Richard Carrier's Five Questions Concerning "The Resurrection"

Dear Richard Carrier,
The five questions (that you prepared for your recent radio discussion with Gary Habermas and Mike Licona on "the resurrection") were well put. In case anyone missed them, they were:

1. "In the Book of Acts the Apostles are having vivid and powerful visions and dream communications from God all the time. We hear of similar experiences reported in that era from Jews and pagans, who were also having vivid and powerful visions and dream communications from a variety of gods and angels. Why isn't this happening now? And why was that happening back then, even to pagans and Jews, who weren't seeing or hearing what the Christians were seeing and hearing?"

2. "This might sound like a frivolous question, but it really isn't. I mean it quite seriously. Why does God give me more evidence that smoking cigarettes is harmful than he gives me that Jesus lives?"

3. "The Gospel according to Matthew says (27:52-54) 'the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who slept rose up and came out of their graves after His resurrection, and went into the Holy City and appeared to many'. Do you believe this happened? If Yes: How could this amazing event have escaped everyone else's notice, even the other evangelists? If No: How could the author of Matthew get away with such a lie?"

4. "The following three questions are all closely related and really amount to one question. Why did the risen Jesus only appear to his followers, and to only one previously obscure enemy among the thousands opposing his Gospel? Why didn't he appear to Pilate or Herod or Caiaphas or the Roman Senate? Why didn't he also appear to deliver the Gospel to China--or to the Americas, as the Mormons claim he did?"

Or... "Why was the death of Jesus so public, but his resurrection so private?"

5. You seem to trust what the Gospels say is what actually happened. I want to understand why. I have an analogy that I think might help. Suppose I hauled you into court on a murder charge, and the only evidence I had against you was a bunch of letters that described you murdering the victim in vivid detail. Of course you would ask who wrote those letters. I answer, "Joe, Mike, Bob, and Dan." You then ask, "Who are they?" And I answer, "I don't know for sure." That's a dead end, so you would ask, "How do they know any of the things they claim in those letters?" And I answer, "I don't know. They never say exactly where they are getting any of their information." Okay. Imagine that happened to you. Would you conclude that I had a convincing case against you? Do you believe the jury should conclude that you committed the murder those letters describe you committing?"

~~~~~~~~~

Dear Richard Carrier,
You mentioned some errors that you made during your aforementioned radio discussion on the resurrection. One of which was simply choosing the wrong questions with which to begin, and not even getting through all of the above questions, but getting bogged down discussing minutely a few less relevant questions. Perhaps the most common error was the assumption by all concerned that communication can take place with relative ease and transparency, when in fact, communication is never that easy, especially between two people who have read many different books and articles, known different people, and who espouse widely different philosophical and/or religious views.

I suppose that if a Designer had wanted people to communicate with greater ease then S/he/it might have installed a port in the side of everyone's cranium through which we could download and upload data with others, i.e., whole lifetimes of learning and experience being shared quickly and easily. Or in lieu of such a physical port perhaps such a Designer might at least allow two people to share their knowledge and experiences in some "psychic" fashion so as to be able to focus sharply and intently on their greatest singular points of agreement, disagreement, and in-conclusiveness. (I suspect that each pair of individuals engaged in a discussion has different points or major singularities that overlap and mean the most to each of those individuals concerning each question. Hence for two individuals to "connect" at points that they both find equally significant, equally meaningful, and/or equally perplexing, is a task in itself.)

Instead, as things stand in this cosmos, misunderstandings of the sort that you mention occur with great frequency.

And what about the choice of the show's producer to interview people lying on far sides of a question (i.e., putting an atheist together with people speaking for revealed religion) means that large gaps in communication and understanding were being sought by the interviewer, perhaps to keep listeners a bit more interested and boost ratings, because listeners would then get to "root" for their "team" which is a team distinctly different from that of the "other side." Instead, if moderate believers in revealed religion were chosen to discuss matters with conservative believers in revealed religion, like a moderate Christian arguing a visionary interpretation of the resurrection with a conservative Christian arguing a physical interpretation of the resurrection, then each side might have been able to listen more openly and comprehend the views of the other side a bit more easily, since the other's views would have lain just a bit further down the road from their own, and not across the canyon-sized gap of atheism and revealed religion.

Indeed, Christians have spent far more time and written far more books debunking each other's interpretations of their Bible and theological views than non-Christians have ever spent debunking Christianity. Today there's even a burgeoning series of "viewpoints" books published by Zondervan and Intervarsity in which Christians of the Protestant Evangelical kind debate their differing views both practical and theological and scientific, including debating the meaning of Genesis, Revelation, and the brain-mind question as well (not all Evangelicals believe in substance dualism!), not to mention differing interpretations concerning differing "Christian" responses to a host of questions.

A FEW RELEVANT QUOTATIONS

"Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is his only Son."
--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

"Theology is a comprehensive, rigorous, and systematic attempt to conceal the beam in the scriptures and traditions of one’s own denomination while minutely measuring the mote in the heritages of ones’ brothers."
--Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic

"Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, 'It is a matter of faith, and above reason.'"
--John Locke

CONCLUSION

At base, I suspect that most debates shed little light because they begin with ignorance. Polls reveal that not many Christians in America can even name all four Gospels. Many people also are far more ready to defend the Bible than read it. Or they are ready to state they believe the Bible "cover to cover" without having studied what's between the covers or thought about it very much. (There are some excellent college level lectures by the way produced by "The Teaching Company" that are available online. They sum up a lot of major scholarly views of which anyone studying or debating religion ought to be aware. I'd suggest directing Christians to learn more about what theologians really believe today than spend much time arguing matters.)

Neither does life leave the majority of mankind with much time for studying the world's questions. Life is short and we all have to spent time and effort on surviving, maintaining families and friendships, even maintaining our health. Emotional ups and downs also play a role throughout our lives. And our beliefs can be influenced by all manner of things, including social factors, familial factors, national factors, tragic or happy events, individual psychological factors including fear of death, the joys of feeling certain about what we already believe, or simple mental inertia after we have imbibed or developed a view of the world (the brain/mind does not eagerly rearrange all the furniture it has previously laid down in specific spots just in order to accommodate a new end table).

"We believe in nothing so firmly as what we least know."
--Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, Essays

"Even the weakest disputant is made so conceited by what he calls religion, as to think himself wiser than the wisest who thinks differently from him."
--Walter Savage Landor (1775-1864)

"Only a Designer would have made it sooooo easy to find the 'one true faith' that even your parents could pick it out for you, and in most places on earth, they do. It's even easier to find a 'true' Christian as opposed to a false one, or a 'true' Moslem as opposed to a false one. The 'believer in the true way' (of a religion or denomination or interpretation) is always the one with whom you are speaking at the moment."--E.T.B.

"Only a Designer would have made it so that 'The type of person who devotes himself to the pursuit of wisdom is most unlucky in everything, but above all in begetting children--as if Nature had taken pains, I suspect, to keep the disease of wisdom from spreading too widely among mortals.'"
--Erasmus, In Praise of Folly

Lastly,

"Remember to be kind to everyone you meet, for everyone is fighting a great battle."
--Philo of Alexandria

Dr. Gene Witmer on Presuppositionalism

Those of you who encounter presuppositionalism on the web should really listen to Dr. Gene Witmer, professor of philosophy at the University of Florida, who is interviewed by Gene Cook at Unchained Radio. This was very interesting to me.

Here's a Link to My Interview on The Narrow Mind

Link here. Pastor Gene was respectful, professional, and intelligent. His assumptions make him say bizzare things, though. Anyone who wants to comment one way or another, can do so here. I sure said "Uh" a lot. I know better than that.

After hearing it just now, I realized there were some statements Gene made that I could've jumped on that I didn't. I probably misunderstood Gene and Paul a couple of times, too. It's tough being in the heat of battle. It's also really strange that I didn't realize Paul Manata and I were talking at the same time, again. But I hope I got some of my points though.

What I wanted to convey was that when it comes to explaining why something--anything--exists, we all run into improbable absurdities, so Christians have a misplaced confidence level when they think our arguments are silly. Such a confidence level reminds me of Holocaust deniers and Muslim suicide bombers. It's their confidence level that I think is silly. I ask them questions that I think are tough and they turn around and riddicule those questions. That's what I vehemently object to! I also wanted to convey that history is a very poor medium for God to reveal himself, if he exists, because all of us judge history from our present experience--all of us! Lastly, when it comes to the arguments of Christians who think it's absurd that we use logic and act on our moral notions without an ultimate foundation, that those same types of arguments can be leveled at their God, if he exists. Did God create the laws of logic and morality, or does he have to abide by a logic and morality he didn't create? Can he, as a spirit, move a material object? How? Can he think? Thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives. Is he free to choose his nature? How could he have decided who he would be if he always and forever had his nature?

I wasn't trying to convince them their world-view was wrong so much as I was trying to show that the atheist arguments are not silly. If I could just get them to admit that, then it was worth the effort. If they would just admit this we could have a decent, civil and respectful discussion. My point wasn't that their position alone is absurd, but that both sides of this debate start with brute facts which cannot be sufficiently and totally explained. They won't admit this because they need to be confident, hopeful, and full of faith to please their God, who who will reward them because of their faith.

