll share some of my observations later.

Justifying TAG?

This really isn't a post; it's a question for any of our presuppers out there.

In the comment section of Acharya's introductory post, the topic turned to the transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG).

Paul pointed out that TA's were justified according to modus ponens, so that

<> P-->Q
<> P
:.Q

I'm assuming that P = universal laws of logic and Q = the Christian God, so that "If universal laws of logic exist, then the Christian God exists. Universal laws of logic exist, therefore the Christian God exists."

Normally, after making an argument, people seek to support each of their premises.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong (and, admittedly, I may be), but the way presuppositionalists normally attempt to justify the first premise (i.e. that the existence of universal laws of logic presupposes the existence of God) seems to be to say something along the line of "Prove to me that universal laws of logic can exist without God; you can't, therefore premise one is true."

This seems to me an odd way to "justify" a premise, i.e. by asking someone else to prove that it is wrong. That isn't to say that it is not a valid means for justifying, it just seems to be shirking the responsibility of justifying an argument you put forward.

Like I said, I may be wrong about how presuppers justify that premise. It seems, though, that this is what Bahnsen meant by his "impossibility of the contrary" arguments. Instead of saying, "In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary," [see here] he should have said, "The fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the first premise of TAG is true because of the impossibility of the contrary and, therefore, the Christian God exists."

I've argued with Manata before that it seems like Bahnsen's argument is more like:

P v Q
~P
:.Q

[I.e. "Non-Christian world view or Christian world view; not non-Christian world view, therefore, Christian world view."]

I still can't read the article I linked before without thinking that, but it seems to me that if the "impossibility of the contrary" argument is not at this stage of the debate, then it is definitely at play in the justification of the first premise of Manata's modus ponens argument.

Although I'm still not quite clear on how it would be particularly worded.

Help a brotha out, won't you? Tell me how you justify the first premise of TAG.

[As an aside, in another post, I attempted to demonstrate that the laws of logic are not necessarily universal. I have yet to see a detailed critique of why this cannot be the case.]

"This is Your Brain...on God"

A quite interesting article on Wired talks about a "neurotheologist", of sorts (really a neuropsychologist):

Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities. Simplified considerably, the idea goes like so: When the right hemisphere of the brain, the seat of emotion, is stimulated in the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, and then the left hemisphere, the seat of language, is called upon to make sense of this nonexistent entity, the mind generates a "sensed presence."

Persinger has tickled the temporal lobes of more than 900 people before me and has concluded, among other things, that different subjects label this ghostly perception with the names that their cultures have trained them to use - Elijah, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Mohammed, the Sky Spirit. Some subjects have emerged with Freudian interpretations - describing the presence as one's grandfather, for instance - while others, agnostics with more than a passing faith in UFOs, tell something that sounds more like a standard alien-abduction story.

The article ends with:

"Seeing God" is really just a soothing euphemism for the fleeting awareness of ourselves alone in the universe: a look in that existential mirror. The "sensed presence" - now easily generated by a machine pumping our brains with electromagnetic spirituality - is nothing but our exquisite and singular self, at one with the true solitude of our condition, deeply anxious. We're itching to get out of here, to escape this tired old environment with its frayed carpets, blasted furniture, and shabby old God. Time to move on and discover true divinity all over again.

When noted atheist Richard Dawkins was put in the machine, what happened? Nothing:

Horizon introduced Dr Persinger to one of Britain's most renowned atheists, Prof Richard Dawkins. He agreed to try his techniques on Dawkins to see if he could give him a moment of religious feeling. During a session that lasted 40 minutes, Dawkins found that the magnetic fields around his temporal lobes affected his breathing and his limbs. He did not find god.

Persinger was not disheartened by Dawkins' immunity to the helmet's magnetic powers. He believes that the sensitivity of our temporal lobes to magnetism varies from person to person. People with TLE may be especially sensitive to magnetic fields; Prof Dawkins is well below average, it seems. It's a concept that clerics like Bishop Stephen Sykes give some credence as well: could there be such a thing as a talent for religion?