People mention the title to this blog as if I am hostile to Christianity. If I am hostile to anything, I am hostile to the attitudes of Christians who would treat atheists like me with disrespect, distain, and laughter. The Blog title is to attract attention, and that's its main function. And yes, I do think Christianity is false for so many reasons. But I have always wanted to have a respectful discussion, as much as possible. It appears that the only way this can be done is to help them see that they do not have a corner on the truth. But I probably argued in vain....

Evaluating the Evidence for the Resurrection, Part 2

Christianity is a religion that grounds itself in historical claims. As such it is a religion that invites examination by using methods of inference. In essence, Christianity does not seem to exclude itself from the command to "Test everything, hold on to the good." In this post I will continue my examination of the inferential case for and against Christianity using what I think is relevant evidence. I will continue to utilize Bayes' theorem to help consolidate the evidence. My assessments are collected in a table at the end of the post. I will continue to provide the formula's I used so a reader could update the table with their own assessments. I find that this methodology helps eliminate much of the distraction from ensuing discussion and focuses the issue with those interested in understanding what they should believe and why.

My background assumptions are primarily based on experiences with people who make claims about the divine. I fleshed this out in greater detail here and argued that the background probability that God would raise Jesus from the dead (compared to the legendary hypothesis) should be no higher that 1 in million. So far I have considered 1) the time between the reports and events and 2) chief priest's need of Judas as relevant evidence with regard to determining if the Gospel accounts are legendary or historical (see here). In this post I will include two additional pieces of evidence.

I present numeric values in these assessments primarily as a tool to help me think in a disciplined way, not to provide a precision to the results. I would expect that the numbers would change as I continue to gain knowlegde about the situations I examine. However, the numbers do help present an ordering to the strengths of my beliefs. I would greatly appreciate criticism that included the critic's estimate of the plausibility ratio for the evidence in question. My goal here is to hold beliefs that are most consistent with the evidence, and I think including values for assessments helps to do that.

Evidence 3: The report of James' conversion
Both the Apostle Paul's testimony and Christian tradition give evidence that James was a Christian. The report of James' conversions is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15,
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, … 7 Then he appeared to James, …
and in Galations 1:
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

The question is "how likely would these reports be if Jesus was raised versus if the resurrection was a legendary addition?" P(E|H)/P(E|~H). I was asked, "what would it take for you to believe that one of your brothers was divine, and would you die for that belief?" The theory is that these reports would not have been possible had James not converted. Further James conversion would require that Jesus had risen and appeared to James.

However, there are some anomalies to the story, thus the report doesn't appear to be perfectly consistent with the resurrection hypothesis. It is somewhat surprising that James the Just is traditionally portrayed as the leader of the Jerusalem church given the facts 1) He had very little to do with Jesus' mission and story as portrayed in the Gospels. 2) Jesus had seemingly hand picked Peter to be the head of the church.

Hyam Maccoby argues that these anomalies give evidence that the Jerusalem church did not accept that Jesus was divine and the Jerusalem church was more monarchical than ecclesiastical. If the messianic claim were understood to be a kingship, then James would be the nearest relative the Jesus and would inherit the role as messiah. He cites the fact that the Jerusalem church kept meeting daily in temple courts (see Acts 2:46) and seemed to be part of the normal Jewish religious community. He also points out that Acts 2:22, Peter did referred to Jesus as "a man attested to you by God" and not "the Son of God." Now perhaps Maccoby's takes the evidence too far, but it is still clear that we are not getting the whole story from the New Testament here. In my opinion, James' leadership role in the church is not inconsistent with a legendary growth of Jesus.

Now if the resurrection story was legendary and James was a man of great esteem, it does seem plausible that writer would attempt to co-opt James as a support of the movement. We see similar things even today, both liberal and conservative politicians will cite John F. Kennedy in support of positions they each hold.

Although it would be hard to convince a sibling that one is God, it is not clear that Paul's testimony and tradition are sufficent to establish that fact James was convinced the Jesus was God. There are enough inconsistencies in reports to give one reason to doubt the veracity of the reports. This evidence is perhaps a bit stronger than the positive evidence assessed last time (the time for legends to grow), but again it doesn't seem all that powerful in and of itself. I would assess that P(E|Resurrection)/P(E| Legend) ~ 1.6 (about +2 dB).

Evidence 4: Deemphasizing Jesus lack of knowledge
When legends occur, it is expected that the hero of the story may become stronger, wiser, and more heroic in later accounts. Scholars typically date Mark prior to Matthew. If legendary development is true, one would expect that the character of Jesus would be improved in strength, character, and wisdom in the later accounts. Such development is less likely in the case of history.

Consider the passage Mark 13:32 where Jesus is talking about the signs of the end of the age: "But as for that day or hour no one knows it-neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son-except the Father." Obviously, this passage presents some theological difficulties for early Christians. This passage seems to run against the notion that Jesus is God. (It is conceivable that early readers could have concluded "if God knows all, and Jesus does not know all, Jesus must not be God.")

The author of Matthew also covers roughly the same event. Here the phrase "nor the Son" is missing in Matthew 24:36 (or it is at least not present in early manuscripts according to my NIV). Matthews's omission is consistent with legendary development and less consistent with the claim that Matthew was writing history. I think that this evidence is at least as strong as the no questions raised of reporting the chief priest's need of Judas. I would assign this ratio the value of 0.5 ( about -3 dB).

To make the following table in MS Excel, (presuming that the first evidence listed is in row 3, enter the formula "=C2*B3/(B3*C2+1-C2)" into cell C3. The continuation of that formula is used for the remainder of the column.

Evidence	Ratio, P(e|HR)/P(e|HL)	Assessment posterior
a priori	-	10-6
Time of reports	1.2	1.2×10-6
Chief Priest's need of Judas	0.5	0.6× 10-6
Reported conversion of James	1.6	0.96× 10-6
Jesus' ignorance deemphasized	0.5	0.48× 10-6

I'll be on Unchained Radio Wednesday.

This Wednesday, on November 8th, from 9-10 AM (Pacific Time) I'll be a guest on Gene Cook's Unchained Radio program. Gene decided to bill it that I'm planning on responding to the Discomfiter, so I expect he'll ask me about him. But I have bigger plans...

Then on Thursday 11/09 9am-10am, Dr. Gene Witmer will discuss the topic, "Christian Presuppositionalism - A General Response." That should be good!

An unexpected journey to the truth part 2

How can one so entrenched in Christian belief for so long turn so rapidly from Christian theist to agnostic to atheist over a period of a year and half? One might as well ask the opposite question,"How can someone who has studied the Bible, theology, and philosophy take so long to disbelieve?"

First,one must only seriously consider arguments which arguments which support the case for Christianity. Thus essential reading is C.S Lewis, Geisler, Moreland and decidedly conservative scholarship.
Second, one must treat those who argue against Christianity and strongly oppose Christianity as straw men. One must read their books as if they are already guilty of error. The job of a Christian theological/philosophical critique, in my mind, was to poke holes, take potshots and think that the whole secular ediface had been discredited, much as Phillip Johnson does in his book Darwin on Trial. On the whole, the validity of the secular arguments must not be analyzed on its own terms as a viable option.

Once I deviated from this formula, I found that Christianity is a historical, theological and philosophical "house of cards" whose arguments for validity can be defeated by even the most sophmoric of ex-apologists.

What were the arguments which convinced me of the falsity of Christianity?
There are too many to list in any reasonable amount of space at this time. However, the primary reasons were first historical, then theological and then philosophical/scientific.

As mentioned at the end of part 1, it was a systematic study of the Bible with frequent cross-referencing and comparative study of passages which lead me to the conclusion that the Bible is an inspired book of divine origin. Rather it is a book easily proven to be filled with errors and of obvious human origin. The Bible in I Tim 3:16 claimsthat all scripture is to be taken as of divine origin and divine inspiration. In order to consistently argue this point, one must perform numerous theological gyrations and offer ad hoc explanations.

The watershed moment for me was a comparative analysis of 2 Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21, which both record the event of David taking a census and thus bringing a devasting pestilence on the people of Israel. The book of Samuel was written during the Babylonian captivity. The books of Chronicles were written later during the Persian period prior to the rebuilding of the Temple. God's inspiration is clained by I Timothy 3:16 to be behind both accounts. However, there is a major change between the two accounts. In the Samuel account, it is God who incites David to do evil by calling for a census as an excuse to punish him. David later realizes that he has sinned in performing the census. But it was God who incited David to commit this sin in the first place. However, one must remember that Israel at the time of writing this document had no concept of a devil. Good and evil were seen at that time as proceeding from God. Thus one is struck by the account in I Chronicles which attribution the evil incitation of a census to Satan. Why the change? Here one must remember that at this point that Israelite theology had been exposed and influenced by the Persian religion, Zoroasterianism and had incorporated the idea of a satan who opposed the goodness of God. The authors of the Chroncles wanted to clear the God of the barbarous charge that he was directly responsible for David sinning and then punishing him for a sin which he caused him to commit. Thus they interjected the Persian idea of divine adversary which was probably known to their reader to avoid the contradiction presented in II Samuel. This change is perfectly understandable for the perspective of historical research but presents a nearly insurmountable peak to be climbed by those who want to uphold the verbal inspiration of both of these passages. Can any amount of theological gyrations cogently overcome this problem and maintain divine inspiration with a straight face?

This was a watershed moment which set face down the course toward atheism. Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg of historical incongrueties and implausibilties. I found the gospels to be filled with similar problems that I shall not take the time to detail at this moment. These problems lead me to agnosticism for I could no longer believe in the God of the Bible. He does not exist. If he does exist, he is the most clumsing inept stooge, subject to the development and wavering of human thought.

Second, I found theological problems which I could no longer surmount. All my life I wanted to be close to God, much as in that silly story that I previously related about wanting to converse directly with God in my childhood. However, maybe it isn't so silly and needs to be taken seriously. If God really loved us, why can't he converse with us directly. Why is he so impersonal to only address us through an ancient book, which wasn't addressed directly to us anyway? If God wanted to have a relationship with me, why couldn't he just appear to me, tell me that he loves me and wants to have a relationship with me. If God is all powerful and all knowing, he would certainly figure out a way to do so. Not only for me but for every person who has lived on the earth. The fact of God's transcendence and extremely holiness cannot be used as an argument to rebuff this because God is believed to accommodated himself to directly address Moses, Abraham and the handful of Biblical prophets that lived on this earth. Why is able to appear directly to them and not to vast majority? Could it be that there is no one behind these appearances and that these appearances can be explained in terms of the psychological study of mysticism. The fact that God has failed to appear to 99.9 % of the people who have lived on this earth is convincing evidence that God may be nothing more an idea formulated in a pre-scientific age.

Philosophically, I found the entire idea of heaven untenable. We are told by apologists that the possibility of suffering is necessary for free will to exist, in what post Leibnizians call the best of all possible worlds. For free will to exist, there must be possibility to sin and to cause suffering. However, we are told that in heaven, there is no sin and no suffering. Thus, one has the unresolveable problem of having to do away with free will in order to preserve heaven, which I don't think any evangelical will accept.

I had better stop now. The dam has been broken. The floodgates have opened and swept away the last vestiges of Christianity in my life. I would have to give up my mind in order to turn back and believe the things which I once believed. I am free to accept as substantiated only those things which can be examined from all sides and may be questioned to ascertain their veracity.

Yes, this is certainly an unexpected journey. But I am certainly to be where I am after years of holding to one sided truths. I am aiming to move forward intelligently as I am able.

An unexpected journey to the truth-part 1

My life, my viewpoint and my stance are all radically different than anything I had previously anticipated. Religion, Christianity, and Christian service were my stance and my viewpoint from the very earliest age. I thought that there was for me no other. Until rather recently, there was no consideration of any other.

For some odd reason, my inclination from childhood was toward religion. I received no parental push or other like pressure to be in church. My parents did not attend church except sparodically. Yet, I wanted to be in church and Sunday School even my parents did not attend.
I found out in the fifth grade all my sisters had been baptized as a baby but I was not. I was afraid that I was unpleasing to God and would be sent to hell. Upon my insistance, I was one of the few who was baptized by sprinkling outside of infancy in that church.
I always wanted to develop a relationship with God. When I was about 10-11, I remember that I received a sunday school pamplet about prayer. I understood it to say that if you wanted to talk to God all you had to do was ask to talk to him. As a child, that was taken to mean that I could have a direct conversation with the Creator of the Universe if I but asked. A holy light, I thought , would come down upon me as I would stand directly in his presence. I was scared to death but I decided to do it anyway. I prayed and asked to talk to God directly. Suprisingly or maybe in retrospect not suprisingly, there came no voice, no response except the silence. Part of me felt relief for fear of disturbing a mighty God and making him angry at having been bothered by someone so miniscule as a young child.
In seventh grade, I was invited to the Christian Church in my town by a friend. I soon started reading the Bible for myself and found that as the Christian Church taught I needed to be baptized by immersion. Thus, at age 12 baptism two now by immersion. I felt my life totally change. I wanted to be at every church service. I lead my entire family to be baptized. I read my Bible every day. I brought my Bible to school every day. I witnessed to my classmates. I lead some to say the sinners prayer. I wore Jesus T-shirts to school. I was consistently made fun of (rightly so) for my faith. But at that time, I thought that I had decided where my life was going for the rest of my time on earth. I was not only going to be a life long Christian, but also a minister .
As a result, I preached my first sermon in the eighth grade and preached 2-5 times a year until my high school graduation. I entered the preaching category in the Talent Rally at an area Bible College and placed high year after year. In addition, I was the "star" member of my local church's Bible quiz team which competed in area and national tournaments.
Immediately upon graduation, my course was set directly for bible college at Lincoln Christian College. My desire was to excell in my knowledge of the Bible so that I could help others know God. Throughout my 4 years, I was active serving in churches teaching and preaching. I also helped lead student spiritual life both in the dorm and on the campus as a whole. At the conclusion, I earned a BA degree in preaching ministries. Capping off my undergraduate studies, I did summer mission work in Eastern Europe.
But that was not enough. I decided that I needed to study the Bible and world views on a deeper level. Thus the next four years were spent studying theology and philosophy under Dr. James Strauss at Lincoln Christian Seminary. Under his tutelege, I was excited to learn that non-Christian worldviews could be critiqued on the level of assumptions and could be shown to be not only tenable but absurd. I was not his most insightful student. But I worked very hard and grew in my ability to philosophically analyze arguments.
During this time, I was the full time preaching minister of a small church in nothern Illinois. It was a very hard and lonely experience. But it never once caused me to question whether there was a God who was directing my life. Rather, I decided that leadership ministry was not my calling but the teaching ministry was.
Thus after graduation, I moved to Milwaukee, WI to work toward a Ph.D. in philosophy at Marquette University and eventually become a Bible college professor. During this time, my path crossed with John Loftus who was studying theology. But being from a small town, my life began to unwind in such a big city. Even though my financee was with me, I had never been without a support system in such an overwhelming manner. I began to feel that I was drifting away from God.
In an overwhelmed and depressed state, I was invited to a Bible study by a member of the Milwaukee Church of Christ, a church in the semi-cultic Boston Movement. They provided me with immediate friends, supposed support and renewal of my faith to what I thought was a higher level. Stupidly, I allowed them to convince me that I never had been a Christian prior to that point. Thus I needed to be baptized........again: Baptism #3. I was taught to be totally sold out to God. And I truly wanted to be. This included mandatory attendance at all service, mandatory sacrificial tithing, mandatory annual special contribution 15-24 times regular week contribution, mandatory daily "shairing your faith,"-every day at all hours on the street/door steps/evangelistic Bible studies. All areas of life were authoritarianly dictated, including the number of times you had sex with your wife each week. My education was sneered upon and I was shamed into quitting Marquette University. In this church, Bible knowlege and my teaching skills were counted as nothing. As a seminary graduate, I was allowed to teach only a few times. Every member was supposed to work toward advancing in leadership rank with the ultimate goal of becoming a church evangelist. Since my wife was not deemed to be leadership material, I was relegated to the lowest level. One leader in the church once came up to me and said" you'll never be a leader."
You may ask, " Stupid, why did you stay? Why did you waste your life by letting one year become two and then become 16 years?" I do not have a good answer. Simply the Bible as I interpreted with the subtle coercion of the church convinced me that my marriage would fall apart and that I would go to hell if I left that church. Foolish man that I am. I allowed them to close my mind. I gave up my dream, my education and my self worth to be controlled by a pontificating fool. I tried to convince John Loftus to join the church but he was much smarter than I and rejected the invitation to the absurd.
Year after year, I felt myself sinking into dark hole of which there was no escape. Where was the support? There was none to be found. Where was God? He was not to be found. My prayers were but wisps of air, without substance. Prayer was but talking to myself or maybe to a dark abyss. I spent an entire year in the gloom of depression with thoughts of suicide never far from my mind. Only the successful suicide of another member of the church shook me and maybe saved me from my own.
In 2003, the entire ICOC Boston Movement authority structure collapsed. People started to leave the church in grooves. I however, decided to renew my faith and help steer the church in whatever way I could back to a truer foundation based on the Bible. I teemed up with a fellow Lincoln Christian Seminary graduate in the church and began writing theologically accessible but still in depth papers to more accurately define what God expects his disciples to be like. Since the authority structure had collapsed, people in the church were begging to taught in depth from the Bible. I was asked to preach in Sunday service from time to time. I taught series of classes on how to study the Bible using correct hermenuetics. I still upheld the verbal inspiration of scripture and taught that the Bible could be apolegetically defended at every level.
I picked up my study again with a passion and began devouring books from the conservative perspective verciferously. I set up an elementary Greek class in my church so that others could be trained to interpret the Bible using proper tools. As many as twelve were enrolled at one time. (I am still teaching one man every other week and have progressed him to the level of intermediate Greek.) I thought that now ,finally, once again, I could go forward and deepen my life with God and help others to do likewise. I even enrolled temporarily in the Doctor of Arts program at Trinity Theological Seminary.