People may want to check out the scientific literature on the "God gene" as well. I think that correlating brain chemistry to general "belief" is pretty unscientific [as of now], but I think that specifically honing in on tendency to ascribe immaterial agency to "mysterious" natural events may indeed prove to have a physiological basis. Dennett argues about the same -- that humans' ever-expanding mental capacity enabled them to recognize patterns and, much as we recognize the physical laws of nature, our ancestors developed the capacity to assign agency. Basically, it's saying that we got smart enough to fill in the blank "why" of "things don't fall up, the sun and moon move in intervals, the sound of sticks in the woods when it's dark often signals something scary...etc.," with intentionality.

Hat tip: Pharyngula

Thoughts? Comments?

**UPDATE** There is some question about the inability of a Swedish team to replicate these results. I have downloaded the primary literature, including Persinger's response to Granqvist et al , with some analysis, in the comment below.

The Bible Not Fit For Today (I)

My drive to work definitely isn't a boring experience, and this is not because of the brisk 6 o' clock traffic I must fight either. It is because I am a regular listener to The Michael Savage radio talk show, The Savage Nation. Savage is interesting, not because I sometimes agree with him (OK...I confess, I am a rather conservative atheist), but because he gets so easily bent out of shape and angry over the smallest things. I guess I'm one for drama. Savage is the oldest in talk radio, but because of his high energy level, he comes off a lot younger and more zealous than his fellow right-wingers. He is well known for tearing viciously into those people and issues he considers to be the biggest problems facing the world. The man, though often belligerent and rude to his callers and guests, is well read and holds a doctorate from Berkeley of California. His usual topics include welfare reform, illegal immigration, the evils of hollywood and the media, which he believes to be responsible for many of the woes of the world today, and "Islamofascism" and the war on terror. Other political hot topics run across his airwaves delivered at a much hotter tone than the usual conservative talk radio drekk that tends to bore me.

But that is not the purpose of my writing on this subject. As of last week, an even more interesting topic came up that Savage seldom touches on - evolution and the six day creation of Genesis. So you can see why I had to write about it!

As good as Savage can sometimes be presenting the facts of evolution (he believes a god made the world through evolution), he took on a subject that his ultra-conservative fundy audience just couldn't quite handle. I wasn't shocked when they called in opposing him instead of extending the usual subservient flattery of "you're so right, Dr. Savage."

I found myself chuckling when savage made the following remark...

"After millions of years of evolution. God put a soul in a ape, or excuse me, an ape evolved into a human, and God gave it a soul."

Let me stop here and say just how comical this is to me: a god taking an unprincipled, uncivilized, feces-throwing, tree-climbing beast, and transforming it into an image of himself! Educated, non-fundamentalist Savage had no problem saying it, but his audience sure did. Who is Savage's audience that he labors so hard to educate and enlighten? Fundamentalist, white, middle-class, Christians, who only care to be educated with books like the Bible. Savage's audience has no problem stating that the universe was created just 6,000 years ago, nor does his audience mind reading and accepting as truth, this archaic book with talking snakes, talking donkeys, and floating axeheads. His audience has an agenda, the agenda of maw and paw's book they were instructed with back when they were knee-high.

So forget trying to point out that there are trees on this planet now living as old as 6,000 years! Forget about geographical distribution, showing how, after a mountain pass or valley, different forms of life came and died out in the fossil record over long periods of time. Forget about similarity of structure between life forms. Forget about DNA testing. Forget about evidence of ice ages every 100,000 years, and you can sure as Hell forget about changes in magnetic polarity over time. Since a very old book, coming from a time drenched in superstition said it, that settles it. No possibility of error for them. Oppose the fundies and they'll attack you, just like they attack evolution. Einstein's equations are not biblical, but they don't get attacked, why? Because those numbers dared not oppose a wargod who demands 7 human sacrifices to end a famine (2 Samuel 21:1-9).

Caller after caller poured in their support for the old book...

Caller: "uhhh..yes...uh Dr. Savage. I...um...gotta disagree with you here... I believe the earth is 6,000 years old, cause there was some trees found under Antarctica ice."

Savage: "[pause]....well, sir. I'm afraid you don't know enough of science to discuss this with me..."

One Jewish chemist who called in told us he believed the earth was "millions of years old". How generous of him! "In the beginning", said he, was not yet when God started counting time in the days of creation. So we are to believe that the earth is some unknown vast number of years old + 6 literal days! This taking of liberty by the creationists to insert huge chunks of unaccounted-for time is known as The Gap Theory, the usual way out for Jews and progressive Christians who try to finagle the findings of the sciences to fit scripture.