Little did I know that this renewed desire would lead to its own demise. In my desire to know God better, I decided to study the Bible in depth in an organized and coordinated manner over a period of many months. Though I had studied the Bible for over 30 years, I had never undertaken such a coordinated effort.

I can say without hesistation that a solid path to atheism can be found in an intelligent coordinated, systematic, and critical study of the Bible.

Continued, Part 2

What If Allah Exists?

Let's say Allah exists. Since no one can be absolutely sure, this is a possibility, correct? The Muslim God could exist and the Koran could be his word. As an atheist I admit this possibility, so I suspect that Christians who are not absolutely blinded by their faith and upbringing would agree with me here. So with that possibility, let's say you die and you stand before Allah's judgment and he sends you to hell. Christian, what do you say in response? You say "I didn't know." "I thought Christianity was true." Then the Muslim God simply says, "ignorance is no excuse, I gave you many clues." "I even spoke through the atheist John W. Loftus when he suggested this possibility one day on his Blog." ;-) "Now off you go into hell's eternal flames."

Think of the shock of it all! You would be completely and utterly in shock, wouldn't you? And this is exactly what you believe that Muslims and atheists, Jews and Deists will face on the day of judgment with YOUR Christian God? Hogwash. Absolute hogwash. I haven't got the words to express my disgust with this God of yours, and I am dumbfounded why anyone would believe this. I am even more dumbfounded that I believed it for far too long.

Wake up. No intelligent Being would demand that we must believe the right things about him in order to gain entrance into heaven, even if he did exist. This God of yours parallels the barbaric "thought police" in ancient civilizations. This is a democratic age we're living in. We all have various opinions on everything, and these opinions are sincerely held ones. We are tolerant of diverse opinions because educated people realize we will have intelligent differences. But to send people to hell because they disagreed, well, that's barbaric, plain and simple.

On the Force of "Possibly" in Plantinga's Free Will Defense

Plantinga construes the key claim in his Free Will Defense as possibly true:

(TWD) Possibly, every creaturely essence suffers from transworld depravity.

According to Plantinga, if a creature suffers from transworld depravity, then *every* God-accessible world (i.e., every world that God can create) is one at which the creature goes wrong at least once.

So if some free creature FC is transworld-depraved, then we have:

1) Necessarily, if God actualizes FC, then FC goes wrong at least once.


And if every creature is transworld-depraved, then we have:


2) Necessarily, for any x, if x is a free creature, then if God actualizes x, then x goes wrong at least once.


If so, then if Plantinga is using "possibly" in (TWD) in the metaphysical sense (as in (1)), then (TWD) amounts to:


3) Possibly, it's necessary that for any x, if x is a free creature, then if God actualizes x, then x goes wrong at least once.


But Plantinga accepts S5 modal logic. If so, then he accepts the following axiom of S5 modal logic:


(AS5) If it's possible that P is necessary, then P is necessary.


But if so, then by (3) and (AS5), (TWD) reduces back to (2):

2) Necessarily, for any x, if x is a free creature, then if God actualizes x, then x goes wrong at least once.

But this can’t be what Plantinga meant to assert, can it? For now we don’t just have a defense – we have a theodicy. For we have an account that’s not just possibly true, but necessarily true. And you can’t have a stronger theodicy than one that’s necessarily true.

The problem, though, is that it’s extremely implausible to think that (2) is true: is there some shortage of souls, so that there is no possible creaturely essence that has at least one God-accessible world at which it never sins? Plantinga grants that there are possible worlds at which free creatures never sin; it’s just that none of them are worlds that God can actualize. Is this really plausible?

I think that this problem (in addition to some things that Plantinga says) leads many to say that Plantinga's "possibly" shouldn't be construed as *metaphysical* possibility (i.e., that there is, as a matter of fact, at least one possible world at which it's true), but rather as *epistemic* possibiliity (i.e., *we can't rule it out*, given all our evidence, that it's metaphysically possible).


Now the relevant notion of epistemic possibility can be construed in at least two ways:

(Strong EP) We're not quite justified in thinking that P really is metaphysically possible; however, we're not justified in thinking that P is metaphysically impossible, either -- given our evidence, it could go either way.

(Weak EP) We're not justified in thinking that P is possible; however, although it's implausible to think that P is possible, we can't *conclusively* rule it out that P is possible.


Of course, the theist hopes that (TWD) is at least strongly epistemically possible; if it's merely weakly epistemically possible, one wonders how interesting the Free Will defense really is: "Sure, it's pretty far-fetched to think that every essence suffers from transworld depravity, but it hasn't been *conclusively* ruled out as imposssible -- hooray!")

The problem is that the same objections arise all over again for the strong epistemic possibility construal: it seems *implausible* that it's metaphysically possible. It seems that there are infinitely many free creaturely essences that God could actualize; are we to think that *every one of them* is such that *all* of the worlds in which they always freely do right are inaccessible to God? And as I’ve mentioned before, it looks to be a part of conservative Christian theology that angels exist, are free, and that some never sin. But if so, then it’s not necessarily true (because it's not *actually* true!) that all free creatures are transworld depraved. Thus, not even theologically conservative Christians believe it’s epistemically possible – let alone metaphysically possible. Even if the Old and New Testaments don't force belief in a doctrine of sinless angels, it needs to be pointed out (again) that Christians who endorse Plantinga's Free Will Defense *have no choice* but to reject such an idea.

What about weak epistemic possibiity: is it true that we can't *conclusively* rule it out that every creaturely essence would freely go wrong in all God-accessible worlds? Well, maybe for non-theists, some non-Christian theists, and some moderate and liberal Christians. But again, it doesn't seem to be even *weakly* epistemically possible for theologically conservative Christians (recall the problem of angels who always freely do right).

What, then, does Plantinga's Free Will Defense really show? In light of the previous discussion, just this: for people who aren't theologically conseverative Christians, it's not conclusively ruled out as impossible that the Free Will Defense saves theism from the logical problem of evil; but for the theologically conservative Christians, it is.

Haggard Resigns Amidst Allegations of Gay Sex

Haggard Resigns Amidst Allegations of Gay Sex

**UPDATE: Voicemails analyzed by expert and confirmed Haggard**

Holy shit. It looks like there is some serious substance to this story, as Mike Jones, the accuser, has physical evidence -- voice mails from Haggard and $100 bills with his fingerprints on them.

I just watched an interview with the new pastor there -- Ross Parsley, and he said, quote:

There has been some admission, of indiscretion. Not an admission to all of the material that has been discussed. But, there is an admission of some guilt.

Wow. This Haggard is one of the loudest voices for the Colorado amendment banning gay marriage. Does hypocrisy get any more stunning?

You're going to want to keep up with this. HERE is a link to a blogsearch on Google for Haggard. Keep checking it as the story develops.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics, Religion, Hypocrisy

Testimonies of Two Who Left the Fold: Paul Wright and Gareth McCaughan

It was mentioned here and at Victor Reppert's Christian philosopher's blogsite that former Christian Gareth McCaughan had left the fold and had composed an intelligent and calmly worded testimony about having done so. (Gareth and Vic used to discuss Vic's philosophical arguments in a British usenet group back when Gareth was still a Christian.) I recently heard from Gareth that a friend of his, Paul Wright, left the fold before he did and that Wright had composed a testimony of similar intellectual equipose that can be read here.

From : Gareth McCaughan
Speaking of UK atheists on the web, you might like to take a look
at Paul Wright, a friend of mine who preceded me into apostasy.

Victor Reppert, Edward T. Babinski, Philosophical Problems of Knowledge & Communication

Victor Reppert recently left me a comment at his blog that began with an invitation for me to return to kindergarten, and concluded that my replies were full of "sound and fury," and my questions "signified nothing." My reply appears below.

Vic,
Since you wish to take me back to kindergarten, then let's do so. No evasions, let's begin from scratch.

Tell me all that you know about God, all that you've seen of God, touched of God, heard of God, tasted of God; and then tell me all that you know about the world you see and taste and touch and hear, the people you see everyday, and the cosmos where you see all things die.

The "God" knowledge appears relatively more "hidden" to me than the knowledge I have of the cosmos we all live in together.

I am not saying that the problem of evil has ceased being problematical any more than I am saying it is impossible for anything other than nature to exist. I'm simply telling you what I know with some degree of certainty compared with beliefs that I am less sure about.

I have also pointed out what I consider to be flaws in philosophizing about the Big Questions. Anyone may philosophize all they wish, and argue for whatever "God" or "force" they believe exists or doesn't.

However the more I read such arguments, the less convincing I find them. "Words" themsevles do not appear to provide absolutely accurate descriptions of the realities they are supposed to parallel. "Words" are stuck having to describe things that can also be understood as lying along spectrums of change. Words and concepts appear to be distilled from experiences within this cosmos where words/concepts and their opposites co-exist, or intermingle along spectrums of change. Neither am I of the opinion that verbal analogies constitute proof. Poetry yes. Proof no. I suspect the human mind of also being flexible enough to come up with counter analogies and counter arguments aplenty concerning all the BIG questions.

So I have simply come to trust direct experience a bit more than idealized philosophical arguments purporting to explain the answers to all the Big Questions. I also have grown more patient, not less, with living life day to day, and with the experimental process on both a personal level and in terms of humanity's groping toward greater knowledge. I choose patience even to the point of admitting I will very probably grow old and die with the same questions we have discussed, being debated still among philosophers.

Let me put it this way, I don't even know nor can I prove in a strictly philosophical fashion whether or not death ends "me" permanently, or, whether I or bits of me might survive after I die in a "ghostly" fashion, or, whether bits of me might not merge or join with others or bits of others that have died to form something new that begins again in a cosmos like ours or continues in some another dimension, or, whether I or bits of me might not "come back" in a reincarnate fashion, or, whether bits of me might survive after death for a long time and THEN even those bits die eventually, or, whether I have an immortal individual "soul" that can never die, or, perhaps I will die and an exact duplicate of me will be CREATED with the exact same knowledge and memories I had right up to the instant of my death (I don't know whether or not such a thing could be done by beings of super-intelligence from the future or past or parallel cosmoses, or by a demi-god or infinite Being who kept a copy of me in their "memory" and so could recreate me in some other place time or cosmos even if the "me" that lives here "dies"). Christian philosophers of mind also can't agree on the later two options, an immortal soul, or recreation after death by God. Some of them even use the Bible to argue that human beings don't "have" souls, they "are" souls. So, they agree the mind could be a function of the brain and the summation of experiences and knowledge each brain takes in as it grows and develops and becomes enculturated. Purely philosophically speaking, any or all of the above options might be true. It's even possible philosophically speaking to argue that what we call "consciousness" does not include our particular memories and knowledge and lives which might accrue and gather round "consciousness" and interact with it, so "consciousness" might be something that is more basic even to the cosmos itself, malleable and universal rather than individual. (Note, I'm not saying I view all options as equally appealling.)

There certainly are many weird things I've read about when it comes to consciousness, including mystical experiences, and weird visions people claim to have experienced which vary depending on one's culture. Though unfortunately, most people whose heart stop during surgery, or for long periods, and they are revived, recall nothing. And most sleep during the night is unconscious, dreamless. And there's questions that result from split-brain experiments, and there's cognitive science that is teaching us some of the many ways we each are influenced by items around us, or by others, unconsciously, and there's phermonal influences as well (scents we can't even consciouslly smell that affect us). Recently I read about how certain bacteria might be affecting people's brain/minds. Other experiment indicate that the brain/mind is an excuse generator, even a belief generator (as indicated in some-split brain experiments).

It also seems to me that humanity is young as an intellectual species. Heck we're still stuck on the cradle planet.

So tell me Vic, what do you really know? How much do you think you know about "God the universe and everything?" What percentage of that knowledge consists of philosophical conundrums that have remained unresolved for millennia? While just how much more do you interact with and know about the cosmos in which you live, move and have your being, and in which everything dies? I think you'd have to agree with me that you know more about the latter than the former.

P.S., By the way, your recent post about the Deity's "right to choose" as a possible reply to "evil," appears like you're thrashing blindly about for answers nearly as much as I am. I don't know how you can continue to believe you are building up "proofs" when you sink back in that post to relying on total mystery and faith in whatever "God does," which is close to relying on the mystery of "whatever will be will be." Are you honestly considering no longer even asking WHY "God" might "choose" the things "God" chooses, or what the definition of "good" is? Is it simply whatever God chooses? Whatever exists? Again, mystery. Didn't Aquinas and Barth also sink back into total mystery in the end and admit all of their philosophizing wasn't quite the point, or didn't provide the ultimate proofs they'd hoped to present?

I know you're not a fundamentalist Vic, and you DO admit uncertainties. I simply admit more than you do. By the way, there's a book about kindergarten that I enjoyed reading once, titled, Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten.

A Faithable Reason

In the discussion between Christians and non-believers the diametrical line is often drawn in the sand between “Faith” and “Reason.” Non-believers regularly make the claim that Christian’s beliefs are based upon a completely unfounded concept of “Faith” which has no basis in logic, reason or observation. The term “Blind Faith” is bantered about.

Christians counter with the claim that to be a Non-believer requires just as much “Faith” as being a believer. As if each side is weighed down with the troublesome notion of “Faith” and the non-believer is ignoring it, while the believer is embracing it.

The question I have for Christians: If you have faith, why do you care about reason at all? Why do you even feel the necessity to argue the viability of various positions within Christianity?

“Faith” has a history of being difficult to define. It is common to see it confused with “trust.” Not the same.

How many of us have heard the example of “You have faith every day, just crossing a bridge.” Sorry. That is not faith. That is trust, based upon repeated observation. I have crossed 1000’s of bridges, and they have not fallen down, thrown me, or collapsed. I have worked with the material that builds bridges—stone, steel and cement, and have first-hand knowledge as to their strength and cohesiveness. I have seen the forces necessary to cause damage to bridges, including cranes, or hurricanes, or earthquakes.

Based upon my life experiences and observations, the likelihood of bridge failure to occur while I am crossing it is so remote that it is statistically insignificant. This is not Faith. It is trust that things will continue as they have in the past.

Which raises a first, questioning eyebrow. How much faith was required to be healed by Jesus? Here we have a person performing miracles repeatedly. The Book of Matthew records that multitudes brought their lame, blind, mute and maimed, and Jesus healed them. Matt. 15:30-31. When John the Baptist questioned as to whether Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus used the observable data—pointing out that the lame walk, the blind see, and the dead are raised up.

Yet when the blind man asked to be healed, Jesus tells him, “Your faith has made you whole.” Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42. This was a man who obviously knew who Jesus was, who knew his capabilities and trusted on repeated observation. Was that faith? The Centurion, coming to Jesus because of his healing ability, asks for healing for his servant and receives it. Jesus commends his faith and heals the servant. Matt. 8:10. The Centurion noted that he was well-aware, because of his position, how authority works, and that speaking a word can make an action come about. Again, trust on repeated observation.

Imagine you have a broken arm. You stand in a long line of broken arms. A doctor is walking along this line, handing a blue pill to each person. You watch a young girl take the pill—and her arm is healed. You watch an older gentleman take the pill—his arm is healed. After observing person after person being healed the doctor approaches you with the blue pill. Now, having had Biology 101, and a course or two in First Aid, you are very aware of the fact that bones need to be set, and take time to knit together. However, you are also aware that medicine advances. Is it possible that a company has developed a pill that causes bones to re-align and join? Seems unlikely—yet you have just observed it.

How much of taking that Blue pill is trust and how much is faith? Are you part of some elaborate con, or a game show? Is it a placebo test? How much of your brain is utilizing reason, and how much is faith?

I use that illustration to point out how difficult it is to easily define “Faith.” How much observable data is necessary to cross over from “Faith” to just “Trust”?

Another example oft-used is the claim that adherence to a scientific hypothesis is “Faith.” That belief in the viability of the “Big Bang” theory, (as it was not observed) is as much “Faith” as belief in the resurrection (which was also not observed, according to the canonical Gospels.) Again, this is not quite an accurate picture of “Faith.”

In its most simplistic form, scientists observe data, and based upon that data derive a possible explanation of how that data came into existence. New data will either support or disagree with that explanation. If it disagrees, then a new theory would need to be proposed in order to explain that data.

Of course, due to our lack of complete information, it is very possible that two disagreeing explanations account for the data we currently have.

Is that really the type of “Faith” that a Christian is referring to? Is that the comparison they desire to make? Is the Christian willing to modify their belief, based upon new data? The explanation that the facts of the Canonical Gospels were developing myth, also account for the data. Does the Christian agree that a Jesus of partial myth is equally viable?

Once more, this does not seem to be an accurate depiction of “Faith.”

Obviously, the most cited verse as to a definition of faith is Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Is that a claim that Faith is based on lack of evidence? That cannot be the sole definition—those healed by Jesus at least had some evidence.

And when does Faith become Hope? For example, I can have faith that tomorrow a client will enter my door, bringing in One Million Dollars of business. I can also have faith that the President of the United States will enter my door. But are those really of equal faith?

Clients do walk through my door. While most do not bring in that sum of money, it is not out of the realm of possibilities. Further there are numerous such possible clients. There is only one President of the United States. He is very unlikely to do something he finds unnecessary, and there is little reason he would find walking into my office necessary. Possible? Yes. Likely? Not even remotely.

Is one of those two possibilities faith? Hope? Delusion? At what point does faith utilize evidence, and at what point can it abandon it?

My Webster’s New World dictionary defines “Faith” as “an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” This is horribly inaccurate when describing what a Christian means by “Faith.” I see Christians questioning their faith all the time—not blind adherence to a position. (Admittedly, I see few that are willing to change—but at least they do question!) Further, Christians rely upon a book they claim is evidence; rely upon other books and other persons’ claims as evidence.

It is not as if Christian claims are based on nothing whatsoever. There is evidence involved.

So what is “Faith”? Clearly it is not what common usage has reduced to dictionary definitions.

Regardless of its stoic definition, behind what Christians claim as Faith is an essence of Power. An action. It is not a mere belief, but rather a belief with observable results. As James points out, acknowledgement of a belief is not enough. Within “Faith” is something more that necessarily results in works. James 2:17-20.