Finally, Savage seemed to get off the point because of the resistance of his audience. They just couldn't connect with him. But again, Savage made a concerted effort to show that the Bible cannot be "interpreted literally" and applied to today. The Bible teaches stoning adulterers, blasphemers, and witches...

Savage: "Do you want to do that today? Are you going to pick up a rock and smack someone with it? No, you're not. If we did that, we'd be like the Islamofascists and the Taliban."

True indeed. The Bible is on the same moral level with modern Iran. Savage has pointed this out repeatedly and it is a good thing.

The Bible is just not for today. To be made to fit a civilized society, it must be watered down, reinterpreted, and compromised. It fits neither the culture, nor the education levels of this generation, despite a growing number of exceptions who choose to remain ignorant and backwoods-ish by way of educational preference. Except among those who are stubbornly wound up in it as a belief system, the Bible has no appeal.

(JH)

More Questions for Christians

Atheists.org suggested a few questions for Christians to answer. Here they are below with some additional ones:
----------------------------------
If God is all-powerful, why did he take 6 days to create the universe, resting on the 7th? Why didn't he just snap his proverbial fingers and create everything all at once, and not need rest afterwards? Doesn't sound so all-powerful to me.
----------------------------------
If God knows the future, why does he make mistakes? He should have known he would regret the flood, and that Sodom and Gomorrah would be full of sinners, etc.
----------------------------------

----------------------------------
Why does God need to be "served", and why can't we do it from heaven?
---------------------------------------
Yes, we have free will, but God already knows who will sin, who will accept Him, etc, for all eternity (if he has perfect knowledge of the future). Why then, are we here? Why not just send our souls to Heaven or Hell, depending on what he knows we'll do?
----------------------------------------
Why does God care if he is praised? He is this all-knowing, super being, why does he care if we mere humans give him credit for creating the universe?
------------------------------------------
How can you justify the fact that this merciful, loving god is sending all non-Christians to Hell, no matter how good they are? Even those from before Christ was born went to hell. However, terrible people, including Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer, could go to Heaven if they repented before death.
-----------------------------------------------
Why does this wonderful, forgiving God hold Adam's sin over all our heads? Why must we all pay for this by being permanent sinners? If God was so pissed, why didn't he just kill Adam and Eve and start over? Again, this is God's choice, so they're going to have to explain why God CHOOSES to hold this incredible grudge.
--------------------------------------------------
Where did God come from? How did he get created? Why is it a valid argument to say that He "always existed,” but an invalid argument to say the same thing about matter and energy?
---------------------------------------------------
Was Eve perfect?
If yes, then why did she sin?
If no, then why did God create imperfection?
"Free will" is irrelevant. If she freely chose to sin, then WHY did she do that? If it was in her "nature" to make a bad choice, then who gave her that "nature"? If her nature was corrupted by Satan, then who made Satan's nature?
-----------------------------------------------
If a choice we make (assuming free will versus predestination) has eternal consequences, and if God is fair, why isn't the choice we make made crystal clear, with no doubts as to what it is that God wants us to choose from?
----------------------------
Why did God order the slaughter of "infants and sucklings" or "children and infants" in 1 Sam 15:3?
--------------------------------------
If God is perfect and omniscient, why would God even want to create anything, was God lonely? Discontent? If time itself is tied to the universe, as all of Einstein's theories and modern science confirm, then God was in a sort of perfect stasis, and so God decided to disrupt this perfect stasis with an imperfect creation?
---------------------------------
Since God is the one who decided the "rules", and decided the "punishment" (blood) and supposedly provided the "atonement", isn't this sort of like "it's His mess and He had to clean up after Himself"?
-------------------------------------
Why does God not reveal Himself and/or His desire for us and/or His purpose for us, more clearly? If your pastor answers, "free will," point out that it is NOT the same thing to say "I know that God exists" and "I know what God wants" as to say, "I choose to follow God, and do what He wants". (The hiddenness of God problem)
-------------------------------
If there are millions of people really thinking they are worshipping God and following Him and loving Him, but they're worshipping the wrong God or worshipping Him the wrong way, why doesn't God tell them, in their hours of prayer and worship of false gods?
-----------------------------------

<

Born Free

The concept of Free Will is used in defending Gods lack of intervention in many human events. That God esteems Free Will, elevating it to a position in which it must be preserved at all costs. But can Christianity stay consistent in defending Free Will, both practically and pragmatically?