Tremendous, monumental works. Jesus uses the hyperbole that with just a grain of faith, one can move a mountain (Matt. 17:20; Mark 11:23) or uproot a tree and plant it in the bottom of the ocean (Luke 17:6.) I understand that this is a statement of exaggeration. Jesus was not demanding a display of geological or botanical translocation. But Christians usually stop there. Saying “this is hyperbole” without grasping the essence of what Jesus is claiming.

With faith, nothing is impossible. While perhaps moving a mountain is a bit much, the Christian, with their faith, can do greater wonders than Jesus himself did! John 14:12. Whatever a Christians asks, in this thing called “Faith” God will do. Jesus is saying with the smallest portion of Faith, one can do such grand, miraculous things, the equivalent of moving a mountain!

Because of “Faith” a Christian need never worry about finances. Matt. 6:30. Faith allows a Christian to calm weather (Matt. 8:26) or cause a tree to whither (Mark 11:21-22). Faith Heals. Mark 2:5-11; 5:34. Interestingly, it is not necessarily the faith of the person healed, but rather the person doing the healing. Luke 17:19.

Which makes sense, because with faith one can raise the dead, and how much faith can a dead person have? Matt. 10:8. If the faithful pray, the sick are healed. James 5:15.

As we debate back and forth, it seems to me that the Christian advocate relies primarily on reason and logic. We hear philosophical arguments for God. Demands that science provide answers, and if unable that there must be a God. We read historical arguments for the viability of the Bible. Logic and Reason. Reason and Logic.

And, inevitably, a hole or conflict appears, at which time the Christian uses “Faith” as putty to patch over the hole. That they just choose to believe it, even if they cannot confirm it, or it appears to conflict with what we see.

Why are Christians using plastic explosive as putty? This stuff is supposed to be dynamite! Please stop holding me in suspense—when is the strongest argument coming out? Would Paul chide the current crop of Christian apologists that their faith is not in the power of God, but in the wisdom of the world? 1 Cor. 2:5.

Contrary to what may be seen on T.V., in a courtroom we present our strongest argument first. And present it again. And present it last. Over and over we say, “This is where the proposition rises and falls. This is where we win on every point.” Why are Christians utilizing reason or logic at all, when they have this thing called “Faith”? It should be blowing us away!

I respect people on both sides who spend the time, effort and concentration to prepare for a formal debate. I appreciate the academic surroundings and formal system implemented. But why are we discussing there?

Look, Christians, you want to win the debate? Every time? The format is simple. The place is easily determined. Offer to hold the debate at the City Morgue. Allow the non-believer to go first. Who cares what the topic is—who cares what the non-believer says? It is all foolishness in comparison to what is about to occur. (1 Cor. 1:18-20) After the non-believer has run out of babble, your path is clear. Whip open a door (any one will do), peer at the dead body, and say a simple prayer “Let these people know that you are God. Arise and walk.” (1 Kings 18:36-37)

You have faith, right? Nothing is impossible? If you truly believed, you could literally move mountains. Nuts, you even have some evidence, since you believe the dead have come back to life in more than one instance. It is not as if you claim this is the first (or second or third or fourth) occurrence, right?

When that person comes back to life—you have won the debate. I have never seen any atheist, agnostic or naturalist that would be able to respond to this decisive demonstration of the plausibility of your belief. We simply have no answer for this tactic.

So why don’t you use it? Why are we on-line arguing over who wrote what Gospel first, when you can so easily prevail? Quit your employment—use faith that God will provide. Start ordering weather about to preserve life. Heal the sick. Make the Blind see. Raise the dead. Come ON! Eagerly we wait, wondering why we are discussing such petty questions as how did Judas die, when you hold back this awesome power of “Faith.”

Or…is it possible? Can it be that the Faith as described in the Bible does not exist? Is it possible, that just like every other human proposition Christians are reduced to argumentation, observable data, and persuasion, rather than demonstrative capability?

I find, in discussions, that “Faith” is notoriously hard to precisely define. That’s O.K. Because when I read what Christians propose, at the least this Faith produces incredible, unbelievable and miraculous events to occur. When I see Christians use Faith as an excuse, rather than the potent, unbeatable argument described in their own belief system, it does cause me to wonder—why do they constantly refrain from utilizing their greatest proposition?

(Final note. Obviously, the problem is that each author of the various books treats “Faith” as something differently. Only when attempting to align the differing concepts does the problem arise. Yes, I know “Scripture interprets Scripture.” I traditionally see the hard scriptures are simply ignored, in order to concentrate on the more modest scriptures on faith.)

Happy Halloween!

From Daylight Atheism on Hauntings :

Happy Halloween!

God, Schmod, and Gratuitous Evil

In "God, Schmod, and Gratuitous Evil", John O'Leary-Hawthorne & Daniel Howard-Snyder [Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 1993], discuss the problem of evil by using a purportedly analogus story about a Being they call "Schmod," which is to be identified with God.

Here is their case:

Say that Schmod is an omnicausal being. (Roughly, an agent S is omnicausal =df. S is such that, for any effect e, either S directly causes e, or S ensures that there is some y that causes e.) Now consider the following proposition:

(P) There exists an effect E that is uncaused (e.g. quantum indeterminacy).

We take it that some physicists are justified in believing (P). But (P) entails the nonexistence of Schmod. Therefore, physicists, and for that matter all those who are justified in believing (P), are justified in being an aschmodists.

But believers in Schmod will have none of this. The schmodist claims that, for all we know, there is a causally sufficient reason, beyond our cognitive grasp, that Schmod has for permitting E. In other words, it's epistemically possible that Schmod has a causally sufficient reason for permitting E; it's an epistimic possibility that E is not indeterministic, despite appearances to the contrary.

Schmod's ways are higher than our ways, and we shouldn't expect to recognize the cause of every event, but it's possible (for all we know) that there is one for every event. Therefore, the aschmodist cannot justifiably assert (P). He is just not in a good enough epistemic position to judge the truth of (P).

Presumably, we're all aschmodists (insofar as we agree with many physicists that quantum indeterminacy exists). Is our belief in aschmodism justified?

I think it is.

In the first place it would depend on the magnitude of (P), which makes this whole argument non-analogous. Consider this proposition:

(P1) ever since the beginning of earthly existence there have been massive amounts of suffering on an ever increasing global scale which offset the pleasure in the world such that we cannot determine whether or not there is more suffering than pleasure in this world.

In the second place, since the theist proclaims that God desires or wants us to believe in him (or else we're damned), it stands to reason that he should offer us clues (or reasons) why (P1) obtains. But since he is silent on the matter, it calls into serious question whether or not he truly wants us to believe in him. For then (P1) without any explanation (or comfort) would mean he doesn't really care whether we believe in him, and if that's true, then he doesn't care about us, and if that's true we have a God who lacks omnibenelovence.

In the third place, scientists have dealt with problems like this since the dawn of science, and with the available evidence they have made great strides in understanding the workings of this universe. But according to Howard-Snyder, theists are no closer to understanding why they can't "see" a divine moral virtue that explains the existence of (P1) than at any time in the past. Therefore I can confidently claim it's implausible that anyone will do so, since there have been no successes in finding this so-called divine moral virtue in the past, and there are at present no fruitful prospects on the horizon to explain (P1). It would be akin to someone wanting to create cold fusion. The nansayers have the weight of evidence on their side.

Lastly, but not exhaustively, if theists think God's "ways are higher than our ways" with regard to (P1) (because of his omniscience), and they cannot come up with any reason for God allowing (P1) to obtain, even though we can come up with several reasonable suggestions for how God could've created differently (like no predation in the world, and the creation of all human beings as one color of skin), then God should be at least omniscient enough to create a better world without (P1). But since he hasn't done so, even though we have some idea how it could've been created better, then it's implausible God indeed has this so-called attribute of omniscience.

A Critique of Plantinga's Free Will Defense

Exapologist offers a critique here of Plantinga's free will defense. It's very good!

Christians, Do You Have "Blinders" On?

There is an interesting thread at Theology Web started by a Christian on the distinction between Christians who have "blinders on" and those with the "blinders off," and what this means. I like the distinction very much. Christian, which are you?

Victor Reppert, Edward T. Babinski & The Question of Evil

Victor Reppert wrote at my blog...

I asked you [Ed] a yes or no question. Do you believe that the argument from evil proves that God does not exist. If you are consistent in maintaining that philosophy is all a game and proves nothing, then the answer has to be no.

Don't you see that the atheist is trying to disprove the existence of God by appealing to the argument from evil? I am asking you whether you think they succeed in doing so.

If I ask you whether or you think an argument proves something, you can answer "yes," "no," or I don't know. Given the fact that the terms in this discussion are clear, the choices are stark. Stop BSing and make a clear statement.

ED'S REPLY

Dear Vic,

1) It's moot who is "BSing" whom. (See my original article and comments to Vic here.) Not being an atheist nor a classical theist, my point was that none of us appear to know all we need to know in order to construct convincing (purely philosophical) proofs of things like a "tri-omni God" of classical theism; or prove purely philosophically that we all shall live eternally; or prove what the afterlife will be like; or prove that we know for sure (or even that people believing in the same holy books agree) on all the things we must believe (or do) in order to ensure a positive eternity.

2) Concerning your second question, on "the argument from evil," it does not appear to be a matter of deying its validity or asserting it, because one does not even need to construct "philosophical proofs" in order to entertain basic questions concerning "why" the cosmos is the way it is. I personally hope there is more than just mortal life with its pains and then death. Having the brain/mind to be able to forsee my own eventual death, I simply don't find the prospect inviting. Neither am I a big fan of sickness, natural disasters, poverty, ignorance, nor the confusion and problems inherent in the very act of attempting to communicate with one another (across boundaries of language, place or culture), as well as across boundaries in communication that arise simply by virtue of not having read the same books, nor met the same people, all of which affect our beliefs.

Neither does it require philosophical "proofs" to express the desire for a life that does not end but continues to grow and flourish, or a desire not to have to struggle so greatly against ignorance, poverty, illness, and acts of nature that destroy, cripple or kill. (Moreover, if the ancient Hebrews, a religious people, could conceive and desire a mythical "Eden" in which people were fed without having to sweat over thorns and thistles, where there was no danger in giving birth, no animals with poisonous bites, no illness, and where everyone spoke the same language, then questions concerning why a physical cosmos more desirous than our own could not have been created "in the beginning," are not simply the result of atheistic doubts, but remain valid questions humanity has pondered for quite some time.)


3) A further word on the tri-omni God idea and all the assumptions that lay behind it. I don't begin my own search for truth with the notion of a tri-omni God, but simply with an admission of lack of knowldge. But concerning such a God one should note there are "open" theologians who cite the Bible to argue that God is not necessarily revealed as being tri-omni, but who consider that God might not know everything. If so that might make the problem of evil less of a problem.

The "free will" defense seems less convincing as a possible solution, because nature presumably got along without human "free will" for hundreds of millions of years, i.e., long before humanity showed up, God was perfecting the ways and means of nature, including carnivorism, diseases, natural disasters, along with the inevitability of death of every individual living thing. Moreover, the presumed attributes/definitions of a tri-omni God that combine "absolute freewill" with "absolute goodness" is a mind boggler. (Doesn't sound like any definition of "freewill" that human beings know about, since for us it is defined as involving a genuine choice between "good" and "evil." Neither has anyone proven that the "will" of human beings is "free" in a libertarian philosophical sense, but the tri-omni God philosophers have zipped past that unanswered question and already claim to be devising "proofs" regarding matters pertaining to things about "God's will." How imaginative of them!)

It also remains questionable just what the "good" is in various cases--because a theologian can simply pluck imaginatively from various dogmas, even competing dogmas about "God," and claim in each case that such dogmas illustrate what is "good" about God. For instance, God's commanding of the slaying of the Canaanite children has been interpreted by some theologians as "good" in the sense that God was sparing those children's souls from growing up, falling into sin and going to hell, by instead sending them to eternal bliss via the blessing of a bloody sword, and thus God's character as "love" was demonstrated. But Calvinists and other teachers of the classical Augustinian doctrine of "infant damnation," interpret the slaying of the Canaanite children as being "good" because God wished to demonstrate his character as "judge," including children, including sending them forthwith to eternal damnation. It's all "good" depending on one's interpretive theology!

Talk about theology being a wax nose!

I didn't even mention the third alternative according to the Catholic tradition of "limbo" for dead unbaptized children, which was viewed as "good" by Catholics for over a thousand years (though I read about "limbo" being abolished just this year at a recent church council, or close to being abolished?). Limbo kept the unbaptized infants at a distance from God's holiness, but not deserving of eternal hellfire.

So we've got three definitions of what was "good" about God commanding the killing of everything alive in cities that refused to submit and become Israelite slaves. And different Christians seem quite content to always come up with their own excuse (read, "guess") for why they believe such commands and actions were "good."

It's also "good" no doubt for a tri-omni God to ensure that a high percentage of the young of every species on earth provide food for viruses and bacteria--as they have for hundreds of millions of years right up to the present.

In short what I am saying is that I begin with features in the cosmos that we all know and can agree upon relatively well, and also begin with some "good" desires that many share, rather than seek to justify every last command and acitiviy of "God" as described in various "holy books." I also share many basic hopes and fears that both atheists and religionists share. So I think I am asking some plain questions.

I reiterate, we live in a cosmos that already has "good" and "evil" as well as plenty of grey areas inbetween. Philosophy (especially philosophy of religion) seems to want to take these notions that we have gained from living in this cosmos of mixed blessings and death of all living things, and strain out everything in this cosmos that we don't like, and try to begin with assumptions that are all "good" (again, depending on what definition of "good" you are using vis a vis "God"). But that means that "philosophy" (especially philosophy of religion) then has the unenviable task of explaining how everything began "perfect good," but led to the cosmos we all know where everything dies and even the things we desire most seem mixed blessings (including the hope of converting everyone else to our own view).

Chris Hallquist's Short Review of my Book

Nothing smells so sweet as a favorable review of my book! At amazon.com here's what Chris Hallquist wrote:

Why I Rejected Christianity provides a skeptical introduction to philosophy of religion and Christian apologetics from a former apologist who studied under William Lane Craig. It covers standard issues like proofs of the existence of God, evil, and miracles, as well as less-discussed issues like theories of salvation. As I was familiar with most of these issues, it's a little hard for me to judge how well it works as an introduction, but where I'm not familiar with the material, I have found Loftus' book quite helpful. I also have no trouble saying the section on the problem of evil was top-notch.

Of course, an introduction with many topics will never be as effective on a given issue as the best one-issue treatments. However, Loftus' extensive use and citation of existing material makes this an excellent guide to the literature for anyone who wants to do further reading.

There are also a few real gems originality thrown in there. One is the section where Loftus goes through the Bible using nothing but it to show how superstitious the people of the ancient world were--and how reluctant we should be to trust them as a source of divine revelation. The best section, though, is at the beginning, in a setion called the Outsider Test: "Test your beliefs as if you were an outsider to the faith you are evaluating." Here, Loftus solidifies an idea that has floated around in much skeptical rhetoric for some time. He opens up the possibility of consistently applying an idea that has so far only been applied haphazardly. When this is done, the effect is utterly devestating to religious belief. The Outsider Test should earn Loftus a permenant place in the history of critiques of religion.

Thanks Chris!

Steve Hays Responds to Prof. Witmer re Presuppositionalism

Steve Hays has weighed in on Prof. Witmer's response to PS. In a recent post entitled Machiavellian Atheology, Steve spends a great deal of time complaining that Prof. Witmer chooses to take a tactical perspective, focusing on debate, rather than addressing more of the substantive philosophical issues (in Steve's opinion). Of course, Prof. Witmer admits the purpose of his talk is largely in how to "respond" to those who present the PS in debate formats.

One of the things that I think will prove problematic is the issue of how the burden of proof is established in these PS arguments. The PS's claim that only internal critiques are valid to evaluate the coherence of worldviews. They also claim that there is "no neutral common ground" -- that the employment of logic/morality/etc., presupposes the Christian God.

So if they claim these things, how is it that they can establish, as Steve comments below, and as CalvinDude repeats numerous times (most recently here), what levels of justification are required to presuppose something, whether or not some things may be viewed as primitive and little explained? This seems a serious issue. I await a serious reply.

Steve writes [I'll add in a few links]:

At the time I was busy with other things, so I’ll now take the occasion to revisit that issue.

I'm glad Steve did, and I hope we can continue to discuss general presuppositionalism, as well as the question of whether or not theism is a necessary precondition of logic.

I would note, in passing, that Witmer freely concedes that Manata handily won his debate with Barker:

I think most impartial people would agree. I did, long ago (back in August, if I recall).

Exposition aside, Witmer’s presentation is a combination of a few substantive objections along with a lot of tactical advice. These are somewhat interrelated, but, for clarity of analysis, I’ll make some effort to address them separately. Let’s address the substantive objections first:

This talk was limited to one hour, and much of what he said was contained in the transcript that was made available. However, some of the peripheral issues that were discussed, especially in the following Q&A session, were not incorporated into his talk. He has told me, though, that he plans to revisit the issue in a while when he gets sufficient feedback and time.

That’s a valid criticism of one particular formulation of presuppositionalism. But this is easily rectified by scaling back the claim to a more reasonable burden of proof. The onus is not on the presuppositionalist to rebut every conceivable alternative to the faith. That would be an inhuman burden of proof. And it would saddle him with a double standard, for no one, whether believer or unbeliever, can meet such a hypothetical challenge.

One of the first points to make is that there is a fundamental difference between an individual-directed negative argument (IDNA): "you cannot account for X", a generalized negative argument (GNA): "atheism cannot account for X", and a generalized positive argument (GPA): "God is required to account for X". I have seen all three go under the guise of presuppositionalism.

True, when it comes to arguing for one’s own position or against a competing position, both sides have their own burden of proof to discharge.