Why would God have put that horrendous tree in the Garden of Eden in the first place? If but a small act would unleash death, sin, and destruction upon the world to such an extent that God Himself would have to die, and even then only abate a portion of the effects, it was self-defeating to allow this travesty to occur.

The most common response is “free will.” However one chooses to philosophically debate and define it, there is some broad concept out there under this cloak—free will—by which God determined it was necessary to provide humans with a choice between morality and immorality. Reflect on what an awesome usurpation of reality this free will is.

We see pictures of the genocides of the past century, and what humans can do to do to other humans, and are physically repulsed by these events. Yet somehow God determined that free will makes such atrocities necessary. We watch events unfold as nature destroys homes, and cities, and countries, and pour our sympathy to the people affected. Yet somehow, there is hierarchy in God’s domain that requires these calamities to cause devastation in order to preserve this essential Free Will. Many Christians believe regardless how one lives their life on earth, for a mere 100 years, if they fail to get it right, God will punish them for billions and billions and billions of years by eternal torment. And the reason for this endless punishment? The exercise of Free will is of greater import than horrendous pain inflicted upon humans.

Over and over we see this idea thrown back as a defense to the reality provided by the Christian God.

Why let the snake and Tree in the Garden? Free Will.
Why eternal punishment? Free Will.
Why the Problem of Evil? Free Will
Why can’t God show Himself? It would impair Free Will.
Why allow sin in the first place? Free Will.

Very Well. If the theist desires this idea to be the all-encompassing defense to these varied problems, then it is high-time to give it the proper place of propriety. Obviously Free Will is of greater concern, and more important to God than the exercise of immorality itself!

But wait a minute. God does not hesitate to impair, reduce and even eliminate Free Will. Starting right at the Garden. God did not limit the snake from being in the world, even though He certainly could have. Humans must have Free Will. God did not limit the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, even though he certainly could have. Humans must have Free will.

Yet, after the exercise of Free Will, God steps in, and declares that Humans must no longer have free choice to eat from the Tree of Life. And places a barrier in the shape of a sword to that Tree. (Gen. 3:22-24) What happened to “Free Will”? Does God only grant Free Will to humans when it harms them, and not when it is beneficial? Why couldn’t humans exercise Free Will to eliminate sickness and death?

Or the Tower of Babel. Humans exercised their Free Will to gather together in a social community, and avoid being separated across the face of the earth. They mutually entered into production, and engaged in a peaceful cooperation. Everything we wished humans could do today. God reviewed it, and intervened in their Free Will. He confused the languages. (Gen. 11:5-8) Again, we wonder why God superceded Free Will at the moment it was beneficial to humanity.

“God, God, Adam is about to introduce sin, cancer, plague, earthquakes and death into the world”
“Sorry. Nothing I can do. Must allow Free Will.”

“God, God, Humankind is working together in peace and harmony. They do not want to be separated from each other. They have peace.”
“Whoops. Can’t have that! Time to invade Free Will.”

Of course, the most famous individual incident of God impairing Free Will is Pharaoh. God gives Moses the heads-up that He will be interfering with Pharaoh’s Free Will. Even when Pharaoh wants to let the Hebrews leave, God will harden Pharaoh’s heart. (Ex. 4:21, 7:3, 9:12) In fact, God determined to impair Free Will so that God could perform signs and wonders. (Odd that God then erased every trace of these Plagues from happening, but that can be discussed another time.) Again and Again, God hardens not only Pharaoh’s heart, so they no longer have Free Will, but God also hardens Pharaoh’s servants and army’s heart as well. (Ex. 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, 14:8, 14:17)

Throughout the Tanakh, God steps in and moves events, places people in situations, provides insights, prods and pushes situations, all of which are designed to affect Free Will. In the New Testament, God is directly interfacing, performing miracles, teaching, ridiculing, and appearing in visions, all molding and shaping Free Will. “Inspiration” itself involves some impact on Free Will.