But this is where things get problematic. If you are only making an "internal critique", then the question of how we establish a "burden of proof" that translates across both my own and your own worldviews, and meets our presuppositional standards, is difficult to answer. If I assert some specific premise, such as, "All claims must be substantiated via the scientific method," then you can obviously use that sort of hasty, generalized premise against my other premises, since I have established a metric for the burden of proof. What if I do not think a simple metric can be used, and that different levels of proof are required as we correlate to those things inside of and outside of generalized human experience and induction?

This is a valid criticism as far as it goes. Presuppositionalists can be guilty of substituting slogans for arguments. Paraphrasing the original claim.

Or considering a negative argument the same thing as a positive one.

However, this doesn’t mean that no such answers exist. There are book-length treatments on modal metaphysics from a theistic perspective which go into excruciating detail.

And I see this as a problem for both IDNA and GNA formulations of presuppositionalism. Rarely do these two ever interact with parallel treatments of metaphysics, ontology or logic from either a God-neutral, or atheistic perspective.

Here he’s transitioning from substantive objections to tactical advance. And notice, in the course of this transition, how he’s forgotten where he himself positioned the burden of proof?

I think he's pointing out that we all hold presuppositions, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. He's asking why "accounts" have to be given for presuppositions themselves, since your presuppositions cannot be properly "accounted for" either -- definitionally, these are assumed truths which form the basis of our starting points to make arguments.

His advice takes the form of: “You think we’ve gotta problem? Well, you’ve gotta problem too!”

I don't think he's committing the tu quoque fallacy. He's pointing out that this is a flaw in the PS strategy -- to imply an infinite regress, tautological difficulties, primitive facts, or circularity will not result if we justify what we presuppose, ad naseum.

But this is an attempt to flip the burden of proof rather than discharge the burden of proof. To say that unbeliever doesn’t have to justify induction on secular grounds because the believer has unwarranted beliefs as well—even assuming that this is true—is not an intellectually responsible answer. It’s fair to point out that the believer has his own burden of proof to meet. But that doesn’t shift the burden of proof from the unbeliever to the believer.

Again, I think he's addressing the necessity of "unburdening" everyone at the level of presuppositions and primitive facts.

The onus is still on the unbeliever to justify induction on secular grounds. The onus doesn’t go away just because he can claim that the believer has failed to meet his own burden of proof.

No, but if the PS argument is that the unbeliever has failed to meet the unbeliever's own burden of proof, and the PS argument is all about "internal critique", then this gets tricky to claim, doesn't it? This is what he addresses later on.

For another thing, even if these beliefs were about the same thing, both sides would bear their respective burden of proof. The onus is on the believer to justify induction on Christian grounds while the onus is on the unbeliever to justify induction on secular grounds.

But in so doing, how many other assumptions do you, or we, package in? How much of a regress will we get into? Typically PSs claim they have two assumptions: i) God exists (where God = all good, powerful, knowing, not a liar, etc.); ii) Scripture is God's Word. They then feel consistent in falling back on (i) and (ii) in order to discharge their own burden of proof re induction. I typically hear induction "defended" by Scriptures like Gen 8:22 (KJV) --

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

But this assumes many things, especially that all of these things will remain as they are, in addition to just "not ceasing". That is, God would not be a liar, per se, if days became 29 hours and nights 5 hours, or if summer was 9 months long, and winter 9 months long. What the reader assumes (unjustifiably) is that induction is strengthened by this primitive verse, when there is no way to find support here without serious other leaps in logic. Some of the other assumptions include the translation of the verse, the choice of the MSS, the hermeneutics, etc., etc.

So, my point is that as much as PS advocates may believe they can always fall back onto these basic internal assumptions, especially when they do metaphysical apologia, they cannot. Too many other considerations are packaged into (ii) to allow that.

Even if the believer was guilty of shirking his side of the argument, that would’t prove that the uvbeliever was right.

Correct, because of tu quoque.

The problem with all this is that it’s so transparently cynical and unprincipled.

Cynical, perhaps; unprincipled? Hardly.

The unbeliever is entitled to take some things for granted “if” he has good reason to take these things for granted. The unbeliever is entitled to treat certain facts as primitive facts if they are primitive facts, and he has good reason for believing so. The unbeliever is entitled to say, “they just are, and that’s that,” only “if,” as a matter of fact, that’s a truthful claim.

Well that's not "for granted" then, is it? Care to tell me what "good reason" you have to believe that other minds exist? How do you show that this is a truthful claim? Besides, the whole basis of the PS argument is that internal critiques are all we can do. How do you inject into my worldview the "burden of proof" and the prerequisites for presuppositions? See the problem, here? You claim there is "no neutral ground". But you also claim you can neutrally evaluate my justification for presuppositions? That's where we get into classical foundationalism, or coherentism, etc., which is where theism and atheism will quickly find some issues.

The unbeliever is only entitled to revert to atheistic Platonism as his last-ditch stand if that fallback maneuver is actually true or he has good reason for believing it’s true.

Or perhaps the atheist realizes his own ability to respond to a IDNA is predicated upon that which he is committed to, and how familiar he is with the metaphysics thereof. Saying that the universals are metaphysically possible or impossible within a physicalist framework is one thing; accepting it as a presupposition is another; demonstrating it is quite a whole different story.

I have attempted to show (here, here) that conceptual intensional/natural realism is not inconsistent with physicalism to "account for" the laws of logic, and universals in particular.

Platonism, conversely, is parallel to theism in some ways -- it removes verifiability principles from the ball game, and makes non-veridical statements a matter of rule rather than exceptions. Talk of transcendent, universal, abstractions, existing outside of the spatio-temporal framework of our universe, sounds just about like God, doesn't it?

And, of course, if that’s what he thought all along, then he wouldn’t “revert” to atheistic Platonism, now would he?

Many people who are pressed by PS debates into commitments ought not overcommit to things they don't understand, myself included. His point is that metaphysical defenses of our worldviews are not simple, and that if one commits to physicalism and is shown they don't properly conceive of how to incorporate morality, values or logic or etc., the *best* thing to do is not dismiss values, logic and morality, (obviously) but instead to change their commitment to a particular metaphysic. This isn't dishonest. He's pointing to the relative priority of core presuppositions versus ontological commitment.

The unbeliever is entitled to be noncommittal if he is, indeed, truly noncommittal, and has good reason to be a minimalist.

But how does an externalist critique verify "good reason"? Same problem, over and over and over...

But that Witmer is saying throughout this section is that an unbeliever should make opportunistic use of any blocking maneuver or evasive maneuver whether he believes it or not. He is coaching the unbeliever on how to win the debate without winning the argument. How to lose on the merits, but survive intact. It’s pretty revealing that Witmer would resort to such unscrupulous counsel.

How to keep ones wits about the debate -- that jettison of one's faculties, morality, etc., is not the end result of "losing". At best, someone can defend themselves adequately from an IDNA, and deflect the criticism of internal incoherence by demonstration. At worst, someone can be shown by IDNA that some of their presuppositions conflict with their explanations -- what should "give"? The fundamentals? No. The explanations.

Use any old argument, good or bad, just to get the presuppositionalist off your back! The convenience, and not the cogence, of the argument is all that matters.

It can sound that way, but remember that he is indeed referring to a debate strategy, and he calls it such. On the other hand, he points out the flaws in the arguments of PS (which you addressed in the beginning), and gives advice on responding along substantive lines throughout the talk.

On another subject, Danny also refers us to an article by Nino Cocchiarella on “Logic & Ontology.”

I have been looking around for a few months for an online, free resource that I could reference to try to describe how logic/morality/etc. can be incorporated into physicalism. This was the best I've yet found. Prof. Witmer recommended some books I put on reserve at the library, but they're not due back until 12/4.

i) Does Danny subscribe to Cocchiarella’s solution? Of is this just one of those blocking maneuvers recommended by Witmer to silence the presuppositionalist if you can’t answer him?

I find both his forms of conceptual realism (intensional/natural) completely consistent with physicalism as an ontology. As I was reading them (sections 6 and 7, respectively), I found he had put into words what I tried to describe long ago on this blog, when you brought up "pure" conceptualism, in which these abstractions don't exist apart from our minds at all. Therefore, your accusation is refuted by the evidence that I resorted to conceptualism in the past as an explanation of abstract explananda within physicalism.

ii) Cocchiarella discusses the three standard theories of universals, and opts for a synthetic solution: conceptual realism.

With two subtle distinctions: conceptual intensional realism, and conceptual natural realism. I am working on a blog post to put up at DC and my own site on this topic.

I myself also opt for a synthetic solution: theistic conceptual realism. Cocchiarella confronts me with a false dilemma, for I favor an option which isn’t even on the list. Therefore, Cocchiarella hasn’t boxed me into accepting his solution. And, for reasons I won’t go into at the moment, I don’t accept his solution.

Steve, the point of my quoting this reference was not to box you into a dilemma, but to extricate myself from the accusation of being in one. My purpose was to defend my own presupposition that physicalism is not incompatible with logic. Would you concede that conceptual realism is the solution? Do you admit that there is nothing absurd or incoherent in holding to physicalism and to one of Cocchiarella's forumulations for the explanandum of logic?

Presuppositionalism claims that all alternative worldviews are inherently and intrinsically self-defeating. Can you show this for someone who subscribes to physicalism and to conceptual intensional realism?