We are left with this conundrum of, on the one hand, God holding the Free Will of Humans in such high regard that He must allow sin, sickness, and death into the world at immeasurable rates (even His own death will not extinguish the effects), but on the other, interfering without apparent rhyme or reason with Free Will. Yet another aspect of God in which we have no parameters to gauge when God will or will not act. Yet another problem left unresolved by the mysterious God.

Frankly, it looks more like an excuse, rather than a defense. As if the Christian sees the problems presented by the issues, the Problem of Evil, the Tree, the perpetual punishment, and whips out what appears to be a convenient excuse at the moment—that God holds Free will in such esteem it must not be interfered with on these specific occasions. But there is no reasoning behind that. No demonstration as to why God can’t interfere with Free Will. Especially in light of how many times God does anyway. Even more especially in light of how much the Christian asks God to do it!

How many prayers are requests for God to step in and intrude on Free Will? One of the most common is prayer for employment. Are they asking that God encroach upon the hiring individual’s complete freedom of choice, and give the Christian the “nudge”? Or are they asking God to become involved in the Christian’s own Free Will and “give them the right things to say”? Either way, it is God involving Himself in Free Will.

Christians have no problem with God meddling in Free will when it comes to a pay raise. But meddling when billions will suffer for trillions of years? How brash to make such a request!

Another common prayer is for healing. King Hezekiah was assured by God he was going to die. One prayer, God intervenes, and he lives for another 15 years. 2 Kings. 20:1-6. James states that prayers will heal the sick. James 5:15. Thousands of times, I have heard, “God, give the doctors wisdom and guidance in this surgery…” Whoa! Isn’t that imposing on their Free Will? Shouldn’t God let their hand slip, if it chooses to do so, or let their mind forget, if they are having an off-moment?

Think of the irony of a child dying with leukemia. The only reason the child has this horrible disease (according to the Free Will Defense to the Problem of Evil) is that God holds Free Will as of more value, of more important than the unfortunate effects of disease. God may not like the disease, but its existence is necessary, due to the allowing of Free Will. And the Christian by the bedside prays that God provides insight, a flash of brilliance, an imposition on the medical team’s free will to develop a cure. Sure, the disease was necessary for some “ultimate” God-sized Free Will problem. Just not for one individual situation. Why isn’t the Christian thankful for the demonstration of how God holds Free Will in such high regard? Because that is merely a defense to an observed problem, not a reality to the Christian.

In every stadium, one-half are praying that the God will involve Himself on the Free Will of the Home team, and the other half are praying that God will involve Himself on the Free Will of the away team. People pray for monetary assistance, for mental assistance, for love, for physical help, for spiritual help. All of which requires God to interact. Many situations, requiring God to manipulate Free Will.

Jesus said that whatever you ask in pray, believing you will receive. (Mt. 21:22) He had no problem with impinging on Free Will at request. He said to pray that one’s Faith would not fail. (Lk. 22:32)

Fascinating that Jesus prayed God would keep “those who you gave me” from the evil one. John 17:15. Now why wouldn’t Jesus have prayed that for Adam? Certainly Jesus has enough faith to believe, and what He asks would come true! Jesus is watching the events unfold in the Garden of Eden. He knows that eventually he can only save a few that he will be asking God to keep away from the evil one. If it is acceptable for God to impose and “keep” people away, what was the problem in the Garden?

Paul prays that the Corinthians “do no evil.” 2 Cor. 13:7. Is this a request? If a petition to God, how is God supposed to put it into effect? Remove temptation? How much interaction can God do before it is too much? That the same Free Will that could not be violated in the Garden of Eden appears?

And what of those of us that voluntarily requested God to suspend our Free Will, and provide some proof of His existence? Odd that for us ex-Christians God could not impede our Free Will when we asked him to show some proof, but Christians find God giving a person the “right things to say” perfectly acceptable. We asked for wisdom, (James 1:5) but that would be infringing on our Free Will. Why, then, couldn’t we ask? Oh, I know the claim we were “doubting” so God didn’t have to give wisdom. We were to ask “in faith.” Clever defense. God only provides answers to those that already know the answers. If you don’t know the answers, God won’t give you them.

Why—would it infringe on Free Will?

God imposed Himself on Free Will all the time. With little hesitation. There is no reason He could not have equally imposed in the Garden of Eden. “Free Will” is a handy defense, brought out to convince other Christians there must be some reason why God allows travesty, and then quickly discarded when faced with life’s troubles personally.